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

Loyalty at work no longer pays – and it's employers who are to blame

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 85 posts

Re: Loyalty at work no longer pays – and it's employers who are to blame

#41

Post by phone8675309 »

allears wrote: post #2

This has been true for a very long time. It's not a modern phenomenon. There was probably a "golden age" in the middle of the last century when it was a good idea to be a company man. But before that, and after that once the MBA mentality took over, workers have been treated like disposable units. It only makes sense for a worker to strategize to maximize their own career and income, instead of placing their loyaltie…

Companies saying "we're a big family here" are deeply amusing to me as someone who had a turbulent home life as a child and who only talks to his relatives once a year on Christmas.

I think the people saying this don't think about people who have a still-acrimonious relationship with their family. If you're telling me that you're a big family then I am not interested.

Re: Loyalty at work no longer pays – and it's employers who are to blame

#42

Post by xyst »

I’ll never be loyal to a company. That’s something that’s earned, not given. When I see companies layoff 5% of their workforce every year “just because it pumps the stock”, that’s an immediate signal that this company is not worth it in the long term.

They won’t bother with long term goals and sustainability, so why should I?

Re: Loyalty at work no longer pays – and it's employers who are to blame

#43

Post by lmz »

twojobsoneboss wrote: post #39
rr808 wrote: post #5

I'm actually on my 9th employer and its surprising the difference - they pay people well, very few contractors, no outsourcing, constructive feedback, encouragement for internal mobility. Every other place was the opposite.

Good employers exist. It’s crazy the number of people who get burned a couple of times and declare the industry is sheet and they have to do their own thing or their life is doomed

Judging by the above it's 1 out of 9 - not a great rate.

Re: Loyalty at work no longer pays – and it's employers who are to blame

#44

Post by ghaff »

afavour wrote: post #40
numbasys wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Europe though 15 days would be illegal. You'd start day one with 5 weeks. Minimum. Plus bank holidays.

As a European I am very aware of that. But like I said about dollar amounts, the extra you can earn in the US made the move worth it for me personally.

I suspect many/most of the people in the highly paid areas of the tech sector in the US would not actually jump for 2-3 weeks of unpaid leave per year (without other consequences--which I realize is an issue if you're a small minority that takes the offer).

Personally, I always have taken my max time off and even taken unpaid leave for shutdown when that was an option but I realize that's probably not the majority.

Re: Loyalty at work no longer pays – and it's employers who are to blame

#45

Post by jarsin »

phone8675309 wrote: post #41
allears wrote: post #2

This has been true for a very long time. It's not a modern phenomenon. There was probably a "golden age" in the middle of the last century when it was a good idea to be a company man. But before that, and after that once the MBA mentality took over, workers have been treated like disposable units. It only makes sense for a worker to strategize to maximize their own career and income, instead of placing their loyaltie…

Companies saying "we're a big family here" are deeply amusing to me as someone who had a turbulent home life as a child and who only talks to his relatives once a year on Christmas. I think the people saying this don't think about people who have a still-acrimonious relationship with their family. If you're telling me that you're a big family then I am not interested.

I was laid off with zero severance and no recommendation etc from a company that was big on "we are a family".

Never heard from one single person there after the layoff. I was like yup this is how my family is too.

Ever since I have always felt joining a company is like getting adopted into another dysfunctional family.

Re: Loyalty at work no longer pays – and it's employers who are to blame

#46

Post by lividly3529 »

pacbard wrote: post #18

I wonder how much the loyalty of the "good old days" was due to a smaller local labor market for skilled jobs. Let's say that you are a doctor and you live in a town of 20,000 people with one hospital. You are stuck being "loyal" to that hospital unless you move. Now let's say that you live in a metropolis of 2 million people and multiple hospitals. That gives you the option to move between jobs if they become availa…

By the same hand on the employer side. If the doctor employee is good then you want to keep them if they are the only good doctor in town. Even if they're not great if they are consistent you want to reward them because the replacement would have to be convincing someone out of town to move. But if you live in a large city with tens or hundreds of possible doctors you know your doctors will likely be poached but there are also more where they came from so why bother rewarding loyalty when you don't need to be loyal to your employees?

Re: Loyalty at work no longer pays – and it's employers who are to blame

#47

Post by hosteur »

throwawaysleep wrote: post #16
zero-sharp wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, but who wants to be always interviewing? That sounds terrible. At some point your life is going to have different priorities.

Always interview, be overemployed as a C player at the jobs you get, retire early.

What does C player mean here?

Re: Loyalty at work no longer pays – and it's employers who are to blame

#48

Post by tomohelix »

hosteur wrote: post #47
throwawaysleep wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always interview, be overemployed as a C player at the jobs you get, retire early.

What does C player mean here?

Scraping by. Doing barely enough to not get fired.

Re: Loyalty at work no longer pays – and it's employers who are to blame

#49

Post by aaomidi »

zero-sharp wrote: post #26
ink_13 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One hack I've seen is to be the interviewer, not the interviewee

How is that a hack? I guess if you're moving between roles with similar/identical skill sets, great. But I've always had to spend time preparing. Being selective as an applicant doesn't mean you don't have to prepare.

I’ve used “preparation” as an excuse to go research and expand my knowledge.

I’m not and will never cram down algorithms for an interview. So far that strategy has worked for me /shrug.

Re: Loyalty at work no longer pays – and it's employers who are to blame

#50

Post by npteljes »

Morally it's the employers to blame, but the world is not built on morality, but on power dynamics.

For loyalty to be worth something, the relationship has to be at least somewhat equitable. Each party has to have the power to hurt the other significantly. If this is not the case, then the vulnerable party's loyalty is not worth much of the invulnerable party. I don't need the loyalty of the hamster I keep in the cage, what are they going to do, leave me for another owner? But I do need the loyalty of my free roaming cat, as if I'm treating them wrong, they are going to leave me one day, and so I'm short of a dear companion. I think that workers are vulnerable past and present, and so, I don't think that their loyalty is "no longer" paying - I think it was never paying. Or I should rather say "rewarded" instead of "paying".

Second thing that lowers the value of loyalty is that people don't change easily. Some easier than others, but change in general is deeply stressful, when talking about change in personal things like work, or home. So, often, and at least in part, a person staying in a job or at a specific rank is not loyalty, but resistance to change. And as such, it's not that it's not paying for the employee, it's actually lowering the employee's value, and so, their compensation too.

Post reply on HN