[SoumenD]

Originally Posted by Turbohead

To all those who think multiple LinkedIn titles are cringe: Blame LinkedIn algorithms.

People put multiple titles on their LinkedIn profiles in order to have a better chance at being found by prospective recruiters. For example, I'm forced to keep 'Data Engineer', 'Big Data Developer' and 'AWS' in my title to ensure I get views from recruiters who might be looking for someone like me. Same thing with the guy who put 'ex-Deloitte' since some recruiters specifically hunt for Deloitte employees and would like to ride on the wave as they may be exactly what the recruiters might be looking for.

Yes, it's cringe. But it can be a very powerful tool if done properly.

Not sure about others but atleast I was pointing at flaunting company names and not skillsets. Put in as many skillsets as you like, its upto the individual and makes all the sense. But what's this obsession with showing off Ex-firms? That's the trend I can't get my head around. Specially when someone has worked in let's say Infy, wipro, Google & Microsoft but the title reads only Ex-Microsoft/Ex-Google. Are they ashamed of Infy and Wipro which gave them that initial break and actually helped gain experience to crack these big firm interviews?

[padmrajravi]

Originally Posted by SoumenD

That's the trend I can't get my head around. Specially when someone has worked in let's say Infy, wipro, Google & Microsoft but the title reads only Ex-Microsoft/Ex-Google. Are they ashamed of Infy and Wipro which gave them that initial break and actually helped gain experience to crack these big firm interviews?

Isn't it logical ? It is just like putting the skillset in the LinkedIn profile. The elite tech companies have tougher interview processes and if someone has cleared that, I don't see any problem in them trying to sell that. If I am interviewing someone and I see someone with Google and Microsoft in their CV, I will definitely take note of it unlike say a TCS or Infosys. Recruiters see loads of profiles with mass-market IT company work experience in them. As a job hunter, the objective is always to stand out and appeal to recruiters who hold higher standard than the mass market IT companies. Using Ex Google , Ex Microsoft is just a way of doing that. How does that mean he is ashamed of his past ? If someone has TCS and Google in their CV and has only a few characters in the title section to stand out, should he put ex TCS there or ex Google there ? It is not about forgetting roots or being ashamed, it is just about using the best points in your favor to advance your career.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by SoumenD

But what's this obsession with showing off Ex-firms?

I think Turbohead already gave an example of why that is being done.

Originally Posted by Turbohead

Same thing with the guy who put 'ex-Deloitte' since some recruiters specifically hunt for Deloitte employees and would like to ride on the wave as they may be exactly what the recruiters might be looking for.

Some recruiters have found that hiring people with a particular background, and that could include having worked at a particular firm, meets their needs and they look specifically for those profiles. I also asked around and one family member who was recently recruiting for her team was doing exactly that! So it's probably more than just flaunting and perhaps it is indeed bad LinkedIn search design that this is required. And perhaps we can make the point that that is not an ideal way to recruit. But whatever, for a job seeker, it seems to work.

[SoumenD]

Originally Posted by padmrajravi

Isn't it logical ? It is just like putting the skillset in the LinkedIn profile. The elite tech companies have tougher interview processes and if someone has cleared that, I don't see any problem in them trying to sell that. If I am interviewing someone and I see someone with Google and Microsoft in their CV, I will definitely take note of it unlike say a TCS or Infosys.

Fair point.

Originally Posted by am1m

... And perhaps we can make the point that that is not an ideal way to recruit. But whatever, for a job seeker, it seems to work.

Ideal and all dont work in corporate world as we know. Maybe am a bit old-school but if it actually works, that's all that matters. Guess high time I edit my LinkedIn profile with my EXs

[am1m]

Caught up with an former colleague recently. He was with a company for over a decade and then he's had 2 very quick job shifts, both under a year and apparently was considering another jump. Was asking him if such jumps after a short stint wasn't going to look bad to potential recruiters, when he shared some numbers. The company he was 'loyal' to for over 10 years used to give him an average of single-digit hikes across all the years he was there. (I know and have worked with this guy in the past, he's a good performer.) For the last 3 years he was there, they gave him 1-3% hikes ('covid-slowdown' reasons). On the other hand, the 2 job shifts he made netted him a 25% increase in a year. And that's money in-hand, not CTC.

Difficult to argue for loyalty in such a case.

Also wondered if he would have had the chance to learn anything or contribute significantly at his shorter job stints, when we started discussing all the new tools, domains and technologies he got to work with. I work in the same space and must say, even if he didn't get a chance to dive deep into them, being able to list having worked on some of those certainly enhances the resume for roles like ours. Plus, even in this 'looming recession' scenario, he was getting calls from recruiters. (This is a 15+ year experienced chap, not a fresher or in the 'hot' 5-7 years experience bracket.)

I still think for some industries depth matters a lot, but am also beginning to wonder if some of my views about job stints for the majority of IT roles is a bit outdated.

[zaks]

LinkedIn has become the new social media play ground for employees, ranting and raving on things from politics to religion and new age health.

Now, there seems to be a fest and fanfare about announcing your new job or resignation to rest of the world.

[Samurai]

https://www.msn.com/en-in/video/mone...bs/vi-AA14pgtB

Couple of things surprised me about this video:

1) Employees had no work for months after getting hired, and eventually got fired.
2) Severance depends on not talking about why you got fired. Is this a norm in Big Tech?

[shankar.balan]

Originally Posted by am1m

Caught up with an former colleague recently. He was with The company he was 'loyal' to for over 10 years used to give him an average of single-digit hikes across all the years he was there. (I know and have worked with this guy in the past, he's a good performer.) For the last 3 years he was there, they gave him 1-3% hikes ('covid-slowdown' reasons). On the other hand, the 2 job shifts he made netted him a 25% increase in a year. And that's money in-hand, not CTC.

Difficult to argue for loyalty in such a case.

.

1. The labourer is worthy of his hire.
2. One of India’s largest advantages is highly skilled relatively inexpensive labour, digital or otherwise.
3. A job is a business arrangement between the employer and employee where the employee gives of his time and skill to the employer in return for a commercial consideration.
4. The quantum of commercial consideration varies of course.
5. The Employee will always have the flex and ability to switch to other Employers if the commercial considerations are better.
6. Loyalty is fine and appreciated but no longer as valued as it once was.
7. Highly skilled people will find employment easily whereas less skilled less competent and lazy ones wont. Many of the latter take refuge behind the word ‘loyalty’.
8. Hikes are a matter of commercial viability. Companies will only give hikes as per their affordability/ and budget.
9. It is true that if a Company loses a good employee who came at a certain cost, the Company will have to shell out at least 30% more to replace the said employee with an equivalent from the market.
10. However, while it may be argued that the Company simply ought to have retained the Employee by giving a bigger hike, it is also a fact that the Economy of scale wont permit it. It is cheaper to replace 10 Employees at a 30% higher cost than it is to retain 100 Employees by giving them vast hikes.

And so it goes, this merry-go-round of life, jobs and attrition and replacement!

[Samurai]

RSUs are drying up due to lack of growth, which means Big Tech can't pay like before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvJvEDiOzPo

[JediKnight]

Originally Posted by Samurai

RSUs are drying up due to lack of growth, which means Big Tech can't pay like before.

In my organization RSUs are huge part of the total compensation. Since January our share price has tanked nearly 50%. On top of that our company gave zero raises this time. Many of my colleagues who recently booked multi-crore flats, are now openly lamenting their decisions. With home loan rates touching 9% does not help either.

[mohansrides]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mZbLX8EsWk&t=68s

Worth watching. She lays it out really well with some good actionable steps for people in her position.

Some quick takeaways for us are that the guys on linkedin painting a "I am victim" picture on Linkedin; this could be typically what they get. In the video,

1.) Her actual date of unemployment started 2 months after she was given the news. So, she got 2 full months of employment legitimacy during which to interview elsewhere.

2.) Most importantly, on her relieving date, for her relatively junior level, she got a month's salary as severance pay. If she gets a job within the same org before her 2 months grace period are up or before her one month of severance package expires, then she loses her severance pay. So, she actually suggests asking potential hiring managers (in the same org) to defer their offer letter to AFTER her 3 month of lay off intimation so that she gets to keep her severance pay. Of course, if she gets a job in a different org altogether, then she gets to keep her severance pay anyways. So, in a sense, getting laid off and rehired could be quite lucrative if it happens in quick succession.

3.) She gets 6 months of top class health insurance cover.

4.) She also gets stock vesting rewards.

5.) She gets access to mental health resources and so on.


Made me think. Some poor sod losing his entire professional identity to a lockdown; what does he get?

[DigitalOne]

Google parent Alphabet on January 20 announced that it is planning to cut roughly 12,000 jobs or 6 percent of workforce worldwide, CEO Sundar Pichai told employees in a mail.

Source

The job cuts affect teams across the company including recruiting and some corporate functions, as well as some engineering and products teams.

The layoffs are global and impact US staff immediately, Google said

[Latheesh]

CEO Sundar Pichai told employees in an email today that he takes “full responsibility for the decisions that led us here."

What difference statements like these makes? or do they expect someone else to take the responsibility?

[rajesh1868]

Originally Posted by Latheesh

What difference statements like these makes? or do they expect someone else to take the responsibility?

Doesn't make any difference. But generally is a way of saying that nothing else (performance of those getting laid off, etc) led to this decision but the business decisions. Since I am the CEO, I am responsible for those.

[Vishal.R]

Between tons of updates in LinkedIn from all those who are part of mass lay-offs, someone raised a valid question that many of those who are working with 5+, 10+ even 15+ years of same organisation like Google, Microsoft, Amazon are also part of this layoffs, so concept of "loyalty" is no longer valid at least in such kind of organisations.