It's amazing the way companies are trying to low ball possible employees now.....

z31maniac wrote:

SVreX wrote:

Kenny_McCormic wrote:

SVreX wrote: Honestly, I find it easier to be content with little.

As do I, but that isn't what poverty is. Poverty is when you can not afford that little in which you would be content with in the first place.

That definition presupposes that there is a quantity of stuff that defines the state of being contented. Untrue. I have lived in third world countries. I have known contented people who had no stuff. I have also known many, many discontented people with plenty of stuff. Stuff and contentment are not actually connected, except that we choose to make them that way.

Well........that's what the definition IS, regardless if YOU choose to redefine it to fit your world view.

Umm... No it's not.

Merriam Webster:

Poverty- a : the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

There is NOTHING in the definition of poverty that says anything about contentment, and it is ALWAYS measured in a particular social context.

Your dictionary broke?

I literally have more vacation time than I know what to do with. Well I know things I could do with it, but I couldn't afford them, because the pay sucks, and some work on a couple of old Japanese cars crushed my finances like a bug I'd cash in some vacation days if company policy allowed for it. I can save gas & lunch money by taking time off and sitting at home, but not a whole lot.

Just an FYI, my company doesn't allow purchase of vacation, the sale of vacation, the rollover of vacation, and you don't accrue vacation here. Basically, two-weeks for the first 5 years, 3 weeks for the first 10.

But on the flip side our wages are competitive, especially considering many jobs don't require a degree. We're "the job to have" in the area, but I am not the only young person in the company (and lots of new engineers younger than me) who has been complaining about the vacation/PTO options.

That's pretty normal. Do you think the company should pay for you to take more time off before you've invested yourself in the company?

In reply to PHeller:

Just an FYI...

My company offers 1week after 1year- no more. No healthcare, small match on 401k, for management only.

I'm ok with that. Most of the industry offers zero.

I know hundreds of guys who get nothing better than many hours of low pay. The good companies pay overtime.

PHeller wrote: If you want as much salary as you can get an only 3-weeks vacation, great, but what if I'm comfortable sleeping on the dirt floor? Why can't I have a job/career and live life my way, too?

You can; its called "contract work" (budum tsh)

Seriously though, nothing stopping you from being your own boss and making your own rules. Work for 6 months of the year with weekends off, then go live in your dirt hut for the next 6 months.

Its not societies obligation to bend over backwards for you... althought I do think its nearly criminal how little vacation time the average US citizen gets. Up in Canuckland its minimum 2 weeks for full time, and any degree'd/certification driven career will be 3 weeks to start.

Its not that I don't sympathize, its that I made the necessary sacrifices to get where I am today. You haven't made the sacrifices (you still have your current job which you say pays well) to do what you want to do.

rotard wrote: That's pretty normal. Do you think the company should pay for you to take more time off before you've invested yourself in the company?

I'd be ok with trading my sick time for vacation time. Personally I think its a bit ridiculous that I've got nearly 4 weeks of sick time that I will never use because I'm generally a pretty healthy guy.

Barring that, I'd be ok with allowable UNPAID time off, which again the company doesn't grant.

I do know some folks aren't nearly as lucky as me with paid vacation, but then some industries have built in time off due to seasonal changes.

HiTemp, I'm still young enough where I haven't really experienced many of the sacrifices needed to live the ideal life. 10-20 years from now I may have a completely different viewpoint and be completely cool with minimal vacation.

I had a coworker at the county who sold back all but about 2 weeks of his 8 weeks of vacation. His reasoning? He liked being home with his kids and didn't need or want to travel without them.

In reply to PHeller:

I think you are missing the point.

No one is arguing against vacation. We'd all like more.

The question is whether the companies can, or should, foot the bill.

In today's marketplace, your current job is rather elite. Your desired one is a total fantasy.

Companies DO NOT owe you anything. If you work in a great place, you can prove your worth and they MAY reward you for it.

Heck, the government is the same way. My projected SS benefits, which I have contributed to for 38 years, have FALLEN by about 30% in the last few years, in spite if the fact that my income has increased by nearly 50% during the same time period. And they now carry a big warning that benefits may be reduced or eliminated by Congress at any time.

The US is increasingly LESS competitive in the world marketplace. Decreasing benefits is not a trend- it is the new normal.

I like your priorities. Live them out. Just don't expect your company (or me) to pay for them.

PHeller wrote: ...but do you think your current opinions are based on your ability to have already experienced things that I have not already? Maybe you moved around a lot as a kid. Maybe because of your job and chosen career or education you have been able to do lots of things you wanted to do that I have not. I'm not advocating for every company out there to give us all one months vacation, but it would sure be awesome if here in the land of the free we were given more options on what kind of "compensation" we were offered. If you want as much salary as you can get an only 3-weeks vacation, great, but what if I'm comfortable sleeping on the dirt floor? Why can't I have a job/career and live life my way, too?

you can get that 30 days of vacation that you want …pretty easily … join the service … get to do a little traveling also

'course at your age all you have left as a choice would be the Navy (Coast Guard under special circumstances)

age limits for US Armed Forces

Air Force - 27

Navy - 34

Marines - 28

Coast Guard - Age 27. Note: up to age 32 for those selected to attend A-school directly upon enlistment (this is mostly for prior service).

when I retired I had nearly 600 hrs accrued sick time … all lost

but if I'd come down with some major illness, massive injuries from a car wreck …etc … all that would have come in handy …

In reply to PHeller:

I work for a Fortune 100 company. I get 26 days per year, they carry over so I can accrue up to 36, I can also cash in. If some of you guys are unhappy with what you get look at other companies, but you might want to be ready to commit to a career.

Or hey go buy a snow cone stand , don't let 'the man' keep you down, and work when you want.

Acting like those of us, that are grounded with good jobs, are wasting out lives is just childish. My wife and I travel, we've taken some pretty incredible trips, we also have a lot of fun enjoying our big monster ass tv and nice cars. I enjoy mountain biking like you, and even with my 40 hour plus per week job I get to use it.

Datsun1500 wrote:

Cotton wrote: In reply to PHeller: Or hey go buy a snow cone stand , don't let 'the man' keep you down, and work when you want.

The snow cone stand up the road makes $80k from April to Sept. Not a good example...

It wasnt meant as a bad thing really. I have nothing against snow cone stands. I love to frequent our local one. It he wants the type of lifestyle he talks about it isn't a bad idea at all.

I either want to

A. Open a hot cake stand because I hear those things sell really well and travel the world on the profits.

Or

B. Invent something better than sliced bread and travel the world the profits.

z31maniac wrote:

Toyman01 wrote:

SVreX wrote: Honestly, I find it easier to be content with little.

There is a lot of truth to this statement. I have been seriously considering slowing way the hell down and getting by with less of everything. Life was so much simpler when I was broke.

I don't get this sentiment. Life is way easier now that my wife and I make a comfortable middle class living, but live like we have an average income for OK. Then again, I grew up with divorced parents living in a trailer park so I remember what it was like to be BROKE.

I grew up in a upper middle class home, with multiple cars, long vacations, and all the perks that go with it.

By the time I was 25, I was making $6.50/hr, the wife was a waitress on the weekends and we lived in a tiny little house, drove a ratty $300 car, had three kids, bought clothes at Goodwill and shopped for furniture, in trash piles, on the side of the road.

I was just as happy in that crappy little house, with no money, as I am in my newer, fancier house, making 10 times the money. Happiness is a decision you make and for me, money isn't that much of a requirement. As long as there is enough to keep the lights on and food on the table, I'm happy.

I do have a lot more tools now so I guess money isn't all bad.

To bring this back toward original topic, I've done corporate America. It sucks. My last employer used to hire and fire depending on sales. If sales were up 10%, they hired 10% more people. If sales were down, someone was getting the ax. I hated it with a purple passion. Corporate America is the reason I'm self-employed. I thank them for it every day.

There are a few decent people left in the world, you just have to look for them and ignore the rest. Repeat this often, it's easy to forget.

Toyman01 wrote: If sales were up 10%, they hired 10% more people. If sales were down, someone was getting the ax. I hated it with a purple passion. Corporate America is the reason I'm self-employed. I thank them for it every day.

I don't get why that makes you upset.

If there isn't work for people to do, it isn't economically feasible to pay people to sit around and do nothing. And when business picks back up, you hire people to meet the newly increased demand.

I've worked in manufacturing for 7 years and that's just how it is.

wbjones wrote: when I retired I had nearly 600 hrs accrued sick time … all lost but if I'd come down with some major illness, massive injuries from a car wreck …etc … all that would have come in handy …

A fireman friend in his mid-40's went in for his physical and had a heart blockage. Bam - open heart surgery.

He had a year of sick days saved, got paid full pay for a year, then retired cause of the heart issue.

Of course these "carry over sick days" are going by the wayside).

In reply to z31maniac:

For starters, we weren't in manufacturing. We were in service and you need a minimum number of people to cover the territory. This was on a quarterly basis, sometimes on a monthly basis. No sooner did we get someone trained, they would fire them. One big job and they would hire people we didn't need, only to fire them three months later. All based on a decision by some idiot in New Jersey. Their stupid decisions were pissing off customers faster than I could find them, so I took the customers and started my own company. Some months I'm up 50%, some months I'm down 50%. I haven't hired or fired anyone yet based on numbers alone, and we still get the job done.

^This.

Some companies have all but abandoned long term growth and stability to focus on short term gains.

Again, the commoditization of the workforce . . . Employees = potatoes

When you are cutting 10-20% of your workforce a year, then hiring more to only do it again means pissed of customers. It also indicates there is a one trick pony running the show that has run out of tricks.

Strike_Zero wrote: ^This. Some companies have all but abandoned long term growth and stability to focus on short term gains. Again, the commoditization of the workforce . . . Employees = potatoes When you are cutting 10-20% of your workforce a year, then hiring more to only do it again means pissed of customers. It also indicates there is a one trick pony running the show that has run out of tricks.

Sounds like a management issue to me, but several have insinuated all corporations are like this, which simply isn't true.

Agreed . . . Not all corps are like this. But, all corps suffer from it. Some do a better job at mitigating this.

Several in mgmt tout understanding right size, right fit for the job, but fail to execute that properly. Mostly due political and alternate agendas.

An example would be inept middle mgrs that sabotage each other. Since upper mgmt can't perform the duties of middle mgmt, they turn a blind eye; unless it begins to affect their coffers of cash. Then, its fire the lowly bottom rung dude/dudette that is following the guidelines put forth by mgmt.

Blind leading the blind.

Again some corps do well at containment, but none are immune.

In reply to Cotton:

From what I've seen, it's predominantly publicly traded companies. Any thing that could negatively affect the stock price is not allowed.

CEO of Microsoft says its best if women (and men) just don't ask for raises.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-tahmincioglu/surprise-ceo-encourages-w_b_5966048.html

He claims that we should work for employers who give raises more willingly, without being requested. "An issue of trust" between employee and employer that goes both ways.

I hope lots of his employees take his advice. About changing jobs.

Strike_Zero wrote: Several in mgmt tout understanding right size, right fit for the job, but fail to execute that properly. Mostly due political and alternate agendas. An example would be inept middle mgrs that sabotage each other.

Yup, I've seen that one personally. The conversation went like this:

Director Who Isn't My Boss - Hey Slefain, I need your expertise to get this idea off the ground. Can you help our team? It could be a great opportunity for the company.

Slefain - Wow, I'm honored that you appreciate my expertise. I'd love to help, let me clear it with my boss.

Director Who Is My Boss - Huh, so they want you to help them? But what will that do for us? Sure he gets the credit it it works, but since we don't report up through his branch it won't make us look any better. If he wants your help he needs to go through our VP. Until it becomes a priority for our VP I don't want you touching a thing.

Slefain - ......

PHeller wrote: "An issue of trust" between employee and employer that goes both ways.

Aaaahahahah. Trust between employee and employer? How quaint an idea. Maybe within a small mom & pop company, but no way in hell in a large corporation.

slefain wrote: Aaaahahahah. Trust between employee and employer? How quaint an idea. Maybe within a small mom & pop company, but no way in hell in a large corporation.

You can "trust" the employer to take care of the bottom line.