Loyalty To The Company

[Onyxpurr]

It's kind of sad if you think about it. I saw a posting earlier about a woman who was almost relieved if the company laid her off, stating that her loyalty had diminished from what it was last year. It amazes me that companies have the audacity to complain that workers have no layalty to the company, when it is the company itself who inspires this kind of thinking.

I'm fairly young and worked 6 years at a company that I had thought treated me fairly well. I put up with they're crappy bosses and ridicously low raises when assigned to these bosses. However I stuck it out. However, time came for lay-offs, and my head was first on the cutting board although my reviews had all been excellent and I had more seniority than some other people in the company. Even after I was laid off they called me to do some consultant work on dbs, and although the rate I quoted was fair for market, they decided not to (ab)use me.

It's such a double-standard. They complain of lack of loyalty, but don't show it themselves. They'll complain that the employees are calling in sick too much, but think nothing of asking us to work ot.

 

[sleipnir214]

It's not all companies:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/15/offbeat.shoe.factory.ap/index.html

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[Onyxpurr]

Wow! You think it was a payroll glitch?

Just kidding. No, not all companies are like this. I just wish I could weed the bad ones out more easily.

 

[pmonett]

Loyalty has nothing to do with companies. It has everything to do with managers who forget more or less quickly who it is that are ensuring their position.
I was employed by a consultant firm for five years. They taught me the business and paid me well, and I was delighted. The good times lasted for three and half years, then there was a major series of management changes. In just one and a half years, the company managed to alienate half of its workforce with harebrained and badly-implemented decisions that respected no one.
That company still exists today, three years later. But there is less than 10% of the colleagues I knew that still work there (mostly, strangely, the managers).

The lesson I have learned is that I will give my loyalty to my manager, but not to the company. The company will toss me aside as soon as it looks good to the investors, whatever my skill set and previous achievements. I have no more loyalty to any company.
But I am willing to work unpaid overtime and weekends if a manager I respect asks me to (and the circumstances warrant).
That is the extent of my loyalty.

Pascal.

 

[pmrankine]

When I saw "shoe.factory" I immediately thought of a post I saw a while ago here. I can't find the post (and I'm not sure which forum it was) but here's the quote in case you haven't read it:

"On a visit to a foot wear factory in Japan, a gentleman was extremely suprised when the official taking him on a tour of the factory started apologizing for the inconvieneance caused to the gentleman due to the cat strike called by the employees. What suprised the gentleman was the fact that he could see that all the employees were working even though they had declared a cat strike. He enquired about the same with the union leader whose answer is history today (as a important quote in the best MBA programs worldwide)...he said, “If you notice that we are only making the left foot of the footwear today. The day the management agrees to our demand we would make the right foot to complete the pair. Without the right part the pair is incomplete hence worthless to the employer, but just because we have a few issues with the management why should the company lose on it's productivity? Hence we are making the left foot only...”. This story explains the factor called ...BELONGING. It is very important to have your employee feel that he belongs, that he is a small but important part of a big family and is as important to the family as the other."

pmrankine

 

[BruceReed]

Unfortunately most companies think like Onyx's type. I worked 14 years & got laid off with a few others when the profits started going down. Most of the reasons were pointed out the managers, and were outside of the employees control (like spending lots of money on non-value added projects)

All summer they kept laying off more. Now the the upper managers are still there, but they can't figure out why they can't ship on time (no employees?), and that whole groups of people have quit rather than be laid off. Then I heard the VP of finance complain that did not have anyone left who knew how to use Cognos, as everyone who knew it was laid off!

Sorry if this sounds like a rant, but it's not as I have found another company that does nice thigs for the employees.

Bottom line: watch out for #1:yourself, as your employer will not.

Bruce

 

[SQLSister]

Ya know I've been through this type of thing several times and what always frosts me is that the managers who made the bad decisions that led to the layoffs always seem to retain their jobs.

 

[SgtJarrow]

I expereinced something similar myself....worked for a company and was the senior network tech. I had been the less time than anyone else and started at the bottom. Within a year and a half, I had been promoted twice to the senior position. The company fell on hard times and I was the first to be laid off...with about 20 others from various other departments. Two weeks later, the company realized my experience and work ethics were needed and offered to rehire me at my old salary....I immdiately turned it down. The company has since had to hire two persons to recoup the loss of me (no more growth by the company except these two individuals) and has even called me a couple times for consulting work. I have done the consulting every time, and keep turning down their offers for full time employment. Now the manager of the IT department and I get together on a regular basis and he is upset that I won't come to work for him. And I keep telling him I can't work for a company such as this on a full time basis.

We have to begin to stand up for our rights...companies have gone to worrying only about the profit margin and not about the service and employee. This trend has to change.

=======================================
People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. (Calvin from Calvin And Hobbs)

Robert L. Johnson III
MCSA, CNA, Net+, A+
w: rljohnso@stewart.com
h: wildmage@tampabay.rr.com

 

[GMcNamara]

mstrmage1768,
I have to strongly disagree with you about some of the points you make. I have a family so I need my paycheck. I would like to have the feeling that management is doing the right thing and the company is not going to close it's doors anytime soon. If the company needs to let go of an employee and it comes down to the lazy guy who has been with the company for twenty years or the brilliant hard worker who has only been with the company for two years, I would be very frustrated if they let go of the brilliant hard worker. It ultimately boils down to production. Who is making money for the company? Who is doing efficient work?
Management needs to do what is best for the whole of the company and sometimes the good of a few have to suffer. I know that sounds bad, but business is business. Loyalty is nice, but it doesn't pay my bills.

 

[SgtJarrow]

GMcNamara,

You make some valid points....but ultimately I was simply talking about the trend of businesses to concentrate solely on the dollar and not on the employees. Employees are what make a company...without them, a company cannot make any money. If the company is suffering financially, why should the hard working employee who has been there two years have to be let go, simply to save a few dollars?? Why not take a look at the company as a whole and see where costs can be cut? Why not evaluate based on performance and ability over just seniority?

I completely agree that a company should make a profit...but I have seen many companies cut employees simply to "meet" the profit margin projected for the time period. If a company is making a profit, just not enough, why cut workers simply to fatten the pocketbook of stockholders and senior executives. You mention nneding your paycheck...I don't disagree with you at all. It took me almost four months to find my next job...and I have a wife and three kids to support. I drained all my savings and even some of my credit just to pay the bills during my out of work period. I just hope you have the seniority you need to stay in your position when the time comes for your company to cut some workers.

This falls back on service...in the not so distant past, companies were reknowned and made more profit by providing a quality service or product. Repeat customers were common and everyone was generally happy. Recently the trend has moved to a business only caring about how much black it can make.....but if the companies shift focus back to providing a quality product or service and take care of their employees who make or provide these services or products, this necessity to cut workers will fall...

=======================================
People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. (Calvin from Calvin And Hobbs)

Robert L. Johnson III
MCSA, CNA, Net+, A+
w: rljohnso@stewart.com
h: wildmage@tampabay.rr.com

 

[GMcNamara]

As the economy stablizes, more jobs will become available and those employees who are being mistreated will find other places to work. A company with a high turnover rate that refuses to take a look at itself and find the cause will soon be out of business.

The other thing that bothers me is your reference to seniority. As far as layoffs go, seniority should (almost) never be a consideration. The more productive employee stays. I survived a round of layoffs where everyone layed off had more seniority than me.

I think the world has changed to where we will never see a return of the real service-oriented businesses. With the internet, people are all to aware of alternative options for services, products, whatever and the repeat customers are becoming a rarity because they have SO MANY other options. Raising prices is not an option because you will eliminate yourself. So, trimming the fat and increasing efficiency is the quickest way to maintain the bottom line. Again, I don't necesarily agree with these business practices. Just making observations.

 

[Onyxpurr]

The other thing that bothers me is your reference to seniority

I don't think this should be the main consideration, but I think it should be part of it.

I agree that someone who is a horrible employee should not be kept on (or even given perks) simply because they have ben there longer.

 

[SQLSister]

If it was genuine fat trimiming it wouldn;t be so objectionable. But often it becomes a way to increase stock prices short term and the people left now have to do the work of two people (because they never cut the workload when they do this) and can;t complain becasue they will lose their jobs. Yet senior managers continue to waste money right and left and reward themselves with mutimillion dollar compansation packages. How many of those laid off workers could you keep with those million I wonder?

And yes it happens when the product is selling well and there are profits being made, but the company wants to make obscene profits instead because the focus is no longer on selling products but on selling stock.

 

[jrbarnett]

The time the employee has been at the company can in some cases be a consideration when redundancies are made. For example, in the UK there is a law that requires those who have been working in a company for over two years to pay redundancy money to those staff made redundant. Those who have been there under 2 years don't need to be paid anything, although there is nothing stopping the company from doing so. The amount paid is proportional to the duration the person has worked at the company and their salary at the time of redundancy notice being issued.
Therefore, a round of redundancies can be made far cheaper by choosing the newer employees with lower salaries, because it will make the bill lower.
I know this because it happened to me - even though I had skills that nobody else in the company did - and were highly relevant to certain projects still in progress at the time I left.

John

 

[GMcNamara]

SQLSister,
If a company is sacrificing the company's future well-being to raise the stock price for the short-term, you are probably better off not working there. However, if I was a stock holder and the company was not taking action to raise the price of the stock (even if it meant trimming some fat), I would be very upset and call for a change in management. Don't forget that profit is the goal.

JBarnett,
This is intriguing. I have never heard of anything like this. So, anyone employed for two years is legally entitled to a severance if they are layed-off? And you say this money comes from other employees? Bizarre.

 

[jrbarnett]

GMcNamara,

The redundancy payments, to give them their proper title, are enshrined in UK employment legislation. They are paid by the company, so indirectly it is through other employee's work. Obviously as you are outside the UK, this is not enforceable.

More info, in case you are interested:

http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/redundancy/payments-pl808.htm

John

 

[GMcNamara]

OK, I understand now. I thought all the other employees had to throw in some cash when someone was layed-off, which would be strange.

This is not a bad idea, but it does make it difficult for a company to keep the most qualified candidate when downsizing occurs. Thanks for the information.

 

[SQLSister]

GMcnamara, Profit and stock prices are two separate things and totally unrelated. A company can be making a profit and have falling stock prices and vice versa.

 

[GMcNamara]

I would not go so far as to say that profit and stock prices are totally unrelated. Falling profits will quickly lead to falling stock prices in most cases.

 

[sabrinaduncan]

http://www.fastcompany.com/online/19/toxic.html

I think this excellent article says a great deal for both sides of this issue. It's over five years old now, but I agree with just about all of it

"According to Jeffrey Pfeffer, when it comes to the link between people and profits, companies get exactly what they deserve. Companies that treat their people right get enormous dividends: high rates of productivity, low rates of turnover. Companies that treat their people poorly experience the opposite -- and end up complaining about the death of loyalty and the dearth of talent...."