|
|
|
|
|
|
by otterley
1471 days ago
|
|
|
> shouldn't a proclaimed top-notch company be able to embrace engineers w/ less than stellar skills? The relationship is that the employee works for the company, not the other way around. The company isn't obligated to employ anyone who doesn't meet their needs. |
|
|
I do not see the employer-employee relationship as a one-way street and would refuse to work at a company with this kind of orientation. It has never been a problem to find organizations with a different orientation.
There exists no axiom that says an employee is obligated to work at a company. For workers at a sufficient level of skill, resources, and privileges, the working relationship at a core level is centralized on the needs for both entities; there is a mutuality in regards to getting needs met.
Of course there are organizations that basically exploit and abuse their employees; many of us have the privilege and experience to be discerning such that we can completely avoid companies like that. For lesser-paying jobs, a worker's needs are still completely valid and almost always taken into consideration by both parties.
For instance, we usually require a paycheck, and we often have well-defined, quantitative needs around this. I am not going to work somewhere that pays me $0.15 per hour, to use an extreme edge case.
Some other common employee needs:
* to work somewhere with a good work-life balance.
* challenging and non-tedious work
* to be around people who aren't sociopaths.
* to work at an organization that isn't paralyzed by micro-managing pseudoprocesses.
* to work at place that doesn't require the installation of spyware or middle-managementware on our devices.
The list goes on.
How about you? Do you not have any needs in regards to where and how you are employed?