The Careers/Jobs thread

[Xela]

14 minutes ago, dubbs said:

I saw an ad working in a warehouse for roughly the same hourly rate as I earn yesterday.  I know my job isn't particularly taxing - Cost Engineer for a manufacturing firm, but it really hit home how many mistakes I've made with my career in the last 10 years.  Too many unnecessary changes of job which has resulted in me earning less than I was 5 years ago.

As the minimum wage has increased (a good thing) the jobs that used to be double minimum wage have barely moved, and now aren't that much more money. The working public have been screwed over for years. 

[supermon]

Hey guys can I get opinion please? 

What's more important to you if you were hiring someone for a role. Someone who is very experienced but has dull personality and may not fit into the team vs someone with relative experience but also has the personality to fit into the team?

My previous boss wouldn't always go for the most experienced when recruiting, think that's had it's pros and cons as some needed extensive training.

I'm more of the experience over person side, although I will be managing them. I guess if I was Sawaris or Wes and hiring for Villa manager I would want the best person for the job.

Thoughts

[Anthony]

6 minutes ago, supermon said:

Hey guys can I get opinion please? 

What's more important to you if you were hiring someone for a role. Someone who is very experienced but has dull personality and may not fit into the team vs someone with relative experience but also has the personality to fit into the team?

My previous boss wouldn't always go for the most experienced when recruiting, think that's had it's pros and cons as some needed extensive training.

I'm more of the experience over person side, although I will be managing them. I guess if I was Sawaris or Wes and hiring for Villa manager I would want the best person for the job.

Thoughts

Not an answer, but things to consider:

• Do you have the resource (time/money/expertise/personnel) to train the inexperienced person?
• How set in their ways are the individuals? Willingness to learn/grow/change habits is much more valuable than accumulated experience.
• Is the person actually dull, or are they just reserved in an interview situation? Only time will tell.

[Davkaus]

I can see why the temptation is there to pick a person who seems to be a good cultural fit with the team, but what I've seen that tend to boil down to is building teams that become an old boys club, and though rarely deliberate, often ends up with a recruitment trend that'd have your HR team having an absolute **** meltdown if they saw the decision making, as it risks looking racist, sexist and or ageist

It's not all about experience, and there is plenty of scope for there just being something "off" about the better candidate on paper,  maybe they don't seem trustworthy, or confident, etc, but you need to be careful it isn't "does their face fit" as it risks being very dangerous ground, IMO. Ultimately you're hiring a person to do a job, not recruiting for a new mate.

[supermon]

11 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I can see why the temptation is there to pick a person who seems to be a good cultural fit with the team, but what I've seen that tend to boil down to is building teams that become an old boys club, and though rarely deliberate, often ends up with a recruitment trend that'd have your HR team having an absolute **** meltdown if they saw the decision making, as it risks looking racist, sexist and or ageist

It's not all about experience, and there is plenty of scope for there just being something "off" about the better candidate on paper,  maybe they don't seem trustworthy, or confident, etc, but you need to be careful it isn't "does their face fit" as it risks being very dangerous ground, IMO. Ultimately you're hiring a person to do a job, not recruiting for a new mate.

Yes good point mate and very true, I am just going by how my previous boss would do things, so it's my first time recruiting someone. She would go for the right fit and try and mould them into the team. 

I agree it's about the job, the right thing to do is to be professional about it and give it to the best candidate out there

18 minutes ago, Anthony said:

Not an answer, but things to consider:

• Do you have the resource (time/money/expertise/personnel) to train the inexperienced person?
• How set in their ways are the individuals? Willingness to learn/grow/change habits is much more valuable than accumulated experience.
• Is the person actually dull, or are they just reserved in an interview situation? Only time will tell.

No don't really have the time to train this person up to be honest, I think dull was a bit harsh from me, they weren't dull just not as personable than the other candidate. However, people do open up later and show their true side. 

I think I will go down the experience route, it sits better for me and is the right thing to do

[blandy]

2 hours ago, supermon said:

I think I will go down the experience route, it sits better for me and is the right thing to do

Take yourself. If you went for a job and you were best qualified for it of 2 candidates, but you were rejected and the other was chosen “because they were more smiley/ amenable”, you’d be rightly angry. But if the other candidate was better qualified than you, even though you’re a lovely person, you’d just be disappointed.

You can never really know how someone will fit in anyway.

[Demitri_C]

Blandys afvoce is spot on and thats what i would opt for

Reference's will be key too

[blandy]

54 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Blandys afvoce is spot on

Oh, thanks Dem. No one’s ever praised my afvoce before. 

[Stevo985]

In March I took on a fair bit more responsibility at work. Basically involved being in charge of the entire supply chain at one of our smaller sites. This is alongside my actual job, so I'm doing a LOT more.

At the time I didn't ask for a pay rise, but I was planning to, because obviously I deserved it.

Anyway, just as I'd arrnaged the 1:1 to ask for it after I'd done the job (successfully) for a couple of months, my director told me he was promoting me. As in, I was already doing the job, so I'd be getting the official promotion to the next grade up.

Great I thought. That's basically what i was going to be asking for. 

But when I asked if there was a pay rise he said no. I do get a company car which is great, don't get me wrong, and I'm grateful. But I still felt like it was taking the piss a bit. So I pleaded my case and he said money was tight with the company at the moment (and it is to be fair) but that he would make a case for me.

It's taken ages to go through so I assumed it was because of the payrise.

Finally got confirmation yesterday. Promotion has gone through. No pay rise.

 

 

So today I'm fuming. 1:1 in the diary with the director later to basically rant. I used an inflation calculator and in real terms I get paid less now than I did when I started at the company 7 years ago. Despite THREE promotions.

Feel bad complaining, because people are far worse off than me. But I'm being taken advantage of. Given more work and responsibility because they know I won't kick up a fuss.

Genuinely considering giving my notice

Edited December 13, 2023 by Stevo985

[Stevo985]

On 07/12/2023 at 12:12, supermon said:

Hey guys can I get opinion please? 

What's more important to you if you were hiring someone for a role. Someone who is very experienced but has dull personality and may not fit into the team vs someone with relative experience but also has the personality to fit into the team?

My previous boss wouldn't always go for the most experienced when recruiting, think that's had it's pros and cons as some needed extensive training.

I'm more of the experience over person side, although I will be managing them. I guess if I was Sawaris or Wes and hiring for Villa manager I would want the best person for the job.

Thoughts

Hire the person you think will do the job the best.

It's as simple as that. To me that means that experience isn't the be all and end all. I wouldn't necessarily hire the person most qualified/experienced. But I wouldn't JUST hire the other person because I liked them.

It's a combination. If someone is slightly less qualified but you think they'd fit in better then it is completely legitimate to hire them.

If they're going to be shit at the job but you hire them because you like them then that's a problem

[desensitized43]

14 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Hire the person you think will do the job the best.

It's as simple as that. To me that means that experience isn't the be all and end all. I wouldn't necessarily hire the person most qualified/experienced. But I wouldn't JUST hire the other person because I liked them.

It's a combination. If someone is slightly less qualified but you think they'd fit in better then it is completely legitimate to hire them.

If they're going to be shit at the job but you hire them because you like them then that's a problem

I look at a number of things in addition to who's best qualified. How well they fit, attitude to work, drive to succeed, what they're looking for in the job.

I do also look at their history of changing jobs. There's loads of people who only stay at places for 6-12 months. If they tend to move around alot, that's a red flag for me that they might not be committed or might be just purely financially motivated and I'll be back to recruiting again in a matter of months.

[blandy]

23 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

So today I'm fuming. 1:1 in the diary with the director later to basically rant. I used an inflation calculator and in real terms I get paid less now than I did when I started at the company 7 years ago. Despite THREE promotions.

Feel bad complaining, because people are far worse off than me. But I'm being taken advantage of. Given more work and responsibility because they know I won't kick up a fuss.

Genuinely considering giving my notice

Don’t rant at a director whatever you do. Be calm, reasoned, express disappointment, hurt and frustration with an even demeanour. It works, honestly. I’ve been there.

secondly, don’t feel bad at highlighting you’re being taken advantage of. The company doesn’t want or need people in management positions being doormats. Standing up for what’s right and just is a good attribute. You have no role in wider society being so unfair.

Put your case re responsibility, performance, workload and commitment and then stress how you feel the deal is so uneven you’re at the point of considering your options, but that your first option is to give your company the opportunity to rectify things, due to your respect and sense of loyalty to them.

i know you know all that. I just thought I’d write it down.

[Xela]

9 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

I do also look at their history of changing jobs. There's loads of people who only stay at places for 6-12 months. If they tend to move around alot, that's a red flag for me that they might not be committed or might be just purely financially motivated and I'll be back to recruiting again in a matter of months.

 

31 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

So today I'm fuming. 1:1 in the diary with the director later to basically rant. I used an inflation calculator and in real terms I get paid less now than I did when I started at the company 7 years ago. Despite THREE promotions.

Feel bad complaining, because people are far worse off than me. But I'm being taken advantage of. Given more work and responsibility because they know I won't kick up a fuss.

Genuinely considering giving my notice

 

I see where you are coming from @desensitized43, but people move around to get better wages. I've been at my company 20 years. I'd be earning more if i'd bounced round various banks, even if I was doing the same role. Companies take advantage of loyalty in staff. Just look at @Stevo985's situation. How much more would his company have to pay to recruit externally for the same role, with no guarantee they would be as good?

i used to look at people who moved companies every 2 years as a bit flighty, but they're just doing what they need to do. Companies generally bring it on themselves by being tight. Hate the game, not the players. 

[Stevo985]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

Don’t rant at a director whatever you do. Be calm, reasoned, express disappointment, hurt and frustration with an even demeanour. It works, honestly. I’ve been there.

secondly, don’t feel bad at highlighting you’re being taken advantage of. The company doesn’t want or need people in management positions being doormats. Standing up for what’s right and just is a good attribute. You have no role in wider society being so unfair.

Put your case re responsibility, performance, workload and commitment and then stress how you feel the deal is so uneven you’re at the point of considering your options, but that your first option is to give your company the opportunity to rectify things, due to your respect and sense of loyalty to them.

i know you know all that. I just thought I’d write it down.

Yeah, I should add my director and I have a good relationship. We're basically friends. Work friends, but friends.

So I could probably smash a window and call his wife a word removed and we'd be laughing about it later.

So ranting at him won't be an issue (and it won't be AT him to be fair, it'll just be a rant in his presence)

 

But I do think the fact that we're friends may have contributed to the situation. He knows he can ask me to do anything and I'll do it. Which is usually a good thing, but I won't do it for nothing.

[desensitized43]

14 minutes ago, Xela said:

 

 

I see where you are coming from @desensitized43, but people move around to get better wages. I've been at my company 20 years. I'd be earning more if i'd bounced round various banks, even if I was doing the same role. Companies take advantage of loyalty in staff. Just look at @Stevo985's situation. How much more would his company have to pay to recruit externally for the same role, with no guarantee they would be as good?

i used to look at people who moved companies every 2 years as a bit flighty, but they're just doing what they need to do. Companies generally bring it on themselves by being tight. Hate the game, not the players. 

I agree with you that bad companies take advantage of loyalty. I always try and do the opposite with my staff and pay them more than someone coming in new to reward their loyalty.

It's a huge pain in the ass to recruit, especially now with the shortages we have in skills and labour. Recruitment fees are frankly disgusting. It costs so much to recruit new staff in time, fees and training etc, so I want to do it as infrequently as I possibly can. The prospect of taking someone on, paying a recruiter, investing the time to interview and screen the numpties out, onboarding, training, probation periods etc and then to see them leave before 12 months is just not something I want to deal with so I tend to screen out people who have a history of doing that kind of thing.

Just on recruiters...it's like dealing with a swarm of locust. You put out an advert somewhere and you can guarantee you're going to lose a week fighting off a load of kids trying to call and email going "I've seen your advert and I've got x number of people who might be suitable, here's a bunch of CV's".

[StefanAVFC]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

In March I took on a fair bit more responsibility at work. Basically involved being in charge of the entire supply chain at one of our smaller sites. This is alongside my actual job, so I'm doing a LOT more.

At the time I didn't ask for a pay rise, but I was planning to, because obviously I deserved it.

Anyway, just as I'd arrnaged the 1:1 to ask for it after I'd done the job (successfully) for a couple of months, my director told me he was promoting me. As in, I was already doing the job, so I'd be getting the official promotion to the next grade up.

Great I thought. That's basically what i was going to be asking for. 

But when I asked if there was a pay rise he said no. I do get a company car which is great, don't get me wrong, and I'm grateful. But I still felt like it was taking the piss a bit. So I pleaded my case and he said money was tight with the company at the moment (and it is to be fair) but that he would make a case for me.

It's taken ages to go through so I assumed it was because of the payrise.

Finally got confirmation yesterday. Promotion has gone through. No pay rise.

 

 

So today I'm fuming. 1:1 in the diary with the director later to basically rant. I used an inflation calculator and in real terms I get paid less now than I did when I started at the company 7 years ago. Despite THREE promotions.

Feel bad complaining, because people are far worse off than me. But I'm being taken advantage of. Given more work and responsibility because they know I won't kick up a fuss.

Genuinely considering giving my notice

It sounds like your work is pretty niche, does that work for or against you in terms of leverage?

For example, if you were to test the market, are there roles readily available for you in terms of availability and financial parity? Or because it's quite niche, would you be looking for a while for something to pop up?

What I'm getting at, could you quickly and easily get another offer to throw in their faces to get the pay rise you deserve? If not, I'd get your head down, express your frustrations but don't look elsewhere.

If you can, **** them, get another offer (even if you don't want to leave) and use it to get your money.

[StefanAVFC]

My work is going well to be honest. As I mentioned in a different thread, I got 7% this year plus 100% more bonus than contracted. But we got a new CIO this year and it's killed us from a staffing perspective. We've essentially had a hiring/movement freeze all year. 

It unfortunately coincided with a planned position change for me. A bit like Stevo above, keeping my current job as Service Owner, but also taking over the management of the support team who manage the application I own. No more money, but I was fine with it (as I'm overpaid already tbh)

But even this position change, with no salary change, has been blocked for 6 months. And I've been doing the job for that time, including daily stand ups, their work at times etc.

It is what it is, but I don't have access to their holiday plans, salary data; I have to give feedback through their current manager (who doesn't really know anything about my app), can't do 1to1s, can't tell them off formally. I don't approve their cost plans, time cards or anything.

But I have to keep on top of everything because this old manager could easily sign off on new projects or whatever, that will be my problem when I finally take them over.

It's a bit of a pain.

[Stevo985]

20 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

It sounds like your work is pretty niche, does that work for or against you in terms of leverage?

For example, if you were to test the market, are there roles readily available for you in terms of availability and financial parity? Or because it's quite niche, would you be looking for a while for something to pop up?

What I'm getting at, could you quickly and easily get another offer to throw in their faces to get the pay rise you deserve? If not, I'd get your head down, express your frustrations but don't look elsewhere.

If you can, **** them, get another offer (even if you don't want to leave) and use it to get your money.

It will work in my favour in terms of them struggling to replace me. I basically do 3 roles, and 2 of them are pretty specialist. So they're a bit **** if I left.

[Genie]

If you get the car you’ll be taking home less money (maybe offset. you have a car lease or finance running). 

In the way of the world at the moment I’d rather have the money to spend than a newer car which I’m getting taxed on.

[StefanAVFC]

31 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

It will work in my favour in terms of them struggling to replace me. I basically do 3 roles, and 2 of them are pretty specialist. So they're a bit **** if I left.

How long's your notice?

Sounds like handing in the notice and putting the ball in their court would be risky, but a solution that would work.