Hacker News Reader

Comment by windows_sucks | Hacker News Reader

I think it's being downvoted because it's a little too simplistic to be meaningful. Everything we do, literally everything, we do because it makes us feel good, and therefore everything is a transaction. We provide food and shelter for ourselves because, well, we enjoy those things. We help friends and family in need because we derive pleasure from helping others and seeing our loved ones flourish.

If we all agree on that basic universal law of human behavior, we can talk about higher level meaning about the role of an employer in society beyond the simple transaction of money for labor.

View on HN

We can talk about philosophy all we wish. But reality is that I can’t take the philosophy and exchange it for goods and services. Whatever you think the role of an employee should be, we have to accept reality for what is and take responsibility accordingly.

My wife and kids had no desire to talk prosaically about the role of the employee when I got laid off a decade ago.

They were assured when I told that we had 3 months worth of savings in the bank, that my resume was updated and I had a strong network and could get a job quickly - I had an offer in less than a week at another company. While now admittedly it would take longer, I’ve also reduced my expenses.

You’re 100% correct but it’s easy to dismiss because it devalues individual perception of how one thinks their company values them. Most of us aren’t special is the reality. Few are special and irreplaceable.

Have you known of any company of any size to go out of business because one person left?

I assure you that if any of us got hit by a bus tomorrow, the company would send our next of kin flowers along with “thoughts and prayers” and have an open req for our position before our body got cold.

Three months later, you would only see our name brought up in the occasional “git blame”

By your definition, the only way someone "cares" about another person is if they are prepared to suffer any and every possible loss to protect said person from harm?

You mean like laying people off so the company doesn’t go out of business?

Whether the company “cares” about me is irrelevant. I need for them to put money in my account at the agreed upon intervals. I have family that “cares” about me.

Thought experiment: if the company you worked for that you thought “cared about you” told you they couldn’t pay you would that care be reciprocated and would you work for free? A 30% pay cut?

You state (or at least imply) that the fact that a company is not willing to go out of business to avoid firing someone is proof that they don't care about that person. All I can say is that you seem to have a reductionist definition of the word "care". I also wouldn't expect my friends to, say, sell their house to support me if I needed it.

I’m saying whether the company cares about me is irrelevant. The “care” from my company is not where they exist in my hierarchy of needs. That’s what my family is for. They exist solely to provide money to support my need for food and shelter.

My wife “cares” about me and I her. I know for a fact that she would make sacrifices for me even it put her in a bad spot temporarily.

I’ll leave my job at the drop of a dime and they will get rid of me as soon as they see my contribution to the bottom line isn’t beneficial to them. I would hope that the bar would be much higher for my marriage - ie “the person I want to care about me”

I was agreeing with you to be clear. Perhaps it was misconstrued.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com