Certainly if the employer know he possessed those assets before hiring him, he has no reason to feel taken advantage of. Perhaps they were earned after hire, though. | [reply] |
Good point, fellow ysth. But I already had the competences and talked open about them: will not use unless they pay for them. At the time, everything was fine. After this event, I don't know what posture I should take about this matter. This is not the first time, but this is the first they don't take any care on hidding it from me.
| [reply] |
Since you openly told them they couldn't use them up front, perhaps you can make a deal now: ask for funding for some more training of some kind if they win the bid.
| [reply] |
This reminds me of a recent article on slashdot about work paying for work related expenses and stuff, such as cellphones for people who were on call 24/7. I think the general consensus was that if the thing was going to be solely used by that work place, such as a beeper or something, than work should pay for it. But if it's something the work place takes advantage of, but also has personal uses, such as an internet connection to your house or such, then if work pays for it, bonus, but if they stop paying for it, you might as well suck it up.
| [reply] |
No, fellow BUU. I wasn't hired because of the competencies that they're using. I don't even have a salary compatible with those competencies roles.
They pay me as I'm a perl programmer, and I buy books, go to workshops and study perl (on my own expenses). That's fine.
When they applied for the public contest, they presented me as an Oracle DBA (I have the competences, but never played that role here!). This is a more expensive role, and I never received even a single hour as an Oracle DBA here. And that hurts.
| [reply] |
Ah. I see. Why don't you tell *them* that? Tell them that you feel they are taking advantage of your skillset but not compensating you appropiately.
| [reply] |
Most companies assume that if you're in a position which doesn't take advantage of all your qualifications and are being paid accordingly then you'll happily move to a position which does take advantage of more of your qualifications and comes with better pay at a later date.
If this assumption is incorrect, and the employee wishes to be undervalued and underutilised even when a need arises for previously unused talent and skills, then the employer should be made aware of those feelings.
| [reply] |