January 22, 2008 at 7:59 am
I like Steve's idea of possibly trading some $$ for some benefits. I am one of those "older" baby-boomer workers, and I am eligible to retire in 8 years. And I'm gonna do it, even though I will still have to work for at least 3 more years.
The main reason I will retire rather than working 3 more years in my current job is that I want my time back. I'm tired of having to show up every day. I'm also tired of not being able to use my vacation time when I want to. Now, I know you have to work to make a living, and I also know it takes approximately 40 hours/week. However, I would love it if I could work from home and if I could use my earned vacation when I want to use it. If employers were more willing to be flexible, I believe they could keep a lot more of us "oldies but goodies" working longer.
As it is now, I plan to work a few small jobs rather than one big one when I retire.
January 22, 2008 at 8:54 am
I wonder how many companies might be willing to fund a 1/2 timer to keep their experience around? I'm sure that there are some older people, very talented, that can still do work, maybe even continue to work 20-24 hours a week for 40-60% pay + benefits?
Some companies need to try and figure this out. I'm sure that it will come at some time, just a question of when.
January 22, 2008 at 10:00 am
It will be interesting to see what happens in the next several years. Based on the reluctance of most companies to encourage or even allow telecommuting, I'm afraid I don't have high hopes.
As we get older, the thing that looms most important is time and flexibility. Life is too short to continue with the daily grind. Obviously, I will have to give some time to get some money, but I'm willing to give less time and get less money if I have more flexibility.
I'll be "living by the seat of my pants" like I did when I was young, but I have plenty of experience at doing just that;)
January 22, 2008 at 10:50 am
I don't understand one thing, the company wants to pay more money to new college graduate to replace the old programmers. Why does the company want to do that? I can understand if the company hires college graduate to replace old programmers because the company pay less to the college graduate and they can give less benefit to the new hire. Some big companies have pension plan but they cut back the recent year but only apply to the new hire so there may be one reason.
Also does the company want to hire younger employees because the older programmers do not have the technical skills?
Of course older programmers should keep up their technical skills, however, I see some older programmers have hard time to learn object oriented programming liked C# especially they have programmed COBOL for years (top-down approach). The new concept just does not sink in. One time I tried to teach an older programmer SQL and she just could not get it no matter how hard I tried. When she wrote Sql, she just wrote the way looked liked COBOL!!!
Sometimes the old programmers just do not want to learn unless the company let them go to a training class. It is an attitude problem.
However old programmers have something that younger developers do not have - business knowledge. A program is a whole bunch of codes, it requires to have business logic.
January 22, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Steve,
As much as I would love the idea, I am afraid this is another "wishful tinking" idea. If companies could deal with the issues reasonably, then it would probably work. Unfortunately, as I told a nicce lady when she was complaining about her ex-husband's attitude at a court hearing and kept saying, "Why can't he just be reasonable?", if they could be reasonable, the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
See if the following sounds logical.
Companies are in business to make money. (If you don't believe me, ask their accountants.) Companies are not in the business to be nice to their employees and shedule business around their employees' vacations. Companies have a vested interest in keeping their employees as long as they need them but no longer. To that end, companies have a vested interest in their current employees being capable of doing their current jobs but not being able to change employers. In today's business environment, the bottom line is shaky enough without a company taking on loyalty to its employees. In today's business environment, it is easier for a company to hire contractors or new employees than to retrain their existing employees.
January 22, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Sometimes the old programmers just do not want to learn unless the company let them go to a training class. It is an attitude problem.
Easy there . . . that's sounding like age prejudice! 😉
Actually, though, to some degree I agree with that. However, the "attitude problem" falls more into the "Yeah, I have an attitude . . . but I don't have a problem with it." category. After having done months of 65 hour weeks, having done frequent 36 hour shifts, having worked on holidays, birthdays, anniversaries, and even weddings and funerals, I no longer feel the need to sacrifice my personal time and my own funds in order to keep my skillsets up to date without any incentive or compensation from my employer.
Interestingly enough, I work with several young developers who either have no interest in furthering their skills outside of normal working hours or are working on continuing their education . . . in another field. When I ask them why they have that attitude, their response is, "I do this 8 hours a day . . . why would I want to do it on my own time?" There are a few developers who are taking courses on their own or who are involved in professional organizations . . . but they are in their mid 40's to mid 50's. (Another interesting point is that those guys are also looking to get another employer as well as more education.)
January 23, 2008 at 6:54 am
True - a lot of organizations are in the business of making money (not all, thankfully). But within those for profit organizations, some are smart enough to know how valuable long-term employees can be. "Institutional knowledge"/ how the business works, the politics, etc... are a valuable thing to know (and just about impossible to teach). I work with several organizations these days, who seem to have a change of heart, since they've managed to scare off a lot of the employees that had "the context" for why a lot of hard decisions were made in the past. The companies are now paying for it, and seem to be getting wiser to the fact that cheaper isn't always better.
There isn't an inexhaustible source of tech folks, like it or not, expecially the good ones. It's going to take a while, but 10 years of jack in the box programming is starting to catch up to a lot of places, and those places are waking up to the fact that they can't do more by grinding through employees at a faster pace.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
January 23, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Come on folks. Name one business that isn't in business to make a profit. If they don't make a profit they don't hire anybody.
I work for a Credit Union. They are considered a nonprofit organization. I consulted for a hospital and they were considered a nonprofit organization. Trust me, they make a lot of profit, it's just not their primary goal.
Have you ever worked for a company that made less than you? I haven't and I doubt anybody else has. Companies are simply economic entities organized for the purpose of making money for their owners thru the selling of goods and services.
The economic equation works like this; a company pays you X dollars and they hope to make X+profit dollars from your labor. If that equation is reversed and you take out more than you deliver, then the company will go out of business. If you know of some way of earning more than the value of the goods and services you provide then you should pursue that.
Yes, I know the many top level executives may have a hard time justifing their compensation packages. But we're talking developers and not top level executives.
Good luck.
--Paul Hunter
January 23, 2008 at 9:17 pm
oh I'm not saying they do it out of the goodness of their own heart. However, there are lots of cost/benefit analyses to show folks that rotating through staff and continuously losing the experience legacy that the company is built on isn't cost-effective. I've personally been involved actively with three in the last several years that are making a serious turn-around in that regard, and at least acknowledging that they'd rather hang on to some folks than keeping having to pay for the continuous brain drain.
In case you haven't noticed - there are lots of ways to do things, so having to bring in someone else to support apps that someone else built makes for often times a less than optimal scenario, since most of the time, you lose the WHY (which never seems to make it into the documentation), and thus the new guy doesn't like the HOW. And no - it's not everywhere. I know it's not a popular concept - but techs aren't exactly widgets. Everyone comes with their own special bag of tricks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
January 23, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Paul,
I have always operated under the concept that was taught to me by my first Computer Science instructor, "You will never be paid what you are worth because the company always has to make a profit on your work." I have no problem with that concept.
The problem I have is with the concept that, essentially, equates a developer with the desktop computer that he or she uses . . . both are depreciated off of the books within 5 years and probably within 3 years.
The company I am employed by is making approximately $3 million per month and yet I have not had a raise in approximately 18 months . . . which could be partially because my "annual review" is now abut 8 months over due. However, I also know for a fact that my supervisor and hist supervisor have had nice raises. I also know that my supervisor and the other 2 IT managers at his level have all been to conferences recently (at company expense, of course) and each of them gets professional publications (which are at company expense but not shared with their "direct reports"). The desktop unit I am currently using is approximately 2 years old and I have concerns that it may survive me at this job . . . but I am trying to figure out whether my concern is that it will or that it may not.
For those who are not in IT, for the most part, this is a good company. It promotes from within when it can and encourages its (non-IT) workers to take 10 minute breaks in the morning and afternoon and a 1 hour lunch. Unfortunately, as you probably know, IT doesn't necessarily get breaks because we get to work with the others at their convenience to solve Help Desk Tickets . . . and, as a matter of fact, I usually get lunch at my desk if at all. This is not as unusual as some may think, though.
As I explained to a manager at another job, there is a difference between "running lean and mean" and being "starved and grouchy". There are 4 out of 8 of us on the team who are experienced. I am teaching our DBA how to be a DBA but am not considered qualified to be the DBA. Another experienced developer is constantly swamped with "Priority 1" tasks that interrupt the main "Priority 1" task he was assigned (and promised there would be no interruptions). Another experienced developer has been shifted to a different "sub-team" and simply refuses to work on anything else. The 4th experienced developer is having to train 2 others while still getting his work done.
Would it be beyond comprehension for the company to use a little training or a short conference as a means of providing a "reward" or "recognition of effort"? I even offered to pay for a 3 day conference here in town if I could get paid time off without taking vacation time . . . my managers response was, "Don't you have any vacation time?" (In other words, "Use your vacation, spend your money, and I may grant the time off."
So, stepping done off of my soap box, is it any less reasonable for a company to invest in "preventive maintenance" with regard to their employees and those employees' skillsets than it is to invest in "preventive maintenance" with regard to their printers, copiers, and midrange computers?
January 23, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Like some wise man quoted
"Love your job but not the people you work for"
January 24, 2008 at 7:06 am
Ralph,
The management at your place sounds terrible. The fact that they don't even share industry magazines with you seems symbolic of the whole mindset there.
I work in the public sector so I don't get raises unless I change jobs but at least I get treated fairly in my current job.
However, in my last job here, I had to put up with weird politics like you are and work on a 10-year-old machine. I stayed in that job for 9 years because I was learning so much technically but I'm here to tell you that being that enraged will eventually take a toll on your health.
I'd say be as much of a sport as you can and update that resume:D
January 24, 2008 at 7:58 am
sing4you (1/24/2008)
Ralph,I work in the public sector so I don't get raises unless I change jobs but at least I get treated fairly in my current job.
You dont even get raises to compensate for the inflation?
January 24, 2008 at 8:46 am
Actually, I do get raises if the legislature says we do. Fortunately, I have gotten small raises the last two years.
However, I'm afraid that will be it for a while since it literally takes an act of Congress.
I'm content with my current job, however, and I am gaining skills that will enable me to shoot for another job at the next level.
January 24, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Ralph, you should know by now, only the CEO of the company gets the big paycheck and bonus. The CFO, CIO...any CXX gets all the money, we are the working bees and our bosses think you should be appreciate the company that you get hired. Their mentality is you can be replaced easily, 'employee retention' is not in their dictionary.
The former CEO of Xerox screwed up the company and he got fired by the board of directors. However under his contract Xerox still has to pay him a couple million per year until he dies, then his wife will get money until his wife dies. What a deal!!!
Jerome - "Love your job but not the people you work for".
How can you love your job when you don't like the people you work for?
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 36 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply