5 ms·

Without knowing your company in detail, based on what you describe and general business practices, I'd be willing to bet that they'd fire you in no time if you

Without knowing your company in detail, based on what you describe and general business practices, I'd be willing to bet that they'd fire you in no time if you ever stopped providing value for them. So why be loyal at all? 8 weeks is crumbs, and you even had to fight for that. I mean if you've been a solid employee for X years, briefly asking for a bit of time off for a life changing event should be absolutely fine, instead of the miserly response you describe. Just a bit of outsider's perspective, but I'd say you're hardly working with people who really respect you beyond their bottom line.

TheCapn 5y ago
>So why be loyal at all? I got severely sick when I started working there... like 2 weeks in and I was hospitalized with a brain infection for a week + another couple weeks at home recuperating. They paid full wages during my absence. When my father was dying from cancer they did the same thing as I helped move him to hospice and handle the estate. There's been other things as well where they've gone above and beyond what an employer should do, and maybe "loyalty" isn't exactly how I should frame it, I do feel "safe" working there knowing I'm not about to be thrown out on my ass should something inconvenient happen.
pc86 5y ago
It's a business relationship so I don't see why "they'd fire you in no time if you stopped providing value" is always thrown around as a negative. Of course that's the case. You'd stopped working in no time if they stopped providing value to you too. As it should be, from both sides. You can have loyalty and still understand that there's a social/informal contract in place (and maybe a formal one in some places).
- Clubber 5y ago
  If you really wanted to treat it like a business relationship, any employee should constantly be looking for higher paying / better job and leave immediately when that job is offered, not even giving 2 weeks, because that's 2 weeks of additional income the employee wouldn't be getting. Are you in agreeable with that as well? Hard, cold business decisions work both ways.
  - pc86 5y ago
    I don't think this is true. I've been given resumes by bosses of people I've worked with before and told them not to interview based on previous interactions, whether they were good to work with or not, etc. You can burn every bridge as you cross it but eventually that will bite you. We software people like to pretend everything is a 1 or a 0 but that's not the case in the real world. Relationships matter.
  - baq 5y ago
    a fully rational actor would do exactly that, unless he also puts utility value on hard to define 'relationships', but why would he if money in hand has clearly defined utility...? just another hole in classical economics and theory of rational choice.
    - pc86 5y ago
      You're building up a ridiculous strawman. Why, in your farcical example, does "fully rational" mean by definition maximizing short-term economic gain? Even if it's hard to give an exact value to a relationship (are you quoting something or do you mean the word ironically?) certainly a good relationship is better than a bad one, and poisoning a relationship strictly for economic gain has some sort of opportunity cost.
  - helloworld11 5y ago
    One can treat an employment contract like a business relationship while also giving some preference to a company they like working for, and vice versa (always bearing in mind that all but very small personally run companies are likely brainless , soulless corporate entities regardless of any PR platitudes to the contrary). Agreed on that. However, in the OP above, the guy describes a situation in which despite being a well established employee, he had to basically claw for even a meager 8 weeks of paid leave for something as important as a newborn baby. Based on that description alone, I'd tentatively say that the employer hardly deserves much loyalty at all. As I already mentioned.
    - Clubber 5y ago
- kayodelycaon 5y ago
  You'll think very differently the moment you get a disability and people think you are no longer providing sufficient value to society.
  - pc86 5y ago
    Great strawman/non sequitur but completely irrelevant.
- hnaccount141 5y ago
  I don't think it's a negative in absolute terms, it's just an argument against loyalty to a company. Loyalty is a two way street, and is defined by how people treat each other when times are tough. It is common for companies to expect "loyalty" in the form of working extra hours when the company is in a tight spot or settling for meager raises rather than switching companies while at the same time laying people off at the first sign of trouble. In such an environment, an employee offering loyalty to a company when none is offered in return is setting themselves up to be taken advantage of.
  - teawrecks 5y ago
    Right, which is why you should never feel loyalty for a company. They're not people, they don't have brains, they don't have empathy or loyalty to you, they will drop you the moment it makes sense to. Have loyalty for people who deserve it, but never for companies.

TheCapn 5y ago

>So why be loyal at all? I got severely sick when I started working there... like 2 weeks in and I was hospitalized with a brain infection for a week + another couple weeks at home recuperating. They paid full wages during my absence. When my father was dying from cancer they did the same thing as I helped move him to hospice and handle the estate. There's been other things as well where they've gone above and beyond what an employer should do, and maybe "loyalty" isn't exactly how I should frame it, I do feel "safe" working there knowing I'm not about to be thrown out on my ass should something inconvenient happen.

pc86 5y ago

It's a business relationship so I don't see why "they'd fire you in no time if you stopped providing value" is always thrown around as a negative. Of course that's the case. You'd stopped working in no time if they stopped providing value to you too. As it should be, from both sides. You can have loyalty and still understand that there's a social/informal contract in place (and maybe a formal one in some places).

Clubber 5y ago
If you really wanted to treat it like a business relationship, any employee should constantly be looking for higher paying / better job and leave immediately when that job is offered, not even giving 2 weeks, because that's 2 weeks of additional income the employee wouldn't be getting. Are you in agreeable with that as well? Hard, cold business decisions work both ways.
- pc86 5y ago
  I don't think this is true. I've been given resumes by bosses of people I've worked with before and told them not to interview based on previous interactions, whether they were good to work with or not, etc. You can burn every bridge as you cross it but eventually that will bite you. We software people like to pretend everything is a 1 or a 0 but that's not the case in the real world. Relationships matter.
- baq 5y ago
  a fully rational actor would do exactly that, unless he also puts utility value on hard to define 'relationships', but why would he if money in hand has clearly defined utility...? just another hole in classical economics and theory of rational choice.
  - pc86 5y ago
    You're building up a ridiculous strawman. Why, in your farcical example, does "fully rational" mean by definition maximizing short-term economic gain? Even if it's hard to give an exact value to a relationship (are you quoting something or do you mean the word ironically?) certainly a good relationship is better than a bad one, and poisoning a relationship strictly for economic gain has some sort of opportunity cost.
- helloworld11 5y ago
  One can treat an employment contract like a business relationship while also giving some preference to a company they like working for, and vice versa (always bearing in mind that all but very small personally run companies are likely brainless , soulless corporate entities regardless of any PR platitudes to the contrary). Agreed on that. However, in the OP above, the guy describes a situation in which despite being a well established employee, he had to basically claw for even a meager 8 weeks of paid leave for something as important as a newborn baby. Based on that description alone, I'd tentatively say that the employer hardly deserves much loyalty at all. As I already mentioned.
  - Clubber 5y ago
kayodelycaon 5y ago
You'll think very differently the moment you get a disability and people think you are no longer providing sufficient value to society.
- pc86 5y ago
  Great strawman/non sequitur but completely irrelevant.
hnaccount141 5y ago
I don't think it's a negative in absolute terms, it's just an argument against loyalty to a company. Loyalty is a two way street, and is defined by how people treat each other when times are tough. It is common for companies to expect "loyalty" in the form of working extra hours when the company is in a tight spot or settling for meager raises rather than switching companies while at the same time laying people off at the first sign of trouble. In such an environment, an employee offering loyalty to a company when none is offered in return is setting themselves up to be taken advantage of.
- teawrecks 5y ago
  Right, which is why you should never feel loyalty for a company. They're not people, they don't have brains, they don't have empathy or loyalty to you, they will drop you the moment it makes sense to. Have loyalty for people who deserve it, but never for companies.