st3v3r

96 ms·

931.
by st3v3r 10y ago
"2. Exclusively 1-2 year tenures - This person is trying to jump around to maximize salary (and isn't able to convince their current employer to match/exceed an offer)" Isn't the conventional wisdom that, even if yo
932.
by st3v3r 10y ago
Depends on who's point you look at it from. The investors and the founders get to make out pretty well, so to them it's a success. The acquiring company doesn't have to pay a lot of employees actual money, and they give them
933.
by st3v3r 10y ago
"The point of the 90 day exercise period is that since the departed employee is no longer adding value to the company" So all of the work they've done until then disappears? It's gone? It's no longer helping the com
934.
by st3v3r 10y ago
What? No they don't.
935.
by st3v3r 10y ago
"but if the toxic employee doesn't want to risk cash, why should the staying employees take dilution on what was probably unhelpful service?" Why don't you make them pay back their salary during that period while you&#x2
936.
by st3v3r 10y ago
"Snopes rates this "mostly false", when it appears to actually be 100% true." Only if one ignores every single bit of context.
937.
by st3v3r 10y ago
It is quite relevant, as everything they do is shaped through that past lens.
938.
by st3v3r 10y ago
Are we no longer allowed to use our own experiences when evaluating new information anymore? If a news source has consistently acted in such a manner, are we not able to use our past experiences with them to shape our opinions of their repo
939.
by st3v3r 10y ago
I do not believe that you shouldn't get any compensation, but the idea that simply having money entitles you to the lion's share of the compensation, above and beyond those that actually do the damn work, is idiotic. "And wha
940.
by st3v3r 10y ago
I could, but why bother having to do that when I could just live in a place that doesn't recognize them to start with?
941.
by st3v3r 10y ago
But in reality, it's not really a decreased risk.
942.
by st3v3r 10y ago
"Every employment position comes with some degree of risk exposure. But, the risk of "I might lose my job" is quite a lot less scary than "I might lose all my invested capital and/or be stuck with crippling debts af
943.
by st3v3r 10y ago
"How much value are you assigning to the risk the founder and investors are taking?" Absolutely 0, because they're not the ones doing the work.
944.
by st3v3r 10y ago
I can't agree with that. For most people, the salary is dictated by how good they are at negotiating, and how strong their ability is to walk away. Two things that are completely unrelated to their ability to do the job, and as such, s
945.
by st3v3r 10y ago
So why should anyone pay you for work you've done?
946.
by st3v3r 10y ago
If it doesn't have value, then why do you insist on viewing it? Once again, you're stating you're entitled to their content instead of simply going to another site.
947.
by st3v3r 10y ago
"Is my attention worth nothing? Are my contributions in the form of comments without value?" Pretty much. You can't pay rent with "attention". It's just like the people that try to get designers to do work for
948.
by st3v3r 10y ago
"At least they will do everything possible to maximize profits" Including cutting corners and reducing service. That is why I do not believe they are a good idea.
949.
by st3v3r 10y ago
So resist by not visiting those sites. Once you say that you are still entitled to the content, you have lost any claim to moral high ground, and are just acting like an entitled child. "Once you send information out into the world. yo
950.
by st3v3r 10y ago
The same argument could be used to not pay you the money your employer pays you.
951.
by st3v3r 10y ago
I'm sorry, but this argument still hinges on the idea that you are entitled to their content for free. By going to their site, you have agreed to pay them in the form of ads. If those terms are not amenable to you, that's fine, ju
952.
by st3v3r 10y ago
I cannot agree to this. Your entire premise rests upon the idea that these people are creating content for you for free. That you are entitled to someone else's work for free.
953.
by st3v3r 10y ago
It's not their site, and it's not their content. It is not ok, not in the least.
954.
by st3v3r 10y ago
But generally you hear Uber mentioned because of some sleazy stuff they did.
955.
by st3v3r 10y ago
"I don't like having to remember to go back into the app after the fact to pay more to not look like a jerk" But you don't. The driver doesn't see that you tipped or not.
956.
by st3v3r 10y ago
Considering we're talking about Citi, who does have a track record of treating their IT staff poorly, you can't call my statement an overreaction or a gross oversimplification.
957.
by st3v3r 10y ago
One might say that these things happening are the market telling Citi to stop being a dick. Unfortunately it seems like they're not really taking the hint.
958.
by st3v3r 10y ago
All that just so you don't have to treat your employees like human beings?
959.
by st3v3r 10y ago
"One's employer doesn't owe one a job" That kind of thinking is exactly what breeds this kind of stuff, though.
960.
by st3v3r 10y ago
All because they decided that was easier than simply treating their employees like human beings.

More ›