5 ms·

This idea of "loyalty" is just bizarre. An employment contract of any sort is just a monetary transaction. They are paying for time or productivity, or both. I

This idea of "loyalty" is just bizarre. An employment contract of any sort is just a monetary transaction. They are paying for time or productivity, or both. It's like complaining that people aren't loyal to Wal-Mart, or loyal to Amazon, or Apple. Or why aren't people "loyal" to the bank foreclosing on them? There doesn't need to be any animosity, but the idea that people should somehow be beholden to the person on the other end of the transaction is irrational.

shmerl 11y ago
> This idea of "loyalty" is just bizarre. That depends. If company positions itself as "money for the sake of money", then you are right - being loyal to such idea is weird. But some for instance are interested in advancing other goals (example: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/). Does it make sense to be loyal to such goals? I'd say yes.
- justizin 11y ago
  It's dangerous, however, to allow an employer with "mission fit" to get away with things you wouldn't take from another employer. For instance, in recent years, in the US, we've taken a hard stance that interns who perform essential job functions - which basically all interns do - must be paid. Should this requirement be relaxed for a non-profit? How does the way I feel about that change if I'm a donor to that non-profit? I care about the mission, but I also care how we get there. I'm fairly sure that internal to Mozilla, Wikimedia, ahem the Association for Computing Machinery (promoting computing as a science AND a profession!), and any other non-profit corporation you can find a lot of the same internal struggles that employees everywhere face. Further, you have a leadership team who believes it's OK to pay people below market because they "love" and "are loyal to" their job. It works for a lot of people, and I know / have known a lot of folks very happy with such choices, but it can be a dangerous alleyway to wander down as well.
  - shmerl 11y ago
    Just for the reference, Mozilla (as a company) is not a non-profit. It's Mozilla Foundation that is non profit. But Mozilla (company) is the primary backer of Mozilla Foundation. Other than that - I agree and fully support fair compensation for work.
    - jdmichal 11y ago
      Mozilla is technically a community. The Mozilla Foundation supports that community, and also has 100% owning interest in the Mozilla Corporation.
      - shmerl 11y ago
        Correct. Confusion can arise from naming all of them Mozilla :)
    - justizin 11y ago
      Right. My point was less aimed at Mozilla itself than in general at companies / non-profits with a community-oriented mission. At some point, they still have to balance the books.
- jdmichal 11y ago
  I'd like to take this moment to point out that Mozilla is a community, and not a company. The community called "Mozilla" is supported by the Mozilla Foundation, which as a foundation and not a company, can actually hold goals other than "money for the sake of money". The Foundation also controls 100% interest in the Mozilla Corporation, which means that it's not beholden to any interests other than the Foundation's and so it can stay pure. I'm not sure how to keep a company pure short of controlling 100% interest, and I'm increasingly thinking that there is no way to do it. As soon as you let external shareholders in, you are beholden to their ideas of what the company should be doing. And the vast majority of the time, that thing is making "money for the sake of money", because that's the only reason the shareholders are putting up their capital in the first place.
rifung 11y ago
Well, that's true in the US, but I don't know if that's necessarily true for any job. For example in Japan, companies actually go out of their way to do things for you outside of your work, like find you a significant other. If a company actually did things for me to try to keep me happy and treated me well, I think I would feel some sense of loyalty too. Unfortunately it seems hard to find these kinds of companies nowadays.
- Xylakant 11y ago
  There are a lot of midsize german companies where loyalty is actually a value that is ingrained in the company. They're often family/privately owned and while they will let employees go if there's no other way, they'll try and keep them as long as possible. Often the owner feels personally responsible for doing so. This behavior also makes sense from an economic perspective: It's much harder to find new personal and train them to work with your team and technology than bridging the gap for a while and taking profit cuts, especially for smaller companies with less marketing/hiring power. There are actually state-controlled instruments that support this: Kurzarbeit (where everybody gets to work less and the state pays a subsidy) and similar support.
  - mcdougle 11y ago
    Smaller companies are a bit different than big corporations, too, though. Usually, it's just one (or a small group) of individuals running the company, so it's not some "faceless entity" with no morals and only working towards the goal of profit. Also, employees and employer generally know each other personally and have some kind of relationship that allows for at least some loyalty from both sides. Big companies (public or private) have evolved beyond that and are more of a system than a person.
wvenable 11y ago
Human's aren't rational and they're inherently social. As much as you are right that you can really think of it as a monetary transaction most jobs and workplaces go beyond that. You have social relationships with people you work with. You work on tasks not merely because you get paid for it but because you genuinely want to make things better. And it's not just employees that are loyal; I've know of many companies that go above and beyond for their employees when they need it. I definitely know companies that keep around long-term employees out of a sense of loyalty when younger employees would be both cheaper and more productive. It's not completely black and white.
arca_vorago 11y ago
I agree, and I think a large part of this is that people aren't taught one of the most important things in life... how contracts work. I took a business law class that really helped me understand it, and I really berated myself for some of the things I signed in the past in retrospect because I understood finally that a contract is between two parties and you DO NOT HAVE TO SIGN ANYTHING YOU DON'T AGREE TO! Of course you might not get the job, but if they're the kind of people to not let you make any changes to a contract I don't know if I would want to work for them in the first place. After spending my time in the Marine Corps, where I was basically a slave, I know I will never allow anyone to take advantage of me that much, as I have too much self respect and realize the difference in the contracts. My tactic is this: I imagine what would a CEO of a fortune 100 do during the employment process? It really makes a difference in how you negotiate things. Also, never forget the power of a good negotiation. (eg: schedule extended time off starting the day of an annual review, and the last thing in the review say you will not be coming back unless some reasonable balance of your demands is made.) The more you value yourself the more others will be willing to value you for too.

shmerl 11y ago

> This idea of "loyalty" is just bizarre. That depends. If company positions itself as "money for the sake of money", then you are right - being loyal to such idea is weird. But some for instance are interested in advancing other goals (example: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/). Does it make sense to be loyal to such goals? I'd say yes.

justizin 11y ago
It's dangerous, however, to allow an employer with "mission fit" to get away with things you wouldn't take from another employer. For instance, in recent years, in the US, we've taken a hard stance that interns who perform essential job functions - which basically all interns do - must be paid. Should this requirement be relaxed for a non-profit? How does the way I feel about that change if I'm a donor to that non-profit? I care about the mission, but I also care how we get there. I'm fairly sure that internal to Mozilla, Wikimedia, ahem the Association for Computing Machinery (promoting computing as a science AND a profession!), and any other non-profit corporation you can find a lot of the same internal struggles that employees everywhere face. Further, you have a leadership team who believes it's OK to pay people below market because they "love" and "are loyal to" their job. It works for a lot of people, and I know / have known a lot of folks very happy with such choices, but it can be a dangerous alleyway to wander down as well.
- shmerl 11y ago
  Just for the reference, Mozilla (as a company) is not a non-profit. It's Mozilla Foundation that is non profit. But Mozilla (company) is the primary backer of Mozilla Foundation. Other than that - I agree and fully support fair compensation for work.
  - jdmichal 11y ago
    Mozilla is technically a community. The Mozilla Foundation supports that community, and also has 100% owning interest in the Mozilla Corporation.
    - shmerl 11y ago
      Correct. Confusion can arise from naming all of them Mozilla :)
  - justizin 11y ago
    Right. My point was less aimed at Mozilla itself than in general at companies / non-profits with a community-oriented mission. At some point, they still have to balance the books.
jdmichal 11y ago
I'd like to take this moment to point out that Mozilla is a community, and not a company. The community called "Mozilla" is supported by the Mozilla Foundation, which as a foundation and not a company, can actually hold goals other than "money for the sake of money". The Foundation also controls 100% interest in the Mozilla Corporation, which means that it's not beholden to any interests other than the Foundation's and so it can stay pure. I'm not sure how to keep a company pure short of controlling 100% interest, and I'm increasingly thinking that there is no way to do it. As soon as you let external shareholders in, you are beholden to their ideas of what the company should be doing. And the vast majority of the time, that thing is making "money for the sake of money", because that's the only reason the shareholders are putting up their capital in the first place.

rifung 11y ago

Well, that's true in the US, but I don't know if that's necessarily true for any job. For example in Japan, companies actually go out of their way to do things for you outside of your work, like find you a significant other. If a company actually did things for me to try to keep me happy and treated me well, I think I would feel some sense of loyalty too. Unfortunately it seems hard to find these kinds of companies nowadays.

Xylakant 11y ago
There are a lot of midsize german companies where loyalty is actually a value that is ingrained in the company. They're often family/privately owned and while they will let employees go if there's no other way, they'll try and keep them as long as possible. Often the owner feels personally responsible for doing so. This behavior also makes sense from an economic perspective: It's much harder to find new personal and train them to work with your team and technology than bridging the gap for a while and taking profit cuts, especially for smaller companies with less marketing/hiring power. There are actually state-controlled instruments that support this: Kurzarbeit (where everybody gets to work less and the state pays a subsidy) and similar support.
- mcdougle 11y ago
  Smaller companies are a bit different than big corporations, too, though. Usually, it's just one (or a small group) of individuals running the company, so it's not some "faceless entity" with no morals and only working towards the goal of profit. Also, employees and employer generally know each other personally and have some kind of relationship that allows for at least some loyalty from both sides. Big companies (public or private) have evolved beyond that and are more of a system than a person.

wvenable 11y ago

Human's aren't rational and they're inherently social. As much as you are right that you can really think of it as a monetary transaction most jobs and workplaces go beyond that. You have social relationships with people you work with. You work on tasks not merely because you get paid for it but because you genuinely want to make things better. And it's not just employees that are loyal; I've know of many companies that go above and beyond for their employees when they need it. I definitely know companies that keep around long-term employees out of a sense of loyalty when younger employees would be both cheaper and more productive. It's not completely black and white.

arca_vorago 11y ago

I agree, and I think a large part of this is that people aren't taught one of the most important things in life... how contracts work. I took a business law class that really helped me understand it, and I really berated myself for some of the things I signed in the past in retrospect because I understood finally that a contract is between two parties and you DO NOT HAVE TO SIGN ANYTHING YOU DON'T AGREE TO! Of course you might not get the job, but if they're the kind of people to not let you make any changes to a contract I don't know if I would want to work for them in the first place. After spending my time in the Marine Corps, where I was basically a slave, I know I will never allow anyone to take advantage of me that much, as I have too much self respect and realize the difference in the contracts. My tactic is this: I imagine what would a CEO of a fortune 100 do during the employment process? It really makes a difference in how you negotiate things. Also, never forget the power of a good negotiation. (eg: schedule extended time off starting the day of an annual review, and the last thing in the review say you will not be coming back unless some reasonable balance of your demands is made.) The more you value yourself the more others will be willing to value you for too.