My Dad worked for Swift & Co. for 45 years. Nonetheless, when I quit my first job, he said to me, approvingly, "They're not loyal to you, so why should you be loyal to them?"
There are companies loyal to their employees. They tend to be small and family-owned, though, and when the family retires or loses control, the new owners tend to be markedly less loyal.
My late father worked for Morton Salt for close to forty years. Then Morton got a new 38 year old CEO and he wanted to shake up the company. He figured out that the employees over 55 years old tended to be the highest paid and if he got rid of all of them it would goose profits and he'd be a hero to Wall Street so he did it.
For a quarter or two it worked and then the company descended into a death spiral and he was fired. My Dad got another good job and did OK. Poor Morton Salt never recovered, they've been sold a half dozen times and aren't even the largest salt company in America anymore.
What does it mean to be "loyal to" a company or employee, though?
Maybe I'm just overly cold and "literal", but an employment agreement is just that: an agreement to exchange value for value. In general, I loathe the idea of an agreement that I can't renegotiate. Do I owe my employer something? Yes, to the extent that it is agreed upon contractually. Does my employer owe me something? Same deal.
I just don't understand what "loyalty" in this context is supposed to look like. If my services are a net disvalue to the company they should continue on as though that's not the case? If I'm unhappy at company or receive a better offer elsewhere, I should continue on despite it not being in my best interest?
If that's what loyalty is supposed to mean then I don't want it either as employee or employer. Let's just get an agreement in writing and then take it one day at a time.
Loyalty in general can be thought of as a line of credit for employers and employees to informally "borrow" from each other to smooth things over. Explicitly enumerating all of a given job's duties in an employment agreement is functionally impossible, and a key part of what people mean by an employee's "loyalty" to a company is that willingness to go slightly outside of their expected duties. Meanwhile, a company's "loyalty" is willingness to tolerate downturns in returns on a given employee and protect employees' jobs even when doing so might cost them in the short term. A company's "loyalty" might take the form not punishing an employee for being unproductive for some time after a family tragedy or keeping employees on the payroll during an economic downturn even if that might cost them.
If you want to completely get rid of that, even the slightest imperfection in designing the bounds of a given employee's duties is going to result in whatever processes that person relies for grinding to a halt and everyone being trapped in a constant run-around of "That's not my job".
That said, given that companies have been increasingly unwilling to extend even the most basic loyalty to its employees, the right move for workers is to become more transactional. Normally, the accrued "credit" gained through loyalty might dissuade you from switching jobs even if you get a nominally better offer, but if that's no longer a factor, workers have no reason to hesitate about just looking at the bottom line on their employment agreement. This might be damaging to the broader economy since job hopping has considerable productivity costs, but on the individual level, it's the clear right choice.
> What does it mean to be "loyal to" a company or employee, though?
I think there are different flavors of this but they generally fall into one of two categories:
1. Short-term vs. Long-term
* Employee: I'm not getting a raise this year but I trust that they'll make it up to me. This project sucks but they'll put me on a better one next time.
* Employer: We don't need to keep this person on the payroll right now but we will in the future.
2. Past Behavior Predicts Future Behavior
* Employee: The company cut me some slack when I was going through X, or kept me on even when the economy tanked, so I'll forgo a slightly higher salary at a place that might not happen, in case that situation happens again.
* Employer: This person stuck it out when times were tough and didn't quit when we cut hours last quarter, so we're going to keep them around.
I'm not saying these are always this clean, or always the right decision, but I think they answer the "what does it mean" question in terms most people could identify with. You're probably going also going to see this more in companies that have a higher learning curve or where there is more personal attachment involved (e.g. small town/community where you're going to see them every day). If you're a Shiny Widgetmaker at the only company that makes Shiny Widgets, loyalty is probably worth it. If you work for a megacorp and were hired and fired by spreadsheet formulas, loyalty probably makes less rational sense for either side.
> If my services are a net disvalue to the company they should continue on as though that's not the case?
Loyalty is not about accepting a lower value relationship for the sake of not wanting to change, it is trying to optimize the value of relationships over a longer period of time. That means, among other things, ongoing investment from both parties to improve the mutual value of the relationship.
This applies to all forms of relationships, not just employment.
When I worked for a regional water company, we were setup as a non-profit with a very old-school feel. Everything from dress codes and PTO to IBM mainframes.
“We’re like a family” was the motto and that was true, in the same way you have that dirt bag uncle and drama queen aunt that you invite to all the functions because they’re blood, we had the “he’s three years from retirement so we can’t get rid of them” relationships with tenured staff nearing their pension. We had a Network Analyst pulling around 90k a year that failed to train up over the years and fell behind to the point of uselessness. The entire job for this person was to “maintain our antivirus” which entailed installing and updating Macaffee, manually, on a few hundred machines. Maybe manning the help desk at lunch if they had to go out for calls here and there. No more, no less.
That, to me, is loyalty. It’s an awfully kind of loyalty in some sense but a beautiful kind at the same time.
I agree. The only reason it’s “inhumane” to lay people off is because of our horrible safety net and ridiculous cost of education. If we could solve those issues, then we wouldn’t need any loyalty from companies. Imagine if we had that in place and instead of the job destruction by ChatGPT being a tragedy, it was an opportunity to update our economy, with hundreds of thousands of people trained in new industries. Not drowning in debt, but ready to work at innovative new places or start new companies themselves.
Loyalty means that while the company may be losing money for some transitional period of time, they are going to invest some time & treasure in their employees or transition them to a new role.
Usually when companies are cold to their folks, it’s a one sided arrangement. You’re expected to stay 30 minutes late routinely because you’re a “team player”, but you’ll be penalized immediately for starting 6 minutes late.
In general, there’s a broad line between being an asshole and a pushover. If you’re an asshole, you shouldn’t be surprised when people don’t like you. If you’re a pushover, you shouldn’t be surprised when people don’t respect you.
With tech companies, they deliberately setup a cushy work environment to attract staff. When stock market conditions started impacting the executive compensation, the terms changed in a bizarre way. Some layoffs are almost completely random, and people generally resent being sacrificed to the volcano gods.
Personally I think it means to act in the best interest of the other party, even when it’s not mandated. Treating others like you would want to be treated.
So for an employee: not charging bogus overtime, not being a stickler, helping those around you, helping the business succeed. Not bailing at the first sign of trouble.
For an employer: paying for overtime, being flexible with rules, proving assistance outside of work, helping the individual succeed. Not firing at the first sign of trouble.
Sadly the current bunch of CEOs appear to be simply numbers guys, rather than effective managers, and seem to think that the pinnacle of management is being the Hard (Wo)man who can slash the workforce at the drop of a hat, rather than being a thoughtful leader who understands the value of their workforce and how to direct them.
While I understand this is rare (and becoming rarer), part of my employment agreement includes incentives for staying with the company long-term. These incentives include a pension, increasing amounts of vacation time, training, and other smaller perks. These longer-term incentives demonstrate the company's commitment to a long-term employment agreement.
In exchange, I have more reason to stay and provide continuity, preserve domain knowledge, etc.
It's ok to have a cold or literal view of an employment agreement. In my opinion that's valid, and looking at your agreement through that lens gives you a lot of information about the intended term or duration of the agreement. Sadly, it's increasingly common for that duration to be "until the next re-org or downturn".
There's almost always some measure of what people call loyalty. For example, people work late sometimes, and companies accept that there are going to be slow days where employees aren't working full out. You could call this inertia, and of course it's self interested: new hiring or a getting a new job takes effort so it's mutual beneficial to ride out bumpy spots. Over an extended period of time, that's essentially what loyalty is.
My grandfather owned rice plantations as a young man... up until the bank which held the mortgages on the properties decided that it wanted to sell the land to a refinery. He then went to work for Shell for the next 25 years. My godfather worked for Shell for 30 years. So did my father. And when my dad ended his career there, they were about to start dismantling the global data warehousing implementation team, so he offered up his own job to receive severance. He received 2 years of pay, all 16 weeks of accrued vacation time, and of course got to keep his pension and his 401K.
I think that one of the reasons that the area is so patriarchal and right-wing is because that's the career experience of a lot of people over there. They work forever at one place, maybe survive a few layoffs, and are generally well taken care of. This deludes people into believing that it's how it is for everyone: that you can simply roll out of bed after high school and get a life-long career which will afford you a middle class lifestyle.
It's called "survivorship bias", and it's not just for people who "roll out of bed and get a life-long career." It applies equally well to pretty much everyone, including ultra-successful company founders. "Hey, if I can do it, anyone can do it, and the ones who don't are obviously just not willing to work hard enough or take enough risks."
on that note judging by some of the HN comments in general (not this topic) ) overall, it looks like a fair number of HN commenters do not have their dads in their lives.
Smaller, family-owned companies can be loyal to a fault.
Long-time employees can be hard to get rid of. One good deed, closing one big deal, sticking with the company during tough times, being buddies with the right people...
A lot of owners can be sympathetic to certain people as well. Keeping employees that miss work for any excuse, moochers that get raises for no reason, bad performers, it can be tough for other employers that won't realize that there isn't anything they can do themselves about this, and to just focus on their own work.
On the other hand, I've seen people go through family crisis, health issues, etc and still receive a paycheck for months at a time when missing lots of work.
To the extent that markets are efficient, they’ll be replaced by companies who are willing to dump employees when it’s not profitable to keep them. That’s the system we’ve chosen for ourselves so far.
To the extent that some companies are loyal represents a market failure. TBH, I’ll take a safety net and free education to re-train in a new industry any day of the week over a boss doing me favors and making me feel like i owe favors too. Our economy is beyond bartering and favor systems. Keep personal relationships for personal time and work relationships at work time. I’ll be friends with my peers, i don’t need to be friends with the boss.
Any contractual relationship has a transactional side. And an employer-employee relationship is asymmetrical in a way that will always impact things, and make it impossible for a 100% human relationship to form. Any attempt is like a Frankenstein version of a real friendship. If you want to be friends, it requires equal footing, that means equity and partnerships.
I wonder if you've ever had the pleasure of working for a small company full of the owner's incompetent friends and family. Loyalty is nice within reason, but it can be pathological.
Employee loyalty is usually the priority that comes last, _just one more big push and then we can breath_ except the breath never happens and now management expects the next project to finish quicker with less people.
I totally forgot about two weeks to flatten the curve.
edit: In my area, ER's are no longer over capacity. Is this true where you are? I'm curious if we can determine a date for this milestone, because it'd be good to know statistically speaking for if an event on this level ever happens again.
Your 'political capital' = company loyalty in difficult times and this is why you should invest and cultivate in this intangible asset over time. Successful project completion is necessary for growing your political capital (PC) but not sufficient. Unfortunately, PC requires a complex mix of social engagement, tribal acceptance, and cross-organizational support that unfortunately comes down to memorable likeability.
"I refuse to suck up or become a schmoozer," I hear you say. That certainly is a common choice and it comes with certain daily freedoms and potentially some long-term negatives. These social constructs are true for all groups of humans and have been for thousands of years. It's not unique to the business environment. This is also why today's HN discussion examples of betrayal to the social norms reflect our sense of moral offense. Arbitrarily firing people feels wrong because it IS wrong.
Growing your political capital by expanding your social engagement and service network doesn't guarantee safety in a crisis, but it certainly increases the odds of remaining in the herd of survivors.
I think the online zeitgeist (in my bubble at least) has been away from blind loyalty and towards self-care.
Work? Eh, the bubble-mates I have vary from "transactional business arrangement" to "kill the bosses and feast on their corpses" so the Overton window is pretty far from the "thirty years of devotion capped off with a pension" mindset.
Religion? Americans in general are losing their religion, and the people I'm with are on the forefront of that trend.^1 Hard to feel anything positive towards the GOP's Junior Auxiliary.
Family? People I'm around are all about cutting toxic family members out of their lives. "You have to stick with your family no matter what!" sounds like Evil Space Alien Talk.
Readit News
There are companies loyal to their employees. They tend to be small and family-owned, though, and when the family retires or loses control, the new owners tend to be markedly less loyal.
For a quarter or two it worked and then the company descended into a death spiral and he was fired. My Dad got another good job and did OK. Poor Morton Salt never recovered, they've been sold a half dozen times and aren't even the largest salt company in America anymore.
Maybe they do and people make the moral choice not to care as they plan on being long gone before the failures?
Maybe they teach that bit too?
Sorry for more questions and answers as I have NOT done an MBA myself.
But he claims to have remained CEO until 2019 https://www.linkedin.com/in/christian-herrmann-cfa/
Maybe I'm just overly cold and "literal", but an employment agreement is just that: an agreement to exchange value for value. In general, I loathe the idea of an agreement that I can't renegotiate. Do I owe my employer something? Yes, to the extent that it is agreed upon contractually. Does my employer owe me something? Same deal.
I just don't understand what "loyalty" in this context is supposed to look like. If my services are a net disvalue to the company they should continue on as though that's not the case? If I'm unhappy at company or receive a better offer elsewhere, I should continue on despite it not being in my best interest?
If that's what loyalty is supposed to mean then I don't want it either as employee or employer. Let's just get an agreement in writing and then take it one day at a time.
If you want to completely get rid of that, even the slightest imperfection in designing the bounds of a given employee's duties is going to result in whatever processes that person relies for grinding to a halt and everyone being trapped in a constant run-around of "That's not my job".
That said, given that companies have been increasingly unwilling to extend even the most basic loyalty to its employees, the right move for workers is to become more transactional. Normally, the accrued "credit" gained through loyalty might dissuade you from switching jobs even if you get a nominally better offer, but if that's no longer a factor, workers have no reason to hesitate about just looking at the bottom line on their employment agreement. This might be damaging to the broader economy since job hopping has considerable productivity costs, but on the individual level, it's the clear right choice.
I think there are different flavors of this but they generally fall into one of two categories:
1. Short-term vs. Long-term
2. Past Behavior Predicts Future Behavior I'm not saying these are always this clean, or always the right decision, but I think they answer the "what does it mean" question in terms most people could identify with. You're probably going also going to see this more in companies that have a higher learning curve or where there is more personal attachment involved (e.g. small town/community where you're going to see them every day). If you're a Shiny Widgetmaker at the only company that makes Shiny Widgets, loyalty is probably worth it. If you work for a megacorp and were hired and fired by spreadsheet formulas, loyalty probably makes less rational sense for either side.Loyalty is not about accepting a lower value relationship for the sake of not wanting to change, it is trying to optimize the value of relationships over a longer period of time. That means, among other things, ongoing investment from both parties to improve the mutual value of the relationship.
This applies to all forms of relationships, not just employment.
“We’re like a family” was the motto and that was true, in the same way you have that dirt bag uncle and drama queen aunt that you invite to all the functions because they’re blood, we had the “he’s three years from retirement so we can’t get rid of them” relationships with tenured staff nearing their pension. We had a Network Analyst pulling around 90k a year that failed to train up over the years and fell behind to the point of uselessness. The entire job for this person was to “maintain our antivirus” which entailed installing and updating Macaffee, manually, on a few hundred machines. Maybe manning the help desk at lunch if they had to go out for calls here and there. No more, no less.
That, to me, is loyalty. It’s an awfully kind of loyalty in some sense but a beautiful kind at the same time.
Loyalty means that while the company may be losing money for some transitional period of time, they are going to invest some time & treasure in their employees or transition them to a new role.
Usually when companies are cold to their folks, it’s a one sided arrangement. You’re expected to stay 30 minutes late routinely because you’re a “team player”, but you’ll be penalized immediately for starting 6 minutes late.
In general, there’s a broad line between being an asshole and a pushover. If you’re an asshole, you shouldn’t be surprised when people don’t like you. If you’re a pushover, you shouldn’t be surprised when people don’t respect you.
With tech companies, they deliberately setup a cushy work environment to attract staff. When stock market conditions started impacting the executive compensation, the terms changed in a bizarre way. Some layoffs are almost completely random, and people generally resent being sacrificed to the volcano gods.
So for an employee: not charging bogus overtime, not being a stickler, helping those around you, helping the business succeed. Not bailing at the first sign of trouble.
For an employer: paying for overtime, being flexible with rules, proving assistance outside of work, helping the individual succeed. Not firing at the first sign of trouble.
Sadly the current bunch of CEOs appear to be simply numbers guys, rather than effective managers, and seem to think that the pinnacle of management is being the Hard (Wo)man who can slash the workforce at the drop of a hat, rather than being a thoughtful leader who understands the value of their workforce and how to direct them.
In exchange, I have more reason to stay and provide continuity, preserve domain knowledge, etc.
It's ok to have a cold or literal view of an employment agreement. In my opinion that's valid, and looking at your agreement through that lens gives you a lot of information about the intended term or duration of the agreement. Sadly, it's increasingly common for that duration to be "until the next re-org or downturn".
Deleted Comment
I think that one of the reasons that the area is so patriarchal and right-wing is because that's the career experience of a lot of people over there. They work forever at one place, maybe survive a few layoffs, and are generally well taken care of. This deludes people into believing that it's how it is for everyone: that you can simply roll out of bed after high school and get a life-long career which will afford you a middle class lifestyle.
on that note judging by some of the HN comments in general (not this topic) ) overall, it looks like a fair number of HN commenters do not have their dads in their lives.
Long-time employees can be hard to get rid of. One good deed, closing one big deal, sticking with the company during tough times, being buddies with the right people...
A lot of owners can be sympathetic to certain people as well. Keeping employees that miss work for any excuse, moochers that get raises for no reason, bad performers, it can be tough for other employers that won't realize that there isn't anything they can do themselves about this, and to just focus on their own work.
On the other hand, I've seen people go through family crisis, health issues, etc and still receive a paycheck for months at a time when missing lots of work.
That's a loyal company.
To the extent that some companies are loyal represents a market failure. TBH, I’ll take a safety net and free education to re-train in a new industry any day of the week over a boss doing me favors and making me feel like i owe favors too. Our economy is beyond bartering and favor systems. Keep personal relationships for personal time and work relationships at work time. I’ll be friends with my peers, i don’t need to be friends with the boss.
Any contractual relationship has a transactional side. And an employer-employee relationship is asymmetrical in a way that will always impact things, and make it impossible for a 100% human relationship to form. Any attempt is like a Frankenstein version of a real friendship. If you want to be friends, it requires equal footing, that means equity and partnerships.
edit: In my area, ER's are no longer over capacity. Is this true where you are? I'm curious if we can determine a date for this milestone, because it'd be good to know statistically speaking for if an event on this level ever happens again.
"I refuse to suck up or become a schmoozer," I hear you say. That certainly is a common choice and it comes with certain daily freedoms and potentially some long-term negatives. These social constructs are true for all groups of humans and have been for thousands of years. It's not unique to the business environment. This is also why today's HN discussion examples of betrayal to the social norms reflect our sense of moral offense. Arbitrarily firing people feels wrong because it IS wrong.
Growing your political capital by expanding your social engagement and service network doesn't guarantee safety in a crisis, but it certainly increases the odds of remaining in the herd of survivors.
Work? Eh, the bubble-mates I have vary from "transactional business arrangement" to "kill the bosses and feast on their corpses" so the Overton window is pretty far from the "thirty years of devotion capped off with a pension" mindset.
Religion? Americans in general are losing their religion, and the people I'm with are on the forefront of that trend.^1 Hard to feel anything positive towards the GOP's Junior Auxiliary.
Family? People I'm around are all about cutting toxic family members out of their lives. "You have to stick with your family no matter what!" sounds like Evil Space Alien Talk.
1 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/atheism-fa... https://archive.is/DObne
He also welcomed me back to my old role when that job didnt suit me.