3 ms·
>It's not a question of ethics, it's a question of properly assessing the commitment that's being made I've been on both ends of this, as an employee a few yea
by AussieWog93 4y ago
>It's not a question of ethics, it's a question of properly assessing the commitment that's being made
I've been on both ends of this, as an employee a few years ago and now an employer. I'm not sure if assuming the worst in all employers and putting in the bare minimum/acting unethically to avoid being "taken advantage of" is the optimal way to act.
It pushes away the good companies that will reward loyalty and drive, and attracts unethical companies who have an adversarial relationship with their employees.
Same goes for relationships - if you assume that the person you're going to marry is simply going to take your house and kids and build your relationship about minimising feeling stupid if/when it happens, you're not going to have a good time.
- NeverFade 4y ago> It pushes away the good companies that will reward loyalty Which are these companies that "reward loyalty"? I can't name a single one in the US market. Every single company cares about one thing only: its bottom line. They will retain any employee as long as it's good for their bottom line. Once it's not: adios. I've never heard of a company retaining an employee due to their "loyalty". Maybe it was a thing in the previous century?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- scarface74 4y agoI don’t assume any intention from a company neither good nor bad just like I wouldn’t assume that a wasp meant to do me harm if I were highly allergic to it. A business is just an entity I work for to support my addiction to food and shelter. I assume they hired me because I could help make them money. If one day that assumption isn’t met and they need to lay me off (been there done that), I call my wife, I call my network to tell them I’m in the market. There are no hard feelings.