• CodeMonkey
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    2 months ago

    Maybe it is just my experience, but in the last decade, employers stopped trying to recruit and retain top developers.

    I have been a full time software engineer for more than a decade. In the 2010s, the mindset at tech giants seemed to be that they had to hire the best developers and do everything they could to keep them. The easiest way to do both was to be the best employer around. For example, Google had 20% time, many companies offered paid sabbaticals after so many years, and every office had catering once a week (if not a free cafeteria). That way, employees would be telling all of their friends how great it is to work for you and if they decide to look for other work, they would have to give up their cushy benefits.

    Then, a few years before the pandemic, my employer switched to a different health insurance company and got the expected wave of complaints (the price of this drug went up, my doctor is not covered). HR responded with “our benefits package is above industry averages”. That is a refrain I have been hearing since, even after switching employers. The company is not trying to be the best employer that everyone wants to work at, they just want to be above average. They are saying “go ahead and look for another employer, but they are probably going to be just as bad”.

    Obviously, this is just my view, so it is very possible that I have just been unlucky with my employers.

    • lysdexic
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      In the 2010s, the mindset at tech giants seemed to be that they had to hire the best developers and do everything they could to keep them.

      Not really. The mindset was actually to hire skilled developers just to dry up the market, so that their competitors would not have skilled labour to develop their own competing products and services.

      Then the economy started to take a turn for the worse, and these same companies noted that not only they could not afford blocking their competitors from hiring people but also neither did their competitors. Twice the reasons to shed headcount.

      It was not a coincidence that we saw all FANGs shed people at around the same time.

    • mesamune@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’ve kinda checked out of the private sector for this reason. I’ve been having a great time working for a government job. Great benefits, union, etc… pay is about 80 percent of what others make but it’s more than enough to get by.

      • ripcord@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Man, I’d be happy with 80% of what I get for less stress and more security. What kind of government job specifically?

        • MajorHavoc
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          What kind of government job specifically?

          Most of them. Certainly the ones that have unionized. If you know someone in the inside, they probably know if there’s a union.

          You’ll see more unions in government work because while private organizations breaking up unions is ethically questionable; governments breaking up unions is just openly totalitarian.

          If I can’t negotiate with a private employer, I might be a wage slave, but I can ask the government for help.

          If I can’t negotiate with my government job, it’s not actually a job, I’m just a slave.

          • ripcord@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            I meant more specifically in OP’s case, but also which pay that much. When I looked locally (major city) all the G jobs were under 100k. Usually well under.

    • bamfic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is the first rule of sales. It is not important or necessary to be the best. It is only necesaary to be slightly less shitty than your nearest competitor.