Who’s excited for CR to talk vaguely about products he doesn’t even remotely comprehend?!
16 replies (most recent on top)
But I do if one thinks it has to be granted and Especially if one thinks the Company should pay for it.
I think that, unless there's a valid business concern, any requests to relocate should be granted rather than forcing the employee to quit and Cisco to have to find a replacement employee or give that workload to someone else. Roles that are customer facing where you need to travel to meet with customers, i.e. Sales or on-site support are good examples where the company can, and should, deny such a request. But roles where someone works hours away from the nearest Cisco site should have no issues with relocation.
The only reason a company should ever pay to relocate someone at the company's expense is when the relocation is the business's decision or benefit to the business. When the relocation is at the employee's discretion, or benefit for the employee, then it should be the employee's cost. I would fully expect to have to take PTO and pay my travel/moving expenses if I wanted to relocate to another US state, or even another country if the decision to move was mine.
I don't see how moving "because I don't feel safe in XYZ state" is any different than having to move to take care of your elderly parents. In both cases, it's the employee's decision to move for "personal" reasons. If I end up making an expensive decision to relocate out-of-state or out-of-the-country for my personal benefits, I'd hope that Cisco would allow me to move, adjust my pay based on the cost-of-living and average wages for my role in that location/country and allow me and my manager to come to some sort of agreement on what hours I work based on the time zone differences. If not, then Cisco and I would need to part ways while I find a company willing to hire me to work for them while I live in whatever that new location might be. I just don't want Cisco, or any company, to be able to prevent me from relocating (for whatever reason) when I'm able to, or possibly already am, doing my job remotely. The only real blocks should be taxes and salary. If it's too expensive to pay me to live somewhere and they can get someone cheaper somewhere else, then it makes a business sense to replace me instead of allowing me to relocate.
I don’t have any problem with regard to where people move. It’s really none of my business. However, stuff like this keeps getting brought up in a global context like all-hands type meetings and I think that’s where things go off the rails.
In reply to "do you still consider it a "sense of entitlement" to ask your management chain to allow you to relocate to another country where Cisco has a local presence because they no longer feel safe in the US?"
Of course not.
But I do if one thinks it has to be granted and Especially if one thinks the Company should pay for it.
Thank you for the insight re: your daughter - a valuable perspective and I wish her the best.
Candidly, if someone want to move it is up to them to find the opportunity/means of doing so. If the company (and management chain) they work for supports it - great. If not find another opportunity. Isn't it important for people to take ownership of their own desires/destiny?
I want to relocate to Iceland. Is there a cisco office over there?
My advice: we all lower our expectations, say little, listen much, and focus on simple stuff.
What happened to the Florida comments? Also, to what level does someone have to have a sense of entitlement to publicly ask their company to pay to relocate them out of the US because they no longer feel safe here? 1 - where would they feel safer? 2 - why is it the company's responsibility?
@1wsk+1mYCciaC, do you still consider it a "sense of entitlement" to ask your management chain to allow you to relocate to another country where Cisco has a local presence because they no longer feel safe in the US?
I agree that people asking for the company to relocate them is too much, but why not allow employees to move and remain on their current team? Given the remote nature of our work, why not allow people to "flee 'Merica" because our political system has divided the country in the last 7 yrs?
I'm considering moving to Portugal, and just last month someone on our extended team said they were looking to move to Portugal and knew someone who had recently retired to Portugal that they were using as someone to get tips from on how to go about the process of getting a visa, etc. The crime is much lower there, the healthcare is better, foods don't have all the unsafe chemicals that lobbyists have managed to get the FDA to approve, etc. I have a daughter who is worried that she may be denied certain medicines that she currently takes because they could be harmful to a fetus in the event she becomes pregnant. Since she needs the medications for her condition, and she has no plans to get pregnant at this time, there's no need to block her access to these medications. And why are certain political parties trying to limit access to birth control to prevent young women who want to get their careers started first before becoming pregnant? If you don't want to allow women to choose abortion over life, then why prevent them from becoming pregnant in the first place so they don't have to choose?
I don't feel safe here, not just because of politics, but from all the mass shootings that are taking place. What about the boy who rang the wrong doorbell, the car that turned around in someone's drive way, the cheer leader who got in the wrong car, etc.? That's just in the last 45 days. It's just not safe to live anywhere here.
Hopefully this reply will stay up since it's not meant to violate the rules.
What happened to the Florida comments? Also, to what level does someone have to have a sense of entitlement to publicly ask their company to pay to relocate them out of the US because they no longer feel safe here? 1 - where would they feel safer? 2 - why is it the company's responsibility?
Mate, how silly and pathetic this company has become. You know the ship is rudderless when our leadership muppets are blathering on about something as irrelevant as an American state. Need to focus on becoming a more relevant technology company.
So this is what the conversation has devolved into? 😂 y’all are relentless.
I watching Apple keynote instead. Much mores interesting.
What makes me angry (and they keep doing this), is they gush on and on about how great we are doing! that was the best quarter in recorded history! We are the innovation kings!
We are the number 1 place to work in the universe! Guidance is up! Oh? you thought we weren't going to have layoffs because we were blowing smoke up your bu-t during our checkins? Think again, here's a pink slip for you. Welcome to August at Cisco.
I hate how political everything is here.
Oh god this is so cringey
We’re screwed with these numb nuts at the helm.
CR thinks he’s a thought leader on AI. “He” was telling “his team” his prognostications on it. We know in reality he got fed some fluffy talking points on it by a consultant.
Since its a Cisco Live check in it’s gonna be all fluff. Lots of hype and little substance. The suggestion to drink for every acronym will leave me doa by lunch.