Thoughts?
9 replies (most recent on top)
@1Tay
Sure that low cost of labor is main reason why Reuters settled in Gdynia. In terms of quality it varies. As everywhere there are brilliant and weak teams. What they got in common is mismanagement (i am talking about local level here, global issues are a separate problem)
My impression is that decade ago not everyone of those who got promoted in a rush for management positions suits for their jobs. Site was expanding rapidly and analysts became TL/Managers overnight. After all these years they got no clue how to cope with challenges of management and escape into organization of silly events and hub related shi**ery.
TR in Gdynia became a boot camp for grads who want to spend few years in corporate sandbox before they will move towards more adult stuff. Retention is enormous and is hard to blame those folks as salary offered by TR for entry-level position is like 15% larger than salary of cashier in mall.
Looking at Finch’s new .org structure it’s just middle aged white men, no diversity just the old pals act... truly shocking to see all the BS wheeled out around diversity, just lip service...
@1gkz that $50K is taxed quite a bit in the us, you are probably looking at 33K take home after taxes. Then you have to pay a ton for healthcare, probably in excess of 3K/yr - that brings you down to 30K... Most US locations have no or very public transpiration, so you need to have a decent car for long distance drive and repairs are probably 4x more expensive here, insurance plus car payments - there you go probably 4 to 6K. Now you are at 24K... I can go on, anyhow, that 50K person will struggle to make ends meet no matter where in the US they are.
The 12.5K salary is why TR has an office in Gdynia, If the salaries were higher - the Gdynia office would not exist. Do you think they went to Gdynia for the quality of workforce or work ethic ? (neither of which is great ;-)
@Fig-Newton
Graduate in the US gets 50k a year? Here 12.5k (Large central-european country). Such 50yo has same cost as entire team including TL and two specialists.
And to think that poor-devils in Manila are even cheaper.
The question you want to ask is whether you want to spend the time trying to prove a case, or do you just want to get on with it and find something better?
Just to clarify, it's not necessarily that the company is targeting or discriminating against older workers just because they're old. Companies looking to cut high costs typically target people who have been employed the longest and are therefore making the highest salaries - many of whom obviously will be over 40. Anyone planning to bring an age discrimination lawsuit will have a hard time proving it. They'd rather keep a 25-year-old recent hire with little experience making $50,000 a year, but sack a 50-year-old who has 15 years with the company, the most experience and qualifications, but is making $150,000 a year. Worse yet, they'll sack entire groups in high salary markets and outsource them to India or wherever it's cheaper. Ironically, a few years later, many companies bring those groups back in-house because, well...you get what you pay for.
It happens, but it's hard to prove, in these situations, HR employs a skills matrix process, with weightings of categories / skills not revealed to the scoring managers, two or more managers score individuals independently, then provide this to HR, who then produce the final list after the weightings are applied. Inevitably the older staff members score the lowest, and are out on consultation, but it all seems very fair and independent, it would probably require a grievance or even a tribunal to fight a case for discrimination, and by the time this has happened, things have moved on and decisions have been made, the employee is already out, so the best they can hope fore is some additional compensation, but the job is lost...
I do not think this is one of our key problems, I've never witnessed it though...