People consider their options every single time they drive to work. No one is arguing that when perks are taken away you can be sad. But it's not like employers aren't disappointed by employees often too and still keep them for weeks, months, years longer after the disappointment.
Most employees will leave their employer at some point. It's not as though there are employees here that are paying the cost but not receiving the benefit.
I don't understand some of the comments here, maybe someone can explain.
Does a company need to have an excuse to let people go? Is there a right to stay employed? As far as I am aware working for a company is not a life-long situation.
And further - why don't we invert it and praise these companies for supplying thousands of six figure jobs for years. Surely being employed for several years is better than never being hired at all?
Most companies do not invest in their employees and are more than happy to fire them at will. It's a two way street and employees have just responded in kind to how most companies treat employees. Obviously there are exceptions to that rule and that is usually where you see people staying longer.
The employer does not benefit from having an employee hanging around just because they can't afford to exercise their options. If they want to leave but can't because they have this huge potential for loss hanging over them does the company really benefit from having them there when they don't want to be?
Maybe employees who had made it through that waiting list ignored potential employment opportunities elsewhere because they didn't want to lose that benefit.
I have little sympathy for those who used a temporary event to move far away from their employers offices and now complain about how they are expected to return to the same working setup they had three years ago.
I don't think companies should be obligated to give people the choice to vanish from the workforce and return a year later to an equal or better job.
I would also enjoy the option to take a year off and have a job when I return (for other life choices than having children), I just don't see why my employer should be obligated to hold my job open.
There's a sense of entitlement from many employers. They expect that the people they want will be available at short notice at the wages they want to pay. And that they won't have to fight to keep them. That seems to no longer be the case.
People do make plans based on continued employment. Like, people move across the country and sign a year long lease for a job. There’s no avoiding that.
I'm not sure why you got downvoted, but I have to agree.
At least a couple of employers I had in smaller towns in the midwest would treat employees like property, and would assume you would never (or be able to) leave. "You should be grateful to even have a job" was common.
reply