This Business and Moment...

[Trifid]

Work seem to be bulldozing their way through a car crash change of terms by forcing everyone to be oncall with an unacceptable rate of payment (~5.5% of pay per hour) and no extra payments for picking up a few extra shifts. The current payments are on a per shift basis and sufficient to encourage voluntary uptake. Their response to concerns is "you are free to leave"... I'm not even in a support facing role...

 

[Orangeade]

Well, seems like they like me which is good. Got a talk this week about what package would be like in more formal terms. This had already been discussed a bit so won't be anything out of blue hopefully. Curiously relieved to have gotten through. Have a long weekend off for the first time in so long and it was genuinely super nice. I think in the back of my mind I already had this job in mind.

My company are going to be extremely upset at the news. Not going to be pleasant....

So talk has been had. And yes I'm seizing this with both hands. Even chatting to them I got a really good vibe. The package is substantial, always a little bit distasteful to talk about, salary, but let's just say I'll be paying 206k+ tax where I live in the centre of a well known swiss german speaking city. Moving to a nearby Catholic Kanton it drops down to 123k tax.... But the range of benefits is very luxurious and really gives the sense of retention. Talking to the CPO they were quite open about their expectations of long tenure which I was happy to agree with him on.

They would preferably (Subject to the usual) like to start by December so I can get involved with Christmas party to help get to know people quickly (I'm guessing they've heard of my penchant for partying haha). This is going to be difficult as would have to get old company to let me go early. **** it the bridge can go burn.

I never advocate for burning bridges, but it can be wise to keep things in perspective. At the end of the day, you have to do what's best for you and your career. It's a job that pays the bills so that you can live your life, and if the company had to downsize, no one in HR would think twice about making you redundant if you were put on a redundancy list by your management. It's just business.

Once you're ready to hand in your notice, give notice, but make it clear that you're ready to move on (I don't think that counteroffers are generally viable or worth it from an employer or employee perspective). I generally adopt a "it's not you, it's me" attitude to these things, even if it is 100% them. Nothing good comes from burning bridges. "Thank you for the opportunity to work at the company, I have enjoyed working here, and it's now time for me to move on. I will do my best to ensure a diligent hand-off of any information that the company may need from me before I leave on [x date]."

Good advice it's a cut throat industry I've had to let people go before when times are tough so I would expect my own company to do the same if it came to it ....

Just been contacted by my manager in the middle of my holiday to ask if I can join a planning call for a workshop taking place the day after I get back from holiday.

Part of me thinks it's unreasonable to contact an employee whilst on leave expecting them to join a call.
Another part of me acknowledges I'm the person running the workshop and there's literally no preparation time between my holiday and the workshop.

I've agreed to do the call, but I've made it clear that I don't expect this to be the norm.

I think that's a fair shout shouldn't be the norm but life does happen.

I would expect them to volunteer an extra day without prompt though....unless they are very easy going and your time is usually your own anyway.

I have known folks to say, "I won't have any access to a phone or any Internet access, so good luck trying to contact me when I am on holiday.", but it turned out that they simply blocked any work phone numbers and didn't look at their work email or Slack.


This is just poor planning by your management. As I understand, there's no "right" to take paid holiday when you want - it's always up to the discretion of management to approve it - so if management wants to spread planned absences over the summer, then they do that (and enforce it). If people want to take unplanned, unpaid holiday, they're able to, but I doubt that many would do that (for example, to spite management for not letting them take holiday during their desired time) as they wouldn't want to be without pay during that time.

I cant see that going well to be honest, the modern world doesn't support it anymore.

 

[jon86]

So talk has been had. And yes I'm seizing this with both hands. Even chatting to them I got a really good vibe. The package is substantial, always a little bit distasteful to talk about, salary, but let's just say I'll be paying 206k+ tax where I live in the centre of a well known swiss german speaking city. Moving to a nearby Catholic Kanton it drops down to 123k tax.... But the range of benefits is very luxurious and really gives the sense of retention.

That's wonderful news! I'm very glad to hear that you'll be working for a much more generous employer that will hopefully take great care of you (and your family, if applicable).

I cant see that going well to be honest, the modern world doesn't support it anymore.

It's still possible to go on holiday where there's no cell or Internet access. Go on a cruise and just say that you're not going to pay $20+ /day for (very) slow Internet access, or go to Alaska (like a colleague did) where there's zero cell and Internet access.

 

[LuckyBenski]

Well, it's getting worse. Just seen the latest in an email chain (10pm last night was a request for me to do something, I read it at 9am and put it on a to-do list, by 11am there had been 4 more emails and then a different person was asked to do it. That person came to a group chat and asked if someone in my office could do it! Good lord.)

Anyway - latest email says "This was an informal discussion so I don't have a record. [Chief Commercial Officer], do you remember anything? Are we allowed to ask [person on maternity leave] questions?"

**** no, don't email random questions to the woman who's at home with her family right now

 

[jon86]

Anyway - latest email says "This was an informal discussion so I don't have a record. [Chief Commercial Officer], do you remember anything? Are we allowed to ask [person on maternity leave] questions?"

**** no, don't email random questions to the woman who's at home with her family right now

In all of the companies that I've worked for in the USA, asking anything from anyone on state or federally-protected leave (like maternity or paternity leave) was completely against company policy. In fact, several employers had a policy of disabling people's IT accounts while on leave. I was told that it was for legal reasons, but never dug into why.

Sure, you could email someone's company email account with a question while they're on leave, but they shouldn't have any requirement to actually check or even respond to work email while on leave.

 

[LuckyBenski]

In all of the companies that I've worked for in the USA, asking anything from anyone on state or federally-protected leave (like maternity or paternity leave) was completely against company policy. In fact, several employers had a policy of disabling people's IT accounts while on leave. I was told that it was for legal reasons, but never dug into why.

Sure, you could email someone's company email account with a question while they're on leave, but they shouldn't have any requirement to actually check or even respond to work email while on leave.

Absolutely they shouldn't have a requirement to check. But in reality they probably do have a device logged in they check occasionally. So it's considerate to not add unnecessary load to that IMO.

 

[dowie]

Well come october we will officially say to people that they have to be in the office 2 days a week. I can see a lot of people not being happy about it, but too bad. It's important for face to face time in our industry.

I will have to pay for a premier inn once a week, but it's not a big deal, I think it's important to do and in support. I don't think I could do 5 days again though considering how far the office is, if it was London it'd be fine.

Worth checking spare room type websites, if you just need a room for a night or two during the week then there are people who are sometimes keen to have lodgers and specifically don't want a lodger who is there all the time. Could be more convenient than a hotel if you're allowed to leave a suitcase and some things there too and don't need to check in, in some cases I've seen stuff like a separate annex above the garage or garden room advertised so you're not even sharing a house/flat.

I know that we have wildly differing opinions on remote work etc, but the fact that anyone unless they're a C level resource with major shareholder value can be alright with having to pay for a hotel once a week out of their own pocket for work absolutely boggles my mind. But then again I don't know all of the facts of your situation. I'm also making an assumption you're paying for the hotel which could again be wrong.

Eh? Do you expect your employer to pay for your rent or mortgage... It's the choice of an employee to arrange their accommodation, commute etc. and it's on them to pay for their choice. No employer will offer to pay for that, not even google! https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/04/google-offers-on-campus-hotel-special-to-lure-workers-back-in.html

"The company said full-time employees can book a room at an on-campus hotel in Mountain View for $99 a night... Since the promotion is for unapproved business travel, the company will not reimburse their stays, but will require employees to use their personal credit cards, the special’s description states."

You get hotels paid for when you travel to places *other than* your office location for work, you're supposed to pay for your own accommodation and travel costs when it comes to your "home" office/the location employing you.

Everywhere I know who has gone the approach of mandating office days just have a mass amount of turnover in the first 6-12 months.

That's not necessarily unintentional in a lot of cases, maybe not the main intent (they do also genuinely believe having some face time is important and don't trust that some employees are putting in the hours they're paying them for) but a known side effect that the execs are well aware of and intend to make use of, saves having to make redundancies. Of course, it's somewhat inefficient in other ways as there is less control over who ends up actually leaving and some fo the good people can end up moving too unless they're targeted in advance and given exceptions from the RTO requirement.

 

[Freefaller]

Yes that's a great idea. I've put the feelers out and there's quite a few options actually.

That said 1 night a week still works out less than a season ticket per month anyway so I can live with that.

However I think I may well do that. Also a few friends at work are talking about doing an Airbnb type of thing and arrange to be in the office at the same time. Sure it's a bit of a faff but that's what my PA is for!

 

[NickK]

So the evil Security-bert throws their toys out of the pram.. over a non-production service, that is causing a delay (instead of the project manager). I suspect this is to deflect that the queue for security is causing a massive logjam and concentrating on deflecting attention from the programme office. Problem solved and normal service returned.. back to you evil Security-bert..

This is the problem when you have cybersecurity and risk in the same person.. Never do that.. ever. (besides the same person signs off the risk as resolves the issue.. where's the segregation of duties)

 

[OspreyO]

In all of the companies that I've worked for in the USA, asking anything from anyone on state or federally-protected leave (like maternity or paternity leave) was completely against company policy. In fact, several employers had a policy of disabling people's IT accounts while on leave. I was told that it was for legal reasons, but never dug into why.

Sure, you could email someone's company email account with a question while they're on leave, but they shouldn't have any requirement to actually check or even respond to work email while on leave.

In a combination of HR policy and security paranoia I've no access to our systems away from my laptop or desktop. The flip side they can't contact me.

 

[NickK]

Only reason I’ve seen for this was to expose activities at a bank where a 10 day mandated vacation without company-employee or vice versa, would he enough time to detect those activities. Thus it became a derisking activity for the bank.

 

[NickK]

Slightly sick of the position I’m in. Basically I was hired to deliver an aws framework for governance (a massive 10 org estate, £100M+/yr) - delivered the MVP and that’s progressing. The group financial director, the group CIO and the largest company CDIO all have diverging views which is a completely political position.. it’s essentially like the funding customer taking your MVP then deciding they will do their own (but they have been told that using us will save time and money for not reinventing the wheel).. yet basically because “it’s not made here” yet they know full well they don’t have the skillset or people to deliver… they will now take our new features and support infrastructure for at least another 18 months add to that the CISO (also also BISO - combining security and risk in the same person is asking for extra trouble) is intent (which is a large stakeholder) to point fingers to redirect the blame for delays caused by their own processes.. yet because they’re a stakeholder I can fight back.. (yes this is the same stakeholder throwing their toys out of the pram because I talked to people in their org and surprised them with the alignment.
To make it more fun with diverging titanic opinions, the original funding past to me by the existing delivery lead was fictional and the organisational financial TOM means I now have to go to the major company staleholder and ask for additional funding (it would be easy if the financial system worked but it’s a old boys club and pretty much anyone would get fired for the shenanigans that they get up to).

Add to that the culture is like the 1960s to 1970s.. nobody has the slightest idea what they’re doing “in the cloud” or how to scale a large agile delivery of products..
It’s not the problem or the scale of the problem but the attitude and culture.

I think I may look for a new role because when there’s a team of 3 senior staff and two engineers (plus consultancy staff) and the senior stakeholders aren’t positive or encouraging speaks volumes - delivering what they couldn’t in 3 months seems to irk them. If they want better SLAs then we need funding…

What’s really annoying is the fact I can’t fight back due to politics above me.. it’s **** and vitriol. It’s like being abused, not being able to correct it and the expectation you should be grateful for the abuse.

I can deal with angry MDs etc (I did plenty of this in my old CTPO role) however in this role I have a fragmented/disjointed executive “support” and zero funding that makes it untenable (and a severe risk).

Let’s see on monday when we ask them for more funding

 

[OspreyO]

Only reason I’ve seen for this was to expose activities at a bank where a 10 day mandated vacation without company-employee or vice versa, would he enough time to detect those activities. Thus it became a derisking activity for the bank.

Ours is because HR and Security depts have lost the run of themselves. To the point at which it stops people working.

 

[Lopéz]

In all of the companies that I've worked for in the USA, asking anything from anyone on state or federally-protected leave (like maternity or paternity leave) was completely against company policy. In fact, several employers had a policy of disabling people's IT accounts while on leave. I was told that it was for legal reasons, but never dug into why.

Sure, you could email someone's company email account with a question while they're on leave, but they shouldn't have any requirement to actually check or even respond to work email while on leave.

My previous company (Canadian owned) completely disabled people's accounts whilst on maternity or paternity.

For maternity leave - most women I've managed whilst on mat leave feel excluded enough as it is without having all their accounts disabled while they were off.

 

[wingman]

A less senior member of our department to me revealed their recent payrise and bonus, both of which were in excess of mine.

Our bonuses and payrises are not performance based. How would you feel about this? I feel insulted, I'm constantly told by the head of our department that I'm the second in command, are more senior to the rest, etc. etc. and now I'm second guessing this.

I know our total comp is now within £5k of each other, and I have 5 years more experience in the field, 8 years more senior experience, and I'm qualified to a masters level and they're qualified to college levels. I have a tonne more responsibility than them.

Am I wrong for being angry at this?

 

[jon86]

A less senior member of our department to me revealed their recent payrise and bonus, both of which were in excess of mine.

Our bonuses and payrises are not performance based. How would you feel about this? I feel insulted, I'm constantly told by the head of our department that I'm the second in command, are more senior to the rest, etc. etc. and now I'm second guessing this.

I know our total comp is now within £5k of each other, and I have 5 years more experience in the field, 8 years more senior experience, and I'm qualified to a masters level and they're qualified to college levels. I have a tonne more responsibility than them.

Am I wrong for being angry at this?

Your market value is the price that someone else will pay for your talent, skills, and experience. If you can get more money elsewhere (which is validated by your ability to get an offer that offers more ££££(£)), then yes, you're being undervalued compared to your market value. However, that doesn't mean that your employer is willing to pay you an amount commensurate to your real market value. They want to pay you as little as possible. This is why people often don't stick around at a company for more than a few years, and perhaps why companies don't financially reward loyalty anymore.

 

[dowie]

A less senior member of our department to me revealed their recent payrise and bonus, both of which were in excess of mine.

Our bonuses and payrises are not performance based. How would you feel about this? I feel insulted, I'm constantly told by the head of our department that I'm the second in command, are more senior to the rest, etc. etc. and now I'm second guessing this.

Unless it's in writing then it's just waffle, sadly people BS a bit in the workplace. What do the head of HR and various directors think your actual job title/level is on paper and what is this other guy's job title on paper? If they're both the same then there is your issue.

I know our total comp is now within £5k of each other, and I have 5 years more experience in the field, 8 years more senior experience, and I'm qualified to a masters level and they're qualified to college levels. I have a tonne more responsibility than them.

Am I wrong for being angry at this?

Not necessarily, you're probably right to feel angry, though your qualifications are perhaps less relevant years into the role vs say getting a higher starting salary initially.

If you've got the same job title as this guy then you may be in the upper third of the pay range for the role and he's perhaps coming from the lower third of the range (as a new hire) but has been given larger increments to bring him into the middle of the pay range for the role (thus now only 5k behind you). That would be quite normal, if you're already maxing out the range you can't expect big rises. The solution to this is to get a promotion (which perhaps you can push for w.r.t. your greater responsibilities).

The bonus clearly is something related to performance else it wouldn't differ, push them on that and get some targets for next year for a bigger bonus.

 

[Orangeade]

A less senior member of our department to me revealed their recent payrise and bonus, both of which were in excess of mine.

Our bonuses and payrises are not performance based. How would you feel about this? I feel insulted, I'm constantly told by the head of our department that I'm the second in command, are more senior to the rest, etc. etc. and now I'm second guessing this.

I know our total comp is now within £5k of each other, and I have 5 years more experience in the field, 8 years more senior experience, and I'm qualified to a masters level and they're qualified to college levels. I have a tonne more responsibility than them.

Am I wrong for being angry at this?

The pay and **** talk is irrelevant here as you don't know what's true and what isn't.

The bit that sticks out to me is

, I'm constantly told by the head of our department that I'm the second in command, are more senior to the rest, etc

Do you have a title that reflects this? Even if HR structure doesn't have it (eg associate director doesn't exist between VP and Director) is there a mechanism for informal title such as "deputy head of". It sounds very much to me that you're just in the same pool as everyone else and thus swimming in same comp pool in which case unfortunately it makes sense person gaining more experience is catching up.

Do you have a career plan in place? What are your next steps, what is mobility options? Is it a question of dead man's shoes waiting for boss to leave? If he did leave are you differentiated enough that you would even get the job? Are you on leadership courses to signal intent?

Only spitballing here, but gut reaction is to focus on yourself rather than someone more junior.

 

[wingman]

Your market value is the price that someone else will pay for your talent, skills, and experience. If you can get more money elsewhere (which is validated by your ability to get an offer that offers more ££££(£)), then yes, you're being undervalued compared to your market value. However, that doesn't mean that your employer is willing to pay you an amount commensurate to your real market value. They want to pay you as little as possible. This is why people often don't stick around at a company for more than a few years, and perhaps why companies don't financially reward loyalty anymore.

This is what I hate, my market rate is anywhere from £5k through £12k more than I'm on now, and that's being reasonable/what agencies are agreeing with.

You remain correct, of course, loyalty is not valued. I guess it goes both ways.

Unless it's in writing then it's just waffle, sadly people BS a bit in the workplace. What do the head of HR and various directors think your actual job title/level is on paper and what is this other guy's job title on paper? If they're both the same then there is your issue.



Not necessarily, you're probably right to feel angry, though your qualifications are perhaps less relevant years into the role vs say getting a higher starting salary initially.

If you've got the same job title as this guy then you may be in the upper third of the pay range for the role and he's perhaps coming from the lower third of the range (as a new hire) but has been given larger increments to bring him into the middle of the pay range for the role (thus now only 5k behind you). That would be quite normal, if you're already maxing out the range you can't expect big rises. The solution to this is to get a promotion (which perhaps you can push for w.r.t. your greater responsibilities).

The bonus clearly is something related to performance else it wouldn't differ, push them on that and get some targets for next year for a bigger bonus.

It's very much established that I am senior to all the others in my department except for our FD. I am in charge when the FD is away, all the team come to me for advice even when he's in, I am part of the head of department meetings, etc. etc.

Normally it's reflected in pay. The more junior employee has a fraction of my responsibility. They're very much a 9-5 sort of worker, not necessarily career oriented. I just can't seem to explain the differential.

 

[wingman]

The pay and **** talk is irrelevant here as you don't know what's true and what isn't.

The bit that sticks out to me is


Do you have a title that reflects this? Even if HR structure doesn't have it (eg associate director doesn't exist between VP and Director) is there a mechanism for informal title such as "deputy head of". It sounds very much to me that you're just in the same pool as everyone else and thus swimming in same comp pool in which case unfortunately it makes sense person gaining more experience is catching up.

Do you have a career plan in place? What are your next steps, what is mobility options? Is it a question of dead man's shoes waiting for boss to leave? If he did leave are you differentiated enough that you would even get the job? Are you on leadership courses to signal intent?

Only spitballing here, but gut reaction is to focus on yourself rather than someone more junior.

Not really a title, no - I don't have assistant in front of my title like the others, but there's no standard hierarchy that shows I am senior, even though it is implied.

I'm essentially as qualified as I can be in my career (finance), to chartered level. I have career aspirations but always felt I could move up in the company I'm with, as we grow, I grow along with it etc.

It's not a case of me waiting for my LM to leave, but since the company has grown, naturally so too has my role. I'm in high demand, get a lot of job opportunities floated my way without looking for them (as in agency, so I'd have to apply etc.)

I deem myself career focused and want to continuously improve.