It’s sad how true this is. I quit my job and went to work for another company for a year. The previous company contacted me wanting me back, and hired be back after a year for $15k more than before. I’ve been there a year now and got a 3% raise. Probably should just quit again and get rehired
Suddenly no more office-only or office-first policies, suddenly there is money to offer, suddenly there is possibility to have a better computer.
Also suddenly HR system couldn’t work for a week, so signing a new counter-offer contract might not be possible at the moment. “Cancel your offer, you will sign in next week”.
Stupid question, wasn’t that a risky move? I mean, the way I was raised to think by my parents I can hear their voices in the back of my head if I went through a situation like this, similar to this:
“But aren’t you worried they might hire you then fire you just out of spite for switching companies? And then what are you gonna do?”
Not OP, but companies don’t really care about people to that degree. They act for profit, or perceived profit, or to avoid a loss- someone that they know to be useful who is already familiar with the business is more valuable than an unknown.
Makes sense. People think they are the center of the universe when companies only see you as an additional cog in the machine.
I’m not sure if I’m happy or sad by this. I’ll choose the positive side of things today.
Yeah, it’s both shitty and sometimes useful. It reminds me of an article I read once about implicit hierarchies- sometimes when organizations try to do away with traditional management, what they end up with instead is an unofficial and opaque control structure based on cliques and influence. In those cases it can be better for newcomers if there is an explicit set of rules and guidelines.
It wasn’t risky because I wanted to leave. I had problems with how they ran things. Then I realized the new place was even worse, and the old place reached out to me offering my job back. They explained how many of the things that I had issues with had been resolved or were being worked on. And they weren’t lying because I’m still there and quite happy.
No company with a single HR person would re-hire you just to fire you out of spite. It costs a chunk of time and money to get someone onboarded, which would be wasted. If they didn’t like you, they could just forget about you.
“And then what are you gonna do” is pretty clear, go back to the other company or find a different job. Not really a bad outcome.
It’s sad how true this is. I quit my job and went to work for another company for a year. The previous company contacted me wanting me back, and hired be back after a year for $15k more than before. I’ve been there a year now and got a 3% raise. Probably should just quit again and get rehired
Suddenly no more office-only or office-first policies, suddenly there is money to offer, suddenly there is possibility to have a better computer.
Also suddenly HR system couldn’t work for a week, so signing a new counter-offer contract might not be possible at the moment. “Cancel your offer, you will sign in next week”.
Interesting stuff :)
Stupid question, wasn’t that a risky move? I mean, the way I was raised to think by my parents I can hear their voices in the back of my head if I went through a situation like this, similar to this:
“But aren’t you worried they might hire you then fire you just out of spite for switching companies? And then what are you gonna do?”
Not OP, but companies don’t really care about people to that degree. They act for profit, or perceived profit, or to avoid a loss- someone that they know to be useful who is already familiar with the business is more valuable than an unknown.
Makes sense. People think they are the center of the universe when companies only see you as an additional cog in the machine. I’m not sure if I’m happy or sad by this. I’ll choose the positive side of things today.
Yeah, it’s both shitty and sometimes useful. It reminds me of an article I read once about implicit hierarchies- sometimes when organizations try to do away with traditional management, what they end up with instead is an unofficial and opaque control structure based on cliques and influence. In those cases it can be better for newcomers if there is an explicit set of rules and guidelines.
Do you have a source for this article? I’ve found that this has happened on my company and I am curious about the phenomenon
I don’t - it was quite a while ago, sorry. I’ll do some searching and let you know if I find it again.
It wasn’t risky because I wanted to leave. I had problems with how they ran things. Then I realized the new place was even worse, and the old place reached out to me offering my job back. They explained how many of the things that I had issues with had been resolved or were being worked on. And they weren’t lying because I’m still there and quite happy.
No company with a single HR person would re-hire you just to fire you out of spite. It costs a chunk of time and money to get someone onboarded, which would be wasted. If they didn’t like you, they could just forget about you.
“And then what are you gonna do” is pretty clear, go back to the other company or find a different job. Not really a bad outcome.