General > General Technical Chat
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
paulca:
--- Quote from: madires on August 20, 2022, 01:23:50 pm ---Salery? Shouldn't it be called compensation for personal suffering? >:D
--- End quote ---
Your not far off the mark with that. Often you just get called in and given a pay rise. When you ask why, they say, the market is changing, we want to keep you. It's pro-active retention "pay increases to remain competitive in the market and limit attrition". Take a look at what the new startups in town are paying while poaching staff and bump the employees you want to keep close to that figure.
I once openly referred to it (my end of year bonus), as "danger pay" and got a wry smile out of the senior delivery manager of understanding, and then asked not to call it that.
tom66:
--- Quote from: paulca on August 20, 2022, 01:53:50 pm ---Your not far off the mark with that. Often you just get called in and given a pay rise. When you ask why, they say, the market is changing, we want to keep you. It's pro-active retention "pay increases to remain competitive in the market and limit attrition". Take a look at what the new startups in town are paying while poaching staff and bump the employees you want to keep close to that figure.
I once openly referred to it (my end of year bonus), as "danger pay" and got a wry smile out of the senior delivery manager of understanding, and then asked not to call it that.
--- End quote ---
Don't know what companies you work at, but I've always had to negotiate my raises. At best I've had 3% without asking. I've never lagged inflation (as far as I'm aware) and managed to get 20-30% at a time, but it usually requires a bit of haggling and pressing the boss.
Nominal Animal:
I would like to draw your attention to the parallels in academia, how the quality of research has dropped during the last two decades, because of the skewed pressure applied by the administration. The quality of a paper does not matter, only the number of publications does. This has lead to a huge increase in retractions and errors, and what is called the "reproducibility crisis": it looks like increasing amounts of the "results" cited in peer-reviewed articles are actually completely manipulated garbage, in the hopes of ensuring funding.
In other words, the vast majority of scientists have been conditioned to accept that the numbers have been tweaked "slightly" in order to secure the research financially. Not all do it, perhaps not even the majority, but it's pretty close, considering a quarter to half of papers will be retracted or be shown incorrect in two or three decades on average, or something like that (depends highly on the exact field).
Extrapolating to engineering, when the D-E-I gains a proper foothold, the fight is over, lost. Instead of engineering products you can stand behind and put your name into, you will be conditioned to value appearance and emotional reactions over everything else. If you try to fight that, you will find yourself being punished financially –– with rewards and pay rises withheld –– because at that point, your employers are no longer interested in the product; they will be interested in the optics only.
I cannot in good conscience recommend any of my young relatives to go to university anymore. They no longer teach the things they were founded for, and instead concentrate on indoctrination and bullshit instead. When they emerge, they would find it obvious and proper that scientific research is unreproducible, because everyone has their own personal facts that are derived from their emotional and social makeup.
This does not mean that the world is doomed, because while humans are stupid on average, we're also immensely resilient.
Just because companies will no longer reward engineers for their efforts, does not mean the world does not need their efforts.
Engineering is what keeps the world functional. The need exists and will not go away; it's just that we need ways to make sure those in need still know we're here and capable of doing the work needed.
Thus, the question to solve, in my opinion, is how to avoid being trapped by D-E-I, and keep doing the work, with acceptable compensation.
(Alas, I had to admit that in academia, at least in this part of the world, in my own particular field, that is no longer possible. Nobody is interested in funding anything new, only whatever everyone else is already doing. So, I will have to try and find a new way to do what I can do. Because of the importance of commercial factors in engineering, the irrationality hasn't reached that strongly yet, and there likely are still many viable strategies left. I'm hoping that someone here at EEVblog has found some ways –– other than smiling and nodding and going with the flow and just not giving a shit –– to help those that are seeking such strategies. The one I know of from my business running days, is tickling the avarice of those who make the decisions. That is, pointing it out how one can make the business, and therefore the bosses, a shitton of money, while the D-E-I way can realistically only be described as "go woke, go broke".)
pcprogrammer:
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on August 20, 2022, 03:05:03 pm ---I would like to draw your attention to the parallels in academia, how the quality of research has dropped during the last two decades, because of the skewed pressure applied by the administration. The quality of a paper does not matter, only the number of publications does. This has lead to a huge increase in retractions and errors, and what is called the "reproducibility crisis": it looks like increasing amounts of the "results" cited in peer-reviewed articles are actually completely manipulated garbage, in the hopes of ensuring funding.
--- End quote ---
A friend of ours worked as an administrator for an university professor doing research on Alzheimer's and there it was somewhat normal practice to put out as much publications as possible to secure funding. The content did not matter that much, as long as the money kept pouring in. This was maybe a decade ago, and I guess it is still common practice.
It does show what is wrong with capitalism. Everything is driven by money. Can't come up with a better system though, because all the other ones we know of are also flawed.
nctnico:
--- Quote from: paulca on August 20, 2022, 01:53:50 pm ---
--- Quote from: madires on August 20, 2022, 01:23:50 pm ---Salery? Shouldn't it be called compensation for personal suffering? >:D
--- End quote ---
Your not far off the mark with that. Often you just get called in and given a pay rise. When you ask why, they say, the market is changing, we want to keep you. It's pro-active retention "pay increases to remain competitive in the market and limit attrition". Take a look at what the new startups in town are paying while poaching staff and bump the employees you want to keep close to that figure.
I once openly referred to it (my end of year bonus), as "danger pay" and got a wry smile out of the senior delivery manager of understanding, and then asked not to call it that.
--- End quote ---
The way out is to become self employed. No more office BS and politics to deal with. But usually you still get invited to BBQs and Christmas dinners.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version