Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Loyal to the Company

dilbert.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 107 posts

Re: Loyal to the Company

#61

Post by Spooky23 »

gspencley wrote: post #37
AlbertCory wrote: post #21

My Dad worked for Swift & Co. for 45 years. Nonetheless, when I quit my first job, he said to me, approvingly, "They're not loyal to you, so why should you be loyal to them?" There are companies loyal to their employees. They tend to be small and family-owned, though, and when the family retires or loses control, the new owners tend to be markedly less loyal.

What does it mean to be "loyal to" a company or employee, though? Maybe I'm just overly cold and "literal", but an employment agreement is just that: an agreement to exchange value for value. In general, I loathe the idea of an agreement that I can't renegotiate. Do I owe my employer something? Yes, to the extent that it is agreed upon contractually. Does my employer owe me something? Same deal. I just don't understa…

Value requires context.

Loyalty means that while the company may be losing money for some transitional period of time, they are going to invest some time & treasure in their employees or transition them to a new role.

Usually when companies are cold to their folks, it’s a one sided arrangement. You’re expected to stay 30 minutes late routinely because you’re a “team player”, but you’ll be penalized immediately for starting 6 minutes late.

In general, there’s a broad line between being an asshole and a pushover. If you’re an asshole, you shouldn’t be surprised when people don’t like you. If you’re a pushover, you shouldn’t be surprised when people don’t respect you.

With tech companies, they deliberately setup a cushy work environment to attract staff. When stock market conditions started impacting the executive compensation, the terms changed in a bizarre way. Some layoffs are almost completely random, and people generally resent being sacrificed to the volcano gods.

Re: Loyal to the Company

#62

Post by qup »

masterof0 wrote: post #45
qup wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you believe loyalty can only be bought with loyalty. Companies provide some value for employees that they don't get back from them, and vice versa.

What value besides money? A company paying a employee to be "loyal" is nothing more than a business transaction, and "loyal" really is "please, don't go to another company, we will pay you to stay here". I'm assuming the employee is not also the owner.

I agree. I think what most people seek in a company is the weathering of risk, the establishment of an opportunity, and the reliability of income.

Employers can "demand" loyalty, but as you say, it's basically a request. There's no legal basis for it or anything.

I think it's fine to have a culture of loyalty. It probably means you have a pretty good company. Demanding it doesn't work, and if it's not real loyalty, we don't have to be mad about it being one-sided.

Re: Loyal to the Company

#63

Post by logical_ferry »

lliamander wrote: post #53
gspencley wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it mean to be "loyal to" a company or employee, though? Maybe I'm just overly cold and "literal", but an employment agreement is just that: an agreement to exchange value for value. In general, I loathe the idea of an agreement that I can't renegotiate. Do I owe my employer something? Yes, to the extent that it is agreed upon contractually. Does my employer owe me something? Same deal. I just don't understa…

> If my services are a net disvalue to the company they should continue on as though that's not the case? Loyalty is not about accepting a lower value relationship for the sake of not wanting to change, it is trying to optimize the value of relationships over a longer period of time. That means, among other things, ongoing investment from both parties to improve the mutual value of the relationship. This applies to a…

I worked at the same company for six years. After that I job hopped. Now, 5 years lsrer, I still have 2-3 good friends I see regularly from the first company. I don't know a single person from any of the other companies.

Re: Loyal to the Company

#64

Post by joelthelion »

mianos wrote: post #58
rmason wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My late father worked for Morton Salt for close to forty years. Then Morton got a new 38 year old CEO and he wanted to shake up the company. He figured out that the employees over 55 years old tended to be the highest paid and if he got rid of all of them it would goose profits and he'd be a hero to Wall Street so he did it. For a quarter or two it worked and then the company descended into a death spiral and he was…

the "MBA Playbook". You would think those MBA courses that instruct on how to do this would also include the downside. Maybe they do and people make the moral choice not to care as they plan on being long gone before the failures? Maybe they teach that bit too? Sorry for more questions and answers as I have NOT done an MBA myself.

MBA types tend to move on before the consequences of their actions become clear. I don't think they care.

Re: Loyal to the Company

#66

Post by kerkeslager »

brundolf wrote: post #22
kerkeslager wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The smaller the company, the less distinction there is between "the company" and "the people who own it". So it's possible to have something like loyalty/trust with the company if you have loyalty/trust with the people in charge I understand what you're getting at, and this is why I support small businesses both with my money and politically, and when I can, by working for them. If someone has to look you in the ey…

Yep I would even add a further layer for public companies (vs large private companies): we might think of "those in charge" as management, and large companies certainly put more distance between them and folks on the ground, but public companies also have a big distance between investors and management. Most investors on the open market won't even be involved with the company directly - it'll just be a line in a port…

Agreed, the vast majority of shareholders have little or no visibility into a company. And management and shareholder incentives aren't aligned in timescale: while shareholders be in it for the long term, management can be in it for the short term, collecting bonuses on their quarterly performance and leaving when their short-termism comes back to bite the company.

Another problem is that shareholders aren't a cohesive group. If the holders of the top 51% of shares vote as a block, they make 100% of the shareholder decisions but reap only 51% of the results. This greatly decreases the cost of doing things like buying a controlling interest in a competitor and running it into the ground, because you can get the holders of 49% of the shares to subsidize your cost. Shareholder behavior in this situation seems irrational if you look only at their behavior within the company, but it's rational in the larger context of their holdings.

Re: Loyal to the Company

#67

Post by dennis_jeeves1 »

AlbertCory wrote: post #21

My Dad worked for Swift & Co. for 45 years. Nonetheless, when I quit my first job, he said to me, approvingly, "They're not loyal to you, so why should you be loyal to them?" There are companies loyal to their employees. They tend to be small and family-owned, though, and when the family retires or loses control, the new owners tend to be markedly less loyal.

>My Dad worked for Swift & Co. for 45 years.

on that note judging by some of the HN comments in general (not this topic) ) overall, it looks like a fair number of HN commenters do not have their dads in their lives.

Re: Loyal to the Company

#68

Post by doctor_eval »

gspencley wrote: post #37
AlbertCory wrote: post #21

My Dad worked for Swift & Co. for 45 years. Nonetheless, when I quit my first job, he said to me, approvingly, "They're not loyal to you, so why should you be loyal to them?" There are companies loyal to their employees. They tend to be small and family-owned, though, and when the family retires or loses control, the new owners tend to be markedly less loyal.

What does it mean to be "loyal to" a company or employee, though? Maybe I'm just overly cold and "literal", but an employment agreement is just that: an agreement to exchange value for value. In general, I loathe the idea of an agreement that I can't renegotiate. Do I owe my employer something? Yes, to the extent that it is agreed upon contractually. Does my employer owe me something? Same deal. I just don't understa…

Personally I think it means to act in the best interest of the other party, even when it’s not mandated. Treating others like you would want to be treated.

So for an employee: not charging bogus overtime, not being a stickler, helping those around you, helping the business succeed. Not bailing at the first sign of trouble.

For an employer: paying for overtime, being flexible with rules, proving assistance outside of work, helping the individual succeed. Not firing at the first sign of trouble.

Sadly the current bunch of CEOs appear to be simply numbers guys, rather than effective managers, and seem to think that the pinnacle of management is being the Hard (Wo)man who can slash the workforce at the drop of a hat, rather than being a thoughtful leader who understands the value of their workforce and how to direct them.

Re: Loyal to the Company

#69

Post by hn_user82179 »

DoctorOW wrote: post #25
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #18

[flagged]

Do you actually find it funny? This is the same joke that's repeated over and over. I can't imagine enjoying it the 500th time. It's more of just a veil for certain beliefs.

I personally find it funny at face-value but the joke does get ruined for me because, as you say, it's just a veil for certain beliefs. I used to enjoy a lot more of Aronson's work until I realized he was just strawmanning the views he disagreed with. I had previously thought it was just good-natured ribbing.

For an actual funny (and not so "blah blah SJWs ruining everything") version of this joke, the tv show Atlanta does a much more entertaining version of it, you can find it if you search "transracial".

Re: Loyal to the Company

#70

Post by onetimeusename »

mianos wrote: post #58
rmason wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My late father worked for Morton Salt for close to forty years. Then Morton got a new 38 year old CEO and he wanted to shake up the company. He figured out that the employees over 55 years old tended to be the highest paid and if he got rid of all of them it would goose profits and he'd be a hero to Wall Street so he did it. For a quarter or two it worked and then the company descended into a death spiral and he was…

the "MBA Playbook". You would think those MBA courses that instruct on how to do this would also include the downside. Maybe they do and people make the moral choice not to care as they plan on being long gone before the failures? Maybe they teach that bit too? Sorry for more questions and answers as I have NOT done an MBA myself.

There is definitely a problem with MBAs who come in to companies and obsess about one or two statistics or numbers and reorder the business to maximize/minimize some metric but it destroys the business in the process. Another example is the Sears CEO Eddie Lampert.

It's a shame because Morton Salt sounds like it was irreparably harmed which is a huge cost for a lot of people (jobs and profits lost) but the CEO at worst just loses their job after a couple years if they hadn't moved on already.

Post reply on HN