A Case Of The Mondays: Vent Your Work Spleen Here

[ABay]

I keep making stupid mistakes at work. It's in relation to a role I didn't really want but that's not an excuse for repeatedly screwing up.

I also know I should be working harder, paying closer attention, finding a project, engaging professionally in some way like my colleagues who seem very busy and interested in what they're doing, but just showing up and doing the bare minimum is a huge effort. I'm just over a year away from my earliest opportunity to retire and am practicing in place, I guess.

[chocolatine]

3 hours ago, ABay said:

I keep making stupid mistakes at work. It's in relation to a role I didn't really want but that's not an excuse for repeatedly screwing up.

I also know I should be working harder, paying closer attention, finding a project, engaging professionally in some way like my colleagues who seem very busy and interested in what they're doing, but just showing up and doing the bare minimum is a huge effort. I'm just over a year away from my earliest opportunity to retire and am practicing in place, I guess.

Not to be alarmist, but have you had a physical checkup lately? What you're describing could be a symptom of a medical problem.

[chocolatine]

If anyone on this board works at Twitter, you have my sympathy.

Edited October 28, 2022 by chocolatine

[SuprSuprElevated]

Mine too.  Now gtfo!  lol

[magicdog]

15 hours ago, chocolatine said:

If anyone on this board works at Twitter, you have my sympathy.

Eh.  Most of the upper echelon executives made millions if not tens of millions.  I think they'll be fine.  The little guys might not lose their jobs (I've heard burnout is a very real thing with them).

Meanwhile, work today has been a load of last minute stuff!  We're covering the funeral of a cop who was killed in the line of duty and his funeral is today.  That means live coverage of the procession (including the Strip) and interviews with various participants who will be part of the funeral duty;  many are from out of town.  One guy we interviewed was from the Apache (reservation) PD in AZ.  It's a very stressful time in many ways.

[chocolatine]

45 minutes ago, magicdog said:

Eh.  Most of the upper echelon executives made millions if not tens of millions.  I think they'll be fine.  The little guys might not lose their jobs (I've heard burnout is a very real thing with them).

I'm not worried about the execs, but Musk has said that he's planning to cut 75% of the workforce, and he's known to be a nightmare to work for, so this is going to suck for everyone whether they lose their jobs or not.

[chocolatine]

Our company announced a hiring freeze today. It sucks for my team since we had two open roles which are now frozen, but I feel even worse for the recruiting team, with whom I've been working closely. Our CEO said that nobody is getting laid off and the recruiters will be given other roles within the company, but it must still be very difficult for them to have to pivot like that. 

[Gramto6]

On 10/31/2022 at 5:19 PM, chocolatine said:

Our company announced a hiring freeze today. It sucks for my team since we had two open roles which are now frozen, but I feel even worse for the recruiting team, with whom I've been working closely. Our CEO said that nobody is getting laid off and the recruiters will be given other roles within the company, but it must still be very difficult for them to have to pivot like that. 

I think in their position, I would be happy to have to pivot than to get laid off and have to look for a new job. Yes, it will be difficult to pivot, but better not to have to go job hunting...

[chocolatine]

1 hour ago, Gramto6 said:

I think in their position, I would be happy to have to pivot than to get laid off and have to look for a new job. Yes, it will be difficult to pivot, but better not to have to go job hunting...

That's true, but I'm sure it's still stressful to have to learn new skills and meet the expectations of a new role. Our recruiters are all being very gracious about it though, in contrast to the folks who are complaining about the reduced travel budget.

[Gramto6]

2 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

That's true, but I'm sure it's still stressful to have to learn new skills and meet the expectations of a new role. Our recruiters are all being very gracious about it though, in contrast to the folks who are complaining about the reduced travel budget.

No doubt it is stressful. Maybe the ones complaining about travel budgets being cut should be the ones reassigned?

[chocolatine]

1 minute ago, Gramto6 said:

No doubt it is stressful. Maybe the ones complaining about travel budgets being cut should be the ones reassigned?

If only!

[Cloud9Shopper]

I got stuck organizing a Halloween photo contest at work because the department who normally does has an employee on a leave of absence, and dear God do I hate that I was assigned to it. I’m glad we’re announcing the winners today so I don’t have to deal with it anymore after this.  I’m usually not a curmudgeon about company social things and try to go to them but I hate the planning and dealing with people who think a contest should be the most important thing on my plate. Hopefully next year this won’t be my job and I can just attend and/or submit a photo stress free. 

[bilgistic]

I had to take a break from this forum, but if anyone wondered (you didn't 😂), I still don't have a job. I last had a great virtual interview on the 17th, and a week later, the HR rep emailed me to say I was still a candidate. I emailed her again on Tuesday (another week later) to ask about the status. She hasn't bothered to reply.

Take 30 seconds to tell me you hired someone else, fucking hell.

See also: every recruiter ever.

[chocolatine]

1 hour ago, bilgistic said:

I had to take a break from this forum, but if anyone wondered (you didn't 😂), I still don't have a job. I last had a great virtual interview on the 17th, and a week later, the HR rep emailed me to say I was still a candidate. I emailed her again on Tuesday (another week later) to ask about the status. She hasn't bothered to reply.

Take 30 seconds to tell me you hired someone else, fucking hell.

See also: every recruiter ever.

I know that this is incredibly frustrating, but these days a lot of open roles are in flux due to the looming recession. Just a week ago one of my team's recruiters enthusiastically advertised our two open positions on LinkedIn. And on Monday, we were informed of the hiring freeze, but that some "critical" roles would remain open. Then it took another two days to find out whether either of our roles is considered "critical" (they aren't). So a lot of the time, even the recruiter doesn't know what's going to happen to the role, so they hold off on responding to candidates until they have certainty.

Another possibility is that the recruiter with whom you worked is no longer working at the company. That happens a lot more often than you would think.

[SuprSuprElevated]

10 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

in flux due to the looming recession.

Uh, looming?  Me thinks it's loomed.

Edited November 3, 2022 by SuprSuprElevated

[chocolatine]

2 hours ago, SuprSuprElevated said:

Uh, looming?  Me thinks it's loomed.

According to our company's chief economist, we're not officially in a recession yet.

[SuprSuprElevated]

2 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

According to our company's chief economist, we're not officially in a recession yet.

A recession is a significant, widespread, and prolonged downturn in economic activity. A popular rule of thumb is that two consecutive quarters of decline in gross domestic product (GDP) constitute a recession.

gross-domestic-product--2022-

[chocolatine]

6 hours ago, SuprSuprElevated said:

A recession is a significant, widespread, and prolonged downturn in economic activity. A popular rule of thumb is that two consecutive quarters of decline in gross domestic product (GDP) constitute a recession.

gross-domestic-product--2022-

Our economists are calling what's happening now a "correction after a period of unsustainable growth" but they do believe we'll enter a recession in the next 3-6 months if the Fed continues to raise interest rates, so that's where I'm coming from. 🤷‍♀️

[SuprSuprElevated]

7 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

Our economists are calling what's happening now a "correction after a period of unsustainable growth" but they do believe we'll enter a recession in the next 3-6 months if the Fed continues to raise interest rates, so that's where I'm coming from. 🤷‍♀️

The measures in my post have been used to guage recessions/economic conditions for decades.  A rose by any other name...

[Cloud9Shopper]

Been at the job for three months now, and I feel like things are still going well and I want to stay on this path. The big stressor is that we have a few positions open and are having a hard time getting candidates for a variety of reasons (for example, not being able to pay the same as BigLaw does; we’re more mid-sized but have a lot of other things to offer too), or getting several offer rejections before finding someone who sticks. Law is a more conservative industry by nature so we don’t want people who have job hopped too much or someone too experienced for an associate (lower-level attorney) position. The recruiting side is definitely more tense than the professional development side since I’m mostly just researching training programs and compiling participant logs from virtual programs so the attorneys can get their continuing education credits. 

I’m still concerned about a recession but figured as long as we’re still hiring and interviewing, I’m not going to obsess about it too much. If the higher-ups order a hiring freeze then I would probably at least put feelers on the job market for fear of a layoff. (I was at my last job for three years and once my department froze hiring and I couldn’t get any growth projects I accelerated my search efforts.) But at the same time, speaking of job hopping, I’m past the point where I want to do that constantly and would like to stick for a few years to gain experience and be a more competitive candidate when things get better. Here’s hoping I won’t have to make any major changes too soon, but law should be better off than, say, tech is right now. 

[chocolatine]

2 hours ago, Cloud9Shopper said:

I’m still concerned about a recession but figured as long as we’re still hiring and interviewing, I’m not going to obsess about it too much.

I think this is the best attitude to have under these circumstances.

[hoosier80]

So there was an article on an industry blog about our corporation doing cost cutting measures. Bosses boss sent to her directs to send out to us mere peons. My boss, who always seems to be on break, even at WFH, forgot to send us the part that said our division actually is adding stuff, so probably not impacting us. My boss is ok with routine stuff and acting important. She doesn’t bug me as she knows I do a lot of things she’s clueless about. She was hired in/promoted because of who she knew and maybe more than just “knew”. Super chummy with our site head.

They have hired a lot of people offshore. I am guessing we’ll have a re-org. Last time, like 10 years ago, offered early retirement packages. I was too far away for Medicare, so turned it down. If they offer it now, it’s a big yes from me. Old offer was close to 1 year of pay, and you could choose your date: 6 months or a year.

Waiting on an outside vendor to process some data for one large process I handle quarterly. Watching as the Dip, who still has not retired (almost 72 years old) and who is still clueless, picked up 2 tasks. I am like 99% sure she has no idea what to do. Making bets with myself on when she asks me.  

[magicdog]

1 hour ago, hoosier80 said:

She was hired in/promoted because of who she knew and maybe more than just “knew”. Super chummy with our site head.

Sounds like Bitcheroo.  The previous GM was always hanging around her like a dog who sensed a bitch in heat.  Even other co-workers thought it was odd he was hanging around the newsroom as often as he was.

[chocolatine]

The Meta (f.k.a. Facebook) layoffs are all over my LinkedIn feed this morning and I have mixed feelings. When I worked there, I thought it was toxic and cultish, and there were many people who did nothing but self-promote and play politics, so I'm not sorry if they got the ax. But of course the layoff also affected many great, hardworking people, who will have a hard time finding new jobs in this economy, and for a lot them there's also a ticking immigration clock.

[magicdog]

Meta employee.  She's probably curled up in a ball right now.

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/119/840/011/playable/cbb5ccafd4d58207.mp4

[chocolatine]

19 minutes ago, magicdog said:

Meta employee.  She's probably curled up in a ball right now.

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/119/840/011/playable/cbb5ccafd4d58207.mp4

Exactly. So many employees treated Meta as the be-all, end-all, especially if it was their first tech industry job. I've worked with people who were so into the cult mentality that they'll probably need to be deprogrammed after the layoff.

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, magicdog said:

Meta employee.  She's probably curled up in a ball right now.

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/119/840/011/playable/cbb5ccafd4d58207.mp4

I'm amazed she found time to work in between all those trips to buy food and drinks.

[chocolatine]

1 hour ago, Bastet said:

I'm amazed she found time to work in between all those trips to buy food and drinks.

Spoiler alert: I doubt that she did much work.

[meep.meep]

3 hours ago, Bastet said:

I'm amazed she found time to work in between all those trips to buy food and drinks.

The only places she had to "buy" the stuff were when she was out of the building.  They feed you for free inside.  They probably had gofurs to bring them a lot of it.

Meta/Facebook employees all act like they're in a cult, it's really creepy.  Always going on about Mark.  It's going to be hard times for many.

[chocolatine]

49 minutes ago, meep.meep said:

The only places she had to "buy" the stuff were when she was out of the building.  They feed you for free inside.  They probably had gofurs to bring them a lot of it.

There are no gofers to bring you food. You go to one of your building's cafeterias where the food is usually served buffet-style. Some buildings also have specialty cafes like an ice-cream parlor, pastry shop, etc. There are also "micro-kitchens" on every floor fully stocked with sweet and savory snacks, as well as coffee, tea, and non-alcoholic beverages.

For outside food, you order it via Postmates/GrubHub/Uber Eats, they deliver it to your building's reception, and you pick it up there.

BTW, I always found it wasteful to order anything in since there were always so many free food options, including for various dietary restrictions (you can look up the menus of all buildings on the intranet so if you don't like what's being served in your building that day, you can walk to one of the other nearby buildings for lunch). But there were always people for whom it wasn't enough and they complained. There's even an internal Facebook group dedicated to people critiquing the free food.

[meep.meep]

The video shows her going to a coffee place in the morning and out for drinks after work.

The gofuring was to bring them the sushi during the meeting.  Other than that, it showed her going to the "cafeteria" and other food stands.

The amazing thing is how much she ate.  When I was her age, I would have an appetizer for dinner.

[EtheltoTillie]

Was that really a real person?  Seemed like a joke posting.  That was a lot of food. 

[chocolatine]

2 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

Was that really a real person?  Seemed like a joke posting.  That was a lot of food. 

I don't know about that particular woman, but, as a former Meta employee, I thought the amount of food was realistic. Like I said in my last post, there is a large variety and quantity of free food available in the buildings, plus many employees order additional food (like the sushi in the TikTok video) to have during long meetings. And most employees talk about the "Facebook Fifteen," i.e. the weight they've gained by eating all of that food.

[Cloud9Shopper]

It sucks to get laid off but at the same time…I feel like someone who worked at Meta or Twitter won’t have that hard of a time finding a job. At least on my LinkedIn feed I see all these recruiters and other hiring managers offering to help people laid off, tipping them off to interviews and openings, giving referrals, etc. They likely won’t have to go through the job hunt grind they’d have if they got laid off from No Name Inc. They’ll be fine in a month or two. A name like that on a resume they won’t have to worry long.

I heard from a coworker at my old job today (which is not a FAANG or any nationally known company) that two longtime workers in our department got laid off. I believe they both had been there for at least 15-20 years and they were great workers. Now I feel bad for them.

Also, random note, so many people are willing to simp for/suck up to companies that just laid them off. It’s incredible. I know someone who went to work at Workday, and that’s another place they act like a cult. They even have mugs with their employee number on them that they show off, talk about how their company jackets “tell a story” and so forth. 

Edited November 12, 2022 by Cloud9Shopper

[chocolatine]

1 hour ago, Cloud9Shopper said:

Also, random note, so many people are willing to simp for/suck up to companies that just laid them off. It’s incredible.

Yes, that was especially blatant in all of the Meta layoff posts on my feed. A cynical part of me thinks the separation agreement offered them additional severance pay if they make complimentary public statements about the company.

Edited November 12, 2022 by chocolatine

[Cloud9Shopper]

We have a few job openings at my firm right now, and it honestly surprises me how much junk we get to get maybe 2-4 decent candidates. And that’s assuming we don’t lose them when the hiring partner takes forever and a week to respond to emails about who they want to interview. And oh have I seen it all…people 20 years out of law school looking for entry-level attorney jobs, people applying who don’t even have bar admission in the state the job is based in, applying for lawyer jobs without a law degree, the list goes on. I feel like I know now why hiring can move so slow! 

We also don’t take job hoppers so we cut any five jobs in seven years (or whatever) types, and we can’t offer the huge paychecks of BigLaw firms. I like what I do but it sucks sometimes to throw out 95% of resumes and then not be able to do anything with the 5% of decent ones while we wait for feedback. (My boss and I don’t do any kind of initial screens; the candidates are immediately set up with the hiring partner.) 

[isalicat]

23 hours ago, Cloud9Shopper said:

(My boss and I don’t do any kind of initial screens; the candidates are immediately set up with the hiring partner.) 

Sounds like your hiring process could be revamped to include an initial screening phone call (or Zoom chat) with a potentially desirable candidate; this would keep the candidate "on the hook" while you are waiting on the hiring partner, and also allow you to further delineate the responsibilities and possibilities of the opening to further weed out people who are not really going to pursue the job. Literally 5-10 minutes can make a huge difference in moving things forward smoothly.

[StatisticalOutlier]

On 11/14/2022 at 3:30 PM, Cloud9Shopper said:

And oh have I seen it all…people 20 years out of law school looking for entry-level attorney jobs,

What's your reasoning for not considering them?

[Cloud9Shopper]

12 minutes ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

What's your reasoning for not considering them?

I don’t make the rules, but our hiring partners generally want a specific level of experience and we don’t pay what bigger firms do, so we’re not going to be able to give a 20-year attorney the salary they would command elsewhere for an opening that calls for 2-5 years experience. I don’t think we’re being unreasonable. Associates, the level we’re hiring at, are considered lower level attorneys. Someone who‘s been out of law school for 20 years is overqualified for that level and what we can pay. 

Law firms tend to have different salary scales based on years of experience, title, etc.

Edited November 20, 2022 by Cloud9Shopper

[SuprSuprElevated]

There's the rub for me.  I have to believe that a 20-yr attorney is well aware of the salary parameters of an associate position, and is willing to accept that salary, or likely wouldn't be applying for the job.

Not blaming you @Cloud9Shopper, just saying that in general, I find this rationale for excluding a given applicant extremely frustrating.

[Cloud9Shopper]

23 minutes ago, SuprSuprElevated said:

There's the rub for me.  I have to believe that a 20-yr attorney is well aware of the salary parameters of an associate position, and is willing to accept that salary, or likely wouldn't be applying for the job.

Not blaming you @Cloud9Shopper, just saying that in general, I find this rationale for excluding a given applicant extremely frustrating.

Unless I move beyond a coordinator role I am probably powerless to change it. We have a hiring partner who when he says he wants an attorney with 2-5 years experience in XYZ practice area, he means it. Not just out of law school,  not 10 years, not seven, 2-5 years. Period. My boss has been in the legal recruiting field a while so she knows how to not waste the partners’ time or send over resumes they won’t even look at. 

My boss does get it in a way because if she had her way everyone would have a chance and a fair shake. But we can’t interview or hire everyone just because they might be nice or they are willing to accept the salary even when we want someone below their experience level. It’s kind of showed me how impersonal hiring really is when you’re at the mercy of office politics and hiring managers who want what they want. Unfortunately you have to cut some candidates somewhere. 

[chocolatine]

I'm not a lawyer, but in tech, if a candidate with many years experience applies for an entry-level role, it means they haven't learned or grown much in their career, which is a red flag. (Unless the candidate is switching fields, e.g. from front-end engineering to data engineering, in which case it's normal to start at the entry level for the new field.)

[StatisticalOutlier]

32 minutes ago, SuprSuprElevated said:

There's the rub for me.  I have to believe that a 20-yr attorney is well aware of the salary parameters of an associate position, and is willing to accept that salary, or likely wouldn't be applying for the job.

And the OP said "people 20 years out of law school looking for entry-level attorney jobs," which I didn't take as the same as someone with 20 years of experience.  They (or, more probably, she) might have been working for a portion of those 20 years, and maybe even wants to start practicing in a different field.  You never know, which is what irks me about AI doing so much of the screening these days.  I don't think "you never know" is AI's strong suit.

I do know that I would never apply for a job if I knew I wouldn't accept the stated salary, but maybe enough people would that it's a problem.  One thing the internet has supplied me with is knowledge that there are a lot of people who do things I would never do

At one point I moved to another state, where I wasn't licensed to practice law.  So what did I do?  I got a job for a temp agency that supplied legal secretaries.  I had two years of clerical experience, and only 8 months of that was as a legal secretary.  A computer would have rejected me, but the lady with the agency didn't, and I ended up being a cash cow for her because after a couple of months of my hopping around, a firm found out I was a lawyer (see, that's what can happen when you actually engage with your temps) and said, "We want her every week," and they had me doing all their real estate documentation. 

That work was "beneath me," but I had my reasons for doing it, and everybody came out a winner.

In the case of the people @Cloud9Shopper works for, I think they're missing the opportunity to use humans to be better than AI.  Or at least different from AI, and does anybody really enjoy what the hiring process has become now that AI has taken over?

Although I do understand that for law firms in particular, if they're hiring for a partnership track, "can this person perform the tasks required" is not the only consideration.  Someone with 20 years of actual experience might not be a good fit, even if they were willing to work at the salary offered.

I used to look at the job postings in the Bar Journal back when firms advertised positions there, and the 2-5 years was standard and seemed like code, and not the absolute requirement that this hiring partner has imposed.  The 2-5 years meant they wanted someone who knows enough about the subject to hit the ground running, but not so much that they won't work for the salary offered, and not so much that they can't be formed in the way the firm wants.  But maybe I was wrong, and 5-1/2 years would disqualify someone. 

Mr. Outlier is in the unfortunate position of having to hire someone to help out with his programming.  He's using Indeed, and getting a glimpse of the landscape.  It seems to him if he says he requires someone with Unity game engine experience, then applicants must have Unity game engine experience.  But people without any Unity experience apply, and they don't even assert why they would be a good choice despite not having Unity experience. 

As it stands, the inference drawn is they didn't even read the posting carefully, which doesn't exactly propel their application to the top of the heap.

[Browncoat]

I fully expect to take a pay cut with my next job.  But I also fully expect to have fewer responsibilities.  I'm at a point in my life that I'm willing to make that trade, assuming interviewers will give me the time of day.  

I hate interviewing, regardless of which side of the table I'm on.  I'm trying to hire someone now, and I'm constantly astonished by the amount of bullshit I have to listen to in interviews.  I probably shouldn't be by now, but it's just amazing what people try to get away with.  You really shouldn't try to convince your interviewers that you know something like a specific software program or manufacturing technique unless you actually do.  Chances are your interviewers are quite well-versed in those things and can smell your bullshit a hundred miles away.  It's best just to be honest.  If you tell me you don't have experience in that particular thing but are willing to learn, I can work with that. I can't teach you if you think you already know it all (especially when you so clearly do not).

[chocolatine]

34 minutes ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

You never know, which is what irks me about AI doing so much of the screening these days.  I don't think "you never know" is AI's strong suit.

I'm an AI practitioner working in HR tech, so I have several things to say about this:

1. A machine learning model (which is what most "AI" is nowadays; we don't have true artificial *intelligence* yet) is trained on data generated by humans. So if a candidate screening ML model rejects a candidate, it's because humans have overwhelmingly rejected similar candidates in the past. AI doesn't create new bias, it just perpetuates existing human bias.

2. Most screening systems don't even use ML models, they use keywords - imposed by humans - which are even less flexible. An ML language model can identify similar words; keyword matching will only pick up the exact words.

3. It doesn't sound like in @Cloud9Shopper's case, any ML models are being used for screening. The screening is done by a human who rejects every application that doesn't fit the requirements, and doesn't play the "you never know" game, so the outcome is the same either way.

4. Your situation with the temp agency sounds like an edge case, and requirements for temp jobs are usually more flexible than for full-time roles. In industries with large volumes of applicants, it's not feasible to give every candidate who doesn't meet the job requirements the benefit of the doubt. It's about identifying the candidates who are most likely to be a good fit for the role. It's completely impersonal, like @Cloud9Shopper has already said.

[Cloud9Shopper]

We actually don’t use AI to screen resumes out. We have an ATS but we still give the resumes a manual scan, not to mention we have recruiters and candidates reach out by our jobs email too. When we did on campus interviewing, the representatives for each school had to go through a packet (albeit in PDF form) and pick out the students they wanted to interview. The schools have students submit online and we either login for the packet or get it emailed to us but we have to physically review the materials all the same.

Anyway I’m starting to feel really ganged up on here because I can’t control that my firm doesn’t interview in the exact way people from the outside think it should. So that’s all I’m going to say, and I get it because I was a job seeker not that long ago, but sitting in two hiring selection meetings flips your outlook really quick when you can’t give everyone a chance on a “well maybe” or “it would be fair to interview them.” This is a tough market. Nobody sat around laughing about sending rejections or saying mean things about candidates who weren’t what we looking for. 

Edited November 20, 2022 by Cloud9Shopper

[Jane Tuesday]

The classic "overqualified" candidate. When I was younger, it seemed so crazy. How could you be OVERqualified? But now I totally get it. It's not so much about what somebody is willing to take as it is whether that person is honestly going to STAY.

When I was unemployed a few years back and applying to everything, I interviewed for a part-time job with an interior decorator. I remember the owner came at me HARD in the interview about whether I REALLY wanted the job. I was working another part-time job already, and I tried to convince her that the two jobs would pair up and it would be enough for me. But she clearly didn't buy it, and it seemed so unfair at the time that she didn't believe me.  

But you know what? She was right. I would never have stayed long-term in that arrangement. I was desperate and willing to take what I could get, but I would have been looking elsewhere in a few months.

That's not to say every overqualified candidate is the same. People have lots of reasons why they might take a step "down". But I would give them a hard look before going forward. 

[Bookish Jen]

Well, the temp agency I signed up with got me a short-term assignment with a local non-profit. It's going pretty well. The hours are only part-time (7:00am-12:30pm). Now, I like working part-time, but in the long-run I need full-time hours to make a decent paycheck.

[chocolatine]

7 hours ago, Bookish Jen said:

Well, the temp agency I signed up with got me a short-term assignment with a local non-profit. It's going pretty well. The hours are only part-time (7:00am-12:30pm). Now, I like working part-time, but in the long-run I need full-time hours to make a decent paycheck.

Hiring for full-time jobs is usually slow during the holiday season; it should pick up again in January. Maybe there's also an opportunity to expand or upgrade your role at the non-profit if they like working with you. If you know of anyone who's about to leave or retire, reach out to their supervisor to see if that role is a good fit for you.

[chocolatine]

Conversation with my boss today:

Me: How do I get promoted to senior director?

Boss: You have to demonstrate that your team significantly increases revenue for the company, speak at conferences, and have great Pulse scores.

Me: Is that how you got promoted to senior director?

Boss: No, I was promoted because the guy who was the senior director at the time left.

🤦‍♀️

Edited November 29, 2022 by chocolatine