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

Loyalty and Layoffs

heartmindcode.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 139 posts

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#61

Post by spiritplumber »

vladimirralev wrote: post #45
rdtsc wrote: post #40

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 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…

I tell people that I consider oathbreakers as worse than murderers. This generally happens early in the business relationship, and has considerably cut down on the number of brawls I have found myself in.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#62

Post by vladimirralev »

nostrademons wrote: post #56
vladimirralev wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

And what the article and several commenters are saying is that it absolutely is your responsibility. Why? Because you can control your own actions, you can't control management's. Management isn't obligated to pay you anything, and you aren't obligated to work for them. They choose to pay you something and you choose to work for them; you also choose how much to work for them, and your choice might relate to how much…

There are some very subtle aspects in this discussion and we are talking about the same from different angles. I absolutely agree with everything you are saying.

But this is not the case I am discussing. If you are able to prove objectively that you are not getting a fair share of the value you bring and management doesn't fix it, then everybody loses. You lose what you could have gotten, and they lose because now they have a resentful and demotivated employee. You don't even have to leave or you can't leave until you find another job. It's not that hard for an employee to do the bare minimum and not get fired or demoted.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#63

Post by krainboltgreene »

imechura wrote: post #60

May I please add a comment from outside the bubble? It does not have to be this way. My current employer is a low cost travel company, we are celebrating our 43rd anniversary as a company. In these 43 years not a single person has been laid off. Not one janitor, not one programmer, not one reservations agent. We do not have a planetarium. We do not have a movie theater. We do not offer free food to our employees ever…

David Brady isn't in any bubble, he lives in the middle of America.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#65

Post by vladimirralev »

rdtsc wrote: post #55
vladimirralev wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I (hopefully) learned from mistakes of others. My friend got burned. He was promised a "share of the profits" if company gets sold, he was young, after college, his boss knew how to take advantage of him. Sure enough company gets sold. Most good people had left (except as it turns out the others who also got promised privately large exclusive! windfalls). In the end it was, of course, blame on some technicality. "Sur…

Yes, this is a good example. I have my own timeout value for promises - about 6 months. That should be enough.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#66

Post by chasing »

vladimirralev wrote: post #35
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…

You're exactly missing my point.

Your comment is written from the perspective of someone who feels like the inferior party in the relationship. You're not. You always have the ability to say 'no' and walk away from a situation. Are you confused by your compensation? Request full explanation until you're no longer confused and understand your risks. (Understanding risk and reward and making judgments in the face of uncertainy is an art, not a science. Nothing is without risk.) If you don't get that explanation or your spidey sense tingles, saying they might be bullshitting: walk. If you're not sure what you're selling your time for, don't. You're selling tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of your time. Would you sell a house or car if you weren't absolutely sure what you were getting return?

Don't be a dick, just be a peer. And confident. If you're a good person doing quality work, you're valuable. Very few companies run with no employees. Don't mistreat. Don't be mistreated.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#67

Post by tokenizer »

jes wrote: post #49
tokenizer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Don't get me wrong, you're right. It is even legally, but not in nominal terms of value. If I do front end web development for 15$ an hour, but am sold to a customer for 150$ an hour, there's no question in terms of value that the arrangement is unfair. As for your point regarding business success, that's not really my call nor do I have a say. How can I accept losses on behalf of another employee's decision? Surely I'd be fired for bringing in less value than I was earning in the role mentioned.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#68

Post by chrischen »

dkuntz2 wrote: post #37
chrischen wrote: post #36

Earlier 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…

Given the fact that Snowden knew the pervasiveness of the NSA spying programs, I'm guessing he knew that it wouldn't have been hard for the government to deduce that he was the leaker eventually. Plus, it was pretty likely the government kept track of its workers in a way that would have made it even easier to identify the leaker eventually.

So he probably decided to just cut to the publicity part to protect himself. In either case, you don't really know he was in it for fame.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#69

Post by dalek_cannes »

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…

a) Loyalty is a sentiment meant for living beings, not corporations, and

b) When a corporation knows you're "loyal", what they really know is that your threshold for leaving is higher than non-loyal employers of the same skill level, telling them that incentives are better spent on those high flight risk employees than you. You lose.

Post reply on HN