
Loyalty and Layoffs - hartleybrody
http://heartmindcode.com/2013/08/16/loyalty-and-layoffs/
======
chasing
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. Every person who works is a single-person business
selling their particular expertise and time.

I feel like maintaining this attitude can help with all sorts of stuff,
including dealing with job offers, negotiating pay, etc. And key to this is
having a fairly good knowledge of the value that you provide so you know what
value you deserve in return. (Being acutely aware of the value you provide can
also help steer you towards higher-value skill sets.)

Intangibles are great. But don't live in fantasy land. And be aware that no
one's obligated to give you anything unless it's written in a contract.

~~~
dredmorbius
_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](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).

~~~
yummyfajitas
Adam Smith might have been right about his era, but his reasoning does not
apply in our era.

It is illegal for employers to collude to lower wages, while unions gain legal
privileges by doing so. Parliament and congress tend to be bought and paid for
by unions. Similarly, due to a combination of high wages and welfare, most
workmen can subsist for long periods without work.

(Most workers don't value stability, and choose consumption over savings. But
this doesn't mean they lack the ability, they merely don't value it.)

~~~
antihero
In the UK, unions have been utterly castrated by the Thatcher government.

> Similarly, due to a combination of high wages and welfare, most workmen can
> subsist for long periods without work.

Nope, most workers here are living paycheck to paycheck.

> (Most workers don't value stability, and choose consumption over savings.
> But this doesn't mean they lack the ability, they merely don't value it.)

Savings? You must be joking.

Let's see. Minimal level of enjoyment, a roof over one's head, food, heating,
savings. Choose three, depending how skilled you are, for many, choose two.

~~~
yummyfajitas
In the US, we have a GDP/capita of $50k/year. In the UK, it's just under
$36k/year. In Poland it's $21k/year.

If it's impossible for a Brit to save, since they must consume everything they
earn to survive with a minimal level of enjoyment, then how do the Polish
avoid death? Do the Polish simply not enjoy life at all? And surely you'd
agree that Americans should be able to save, simply by reducing their
consumption to British levels.

~~~
antihero
Have you heard of cost of living?

~~~
yummyfajitas
The numbers I gave are adjusted for PPP, though using the world bank method
rather than the OECD method given by ahh in his reply.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_\(PPP\)_per_capita)

------
jacques_chester
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. Our cousin professions enjoy pretty strong legal support for the latter.

~~~
afarrell
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.

~~~
dkuntz2
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.

~~~
chrischen
You should consider the possibility that the fame was necessary for his
personal self-preservation. If he didn't make himself famous, the gov't could
potentially do very bad things to him and no one would notice, or care. The
publicity could have been his greatest and only weapon against the US.

~~~
dkuntz2
How was fame necessary for his self-preservation? If nobody knew who leaked
how is revealing himself useful?

Deep Throat never needed to reveal himself to the world. Things seemed to go
fairly well for him. There are better ways to make sure people don't do bad
things to you than tell the whole world that you were the leak. A simple
program that requires daily interaction that sends an email to one of the
people he leaked to if he doesn't interact with it, revealing himself at that
point.

It was _not_ his "greatest and only weapon". He was someone who wanted his
name to be remembered.

Tangentially, the reveal made the conversation about him, and not the
information.

~~~
jrochkind1
Because even if "nobody" knew who leaked, the US government would probably
find out. And if "nobody" else knew, he'd be disappeared by now.

Things have changed a lot since deep throat. As Daniel Ellsberg (from around
the same era) wrote, they let him _out on bail_ while waiting for a trial.
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-
nsa-l...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-leaker-
snowden-made-the-right-
call/2013/07/07/0b46d96c-e5b7-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_print.html) Back when the
US government assassinating people without trial might actually outrage the
public enough to cost politicians their jobs. Times have changed.

The "he did it to be famous" thing is exactly the story the government is
trying to tell about Manning too, and it's entirely incredible in both cases,
just doens't make any sense. Who puts themselves at risk of life imprisonment
or death (judicial or extrajudicial) just cause they want to be famous? It
doesn't even make any sense.

------
imechura
May I please add a comment from outside the bubble? It does not have to be
this way. My current employer is a low cost travel company, we are celebrating
our 43rd anniversary as a company. In these 43 years not a single person has
been laid off. Not one janitor, not one programmer, not one reservations
agent.

We do not have a planetarium. We do not have a movie theater. We do not offer
free food to our employees every day. We do not as a policy, pay for our
employees' day care. We do not implement the latest and greatest technologies
on a whim because we think they are cool.

We do offer one of the best, IMO, health care plans in the industry. We do
respect our employees, vendors and co-workers. We do offer generous
retirements benefits. We do work very hard to use technology to solve problems
that are as or more difficult than your favorite silicon valley startup. We do
take into account the ability to sustain every single employee for the next 20
years into every decision we make. We do treat every employee like they are a
member of our family and will continue to for the next 43 years.

Consider all of the above when you are looking for a new job or starting a new
company.

~~~
krainboltgreene
David Brady isn't in any bubble, he lives in the middle of America.

~~~
sliverstorm
Your parent may be talking about the metaphorical bubble of the tech industry.

------
rdtsc
Remember if anyone promised you verbally any financial windfall in exchange
for loyalty, no matter how charismatic they are don't fall for it. In the end
they would end up most likely not delivering (and of course they will blame on
an external scapegoated 3rd party for it).

It is a good idea to always be read to leave. Don't burn bridges but don't
assume the company you work for is your family. Why? They extract double the
work from you working nights in exchange for fluffy promises. A lot of
managers are managers because they know how to promote well. Promote
themselves well and promote the company to you. Be aware of that.

~~~
vladimirralev
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 resentful when your actions cost them
money. It's one of the few HR areas with actual studies and it's common sense
in general. Good managers are pretty rare though indeed.

~~~
rdtsc
I (hopefully) learned from mistakes of others. My friend got burned. He was
promised a "share of the profits" if company gets sold, he was young, after
college, his boss knew how to take advantage of him. Sure enough company gets
sold. Most good people had left (except as it turns out the others who also
got promised privately large exclusive! windfalls). In the end it was, of
course, blame on some technicality. "Sure I would have given you those
millions, if it wasn't for the lawyers, those pesky lawyers, wouldn't you just
want to drown them, sheesh...", stuff like that. Oh well, he runs his own
company now, but it was a valuable lesson.

~~~
vladimirralev
Yes, this is a good example. I have my own timeout value for promises - about
6 months. That should be enough.

------
purplelobster
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 trying to be patronizing, it's just that The
Company is not doing well, and I think there will be very tough times ahead
for many these people, and most of them seem to think The Company will always
be there to pay the bills. There's this group think going on that "we've had
similar crises before, but we always get through it". This time is different,
but they won't realize it. The world is moving a lot quicker today.

I think our younger generation is much more weary of being loyal to
corporations. We've seen what happens in economic crises, and most of our
lives have been just that: one big economic crisis after another.

~~~
mediaman
As an employer and owner, I don't have a problem with people moving around in
their career. I expect it. I stay on great terms with them, give them flowers
when they move on, wish them good luck, and invite them to stop by socially
later.

Most people stay for several years or sometimes much more. Staying less than
two years, and certainly less than a year, can be so short as to be
counterproductive, so that's less welcome, though we always do self-
introspection to see if we did something to drive them away (it's rare that
someone stays that short a time). But if someone's been there three years or
more, they've contributed a lot to the company, and I really do want them to
do well, and they have no obligation to be "loyal" to the company.

Sometimes they work for a while elsewhere and then come back. That's great
too.

~~~
jared314
That definitely sounds like a culture that values the people involved in the
company's past, present, and future. But, most positions I have had were with
companies where the people who left were effectively dead. No one spoke their
name at work. No one mentioned their previous efforts or ideas. The company
photo was updated. The only thing that sometimes persisted was their name on
the source code commits. Employees with a decade of service just vanished.

------
malbs
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 American parent company,
we'll be unaffected". 3 months later, gone gone gone. I watched people who'd
worked there/started the company get turfed out, and crying. 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.

Next job I worked for a small company where the two directors ended up being
unable to pay staff, so they put everything on their credit cards, and
convinced everyone to resign and sign up as contractors. It was only years
later that it dawned on me, that by resigning they didn't have to pay
severance packages. We were young and trusting.

~~~
lotsofpulp
As far as I know, in the US, there is no legal mandate to pay severance.
However, getting their employees to resign probably saved them a lot of money
on their unemployment insurance by making the employees ineligible for
unemployment benefits (that's why I try to get my employees to resign) and/or
they may have gotten their employees to sign release forms for liability from
wrongful termination or discrimination or those kinds of liabilities.

~~~
gknoy
> making the employees ineligible for unemployment benefits (that's why I try
> to get my employees to resign)

Am I the only one that finds this utterly and totally horrific? Why would you
do that? What do you gain by someone who leaves being unable to collect
unemployment benefits? Does it directly affect you? I thought that was
something that all taxpayers put money into. It reads like "I take pleasure in
ensuring that ex-employees are totally screwed" \-- please tell me I'm wrong.

~~~
jcater
Unemployment insurance doesn't work like you think it does, at least in the
states I've run companies in.

He could be 100% liable for unemployment benefits made against his company in
the form of increased benefit charges.

Here's a quote from Georgia's handbook:

"Experience rating is a system which relates employer taxes to the cost of
providing unemployment benefits to its employees. Lower rates are earned by
employers whose unemployment experience costs are less, and higher rates are
assigned to employers whose experience indicates greater costs.

"Under experience rating, benefits paid are charged to the claimant's
separating/most recent employer, provided the employer has paid wages of at
least 10 times the claimant's weekly benefit amount and the separation was
under allowable conditions as defined by the Employment Security Law. The
employer most directly related to the claimant's unemployment will be charged
for benefits paid and thus reflect a true experience rating. This system helps
to maintain an adequate reserve fund from which future benefit payments will
be made.

"No employer's account will be charged more than the amount of wages that
employer paid the claimant and the employer will pay only for the period of
unemployment attributable to the separation from his employ."

Employers directly pay for state unemployment benefits; it does not come from
the public tax pool.

------
mcot2
Shortly after being hired full time at my first ever full time salaried job,
my manager when I was an intern was laid off with some others. It really
sucked and it was a good initial lesson for me. I will never be loyal to a
company if I don't own a significant piece of it.

I don't wear clothing with the company logo, I rarely attend company events, I
don't mix anything in my personal life (insurance plans/cell phone contracts
ect...) with company provided deals or discounts. I keep over 12 months of
living expenses liquid. That being said, I try to remain professional and take
the job for what it is. They pay me a salary, I do work. In the distant future
I look forward to bootstrapping my own business.

------
valnour
The "400+" employee lay-off that the author referenced was this one:
[http://timesfreepress.com/news/2013/aug/16/layoffs-hit-
chatt...](http://timesfreepress.com/news/2013/aug/16/layoffs-hit-chattanooga-
based-payday-lender/)

There was a lot more to the lay-off than the company losing their primary
income model

This happened in my hometown (Chattanooga, Tennessee).

~~~
x0x0
wow. fta:

    
    
       Before New York regulators cut the businesses off from the automated 
       clearing house system in early August, the payday conglomerate made 
       short-term loans over the Internet that typically became due — with interest 
       — on the customer’s next payday. Different U.S. states have widely divergent 
       laws governing the interest rates that lenders are allowed to charge, and 
       Brown often ran afoul of these regulations.
       
       He has been sued in several states for making loans with interest rates well 
       above the legal limit, was the subject of a class-action lawsuit for sending 
       thousands of spam text messages and was investigated by federal authorities.
       
       Brown was forced to stop making loans in Tennessee following a series of 
       Times Free Press articles in 2011 and 2012 that showed he was making loans 
       with an interest rate in excess of what the state allowed, and was doing so 
       without a license.
    

I kind of just want to point and laugh; apparently karma does (slowly) come
around.

------
ams6110
It's been my point of view since the first dot-com crash that my employer and
I are "even" every payday. I've done my work, and been compensated for it. I'm
not sure what else one can reasonably expect.

~~~
tokenizer
Exactly, even though it's not really "even" considering they're profiting off
your work (unless you're a necessary evil). I guess you get some other perks
if you're not bound to a horrible contract, like paid sick time and vacation.

Personally, I go about things in the same way, but hope I get a union job I
just applied for. IMO, that changes the whole solidarity/loyalty relationship.

~~~
jes
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?

~~~
tokenizer
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 I'd be fired for bringing in less value
than I was earning in the role mentioned.

~~~
Xylakant
See, as an ex-freelance and now employer, I can tell that a company does a lot
more than provide a portfolio. The tradeoff is on multiple levels:

\- I pay my employees far less than what I can bill my clients.

\- However, if there is no client, I still pay my employees their full rate.

\- I pay all associated costs: Workplace and equipment, health insurance, paid
holidays, accounting, lawyers where needed, ...

\- I pay for the acquisition costs for new jobs

\- I bear the full risk of a job going wrong and pay for all settlement costs
involved

\- I pay the difference if a job is not profitable because the employee fucked
up and everything takes longer than planned.

\- I get to organise a replacement if the employee falls ill.

Now, $15/hr and $150/hr is quite a bit of a margin, but we don't know if it's
before or after taxes and what benefits are included in the pay package. From
my personal experience a factor of 4-5 is on the lower end of profitability,
so a factor of 10 may still be reasonable.

I invested a lot of capital and time in the company and the reputation that
allows me to charge a high rate. That investment needs to pay of at some
point.

You choose the safer of two alternatives by getting employed. If you prefer
the high risk, high reward route, the go freelance but don't be surprised if
things don't go as smooth as you'd think.

~~~
jes
Thank you for understanding this and stating it.

------
tomphoolery
Great point, if not a little acrimonious, about the role of a CEO in a
corporation. Even though the CEO (or anyone over your head for that matter)
may enjoy you as a person, or even find you to be the perfect guy for the job,
the bottom line still means a lot more than your life. I think it's important
to remember that it's okay to love your job _and_ the company you work for, as
well as be loyal to them, but that loyalty goes both ways. I'm loyal to my
employer as long as they loyally pay me and don't treat me like a piece of
shit. But there's no love. My teammates are awesome but if, say, Github gave
me a call and wanted to hire me, I'd be giving my two weeks tomorrow. And if
Github ended up being a bad fit, I can always keep looking. As a Ruby
developer in Philadelphia, I'm always being courted by recruiters and job
offers, because there are so few of us here.

~~~
jacques_chester
I hope that if I'm ever a CEO, I'll have the decency to point out that while I
am _friendly_ , I am not a _friend_.

~~~
einhverfr
Keep in mind that I run a couple of small but growing businesses and have
worked for major corporations.

One thing I would point out is that in my experience the people who are laid
off in a company advance their careers and those who remain stagnate. I am not
sure I would put this in a layoff email though.

If times are tough, I still think that layoffs are a real last resort. Your
best assets are the entrepreneurs in your business and these can be floor-
level employees. The rule breakers, the ones who will fight the system or
break the rules in order to do a better job are the ones that need to be paid
well, not in terms of money but in terms of owning their job (and ideally a
share of profits).

~~~
jacques_chester
In Australia I've seen two common patterns:

1\. Reducing hours by X% instead of sacking X% of employees.

2\. Offering voluntary redundancy packages.

Option 1 tends to lead to some people quitting anyhow.

Option 2 has the problem that it can dramaticaly exacerbate the Dead Sea
problem. Anyone with any pep grabs the package and looks for a job elsewhere.

~~~
rmc
In either case if companies need to cut back, then the best people will leave
first, since they have more options.

------
bluedino
When he said the first story happened in 2002, I was expecting to hear a story
about getting your workstation as a severence package.

I knew so many people during the crash who had the most random computer and
office equipment. All 'acquired' when their company went out of business.

Aeron chair. Anthro cart. Sun Ultra 10, loaded. $4,000 Toshiba laptop.
Occaisonaly some Cisco kit or a fairly beefy server. "This used to run <insert
failed site> dot com."

How'd that work? Didn't the creditors or management care?

~~~
malbs
My brother-in-law is an accountant who specialises in insolvency. He doesn't
touch tech company failures, because there are usually no assets they can sell
to pay creditors. Believe it or not computers are actually very hard to sell
unless you outsource it to one of the big auction places. I've picked up a
number of computers from them for nothing, because it's all rotting in their
office basement, jobs wrapped up, "assets" unable to be sold for small change.

So companies will try and package up your severance to include things like
your work laptop (which you've maybe become attached to), they can put a $
value on it, and mark it off what you're owed, but in reality you're losing
out. Better to take cash rather than hardware, unless there is no cash.

~~~
malbs
Wouldn't mind an Aeron chair though! Definitely pick one of those up for
yourself in a sell-off ;)

~~~
mrtron
When I moved to Palo Alto there was a free one sitting in the hallway of the
apartment building!

------
RougeFemme
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 organization's mission, etc. On
the other hand, I do have loyalty to any co-workers and managers that I
genuinely like AND respect. Not to the point that I would sacrifice myself
professionally for them, but I do have loyalty. And in past lives, I've told
those that I trusted to be mum and professional when I was starting to look
for another position - even if was just another position in the same
organization and just to give them a heads-up.

As a matter of fact, my peer in our organization left a few months ago. She
felt guilty, knowing that my life would almost immediately become more
difficult, but I stressed to her to do what was best for her. She started to
waver when management asked her to delay her departure - I reiterated that she
should not worry about me or management. She was loyal - which I appreciated.
And I was loyal and shoved her out the door.

~~~
pnathan
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.

------
trustfundbaby
So much truth in that post, though I found it a bit histrionic. but I can't
stress this enough, (especially for young developers) work hard but keep your
eyes open.

Remember to ask yourself, "if this startup/firm/company went to shit tomorrow,
what would happen to me?" ... if you think that people at that firm are going
to take care of you when things get bad ... slap yourself. Just like in the
OP, you might luck out and have someone care enough to give you a soft
landing, but that is the exception and not the rule. Always make sure you
don't get caught out there,

\- passively scan the market every 18 months and go on an interview or two. At
worst you'll realize how much you're being taken advantage of, at best you'll
realize how lucky you are to have your job.

\- Stay in touch with direct contacts at companies that sound interesting who
reach out to you, especially on linkedin (I ignore 3rd party developers). If
they took the time to reach out to you, just respond with a "Hey I'm not
really looking to leave right now but lets stay in touch". Grab coffee with
them, and find out what they're up to. This way if everything goes to crap you
have a warm lead for gigs, instead of competing with your teammates to get
your resume in front of hiring managers in your city

\- Keep developing your skills, get on mainstream technologies right after
they go mainstream/hit critical, that will make it easier to not chase every
shiny new fad. That will increase your marketability and make it easier for
you to find opportunities that your peers will not

Above all, don't let being an engineer blind you to company politics. Pay
attention to whats happening, read the tea leaves so you can be ahead of bad
news ESPECIALLY if you are an immigrant. This has served me well over the
years. Once I quit a job because I got a bad feeling that new management cared
more about head count than quality ... lo and behold, my replacement was laid
off just 6 months after being hired.

------
moron4hire
At some point in the last 5 years, sitting in my pen--ahem, I mean cubicle--I
came to the realization that the the subject noun of the term "Human
Resources" is "Resources" not "Humans". If you think your boss is your friend,
he's either a shitty boss or a shitty friend.

~~~
hobb0001
I find it telling that not so long ago, "Human Resources" used to be called
"Personnel". I'm still curious as to what caused the change from persons to
resources...

~~~
sliverstorm
Title inflation, the march of political correctness, or both.

------
6d0debc071
Sensible applications of loyalty are a two way street - are they paying you
fairly, are they developing you as a person? If they're not investing in you,
being loyal to them is just stupidity. Match your commitments, that way if
they stop you're not left going - _" But I gave you everything and now I've
got nothing!"_

Your allies and your friends _don 't_ weaken you or leave you to rot. Anyone
who does isn't worthy of your loyalty.

I've been laid off before, I didn't feel bad about it - I was loyal to them
and they were loyal to me, and when the relationship ended we went our
separate ways, both the richer for it.

~~~
einhverfr
I am all for being loyal to a company. However, I also think that the fact
is....

I have watched "layoffs" at two big tech giants (only one was called that) and
watched what happened to the people who left and the people who stayed. In
general I have found that despite the uncertainty it is actually a good thing,
on average, to be laid off. Earning power seems to go up, and people move into
more challenging jobs. THose who remain tend to be part of a more ossified
corporation and with less mobility.

------
tnorthcutt
Could a mod link this to the original post instead of someone else's mirror of
it?

[http://heartmindcode.com/2013/08/16/loyalty-and-
layoffs/](http://heartmindcode.com/2013/08/16/loyalty-and-layoffs/)

------
einhverfr
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
take care of the customer's needs.

Loyalty to the company is what glues together the other two into something
productive, but it cannot stand on its own without degrading into petty
politics.

However also for this to work, the company has to be loyal to the employees
and this is harder and harder to find these days.

~~~
derefr
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."

~~~
einhverfr
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!

------
Millennium
Neither employer nor employee is inherently owed loyalty, but the only way to
earn loyalty is to give it in return. Sooner or later, one party is going to
have to act irrationally if it wants that kind of relationship with the other.

A company that wants 1950s-style loyalty from its employees should be giving
them 1950s-style loyalty. If you as a corporation would prefer layoffs to
bankruptcy protection, then you do not measure up to that standard.

~~~
rmc
Minor nitpick, although I know what you mean, "Giving 1950s style" would need
lots of qualification if you were to say it. Simple example: Women were not
paid the same as men for the same work in the 1950s, and women could (and
were) fired when they got married and/or pregnant. If you (the company) want
to claim "we'll give you (the employees) 1950s style loyalty", be sure to
expand on that.

------
squozzer
I would extend the author's arguments to include loyalty to an entity whose
interests aren't exactly aligned with one's own -- for example, a nation-
state.

Not saying that loyalty in itself is bad, but blind loyalty is -- a symptom of
which is accepting a leader's words at face value.

Even nice doggies get put to sleep eventually.

------
Aloha
I'm an hourly employee (functionally non-exempt salary). Whenever employers
ask me for exempt salary, I quote an rate that is 1.5 to 3 times as much as I
would earn if hourly non-exempt. This is part of my insurance policy, so I can
make sure I can take care of myself when my company cant.

Now, while I realize I have a really unique skillset, and have project
knowledge which will see me thru - when I have to take my 45 day break ahead,
I realize I may not come back. This would make me sad, but I'm well taken care
of by my own savings, and by unemployment.

------
axus
How about being loyal to your customers? They're depending on you. Even though
their contract is with the corporation, it still feels bad to leave them in a
bind.

------
gorbachev
I'm never loyal to a company, ever.

I may be loyal to employees of said company, if they, PERSONALLY, prove to be
worth such loyalty.

------
sliverstorm
_The people that work in the same room as you are real. It is totally okay to
love them. In fact, I encourage it! Be loyal to them! Go to the mat for them.
But for heaven’s sake, don’t be loyal to “The Team”._

I can't speak for everyone, but the people _are_ what I am referring to when I
speak of "the team".

------
antihero
Surely a better scheme would be to have a company baseline wage. Before any
lay-offs are made, all staff must have their wages reduced to that baseline.
Once this allows growth, wages can be increased again?

------
zeckalpha
I may be missing something here, but what if Janet had followed this advice?

~~~
diego
How do you know she didn't? By the way, I've seen countless Janets get laid
off as well.

~~~
zeckalpha
She fought for her team, not herself.

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

~~~
ISL
Your team is composed of individuals.

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

------
krob
This quote rings true, "But anybody claiming to have loyalty to “The Team” is
engaging in office politics."

------
nowarninglabel
The thing I'm struggling with, does this also apply to working for a non-
profit whose mission you believe in?

~~~
jeffthebear
Unfortunately, I have to say that this is true for non-profits too. I have a
similar experience with my previous employer (non-profit) who decided to
change the direction of the IT department. In the end, I am grateful for the
opportunity of doing good as an employee in the organization in the time I was
there but I no longer wanted to be a part of where they were headed. I still
believe in their values and mission but the leadership needs to do what it
thinks is best for the organization.

------
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!

------
gcb0
As a good engineer, this person knows shit about politics.

When the company engineer claims he lacks loyalty, is not part of the company
family, etc... He is not truly believing any of this either. He's just out of
ammunition to attack him with logic, so he goes with any pack instinct ad
hominem.

And then writing this emotional piece about just ice the cake on how he's
sadly clueless on the matter. It's like he's trying to explain that someone
who just called him a motherfucker how he is silly because you know, he's gay
so he could never like mothers or something. It's all crazy and pointless to
believe there's logic in subjective pack mentality attacks.

------
frozenport
What about getting paid in stock? Then should you have loyalty?

~~~
Xylakant
Stocks are only worth anything if

a) you're allowed to sell them.

b) somebody is willing to buy them

or c) you get a dividend and own a significant portion.

The value of most stocks in companies is overrated. Yes, your company might be
the next google and you'll hit gold but most companies shares are worth little
to nothing. Depending on the company structure they might have some
interesting rights attached - such as being allowed a look in the books, being
invited to the shareholders meeting etc. Stuff that allows you to judge how
well your company is doing. Just don't take them as if their cash value is
fixed. It will be somewhere between 0 and infinity.

~~~
lutusp
> The value of most stocks in companies is overrated.

If the Efficient Market Hypothesis is true (it's certainly approximately
true), then most stocks, most of the time, have exactly the value they ought
to have. So no, on average, stocks aren't overrated and investors aren't
fools.

~~~
Xylakant
I'm not talking about the general market of publicly traded companies where
your theory applies. I'm talking about the subset of startup companies that
typically offer shares instead of payment to employes.

A lot of those are not or only partially investor backed. Even of those that
are, most fail, their stock value effectively nil. Of the rest, a large share
basically just breaks even which makes their stock pretty much untradeable
since practically nobody wants to buy shares in a company that will probably
never have a large growth. The tiny tiny rest grows in leaps and bounds and is
the next google/facebook/, the stock value multiplying by factors of 10 or
more.

Investing in stocks of small startups is a risky business - on average you can
make a lot of money, but it takes a lot of capital and endurance to have a
large enough portfolio that you actually achieve the average. Otherwise it's
luck. My point is: Don't see shares in a company as income. It's an investment
and a risky one. Do that with money you can afford to loose and effectively
write it off until you've really sold it or the company went public.

