I agree and identify strongly with this article.
> Turn up on time. Do your job. Do it right. Do whatever is asked of you provided it's lawful, reasonable. [...] Do not one thing more than that.
I struggle to understand this mindset a bit. Barring early "first job" jobs, when you were hired, presumably you agreed to / negotiated a compensation that was not the absolute minimum your employer could pay or that you would agree to. So to start, they're already not paying you the least they can. But then, if you're not doing anything more than the minimums/what you're expected to do, why would you expect anything more than minimum compensation raises? If you want more pay, and higher pay, you have to be doing more than you were originally hired to do. Especially because part of the hiring process is acknowledging that you will not actually be up to speed for anywhere from a few months to a few years.
Do I think companies should do more to retain and compensate their employees? Yes. Do I think that most companies are short sighted as to the true cost of losing valuable employees over compensation issues? Yes. Do I think that companies should try to do more than "the minimum"? Yes. But I also think all the same things about being an employee. I'm not saying you give up everything to the company, but I've known more than a few people in my life who were hardline "minimalist" employees, and they were always surprised by the fact that they were treated equally minimally by the employer.
> But then, if you're not doing anything more than the minimums/what you're expected to do, why would you expect anything more than minimum compensation raises?
I put this back in the companies court. Why would I want to go out of my way to do more than the bare minimum when you won't offer more than that for my efforts? I didn't start out with that mentality but it's been shown that these companies will absolutely take advantage of that for their benefit. For over a decade I've done Way more than the bare minimum for work, taking on more projects, responsibilities and impossible deadlines. Delivered 'steller' results, and pioneered work efficient improvements, etc. Every single year have gotten a 'top performer' yearly review. Every year except 1, received a measly 3% raise and told I should be happy it's so high.
After a decade of being lied to, shit on, and taken advantage of; tell me _why_ would I continue to put in amazing efforts for shit compensation increase? I don't expect great raises for mediocre work. But I did expect great raises for documented great work. That hasn't happened and frankly, I'm beyond busting my ass for piddly pay and being told I should be thankful for it.
Again, what I said in my parent comment. They want to pay the minimum, they'll get the minimum effort.
When I go to the store, there is a listed price for an apple. I pay that price, and nothing more. I get an apple, and nothing more. That's not lose-lose.
> Turn up on time. Do your job. Do it right. Do whatever is asked of you provided it's lawful, reasonable.
This is a totally reasonable transaction. You're not slacking off. You're not failing to do your reasonable duties. You're not showing up 2 hours late, or playing hooky.
> Do not one thing more than that.
If someone is asking you to do something unreasonable, you should have the freedom to refuse that. It should not be considered a defection or a betrayal. It might not always solve things, but it should be a normal and satisfactory outcome.
Again, this is the outcome every time I go to the grocery store
How you gain leverage is situational. At some companies, going above and beyond actually _reduces_ leverage, because you may find that after five years working at said company, the value you add is mostly tied to your knowledge of company internals (processes, systems, people, etc), and you may have actually fallen behind in the actual "transferable" skills that the market values.