I Can't Think Of A Title For This Post...

I went to a party the other night, in a pub called 'Messrs. Maguire' on Burgh Quay in central Dublin.

Organised out of work, and starting with lunch, it was a farewell bash for Rebecca, the second of our two IT Graduates to leave us in the last two months, and we had a blast.

I got home at three a.m., something I haven't done in a long, long time, and slept until ten, something I do whenever possible.

And although it was a good night, it was something of a bittersweet occasion.

As I may have commented elsewhere, we have a good bunch of people where I work, and teams become closely-knit. There's generally a good atmosphere in the department and we're largely spared the political infighting that goes on at higher levels in every company. Except when it comes to holding onto talented personnel.

The case in point is this - each year, the company, in it's largesse, takes on a number of newly-minted college graduates as part of a two-year work experience program. In its defence, the company makes no bones about the fact that the term of contract is two years only, after which the candidate will be released to seek outside employment. Grads are however permitted to compete for any internal vacancies that arise under the standard T&Cs, so that's something.

However, it has been the case in the past where grads who have demonstrated ability have been taken on as permanent staff, and we were hoping this would be the case with both Rebecca and Ross. At the very least, they deserved a contract extension, and their team leaders and managers went to bat for them with the General Manager who, we understood, would take it up with our director and maybe get a result.

But nothing doing. Contracts up, no extensions. HR policy.

This despite the fact that five other grads on the same program have been kept in other departments, and one of them has been made permanent. I think at least one's in the HR directorate, in which case the hypocrisy is staggering.

My question is, what's the point? We take the time and trouble to train and develop people, only to be told there's no place for them at the end of it all. Then more time is wasted training their replacements. Not that I'm against giving people opportunities - I just think they should be rewarded properly for what they themselves put into it.

In Ross and Rebecca's cases, neither will be drawing unemployment - Ross got sorted with a job in a bank, while Rebecca starts a new job tomorrow, organised by her direct manager.

We're happy for both of them, but it's the wrong reason for a party...