> I have no relationships where “obedience” is considered a virtue.
Maybe this statement should be qualified as being about personal relationships, since the vast majority of employer/employee relationships demand obedience to the demands of the employer. Even high-level executives can't just tell their boss that they don't want to do something they're told to do. They could argue against it, but if they're overruled, they need to obey or be fired.
You are, of course, free to quit your job, but for many people, the loss of income and health benefits that would entail could make that virtually impossible.
> Quit. But this would burn a lot of fingers/relationships and put the company in a spot since I'm pretty sure most things will break if I leave.
Well, that may or may not be true. But even if it is, so what? It's not your company.
You have given them work, they are supposed to have given you money. And you have both agreed that that is a fair compensation for your work, at least for as long as you are doing that work for that compensation. And that settles accounts; you're back to a position where you don't owe them any more work and they don't owe you any more money. There's no obligation in that for you to continue to work for them. You don't owe them any loyalty – that's not the sort of thing you can buy. (Phrased another way 'money is a bad retention tool.')
There are things where it makes sense to have a degree of personal loyalty to some of the people you work with in a company (though having a loyalty to the company as a whole is of course nonsense.) There are people who we might choose to continue working for, despite the fact that we might make more money elsewhere, because those people are good at what they do, take care of us, and we generally enjoy working with them. But it doesn't sound like that's the case here.
> would quit a job that treated me as a child which must be supervised in such a manner.
Then you should be prepared to be permanently out of work.
You are NOT entitled to private communications on company-sanctioned channels. Full Stop. End of story. This isn't an issue of "trust" or having faith in your employees, but this is how business is done.
Is there supposed to be a catch here? If you want to quit, then you should be allowed to quit.
To make it explicit: in the vast majority of the developed world, the individual employee's autonomy is given priority. Companies still have broad discretion when it comes to firing; they're simply held to a higher standard of justification than "we don't like you anymore."
> I don't think anyone should have fondness for their employer -- it's a business relationship -- but you also have an ethical obligation to do what you're being paid to do. Otherwise, don't agree to do it in the first place.
I disagree with this view. My employment is a simple arrangement: entity X pays me $Y to be their employee. To some extent, they can tell me to do things and I'll do things in response. It's up to me to find a new employer if I'm unhappy with what they're telling me to do (or the salary, etc), and it's up to them to have a convo with me or fire me if they're unhappy with what I do. If he hasn't gotten fired or even spoken to by his manager for his work, then his work is satisfactory.
> Anyway, loyalty in the sense that as long we're in a contractual relationship my employer can expect me to do good work, professionalism, confidentiality (a huge thing in finance), that I don't fib expense claims and that I don't steal the office supplies, among some examples.
I completely agree with that points. It is a matter of principle to behave professionally, not just for the company but for my own self esteem.
But, some experiences make me think twice before renounce to my rights. Many years ago, I was in a company that used to force employees to work on weekends. I had enough negotiation power to reject working on weekends. For me, it was not a problem. Weekend work was paid and I had no other responsibilities. But, my and other "top" colleagues rejection helped others to have the possibility to stand for their own rights.
I guess that I see the situation tinted by that perspective. If I renounce to a right, to say not to work on weekends, I may damage others that may end losing their right unwillingly. Some time later, I left the company for something better, thou. In my twenty five years of working for all kinds of companies, I have seen many different situations.
Japan and vacation days is a more general example. Even if employees have right to vacation days, it is difficult to take them when nobody else is doing so. As each employee renounces to their right to take vacations, they force the rest to do the same as it becomes a social stigma. To the extend, that for me, to renounce to your own vacation days becomes damaging to everybody else even done in good faith.
> Maybe it's just me, but I believe in transactional fairness. As long I feel well treated I just don't see the point of trying to squeeze every last inch of advantage from my vis-a-vis.
So, maybe you have been lucky enough, or smart enough to not work for companies that have abused their position. I guess that I would be of your same opinion if I had the same experience. By default, I agree that employers and employees need to collaborate to maximize the benefits of the partnership.
> Maybe one of the best examples I can give you is Amazon. Or the fact that I never bought anything since their book dealing days, when they suddenly pulled their privacy bait and switch. I wouldn't give them my business, even if it's cheaper. As it turns out that's not such a bad attitude to have.
I completely relate to your actions. And, to avoid rewarding the wrong behavior is important and a good value to live for.
> some of our most loyal and bought in employees are the ones we brought over.
...and part of it is that if you fire them they lose their visa... not to be cynical but are you sure it’s loyalty and not fear?
(Aside: what is a “loyal” employee anyway? I’ve always hated when companies use terms like “loyalty” or “family” because they really misconstrue the employment relationship. It’s a business arrangement, nothing else. “Loyalty” should not be expected and if it is, it’s an indicator that the company is taking advantage of the employee IMO. Why can’t we just be open about the fact that we work, first and foremost, for money? Anything else is secondary. I wouldn’t expect an employer to show loyalty to me as an employee — they can fire me whenever they want — so I have no interest in showing loyalty to them.)
> You just quit. We live in a capitalist system, not a communist one. You are allowed to "desert" from your position anytime you want.
or even stronger: your relationship as an employee continues while both parties - the employer and employee - benefit from it and want it to continue. if one or both parties does not want the relationship to continue, it ends.
> but this has gone too far. If you have a problem with the motivations of your employer or how it handles various sensitive issues then start preparing for interviews and leave the company!
Why? It might be true that in the US the system is such that corporations are the property of their shareholders to do with as they please within the law, but that is a construct of a specific political process (e.g. [1]), and a different political process, like the one these employees are now engaging in could result in a different, possibly better outcome.
If the law is your only guidance, then the law allows workers to protest management decisions, even publicly, just as much as it allows them to quit. If management is allowed to do anything it wants as long as it's legal, so can employees.
> the kind of company that takes advantage of you when you're ignorant isn't the kind of company you want to work for even after you're fully-informed and can renegotiate a better deal.
This is the important bit. Don't waste loyalty on someone who isn't loyal back. There's literally nothing in it for you; it will only bring you pain, frustration and health problems.
Sure, I have no problem working for an illoyal employer, and most of us do. I'll do the most skilled work I can, with a professional attitude, as long as I get my negotiated pay. But, they can not expect any loyalty if things go bad.
If my employer refuses to compensate when people run off from the family dinner to help out during emergencies, that is acceptable. The contract only says they are required to pay for my 8 hours per day. But, then they should not expect me to answer the phone outside working hours; I don't care if there's a crisis at Important Customer's site. The contract only says I have to work for 8 hours per day.
If my employer has a tendency to lay off people to meet arbitrary profit goals, that is also acceptable. It's business - they're here to make money. But, I will also not hesitate to jump ship to take better paid jobs when given the opportunity. I don't care if I'm the only person left who knows Technology Foo. It's business - I have kids to feed and loans to pay.
You should not be spiteful, you should just refuse to be exploited. Life's too short to spend in abusive relationships.
>I will resign immediately if you don't do X, Y, Z.
>We accept your resignation with immediate effect.
That couldn't be clearer to me. Negotiation is bad in those cases because they'll always resent you (and such demands are only made when emotions are at boiling point).
I've literally never given ultimatums to any employer, because that's like negotiating with a nuclear weapon equipped.
> Without the employees, there would also be no company.
This is incorrect. A company is more than the employees. See holding companies or any of the many companies that have gone through mass layoffs/restructuring.
> You cannot work at the company without being forced to generate money for shareholders.
I’m not forced, the whole point of wanting to work for a company is to enter into a mutually beneficial agreement where you make them money and get money in return.
> You also cannot at the company without generating money for the union
This is a third party that has no business interfering with the agreement I’m trying to enter into with a company to sell it my labor.
> It’s identical compulsion either way.
I don’t think you know what “compulsion” means. One of the things is voluntary, one is not.
> You’re assuming you’ll still have the employee if you refuse.
If the employee quits, you're in this situation once (and you'd be in it anyway). If you allow it and set a precedent, you might end up in this situation far more often and with worse consequences if you decide to change your mind.
> The point is that once you have no leverage over employees [...], you cannot establish what is not or not okay on your own.
Sure you can. You just need to find people that are okay with what you're okay with (and the same thing in reverse, of course).
I don't think leverage works in this case either way. If you have employees that are willing to let you stand in the rain and sabotage your business [0], you need to find new ones anyway. Leverage only let's you avoid the inevitable for a small bit in exchange for burning a bridge.
[0] I'm not saying that this is necessary the case in OPs scenario, but it plausibly might be.
I think that in this case when people say 'loyalty' they mean 'commitment over time'. "We'll dump you as soon as that option becomes slightly better than keeping you" is what people are reacting to.
It's different than being fired because of something you did/didn't do - it's the fear that something's going to change and this important part of your life (your source of income, of identity, of your professional status and one basis for your professional network, etc) will be yanked away without any real concern for the even short-term impacts on you.
>And seriously, it's much better for your career and your next job hunt if you were to resign on your own accord, than for us to have to fire you [...]
> Ultimately you may need to comply if the decision is made
Yes, you 'need' to comply because you're an employee. That's all there is to it and I'm very surprised by the emotional reactions to my simple statement of fact. It's odd.
A software dev is not hired for their judgement on company strategy or marketing. It's never a good idea to tell others how to do their jobs.
I would also say that pushing back and refusing are two very different things. If you think something is not good for the company you may say it constructively (though be careful).
In the end, "disagree and commit" or quit are the two professional options.
> I find it troubling that so many people are alright with signing away their personal rights. The employee individually isn't obligated to the company
The employee and the company are obliged to stand by their agreements with each other. The time to negotiate the terms of the agreement is before you sign it, not after.
Maybe this statement should be qualified as being about personal relationships, since the vast majority of employer/employee relationships demand obedience to the demands of the employer. Even high-level executives can't just tell their boss that they don't want to do something they're told to do. They could argue against it, but if they're overruled, they need to obey or be fired.
You are, of course, free to quit your job, but for many people, the loss of income and health benefits that would entail could make that virtually impossible.
reply