Tech workers warned they were going to quit. The problem is spiralling out
zdnet.com
zdnet.com
I wait to hear a single anecdote about a company that prioritizes keeping staff over just hiring replacements.
- Increase paid vacation from 3 weeks to 6+ weeks
- Increase base salary to match offers I was receiving at other companies
- Reduce work week from 40 hours to 32 hours
- Hire people more experienced than me so I can learn from them and keep growing
- Fire the toxic team member on our team who, despite being junior to me in experience and ability level, was at risk of becoming my manager on a long enough timeline simply because he had been at the company longer than me
However, none of these were offered to me when I announced I would be leaving. I was leaving to move to my own company so I was open to being convinced to stay but there was never a serious attempt. Instead everyone during my exit lamented how hard it is to hire people right now. I had a good team and the company is pretty decent but HR was seriously lacking when it came to managing developers.
In the case of the parent comment, be ahead of the employee how?
"Good news, Steve. We're giving you a $50,000/year raise but you'll be working 32 hours a week instead of 40. We're giving you 2 months of paid vacation next year instead of 3 weeks. We're hiring 5 new people with more experience than you, who will be responsible for mentoring you and helping you grow, as well as a personal comedian, who can keep you entertained when you're feeling down."
Just as businesses are expected to monitor and react to competitors that are after their customers. They should also have processes in place to react to competitors for their staff.
In this case, there were no competitors. The parent poster indicated that he was leaving to start his own thing. Nobody was offering him a high-paying job where he would work only 32 hours a week, have 6+ weeks of paid vacation annually and generally be treated like the company's most valuable asset.
While I wish the parent poster the best, he's far more likely to discover that running his own business will require him to work more, not less, and at least initially, is likely to provide him with lower net pay and benefits.
Unless you're an absolute rockstar, you have to be realistic, even in this market.
On one hand, the parent poster would be open to the company firing another employee he doesn't like or hiring more people who could help him grow, but on the other hand, he's open to working part time or taking off on vacation for a month and a half or more each year. If I was his manager, I would be genuinely confused about whether a person like this wanted to be more or less invested in his work at the company. And that's never a good thing to have an employer be confused about.
By all means, ask for a raise. Express a desire for greater opportunities to learn and grow. Raise concerns about situations you're uncomfortable with. But seriously thinking that you might command full-time pay and benefits for part-time hours? That's a huge red flag.
The parent poster basically admitted he already had one foot out the door. Given that it doesn't sound like his employer fought to convince him to stay, I'm guessing that his employer either sensed this or that he wasn't as valuable to his employer as he thought it was.
Coming from a country where we have saner annual leave norms than the usa, the above rhetoric about "wanting fewer hours" equating to "lack of commitment" conjures up visions of stuffy bankers from Mary Poppins.
For an employer, there's a huge difference between paying a full-time employee more money and having a full-time employee become a part-time employee for the same pay.
This poster's comment was especially telling in that, on one hand, he talked about his employer making a greater investment in him (by hiring people he could learn from and firing another employee he didn't like) but on the other hand he talked about providing his employer with less than full-time hours, which basically represents a reduction in his investment in his employer.
> ...the above rhetoric about "wanting fewer hours" equating to "lack of commitment" conjures up visions of stuffy bankers from Mary Poppins.
I'm all for a healthy work schedule (I don't even like the phrase "work-life balance"). That's why I eventually left the rat race and started my own thing.
But it's not like the parent poster was talking about going from full-time plus (like 50-60+ hours/week to 40 hours). Again, he was talking about going from the minimum hours associated with full-time work (40) to a part-time job. Even beyond the fact that that his employer might not believe he can do the job he was hired to do satisfactorily as a part-time employee, for a lot of employers, there can be a variety of factors that make it more attractive to find a full-time replacement than try to hire part-timers.
(edit: France has legislated 35 as full time - overtime must be paid for hours >35. They are currently considering revising this to 32).
edit2:
I get your argument from the employer's point of view, I just don't think it stacks up psychologically, because I've previously been in the position myself of wanting more pay or fewer hours AND knowing I was still committed to that job (I could evidence this by saying I stuck to it a long time after that discussion despite only minor improvements in pay). Sure, some individuals might be conflicted if presenting those goals but you'd have to assess that on your knowledge of the individual rather than pure game theory.
Even if you insist on a pure game theory perspective GP's ultimatum makes sense, though - it sought to address an imbalance in investment by saying either invest more in me or allow me to invest less in you.
That's great. The parent poster should consider moving to France, where, I understand, there are far fewer tech jobs that pay near what can be earned at large tech firms in the US. I'd be willing to bet money that trade will not result in 25% fewer hours for the same US pay.
> Even if you insist on a pure game theory perspective GP's ultimatum makes sense, though - it sought to address an imbalance in investment by saying either invest more in me or allow me to invest less in you.
Given that the parent poster apparently didn't even submit his ultimatum to his employer, and his employer apparently didn't fight to keep him...
Even in this very difficult environment, most of the people in my network who are hiring in tech/digital media companies are remaining very selective about who they hire. Yes, it sucks to not have the desired staffing levels, but it sucks more to hire the wrong people or keep people who are toxic or ask for way more than they're realistically worth on the mistaken assumption that just because there's a labor shortage, they can demand anything.
Contrary to what plenty of people seem to think, companies are not always (or even often) efficient and managers do not always (or even often) operate with logic. Just because a company doesn't fight to keep an employee doesn't mean the employee is dogshit. Last team I left had over 50% turnover before I put in my resignation. No one gave me an exit interview or asked why I was leaving. I had no demands because nothing could have made me stay, but they didn't know that. It should be common sense at that point to ask questions. If your team has people leaving in droves, there's a problem. It's not just coincidence. And while companies not making more of an effort to retain employees over hiring new ones may be anecdotal, as the OP explained, I've yet to see anyone offer much in the way of evidence to the contrary.
These are all great indicators that one should leave asap. The value you produce doesnt rub off on your value as an employee.
Not really my point [1], which is this: do you consider all French (with the exception of those who do overtime) uncommitted to their jobs?
[1] that response does serve to reinforce the Mary Poppins banker image, though ;-)
I keep seeing these articles, but anecdotally I don't think I know a single person who's actively dissatisfied with their tech job, much less people quitting in droves. People occasionally leave for even better offers, of course, but that's about it. And this isn't just at my company, it's across my nontrivial network.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.t04.htm
The people who are quitting are the ones working for hotels and restaurants. This is yet another activist piece that cites a headline JOLTS figure but doesn't even bother to look to see if the statistics support the claim of the piece.
Running a business is usually more stressful compared to a job.
They must have rung me through the ringer. It was ultimate stress.
it is, but you are adequately rewarded for running a business (or you fail). A stressful job which underpays you is worse than a stressful job which pays.
A normal amount of churn is perfectly healthy and can be dealt with, but if entire teams disappear together within a month or two... I'm guessing there's where the trouble appears?
Until Friday I worked for a company with very high churn. Complaints on Glassdoor. Complaints in the suggestion box.
Not a peep from anyone officially.
(Disclaimer: I'm one of them).
Still thinking about it. Not happening yet.