This is why job postings should require a salary before posting.
This morning, I attended a meeting where my manager explained that the work of several people who had left the company would be divided among us, with most of it being dumped on me. At the same time, my salary would remain exactly the same.
The funny thing is, my resignation letter was already saved on my laptop. A few days earlier, I had accepted another job with better pay, decent benefits, and more time away from work. I spent the entire meeting trying not to smile while they explained my new responsibilities to me.
I submitted my resignation the next morning. They immediately offered to match my new salary, but I told them money wasn't the only reason I was leaving. The working hours and conditions weren't things a counteroffer could fix.
Then they started talking about how understaffed they were and how my leaving would make things extremely difficult for them. I told them, "That's something management will have to deal with." They clearly didn't like that response very much.
One of the managers brought up the non-compete clause, but his superior quickly shut that down and admitted they couldn't stop me from leaving. They asked me to work my two-week notice period, and I agreed. Afterward, my friends took me out for drinks, and I can't remember the last time I felt this relieved.
I work at the European headquarters of a company with a large US branch. A manager on the American side, whom we'll call AM, got approval to hire someone in Europe to coordinate their projects. This person would sit with my team but report directly to AM.
Seven months later, the position is still vacant. AM traveled here several times to conduct interviews, and he kept saying that no one wants to work these days. The rest of us would usually look at one another, because the problem wasn't a lack of applications. I worked in the US for years, but watching this process from the European side was strange.
The first job posting brought in around 40 résumés. Our office doesn't use automated screening, so AM had to read them himself, and he kept complaining about the workload. He was also annoyed that nearly everyone had submitted a cover letter. We explained that both of those things are perfectly normal here, and that the applicants had put genuine effort into their applications, so the least we could do was read what they had sent.
AM then rejected almost the entire pool because they didn't already have a certain professional certification. The position had been advertised as junior to mid-level, and the certification wasn't legally required. We told AM that someone who already had that certification would expect a higher salary. Otherwise, the US team would need to cover the cost of the training and exam after hiring them. AM wasn't happy, but he eventually accepted it.
He then suggested a 75-minute aptitude and personality assessment. We warned AM to keep any test under 20 minutes and to drop the whole personality-typing idea. He replied, "But what if I hire someone whose personality isn't compatible with mine?" We told him he was free to try. The first two candidates who were asked to take it both withdrew. One of them CC'd my manager on an email saying, "I have a master's degree in actuarial science. I'm not going to spend more than an hour proving that I know how to calculate percentages." That email made the rounds across the entire team because we had already warned AM that this was exactly what would happen.
The same scenario kept repeating. A strong candidate said during the interview that another company had already made him an offer. AM waited ten days because he thought it might be a negotiating tactic, so the candidate accepted the other job. Our salaries are governed by a union agreement, and the ranges are public, so there wasn't much room for negotiation in the first place.
Another candidate tentatively accepted, but he had just had a baby and become a father. He said he wouldn't start until after taking ten weeks of parental leave, especially since his current company had already approved 14 weeks for him. AM considered that an unreasonable request and withdrew the offer. We thought the candidate had been clear and upfront from the beginning, before anyone wasted any more time.
To be fair, AM gradually started adapting and became more willing to listen to us after each failed round. In day-to-day interactions, he's a nice enough person. But I still don't know whether hiring culture in the US has changed this much since I left more than ten years ago, or whether I've simply gotten used to employees in Europe expecting their time and personal lives to be respected.