Assuming you work, how, exactly, do you see your job?
I believe it should be a trade. A trade is something done by mutual consent - both sides should believe that they’re “coming on top” (note: not necessarily deceiving the other side!), that what they’re getting is worth more to them than what they’re giving. For instance, the worker may think something like “I like doing this, so if I’m paid to do it, so much the better”, while the employer thinks “what I pay him is nothing compared to the money his work makes me.”
To me, that’s how a job should be. If both sides are happy, fine. If one isn’t, the trade should be terminated. (I know socialists and other collectivists will hate me for that, because they believe a worker should be able to hang on to the job when the employer doesn’t want him any more, because he “needs” the job…)
If an employer doesn’t want or need a worker anymore, he should fire him (with appropriate compensation, unless there was “just cause”, like him not doing his part of the contract, namely, working). If a worker doesn’t like the working conditions, or the relationship between work and pay, he should leave (after finding a new job, of course). To me, this is obvious.
To most people, that is inconceivable.
I don’t know if this happens everywhere or just in my country (Portugal), but, here, most people - and I mean employees, not just employers - believe that, if a company hires you, it’s doing you a favor. No matter how much you have to work, no matter how low your pay, it’s a favor. And you should take it, be happy with it, and never complain! If you complain, they (again, co-workers - not bosses!) will tell you that many people are out of a job, that “life is tough”, that you should count yourself lucky.
And it gets worse. Apparently, in the minds of, oh, just about everyone around here, people are almost “owned” by the companies they work at. They have some kind of all-encompassing duty to their employers, which include:
- they may never leave for “greener pastures” (that’s a dirty betrayal of both the company and their co-workers)
- if the work increases, they must bear the additional work load without complaining, and without a raise
- if some “dirty traitor” leaves, they, again, must do his work in addition to their own, without complaint, and with no extra pay
- if the work can’t be done in normal work hours, they must stay as long as needed, usually without being paid overtime, and without being allowed to arrive late next day
- conversely, if they arrive 10 minutes late, or if they go home at the time they are supposed to go, they “are irresponsible” and “lack loyalty.”
Again, note that it isn’t just bosses saying, and believing in, the above. It’s normal workers. It’s your co-workers.
It’s because of this kind of thought that people put up with terrible, inhuman, low-paid jobs for their entire lives.
I refuse this ideology. My job is a trade: I agree to do X in exchange for Y. If I don’t do X, they are feel to fire me; if they don’t give me the Y they agreed on, or increase the X without a corresponding increase in Y, so that it’s now a bad trade for me, I end the trade.
Am I “disloyal”? I don’t think so. “Loyalty” is something you may owe in return for a favor. There is no favor here, just a trade, so nobody owns anybody anything. And both sides are free to end the trade - if not, it wouldn’t be a trade, but compulsion.
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
I would say I mostly understand “what you mean” but there are a few points I would like to have a better understanding on your position… when you mention about the socialist stuff, I believe that the company hires someone for a reason, because there’s a job position to be filled up, so if the reason why the company decides to put an end to the trade is because that position no longer exists? or the employee refuses to learn and go ahead with the challenges? then I would say I agree, there’s a reason to put an end to the trade, otherwise, I think that the employee has to be given a chance either by providing him with the adequate ways to learn new technologies or via new job position or else. I’m not here defending you should “have mercy” on the employee, just there must be fairness. Employees are people, human beings, they have children to raise, houses to pay, etc. If the employee is open minded about learning I believe that the company will find a way to rehire him and turn him into a profitable resource. The problem is that nowadays the employers often receive financial benefits from “garbidging” the older and employee younger… recently graduated, first job, etc. and that’s not fair. In fact it’s dirty and disgusting.
At the end but not least, I would like to say I mostly agree with you, Job hire is a trade and must benefit from trade conditions, not more nor less… There’s no place for “mercy” or “favors” concepts under this context, only fairness and “you know the rules, you know the game”.
I have to say that, for the most part, I agree. I can’t believe that so many people stay in jobs that they hate . . . and furthermore, it amazes me how many employeers continue to keep employees that they no longer need or that aren’t performing their job at a satisfactory level. I once heard that over 80% of Americans hate their jobs. I’m not sure if the statistic is the same in other countries — but that just baffles me. Why continue working somewhere that you hate? Find another job!