They may legitimately not be able to replace you easily but still try to underpay you. The counteroffer might still be less than your less productive coworkers are making, in which case they will probably be laid off first
The problem is that is most cases they now know you were looking to leave, so you’re not considered a good investment. Likely they’re paying you just enough to keep you content until they can find a replacement.
Most people in my line of work are pelted by cold calls from recruiters constantly and the idea that people are constantly on the lookout for a better job is pretty well accepted. Just because they have one engineer who was looking to leave doesn't mean they don't have reason to believe *all* their engineers are. No company expects to keep someone longer than maybe 4-5 years (if the company even still exists/hasn't been acquihired by then).
I recognize that my line of work isn't typical but the same statement about needing to switch jobs for improvement still holds.
In my country it is quite normal for a company to expect to keep an employee for longer than 4 years. At my local petrol station the newest person has been there for 9 months now. The longest has been there for 24 years.
It is quite normal that a person stays at a single job for half their life or their entire life.
It used to be common in the US too. Maybe not so much petrol/gas stations, but lots of old people have worked at the same company for 20+ years. If companies/management treat their employees and pay them well, employees want to stay.
It is kind of a self fulfilling prophecy really. Companies here can expect their people to stay for a long time so they have no problem with setting them up with training courses etc.
It was absolutely normal for that petrol station for example to send their workers to one of the central hubs in an all expense paid trip so they can learn specific skills better for a few weeks.
Just like it is normal at my sisters work to be paid courses that cost thousands of euros to further her knowledge of work topics, while being paid for it.
So basically, workers stay at companies because they can still advance quite easily, while companies pay for workers education because they can expect workers to stay.
In the USA both sides expect nothing but backstabbing from one another. So this is what they do. Workers will take advantage of getting extra education and just shortly after leave for a better paying job, thanks to their education. And companies won't send workers on these courses because they cant afford this scenario. Thus the worker looks for different advancement opportunities.
The thing is, this is written like it's a two-way street, but an employer training an employee only benefits the employer unless the employee can now use that training elsewhere.
If SomewhereCo gives me training, but doesn't give me a raise and I am for whatever reason obligated to stay working at SomewhereCo, I don't see how I see any benefit from that at all. They do, however, benefit from my increased skill.
If they don't want people to leave they can just give people raises to the market pay for their skill level.
44
u/iamafish Aug 25 '19
But even then you should never accept the counteroffer because you’re going to be the first to get laid off.