「產業替代役」上路：起薪 19.5K、綁 3 年，工商團體直呼好棒棒！
【更新】立院三讀 大專畢業生可至企業服替代役
研發替代役，一般而言政府第一年出19.5k，企業出剩下的部分
補足當初簽offer談定的薪水，整體而言役男實領跟一般正職一樣，不過企業要多付政府一筆基金，不過整體而言雇主第一年還是有省到，還多賺了綁約3年的人才
有些公司會在第一年滿一次發放，有些是直接按月發放
有些還會先給簽約金
第二年開始企業要付全額，當初簽offer的薪水 + 後來的調薪/獎金
當然也有部分公司第一年真的都沒補，讓役男只能領19.5k
一般而言不會有人傻傻跑去這種沒有競爭力的公司跟職缺
誤上賊船也可以毀役，役政署要出面跟雇主協調，情節重大雇主會從此失去申請研發替代役名額的資格
至於產業替代役，看來是比照研發替代役
只是學歷條件放寬吧
在不景氣的時候，對很多役男而言，未嘗不是保障3年的鐵飯碗，還省了一年當兵的時間換工作經驗
反正政府花19.5k把人綁在國軍打雜，不如拿出來投資產業人才
這個投資會不會讓整體薪資行情向下沈淪？
這主要應該是要看景氣跟人才需求吧
缺人的時候，又多了一筆龐大的資金投入薪資市場
這時候雇主是要加把勁搶人才跟對手競爭，還是打壓薪資自傷？
企業的競爭對手可不是只在台灣而已
如果選擇後者，那他們只是讓自己更快被超越被淘汰
就我所知有些科技業的研發替代役起薪一年比一年高的，有些起薪甚至比早幾年進公司的正職工程師高
PS. 研發替代役是要靠自己去面試拿Offer的，然後在時間到的時候上去填志願(填當初面試好的公司)，公司HR會再去把面試到的人挑出來呈報
絕對不是透過政府媒合/分發（雖然很多人跟政府官員以為大家都是傻傻地填志願碰運氣）
1/24/2015
Leaps of Faith in the Form of Analogy
Most leaps of faith take the form of an argument by analogy.
The problem with analogies like this is that they obscure the true leap of faith. That is their goal: to make the business seem less risky. They are used to persuade investors, employees, or perhaps to sign on.
-- The Lean Startup
Argument from analogyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy
Previous technology X was used to win market Y because of attribute Z. We have a new technology X2 that will enable us to win market Y2 because we too have attribute Z
The problem with analogies like this is that they obscure the true leap of faith. That is their goal: to make the business seem less risky. They are used to persuade investors, employees, or perhaps to sign on.
-- The Lean Startup
Argument from analogyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy
The process of analogical inference involves noting the shared properties of two or more things, and from this basis inferring that they also share some further property.[1][2][3] The structure or form may be generalized like so:[1][2][3]
- P and Q are similar in respect to properties a, b, and c.
- P has been observed to have further property x.
- Therefore, Q probably has property x also.
Of course, the argument doesn't assert that the two things are identical, only that they are similar. The argument may provide us with good evidence for the conclusion, but the conclusion does not follow as a matter of logical necessity.[1][2][3] Determining the strength of the argument requires that we take into consideration more than just the form: the content must also come under scrutiny.
-- Wikipedia
Personally, I feel annoyed, cheated, and misled when people trying to distort the fact and reality by presenting analogies. It feels like a hard sell, trying to use analogy to conceal the assumptions.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)