this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
521 points (95.5% liked)

Work Reform

10011 readers
316 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Even better, the competent ones ask for more money

Seriously the actions of all these big companies shows they don't really give a shit about retaining top talent. Unfortunately, for big name companies, they'll always have an inflow of talented new grads who are willing to give up their dignity to get their name on their resumes, and it's cheaper (in the short term, which is all shareholders care about) to churn and burn them then to invest in long term talent

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We are all freely interchangeable widgets in their calculations. They don’t have time to consider that some people might be better than the job than others.

[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because profit is in the tail.

They're betting that some will leave, most will stay, and even if the some that leave are the best, most of their money is made by the vast majority of people behind them.

They're looking at trends, not individuals. Individuals don't matter to them.

[–] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

They're looking at trends, not individuals. Individuals don't matter to them.

Exactly.

They're going to learn better, but it's going to be an expensive process.

The irony is that the average worker already knows better.

"Name two people at your workplace who, if they quit, everything will go to shit."

We can all do it. Only the CEO can't. And many of us would name differet people at the same workplace, and still be correct. But the CEO rarely knows that, or more likely can only name two, themselves, when their real risk is closer to 200.

[–] wazoobonkerbrain@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

They don’t have time to consider that some people might be better than the job than others.

I'm way better than the job!

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I put up with hellish demands and a nightmare commute because I thought working at Important Company was a privilege. And to so degree it was. But I don’t put up with bullshit anymore and that was a lesson I had to learn on my own, the hard way.

[–] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

yup - early on in my career, working at a specific FAANG company was my life's greatest ambition, now I don't think there's any amount of money they might feasibly offer me that would make me work there lol - Once you have enough income to be comfortable, work life balance is worth more than anything

[–] monkeytennis@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Had a convo with my mum last month, where she was concerned that I wasn't looking to supercharge my career as I enter my 40s. She couldn't understand why I'd declined an interview with Meta.

I had to spell it out.. I won't miss that extra money. I don't have an expensive lifestyle, and I don't want one. I'd miss the time lost with my kids, and I'd sure as shit regret the stress and anxiety of additional work pressure.

But then, I also had to explain why staying in an unhappy marriage "for the kids" is infinitely worse than peaceful and happy co-parenting.

Boomers. Sigh.