[LurkingPenguin]

> Gp asked for more pay OR fewer hours, so either way it's just an increase in hourly rate, potentially to exactly the same figure.

For an employer, there's a huge difference between paying a full-time employee more money and having a full-time employee become a part-time employee for the same pay.

This poster's comment was especially telling in that, on one hand, he talked about his employer making a greater investment in him (by hiring people he could learn from and firing another employee he didn't like) but on the other hand he talked about providing his employer with less than full-time hours, which basically represents a reduction in his investment in his employer.

> ...the above rhetoric about "wanting fewer hours" equating to "lack of commitment" conjures up visions of stuffy bankers from Mary Poppins.

I'm all for a healthy work schedule (I don't even like the phrase "work-life balance"). That's why I eventually left the rat race and started my own thing.

But it's not like the parent poster was talking about going from full-time plus (like 50-60+ hours/week to 40 hours). Again, he was talking about going from the minimum hours associated with full-time work (40) to a part-time job. Even beyond the fact that that his employer might not believe he can do the job he was hired to do satisfactorily as a part-time employee, for a lot of employers, there can be a variety of factors that make it more attractive to find a full-time replacement than try to hire part-timers.

[sideshowb]

I have a full time contract in the UK, it's 35 hours (and 45 days holiday though admittedly that's on the lucky side - I rarely use all of it). Not 100% sure but in France I believe the standard is 32? Which is what GP asked for.

(edit: France has legislated 35 as full time - overtime must be paid for hours >35. They are currently considering revising this to 32).

edit2:

I get your argument from the employer's point of view, I just don't think it stacks up psychologically, because I've previously been in the position myself of wanting more pay or fewer hours AND knowing I was still committed to that job (I could evidence this by saying I stuck to it a long time after that discussion despite only minor improvements in pay). Sure, some individuals might be conflicted if presenting those goals but you'd have to assess that on your knowledge of the individual rather than pure game theory.

Even if you insist on a pure game theory perspective GP's ultimatum makes sense, though - it sought to address an imbalance in investment by saying either invest more in me or allow me to invest less in you.

[LurkingPenguin]

> (edit: France has legislated 35 as full time - overtime must be paid for hours >35. They are currently considering revising this to 32).

That's great. The parent poster should consider moving to France, where, I understand, there are far fewer tech jobs that pay near what can be earned at large tech firms in the US. I'd be willing to bet money that trade will not result in 25% fewer hours for the same US pay.

> Even if you insist on a pure game theory perspective GP's ultimatum makes sense, though - it sought to address an imbalance in investment by saying either invest more in me or allow me to invest less in you.

Given that the parent poster apparently didn't even submit his ultimatum to his employer, and his employer apparently didn't fight to keep him...

Even in this very difficult environment, most of the people in my network who are hiring in tech/digital media companies are remaining very selective about who they hire. Yes, it sucks to not have the desired staffing levels, but it sucks more to hire the wrong people or keep people who are toxic or ask for way more than they're realistically worth on the mistaken assumption that just because there's a labor shortage, they can demand anything.

[momdad420]

All of your replies sound like the same desperate defenses I see crappy managers make over and over. Just blame the employees.

Contrary to what plenty of people seem to think, companies are not always (or even often) efficient and managers do not always (or even often) operate with logic. Just because a company doesn't fight to keep an employee doesn't mean the employee is dogshit. Last team I left had over 50% turnover before I put in my resignation. No one gave me an exit interview or asked why I was leaving. I had no demands because nothing could have made me stay, but they didn't know that. It should be common sense at that point to ask questions. If your team has people leaving in droves, there's a problem. It's not just coincidence. And while companies not making more of an effort to retain employees over hiring new ones may be anecdotal, as the OP explained, I've yet to see anyone offer much in the way of evidence to the contrary.

[throwaway14356]

the crappy manager posting blamed everything on the leaving employee calling him not thoughtful, unimportant and uncommited and attributed the lack of exit interview to the coroprate super power of remote sensing. Laser vision so sharp there is no need to ask anything.

These are all great indicators that one should leave asap. The value you produce doesnt rub off on your value as an employee.

[momdad420]

Lmao the butt hurt manager making a throwaway to blame employees in reply to a comment about how managers/companies blame employees without introspection. You really showed me

[sideshowb]

> The parent poster should consider moving to France

Not really my point [1], which is this: do you consider all French (with the exception of those who do overtime) uncommitted to their jobs?

[1] that response does serve to reinforce the Mary Poppins banker image, though ;-)