I'd argue this is the "Clueless" deal in the Gervais model. Losers are fully aware that they have struck a bad and unequal economic bargain with their employer, they just don't care. They will happily go elsewhere if a better bargain comes along.

It's the Clueless who believe that their loyalty to their employer is matched by their employer's loyalty to them (hence, "clueless"). They're the ones who stick with the firm, rise into middle management, diligently play the company line, and then get abruptly disillusioned when the firm institutes mass layoffs.

Yeah no shit, if you get fired and get to keep 50% of the stock, it might be a marriage.

Otherwise it's just delusional. My labour goes to the highest bidder.

On second thought, yeah. Losers are strategic enough that they would be appalled to think that they had a "relationship" with their employer.

Wow, that's a much better article. The following quote in particular rings true (and is the opposite of the claim from the "marriage" article):

"The Clueless are the ones who lack the competence to circulate freely through the economy (unlike Sociopaths and Losers), and build up a perverse sense of loyalty to the firm, even when events make it abundantly clear that the firm is not loyal to them. To sustain themselves, they must be capable of fashioning elaborate delusions based on idealized notions of the firm — the perfectly pathological entities we mentioned. Unless squeezed out by forces they cannot resist, they hang on as long as possible, long after both Sociopaths and Losers have left"

I've seen former coworkers build these delusions, even when the ship was sinking and what was left of management was clearly mistreating them.

Wow, this is a really interesting article! I have to say it is a much darker view of the interaction between companies and employees than what I had put forth, but I do agree that it is more accurate for the majority of companies. I do think that an enlightened ownership (hopefully like mine) can treat people better.