What do I think? This article sounds like class warfare propaganda. The sort of pamphlet a boss would pass around before he announces pay cuts while company profits soar.

I understand the goal of an employer. If they didn't make money employing people, they wouldn't. But the part about the employee's goal starts in the wrong place.

Conversely, the goal of every employee should be to contribute more to the firm than he or she receives in wages, and thereby provide a solid rationale for receiving raises and advancement in the firm.

No, the goal of the employee is to maximize his pay, benefits, etc. (both long-term and short), while putting in the minimal amount of effort and resources to achieve that. FROM THERE you can rationalize that "working for free" be it overtime or straight up pro-bono will secure better long-term rewards, but that's a pretty shoddy argument and it ignores the short term goal. Most companies today have very little loyalty to their employees. Pensions are a thing of the past. When profits slump, Layoffs are quick. And if there are problems they'd rather bring in temporary contractors than hire someone full-time. Unless they contractually owe you for your extra work, why would reward you? That goes against their stated goal.

The part of the story where the previous boss is the primary decider of future employment is downright tyrannical.

If you need experience to help your resume, contribute to or start an open source project. I've had potential employers request to view my projects. I couldn't show him anything I've done for previous jobs because it was proprietary. My single open-source project was all I could legally show him. And it was * cough * a little rough around the edges.

What do I think? This article sounds like class warfare propaganda. The sort of pamphlet a boss would pass around before he announces pay cuts while company profits soar.

I understand the goal of an employer. If they didn't make money employing people, they wouldn't. But the part about the employee's goal starts in the wrong place.

Conversely, the goal of every employee should be to contribute more to the firm than he or she receives in wages, and thereby provide a solid rationale for receiving raises and advancement in the firm.

No, the goal of the employee is to maximize his pay, benefits, etc. (both long-term and short), while putting in the minimal amount of effort and resources to achieve that. FROM THERE you can rationalize that "working for free" be it overtime or straight up pro-bono will secure better long-term rewards, but that's a pretty shoddy argument and it ignores the short term goal. Most companies today have very little loyalty to their employees. Pensions are a thing of the past. When profits slump, layoffs are quick. And if there are problems they'd rather bring in temporary contractors than hire someone full-time. Unless they contractually owe you for your extra work, why would they reward you? That goes against their stated goal.

The part of the story where the previous boss is the primary decider of future employment is downright tyrannical.

If you need experience to help your resume, contribute to or start an open source project. I've had potential employers request to view my projects. I couldn't show him anything I've done for previous jobs because it was proprietary. My single open-source project was all I could legally show him. And it was * cough * a little rough around the edges.