Re:Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study ...
by bigmattystyles on Tuesday October 25, 2022 @06:50PM
(#33337254)
I mean isn’t that why vesting cliffs exist? I’d extend them to be for far more money but over far longer if I was the employer, but the job market won’t bare it.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study ...
by kodah on Tuesday October 25, 2022 @07:13PM
(#33337497)
That's actually a really good idea. Reuse an already common tool to reinforce what you want. If you stay here longer than your 4 year cliff we'll refresh you at 1.5x the last schedule. That's about what a company would end up dumping into a person's salary who is tenured anyway.
Re:Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study ...
by fluidcruft on Tuesday October 25, 2022 @08:40PM
(#33338221)
There's also the military approach where you either get promoted or you are out. Languishing isn't really allowed as an option.
If a job/task only requires entry level skills, why are senior employees doing them?
Re:Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study ...
by bigmattystyles on Tuesday October 25, 2022 @09:01PM
(#33338391)
Isn't that what Netflix does - or at least doesn't really permit for having an off-year?
Re:Employers should prioritize retention over hiring, study ...
by tedsanders on Wednesday October 26, 2022 @01:23AM
(#33340121)
Not at all. In fact, Netflix didn't even have levels until very recently. When I worked as a management consultant, about half of people left the company every two years at each promotion gate. Netflix's turnover was far, far lower.