• shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    It’s a bit messy for the employer. You can’t just hand out 20% raises every time someone threatens to leave. Then everyone would be threatening to leave. And that’s a hefty cost to add to what’s likely your largest operating expense. Also, that’s not just 20% in the employee’s pocket, there are additional costs like unemployment insurance and the like.

    OTOH, unless your employee plain sucks or the job is simple, it’s almost always better to keep them than train a replacement. Tribal knowledge is valuable knowledge.

    And no, only very small-time employers expect loyalty. They understand the game, and we should as well.

    Funny that lemmy whines and moans about capitalism all day, without realizing they can play as well. Jumping jobs over the last 11 years got me $14 > $22 > $39. Been at this place 5-years, thinking about jumping ship again. Probably put me over $100K with a little luck. Oh, and I’ve never had such fat benefits or worked less. From home to boot.

    Related: When we first moved here, a friend started at an oil change place, well below his skill set and previous pay. Kept job hopping and stacking his resume, now he’s the top service manager at the largest auto dealer group. He quit moving, guess he’s fat and happy. Sure drags in the $.

    • ramirezmike@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      7 months ago

      You can’t just hand out 20% raises every time someone threatens to leave.

      if you have multiple employees getting job offers that are 20% higher then you’re not paying your employees enough 🤷‍♂️

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Fine. They all claim to have offers. It’s not like employers don’t track turnover and market rates. Some of them just decide it’s cheaper to allow high turnover. Not like they can’t work an Excel sheet.

        Having said that, I’ve found many employers wholly ignorant of metrics that aren’t easily tracked. For example, 2 jobs ago I was a key player at my shitty little shop. Kept the customers rolling in, despite their aggravations with the company. You can’t put a solid number on that. (And many told me they left for the competition when I quit.)

        Last job, I quit for an offer doubling my pay and benefits. They loved me, wouldn’t go for it. The next year they paid far more in IT costs than it would have cost to keep me.

        Back to my point, work hard, achieve something to be proud of on your resume, jump ship. The game is only rigged for the employer is you’re in a shit job that requires almost no skills. As to that, see the example I talked about with my oil change buddy.

    • KidnappedByKitties@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      7 months ago

      How is it messy for the employer to keep wages at market prices?

      You don’t have to match anything or contend with mass quitting if you just pay the going rate to start with.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Do you think employers are stone ignorant of market rates? Who said anything about mass quitting? The people not moving on are the people who can’t. Hell, that’s where I’m at. Pretty sure I’ve attained the Peter Principle for now.