*****
That question is a simplification, of course: not all bosses do - in fact, the first person I met (back in the 80s) who I knew was a member of the ALP was a business owner, and he argued that what businesses needed was knowledge of what the conditions for pay etc would be, not unfair conditions for workers. Also, my current manager is great - as a manager and as a human being.
However, too many bosses do have a history of treating workers unfairly (underpayment, unsafe conditions, etc) - and some of this is aided and abetted by . . . (drum roll) . . . workers, and some unions.
My experience is that many people in their 30s and, to some extent, 40s want to demonstrate how capable they are at meeting society's expectations and norms - no matter how wrong those expectations or norms may be (if it's not that, they have a martyrdom complex and an urgent need for psychiatric help). Thus, for instance, such people - including women - will say "oh it's just expected that people will work overtime", or "being available is just normal". Well, apart from that being an utter lie (see here), it also shows weakness of mind and spirit, utter gutlessness, and it DIRECTLY enables the abuse of others (see here, which also applies to any partner who glibly assumes - despite no illness or dependents - that they have a right to be supported and looked after). This, combined with the idiotic focus of union reps on money only, rather than work-life balance (were they all men who agreed to that? If so, they were utter morons - and incompetent at their job - and many I've spoken to now just go straight to "it's normal practice" or "what's in your contract?" without even thinking to ask if the expectation is reasonable), has actively supported bosses' erosion of workers' conditions.
Taking a longer term look, this dates back to the Combine Harvester case that set Australia's minimum pay principle (and the clueless moron who lost continued to think people should get paid by status, irrespective of whether that meant they could live or not, for the rest of his life). In fact, it goes back further - probably to the invention of slavery, and further.
At times, particularly with some people I worked for last Century, there is a distinct sense that they resent paying workers - I even saw one such manager carry on about how generous they'd been paying a sacked worker what he was legally entitled to, as if they were being generous by complying with the law!
There is a grave misconception in the minds of such abusive people that workers are desperate and - in the words of the Combine Harvester moron - "lesser" people who are, or should be, grateful for the merciful munificence of being granted the stub of a used cigarette from the mouth of the most holy "greater" man to enable the subsistence of them and their entire family. (whoa . . . I need to cut back on the sarcasm tablets).
And those "greater" men are being, as I wrote above, actively aided by some workers (all of which is similar to Bob Menzies saying words to be effect that he didn't need to take some repressive measures as the greatest monitoring and pressuring for conformity in Australia existed in suburban living rooms - I'm still trying to find the exact quote).
As I've written elsewhere:
Beware the enforcers of conformity - those small people who, sharing the banality of evil, cannot abide that others may demonstrate that doing the same as everyone else is not compulsory.I count militant unionists in the category of those aiding bosses, on the basis of complete and utter political ineptness and lack of foresight generally (one of the reasons for pushing checking workplaces in homes was getting companies to pay for it - but companies now just say "we expect you to have that or arrange for it to be present at your expense" - showing the ****wits in the unions who said that were COMPLETELY outmaneuvered). (Oh - and all union voting should be by secret ballot.)
There are a whole host of similar problems in society, including excessive use of police checks and qualifications (and missing police checks in some fairly obvious situations), failure to try to learn from those who have worked longer (glitzy toys don't change the fundamentals in most cases, and those who think something more than 5 years old is out of date are incompetent), thinking that matters depend on a few projects and not decades of experience, those who judge a CV only on the last few years, etc. Not only are such attitudes NOT helping society, they are actively HARMING society, and the individuals in it.
On the part of those who are on the receiving end of such abuse, stand up to this as best you can (at least question it), avoid lifestyle vulnerabilities (have a small house, live within your means, and save and pre-pay for as much as you can), and support those who are trying to make the world a better place.
There is another aspect to this: the fact that, if we adjust for unpaid overtime, few businesses in Australia or the USA are actually making a profit. I recently heard a manager say "don't enter time beyond your minimum hours" - despite us not getting paid for those extra hours unless overtime has been pre-agreed. That request puts workers at risk, as they have no evidence of unpaid overtime for any future discussions on pay etc. I suspect the claim was based on the managers' KPIs, and that is yet another set of problems.
I'm going to finish with a Bob Menzies quote:
A man may be a tough, concentrated, successful moneymaker and never contribute to his country anything more than a horrible example. A manager may be tough and practical, squeezing out, while the going is good, the last ounce of profit and dividend, and may leave behind him an exhausted industry and a legacy of industrial hatred. A tough manager may never look outside his own factory walls or be conscious of his partnership in a wider world. I often wonder what strange cud such men sit chewing when their working days are over, and the accumulating riches of the mind have eluded them.Anyone in modern business or the neoliberals listening?
