U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-26-2019, 05:28 AM
 
6,875 posts, read 7,267,992 times
Reputation: 9785

Advertisements

Quote:
That's not true. Companies don't hire the over-qualified because they know the employee will leave at the first opportunity. When a higher paying job that's more in line with the employee's qualification leads the person elsewhere, all that training and time invested is wasted. It has nothing to do with not wanting employees to go above and beyond
Can we have a little bit a nuance here? And not blanket statements. Most or many overqualified might leave. Not all.

I -- and many others -- have had the high stress, high-paying career.
I've applied for jobs below my skill level and previous pay -- because I CAN afford to work for less, because I want less stress and responsibility. That's doesn't mean I wouldn't work hard and be a great employee.

I just want a place I can work another 7 years. And if my starting pay is enough, I personally won't even need to ask for and wouldn't even care about a raise, my entire time with the job.

So you tell me who is more likely to leave the job -- me?..... or the 22-year-old who WILL likely (if not, most assuredly) LEAVE, as soon as a better offer comes along. So, on who did the employer really waste their time and training? ME or the recent college grad with no experience, who could be a snowflake....and does NOT have a record of 21 years with a previous company, and awards and accomplishments to show for it?

When I left my previous job at 56 (and 7 months later found my current job).....there were plenty of long-tenure colleagues there, who would leave and could afford to make less. They just don't think anyone would give them the chance to do that. It'd be too hard to find a job at 57...even a job where you'd willingly stay for 10 years. But many employers don't see the value in that worker...... Too bad really.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-26-2019, 05:48 AM
 
1,854 posts, read 713,275 times
Reputation: 3960
Quote:
Originally Posted by selhars View Post
Can we have a little bit a nuance here? And not blanket statements. Most or many overqualified might leave. Not all.

I -- and many others -- have had the high stress, high-paying career.
I've applied for jobs below my skill level and previous pay -- because I CAN afford to work for less, because I want less stress and responsibility. That's doesn't mean I wouldn't work hard and be a great employee.

I just want a place I can work another 7 years. And if my starting pay is enough, I personally won't even need to ask for and wouldn't even care about a raise, my entire time with the job.

So you tell me who is more likely to leave the job -- me?..... or the 22-year-old who WILL likely (if not, most assuredly) LEAVE, as soon as a better offer comes along. So, on who did the employer really waste their time and training? ME or the recent college grad with no experience, who could be a snowflake....and does NOT have a record of 21 years with a previous company, and awards and accomplishments to show for it?

When I left my previous job at 56 (and 7 months later found my current job).....there were plenty of long-tenure colleagues there, who would leave and could afford to make less. They just don't think anyone would give them the chance to do that. It'd be too hard to find a job at 57...even a job where you'd willingly stay for 10 years. But many employers don't see the value in that worker...... Too bad really.
Yes, that is unfortunate that this is the outlook of many employers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2019, 06:39 AM
 
Location: Greensboro, NC
633 posts, read 238,000 times
Reputation: 1532
Quote:
Originally Posted by rummage View Post
If a company loses a huge account and 20 people do nothing but work on that account, yes, there is going to be a layoff. But they are going to transfer the most valuable people to other projects if they can. And when the quality of the work suffers, they are going to get rid of the deadwood too. This is a fact of life for a business. You have some alternative form of reality of how this should work?
I specifically said "doesn't always play out that way." Yes I've seen layoffs go the way you're talking about (which is the way it should be), but I've also seen plenty of other variants that don't make as much sense. Depends on the company.

Quote:
Loyal? The customers aren't loyal, no one is expecting you to be loyal. I believe you are misguided in what is expected from you. The company isn't safe from competition either, I don't know why people are expecting some sort of guaranteed employment for life regardless of the situation they are in.
Which is why I said to always anticipate a layoff. Plus I did not say all companies expected loyalty; I said a lot of people think loyalty helps. Again, all said in my post that you quoted.

Quote:
The idea of not doing your best work for your entire working life so you can sit home when there is a layoff and feel better that you didn't give it your best by saying "I told you so", that sounds like a very shallow and sad life.
Except I specifically said to put in your best effort.

If you are going to quote me, how about not completely butchering/twisting what I said?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2019, 06:45 AM
 
1,665 posts, read 547,450 times
Reputation: 3555
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnOrdinaryCitizen View Post
It seems you always want to lecture people and always want to have the last words.

People don't care about those people in management who say one thing and do the other. Fake, fake, fake. Lie, lie, lie. Employees don't always listen to what the management say, they watch what they do.

If people work hard and feel valued, they feel happy and want to stay with the company and always want to do a good job for the company. Is that not good enough or very good? How much more and more the management expect from someone who's already good?

There are some stupid managers who don't value the hard-working employees but just value and favour the ones who can bribe and flatter them to make them feel good. Those managers are corrupted, and they are the ones that cause problems for the employees and the company. Because of those stupid and corrupted managers, the employees phone in sick more, change from above and beyond to mediocre.

People don't have to work harder to prove they can get the next job. They know they already worked hard. And when they are not happy, they will look somewhere else, and when they get a job somewhere else, they will leave. It’s just simple as that. And they don't always need the reference from the company anyway.

The point is stupid managers don't know the difference between the "coasting" employees and the *sskissers because the "coasting" employees can camouflage.

Now it's your turn to have the last words if you want.
I'm trying to have a conversation, please don't turn this into an argument. I'm saying what's best for the worker's career. Nothing else.

I am saying the opinion you're giving makes sense emotionally (I absolutely get it), but it sets people back in their careers. This is one of those scenarios where the worker's ego (stick it to the company that doesn't appreciate them) should not get in the way of what's best for them (suck it up, push through, to keep building a skillset). That's what most successful people I've seen have done.

We disagree. That's fine. This SHOULD be a conversation. We can still discuss this like adults if we have differing opinions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2019, 09:06 AM
 
3,754 posts, read 2,119,516 times
Reputation: 10246
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianGC View Post
I specifically said "doesn't always play out that way." Yes I've seen layoffs go the way you're talking about (which is the way it should be), but I've also seen plenty of other variants that don't make as much sense. Depends on the company.


Which is why I said to always anticipate a layoff. Plus I did not say all companies expected loyalty; I said a lot of people think loyalty helps. Again, all said in my post that you quoted.


Except I specifically said to put in your best effort.

If you are going to quote me, how about not completely butchering/twisting what I said?
It’s sad but true. These days you have to work in the even of anticipating for a lay-off in the private sector. I think we need to re-evaluate ourselves as a society and as human beings if we literally have to worry about our jobs every day because there is no loyalty or business acumen on the employers part anymore and they treat their employees like parasites


It never used to be this way. A total downfall of society


The only place where any remote job security does exist is in the public sector. People shouldn’t have to talk around on egg shells every day because all these employers held accountable to nothing and no one lay off people like it’s a bodily function
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2019, 11:42 AM
 
3,934 posts, read 3,258,558 times
Reputation: 11277
Worked my entire adult life and often saw the worst of humankind promoted, and financially rewarded for little more than their ability to ingratiate themselves with those who held power. I owned my own business and saw plenty of slackers who offered very little in the way of skill and hustle, but--as the song goes, they were, practiced at the art of deception, and were "so nice." So, "sucking up" isn't always a bad path---for some, and being rewarded for it proves that hard work isn't always a guaranteed path for recognition.

The thing about work that that leads to so much misunderstanding seems to stem from the idea that there really IS some common ethic which would suffice when addressing ALL work, but there isn't. Personally, I like good service when shopping, I don't care that the store employee has a great outlook at work, but I DO care if that outlook becomes a negative for me. One can be helpful to the customer without being the hardest worker in the store.

Some people have been fortunate enough to have great careers, challenging, but not so difficult as to create undue stress, not tied to a chair or a machine, not boring and repetitive, and moreover, financially rewarding to the extent that their retirement future is all laid out in well defined terms. This is the stuff of motivation, but not a reality for the masses.

Companies that ask their employees to slug it out doing hard physical labor, in all kinds of weather, for the least they can possibly pay, are often times rewarded by high employee turnover rates, low morale, and, the threat of violence at work, all leading to low productivity and lower profit margins. In jobs such as this the idea that great work performance will pay off is often a dream of the youthful, and a source of comic relief among the "seasoned employees." It happens in the steel mills as well as the new white collar plantations, there are some significant distinctions when comparing the two, but, an unrewarding job remains as an invitation to coasting.

As a side note: Some corporate leaders have breached that dismal dead end job situation by engaging the employees in helping the company grow a better work environment, from the bottom up, instead of top down. Actually considering the employee's role as an important one rather than viewing them as "assets" subject to the same consideration they would give when determining whether they will keep or sell a machine or other property. Job rotation, merit pay, clean, healthy surroundings, a fair amount of time off, and early retirement to insure a good age mix. It isn't rocket science, but it isn't in keeping with notions of maximizing profit at your employee's expense either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2019, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
12,453 posts, read 4,209,786 times
Reputation: 9768
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir quotes a lot View Post
better yet, work smarter. I could spend hours tediously putting together reports manually to make it seem like i'm a diligent worker who puts in the extra hours. But why do that when i can create formulas and tools that will produce the output i need in a few mouse clicks?

It's not intrinsically bad to have downtime at work, particularly if you're not in an output-measured role (i.e. On an assembly line). If you're in a salaried role, you are paid on quality performance, not hours clocked. Having some downtime from time to time is good. It allows you to reset and recharge. It allows you to spend time with family or friends, which is mentally, emotionally, and physically advantageous for an employee's wellbeing and productivity. It allows you to spend time doing some research and exploration on topics of interest, which may tie into your job and help you perform better later on. On the other hand, it's generally not healthy for most human beings to be pushed to their limits and overwhelmed for an extended period of time, trying out perform some elusive and dubious benchmark of excellency. Burn out is real, and a huge cost to employers.
this !!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2019, 12:55 PM
 
2,139 posts, read 524,377 times
Reputation: 3736
Quote:
Originally Posted by DorianRo View Post
True. It would. In the 4 companies Ive worked at, Ive NEVER seen this though. If Meritocracy ever did exist, from my experience it doesn't anymore
Here's what we did (major semiconductor company):

Every employee, in January, was responsible for writing up their accomplishments and results for the past year (we'd call it the "brag sheet"). Then every employee would meet with their manager to discuss it in detail to ensure there is no misunderstanding. The manager seeks confidential 360 input from others in the company. Then comes the ranking & rating session: the employee, along with all other employees in the department and in comparable departments, would be ranked & rated. There might be, say, 15 managers in the room going up the chain of command including several managers of the managers, and a director or two, and maybe a Vice President, and at least one senior HR person. Let's say there were 40 employees being ranked who were in somewhat comparable types of positions in various locations around the company (e.g., application support engineers, or administrative assistants, or tax attorneys, or whatever were somewhat comparable).

Then came the fun. Every manager had a strong incentive to ensure their own direct reports did well.

All the managers had all the brag sheets well in advance, and had studied them thoroughly. In my example above, we're going to stack rank the 40 individuals by actual accomplishments, achievements and tangible results to the company. The outcome would be #1 is James, #2 is Alison, #3 is Mark, etc all the way to #40 Donald. This is a very difficult to do - because the managers have to get to unanimity. It involves lots and lots of discussion about the value of results of Mark vs. Alison, etc, and the inevitable discussion about how you can't compare job x with job y, even though they are both, say, "product marketing engineers" or whatever.

Actually, the top 2 or 3 and the bottom 3 or 4 are pretty easy - after a short while, everyone agrees. It is the 30+ in the middle who are very difficult to rank. At some point there is acquiescence as it really doesn't matter if Kelley is employee #6 or #7; Kelley will be well respected and will get great written reviews & compensation increases.

So, once you have the employees ranked from #1 through #40 (in my hypothetical example), then the top 3 or 4 are rated "Outstanding." Perhaps the next 5 or 6 are rated "Exceptional." This goes on all the way down to the bottom categories of "needs improvement" and "failure."

No individual manager has the ability to sway the results of the R&R session, as there are so many managers involved evaluating the brag sheets and 360 input.

It is brutal, and very difficult. It is far from perfect, but it did a pretty good job of removing the scenario where a particular manager has a strong dislike (for whatever reason) or strong like (for whatever reason) and focuses on ranking actual results as articulated in brag sheets and 360 feedback.

After individual contributors are R&R'ed, the same process happens for supervisors, managers, directors, VPs & SVPs, and EVPs. Of course, the CEO gets evaluated by the Board of Directors.

In general, if you're rated a failure, you have a month to find another job in the company, or you're separated. Two "needs improvements" in a row and you have a month to find another job, or you're separated. At the director level and above, you're separated right away if you're a failure.

After the reviews & raises are given, people would start to disappear at all levels of the company - individual contributors, managers, directors, VPs, and even SVPs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2019, 02:09 PM
 
1,541 posts, read 399,025 times
Reputation: 2882
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianGC View Post
I specifically said "doesn't always play out that way." Yes I've seen layoffs go the way you're talking about (which is the way it should be), but I've also seen plenty of other variants that don't make as much sense. Depends on the company.


Which is why I said to always anticipate a layoff. Plus I did not say all companies expected loyalty; I said a lot of people think loyalty helps. Again, all said in my post that you quoted.


Except I specifically said to put in your best effort.

If you are going to quote me, how about not completely butchering/twisting what I said?
I didn't butcher or twist anything. I captured your entire tone. Now you want to backpedal on what you were saying and the intention now that you've had time to think about it. I would consider that an improvement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2019, 02:14 PM
 
1,541 posts, read 399,025 times
Reputation: 2882
Quote:
Originally Posted by jertheber View Post
Worked my entire adult life and often saw the worst of humankind promoted, and financially rewarded for little more than their ability to ingratiate themselves with those who held power. I owned my own business and saw plenty of slackers who offered very little in the way of skill and hustle, but--as the song goes, they were, practiced at the art of deception, and were "so nice." So, "sucking up" isn't always a bad path---for some, and being rewarded for it proves that hard work isn't always a guaranteed path for recognition.
I've seen people who say nothing at work, at all, unless directly asked to speak or to do something. The moment someone else gets promoted they are the ones who speak up how unfair things are. You really think telling the boss you like his tie is going to win you some huge favors? I'd be interested what you consider to be sucking up? Or are you basing this on board sitcoms you've seen?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top