> My ethical compass would feel it's wrong to squeeze additional benefits from an arrangement

I have seen others thinking like that, and then become very sore when they are fired in an economic downturn. They feel that "it is not fair" because they did as much as they could for their company, the company did not care.

Is that different in Switzerland? Has it a similar culture to Japan where firing an employee is the last resource? Or is it more like other European countries were a simple merge or a decline in share value increase the possibility of being laid off?

> So there's always a threat of losing your job if you try to push it.

That is true for everything. Are you aiming on being always the cheaper employee in your company? That is an strategy that may work when there is lay offs, but I do not know much wealth you will accumulate in the long term with that strategy instead of trying to maximize your salary/benefits.

I know that your attitude reduces salaries and reduces my and any other developer salary expectations, so maybe that makes me be extra doubtful of how good is your strategy for all the rest of us (or yourself).

If you do not care for your well-being but you are willing to do sacrifices for your company, may I ask what sector your company works in? Maybe, is it an NGO?

There is a (not so fine) line between looking after yourself and being a greedy jerk.

I find that a little bit of grace goes a long way. Ask for a raise when you deserve it, absolutely. But if you ruthlessly try to extract every last penny from your employer, they will do the same to you.

Have you ever browsed HN at work? Have you ever left just a few minutes before 5?

I don't want my workplace to be a battleground over pennies. Treat your employer with some grace and they will do the same.

Unless, of course, your employer is already a greedy asshole. Then you should change employers.

> Have you ever browsed HN at work? Have you ever left just a few minutes before 5?

I have to admit: Guilty on both counts.

But there's of course the other side. Where I went above and beyond to solve critical issues.

And while we're at it: You succinctly explained so much better what I mean than me in my long diatribe.

Thanks!

Maybe you have a very good and ethical employer, but my anecdotal evidence tells me it's not the rule, it's the exception.

Why is it okay for an owner to try to squeeze every penny he can out of his employees but not okay for the employees to do it?

The real problem is that the company normally holds the leverage, so the employee has no recourse, no matter how "ethically" wrong the situation may be.

Not to mention a company without its employees is nothing.

So assuming everyone is working on good faith (neither side is cheating the other) your conscience should be more than clear when asking for more as in the example of rent. The risk is almost always on the side of the employee. For the company you're normally just a number.

The balance does shift depending on the company size, but I believe this logic still holds true.

> Why is it okay for an owner to try to squeeze every penny he can out of his employees but not okay for the employees to do it?

An eye for an eye and all the world is eventually blind.

"Have you ever left just a few minutes before 5"

There's a story I was once told about how someone worked really late and then they came in late the next morning, but a VP happened to notice and they got in trouble despite having worked overtime.

I'm in favor of not being a "greedy jerk", but you have to do it for yourself. If you think you will be rewarded, that is delusional, and really just another type of greed.

An example of layoff differences between CH and US: unemployment in April climbed to 3,3%, with the doomsayers worrying what might happen if it eventually goes to an (unprecedented) 7% due to coronavirus. (there are many other differences; eg swiss don't take their rifles to demonstrations)

> I have seen others thinking like that, and then become very sore when they are fired in an economic downturn.

I see where you're coming from and to answer one of your later question: I work in one of the most dog eat dog industries, which is finance.

That said, I don't see myself as a charitable extension of my employer. I'm well paid and fairly treated and as long this is the case my employer can expect me to deliver the best possible performance and my loyalty as long we're in a contractual relationship.

Let me qualify loyalty, becasue it touches exactly into the neither regions you're outlining (I was loyal all my life and now I get the boot. And while that gripe may be justified it's not really helpful). Anyway, loyalty in the sense that as long we're in a contractual relationship my employer can expect me to do good work, professionalism, confidentiality (a huge thing in finance), that I don't fib expense claims and that I don't steal the office supplies, among some examples.

I expect decent treatment, supplying of all the tools, information, training and resources required to perform my job, human decency in general and a certain amount of fairness.

That's while the contract lasts and partially beyond, confidentiality being a good example for that.

I understand that it's a transactional agreement, which lasts as long the contract lasts and doesn't imply a job guarantee.

But one part of the deal and as long it's reasonably balanced is that I just wouldn't seek out ways how to squeeze a couple hundred francs a month extra, which I don't believe I have coming. I feel fairly and well enough paid so that I don't really factor in the use of a bit of power and my personal laptop, which is essentially the whole cost I incur.

For what it's worth my employer provides a laptop, but it's far more comfortable and convenient to work on my own system within their secure setup with a real keyboard and a 24" screen. That's my choice and if I have that option and chose to use it I don't see why that's my employers problem.

> Is that different in Switzerland? Has it a similar culture to Japan where firing an employee is the last resource? Or is it more like other European countries were a simple merge or a decline in share value increase the possibility of being laid off?

Actually it's harder to fire employees in most European countries. Switzerland has comparatively liberal employment laws compared to a lot of other (western and southern) European countries. Liberal as in a contract can be terminated from both sides under respect of a notice period without a reason specified.

This is much harder in, for example France or Spain, which has the drawback that companies very much prefer temporary employment, which in turn leads to a two class employment system.

I think it's a bit of an attitude thing. Companies, whenever possible, prefer to hang on to their employees, even during downturns, since they consider it cheaper than to re-hire and retrain a lot of employees in the next upswing.

Differences in social security arrangements also make that more palatable for companies. And it's not only a cost thing, it's also the loss of important institutional knowledge, which is irreplaceable.

> I know that your attitude reduces salaries and reduces my and any other developer salary expectations, so maybe that makes me be extra doubtful of how good is your strategy for all the rest of us (or yourself).

I hope not. As I could hopefully illustrate I'm not in the corporate wellfare business. I don't believe in dumping and the one thing that bugs me so much with our race to the bottom capitalism we now have, best illustrated by the gig economy, is the "how can we squeeze out more and more, while treating vital partners (employees) like crap" attitude you see so much nowadays.

Maybe it's just me, but I believe in transactional fairness. As long I feel well treated I just don't see the point of trying to squeeze every last inch of advantage from my vis-a-vis.

It's not about giving away the shop, but about fairness and trust.

Maybe one of the best examples I can give you is Amazon. Or the fact that I never bought anything since their book dealing days, when they suddenly pulled their privacy bait and switch. I wouldn't give them my business, even if it's cheaper. As it turns out that's not such a bad attitude to have.

> Anyway, loyalty in the sense that as long we're in a contractual relationship my employer can expect me to do good work, professionalism, confidentiality (a huge thing in finance), that I don't fib expense claims and that I don't steal the office supplies, among some examples.

I completely agree with that points. It is a matter of principle to behave professionally, not just for the company but for my own self esteem.

But, some experiences make me think twice before renounce to my rights. Many years ago, I was in a company that used to force employees to work on weekends. I had enough negotiation power to reject working on weekends. For me, it was not a problem. Weekend work was paid and I had no other responsibilities. But, my and other "top" colleagues rejection helped others to have the possibility to stand for their own rights.

I guess that I see the situation tinted by that perspective. If I renounce to a right, to say not to work on weekends, I may damage others that may end losing their right unwillingly. Some time later, I left the company for something better, thou. In my twenty five years of working for all kinds of companies, I have seen many different situations.

Japan and vacation days is a more general example. Even if employees have right to vacation days, it is difficult to take them when nobody else is doing so. As each employee renounces to their right to take vacations, they force the rest to do the same as it becomes a social stigma. To the extend, that for me, to renounce to your own vacation days becomes damaging to everybody else even done in good faith.

> Maybe it's just me, but I believe in transactional fairness. As long I feel well treated I just don't see the point of trying to squeeze every last inch of advantage from my vis-a-vis.

So, maybe you have been lucky enough, or smart enough to not work for companies that have abused their position. I guess that I would be of your same opinion if I had the same experience. By default, I agree that employers and employees need to collaborate to maximize the benefits of the partnership.

> Maybe one of the best examples I can give you is Amazon. Or the fact that I never bought anything since their book dealing days, when they suddenly pulled their privacy bait and switch. I wouldn't give them my business, even if it's cheaper. As it turns out that's not such a bad attitude to have.

I completely relate to your actions. And, to avoid rewarding the wrong behavior is important and a good value to live for.

> My ethical compass would feel it's wrong to squeeze additional benefits from an arrangement, which potentially saves my life and from which I feel that my management puts a lot of trust in me and my colleagues.

Much respect to your principles. I agree entirely with your viewpoint.

That sounds like rent control to me!

> The bench mark mortgage rate goes up (on the other hand the rent needs to be lowered when the bench mark rate goes down, which is rarely the case nowadays, with a benchmark of 1.25%)

That rate just went down a couple months ago and most renters would be entitled to a rent reduction just by sending a registered letter to their landlord. Every one I know who did that for a 3% rent reduction as a result.

> Else than that rents can't just be raised.

Can you clarify that? To be clear its normal not to change rents during the contracted period. When contract expires what are the rules for permissable rent increases for the next contract?

Rental contracts are usually not expiring (there are exceptions).

Each party can terminate the contract usually twice a year with a three month notice period.

Termination must follow certain formality and it's slightly lopside to the renters advantage in that a renter can challenge a termination, while the landlord can't.

Rent increases after a contract is terminated are possible within reason and within fair market value of the rent.

Curiosity questions: Do you know the specifics on the inflation based increases? Is it a common practice for landlords to have these increases?

I hope your German is up to scratch :) [1]

Basically: It's based on a consumer price index with the starting point of May 2000 (100%) and which is published every few years.

A landlord can apply a maximum of 40% of the index increase in rent-increase, since the last time rent was adjusted. This is based on his equity investment into the object.

Does this make sense?

[1] https://www.mieterverband.ch/mv/mietrecht-beratung/ratgeber-...

edit: slight clarification

> A landlord can apply a maximum of 40% of the index increase in rent-increase

So if inflation goes up by 10%, rent can only go up by 4%? Does that mean rent will be nearly free in 100+ years?

If inflation is 10% a year for 100+ years you are going to have bigger problems than the rent 130 year old person is paying.

I chose that number for easy math. The point is that rent grows less than half as quick as inflation, which is definitely unsustainable.

That is if you don't renovate nor modernise the building at all. It is an incentive for landlords to keep the building up to date. In your corner case scenario, an outdated 100 years old apartment would be pretty lame and worth its fair price of "almost free".

Essentially yes, that's correct.