[HN Gopher] Cost of Attrition ___________________________________________________________________ Cost of Attrition Author : benjiweber Score : 231 points Date : 2022-01-13 17:07 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (benjiweber.co.uk) (TXT) w3m dump (benjiweber.co.uk) | throwaway984393 wrote: | Thank you for posting the blog version | cwillu wrote: | "This post is also available as a Twitter Thread" struck me as | nonsensical as a restaurant saying "This meal is also available | as a taxi ride". | rob74 wrote: | More like "this meal is also available to go, but we put it in | 15 packages, each containing three spoonfuls"... | angarg12 wrote: | The article doesn't mention the double whammy of losing well | connected engineers: morale and ripple effect. When a high | performed with a good network leaves a company, it usually | encourage others to leave as well. | enord wrote: | Just look at FAANG: Retain developers at (almost) any cost. | | Pay developers like it's monopoly money. | | You could call this "The benefit of retention", though that may | be a bit reductive. | throw8932894 wrote: | More accessible option is to pay former developers for | consulting. | daemin wrote: | I would say that's because they would prefer the employees to | create another project internally than leave and potentially | create a competitor or even a more successful service that | they'll need to spend billions on to purchase. | Jensson wrote: | > Just look at FAANG: Retain developers at (almost) any cost. | | That isn't true at all. FAANG pays a lot for you to join them | and give good raises, but they don't pay extra to make you stay | instead of leaving for another FAANG. So there is still a lot | of churn at FAANG. | enord wrote: | Well, you've reduced competition for employees from THE REST | OF THE WORLD to a handful of companies, the executives of | which you met for golf and sherry last Tuesday. | xenadu02 wrote: | > FAANG pays a lot for you to join them and give good raises, | but they don't pay extra to make you stay instead of leaving | for another FAANG | | No, they just choose who to reward according to whatever | their metrics are and how someone's management chain chooses | to apply those metrics. These rewards are explicitly stock- | based to help with retention. | | Some examples: | | - Have a "top talent" marker, managers get N% of their | headcount to distribute each year. Anyone with the marker get | more comp than their peers. - Create stock and bonus bands | based on your rating and level, then heavily reward high | senior bands compared to others. - Create a special retention | program for specific areas of tech (eg ML) or for senior | engineers who "cap out". Anyone in these programs gets a | boost to comp. | | These things can be combined such that you can have 2x-5x | differences in compensation for two engineers in the same | department at the same nominal level, sometimes with small | differences in performance ratings. | | When used correctly as intended programs like this reward | people who work the hardest, are the best at what they do, or | who will cause the most pain if they leave the company. If | used incorrectly they become a tool for managers to reward | their friends/sycophants. If a manager doesn't think about | how to use them at all then it becomes a random walk, biased | toward whatever you happened to do around review time. | | But no the FAANG companies are absolutely aware of the | effects of retention and deploy resources to retain employees | they think are important, at least at a high level. Sometimes | those efforts don't reach the right people and sometimes your | estimation of who is important is not aligned with the | company's view. | Jensson wrote: | Doesn't mention the benefits of attrition. A network can be | robust since none of the pieces leaves, but what is even more | robust is a network that constantly renews itself and gracefully | handles the process of swapping out parts. Constant attrition | means that your company never starts relying on individuals, | instead the process survives and thrives on its own, hiring new | people who then hire new people before they leave etc. Such a | process isn't very attractive to individuals, of course, but they | are very attractive to the owners. | Melkman wrote: | I don't think it works like that. Constant attrition does not | prevent your company from relying on individuals. You don't | fire you good employees and they won't leave if it's a | worthwhile job. With constant attrition you get a core group | you rely on. However that group is not as productive as they | could be because they spend a lot of time training and | integrating new employees that don't stay. | ikr678 wrote: | That sort of anti-fragility isnt a guaranteed outcome of | attrition though. You can just as easily be left with a pool of | under-performers that can't/won't leave, while talent moves to | organisations that invest more in staff vs processes. | spaetzleesser wrote: | That's a management pipe dream. The software verification teams | at my company have very high attrition rates and it's getting | really tiring to deal with newbies who don't understand the | product or why things are the way they are. You can't really | replace experience with process. It works well only in very | simple and well understood cases. | tangjurine wrote: | Think about having a robust network like being able to fly. | | You don't develop the ability to fly by placing yourself in | positions that require flying... | | Most companies that have lots of attrition have bad processes | in place and are suffering due to attrition, although I think | there are some companies that are developed enough to benefit | from attrition like you described. | jackblemming wrote: | Do you have any evidence to your claim? It's possible to ad hoc | rationalize pretty much anything. | | A real statistic _against_ your claim is one of the highest | predictors of defects in a code base is whether or not the | original team is still working on it. | Jensson wrote: | > highest predictors of defects in a code base is whether or | not the original team is still working on it. | | Defects is a metric businesses doesn't care much about. If | you have a good team that can create products customers | wants, then it is better to have them keep making new | products rather than maintain what they already have, then | you can have less productive engineers perform maintenance, | defects might go up but this way you will have way more | products which businesses seems to care more about. | | You would have a point if maintenance was something companies | cared deeply about, but they don't. They want new products, | and company specific knowledge doesn't seem to be very | valuable there. | enord wrote: | >Defects is a metric businesses doesn't care much about. | | This depends on both the defect and the business. Just | because critical regressions and recurring denial of | service has become normalized as somehow par for the course | in our line of business does not mean it comes without | cost. It's all situational and subject to calculated | tradeoffs but every shop i've worked with/in has classes of | defects on the "Never Again" list, and sometimes on the | "NEVER EVER EVER AT ANY COST" list. | bdavis__ wrote: | from a different angle: "non original team" might have | higher defects, but i propose that "non original team" | without process or time to understand the code base would | be more accurate. | | changing people requires a time investment. and the | learning curve is steep at the beginning | bncy wrote: | Not to mention vision that will change due to new ideas or | influence that new staff brings to the team. It's not always | beneficial for the project. It can go wrong in so many ways | that it ends up being dead. | | Don't get me wrong, change is good but too much change is | just too much to handle sometimes. | anyonecancode wrote: | I think the rate of attrition matters. Too little change and | you get stagnation -- you do need that ongoing renewal you call | out, and the incentive to create good processes. There is a | tipping point though, where attrition isn't renewal, it's | erosion. It's the difference between "small fires that clear | out the undergrowth and a few large trees" vs "large fires that | denude a hillside that then destabilizes into a mudslide." | nindalf wrote: | > very attractive to the owners | | And yet I've worked at software companies that will go to great | lengths to avoid attrition. For exactly the reasons mentioned | in the post, they encourage people to move to other teams to | build up the inter connectedness of teams while keeping | employees motivated and engaged. In fact, even if you weren't | looking HR would reach out and ask if you were interested in | looking at other teams within the company because you had been | in your current team for 18 months. | | Side note I don't know if I've just been lucky but I can't | relate to this talk of "companies are evil and act maliciously | against their employees at every opportunity". That hasn't been | true _in my experience_. | Jochim wrote: | > Side note I don't know if I've just been lucky but I can't | relate to this talk of "companies are evil and act | maliciously against their employees at every opportunity". | That hasn't been true in my experience. | | I think this heavily depends on the type of industry you work | in. In some industries the abuse is so normalised that | everyone takes it for granted. | | In retail you have the example of companies scheduling | workers just under the number of hours at which they'd | qualify for insurance or other benefits. | | Hospitality work often expects you to be available any time | they're short staffed, if you aren't you'll probably find | your shifts cut. | | On the white collar side last year we heard about junior | analysts at Goldman Sachs being made to work 100+ hour | weeks[1]. | | Game development is widely avoided due to a similarly toxic | work culture, where you'll often be forced to "crunch" for | long periods of time[2]. The worse places will also lay you | off after the game has shipped. | | At the software companies I've worked the biggest issues have | been terrible raises for current employees, to the point that | graduates were being paid the same or much more than people | with 3+ years of experience. | | [1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/18/group- | of-ju... [2] https://www.polygon.com/2020/12/4/21575914/cyber | punk-2077-re... | wbl wrote: | My past company tried to present these moves as a career | option while failing to come up with a guide to promotion, | and not really having the higher level of technical job. I | changed jobs and got three promotions in five minutes by | accident. | bradleyjg wrote: | _Side note I don't know if I've just been lucky but I can't | relate to this talk of "companies are evil and act | maliciously against their employees at every opportunity". | That hasn't been true in my experience._ | | I think there's a combination of some people with really bad | experiences and a larger group of people that exaggerate. | | That said, it's a fact of the contemporary employment market | that most companies do compensation such that sticking around | in one place means making significantly less money then | moving around all the time. Companies bring new people in at | higher comp but don't push the comp of existing people doing | those jobs to the same level even if those existing employees | are performing well. I don't think this is evil or malicious | but it certainly feels hostile. | Jensson wrote: | > For exactly the reasons mentioned in the post, they | encourage people to move to other teams to build up the inter | connectedness of teams while keeping employees motivated and | engaged. | | That isn't to avoid churn, that is to have more people around | in general. If you leave your old team it means you no longer | use your knowledge, the important part is to have engineers | around, not to have the same engineers working on the same | tasks. | | For example, Google encourages churn by making it really easy | to move to other teams in other areas. You don't talk to your | old team again, so that is effectively the same thing as you | leaving the company and them getting a new engineer, ie for | the teams it is equivalent to churn. | enord wrote: | Military veterans of some theater of war are desired | exactly because they will perform well in the next theater | of war. | | I don't think i can fully appreciate how mind-bogglingly | huge a company like Google is, so it might well be the case | that tacit knowledge, skills and relations acquired in one | team don't transfer meaningfully to another. I would have | to see it to be convinced however, even more so to make me | believe this kind of transfer was the norm. | michaelt wrote: | _> If you leave your old team it means you no longer use | your knowledge,_ | | If you move from Team A to Team B, you may not use your | knowledge of the details of their codebase. | | But you know precisely how to sort out the problems caused | by the company's weird internal certificate authority, and | their weird internal deployment tools, their weird internal | inter-service auth system, and their weird internal multi- | cloud system. That 'secure' way of managing secrets in | production that makes 'unauthorized' errors almost | impossible to debug? You know how to debug it. You know how | to operate the purchasing system so your orders go through | right the first time. You know precisely what the criteria | are to get your subordinates promoted, and how to coach | them to meet the criteria. | | That can be worth a lot, when it comes to getting things | done. | datavirtue wrote: | Hmmm...I and a few other top developers on a corporate team | just left a project and company because we were being | mindlessly driven by management. | | Management really tried to be accommodating, transparent, and | woke in their treatment of employees but the work load was just | too much. One sprint into the next without any breath in | between. | | Tenure averaged about one year on the team. The project has | been going without release for three or four years. | | The only people left are juniors (college grads basically) who | don't realize how bad it is wrecking their health. | | The only thing keeping their main SME dev is the generous PTO. | She is always out sick, randomly. A lot of it was obviously the | stress. She would always let out this lengthy loud exhale on | calls and in grooming sessions. When I started doing that I | began the exit. | mooreds wrote: | This is very true. Attrition helps with cross pollination as | well as enforcing process and knowledge sharing. | | However, I'd submit that it doesn't matter how good the docs | and process are, you're going to lose a lot when an engineer | who has been at a company for, say, 3+ years leaves: | | * historical knowledge * personal relationships * intuition | about the systems | | Some things you can't get except by putting in the time. | gostsamo wrote: | In order for a part to be entirely interchangible, you should | choose the smallest common denominator of all parts to rely on | as the highest value that you can get from one. I think that | one must find an equilibrium but it requires active management | and careful thinking to be executed properly. | laurent92 wrote: | Or to have great onboarding, people learn a lot, are | effective quickly, and leave after learning enough. The know- | how is then embedded in the process not in people, which | guarantees stability, while people are guaranteed to change. | gostsamo wrote: | If you can embed all of your organization's knowledge in a | few weeks of a single person's study, then you don't have | much knowledge to begin with. Such stuff might be good for | a small factory, but for nothing more complex than that. | enord wrote: | I mean, for assembly-line production this might ring true (I | wouldn't know, never did it). But for what one might reasonably | categorize as "knowledge work", my experience is that knowledge | reigns supreme. Some of that knowledge is shared by a whole | community of practitioners, other parts of it is local and | contextualized. This part probably makes up a sizable | proportion of an organizations competitive advantage. | | To make workers replaceable is to rely mostly on the knowledge | you can reasonably expect to regain on rehire. Remember: | Management (up to owner-management) are also workers, so | running some kind of special culture-and-knowledge preserving | uber-organization is predicated on somehow retaining the | structures that support and maintain this secret sauce. | Military services around the world have researched this | extensively (for obvious reasons), then again, we refer to a | well-seasoned and experienced practitioner as a _veteran_. | Veterans are invaluable in military service, as they are in any | other endeavor. Trade them off against ease-of-management at | your own peril. | rightbyte wrote: | > I mean, for assembly-line production this might ring true | | Not there either. You mess up more in the beginning. | Experienced workers have better flow. | enord wrote: | I would assume this as well, when i think about it. I guess | learning about the industrial revolution in school kind of | messed up my preconceptions. | | Anyhow, this military comparison just keeps sprouting | thoughts in my head. Isn't an owner-management almost | perfectly comparable to aristocratic officership? Is GGP's | theory of defensible churn basically a modern incarnation | of feudalism and aristocratic privelege? | jack_riminton wrote: | In the military attrition is even worse because you can't | fill gaps by hiring from any competitors! | fishnchips wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Liberation_Army | odiroot wrote: | French Foreign Legion would like a word. | sokoloff wrote: | > To make workers replaceable is to rely mostly on the | knowledge you can reasonably expect to regain on rehire. | | Fortunately, we developed systems of writing, so that the | limit to this relearning is higher now than a few millennia | ago. (Society does the ultimate "rehiring" continually.) | | I think that far too many companies (including my own) rely | much too heavily on "things that are in people's heads" and | don't spend enough time and money on making the company | knowledge effectively outlast any individual employee, making | it easier to put the essential knowledge into new people's | heads. | | Society doesn't rediscover pi, e, I, and calculus from first | principles every half-century, but rather we've instituted | that knowledge into books and mechanisms of teaching. | enord wrote: | Well yes, if we could only train new employees for 20 years | in the specific curricula of the organization, as that is | how long we spend getting pi and calculus into the heads of | kids. | | On the scale of lifetimes, I don't think we can refer to it | as "churn" as understood in the context of a modern | company. | | I'm being facile, of course. Developing a good library of | knowledge as you propose is _hard_ , takes a long time and | many iterations and there is the unfortunate matter of time | taking it's toll on the relevance of such recorded | knowledge (esp. in our line of work). Not to mention costs. | Even academic institutions, who are in the business of | doing _exactly_ this, guard their staff with tenure (some | of the staff anyway, the big boys) | Kye wrote: | It takes 20 years because kids come from all kinds of | backgrounds and there isn't enough funding for | individualized support. A company _should_ be able to get | someone up to speed faster since that person is | presumably chosen for that role based on existing | proficiency. It 's easier to piece together an | understanding of the system from the napkin scratch notes | of the person who got hit by a bus than it is to hope | they come out of the coma before the business fails. | Imperfect documentation is better than none. | spaetzleesser wrote: | "I think that far too many companies (including my own) | rely much too heavily on "things that are in people's | heads" and don't spend enough time and money on making the | company knowledge effectively outlast any individual | employee" | | Totally agree but I have never seen a company implement | this consistently. They seem to expect that while you are | under constant deadlines you also have time to document | your stuff thoroughly. We also need systems to organize the | documentation so you need to hire tech writers who do that. | If you put this on engineers they most likely won't do it | because they don't have time. | mellavora wrote: | True enough, but look at your last point. | | > Society doesn't rediscover pi, e, I, and calculus from | first principles every half-century, but rather we've | instituted that knowledge into books and mechanisms of | teaching. | | How long and how many resources does it take to train | someone to understand pi, e, and calculus? | | Or, to apply your nice analogy to the topic under | discussion. | | what are the expected costs (time + training support) to | get a new hire trained on all of the written materials | which describe the system? | | For a non-trivial system, those costs can be very high. | Jensson wrote: | > Veterans are invaluable in military service, as they are in | any other endeavor. Trade them off against ease-of-management | at your own peril. | | I never said that experience isn't valuable. The question was | whether experience at a particular company was more valuable | than experience outside of it. Every time you hire a senior | engineer from another company you learn a bit of their secret | sauce, making your company stronger. Participating in that | knowledge trade is extremely valuable, and without churn you | will be left out as most of your engineers will have mostly | experience from your company, that is a really bad thing. | ozim wrote: | I don't think that hiring people to get outside knowledge | is that useful in IT. | | From what I understand there is no such other occupation | that is sharing so much information between people. You | have blogs, loads of free and paid materials, you have | loads of conferences where you can send your staff to see | "how others are doing it". | | Other thing that I often see ... a lot of developers really | invest in "outside knowledge" and common problem in dev | teams is building stuff with new shiny tech or in a new way | they saw on the conference. | galangalalgol wrote: | If your business requires a lot of knowledge specific to | your products, think adobe Photoshop, it is hubris to think | a new hire experienced even in relevant fields could | meaningfully contribute for a long time. If your product | uses an industry standard framework or standard, think | adobe reader, then yeah, you can probably have someone hit | the ground running. But a bigger problem is that when a new | hire leaves after 2-3 years and you replace them with a | couple people fresh out of school, so that anything they | don't come out knowing has to get taught again. And if it | takes some large fraction of the 2-3 years to learn your | domain specific knowledge you are done for. | enord wrote: | Excellent point IMO! For an organization to believe itself | the sole proprietor of relevant and useful knowledge within | it's domain of operation is pure hubris. | | So too is believing it is anything more than a community of | individuals, cooperating on the basis of shared- and tacit | knowledge as well as skill to perform the different tasks | that comprise business operations. Tacit knowledge and | skill resides in the specific individuals, and shared | knowledge in the specific relations between individuals. | Losing an individual is losing part of aggregate tacit | knowledge and skill, as well as all the specific relations | shared by the individual. The organization as a thing-in- | the-world loses part of itself not captured by it's charter | and governing contracts (or share value, or business | strategy, i could go on). These things are hard to quantify | on the best of days, so to assume (or even _mandate_ ) that | this cost is incurred with net benefit (by, as you say, | hiring some industry heavy-hitter who is expected to bring | the goods) is fraught with unknowns, and on balance likely | hubris. | rightbyte wrote: | Sounds like wasted effort. Relying on individuals are good, | since it means they are somebody to rely on. | | Anyways, hand over in high turnover places is shitty anyways, | since they are shitty places to work at. | ozim wrote: | I have to ask one important question, even though talent is more | valuable than money, companies still don't have infinite amounts | of money to simply rise pay for everyone. | | Some companies operate in not that profitable markets or have | bunch of other issues. | | Cost of attrition is still dispersed over the time and while you | loose the knowledge at hand it still might be cheaper to build it | back over a year than drop cash on people right here right now. | | There is such thing as time-value of money and company might | prioritize other investments that in long term will outweigh | knowledge lost as knowledge can be rebuilt and gains from other | investment might not. | | Of course one can say - there will be some knowledge that will be | gone. From practical point of view, if that knowledge that is | lost would be so valuable it would most likely resurface or would | be rediscovered quickly by new hires. Maybe not ideally but still | in a way that company can continue. | [deleted] | sokoloff wrote: | > Teams can be growing but have dropping tenure. | | It seems like any team that's growing (by a non-trivial amount) | _would_ have dropping tenure. | fche wrote: | If it's enshrined woke culture that's driving people away, mere | $$$ won't fix it. | disambiguation wrote: | Arguments of attrition aside, I don't agree with this model. | | Maybe I'm not understanding what an edge is supposed to be, but | the author implies that "something" is lost when the edge | disappears. That doesn't make sense. Knowledge live in the node, | not the edge. You don't just forget a project you worked on just | because someone left. If you lose access to knowledge when | someone leaves, that's because you did a bad job of preventing | silos. | | Further, someone who has deep domain knowledge is valuable even | with 0 connections. | mym1990 wrote: | Unless every piece of knowledge is documented in a clean and | understandable fashion, then the edge represents the ability | for team members to collaborate with the node to either resolve | issues or develop future improvements on the project. While you | don't forget a project you worked on, it is unlikely that you | worked on the specific pieces that others in your team were | assigned to. | jeffrallen wrote: | Nice. But remember: the cost of non attrition can be keeping | idiot coworkers around. Who actively destroy work with their | anti-work, and waste time with idiotic discussions. | jader201 wrote: | As others have said, the people you describe don't leave | companies. | | This is actually the opposite problem of what the article is | covering: instead of companies not being able to keep good | people, (some) companies are not able to get rid of bad people | (whatever subjective definition of "bad" you choose to use). | | I've worked at some companies where it's almost impossible to | get rid of people that are only causing a net loss for the | company, or at the very least, are consuming headcount that | could be used to hire someone much better. | | Attrition is about people leaving. "Idiotic coworkers" don't | leave -- they have to be pushed out. And, again, that's a | completely different problem when companies can't and/or choose | not to push people like that out. | dgb23 wrote: | Define idiot coworker and idiotic discussions. I have only | worked in small teams so I'm not sure I've met such a person. | datavirtue wrote: | Incessant bike shedding about every project concern or | business case. All with a tinge of negativity and scepticism | leading into rather unimportant arguments because... "last | time we tried this." They are often 100% correct but nobody | wants to hear yhier shit because the team has marching | orders, funding, and they want to complete the project | without a bunch of stress and drama. | | They have been at the company too long and aren't really | happy about it. They don't get a new job because it's viewed | as far too distruptive to their life. Again, they are | probably 100% correct. | alexashka wrote: | "Listen, here's the thing. If you can't spot the sucker in | the first half hour at the table, then you _are_ the sucker. | ' | bagacrap wrote: | I recently had to give up trying to convince a coworker that | the observer pattern was useful, because he refused to budge | from the position that it made code harder to read as it was | not "all in one place". Naturally as a stubbornly helpful | person it took several hours over a couple weeks before I | reached the point of surrender. Meanwhile there are a number | of related decisions he's inflicting on the codebase that no | one else would make, but find it easier to accept than | resist, and which are ultimately | unsustainable/ungeneralizable. If he left the team tomorrow | the rest of the team would slowly revert these decisions. In | the meantime, he's kind of just randomizing the code. | | Not really a definition, but there's an example for you. | jeffrallen wrote: | I once came in to work on a Monday to find a 200 email | thread from a clique of idiot coworkers who had been | feverishly working on a bug over the weekend, only to | discover that our locks were fundamentally flawed, though | that was at email 50. Around email 52, someone who actually | knows how to use a RW lock (and has written research papers | on lockless data structures) says, "no, they are fine, | you're just doing it wrong, see [link]". The rest of the | 150 emails were the idiots talking among themselves | learning how locks work, and convincing themselves they now | knew how to "work around" the bug (i.e. use the lock | correctly). | | This is not a thread about idiots, and actually these guys | were trying their hardest to be conscientious employees... | It was just a noisy and stupid way for several people who | should have known better to learn how to do a simple and | fundamental part of their job. (The one who falsely | diagnosed the bad locking code was a 15 year veteran | "senior" engineer. <scoffs>) | [deleted] | grayfaced wrote: | Attrition usually loses the top-performers because they can get | much better offers. The poor-performers don't have any good | options to leave. | | Proactive management would reward the top performers and | reprimand/fire the poor performers. That's the opposite of | attrition. | soheil wrote: | Wait so according to your model of the world top-performers | become idiots in their next job? Where are all these top- | performers who do get compensated enough and what companies | do they work for that have no attrition? | ozim wrote: | World is much bigger than you can imagine. If you hop jobs | every 2 years in 30 years it is only 15 companies. | | I have something like 10 years of experience and was | working or collaborating already with something between 10 | and 13 companies. | nfRfqX5n wrote: | those type of people are lifers at a company | bartread wrote: | I don't know. This is a nice piece of thinking, although I did | get a bit bored after the first few points, but it perhaps | ignores a couple of key realities: | | 1. Most obvious, people are going to leave, so you need to take | that into account. You can't keep everyone and I'd argue you | shouldn't try. | | 2. The impact of someone leaving is highly variable. Sometimes | it's a bad thing, sometimes it's a good thing. Sometimes it's | pretty neutral. Different people add different amounts of value, | and not all relationships are equal. | | Of course high attrition can be a yellow or red flag - certainly | a warning that you need to look at how management and leadership | work - but some amount of attrition is a reality, and the outcome | of that reality is not universally a "cost". | jurassic wrote: | I've come to think a certain amount of attrition is needed to | keep a product and the individuals working on it healthy. Back in | my consulting days I worked with a few enterprise software | companies that had a lot of highly tenured employees (think 10+ | years). All the long-timers I met were skilled fiefdom builders | with a strong bias toward opposing every change and maintaining | the technical status quo because a lot of their value was in | their vast knowledge of the way things already are. Without | attrition you end up accumulating people you don't want. Overall | it seems like a path to ossification/stagnation for your people | and product. | | From the individual perspective, staying too long slows down your | rate of learning because you aren't coming into contact with new | people and technology at the same rate. Anecdotal, but lately | I've interviewed some 8+ year tenured candidates that I wouldn't | rate above SWE II because it was literally a "one year of | experience 10 times" situation. I try to change things up every 4 | years or so to avoid ending up this way myself. | Atlas26 wrote: | > From the individual perspective, staying too long slows down | your rate of learning because you aren't coming into contact | with new people and technology at the same rate. Anecdotal, but | lately I've interviewed some 8+ year tenured candidates that I | wouldn't rate above SWE II because it was literally a "one year | of experience 10 times" situation. I try to change things up | every 4 years or so to avoid ending up this way myself. | | Should be noted, this is applicable to the same position | specifically, not any one company. Some of the best engineers | in the world have only ever worked at places like Google, | Microsoft, an academic institution, etc, but they make sure | they're constantly learning, working with new teams, switching | to new positions once they've mastered their previous one, etc. | In many cases these folks actually have a big leg up vs new | external hires due to product and institutional knowledge, | while also constantly learning new technologies. | dan-robertson wrote: | What is your argument that encouraging attrition would cause | these people to leave rather than the employees you might value | more? That is, why wouldn't doing things that lead to higher | attrition lead to having a all the people you want leaving and | the people you don't want continuing to stay because e.g. it is | harder for them to go elsewhere. | travisjungroth wrote: | I think you have to fire them. If you just non-selectively | "do things that lead to higher attrition", you're right, | you're going to lose the best employees and just make things | worse. It's painful and it's actively painful in a way that | "let's just not pay so much everyone sticks around forever". | You'd have to yank out someone that has convinced everyone | they're essential to the company, but they're mostly | essential through a situation they created. | | I wouldn't overapply this though. I think terminal mid-levels | might be undervalued in a way. A separate conversation, but I | think "developer assistant" could be a role in the way | "dental assistant" is (but not as much based on gatekeeping). | hinkley wrote: | I don't know what goes on in manager meetings, but I think | it's a little too convenient that in many orgs very senior | ICs get forced into management positions, which has the | same effect. Trying to be both is politically and | emotionally fraught, and some people hate it and quit. | | You might say it's constructive dismissal at its sneakiest. | mym1990 wrote: | I believe in early days Amazon(and possibly even now) Bezos | did not want employees to stay for more than 2 years, for | the hope that Amazon was a stepping stone to other places | for people. | nonameiguess wrote: | This is only necessary for single-product companies. | Otherwise, just do mandatory career broadening assignments | like the military does. You have to learn about and work on | many parts of many stacks and regularly change teams and | product lines. There is no need to fire people to keep them | working in one position forever and building fiefdoms. | | Heck, militaries even have interbranch and even | international exchange programs. There is no reason in | principle companies can't do the same and temporarily trade | out employees every now and again to learn how things work | elsewhere. It would have to be subject to pretty strict | NDAs and limitation of sensitive data access, but given the | sensitivity of classified defense data, if the military can | make it work, private companies should be able to make it | work, too. | travisjungroth wrote: | That handles the specific problem of people not | broadening their skills and I certainly wouldn't say that | firing people is the best way to get more perspectives in | your company. There's a general question of how to get | rid of employees that are entrenched, want to stay, but | aren't providing enough value. | hinkley wrote: | I noticed early in my career that relentless refactoring ended | up as de facto empire building because some people would just | give up on tracking the changes I was making and abdicated that | domain to me. | | I think I have a very different way of organizing knowledge, | where I worry more about how to answer questions than knowing | the answers. This makes me very popular with young and new | employees, and quite unpopular with those who think you make | Important Decisions by locking everyone in a room until they | are made. Oh and using a computer in a meeting is disrespectful | so we will make all decisions from memory, then have another | meeting when we discover our memory was faulty. | zitterbewegung wrote: | I think some developers don't realize that corporations have a | target attrition rate and it is fairly easy for them to | enforce. | | I would say that Attrition actually benefits employees and | companies. The Employees who stay take a pay cut each year | either to inflation or to the fact they just don't get paid | more. Employees get better pay once they change jobs and | companies get to have new people at a lower rate and they in | turn may have a different perspective. Avoiding change I think | it isn't necessarily the people who will stay for long periods | of time but it might be corporate culture instead. | ghaff wrote: | Depending upon the specifics, there probably tends to be some | happy medium (from both a company and employee perspectives) | between constant churn and very little change over the course | of a couple decades. There are exceptions of course. | mathattack wrote: | Can companies get around this by active transfers? This doesn't | work everywhere. | [deleted] | ericmcer wrote: | That's maybe why most stock starts vesting after a year (when | employees become very effective) and stops after 4 years. | rs999gti wrote: | > All the long-timers I met were skilled fiefdom builders with | a strong bias toward opposing every change and maintaining the | technical status quo because a lot of their value was in their | vast knowledge of the way things already are. | | So all German IT organizations? :) | gigaflop wrote: | I worked at the US hq of a .DE manufacturing company, and can | attest to this. | | My team was about 3 people (Americans, with our manager | having worked in the German HQ for a few decades), who worked | mostly on separate projects, and most of the headaches I had | were due to change being opposed. I would try to do | something, or request some sort of access to perform some | task, and would get blocked by red tape that wasn't made | visible until I was being told that I wasn't following a | process that wasn't explained to me in advance. | | There was one person whose sole task was managing the | company-wide JIRA instance. If you wanted your team's board | structured slightly differently, good luck. When I requested | permissions to create a Component, the denial went to my | manager instead of me, and I got a stern talking-to about | 'the way things need to be done'. | | On top of that, for a team of 3 people working on projects | that are exploratory in nature, I'd expect that the local SQL | server install (We didn't have the license key anymore, btw) | would allow for us to have admin or developer rights. It | originally did, until someone decided to change it, and I was | the only member of the team who lacked that access. | | I tolerated it for about 2.5 years (First job), but Covid | gave me a great reason to quit! | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | The author's points are absolutely correct. | | However, I don't think that it makes any difference. | | The entire industry has now shaped itself into a transient, | mercenary, loyalty-free community. | | It will take a long time to change that. | | A lot of the trouble is the "You go first." mentality. Who will | be the one to stay at a company for many years, getting only 3% | raises; regardless of their performance, as their company's CEO | keeps raking in millions of dollars, and lives a lavish, high- | profile life? | | Who will be the company that starts to treat their employees in a | manner that proves they are worth staying at? This may mean | higher pay raises, the CEO taking some of their profit (and the | shareholders and VCs), and sharing it with the employees. Letting | employees unionize, etc. | | As people or companies are doing that, their competitors are | running riot; acting as selfish, destructive and greedy as | always. Many times, the competitors can crush the people trying | to do the right thing. | | So that generally means that governments need to step in, and | help the people and companies to do the right thing. | | As everyone knows, that's pretty much a non-starter, these days. | | The tech industry makes crazy money. When an industry makes money | like that, everyone "looks the other way," at truly awful | behavior. The finance industry has been like that, for decades. | Whereas industries that don't make much money, like public | education, social services, etc., are regulated up the wazoo, | with an iron fist. | | I was a manager for over 25 years. I feel that I was a good one. | My employees seemed to agree. I kept many of them on board for | decades, and these were folks that could walk out the door, and | get huge pay raises (my company paid "competitive" salaries). I | certainly never made that much, compared to what people are | doing, these days. many new hires out of college make more than I | ever did, as a senior manager. | | I worked hard at being a good manager; and that often meant | working around a company with a fairly rapacious HR policy (HR | was run by lawyers). Most folks here, would (and have) sneer at | me, for staying so long, and for doing the things that I needed | to do, in order to be a good manager. | | In my case, it was personal Integrity thing. I have a _really_ | stringent Personal Code. I know that 's unusual, and we can't | expect it from most managers. | dan-robertson wrote: | On the employee end, I think it's obviously fine to leave for | somewhere else for more money/better perks/whatever. | | For companies, certainly some do value retention and this is | obvious from things that can be observed (eg the turnover rate) | and incentive structures (ie being willing to pay to avoid | attrition). | | So I think it isn't true that no companies value attrition. | Even Amazon which usually have a reputation as a bad place to | work as an engineer seem to do things to reduce attrition (an | alternative way of looking at their 'weight vesting schedule | towards later years' is that they are trying to encourage | people to stay for longer, rather than that they are trying to | save money on a high turnover rate). | | It feels to me that a lot of it is cultural. For example, lots | of people in senior positions may believe that a certain level | of attrition (or 'unregretted attrition') is good because it is | like an easy way of firing people. But regretted attrition can | be a lot worse than not having so much I regretted attrition. I | say it's cultural because opinions in management could change-- | certainly other countries can be different--just like other | aspects of company management have changed over time too. | | I think another aspect is that if your company is growing very | quickly, like many of today's big tech companies did, then most | people will be recent hires and it is perhaps hard to have a | culture that values or takes advantage of people with a lot of | internal experience. | thewarrior wrote: | This is a game setup by company management which is heads we | win tails you lose. | | If people stay on in the company they under pay people and save | money. If people are constantly job hopping there's no longer | any long term obligations towards employees and you have a | constant pool of replacements thereby saving even more money. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | Here's a relevant MonkeyUser: | https://www.monkeyuser.com/2020/new-hire/ | pdimitar wrote: | Well said and I agree. Let me only rant about this a little: | | > _The entire industry has now shaped itself into a transient, | mercenary, loyalty-free community._ | | This is sadly inevitable and it's a classic example of a race | to the bottom and EXACTLY the thing you said: "you go first". | As a contractor myself, I was effectively forced into being a | contractor and not a loyal employee by the virtue of being | screwed over many times. I learned to always shop around for | the next gig while the current one is still going -- not | because I love that, _I hate it with all my soul_ , but because | I have to protect myself and my family. | | I was loyal throughout most of my 20-year career. I ignored my | family, I ignored my own health even, I saved companies on the | brink and only ever felt a pat on the back on the company's | Christmas party, and a single 500 EUR bonus (if even that). And | something similar happened several times, not just one. | | One day you get seriously sick and you need a safety net which | you of course don't have. It changes your perspective | DRAMATICALLY. | | --- | | _WORK FOR YOURSELF regardless of where you are or what is | written in your contract._ You are your own top priority. | Invest in contacts. Talk to people and don 't assume that a | conversation is useless. Just enjoy talking with people. You'll | both have fun and will have the nebulous possibility of | somebody calling you 5 years down the line. | | I don't leech off of companies. They leech off of me. I am | giving them only as much as they give me in terms of money and | work-life balance and stress(-free) environment. I don't go an | inch over that anymore. | arnvald wrote: | Well said! | | Companies destroyed employee loyalty - by letting people go | while paying bonuses to executives, by giving 3% raises while | offering way higher salaries to new hires, by saying "we are a | family here" only when they need employees to make sacrifices. | | From the perspective of an engineering manager, attrition | sucks. Whenever a season engineer leaves my team, I dread the | next couple of weeks, because there's a chance others will | follow. The hiring and onboarding is draining and often slows | down the whole team for months. But whenever someone tells me | they're leaving, I tell them I understand it. They need to | think about their own career. | | Employers destroyed the loyalty and they need to fix it. | Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: | Don't forget or discount the destruction of the social | contract between employer and employee. Massive layoffs, | insolvent pensions, etc were just the start. | | Employees used to get pensions, have reasonable work hours, a | reliable schedule and could afford to have a parent stay home | in their 3-4 bedroom house on an acre. | | When all that goes away and I have to work harder for less | than my parents got then what is the point of being loyal to | psychopathic companies with excruciatingly well documented | histories of treating employees like interchangeable chattel? | Loyalty ain't gonna give these monsters any pause when they | put the squeeze on me and the other numbers on their screen | while they fantasize about how to blow their ill gotten | gains. | lotsofpulp wrote: | > Employees used to get pensions, have reasonable work | hours, a reliable schedule and could afford to have a | parent stay home in their 3-4 bedroom house on an acre. | | Pensions are not relevant anymore. I see no reason to pay a | defined benefit pension fund's employees and expenses when | I can simply buy VOO or a target date fund at one of many | brokerages for basically free. And I get to avoid the risk | of a corrupt employee of the employer messing with it, or | to risk the employer not being around 50 years later. | | The other parts of the post have so many factors that | contribute that it is not related to employer employee | social contracts. Birth rates, relative developed-ness of | other countries, supply and demand of labor, automation, | political winds, societal changes, etc. | rileymat2 wrote: | > Pensions are not relevant anymore. I see no reason to | pay a defined benefit pension fund's employees and | expenses when I can simply buy VOO or a target date fund | at one of many brokerages for basically free. | | These are very different with respect to longevity risk. | There are many people who can't save enough individually | for the longest lifespan. (Or the 80th percentile) But | could save enough for the cohort. | | Pensions are far superior in this scenario. That's part | of the reason why 401ks make sense for highly | compensated, but not the majority. | lotsofpulp wrote: | Taxpayer funded defined benefit pensions, aka Social | Security in the US, is the solution for people not | earning enough money to save. | | There is no reason to have a ton of employers get | involved in the wealth transfer system. It adds so much | unnecessary complexity, bureaucracy, agency risk, not to | mention the longevity risk of a single employer surviving | for 50 more years. And on top of that, the only thing the | employer's pension fund is doing is investing it in the | same market that the beneficiaries can invest in | themselves without having to pay overhead. | ghaff wrote: | >not to mention the longevity risk of a single employer | surviving for 50 more years | | There are various protections in place. I'll be | collecting a pension from a long gone employer. | | I'm not really going to argue for defined benefit | pensions. There's a certain paternalistic attitude to | them that your employer is at least partly responsible | for looking after your retirement savings. And you're on | the hook for being a loyal long-term employee to get that | benefit. | | Still, it will be nice to collect a decent payout from a | benefit I probably didn't ever really think about at the | time. I even know people who completely forgot that they | even had a pension. | lotsofpulp wrote: | The only protection is the PBGC, which is woefully | underfunded, and could not even handle the recent multi | employer pension fund failures. They just got bailed out | again Mar 2021 in the American Rescue Plan legislation: | | https://www.pbgc.gov/american-rescue-plan-act-of-2021 | | The real bailout is the backstop the federal government | provides on asset prices at the expense of purchasing | power of the currency. | | I understand that you are not arguing for DB pensions. I | am just trying to make it clear that US society has moved | past DB pensions because we now have an explicit promise | of bailouts at the expense of the dollar, and if we are | going to do that, then cut out all the actuary and | investment fund fees, and just drop it in social security | or target date funds. | twobitshifter wrote: | Pensions are binding in their payments, the stock market | is not. It's clear why some people would prefer it. | lotsofpulp wrote: | They are binding until the money is not there decades in | the future, and you do not have enough political power to | get a full bailout, and end up having to take a haircut. | | I would take a defined benefit pension from the federal | government (or any other entity that can print money), | but any other payout promised decades in the future is | just as, if not more, risky as investing in an index | fund, because you give up control of the money. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | When I left my company, after 27 years, I chose to take | my pension in a lump sum. I had plenty of money in other | investments, so I wasn't too worried about it. | | I used the money to fund one of my companies, and tossed | the rest into an index fund. | | I made back the money I used to fund the company in a | couple of years; just from the portion in the index fund | (it's been crazy). | | Earlier this year, my ex-employees told me that the | company is shutting down their pension plan. I don't | think that they are siphoning off the money, Jimmy Hoffa- | style, but I think that I'm glad I took the cashout. | lotsofpulp wrote: | You made the smart choice. In a political environment | where purchasing power is constantly being eroded, the | only option is to stay ahead or on top of the wave by | keeping assets invested and investing in new cash flow | producing ventures. | | A non COLA adjusted defined benefit just means you will | continuously lose purchasing power, and even the COLA | adjustments are subject to understatement due to | political influences. Even Social Security is not immune, | because at the end of the day, a smaller proportion of | labor suppliers to labor buyers means less supply of | labor per buyer, which means it has to get rationed | somehow (for whatever amount does not get offset by | automation/immigration). | Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: | >Pensions are not relevant anymore. | | Stated as fact without evidence. Many people are still | paying into pensions and many more would like too. Think | blue collar and gig workers who scrape by on a small | fraction of what many outspoken people here take home. | | >I see no reason to pay a defined benefit pension fund's | employees and expenses when I can simply buy VOO or a | target date fund at one of many brokerages for basically | free. | | Because you're highly compensated and have the buying | power of X median income households. Median income | households need to retire too. What's your solution for | them if not pensions. | | >And I get to avoid the risk of a corrupt employee of the | employer messing with it, or to risk the employer not | being around 50 years later. | | Pensions are supposed to legally outlast employers. | Judicial failure to enforce that is evidence of a corrupt | and politicized judicial branch that is actively waging | class war against those with lower economic status. | | >The other parts of the post have so many factors that | contribute that it is not related to employer employee | social contracts. Birth rates, relative developed-ness of | other countries, supply and demand of labor, automation, | political winds, societal changes, etc. | | All of these factors you mentioned have been politicized | and exploited to manufacture consent in the American | public to vote against their own interests as bought and | paid for politicians, judges, journalists, prosecutors, | and lawyers sell out their own economic cohort to, for | the sake of brevity, make the rich, richer. | | I'm happy to flesh out how each factor you named has been | weaponized if you're genuinely curious. | lotsofpulp wrote: | >Median income households need to retire too. What's your | solution for them if not pensions. | | The government redistributing wealth, i.e. Social | Security. A federal defined benefit pension plan, if you | will. And if it were up to me, I would take it even | further and make it universal basic income. | | > Pensions are supposed to legally outlast employers. | Judicial failure to enforce that is evidence of a corrupt | and politicized judicial branch that is actively waging | class war against those with lower economic status. | | Decades and decades of evidence indicate that the system | does not work. But more importantly, automation and | technology have obviated employer sponsored defined | benefit pensions. | | There is no value add from having employers in the middle | of the wealth transfer chain. It is just extra paperwork | and overhead and chances for corruption. | | The pension funds invest in the same place as everyone | else, the stock and real estate market. And then the | government comes and bails out asset owners time and time | again, so that the pension recipients get bailed out. But | then why not hand the pension recipients the cash | directly? | ghaff wrote: | The problem is that many people aren't replacing their | defined benefit pension with savings. They're replacing | it with nothing. | | That said, defined benefit pensions were always designed | around the idea that you'd be staying in the same place | for maybe decades. Federal government pensions are | perhaps the most obvious example but it applied to many | companies as well. And that just doesn't represent | typical behavior--especially among professional workers-- | these days. | rileymat2 wrote: | I would contend for any job that is not high paying, | individuals cannot save enough to cover longer than | expected age in retirement, but could cover the average. | lotsofpulp wrote: | The solution to that problem should not involve an | employer. It might look something like legally mandated | defined benefit pensions, aka Social Security in the US. | ghaff wrote: | So you're just reinventing Social Security in the US. | spaetzleesser wrote: | That's how us techies do it :-). We invent something | "disruptive" only to learn that this was already known | for decades. | lotsofpulp wrote: | I am saying that is the name of the fix for people not | choosing to save enough money in the US. No employer is | needed in the picture. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | _> Employers destroyed the loyalty and they need to fix it._ | | I agree. I don't think that there's any incentive to do that, | though. | alex_anglin wrote: | Reducing attrition is a good incentive, especially these | days. Whether it's enough is another question. | MattGaiser wrote: | Do companies care? Their solution seems to be to hire | more recruiters. | willcipriano wrote: | My wife is a tech recruiter, my bread gets buttered on | both sides. It's a really funny market. | cogman10 wrote: | There's a lot of incentive. The problem is HR and employers | have decided to turn a blind eye to it in favor of looking | at the next quarter. | | Why give someone a 10% raise because the market has spoken | when you might be able to retain them with a 5% raise? Even | if you hire new employees at a premium, some contingent of | older employees will stick around just because switching | jobs is a hassle. This sort of thing drives down quarterly | costs which ultimately makes you look good to shareholders | who can't see the internal destruction. | rr808 wrote: | True, I work in a corporate like this with not much stress, | lots of vacation days, interesting work. It is paid similar to | other professionals in the office. However people can earn 2x, | 3x at a tech company so are just walking out. Its just tech | firms are paying so much money yet making no profits its crazy. | mooreds wrote: | > A lot of the trouble is the "You go first." mentality. Who | will be the one to stay at a company for many years, getting | only 3% raises; ... | | If the author's premise is correct, there should be a lot of | money to be made in retaining talent. Some of that should | filter down to more than 3% raises. | | So if you believe in humans as rational economic actors, there | is "$20 bills lying on the street" if you build a tech company | that hires, increases comp, and retains, rather than the | current model of hire, churn, poach. | | I realize that double-digit raises at the same company is a big | culture shift, but I've seen it done. If everyone benefits, why | wouldn't it happen? | thewarrior wrote: | Yes there's a lot of money in retaining talent at any cost. | That's what FANG companies are basically. The only problem | being these firms are so good at making money they've sucked | out a lot of the oxygen. | | Most companies aren't as good at using their retained talent | to make money. | ghaff wrote: | Especially with remote work breaking down geographical | moats at least within countries/regions, it's entirely | possible that for most people salary-maximizing, they go | with one of the big West Coast employers (or something like | an HFT) if they can get in. And most other companies | compete to hire everyone else. | | Of course, hiring practices are sufficiently random in many | cases that it's not really a matter of those firms skimming | all the cream (and salary is only one factor that many go | by anyway). But it is harder for other companies to salary | match the likes of Google and Facebook. | [deleted] | bumby wrote: | > _So if you believe in humans as rational economic actors,_ | | 1) They're not. | | 2) Even if they were, it may be the case they are short-term | biased, meaning they're willing to forgo $20 tomorrow for $10 | today. | beaconstudios wrote: | In companies, perception is more important than reality - | this is why easily measured variables are treated as more | important than difficult-to-measure ones - you can justify | decisions by pointing to hard data even if that data is | barely related to the problem at hand. Imagine trying to | justify giving a developer a large raise (a measurable | impact) and justifying it with an argument that retention is | probably more profitable than churning (hard to measure). | You'll be laughed out the door. | | People aren't rational actors in the sense of "they aim for | the objectively best action given a goal" - we generally aim | to minimise risk, prefer things that are simple, and prefer | doing what everybody else is doing. Homo economicus isn't | even used in modern economics let alone being anywhere near | to reality. | KittenInABox wrote: | I think right now it is vital to double-digit raise your | engineers if needed, because hiring is super difficult | right now. You not only stand to lose an employee, you | stand to lose the profit of having any employee there for | months. | lotsofpulp wrote: | > Imagine trying to justify giving a developer a large | raise (a measurable impact) and justifying it with an | argument that retention is probably more profitable than | churning (hard to measure). You'll be laughed out the door. | | It depends how supply and demand curves are moving. What | might be true today may not have been true 10 years or 20 | or 30 years ago. Labor costs have a big impact on profit, a | measurement that all company owners and executives care | very much about. | | For the past few decades, it may have been true that the | cost of attrition was less than the benefits of holding | down pay for most others. | beaconstudios wrote: | That's a post hoc argument - you're presenting a | possibility to explain why not minimising attrition was | actually rational all along. Its quite well established | by now that human decision making is not very rational. | Even people who aim for rationality are generally biased | towards variables with high measurablility. | lotsofpulp wrote: | The reasoning is that if preventing attrition was so | valuable, then it would have shown up via better profits | for various businesses over the many previous decades, | especially publicly listed ones since their financials | are public. | | I am sure some businesses got it wrong, and some | businesses got it right. And it probably even varies | within businesses based on specific roles. | | For example, it very well may be rational for a grocery | store to let cashiers go if the cost of acquiring and | training a new one is low enough that it lets the store | compete with other grocery stores since they are | operating on razor thin margins. On the other hand, | people with specialized tasks in the store such as a | butcher or baker or manager might have a better case for | keeping them from leaving. | beaconstudios wrote: | That's the perfect market fallacy, which is also a post | hoc justification. | throway453sde wrote: | > So that generally means that governments need to step in, and | help the people and companies to do the right thing. | | Then its not democracy any more. Its slavery. If People want to | leave let them leave. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | That's an interesting logical leap. | lotsofpulp wrote: | I am confused what you mean by "the right thing" and why | the government needs to be involved. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | Here's an example. Maybe it only applies in the US, but | Japan has something even more stringent. | | If you live/work in a building with several floors, and a | stairwell, go down the stairwell, until you get to the | ground floor. | | If the building has a basement, there will be a door to | the basement, and it will be facing the stairwell, and | will open inward (towards the stairwell). The ground | floor (at least), will have a "panic bar," to unlatch it | (this is a horizontal bar, at waist level, on average- | sized people, that can be pushed, to unlatch the door, | and push it open). The door will also open outward (away | from the stairwell). | | This is because of government regulations. Developers | would not choose to do this, if given a choice. It's not | cheap. I believe that some older buildings may be | "grandfathered in," where they might not have to do it. | | The same goes for lighted exit signs. | | If they didn't have this, a lot of people would die in | fires and emergencies. Before these types of regulations, | there were constant stories about dozens of people dying | in workplace fires. It still happens, in some places. | lotsofpulp wrote: | I meant in regards to how long an employee works for an | employer. That seems like it needs no government | intervention. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | No, I meant helping employers and employees to be _able_ | (not _forced_ ) to keep employees/stay in a job, if that | is what they want. | | This is usually done by "carrot" measures, like tax | breaks, and "stick" measures, like minimum wages. It can | also be safe workplaces. | | But like I said, that's not going anywhere (in the US, at | least). | streblo wrote: | "governments need to step in" was a pretty big leap to | begin with | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | Not really. | | In the US, we have many government agencies, like OSHA, | and the NLRB, and others, like the SEC, etc., not to | mention the AGs and other law-enforcement people. | | Business owners love to hate on them, but they are a big | reason that we don't have poorhouses any more. | | I have found that there is absolutely no bottom to the | depths that people will sink, if they can make money. | This seems to be true of folks that graduated from Yale, | or from Jail. | | The idea that any industry will "self-regulate," is a | laughable and naive myth. | focus2020 wrote: | Enforcing staying at job via law enforcement is the | definition of slavery. If people want to quit for higher | wages let them. Market will move to equilibrium. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | Seriously. I have no idea what you are talking about. | streblo wrote: | > I have found that there is absolutely no bottom to the | depths that people will sink, if they can make money. | | I'm confused why you don't think this same reasoning | doesn't apply to politicians and bureaucrats who would be | doing the regulating. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | Why do you think I said it the way I did? | | Really, this is going nowhere. You seem to think I said | something I didn't, and I can't change your mind. | | Have a nice day. | alexashka wrote: | Ah yes, 'the good old days' talk. It has _now_ shaped itself, | but back in _my_ good old days... | | This is my dad's favorite past-time, to talk about the good old | days of the USSR when he had free education, free guaranteed | housing, free health care and a guaranteed job. Combined with | those _other_ people who made USSR fall apart or are all about | money or _whatever_. | | Nevermind all the _other_ thousand broken things in that | system, let 's narrow it down to a few elements that align with | your pre-conceived idea and cherry-pick, to create _the good | old days_ and conversely, kids nowadays. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | Interesting tangent, there. | | I'm not pining for "the good old days," at all, and it's ... | _interesting_ ... that this was what you read. | | I'm enthusiastic about tech, the future, learning new stuff, | and making the world a better place. | | I feel that it is a shame that the concept of Personal | Integrity (or corporate Integrity) is considered an | anachronism. | alexashka wrote: | > I'm not pining for "the good old days," at all | | > The entire industry has now shaped itself into a | transient, mercenary, loyalty-free community. | | You're not pining for a time prior to when the industry | shaped itself into a transient, mercenary, loyalty-free | community? | | Or you mean to say it was a different kind of mess before, | that has now shaped itself into another mess, but mess | nonetheless? | | If so, my apologies. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | The second. | | Lots of people want to "go back," but that can never | happen. It does not mean that "the old ways" are bad, or | that they could not be applied to today or the future, | but there is a _very_ good chance they would not be | applicable to today 's world, without modification. | | I don't like "Old bad; New Shiny." Something is | advantageous to the current situation, or it is not. Its | provenance should have nothing to do with it. | | As an engineer, who has been developing (and shipping) | software for my entire life, I can tell you that some | (not all, just some) things that I learned "in the good | old days" are quite applicable to today's world, and I | always find it amusing, when someone goes "Wow! That is | so cool!" when I have shown them some old pattern that | was created before they were born. | | In the company that I worked at for a long time, a bunch | of ultra-conservative folks had a war with future-facing | folks, and won (that's one reason I was let go). I | totally understand where they come from, but I also think | that it was a disaster, and may kill a 100-year-old | company. | | But no one asked me. They just handed me my pink slip. | | Best thing that ever happened to me. | | Funny "In Soviet Russia..." story. A friend of mine, who | is married to a Russian, and lived in Perm for many | years, said that the soviets always built two of | everything, because one inevitably failed, and was used | for parts, for the second. I have no idea how true it | was. He is prone to flights of hyperbole. | tombert wrote: | My perspective is (and always has been) that I am working for a | for-profit entity. There's nothing wrong with this, most people | do it, and that's pretty much how society is built. | | But I feel that the for-profit aspect applies both ways: if the | company is going to work to maximize profits, why shouldn't I | do the same? If another company is offering me a substantially | higher salary than I would get with a normal raise, then why | shouldn't I at least consider it? The company wouldn't hesitate | to fire me off if they felt I was underperforming. | | The only argument I can see for loyalty (and only kind of) is | if you work for a non-profit, or something run on a finite | research grant or something. At that point, you could argue | that loyalty isn't naive as the work itself is more the goal | than the profit motive. | hwbehrens wrote: | The parent's loyalty isn't to the company, it's to their | direct reports (I assume). After you've been shielding people | from the shitstorm for long enough, it can feel very | difficult to fold up your umbrella and leave. Even if it's | strictly better _for you_ , it might violate your utilitarian | instincts or personal ethics. | | Of course, companies know this and use it as one of the many | tools to suppress wages. | tombert wrote: | That's totally fair; if you think your replacement is going | to make people under you's life worse, it might be hard to | leave. I've never been a manager or had anyone reporting to | me, so I can't speak to that point. | | But I agree, I think this is kind of weaponized by | corporations to avoid employee churn. | myownpetard wrote: | But it sounds like they didn't do great by their reports: | | "I was a manager for over 25 years. I feel that I was a | good one. My employees seemed to agree. I kept many of them | on board for decades, and these were folks that could walk | out the door, and get huge pay raises (my company paid | "competitive" salaries)." | | It sounds like they did great by the company shareholders | who captured the value from below market salaries. | | Kindness, respect and trust should be table stakes but it's | not going to pay for my kid's college fund, keep up with 7% | inflation, or help me build my rainy day fund for a | pandemic driven recession. | Moodles wrote: | > So that generally means that governments need to step in, and | help the people and companies to do the right thing. | | That sounds pretty ominous. What policy would you suggest? Why | would you be confident the government would be at all | competent? | warcher wrote: | Honestly it's already been done- release the wage numbers | publicly. The only way screwing over long term team members | works is if you can keep a lid on it. Wage secrecy enables | all kinds of bad behavior. | bwestergard wrote: | "Who will be the company that starts to treat their employees | in a manner that proves they are worth staying at? This may | mean higher pay raises, the CEO taking some of their profit | (and the shareholders and VCs), and sharing it with the | employees." | | You're right! | | Competition between management teams for investment ensures | that, absent some other force constraining competition, it | isn't sustainable for most management teams to break out of | this race to the bottom. The exceptions - firms that have a | quasi-monopolistic market position - prove the rule. | | "Letting employees unionize, etc." | | Employees don't need permission from their employer to unionize | in the United States or any other high income country. It is | entirely the decision of the workers; if a majority want to | form a union, the employer is obligated to bargain with them. | | Historically, this is how the race to the bottom has been | halted. | rr808 wrote: | The other part of why people leave is they end up doing lots of | support. Often when things go seriously wrong or even just | regular problems the main people called on to fix it are the | people that have been there a while and know the system best. | They end up missing out on the interesting new projects. Its a | good incentive to move. | ballenf wrote: | There's an unintuitive incentive to refrain from gaining too | much knowledge of all of an org's systems. Being the support | person across teams potentially lowers your value to your | immediate leads since you get pulled away so much. Good | management will identify and correct for this, but it's not | easy. | MattGaiser wrote: | My first full time boss quit over this. He was there 10 years | and his life revolved around support as nobody else stayed more | than a year, so nobody ever learned many of the systems. | bagacrap wrote: | some people like to be in this position, although I find | those people have a way of stretching out every support or | maintenance task that should take hours into weeks | rr808 wrote: | That is more like after the long haulers have left and the | new people have to figure it out. The guy who wrote it can | probably fix in 5 minutes, the next guy is paid more but | takes 5 days. | [deleted] | 1970-01-01 wrote: | >Beware looking at teams on a spreadsheet. | | Beware looking at teams as a social network graph or org chart! | Human teams are nuanced and require up-keep.. hence the existence | of HR and management. | jrochkind1 wrote: | If that's really what HR is supposed to be doing (upkeep of | human teams, with nuance)... I have never worked at a place | where they even act like they think it is, let alone succeed at | doing it. Are there really HR's out there who are different? | | I have worked for managers who act like they think it is their | role, and even succeed at doing it. As well as managers who | don't. | oerpli wrote: | While the point seems worthwhile, the animations don't help at | all. | | Stuff moves around for no reason (some graph layouting algorithm | with easing I guess), the looping is bad and it's annoying to | wait for the changes and as they happen instantly | | A simple picture for each transition would have been simpler to | implement and actually showed something. | nicky0 wrote: | I found the animations helpful and they conveyed the ideas in | the text to me well. | franzb wrote: | And on mobile (iPhone), it seems to be impossible to scroll | down on the animations themselves, only on the text. I had to | stop reading the article at some point as I could no longer | scroll down... | shantnutiwari wrote: | yeah, the animations gave me a headache. Stopped reading the | article | ishmaeel wrote: | I appreciated the visualisation. My CPU fan, on the other hand, | was not a big fan. | mikeholler wrote: | Most CPU fans are little. | flakiness wrote: | This feels like an organizational twin of an old idea of personal | relationship, which is called "weak tie". | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_ties | georgewsinger wrote: | Counter-point: Tesla/SpaceX have extremely high attrition rates, | but are so successful they'll likely be remembered in 100 years | for their achievements. | | (To be fair the article just points out that attrition has a | higher cost than we realize, not that attrition is never worth | it). | soheil wrote: | The cost of attrition is very real, probably higher than the cost | of keeping low-performers on the team for large companies. For | small startups the cost of attrition is probably negligible. | Maybe the solution for big companies is to break them up into | small independent startup like entities. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-01-14 23:01 UTC)