Hacker News Reader

Comment by apwell23 | Hacker News Reader

you should never try to retain someone thats trying to leave. Even if you are successful at the moment they will leave eventually.

View on HN

Conversely, if an employer tries to retain you, the safest assumption is '... until your replacement appears'

No honor among thieves, etc. I've given every place a chance just to see what happens, it's always been a joke. The dynamics don't work.

I was promised $50k last time! Not enough to look over my shoulders even more.

The idiom is "honor amongst thieves", i.e. MF DOOM:

> It don't make no sense, what happened to the loyalty?

> Honor amongst crooks, trust amongst royalty.

Credit where it's due, but language exists to be used. I wasn't quoting their work but countless bad movies

Ah yes. I see now that your negation works out to be the same expression.

Sorry about your rug pull experience though.

> The idiom is "honor amongst thieves"

This is obviously false.

But if you really need documentation, https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/44388/is-there-h... has collected quite a lot of it.

It looks like the conclusion on that page supports my claim.

> Conclusions

The notion, at least, behind the expression "there is honor among thieves" is ancient, and it is expressed (inexactly) by English writers as far back as Daniel Defoe in 1723. A pamphlet published in 1782 describes "there is honour among thieves" as an "adage," so the familiar wording must be considerably older than that date.

The counter-proverb, "there is no honour among thieves" is somewhat younger—at least in Google Books search results, with an exact occurrence in 1828 after earlier instances in which writers denied the assertion that honor did exist among thieves.

I read you as claiming that the idiom used the word "amongst". That wasn't true when the word existed and it still isn't true now.

The concept of honor among thieves has been used in many ways. Whether you emphasize that it's present in certain contexts or that it's absent in other contexts doesn't change the way you refer to it.

No honor among pedants.

Is this always true?

If their only concerns are things a manager can change, then why would they leave if they get what they were seeking elsewhere?

Definitely not always true; but commonly stated as truth.

Not always true. I've coached people to stay before and they are still at the company. Sometimes they have concerns that actually could be fixed from management. People are complex and have many different reasons for wanting to leave, some fixable some not.

> Sometimes they have concerns that actually could be fixed from management.

curious. what are some examples of this and why do they take threat of leaving before management fixes it.

My uncle wanted more money, and when his current employer counter offered he stayed for years afterward.

Not true in my experience being on both sides of the equation

If someone puts in a resignation then sure, let them go. But if they come to you, their manager, and say "I'm thinking about leaving" it's a different situation. They may have a legitimate reason that you can solve to their satisfaction.

never respond to threats or negotiate with terrorists

I find far too often that people that state things like the are the terrorists.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com