Quote Originally Posted by ChunkyMonkey View Post
Nope. No such thing as two way street when it comes to employer and employees. One is paid to do his/her job. He/she doesn't like it, move on. The other creates opportunity by taking risk and putting investment and hiring paid workers. You need make more profit first before employing more workers.. Your statement that employing people simply makes them more money is false.

Your boss can decide no call/no show tomorrow w/o risking much of losing you. On the other hand, if you do so, you may lose your job as it is at his/her mercy. Try to act like your boss and be an asshole at him one day if you dont believe me
Quote Originally Posted by SuperiorDG View Post
Yea they both have the right, but the employer is seen as a scumbag for exercising his.

Employing more people does not necessarily make the employer more money, especially if when the government steps in.
I don't think I'm being clear enough for the both of you. I'll try and reiterate:

When I say that it is a 'two way street', I mean that having morals and loyalty in the work-place is a two way street.

An employer expects employees to not steal from their business. They expect their employees to not no-show on them on a make-it-or-break-it day. They expect them to provide a 2 weeks notice when they're moving on.

Likewise, an employee expects their employer to keep them on when they move into troubled waters. They expect their employer to not give them the boot when they're approaching a point where they qualify for retirement benefits. Things of that nature.

That isn't to say that an employer shouldn't not reduce personnel if and when it means that their own well-being is being threatened. I'm not advocating that at all. If the survivability of the company is on the line, it is time to reduce costs. If the company is publicly traded, it is time to reduce head-count in order to keep share-holder profits steady. I personally don't see employers who take actions such as these as a 'scum-bag' at all, but congrats on assuming my position on the matter.

Loyalty in business, to me, is both parties doing their best for the other up until the point that they can no longer do so while preserving their own well-being. At least to me.

And when I said that employing people generates more money, I meant that in a very simplistic sense. However, Joe's Diner isn't netting 200k a year while McDonalds is netting 1 billion because Joe's Diner is doing it wrong. And even if they both clear 0 profit, McDonald's is valued exponentially higher.

Still, if either one of you own a business or two and you can run them all by your lonesome and make the same living, why don't you save yourselves the headache and let them all go?