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.
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 or options. Sometimes companies will not share any information about the value you are bringing in. There is a big information asymmetry between you and the employer, so you just have to trust them to distribute the payouts fairly. Often the pay distribution is unknown and legally confidential. So even if you try to make an argument with some stubborn manager that you are severely underpaid you can't start throwing teammates under the bus for disclosing their salaries. It's a toxic environment to have to continuously confront your management to do their job properly. Otherwise you are losing money because of their incompetence. Not to mention the losses in terms of stress/health when you are forced to actively confront your management.
The other big aspect of the same issue is the implied responsibility - for example when you are consulting for a third party. Lets say you are paid $10 per hour while your company charges the customer $300 per hour and the customer expects a solid $300 per hour delivery. Now that puts you in a weird situation, because the context of responsibility and ownership is very different. It affects how you think about the code. It's like the difference between life-support critical software and useless departmental tools. It is up to your company to define the scope of responsibility. You can't force it, you don't have the business input to figure out what they need. May be they just need a cheap and stupid code monkey.
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 uncertainy is an art, not a science. Nothing is without risk.) If you don't get that explanation or your spidey sense tingles, saying they might be bullshitting: walk. If you're not sure what you're selling your time for, don't. You're selling tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of your time. Would you sell a house or car if you weren't absolutely sure what you were getting return?
Don't be a dick, just be a peer. And confident. If you're a good person doing quality work, you're valuable. Very few companies run with no employees. Don't mistreat. Don't be mistreated.
>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.
Yes, except if you need food and shelter, and have been searching for a job for like 4-5 months (or longer) without much luck...
Lots of Americans tend to think like they all are millionaires (or are soon to be) when discussing business and taxation issues, whereas it's a country with higher inequality than most of the western world, tons of royally fucked up people, and most of them will stay that way for all their lives (plus, far more of them will be impoverished and drop out of middle-class than turn from middle class into millionaires).
A vocal portion of the HN community seem to be SV developers whose biggest problem is "How do I get these recruiters to stop calling me?"
Needless to say, these people are in a much more powerful negotiating position than, say, the 9.5% of Nevada residents who are unemployed [1]. And even the Nevada residents are better off than the 20% of people worldwide living on less than the PPP equivalent of $1.25 per day [2].
I think the posters in this thread should state which of those audiences they're writing for.
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 <leaving> so they will no longer be productive. You are paying them to go away, quietly, without damaging anything on the way out.
Walking away is easy provided you already have a job. This is why it is a bad idea to wait until you don't have a job before looking for the next one. If you ever do have that problem, take what you can get and then start looking for something better straight away.
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.
Well, tell that to Ryanair. They seem to be doing quite fine mistreating their employees [1]. I find it difficult to understand why people are working for them, but there must be reasons why.
You're suggesting only one option, and that option is to walk away. True, you can do that. In fact that is the ONLY thing you can do. From employer perspective, you're just a resource. Which is relatively easy to replace if there's enough money in their pockets.
Even the "walk away" solution is dictated by the employer, because the reality is that they effectively say "agree to our terms or p*ss off". So walking away is you picking the option #2.
If you can be easily replaced by a cheaper "resource", you're clearly not as valuable as you think. Your "walking away" obviously benefits both parties (you're not mistreated, employer gets things done cheaper) -- everybody's better off for it. Where's the problem? Do you feel entitled to that job?
I find it amazing people will fight the laws of supply and demand tooth and nail, although it's probably the most solid and universal part of economics (and nature).
You need to re-read the gp comment. Knowing what you're worth is different than what companies value your worth. A company may undervalue or overvalue your work - the responsibility is on you to determine if you're getting screwed or not - it isn't dependent on what others are getting.
I think I understand correctly. What I was trying to say is that if I am able to determine that I am being screwed over, this is management's fault and not my fault. It's management's responsibility to fix it. I shouldn't have to hire salary researchers and lawyers with my own money to create a report that I can use as an argument for my manager to consider it. And definitely must not put me in conflicting position with management over it. Otherwise I'd have to leave and nobody wins.
And what the article and several commenters are saying is that it absolutely is your responsibility. Why? Because you can control your own actions, you can't control management's. Management isn't obligated to pay you anything, and you aren't obligated to work for them. They choose to pay you something and you choose to work for them; you also choose how much to work for them, and your choice might relate to how much they choose to pay you (and if they continue to choose to pay you).
Leaving is absolutely the right choice if the amount they're willing to pay you is wildly out of whack with the effort you're putting in and value you're creating, because it frees your time up to work for somebody else who will value you (and pay you) more. Everybody wins.
There are some very subtle aspects in this discussion and we are talking about the same from different angles. I absolutely agree with everything you are saying.
But this is not the case I am discussing. If you are able to prove objectively that you are not getting a fair share of the value you bring and management doesn't fix it, then everybody loses. You lose what you could have gotten, and they lose because now they have a resentful and demotivated employee. You don't even have to leave or you can't leave until you find another job. It's not that hard for an employee to do the bare minimum and not get fired or demoted.
Well then, you can continue to be controlled economically by your employers, because nobody in the market --- nobody --- is putting your own individual interests before those of the company, except for you.
Personally, I wouldn't want an employer going through lots of effort to figure out what's best for me. I think they'd do a crappy job of it.
I've been a consultant for a while now and I have this conversation every week or so. What you said goes both ways, nobody has your company's best interest over their personal interest. So you better have my best interest in mind if you want me to have your best interest in mind. It's only fair :)
The employer doesn't have to figure out what's best for you. What's best for them is also best for you. Like almost everybody else, I am driven by respect. If the company measures performance based on profit, so do I. If it's a non-profit, so am I. If you give me what you value most I will do the same. Can't go wrong with that.
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.
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.
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).
Bear in mind, however, that a 21st-century programmer is in a much stronger bargaining position than an 18th-century workman. I've seen people in the former category let their lives get screwed up by following subservience instincts more appropriate for the latter, and as a way to avoid that, regarding yourself as the peer of your employer is a decent first approximation.
True, the programmer of today is more equivalent to a skilled craftsman of Smith's time than of unskilled labour (dumb muscle). However the craftsman also has a relatively difficult time to create a reserve of capital. Especially in jurisdictions in which your primary store of capital (your own inventions) are by law or contract assigned to your employer.
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.)
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.
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.
Well, first, GDP/capita isn't a great measure for how the average (low quartile?) worker is doing. I'd think you'd have to look at actual wage levels.
Second, cost of living is different in the UK, US, and Poland. If we ignore wage levels and just look at GDP/c, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity#OECD_co... tells us that after adjusting for costs, the effective numbers as compared to a US citizen's purchasing power are $50K US, $32K UK, $35K Poland.
Mind you, I don't know I buy antihero's argument that the British are struggling to stay alive, but your argument isn't a particularly strong counter.
Adam Smith might have been right about his era, but his reasoning does not apply in our era.
I disagree profoundly. Much of the world still operates under conditions Smith would recognize quite readily. Even industrialized nations still have a fundamental set of circumstances as described by Smith which benefits employers.
It is illegal for employers to collude to lower wages, while unions gain legal privileges by doing so.
It isn't illegal to collude everywhere, and even where it is, this doesn't stop the practice. To put this in terms HN readers might appreciate, most of the major employers in Silicon Valley have been convicted or strongly implicated in anti-poaching hiring practices (another reason recruiting is as big a mess as it is):
As I've noted: IT is a very largely non-unionized industry sector. For recent unionization rates by industry sector, this BLS 2007 report notes that even in the government rates are below 50%: 35% public sector, < 25% transporation and utilities, 15% construction, 12% information, 11% manufacturing. Most recent growth has been in service industries (housecleaning, janitor, etc.).
While the largest _single_ donor sources are frequently labor organizations, these represent a large number of individuals across a large number of employers. Single corporate and PAC donors aren't far behind. Looking at recipients of contributions, the top Democrat and Republican in the US House of Representatives, it's individual contributions which make the lion's share of contributions in both cases:
The remainder of your assertions without any backing data I simply dismiss as non-credible in light of reports that half of Americans have less than $800 in savings (less than a month's expenses in most cases), and less than $25k in retirement funds.
I didn't say Americans had savings. I said "Most workers...choose consumption over savings." Further downthread I pointed out that if Americans chose to consume at Polish or British levels they could save.
Try disagreeing with what I actually said, rather than some straw man.
I didn't say Americans had savings. I said "Most workers...choose consumption over savings."
The effect is the same result in the context of the original statement: that employers and firms are better positioned to weather a work outage than employees are.
Your aren't holding up particularly well on any of your other points, and I could point at any number of issues, including, for what it's worth, reduced wage-bargaining power, which leaves employees in the US with lower savings than those elsewhere. There are also comparisons such as purchase power parity or costs which are individual and out-of-pocket or just generally higher in the US (health care, education, transportation) than elsewhere.
Most of what you've said has been strawman arguments. QED.
Not necessarily; few employees are willing to take a pay cut - that is why 5% of staff are laid off, rather than everyone in the company taking a 5% cut.
The latter would probably be more efficient for the company. However many workers would start looking for a better job.
Realising this was one of the best things in my career, it helped me increase my confidence in job interviews. They now weren't just me desperately selling myself to the company, but also them trying to sell me on why I should work there.
When I'm interviewing candidates, I'm very conscious of the fact that I'm selling the job to them, at the same time they're selling themselves to me. If they can't make the sale to me, I'm not going to put much effort into making the sale to them.
>I feel it's important to remember that in the employee-employer relationship, you're peers.
Only rarely and in quite good economy and job market conditions (can differ depending on profession). And that's for better than average workers. For average and below average (ie. most of the population at any give time) not even then.
Normally you are the one needing work and money to feed your family and he is the one with the money to pay you. "He" could even be a multi-national. You are the weaker one here, make no mistake.
It's good and healthy to be skeptical about talk like "This is one big family" because the economy is littered with public companies that operated like families until they laid everyone off.
Saying, "Only be loyal to yourself" can be short sighted too. People remember. If you refuse to renew your contract mid-project because someone else away is offering $50/day more, people will remember. If you quit your company because you don't want to do any overtime for a month, people remember. More importantly, your immediate boss remembers.
The best work out there is never advertised. It appears by word of mouth. This is true for both full time employees and contractors. The best work at the highest wages come when a prior boss says, "This is very important, and only YOU can do it for me." This isn't corporate loyalty, but it's having someone know that you'll be in the foxhole with them.
One last thought on the OP - I can't imagine a company laying off the folks who "finished first" staying in business for very long. It's very Dilbertesque.
Viewing it that way can be a huge help when you're approaching job interviews too. When you see an interview as, "I'm a professional; they're professionals in my field; let's talk to see if there are projects that we'd like to work on together," it takes away a lot of the anxiety.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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... 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.
Given the fact that Snowden knew the pervasiveness of the NSA spying programs, I'm guessing he knew that it wouldn't have been hard for the government to deduce that he was the leaker eventually. Plus, it was pretty likely the government kept track of its workers in a way that would have made it even easier to identify the leaker eventually.
So he probably decided to just cut to the publicity part to protect himself. In either case, you don't really know he was in it for fame.
Why is that some people trivialize any important political or societal question into BS pop psychology about the actor's motives? We could not care less about those.
Perhaps the result of too many bad hollywood movies focusing on "character development", a legacy of puritanism, being conditioned by crap news coverage to turn everything into gossip. Oh, and inexperience with thinking politically.
>The personal cost wasn't due his ethics, it was due to his inability to shut up.
You just couldn't contain your disdain for the man, right? I see some projection in play here, if you allow me the same BS pop psychology.
a) Loyalty is a sentiment meant for living beings, not corporations, and
b) When a corporation knows you're "loyal", what they really know is that your threshold for leaving is higher than non-loyal employers of the same skill level, telling them that incentives are better spent on those high flight risk employees than you. You lose.
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.
Is it a family business (or a sole proprietership run by a family man that's likely to inherit the company to his kids)? This kind of thing usually falls apart in those at a generation boundary. Sometimes kids don't see the business the same way their parents do.
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.
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.
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.
I tell people that I consider oathbreakers as worse than murderers. This generally happens early in the business relationship, and has considerably cut down on the number of brawls I have found myself in.
Exactly, I think it's a good heuristic that people who ask for loyalty don't deserve that loyalty. People who do deserve it rarely have to ask, because they are busy turning the situation into a win-win, or at least symmetric in risk-profit, so that you both take a risk for profit, and if the risk is realized you are in the same boat, rather than you in the sea, and them sitting comfortably somewhere else.
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.
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.
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.
This time is different, but they won't realize it.
I worked for a similar company, and constantly predicted the fiscal end of it. The CEO was siphoning off money any way he could. I was let go in 2009, and at that point the half-yearly general staff meetings were so mundane, I just stopped going and asked others "how many times did he say 'tighten our belts'.
I visited last year and the mood had changed - the dispatch staff said that they had product and orders to ship, but no money for cardboard boxes to ship them in.
I think hanging around at a single place is all right, but you have to be really focused on staying current. I've seen people who didn't and the result was not pretty.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
If I am getting rid of someone, it's usually for cause. However, if I terminate someone, then they can file for benefits, then I have to fight to say that the employee was fired for cause, prove my case, yada yada yada. It's much more time efficient for me if the employee just resigns, as all I have to show is the resignation letter.
Unemployment insurance is paid for by employers, and the more former employees that collect unemployment, the higher the employer's unemployment insurance premiums. I save a ton of money by making sure my former employees do not get unemployment benefits. This is also why a resignation is important, in that it gives me assurance my premiums won't rise.
I haven't had to let anyone go simply because I didn't have enough work for them, so I can't say I've screwed anyone out of unemployment benefits. I'm just making sure my costs stay down when I do need to get rid of someone. However, this is also why companies may offer severance. They can either pay increased unemployment insurance premiums to the government, or they can win goodwill from employees by giving them some cash and also releasing the employer from some additional liabilities.
"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:
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.
Starbucks came to Australia... and failed hard. In the news following the closure of three-quarters of its stores, they interviewed one young man who was absolutely distraught, devastated at the loss of his 'family'. He was 18, and had worked there for a whole three months. Welcome to the world, lad.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If someone is on $15/hr and billed at $150/hr chances are they do not have the experience or portfolio of work to be able to go and work for themselves billing $150/hr
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
I don't think that's entirely true. If the two of you have the ability to keep you work separate from the rest of your lives, it'll work fine. From what I've seen, most people can't do that, but that's a different issue.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
The secondary market in private stocks is far from efficient, as can be seen by how much IPO valuations tend to differ from the level the relevant stocks were previously trading at.
Also most people's utility functions are not linear in money - but those of rich people/institutions are much closer to linear, and rich people/institutions dominate the market.
Perhaps a more accurate phrasing would be "Most people (incl. employees) overvalue the stock they got", or that employers will try to pass off stock as worth more than they are actually worth. e.g. if you're offered 1,000 shares, it's highly unlikely they are worth €100,000,000.
I'd was going to make the same point. Yes, I think that changes things completely -- if you are an owner than you are being loyal to yourself (premise holds).
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.