Your comments all assume the companies involved in this relationship are all rational and good actors, and illustrate the double-standard companies have. They expect complete loyalty and "reliability" (your definition), but don't offer employment contracts to reflect this; in fact it's almost universal that employment "contracts" have an "at-will" clause. To me, that is a statement by the employer that they aren't interested in a long term relationship, and I shouldn't expect one.
Not to mention that in companies of any size, the reality is that "the company" is actually a lot of smaller companies run by a middle-manager who himself has his own (frequently corporate-political) motives for doing things, and is fickle.
To act rationally on that premise isn't unreliable; it's self-preservation.
I think the article headline is spot on. The article itself goes on to elaborate and say, in different words, that "loyalty" has to be earned (by the company), and that a person leaving after X years (where X is less than some arbitrary amount that qualifies a person as "loyal") does not indicate "disloyalty". Your comment adds an additional subjective term, "reliability".
What if the company, after some time trying to work a project out, decides that it is more profitable to shut the project down - does that also make the company unreliable?
Where I want to get is that interests evolve and things change. If in two-three years you want to check something out, that does not make you unreliable, but just normal part of the daily business life.
Oh I didn't mean to come across as so negative. I just meant, if you're going to switch jobs every few years, you shouldn't expect the benefits of loyalty like getting more vacation time or vesting your matching 401(k) contributions etc. Or maybe even getting good training, if the company has so little incentive to invest in you.
I wouldn't worry as much about an arbitrary "unreliable" designation as I would about my career stagnating because I haven't learned anything new in a year. A few years is all the growth potential most jobs offer. Once you've solved all the problems, do everyone a favor and hand your tasks off to someone more junior and seek out greener pastures.
Comments
No. But getting bored of a company after a few years and quitting just to do something you think is exciting makes you unreliable.
Your comments all assume the companies involved in this relationship are all rational and good actors, and illustrate the double-standard companies have. They expect complete loyalty and "reliability" (your definition), but don't offer employment contracts to reflect this; in fact it's almost universal that employment "contracts" have an "at-will" clause. To me, that is a statement by the employer that they aren't interested in a long term relationship, and I shouldn't expect one.
Not to mention that in companies of any size, the reality is that "the company" is actually a lot of smaller companies run by a middle-manager who himself has his own (frequently corporate-political) motives for doing things, and is fickle.
To act rationally on that premise isn't unreliable; it's self-preservation.
You're making the same point I am: the article headline is wrong.
I think the article headline is spot on. The article itself goes on to elaborate and say, in different words, that "loyalty" has to be earned (by the company), and that a person leaving after X years (where X is less than some arbitrary amount that qualifies a person as "loyal") does not indicate "disloyalty". Your comment adds an additional subjective term, "reliability".
What if the company, after some time trying to work a project out, decides that it is more profitable to shut the project down - does that also make the company unreliable? Where I want to get is that interests evolve and things change. If in two-three years you want to check something out, that does not make you unreliable, but just normal part of the daily business life.
Oh I didn't mean to come across as so negative. I just meant, if you're going to switch jobs every few years, you shouldn't expect the benefits of loyalty like getting more vacation time or vesting your matching 401(k) contributions etc. Or maybe even getting good training, if the company has so little incentive to invest in you.
I wouldn't worry as much about an arbitrary "unreliable" designation as I would about my career stagnating because I haven't learned anything new in a year. A few years is all the growth potential most jobs offer. Once you've solved all the problems, do everyone a favor and hand your tasks off to someone more junior and seek out greener pastures.