P&C Crap-All

I found out on friday that the average length of employment at my 6,330 strong employer is 16 years. There were over 300 people at the luncheon celebrating employees who have been here for more than 5 years.

I was gobsmacked when I learned that 'cause all my previous experience was with employers who prefer to treat their employees like tissue paper.

Edwin wrote:

I found out on friday that the average length of employment at my 6,330 strong employer is 16 years. There were over 300 people at the luncheon celebrating employees who have been here for more than 5 years.

I was gobsmacked when I learned that 'cause all my previous experience was with employers who prefer to treat their employees like tissue paper.

Surprising to me as well, as most of my other employers did the same thing. My current employer is now my longest running at 2.5 years, and I just got promoted, so I'm not looking to jump ship... but it was a weird feeling to be an environment that fosters its employees' growth into new areas of the company rather than expecting turnover to take care of everything.

Edwin wrote:

I was gobsmacked when I learned that 'cause all my previous experience was with employers who prefer to treat their employees like tissue paper.

Aggh... so many... horrible metaphors... springing to mind... unbidden...

MUST FLEE

For context, keep in mind my perspective is based on the life experiences of someone who works/lives at or near the poverty level in my area (combined household income somewhere around 40k) and have done so for most of my teen and adult life. So perhaps my value of basic life skills learned working at Starbucks or delivering pizzas or whatever is greater than the general selection of the population posting here.

Also, ladders? That's not how I see it. I said "grungily" because working minimum wage jobs and getting out of it is more like trying to climb out of a mud pit in some places in north america.

Demosthenes wrote:
Edwin wrote:

I found out on friday that the average length of employment at my 6,330 strong employer is 16 years. There were over 300 people at the luncheon celebrating employees who have been here for more than 5 years.

I was gobsmacked when I learned that 'cause all my previous experience was with employers who prefer to treat their employees like tissue paper.

Surprising to me as well, as most of my other employers did the same thing. My current employer is now my longest running at 2.5 years, and I just got promoted, so I'm not looking to jump ship... but it was a weird feeling to be an environment that fosters its employees' growth into new areas of the company rather than expecting turnover to take care of everything.

That litmus test is about to happen for me. A teammate is leaving and I am going to be pushing hard to take his position. I already know that my manager has someone in mind, I just hope that it is me. I'd really hate to get back to the notion that I have to change jobs in order to get a raise.

jdzappa wrote:

Just want to add that a childhood filled with lots of menial jobs around the neighborhood for crap pay plus a stint in the Army did wonders for me when it came to self-confidence and being willing to do the crap jobs nobody else wanted..

I dunno. I literally shoveled horsesh*t for years while growing up, and aside from the lower pay, the job was about equivalent to the white collar job I have now (i.e., show up on time, do something I'd rather not be doing for hours, collect paycheck). Work is work unless you're doing something you really enjoy.

Frankly, if I could go back to the horse manure job at my current salary I probably would.

Bloo Driver wrote:
muraii wrote:

Hey, so, I have a degree and worked at The Olive Garden for four years while in school and raising for kids with my practice wife. Anyone here wanna see my résumé?

While I am not one who appreciates people saying, "Well my experience," as if that proves anything... I'll in this one case say that I would murder to see someone walk in the door with four years of work in the same place on their resume. Right now, I'm fortunate if anyone we're hiring can at least come up with an interesting story about their spotty job history.

I'm sad to hear this is not something that seems to be valued so much elsewhere.

WELL, I'm 13 years at my current company, in market research, having started before finishing university. I had highfalutin ideas that an undergrad in mathematics would almost magically open doors. I finally finished after going mostly part-time, but somehow no one's beating down my doors.

Turns out, I made two mistakes, despite having had plenty of blue-collar grunt jobs: I assumed companies still generally valued longevity and rewarded it with career guidance into greater responsibility; and I became content, then despondent, and lost some ambition, thereby stagnating. Those are my mistakes and I own 'em, no "mistakes were made".

Which is to say...not sure. I guess there are scenarios in which this 29-y-o may be a go-getter and still fit the parent's description. And even working grunt jobs on the way to white-collar work isn't a deterministic formula for whatever is success.

Demyx wrote:

Maybe all people are different and there's no one size fits all solution. Maybe working at a low level job first does wonders for some people but others don't really get much out of it. Maybe some people do fine making the jump from academics to work and others really should've gotten some work experience in to prepare them....

One-size-fits-all "everybody should..." statements rarely work :p

*scampers up to the front of the stage after Demyx stops speaking, takes the mic from the stand and drops it*

Rezzy wrote:
muraii wrote:

raising for kids

Full-Stop. ---> Shredder. Next!

Autocorpsewrecked.

Bloo Driver wrote:
muraii wrote:

Hey, so, I have a degree and worked at The Olive Garden for four years while in school and raising for kids with my practice wife. Anyone here wanna see my résumé?

While I am not one who appreciates people saying, "Well my experience," as if that proves anything... I'll in this one case say that I would murder to see someone walk in the door with four years of work in the same place on their resume. Right now, I'm fortunate if anyone we're hiring can at least come up with an interesting story about their spotty job history.

I'm sad to hear this is not something that seems to be valued so much elsewhere.

See Edwin's post. The majority of companies don't value their employees enough to make it worthwhile to stay. In my industry, by far the best way to get better pay and title is to jump ship, repeatedly. I'm glad I found a company that's trying to fight against that, but it's rare.

I haven't been at the same job for longer than 1.5 years since I started my career. I plan on changing that with this job though.

Some of this conversation reminds me of this that I heard a couple of years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqhX_...

I was curious how we have such good retention so I went asking around. Starting rate for working the factory floor in assembling products is $18/hr with benefits. They said it was cheaper to retain folks than the constant churn.

People had to struggle less so they could focus on their work and not worry about home.

It's a pity more companies don't realize this.

Is this where am I suppose to do this?

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/5Fua0.gif)

I don't think Amoebic is talking about climbing the ladder of a corporation, but climbing the ladder of life. Someone with no skills or education is not really the issue, they are stuck. The issue at hand happens to be college grads that failed to get an real life look at what holding a job is like.

Chris Rock was on Aisha Taylor's podcast last week, and the subject of how actors have perceived their time at SNL as either good or terrible. Rock claimed that he would bet that every actor complaining about the "hell" they went through on SNL never held a real job. Rock worked at Red Lobster. He thought SNL was a good because it was a job. Actually, he went on to call it college for comedians, as it is a good stepping stone into moving on with your career.

jdzappa wrote:

At any rate, I got called on the carpet for posting conservative-slanted stories in the past (see the Crap shoot thread) and being told that I'm being overly partisan.

That's not really what I was saying. It wasn't that it was overly partisan or conservative-slanted, it's that there was no value in it except for people like your facebook buddies that found it funny. Maybe the idea that Fox News is horrible has been beaten into the ground by now, but at least this sort of had a point. It's more than just a 'funny' rant.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Ultraman makes noodles?

He got streamlined after the Jaegers came in. I feel for him.

Here's where the xkcd comic appeared in the thread.

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

+++++

NSMike & RoughneckGeek: it's not implied anywhere in the comic. It's my belief about the author's feelings on Tyson and his show Cosmos. If those are his feelings, then for the reason I laid out in this comment:

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

I feel like you're missing the context of what I was responding to, which was someone else's argumet that the author wasn't just talking about what you two are saying he was, he was also making a point about Socially Free Speech. From what I can tell about what you're saying, I agree, and in fact that was my point to him.

I'd just add that the second point I think the author was making is that people who mistakenly complain about their First Amendment rights being violated are not only wrong about an issue of legal fact, but are probably A-holes about most things, not just Constitutional interpretation.

tl;dr: The reason I said the comic isn't applicable is because of what I think you two are saying: it's about Legally Free Speech, and no one in the thread had been talking about Legally Free Speech recently.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Here's where the xkcd comic appeared in the thread.

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

+++++

NSMike & RoughneckGeek: it's not implied anywhere in the comic. It's my belief about the author's feelings on Tyson and his show Cosmos. If those are his feelings, then for the reason I laid out in this comment:

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

I feel like you're missing the context of what I was responding to, which was someone else's argumet that the author wasn't just talking about what you two are saying he was, he was also making a point about Socially Free Speech. From what I can tell about what you're saying, I agree, and in fact that was my point to him.

I'd just add that the second point I think the author was making is that people who mistakenly complain about their First Amendment rights being violated are not only wrong about an issue of legal fact, but are probably A-holes about most things, not just Constitutional interpretation.

tl;dr: The reason I said the comic isn't applicable is because of what I think you two are saying: it's about Legally Free Speech, and no one in the thread had been talking about Legally Free Speech recently.

I don't see anything in the comic that supports your assumption about the author. He makes no value judgement about the speaker or the people that show them the door. As a matter of fact, he further supports the way the rest of us are interpreting the comic with the mouseover text.

My assumptions is based on other comics of his regarding issues of Tyson, Creationists, and Science.

As for the mouseover text, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about defending things by saying "well, it's not ILLEGAL!" I'm talking about defending it on another basis, like you know: the reason Creationists are boycotting Cosmos are wrong, and if they get it cancelled that's a bad thing because from what I know of it, it's an informative show. Or the reason I was talking about earlier about not making the workplace a site of social punishment.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

My assumptions is based on other comics of his regarding issues of Tyson, Creationists, and Science.

As for the mouseover text, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about defending things by saying "well, it's not ILLEGAL!" I'm talking about defending it on another basis, like you know: the reason Creationists are boycotting Cosmos are wrong, and if they get it cancelled that's a bad thing because from what I know of it, it's an informative show. Or the reason I was talking about earlier about not making the workplace a site of social punishment.

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

I see a comic that lays out what happens when you speak up and take unpopular opinion, supported with mouse over text that says you should be able to support that opinion with something other than cries about "free speech".

If he wanted to make the point you seem to be wanting the comic to make, then he could have called the speaker an asshole in panel 5 instead of using the word "think".

We'll have to agree to half disagree. I'm not in disagreement when you say "I see a comic..." only when you say "If he wanted..." and in any case, what you're saying undercuts what the person I was originally talking to was arguing in the first place (edit) and what was relevant to the original argument anyway.

In other words, even if you're right that I'm wrong about the comic, that means I'm right that the comic wasn't about Socially Free Speech at all, and therefore, was not relevant to the recent posts in the thread.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

We'll have to agree to half disagree. I'm not in disagreement when you say "I see a comic..." only when you say "If he wanted..." and in any case, what you're saying undercuts what the person I was originally talking to was arguing in the first place.

Speaking freely about an unpopular idea and the social consequences for doing so do not change depending on who is right and who is wrong. The comic doesn't change if the speaker is an atheist speaking to a crowd of Christians.

Like I said, if you're right, that would actually support my original point about the comic not being applicable to the last couple of pages of the thread.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Like I said, if you're right, that would actually support my original point about the comic not being applicable to the last couple of pages of the thread.

The entire thread is about whether or not Eich should be immune from the consequences of his donation. The few pages prior to the comic being posted were about a glorified tone argument over whether gay rights supporters should or shouldn't react to bigotry. Comic looks like it fits right in there to me.

Well, on that we'll have to agree to fully disagree.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

My assumptions is based on other comics of his regarding issues of Tyson, Creationists, and Science.

As for the mouseover text, that's not what I'm talking about.

So you're not talking about the comic you're talking about, you're actually talking about the comics you're not talking about?

TALK ABOUT *ALL* THE COMICS!

I'm talking about what the author meant by that comic by making reference to what we know about the author, including his other comics.

I guess I still don't understand why you think that just because either way people are being shown the door, the comic is about either way when everything in the comic is only about Legally Free Speech. I don't see why you'd interpret something that only discusses Legally Free Speech and does so explicitly, and because the thing that happens at the end could happen in either case, all of a sudden it's also about Socially Free Speech. I guess at this point I'm confused about what you think the comic is about in the first place.