I posted some thoughts about balance, truth and nuance at https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/2022/04/post-no-2192-balance-nuance-and-truth-5.html.
In that article, I raised the issue of work-life balance, and I’d like to give a few extra thoughts here.
Firstly, no matter what the law may or may not say about master-servant relationships, in my opinion employer-employee relationships should be about a meeting of equals - both are human beings who are equally deserving of respect and appropriate (neither excessive nor insufficient) reward. Each has something the other wants - the employer wants the employee’s skills, or at least the employee’s labour, and the employee wants both payment and the opportunity to feel they are doing something of value (especially if they have specialised skills). Neither should cheat the other - the employer should not underpay the employee nor allow unsafe working conditions, and the employee should not cheat the employer by, perhaps, working less well than they are able, nor by committing any of the various forms of workplace theft.
As an aside, in some situations, some people are both employer, in that they are an agent of the employer, and employee: I am referring here to managers, who both enact the will of the employer on the workforce, yet are hired and thus employees working for the employer.
And having got that out of the way, the reality is that employers have a great deal more power than employees, and thus this is NOT a meeting of equals.
In recent decades, particularly as neoliberalism has infested and infected the world, the inequality of power has become worse. There are growing concerns about a number of issues, including insecure work, extended working hours (especially for those working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic), being on-call at all times, and expectations of having a positive attitude that can reach into toxic positivity.
One example of recent changes that is quite concerning, in my view, is the expectation some employers have of employees bending the employees’ personal social media to the will of the employer. I consider it reasonable that employees don’t unreasonably bag their employer - in my opinion, genuine and fair criticism is another matter, but I’ve personally operated by raising such concerns internally (I have been very late to the social media bandwagon), but the gripes I’ve had have generally not been as severe as some of the things other people have been subjected to, and in those cases legal advice first would be my suggestion.
This coercion by employers in the area of social media, however, goes beyond not bagging them: there has been an increasing pressure for employees to turn their personal, private means of expressing themselves into mouthpieces for the company.
That is utterly, utterly abhorrent, and, in my opinion, likely breaches several human rights conventions and laws [Note 1].
It also means I NEVER believe anything anyone says about their company while they still work there.
Even worse - for the company - is that it is also utterly self-defeating.
Consider this: one of reasons that freedom is a better way to live than in autocracies is that those living in freedom can constructively express and test ideas - and, as part of that, fair criticism of past wrongs has led to improvements.
As some rough and ready examples of criticisms leading to improvements, consider the following broad perspectives:
- the criticism of too few women working led to measures to increase the numbers of women working at all levels of the business world, which is now recognised as having benefits to productivity / creativity (especially when businesses take advantage of diverse thinking by recognising and acting on new ideas that are different);
- concerns around inadequate / ineffective responses to racism led to the concept of anti-racism; and
- concerns regarding “natural rights” led to the concept of human rights.
When businesses shut down dissent (including controlling their employees personal freedom of self-expression), they are being as incompetent as the USSR and every other autocracy - they are being the complete opposite of tech innovators like Google/Apple in their early days, all those involved in the USA’s Apollo programme (and associated programmes), and Johannes Gutenberg.
In fact, in my opinion, if China released her people from what I will term the CCP’s extreme control of minds and emotions, and allowed them to think, then that nation would become the leading world power within three generations, possibly less time.
On that, modern families that are not autocratic have better outcomes for children and other family members than older structures - and families in societies that are free of autocratic coercion (whether from despots or despotic companies) are more likely to be healthier, happier, and have better outcomes for all members of the family (it is “easier to be better”) - and that is better for society, as well the family and its members.
This also applies to spiritual / religious organisations / movements: the ones that are less autocratic adapt more readily and effectively, and thus serve their constituents in more meaningful ways. Buddhism has had a history of such adaptation for two and a half millennia, whereas neochristianity has had many violent, bloody wars and schisms.
Going back to companies, in my opinion one of best company structures is worker-owned and managed, although, based on my experience, that does still require oversight on safety and diversity & inclusivity issues. Nevertheless, provided the implementation of worker-ownership is reasonable (i.e., no compulsion to buy lots of shares or other expectations that involve taking on loans, financial commitments, etc.), it has considerable potential - although it would probably become unworkable at very large scales, or for companies that are spread across the globe (the latter owing to different social/cultural and legal situations in each nation).
Irrespective of the ownership, respecting, trusting and allowing freedom of expression/thought of workers is, in my opinion, likely to be best, in the long term, for companies. If employees feel they have to turn to social media to have a vent, I suspect there is something wrong with the company’s structure and systems.
There are a few thoughts in a post of mine on my political blog at https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2022/05/meritocracy-lack-of-bias-and-other.html which may supplement your thinking on this one. If they do, good, if they don’t, please ignore. 😌
- See, for instance:
Article 19 of the ICCPR on FREEDOM of POLITICAL EXPRESSION;
Articles 6 (1), 7, and 8 (see here) of the ICESCR, Article 5 (e) (i) (ii) (see here and here) of the ICERD, Article 11 (1) (a - c) of the CEDAW, and Article 27 (1) of the CRPD on WORK and WORK CONDITIONS;
Article 17 of the ICCPR, Article 16 of the CRC, Article 22 of the CRPD, and Article 12 (1) of the DRIP on PRIVACY,
and also
https://www.oaic.gov.au/, https://ovic.vic.gov.au/, https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-and-health-at-work/normative-instruments/code-of-practice/WCMS_107797/lang--en/index.htm, https://www.abc.net.au/everyday/social-media-and-work-how-to-keep-out-of-trouble/10382110, and https://www.apsc.gov.au/working-aps/integrity/social-media-guidance-australian-public-service-employees-and-agencies.
I am now on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/Gnwmythr.
