Hacker News Reader

Comment by Millennium | Hacker News Reader

Companies and employees don't "owe" each other loyalty, but the only way to earn loyalty from someone is to show it in return. If a company decides to throw its employees under the bus during tough times, that is its prerogative, but then it should not turn around and expect employees to stick by it during tough times either.

View on HN

>but then it should not turn around and expect employees to stick by it during tough times either.

Only they (companies) do expect it, and even get it. Because the employees are dependent on them, and not vice versa.

Those that say: just quit and get another job (mostly white, upper-middle class), have never been in the situation of having to keep a job to feed a family and/or mortage while not being someone coveted by recruiters.

But that just speaks of a bigger problem, that of people who have children and buy houses they can't afford. Most people, minority or otherwise, can find a job if they had none of these ties they can't afford. I realize that's a simplistic view but I think that's what it boils down to.

If people spent even just a few moments thinking about their own future and prospects they might decide against purchasing a home, having kids, getting a new car and so on.

Determinate on said employee's skills being mobile across industries and companies, which may not be the norm outside of IT/software currently.

"Why don't they just leave?" is not a valid argument.

One should be aware of the risks of developing a dependence on a job which may become redundant, because of corporate layoffs or technological progress. One example of this is that if you were a biochemist who got a PhD in genome sequencing, machines put you out of a job.

A consequence of reducing your long term career risk may be that you will have lower income (at least in the short term). You may believe that individuals have the right to maximize their short term income; but does this desire impose a responsibility on their employer not to fire the profit maximizing individual?

>But that just speaks of a bigger problem, that of people who have children and buy houses they can't afford. Most people, minority or otherwise, can find a job if they had none of these ties they can't afford.

Sure, they can sacrifice all their lives -- including the American dream of their own family, home and car -- just to be better positioned with employers. No biggie.

The American dream? Come on, that's a joke and has been for a long time now. I'm talking about realism.

Besides, I'm not saying sacrifice anything... if they wish to have the family, home and car they should seriously think if they can afford it.

Based on my experience working for various companies, I feel it is beneficial in long-term to be loyal to people instead of entities like companies. Be loyal to your coworkers and colleagues, because they are going to remember your hard work and helping hand in-time of need, instead of a "company". People run companies and a company's memory comes and goes with the people who work in that company. We all wish that being loyal to a company would make a company loyal to us, but we don't live in a perfect world and instead being loyal to people seem like more practical way of living.

This. The reason I've stuck through some complete bullshit is because I valued the team, not the company involved in creating the dream team by mere happenstance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com