3 ms·

In line with these points but more nuts and bolts: if you want people who won't leave within at least N years, give them N-year guaranteed contracts that can be

In line with these points but more nuts and bolts: if you want people who won't leave within at least N years, give them N-year guaranteed contracts that can be terminated only for cause/good reason (these are terms with specific legal meaning). Since I will have agreed in advance to the pay rate for each year, you can't undervalue me unless I'm complicit, and you can't lay me off just because your company is doing poorly. At the same time, I can't pick up and leave "right when I become most valuable". If both sides want greater security than an at-will termless contract offers, the solution is in the contract, not the interview.

tomjen3 11y ago
Who in the world would sign such a contract? The only employee would be one that couldn't get a better deal elsewhere and the only employer would be one you wouldn't want to work for.
- sanderjd 11y ago
  To me, that's sort of the point – you can understand why it's hard to keep employees for N years by thinking about what the terms of an N-year contract would have to look like, and whether anyone would sign it.
- crpatino 11y ago
  These are standard contracts in many places of the world with stronger labor laws than the US. It does not mean you have tenure, or any non sense like that. It means there are specific, objective causes to terminate your contract, which include but may not be limited to: gross incompetence, contempt for workplace discipline, frequent absenteeism, criminal/delinquent activity against or otherwise involving company assets, etc. If the employer cannot or will not prove this kind of behaviors from the part of the employee, he still can terminate the contract, but there's a minimal severance mandated by law, which depends both on current monthly salary and on seniority.[1] i.e In my country, you are supposed to get 3 months salary, plus 20 days per each full year you held the position. Some employers will still low ball you if they think they can get away with it, but they will still give you more than what you'd get after suing and paying the lawyer's commission.
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  If you don't understand this, put yourself in the shoes of someone who has to work for a living. Is the flexibility to change jobs at will worth a 30% chance of being out of work for 2 years when you get laid off during a bust (when no one else is hiring either)? Most people would say no. The reality, one that more people are accepting these days, is that every employer offers pretty much the same work environment and pay, whether a product of collusion or parallel evolution. Ceteris paribus, as it usually is, security is a perk. As a more concrete answer to your question, professional athletes do it all the time. The elite among them get the longest-term contracts, and actively push for them. There are other jobs as well that involve guaranteed terms, many of which don't have the unique attributes (limited prime years, injury risks) associated with being an athlete. Those same athletes' coaches, for example. Actors. Corporate-to-corporate contracts often have minimum terms and guaranteed spend, too. Why would the company offer such terms? I think the OP covered that pretty well. Turnover is expensive.
- digikata 11y ago
  CEOs sign agreements like this regularly - well, maybe structured a bit differently. The company doesn't want the CEO to leave shorter than some nominal time - so some portion of the compensation is structured to mature over time. The CEO doesn't want some uncontrollable market or political shift to put him out of work (with some reputation cost), so some compensation for early separation is negotiated. Employees generally don't get that kind of consideration - especially in established companies. Companies used to have incentives such as pensions that were a generally applicable, long-term retention incentive. However, the market decided that carrying that type of long-term obligation wasn't desirable for companies. In some ways workers benefited too by lowering of their employment switching costs and not carrying the risk that a company doesn't survive or honor those obligations.
Eridrus 11y ago
I'm pretty sure developers in silicon valley don't want greater security.
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  It depends who you think the average bay area engineer is. If you've bought into the view that it's a 23 year old single white man who lives with 4 indistinguishable roommates in a small house in San Francisco, believes he's God's gift to engineering, and wants to job-hop his way to CTO and millionaire status by 27, you're probably right. After all, he's a 10x A-player, everyone is killing it, and the last time there was a bust he was in second grade. Security's for losers! The reality is that most people who make a living writing software in the bay area are middle-aged, married or partnered, have children and a fat mortgage, and aren't really a part of "silicon valley". They live quietly, don't go to meetups or write blogs, and they're mediocre to decent contributors at work and they know it. A large minority, perhaps even a majority, are not white; they are Indian, Pakistani, Chinese, and from almost every other national or ethnic background you could name. Many are women, despite the oft-repeated myth of sexist hiring practices. In a nutshell, they're ordinary people with ordinary concerns nothing like the HN echo chamber's perceptions of the world. And you can bet your ass they'd like a little security.
  - Eridrus 11y ago
    Besides all the waffling here, what I'm reading is that some people want insurance against a bubble popping. And that seems reasonable, but I'm not sure how you expect that to work, given the last bubble caused entire companies to go under, and multi-year commitments to staff might cause even more to go under, or at least through bankruptcy proceedings where they will shed those staff anyway.

tomjen3 11y ago

Who in the world would sign such a contract? The only employee would be one that couldn't get a better deal elsewhere and the only employer would be one you wouldn't want to work for.

sanderjd 11y ago
To me, that's sort of the point – you can understand why it's hard to keep employees for N years by thinking about what the terms of an N-year contract would have to look like, and whether anyone would sign it.
crpatino 11y ago
These are standard contracts in many places of the world with stronger labor laws than the US. It does not mean you have tenure, or any non sense like that. It means there are specific, objective causes to terminate your contract, which include but may not be limited to: gross incompetence, contempt for workplace discipline, frequent absenteeism, criminal/delinquent activity against or otherwise involving company assets, etc. If the employer cannot or will not prove this kind of behaviors from the part of the employee, he still can terminate the contract, but there's a minimal severance mandated by law, which depends both on current monthly salary and on seniority.[1] i.e In my country, you are supposed to get 3 months salary, plus 20 days per each full year you held the position. Some employers will still low ball you if they think they can get away with it, but they will still give you more than what you'd get after suing and paying the lawyer's commission.
fredkbloggs 11y ago
If you don't understand this, put yourself in the shoes of someone who has to work for a living. Is the flexibility to change jobs at will worth a 30% chance of being out of work for 2 years when you get laid off during a bust (when no one else is hiring either)? Most people would say no. The reality, one that more people are accepting these days, is that every employer offers pretty much the same work environment and pay, whether a product of collusion or parallel evolution. Ceteris paribus, as it usually is, security is a perk. As a more concrete answer to your question, professional athletes do it all the time. The elite among them get the longest-term contracts, and actively push for them. There are other jobs as well that involve guaranteed terms, many of which don't have the unique attributes (limited prime years, injury risks) associated with being an athlete. Those same athletes' coaches, for example. Actors. Corporate-to-corporate contracts often have minimum terms and guaranteed spend, too. Why would the company offer such terms? I think the OP covered that pretty well. Turnover is expensive.
digikata 11y ago
CEOs sign agreements like this regularly - well, maybe structured a bit differently. The company doesn't want the CEO to leave shorter than some nominal time - so some portion of the compensation is structured to mature over time. The CEO doesn't want some uncontrollable market or political shift to put him out of work (with some reputation cost), so some compensation for early separation is negotiated. Employees generally don't get that kind of consideration - especially in established companies. Companies used to have incentives such as pensions that were a generally applicable, long-term retention incentive. However, the market decided that carrying that type of long-term obligation wasn't desirable for companies. In some ways workers benefited too by lowering of their employment switching costs and not carrying the risk that a company doesn't survive or honor those obligations.

Eridrus 11y ago

I'm pretty sure developers in silicon valley don't want greater security.

fredkbloggs 11y ago
It depends who you think the average bay area engineer is. If you've bought into the view that it's a 23 year old single white man who lives with 4 indistinguishable roommates in a small house in San Francisco, believes he's God's gift to engineering, and wants to job-hop his way to CTO and millionaire status by 27, you're probably right. After all, he's a 10x A-player, everyone is killing it, and the last time there was a bust he was in second grade. Security's for losers! The reality is that most people who make a living writing software in the bay area are middle-aged, married or partnered, have children and a fat mortgage, and aren't really a part of "silicon valley". They live quietly, don't go to meetups or write blogs, and they're mediocre to decent contributors at work and they know it. A large minority, perhaps even a majority, are not white; they are Indian, Pakistani, Chinese, and from almost every other national or ethnic background you could name. Many are women, despite the oft-repeated myth of sexist hiring practices. In a nutshell, they're ordinary people with ordinary concerns nothing like the HN echo chamber's perceptions of the world. And you can bet your ass they'd like a little security.
- Eridrus 11y ago
  Besides all the waffling here, what I'm reading is that some people want insurance against a bubble popping. And that seems reasonable, but I'm not sure how you expect that to work, given the last bubble caused entire companies to go under, and multi-year commitments to staff might cause even more to go under, or at least through bankruptcy proceedings where they will shed those staff anyway.