[Lurker]

Far too many employers forget that loyalty, like respect, is something that must be earned. Loyalty is also something that can not go only one way and still exist.

L

[fml]

“Employers are faced with a situation where the number of employees causing a negative drain on the organization outweighs those who are working to positively support it,”

__________________

I work for my husband and he knows how true that can be ;)

[Hunble]

Once upon a time, when you worked for a company for a long time, a mutual loyalty was established.

Sadly, that mutual respect is no longer the standard.

It works both ways: when the companies are no longer loyal to their people, then the people are also no longer loyal to their companies.

[sodpoodle]

No need for tenured employees with experience and *institutional memory vaults*, the computer stores all company archives and need-to-know at the click of a mouse.

Read somewhere that workers change jobs much more frequently than ever before - average 25-30 year tenure is now 3-5 years.

[Will88]

Sign of the times, but I’d bet that employees are still much more loyal the employers.

Not many employees have moved to Mexico or China.

[dfwgator]

Welcome to “Free Agent Nation.”

[billybudd]

Funny how the article never bothers to define “loyalty”. Here’s the basic definition: loyalty = stupidity. I.e., not demanding a raise, not causing trouble, not saying what you think. Being a mindless drone. I’m glad the “loyalty” numbers are going down.

[JOAT]

If you want loyalty, buy a dog.

People work for money.

As has been repeatedly mentioned already, most employers show absolutely no interest in a long-term relationship with the employees, so what else could be expected?

[Mr. Jeeves]

Employers got the world they wanted...now they are complaining about it? It is better this way, and employers are being dense if they don't see that the ability to easily dispose of problem employees and deadwood is far more valuable to them than the ability to keep people around solely based on some nebulous sense of loyalty to Granddad's Empire.

Besides, there is always one infallable way to keep key people: pay them what (or better, more than) they are worth. I expect that unwillingness to do just that is why some companies are now bemoaning the loss of "loyalty" as a virtue. ;)

[qam1]

Some Generational stuff here

Xer Ping

Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effects Generation Reagan / Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.

Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.

[rednesss]

Loyalty has been outsourced to a 3rd world country.

[IronJack]

Loyalty from corporation to worker does not exist. It is a fallacy created to coax loyalty from worker to corporation. No officer in an American company is going to go to his bean-counters and tell them that the company can't let 20 percent of the workforce go because of "loyalty." If it results in a couple of million dollars' savings annually, those workers are as good as gone, and loyalty be damned.

But if an employee gets a better offer, and his departure leaves the company in a lurch, he will get the sad puppy-dog look, and hand-wringing bs about the burden he's leaving the company with. Or worse yet, the "I thought we were a family" lecture.

Okay, Dad. If we're a family, let me use the credit card.

[PCBMan]

I’ve worked for 6 companies in the last 10 years. I was loyal to them. It didn’t get me anywhere with any of them.

[Mr J]

There’s no such think as unilateral loyalty — the word for that is subservience.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

In today’s market, when many employees do not get a pension, have limited health benefits and only have a 401K offered for their retirement, it pays for the employee to constantly be seeking better employment... up the chain with better options. If this means they move from job to job seeking more financial security, instead of waiting for an elusive promotion, so be it.

[Williams]

First, employers simply are not "loyal" to employees in most cases. Second, the stories posted here reflect a trend in business. The baby boomers and their kids were spoiled brats who have a sense of entitlement. they are good at covering their rears NOT at producing results. This equals managements that are not "loyal" to the company or anyone else.

A very wise fellow I knew from the pre war generation saw this coming and thought the boomers would fail at business. But he then realized that business would continue recruiting from the available pool, even if that pool had very poor qualities. this had disastrous consequences for many American businesses.

[Natural Law]

Loyalty in employment is a bidirectional proposition. When corporations believe that people are expendable they can’t be surprised when loyalty is mutually one pay check deep.

[TexanToTheCore]

Employee loyalty died in the 90s. I am surprised that 34% are truly loyal. They are probably underpaid.

[TChris]

As far as I can tell, most employers place zero value on showing any loyalty to their employees. They're willing to trade it for short-term gain at the drop of a hat. In the end, what goes around, comes around.

No loyalty to employees => No employee loyalty.

[LongTimeMILurker]

>>it’s just another service to be outsourced like janitorial and gardening. They only find out once it’s too late, after they’ve already done something stupid

No matter how skilled or well trained an employee is, this is the case, regardless of the job performed. Corporations will rarely if ever acknowledge making a mistake with one or many employees. They’ll just make do with lesser ones.