Company Employee Relationships

Companies and Workers Relationships -- ThinkingOutLoud DonaldNoyes 20071010

It is obvious to some but not all that we live in a time of great change. Things upon which we depended and placed trust have changed. The way we accomplish and produce a work product has changed. The productivity of the worker is increasing, not only in the UnitedStatesOfAmerica, but in other places as well.

The old models upon which we have depended have changed, transportation of workers and work products, communication, monitoring of activities, and expectations have changed.

One of the areas of great importance and concern in these changing times is that of CompanyEmployeeRelationships.

-- DonaldNoyes

Amongst the FragileRelationships, this one stands out as it tend to make other relationships more brittle. If a person has to move due to the need to search for new job/career, it becomes very stressful on the family unit as well. Also, CasualizationOfWorkforce is becoming a trendy practice

At a time in the past, one could go to work for a company with the expectation that you might spend your entire life working for that company in the same location. This is no longer the case. According to current surveys and research, you might in one lifetime not only work for several different employers in several locations, but also work in several different occupations, requiring different knowledge, training and work patterns.

As a result, most people can expect their status and treatment by employers to be based more and more on "At will" conditions, where neither the employer nor the employee have a relationship which is permanently binding and where the responsibilities of either are based on a model of "trust and dependability".

Is this a GoodIdea? Should relationships be based on temporary agreements which either party can revoke without some sort of sanction? This page is introduced to present and discuss how this is a GoodIdea, and whether or not workable models which deal with changeable conditions and environments exist.

-- DonaldNoyes

see also FutureOfWork CategoryFuture

It's not a good idea as things stand, because companies have too much unfair advantage. Ideally, employees would be on equal terms with companies. Almost every Silicon Valley company I've ever worked for has implicitly or explicitly asked for sacrifices above and beyond the call of duty; they ask for loyalty. But, of course, companies don't have much or any loyalty in return, especially now that some exceptions like HP have changed their ways.

This is rooted in the fact that money is the source of control, and companies have money, whereas employees need money, and furthered by the legal and contractual obligations that company officers have to company owners to place profit pretty much above all else.

The main utopian scheme I've come up with to advance beyond this deplorable state of affairs is for every employee to be a company, and for the relationship to therefore be a contract between two companies.

The at-will part needn't change, but employees need more power. Unions used to address that to some extent, but that mechanism no longer seems anything close to ideal.

-- DougMerritt

What about the employee, esp. KnowledgeWorkers, who gain, utilize, and maintain their knowledge (of the business, technology, methods, etc)? ...companies have money and employees have knowledge and skills. I guess the knowledge and skills are getting more disposable.

Almost every Silicon Valley company I've ever worked for has implicitly or explicitly asked for sacrifices above and beyond the call of duty; they ask for loyalty.

They can ask, but as an employee you must realize that you have no obligation to give your employer anything beyond the call of duty. If you decide to give, fine, that's your choice. If you decide not to, that's fine too. If you decide to leave because your employer asked too much, that's also fine and your employer cannot stop you. If your employer decides to fire you because of that, well, that's their choice too. Of course, the actual situations may make some of these choice tough/impractical for one side, but it applies to both sides at different times.

My strategy is just to keep that in mind all the times, save up enough money just in case, and start looking for another job when the company asks too much.

See WhyDoYouPermitThisToBeDoneToYou

I agree with all of this in theory, but whether it helps worth a damn to take that approach depends purely and simply on whether, economically, it is currently a buyer's market or a seller's market (unless you're outright independently wealthy).

The point is that, when economics strongly favor employers, as cyclicly they do once in a while, you can go ahead and be happy kissing the company's butt, and they may still let you go for random reasons. My complaint on this particular page is not with the sacrifice they ask, but that it's an unfair contract; if they ask, and you deliver, you should get something out of that. But you don't. People get laid off after they have delivered on their end of the bargain.

That's not the way it works (at least, not always) in contractual relationships between companies, because of the contract. The same should be true with employees; there should be a better contract. Say the company asks for, and you deliver, 80 hours a week for 3 months to make an insane deadline. It would only be fair if you had some compensation for that guaranteed in a contract, such as perhaps another 6 months guaranteed employment, or some such.

But that's not standard practice, very far from it. And so people deliver, and then get unexpectedly laid off two weeks later. Business in an ideal world shouldn't be quite so ruthless; there should be more equitable compensation.

This is, notice, a very very different question than the one that comes up if you are simply unwilling to put in that hypothetical 80 hours a week in the first place, which is what you addressed.

I have trouble understanding how you can at the same time, in this single piece of writing, talk about buyer/seller's market, and assert that "there should be a better contract" for workers.

Currently (early 2004) is certainly the employer's market in the tech sector. Would you stay working 80 hours a week if you think you can get a better contract elsewhere? Why "should" there be a better contract for you, or any other worker? If your contract is the best you can get right now, and you agreed to it voluntarily, in what aspect is that contract "unfair"?

You are absolutely right that my strategy won't work for someone neck deep in debt or other financial responsibility, without enough saving to last more than 6 months, and is right now working 80+ hours a week hoping he won't be let go. The strategy won't work in the same way that XP or any software practice won't magically turn a bug-fested project into a bug-free delivery overnight. But my strategy is aimed at not being completely dependent on your employer in the first place! Anyone following this strategy since the dot-boom era (myself included), would have saved enough money to last a year or two without any income, thus have no fear of leaving these kind of 80 hours a week death march projects.

You have already summed it up very nicely: " if they ask, and you deliver, you should get something out of that. But you don't. " Then why are you delivering what they ask for free? When I was asked to do unpaid overtime, I may agree to do so, but I harbor no illusion that I will be compensated in some way in the future, because it is called unpaid overtime for good reason. If you deliver something for free to anyone, but you silently expect them to eventually pay you... Well, who can you blame if in the end you don't get any payment?

If you are working 80 hours a week for months, you should stop and ask yourself whether the possibility of sacrificing your health, your family, and even your ability to work (due to burnout), is worth the paycheck you are getting right now. Keep in mind that even with all your sacrifices, your employment may still end at any time, so don't bring future paychecks into the equation.

My guess would be, once you accounted for the chance that you may still get fired even if you done all that was asked, you may decide that it is better to get fired with your health and family intact, and just stop doing free overtime for your company.

This is at cross-purposes to my point, which is that, although companies are relatively free to arrange whatever contracts they like with each other, employees on the other hand have relatively little freedom in that regard, because all companies have relatively similar policies concerning employment.

It would be more of a truly free market if employees had flexibility in setting terms of their employment, and could shop around for companies willing to meet those terms. -- DougMerritt

[How would that be a more free market? A free market doesn't mean each side of a transaction gets to dictate terms. It means the seller and buyer seek the best terms they can get. Employers and employees do just that. If you can find an employer who will meet your terms, work for them. There's no collusion between employers to set the terms, just market forces. -- EricHodges]

Sort of like the way that factory workers used to be able to shop around for places that didn't require 6 day weeks of 16 hour days? That wasn't collusion either, it was "just" tradition. But there's nothing sacred about the way things have always been done, and there's no reason not to aim to make things more equitable, so that shopping around is possible.

[I'm asking why that market would be more "free". Today an employer is free to offer better conditions than other employers. Not many do because they don't need to. If they are getting the workers they want with the conditions they offer today I don't see any way to change that without imposing regulations on the market. Employees and employers have found equilibrium, largely due to market forces. -- EH]

It would be more free from the employees point of view. The current situation is already (relatively) ideal for the employers. The equilibrium you are talking about is a local, not a global, equilibrium. A global equilibrium would include more freedom for all parties. More of a win-win. Currently the employer side is a de facto accidental monopoly relative to the employee side of things. Monopolies aren't always a bad thing, but they do universally wield more power than non-monopolistic forces. I am pointing out here one of the less desirable aspects - again, from the point of view of the employees. -- dm

[Free markets aren't more free from the buyer's or seller's view. They are free when the buyer and seller can agree upon terms without external influence. The current situation may favor employers, but that doesn't make it less "free". A free market doesn't mean both parties get to pick their terms. It means both parties get to agree upon their terms without legal restriction. I don't see how employers have a monopoly. They are in competition with each other for employees. They do not collude to prevent each other from offering better terms. Some employers pay more than others. Some employers provide better benefits. I don't get it. -- EH]

The net effect of the overall situation is as if all employers were in collusion, even though they are not literally in collusion.

At this point I think I have explained enough, and if you don't get it even now, it must be because of some kind of attachment to the current system.

I am floating a speculative idea, not evangelizing, and further explanation would probably just push you (or anyone at all who sees the current business/employment environment as peachy and not in need of improvement) into HostileStudent mode, which would be unconstructive of me.

My intended audience is some hypothetical person who already thinks things need to be improved, but is looking for new ideas about how. With that level of active interest, they might perhaps ponder ways to improve my idea or its explanation. But my idea is much too unfinished, as it stands, otherwise.

Young ideas are like seedlings; they tend to be fragile, and do not exhibit the robustness that they will when they mature. -- dm

You're projecting opinions onto me. I haven't said the current system is peachy, or that it couldn't be improved. I've asked how greater employee choice would be more of a "free market" than the current system. I don't believe it would be, and I haven't seen any evidence to convince me. Don't assume that I think a free market is optimal.

The market is close to equilibrium for most workers in the USA. That's neither collusion nor monopoly.

-- EricHodges

Well, sorry if I was projecting, I just don't see what is so opaque about what I'm trying to say. For instance, in your most recent response... I already said it is a local equilibrium, but not a global one. You didn't address that. I already said it's not collusion, it just behaves as one, since all employers offer roughly the same deal to employees. You didn't address that.

I don't know what scales of "local" and "global" you're applying, or why it matters. If by "global" you mean the globe, then the global employment market is seeking equilibrium. It's stopped by local legislation. As it approaches global equilibrium employees have less choice in working conditions. If we move toward a global free market the problems you cite will grow worse. I did address collusion. It isn't collusion, which would be evidence that we don't have a free market. It's equilibrium, which is evidence that we have a free market. -- EH

see InvisibleHand --dl

A divorce is a terrible thing to have to suffer, but after I survived mine I realized that I had walked away with an enormous lesson that applies to ALL relationships: it takes two people to keep a relationship going, but only ONE person to end it.

Given the above, what should your relationship be with your employer? If you are an employer, what should your relationship be with an employee? I suggest three principles:

CategoryEmployment; CategoryManagement