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

81–90 of 107 posts

Re: Loyal to the Company

#81

Post by brundolf »

kerkeslager wrote: post #66
brundolf wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cohesi…

Shareholders can also be in it for the short-term in a public market, sometimes more so than management. That's why you get execs trying to juice the stock instead of setting the company up for success

Re: Loyal to the Company

#82

Post by el_don_almighty »

Your 'political capital' = company loyalty in difficult times and this is why you should invest and cultivate in this intangible asset over time. Successful project completion is necessary for growing your political capital (PC) but not sufficient. Unfortunately, PC requires a complex mix of social engagement, tribal acceptance, and cross-organizational support that unfortunately comes down to memorable likeability.

"I refuse to suck up or become a schmoozer," I hear you say. That certainly is a common choice and it comes with certain daily freedoms and potentially some long-term negatives. These social constructs are true for all groups of humans and have been for thousands of years. It's not unique to the business environment. This is also why today's HN discussion examples of betrayal to the social norms reflect our sense of moral offense. Arbitrarily firing people feels wrong because it IS wrong.

Growing your political capital by expanding your social engagement and service network doesn't guarantee safety in a crisis, but it certainly increases the odds of remaining in the herd of survivors.

Re: Loyal to the Company

#83

Post by metadat »

hn_user82179 wrote: post #69
DoctorOW wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Atlant…

Found it: https://youtube.com/watch?v=HvuCIwejwqw

Re: Loyal to the Company

#84

Post by lotsofpulp »

AlbertCory wrote: post #80
lotsofpulp wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reads like a clear waste of taxpayer dollars, not beautiful to me in the slightest.

People take civil service jobs just because they'll get that kind of treatment: they're impossible to fire, and they'll get a pension just because they stayed around. You could say that's inefficient and it is, but given what pathetically little the civil service can offer you, "job security" really needs to be part of it.

That does not need to be a part of it. Governments can choose to pay market rate for labor and not waste money in the long term.

Re: Loyal to the Company

#85

Post by nelgaard »

efsavage wrote: post #55
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…

> What does it mean to be "loyal to" a company or employee, though? I think there are different flavors of this but they generally fall into one of two categories: 1. Short-term vs. Long-term * Employee: I'm not getting a raise this year but I trust that they'll make it up to me. This project sucks but they'll put me on a better one next time. * Employer: We don't need to keep this person on the payroll right now but…

I agree. And it does not even have to be personal.

For example I know companies that have done a lot to help an employee with a critically ill spouse. I would feel some loyalty even if the company helped a colleague.

And there are some jobs where employees risk getting unpopular with customers, colleagues, the public, etc. They should take note of whether the company tend to support its employees or throw them under the bus, even if they did nothing wrong.

Re: Loyal to the Company

#86

Post by mostlystatic »

rmason wrote: post #51
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 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…

There is a post about a 38 year old becoming CEO in 2012 https://www.mortonsalt.com/article/morton-salt-announces-new...

But he claims to have remained CEO until 2019 https://www.linkedin.com/in/christian-herrmann-cfa/

Re: Loyal to the Company

#87

Post by rmason »

mostlystatic wrote: post #86
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…

There is a post about a 38 year old becoming CEO in 2012 https://www.mortonsalt.com/article/morton-salt-announces-new... But he claims to have remained CEO until 2019 https://www.linkedin.com/in/christian-herrmann-cfa/

This happened in the late seventies. Nowadays you'd have a hard (though not impossible) time doing it because of federal laws against ageism. However the tech industry seems to get away with it in hiring.

Re: Loyal to the Company

#88

Post by AlbertCory »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #84
AlbertCory wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People take civil service jobs just because they'll get that kind of treatment: they're impossible to fire, and they'll get a pension just because they stayed around. You could say that's inefficient and it is, but given what pathetically little the civil service can offer you, "job security" really needs to be part of it.

That does not need to be a part of it. Governments can choose to pay market rate for labor and not waste money in the long term.

.. and yet, almost none do. Maybe they see it differently from you?

Re: Loyal to the Company

#89

Post by lotsofpulp »

AlbertCory wrote: post #88
lotsofpulp wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does not need to be a part of it. Governments can choose to pay market rate for labor and not waste money in the long term.

.. and yet, almost none do. Maybe they see it differently from you?

They have the ability to punt today’s labor costs to future taxpayers via unaccounted debts in the form of underfunded defined benefit pensions and retiree healthcare.

So what they see is promise low taxes today, get votes today, let tomorrow’s taxpayers deal with debt problems. I cannot blame them, the voters give the leaders the wrong incentives.

Re: Loyal to the Company

#90

Post by thunderbong »

somesortofthing wrote: post #59
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…

Loyalty in general can be thought of as a line of credit for employers and employees to informally "borrow" from each other to smooth things over. Explicitly enumerating all of a given job's duties in an employment agreement is functionally impossible, and a key part of what people mean by an employee's "loyalty" to a company is that willingness to go slightly outside of their expected duties. Meanwhile, a company's…

That's a beautiful explanation of loyalty in this context. I've always struggled to define it. Thank you!
Post reply on HN