I think you probably should have used 'associated with' instead of 'tied to' as when discussing remuneration contractual ties is not a minority usage of the idiom.
Using "associate" or something along those lines is extremely common. It does seem a bit more pleasant and it also steers clear of employee vs. contractor legal distinctions.
It's necessarily correct nor simple. I agree that the choice of words is too wide and companies don't make it easier to understand what is included and what's not, but as an employer I don't want my employees to compete with me while still being employed.
It doesn't make me think of Y as a helpless object. But it does make me think of A as doing something wrong. I strongly object to the term because it implies that companies shouldn't compete for employees, which pushes our salaries down.
>In this case, though, why not replace the job title with "Employee"?
One (non-tech) company I worked at had a pretty stringent policy of always referring to "associates" rather than "employees". I don't exactly know why; maybe some kind of branding or psychological thing, like "you're part of the family" instead of "you're working for us". It admittedly does sound a little more pleasant.
Titles are not about working together or what you get done day-to-day. They are about where you fit in HR's compensation hierarchy. So sure, you can choose new words for it, that would work fine. But it doesn't change that titles are about compensation, not competence.
I agree. The linked examples of jargon in the article feel more like precise wording chosen to reflect legal or contractual obligations. Not great for casual communication, but when you start talking about people's job duties and working hours then precision is important.
Always consider your audience. If you're writing casual communications for a mixed audience, ditch the jargon and use simple words.
If you're speaking to professional peers on business matters, use the precise language. Don't unnecessarily complicate sentences or use complex words when simple words are equally effective, though.
> a lot of companies (ours included) has a term to refer to employees
Why? Employee is a perfectly suitable and applicable term. You're not "associates" or anything else that implies there is some kind relationship that is anything other than work for hire.
Granted, if you have some kind of internal way to refer to yourselves or your teams, that's great. But like politics or religion, it should probably be a thing that is internal only and not referred to in the outside world/public comms.
Terms like "Zoomies" are just childish. If some chain of events led you to be calling yourselves "The Ruby Death Squad", and you use that publicly, then I might change my perspective.
That's a contractual term that I've seen in 2/3 of such contracts. I consider it unacceptable and negotiate its removal. I've never received much pushback to that.
If they wouldn't remove it, that's a showstopper. It's such a serious thing that I would certainly pass on the job.
You did technically use the word in your statement ("...all that money,") but you also implied that the example of James Daunt said more than "James Daunt is a good hire if you run a bookstore company," which might or might not be true.
No it doesn't. It clearly could mean that, but it literally just means the person has associated with the company. I don't know why they'd use language that could create that confusion, but it's not straightforward dishonesty.
Agree with renaming the article (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13846741) - but I'm glad Blank posted this rather than not posting for fear of HN attacks for not wording things perfectly.
> There is a conscientiousness that comes from being an owner of a company.
The examples Blank uses in his article is VP-level (highly paid, large equity grants, etc). I think a lot of people are interpreting his advice in the context of someone who isn't managing people.
> It's rare to have an employee who maintains the same level of attention as an "owner."
Agree. But if you are a manager, you are the "owner" (and responsible) for the work of your direct reports.
reply