Loyalty and Layoffs • Hacker News Board

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#31

Post by lotsofpulp » Tue, Aug 20, 2013, 1:21 AM UTC

malbs wrote: post #13

I've gone through a number of these company bust-ups. The first one was fairly traumatic for a lot of people, but I'd only been there 3 months. 2001, In my interview, when I was asked "Is there anything you'd like to ask us" I said, "look this is awkward, but I've seen the company mentioned on fuckedcompany.com a number of times, and it's all bad news, is there any concern?" and I received the answer "Oh that's our A…

As far as I know, in the US, there is no legal mandate to pay severance. However, getting their employees to resign probably saved them a lot of money on their unemployment insurance by making the employees ineligible for unemployment benefits (that's why I try to get my employees to resign) and/or they may have gotten their employees to sign release forms for liability from wrongful termination or discrimination or those kinds of liabilities.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#32

Post by jared314 » Tue, Aug 20, 2013, 1:21 AM UTC

mediaman wrote: post #19

purplelobster wrote: post #8

I'm working at a big company where most employees have worked for a very long time. On my team, besides me, the person who has worked the shortest time is 9 years. The next one after that: 15 years. Most managers and senior engineers have worked here for 20 years or more. They've constructed their whole life around this job, it's almost sad. If in their 20 years have switched jobs, it was within the company. I'm not…

As an employer and owner, I don't have a problem with people moving around in their career. I expect it. I stay on great terms with them, give them flowers when they move on, wish them good luck, and invite them to stop by socially later. Most people stay for several years or sometimes much more. Staying less than two years, and certainly less than a year, can be so short as to be counterproductive, so that's less we…

That definitely sounds like a culture that values the people involved in the company's past, present, and future. But, most positions I have had were with companies where the people who left were effectively dead. No one spoke their name at work. No one mentioned their previous efforts or ideas. The company photo was updated. The only thing that sometimes persisted was their name on the source code commits. Employees with a decade of service just vanished.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#33

Post by dkuntz2 » Tue, Aug 20, 2013, 1:22 AM UTC

afarrell wrote: post #17

jacques_chester wrote: post #15

My opinion: You don't have to be loyal. Instead, be professional. That means you retain many of the qualities of loyalty -- dilligence and an eye for the advantage of your client or employer -- without being afraid to ask for the going rate for your services. A professional is also prepared to argue for the best interests of the client and to refuse to act unethically, even when the client doesn't want to hear it. Ou…

And if your loyalty to yourself and your professional ethics are in conflict with the wishes of your employer, it is far better to follow your true loyalties. Though it might come at great personal cost if you end up having to flee to Russia.

I'm sorry, but I can't let your aside at the end stand. From my point of view it had nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with the possibility of fame. He revealed himself. He couldn't even wait, he had to let people know what he did. He practically bragged about it.

The personal cost wasn't due his ethics, it was due to his inability to shut up.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#34

Post by dkuntz2 » Tue, Aug 20, 2013, 1:25 AM UTC

moron4hire wrote: post #7

At some point in the last 5 years, sitting in my pen--ahem, I mean cubicle--I came to the realization that the the subject noun of the term "Human Resources" is "Resources" not "Humans". If you think your boss is your friend, he's either a shitty boss or a shitty friend.

I don't think that's entirely true. If the two of you have the ability to keep you work separate from the rest of your lives, it'll work fine. From what I've seen, most people can't do that, but that's a different issue.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#35

Post by vladimirralev » Tue, Aug 20, 2013, 1:28 AM UTC

chasing wrote: post #20

I feel it's important to remember that in the employee-employer relationship, you're peers. You both need to provide the other with value, and you both need to be frank about your relationship when these values are lop-sided. And you need to be clear about what the value of the things being offered are. Your employer is not your family, your mom, or your significant other. It's a peer with which you trade value. Ever…

I think you are wrong. The employer has accountants, lawyers, HR, business. You are not equally-equipped parties. You can't really afford to have your own contract lawyer, labor lawyer, IP lawyer, accountant, financial advisor and salary market researcher. You have to trust the company to do these things for you. Even when something is in writing there are 100s of subtle ways to screw you over, especially with shares or options. Sometimes companies will not share any information about the value you are bringing in. There is a big information asymmetry between you and the employer, so you just have to trust them to distribute the payouts fairly. Often the pay distribution is unknown and legally confidential. So even if you try to make an argument with some stubborn manager that you are severely underpaid you can't start throwing teammates under the bus for disclosing their salaries. It's a toxic environment to have to continuously confront your management to do their job properly. Otherwise you are losing money because of their incompetence. Not to mention the losses in terms of stress/health when you are forced to actively confront your management.

The other big aspect of the same issue is the implied responsibility - for example when you are consulting for a third party. Lets say you are paid $10 per hour while your company charges the customer $300 per hour and the customer expects a solid $300 per hour delivery. Now that puts you in a weird situation, because the context of responsibility and ownership is very different. It affects how you think about the code. It's like the difference between life-support critical software and useless departmental tools. It is up to your company to define the scope of responsibility. You can't force it, you don't have the business input to figure out what they need. May be they just need a cheap and stupid code monkey.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#36

Post by chrischen » Tue, Aug 20, 2013, 1:29 AM UTC

dkuntz2 wrote: post #33

afarrell wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if your loyalty to yourself and your professional ethics are in conflict with the wishes of your employer, it is far better to follow your true loyalties. Though it might come at great personal cost if you end up having to flee to Russia.

I'm sorry, but I can't let your aside at the end stand. From my point of view it had nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with the possibility of fame. He revealed himself. He couldn't even wait, he had to let people know what he did. He practically bragged about it. The personal cost wasn't due his ethics, it was due to his inability to shut up.

You should consider the possibility that the fame was necessary for his personal self-preservation. If he didn't make himself famous, the gov't could potentially do very bad things to him and no one would notice, or care. The publicity could have been his greatest and only weapon against the US.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#37

Post by dkuntz2 » Tue, Aug 20, 2013, 1:39 AM UTC

chrischen wrote: post #36

dkuntz2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but I can't let your aside at the end stand. From my point of view it had nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with the possibility of fame. He revealed himself. He couldn't even wait, he had to let people know what he did. He practically bragged about it. The personal cost wasn't due his ethics, it was due to his inability to shut up.

You should consider the possibility that the fame was necessary for his personal self-preservation. If he didn't make himself famous, the gov't could potentially do very bad things to him and no one would notice, or care. The publicity could have been his greatest and only weapon against the US.

How was fame necessary for his self-preservation? If nobody knew who leaked how is revealing himself useful?

Deep Throat never needed to reveal himself to the world. Things seemed to go fairly well for him. There are better ways to make sure people don't do bad things to you than tell the whole world that you were the leak. A simple program that requires daily interaction that sends an email to one of the people he leaked to if he doesn't interact with it, revealing himself at that point.

It was not his "greatest and only weapon". He was someone who wanted his name to be remembered.

Tangentially, the reveal made the conversation about him, and not the information.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#38

Post by nigelsampson » Tue, Aug 20, 2013, 1:49 AM UTC

chasing wrote: post #20

I feel it's important to remember that in the employee-employer relationship, you're peers. You both need to provide the other with value, and you both need to be frank about your relationship when these values are lop-sided. And you need to be clear about what the value of the things being offered are. Your employer is not your family, your mom, or your significant other. It's a peer with which you trade value. Ever…

Realising this was one of the best things in my career, it helped me increase my confidence in job interviews. They now weren't just me desperately selling myself to the company, but also them trying to sell me on why I should work there.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#39

Post by tokenizer » Tue, Aug 20, 2013, 1:50 AM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #12

It's been my point of view since the first dot-com crash that my employer and I are "even" every payday. I've done my work, and been compensated for it. I'm not sure what else one can reasonably expect.

Exactly, even though it's not really "even" considering they're profiting off your work (unless you're a necessary evil). I guess you get some other perks if you're not bound to a horrible contract, like paid sick time and vacation.

Personally, I go about things in the same way, but hope I get a union job I just applied for. IMO, that changes the whole solidarity/loyalty relationship.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#40

Post by rdtsc » Tue, Aug 20, 2013, 1:51 AM UTC

Remember if anyone promised you verbally any financial windfall in exchange for loyalty, no matter how charismatic they are don't fall for it. In the end they would end up most likely not delivering (and of course they will blame on an external scapegoated 3rd party for it).

It is a good idea to always be read to leave. Don't burn bridges but don't assume the company you work for is your family. Why? They extract double the work from you working nights in exchange for fluffy promises. A lot of managers are managers because they know how to promote well. Promote themselves well and promote the company to you. Be aware of that.