14 ms·

Loyalty and Layoffs

359 points by hartleybrody 13y ago

zeckalpha 13y ago
I may be missing something here, but what if Janet had followed this advice?
- diego 13y ago
  How do you know she didn't? By the way, I've seen countless Janets get laid off as well.
  - zeckalpha 13y ago
    She fought for her team, not herself.
    - diego 13y ago
      Not for "the team", but for individual persons like the OP. The post in fact makes that distinction.
      - ISL 13y ago
        Your team is composed of individuals.
        ricardobeat 13y ago
        The post in fact also makes that distinction. "The Team", abstract entity, vs "the team", the people.
tomphoolery 13y ago
Great point, if not a little acrimonious, about the role of a CEO in a corporation. Even though the CEO (or anyone over your head for that matter) may enjoy you as a person, or even find you to be the perfect guy for the job, the bottom line still means a lot more than your life. I think it's important to remember that it's okay to love your job and the company you work for, as well as be loyal to them, but that loyalty goes both ways. I'm loyal to my employer as long as they loyally pay me and don't treat me like a piece of shit. But there's no love. My teammates are awesome but if, say, Github gave me a call and wanted to hire me, I'd be giving my two weeks tomorrow. And if Github ended up being a bad fit, I can always keep looking. As a Ruby developer in Philadelphia, I'm always being courted by recruiters and job offers, because there are so few of us here.
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  I hope that if I'm ever a CEO, I'll have the decency to point out that while I am friendly, I am not a friend.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    Keep in mind that I run a couple of small but growing businesses and have worked for major corporations. One thing I would point out is that in my experience the people who are laid off in a company advance their careers and those who remain stagnate. I am not sure I would put this in a layoff email though. If times are tough, I still think that layoffs are a real last resort. Your best assets are the entrepreneurs in your business and these can be floor-level employees. The rule breakers, the ones who will fight the system or break the rules in order to do a better job are the ones that need to be paid well, not in terms of money but in terms of owning their job (and ideally a share of profits).
    - yuhong 13y ago
      michaelochurch do agree, but emphasizes that they need to be done correctly.
    - jacques_chester 13y ago
      In Australia I've seen two common patterns: 1. Reducing hours by X% instead of sacking X% of employees. 2. Offering voluntary redundancy packages. Option 1 tends to lead to some people quitting anyhow. Option 2 has the problem that it can dramaticaly exacerbate the Dead Sea problem. Anyone with any pep grabs the package and looks for a job elsewhere.
      - rmc 13y ago
        In either case if companies need to cut back, then the best people will leave first, since they have more options.
bluedino 13y ago
When he said the first story happened in 2002, I was expecting to hear a story about getting your workstation as a severence package. I knew so many people during the crash who had the most random computer and office equipment. All 'acquired' when their company went out of business. Aeron chair. Anthro cart. Sun Ultra 10, loaded. $4,000 Toshiba laptop. Occaisonaly some Cisco kit or a fairly beefy server. "This used to run <insert failed site> dot com." How'd that work? Didn't the creditors or management care?
- malbs 13y ago
  My brother-in-law is an accountant who specialises in insolvency. He doesn't touch tech company failures, because there are usually no assets they can sell to pay creditors. Believe it or not computers are actually very hard to sell unless you outsource it to one of the big auction places. I've picked up a number of computers from them for nothing, because it's all rotting in their office basement, jobs wrapped up, "assets" unable to be sold for small change. So companies will try and package up your severance to include things like your work laptop (which you've maybe become attached to), they can put a $ value on it, and mark it off what you're owed, but in reality you're losing out. Better to take cash rather than hardware, unless there is no cash.
  - malbs 13y ago
    Wouldn't mind an Aeron chair though! Definitely pick one of those up for yourself in a sell-off ;)
    - mrtron 13y ago
      When I moved to Palo Alto there was a free one sitting in the hallway of the apartment building!
moron4hire 13y ago
At some point in the last 5 years, sitting in my pen--ahem, I mean cubicle--I came to the realization that the the subject noun of the term "Human Resources" is "Resources" not "Humans". If you think your boss is your friend, he's either a shitty boss or a shitty friend.
- dkuntz2 13y ago
  I don't think that's entirely true. If the two of you have the ability to keep you work separate from the rest of your lives, it'll work fine. From what I've seen, most people can't do that, but that's a different issue.
- hobb0001 13y ago
  I find it telling that not so long ago, "Human Resources" used to be called "Personnel". I'm still curious as to what caused the change from persons to resources...
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Title inflation, the march of political correctness, or both.
- jes 13y ago
  Can you explain why only the two outcomes you list are the only ones possible?
purplelobster 13y ago
I'm working at a big company where most employees have worked for a very long time. On my team, besides me, the person who has worked the shortest time is 9 years. The next one after that: 15 years. Most managers and senior engineers have worked here for 20 years or more. They've constructed their whole life around this job, it's almost sad. If in their 20 years have switched jobs, it was within the company. I'm not trying to be patronizing, it's just that The Company is not doing well, and I think there will be very tough times ahead for many these people, and most of them seem to think The Company will always be there to pay the bills. There's this group think going on that "we've had similar crises before, but we always get through it". This time is different, but they won't realize it. The world is moving a lot quicker today. I think our younger generation is much more weary of being loyal to corporations. We've seen what happens in economic crises, and most of our lives have been just that: one big economic crisis after another.
- pnathan 13y ago
  I think hanging around at a single place is all right, but you have to be really focused on staying current. I've seen people who didn't and the result was not pretty.
- mediaman 13y ago
  As an employer and owner, I don't have a problem with people moving around in their career. I expect it. I stay on great terms with them, give them flowers when they move on, wish them good luck, and invite them to stop by socially later. Most people stay for several years or sometimes much more. Staying less than two years, and certainly less than a year, can be so short as to be counterproductive, so that's less welcome, though we always do self-introspection to see if we did something to drive them away (it's rare that someone stays that short a time). But if someone's been there three years or more, they've contributed a lot to the company, and I really do want them to do well, and they have no obligation to be "loyal" to the company. Sometimes they work for a while elsewhere and then come back. That's great too.
  - jared314 13y ago
    That definitely sounds like a culture that values the people involved in the company's past, present, and future. But, most positions I have had were with companies where the people who left were effectively dead. No one spoke their name at work. No one mentioned their previous efforts or ideas. The company photo was updated. The only thing that sometimes persisted was their name on the source code commits. Employees with a decade of service just vanished.
ams6110 13y ago
It's been my point of view since the first dot-com crash that my employer and I are "even" every payday. I've done my work, and been compensated for it. I'm not sure what else one can reasonably expect.
- tokenizer 13y ago
  Exactly, even though it's not really "even" considering they're profiting off your work (unless you're a necessary evil). I guess you get some other perks if you're not bound to a horrible contract, like paid sick time and vacation. Personally, I go about things in the same way, but hope I get a union job I just applied for. IMO, that changes the whole solidarity/loyalty relationship.
  - jes 13y ago
    If someone offers you a job, for a certain wage, and you accept it freely, how are you not even when you get everything that you agreed upon? Alternatively, if the business makes losses rather than profits, would you kick in your share to keep things even?
    - NoodleIncident 13y ago
      That's called a startup. /s
    - tokenizer 13y ago
      Don't get me wrong, you're right. It is even legally, but not in nominal terms of value. If I do front end web development for 15$ an hour, but am sold to a customer for 150$ an hour, there's no question in terms of value that the arrangement is unfair. As for your point regarding business success, that's not really my call nor do I have a say. How can I accept losses on behalf of another employee's decision? Surely I'd be fired for bringing in less value than I was earning in the role mentioned.
      - jes 13y ago
        With respect, if you think the deal is unfair to you, why do you accept it? Why don't you just deal with the customer directly?
malbs 13y ago
I've gone through a number of these company bust-ups. The first one was fairly traumatic for a lot of people, but I'd only been there 3 months. 2001, In my interview, when I was asked "Is there anything you'd like to ask us" I said, "look this is awkward, but I've seen the company mentioned on fuckedcompany.com a number of times, and it's all bad news, is there any concern?" and I received the answer "Oh that's our American parent company, we'll be unaffected". 3 months later, gone gone gone. I watched people who'd worked there/started the company get turfed out, and crying. I had barely been in the office (working offsite) so I didn't even really feel any attachment at all, so it was all quite surreal. Next job I worked for a small company where the two directors ended up being unable to pay staff, so they put everything on their credit cards, and convinced everyone to resign and sign up as contractors. It was only years later that it dawned on me, that by resigning they didn't have to pay severance packages. We were young and trusting.
- lotsofpulp 13y ago
  As far as I know, in the US, there is no legal mandate to pay severance. However, getting their employees to resign probably saved them a lot of money on their unemployment insurance by making the employees ineligible for unemployment benefits (that's why I try to get my employees to resign) and/or they may have gotten their employees to sign release forms for liability from wrongful termination or discrimination or those kinds of liabilities.
  - gknoy 13y ago
    > making the employees ineligible for unemployment benefits (that's why I try to get my employees to resign) Am I the only one that finds this utterly and totally horrific? Why would you do that? What do you gain by someone who leaves being unable to collect unemployment benefits? Does it directly affect you? I thought that was something that all taxpayers put money into. It reads like "I take pleasure in ensuring that ex-employees are totally screwed" -- please tell me I'm wrong.
    - crdoconnor 13y ago
jacques_chester 13y ago
My opinion: You don't have to be loyal. Instead, be professional. That means you retain many of the qualities of loyalty -- dilligence and an eye for the advantage of your client or employer -- without being afraid to ask for the going rate for your services. A professional is also prepared to argue for the best interests of the client and to refuse to act unethically, even when the client doesn't want to hear it. Our cousin professions enjoy pretty strong legal support for the latter.
- afarrell 13y ago
  And if your loyalty to yourself and your professional ethics are in conflict with the wishes of your employer, it is far better to follow your true loyalties. Though it might come at great personal cost if you end up having to flee to Russia.
  - dkuntz2 13y ago
    I'm sorry, but I can't let your aside at the end stand. From my point of view it had nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with the possibility of fame. He revealed himself. He couldn't even wait, he had to let people know what he did. He practically bragged about it. The personal cost wasn't due his ethics, it was due to his inability to shut up.
    - chrischen 13y ago
      You should consider the possibility that the fame was necessary for his personal self-preservation. If he didn't make himself famous, the gov't could potentially do very bad things to him and no one would notice, or care. The publicity could have been his greatest and only weapon against the US.
      - dkuntz2 13y ago
        How was fame necessary for his self-preservation? If nobody knew who leaked how is revealing himself useful? Deep Throat never needed to reveal himself to the world. Things seemed to go fairly well for him. There are better ways to make sure people don't do bad things to you than tell the whole world that you were the leak. A simple program that requires daily interaction that sends an email to one of the people he leaked to if he doesn't interact with it, revealing himself at that point. It was not his "greatest and only weapon". He was someone who wanted his name to be remembered. Tangentially, the reveal made the conversation about him, and not the information.
6d0debc071 13y ago
Sensible applications of loyalty are a two way street - are they paying you fairly, are they developing you as a person? If they're not investing in you, being loyal to them is just stupidity. Match your commitments, that way if they stop you're not left going - "But I gave you everything and now I've got nothing!" Your allies and your friends don't weaken you or leave you to rot. Anyone who does isn't worthy of your loyalty. I've been laid off before, I didn't feel bad about it - I was loyal to them and they were loyal to me, and when the relationship ended we went our separate ways, both the richer for it.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  I am all for being loyal to a company. However, I also think that the fact is.... I have watched "layoffs" at two big tech giants (only one was called that) and watched what happened to the people who left and the people who stayed. In general I have found that despite the uncertainty it is actually a good thing, on average, to be laid off. Earning power seems to go up, and people move into more challenging jobs. THose who remain tend to be part of a more ossified corporation and with less mobility.
chasing 13y ago
I feel it's important to remember that in the employee-employer relationship, you're peers. You both need to provide the other with value, and you both need to be frank about your relationship when these values are lop-sided. And you need to be clear about what the value of the things being offered are. Your employer is not your family, your mom, or your significant other. It's a peer with which you trade value. Every person who works is a single-person business selling their particular expertise and time. I feel like maintaining this attitude can help with all sorts of stuff, including dealing with job offers, negotiating pay, etc. And key to this is having a fairly good knowledge of the value that you provide so you know what value you deserve in return. (Being acutely aware of the value you provide can also help steer you towards higher-value skill sets.) Intangibles are great. But don't live in fantasy land. And be aware that no one's obligated to give you anything unless it's written in a contract.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >I feel it's important to remember that in the employee-employer relationship, you're peers. Only rarely and in quite good economy and job market conditions (can differ depending on profession). And that's for better than average workers. For average and below average (ie. most of the population at any give time) not even then. Normally you are the one needing work and money to feed your family and he is the one with the money to pay you. "He" could even be a multi-national. You are the weaker one here, make no mistake.
- vladimirralev 13y ago
  I think you are wrong. The employer has accountants, lawyers, HR, business. You are not equally-equipped parties. You can't really afford to have your own contract lawyer, labor lawyer, IP lawyer, accountant, financial advisor and salary market researcher. You have to trust the company to do these things for you. Even when something is in writing there are 100s of subtle ways to screw you over, especially with shares or options. Sometimes companies will not share any information about the value you are bringing in. There is a big information asymmetry between you and the employer, so you just have to trust them to distribute the payouts fairly. Often the pay distribution is unknown and legally confidential. So even if you try to make an argument with some stubborn manager that you are severely underpaid you can't start throwing teammates under the bus for disclosing their salaries. It's a toxic environment to have to continuously confront your management to do their job properly. Otherwise you are losing money because of their incompetence. Not to mention the losses in terms of stress/health when you are forced to actively confront your management. The other big aspect of the same issue is the implied responsibility - for example when you are consulting for a third party. Lets say you are paid $10 per hour while your company charges the customer $300 per hour and the customer expects a solid $300 per hour delivery. Now that puts you in a weird situation, because the context of responsibility and ownership is very different. It affects how you think about the code. It's like the difference between life-support critical software and useless departmental tools. It is up to your company to define the scope of responsibility. You can't force it, you don't have the business input to figure out what they need. May be they just need a cheap and stupid code monkey.
mcot2 13y ago
Shortly after being hired full time at my first ever full time salaried job, my manager when I was an intern was laid off with some others. It really sucked and it was a good initial lesson for me. I will never be loyal to a company if I don't own a significant piece of it. I don't wear clothing with the company logo, I rarely attend company events, I don't mix anything in my personal life (insurance plans/cell phone contracts ect...) with company provided deals or discounts. I keep over 12 months of living expenses liquid. That being said, I try to remain professional and take the job for what it is. They pay me a salary, I do work. In the distant future I look forward to bootstrapping my own business.
einhverfr 13y ago
I think there are three legitimate objects of loyalty in the proper order: 1. Loyalty to your work. Do a good job, take pride in it, try to always do better. 2. Loyalty to the customer. This goes without saying, but don't let this make you do less of a good job. 3. Loyalty to the company. I disagree with the author in saying this is sick. However, it becomes sick when it is placed above a need to do a good job and take care of the customer's needs. Loyalty to the company is what glues together the other two into something productive, but it cannot stand on its own without degrading into petty politics. However also for this to work, the company has to be loyal to the employees and this is harder and harder to find these days.
- derefr 13y ago
  I would suggest that you phrase the first one as "loyalty to your craft" to make it clearer that "your work" doesn't mean your job. As an aside, in the distant past, this would have been much more explicitly "loyalty to your guild."
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    Agreed on craft vs work in this context. I think however, it is more generally applicable to things done not for pay too. I sometimes call this "ownership of work" which has two components. The first is the ability to do your job your way (but collaboratively as needed), without micromanagement, and the second is to take pride in doing it the best way you can. This is applicable in the work force in the sense that micromanagement is evil and that good tradesmen are good workers but it is also applicable to things like washing dishes: Do a good job but dont let anyone else tell you how to do a good job!
gorbachev 13y ago
I'm never loyal to a company, ever. I may be loyal to employees of said company, if they, PERSONALLY, prove to be worth such loyalty.
valnour 13y ago
The "400+" employee lay-off that the author referenced was this one: http://timesfreepress.com/news/2013/aug/16/layoffs-hit-chattanooga-based-payday-lender/ http://timesfreepress.com/news/2013/aug/16/layoffs-hit-chatt... There was a lot more to the lay-off than the company losing their primary income model This happened in my hometown (Chattanooga, Tennessee).
- x0x0 13y ago
  wow. fta: Before New York regulators cut the businesses off from the automated clearing house system in early August, the payday conglomerate made short-term loans over the Internet that typically became due — with interest — on the customer’s next payday. Different U.S. states have widely divergent laws governing the interest rates that lenders are allowed to charge, and Brown often ran afoul of these regulations. He has been sued in several states for making loans with interest rates well above the legal limit, was the subject of a class-action lawsuit for sending thousands of spam text messages and was investigated by federal authorities. Brown was forced to stop making loans in Tennessee following a series of Times Free Press articles in 2011 and 2012 that showed he was making loans with an interest rate in excess of what the state allowed, and was doing so without a license. I kind of just want to point and laugh; apparently karma does (slowly) come around.
rdtsc 13y ago
Remember if anyone promised you verbally any financial windfall in exchange for loyalty, no matter how charismatic they are don't fall for it. In the end they would end up most likely not delivering (and of course they will blame on an external scapegoated 3rd party for it). It is a good idea to always be read to leave. Don't burn bridges but don't assume the company you work for is your family. Why? They extract double the work from you working nights in exchange for fluffy promises. A lot of managers are managers because they know how to promote well. Promote themselves well and promote the company to you. Be aware of that.
- vladimirralev 13y ago
  I'd always give my manager a chance to keep their promise. If they fail and start making excuses instead of taking responsibility, I can also work with that, but it's not going to be the same in terms of motivation and productivity. Many managers got their education straight from Dilbert or the movies. They think screwing you over and maintaining ambiguity is "business-savvy". It's well known that employees will grow resentful when your actions cost them money. It's one of the few HR areas with actual studies and it's common sense in general. Good managers are pretty rare though indeed.
  - rdtsc 13y ago
    I (hopefully) learned from mistakes of others. My friend got burned. He was promised a "share of the profits" if company gets sold, he was young, after college, his boss knew how to take advantage of him. Sure enough company gets sold. Most good people had left (except as it turns out the others who also got promised privately large exclusive! windfalls). In the end it was, of course, blame on some technicality. "Sure I would have given you those millions, if it wasn't for the lawyers, those pesky lawyers, wouldn't you just want to drown them, sheesh...", stuff like that. Oh well, he runs his own company now, but it was a valuable lesson.
    - vladimirralev 13y ago
      Yes, this is a good example. I have my own timeout value for promises - about 6 months. That should be enough.
frozenport 13y ago
What about getting paid in stock? Then should you have loyalty?
- SingleFounderCo 13y ago
  I'd was going to make the same point. Yes, I think that changes things completely -- if you are an owner than you are being loyal to yourself (premise holds).
- digitalzombie 13y ago
  ... those are like lottery tickets. We promise one day we'll be public and you can sell your stocks!
- Xylakant 13y ago
  Stocks are only worth anything if a) you're allowed to sell them. b) somebody is willing to buy them or c) you get a dividend and own a significant portion. The value of most stocks in companies is overrated. Yes, your company might be the next google and you'll hit gold but most companies shares are worth little to nothing. Depending on the company structure they might have some interesting rights attached - such as being allowed a look in the books, being invited to the shareholders meeting etc. Stuff that allows you to judge how well your company is doing. Just don't take them as if their cash value is fixed. It will be somewhere between 0 and infinity.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > The value of most stocks in companies is overrated. If the Efficient Market Hypothesis is true (it's certainly approximately true), then most stocks, most of the time, have exactly the value they ought to have. So no, on average, stocks aren't overrated and investors aren't fools.
    - Xylakant 13y ago
      I'm not talking about the general market of publicly traded companies where your theory applies. I'm talking about the subset of startup companies that typically offer shares instead of payment to employes. A lot of those are not or only partially investor backed. Even of those that are, most fail, their stock value effectively nil. Of the rest, a large share basically just breaks even which makes their stock pretty much untradeable since practically nobody wants to buy shares in a company that will probably never have a large growth. The tiny tiny rest grows in leaps and bounds and is the next google/facebook/, the stock value multiplying by factors of 10 or more. Investing in stocks of small startups is a risky business - on average you can make a lot of money, but it takes a lot of capital and endurance to have a large enough portfolio that you actually achieve the average. Otherwise it's luck. My point is: Don't see shares in a company as income. It's an investment and a risky one. Do that with money you can afford to loose and effectively write it off until you've really sold it or the company went public.
RougeFemme 13y ago
I don't disagree entirely. . .and in my previous life as a manager. . .and before that, as a team lead. . .I encouraged everyone to keep growing professionally and to keep their resume updated - and to never assume that they could stay forever and/or leave on their own terms. I told them that I did and that I just considered it sound professional advice, no matter how much we loved and respected each other, the organization's mission, etc. On the other hand, I do have loyalty to any co-workers and managers that I genuinely like AND respect. Not to the point that I would sacrifice myself professionally for them, but I do have loyalty. And in past lives, I've told those that I trusted to be mum and professional when I was starting to look for another position - even if was just another position in the same organization and just to give them a heads-up. As a matter of fact, my peer in our organization left a few months ago. She felt guilty, knowing that my life would almost immediately become more difficult, but I stressed to her to do what was best for her. She started to waver when management asked her to delay her departure - I reiterated that she should not worry about me or management. She was loyal - which I appreciated. And I was loyal and shoved her out the door.
- pnathan 13y ago
  I usually let people I mentor/manage know that they are business for themself. They need to keep the resume polished, the salary figures down cold, the skills fresh. If we all understand that we're in all in business together, contracted to do high quality work together, then certain ground rules are understood and we all can get along fine without manipulative koolaid.
axus 13y ago
How about being loyal to your customers? They're depending on you. Even though their contract is with the corporation, it still feels bad to leave them in a bind.
trustfundbaby 13y ago
So much truth in that post, though I found it a bit histrionic. but I can't stress this enough, (especially for young developers) work hard but keep your eyes open. Remember to ask yourself, "if this startup/firm/company went to shit tomorrow, what would happen to me?" ... if you think that people at that firm are going to take care of you when things get bad ... slap yourself. Just like in the OP, you might luck out and have someone care enough to give you a soft landing, but that is the exception and not the rule. Always make sure you don't get caught out there, - passively scan the market every 18 months and go on an interview or two. At worst you'll realize how much you're being taken advantage of, at best you'll realize how lucky you are to have your job. - Stay in touch with direct contacts at companies that sound interesting who reach out to you, especially on linkedin (I ignore 3rd party developers). If they took the time to reach out to you, just respond with a "Hey I'm not really looking to leave right now but lets stay in touch". Grab coffee with them, and find out what they're up to. This way if everything goes to crap you have a warm lead for gigs, instead of competing with your teammates to get your resume in front of hiring managers in your city - Keep developing your skills, get on mainstream technologies right after they go mainstream/hit critical, that will make it easier to not chase every shiny new fad. That will increase your marketability and make it easier for you to find opportunities that your peers will not Above all, don't let being an engineer blind you to company politics. Pay attention to whats happening, read the tea leaves so you can be ahead of bad news ESPECIALLY if you are an immigrant. This has served me well over the years. Once I quit a job because I got a bad feeling that new management cared more about head count than quality ... lo and behold, my replacement was laid off just 6 months after being hired.
imechura 13y ago
May I please add a comment from outside the bubble? It does not have to be this way. My current employer is a low cost travel company, we are celebrating our 43rd anniversary as a company. In these 43 years not a single person has been laid off. Not one janitor, not one programmer, not one reservations agent. We do not have a planetarium. We do not have a movie theater. We do not offer free food to our employees every day. We do not as a policy, pay for our employees' day care. We do not implement the latest and greatest technologies on a whim because we think they are cool. We do offer one of the best, IMO, health care plans in the industry. We do respect our employees, vendors and co-workers. We do offer generous retirements benefits. We do work very hard to use technology to solve problems that are as or more difficult than your favorite silicon valley startup. We do take into account the ability to sustain every single employee for the next 20 years into every decision we make. We do treat every employee like they are a member of our family and will continue to for the next 43 years. Consider all of the above when you are looking for a new job or starting a new company.
- krainboltgreene 13y ago
  David Brady isn't in any bubble, he lives in the middle of America.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Your parent may be talking about the metaphorical bubble of the tech industry.
- stormbrew 13y ago
  Is it a family business (or a sole proprietership run by a family man that's likely to inherit the company to his kids)? This kind of thing usually falls apart in those at a generation boundary. Sometimes kids don't see the business the same way their parents do.
tnorthcutt 13y ago
Could a mod link this to the original post instead of someone else's mirror of it? http://heartmindcode.com/2013/08/16/loyalty-and-layoffs/ http://heartmindcode.com/2013/08/16/loyalty-and-layoffs/
krob 13y ago
This quote rings true, "But anybody claiming to have loyalty to “The Team” is engaging in office politics."
nowarninglabel 13y ago
The thing I'm struggling with, does this also apply to working for a non-profit whose mission you believe in?
- jeffthebear 13y ago
  Unfortunately, I have to say that this is true for non-profits too. I have a similar experience with my previous employer (non-profit) who decided to change the direction of the IT department. In the end, I am grateful for the opportunity of doing good as an employee in the organization in the time I was there but I no longer wanted to be a part of where they were headed. I still believe in their values and mission but the leadership needs to do what it thinks is best for the organization.
therandomguy 13y ago
woah... wait a second. Paid time off = no cashing of days remaining when you leave? Is that right? Just last month by Vacation + Sick days got converted to same number of PTO and the HR email made it sound great complete with congratulations!
sliverstorm 13y ago
The people that work in the same room as you are real. It is totally okay to love them. In fact, I encourage it! Be loyal to them! Go to the mat for them. But for heaven’s sake, don’t be loyal to “The Team”. I can't speak for everyone, but the people _are_ what I am referring to when I speak of "the team".
Aloha 13y ago
I'm an hourly employee (functionally non-exempt salary). Whenever employers ask me for exempt salary, I quote an rate that is 1.5 to 3 times as much as I would earn if hourly non-exempt. This is part of my insurance policy, so I can make sure I can take care of myself when my company cant. Now, while I realize I have a really unique skillset, and have project knowledge which will see me thru - when I have to take my 45 day break ahead, I realize I may not come back. This would make me sad, but I'm well taken care of by my own savings, and by unemployment.
gcb0 13y ago
As a good engineer, this person knows shit about politics. When the company engineer claims he lacks loyalty, is not part of the company family, etc... He is not truly believing any of this either. He's just out of ammunition to attack him with logic, so he goes with any pack instinct ad hominem. And then writing this emotional piece about just ice the cake on how he's sadly clueless on the matter. It's like he's trying to explain that someone who just called him a motherfucker how he is silly because you know, he's gay so he could never like mothers or something. It's all crazy and pointless to believe there's logic in subjective pack mentality attacks.
Millennium 13y ago
Neither employer nor employee is inherently owed loyalty, but the only way to earn loyalty is to give it in return. Sooner or later, one party is going to have to act irrationally if it wants that kind of relationship with the other. A company that wants 1950s-style loyalty from its employees should be giving them 1950s-style loyalty. If you as a corporation would prefer layoffs to bankruptcy protection, then you do not measure up to that standard.
- rmc 13y ago
  Minor nitpick, although I know what you mean, "Giving 1950s style" would need lots of qualification if you were to say it. Simple example: Women were not paid the same as men for the same work in the 1950s, and women could (and were) fired when they got married and/or pregnant. If you (the company) want to claim "we'll give you (the employees) 1950s style loyalty", be sure to expand on that.
antihero 13y ago
Surely a better scheme would be to have a company baseline wage. Before any lay-offs are made, all staff must have their wages reduced to that baseline. Once this allows growth, wages can be increased again?
squozzer 13y ago
I would extend the author's arguments to include loyalty to an entity whose interests aren't exactly aligned with one's own -- for example, a nation-state. Not saying that loyalty in itself is bad, but blind loyalty is -- a symptom of which is accepting a leader's words at face value. Even nice doggies get put to sleep eventually.

Loyalty and Layoffs

359 points by hartleybrody 13y ago

zeckalpha 13y ago

I may be missing something here, but what if Janet had followed this advice?

diego 13y ago
How do you know she didn't? By the way, I've seen countless Janets get laid off as well.
- zeckalpha 13y ago
  She fought for her team, not herself.
  - diego 13y ago
    Not for "the team", but for individual persons like the OP. The post in fact makes that distinction.
    - ISL 13y ago
      Your team is composed of individuals.
      - ricardobeat 13y ago
        The post in fact also makes that distinction. "The Team", abstract entity, vs "the team", the people.

tomphoolery 13y ago

Great point, if not a little acrimonious, about the role of a CEO in a corporation. Even though the CEO (or anyone over your head for that matter) may enjoy you as a person, or even find you to be the perfect guy for the job, the bottom line still means a lot more than your life. I think it's important to remember that it's okay to love your job and the company you work for, as well as be loyal to them, but that loyalty goes both ways. I'm loyal to my employer as long as they loyally pay me and don't treat me like a piece of shit. But there's no love. My teammates are awesome but if, say, Github gave me a call and wanted to hire me, I'd be giving my two weeks tomorrow. And if Github ended up being a bad fit, I can always keep looking. As a Ruby developer in Philadelphia, I'm always being courted by recruiters and job offers, because there are so few of us here.

jacques_chester 13y ago
I hope that if I'm ever a CEO, I'll have the decency to point out that while I am friendly, I am not a friend.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  Keep in mind that I run a couple of small but growing businesses and have worked for major corporations. One thing I would point out is that in my experience the people who are laid off in a company advance their careers and those who remain stagnate. I am not sure I would put this in a layoff email though. If times are tough, I still think that layoffs are a real last resort. Your best assets are the entrepreneurs in your business and these can be floor-level employees. The rule breakers, the ones who will fight the system or break the rules in order to do a better job are the ones that need to be paid well, not in terms of money but in terms of owning their job (and ideally a share of profits).
  - yuhong 13y ago
    michaelochurch do agree, but emphasizes that they need to be done correctly.
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    In Australia I've seen two common patterns: 1. Reducing hours by X% instead of sacking X% of employees. 2. Offering voluntary redundancy packages. Option 1 tends to lead to some people quitting anyhow. Option 2 has the problem that it can dramaticaly exacerbate the Dead Sea problem. Anyone with any pep grabs the package and looks for a job elsewhere.
    - rmc 13y ago
      In either case if companies need to cut back, then the best people will leave first, since they have more options.

bluedino 13y ago

When he said the first story happened in 2002, I was expecting to hear a story about getting your workstation as a severence package. I knew so many people during the crash who had the most random computer and office equipment. All 'acquired' when their company went out of business. Aeron chair. Anthro cart. Sun Ultra 10, loaded. $4,000 Toshiba laptop. Occaisonaly some Cisco kit or a fairly beefy server. "This used to run <insert failed site> dot com." How'd that work? Didn't the creditors or management care?

malbs 13y ago
My brother-in-law is an accountant who specialises in insolvency. He doesn't touch tech company failures, because there are usually no assets they can sell to pay creditors. Believe it or not computers are actually very hard to sell unless you outsource it to one of the big auction places. I've picked up a number of computers from them for nothing, because it's all rotting in their office basement, jobs wrapped up, "assets" unable to be sold for small change. So companies will try and package up your severance to include things like your work laptop (which you've maybe become attached to), they can put a $ value on it, and mark it off what you're owed, but in reality you're losing out. Better to take cash rather than hardware, unless there is no cash.
- malbs 13y ago
  Wouldn't mind an Aeron chair though! Definitely pick one of those up for yourself in a sell-off ;)
  - mrtron 13y ago
    When I moved to Palo Alto there was a free one sitting in the hallway of the apartment building!

moron4hire 13y ago

At some point in the last 5 years, sitting in my pen--ahem, I mean cubicle--I came to the realization that the the subject noun of the term "Human Resources" is "Resources" not "Humans". If you think your boss is your friend, he's either a shitty boss or a shitty friend.

dkuntz2 13y ago
I don't think that's entirely true. If the two of you have the ability to keep you work separate from the rest of your lives, it'll work fine. From what I've seen, most people can't do that, but that's a different issue.
hobb0001 13y ago
I find it telling that not so long ago, "Human Resources" used to be called "Personnel". I'm still curious as to what caused the change from persons to resources...
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Title inflation, the march of political correctness, or both.
jes 13y ago
Can you explain why only the two outcomes you list are the only ones possible?

purplelobster 13y ago

I'm working at a big company where most employees have worked for a very long time. On my team, besides me, the person who has worked the shortest time is 9 years. The next one after that: 15 years. Most managers and senior engineers have worked here for 20 years or more. They've constructed their whole life around this job, it's almost sad. If in their 20 years have switched jobs, it was within the company. I'm not trying to be patronizing, it's just that The Company is not doing well, and I think there will be very tough times ahead for many these people, and most of them seem to think The Company will always be there to pay the bills. There's this group think going on that "we've had similar crises before, but we always get through it". This time is different, but they won't realize it. The world is moving a lot quicker today. I think our younger generation is much more weary of being loyal to corporations. We've seen what happens in economic crises, and most of our lives have been just that: one big economic crisis after another.

pnathan 13y ago
I think hanging around at a single place is all right, but you have to be really focused on staying current. I've seen people who didn't and the result was not pretty.
mediaman 13y ago
As an employer and owner, I don't have a problem with people moving around in their career. I expect it. I stay on great terms with them, give them flowers when they move on, wish them good luck, and invite them to stop by socially later. Most people stay for several years or sometimes much more. Staying less than two years, and certainly less than a year, can be so short as to be counterproductive, so that's less welcome, though we always do self-introspection to see if we did something to drive them away (it's rare that someone stays that short a time). But if someone's been there three years or more, they've contributed a lot to the company, and I really do want them to do well, and they have no obligation to be "loyal" to the company. Sometimes they work for a while elsewhere and then come back. That's great too.
- jared314 13y ago
  That definitely sounds like a culture that values the people involved in the company's past, present, and future. But, most positions I have had were with companies where the people who left were effectively dead. No one spoke their name at work. No one mentioned their previous efforts or ideas. The company photo was updated. The only thing that sometimes persisted was their name on the source code commits. Employees with a decade of service just vanished.

ams6110 13y ago

It's been my point of view since the first dot-com crash that my employer and I are "even" every payday. I've done my work, and been compensated for it. I'm not sure what else one can reasonably expect.

tokenizer 13y ago
Exactly, even though it's not really "even" considering they're profiting off your work (unless you're a necessary evil). I guess you get some other perks if you're not bound to a horrible contract, like paid sick time and vacation. Personally, I go about things in the same way, but hope I get a union job I just applied for. IMO, that changes the whole solidarity/loyalty relationship.
- jes 13y ago
  If someone offers you a job, for a certain wage, and you accept it freely, how are you not even when you get everything that you agreed upon? Alternatively, if the business makes losses rather than profits, would you kick in your share to keep things even?
  - NoodleIncident 13y ago
    That's called a startup. /s
  - tokenizer 13y ago
    Don't get me wrong, you're right. It is even legally, but not in nominal terms of value. If I do front end web development for 15$ an hour, but am sold to a customer for 150$ an hour, there's no question in terms of value that the arrangement is unfair. As for your point regarding business success, that's not really my call nor do I have a say. How can I accept losses on behalf of another employee's decision? Surely I'd be fired for bringing in less value than I was earning in the role mentioned.
    - jes 13y ago
      With respect, if you think the deal is unfair to you, why do you accept it? Why don't you just deal with the customer directly?

malbs 13y ago

I've gone through a number of these company bust-ups. The first one was fairly traumatic for a lot of people, but I'd only been there 3 months. 2001, In my interview, when I was asked "Is there anything you'd like to ask us" I said, "look this is awkward, but I've seen the company mentioned on fuckedcompany.com a number of times, and it's all bad news, is there any concern?" and I received the answer "Oh that's our American parent company, we'll be unaffected". 3 months later, gone gone gone. I watched people who'd worked there/started the company get turfed out, and crying. I had barely been in the office (working offsite) so I didn't even really feel any attachment at all, so it was all quite surreal. Next job I worked for a small company where the two directors ended up being unable to pay staff, so they put everything on their credit cards, and convinced everyone to resign and sign up as contractors. It was only years later that it dawned on me, that by resigning they didn't have to pay severance packages. We were young and trusting.

lotsofpulp 13y ago
As far as I know, in the US, there is no legal mandate to pay severance. However, getting their employees to resign probably saved them a lot of money on their unemployment insurance by making the employees ineligible for unemployment benefits (that's why I try to get my employees to resign) and/or they may have gotten their employees to sign release forms for liability from wrongful termination or discrimination or those kinds of liabilities.
- gknoy 13y ago
  > making the employees ineligible for unemployment benefits (that's why I try to get my employees to resign) Am I the only one that finds this utterly and totally horrific? Why would you do that? What do you gain by someone who leaves being unable to collect unemployment benefits? Does it directly affect you? I thought that was something that all taxpayers put money into. It reads like "I take pleasure in ensuring that ex-employees are totally screwed" -- please tell me I'm wrong.
  - crdoconnor 13y ago

jacques_chester 13y ago

My opinion: You don't have to be loyal. Instead, be professional. That means you retain many of the qualities of loyalty -- dilligence and an eye for the advantage of your client or employer -- without being afraid to ask for the going rate for your services. A professional is also prepared to argue for the best interests of the client and to refuse to act unethically, even when the client doesn't want to hear it. Our cousin professions enjoy pretty strong legal support for the latter.

afarrell 13y ago
And if your loyalty to yourself and your professional ethics are in conflict with the wishes of your employer, it is far better to follow your true loyalties. Though it might come at great personal cost if you end up having to flee to Russia.
- dkuntz2 13y ago
  I'm sorry, but I can't let your aside at the end stand. From my point of view it had nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with the possibility of fame. He revealed himself. He couldn't even wait, he had to let people know what he did. He practically bragged about it. The personal cost wasn't due his ethics, it was due to his inability to shut up.
  - chrischen 13y ago
    You should consider the possibility that the fame was necessary for his personal self-preservation. If he didn't make himself famous, the gov't could potentially do very bad things to him and no one would notice, or care. The publicity could have been his greatest and only weapon against the US.
    - dkuntz2 13y ago
      How was fame necessary for his self-preservation? If nobody knew who leaked how is revealing himself useful? Deep Throat never needed to reveal himself to the world. Things seemed to go fairly well for him. There are better ways to make sure people don't do bad things to you than tell the whole world that you were the leak. A simple program that requires daily interaction that sends an email to one of the people he leaked to if he doesn't interact with it, revealing himself at that point. It was not his "greatest and only weapon". He was someone who wanted his name to be remembered. Tangentially, the reveal made the conversation about him, and not the information.

6d0debc071 13y ago

Sensible applications of loyalty are a two way street - are they paying you fairly, are they developing you as a person? If they're not investing in you, being loyal to them is just stupidity. Match your commitments, that way if they stop you're not left going - "But I gave you everything and now I've got nothing!" Your allies and your friends don't weaken you or leave you to rot. Anyone who does isn't worthy of your loyalty. I've been laid off before, I didn't feel bad about it - I was loyal to them and they were loyal to me, and when the relationship ended we went our separate ways, both the richer for it.

einhverfr 13y ago
I am all for being loyal to a company. However, I also think that the fact is.... I have watched "layoffs" at two big tech giants (only one was called that) and watched what happened to the people who left and the people who stayed. In general I have found that despite the uncertainty it is actually a good thing, on average, to be laid off. Earning power seems to go up, and people move into more challenging jobs. THose who remain tend to be part of a more ossified corporation and with less mobility.

chasing 13y ago

I feel it's important to remember that in the employee-employer relationship, you're peers. You both need to provide the other with value, and you both need to be frank about your relationship when these values are lop-sided. And you need to be clear about what the value of the things being offered are. Your employer is not your family, your mom, or your significant other. It's a peer with which you trade value. Every person who works is a single-person business selling their particular expertise and time. I feel like maintaining this attitude can help with all sorts of stuff, including dealing with job offers, negotiating pay, etc. And key to this is having a fairly good knowledge of the value that you provide so you know what value you deserve in return. (Being acutely aware of the value you provide can also help steer you towards higher-value skill sets.) Intangibles are great. But don't live in fantasy land. And be aware that no one's obligated to give you anything unless it's written in a contract.

coldtea 13y ago
>I feel it's important to remember that in the employee-employer relationship, you're peers. Only rarely and in quite good economy and job market conditions (can differ depending on profession). And that's for better than average workers. For average and below average (ie. most of the population at any give time) not even then. Normally you are the one needing work and money to feed your family and he is the one with the money to pay you. "He" could even be a multi-national. You are the weaker one here, make no mistake.
vladimirralev 13y ago
I think you are wrong. The employer has accountants, lawyers, HR, business. You are not equally-equipped parties. You can't really afford to have your own contract lawyer, labor lawyer, IP lawyer, accountant, financial advisor and salary market researcher. You have to trust the company to do these things for you. Even when something is in writing there are 100s of subtle ways to screw you over, especially with shares or options. Sometimes companies will not share any information about the value you are bringing in. There is a big information asymmetry between you and the employer, so you just have to trust them to distribute the payouts fairly. Often the pay distribution is unknown and legally confidential. So even if you try to make an argument with some stubborn manager that you are severely underpaid you can't start throwing teammates under the bus for disclosing their salaries. It's a toxic environment to have to continuously confront your management to do their job properly. Otherwise you are losing money because of their incompetence. Not to mention the losses in terms of stress/health when you are forced to actively confront your management. The other big aspect of the same issue is the implied responsibility - for example when you are consulting for a third party. Lets say you are paid $10 per hour while your company charges the customer $300 per hour and the customer expects a solid $300 per hour delivery. Now that puts you in a weird situation, because the context of responsibility and ownership is very different. It affects how you think about the code. It's like the difference between life-support critical software and useless departmental tools. It is up to your company to define the scope of responsibility. You can't force it, you don't have the business input to figure out what they need. May be they just need a cheap and stupid code monkey.

mcot2 13y ago

Shortly after being hired full time at my first ever full time salaried job, my manager when I was an intern was laid off with some others. It really sucked and it was a good initial lesson for me. I will never be loyal to a company if I don't own a significant piece of it. I don't wear clothing with the company logo, I rarely attend company events, I don't mix anything in my personal life (insurance plans/cell phone contracts ect...) with company provided deals or discounts. I keep over 12 months of living expenses liquid. That being said, I try to remain professional and take the job for what it is. They pay me a salary, I do work. In the distant future I look forward to bootstrapping my own business.

einhverfr 13y ago

I think there are three legitimate objects of loyalty in the proper order: 1. Loyalty to your work. Do a good job, take pride in it, try to always do better. 2. Loyalty to the customer. This goes without saying, but don't let this make you do less of a good job. 3. Loyalty to the company. I disagree with the author in saying this is sick. However, it becomes sick when it is placed above a need to do a good job and take care of the customer's needs. Loyalty to the company is what glues together the other two into something productive, but it cannot stand on its own without degrading into petty politics. However also for this to work, the company has to be loyal to the employees and this is harder and harder to find these days.

derefr 13y ago
I would suggest that you phrase the first one as "loyalty to your craft" to make it clearer that "your work" doesn't mean your job. As an aside, in the distant past, this would have been much more explicitly "loyalty to your guild."
- einhverfr 13y ago
  Agreed on craft vs work in this context. I think however, it is more generally applicable to things done not for pay too. I sometimes call this "ownership of work" which has two components. The first is the ability to do your job your way (but collaboratively as needed), without micromanagement, and the second is to take pride in doing it the best way you can. This is applicable in the work force in the sense that micromanagement is evil and that good tradesmen are good workers but it is also applicable to things like washing dishes: Do a good job but dont let anyone else tell you how to do a good job!

gorbachev 13y ago

I'm never loyal to a company, ever. I may be loyal to employees of said company, if they, PERSONALLY, prove to be worth such loyalty.

valnour 13y ago

The "400+" employee lay-off that the author referenced was this one: http://timesfreepress.com/news/2013/aug/16/layoffs-hit-chattanooga-based-payday-lender/ http://timesfreepress.com/news/2013/aug/16/layoffs-hit-chatt... There was a lot more to the lay-off than the company losing their primary income model This happened in my hometown (Chattanooga, Tennessee).

x0x0 13y ago
wow. fta: Before New York regulators cut the businesses off from the automated clearing house system in early August, the payday conglomerate made short-term loans over the Internet that typically became due — with interest — on the customer’s next payday. Different U.S. states have widely divergent laws governing the interest rates that lenders are allowed to charge, and Brown often ran afoul of these regulations. He has been sued in several states for making loans with interest rates well above the legal limit, was the subject of a class-action lawsuit for sending thousands of spam text messages and was investigated by federal authorities. Brown was forced to stop making loans in Tennessee following a series of Times Free Press articles in 2011 and 2012 that showed he was making loans with an interest rate in excess of what the state allowed, and was doing so without a license. I kind of just want to point and laugh; apparently karma does (slowly) come around.

rdtsc 13y ago

Remember if anyone promised you verbally any financial windfall in exchange for loyalty, no matter how charismatic they are don't fall for it. In the end they would end up most likely not delivering (and of course they will blame on an external scapegoated 3rd party for it). It is a good idea to always be read to leave. Don't burn bridges but don't assume the company you work for is your family. Why? They extract double the work from you working nights in exchange for fluffy promises. A lot of managers are managers because they know how to promote well. Promote themselves well and promote the company to you. Be aware of that.

vladimirralev 13y ago
I'd always give my manager a chance to keep their promise. If they fail and start making excuses instead of taking responsibility, I can also work with that, but it's not going to be the same in terms of motivation and productivity. Many managers got their education straight from Dilbert or the movies. They think screwing you over and maintaining ambiguity is "business-savvy". It's well known that employees will grow resentful when your actions cost them money. It's one of the few HR areas with actual studies and it's common sense in general. Good managers are pretty rare though indeed.
- rdtsc 13y ago
  I (hopefully) learned from mistakes of others. My friend got burned. He was promised a "share of the profits" if company gets sold, he was young, after college, his boss knew how to take advantage of him. Sure enough company gets sold. Most good people had left (except as it turns out the others who also got promised privately large exclusive! windfalls). In the end it was, of course, blame on some technicality. "Sure I would have given you those millions, if it wasn't for the lawyers, those pesky lawyers, wouldn't you just want to drown them, sheesh...", stuff like that. Oh well, he runs his own company now, but it was a valuable lesson.
  - vladimirralev 13y ago
    Yes, this is a good example. I have my own timeout value for promises - about 6 months. That should be enough.

frozenport 13y ago

What about getting paid in stock? Then should you have loyalty?

SingleFounderCo 13y ago
I'd was going to make the same point. Yes, I think that changes things completely -- if you are an owner than you are being loyal to yourself (premise holds).
digitalzombie 13y ago
... those are like lottery tickets. We promise one day we'll be public and you can sell your stocks!
Xylakant 13y ago
Stocks are only worth anything if a) you're allowed to sell them. b) somebody is willing to buy them or c) you get a dividend and own a significant portion. The value of most stocks in companies is overrated. Yes, your company might be the next google and you'll hit gold but most companies shares are worth little to nothing. Depending on the company structure they might have some interesting rights attached - such as being allowed a look in the books, being invited to the shareholders meeting etc. Stuff that allows you to judge how well your company is doing. Just don't take them as if their cash value is fixed. It will be somewhere between 0 and infinity.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > The value of most stocks in companies is overrated. If the Efficient Market Hypothesis is true (it's certainly approximately true), then most stocks, most of the time, have exactly the value they ought to have. So no, on average, stocks aren't overrated and investors aren't fools.
  - Xylakant 13y ago
    I'm not talking about the general market of publicly traded companies where your theory applies. I'm talking about the subset of startup companies that typically offer shares instead of payment to employes. A lot of those are not or only partially investor backed. Even of those that are, most fail, their stock value effectively nil. Of the rest, a large share basically just breaks even which makes their stock pretty much untradeable since practically nobody wants to buy shares in a company that will probably never have a large growth. The tiny tiny rest grows in leaps and bounds and is the next google/facebook/, the stock value multiplying by factors of 10 or more. Investing in stocks of small startups is a risky business - on average you can make a lot of money, but it takes a lot of capital and endurance to have a large enough portfolio that you actually achieve the average. Otherwise it's luck. My point is: Don't see shares in a company as income. It's an investment and a risky one. Do that with money you can afford to loose and effectively write it off until you've really sold it or the company went public.

RougeFemme 13y ago

I don't disagree entirely. . .and in my previous life as a manager. . .and before that, as a team lead. . .I encouraged everyone to keep growing professionally and to keep their resume updated - and to never assume that they could stay forever and/or leave on their own terms. I told them that I did and that I just considered it sound professional advice, no matter how much we loved and respected each other, the organization's mission, etc. On the other hand, I do have loyalty to any co-workers and managers that I genuinely like AND respect. Not to the point that I would sacrifice myself professionally for them, but I do have loyalty. And in past lives, I've told those that I trusted to be mum and professional when I was starting to look for another position - even if was just another position in the same organization and just to give them a heads-up. As a matter of fact, my peer in our organization left a few months ago. She felt guilty, knowing that my life would almost immediately become more difficult, but I stressed to her to do what was best for her. She started to waver when management asked her to delay her departure - I reiterated that she should not worry about me or management. She was loyal - which I appreciated. And I was loyal and shoved her out the door.

pnathan 13y ago
I usually let people I mentor/manage know that they are business for themself. They need to keep the resume polished, the salary figures down cold, the skills fresh. If we all understand that we're in all in business together, contracted to do high quality work together, then certain ground rules are understood and we all can get along fine without manipulative koolaid.

axus 13y ago

How about being loyal to your customers? They're depending on you. Even though their contract is with the corporation, it still feels bad to leave them in a bind.

trustfundbaby 13y ago

So much truth in that post, though I found it a bit histrionic. but I can't stress this enough, (especially for young developers) work hard but keep your eyes open. Remember to ask yourself, "if this startup/firm/company went to shit tomorrow, what would happen to me?" ... if you think that people at that firm are going to take care of you when things get bad ... slap yourself. Just like in the OP, you might luck out and have someone care enough to give you a soft landing, but that is the exception and not the rule. Always make sure you don't get caught out there, - passively scan the market every 18 months and go on an interview or two. At worst you'll realize how much you're being taken advantage of, at best you'll realize how lucky you are to have your job. - Stay in touch with direct contacts at companies that sound interesting who reach out to you, especially on linkedin (I ignore 3rd party developers). If they took the time to reach out to you, just respond with a "Hey I'm not really looking to leave right now but lets stay in touch". Grab coffee with them, and find out what they're up to. This way if everything goes to crap you have a warm lead for gigs, instead of competing with your teammates to get your resume in front of hiring managers in your city - Keep developing your skills, get on mainstream technologies right after they go mainstream/hit critical, that will make it easier to not chase every shiny new fad. That will increase your marketability and make it easier for you to find opportunities that your peers will not Above all, don't let being an engineer blind you to company politics. Pay attention to whats happening, read the tea leaves so you can be ahead of bad news ESPECIALLY if you are an immigrant. This has served me well over the years. Once I quit a job because I got a bad feeling that new management cared more about head count than quality ... lo and behold, my replacement was laid off just 6 months after being hired.

imechura 13y ago

May I please add a comment from outside the bubble? It does not have to be this way. My current employer is a low cost travel company, we are celebrating our 43rd anniversary as a company. In these 43 years not a single person has been laid off. Not one janitor, not one programmer, not one reservations agent. We do not have a planetarium. We do not have a movie theater. We do not offer free food to our employees every day. We do not as a policy, pay for our employees' day care. We do not implement the latest and greatest technologies on a whim because we think they are cool. We do offer one of the best, IMO, health care plans in the industry. We do respect our employees, vendors and co-workers. We do offer generous retirements benefits. We do work very hard to use technology to solve problems that are as or more difficult than your favorite silicon valley startup. We do take into account the ability to sustain every single employee for the next 20 years into every decision we make. We do treat every employee like they are a member of our family and will continue to for the next 43 years. Consider all of the above when you are looking for a new job or starting a new company.

krainboltgreene 13y ago
David Brady isn't in any bubble, he lives in the middle of America.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Your parent may be talking about the metaphorical bubble of the tech industry.
stormbrew 13y ago
Is it a family business (or a sole proprietership run by a family man that's likely to inherit the company to his kids)? This kind of thing usually falls apart in those at a generation boundary. Sometimes kids don't see the business the same way their parents do.

tnorthcutt 13y ago

Could a mod link this to the original post instead of someone else's mirror of it? http://heartmindcode.com/2013/08/16/loyalty-and-layoffs/ http://heartmindcode.com/2013/08/16/loyalty-and-layoffs/

krob 13y ago

This quote rings true, "But anybody claiming to have loyalty to “The Team” is engaging in office politics."

nowarninglabel 13y ago

The thing I'm struggling with, does this also apply to working for a non-profit whose mission you believe in?

jeffthebear 13y ago
Unfortunately, I have to say that this is true for non-profits too. I have a similar experience with my previous employer (non-profit) who decided to change the direction of the IT department. In the end, I am grateful for the opportunity of doing good as an employee in the organization in the time I was there but I no longer wanted to be a part of where they were headed. I still believe in their values and mission but the leadership needs to do what it thinks is best for the organization.

therandomguy 13y ago

woah... wait a second. Paid time off = no cashing of days remaining when you leave? Is that right? Just last month by Vacation + Sick days got converted to same number of PTO and the HR email made it sound great complete with congratulations!

sliverstorm 13y ago

The people that work in the same room as you are real. It is totally okay to love them. In fact, I encourage it! Be loyal to them! Go to the mat for them. But for heaven’s sake, don’t be loyal to “The Team”. I can't speak for everyone, but the people _are_ what I am referring to when I speak of "the team".

Aloha 13y ago

I'm an hourly employee (functionally non-exempt salary). Whenever employers ask me for exempt salary, I quote an rate that is 1.5 to 3 times as much as I would earn if hourly non-exempt. This is part of my insurance policy, so I can make sure I can take care of myself when my company cant. Now, while I realize I have a really unique skillset, and have project knowledge which will see me thru - when I have to take my 45 day break ahead, I realize I may not come back. This would make me sad, but I'm well taken care of by my own savings, and by unemployment.

gcb0 13y ago

As a good engineer, this person knows shit about politics. When the company engineer claims he lacks loyalty, is not part of the company family, etc... He is not truly believing any of this either. He's just out of ammunition to attack him with logic, so he goes with any pack instinct ad hominem. And then writing this emotional piece about just ice the cake on how he's sadly clueless on the matter. It's like he's trying to explain that someone who just called him a motherfucker how he is silly because you know, he's gay so he could never like mothers or something. It's all crazy and pointless to believe there's logic in subjective pack mentality attacks.

Millennium 13y ago

Neither employer nor employee is inherently owed loyalty, but the only way to earn loyalty is to give it in return. Sooner or later, one party is going to have to act irrationally if it wants that kind of relationship with the other. A company that wants 1950s-style loyalty from its employees should be giving them 1950s-style loyalty. If you as a corporation would prefer layoffs to bankruptcy protection, then you do not measure up to that standard.

rmc 13y ago
Minor nitpick, although I know what you mean, "Giving 1950s style" would need lots of qualification if you were to say it. Simple example: Women were not paid the same as men for the same work in the 1950s, and women could (and were) fired when they got married and/or pregnant. If you (the company) want to claim "we'll give you (the employees) 1950s style loyalty", be sure to expand on that.

antihero 13y ago

Surely a better scheme would be to have a company baseline wage. Before any lay-offs are made, all staff must have their wages reduced to that baseline. Once this allows growth, wages can be increased again?

squozzer 13y ago

I would extend the author's arguments to include loyalty to an entity whose interests aren't exactly aligned with one's own -- for example, a nation-state. Not saying that loyalty in itself is bad, but blind loyalty is -- a symptom of which is accepting a leader's words at face value. Even nice doggies get put to sleep eventually.