521–530 of 646 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> HR is not your friend. Most people don't get this. HR exists to protect the company from the employees, not protect the employees from the company.
+1 It's called "Human" resources not "Company" resources for a reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The comment you replied to seems to be targeted at managers trying to advocate for their teams, not at individual contributors trying to advocate for themselves. I agree that reaching out to the compensation team as an IC is generally not going to be an appropriate or effective way to get a raise. But for managers, working with HR on issues like that is just part of the job.
Thank you, yes. This is not an uncommon managerial problem that is often resolved (not always; I've had both experiences), though perhaps not in a timely manner.
I can't get any traction with admin or HR, and we're both hemorrhaging people and can't bring in qualified new candidates.
It's very frustrating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is bizarre reasoning.
It really isn’t. It’s simple game theory. People want to live in nice places. So they will all want their public housing in a nice place, but people generally like the same places, and that doesn’t really work for 380 million people. Someone will have to live in Mississippi, but then that also locks them down since we aren’t using market anymore to determine who gets to live where.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HR is not your friend. Corporate Confidential by Cynthia Shapiro is a recommended read. My advice; get a better offer elsewhere, then see if HR wants to pay you your worth.
Idk how people can even work in hr. Like how dead does your soul need to be to have such a old job.
I understand why no one likes human resources. They are there to protect the interests of the business and it is in the best interest of the employee to interact with them as little as possible. On the other hand, they are a useful resource for managers. HR frees them up from many of the administrative tasks for recruitment. They are a resource for management when they need to know something about compliance with labour regulations. Whether it is a compliance issue or the desire to retain an employee, they may just save your behind. That isn't to say that you should approach them directly. You need an advocate, otherwise they will probably view you as a liability. If you don't have that advocate (e.g. a manager or a union representative), then good luck!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I'm having a hard time understanding is why RealPage cared about "compliance" in the first place - do they charge as a % of rent? That seems nuts, I would imagine landlords hate that. If not % of rent then I can't understand why the company would want rents to be higher across the board.
I built software for this industry (not at realpage) for 10+ years and can explain why price compliance is a big deal. The reason is that there is a fundamental principal vs. agent problem in the fee-based property management industry. Usually an investor buys a building and then hires a separate corporation called a fee-based property management company to manage the property. The management company gets to keep 8-1…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really isn’t. It’s simple game theory. People want to live in nice places. So they will all want their public housing in a nice place, but people generally like the same places, and that doesn’t really work for 380 million people. Someone will have to live in Mississippi, but then that also locks them down since we aren’t using market anymore to determine who gets to live where.
Public housing doesn't have to mean free housing for everyone, it can merely mean subsidies are in place to ensure that real estate market failures like the ones that exist nationwide today don't result in extortionate housing costs and growing slums.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We could also ask the Soviet Union which despite being an authoritarian shithole, did not have homeless people. In any case, most cities in the US have obvious supply side issues with housing. It doesn't matter who builds it, we need more supply. Why shouldn't it be the government?
Soviet Union had a residency system also so everyone didn't just move to Moscow. Can we build enough housing in SF, Seattle, LA, SD to satisfy demand? Keep in mind that as soon as housing is affordable in these cities, even more people will move to them...so how much is enough?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better yet, we can just copy Singapore or Vienna's public housing systems and actually have desirable public housing. Arguably, the reason we don't already have this is because a large contingent of the voting public has been conditioned to believe that if the government does something well, it's communism, so the government should do anything well.
The reason we don't have it in the US is that many cities tried and failed to make it work in the 50s and 60s, to the point that we have a slang term "projects" memorializing the failure. Public housing can't be desirable unless it's safe, and it's not clear whether anyone knows how to run a crime-free public housing project in the US.
Just because the US made some poor decisions (e.g obviously cramming 100% poor people into vertical concentration camps doesn't work, you need to have mixed incomes to have a healthy community) in its rollout of public housing many decades ago doesn't mean it's an unworkable idea. Singapore and Vienna are two examples demonstrating this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Public housing doesn't have to mean free housing for everyone, it can merely mean subsidies are in place to ensure that real estate market failures like the ones that exist nationwide today don't result in extortionate housing costs and growing slums.
Subsidies without new supply mean we can just throw even more money at existing housing stocks. We could also go with the current system in place now where some people win the housing lottery and get an affordable place to live, but it doesn’t really scale.
Companies are culluding to suppress wages by algorithm, too. Look up a company called Aon, and their product called Radford Data & Analytics.
This is why I love jobs where you get paid based on a sales commission rather than in mystical dollar-hours. Get 10x the results, get 10x the pay.
It can also be manipulated to suppress being paid fairly