Jump to content

Wolfgang Puck can’t find waiters because of labor shortage


Armybrat

Recommended Posts

Oh goodie, now millennials are ruining the workplace bc they use their jobs to fund their lifestyle or….whatever!  Employers get off scot free for creating toxic environments and turning employees into numbers and assets instead of human beings.

Just add it to the list of everything else we actively “ruined.” Truly the generation doing the most work, yet also somehow the laziest. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

I've never been ghosted by an employer. That’s interesting it was so common. When I say that I mean, once I’ve spoken to someone on the phone and done a first round interview, there have been times when I didn’t impress or there wasn’t a fit and it was made known I wasn’t moving on in the process— sometimes in form email and sometimes more gracefully. There are other times when l apply to a job online through a link and by uploading a resume and just never hear anything at all. Is that what you guys mean by ghosted?

I once got ghosted by a company that flew me out of state for a 3rd interview.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Major problem with analytics is employers cutting headcount to the bone and constantly pushing to do more with less. It creates this vicious cycle where a long tenured/valuable employee leaves for more money or less stress and it throws an entire team/department into chaos.  Leadership starts hearing the complaints 6 months after the fact and throws money at the problem but recruiting/hiring/onboarding takes nearly another year for the team to recover and then as soon as they do someone else leaves and starts the cycle all over again. This leads to stress and job dissatisfaction which does not inspire loyalty or raise morale. This is the type of shit that the pre 2000s working world didn’t have to deal with and it makes your 8 hours a day miserable.

It's a bunch of idiot self-important boomers and old gen-xers armed with MBA's who just know how to business, and truly don't see workers as anything but a number. They all pray at the altar of short term gain at the cost of long term stability. Businesses (generally, not specifically) don't plan for the wellbeing of their employees or customers - they're all just means to an end so the middle/upper managers, the people who have no idea how the business actually works, can get their bonuses. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This is some serious nonsense.  It’s the computers’ fault? Come on.  Managers and owners need to ask— what of the following can they say has honestly gotten better for employees over say, 30 years. In general and at their own company: 

1. Profit sharing. 
2. Stock options.

3. Pension plan

4. Retirement plan contribution 

5. Salaries rise with at least inflation 

6. Health insurance employer contribution at least abreast of premiums 

7. Dental/vision.

8. PTO

9. Maternity/family leave

For almost everyone that shit is on an accelerating downhill run.  Yes, employees give less of a shit about you. What part of the message “you don’t give a shit about them” was miscommunication from you?

The glee with which people are waiting for a recession so you can REALLY screw all these entitled youngsters speaks loud enough. Yes, they all know….that’s the goal. 

 

4 hours ago, Captainant said:

It's a bunch of idiot self-important boomers and old gen-xers armed with MBA's who just know how to business, and truly don't see workers as anything but a number. They all pray at the altar of short term gain at the cost of long term stability. Businesses (generally, not specifically) don't plan for the wellbeing of their employees or customers - they're all just means to an end so the middle/upper managers, the people who have no idea how the business actually works, can get their bonuses. 

These are very spot-on.

And it's not that Gen Z and other young folks aren't also making mistakes because they have little experience or perspective (they are, and in many cases, it will hurt them).  They have a measure of responsibility and agency here.

But yeah....for the management side, when you introduce a particular stimulus, do not be surprised by the obvious reaction:

Quote

Yes, employees give less of a shit about you. What part of the message “you don’t give a shit about them” was miscommunication from you?

....

They all pray at the altar of short term gain at the cost of long term stability. Businesses (generally, not specifically) don't plan for the wellbeing of their employees or customers

Yes, business is all about the dollars -- it's business, after all.  But our failure to realize that humans are integral and essential parts of that business, from management to labor to customers, is breaking the system.

Even if you want to dehumanize employees and treat them like work animals.....check out a successful horse operation.  The ones that treat their animals well, and genuinely care for their wellbeing with good feeding, reasonable working conditions, good veterinary care, end up doing BETTER than those that cut corners and treat their horses as a mere cost center, and as if they were disposable.

American business culture is reaping what it has sown.  It sucks for those of us (and there are plenty) who have tried to do things the right way, and continue to do so.  Because Gen Z doesn't believe it.  After all, what we're telling them (truthfully) about our approach to work, mentoring, etc., is identical to the BULLSHIT that others have tried to sell them. And they aren't gonna fall for bullshit.  And they don't have the perspective or experience to tell the difference between employers who just SAY that shit and live it differently, vs. those who actually treat their human assets as a valuable asset.

This is just part of the broader social breakdown -- our utter lack of empathy for others, and then contempt for those who actually DO show empathy, is killing us.  We are a communal animal.  We ONLY succeed when we are in community, and our worship at the altar of the individual, and the individual's worth is measured exclusively in terms of dollars accumulated is entirely inconsistent with that truth.  We are consuming our seed stock, and killing ourselves.  It's stupid, and we should stop.  But we won't, at least not until brutally painful reality hurts us WAY more than it should.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of sounding as tone deaf as those on the Biden thread who were all "just pack a lunch and drive less", I have a slight problem or different viewpoint on employers based on my own personal experience.

Most companies these days seem to be leaning into perks and benefits listed above as diminishing as a way to attract and then maybe more importantly retain, good employees. Far be it for me to say, "Just go get a better job" because I'm not sure everyone's ability and skill and I know I am privileged, but I personally wouldn't take a job that didn't offer all the above:

-Unlimited PTO

- Paid Monthly Mental Health Wellness Days

- Great Healthcare benefits plan

- ESPP or RSU/Equity grants if pre-IPO

- Paid Paternity leave of at least 12 weeks

- Compensation/Salary at which I expect based on my subjective criteria of experience, value, etc.

These are all table stakes at this point and tons of companies have gotten the memo. My company gave us the day off today for JuneTeenth to be progressive and show solidarity with our BIPOC employees. This is a new thing and it's really cool. 

So again, at the risk of sounding tone deaf because I am older and more established in my career (a lot of that establishment came from NOT ghosting former employers or generally acting like an immature child in professional settings and situations, I will add), my knee jerk reaction is to say "just get a better job, then." if you think your job sucks or isn't bringing enough to the table.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a younger millennial. I've never ghosted an employer but considering most businesses don't want to invest in their employees I can't really blame other millennials and zoomers for doing it. My senior year of pharmacy school I remember getting laughed at by a potential employer when I asked about benefits.

You can call me entitled all you want for taking vacation and not considering my job as an extension of me as a human being. I don't think anyone is entitled to anything, including myself. But if you don't want to invest in me then I can't be expected to invest in you. Sorry. This bullshit about not wanting to have a confrontation or ease of ceasing communication is simply that: bullshit.

I totally understand if you don't want to give me vacation time or pay for my health insurance and I wish you the best in your search for an employee. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

At the risk of sounding as tone deaf as those on the Biden thread who were all "just pack a lunch and drive less", I have a slight problem or different viewpoint on employers based on my own personal experience.

Most companies these days seem to be leaning into perks and benefits listed above as diminishing as a way to attract and then maybe more importantly retain, good employees. Far be it for me to say, "Just go get a better job" because I'm not sure everyone's ability and skill and I know I am privileged, but I personally wouldn't take a job that didn't offer all the above:

-Unlimited PTO

- Paid Monthly Mental Health Wellness Days

- Great Healthcare benefits plan

- ESPP or RSU/Equity grants if pre-IPO

- Paid Paternity leave of at least 12 weeks

- Compensation/Salary at which I expect based on my subjective criteria of experience, value, etc.

These are all table stakes at this point and tons of companies have gotten the memo. My company gave us the day off today for JuneTeenth to be progressive and show solidarity with our BIPOC employees. This is a new thing and it's really cool. 

So again, at the risk of sounding tone deaf because I am older and more established in my career (a lot of that establishment came from NOT ghosting former employers or generally acting like an immature child in professional settings and situations, I will add), my knee jerk reaction is to say "just get a better job, then." if you think your job sucks or isn't bringing enough to the table.

A few things. First, the idea that a lot of these benefits are for people with “good” jobs is bullshit. Is it less important for entry level new fathers or working class mothers to spend time with new children? Is the ability to see a doctor when you are sick something that retail workers don’t need?  You shouldn’t have to go get a “good job” for stuff like that. 
 

I also am sensing a bit of Stockholm syndrome here.  There are plenty of studies showing that on average “unlimited PTO” leads to fewer vacation days than traditional systems. (“You can have as much as you want so long as you ask and negotiate” vs. you “earn and accrue days off).  It’s great you got Juneteenth off. It’s a federal holiday now for the second year. The presumption should be that it’s a day off, and not a “cool thing.”  
 

I’m reminded of Chris Rock’s bit about people wanting praise for taking care of their kids. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Who is it that you think is talking about ghosting their employers or generally acting like an immature child in professional settings and situations? Who is it that is complaining about their job?

I'm getting this inputs from the last couple of pages here and that article that was linked. The article makes it seems like it's new but is also vague about who is doing it. This is the quote from the article:

Quote

 

Employers who’ve been ghosted overwhelmingly report that it’s a recent phenomenon, and 69% say it started in the last two years. What’s more, a whopping 83% of employers report being ghosted.

Does this mean we’re in the midst of a ghosting epidemic? The answer is more complex than it seems. Yes, ghosting is widespread. But is everybody doing it? No. Among our sample of over 4,000 job seekers, only 18% say they have ghosted an employer at some point during the hiring process. But with nearly a fifth of job seekers admitting to doing it, the actions of this sizeable minority are having a major impact on over four fifths of employers.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

I'm a younger millennial. I've never ghosted an employer but considering most businesses don't want to invest in their employees I can't really blame other millennials and zoomers for doing it. My senior year of pharmacy school I remember getting laughed at by a potential employer when I asked about benefits.

You can call me entitled all you want for taking vacation and not considering my job as an extension of me as a human being. I don't think anyone is entitled to anything, including myself. But if you don't want to invest in me then I can't be expected to invest in you. Sorry. This bullshit about not wanting to have a confrontation or ease of ceasing communication is simply that: bullshit.

I totally understand if you don't want to give me vacation time or pay for my health insurance and I wish you the best in your search for an employee. 

Peak entitlement is shaping corporate culture over the past 30 years and then complaining that younger workers just don't have the same gratitude or loyalty that they used to. Like a farmer bitching that his field doesn't grow corn like it did when he was coming up. Should have planted some fucking corn buddy. 

 

4 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

A few things. First, the idea that a lot of these benefits are for people with “good” jobs is bullshit. Is it less important for entry level new fathers or working class mothers to spend time with new children? Is the ability to see a doctor when you are sick something that retail workers don’t need?  You shouldn’t have to go get a “good job” for stuff like that. 
 

I also am sensing a bit of Stockholm syndrome here.  There are plenty of studies showing that on average “unlimited PTO” leads to fewer vacation days than traditional systems. (“You can have as much as you want so long as you ask and negotiate” vs. you “earn and accrue days off).  It’s great you got Juneteenth off. It’s a federal holiday now for the second year. The presumption should be that it’s a day off, and not a “cool thing.”  
 

I’m reminded of Chris Rock’s bit about people wanting praise for taking care of their kids. 

Certainly my experience, and when we switched (which of course was done because the accounting overhead in CA for accrued vacation is costly and they knew people wouldn't take more vacation anyways) I had to track vacation and nag employees to take time.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlimited PTO is also a financial decision so they don't have to pay you out when employment is severed (depending on state policies requiring it to be paid out - a lot of states of a certain color don't make it legally required to pay out accrued unused time). 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

A few things. First, the idea that a lot of these benefits are for people with “good” jobs is bullshit. Is it less important for entry level new fathers or working class mothers to spend time with new children? Is the ability to see a doctor when you are sick something that retail workers don’t need?  You shouldn’t have to go get a “good job” for stuff like that. 
 

I also am sensing a bit of Stockholm syndrome here.  There are plenty of studies showing that on average “unlimited PTO” leads to fewer vacation days than traditional systems. (“You can have as much as you want so long as you ask and negotiate” vs. you “earn and accrue days off).  It’s great you got Juneteenth off. It’s a federal holiday now for the second year. The presumption should be that it’s a day off, and not a “cool thing.”  
 

I’m reminded of Chris Rock’s bit about people wanting praise for taking care of their kids. 

Gotcha, I think these things should be table stakes for all people too and the days of working up to it and "paying your dues" should be outdated and put to the pasture and I agree with the PTO thing actually, i'd much prefer to have PTO that i can cash-in at some point as well or use versus the unlimited PTO scam some companies, depending on the culture, run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vegas64 said:

I'm getting this inputs from the last couple of pages here and that article that was linked. The article makes it seems like it's new but is also vague about who is doing it. This is the quote from the article:

 

I think part of the nit I'm picking with you is that "employers" has various meanings. In the article, "employers" means people who employ workers. The people ghosting the "employers" are people who have one way or another entered into consideration for open jobs. The way most people would interpret "don't ghost your employer" would be that you don't just disappear from a job you have held without talking to the people who have been cutting you checks for the work you have performed. That is not the same thing as trading e-mails with a recruiter and then failing to follow back up because you lost interest for whatever reason. Even that is not the same as getting hit up on LinkedIn by a resume farmer and deleting the conversation after verifying that this person is not somebody who is serious.

You weren't specific about it, but to me it sounds like you're also hearing how people (like me) are talking about the transactional nature of work and interpreting it as complaining about their job or saying that their job isn't bringing enough to the table. I wouldn't agree with that interpretation. The prickliness from me is around the idea people like me not only see their jobs as transactional, but are the ones who have caused this change. That is the same type of bullshit I have been listening to from entitled boomers for my entire adult life, and I'm prickly about it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Celery Man said:

I think part of the nit I'm picking with you is that "employers" has various meanings. In the article, "employers" means people who employ workers. The people ghosting the "employers" are people who have one way or another entered into consideration for open jobs. The way most people would interpret "don't ghost your employer" would be that you don't just disappear from a job you have held without talking to the people who have been cutting you checks for the work you have performed. That is not the same thing as trading e-mails with a recruiter and then failing to follow back up because you lost interest for whatever reason. Even that is not the same as getting hit up on LinkedIn by a resume farmer and deleting the conversation after verifying that this person is not somebody who is serious.

You weren't specific about it, but to me it sounds like you're also hearing how people (like me) are talking about the transactional nature of work and interpreting it as complaining about their job or saying that their job isn't bringing enough to the table. I wouldn't agree with that interpretation. The prickliness from me is around the idea people like me not only see their jobs as transactional, but are the ones who have caused this change. That is the same type of bullshit I have been listening to from entitled boomers for my entire adult life, and I'm prickly about it.

I see and I agree with you that it is in everyone's best interest to view your job as transactional and that was because organizations have fundamentally changed how they do business and view employees.

Also I'm learning a lot about ghosting here and also it's a good reminder of how lucky and blessed I am and a reminder to be grateful like how I'm posting here on a federal holiday that my company lets us take instead of working.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

But if you don't want to invest in me then I can't be expected to invest in you.

Perfect nutshell of the issue.

You can treat employees as capex, or opex.  There's a very, very big difference in the two.  If you want to have an asset that grows and is around for the long term, you invest in it like capex.  If you want to have an asset that is consumed and disposed of at the first opportunity, then you treat it like opex, to be trimmed wherever possible, with no vision of keeping it around for the long haul.

And the result is that you get what you pay for.  Think of the Terry Pratchett "boots" hypothesis, except substitute the expenditure on employees for the expenditure on boots:

Quote

“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”

Summary: invest in good boots/employees instead of consuming pair after pair of shitty ones every year or two.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my reading, the ghosting from job seekers is usually:

  • Employers posting intentionally misleading ads, such as offering "remote" work but is actually hybrid or in-office, but they want applicants and job seekers are being bamboozled with false job ads, or changing the position altogether at the interview stage, or posting a wage range and lowballing job seekers
  • Job seekers are ghosting employers who are trying to have multi-stage interviews for minimum wage jobs
  • Part of it is retaliation - employers routinely ghost job seekers (interview, then silence or initial discussion and then never follow up for an interview) so job seekers ghost employers (don't show up for interviews)
  • Job seekers accept job, but find a better job in the interim (shitty but employers do that too if their first choice comes back and says yes)
  • Long delays between interview and offer and offer acceptance and first day - you're begging for someone to find something that pays more, is more flexible, etc. by making them wait so long and not engaging with them in the interim

Employers need to:

Be honest
Act fast/decisively
Adapt to a changing job market (remote/hybrid work) and changing job seekers (no longer accepting minimum wage for maximum effort)
Overhire - if you anticipate ghosting, hire more than you need because some won't show up, won't pass background checks, etc. 
Do a lot of self reflecting - is your culture keeping up with the times? Is your compensation and benefits competitive in the market? 

Edited by Js1
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean: Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz Pleads With Workers to Return to Office (businessinsider.com)

Quote

"I have been unsuccessful, despite everything I've tried to do, to get our people back to work," Schultz, 69, said. "I've pleaded with them. I said I'll get on my knees. I'll do push-ups. Whatever you want. Come back."

This is the disconnect - Schultz will do "whatever his workers want" except just continue to allow them what they want (WFH). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Major problem with analytics is employers cutting headcount to the bone and constantly pushing to do more with less. It creates this vicious cycle where a long tenured/valuable employee leaves for more money or less stress and it throws an entire team/department into chaos.  Leadership starts hearing the complaints 6 months after the fact and throws money at the problem but recruiting/hiring/onboarding takes nearly another year for the team to recover and then as soon as they do someone else leaves and starts the cycle all over again. This leads to stress and job dissatisfaction which does not inspire loyalty or raise morale. This is the type of shit that the pre 2000s working world didn’t have to deal with and it makes your 8 hours a day miserable.

 

7 hours ago, Captainant said:

It's a bunch of idiot self-important boomers and old gen-xers armed with MBA's who just know how to business, and truly don't see workers as anything but a number. They all pray at the altar of short term gain at the cost of long term stability. Businesses (generally, not specifically) don't plan for the wellbeing of their employees or customers - they're all just means to an end so the middle/upper managers, the people who have no idea how the business actually works, can get their bonuses. 

hmm. I think the core issue is the stock market was setup to work around a manufacturing economy. hiring, training, creating and valuing a relationship with your clients was just completely different than it is now. and yes now its nothing but short term decisions to drive out results needed NOW. 

the consumer is the ultimate loser. 

I left a public company in 2019 and - from the time of being public first (2012) through to '19 we just upped the price and lowered quality. over and over again. We went from spending 80% of our time on client facing work to more like 20 or 30% of our time. We bought more companies, murdered the products, and then dissolved half the staff. rinse and repeat. It was at the point in our particular industry that clients would tell us "please don't buy company X" as we really need their work. I felt like we were the fucking borg. Just murdering competition and eliminating options for our clients. but we of course had a motto of CUSTOMERS FIRST. uh huh paging @hayden_horn to corporate red phone. 

Past that, i trace most this past decade of shit back to the bank bailouts and making money free. Such an incredible disservice to the American consumer. Greatest goddamn heist ever.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Js1 said:

From my reading, the ghosting from job seekers is usually:

  • Employers posting intentionally misleading ads, such as offering "remote" work but is actually hybrid or in-office, but they want applicants and job seekers are being bamboozled with false job ads, or changing the position altogether at the interview stage, or posting a wage range and lowballing job seekers
  • Job seekers are ghosting employers who are trying to have multi-stage interviews for minimum wage jobs
  • Part of it is retaliation - employers routinely ghost job seekers (interview, then silence or initial discussion and then never follow up for an interview) so job seekers ghost employers (don't show up for interviews)
  • Job seekers accept job, but find a better job in the interim (shitty but employers do that too if their first choice comes back and says yes)
  • Long delays between interview and offer and offer acceptance and first day - you're begging for someone to find something that pays more, is more flexible, etc. by making them wait so long and not engaging with them in the interim

Employers need to:

Be honest
Act fast/decisively
Adapt to a changing job market (remote/hybrid work) and changing job seekers (no longer accepting minimum wage for maximum effort)
Overhire - if you anticipate ghosting, hire more than you need because some won't show up, won't pass background checks, etc. 
Do a lot of self reflecting - is your culture keeping up with the times? Is your compensation and benefits competitive in the market? 

Your “overhire” point is something I am mildly surprised hasn’t already started happening.  There is a tipping point where it makes more sense to overhire because the benefit has a compounding effect; over hiring lowers stress on all functional areas, breeds competition, and provides insurance against turnover.  I think companies that have the foresight to do that will be winners over the next 2 decades. And one way I expect to see it is by employing boomers near/at retirement age in part time roles to supplement full time staff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

Your “overhire” point is something I am mildly surprised hasn’t already started happening.  There is a tipping point where it makes more sense to overhire because the benefit has a compounding effect; over hiring lowers stress on all functional areas, breeds competition, and provides insurance against turnover.  I think companies that have the foresight to do that will be winners over the next 2 decades. And one way I expect to see it is by employing boomers near/at retirement age in part time roles to supplement full time staff.

My firm (at least our Denver office) has started doing this for those reasons.

Lowers everyone's workload/stress level, but also provides insurance for unexpected turnover.  We're not constantly hiring to catch up, but to stay ahead.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can also discuss a few of the shitty HR practices that absolutely happen at every company 

1. Posting jobs to determine the amount of interest in said job to determine if they should give the current employee a raise. 

2. Posting a job when they already have the person they want to hire internally but just post it because it's required. 

3. Firing older employees that have bigger salaries so they can rehire new entry employees 6 months later for same job at half the price. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beyond the "employers have no loyalty to their workforce" piece on why employees don't have loyalty to their employers, I believe it is consistently supported with data that people who job hop get paid much more than those who remain in a single organization. I did really well between 2016-2020 for a number of reasons, going from a mid level IC role to a management position in the second tier of the senior band and it was fucking bananas to me how unvalued the company could consistently make me feel in the midst of handing me promotions. They made the claim at one point (when massively low-balling me on pay for a new role) that they couldn't offer me more because of how much my salary had already increased over the past few years. Which of course is why, once you've climbed a rung or two (or even if you've just been hanging around for a minute getting not quite cost of living raises), you have to go to a different company to get paid market rate.

giphy.gif

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I mean: Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz Pleads With Workers to Return to Office (businessinsider.com)

This is the disconnect - Schultz will do "whatever his workers want" except just continue to allow them what they want (WFH). 

"to get our people back to work" also assumes that they weren't working from home. Meanwhile - 

Quote

Starbucks has shrugged off a difficult year of trading to exceed its pre-pandemic earnings. The world's largest coffee chain posted full-year revenue growth of 23.6% to $29.1bn – 9.8% higher than the $26.5bn earned in 2019.
 
Fourth quarter revenues to 30 October 2021 were $8.1bn – a 31.3% increase compared to the same period in 2020.

https://www.worldcoffeeportal.com/Latest/News/2021/November/Starbucks-exceeds-pre-pandemic-earnings-after-reco

What a dickhead. Fuck that guy.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Beyond the "employers have no loyalty to their workforce" piece on why employees don't have loyalty to their employers, I believe it is consistently supported with data that people who job hop get paid much more than those who remain in a single organization. I did really well between 2016-2020 for a number of reasons, going from a mid level IC role to a management position in the second tier of the senior band and it was fucking bananas to me how unvalued the company could consistently make me feel in the midst of handing me promotions. They made the claim at one point (when massively low-balling me on pay for a new role) that they couldn't offer me more because of how much my salary had already increased over the past few years. Which of course is why, once you've climbed a rung or two (or even if you've just been hanging around for a minute getting not quite cost of living raises), you have to go to a different company to get paid market rate.

giphy.gif

Job hopping is absolutely key if you want to meaningfully increase your pay. Once you're in the door, most employers will slow roll pay increases and shit because they've already got their hooks in you.

My first job out of school, I was making half what my dad did prior to his retirement. Two years later I earned a promotion and modest pay bump. After the promotion and new title on linked in I got approached by a recruiter and changed companies for about a 20% pay bump AND a more generous RSU payout schedule. Two years after that, I changed again and nearly doubled my salary and actually was making more than the sr manager above me at my old job lol. 

Been going on almost five years in my current role and I couldn't be happier, and am more than happy with my pay, but if I want to move my pay bands up I pretty much have no option but to move again (even after getting promoted a year or so ago). The weird thing is: there's never been any hard feelings for leaving from my employer, but they've also NEVER tried to counter offer. They just say "k bye" and that's that. 

 

BUT - I wouldn't have been able to move between jobs so quickly without some stability and a little bit of breathing room financially. I would not be able to make those moves if I were still renting in Austin like I was when I started working. It's absolutely brutal  and borderline impossible to get the ball rolling now

Edited by Captainant
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This economy has been great for me sexually. I've been dating women out of my league and quite younger for the past 5 years or so.

I always ask them what it is about older men, and the answer is always that guys their age don't have any $, a job, live with their parents house, etc...

Gonna start using my retirement as lure because I'll only get like 5 years out of it before I croak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Job hopping is the tried and true way to get more money, for sure. Can't fault anyone for doing that and I don't see that as a problem at all. If companies don't like it or see it as a problem, they can always pay more. Not to get too off-topic but it's like what others are saying about the Saudi-backed LIV tour money-whipping these golfers with a platform and name brand. if the PGA doesn't like it, pay more.

Since the beginning of fiat currency the same has always been held to be true for everyone: Money talks, BS walks. This is why the funniest and most true things the youngest cohort of workers are saying resonates with me when they say "Keep your free beer and ping pong tables and other stupid perks I don't care about and pay me more cash money."

Edited by Vegas64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

I'm getting this inputs from the last couple of pages here and that article that was linked. The article makes it seems like it's new but is also vague about who is doing it. This is the quote from the article:

 

23 years ago, I quit a faculty job without telling anyone I was quitting.  Just packed up my shit and moved back to Texas.  So I guess I'm ahead of my time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Wasn't around 20% of the ghosting someone was hired that just never shows up?  The theories are great, but I haven't seen any to explain that.

Probably interviewed at multiple companies. Received an offer and accepted. Subsequently received a better offer and never bothered to tell other employer. Shitty move and a potential bridge-burner. But on the other hand, fuck the man....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, staboner said:

 

hmm. I think the core issue is the stock market was setup to work around a manufacturing economy. hiring, training, creating and valuing a relationship with your clients was just completely different than it is now. and yes now its nothing but short term decisions to drive out results needed NOW. 

the consumer is the ultimate loser. 

I left a public company in 2019 and - from the time of being public first (2012) through to '19 we just upped the price and lowered quality. over and over again. We went from spending 80% of our time on client facing work to more like 20 or 30% of our time. We bought more companies, murdered the products, and then dissolved half the staff. rinse and repeat. It was at the point in our particular industry that clients would tell us "please don't buy company X" as we really need their work. I felt like we were the fucking borg. Just murdering competition and eliminating options for our clients. but we of course had a motto of CUSTOMERS FIRST. uh huh paging @hayden_horn to corporate red phone. 

Past that, i trace most this past decade of shit back to the bank bailouts and making money free. Such an incredible disservice to the American consumer. Greatest goddamn heist ever.

yep. i'm still here.

i'm lucky i'm still in a group with a great boss who is actually still customer focused and does a fairly good job of shielding most of us from the corporate bs, though since im second most experienced on the team, i get the privilege of picking up any slack on that side of things.

honestly, i know a lot of you on here are bosses. as the talent of my organization (i'm one of 5-8 people in the world that can do what i do), i deal a lot in that stratosphere are part of my job with my customers and vendors, etc. i know more about what other companies' corporate suites do than my own.  

however, my experience has been that powerpoint is the lead skill for a c-suite person. if i were to count the layers above me, i'll go my boss, his director, that boss's boss, that boss's boss, then that boss's boss, then the ceo of our business unit, then the ceo of the corporation.

that's a lot of c-suite to support those of us making the actual money for the company. they are making the actual money for themselves, and i'm making alright-ish money, but honestly, it's all fucking upside-down. i know c-suite can bring value, but my experience is that good execs are few and far between. .the rest are treading 5 years of water if they can parlay that into a couple of board seats and easy street in general. meanwhile, i'm writing my successful quarterly reports, running one of the most successful products in our overall group, by myself, with only my boss's product (which he shouldn't be doing, but due to staff shortages because of layoffs) does better revenue-wise than mine. 

from my street level perspective, leadership doesn't really lead. they might expedite in some ways, but for the most part, they seem to get in the way. sales sells. marketing does fuck all. and execs do exec things with no real overall practical perspective into how they fucking get paid. they just see share price.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

however, my experience has been that powerpoint is the lead skill for a c-suite person. if i were to count the layers above me, i'll go my boss, his director, that boss's boss, that boss's boss, then that boss's boss, then the ceo of our business unit, then the ceo of the corporation.

Ding, ding, ding.

Just left a large US corp that for last 14 yrs always made good money and stock price stayed good. 2 yrs ago new CEO. B to B type company.  Stock price is 1st thing he talks about. New leader for 6 of our companies kinda under same umbrella. Wouldn’t allow any new hires. Cut R&D on some existing products. Cuts out “special” products that we made plenty of for certain customers that needed them. Takes away all “branding”. All products under same name now. Only 1 product in my group is absolutely no. 1 in its class. Lots of of competition in all other categories. 
Stock is now on S&P 500. Great. Except your bonuses have been slashed 75%. Sales can only discount 4% before seeking corp approval. 
Their whole thing is “concentrate on top customers who make up 60% of sales.” 
 

They are managing by spreadsheet because they are too lazy to get in the weeds with us and really figure out who buys the products, how are they used, and what is each of our companies rep in its field. The c guys and board don’t care cause “cash in baby” is American way. Looked up leader of our group and he has never been at a company longer than 2 years. What could go wrong. 
 

1999. Motorola. Will say name cause they are no longer in the field. Foreign company announced moving into Austin building a fab. I worked at Mos13 as a vendor at the time. All work had stopped at this plant cause down turn in business for 5 months. 
Company across town keeps filling up fab with equipment. Their end products market price drops 70%. Do they care? No cause they are looking long term. Guess who is around and guess who’s name will only be remembered by us olds for a very thin phone way back in the day. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2022 at 12:05 AM, F250 said:

I once got ghosted by a company that flew me out of state for a 3rd interview.

 

I'm also happy to pass on a resume to my current employer for a friend or former co-worker. At least twice, I've helped people apply, they come in for an interview (or 4), and then my employer goes silent. In both cases they received an automated email 4-6 months later. The thanks but not thanks message.

From the side of hiring, I find these situations either due to lazy recruitment specialists, or managers that drag their feet in hiring. The recruiter is told not cut any potential person out. 

From the interviewee side, I think it's fine to reject a new job even after you've started the new job. After all, you're probably talking with other companies and you have to take what is best for you. I think it's wrong to ghost someone whether its your job or dating. Have the courage to say you're taking another job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Snake Diggity said:

It’s very telling how many sociopaths in management/ownership roles appear to be longing for a deep recession and high unemployment so that they can turn the table back around and start treating people poorly again.

FIFY.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

but I personally wouldn't take a job that didn't offer all the above:

I am older and more established in my career

That's the crux.  All those punch-list items work if you bring enough value/experience to the table.  If not, then your bargaining power is limited.  At the end of the day, you are either on the debit or credit side of the balance sheet and you have to position yourself accordingly and understand the landscape you are operating in.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caveat: I work from home most days and this only started with Covid.

One thing that has surprised me with the work from home switch, is now the close-to-refusal action by some co-workers when they're asked to come into the office once per month/quarter for a department meeting. Is that really such a big request when you live in the same city?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can also discuss a few of the shitty HR practices that absolutely happen at every company 
1. Posting jobs to determine the amount of interest in said job to determine if they should give the current employee a raise. 
2. Posting a job when they already have the person they want to hire internally but just post it because it's required. 
3. Firing older employees that have bigger salaries so they can rehire new entry employees 6 months later for same job at half the price. 
 

Keep in mind that every bullshit job posting required effort and time on behalf of an employee that thinks it is legitimate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to imagine the "accept job, never show up" people are mostly in low level retail/food service/etc jobs

Nah. I know a geophysicist who did that. I knew it was happening and told my boss but she didn’t believe me. He was leveraging our company for a pay raise at his current one. It worked.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...