Login
`
Templates, Tools and Utilities
|
||
Icetips Article
Back to article list
Search Articles
Add Comment
Printer friendly
Direct link
Par2: Reply to "Use VB" 1999-10-27 -- Roberto Artigas Jr. >Their logic is "when your gone we need to be able to find someone to
>work on it." I can't argue with that. There are 1000 times more VB
>programmers than Clarion.
Heavenes - And that logic is based on several things -
1) They know that ---most--- companies policies makes sure salary compresion
happens. Over time they know that your salary will not keep up with the
market and rather than give you a raise to compensate they let you leave and
hire a new person to replace you. After all, as salary compresion is
happening, they are getting more BANG for the BUCK. And they would not want
a technical employee that they manage to be making more that them, the
manager in charge. Regardles of the value of the techie (and the return on
investment) to the company.
2) They have never factored in education and the time that it takes to learn
the particular processes for their industry and procedures of their
companies. Everyone that has factored it in has very quickly figured out
that it is more cost effective to give that 25% raise to an individual that
is already trained than to give a 30% raise necessary to get a new
individual at current market rates that knows nothing about how the company
works or the industry. It is higher if the individual knows your industry.
This is based on an average employee turn around of 2-1/2 to 5 years. God
help you if you are in a HOT tech field in which talent is scarce.
3) If you can not keep your people, salary policies, benefit polices,
management policies are poor as compared to someone else. And most of the
time you will get what you pay for. Very seldom do you get lucky, and new
entries will leave you within 1 to 2 years. Fact of life. They know they are
underpaid because of the experience factor, so they get experience and they
know they can not get a raise where they are, so they leave.
4) There is no longer any loyalty to the company. And they created their own
problem. After 2 to 3 decades of companies downsizing, focusing on the
bottom line, and where is the money attidude, and no loyalty to employees,
most individuals got it. It is the money, so most individuals now focus on
the money, and their bottom line. Tit-for-Tat. Welcome to reality.
5) While most of the individuals on these newgroups are MUCH, MUCH better
than the average indivuals as far as cooperation, work ethics, knowledge,
and just plain tenacity and determination to get something done, the average
individual out there stinks. We just hired the two newbie programers. No
experience whatsoever. And we got real lucky. They both had worked at pizza
hut. Anyone that has done that type of work knows what that means. So I
asked them for three things that they liked and disliked about working
there. Nothing to do with data processing there. The responses I got told me
about the type of work ethic they had and what was important to them. They
exceeded my thresh-holds.
6) So is some tells you that: "when your gone we need to be able to find
someone to work on it." They do not want a working relationship, they want
a commodity. If in their thinking they want a commodity, in their thinking
they are a commodity. It works both ways. And ---reality--- will be more
than happy over the long term to teach them that it really does not work
that way in this industry. That they admit it or not is irrelevant. And as
they cycle through all those individuals they are going to barelly keep
their systems runing day-to-day. Not much time to do long term planning when
your teaching the bussiness over and over again to someone new.
7) So when someone uses that argument, smile. Politely hand them you card,
and say to them when you want results, and somenone that is willing to stick
with them for the long run, give me a call. I will be expensive, and I am
worth it, and you will make a good return on the investment.
I got away from me.
Today is November 21, 2024, 3:37 am This article has been viewed 35231 times.
|
|