4 ms·

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 wh

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
  Sure, I was replying to this: >I don't see why "they'd fire you in no time if you stopped providing value" is always thrown around as a negative. It seems the whole loyalty thing is always sided heavily in favor of the employer. When both sides eschew loyalty and make cold, hard business decisions, my example is what the employee's might look like. Not very appealing I know, but neither is laying off 25% of your workforce because Zillow decided it wanted to be a real estate investor and failed miserably at it; an example of a cold, hard business decision.
foogazi 5y ago
> not even giving 2 weeks, You give 2 weeks because of the people, not the company

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
Sure, I was replying to this: >I don't see why "they'd fire you in no time if you stopped providing value" is always thrown around as a negative. It seems the whole loyalty thing is always sided heavily in favor of the employer. When both sides eschew loyalty and make cold, hard business decisions, my example is what the employee's might look like. Not very appealing I know, but neither is laying off 25% of your workforce because Zillow decided it wanted to be a real estate investor and failed miserably at it; an example of a cold, hard business decision.

foogazi 5y ago

> not even giving 2 weeks, You give 2 weeks because of the people, not the company