3 ms·

They don't GO anywhere, they STAY wherever they are. Older folks tend to have more responsibilities, family, kids, retirement to worry about etc. They are le

They don't GO anywhere, they STAY wherever they are. Older folks tend to have more responsibilities, family, kids, retirement to worry about etc. They are less risk prone, they understand that office politics comes with it and the next job will still have politics and might be worse, so they stay put. At all companies I've worked for, I've noticed that the young folks are quick to go look for a new job after a year or two, they want new exciting things. Of course people claim that it's because they can get a raise faster if they leave, but it's more than that, some of these older folks are in need of a raise too, but they don't leave or have any plans of leaving, they are not even looking.

logfromblammo 12y ago
Everyone who is employed "at will" should always be looking. If your company has merged, been acquired, or acquired another company within the last 2 years, you should be looking. If you do not get at least a 2% raise every year, without fail, you should be looking. If your vacation and sick pay recently went to PTO instead, you should be looking. If your company is pushing "consumer directed" health insurance at you, you should be looking. If your company has an actual interest in employee retention, you have found a real gem. But the rest of us are getting screwed over too often to ever sit back and pretend to have job security. What I am finding now is that every place I might want to work has no software developer employees my age (which I find to be very suspicious) and every place that does have developers my age or older is a career dead end, SNAFU, or both. And having my ear to the ground for so long, I have noticed a steady progression in HR recruiting practices from barely tolerable to downright rude. And the time between first contact and offer (if any) is stretching out longer and longer. (I don't live anywhere near California, if it wasn't obvious.) So if you want to be an old developer, it appears as though you'll first have to solve the problem of how to find steady work without using a resume. There seems to be an element of chance involved, such that each skill and contact you acquire at your current job gives you another roll or two of the dice for the next. I really crapped out with my last gig, which yielded zero new skills and zero new contacts, for entirely related reasons, but a contact at the previous job helped me land my current job, where I am working with someone I knew from three jobs ago. I am not a particularly big fan of the good old boy network method of hiring, but if you are both good and old, you still may find it difficult to get hired via the HR process. That process is fundamentally broken, and it is quite unlikely that any company that interviews you will ever give you more than a single bit of feedback, that being OFFER=false. Many won't even explicitly say it, letting their extended silence do all the talking. So I would venture a guess that older people STAY because the effort of trying to GO has become so excruciating for many of them that it wouldn't even be worth it if it resulted in a 50% pay raise. And for some of them, they know that will never happen.
- brational 12y ago
  > If your vacation and sick pay recently went to PTO instead, you should be looking. Can you explain this one? I don't even come close to using my sick time up. I'd much rather have them give it as one giant PTO bucket (unless you're implying PTO is less in total than vacation + sick).
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    Depending in the laws of your locale, an employer may be required to pay for an employee's vacation balance. PTO was formulated primarily to evade this restriction and to provide the means to reduce the company's accounting liabilities. While it was sold to you on the basis of flexibility, it really is a significant reduction in your benefits. Think about how salary works. If you work as an exempt salaried employee even one minute during any given week, you are supposed to be paid for the whole week. That is why vacation time used to be granted as an integral number of weeks. Converting weeks of vacation into hours of paid time off is simply another step on the slippery slope to treating some salaried workers like wage workers, without any of the additional rights or protections. Also, anecdotally speaking, every time I have experienced the conversion (3 times), new PTO total has been less than old vacation + sick, and it has always resulted in fewer actual days spent on vacation. The PTO conversion is always the company trying to cut benefit costs quietly without triggering a mass exodus.
    - brational 12y ago
      I see. I was previously at a company with PTO and when I left I was paid the balance. At my new company I have both, but unless I use sick time basically as '2nd vacation pool' (potential ethical issues etc) I actually end up with less time off.
      - logfromblammo 12y ago
        Your company was not legally obligated to pay you the PTO balance. It may be written in to the company handbook that they will, provided that you give sufficient notice, but they did not have to pay. Disposition of PTO is not covered by the same laws as vacation or sick leave benefits, so the company can basically do whatever it wants with it. If it were a mass layoff rather than one guy leaving, they wouldn't pay. In that case, they wouldn't have to worry about the remaining employees complaining or using their PTO as they accumulate it, rather than risk leaving value on the table. As a corollary, if you have PTO and intend to leave a company, use it up before giving notice. And we haven't even touched on other issues. People with PTO may be less likely to stay home when they are sick, because it reduces the amount of planned leave they can take. This results in more contagion in the workforce. There are very good reasons for paid vacation and paid sick leave to be different classes of benefit. But in this case, it is simply a coal miner's canary. A company transitioning to PTO is reducing their labor costs by reducing the benefits of their productive employees. Look carefully to determine whether any effort has been made to reduce overhead. PTO by itself is not an unambiguous signal. If execs are still giving themselves bonuses while your earned leave becomes PTO, they probably just reassigned the value of your benefit to themselves, and it's time to look for a new employer before they come up with another bright idea, like stack ranking. This criticism also applies to some extent to "we don't worry about leave" companies. I haven't ever worked for one, so I can't say for certain.

logfromblammo 12y ago

Everyone who is employed "at will" should always be looking. If your company has merged, been acquired, or acquired another company within the last 2 years, you should be looking. If you do not get at least a 2% raise every year, without fail, you should be looking. If your vacation and sick pay recently went to PTO instead, you should be looking. If your company is pushing "consumer directed" health insurance at you, you should be looking. If your company has an actual interest in employee retention, you have found a real gem. But the rest of us are getting screwed over too often to ever sit back and pretend to have job security. What I am finding now is that every place I might want to work has no software developer employees my age (which I find to be very suspicious) and every place that does have developers my age or older is a career dead end, SNAFU, or both. And having my ear to the ground for so long, I have noticed a steady progression in HR recruiting practices from barely tolerable to downright rude. And the time between first contact and offer (if any) is stretching out longer and longer. (I don't live anywhere near California, if it wasn't obvious.) So if you want to be an old developer, it appears as though you'll first have to solve the problem of how to find steady work without using a resume. There seems to be an element of chance involved, such that each skill and contact you acquire at your current job gives you another roll or two of the dice for the next. I really crapped out with my last gig, which yielded zero new skills and zero new contacts, for entirely related reasons, but a contact at the previous job helped me land my current job, where I am working with someone I knew from three jobs ago. I am not a particularly big fan of the good old boy network method of hiring, but if you are both good and old, you still may find it difficult to get hired via the HR process. That process is fundamentally broken, and it is quite unlikely that any company that interviews you will ever give you more than a single bit of feedback, that being OFFER=false. Many won't even explicitly say it, letting their extended silence do all the talking. So I would venture a guess that older people STAY because the effort of trying to GO has become so excruciating for many of them that it wouldn't even be worth it if it resulted in a 50% pay raise. And for some of them, they know that will never happen.

brational 12y ago
> If your vacation and sick pay recently went to PTO instead, you should be looking. Can you explain this one? I don't even come close to using my sick time up. I'd much rather have them give it as one giant PTO bucket (unless you're implying PTO is less in total than vacation + sick).
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  Depending in the laws of your locale, an employer may be required to pay for an employee's vacation balance. PTO was formulated primarily to evade this restriction and to provide the means to reduce the company's accounting liabilities. While it was sold to you on the basis of flexibility, it really is a significant reduction in your benefits. Think about how salary works. If you work as an exempt salaried employee even one minute during any given week, you are supposed to be paid for the whole week. That is why vacation time used to be granted as an integral number of weeks. Converting weeks of vacation into hours of paid time off is simply another step on the slippery slope to treating some salaried workers like wage workers, without any of the additional rights or protections. Also, anecdotally speaking, every time I have experienced the conversion (3 times), new PTO total has been less than old vacation + sick, and it has always resulted in fewer actual days spent on vacation. The PTO conversion is always the company trying to cut benefit costs quietly without triggering a mass exodus.
  - brational 12y ago
    I see. I was previously at a company with PTO and when I left I was paid the balance. At my new company I have both, but unless I use sick time basically as '2nd vacation pool' (potential ethical issues etc) I actually end up with less time off.
    - logfromblammo 12y ago
      Your company was not legally obligated to pay you the PTO balance. It may be written in to the company handbook that they will, provided that you give sufficient notice, but they did not have to pay. Disposition of PTO is not covered by the same laws as vacation or sick leave benefits, so the company can basically do whatever it wants with it. If it were a mass layoff rather than one guy leaving, they wouldn't pay. In that case, they wouldn't have to worry about the remaining employees complaining or using their PTO as they accumulate it, rather than risk leaving value on the table. As a corollary, if you have PTO and intend to leave a company, use it up before giving notice. And we haven't even touched on other issues. People with PTO may be less likely to stay home when they are sick, because it reduces the amount of planned leave they can take. This results in more contagion in the workforce. There are very good reasons for paid vacation and paid sick leave to be different classes of benefit. But in this case, it is simply a coal miner's canary. A company transitioning to PTO is reducing their labor costs by reducing the benefits of their productive employees. Look carefully to determine whether any effort has been made to reduce overhead. PTO by itself is not an unambiguous signal. If execs are still giving themselves bonuses while your earned leave becomes PTO, they probably just reassigned the value of your benefit to themselves, and it's time to look for a new employer before they come up with another bright idea, like stack ranking. This criticism also applies to some extent to "we don't worry about leave" companies. I haven't ever worked for one, so I can't say for certain.