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".
Comments
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".