BouncyEgg t1_iy8y3cf wrote
While there are exceptions out there....
You're a commodity.
You are replaceable.
I will hire the one who is willing to do the work the cheapest.
I have no need for loyalty.
I would just replace you with the next person who is willing to work for less pay.
I will tell you that loyalty is important. I will tell you that you are family. I will tell you that you are important.
This is all to keep your wages stagnant and discourage you from seeking other opportunities.
it200219 t1_iy91kt8 wrote
not always the case that next person will cost the company less. In fact in some cases it costs more.
d0rf47 t1_iy959up wrote
this is a false premise. The reality is actually based on resource allocation in most cases especially in tech. Typically companies will allocate a larger pool of resources for hiring then they do for raises. Not sure exactly why but this is becoming more and more common
Malfrum t1_iy96vl8 wrote
Because in most organizations, hiring comes out of HR's budget. Raises come out of departmental budgets. On paper, it looks like it saves money to the accountants.
It's stupid, because companies don't bother to track how much they waste on losing trained employees + damage done by inexperienced ones during onboarding. But that would be hard to track with robotic, sterile metrics, and God forbid executives actually trouble themselves with knowing how their business functions
bulldg4life t1_iy96ojg wrote
I wouldn't say it is for every company, but I'm betting they've done a cost/benefit analysis. It allows them to spend less money in the long run by focusing their spending efforts.
The cost to lose employees and replace them with higher paid talent is more cost effective than spending money to retain current talent. Figure with job inertia and just straight up employee psychology, they can keep existing employees marginally happy and deal with the outliers.
Personally, I've seen companies that do it both ways. I had a previous company that tried to get as much talent as possible and just churn through employees that all left once they saw their value. And, you could try to counter offer the valuable ones or just move on and burn through more employees. My current company stresses market adjustments and comp increases to keep current talent as much as possible because they don't want to deal with the time lag needed to bring new people in as replacement.
The second company is way more enjoyable to work for.
xanas263 t1_iy96m6y wrote
Probably because there is now an expectation of receiving a higher salary when you change jobs.
milespoints t1_iy99ix2 wrote
The reason is that even with uncompetitive salaries, most people won’t switch.
I know people who know they are underpaid and could get more elsewhere, but don’t switch because they are comfortable and all their friends are at their current job.
So if you pay less money and retain 90% of talent, you can come out ahead financially than if you give everyone raises and retain 98% of talent. Problem is of course that the people who do leave are often the top performers.
There are exceptions. Many high powered consulting firms have an “up or out” type of system where you either get promoted (with a huge raise) or basically get fired. Among large companies, Costco is famous for paying very high salaries and treating people well from the people who stock shelves to the senior executives. But it’s rare!
EEpromChip t1_iy983xw wrote
> I will tell you that you are family.
This to me is a huge red flag and when I look elsewhere. I ain't looking for family. I got family. Most of them suck and try to take advantage of me. Thanks but no.
TathanOTS t1_iy99shu wrote
If this were true they would pay more. Because a % prefer security of staying rather than leaving if they kept the numbers closer they could keep more people. Cost of acquisition thumbs the scale in favor of that for sure.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments