What about getting paid in stock? Then should you have loyalty?
Loyalty and Layoffs
41–50 of 139 posts
Re: Loyalty and Layoffs
#42I don't disagree entirely. . .and in my previous life as a manager. . .and before that, as a team lead. . .I encouraged everyone to keep growing professionally and to keep their resume updated - and to never assume that they could stay forever and/or leave on their own terms. I told them that I did and that I just considered it sound professional advice, no matter how much we loved and respected each other, the organization's mission, etc. On the other hand, I do have loyalty to any co-workers and managers that I genuinely like AND respect. Not to the point that I would sacrifice myself professionally for them, but I do have loyalty. And in past lives, I've told those that I trusted to be mum and professional when I was starting to look for another position - even if was just another position in the same organization and just to give them a heads-up.
As a matter of fact, my peer in our organization left a few months ago. She felt guilty, knowing that my life would almost immediately become more difficult, but I stressed to her to do what was best for her. She started to waver when management asked her to delay her departure - I reiterated that she should not worry about me or management. She was loyal - which I appreciated. And I was loyal and shoved her out the door.
Re: Loyalty and Layoffs
#43How about being loyal to your customers? They're depending on you. Even though their contract is with the corporation, it still feels bad to leave them in a bind.
Re: Loyalty and Layoffs
#44I 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…
You need to re-read the gp comment. Knowing what you're worth is different than what companies value your worth. A company may undervalue or overvalue your work - the responsibility is on you to determine if you're getting screwed or not - it isn't dependent on what others are getting.
Re: Loyalty and Layoffs
#45Remember 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 dou…
I'd always give my manager a chance to keep their promise. If they fail and start making excuses instead of taking responsibility, I can also work with that, but it's not going to be the same in terms of motivation and productivity.
Many managers got their education straight from Dilbert or the movies. They think screwing you over and maintaining ambiguity is "business-savvy". It's well known that employees will grow resentful when your actions cost them money. It's one of the few HR areas with actual studies and it's common sense in general. Good managers are pretty rare though indeed.
Re: Loyalty and Layoffs
#46I think there are three legitimate objects of loyalty in the proper order: 1. Loyalty to your work. Do a good job, take pride in it, try to always do better. 2. Loyalty to the customer. This goes without saying, but don't let this make you do less of a good job. 3. Loyalty to the company. I disagree with the author in saying this is sick. However, it becomes sick when it is placed above a need to do a good job and ta…
I would suggest that you phrase the first one as "loyalty to your craft" to make it clearer that "your work" doesn't mean your job.
As an aside, in the distant past, this would have been much more explicitly "loyalty to your guild."
Re: Loyalty and Layoffs
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 l…
Because even if "nobody" knew who leaked, the US government would probably find out. And if "nobody" else knew, he'd be disappeared by now.
Things have changed a lot since deep throat. As Daniel Ellsberg (from around the same era) wrote, they let him _out on bail_ while waiting for a trial. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-l... Back when the US government assassinating people without trial might actually outrage the public enough to cost politicians their jobs. Times have changed.
The "he did it to be famous" thing is exactly the story the government is trying to tell about Manning too, and it's entirely incredible in both cases, just doens't make any sense. Who puts themselves at risk of life imprisonment or death (judicial or extrajudicial) just cause they want to be famous? It doesn't even make any sense.
Re: Loyalty and Layoffs
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You need to re-read the gp comment. Knowing what you're worth is different than what companies value your worth. A company may undervalue or overvalue your work - the responsibility is on you to determine if you're getting screwed or not - it isn't dependent on what others are getting.
I think I understand correctly. What I was trying to say is that if I am able to determine that I am being screwed over, this is management's fault and not my fault. It's management's responsibility to fix it. I shouldn't have to hire salary researchers and lawyers with my own money to create a report that I can use as an argument for my manager to consider it. And definitely must not put me in conflicting position with management over it. Otherwise I'd have to leave and nobody wins.
Re: Loyalty and Layoffs
#49It'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.
If someone offers you a job, for a certain wage, and you accept it freely, how are you not even when you get everything that you agreed upon?
Alternatively, if the business makes losses rather than profits, would you kick in your share to keep things even?
Re: Loyalty and Layoffs
#50At 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 find it telling that not so long ago, "Human Resources" used to be called "Personnel". I'm still curious as to what caused the change from persons to resources...