What does a healthy relationship between employer and employee look like?
It seems to me that if one man is trading with another man, it is not all that complicated. Both are men, responsible for their lives, responsible for agreeing to a trade that provides them with value and declining a trade that does not.
So why is the workplace trade such a mess?
It seems to me that if one man is trading with another man, it is not all that complicated. Both are men, responsible for their lives, responsible for agreeing to a trade that provides them with value and declining a trade that does not.
So why is the workplace trade such a mess?
Paid vacation: because you are not capable of saving for
a vacation yourself?
Paid sick days: because otherwise you are so irresponsible
with your money, you can't afford to get sick?
Retirement plans: because we both know you won’t plan for it?
Health plans: because your health is my responsibility?
The tradition of a holiday bonus – it’s for slaves. It's the myth of the benevolent rich guy and his grateful dependents. (See my Christmas post about that. http://roslynross.blogspot.com/2015/12/what-i-do-about-christmas-presents-and.html)
The tradition of a holiday bonus – it’s for slaves. It's the myth of the benevolent rich guy and his grateful dependents. (See my Christmas post about that. http://roslynross.blogspot.com/2015/12/what-i-do-about-christmas-presents-and.html)
Why would I hire that person? Why am I taking
responsibility for your life? I want to hire you, not be your mother!
All these “gifts” that employers are expected to give – they
establish a relationship between employer and employee that does not look
healthy to me. Is this kind of employment the gateway drug to big daddy
government since no one is expected to take responsibility for his life?
I don't do my employees any favors when I turn them into my dependents.
Also, I don't think these "benefits" are for the employee at all. They are sold that way, but in reality, they are for me, the boss.
I talked to my farm manager and my cook about this, and both insist that, given the choice, they want to exchange money for labor. End of story. They don't want any of the gifts which they actually see as attempts to control. It's the flip side of the gift coin. The employer thinks he is "taking care of" his employee with that health plan, but employees would actually prefer the control over their lives.
Here, it's about food. Right now I provide very high quality food to my employees. This costs me only an extra $150 a month per employee, and I value having healthy employees, so I pay for it. I used to see myself as a benevolent boss giving them a gift that they appreciated. As it turns out, they don't appreciate it!
They don't see it as a gift. They would prefer that $150 in their pocket. They don't value healthy food or even the good health they enjoy from eating it. They would rather have more money and live on beans, rice, sugar, and beer. With the extra $150 they would buy even more sugar and even more beer. As the employer, I am controlling them by not giving them that option. They did freely agree to the arrangement, but it doesn't change the controlling nature of it.
My employees are irresponsible. And they would prefer to be allowed to be so.
But I don't feel safe having irresponsible employees. The "benefits" I give to my employees are actually there to protect me. Irresponsible people end up on the streets, if not now, then when they are older. They are a drain on society. They turn to crime and begging.
The moral dilemma here is: You, my irresponsible employee, can't have it both ways. You say you want the freedom to make irresponsible choices. I want to give you that freedom. But not if it means you will expect me to take care of you when those bad choices catch up with you.
The ultimate consequence of irresponsible choices is, of course, death. If there is an expectation or requirement that me – or someone else – will save you from the consequences of your having freedom to make bad choices – then you can't have it.
The Freedom to be irresponsible, to truly own our lives, necessitates a greater comfort with suffering and death than we as a society currently have. Are humans capable of letting the two irresponsible little pigs get eaten by the wolf? Can we let Darwin take over?
Here are some thoughts I have on death:
http://roslynross.blogspot.com/2017/02/a-new-way-to-think-about-death.html
Also, I don't think these "benefits" are for the employee at all. They are sold that way, but in reality, they are for me, the boss.
I talked to my farm manager and my cook about this, and both insist that, given the choice, they want to exchange money for labor. End of story. They don't want any of the gifts which they actually see as attempts to control. It's the flip side of the gift coin. The employer thinks he is "taking care of" his employee with that health plan, but employees would actually prefer the control over their lives.
Here, it's about food. Right now I provide very high quality food to my employees. This costs me only an extra $150 a month per employee, and I value having healthy employees, so I pay for it. I used to see myself as a benevolent boss giving them a gift that they appreciated. As it turns out, they don't appreciate it!
They don't see it as a gift. They would prefer that $150 in their pocket. They don't value healthy food or even the good health they enjoy from eating it. They would rather have more money and live on beans, rice, sugar, and beer. With the extra $150 they would buy even more sugar and even more beer. As the employer, I am controlling them by not giving them that option. They did freely agree to the arrangement, but it doesn't change the controlling nature of it.
My employees are irresponsible. And they would prefer to be allowed to be so.
But I don't feel safe having irresponsible employees. The "benefits" I give to my employees are actually there to protect me. Irresponsible people end up on the streets, if not now, then when they are older. They are a drain on society. They turn to crime and begging.
The moral dilemma here is: You, my irresponsible employee, can't have it both ways. You say you want the freedom to make irresponsible choices. I want to give you that freedom. But not if it means you will expect me to take care of you when those bad choices catch up with you.
The ultimate consequence of irresponsible choices is, of course, death. If there is an expectation or requirement that me – or someone else – will save you from the consequences of your having freedom to make bad choices – then you can't have it.
The Freedom to be irresponsible, to truly own our lives, necessitates a greater comfort with suffering and death than we as a society currently have. Are humans capable of letting the two irresponsible little pigs get eaten by the wolf? Can we let Darwin take over?
Here are some thoughts I have on death:
http://roslynross.blogspot.com/2017/02/a-new-way-to-think-about-death.html
