An answer I haven't seen yet in this thread: give people actual sick days instead of PTO.
At most companies I've worked at, including my current employer, sick days and vacation days are combined into PTO - Paid Time Off. Who wants to burn a vacation day if you're sick but capable of working?
Even if the judiciary comes to its senses about the earlier purchaces, it's still a bait-and-switch for the later purchases. They can't claim that these were commodity purchases. Having spent a sum on one game, the next decision about where to spend on games is not a symmetric one.
You forgot Response #4: Ok. I'll take your word for it; here's a raise. (Aside to other managers: this guy is a flight risk. Don't offer him any promotions, and start thinking about how we might replace him.)
It happens. Not infrequently. It's why I never tell my employer when I get an offer. They might just give me the raise because it would hurt to lose me today but they can lose me in a couple months, and then the offer I had at the new company is long gone.
> You forgot Response #4: Ok. I'll take your word for it; here's a raise. (Aside to other managers: this guy is a flight risk. Don't offer him any promotions, and start thinking about how we might replace him.)
This seems like a counterproductive response if the labor market is tight.
Definitely agree. The one time I ever got a significant raise required me to lobby unbelievably hard despite the fact that I was carrying the weight of my whole team and had to do an unreal amount of shit shoveling devops, web service, and data cleaning work in addition to all the machine learning work that was “actually” my job.
I was lucky that my direct manager valued me and guided me through the process of documenting my accomplishments in the right ways to present the case for a substantial promotion.
Apart from this one time, I have always been told the company can’t offer raises or discretionary bonuses beyond whatever the board grants for cost of living, and have to switch jobs repeatedly if I want to earn more.
I don’t get it. I feel like it must be some misaligned incentive problem with HR preferring to make executives believe turnover and constant hiring have to always be the norm, to justify their jobs, instead of cultivating a culture of long tenures by actually offering substantial raises or bonuses.
It happened to me at IBM. I got a 5% raise the first year, and 10% the next; both we're suprises. (And I was making good money for the area when I started, so I don't think they were trying to catch me up.)
My direct managers were awesome, but I ended up leaving for other reasons.
You are right about that. This is a slightly different situation, though. What you describe is scenario #2 up-thread. The person I was responding to was posting an alternative to scenario #3. I'm just saying that in a tight labor market a company adopting response #4 instead of response #3 is cutting off their nose to spite your face.
So, having received an offer that you're inclined to accept, you will never be swayed by a counteroffer from your current employer? I suppose the logic is sound, especially if you know you aren't hard to replace.
I feel I need to at least go through the motion of entertaining the counteroffer, though. Otherwise they'll think I don't like them or be offended and I'll have maybe burnt a bridge. Of course, for the same reason, I was never looking for another job. That offer came to me on its own.
Dude, sometimes people are in a financial stretch and the increase in compensation is the only reason to search for alternatives.
Especially in big corps there can be a policy of being stingy with the wages unless there is some scenario like a need for counteroffer for a high performing individual contributor.
Now, you can think the company is cheap and does not really earn you contribution.
However, the psychological reality is that people don't work in their companies - they work inside teams within companies, and the duties and the culture of the team can be great even if the company policy (likely sculpted out of feeling of ficudiary duty towards stockholders among other things) feels cheap.
Great teams and great managers are far more important for a great job than "great companies". Yes, the latent company culture affects team as well, but that's only one aspect of the whole.
When HPE hired me on, I know I was about 20% more then the guy who had been doing the job for 20 years. Companies don't value you if you stick around. Your only hurting yourself.
I’m actually sort of in this situation. I just interviewed for another position and it went extremely well. The thing is I’m pretty happy with my current job and role except for one dimension: Salary.
If they would pay me what the market says I’m worth (and I’ve done a ton of market research) then I’d be happy to stay where I am for the foreseeable future. But if another company offers me a job and the work and environment seem comparable but they’re willing to pay more... I’d seriously consider that offer and be prepared to leave. However, if my current employer comes back and says, “Actually we will beat that by x%” then I’d seriously consider staying.
It also helps that someone else in the company did just this and is still with the company a couple years later.
If "not being paid enough" was what made you start job hunting, then a counteroffer would likely change the situation.
Last place I left, I made it exceedingly clear, a year before resignation, 6 months before resignation, and during resignation, that all they needed to do to retain me was to bring me back up to market rate. I would have definitely stayed if they were forthcoming with a counteroffer.
I'm pretty happy where I am right now, but if you give me an offer to an attractive position for 20% more money I'd at the very least entertain the notion.
My point is that an offer like that would seem attractive, but two things:
A) The company didn't value you until it was too late. Their opinion of you hasn't changed, just the pay rate.
B) The company now has painted a target on your back as someone that is "in it for the money" and doesn't have the best interests of the company in mind. It's bullshit, but that's now management thinks. Next time a budget cut or RIF is necessary, guess who is first in line?
In both cases, you need to weigh if that's worth sticking around for.
No they don't. My roommate moved out a few months ago, I watched him fill out the mail forwarding form (with his name and my/our address). Not only did no confirmation letter show up in my mailbox -- in fact I stopped getting my own mail for several days and when I confronted the USPS worker, he said, "Oh, I thought your apartment was vacant now." I got pretty mad and he just shrugged, not even an apology.
I had to get my car's title reissued from the DMV (I had just bought it off my roommate as he was leaving), and also had a paycheck disappear (was working 1099 remotely and paid monthly via check) because both things were coming in the mail that week and disappeared never to be seen again. (Luckily the guy I was subcontracting from paid for his own stop payment and reissued the check)
Yeah, when I moved a few years ago I also got no confirmation. So after the move, I sent a letter to my old address, with no return address, to see if it got redirected.
(Although my letter did, I'm pretty sure my first Ventra card was lost in the mail anyway. With the insanity of the switch it got delayed a couple months, and ended up getting sent out right about when I moved)
If password managers are going to become popular for end users it needs to be something that’s built into the browser and interopable. I’d love to see this turned into a standard that all browser and device manufacturers (when I log into an app on my phone the password manager should be integrated) can implement.
I agree with you on this one, KeePass is way to go compared to relying on browser's password manager.
Only wish these password management functionalities (not tool itself, but whole mess switching back and forth between target app/password manager) are more pleasing than the way it is now on mobile...
I am all for using a better password manager. In fact, with PfP: Pain-free Passwords I developed one myself - and I invested much thought into making sure the master password cannot realistically be guessed unless it is absolutely trivial. However, most people will go with whatever is built in. So no excuses for browser makers to offer something that has been known to be very suboptimal for at least nine years.
The fact that you had difficulty freezing your credit, and the person your replied to found it discouragingly easy to UN-freeze their credit, does not bode well for Equifax in either case.
However, the insurance provided by Uber and Lyft only cover when you have a passenger in the car -- they don't cover you when you are driving to pick up the next person. And your own insurance also doesn't cover you during that period, unless you buy a separate commercial rider.
> While you’re online with Uber before you accept a request, you are covered by our insurance policy for your liability to a third party if you are in an accident when you’re at fault
When I last renewed my insurance it offered me coverage for driving for rideshare for an extra $50 per 6 months (I think - I've never driven Uber/Lyft, so I didn't look too closely).
If I'm remembering it right that sounds like a very reasonable price
Of course it does. Just because they already have the advantage doesn't mean we should forfeit the game. (That's a metaphor, this is actually much more serious than a game)
Comcast already refused to make infrastructure upgrades so that customers (who were paying Comcast) could get the services they wanted (Netflix). If net neutrality protections are removed, they could just throttle them out of existence.
I, as a one man web dev shop, run about 20 or so websites. Some are info sites, some are SaaS, some are just hobbies. Comcast won't throttle traffic to me because they don't care about someone as small as me -- but if Comcast and all the other ISPs start offering "fast lane service" for cheaper prices that give prime service to big places like Facebook/etc (who can afford to pay the ISPs kickbacks), and degraded or "normal" service to everyone else (me), then I am harmed just the same.
That would be prohibitively expensive. The number of overly broad patents that patent trolls own is way too large to be able to challenge them in a cost effective way.
If you want to play offense rather than defense, your money is better spent lobbying to get the law changed so that overly broad patents are more difficult to acquire in the first place.
What you say is not untrue, but it's still bad advice to do it -- a security red herring. First of all, you don't know that 100% of mail servers ignore characters after the +, so you can't safely strip those characters or you might not end up with a usable email address. That goes double for stripping the dots/periods, which gmail ignores but many other mail servers do not.
On top of that, it's just as easy to set up a catchall email address -- an email box that accepts all mail for a domain, literally anything@mydomain.com. So a malicious actor could sidestep this security attempt with minimal effort, but it still inconveniences legitimate users despite being worthless from a security perspective.
True, true. As I mentioned below, in my case, it was even usernames, just entering you email for a free gift card. The attacker actually used dots with a gmail address.
There are soooo many ways to easily game the email side of it that you would be better off using other means of detecting uniqueness (rate limit per IP address, rate limit per hash of IP address and user-agent)
At most companies I've worked at, including my current employer, sick days and vacation days are combined into PTO - Paid Time Off. Who wants to burn a vacation day if you're sick but capable of working?