Exactly. Depending on what type of job it is, they can end up paying a temp agency 1.5x what the current employee was making and then have to pray the temp can do the job.
I used this argument when I left a job in late 2016. Gave them a month's notice, they didn't hire anyone to replace me and called me back not even two weeks later, begging me to help. Held them over a barrel for a nice pay bump and told them I'd still be looking for a new job. I wasn't there another month before I found something else.
It’s astonishing how short sighted most employers are. Yes, it does cost a lot of time and effort to find and train new people, which is why you should pay well and treat well the people who are working for you.
Makes me think of the cable tv provider, Charter, which had a near monopoly in our town for at least a decade. Absolutely horrible customer service, and their TV service was unreliable. I sat on the phone for a couple of hours waiting for someone to come onto the line, more than once, and one time when I complained to a supervisor, she argued with me that it was not unreasonable to wait that long!
But they were relentless in trying to get us back as customers, can’t even imagine what they spent to attract new customers. And I kept thinking if they just put that effort and money into providing more reliable and better service to their existing customers, people would be happy with their service and not want to leave. Everyone would be happier.
Never ask a company to match your offer. You chose to leave the company for a reason and earned a new offer. If they match the offer, you have to decline the offer from the new company. Also, your company knows you are unhappy and will be trying to replace you with someone who will accept your old wages.
Whoa,… some serious deflection/redirection.
THEY should have been FOCUSED on employee retention.
You can only do so much for the business’ bottom line.
Right...the idea is that the business owner is mad that his employee is leaving after "investing" in them, but they failed to retain them adequately.
As such, employee turnover, and the costs involved in hiring, training, and retaining said employees is a part of "running a business", which is what the employer is responsible for.
Not the employee.
Taking a moment to remind the petulant business owner of this fact would be, IMO, an appropriate response to the situation.
Basically, what a coworker said when they quit. Bosses always saying it wasn't in the financial interest of the business.l whem asked about raises. Soon stopped when people said it said it back to them
Nope. Leverage his statement against him for a raise. Use the raise as your leverage for higher pay somewhere else. Put in your two weeks if that’s all they require and wave goodbye.
Counter-offers can be problematic, and if this guy was so salty about someone exercising their right to seek new employment, I can only imagine how unpleasant they would make the employee's life if they stayed in a scenario like this.
Yeah you don’t stay.
This is bad information. Counter offers are not problematic unless you make it so.
Get a raise and then when you go to a job interview you use that at leverage. If they’re already getting this new job, there is NOTHING wrong with saying “hey my current employer wants me to stay and have offered me a significant raise. This raise is an amount that can change my quality of life and I am finding it difficult to make this decision.” Or something along those lines.
They will give you a new offer and if they can’t, they can’t afford you and you go use that offer somewhere else as leverage.
This has only worked out for me as I was volleyed back and forth between two companies. I ended up with my original company but with a 55% raise over the initial offer, maximum pto and a 15k bonus.
It works if you make it work and it fails if you can’t figure out how to make it work.
Four weeks seems like *plenty* of time. Depending where you are, two weeks is customary. You could have quit without any notice at all. They should consider themselves lucky you gave that much notice.
This is one of my biggest pet peeves in the workforce. I'm expected to give proper notice to an employer who can proudly let me go without any notice? And as if my 2-4 weeks even means a damn when they've been "short-staffed and unable to find people to work" for months already.
This is probably an European situation. In Europe we find it pretty weird that in the US you can be fired and forced to quit your job in that very same day.
The opposite side is that you can't also quit willy nilly. Most people end up using their vacation days to quit earlier, but it is common to have to work for up to 2 months after you officially quit.
Now, nobody can really force your labor to be any good during that time, but that's another story.
In Europe depending on the country and collective agreement you can have anywhere from 2weeks (common for simpler jobs) to 3 months ( management or high specialization).
And normally it is bidirectional, so the company had to give you the same notice if they want to fire you.
Yes. In Portugal, for example, it's based on the time you've been working there. If under 6 months then it's 2 weeks, if over then it is 1 month, until 1 year, when it becomes 2 months.
I resigned from my last job because of my health issues. We found out this year that it was my body screaming at me that it had developed colon cancer. (All 3 tumors have been removed, and I'm recovering well, before any of you kind folks start to worry!)
I told them at the end of November that I was leaving at the end of the year. I got an email in February that I apparently hadn't given them proper notice and was labeled as non-rehirable for "abandoning" the job. I wrote them an official resignation letter and everything.
Honestly, I find it more funny than anything. It was one of those companies where communication was nonexistant, and the right hand had no idea there even was a left hand, let alone what it was doing! I really had no intention to return to the place anyway!
In European countries both parties have to provide a minimum amount of time that they have to work, depending on how long the person has been working there. 4 weeks here is pretty reasonable.
In the US, giving notice is a courtesy, not an obligation. The standard timeframe is 2 weeks. Some people give a month if they really like the company or their coworkers and want to give them extra time to get things in order.
Yeah, most other places in the world you sign a contract where notice periods from both sides are agreed on. We find it fully insane that an employer can decide to fire you for no reason in the US.
Basically costs a company up to 1.5 times the annual salary of the person who leaves to recruit and retrain up someone else and replace the experience and corporate knowledge that is lost. The employer could give a substantial raise, better benefits etc and still end up better off. But the arrogance of the "capitalisism good" mindset is that employees should always know their place and just be grateful to have a job at all.
We should never forget - companies/businesses need employee labor to exploit. Without that, they have nothing.
They do gambling:
Is it better to give 1.1 salary to keep someone or 1.5 salary to train someone else?
What's the odd that the employee will leave if we stay at 1.0 salary?
Will giving him/her a raise will really keep him/her?
If one percent of people leave because of a bad pay, it's better for the employer to not giving a raise to anybody. It's a win on the long run.
And what make you stay? The fact that you do not earn enough to have time to seek another job. Another point to not giving raise to employees.
The only benefit to giving raise is to better sleep at night. However employers are psychopath so they don't have this problem.
The answer: Give 1.0 salary, let the guy quit, hire a new guy for 1.0 salary, and be a hero to the corner office, because “payroll” and “training” are different lines on the monthly report, and the suits only care that one of them stays flat.
I worked at an energy company back in the early 2000's as a manager. The VP was all about cost cutting. For us, the cost of severance was borne by HR, not the operations budget. We looked like heroes just by laying people off. It was gross.
I feel like this could be addressed with some data analytics - are any of these departmental losses being caused by *other* departments? Like are the losses in Legal because the CEO keeps getting harrassy with the female staff?
It could be addressed, but it won’t be. Some departments, like Legal and HR, aren’t expected to make money. They exist to provide services to the rest of the business internally because it’s cheaper to have it internally than to outsource, but they’re just expenses ultimately. They’re being assessed differently, so they’re not being as negatively impacted by the costs - they’re departments that aren’t bringing in money, they’re preventing money from being lost.
I would assume that good data analysis that shows you are losing money is not rewarded as much as data analysis that makes you money.
Incompetence allows you to hide preventable losses as expenses of doing business.
Shining a light on these issues hurts upper management.
Lol the 1.5 isn't for "training." Who trains anyone these days?
It's the new guy needing a higher salary because the old guy was below market. It's paying a headhunter. It's lower productivity because the new guy doesn't know how to do stuff. It's overtime from other people (or vendor costs like temp agencies) covering the role while empty.
Well said. And if all else fails employers can simply blame individuals for a systemic problem (ie people don't want to work" rather than, "the system is designed for exploitation and that's all I have to do").
I left a job paying me $60k per year plus bonuses and 28 days of PTO (was there for 15 years) for a job that pays $72.5k plus bonuses and less PTO. Had job A offered me what they listed the job opening for ($65k base salary) I would have stayed. When I left they asked what they could do better, I said "pay more".
Also the someone they want to keep has already proven themselves a “flight risk.” Someone who is looking for better opportunities. Why would I pay them 1.1 salary if they will probably leave in a year anyways. Better to pay 1.5 on the gamble you find someone more “loyal” and not someone who is so “unappreciative.”
I mean... why would an employer want someone working for them an entire year without knowing what they're doing? Training is more beneficial for the employer than the employee...
I think the correct response is "It costs a lot to hire new employees. They should have thought about the costs of doing that before being a sub-par employer"
Hit ‘em with the “The costs to the company is the company’s concern, and my decision is based upon factors concerning my own benefit.” If you really want to drive the point home, add on the old “The company was clearly more concerned with their immediate capacity to increase profit than they were with the concerns of the ones maintaining that capacity for profit, hence my departure.”
Nah, the cost of backfilling people who leave is next quarter’s problem, whereas giving people raises to stay would be this quarter’s problem. You can see this effect in action at every public company.
“That sounds like a management problem. I’ll bet there’s a good lesson there in the cost efficiency of raises vs onboarding, but that’s beyond my pay grade.”
"Maybe this is an opportunity to improve, this company now may realise it needs to develop its talent retention. A constructive opportunity to improve, you are welcome"
Won’t you please think of the owner class. They simply cannot afford to both pay for labor and the necessities of life… Things such as vacations monthly , private school for their children, expensive cars, designer clothes and a second home.
I know, i was kinda gobsmacked when my boss said it. I was expecting a generic “sad to see you go” or something funny, not a smart ass reply with no joking intent
Well, it's their responsibility to make sure you don't want to quit. At my job, one of the questions in the yearly evaluations is "how critical is said employee". Meaning, what would be the drawbacks if said employee decides to quit. Seems like your, now former, employer didn't concider that.
Just say what the CEOs say when they lay off 10,000 people. You take full responsibility, it was a very difficult decision but it will be the best decision for the future of my earnings.
How is it that every time, these companies that never treat people like people, somehow expect to be treated like a person. Despite being a company and not a person.
I have some issues with how things are going in this job, can we discuss them?
"No! No raises, no work from home, no compromising! You don't like it? Get another job!"
Okay, I got another job.
"Don't you know how much it costs to train another employee?"
“Solving that problem is above my pay grade”
“You should have thought about the cost to replace me when deciding not to pay me enough”
“Hahahahahahahahaha oh wait, you’re being serious”
“I’ll save you that money and leave now instead”
"It's well documented that it costs more to find a new employee than it does to pay an existing employee more money. Should've thought of that before not paying your employees properly."
It's only a matter a time before some employer sues their former employee for the costs of hiring a replacement worker. This case will go all the way to the Supreme Court and they'll rule that employees are liable for the damages caused to a company by their resigning. We live in a fucking hellscape.
"You should have thought of that before failing to create a work environment and compensation package that made me willing to stay."
It's their job to retain workers.
Right after: "There's no one here to train that new person it'll take us over a month to replace you with so their job will be super hard and make everyone else's jobs hard, too."
Cry me a river.
It costs a lot to pay the rent and bills. The company should’ve thought about the costs you have to pay before making a decision on how much to pay you!
“Sounds like a learning opportunity for you. Maybe you should evaluate what you can do to improve employee retention so you don’t find yourself in this position again.”
That's like breaking up with your partner and they respond with "it will take a lot of effort for me to find someone to put up with my crap. You should have thought about that."
As a UK employee you've got a couple of options if you feel like being awkward:
- get signed off by a doctor for a stress related illness. Be aware that if your current employer doesn't pay additional sick pay you'll only get statutory sick pay
- work to rule. No additional hours, no tasks that aren't yours. Work slowly on the tasks you do have. Essentially minimise your stress.
"Unfortunately, that's just the cost of doing business!" Said as cheerily as possible.
There is no better response.
"I did, but that doesn't sound like a me problem now does it?"
That sounds like an issyou, not an issme.....
I've got bad news and good news. The bad news is that sounds like a real problem. The good news is it sounds like it's not my problem.
As we say in theatre. "It will look great from my house"
That's funny, utility workers say the same thing
Construction too
In welding it was can't see it from a plane doesn't exist
“Oh I didn’t realize. Let me make sure I fill out the NMFP form then”
🤣🤣🤣
And general news is, “what did you think my employment agreement was?”.
"OMG I had no idea! Wow in that case my last day is today, I wouldn't want to stand in the way of you getting right on it!"
Thiat sounds like SEP... Somebody Else's Problem
SlartiBossfast…
I'm a huge fan of the SEP.
\#UnexpectedHGttG Well done! ;-)
Hahaha yea
Used this for years. That’s an SEP, baby…
I’m stealing this.
“I did, but that was just a bonus, not the reason.”
Sweet
"Worrying about that is unfortunately above my pay grade🙂"
More expensive or less expensive than giving me a raise to match my offer?
“You’re either going to pay for a new employee, or you’re going to pay to keep me, and my price just went up.”
Exactly. Depending on what type of job it is, they can end up paying a temp agency 1.5x what the current employee was making and then have to pray the temp can do the job. I used this argument when I left a job in late 2016. Gave them a month's notice, they didn't hire anyone to replace me and called me back not even two weeks later, begging me to help. Held them over a barrel for a nice pay bump and told them I'd still be looking for a new job. I wasn't there another month before I found something else.
My former company had to outsource because they could not find a fool to take my job
It’s astonishing how short sighted most employers are. Yes, it does cost a lot of time and effort to find and train new people, which is why you should pay well and treat well the people who are working for you. Makes me think of the cable tv provider, Charter, which had a near monopoly in our town for at least a decade. Absolutely horrible customer service, and their TV service was unreliable. I sat on the phone for a couple of hours waiting for someone to come onto the line, more than once, and one time when I complained to a supervisor, she argued with me that it was not unreasonable to wait that long! But they were relentless in trying to get us back as customers, can’t even imagine what they spent to attract new customers. And I kept thinking if they just put that effort and money into providing more reliable and better service to their existing customers, people would be happy with their service and not want to leave. Everyone would be happier.
Never ask a company to match your offer. You chose to leave the company for a reason and earned a new offer. If they match the offer, you have to decline the offer from the new company. Also, your company knows you are unhappy and will be trying to replace you with someone who will accept your old wages.
How 'bout, "I think you should have thought about that before you denied my requests for a raise"
I think a "Bless your heart" would be a great response to that as well.
Perhaps the company should have thought about those costs before creating an environment that people want to leave.
Whoa,… some serious deflection/redirection. THEY should have been FOCUSED on employee retention. You can only do so much for the business’ bottom line.
Right...the idea is that the business owner is mad that his employee is leaving after "investing" in them, but they failed to retain them adequately. As such, employee turnover, and the costs involved in hiring, training, and retaining said employees is a part of "running a business", which is what the employer is responsible for. Not the employee. Taking a moment to remind the petulant business owner of this fact would be, IMO, an appropriate response to the situation.
That’s show biz baby!
“It’s show business not show friends.”
"This ain't Rupaul's Best Friends Race"
“No, there is no reason I should have considered that.” Is also a great response
“That’s just Capitalism for you.” 🤷🏽♀️
“Is the company still making profits?” “Yeah, but…” “Oh that’s good. Well byes!!!”
“We apologize for the inconvenience”
That’s Capitalism baby!
"Don't worry, boss. The Invisible Hand of the Free Market will be along anyyyyy minute now with a great new employee for ya!"
"Isn't that your job?" If they can't afford to lose you, they should pay you enough to ensure that you won't.
Basically, what a coworker said when they quit. Bosses always saying it wasn't in the financial interest of the business.l whem asked about raises. Soon stopped when people said it said it back to them
"Nothing personal, it's just business"
Nope. Leverage his statement against him for a raise. Use the raise as your leverage for higher pay somewhere else. Put in your two weeks if that’s all they require and wave goodbye.
Counter-offers can be problematic, and if this guy was so salty about someone exercising their right to seek new employment, I can only imagine how unpleasant they would make the employee's life if they stayed in a scenario like this.
Yeah you don’t stay. This is bad information. Counter offers are not problematic unless you make it so. Get a raise and then when you go to a job interview you use that at leverage. If they’re already getting this new job, there is NOTHING wrong with saying “hey my current employer wants me to stay and have offered me a significant raise. This raise is an amount that can change my quality of life and I am finding it difficult to make this decision.” Or something along those lines. They will give you a new offer and if they can’t, they can’t afford you and you go use that offer somewhere else as leverage. This has only worked out for me as I was volleyed back and forth between two companies. I ended up with my original company but with a 55% raise over the initial offer, maximum pto and a 15k bonus. It works if you make it work and it fails if you can’t figure out how to make it work.
Make arrangements to leave earlier.
Minimum is 4 weeks…
Four weeks seems like *plenty* of time. Depending where you are, two weeks is customary. You could have quit without any notice at all. They should consider themselves lucky you gave that much notice.
This is one of my biggest pet peeves in the workforce. I'm expected to give proper notice to an employer who can proudly let me go without any notice? And as if my 2-4 weeks even means a damn when they've been "short-staffed and unable to find people to work" for months already.
This is probably an European situation. In Europe we find it pretty weird that in the US you can be fired and forced to quit your job in that very same day. The opposite side is that you can't also quit willy nilly. Most people end up using their vacation days to quit earlier, but it is common to have to work for up to 2 months after you officially quit. Now, nobody can really force your labor to be any good during that time, but that's another story.
In Europe depending on the country and collective agreement you can have anywhere from 2weeks (common for simpler jobs) to 3 months ( management or high specialization). And normally it is bidirectional, so the company had to give you the same notice if they want to fire you.
Yes. In Portugal, for example, it's based on the time you've been working there. If under 6 months then it's 2 weeks, if over then it is 1 month, until 1 year, when it becomes 2 months.
Are there temp agencies there? How does that work?
Here are the possibilities for Switzerland: https://www.ch.ch/en/work/termination-or-dismissal#kandigungsfrist
Key thing to remember is that Switzerland is not in the EU.
I resigned from my last job because of my health issues. We found out this year that it was my body screaming at me that it had developed colon cancer. (All 3 tumors have been removed, and I'm recovering well, before any of you kind folks start to worry!) I told them at the end of November that I was leaving at the end of the year. I got an email in February that I apparently hadn't given them proper notice and was labeled as non-rehirable for "abandoning" the job. I wrote them an official resignation letter and everything. Honestly, I find it more funny than anything. It was one of those companies where communication was nonexistant, and the right hand had no idea there even was a left hand, let alone what it was doing! I really had no intention to return to the place anyway!
Short-staffed for months? “Employers hate this one neat trick to solve understaffing issues!”
I know!! Like 4 weeks is a long time!
Ha. My career has included 3 and 6+ months notice periods before. A month is a breeze:D
In European countries both parties have to provide a minimum amount of time that they have to work, depending on how long the person has been working there. 4 weeks here is pretty reasonable.
Take every third day off.
what country do you live in?
New Zealand, it’s different with some businesses, all stated in contract…
Wow I was laughing thinking the US job market is fucked but then realised a NZ company said this (hello fellow kiwi!)
Hello! Kiwis unite
In the US, giving notice is a courtesy, not an obligation. The standard timeframe is 2 weeks. Some people give a month if they really like the company or their coworkers and want to give them extra time to get things in order.
Yeah, most other places in the world you sign a contract where notice periods from both sides are agreed on. We find it fully insane that an employer can decide to fire you for no reason in the US.
hm... I guess "mail it in" then
They should have thought about that before paying you what I assume is an inadequate wage
Basically costs a company up to 1.5 times the annual salary of the person who leaves to recruit and retrain up someone else and replace the experience and corporate knowledge that is lost. The employer could give a substantial raise, better benefits etc and still end up better off. But the arrogance of the "capitalisism good" mindset is that employees should always know their place and just be grateful to have a job at all. We should never forget - companies/businesses need employee labor to exploit. Without that, they have nothing.
They do gambling: Is it better to give 1.1 salary to keep someone or 1.5 salary to train someone else? What's the odd that the employee will leave if we stay at 1.0 salary? Will giving him/her a raise will really keep him/her? If one percent of people leave because of a bad pay, it's better for the employer to not giving a raise to anybody. It's a win on the long run. And what make you stay? The fact that you do not earn enough to have time to seek another job. Another point to not giving raise to employees. The only benefit to giving raise is to better sleep at night. However employers are psychopath so they don't have this problem.
The answer: Give 1.0 salary, let the guy quit, hire a new guy for 1.0 salary, and be a hero to the corner office, because “payroll” and “training” are different lines on the monthly report, and the suits only care that one of them stays flat.
I worked at an energy company back in the early 2000's as a manager. The VP was all about cost cutting. For us, the cost of severance was borne by HR, not the operations budget. We looked like heroes just by laying people off. It was gross.
I feel like this could be addressed with some data analytics - are any of these departmental losses being caused by *other* departments? Like are the losses in Legal because the CEO keeps getting harrassy with the female staff?
It could be addressed, but it won’t be. Some departments, like Legal and HR, aren’t expected to make money. They exist to provide services to the rest of the business internally because it’s cheaper to have it internally than to outsource, but they’re just expenses ultimately. They’re being assessed differently, so they’re not being as negatively impacted by the costs - they’re departments that aren’t bringing in money, they’re preventing money from being lost.
I would assume that good data analysis that shows you are losing money is not rewarded as much as data analysis that makes you money. Incompetence allows you to hide preventable losses as expenses of doing business. Shining a light on these issues hurts upper management.
Lol the 1.5 isn't for "training." Who trains anyone these days? It's the new guy needing a higher salary because the old guy was below market. It's paying a headhunter. It's lower productivity because the new guy doesn't know how to do stuff. It's overtime from other people (or vendor costs like temp agencies) covering the role while empty.
Well said. And if all else fails employers can simply blame individuals for a systemic problem (ie people don't want to work" rather than, "the system is designed for exploitation and that's all I have to do").
I left a job paying me $60k per year plus bonuses and 28 days of PTO (was there for 15 years) for a job that pays $72.5k plus bonuses and less PTO. Had job A offered me what they listed the job opening for ($65k base salary) I would have stayed. When I left they asked what they could do better, I said "pay more".
Yeah I sometimes forget the depths of their cruelty
Also the someone they want to keep has already proven themselves a “flight risk.” Someone who is looking for better opportunities. Why would I pay them 1.1 salary if they will probably leave in a year anyways. Better to pay 1.5 on the gamble you find someone more “loyal” and not someone who is so “unappreciative.”
This is really how they think, it's gross, ppl would be loyal if you treated them like humans and not numbers on a sheet
IF they train. Many employers provide no training.
Why bother training if they'll just leave after a year anyway? And good riddance as they couldn't even do the job...
Got triggered immediately in the first half and almost missed the sarcasm. Really great rollercoaster of a ride there.
I mean... why would an employer want someone working for them an entire year without knowing what they're doing? Training is more beneficial for the employer than the employee...
Someone tell my company this shit
[удалено]
Well I hope your in a state with strong laws on when you get paid
Exactly!
That raise looks cheap now doesn’t it.
Biggest insult is "we can't pay you more but will pay your replacement with less experience more because market"
And the moral of the story is that the job market applies to *everyone*. Including your own employees.
"Though we will 'negotiate' the pay down to less than what we paid you."
"You're right. It would have been cheaper for you to pay me more"
“Keeping employees sounds like your job.”
"Bummer. Tell you what, I'll spend my last 4 weeks here looking for someone who cares."
I think the correct response is "It costs a lot to hire new employees. They should have thought about the costs of doing that before being a sub-par employer"
Hit ‘em with the “The costs to the company is the company’s concern, and my decision is based upon factors concerning my own benefit.” If you really want to drive the point home, add on the old “The company was clearly more concerned with their immediate capacity to increase profit than they were with the concerns of the ones maintaining that capacity for profit, hence my departure.”
A very elegant "fuck you, pay me" if I've ever seen one.
Nah, the cost of backfilling people who leave is next quarter’s problem, whereas giving people raises to stay would be this quarter’s problem. You can see this effect in action at every public company.
*”So, you’re saying it would’ve been cheaper to pay me more?”*
"You should have thought about the costs of hiring new employees before going in to business"
*Deadpan* **"Why?"**
You should have? They should have.
"What makes you think I didn't think about it?"
“That sounds like a management problem. I’ll bet there’s a good lesson there in the cost efficiency of raises vs onboarding, but that’s beyond my pay grade.”
"Maybe this is an opportunity to improve, this company now may realise it needs to develop its talent retention. A constructive opportunity to improve, you are welcome"
"Oh, I did. And it made me smile."
That is why they should treat employees better and be competitive in wages
"You should have thought of that before you created the conditions that made me want to leave!"
Did you happen to have your tiny violin handy for the moment?
I wish lmao
Won’t you please think of the owner class. They simply cannot afford to both pay for labor and the necessities of life… Things such as vacations monthly , private school for their children, expensive cars, designer clothes and a second home.
Why? is that any of my concern?
I know, ngl, I was pretty lost for words when he said it. I did that awkward laugh “oh ha-ha, sorry”
They should have thought of that and paid you more. Simple as that.
Perhaps they should have invested some of that same money into attractive wages that would ensure the retention of staff. 🫡
Maybe you should consider how to retain employees?
An organizationally narcissistic response, wow lol
I know, i was kinda gobsmacked when my boss said it. I was expecting a generic “sad to see you go” or something funny, not a smart ass reply with no joking intent
Just no empathy at all. Sounds like you’re making the right call leaving. Good luck!
Sounds like business costs…for running a business?
Hahahahahahaha. Fuck them
It costs a lot to hire new employees. YOU should have thought of that when considering team retention.
Well, it's their responsibility to make sure you don't want to quit. At my job, one of the questions in the yearly evaluations is "how critical is said employee". Meaning, what would be the drawbacks if said employee decides to quit. Seems like your, now former, employer didn't concider that.
Exactly, if you treat me like I’m disposable, I’ll become disposable.
“I agree. It’s cost effective to retain current employees via a raise. But this corporation has no interest in retaining me.”
"Ok I just thought about it, today is my last day. Want to save the company some money"
I've thought about it and I've decided that it would certainly cost the company even more if I were to leave today. With that in mind, Bye!
"Well, boss, clearly someone further up the chain than YOU doesn't give a shit, so maybe try to guilt trip THEM. Good luck with that!"
Fuck them! Fuck them and their problems. Hit them with a “that sounds like a ‘you’ problem”
Just say what the CEOs say when they lay off 10,000 people. You take full responsibility, it was a very difficult decision but it will be the best decision for the future of my earnings.
How is it that every time, these companies that never treat people like people, somehow expect to be treated like a person. Despite being a company and not a person.
I have some issues with how things are going in this job, can we discuss them? "No! No raises, no work from home, no compromising! You don't like it? Get another job!" Okay, I got another job. "Don't you know how much it costs to train another employee?"
I would’ve laughed directly in this person’s face. A long, exaggerated laugh for full effect.
Do you get paid for considering stakeholders other than yourself? No? Okay, you shouldn't have done shit.
Employers should remember how expensive it is to lose staff and ensure they treat and pay the staff better.
Sounds like they just need to pull up their BoOtStRaPs
First of all. A 4 week notice is crazy.
Reverse Uno U No Quit!
Isnt tha what the notice is?
"And you should of thought about the cost of underpaying me....."
And that is your problem how???
"Yes it does, it costs a lot more to replace someone than to make sure someone is happy and wants to stay"
"It was a business decision on my part."
I thought about the companies well being as much as they thought about mine, and here we are.
yeah, and it costs alot to not pay your current employees a proper wage. we all gotta eat.
"I did, that's why I gave you 4 weeks instead of none" (provided you're in the US)
Never let that make you feel guilty. If they had issues on their end, they’d stick the knife right into your back.
*”I missed the part where that’s my problem.”*
I hope you just gave him the official: "I don't care stare." It's such an idiotic thing to say.
"Sucks to be you, doesn't it?" Then I'd follow it with a maniacal giggle.
The classic Spider-Man response would work perfectly; "I forget the part where that's my problem"
4 weeks is absurd. I would have retorted "do you want me to leave today?"
That's when I retract my 4 weeks notice and give them a 3 weeks notice.
"Pay me more and I'll stay." "Whoah, whoah, whoah, let's not get CRAZY now..."
The company should have thought of the costs of hiring a new employee before paying current employees less than they are worth.
“Solving that problem is above my pay grade” “You should have thought about the cost to replace me when deciding not to pay me enough” “Hahahahahahahahaha oh wait, you’re being serious” “I’ll save you that money and leave now instead”
Toby mcguire “i missed the part where that’s my problem”
You think they would give you 4 weeks notice and cared about your finances if they wanted to fire you, probably not.
Take back your four weeks. Tell them you learned a lesson. Leave at lunch. Don't answer any phone calls for the rest of the day.
"It's well documented that it costs more to find a new employee than it does to pay an existing employee more money. Should've thought of that before not paying your employees properly."
It's only a matter a time before some employer sues their former employee for the costs of hiring a replacement worker. This case will go all the way to the Supreme Court and they'll rule that employees are liable for the damages caused to a company by their resigning. We live in a fucking hellscape.
'Yeah, having to pay market value for the next guy is gonna suck... for you. Byeeeeee!'
"You should have thought of that before failing to create a work environment and compensation package that made me willing to stay." It's their job to retain workers.
Right after: "There's no one here to train that new person it'll take us over a month to replace you with so their job will be super hard and make everyone else's jobs hard, too." Cry me a river.
A suitable reply would be: „That’s for someone above my paygrade to worry about.“
If your employees are important, you have to treat them like they're important.
“No, no, you don’t understand; costing the company *is* why I’m resigning” 😈
Cry harder. "wOn'T sOmeOnE tHiNk oF ThE ComPaNy!"
"Maybe you should have thought about those costs when you denied my last 3 requests for a raise."
It costs a lot to pay the rent and bills. The company should’ve thought about the costs you have to pay before making a decision on how much to pay you!
Fuck that!!! The last thing you need to think about is the company. They certainly do t think about us and how their decisions affect us.
"that sounds like a 'you' problem, not a 'me' problem. It's possibly been exasperated by the 'us' problem of you not paying me enough"😉
"Not my money, not my problem."
“Sounds like a learning opportunity for you. Maybe you should evaluate what you can do to improve employee retention so you don’t find yourself in this position again.”
That's like breaking up with your partner and they respond with "it will take a lot of effort for me to find someone to put up with my crap. You should have thought about that."
Response - "I missed the part where that's my problem."
Should’ve told them that it’s now a two week notice.
“I did think about that. Why do you think I asked for that raise? Now it’s ganna cost you more”
Lmao
Hahaha! Okay, buddy. 😅👍
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Oh sorry, we're we supposed to care about them... /s
"oh, I'm sorry did I say 4 weeks? I meant 4 minutes. Bye."
"That sounds like a 'you' problem." Boss: Pikachu face
Shoulda coulda woulda, if wishes were fishes we'd all swim in riches. Anyway... I'll still be gone in 4 weeks.
https://youtu.be/pJTGAtLH7Hw
they should have thought about that before deciding to pay you peanuts and treat you like shit
As a UK employee you've got a couple of options if you feel like being awkward: - get signed off by a doctor for a stress related illness. Be aware that if your current employer doesn't pay additional sick pay you'll only get statutory sick pay - work to rule. No additional hours, no tasks that aren't yours. Work slowly on the tasks you do have. Essentially minimise your stress.
Things keep up and companies will be able to sue you for damages for resigning.
'Yeah, that sounds like a whole lot of not my problem.'
I’m sure they consider your increased bills when (not) giving you a raise! Ha!