• CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    8 months ago

    Hiring budgets are often very different from operational budgets. The job you’re moving to for a 30% raise has the same policies as your current job; you’re just seeing the other side of it.

    • quicksand@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’ve come to understand that but it’s a foolish way of operating on their part

      • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        They only loss out on the ones that leave. They win big on the ones that stay.

        I wonder if anyone’s ever did the maths, I wouldn’t be surprised in many instances if it works out. However, it would be hard to estimate the impact of the employee resentment and loss due to losing knowledge.

        • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          8 months ago

          They have done the math.

          Over the long term, it costs them almost 4-5 times as much to hire a new employee. It takes most new employees 6-12 months to become as productive as their counterparts. Add the cost of recruiting, interviewing, performance management, etc. Giving a raise by far is the cheapest option.

          Long term.

          But quarterly profits will always, ALWAYS, supercede any long term investments.

          Why take the hit in your operating budget NOW when all you care about is making sure you’re hitting next quarter’s numbers? Hell, the employee leaving is going to lower your costs so it’s better for you in time for the shareholders’ meeting.

          • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Their goal is to get employees who get comfortable and will stick around for that 3% raise. Hiring someone new - even at a premium - gives them another shot at getting an employee who won’t demand a big raise later.

            As far as they’re concerned, someone who demands a 20% raise today will demand a 20% raise again the same time next year.

        • quicksand@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          Especially when the procedure are garbage written by people hired overseas at the bottom dollar that have never seen the machines. And on top of that there’s a lot of tribal knowledge. But I’m at the bottom of the chain looking up. I’m sure the bean counters have thought this all through already

    • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yes, middle management gets a bonus for keeping costs down, so it’s in their personal interest to refuse raises.

      The one in charge of hiring gets a bonus for bringing in people because work needs to be done and there aren’t enough workers.

      The incentives make the system as it is. And good long term incentives seem to be few and far between.