Obviously I reject the framing. I have never felt exploited by my employers, nor do I feel entitled to a share of the profits beyond what I negotiated when I took the job.
I'm a professional, and as a professional I don't feel I need to coerce people into employing me. If I don't find conditions acceptable I take my services elsewhere.
Do you use the "forced" framing when your money and labor is used to fund your employer lobbying against your interests? Or is it just natural and right that your effort is subservient to the desires of your boss because they are more important than you?
Can we please adjust the framing about jobs? Another employee will not steal your job.
Your employer may “steal” your job and give your job to someone who convinces them they can do it cheaper.
In the new era of ai-augmented white collar work this process will get faster.
But let’s remember it’s always the employer who makes the decision and stop using language implying the existence of “job thieves” of some kind and completely excluding the employers’ choice in the process.
I don't believe I asserted that the employer is wrong in being unwilling to train or pay market rates for labour. There are many valid reasons to be so unwilling.
I can negotiate my own salary, hours, and working conditions. I don't need someone to do it for me, and I certainly do not want to be forced into such an arrangement. Just because it's something you personally find advantageous doesn't mean others feel the same way, and no one should ever be forced into it.
The criticism makes no sense...just because one isn't "forced" to work doesn't mean protections from employer abuse or misconduct suddenly don't matter if someone decides to take the work.
My paycheck is there to make me considerate of my employer's priorities, it does not make me be a slave to them. If those priorities are misplaced, I have no obligation to support them.
I fail to see your example as fitting within my eloquent definition. You are free to work for less than you want from your employer; I presume they are not trying to prevent this.
I have no particular objection to schemes like this, though I'd certainly be wary of offering such a scheme as an employer. I'd be worried about some rabble rouser spinning it to the media as indentured servitude.
Sure, just two different ways of looking at the same thing. I personally view all employment as fundamental exploitation. Obviously you only hire employees with the intention to extract more value than what you give back in compensation. Some employers are downright extreme in this exercise.
I'm not against all of it. I just appreciate viewing things from as many perspectives as possible, uncomfortable or not.
I've been contracting for over a decade. I don't expect any sort of benefits (unless specified in the contract that I signed) and I'm not sure why the people in this article feel they are entitled to them.
If you want benefits and be treated like an employee, go through the hiring process at Facebook to become an employee.
reply