I'm Just A Poor Mid Level Line Producer Whose Intentions Are Good

Only in 2009 can you have the intersection of game balance kvetching, business ethics, and charts about the Great Recession. And believe it or not, this time it’s not even me!

This was brought to my attention by a hit on my referral logs from my earlier primal scream about the omnipresent spectre of the gaming industry collapsing into a Schwarzchild radius of incompetency; namely that I’m a big whiny baby pounding at the keyboard with my hamfists.

If there is a product to work on today, the employee will have his salary. Tomorrow is another day. If there is no need for so many workers, they will no longer be employed. It’s that simple. Obviously if there will be need for some workers, the company tries to keep the better ones, fireing the underperformers. It’s obvious self-interest.

 

If the employee thought of his employer as a friend, his coworkers as a group of friends, he will feel betrayed. But whose fault it is? Actually I’ve never heard any company’s slogan to be “We are here to make our employees feel good”. They usually say “we are here to serve our customers” and mean “we are here to serve our customer’s money to our owners”. No one, ever offered the employee a “freindly helpfull group of peeps”.

Well, if your coworkers aren’t a subset of your group of friends, it may well be because you are an antisocial package of chemicals that everyone installed IM at work for specifically so they could make lunch plans without you overhearing. Most of us that have moved past the point in life where we have to wear nametags and hairnets when going to work, and now work in ‘teams’. Teams of like-minded individuals, selected in part due to personal compatibility. A key part of any employment interview process, after all, is “can we work with this person?”, which should appear closely behind “can this person actually do the job we’re looking to fill”. Both, after all, are important.

 

But beyond that, there is a small matter of business ethics to consider. There are some, like Mr. Greedy Gecko, er Goblin, who consider the only responsibility of a company to be its bottom line. Profit uber alles, and devil take the hindmost. It’s a fairly common viewpoint – who needs ethics when simple mathematics determines the victor!

But of course, there are other factors, or should be in a world that people not goblins may want to live in. Profit is all well and good and necessary, but at some point, someone may figure out that it’s cost-effective to dilute your milk with, say, I don’t know, something wacky like plastic. Of course long term, killing off your customers may hinder your bottom line. There are long term considerations.

One of those considerations involves the welfare of your employees. These are people who have engaged in a very clear bargain with you – for a given amount of money per week, they will spend that time helping you collect wealth. It’s a standard economic transaction, on the face of it. And for lower level employees, that’s also where it stops. Someone else pays you more, you move on. Shrug.

But past the point where you wear name tags and hair nets, it becomes incumbent on you to treat your assets as assets – and your team members are definitely assets. Because when the economy isn’t busy melting down into goo, they do have options – they can move elsewhere, say to places that don’t treat them as industrial cogs. So there is a certain level of capitalist self-interest there – you keep your assets happy, your assets stay with you and don’t become someone else’s.

But that’s not all of it, at least for most of us. Most effective managers see themselves as responsible for their team. Their team members rely on them to keep the engines running so that the explicit part of the bargain – come to work daily, get paid bi-weekly – continues to happen. That carries with it responsibility. The effective managers make sure their teams, and their projects, are successful, not only because it’s part of their job description to run a successful project and generate wealth, but also because your team members are relying on you to steer that ship through icebergs. Effective managers worry about this. Effective managers lose a lot of sleep about this — and I guarantee you, it’s not because they might deliver 22% less profit to the Mothership. It’s because they’re ethical.

This is not something you’d think would have to be explained in such grueling detail, but you’d be wrong. You’d be wrong because apparently the latest craze in Pinhead Public Company Management 101 involves divesting yourself of as many employees as you can before earnings reports so that your balance sheet looks good – regardless of whether or not you’re actually making a profit. Which is disturbing enough, but then you get apologetics like this who think that there’s nothing at all wrong with throwing your ‘assets’ over the side, and invalidating your implicit contract with them, solely to make a bar on a chart move from 43 to 48. You see – it’s really your fault.

However most of us get into situations when incompetent managers order us to do something obviously stupid and harmful to the company. Creating a malfunctioning product is not a crime unless it is dangerous to people’s health, yet it is stupid. The punishment for stupidity is market loss and the subsequent layoffs.

 

While employees acted as instruments of managers, this “instrument state” do not relieve them from the responsibility of their actions. They could write a memo to the higher management or simply say that “this management is stupid, I quit and find another job”. While it was a strong ape-subroutine that made them obey, they had free will to act differently. The fact that the managers would deserve layoffs more than the employees, does not change that the employees deserve it too.

I read things like this, complete with pseudo-scientific references to “ape subroutines”, and wonder if 50 years ago this guy would have been on the Warsaw Judenrat. There’s apologetics, and then there’s disturbing apologetics. (And hey, he went all Godwin first, with a somewhat disturbing equation of dissenting employees and the Nuremburg trials. I’m just finishing the neuron loop!)

 

Of course, many of us aren’t in the position exhorted by this blogger and MMO bloggers everywhere, namely that if you disagree with the direction of the company/design decisions/overuse of the color brown you should hand in your walking papers forthwith. As pointed out by a commenter to his blog:

I don’t know if you have a family that relies on you for its income, but tell me again that I’m free to quit a job at any time with 2 kids and a wife relying no me as the sole support of income.

To which the blogger responded:

Kids are investment to the future, cost a lot today but pay back well later. However a wife is a grown person who shall be able to support herself AND half of the kids. If YOU made the choice of supporting a grown person than it’s you who have to live with the consequences.

Hey, he’s got a point. I recommend octuplets. Better return on investment, donchaknow.

 

I realize this entire long blog post was the rhetorical equivalent of punching a baby, but business ethics has been something on my mind lately for fairly obvious reasons. Said blogger’s image of me as a caterwauling child ramming the keyboard with my forehead aside, I have been in the position of my failures as a team member and manager being in some way responsible for people losing their jobs. Interestingly enough, the fact that it was an eminently justifiable business decision – and in one memorable case, one I personally recommended – did nothing to help me sleep that week. Because I failed. Despite the fact that recommending a course of action that resulted in layoffs was, in a business sense the right decision – that was a failure.

And the rampant, smug self justification that we’re seeing with this year’s model of layoffs and cutbacks and corporate jets and stimulus explosions is telling me that there’s quite a few people who have no problem whatsoever sleeping. And that bothers me.

Enough to slam the keyboard with my hamfists.

  • http://www.thehyperbolist.org Veritas Gax

    Damn it, I hate when you post on topics like this. Now I’m left with posting a blog entry entitled “Yeah, What He Said”.

  • Pingback: The Hyperbolist » Blog Archive » Yeah, What He Said

  • VPellen

    Life’s a bitch.

  • ReptileHouse

    Damnit, Scott. Just when you’ve about got your image of a growly old curmudgeon cemented in nicely, you go and get all rational and empathetic on us.

    Seriously, though. You get it. There’s a partnership between employees and employers that goes beyond the overt transaction of pay X to get Y. It’s a relationship, and like most relationships, requires effort to maintain and nurture over time.

  • sidereal

    In short: people with perverted mechanistic conceptions of how the employment relationship works are not and have never been in charge of hiring or any other aspect of a business, because they would be epic, epic failures.

  • Andy O.

    Thanks Scott, made my day. If you were single and I was gay I’d propose right now. Where the hell did that come from?

  • sidereal

    In shorter: Dwight Schrute has a blog

  • Matt Mihaly

    I agree with most of what you wrote, Scott, but if there’s an implicit contract with employees it has to go both ways. Quitting to go take a higher salary elsewhere is the flipside equivalent of laying people off to generate a better balance sheet isn’t it? (Leaving aside any arguments that the layoffs were not handled with the long-term in mind or that the employee might have left a stable job with a lower salary to take an unstable job with a higher salary that ceases to exist 2 weeks after he starts).

    Even as I write that I suspect I’m probably just too distracted at the moment and that there’s an error in my thinking, but I’m not sure what it is, if anything, presently.

    Enlighten me?

  • http://word-of-shadow.blogspot.com Melf_Himself

    Seems to me like the people getting laid off are people that worked on failed MMO’s which are not very (if at all) profitable. In those instances, the alternative to laying a bunch of people off seems to be to keep paying everyone employed until the company runs out of money, goes under, and EVERYone loses their jobs.

    Lesser of two evils perhaps?

  • Anticorium

    Just imagine the quality of the work done by people who hate all their coworkers and know that if they do not jump ship for the pettiest of reasons, they’ll eventually get fired for the pettiest of reasons. Every time a fast food worker manages to put the cheese outside the bun on your hamburger, picture that same standard being applied to the development of the next MMO you purchase. (Or the assembly of the next airplane you ride in.) sidereal has it right: nobody watches The Office and thinks “Golly god, I wish I was working at Dunder-Mifflin! That’s a place that has its shit together!”

    Unless, of course, they’ve got no job and a pair of investments that haven’t fully paid back their returns yet.

  • Jackbnimble

    “and the rampant, smug self justification that we’re seeing with this year’s model of layoffs and cutbacks and corporate jets and stimulus explosions is telling me that there’s quite a few people who have no problem whatsoever sleeping. And that bothers me”

    Well, multi-million dollar bonuses can buy a lot of high quality sleeping pills. Not to mention the attention of many therapists and psychologists who are willing to apply a mental/emotional bandaid.

  • http://www.dragonsmind.co.uk DraconianOne

    Matt, you’re right. If there’s an implicit contract with employees then it does have to go both ways. If an employees is thinking about moving to another company then the reasons for that move have to be considered. If it’s for more money, the question the company should ask is are they paying that person enough for their skillset and experience. If the answer to that is yes then the employee leaving is probably a good thing because that employee is also concerned about their own bottom line rather than loyalty to the company. You may not want people like that in your team.

    But that’s not the only reason people leave companies. Employees may well be assets but just as the hardware will need upgrading, so too will employees be it through career progression from simple DBM to team leader to project manager to line producer (or whatever the appropriate hierarchy is) or, for those who like to be more hands-on, expanding skillsets, given new challenges and allowed to develop. I have known people who have left jobs to take lower paid jobs because of better opportunities being available than where they were.

    Companies that look after the people will find that the people will look after them too. (In the UK, this principle is put into practice by a lot of companies who sign up to an optional scheme known as the Investors In People Standard. I don’t know if there’s a US equivalent. It’s not the be all and all but looking for a company that has made the time and effort to attain that standard is recommended for people who are willing to loyally commit to a company. If that makes sense.)

  • http://www.thisisnotacommunity.org D-0ne

    His suggestion about going to upper-upper management with stupid manager decisions… That got me out the door twice in the last three years.

    Nothing hits home harder than the realization that money (hundreds of millions) is more important to corporations than the lives of one or two random people.

  • DrewC

    There are times when the right decision for a corporation is to lay people off. It sucks, but there will be times where that is the case. “In order to make our balance sheet look better to investors and drive the stock price up” is never that time.

  • Sentack

    While I’m not a Objectivist, you have to agree, there are times when laying people off is the only rational choice you can make. And yes, it is all about the bottom line because while you talk about “Good work environment” and “Happy family of employees”. I can also talk about being “cost effective”. You see, that nice big family you have at work, might be costing the company so much extra overhead, they can’t compete in the market. They can’t compete, they go out of business. They go boom, you all lose your jobs.

    In general, I understand the desire to not fire people. And I loath CEO’s who get paid millions of dollars. nay, Billions of dollars to do nothing much but chip off sound bites… But that doesn’t mean you can ignore that the company needs to be effective, and managed well. And sometimes that means acting on logic, not emotion.

    You can’t run a business just on heart alone.

  • Matt Mihaly

    @Draconian: Yeah, I have no issue with employees leaving because the opportunities to advance aren’t there though I think it’s best to finish out the project you’re on (unless you’re years away from launch…understandable in that case) out of respect for your teammates and the company (assuming it’s not run by douchebags, which is a technical term they use at HBS and other top business schools.)

    –matt

  • Ibn

    I think this works up to a certain level of management. But eventually you get to an executive level of management where the choices are, as I understand it:

    A: Lay off a bunch of people now to improve the bottom line, and the stock price either stays steady or goes up.

    -or-

    B: Don’t lay people off, show lower profits, and the stock price drops. This makes it harder to get investment money in the future and might lead to BIGGER layoffs in the future.

    Because the truth is that being good to your employees generally won’t improve your stock price. Bringing up the bottom line will.

    It’s unfortunate that the stock market doesn’t seem to understand that a company that’s good to its employees has a greater chance of being more productive and profitable down the line.

    So how do we solve THAT problem?

  • http://www.thehyperbolist.org Veritas Gax

    @Ibn:

    This isn’t totally true. TTWO made quite a public gesture out of locking up key R* folk last year. The problem is that generally, investors have no clue about dev talent and think they’re all interchangeable.

  • http://www.channelmassive.com Jason

    +5 for “Wall Street” reference

    Jason (resident drunken idiot of Channel Massive)

  • http://www.playnoevil.com/ Steven Davis

    John Dvorak has an interesting article about how spreadsheets (and thinking based on spreadsheets) has ruined management:

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2338796,00.asp

    I believe I also read a while back a study that showed MBA’s left school less ethical than when they entered it.

    There are huge costs for staff churn – training and recruiting take time away from producing. Very few people are actually in jobs where they are cogs, but “management” is trained to think of them that way.

    Happy employees tend not to look for jobs. If they feel safe and appreciated, they’ll stay. I’ve always advised people that they should leave once they’ve made the decision to look.

    (And I agree totally with Matt, you try to leave the place in good shape when you leave a job).

    People have chosen to reward managers based on stock price because it is very easy… Once a company is public, it rarely raises more stock – it would be just as easy (and more sensible) to reward managers for growing free cash flow or other long term metrics… one could say that using stock prices to reward managers is like using Metareview scores to judge games (instead of actual sales or some other real metric). People optimize their behavior against the reward system “game”… employees and employers alike.

  • http://push.cx Peter Harkins

    Matt: the difference is that employees don’t put out press releases that say the company is dead wood or get quoted in news stories talking about how the employee is so much better off without that employer.

  • Triforcer

    Well, we seem to be ping-ponging back and forth between two strawmen caricatures- (1) Michael Scott-style rainbow friendship communal utopia, and (2) Dwight Shrute-style 1920s capitalism.

    The truth is somewhere in between. There is truth to the position that employers aren’t your friends, and that layoffs will occur in bad economic times (and its just a touch flippant to imply that SOE “only” made the Mythic layoffs because of the quarterly report or whatever, remember how pretty much everyone was assuming it would be doing a lot better?).

    Of course, there is also a lot of truth in saying that trying to be kind of nice to employees, and not firing them before trying other options to retain or increase profitability, is a good thing (I would argue this is good from a bottom-line morale prospective and therefore feeds into greater economic success- whether it has some sort of moral value outside of that is an interesting question, but not entirely relevant).

    As others have said, the bottom line for me in the specific Mythic situation is the assholish way people were let go. The press release and assclown Youtube videos by the Emperor of Assclowns were utterly inappropriate, and no considerations of profitability required them. But assuming that the layoffs had occurred without that final and completely unnecessary rusty knife thrust into the balls, there is less comic-book supervillainy here on the part of SOE/Mythic than many here are supposing.

    Awful from a human, empathetic point of view? Absolutely, just like any layoffs in any industry that have occurred during this crisis. But the Mythic layoffs are no more and no less sad and unfortunate than those layoffs either. We are paying more attention and have more heated opinions because of the prominent LTM diaspora members with connections there. That’s fine, but it doesn’t make Mythic/SOE Satan to any greater degree than any business firing people is Satan (again, except for the press release/Emperor Assclown factor).

  • http://[email protected] JuJutsu

    “it would be just as easy (and more sensible) to reward managers for growing free cash flow or other long term metrics…”

    The finance types are likely to look at free cash flow as an ‘agency’ problem not as a meritorious outcome.

    “I believe I also read a while back a study that showed MBA’s left school less ethical than when they entered it.”

    I’ve been a biz school professor for 25+ years, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit. I’d add two caveats though. First it’s not just the MBAs, I think you’d find the same sort of attitudes with undergraduate commerce/business administration graduates. Second, I think there’s a great deal of self selection into business programs so the bigger difference is more between business and non business students. Just personal opinions.

  • Daniel

    “Despite the fact that recommending a course of action that resulted in layoffs was, in a business sense the right decision – that was a failure.”

    Exactly.

    If there is one thing I have never understood about American corporate culture it’s how failure can be justified as a success, and people buy it. It’s how come this country is over nine trillion dollars in debt. There is the old punch line about “is success a failure?” but America is the only country I have ever experienced where failure is a success.

    Laying off people may indeed be the best decision for the bottom line. But it’s still a failure. And anyone who tries to promote it as a success is mentally insane.

  • http://blessingofkings.blogspot.com Rohan

    The problem is that you can’t show weakness in business. If you admit layoffs are because the company is in trouble, a host of bad things will happen. Your best talent will jump ship. The banks will stop lending you money. Suppliers who would have given you 30 days to pay now demand that you pay in 10. Your stock tanks as people try and limit their losses.

    All of these things are entirely rational responses to a company in trouble. But they can be devastating to that company. So it’s vital that the companies leadership present as strong an image as possible.

  • slog

    Any company you work for will be good to you until the moment you cost them more than they make off you. The you are out the door.

  • Dave G.

    I am studying an MBA right now, and the first year of the course was based on organisational culture and management skills, and on all the theoretical frameworks which have arisen over all of the research which has occurred.

    I can tell you that these courses focused very heavily on modern management practices where employees ARE treated as valued assets. We were taught that investing in employees, not just as employees but as people with lives outside of work, is the best way to have them invest their efforts in our company.

    And I don’t just throw out the phrase “investing in employees” as some sort of hollow, meaningless bullshit. I mean truly investing – paying for them to train, providing them with opportunities to expand their skillsets, and recognising that employees are people who have families and committments outside our little world of business. Investing in them as people, enhancing THEIR skills, so that when they choose to leave the company, they will be better off career-wise than when they came in. (Yes, we anticipate our employees will at some point choose to leave – that is normal and healthy.)

    Honestly, the attitudes of the people Scott have posted about have come from the dark ages, dinosaurs who never learned a better way of doing it, who still think standing over an assembly line with a whip is the best way to motivate people.

    So I know this thread will turn into an anti-management bloodbath, and I’m happy for that. But please don’t lump all MBAs into an “unethical” category simply because you read some study somewhere that asserted it as truth. And please don’t think you actually know what happens in an MBA course unless you’ve taken one. I mean, it’s not as if we study subjects like “How to be More Evil 101″ and “Advanced Draining Blood from Lifeless Husks of People”.

    Speaking personally, the very first thing I have had drilled into my head is how to treat your employees as human beings, and I find the conclusion of that study to be absurd.

  • yunk

    “However most of us get into situations when incompetent managers order us to do something obviously stupid and harmful to the company.”

    Duh that is every freaking day if you work in IT, at every freaking company. Sometimes managers will listen, but often they won’t. Sometimes if I feel strongly and I can do something on my own time I will, as long as I don’t impact other deliverables. But seriously, it is ridiculous to expect to be able to change things that much. I usually agree with the goblin, but in this post he just shows he’s either a kid still in school, or has led a lucky and charmed life where he’s never faced with the choices he’s talking about. I actually laughed out loud reading it.

  • Iconic

    If some hotel in Vegas wants to give me free chips to bet, I’m going to put them all on double zero. Why shouldn’t I take stupid chances when some one else is going to foot the bill, and I could get stupidly rich in the process?

    Until we stop giving money to the worst run businesses and allowing the worst executives to be rewarded, it’s irrational to expect any sort of change.

  • Iconic

    Tying into what Scott is talking about:

    Appealing to the long term best interests of corporations is pointless. There is no long term interest any more, only the bottom line. Slash and burn everything you can, because if you don’t some one else will.

  • http://forge.ironrealms.com Matt Mihaly

    Ibn wrote:

    Because the truth is that being good to your employees generally won’t improve your stock price. Bringing up the bottom line will.

    I think you’re presenting a bit of a false dichotomy insofar as happy employees = better retention, and replacing an employee is expensive both in terms of recruiting the replacement, training him/her, and in terms of the lost continuity of knowledge an organization experiences anytime someone leaves, at any level (it might be tiny for a brain dead job like fry cook at McDonalds but even a fry cook who has worked for 6 months has learned things about the specific job in the specific company he’s in that a new fry cook may have to pick up on the job).

    Plus, there are the more intangible effects. If a lot of people are quitting or being laid off, it damages the morale of the rest of the employees, leading to an increased probability of other people jumping ship.

    I don’t think there’s any conflict between working to improve long-term value (granted, perhaps not short-term value) and working to make your employees happy. I think that if your employees get a piece of the action through options you can potentially create a situation where the two reinforce each other rather than work against each other.

    –matt

  • http://antipwn.wordpress.com IainC

    @Triforcer
    When did EA sell Mythic to SOE?

  • http://antipwn.wordpress.com IainC

    slog :
    Any company you work for will be good to you until the moment you cost them more than they make off you. The you are out the door.

    How I wish that were true.

  • Triforcer

    @IainC

    My brain is not working and I mixed up my Great Satans. Many apologies.

  • Delmania

    This is what happens when some sophomoric individual who wants to be an intellectually giant reads an article about objectivism and then tries to apply it to real life. It’s also my problem with objectivism, in that it seems to downplay human emotions in favor of reason and logic. Humans have both objective rationality and subjective emotions and both are important factors when dealing with them.

    As for the children comment, there are many ways to respond to it. A poster could say “ok, then pay for my daycare expenses” or “pay for a maid to keep the house clean and the food made”. The estimated value of a housewife is, if I remember correctly, $120,000/year.

    The point of this is that I wouldn’t put too much stock in what Gevlon says. He’s trying to be intellectual without having an life experiences to balance out what the theory teaches him.

  • Brask Mumei

    What I hate about rationalists is there smug belief that if they present the superior argument that I must, therefore, by virtue of the unassailable logic, change my opinion.

    They seem to be unaware that I do not have infinite faith in my own reasoning ability. Just because something *seems* entirely rational doesn’t mean that there isn’t fine print I’m not smart enough to see. Since I no more want to be the slave of the smartest person than I want to be the slave of the strongest person, I’ve this entire other layer of consciousness called “emotions” which are used to act as a check and balance across against logic traps.

  • Con

    “then you get apologetics like this who think that there’s nothing at all wrong with throwing your ‘assets’ over the side, and invalidating your implicit contract with them, solely to make a bar on a chart move from 43 to 48.”

    And yet the “assets” break this contract all the time soley to make a number on a W2 go from 55k to 65k.

    Eagerly awating your “BETRAYAL! (part 2)” post on that topic.

  • robusticus

    The solution is the same for any bubble. If you don’t want to lay people off, don’t hire so many. If you don’t want real estate prices to fall, don’t let them rocket out of control, with interest only ARMs.

    But the people who need to refinance to pay off their credit card debt they ran up on extravagent vacations and fancy stuff don’t want to hear that. Any more than Mark Jacobs wants to hear about managing expectations south rather than north.

    8% growth and 300K subscribers ain’t too shabby, though, as it turns out, eh?

    As for the ASSets quitting, well, that’s more like, “I don’t have to put up with this shit and I can make 20% more elsewhere too?”

  • http://www.thehyperbolist.org Veritas Gax

    Con, your response implies a belief that there is an equal balance of power on both sides of the employer-employee relationship. Obviously that isn’t true, especially in this business.

    Of course employees have the ultimate freedom to quit when they get a better offer or if they object to the way the company does business. I’m not going to put words in his mouth, but I don’t think Scott *actually* believes that companies shouldn’t also be afforded this right.

    What he’s calling out is the culture of hypocrisy in this business that layeth off with the left hand while the right engages in recruiting. The culture that puts out press releases denying any problems and downplaying the value of employees that have been laid off with the implied subtext that they expendable or worse, the “real problem” with the project/product/company.

    History shows that this isn’t true in most cases — if it were, big megapubs like EA would have distilled game development into The One Perfect Game Formula, they would have done away with any messy variables like workers, and proceeded to fill their coffers with the spoils of a war they had won.

    And yet, with these kinds of companies, it’s the same story every few years. And because there are a limited number of viable employer choices for someone who has committed to this career to choose from, companies that perpetuate this bad behavior don’t ever really pay the price. We can’t all work at Bungie and Valve. The “market” (in this case, prospective employees) never really punishes these guys because ultimately, game developers need a roof over their heads and to put food on the table too. The glory days of of this industry being made up solely of twenty-something single guys is long gone.

    All that said, while what Scott is describing may be prevalent in the game industry, there are plenty of places that take a more enlightened approach to how they treat employees. It’s probably not a surprise that these places are generally doing well financially, which is a symptom of why they’re able to behave this way, but, I would submit, also a root cause of that success.

  • Sheepherder

    Delmania :
    This is what happens when some sophomoric individual who wants to be an intellectually giant reads an article about objectivism and then tries to apply it to real life.

    The point of this is that I wouldn’t put too much stock in what Gevlon says. He’s trying to be intellectual without having an life experiences to balance out what the theory teaches him.

    As much as people want to consider Objectivism a valid ideology, it really isn’t considering the founding principle of humanity is Social Compacts, as described in Hobbes’ [u]The Leviathan[/u]. Which posits that society is based on mutual agreements between actors and that the only reason I don’t go around eating my neighbours is because I can expect them to reciprocate by not attempting to eat me.

    [b]In this specific case the implicit agreements are as follows.[/b]

    1. You give us work, we give you equal value in money
    2. You give us a stable workforce, we give you job security
    3. When we part company, the one doesn’t shit on the other

    #1 was never breached to my knowledge. #2 became untenable for one of the actors and the agreement was breached, this is a non-issue because it’s expected that this term will be breached if non-trivial reasons exist. #3 was breached because Mythic are wearing clown shoes and decided they wanted to get the people excluded from #2 to breach #3, and further undermine #2, [i]for the lulz[/i].

  • Sheepherder

    Ugh, why can’t markup languages use a single bracket/brace type for formatting?

  • http://antipwn.wordpress.com IainC

    @Con
    Not so much. As has been said, those ‘assets’ don’t generally publish press releases when they leave saying that their former colleagues are a bunch of losers, they have to give reasonable notice to minimise the disruption to the company and also when we get past namebadge and hairnet territory, the company has a chance to salvage that contract if they want to by seeing what it would take to make you stay.

    There isn’t so much of all that for the guy who’s just been handed a cardboard box by security.

    Finally, if you’re at your job purely for the money then you are doing it wrong. The number on my income tax return is pretty low on my list of things I care about when looking for a job.

  • http://www.thehyperbolist.org Veritas Gax

    IainC :
    Finally, if you’re at your job purely for the money then you are doing it wrong. The number on my income tax return is pretty low on my list of things I care about when looking for a job.

    This is an excellent point. If everyone were seeking merely to maximize their earning potential, we’d all be lawyers. And the corollary to this is that most employers don’t want people who are Only In It For the Money. I sure as hell don’t. That isn’t altruism or anything; I know that happy, inspired employees will do far better work than clock punchers.

    Still, this is just one of many reasons why the employer/employee relationship can’t be expressed in simplistic, absolute terms.

  • Zuzax

    The problem I see at my work is the rampant cheerleading around how we’re all in this together and our people are our greatest asset, and all that. Until they decide QC is cheaper in India, and the US based QC team just *disappears*. Company line is retconned as if US based QC never existed.

    The deception is that you are repetedly told that you are a valuable asset when by action you are actually treated as disposable chattel.

    This year the cheerleaders are using a mountainclimbing metaphor as to how it takes a great team to climb a mountain, yada, yada, yada. We’ve taken to referring to ourselves as Sherpas, as we know the actual climbers will fling our bodies over the edge if it suits their short term goal.

    And yes, quality has gone to shit now that QC is in India, but that is now the coders’ fault. They expect to be flung from the mountain any day now with their jobs landing in some 3rd world shithole as well.

  • Eric Kearns

    “Kids are investment to the future, cost a lot today but pay back well later. However a wife is a grown person who shall be able to support herself AND half of the kids. If YOU made the choice of supporting a grown person than it’s you who have to live with the consequences.”

    I want to find this idiot and explain (pummle) to him what raising children means… How much day care costs… AND how shitty day care IS. I support my wife staying at home with our kids so they can avoid the creeps out there. Ones that – through some f’d up treatment at daycare – caused my son to start crying viciously when he hears “Blue Danube” because some %#@!er did something to him at his daycare center when he was 3 years old. Nobody at the daycare center did anything wrong though. Life is NOT black and white asshat.

  • maess

    Sorry Scott, but you are naive and need to move into the real world. In the real world, corporations make mistakes and employees get punished. You have three choices: 1) Become self employed 2) Get off the grid or 3) Deal with it. Which choice do you think most people make?

  • http://www.thehyperbolist.org Veritas Gax

    In the real world, larceny, murder and rape are common occurrences as well. That doesn’t mean we have to condone them or that we should stop trying to cast a light on those who commit those offenses.

  • Jezebeau

    @Veritas: When applying for a job at a publicly traded company, you should know that you’re ultimately being hired by people whose first responsibility is to their stockholders. After that, their priorities vary and you can argue all you like about where employee comfort and happiness fits into that, but shareholders can and will sue if the company decides to take the happy-go-lucky approach in times of hardship.

  • http://www.crymore.de EpicSquirt

    @Jezebeau
    Yeah.

    That’s why I’ll never work for a publicly traded company and that’s why I’ll never buy knowingly a product from a company that has yearly net revenues of billions but still announces to fire several thousands employees because the profit margin is going down from 15% to 13% in 2 years according to the spreadsheet/glass ball.

    The problem is the human, most people will sell their souls if the opportunity arises. I’ve been head of work council in a company focussed on software development and it was disgusting to see how the employees who just got a boost in pay behaved at the employees meeting. I couldn’t even say something like “is this your opinion which will help us all or are you voicing it because you’re getting paid now twice as much as before” because of data privacy.

  • http://tishtoshtesh.wordpress.com/ Tesh

    Eric Kearns, agreed completely.