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

81–90 of 139 posts

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#81

Post by pnathan »

RougeFemme wrote: post #42

I 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 organ…

I usually let people I mentor/manage know that they are business for themself. They need to keep the resume polished, the salary figures down cold, the skills fresh. If we all understand that we're in all in business together, contracted to do high quality work together, then certain ground rules are understood and we all can get along fine without manipulative koolaid.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#82

Post by coldtea »

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 feel it's important to remember that in the employee-employer relationship, you're peers.

Only rarely and in quite good economy and job market conditions (can differ depending on profession). And that's for better than average workers. For average and below average (ie. most of the population at any give time) not even then.

Normally you are the one needing work and money to feed your family and he is the one with the money to pay you. "He" could even be a multi-national. You are the weaker one here, make no mistake.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#83

Post by coldtea »

chasing wrote: post #66
vladimirralev wrote: post #35

Earlier 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'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 un…

>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.

Yes, except if you need food and shelter, and have been searching for a job for like 4-5 months (or longer) without much luck...

Lots of Americans tend to think like they all are millionaires (or are soon to be) when discussing business and taxation issues, whereas it's a country with higher inequality than most of the western world, tons of royally fucked up people, and most of them will stay that way for all their lives (plus, far more of them will be impoverished and drop out of middle-class than turn from middle class into millionaires).

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#84

Post by dredmorbius »

spiritplumber wrote: post #61
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 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.

You and Dante. His ordering of the circles of Hell:

Limbo, Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Anger, Heresy, Violence, Fraud, and Treachery.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#85

Post by coldtea »

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.

Why is that some people trivialize any important political or societal question into BS pop psychology about the actor's motives? We could not care less about those.

Perhaps the result of too many bad hollywood movies focusing on "character development", a legacy of puritanism, being conditioned by crap news coverage to turn everything into gossip. Oh, and inexperience with thinking politically.

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

You just couldn't contain your disdain for the man, right? I see some projection in play here, if you allow me the same BS pop psychology.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#86

Post by vacri »

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…

This time is different, but they won't realize it.

I worked for a similar company, and constantly predicted the fiscal end of it. The CEO was siphoning off money any way he could. I was let go in 2009, and at that point the half-yearly general staff meetings were so mundane, I just stopped going and asked others "how many times did he say 'tighten our belts'.

I visited last year and the mood had changed - the dispatch staff said that they had product and orders to ship, but no money for cardboard boxes to ship them in.

They are still somehow going this year.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#87

Post by SilliMon »

dredmorbius wrote: post #74
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 feel it's important to remember that in the employee-employer relationship, you're peers. That's a false statement whose falseness has been observed by economists since Adam Smith: What are the common wages of labour, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. Th…

Not necessarily; few employees are willing to take a pay cut - that is why 5% of staff are laid off, rather than everyone in the company taking a 5% cut.

The latter would probably be more efficient for the company. However many workers would start looking for a better job.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#89

Post by therandomguy »

woah... wait a second. Paid time off = no cashing of days remaining when you leave? Is that right? Just last month by Vacation + Sick days got converted to same number of PTO and the HR email made it sound great complete with congratulations!

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#90

Post by vacri »

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…

I had barely been in the office (working offsite) so I didn't even really feel any attachment at all, so it was all quite surreal.

Starbucks came to Australia... and failed hard. In the news following the closure of three-quarters of its stores, they interviewed one young man who was absolutely distraught, devastated at the loss of his 'family'. He was 18, and had worked there for a whole three months. Welcome to the world, lad.

Post reply on HN