Recent Posts
- Industrial production declines
- Three men arrested in attempted copper theft
- Copper theft continues to soar
- Bailey’s proposal gets unanimous agreement
- It pays to listen to your employees
- Construction spending drops again
- Manufacturing continues to drop
- Tidbits from NAHAD meeting
- Growth in Canadian housing market
- Strong market forecast for welding equipment
Recent Comments
- Victor on M&A activity heated up in 2005
- Lissa on A lesson in customer service
- Diamond Davo Supremo on Grainger expands in Pittsburgh
- David on Stimulus tax bill and small business
- Jack Keough on Non-commissioned sales force: good or bad idea
Most Commented On
- A lesson in customer service (8)
- After 80 years of cooking, she’s burned out (4)
- Can you hear me now? (4)
- Skilled labor shortage is still major concern (4)
- Myths about China and U.S. manufacturing (3)
Archives
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- March 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- January 2006
- September 2005
- August 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
Blog
Employee loyalty, yes; but what about company loyalty?
April 29, 2005
I was a panelist for a seminar on human resources held during a recent industry convention. The quality, concern and knowledge of my fellow panelists who were distributors and manufacturers impressed me.
During the question and answer session, one of the audience members complained that younger, 22- or 23-year-old employees, didn’t have the loyalty to the company that their predecessors had.Another audience member chimed in that no young person today knows what he wants at that age, and might change careers several times before he “found himself.” A good point to say the least.
Another person noted that older workers had much more loyalty than their younger counterparts.
Is that true? I guess so, but you can’t help but wonder if loyalty still exists today in most companies—regardless of age.
Look at the Gillette Co. It traditionally was one of the best companies to work for. Its benefits were outstanding and the working conditions great. Last year, Procter & Gamble announced it was buying Gillette.
Here’s the kicker: the chairman of Gillette, who has been at the company for just a few years, will receive $184 million as part of his package. The vice chairman will receive $44 million.
Oh, and by the way, several thousand jobs will be eliminated. You can bet that those employees won’t be getting millions in severance.
Then there’s Polaroid. At one time, it was considered to be one of the most progressive companies in the country. “When you worked for Polaroid, you felt like you had died and went to heaven,” one 30-year veteran of the company recently told me.
Several years ago, Polaroid’s stock was floundering in the 20s and the company hired a new chairman to revitalize the company. Stock plunged to a couple of bucks a share and in October 2001, the company declared bankruptcy. The chairman received millions of dollars in severance. A new CEO came on board.
Retired company employees were notified that their “lifetime” health and retirement benefits were being slashed despite promises made to them years before. Some workers couldn’t even pay for their health prescriptions.
Polaroid was purchased Wednesday for a reported $426 million. The chairman of Polaroid (who was only there for three years) and his CEO will receive a combined payout of $21.3 million.
But all was not lost for the 6,000 Polaroid retired workers, many of whom had been at the company 30 to 40 years, and had lost their retirement/health benefits. They’re also going to be receiving a check. For $47. That’s right. Each of them will receive $47.
The payout is money left over from the employees’ unsuccessful attempts to force the company to reinstate benefits, so reported The Boston Globe.
I can’t help but wonder: Shouldn’t loyalty be a two-way street?
Posted by Jack Keough on April 29, 2005 | Comments (2)
In response to: Employee loyalty, yes; but what about company loyalty?
Mark D commented:
I often hear similar comments on employee loyalty. Many companies both large and small consistantly layoff older employees in a market downtrend to rehire younger and "less expensive" employees when business returns. They cut benefits and require workers to take on multiple roles in the company. When confronted with these facts employees are told that it is "just business" and they are just trying to keep the company competitive. These same executives then wonder why they can not get any loyalty from their employees. Why won't he salaried employees put in 60 hours a week to help the company. Like me...I think most employees now know that they need to look out for themselves, for the corporations loyalty to them goes only as far as the next quarterly report. So if you are ever asked why people are no longer being loyal to their companies you need only to respond with the simple words..."It's just business" Mark Drapela
In response to: Employee loyalty, yes; but what about company loyalty?
Peter Madsen commented:
Throughout the history of business one will see the pendulum swing. Right now the CEO'S of big corporations think they work for the NBA and can get anything they want-shareholders,employees too bad. The correct chain of command should be first-customers,second-employees,third-shareholders.If followed in that order,then the owners win because the companies have their prioites correct! Right now it is the very senior officers almost everything,shareholders a little to keep quiet and the rest of the employees the shaft. How long will these employees keep getting the short end of the stick before they rise up and rebel. I hate unions but would advise all my kids to join one so they can fight back even if in middle management!! Hopefully the pendulum will swing back soon!