* It's possible that something happened between Jill and the managers/co-founders that the rest of the group is unaware of, and she felt that it was best that she leave.
* It's possible that her health issue flared up again and she decided to leave. She may have been quite appreciative of what the group in her previous absence but didn't want to/couldn't go through having you all pick the slack - either her choice or management's. And she didn't know how to gracefully exit, so she abruptly left.
* Maybe she got ill again and the goodwill "debt" she incurred had nothing to with it - she just needed to leave again to tend to her health - and was unfortunately, not gracious in her departure.
* Maybe she was forced out and has been prohibited from saying anything - or simply chose not to.
The relationship between employer and employee is not one between equals. The latter depends on the former for their livelihood, whereas the former could outsource or automate the latter's position without any affect on themselves at all.<p>So my answer to this would be - to a person, as much as they deserve. But to a company, as little as necessary.
Without knowing why jill left, you can't really answer the question.<p>I think the article assumes Jill did something that caused her to want to leave (she found a new job, networked and someone offered, etc...) but maybe it was the employer? The employer could have challenged her on time off compensation, insurance coverage, etc...
I like the way you put it,<p>>>Your loyalty should be a reflection of your employer’s loyalty.<p>A company a group of people after all. It's easy to think about our jobs as benefits acquired for services rendered rather than a relationship with a group of people.