So much this. The people higher up the ladder are too detached about working conditions and expectations. They are often gatekeeping others growth based on nonsense. Often come up with bullshit policies to squeeze productivity.
We can all see the ineptitude of management (the higher in the ladder they are, the worse they are). If we could fire them, we would.
Too many people glorify staying at one employer for a substantial length of time. What people are doing now is what they should have done long ago: switch jobs if you're not comfortable with your work environment or pay. This also happens to re-calibrate your position in the job market so if you were being underpaid relative to the market you'll get a fair wage by forcing competition among employers.
Your “get right back on the horse attitude” is good. I’ve been on both sides of interviews so many times. There’s a huge component of random crap and if you’re rusty it might take a bit to get back into it.
Too much random crap. My last interview devolved into: "What do you think of Agile?", "What would be your perfect job?", and "Would you use .Net for a new project?"
> Too many people glorify staying at one employer for a substantial length of time.
Maybe. But I wonder whether others don't glorify job changes as the cure-all for work related problems.
I've seen a number of friends change jobs with some regularity. In some cases, they got out of really bad situations into something obviously better. But that seems to be the exception.
More frequently, the previous underlying problems (their attitude toward work, or toward co-workers, or systemic issues in the industry) re-emerged quickly in the new job.
Somewhere in between are the "serial monogamists" of employees: They start a new job, are quite happy with it, after a few years, dissatisfaction starts creeping in, and they look for a new job and start over. For them, changing jobs regularly also might make sense.
I don't think employers deserve to be compared to spouses.
My spouse is kind, loyal, and behaves thoughtfully and with perfect integrity towards me. Because she saw my value and it was worth everything to her.
My employer is a legal abstraction run by sociopaths who, when the rubber meets the road, time and again show no kindness, loyalty, thoughtfulness, or integrity whatsoever. Far from sharing fairly with me, like my spouse, I am sure they would happily murder me to make an extra buck. Profit maximization is the only principle to which they submit.
I stick around for the paycheck. I will leave the moment I get offered a bigger one. Because it's what I want, and it's what they deserve.
Maybe some day I will be lucky enough to work for an organization whose values and behavior in the world I respect. I will contemplate loyalty at that time and not before.
Toward the top or at the top they look at dollars and cents, keeping investors happy. They are too detached from the people actually doing the work to understand when then harshly and coldly grind out a bit more profit for their bonus that actual people, just like them, bear the burden.
Toss in all the algorithmic cloud management of the people and they get completely disconnected from their workforce.
Agree 100%. I’m at the tail end of fours years at a FAANG and have worked with several different teams.
I’m always dumfounded by the fact that people even one or two levels above me (Director or Sr. Manager level) don’t even have a basic understanding of the impact that their ‘goals’ have on the people who actually deliver them.
Of course they praise us for delivering during challenging times, but then they go and setup a roadmap for the next year that creates the same situation.
This coupled with the absurd income disparity between internal employees and new hires is finally starting to burn me out.
That last sentence, do you mean internal employees are paid less than new hires due to rising starting salaries? Or that new hires are paid little compared to long time employees?
Don't work in FAANG but have worked (and work) for semi-global and global tech companies: it's always the case that new hires 2 years later get a higher starting salary than most of the seasoned staff.
I don't understand why tech companies keep doing this but it's a constant in my life, you get hired with a pretty decent salary, 2 years down the line and with a lot more subject matter knowledge and your salary is now lower than the new hire on the same level as you. It just creates churn, my previous employer was so guilty of this that employees started an anonymous spreadsheet for people to input: current level, years in the company, current salary. With that we concluded that it was a general practice that new people were being paid more than experienced ones, it got to a point where the company had to give raises across the board to level up salaries, I got a retroactive 15% raise after I had put my notice already.
It is a shitshow, it alienates and punishes people like me, that really don't enjoy jumping jobs every 2 years just to get a raise, I like to get expertise until I become comfortable with my work environment and subject matter knowledge, that's when I'm most productive.
This exactly. It’s an ongoing internal debate for me and a conversation with my significant other who is in the same industry.
If I wanted to stay somewhere for 5 years or more, I have to deal with a massive pay cut at the 4 year mark (equity cliff).
Then I have to be okay with getting paid much less than new hires being brought in to do the same work as me. Of course I have more internal org knowledge and subject matter expertise which should warrant comp being equalized accordingly.
Even though I like my team and work, I just can’t reconcile letting my pay lag behind the market for too long before I’m >50% behind what I should be making.
When it comes down to it, the only tangible item I have to exchange for my time and brain power is money.
1000%. I actually love my work and hours and pay, but am leaving strictly because of how petty and dishonest my boss is. I seriously find out all news and happenings via weird he said she said underground channels. I swear it's rage inducing watching a 60 year old "professional" behave like a 12 year old gossiper.
I know most people think that's crazy, just ignore them...but man, it's just not worth my blood pressure spiking and lack of sleep anymore. At this point I don't even know who I hate more, him or my company for being so oblivious to it.
This, my boss got out of the country several time, and worked from home during the mandatory travel quarantine. When we asked to go we had to do the travel quarantine as unpaid days. Even though there is absolutely no issue working from home, and we do when it suits him
I saw a hiring sign at giant eagle the other day that actually said "its better than benifits, it's belonging!" in reference to the workforce being a family. I just can't imagine the people who would unironicaaly push this as a ad for a near min wage job with no benifits, as if your giant eagle family will pitch in to pay your medical bills in lieu of insurance. This kind of ignoring reality for happy fantasies marketing is just getting worse and worse and now it's just becoming a outright joke.
As a European, I've never really understood how Americans could actually not be utterly exhausted with two weeks of paid vacations. Or are working hours shorter? Or is it that most companies provide 4 or 5 weeks evenif the law mandates a lot less?
I've been told by American friends that it wasn't as bad in practice since 'their companies gave them 3 weeks, and quite quickly 4, and it was actually pretty common' but it wasn't clear to me that it wasn't purely anecdotal/branch specific.
Some companies will offer either an annual increase in the number of paid vacation days based on seniority/time employed, a generous allowance from the start, or just the fabled "unlimited" vacation days.
There are also all the national holidays that result in 3-day weekends, the week long vacation that is Thanksgiving for many workers, as well as Christmas shutdowns.
It really varies on the industry/job-type, but the bare minimum two weeks of paid vacation can be found in many other places too.
Something that gets missed a lot in these conversations is that hourly workers are often on a vacation accrual type system. Time worked = time vacation earned at a certain ratio. The more senior you become, the higher that ratio. This is anecdata, but I've seen guys be able to take a week-long vacation every three months without ever depleting their two week allowance because they have "refilled" their vacation time by that point.
For job offers that can be negotiated prior to going in, it's been observed that some people might have completely, almost wildly, different vacation plans than what is standard because of what they negotiated at the offer-stage of their employment.
That all being said, I'd rather much have just a simpler, 4-5 week standard across the board vacation law. Would cut the headache out of trying to figure out vacation accrual vs. usage ratios, play guessing games on exactly how unlimited that unlimited plan is, random gossip of that ONE guy at work who's on some different vacation plan because he strongarmed HR during hiring to get it, etc.
Here in the EU, it is common to have >25d/y holiday. Some data I came across by living in multiple EU countries:
* Austria 25d/y, 38.5h/w.
* France: 25d/y, 35h/w
* Germany: 30d/y, 40h/w.
Good point. I’ve lived in countries with more than the US as well and definitely think we should get more here.
The work culture here also views vacations in a different way too. The number of people I’ve heard bemoaning our European counterparts for taking too many vacations is not a trivial number…
“Man, I can’t even go 1 week without getting bored! Why are they always on vacation!”
Maybe the US is just a nation run by workaholics enabled by workaholics beneath them trying to get there spot and everyone else cargo-culting or being browbeaten into being a workaholic.
American companies tend to give employees as little as possible. Two weeks vacation is 10 days and you may be on call on the last weekend of that. Then you might get a few sick days but it's never enough if you actually get sick with the flu or Covid. So, many of us have to go to work sick or use vacation days. Nobody wants to use vacation while sick, so other people at work get sick because we go to work sick.
And then your vacation has to be approved. I had a manager who would only approve 1 week of vacation at a time. He said 2 weeks off is too long away from work.
So, it varies from one company to another, but generally it's not good because there's too much bullshit involved.
2 weeks paid vacation is a luxury reserved for those who have made it into an upper middle class office job- most blue collar jobs like restocking shelves offer no paid vacation at all, and many offer no maternity leave or health care either. You can always tell a working class person by their teeth, which by their late 30’s will have started falling out.
"You can always tell a working class person by their teeth, which by their late 30’s will have started falling out." that seems to me a tragedy especially in such a rich country as USA. wonder if its lack of dental cover, or soft drinks , or bit of both? I remember as a kid at school when someone's baby tooth falls out and they bring it in, leave it in a glass of coke, and in frighteningly short time the whole thing is dissolved.
You get 1/2 weeks paid at chic fila as a cashier. Grocery stores ie stocking shelves full time is also the same at nearly every chain. Tradesman have it better.
As a Brit who worked in US late 90s-early 00s , some things I noticed: (a) US was 40 hrs/wk, equiv to 3 weeks extra at work per year compared to UK's 37-37.5 standard hrs. (b) Plus sometimes "yeah, I'm also gonna need you to go ahead and come in at the weekend, m'kay", although you can simply refuse. What they gonna do, fire you? Maybe, but maybe not if you got skills and are doing useful work the rest of the time. (c) Compared to UK, in USA people seemed to waste tons of time at work, faffing about, pointless meetings, playing table football, blatantly making personal phone calls e:g to sort out insurance or something, presenteeism, just being there because you're meant to, but too tired to do anything useful, fixing bugs that wouldn't have existed had people gone home at sensible time and not made mistakes under pressure. I got extra holidays by various means including job-hops, 1 was by choice, other the place went bust, took some unpaid leave too. 1 year only had 4 weeks vacation, but quit that job and did long road trip the following year. Many Americans seemed to get their fair share of vacation by job-hopping, contracting, even quitting job to go travelling then call the same employer when they felt like coming back. If you stay in the same job for years your vacation entitlement is rubbish. The problem of course happens if you have a family and need some stability. But I suppose if you're frugal, don't have a huge mortgage, spouse has good skills too, you might both be able to keep job-hopping if that's what it takes to get decent time off. Whole system seems a bit daft to me really.
>> their companies gave them 3 weeks, and quite quickly 4, and it was actually pretty common
That's pretty common in non-MAMMON tech jobs. I think my first non-intern coding job it was 3 weeks that went to 4 after a couple years, then when I had more senior roles it was 4 or 5 weeks to start. Current job is 5 weeks with an option to buy another week.
When I was working class, it was two weeks, but I would get laid off for a month or two a year, so it was more managing money to have enough to supplement unemployment insurance during the layoff in order to be able to enjoy the time off.
People used to work 12+ hour days, six days a week. Farmers still do, in some cases. It's all about expectations, really.
There have been times in my life that I didn't use vacation because I didn't have enough money to take a vacation that I thought would be fun. In four years of medical residency (aka junior doctor), I think I took three weeks off? I could never take more than one week off at a time, or the month would not count toward my educational requirements. So, why take a week off to sit at the house doing nothing?
I have a lot more time off now, as a fully qualified specialist, but I'm hostage to her schedule for trips, I have to pick my vacation weeks (and yes, I have to take a full week or nothing) a full year in advance, and COVID restrictions have well and truly fucked the kind of travel we did pre-2020. I had two weeks off in September, a reservation made a year before in the hopes that all of this would have been over by then, and I did little things around the house. Frankly, I would just as soon have been at work. The biggest benefit I got was sleeping in, which is nice, but I've been waking up at 5:30 for nearly twenty years, so "sleeping in" is 7 at the latest, and I usually don't make it that far.
As a european you can't understand how America still has slavery, you mean, right?
Cause that's what it is... exhaustion, depression, anxiety, burnout is par for the course with being American, I'll even go out on a limb and say that fixing this and mental health in America would do more for extremely strict gun laws.
People in their right mind don't do this shit. We're not in our right minds (collectively, and it'll be a long time - if ever - before we are.).
We should offer as many people as possible both mental and physical challenges. If one does to much mental work one burns out and lacks exercise. If one does to much physical labor one gets injuries and intellect declines. Doing the same work for years is boring and makes it harder to switch. You get stuck in a boring job.
It would also be eye opening for desk workers to do mindless physical grunt work. A few days of conveyor belt or hurling heavy objects could go a long way towards loving your desk job while also a welcome distraction from it.
Likewise, someone hurling heavy objects all week could do some basic data entry, man the phone line or do some other simple desk work. Get a basic feeling for the complexity of the organization.
It doesn't have to be more efficient immediately. In the long run more work will get done with less effort.
46 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 104 ms ] threadWe can all see the ineptitude of management (the higher in the ladder they are, the worse they are). If we could fire them, we would.
It was good to break the streak though. Already setting up interviews at my next target.
Your “get right back on the horse attitude” is good. I’ve been on both sides of interviews so many times. There’s a huge component of random crap and if you’re rusty it might take a bit to get back into it.
I was expecting a technical interview.
Maybe. But I wonder whether others don't glorify job changes as the cure-all for work related problems.
I've seen a number of friends change jobs with some regularity. In some cases, they got out of really bad situations into something obviously better. But that seems to be the exception.
More frequently, the previous underlying problems (their attitude toward work, or toward co-workers, or systemic issues in the industry) re-emerged quickly in the new job.
Somewhere in between are the "serial monogamists" of employees: They start a new job, are quite happy with it, after a few years, dissatisfaction starts creeping in, and they look for a new job and start over. For them, changing jobs regularly also might make sense.
My spouse is kind, loyal, and behaves thoughtfully and with perfect integrity towards me. Because she saw my value and it was worth everything to her.
My employer is a legal abstraction run by sociopaths who, when the rubber meets the road, time and again show no kindness, loyalty, thoughtfulness, or integrity whatsoever. Far from sharing fairly with me, like my spouse, I am sure they would happily murder me to make an extra buck. Profit maximization is the only principle to which they submit.
I stick around for the paycheck. I will leave the moment I get offered a bigger one. Because it's what I want, and it's what they deserve.
Maybe some day I will be lucky enough to work for an organization whose values and behavior in the world I respect. I will contemplate loyalty at that time and not before.
Toss in all the algorithmic cloud management of the people and they get completely disconnected from their workforce.
I’m always dumfounded by the fact that people even one or two levels above me (Director or Sr. Manager level) don’t even have a basic understanding of the impact that their ‘goals’ have on the people who actually deliver them.
Of course they praise us for delivering during challenging times, but then they go and setup a roadmap for the next year that creates the same situation.
This coupled with the absurd income disparity between internal employees and new hires is finally starting to burn me out.
I don't understand why tech companies keep doing this but it's a constant in my life, you get hired with a pretty decent salary, 2 years down the line and with a lot more subject matter knowledge and your salary is now lower than the new hire on the same level as you. It just creates churn, my previous employer was so guilty of this that employees started an anonymous spreadsheet for people to input: current level, years in the company, current salary. With that we concluded that it was a general practice that new people were being paid more than experienced ones, it got to a point where the company had to give raises across the board to level up salaries, I got a retroactive 15% raise after I had put my notice already.
It is a shitshow, it alienates and punishes people like me, that really don't enjoy jumping jobs every 2 years just to get a raise, I like to get expertise until I become comfortable with my work environment and subject matter knowledge, that's when I'm most productive.
If I wanted to stay somewhere for 5 years or more, I have to deal with a massive pay cut at the 4 year mark (equity cliff).
Then I have to be okay with getting paid much less than new hires being brought in to do the same work as me. Of course I have more internal org knowledge and subject matter expertise which should warrant comp being equalized accordingly.
Even though I like my team and work, I just can’t reconcile letting my pay lag behind the market for too long before I’m >50% behind what I should be making.
When it comes down to it, the only tangible item I have to exchange for my time and brain power is money.
I know most people think that's crazy, just ignore them...but man, it's just not worth my blood pressure spiking and lack of sleep anymore. At this point I don't even know who I hate more, him or my company for being so oblivious to it.
I've been told by American friends that it wasn't as bad in practice since 'their companies gave them 3 weeks, and quite quickly 4, and it was actually pretty common' but it wasn't clear to me that it wasn't purely anecdotal/branch specific.
If anyone knows, I'm quite interested!
There are also all the national holidays that result in 3-day weekends, the week long vacation that is Thanksgiving for many workers, as well as Christmas shutdowns.
It really varies on the industry/job-type, but the bare minimum two weeks of paid vacation can be found in many other places too.
Something that gets missed a lot in these conversations is that hourly workers are often on a vacation accrual type system. Time worked = time vacation earned at a certain ratio. The more senior you become, the higher that ratio. This is anecdata, but I've seen guys be able to take a week-long vacation every three months without ever depleting their two week allowance because they have "refilled" their vacation time by that point.
For job offers that can be negotiated prior to going in, it's been observed that some people might have completely, almost wildly, different vacation plans than what is standard because of what they negotiated at the offer-stage of their employment.
That all being said, I'd rather much have just a simpler, 4-5 week standard across the board vacation law. Would cut the headache out of trying to figure out vacation accrual vs. usage ratios, play guessing games on exactly how unlimited that unlimited plan is, random gossip of that ONE guy at work who's on some different vacation plan because he strongarmed HR during hiring to get it, etc.
Yes, but other parts of the world have them as well. Most EU countries have >13, while US has 12, according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...
Here in the EU, it is common to have >25d/y holiday. Some data I came across by living in multiple EU countries: * Austria 25d/y, 38.5h/w. * France: 25d/y, 35h/w * Germany: 30d/y, 40h/w.
The work culture here also views vacations in a different way too. The number of people I’ve heard bemoaning our European counterparts for taking too many vacations is not a trivial number…
“Man, I can’t even go 1 week without getting bored! Why are they always on vacation!”
Maybe the US is just a nation run by workaholics enabled by workaholics beneath them trying to get there spot and everyone else cargo-culting or being browbeaten into being a workaholic.
And then your vacation has to be approved. I had a manager who would only approve 1 week of vacation at a time. He said 2 weeks off is too long away from work.
So, it varies from one company to another, but generally it's not good because there's too much bullshit involved.
American law doesn’t mandate any vacation leave.
That's pretty common in non-MAMMON tech jobs. I think my first non-intern coding job it was 3 weeks that went to 4 after a couple years, then when I had more senior roles it was 4 or 5 weeks to start. Current job is 5 weeks with an option to buy another week.
When I was working class, it was two weeks, but I would get laid off for a month or two a year, so it was more managing money to have enough to supplement unemployment insurance during the layoff in order to be able to enjoy the time off.
There have been times in my life that I didn't use vacation because I didn't have enough money to take a vacation that I thought would be fun. In four years of medical residency (aka junior doctor), I think I took three weeks off? I could never take more than one week off at a time, or the month would not count toward my educational requirements. So, why take a week off to sit at the house doing nothing?
I have a lot more time off now, as a fully qualified specialist, but I'm hostage to her schedule for trips, I have to pick my vacation weeks (and yes, I have to take a full week or nothing) a full year in advance, and COVID restrictions have well and truly fucked the kind of travel we did pre-2020. I had two weeks off in September, a reservation made a year before in the hopes that all of this would have been over by then, and I did little things around the house. Frankly, I would just as soon have been at work. The biggest benefit I got was sleeping in, which is nice, but I've been waking up at 5:30 for nearly twenty years, so "sleeping in" is 7 at the latest, and I usually don't make it that far.
Cause that's what it is... exhaustion, depression, anxiety, burnout is par for the course with being American, I'll even go out on a limb and say that fixing this and mental health in America would do more for extremely strict gun laws.
People in their right mind don't do this shit. We're not in our right minds (collectively, and it'll be a long time - if ever - before we are.).
It would also be eye opening for desk workers to do mindless physical grunt work. A few days of conveyor belt or hurling heavy objects could go a long way towards loving your desk job while also a welcome distraction from it.
Likewise, someone hurling heavy objects all week could do some basic data entry, man the phone line or do some other simple desk work. Get a basic feeling for the complexity of the organization.
It doesn't have to be more efficient immediately. In the long run more work will get done with less effort.