371–380 of 500 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Flexibility works one way there A former boss put it like this, "Sure we have flex time! You can arrive any time before 8 and leave any time after 6."
Something similar happened to me. I asked my boss for a raise and his response was "a kick in the ass, that ought to raise you up a little". My reply: I quit on the spot -- no two-week notice, I just left.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The contrarian jerk in me really wanted to yell an epithet during training and say something along the lines of "What, if we're a family, I'm the racist uncle that your dad keeps inviting to dinner despite his offensive tirades and uncomfortable leering at your sister. LOL. But in general I very much agree. Equating a workplace with a family is gross, and a bit cult-ish. I do think the workplace (and the world) wou…
Family as a reference is horrible. Everyone has a different family dynamic and experience. Some families have unconditional loyalty, others have abusive controlling members, the list of dysfunctions is endless. The cult should be formed around "a team" that has shared values and operates upon agreed acceptable behaviors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem with this strategy is you can never go back. Reading all these stories about bad managers and stuff, do managers and employees take things personal in the US? So if you leave for a better deal you actually will make personal problems between employer end employee? Whenever someone under me quits for a better deal or another job that I can't match I tell them "good luck and thanks for the time you shared…
The issue with the strategy wasn’t leaving for a better job, that’s fine. It’s quitting on the spot without notice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, no employee ever checks Facebook or posts on HN during work hours (ahem)? It cuts both ways.
When you're an employee, you're paid for the time you spend at work. The productivity is not part of the equation in the contract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the same business model as the Better Business Bureau and Yelp. It's a manufactured perspective. As a devil's advocate, how can a company expect to be viewed impartially if the only folks who review them have tempers raged enough to motivate them to leave a poor review in the first place? How can I, a potential employee, trust said-reviewer wasn't let go due to Silo'd mismanagement, personal issues or a company…
Remember: Reviews are written by the kind of people who write reviews
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This tells me that Glassdoor is completely untrustworthy, just like Yelp. I wish there was some sort of business model for an honest review site that protected against this sort of naked corruption. Does anyone have any ideas?
I'm also interested in this question. Here's a half-idea for discussion purposes: Review sites must be free for readers and reviewers. So, the revenue either has to somehow come from 1. end-users indirectly (like how HackerNews helps YCombinator attract quality investments) 2. a group that has users' best interests at heart, as well as a financial incentive (google's personalization helps readers find relevant search…
Tech magazines used to do reviews (of gadgets), and they ain't free to read? at least, not the trustworthy ones.
By and large, GlassDoor ratings are no longer a good measure of how well a company treats employees; they now measure, mainly, whether a company has the ability to engineer and maintain artificially good GlassDoor ratings. GlassDoor, in short, has become a textbook example of Goodhart's Law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."[a] The same phenomenon is known in some contexts as Campbell…
> a textbook example of Goodhart's Law I had never heard of Goodhart's Law by name until about 45 minutes ago, while listening to an episode of Planet Money that originally aired last November. And here it is again. This is one of the more striking examples of the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon I've experienced in recent years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The main use of Glassdoor as an employee is not the company reviews - it's for interview questions. I'll add that it's salary survey information as well. Similarly with Indeed. They've saved me a lot of time when I've had companies want to set me up with unpaid hours upon hours of interviews and testing while offering effectively half of what I was seeking, with few other benefits. At one company, the reviews did i…
> I'll add that it's salary survey information as well. Not really. Here in Germany (where Glassdoor isn't even as popular as in US/English speaking countries) I've noticed the salary skews towards the low end because A) employers are bombing their profiles with fake salary figures and/or B) entry-level to lower-mid tier employees are more likely to drop numbers. Can't imagine how much worse the propagation of false…
Just the same, if the company is trying to bomb average salaries, then they're posting that they don't pay what I want and I'm avoiding them anyway. (and it sounds like a good thing if that's how they operate)
But good points. It's certainly something to be skeptical about, even if one doesn't want to go full tin-foil about it. ;)
If you interpret Glassdoor reviews as anything more than a battleground of vocal minorities, you’re making a mistake. The sample is so biased that you’ll never know how representative they are.