> But nothing a company does it to the benefit of the employee

This isn't a feature intrinsic to companies, but rather a relatively recent social norm. There are still a few companies that do look after their employees, and do things to the benefit of their employees. They aren't very common though, usually it's smaller (often family run) businesses, and often a physical trade rather than an office job.

" but rather a relatively recent social norm."

Ask your great-grandfather working in factory, or a mine, or as a tenant farmer (basically 99% of all work) - how he was treated by 'today's standards'. Where I did my undergrad, the main office building was built by a logger baron who literally had strikers shot. It's almost universally better today.

" usually it's smaller (often family run) businesses" - are usually lower paying and often less stable. It's really, really easy for a contractor to not get paid for a job, or to make a mistake costing him $$$ - and then to be in a position wherein he can't pay his workers the aloted amount. This is common.

Any entity that provides fairly steady, predictable work and guaranteed pay is doing a good thing for the most part.

>Any entity that provides fairly steady, predictable work and guaranteed pay is doing a good thing for the most part.

I'm not really sure about that, any big busines wouldn't hesitate to fire you and as many people needed to close the numbers or to cut your hours-wages for the same reason let's not talk about benefits, there's not "safe job" anymore.

" there's not "safe job" anymore."

Most jobs are safe actually.

First - government, which is a massive employer.

Second - healthcare - generally low turnover, and a huge portion of the economy.

Energy - parts are up and down, but anything closer to the core is very safe.

Core jobs at any classic company. They are generally safe.

Large layoffs are not common, and this idea that companies will drop huge numbers of people 'just to save a buck' is simply not true: most layoffs only happen during economic calamity, when the company is starting to face trouble. In decent times, firings is rare.

Now factory wok, hourly workers, retail workers - that's a whole other thing.

Remember that companies make money by expanding and hiring, not by laying off. CEO's are 100x more likely to want to 'grow' than 'shrink' and there's a lot of political cost with layoffs.

Rubin's startup is flailing, that's why he's laying off, that's to be expected.

>Now factory work, hourly workers, retail workers - that's a whole other thing.

These are most of the jobs, not government, energy, healthcare and whatever "core jobs at any classic company" means. Those are also overlapping sets.

No, you can see the breakdown here from the BLS [1]

Most jobs are relatively safe from calamity. Though there is ugly turnover, the same applies - in retail in particular, companies do not want to layoff - this would be very bad. They want to hire, it's just that the jobs suck. As for manufacturing - that's generally the one where 'laying off' might be good for the company as they would move the jobs overseas.

But this idea that companies are always looking to layoff and drop people is not right, it happens in specific places.

[1] https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major-industry-...

True, their are companies that have founding principles that are employee friendly, but once you have an official HR role, their job is the complete opposite. Similarly, corporate counsel is responsible to the corporate entity (are companies people?), even if that means recommending removal of the founder. A organization with employee friendly values has leadership willing to challenge HR and Legal, but that means a majority of the leadership has to be onboard. So yes, family owned businesses, tightly controlled/owned businesses probably fall into that category.

> True, their are companies that have founding principles that are employee friendly, but once you have an official HR role, their job is the complete opposite.

I really don't like or agree with this characterization at all. Sure part of their job is to prevent the company from being sued but part of their job is (usually) also keeping employees happy.

>but part of their job is (usually) also keeping employees happy.

Because happy employees are less likely to be a legal liability, and happy employees are more productive and more compliant with company policy.

> happy employees are more productive and more compliant with company policy

And also less likely to leave but why is that a problem?

In the end all employees are only there to make the company money. I really don't see why HR is any better or worse than the engineering department. Everyone is just trying to make a living so I don't see any point in looking down on them for it.

People shouldn't look down on HR, however they often present themselves as the friendly, impartial intermediaries between employees and the company when they aren't. You should approach talking to them the way you would talking to the police: don't if you can avoid it, but otherwise, assume anything you say can and will be used against you if it's in the company's best interests to do so.

I work for a global company. When I have an HR issue I call some call center located in Poland, where they open a ticket.

The process is not different than any old tech support call.

Managers have a dedicated line, which leads to a local HR contact.

Do you see anything in this whole process designed to keep employees happy?

MM will be fun if some one in Poland with no idea of labour law in the UK or USA makes a mistake :-)

A company is made to benefit its shareholders. Sometimes employees are also the shareholders but this has historically not been the case. Historically, because of the focus on benefiting it’s owners above all else, companies have sometimes resorted to using slaves and child labor. The concept of employee-shareholders is a fairly recent invention. The concept of employee rights only gained traction in the USA during the industrial revolution.

Agricultural cooperatives, might come close...

Worker coops is a better match, producer coops are rather different as its the farm owners that are members not all their workers.

"But nothing a company does it to the benefit of the employee"

Paying them 10's of thousands a year is definitely 'to the benefit of the employee'.

The TSA situation is a really bad analogy because it's a high security environment wherein monitoring is basically a given. It's just that with that open window, management can't help but be idiots about it and monitor 'chewing gum'. The second problem is that it's a highly authoritative system with low skilled staff. If TSA were bankers and lawyers (or developers), they'd collectively have a lot more power.

Case and point: software developers, bankers and lawyers are not monitored for 'chewing gum' and 'bathroom breaks', moreover, they aren't monitored for that much other than communications.

Email and electronic communications have to be logged for a variety of reasons (including legal)but they should not be monitored by managers.

Traders have all finances monitored. In some hedge funds monitoring is a lot more invasive. So I don’t agree, but my point is, monitoring isn’t done to protect employees, it’s done to protect the company.

Trading is a very specialized activity, huge sums of money are actively changing hands and there are tons of regulations in place on this stuff - of course that will be monitored - just as bank tellers are.

But most jobs in banking are definitely not.

And there's zero chance that traders managers are monitoring for 'bathroom breaks' or 'chewing gum' or anything like that.

But yes, monitoring is generally done to protect the company. But even in the case you described - trading - it definitely protects traders from being wrongfully accused of such and such (i.e. insider trading).

I agree with you but it's not always so extreme.

For instance, I work for a school where employees are pretty trusted (the extensive background check prior to hiring & fact that most people have master's degrees probably helps).

The only employee monitoring system we use is to turn on "find my iPhone" and the like for all devices. Technically this is pretty extensive location tracking, but no one monitors it unless a device is stolen/lost.

I really don't think it changes employee behavior. If people want to leave all of their devices at school and never take them home they can, but no one has ever brought it up as an issue.

I'm in a fight with HR right now.

It is a mess right now. To say the least...

I get more and more the feeling that HR do not understand how laws work and think they (the firm) are always right...

For a company claims to hate lawyers and don't want to work with lawyers. They sure as hell make sure that soon or later you will involve lawyers (did that already)

But, it is a live lesson. Like all those people claiming they hate gays (while they are gay) or say they are not drama queens (they are) I will now listen carefully when someone says they are not xxxx..

How about training? Training is beneficial to an employee. Employment itself should count, I’d argue, because the law of comparative advantage means both parties could (and probably do) benefit but even setting that aside, training should count.

Still agree with the monitoring, though.

Training is about delivering with consistency and compliance. Some training does benefit the employees but that’s not the “primary” purpose.