Captain Tuttle
Member
That's why unions matter.
In my experience unions don't give a shit about workers either
That's why unions matter.
he means in a "be aware of where is the demand for your skills and of how much dosh you should be getting" sense. It'd be quite silly to legit keep going out for interviews just for the lulz, obv.
Genuinely curious. What would you do if you get an offer that pays better than your current one?
Lets say you are nice and settled at your current job and there is no threat of losing it any time soon. Do you just roll the dice hoping you dont get a shit boss or crap working environment for a little more pay?
In my experience unions don't give a shit about workers either
I have always been a bit afraid of continuously searching for new work while working because those companies can call and ask your current boss about you.
Don't be. Unless your company is looking to get rid of you, it's much easier for them to give you an offer to retain you then it is to have to go through the expensive process of hiring someone new and having them learn the system.
After the first couple of weeks of training, I chose to join the team that worked on my area of expertise, and this is where things started getting weird. On my first official day rotating on the team, my new manager sent me a string of messages over company chat. He was in an open relationship, he said, and his girlfriend was having an easy time finding new partners but he wasn't. He was trying to stay out of trouble at work, he said, but he couldn't help getting in trouble, because he was looking for women to have sex with. It was clear that he was trying to get me to have sex with him, and it was so clearly out of line that I immediately took screenshots of these chat messages and reported him to HR.
Uber was a pretty good-sized company at that time, and I had pretty standard expectations of how they would handle situations like this. I expected that I would report him to HR, they would handle the situation appropriately, and then life would go on - unfortunately, things played out quite a bit differently. When I reported the situation, I was told by both HR and upper management that even though this was clearly sexual harassment and he was propositioning me, it was this man's first offense, and that they wouldn't feel comfortable giving him anything other than a warning and a stern talking-to. Upper management told me that he "was a high performer" (i.e. had stellar performance reviews from his superiors) and they wouldn't feel comfortable punishing him for what was probably just an innocent mistake on his part.
My experiences are contradictory to the HR bit in the article however I have only really worked in non-profit sector thus far so I assume it's a different culture.
CEO's get sacked all the time if they aren't producing a favorable outlook for their executive boards.
Well this is definitely true, I review resumes occasionally and multiple jobs under a year are a huge red flag that would likely cause me to trash the resume.
Dodging a bullet, then. I'm never working anywhere that requires blinding loyalty as a prerequisite.
https://bothsidesofthetable.com/nev...ke-terrible-employees-e30cd5ff7322#.2ttskorvf
this is what employerologists actually believe
Companies will just bleed you dry and expect you to take it....that's what I have learnt, even working hard won't get you ahead when there is so much politics
This is why it's so important to get a job for the government.
The lack of at-will employment and the presence of legitimate grievance systems cuts out so much bullshit
Eh. I strongly disagree here. I think everybody should be paid what they're worth. I don't think people should be paid more than they're worth because they're a protected class.
So you think it's acceptable that women who are sexually harassed in the workplace are unable to report it due to fear of retaliation?
That's insanity to me. I would never do that unless I'm actively wanting to quit or the company is in clear trouble (which I did before of course). If I'm relatively stable, I won't waste my time job searching every goddamn day. 30 minutes a day?? That's huge. I want my lunch breaks to be relaxing, not more work for no real payoff.It's really not that hard. You set aside like 30 minutes a day or so. Maybe, do it on your lunch break. Make a generic resume that you can make some changes to tailor to the job duties of the job you are applying for. Send out like 2-3 resumes a day. Sites like indeed.com can make shit fairly easy.
Yeah that is reasonable, I'd do the same if I were you. That said that other article mentioned 18-24 months as being too short a period and called people working those durations "job hoppers" which is a bit ridiculous, at least for someone under 35-40 working in IT.As a guy who works in HR... I hope i never become as bad as the scrubs so many of you have apparently ever dealt with. I understand HR can suck but some pretty broad strokes are being painted by a lot ITT and it kinda sucks.
I will say this: if you came to my company looking for work and you have already left two jobs in the last 365 days you better have a darn good reason or I'm gonna skip you and go to the next candidate. I understand some companies suck and you might want to move on, but there has to be some examples of longevity in your work history before I am willing to go through the process of hiring and training you. That shit is expensive and time consuming and if I have the inkling that you are going to dip out in a couple months, im not going to do it.
Most people should be able to understand that. Some probably wont. Honestly not my problem. That is a hiring philosophy that i will stand by for my entire career.
That really has nothing to do with anything I said.
It absolutely does.
Over half of all EEOC complaints include a charge of retaliation from the employer.
Employees in the private sector who have zero rights and protections can't raise issues and concerns with management (even when they are as serious as sexual harassment or racial discrimination) without fear of losing their job. To me that is unacceptable.
Putting aside your ridiculous hyperbole, I guess I was focusing on the importance of "getting a government" job portion of your comment rather than the "people should have no official grievance" system portion.
Of course people should have recourse for cases of sexual harassment. I just don't agree with the premise of being protected from being laid off.
Its not hyperbole at all. Sexual harassment is absolutely rampant in the workplace and many women cannot report it for fear of hurting their careers. Civil Rights legislation is utterly toothless when your employer can simply find an imaginary reason to fire you.
Yeah, as a unionized government employee, I'm glad I don't have to deal with most of the article's nonsense. Although we have a different set of issues.
Yeah that is reasonable, I'd do the same if I were you. That said that other article mentioned 18-24 months as being too short a period and called people working those durations "job hoppers" which is a bit ridiculous, at least for someone under 35-40 working in IT.
All I can say is demand your worth and document everything.
There is a world of difference between expecting blind loyalty and expecting someone to last beyond an initial probationary/training period. In my work, employees require 6 months to a year before they are actually productive contributors due to a highly niche specialization and we expect a bit more stability out of candidates.
This whole thread is about your employer not being your friend and that people should take their employment into their own hands. The comment that you replied directly after was about a company using you us and spitting you out. For some completely uncalled for reason you've decided to make this about whether or not woman can be sexually harassed by an employer, and I happen to be the lucky guy who gets to be your straw man villain.
Try to pay attention and stay on topic.
Yeah, as a person who needs healthcare unions are great. Also just being able to talk to other people about work in a candid manner, not having to tiptoe around that worker/management line.I also work for government, it is great when you have a union standing behind you, you truly feel protected. You can still get fire/layoff, but it will be for a just reason.
Just email everything as much as possible. It's amazing how people forget stuff when shit hits the fan.What do you mean document everything? Like projects that you were involved in?
The inherent problem with this is that it creates an extremely adversarial relationship and while I think competition is good, competitions also have rules for a reason. Having a boss that can fire you for any or no reason at all (and letting them dictate all the rules) does not promote a good working relationship, or any working relationship. If anything it encourages you to actively obfuscate and lie to inflate yourself and your work. That doesn't seem like healthy behavior and if at will employment is encouraging that, it seems like a problem, one that is isn't resolvable without changing the relationship itself. Unions change that relationship.I just don't agree with the premise of being protected from being laid off.
This can't be over stated. I'm working at a few job sites right now, one of them I like the culture and am trying to get hired on inhouse. I made sure to make a good impression, say hi to everyone, make sure people know my name, my face, and that I'm "that friendly guy with the contractor."Listen I understand this isn't some loyalty thing, they were getting rid of personel without much experience but thats when I learned it isn't the company who cares about you, it's your bosses and coworkers if you're a friendly enough person.
Yeah, this is the other thing. Most jobs people get are based on who you know, not what you know.Personal connections are the best advantage you can have at work.
This seems completely obvious to 38 year old me, but I think 25 year old me would scoff and ignore. I have by all measures a great job as an attorney, but I would be nuts if I didn't keep my resume refreshed and review the beyond/indeed/glassdoor mailings daily and flirt occasionally with another employer. My problem now is that I make too much money to be very moveable unless I want to just strike it out on my own, which seems to be inevitable.
That's why I said he is also right. But he's a fucking idiot for stating that I or anyone should put the company first and then themselves when the company never comes close to putting employees over the company. And it never comes close to other than exceptional cases.It makes sense - every new employee has starting period when he is learning required stuff and corporate culture - if you have to replace people too often then that period of lower productivity is going to accumulate.