Sorry I came into this thread so late. The question of "...do such places still exist?" I would answer with "Yes, about two years ago: the government."

But then the City of L.A. government is poised to slash 5,000 employees, so I would need to rethink my answer as "No. Such places no longer exist."

Who has authority over HR?

Here is a post I offered on a related thread today. My feelings are fairly strong on this subject. As a believer in market forces (yes, I am), I think it is imperative that workers do their homework and consider their options. "Loyalty" feelings thwart and frustrate market forces. Where companies crap on their workforce, the consequences for the company should be quick and decisive, but that depends on workers gathering good information and making themselves available in the labor market:

"This is an area in which I have had an interest for more than twenty years, and in which I have done substantial research and consulting. In my always-humble opinion, companies that make compensation decisions willy-nilly, and companies who attempt to conceal compensation analysis and salary range work product are asking for trouble.

Every large company worth it's salt conducts compensation analysis research, and should share some of that information with staff. First, it is widely understood that a conscious decision to pay staff at the lower end of the range of salaries for comparable positions elsewhere results in that company attracting and retaining the poorest of talent within the available labor pool.

But even more devastating is workers' perceptions of pay inequity, and particularly where perceptions are formed through guesswork because the company prefers to conceal that information. We all know that one of the most effective ways of torpedoing productivity is to permit workers to develop the perception they are being cheated. Workers will adjust their productivity/loyalty levels to match their perceptions of equity or pay fairness. From my perspective, there are few things that more effectively cause poor corporate performance than screwing up this compensation analysis strategy thing. In fact, it is my opinion that there is no better way to screw up a company's performance than this. This is the number one way, IMHO."

HR, Human Resources, is not Human and Not a Resource for anyone but the executives who will do anything to make themselves look good. It is normal.

+1 on that.

Valid question. From what I've seen, nobody short of the CEO. I'm yet to see what value they add to our business.

My company isn't large enough to have a deadwood bureaucracy called "HR." Hiring and firing is an added burden to people who are already working hard. I'd rather carry a good employee through a few thin months than let him go and then spend the time trying to replace him when things turn up.

I'll resurrect this thread with a question: how often can you jump without causing problems?

So the theory that I'm hearing is that if your current employer isn't treating you well (e.g. paying you appropriately for your performance, encouraging professional growth, etc.), it's right and proper to jump ship and find another employer. Moreover, it is a faster route to higher salaries to shift employers than it is to wait for annual raises.

But if you jump ship too often, future employers are going to give you the hairy eyeball, saying "This guy has left every other job after one year -- why should we hire him, knowing he'll probably only be here for a year too?"

There's a little background on this: I'm considering other opportunities, but I've only been here for 2 years. Is that long enough, or should I wait?

So how often is too often?


Thanks,
Dan

If you can't get a raise at your current job, then leaving is gonna be the only way to get more money. When I got hired here in 2001, they mentioned that they had some concern that I had job hopped previously. But after two years those concerns went away. Then I went to give my notice, only because I wasn't making anything close to what they said I would, I was the top producer and a great opportunity just landed in my lap. I gave them a chance to counter, positive they would not. But they did, gave me a huge raise on the spot, made it retroactive to the first of the month and only asked that I commit to not leave before 18 more mos. were up. I'm still here. If you have a good offer in hand, that's another way to get your current boss to pay you what you want. Just don't give an ultimatum you're not prepared to lose.

So many great posts in this thread but it all boils down to Capitalism. Just nothing better, and the reason I started my own company.

Actually, it's less about money than it is about not enjoying the work anymore, and not having any potential for growth here. It's gotten progressively worse, and I'd leave for competitive pay - not even a raise - if I found someplace that I was sure wouldn't be worse.

Dan

It's kind of a sliding scale based on your age and current position.

As your career is starting out it's more acceptable. Mid twenties and non managerial or low level positions.

You never leave before at least 1 year.

The older and more established you become the longer your tenure should be.

It also depends on how you answer the, "why are you leaving your current job/employer?" question on your interview.

In short it's a bad idea to trash talk your current job.

True, if you go in all pumped up and put a gun to their heads they'll react poorly.

When staff come to me about possibly jumping ship the one thing I try to figure out is, is it only about the money? If they have other issues with their current situation beyond money I wish them the best of luck in their new job. If they are happy with everything else and it's just about money I'll fight for them.

My approach to that one is to always ask for help. "Boss, I love my job, I love working here but I had an opportunity pop up that I can't ignore. I really don't want to leave. What can we do to help us out."

People are generally more receptive to "helping" than being backed into a corner.

^^^^^^^^^^^

lot of wisdom there!

Well, I'm 32, and am definitely more managerial than a "base of the totem pole" guy. 2 years is pretty sketchy in this case, then?

I gather that -- I'd hate to interview someone who said "I'm leaving my last job because my boss is a pile of dung who couldn't lead his way out of a paper sack." I mean, what's that guy going to say about me? .... So when I talk to prospective employers, I typically say things more like "It's a good job, but the growth potential is very limited. I'm not in a huge rush to move -- it's good stable work -- but if I'm still doing the same good stable work two years from now, I'll be a lot less happy."

Is that a reasonable approach, or can I phrase it more diplomatically?



Ditto on that "Don't go in with an ultimatum you can't afford to lose" policy. A year or so ago, we had a guy who went up the chain saying that he was going to work from home, or else. The boss said, "That's fine, you can work anywhere you want, we just won't pay you. Good bye."

Dan

That's not too unlike how I approached the situation with my current boss. "Look, I like a lot of the people here, and the work is very stable. But stable means limited growth, too, and I need to grow professionally. I'm not in a rush to move, but if I'm still sitting in the same desk doing the same job 2 years from now, I'm going to be a lot less happy."

He wants to help, but there really aren't a lot of options for growth in this organization.


Dan

IMHO what you really want to avoid are two things:
-the opportunity for an employer to say "he left that job after only a year!" In this case a "year" could be 16 months, or it could be February 2006 to December 2007 which in actuality is 22 months but "reads" like a year on a resume.
-the impression that you jump ship often. When I was in a hiring role at my last gig, I was much less concerned about a single short duration than I would be by several short-medium durations. For example if someone with a 10 year career had done 2/3/1/4 that would not be too much of a concern whereas 3/1/2/1/3 would be more of a red flag.

Hmm.

I did 9 years in the Navy, and the last couple of years were shorter tours. Now I've got two years doing two different things in one small group for a company, and am looking at a position in another group within the same company. So my employment record could be "Navy and this company." But it's a lot of different jobs inside those two.

How does that play out among people reading resumes?

Thanks,
Dan

Interesting timing on the thread resurecction. I just spent the last two day finalizing two new project/contracts (while I technically was on vacation). This on the heels of a hugely sucssesful project that is now transitioning to the for-profit contractor world (we'll still have a hand in an r&d effort going forward). The joke around our place (we're non-profit, and part of the university) is that "we're in the wrong business." The military contractors we work with, everyone from small shops to Raytheon, Boeing, etc, make money hand over fist. Meanwhile we design the cool stuff and build the prototypes that end up actually betting used for training, with no financial reward beyond having a job...which I don't complain about much.

That said, while coming back from a site visit today, both my GSA partner and SME said I'd be making millions if I started my own company. They then asked about salary raises. They guessed about double what I actually make. And no raises for the last two years due to salary freeze. They then asked about bonuses, as I've brought in close to $20M in projects over the past year or so. Nope, no bonuses.

Could be worse I suppose, and I do get along great with my boss and his boss, am valued in the organization, and love my work...but frustrating to watch guys with no creativity or problem solving skills engage in borderline criminal behavior and be driving Mercedes and buying new yachts. Oh well, welcome to America...