The reason companies have the power to put their thumb into their employees is because workers have let their dignity and pride go, just to get a paycheck. Proverbially speaking, you get what you pay for. In essence, if you take a job that is below a threshold of tolerance that you would like, that's exactly what you're going to get.
I realize it's easy to espouse this kind of view. I don't have a wife or children who rely on me to have a constant job. I'm in an industry whose companies are essentially in a full-court press hiring mode. But I think from this position, I gain perspective.
When you're at a job you hate, you lose passion. Passion for everything from hobbies, to friends, to (most tragically) family. Your partner sees a frail person who has given up. Your kids see a failure. Someone who never reached for and got what they wanted. They not only pity you, but they have contempt for you.
Be the person they want you to be, which, incidentally, tends to be the person you want to be. Don't say "Yes" to 2 weeks vacation and 10k under market. That's ridiculous. Stand your ground. You're worth something.
Companies have effectively gotten prospects to race to the bottom in terms of compensation, either because the prospects are too stupid or too scared to ask for more.
If more people took a little pride in themselves and asked for what they deserved, we wouldn't all be so paralyzed under the slave traders.
At the end of the day, no one can leave the abuser behind but you.
When you're at a job you hate, you lose passion. Passion for everything from hobbies, to friends, to (most tragically) family. Your partner sees a frail person who has given up. Your kids see a failure. Someone who never reached for and got what they wanted. They not only pity you, but they have contempt for you.
If people invoked a definitive reaction like 'hate' when referring to their job they would reach the same conclusion as you and quit more quickly. However, most people in this type of situation are probably earning good money (e.g. at/above market rate) with decent benefits, which in turn cause one to be ambivalent to their job.
The situation you describe is one of certainty: job hate, withering joi de vivre, loss of family respect and increasing resultant psychological pressures.
The situation most people may be in is of great uncertainty: job tolerance, decent joi de vivre (fun hobbies, supportive friends), happy family, less psychological pressure outside of work.
The second situation is more conducive to stability in one's life, which is no laughing matter when you have a family. I appreciate your perspective, and hope that you can apply it to the second situation.
EDIT: I'm not condoning the more ambiguous situation, merely explaining that this is probably what happened to the long-time bank manager in the article. The general malaise from work slowly spread until he couldn't take it any longer.
When I look back at the jobs that have been the worst experiences for me it's hard for me to avoid thinking that, in abstract, they weren't really so bad. Good pay, decent hours, not too difficult work, etc. It's hard to tally the cost of workplaces and managers that take a heavy emotional and psychological toll.
While I've spoken my peace, I do want to say that I definitely have come from that place. As someone who's moved from two dying industries, I can assure you, I've spent most of my professional life under duress. And I'll never go back, even if it means switching careers again.
You are never powerless, until you believe that you are.
You may not be able to change your current company. But you may be able to find something else. It will properly pay less, but there are ways around that (/r/frugal, say). You may be able to get enough self-respect that you dare to stand up to your boss.
My grandparents were as close as you can get to poverty without actually starving -- better not drop this piece of meat, because that is all I have and there isn't enough potatoes to make up for it -- poor.
Grandpa worked his ass of getting crazy overtime to make a bit of money. Yet once when his boss became really mean he told to stop doing that shit or he would quit. He didn't exactly have much of cushion at home, but he knew that he wouldn't stand for abuse either.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean much. He could not have keept his house (which he got so cheap he had to rebuild most of it over the years) and he would still be out of a job.
My problem with what he's saying is that it seems to me that he's extrapolating the job markets for technology in a small number of geographical areas, between 2009 and 2012, to the world in general.
The reason companies have the power to put their thumb into their employees is because workers have let their dignity and pride go, just to get a paycheck. Proverbially speaking, you get what you pay for. In essence, if you take a job that is below a threshold of tolerance that you would like, that's exactly what you're going to get.
This ignores the directed and deliberate efforts to suppress workers' rights to organize and workers' ability to leave for a better job.
Noncompete agreements, union-busting, high costs of health-care outside of BigCorp jobs, labor arbitrage, labor monopsonies... it all adds up.
"Your partner sees a frail person who has given up. Your kids see a failure. Someone who never reached for and got what they wanted. They not only pity you, but they have contempt for you."
Well, I sure hope that if/when you may face a time where your passion has worn thin that your loved ones may find in themselves some compassion for you rather than pity or contempt. I think this actually is the default in most families than pity or contempt. Otherwise, what would be the point of having them?
You sound as if you aren't living it. There is compassion, but in a large part, when everyone is stressed (including the kids) by schedule or performance there isn't enough time to really gain rapport, and contempt sets in for the ones who "can't handle it".
This is the logical conclusion of not spending enough time together, or time spent together while one or more of an organizational unit are under serious duress.
The way to alleviate is to enjoy "quality" time together - guess what folks don't have time to do when their stress levels are up?
There is a reason that long stretches of unemployment, accidents, and tragedies lead to divorce. It isn't because compassion is the default reaction to stress in most families.
> The reason companies have the power to put their thumb into their employees is because workers have let their dignity and pride go, just to get a paycheck.
Another reason they have more power is because of the steady decline of unions.
What youre espousing only works on the individual level, not on the societal level. ie when you turn down a crappy job, there will always be someone who will take it.
Don't convolve abuse with wage. There are a lot of programmers who are paid very well but are unhappy with their jobs. Being a corporate wage slave is a fast path to unhappiness.
The problem is that so few people are as introspective as the GP to your post. Most will take the bad job because work > no work in most peoples minds.
This is a problem that cannot be fixed at the leaf nodes, it must be fixed at the root. But the root is currently doing very well for themselves and won't see it as a problem (because there are always more workers)
The solution that factory workers came up with to solve this problem was to organize. But that caused more problems in the long term than it solved (it's economically unfeasible)
You also must keep in mind that a society is simply a group of individuals, things would inherently have to work on an individual level before they turned into a society level movements. Keeping in mind that the first person to quit will pave the way for others to do it without feeling awkward. It's kind of an inertia thing, an object in motion stays in motion, and it takes more energy for an object that is stationary to begin moving. Same overlying principal applies to people and movements in societies.
I'm not sure things are as simple as that, in most cases. Not everyone can switch jobs in a blink - most people can't even afford risking their jobs, for whatever reason (mortgages, families, lifestyles, parent pressure, etc).
It's easy to lose sight on that when you're in the "top 10%" of the pyramid. Most people aren't...
The reason companies have the power to put their thumb into their employees is because workers have let their dignity and pride go, just to get a paycheck. Proverbially speaking, you get what you pay for. In essence, if you take a job that is below a threshold of tolerance that you would like, that's exactly what you're going to get.
I realize it's easy to espouse this kind of view. I don't have a wife or children who rely on me to have a constant job. I'm in an industry whose companies are essentially in a full-court press hiring mode. But I think from this position, I gain perspective.
When you're at a job you hate, you lose passion. Passion for everything from hobbies, to friends, to (most tragically) family. Your partner sees a frail person who has given up. Your kids see a failure. Someone who never reached for and got what they wanted. They not only pity you, but they have contempt for you.
Be the person they want you to be, which, incidentally, tends to be the person you want to be. Don't say "Yes" to 2 weeks vacation and 10k under market. That's ridiculous. Stand your ground. You're worth something.
Companies have effectively gotten prospects to race to the bottom in terms of compensation, either because the prospects are too stupid or too scared to ask for more.
If more people took a little pride in themselves and asked for what they deserved, we wouldn't all be so paralyzed under the slave traders.
At the end of the day, no one can leave the abuser behind but you.