5 ms·

But please don't mistake this with a general "no company is loyal to its employees". Maybe rare, but not non-existent.

by buster 4y ago

freitzkriesler2 4y ago
In my experience, it's typically the smaller the company the more loyal they are to good employees. Big companies with plenty of institutional inertia have zero loyalty and would replace their entire workforce with chatgpt of given the opportunity.
masterof0 4y ago
I have yet to see a company where the "loyal" employees are paid more than those who leave for a better salary, or are exempt from laid off. I feel like "Company Loyalty" is one of those nonsensical ideas boomers left to the younger generation.
- FredPret 4y ago
  It's a business relationship and should be treated as such by the employees. Employee loyalty is ridiculous because it's clearly only one-way loyalty.
  - qup 4y ago
    Only if you believe loyalty can only be bought with loyalty. Companies provide some value for employees that they don't get back from them, and vice versa.
    - masterof0 4y ago
      What value besides money? A company paying a employee to be "loyal" is nothing more than a business transaction, and "loyal" really is "please, don't go to another company, we will pay you to stay here". I'm assuming the employee is not also the owner.
      - qup 4y ago
        I agree. I think what most people seek in a company is the weathering of risk, the establishment of an opportunity, and the reliability of income. Employers can "demand" loyalty, but as you say, it's basically a request. There's no legal basis for it or anything. I think it's fine to have a culture of loyalty. It probably means you have a pretty good company. Demanding it doesn't work, and if it's not real loyalty, we don't have to be mad about it being one-sided.
mcculley 4y ago
Do you have good examples of companies loyal to employees? I have been pretty loyal to my employees, but I have had to make hard decisions when the health of the company was higher priority than loyalty to an employee.
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  can it be called loyalty when it only appears to exist when it's not an inconvenience to the business or an owner's profit?
  - mcculley 4y ago
    This is why I am asking. I did not say that I made decisions against employees when it was an inconvenience to the business or to my profit. I made hard decisions when employees jeopardized the company.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  In fact, my next article on Maps will talk about the Zagat acquisition. Tim and Nina Zagat were getting on in years, and wanted to protect their employees against getting acquired by some ruthless private equity owners. So they sold to Google. Oh well. Zagat was eventually spun out again. I don't know what happened to those long-time employees.
- runjake 4y ago
  I don't see anything wrong with that. Similarly, employees have to make hard decisions when the health of their families is a higher priority than loyalty to the company. Maybe we should stop using the term "loyalty" because it unfairly implies absolutes -- at least in the minds of westerners.
zacherates 4y ago
Make no mistake, all companies are one leveraged buy-out away from full private equity ruthlessness. Even if the current owners are great – people get older, they'll want to retire... and we all die. Eventually the ownership can pass to someone who really wants to turn the screws.
kerkeslager 4y ago
No company is loyal to its employees. People are capable of loyalty, but companies are simply not capable of loyalty. One of my neighbors a few years back worked at a lumber mill for 30+ years, including some serious downturns in demand for lumber when the owner of the company took little or no pay to make sure he could keep on his employees. The owner of the company? Super loyal. The owner died, and his daughter, who inherited the company, didn't want to run it, so she sold it to a local investor who took one look at the books and laid off almost all the staff including my neighbor, replacing them with minimum-wage-ish workers. I don't think the daughter intended this to happen, she just didn't have the business knowledge to prevent it. Luckily my ex-neighbor had less than a year left on his mortgage when this happened, and was able to pay off his house before unemployment ran out, but he wasn't able to find work (probably in part due to ageism). Last I heard (just before the pandemic) his attempt at starting a knife-sharpening business out of his home had failed and he was trying to sell the business, with still a few more years before he could collect social security (and give up full social security benefits by doing so).
- brundolf 4y ago
  > No company is loyal to its employees. People are capable of loyalty, but companies are simply not capable of loyalty. The smaller the company, the less distinction there is between "the company" and "the people who own it". So it's possible to have something like loyalty/trust with the company if you have loyalty/trust with the people in charge But there's always a difference, and it can always change in the time it takes to sell, or IPO, or take new investment
  - kerkeslager 4y ago
    > The smaller the company, the less distinction there is between "the company" and "the people who own it". So it's possible to have something like loyalty/trust with the company if you have loyalty/trust with the people in charge I understand what you're getting at, and this is why I support small businesses both with my money and politically, and when I can, by working for them. If someone has to look you in the eye when they screw you over, they're less likely to screw you over. And on the flipside, this is why I generally despise large corporations. More often than not, "scale" is achieved by creating enough distance between those in charge and those not in charge, and then mercilessly exploiting those not in charge. But ultimately, the distinction between business and business owner will always be there at any size company, and loyalty, if it exists, will always be a trait of the business owner, not the business.

But please don't mistake this with a general "no company is loyal to its employees". Maybe rare, but not non-existent.

by buster 4y ago

But please don't mistake this with a general "no company is loyal to its employees". Maybe rare, but not non-existent.

In my experience, it's typically the smaller the company the more loyal they are to good employees. Big companies with plenty of institutional inertia have zero loyalty and would replace their entire workforce with chatgpt of given the opportunity.

masterof0 4y ago

I have yet to see a company where the "loyal" employees are paid more than those who leave for a better salary, or are exempt from laid off. I feel like "Company Loyalty" is one of those nonsensical ideas boomers left to the younger generation.

FredPret 4y ago
It's a business relationship and should be treated as such by the employees. Employee loyalty is ridiculous because it's clearly only one-way loyalty.
- qup 4y ago
  Only if you believe loyalty can only be bought with loyalty. Companies provide some value for employees that they don't get back from them, and vice versa.
  - masterof0 4y ago
    What value besides money? A company paying a employee to be "loyal" is nothing more than a business transaction, and "loyal" really is "please, don't go to another company, we will pay you to stay here". I'm assuming the employee is not also the owner.
    - qup 4y ago
      I agree. I think what most people seek in a company is the weathering of risk, the establishment of an opportunity, and the reliability of income. Employers can "demand" loyalty, but as you say, it's basically a request. There's no legal basis for it or anything. I think it's fine to have a culture of loyalty. It probably means you have a pretty good company. Demanding it doesn't work, and if it's not real loyalty, we don't have to be mad about it being one-sided.

mcculley 4y ago

Do you have good examples of companies loyal to employees? I have been pretty loyal to my employees, but I have had to make hard decisions when the health of the company was higher priority than loyalty to an employee.

wahnfrieden 4y ago
can it be called loyalty when it only appears to exist when it's not an inconvenience to the business or an owner's profit?
- mcculley 4y ago
  This is why I am asking. I did not say that I made decisions against employees when it was an inconvenience to the business or to my profit. I made hard decisions when employees jeopardized the company.
AlbertCory 4y ago
In fact, my next article on Maps will talk about the Zagat acquisition. Tim and Nina Zagat were getting on in years, and wanted to protect their employees against getting acquired by some ruthless private equity owners. So they sold to Google. Oh well. Zagat was eventually spun out again. I don't know what happened to those long-time employees.
runjake 4y ago
I don't see anything wrong with that. Similarly, employees have to make hard decisions when the health of their families is a higher priority than loyalty to the company. Maybe we should stop using the term "loyalty" because it unfairly implies absolutes -- at least in the minds of westerners.

zacherates 4y ago

Make no mistake, all companies are one leveraged buy-out away from full private equity ruthlessness. Even if the current owners are great – people get older, they'll want to retire... and we all die. Eventually the ownership can pass to someone who really wants to turn the screws.

kerkeslager 4y ago

No company is loyal to its employees. People are capable of loyalty, but companies are simply not capable of loyalty. One of my neighbors a few years back worked at a lumber mill for 30+ years, including some serious downturns in demand for lumber when the owner of the company took little or no pay to make sure he could keep on his employees. The owner of the company? Super loyal. The owner died, and his daughter, who inherited the company, didn't want to run it, so she sold it to a local investor who took one look at the books and laid off almost all the staff including my neighbor, replacing them with minimum-wage-ish workers. I don't think the daughter intended this to happen, she just didn't have the business knowledge to prevent it. Luckily my ex-neighbor had less than a year left on his mortgage when this happened, and was able to pay off his house before unemployment ran out, but he wasn't able to find work (probably in part due to ageism). Last I heard (just before the pandemic) his attempt at starting a knife-sharpening business out of his home had failed and he was trying to sell the business, with still a few more years before he could collect social security (and give up full social security benefits by doing so).

brundolf 4y ago
> No company is loyal to its employees. People are capable of loyalty, but companies are simply not capable of loyalty. The smaller the company, the less distinction there is between "the company" and "the people who own it". So it's possible to have something like loyalty/trust with the company if you have loyalty/trust with the people in charge But there's always a difference, and it can always change in the time it takes to sell, or IPO, or take new investment
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  > The smaller the company, the less distinction there is between "the company" and "the people who own it". So it's possible to have something like loyalty/trust with the company if you have loyalty/trust with the people in charge I understand what you're getting at, and this is why I support small businesses both with my money and politically, and when I can, by working for them. If someone has to look you in the eye when they screw you over, they're less likely to screw you over. And on the flipside, this is why I generally despise large corporations. More often than not, "scale" is achieved by creating enough distance between those in charge and those not in charge, and then mercilessly exploiting those not in charge. But ultimately, the distinction between business and business owner will always be there at any size company, and loyalty, if it exists, will always be a trait of the business owner, not the business.