4 ms·

> I feel like I've woken up to the nature of the employer/employee relationship with all these layoffs. I was blind but now I see, we ARE human resources I th

by querez 3y ago

> I feel like I've woken up to the nature of the employer/employee relationship with all these layoffs. I was blind but now I see, we ARE human resources I think that's just a normal process of growing older. Also: yes, of course you are a resource to your employer. An annoying one (stell or laptops don't usually talk back and has demands). I also don't think there's anything wrong with companies behaving this way. By all intents, purposes and employment contracts, it was always meant to be a "work for payment" type deals, nothing more. Of course, ideally your interests and the companies' align beyond that narrow scope; e.g. you're both interested in you becoming an expert in X, or in solving problems in area Y. But it really comes down to you being a resource for the company to produce stuff. Thinking back I realized that my elders and mentors and everyone worth listening to always tries to tell me that (e.g. by telling me "you're not your job", "look out for your WLB, noone else will", "a job is just a means to an end", "HR protects the company, not you", "always keep in mind that you're disposable"...). And yet it seems to be a lesion that everyone needs to rediscover for themselves eventually.

gtirloni 3y ago
> By all intents, purposes and employment contracts, it was always meant to be a "work for payment" type deals, nothing more That's exactly the opposite of what 99% of the companies sell to candidates. You must have seen stuff like this is a great place work, join the family, etc. So maybe you mean the hidden intent was that but that's not the message being broadcasted.
- geodel 3y ago
  Well this is same for 99% products advertised on media. No one really take it at their face value. So why is employment advertising/selling is expected to be factual.
  - fullshark 3y ago
    People want to be seduced, it's why you said 99%, some percent of advertising works on all of us, and a major decision like "this is my job and how I spend most of my waking hours on this earth" is ripe for the employee to accept the seduction.
  - ctoth 3y ago
    >Well this is same for 99% products advertised on media. No one really take it at their face value. So why is employment advertising/selling is expected to be factual. Advertisers have somehow gotten away with lying to you for your whole life, so obviously it's your fault your employer did too! Just ... What?
- 0xEFF 3y ago
  No company reflects “we’re family” in contracts or compensation packages. That fact alone tells us the message is and always has been bullshit.
  - dominojab 3y ago
    [dead]
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  In fact they will try to terminate hires or reject candidates who express primary interest in work being "for payment". Every business looks for an edge, including exploitability checks (and checks against disrupting that line of thought for their other hires)
- querez 3y ago
  Of course it is. That's why I'm pointing out that everyone learns the lesson eventually. If it were obvious from the outset it wouldn't require learning. If it was easy to discover, it would be learned immediately. But as it stands, it's a difficult thing to learn because it's not in the employer's interest: they definitely do want people who are are better aligned with the goals of the company outside of "work for payment". They want people that are passionate about the job and the company, because ceteris paribus those people will do a better job. And a way of getting there is trying to be a company worth working for. To have a good culture, great goals, or great colleagues. But taking a more cynical view, that's just a different form of payment, in the sense that 60k/year at a great place to work is probably worth more to you than 70k/year at a not-so-great job. But as soon as a company enters some hardship and needs to cut cost, it needs to take a sober and realistic look at its expenses. And personal costs tend to be a huge expense.

by querez 3y ago

gtirloni 3y ago

> By all intents, purposes and employment contracts, it was always meant to be a "work for payment" type deals, nothing more That's exactly the opposite of what 99% of the companies sell to candidates. You must have seen stuff like this is a great place work, join the family, etc. So maybe you mean the hidden intent was that but that's not the message being broadcasted.

geodel 3y ago
Well this is same for 99% products advertised on media. No one really take it at their face value. So why is employment advertising/selling is expected to be factual.
- fullshark 3y ago
  People want to be seduced, it's why you said 99%, some percent of advertising works on all of us, and a major decision like "this is my job and how I spend most of my waking hours on this earth" is ripe for the employee to accept the seduction.
- ctoth 3y ago
  >Well this is same for 99% products advertised on media. No one really take it at their face value. So why is employment advertising/selling is expected to be factual. Advertisers have somehow gotten away with lying to you for your whole life, so obviously it's your fault your employer did too! Just ... What?
0xEFF 3y ago
No company reflects “we’re family” in contracts or compensation packages. That fact alone tells us the message is and always has been bullshit.
- dominojab 3y ago
  [dead]
wahnfrieden 3y ago
In fact they will try to terminate hires or reject candidates who express primary interest in work being "for payment". Every business looks for an edge, including exploitability checks (and checks against disrupting that line of thought for their other hires)
querez 3y ago
Of course it is. That's why I'm pointing out that everyone learns the lesson eventually. If it were obvious from the outset it wouldn't require learning. If it was easy to discover, it would be learned immediately. But as it stands, it's a difficult thing to learn because it's not in the employer's interest: they definitely do want people who are are better aligned with the goals of the company outside of "work for payment". They want people that are passionate about the job and the company, because ceteris paribus those people will do a better job. And a way of getting there is trying to be a company worth working for. To have a good culture, great goals, or great colleagues. But taking a more cynical view, that's just a different form of payment, in the sense that 60k/year at a great place to work is probably worth more to you than 70k/year at a not-so-great job. But as soon as a company enters some hardship and needs to cut cost, it needs to take a sober and realistic look at its expenses. And personal costs tend to be a huge expense.