Live data from Hacker News

Loyalty and Layoffs

heartmindcode.com

71–80 of 139 posts

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#71
post #46

I 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."

Agreed on craft vs work in this context. I think however, it is more generally applicable to things done not for pay too.

I sometimes call this "ownership of work" which has two components. The first is the ability to do your job your way (but collaboratively as needed), without micromanagement, and the second is to take pride in doing it the best way you can.

This is applicable in the work force in the sense that micromanagement is evil and that good tradesmen are good workers but it is also applicable to things like washing dishes: Do a good job but dont let anyone else tell you how to do a good job!

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#72
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…

This is largely true, but it is why it is better to negotiate with the would-be employer with you as the supplier and them as the customer. In other words, it is better to be self-employed and negotiate your own rates on that basis.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#73
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 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?""

Ah, fuckedcompany.com! I miss that site. It really offered some good insights into what was happening during the internet bubble. For those who missed it (it went away in 2007), here's a description:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucked_Company

And here's a random snapshot from 2001:

http://web.archive.org/web/20011201061308/http://fuckedcompa...

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#74
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. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour.

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, or merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so immediate.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN3.html#I.8.11

Smith continues to further detail the advantages of employers. Not all of the conditions he describes apply fully today (trades unions are no longer illegal), though in practice they largely still hold, particularly in the technology sector (in which trade unions are almost wholly nonexistent).

The law of rent (David Ricardo) states the situation simply: your ability to command a wage from one employer is wholly dependent on your ability to claim as much or higher compensation from another, or by striking out on your own.

Smith also makes the observation that it's not the size of an economy but its growth which tends to produce circumstances most favorable for labour (a growing economy has a larger number of alternative opportunities for labour).

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#75
post #66

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…

Excellent point.

But I still have the feeling that simply asking for explanations puts you at risk. Being annoying is a risk. They know that they are not giving you the information you need to do your own valuation. A common tactic from managers is to maintain ambiguity, only to be resolved later against your interest. Many companies have an established scheme with plausible deniability by design. Even if they explain everything to you, you might not be qualified to understand it. I've seen a founder tell me that I don't have to pay for my stock options to become stock, a mistake that is worth $100K+ and I wouldn't have known that if I didn't speak with a financial advisor.

You just can't have the private company information, competence and time to double check everything your management is saying and supposed to do for you. It's just trust in the guy who is in position of power.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#76
post #66

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…

I think you are glossing over if not the asymetry in information, than the assymetry in the opportunity cost. 'Walking away', as you put it. Testing the market in this way is stigmatized by future employers (collusively, perhaps) on the one hand. On the other hand, companie have deeper pockets to cushion lumpy productivity/profits. The issues and dynamics are a lot different for a higher level position, where an executive, for example can trade off his reputation to find a new job, perhaps has a sizeabel net worth in any event, and has the contacts and hierachical access to information in the company to no only understand ways of adding value but vulnerabilities of the company as well. This is why you see golder parachutes and etc. These people are so they will no longer be productive. You are paying them to go away, quietly, without damaging anything on the way out.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#77
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 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?" " Ah, fuckedcompany.com! I miss that site. It really offered some good insights into what was happening during the internet bubble. For those who missed it (it went away in 2007), here's a description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucked_Company And here's a rando…

fuckedcompany was an important resource at the time - I should have paid more attention to the commentary!

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#78
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

With respect, if you think the deal is unfair to you, why do you accept it? Why don't you just deal with the customer directly?

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#79
post #23
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not for "the team", but for individual persons like the OP. The post in fact makes that distinction.

Your team is composed of individuals.

The post in fact also makes that distinction. "The Team", abstract entity, vs "the team", the people.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#80

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…

Yes, very much so.

The other thing is that loyalty is not a binary; it really shouldn't be discussed as if it's an either/or.

Post reply on HN