I'm an employer and also an employee. Notice I specifically start and highlight the fact that employers need to be loyal to employees first. For a while. For this to actually work.
I agree, labor unions are a great thing. Not necessarily in the programmer community where the demand is very high and individual contracts offer pretty compelling rewards. In our specific niche people switch jobs too quickly to form a union.
Welp, without giving you a list, the core of the issue is I think you're failing to account for the power dynamic involved. There is no amount of "loyalty" an employer can demonstrate that will offset that fact that they exploit the labor of individuals for profit. There are no acts of supposed loyalty that hold any meaning while workers have no say in how a business is run and how the value of their labor is distributed. It's lip service to a two way street where you're the only driver.
Fair. But let me ask you this: if you work for a terrible employer that fires in an instant. Has toxic culture and is overall terrible. Is that the same as working in a company where employees are respected?
Companies where we have 1 on 1 with a manager who actually listens. Where when going gets tough, the brass takes a pay cut instead of firing. When a customer complains the manager backs the employee, etc.
To me both companies are different. Yes, I display loyalty to my manager when I worked in a company similar to the latter. I get a lot of recruiter interest from some companies, I flat out reject those companies because I don't want to work in bad environments.
Again: loyalty is individual. Not to a company. To a manager, to a team. But since it's something that's top down, the corporate environment that breeds that team needs to be supportive of this and facilitate such an environment.
👀👀👀
"Jobs often expect loyalty from us."
"A company needs to declare loyalty as its value..."
"A corporation should stand behind an employee..."
"... you can’t develop trust and good working conditions, without building that culture from the top-down."
"Why show loyalty to a company that will fire you in an instant... Quiet quitting becomes an easy way out"
An awful lot of focus on company / corp in article supposedly about individual loyalties. In the context of "quiet quitting" an individual loyalty should have no bearing on another individual's actions in this regard unless the loyalty is to a person serving as a representative of the company, which is the only entity in this scenario that stands to gain from a shift in this behavior. Your distinction is meaningless in this context.
Because loyalty starts from the corporation even though it isn't directed towards it. The managers I had that presented those excellent qualities were supported by a corporation that helped them. They were backed by corporate policies that enabled this. Their managers show similar loyalty to them and it goes up all the way to the C suite.
If I'm loyal to the manager I'll go above and beyond for that person and I know they will do the same for me since they have in the past.
That's your opinion and I respect that. I feel corporations are basically just a collection of people. They aren't a democracy though, but they can do a lot of good when they're run right. I agree that especially in USA, the incentives are to run corporations "badly".
Personally I'm a very left leaning socialist. I'm pro union. Pro workers rights. Pro democracy and progressive taxation. I'm not against corporations though. I think they can be great when we have good regulators on top of them and good employees within them.
I'm an employer and also an employee. Notice I specifically start and highlight the fact that employers need to be loyal to employees first. For a while. For this to actually work.
I agree, labor unions are a great thing. Not necessarily in the programmer community where the demand is very high and individual contracts offer pretty compelling rewards. In our specific niche people switch jobs too quickly to form a union.
What specifically did I say that was problematic?
Welp, without giving you a list, the core of the issue is I think you're failing to account for the power dynamic involved. There is no amount of "loyalty" an employer can demonstrate that will offset that fact that they exploit the labor of individuals for profit. There are no acts of supposed loyalty that hold any meaning while workers have no say in how a business is run and how the value of their labor is distributed. It's lip service to a two way street where you're the only driver.
Fair. But let me ask you this: if you work for a terrible employer that fires in an instant. Has toxic culture and is overall terrible. Is that the same as working in a company where employees are respected?
Companies where we have 1 on 1 with a manager who actually listens. Where when going gets tough, the brass takes a pay cut instead of firing. When a customer complains the manager backs the employee, etc.
To me both companies are different. Yes, I display loyalty to my manager when I worked in a company similar to the latter. I get a lot of recruiter interest from some companies, I flat out reject those companies because I don't want to work in bad environments.
Again: loyalty is individual. Not to a company. To a manager, to a team. But since it's something that's top down, the corporate environment that breeds that team needs to be supportive of this and facilitate such an environment.
👀👀👀
"Jobs often expect loyalty from us."
"A company needs to declare loyalty as its value..."
"A corporation should stand behind an employee..."
"... you can’t develop trust and good working conditions, without building that culture from the top-down."
"Why show loyalty to a company that will fire you in an instant... Quiet quitting becomes an easy way out"
An awful lot of focus on company / corp in article supposedly about individual loyalties. In the context of "quiet quitting" an individual loyalty should have no bearing on another individual's actions in this regard unless the loyalty is to a person serving as a representative of the company, which is the only entity in this scenario that stands to gain from a shift in this behavior. Your distinction is meaningless in this context.
Because loyalty starts from the corporation even though it isn't directed towards it. The managers I had that presented those excellent qualities were supported by a corporation that helped them. They were backed by corporate policies that enabled this. Their managers show similar loyalty to them and it goes up all the way to the C suite.
If I'm loyal to the manager I'll go above and beyond for that person and I know they will do the same for me since they have in the past.
Uh huh. So you’re “going above and beyond” for that person acting as an agent of the corporation. This is a meaningless distinction.
That's your opinion and I respect that. I feel corporations are basically just a collection of people. They aren't a democracy though, but they can do a lot of good when they're run right. I agree that especially in USA, the incentives are to run corporations "badly".
Personally I'm a very left leaning socialist. I'm pro union. Pro workers rights. Pro democracy and progressive taxation. I'm not against corporations though. I think they can be great when we have good regulators on top of them and good employees within them.
If you're for corporations you're not a socialist. It's in the literal definition OMG.
Not the definition. Sweden, Finland, etc. have multiple large corporations and are socialist democracies. You're thinking about communism.
Social democracy != socialism you absolute liberal.