zlacker

>>jrs235+(OP)
The longer my career gets, the more I realize this to be true. This also has the added disadvantage that the employers take the employees lightly. In a family, the head of the family has more power than others. If employers considered an employee's duration at the company more as a contract, then they would also work harder to keep the other party satisfied with the contract. Unfortunately, the relationship is tilted in favor of the employer due to the fact that a loss of employment generally has worse consequences for the employee that for the employer.

>>euphor+a4
Treating an employee's duration like a contract is a terrible idea. It puts into the employer's head that the employee is just a temporary expense, which starts begging the question - just how temporary can I make this employee?

>>stephe+o4
Have you considered that most companies--especially in tech--already are doing that?

They'd be stupid not to.

>>eroppl+27
Yes, I'm certain I've worked for more than one employer who felt that way. And I've considered contract employees that way. It's what inspired me to write my comment.

Of course, since I am again a contractor, I'm getting some perspective about my feelings while at my previous employer.