I agree that it's a somewhat unfair generalization that paints a harsh picture. The core point of the argument still holds though, I think. A cynical response might be to say that the difference is the employer is accounting for longer-term replacement hiring/training costs, rather than short term value extraction. The optimization has new parameters but the structure of the relationship is still fundamentally transactional. I don't really think that's how things generally run, though.

Both parties should want a place that's enjoyable to work over the long term, yet sometimes the company will have to make hard decisions. Priorities slip or people are straight-up unable to avoid, say, laying off half the staff. Framing and context matter, as always. "Your employer is not on your side" is hopefully not a statement about the day-to-day interactions with your boss, or even a statement about company values, but it can serve as a reminder that there's always a line somewhere, and, intent aside, your best interests may simply fall on the wrong side.

> a bit of an unfair generalisation... There are plenty of employers out there that don't want to suck their employees dry.

I think I generalised it correctly. I agree with this point - that it's often not the most profitable to suck your employees dry, as you say.

Your employer is not on your side, even if your goals temporarily align with their long term vision. That is almost the best you can hope for in employment.

If business has a time of crisis, for whatever reason, then it becomes a risk-minimising strategy to exploit staff - at least until the crisis is over or the business collapses.

It's true, but even in that case, you need to protect and advocate for yourself. Moreover, you're more useful to your employer when you are savvy.

The very best employers don't just treat their people well, they also educate them.