- cross-posted to:
- dundermifflin@lemm.ee
You must log in or register to comment.
Yes you should take it, if you got no other options.
Then you immediately update your CV with your new job title and jump ship for more pay. If the orginal company offers to match the pay you say “you had the chance to pay me more. If you valued me that much, you could have paid me that much from the start”
I cannot understand why this is so hard to get. People on here whining about their employer using them. Well, yes they are. Use them back. It’s just business, it’s expected on both sides of the table.
Last three times I jumped, I increased my pay by $12 -> $22 -> $32. I could go again, but I’m kinda fat, happy and lazy ATM.
Don’t go back on your intent to leave for a better job. Some employers will see you as disloyal if you take the raise and stay. You’re usually better off leaving anyway.
There is rarely a situation where you should allow your employer to match the offer you have in hand.
They had the opportunity to do so and then failed to properly retain you. If they realize how much losing you will cost them in productivity, that’s on them, not you.
It’s not personal. It’s literally business.
Yep. Soon as you commit to looking, you commit to leaving.
I told my last supervisor about every interview I was on; how it went, what I thought, etc. After a year I left abruptly (ie the pace at which they’d fire me). They were surprised, even after I’d been telling my supe about my hunting for a year.
If it’s a promotion to less work, maybe.
Maybe.
I’d only accept a “dry promotion” to improve my resume. Then I’d quit.
Kind of an odd article, as sometimes there really are reasonable times for a “promotion” with little/no pay increase.
A lot of manual labor and trades positions require experienced people to be management, supervisors, etc. When you take a promotion in a field like this you might have “more responsibility” but the same pay, and that makes sense. Why? Well - because you’re not fucking breaking your back or manning a line all day. I think most people who have worked one of these jobs sees that as reasonable.
Unfortunately, most journalists and many people making online posts about the topic are people who have really only ever worked behind a computer, or ever worked in a big city - so these articles tend to focus on that kind of “technocrat” job sphere where everyone is just some variation of “computer manager person”
Hatred of intellectual elites is one of the signs of fascism, BTW.
Anyway, you are not paid for breaking your back, you’re paid for having a valuable skill. If that skill is just being a grunt, everyone can do it, you are replaceable. If that skill is managing grunts, only few can do it, you are less replaceable, thus can get a higher pay.
If you really think, moving into a superior role doesn’t deserve more pay, you are being fucked by your employer. You don’t understand the system you’re working in and you’re lashing out against those stoopid office workers because you don’t understand that they are not responsible for your misery, your boss is.
No one is hating intellectual elites here. You are not an intellectual elite by virtue of being a computer programmer.
There’s a sharp divide between “computer socialists” and “blue collar socialists” in my opinion. You are the former, I am the latter. I understand that the person managing the laborers and the laborers themselves are probably entitled to roughly the same pay - as laboring fucking blows. You believe that the “managerial” class should always make more and more money.
Compared to a factory worker, of course a well paid developer is an elite.
The divide you’re trying to create here is bullshit. Mostly because we’re not talking about any form of socialism, but about the real world of capitalism we’re both living in.
And a foreman is no “managerial” class. Just a better qualified worker. Nothing more.
You glorify physical labor for no reason.
No one but you considers developers “elites” lmfao. Most laughable programmer
That’s why there’s a qualifying context in my statement.
But apparently, context isn’t your strong suit.
I don’t think anyone in the world would consider you an intellectual
I don’t think that’s on you to decide.
Intellectual does not mean “having a PhD in sociology and literature”, it means “working with your mind”. That’s why there’s a suspiciously close relation with the word “intelligence”.
