6 ms·

My Dad worked for Swift & Co. for 45 years. Nonetheless, when I quit my first job, he said to me, approvingly, "They're not loyal to you, so why should you be l

My Dad worked for Swift & Co. for 45 years. Nonetheless, when I quit my first job, he said to me, approvingly, "They're not loyal to you, so why should you be loyal to them?" There are companies loyal to their employees. They tend to be small and family-owned, though, and when the family retires or loses control, the new owners tend to be markedly less loyal.

MisterBastahrd 4y ago
My grandfather owned rice plantations as a young man... up until the bank which held the mortgages on the properties decided that it wanted to sell the land to a refinery. He then went to work for Shell for the next 25 years. My godfather worked for Shell for 30 years. So did my father. And when my dad ended his career there, they were about to start dismantling the global data warehousing implementation team, so he offered up his own job to receive severance. He received 2 years of pay, all 16 weeks of accrued vacation time, and of course got to keep his pension and his 401K. I think that one of the reasons that the area is so patriarchal and right-wing is because that's the career experience of a lot of people over there. They work forever at one place, maybe survive a few layoffs, and are generally well taken care of. This deludes people into believing that it's how it is for everyone: that you can simply roll out of bed after high school and get a life-long career which will afford you a middle class lifestyle.
- lisper 4y ago
  It's called "survivorship bias", and it's not just for people who "roll out of bed and get a life-long career." It applies equally well to pretty much everyone, including ultra-successful company founders. "Hey, if I can do it, anyone can do it, and the ones who don't are obviously just not willing to work hard enough or take enough risks."
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    It's not called "survivorship bias." That's a term for looking at, e.g. mutual funds' 5-year records, where the only ones you see are the ones who've been around for 5 years, and not the ones that failed. Company "loyalty" is sometimes a valid concept, but the probability goes down the bigger the company gets.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - jewayne 4y ago
      Umm...I'm sorry, but it very much is a form of survivorship bias. "Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on entities that passed a selection process while overlooking those that did not." "I worked hard, my employer treated me well, and I retired early. It's not that hard!" Does not take into the account the workers that worked hard and in return were abused by their employers.
    - lisper 4y ago
      As described, it is literally survivorship bias: > They work forever at one place, maybe survive a few layoffs [emphasis added]
      - AlbertCory 4y ago
        > it is literally survivorship bias I think you need to look the term up if you want to use it correctly. It's about statistical sampling, not about generalizing from one or two examples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias it does not merely refer to people who've survived at something.
        msrenee 4y ago
        >Whether it be movie stars, athletes, musicians, or CEOs of multibillion-dollar corporations who dropped out of school, popular media often tells the story of the determined individual who pursues their dreams and beats the odds. There is much less focus on the many people that may be similarly skilled and determined but fail to ever find success because of factors beyond their control or other (seemingly) random events.[16] This creates a false public perception that anyone can achieve great things if they have the ability and make the effort. The overwhelming majority of failures are not visible to the public eye, and only those who survive the selective pressures of their competitive environment are seen regularly. From your link.
gspencley 4y ago
What does it mean to be "loyal to" a company or employee, though? Maybe I'm just overly cold and "literal", but an employment agreement is just that: an agreement to exchange value for value. In general, I loathe the idea of an agreement that I can't renegotiate. Do I owe my employer something? Yes, to the extent that it is agreed upon contractually. Does my employer owe me something? Same deal. I just don't understand what "loyalty" in this context is supposed to look like. If my services are a net disvalue to the company they should continue on as though that's not the case? If I'm unhappy at company or receive a better offer elsewhere, I should continue on despite it not being in my best interest? If that's what loyalty is supposed to mean then I don't want it either as employee or employer. Let's just get an agreement in writing and then take it one day at a time.
- version_five 4y ago
  There's almost always some measure of what people call loyalty. For example, people work late sometimes, and companies accept that there are going to be slow days where employees aren't working full out. You could call this inertia, and of course it's self interested: new hiring or a getting a new job takes effort so it's mutual beneficial to ride out bumpy spots. Over an extended period of time, that's essentially what loyalty is.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    This. The cold market-oriented view other HN'ers are espousing is certainly valid, but there are many, many small employers whose owners have a personal relationship with the employees. It IS naïve to expect that from a very large company, though, where the managers' span on one job is a couple years, at most.
- unregistereddev 4y ago
  While I understand this is rare (and becoming rarer), part of my employment agreement includes incentives for staying with the company long-term. These incentives include a pension, increasing amounts of vacation time, training, and other smaller perks. These longer-term incentives demonstrate the company's commitment to a long-term employment agreement. In exchange, I have more reason to stay and provide continuity, preserve domain knowledge, etc. It's ok to have a cold or literal view of an employment agreement. In my opinion that's valid, and looking at your agreement through that lens gives you a lot of information about the intended term or duration of the agreement. Sadly, it's increasingly common for that duration to be "until the next re-org or downturn".
rmason 4y ago
My late father worked for Morton Salt for close to forty years. Then Morton got a new 38 year old CEO and he wanted to shake up the company. He figured out that the employees over 55 years old tended to be the highest paid and if he got rid of all of them it would goose profits and he'd be a hero to Wall Street so he did it. For a quarter or two it worked and then the company descended into a death spiral and he was fired. My Dad got another good job and did OK. Poor Morton Salt never recovered, they've been sold a half dozen times and aren't even the largest salt company in America anymore.
- mianos 4y ago
  the "MBA Playbook". You would think those MBA courses that instruct on how to do this would also include the downside. Maybe they do and people make the moral choice not to care as they plan on being long gone before the failures? Maybe they teach that bit too? Sorry for more questions and answers as I have NOT done an MBA myself.
  - joelthelion 4y ago
    MBA types tend to move on before the consequences of their actions become clear. I don't think they care.
  - onetimeusename 4y ago
    There is definitely a problem with MBAs who come in to companies and obsess about one or two statistics or numbers and reorder the business to maximize/minimize some metric but it destroys the business in the process. Another example is the Sears CEO Eddie Lampert. It's a shame because Morton Salt sounds like it was irreparably harmed which is a huge cost for a lot of people (jobs and profits lost) but the CEO at worst just loses their job after a couple years if they hadn't moved on already.
    - rmason 4y ago
      You can't take a top performer with decades of success in a company and replace him with a 22 year old, even an exceptional one, and not have problems. There's a reason that company's layoffs usually affect those with the least time there, because its the least harmful strategy. Surprised that fact isn't part of the MBA curriculum.
dennis_jeeves1 4y ago
>My Dad worked for Swift & Co. for 45 years. on that note judging by some of the HN comments in general (not this topic) ) overall, it looks like a fair number of HN commenters do not have their dads in their lives.

MisterBastahrd 4y ago

My grandfather owned rice plantations as a young man... up until the bank which held the mortgages on the properties decided that it wanted to sell the land to a refinery. He then went to work for Shell for the next 25 years. My godfather worked for Shell for 30 years. So did my father. And when my dad ended his career there, they were about to start dismantling the global data warehousing implementation team, so he offered up his own job to receive severance. He received 2 years of pay, all 16 weeks of accrued vacation time, and of course got to keep his pension and his 401K. I think that one of the reasons that the area is so patriarchal and right-wing is because that's the career experience of a lot of people over there. They work forever at one place, maybe survive a few layoffs, and are generally well taken care of. This deludes people into believing that it's how it is for everyone: that you can simply roll out of bed after high school and get a life-long career which will afford you a middle class lifestyle.

lisper 4y ago
It's called "survivorship bias", and it's not just for people who "roll out of bed and get a life-long career." It applies equally well to pretty much everyone, including ultra-successful company founders. "Hey, if I can do it, anyone can do it, and the ones who don't are obviously just not willing to work hard enough or take enough risks."
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  It's not called "survivorship bias." That's a term for looking at, e.g. mutual funds' 5-year records, where the only ones you see are the ones who've been around for 5 years, and not the ones that failed. Company "loyalty" is sometimes a valid concept, but the probability goes down the bigger the company gets.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jewayne 4y ago
    Umm...I'm sorry, but it very much is a form of survivorship bias. "Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on entities that passed a selection process while overlooking those that did not." "I worked hard, my employer treated me well, and I retired early. It's not that hard!" Does not take into the account the workers that worked hard and in return were abused by their employers.
  - lisper 4y ago
    As described, it is literally survivorship bias: > They work forever at one place, maybe survive a few layoffs [emphasis added]
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      > it is literally survivorship bias I think you need to look the term up if you want to use it correctly. It's about statistical sampling, not about generalizing from one or two examples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias it does not merely refer to people who've survived at something.
      - msrenee 4y ago
        >Whether it be movie stars, athletes, musicians, or CEOs of multibillion-dollar corporations who dropped out of school, popular media often tells the story of the determined individual who pursues their dreams and beats the odds. There is much less focus on the many people that may be similarly skilled and determined but fail to ever find success because of factors beyond their control or other (seemingly) random events.[16] This creates a false public perception that anyone can achieve great things if they have the ability and make the effort. The overwhelming majority of failures are not visible to the public eye, and only those who survive the selective pressures of their competitive environment are seen regularly. From your link.

gspencley 4y ago

What does it mean to be "loyal to" a company or employee, though? Maybe I'm just overly cold and "literal", but an employment agreement is just that: an agreement to exchange value for value. In general, I loathe the idea of an agreement that I can't renegotiate. Do I owe my employer something? Yes, to the extent that it is agreed upon contractually. Does my employer owe me something? Same deal. I just don't understand what "loyalty" in this context is supposed to look like. If my services are a net disvalue to the company they should continue on as though that's not the case? If I'm unhappy at company or receive a better offer elsewhere, I should continue on despite it not being in my best interest? If that's what loyalty is supposed to mean then I don't want it either as employee or employer. Let's just get an agreement in writing and then take it one day at a time.

version_five 4y ago
There's almost always some measure of what people call loyalty. For example, people work late sometimes, and companies accept that there are going to be slow days where employees aren't working full out. You could call this inertia, and of course it's self interested: new hiring or a getting a new job takes effort so it's mutual beneficial to ride out bumpy spots. Over an extended period of time, that's essentially what loyalty is.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  This. The cold market-oriented view other HN'ers are espousing is certainly valid, but there are many, many small employers whose owners have a personal relationship with the employees. It IS naïve to expect that from a very large company, though, where the managers' span on one job is a couple years, at most.
unregistereddev 4y ago
While I understand this is rare (and becoming rarer), part of my employment agreement includes incentives for staying with the company long-term. These incentives include a pension, increasing amounts of vacation time, training, and other smaller perks. These longer-term incentives demonstrate the company's commitment to a long-term employment agreement. In exchange, I have more reason to stay and provide continuity, preserve domain knowledge, etc. It's ok to have a cold or literal view of an employment agreement. In my opinion that's valid, and looking at your agreement through that lens gives you a lot of information about the intended term or duration of the agreement. Sadly, it's increasingly common for that duration to be "until the next re-org or downturn".

rmason 4y ago

My late father worked for Morton Salt for close to forty years. Then Morton got a new 38 year old CEO and he wanted to shake up the company. He figured out that the employees over 55 years old tended to be the highest paid and if he got rid of all of them it would goose profits and he'd be a hero to Wall Street so he did it. For a quarter or two it worked and then the company descended into a death spiral and he was fired. My Dad got another good job and did OK. Poor Morton Salt never recovered, they've been sold a half dozen times and aren't even the largest salt company in America anymore.

mianos 4y ago
the "MBA Playbook". You would think those MBA courses that instruct on how to do this would also include the downside. Maybe they do and people make the moral choice not to care as they plan on being long gone before the failures? Maybe they teach that bit too? Sorry for more questions and answers as I have NOT done an MBA myself.
- joelthelion 4y ago
  MBA types tend to move on before the consequences of their actions become clear. I don't think they care.
- onetimeusename 4y ago
  There is definitely a problem with MBAs who come in to companies and obsess about one or two statistics or numbers and reorder the business to maximize/minimize some metric but it destroys the business in the process. Another example is the Sears CEO Eddie Lampert. It's a shame because Morton Salt sounds like it was irreparably harmed which is a huge cost for a lot of people (jobs and profits lost) but the CEO at worst just loses their job after a couple years if they hadn't moved on already.
  - rmason 4y ago
    You can't take a top performer with decades of success in a company and replace him with a 22 year old, even an exceptional one, and not have problems. There's a reason that company's layoffs usually affect those with the least time there, because its the least harmful strategy. Surprised that fact isn't part of the MBA curriculum.

dennis_jeeves1 4y ago

>My Dad worked for Swift & Co. for 45 years. on that note judging by some of the HN comments in general (not this topic) ) overall, it looks like a fair number of HN commenters do not have their dads in their lives.