4 ms·

If someone threatens to leave for more money, then they've already made up their mind and they're not invested anymore.

sinatra 12y ago
Exactly! But the "bring offers from outside to get real raises " policy tries to keep exactly those kind of not-invested employees and forces invested employees to quit because they won't get good raises without looking outside.
- EGreg 12y ago
  Ok but self defeating policies are the problem of the employer, she isn't responsible for fixing their company. Perhaps even more reason to get outz
ddoolin 12y ago
Does that make those people the "wrong kind of employees"? Why? Business is business and employers have no business paying their employees unfairly. Sure, if you're paid fairly then that's a different story, but I'm not going to invest myself in a business that is potentially ripping me off. I think assuming that someone isn't invested is a faulty assumption. If I had made up my mind, I wouldn't give you a chance at all. I would just take the offer and put in my notice. At the very least, someone who goes back and gives their employer a chance to meet an offer is doing things respectably and at most has some value in their current employer, enough so to give them a chance.
- LukeB_UK 12y ago
  You make a good point, but what I was aiming at was that people shouldn't have to threaten to leave to get a pay rise, it should be a discussion. Threatening is a hostile move, not a negotiation tactic.
watwut 12y ago
Why? I have seen multiple people being ready to leave, getting raise and then staying few more years.
fsloth 12y ago
The first part of your response sounds agreeable - I suppose it's not the "more money" aspect as much as the "threat" aspect which shows that for one reason or another the relations between the company and the individual have gone beyond amicable negotiations into ultimatum territory and the employee is not very savvy - 9.9 times out of 10 the company has far much leverage in these sorts of negotiations. But the rationale sounds a bit weird to me: "they're not invested anymore." How could an employee be invested in a company if they've not actually invested? This sounds like an employee should have some sort of weird feudal allegiance for the corporation they work for.
nawitus 12y ago
That's why the employer should pay market rates so there's no reason for the employee to switch jobs to get a raise.

Exactly! But the "bring offers from outside to get real raises " policy tries to keep exactly those kind of not-invested employees and forces invested employees to quit because they won't get good raises without looking outside.

EGreg 12y ago
Ok but self defeating policies are the problem of the employer, she isn't responsible for fixing their company. Perhaps even more reason to get outz

ddoolin 12y ago

Does that make those people the "wrong kind of employees"? Why? Business is business and employers have no business paying their employees unfairly. Sure, if you're paid fairly then that's a different story, but I'm not going to invest myself in a business that is potentially ripping me off. I think assuming that someone isn't invested is a faulty assumption. If I had made up my mind, I wouldn't give you a chance at all. I would just take the offer and put in my notice. At the very least, someone who goes back and gives their employer a chance to meet an offer is doing things respectably and at most has some value in their current employer, enough so to give them a chance.

LukeB_UK 12y ago
You make a good point, but what I was aiming at was that people shouldn't have to threaten to leave to get a pay rise, it should be a discussion. Threatening is a hostile move, not a negotiation tactic.

watwut 12y ago

Why? I have seen multiple people being ready to leave, getting raise and then staying few more years.

fsloth 12y ago

The first part of your response sounds agreeable - I suppose it's not the "more money" aspect as much as the "threat" aspect which shows that for one reason or another the relations between the company and the individual have gone beyond amicable negotiations into ultimatum territory and the employee is not very savvy - 9.9 times out of 10 the company has far much leverage in these sorts of negotiations. But the rationale sounds a bit weird to me: "they're not invested anymore." How could an employee be invested in a company if they've not actually invested? This sounds like an employee should have some sort of weird feudal allegiance for the corporation they work for.

nawitus 12y ago

That's why the employer should pay market rates so there's no reason for the employee to switch jobs to get a raise.