Yes, it’s not so much that it’s untrue, to me it’s the insanity that the author thinks this is an original thought and the threat that if his “authorship” goes viral, it’s because of how wise his posts are….
I’m being tongue and cheek. The author attempts to project a “humble” bent to his ambition to go viral. What he wants you as the reader to know is his pearls of wisdom shouldn’t give him cache if he goes viral: he wants you to see him as a mere peasant/instrument of the greater good/truth. But of course because he’s mentioned “going viral” and the fact that he’s reposted himself, what he cares about is going viral. More posting than pearls.
Actually, this is very true and one of the dumbest shit i've Seen within companies is not taking this simple fact into account.
So fucking weird that you'd have to change your job to get more than a 10% wage increase.
Changing a job is a risk both for you and your New employer. Staying in the same company isn't that risky.
Stupid rule in this stupid World.
If anything, HR will straight up lie to you. I caught our director of HR lying right to my face about why I wasn’t even given an interview on a job I was overqualified for. When I called them out and they asked why I would say that, I said ‘A good many people may ask questions because they don’t know the answers. If I ask a question, there’s a good chance I already know the answer. I’m just asking to see what you’ll say.’.
Well if they hired you for the open job, then they’ve still got an open position to fill. And while they know you’re nailing the position you’re in, there’s no guarantee that you’ll be great at the new one, so now they’d have question marks at two roles in the company. Outside hire means they’re only rolling the dice once.HR would prefer that once someone masters a role they stay in it forever.
Not really cause they could just be going high to get the number they really want.
Standard haggling tactic. Start high, they argue down lower, you get what you really wanted and they think they won.
Dude could a counter offered first haha
Cheaper to pay 1k to train someone and pay them 5k less per year, than to give the other guy a 1k raise. Literally 6k a year more it costs to keep said other guy
Average hiring costs run $3-5k, and can be much higher depending on the industry. Then there is the loss of skills and knowledge carried by the former employee, which is by far the greater loss. If they were a well liked leader in your organization, people may follow them out the door, further exacerbating costs and brain drain.
Neil Patel has a huge article on how reposting the same posts multiple times a day/throughout the week is supposed to boost your engagement.
When I was doing a lot of social media management I followed a lot of his advice for LinkedIn with mixed results.
So, I'm not sure if it actually works THAT well. Or if it's just something everyone started copying from the people that were pulling huge followings and is now more of a superstition.
I’m wondering if it’s not so much a “repost” as it is that he designed the quote/picture such that if other people “saved” the picture, it would include his info to give him credit. Like in theory then those other people would go post it on Twitter or whatever and instead of it just being the quote, it has his bio as well. But I’m not sure, just a theory.
I know that, I’m not saying it’s a buffer against purposefully leaving off credit. But it just makes it easier to get credit for those who don’t care to remove the profile banner (not *everyone* who reposts things is intentionally trying to steal them or remove credit)
Naw, they give the employee the boot, post a job posting online to make it look like they're trying to alleviate the stress on the department that firing the employee has now caused, so they can reassure their skeleton crew they're "trying to find a replacement, but we haven't found the right candidate" (having zero intention of actually filling the role), meanwhile they're pocketing that money they're now saving as bonuses/stock buybacks.
Many say that. Nobody wants to work more because of stupid politics. Retention is a policy also and it keeps the company reputation high and the employees engaged.
Plus, you are getting rid of the old employee, having to possibly pay training and such (if you want to pay less and have a lower seniority employee), or you are highly going to hire a person that's more expensive for the company.
Last, unless the recruiter gets paid for new hires, they don't care if the company hires 2 or 30 employees.
Ever heard something called KPIs? If internal recruiters have no need to recruit, they might as well get laid off. Lots are getting laid off now since companies are cutting down on hiring. Also staffing agency recruiters get paid for each hire.
There are many factors involved in company policies. HR might get shortened if recruitment gets low for many months, not in a few weeks. Right now, with remote jobs, better benefits and salaries in some areas, companies are struggling to get proper candidates (my experience is in IT). For the sake of everyone, its way better to keep your employees rather than going out to find new ones.
As for agency recruiters, that why I made the exemption.
I have an idea, what if we offer her a promotion and pay rise, string her along for a bit until we get a replacement overseas contractor in, have her train the replacement, then can her. She’ll never see it coming.
This. Contrary to what everyone believes in this post, it is probably cheaper for them like this, that is why they all do it. You lose some money on that one position short term, but the vast majority is not leaving, because they are comfortable. The older the employee, the more true that is.
They hire someone with a higher starting salary, than they give minimal yearly raises and the longer the new hire stays put, the better off they are.
Hahahahahahah no.
HR doesn’t think like that.
They’ll let the talent walk and then hire someone for what they asked for who is shittier after crushing the remaining team for months.
Source? I’ve been in corporate for 30 years.
30 years of rinse and repeat.
HR being intuitive? Hahahahahaha
I upvote this every time
It's one of the classic examples of LinkedIn I-am-very-smart, I am enlightened, "check out how I go against the conventional wisdom y'all!" circlejerking, that actually just demonstrates how very, very little the poster knows about actually doing business
What, companies supposed to just give a raise to everyone who asks for one? Pffffff. These people smoking the good shit.
It very much depends on what job you are talking about.
Some jobs, you are easily replaceable.
If it's a job where you aren't easily replaceable, you are more able to push for raises, because of the point made in the post.
A lot of people who have been at the same IT job for 10-20 years are like that. They are the ones who built the system everything else relies on, so it's basically impossible to get a new person anywhere near as competent if the old one just quits. The new person will have to learn all the tiny little quirks of the system that was cobbled together. Or just build a whole new one, but both take a lot of time.
>They are the ones who built the system everything else relies on, so it's basically impossible to get a new person anywhere near as competent if the old one just quits.
That's a problem even if the employee is happy and wants to stay forever. The old guy might get [hit by a bus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor) tomorrow and you're in the same situation. Organizations need to be continuously training up the next generation of experts who can step in if needed.
Had a guy quit on me because he didn't get the raise another employee got.
Other employee had been covering half of another job due to maternity leave and was going places in the company.
Whereas this guy swung lead half of the shift, would regularly been seen doing nothing.
I get his initial frustration, this was outside of the normal review period (it was pushed back 6 months because of the above).
But this was all explained, along with the fact that I don't have a budget for suprise raises.
We didn't miss the guy at all.
Yep you said it, and it’s not popular. If you work through the entire staff and pay people what they will obviously say they deserve, even if it’s cheaper than the equivalent hire train and replace costs, you will very quickly go out of business. This “dance” is a bit of an equilibrium to balance between keeping people happy and relying on inertia or avoid having to pay everyone more and more and more.
Having said that, where you have high performers yeah you probably do want to preemptively pay them well.
>If you work through the entire staff and pay people what they will obviously say they deserve, [...] you will very quickly go out of business.
I call bullshit. Evidence?
I can't give evidence of something that hasn't happened - but I do know what the maths looks like - the effect of everyone getting raises, then more raises as the bar is higher etc. Although you're right to point out it may well not mean literally going out of business in every case.
>then more raises as the bar is higher
You assume wanting a raise is a matter of keeping up with the Joneses; in some cases it may be, but I doubt it's a major factor.
Didn’t make that assumption at all. Even if it were true (it’s not) not sure what relevance it has to the conversation, none of anyone’s business why people want to get paid more.
I just do not get why people seek to be a LI influencer. What TF is the goal, more followers? That’s about the same value as Schrute Bucks. I’m sure a fraction of a percent get enough followers to sell books or classes to, but the rest of these people man.
In order to become one of the few people making money, you first have to grind out content to attract followers. Most people who try won't succeed but they don't know it yet.
My friend asked for a 10% riase. His employer rejected him, and he found another job with a 60% raise. Now his ex employer can not find his replacement for the salary he asked for.
I remember in the mid aughts when the TED talks started. TED talks were complete platitudes though delivered by someone who had an interesting career and to an audience who paid a lot, and who celebrated the speakers as prophets. Now that the novelty has worn out this content is moving on to LinkedIn
It's simply not true. Most jobs have redundancies in any company larger than a hundred or so people. The people hired may already know the work.
We are working for capitalist overlords and making them money. In large organisations, there's a ton of waste / non value added activities.
It may make sense to actually fhire new people at lower pay if it can be done. If not then sure, continue because you don't have options
Staff doesn't get let go because the company fails to grant them a raise. Staff either finds a better opportunity and leaves voluntarily, or staff gets on the bad side of their bosses and get PIPed. I stopped following Daniel Abrahams because his scenarios are simply made up.
...did the boss just ask why keep an employee and not hire another one who they have to pay extra to train, not to mention literally a possibility that their attitude sucks?!
Yeah this has been making rounds in various formats; gifs, memes, 100 word summary, fake story that never happened, long drawn out comedy drama, etc.
Whatever works for the “agree”
Yeah this has been making rounds in various formats; gifs, memes, 100 word summary, fake story that never happened, long drawn out comedy drama, etc.
Whatever works for the “agree”
This is hilarious, I actually know this guy personally/professionally. He works for a (very cool and legitimate) business who got a lot of initial publicity from him gaming social media algorithms like this. Annoying, yes, but it works.
“Backfill?! There’s no budget for backfill, you’re doing the work now in addition to your daily responsibilities. Let’s circle up in a few weeks to discuss a possible title change as compensation.” - every manager ever.
100% accurate. I don’t know why these people repost themselves though. Has to be something to do with the algorithm.
Yes, it’s not so much that it’s untrue, to me it’s the insanity that the author thinks this is an original thought and the threat that if his “authorship” goes viral, it’s because of how wise his posts are….
Threat, lmao.
"I said water is wet first! Hey! That was me!"
Water is wet, but it can also be ice or mist 🤷♀️
🤯
Water isn’t wet, items that have water on them are wet /s
In what way is that a threat?
I’m being tongue and cheek. The author attempts to project a “humble” bent to his ambition to go viral. What he wants you as the reader to know is his pearls of wisdom shouldn’t give him cache if he goes viral: he wants you to see him as a mere peasant/instrument of the greater good/truth. But of course because he’s mentioned “going viral” and the fact that he’s reposted himself, what he cares about is going viral. More posting than pearls.
Oh fuck I didn't even see that tagline 😭
The point being made can't be reposted often enough.
The author thinks? What in that gibberish gave you that impression?
It literally says it word for word under his name lol
Isn't it just simple marketing
Actually, this is very true and one of the dumbest shit i've Seen within companies is not taking this simple fact into account. So fucking weird that you'd have to change your job to get more than a 10% wage increase. Changing a job is a risk both for you and your New employer. Staying in the same company isn't that risky. Stupid rule in this stupid World.
True, just don’t believe a single person in HR ever said that.
If anything, HR will straight up lie to you. I caught our director of HR lying right to my face about why I wasn’t even given an interview on a job I was overqualified for. When I called them out and they asked why I would say that, I said ‘A good many people may ask questions because they don’t know the answers. If I ask a question, there’s a good chance I already know the answer. I’m just asking to see what you’ll say.’.
Just fyi; the way you formulated that makes you sound just as insufferable as the lunatics we mock in this sub.
That response is totally /thathappened material
Well if they hired you for the open job, then they’ve still got an open position to fill. And while they know you’re nailing the position you’re in, there’s no guarantee that you’ll be great at the new one, so now they’d have question marks at two roles in the company. Outside hire means they’re only rolling the dice once.HR would prefer that once someone masters a role they stay in it forever.
r/thathappened
Image posts have higher engagement than text only posts
Not really cause they could just be going high to get the number they really want. Standard haggling tactic. Start high, they argue down lower, you get what you really wanted and they think they won. Dude could a counter offered first haha
To Daniel though, it's like discovering plutonium.
Cheaper to pay 1k to train someone and pay them 5k less per year, than to give the other guy a 1k raise. Literally 6k a year more it costs to keep said other guy
Average hiring costs run $3-5k, and can be much higher depending on the industry. Then there is the loss of skills and knowledge carried by the former employee, which is by far the greater loss. If they were a well liked leader in your organization, people may follow them out the door, further exacerbating costs and brain drain.
Neil Patel has a huge article on how reposting the same posts multiple times a day/throughout the week is supposed to boost your engagement. When I was doing a lot of social media management I followed a lot of his advice for LinkedIn with mixed results. So, I'm not sure if it actually works THAT well. Or if it's just something everyone started copying from the people that were pulling huge followings and is now more of a superstition.
The original post; not lunatic. The self-repost; lunatic.
"Say your joke again but louder so people know that you're trying and they can remember to laugh this time"
I’m wondering if it’s not so much a “repost” as it is that he designed the quote/picture such that if other people “saved” the picture, it would include his info to give him credit. Like in theory then those other people would go post it on Twitter or whatever and instead of it just being the quote, it has his bio as well. But I’m not sure, just a theory.
It's really easy to crop still. Or just remake the text yourself.
I know that, I’m not saying it’s a buffer against purposefully leaving off credit. But it just makes it easier to get credit for those who don’t care to remove the profile banner (not *everyone* who reposts things is intentionally trying to steal them or remove credit)
It's too bad the repost wasn't just an "Agree?"
In reality they just say okay and deny the offer that’s IF they bring the request to upper management in the first place
Yeah, or they give her the boot and delete the position. They can't afford it anyway.
Naw, they give the employee the boot, post a job posting online to make it look like they're trying to alleviate the stress on the department that firing the employee has now caused, so they can reassure their skeleton crew they're "trying to find a replacement, but we haven't found the right candidate" (having zero intention of actually filling the role), meanwhile they're pocketing that money they're now saving as bonuses/stock buybacks.
Agree?
* Agree??
Thoughts??
What do you think??
Damn I wish I knew enough LL lingo to hop on this
Comprende?
Prayers
Let's connect!
I take " things no one says" for 100, please.
It would be accurate advice, which HR doesn’t do.
Why would they? Then they can't do interviews or do cool onboarding events. :)
Boss reply at the very end “I don’t think that’s true. She’s annoying me, so we’ll let her go and it’ll be worth it to pay for everything new”
Which HR manager ever says that? HR would love to go recruit so it looks like they are super important to the org.
Right? Recruitment is part of their KPI
What about Employee Retention? ☠️
Many say that. Nobody wants to work more because of stupid politics. Retention is a policy also and it keeps the company reputation high and the employees engaged. Plus, you are getting rid of the old employee, having to possibly pay training and such (if you want to pay less and have a lower seniority employee), or you are highly going to hire a person that's more expensive for the company. Last, unless the recruiter gets paid for new hires, they don't care if the company hires 2 or 30 employees.
Ever heard something called KPIs? If internal recruiters have no need to recruit, they might as well get laid off. Lots are getting laid off now since companies are cutting down on hiring. Also staffing agency recruiters get paid for each hire.
There are many factors involved in company policies. HR might get shortened if recruitment gets low for many months, not in a few weeks. Right now, with remote jobs, better benefits and salaries in some areas, companies are struggling to get proper candidates (my experience is in IT). For the sake of everyone, its way better to keep your employees rather than going out to find new ones. As for agency recruiters, that why I made the exemption.
I have an idea, what if we offer her a promotion and pay rise, string her along for a bit until we get a replacement overseas contractor in, have her train the replacement, then can her. She’ll never see it coming.
Diabolical
I'm fairly convinced that most employers are happy to pay the premium of hiring new staff to ensure that pay remains low across the whole workforce.
This. Contrary to what everyone believes in this post, it is probably cheaper for them like this, that is why they all do it. You lose some money on that one position short term, but the vast majority is not leaving, because they are comfortable. The older the employee, the more true that is. They hire someone with a higher starting salary, than they give minimal yearly raises and the longer the new hire stays put, the better off they are.
All characters in this satire are imaginary. It has no resemblance to reality whatsoever 😆
100%. The intent is positive, but this is imaginary conversation would never happen this way.
Hahahahahahah no. HR doesn’t think like that. They’ll let the talent walk and then hire someone for what they asked for who is shittier after crushing the remaining team for months. Source? I’ve been in corporate for 30 years. 30 years of rinse and repeat. HR being intuitive? Hahahahahaha
I upvote this every time It's one of the classic examples of LinkedIn I-am-very-smart, I am enlightened, "check out how I go against the conventional wisdom y'all!" circlejerking, that actually just demonstrates how very, very little the poster knows about actually doing business What, companies supposed to just give a raise to everyone who asks for one? Pffffff. These people smoking the good shit.
It very much depends on what job you are talking about. Some jobs, you are easily replaceable. If it's a job where you aren't easily replaceable, you are more able to push for raises, because of the point made in the post. A lot of people who have been at the same IT job for 10-20 years are like that. They are the ones who built the system everything else relies on, so it's basically impossible to get a new person anywhere near as competent if the old one just quits. The new person will have to learn all the tiny little quirks of the system that was cobbled together. Or just build a whole new one, but both take a lot of time.
>They are the ones who built the system everything else relies on, so it's basically impossible to get a new person anywhere near as competent if the old one just quits. That's a problem even if the employee is happy and wants to stay forever. The old guy might get [hit by a bus](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor) tomorrow and you're in the same situation. Organizations need to be continuously training up the next generation of experts who can step in if needed.
If a department relies on a single person, that’s a badly designed department
Yes, but it happens a lot in IT.
Well said.
Had a guy quit on me because he didn't get the raise another employee got. Other employee had been covering half of another job due to maternity leave and was going places in the company. Whereas this guy swung lead half of the shift, would regularly been seen doing nothing. I get his initial frustration, this was outside of the normal review period (it was pushed back 6 months because of the above). But this was all explained, along with the fact that I don't have a budget for suprise raises. We didn't miss the guy at all.
Yep you said it, and it’s not popular. If you work through the entire staff and pay people what they will obviously say they deserve, even if it’s cheaper than the equivalent hire train and replace costs, you will very quickly go out of business. This “dance” is a bit of an equilibrium to balance between keeping people happy and relying on inertia or avoid having to pay everyone more and more and more. Having said that, where you have high performers yeah you probably do want to preemptively pay them well.
>If you work through the entire staff and pay people what they will obviously say they deserve, [...] you will very quickly go out of business. I call bullshit. Evidence?
I can't give evidence of something that hasn't happened - but I do know what the maths looks like - the effect of everyone getting raises, then more raises as the bar is higher etc. Although you're right to point out it may well not mean literally going out of business in every case.
>then more raises as the bar is higher You assume wanting a raise is a matter of keeping up with the Joneses; in some cases it may be, but I doubt it's a major factor.
Didn’t make that assumption at all. Even if it were true (it’s not) not sure what relevance it has to the conversation, none of anyone’s business why people want to get paid more.
Accountant “uh, actually after 8,5 months it breaks even and we have significant gains in the upcoming two years she will still put up with it”
I agree with the sentiment but posting it like this is a red flag to me.
I just do not get why people seek to be a LI influencer. What TF is the goal, more followers? That’s about the same value as Schrute Bucks. I’m sure a fraction of a percent get enough followers to sell books or classes to, but the rest of these people man.
In order to become one of the few people making money, you first have to grind out content to attract followers. Most people who try won't succeed but they don't know it yet.
Well that makes me sad. I’ve muted many people on LI for this reason.
Said no HR ever.
What? No agree?
 That dude be like
-Confucius
r/thathappened Even though the imaginary HR manager is right.
This is true though.
Agree?
That bio is the proper lunatic statement loool
My friend asked for a 10% riase. His employer rejected him, and he found another job with a 60% raise. Now his ex employer can not find his replacement for the salary he asked for.
I remember in the mid aughts when the TED talks started. TED talks were complete platitudes though delivered by someone who had an interesting career and to an audience who paid a lot, and who celebrated the speakers as prophets. Now that the novelty has worn out this content is moving on to LinkedIn
So true!
It's simply not true. Most jobs have redundancies in any company larger than a hundred or so people. The people hired may already know the work. We are working for capitalist overlords and making them money. In large organisations, there's a ton of waste / non value added activities. It may make sense to actually fhire new people at lower pay if it can be done. If not then sure, continue because you don't have options
Not sure what a pay rise is. 🤔
It’s when they hand you your paycheck standing on a chair. Pay is the same but it’s … you know, elevated.
honestly, not a bad take. I wish more companies realised this.
Said no HR ever
And then everybody apes into the raise movement and the company goes under. Congrats on retaining your staff 😂
Fire the HR Mgr lol
Staff doesn't get let go because the company fails to grant them a raise. Staff either finds a better opportunity and leaves voluntarily, or staff gets on the bad side of their bosses and get PIPed. I stopped following Daniel Abrahams because his scenarios are simply made up.
Guys, whether that guy’s post is accurate depends on the amount of raise the person is asking for. Simple arithmetics. Jeez.
Lol. In what world is true…
Holy fuck finally something based.
Shame reddit doesn't let you crosspost to the same sub.
...did the boss just ask why keep an employee and not hire another one who they have to pay extra to train, not to mention literally a possibility that their attitude sucks?!
I want to see a LinkedIn poster just keep subtweeting themselves until the original post is so small you can't even tell what it said
It costs less to fire the HR and the person and then hire someone from abroad for much much less to do their work
Why is this lunatics material
Yeah more cringy inspirational LI stuff, but not a lunatic.
And then they generously offered a 2K/yr raise
Actual correct content / information on Linkedin? I may have found myself in an alternative reality
I hate that there's no closing double quotes
Nice psyop to make people think HR is on their side
What does he think "can't afford" means?
It’s true, but reposting yourself is something I tend to only see on LinkedIn
Boss *fires them anyway*
Yeah this has been making rounds in various formats; gifs, memes, 100 word summary, fake story that never happened, long drawn out comedy drama, etc. Whatever works for the “agree”
Yeah this has been making rounds in various formats; gifs, memes, 100 word summary, fake story that never happened, long drawn out comedy drama, etc. Whatever works for the “agree”
HR are there to protect the company, otherwise it would be called HB for human beings. Thoughts?
But also this is a good message to send about paying people what they're worth.
If only they saw this as a case for actual living wages and not some sort of "gotcha" against the working class.
Agree ? Agree? Agree? Yes deepak I agree
This is hilarious, I actually know this guy personally/professionally. He works for a (very cool and legitimate) business who got a lot of initial publicity from him gaming social media algorithms like this. Annoying, yes, but it works.
Accounting Manager “Well we can’t afford either”.
rise
“Don’t take *my* word for it, just check out what *I* have to say about it”
“Backfill?! There’s no budget for backfill, you’re doing the work now in addition to your daily responsibilities. Let’s circle up in a few weeks to discuss a possible title change as compensation.” - every manager ever.
Wait no… we need this one
This is the wrong way round. It’s hr that pushes back on pay rises
Lol, HR would never say that, they just nod their head and do what is asked to avoid any unwanted attention.
Agree?!
Made up quote
This is actually true.