Is the work environment even ethical anymore?
What are others views on such topic from experience!? Can this actually be fixed or improved within organizations in a way that is justifiable? How can it be done so that it is fair and corresponds with everyone?
Comments (91)
Never has been. ;)
The work environment can be fixed and improved through organizing with your fellow workers, because that's all workers really have to gain power. i.e. unions.
But that won't address international inequality, for instance, and given that capital -- work -- is internationally linked that's an important part of judging whether it's fair with everyone.
What work place? What environment? What factors are relevant to your assertion? Is this just anecdote about where you work?
At base, I vehemently disagree with Moliere there - fundamentally 'the work environment' is not an object of ethical value. It is functional, to my mind. What one does in that environment, though, is obviously ethically-informed and in that sense I'd need some detail about what behaviour or structure you're having a go at..
On the one hand, we are not "forced" to take any given job at any wage in any environment; on the other hand, if we do not work for a wage, we will not eat. Capitalism is a system of wage slavery -- per Karl Marx -- and we are a) in the large exploited group; b) in the small exploiter group; or c) scrounging for survival.
On the other hand, we join together in large enterprises to produce the means for a complex society -- everything from picking beans to drawing cartoons for the New Yorker.
The work environment ranges between sometimes really great to much more often really awful, but only through worker solidarity and agitation can work be "fair".
Seems to be hedging your bets -- what one does in the environment changes the environment, such as when one builds a house. The work environment is not a neutral thing that will always-and-forever exist -- it can be changed, and has been changed.
What ends up being "functional" depends upon what we want.
It's something I struggle with most. Especially opinionated outsiders. No, you don't work in my workplace, so you don't know what I'm going through! (this is just me being emotional)
So yeah, I like the topic. As you see I'm very human (although I use AI for my convenience).
I just came back to The Philosophy Forum after half year. So go easy on me please :D:D:D
I prioritize money, then insurance (as an USsian), then city, then shift. But I would like a world where these things aren't "individual choices" in light of clear institutional power. (that is, I'm something of a socialist)
I'm sure that's fine. I know some people who would love a well of permanent intoxication (hehe :P).
What do you mean by shift? The quality of workshifts?
I've learned the shifts I can do and can't do. I'm no night owl.
Yeah, Europe is very different. People are very traditional here compared to (some parts) of the US.
I used to love the night shifts, because they often involved crazy parties (with illegal drugs, :D:P). But I got criticized by people saying that it was bad for my health.
Nowadays I wouldn't let them judge me so easily anymore.
That being said; there seems to be a lack of education in the ethics and morality department. That I agree.
The most pervasive fraud perpetrated is the basic labor contract whereby the worker receives a small fraction of the value of the goods he or she produces. Apple Corporation had profits of 97 billion dollars last year. The workers who produced the various products and services that Apple sells receive none of the profits. They receive a wage which amounts to substantially less than all the goods and services they produce. The people who shared 97 billion dollars of net profit did not produce anything at all.
Your typical capitalist does not see anything unethical about this system. Because the fraud is the foundation of wealth, so they have deep interests in NOT seeing capitalism as theft (Proudhon: "property is theft". Balzac: "Under every great fortune lies a swindle")
Three months ago I yelled at the president of the firm because we couldn't agree with the procedures of a project. I thought it was unethical. I didn't walk out of the office, but I cried. He walked away. I prepared myself for the worse -- fired. (at that point, I didn't care about the job anymore) Three months later, I got my review: not only I got a nice raise, but I got the best office in the suite.
I'm hedging nothing. Without further context "the work environment" refers to nothing that can be discussed. So, If the point was to ttease out biases in the response, sure this is reasonable. But if the point was to discuss "the work environment" with anything approximating value or meaning, then this is a dead end thread.
The fact is the concept presented for discussion differs from case-to-case-to-case in such wildly intense degrees that this is not a coherent concept in and of itself. Not really apt to be discussed other than....
Giving up your biases and personal desires/offenses in response to OP seems to me the exact opposite of what would be helpful to the poster.
It is interesting how our minds always make us think of the worst. I always had similar situations where I had to face disputes, and when the meeting was over or the email sent, I felt like I had to prepare myself for the worst...
But, in most cases, the events didn't turn out as badly as I expected at the beginning. I thought I was very negative regarding facing confrontation, but after reading your post I am not feeling alone any more.
Here we have shortage of teachers too. Basically, most of the people don't want this job because it has a low income and the environment (as it is pointed out by the OP) is quite horrible. My generation has lost the basic sense of ethics and civism, and the classrooms are full of bullying, thugs, and stupid teenagers who think they are over of the teacher's authority.
Honestly, I think the worst environments nowadays are high-schools and even universities.
Quoting AmadeusD
I'm not so sure. There's a structure that holds between jobs: the employer and the employee exchange time for money, and people often want similar things out a job. The specifics, mind, can't be ironed out in the clouds -- but the generalities hold, and they hold in such a way that makes organizing a tried and true method of improving working conditions.
It's the organization that's similar between jobs that make "working conditions" coherent.
So long as the environment is presented under the conditions of voluntary cooperation there ought to be no problem. Voluntary conditions makes of employment a partnership between owners and workers. Should any tangental ethical issues arise, or the partnership is violated, there are avenues one can take to resolve them. He can seek compromise, or, absent that, he can terminate the relationship.
Wherever there are involuntary conditions, however, that's where the real ethical issues arise. Why is one forced to seek out employment? When the factory system came into being in England, an army of workers were readily available because the State had expropriated them from their land. It was either go into the factories and work for sustenance wages or else to beg, steal, or starve. These sorts of conditions, and the conditions of statism in general, are the unethical, unjust, and slavish conditions we now find ourselves in.
This is another of those strange dichotomies, "It is functional, therefore it is not ethical or unethical." Note that things like genocide, slavery, and drug trafficking are functional, along with pretty much everything else.
Whereas cats, such as mine, have no inclination to work whatsoever :P
So what is ethical? I don't really question too much. I'm very good at following orders. And when I feel that things get out of hand, I set boundaries. For me this is more of an intuitive matter.
Currently my work-life balance is good. And I intend to keep it that way!
As having studied economic history in the university, this sounds quite strange. :brow:
The basic reason is exactly the same why people choose to work in sweatshops in poor countries today: the income is better. The income working in a farm field is nonexistent, especially if and when you are a subsistence farmer. Income at a factory even if lousy with bad working conditions compared to later, it was better. And even today a farmer can have an income basically similar to working at McDonalds, even if he or she would be a millionaire if all the land would be sold.
That then (and now in the poorest countries) people are poor in the countryside isn't because of the state.
I don't know where you get the argument that this was because of the State. But please inform me, if I've gotten it wrong (which is a possibility).
Its out of Marxs Das Kapital. The Enclosures Acts expropriated the land from the peasantry, creating out of a class of peasant proprietors a class of day-laborers forced to work for other men in order to survive.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch27.htm
Many work places are unethical. I don't think they can be fixed. Just avoid them if you can. Start a better work place.
Yes, this was my reaction.
Maybe this is intended as a conversation about the ethics of Western capitalism.
What do you mean by unethical behaviour? I have rarely seen this, unless you mean capitalism itself, which many do consider to be wage slavery.
You got people who are essentially gender-blind commenting on a new blouse you purposely purchased solely due to its aesthetic appearance being likened to that of a literal rapist in some cases. Not cool.
You should be at your station or location doing your job. If you don't like someone, don't talk to them, aside from work-related necessity. Harassment or actions that contribute to distraction or non-productivity or "actions not in line with company culture" (I love that phrase, let's you fire immoral people for any reason at all) should be reported to HR and if not addressed may constitute a legal grievance that could then continue on to a legal claim.
"People are people. Wherever you go, there you are. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree."
You can't "force people to be good". Believe me, I've tried. There's a job, there's clear and absolute procedures, there's policy. You sign a waiver agreeing that you understand all of the aforementioned and furthermore agree to abide by them and acknowledge you can otherwise be fired at anytime for any reason other than factors outside of one's control (race, gender, religion, etc.) as protected under the Law. If you are a person of sound mind and body, fully capable of being a civilized person, you get paid, and subsequently don't have to starve. It's that simple. Nobody is going to spoon feed you as an adult. It's not inhumane. Humanity has nothing to do with it. You could be the only person on Earth and you would still have to work, likely much harder, to eat and survive. At least in (most) modern work environments if someone makes a mistake that causes injury or death you could sue and never have to see your coworkers again. Not a bad state of affairs, eh? Progress. That some people unfortunately take for granted.
:grin: :grin: :lol:
REALLY? YOU NOS4A2???
Let me get this straight. YOU take Karl Marx not as a political philosopher, one major political ideologue of 19th Century, but the most accurate economic historian in his most important ideological book, to represent the best what economic history can say about the industrialization? Who cares if he didn't have that historical hindsight we enjoy when looking at the age of industrialization.
Or is it a cynical remark or something? :razz:
Or has you account been cracked and occupied by someone and we're looking at identity theft?
I've never thought you were the tankist Marxist here, NOS4A2. :snicker:
Im surprised youve never heard it, given your education. Is it your opinion that the enclosures movement had no effect?
The enclosure movement started when? In the middle Ages? What I remember is that this took a HUGE time in England, whereas the division of common lands for example here (when we were part of the Kingdom of Sweden) it all was done once in the Great Partition in the middle of the 18th Century. Whereas in the UK this was done it bits and small parcels individually extended through a long time, continuing to the 19th Century. (Or I don't know, is it still done somewhere?)
Had this a link to industrialization and the emergence of industry workers? In Sweden's case no. Industrialization happened basically hundred years later. A larger reason is that with modern medicine and global trade the population both here and in the UK started to grow. Babies lived to be adults and the advances in agriculture and global trade meant that there wouldn't come epic famines. Actually the last one's in poor places of Europe like Ireland and Finland.
For Marx to put this issue at the front, the enclosures movement, as a huge reason promotes his ideological views of the emergence of the proletariat as an act of the government.
It wasnt until the 17th century that enclosures became acts of parliament in England.
So What did Marx write that was wrong? Id be interested to hear a university-educated perspective.
First, look at the graph above with the population of England.
Now, do you really think that the army of workers readily available happened a) because of the State had expropriated them from their land or b) because of population growth.
I think option b) is far more valid and shouldn't be dismissed.
And as I stated, in Sweden they did the land reform of dividing common lands far earlier than industrialization happened in one act. Unlike in the UK. And BEFORE the population boom of the 19th Century. It didn't result in an "army of workers". The population growth in the 19th Century created the situation that many had to go to the cities to look for jobs.
That's not at all like where I teach at and I teach in a very rough area. Where are you at?
Youve convinced me, ssu. It clearly happened because of population growth, which would have followed rather than proceeded the rise in industrial employment and opportunity. Though I still think the enclosures acts were an injustice, and the evicted peasantry were left off with not much else, it cannot be said these acts immediately provided an army of laborers for the factory.
As I thought you were a proponent of capitalism and individualism, I think it's strange that here you go with Marx.
Of course everything has to do with the question who exactly gets the common land. Marx definately gives one answer in his theories, but historically it hasn't always gone that way.
In Sweden there aristocracy was never dominant, they had to take into account the strong position of the peasants, who were independent. You can notice this from the fact that the Swedish peasantry have never revolted. The only occasion is when Sweden got it's independence from Denmark and when Finnish peasants sided with the wrong brother in a feud for the crown (hence not a traditional peasant revolt). Hence in Sweden those common lands were divided basically between the peasants. This in fact meant that a numerous size of landowners emerged in Sweden (and thus Finland). Hence there wasn't the kind of feudalism we see somewhere else with few ultrarich landowners and a poor majority.
This actually was even more important in the 19th Century when suddenly because of the paper industry, the forests became valuable, not just as places to get firewood. This made the countryside prosperous, because the ownership of the forests was so common and the peasants, still being subsistence farmers, started to earn money from selling wood. Even today out of 5,1 million Finns 600 000 own forests, so landownership is quite common with 50% to 60% of the forests being in ownership of private citizens.
In the Third World, things aren't so... and teachings of Marx are quite popular!
Spain.
I hope you realize one neednt agree with everything an author believes in order to agree on a few points. I thought Marxs along with Hobsbawms account of Encosures was well cited and accurate, though I refute the theory that capitalism (which I find a stupid term) was somehow the cause. And though I find your point valid and agreeable, Im not sure the debate is entirely settled.
Undoubtedly, the Swedish account you describe is more preferable, morally and economically.
That's a very good point.
Quoting NOS4A2
The Swedish account just shows how things like land reform have a lot more nuances as usually is portrayed. And so is with capitalism, and coming back to the topic of this thread, with the work place and workers movement (which is the historical viewpoint of the OP).
I don't know where exactly the quote was, but Marx himself has said that things might not go as he anticipated and the proletariat may end up simply ask for higher wages. So there's no revolution!
Well, that's basically what has happened in Germany and the UK and in Western Europe. In the end what the workers movement did succeed in was higher wages, better working conditions and more focus on worksafety. And of course even the paid time off from work. The age old question about income distribution was dealt and and indeed the workers and their families got more prosperous through hire wages. Capitalism didn't collapse as Marx anticipated.
Yet the debate will surely not be settled. There is an irresistible lure for the Marxist narrative or in more simple terms the populist narrative of where the evil selfish rich oppress the ordinary people. For any problems or grievances found in our society those simple narratives are so tempting that they will not die out however many times it's shown that the World isn't so black and white.
3/4 of the population owned very small lots, so one might have reason to suspect that these peasants were simply too poor to revolt against the ruling nobility, church, and monarchy.
In the late 1800s 1,5 million swedish peasants emigrated to the US to avoid starvation and the arrogance of the feudal aristocracy. Maybe the latter were not as dominant as white land owners in South Africa, but to claim that these peasants were independent seems a stretch. Voting rights were based on income, the church controlled education, and so on.
These discussions aren't easy for me, but nevertheless important!
I'm reading your posts with curiosity and interest. Also with diligence and patience.
As if things will be alright and better.
Whether a workplace is ethical/unethical obviously is apt. Every example of a work place has its ethical boundaries, and they are to be discussed in context. The concept is not moral or ethical unless you think 'work' is an ethical or moral proposition.
Quoting Tom Storm
I tried to avoid assuming this because almost all comparators are very, very much worse, making a discussion without that being pointed out probably an unintended political argument.
Quoting Moliere
I reject your premise. That is not a catch-all description of all work places. That's my entire point, though, so I'll it there.
Yes, it is surprising what works out and what doesn't. It was a crapshoot. I went with my deepest feeling instead of always having to guard what I say to the detriment of my own principles.
Do notice the extremely important thing: 3/4 of the population owned lots. Even if they were very small lots and had only a couple of cows and few patches of land, these people were land owners. The outcome of this you can see actually looking at map of countryside in Sweden or in Finland: the houses are separate and not in Medieval-type villages. This is the effect of the Great Partition.
Photo of Varmland, Sweden. Notice how separate the houses are next to their fields. They weren't so in the Middle Ages or earlier.
Hence the peasants were not in a similar position like serfdom the peasantry in Russia in the 19th Century or earlier, described so well for example in the book Dead Souls by Gogol.
Here I would disagree with you on the idea of "people being too poor to revolt" argument:
The poverty of peasants isn't at all a reason for there not to be peasant revolts, I'd say it's on the contrary! People that have nothing to lose can lose it. What would they lose if they have nothing to lose? Land ownership is something that makes people to take care of their property. Extreme poverty leads to a very shaky and violent society. And this is shown by how violent slave revolts are and how they have been an existential threat even to Ancient Rome, where slavery was very common. And slaves have it even worse, yet revolts like in Haiti happened.
I have worked for corporate America, and I would refer to a business as ethical if it adheres to the ethical standards within the system. That is, does it offer protections against rascim, sexism and violence in the workplace? Are the benefits promised (like vacation time, daily work schedule) honored? Do you receive credit where due and are you now blamed for things you did not do? Are you treated with respect and given honest feedback? That it what an ethical environment is to me.
If you're asking whether capitalism is inherently unfair and whether only through a Marxist reorganization can we acheive an ethical work environment, then I don't understand the word "anymore" attached to the OP. That is, if you think capitalism is inherently ethically flawed, then it always has been. I do think capitlistic systems grow more ethical over time, making life in a 21st century factory a more ethical work environment than one built when the industrial revolution was first underway.
Ditto. My current work environment meets all of these criteria and more. My previous workplace met none of them. And that is why i left.
Quoting Hanover
This comes back to my point to Tom - If we speak about systems outside of Western Capitalism, absolutely not. The lack of ethical regulation is rife. Within Western Capitalism, it's a mixed bag but I do agree we're getting there. The problem is Western companies exploiting non western, non-capitalist economic systems for value. Which has, for some reason, been entirely missed by anti-Capitalist drivel. That said, they often exploit us right back (ME oil trade, for instance). Ironically, usery is a big no-no in the ME and compared to Capitalism, that's probably a plus on paper.
Being a land owner in rural Sweden in 1867 meant that regardless of how well you had taken care of your land you would starve to death unless you revolt or emigrate. 1,5 million chose the latter, and exchanged their land for a travel ticket. If emigration had not been an option, then revolt seems probable, at least if one considers the fact that these peasants had no political power, they were too poor to be allowed to vote, and thus easy to exploit by the feudal elite. I doubt that starvation in Sweden in 1867 was better than slavery in ancient Rome or in medieval Russia. Being a 'land owner' makes it sound better, and sure, ownership did have an effect on the landscape. By the way, nice photo of Värmland! I drove through there in January on my way from Sweden to Norway for a ski trip.
I reject your premise. That is not a catch-all description of all work places. That's my entire point, though. I did point out that once you've got 'a workplace' of some kind (i.e, a particular) then you can start the ethical discussion based on what actually happens in that case. There is no universal relationship between employer and employee beyond the "fact of" (which doesn't, on it's face, involve any interaction or disposition at all). If there was a specific relationship that could be threaded through every single workplace in the metaphysical world, as it were, there would be no acceptable economic system given that 'work' is literally unavoidable within society.
As an example that defeats the premise there are many companies with a a flat structure where employees earn exactly what they bill for (some types of Law Firms have a 30/30/30 rule for every single employee based on their fee-earner's work.. which they are usually partly responsible for) entirely regardless of their position but decision making is obviously the arena of the owners of a company.
Shareholding might actually hold water for your point, though, as the relationship is one of pure exploitation (arguable, but I can't see it another way).
The relationship between employer and employee has no relationship beyond the fact that they have a relationship, and yet that relationship doesn't involve any interaction or disposition -- ever?
I give time for money. Unless you're talking something like feudalism or before then I think it holds: under capital it's a time-for-money system. That structure is what makes "working conditions" coherent.
Surely you're not going to claim to have no knowledge of what people who are employees want? "Less work for more money" sounds like a good reasonable guess to me.
I can dispossess you of an erroneous take with this:
Quoting AmadeusD which means.. You are leapfrogging over the discussion into one which I am not having. Though, I have very, VERY clearly stated that once there are details(i.e an example of), that discussion is apt and important. Unless you involve some specifics, there is nothing to discuss. "the workplace" doesn't even exist unless you are talking about a workplace. In that case, go for gold and I likely have as many, and similar critiques to yourself. But the concept itself means nothing but that there is a relationship. Not what it is, or that it requires any interaction.
So, you want to talk about specifics.
I'm saying, the concept doesn't hoild ethical water until you talk about specifics. I'm unsure that we disagree?
Quoting Moliere
This could be said, and It would be hard to argue against, but there are millions of examples within capitalism where this is not the exchange. Exploitative trade is very much a thing (and imo, a good thing) which doesn't involve any direct relationship with value per se, and instead, value per individual but is definition part of, if not intrinsic to the mechanics of modern capitalism (i would posit that this is marked by multiple hierarchies, rather than a single state-peaked hierarchy).
Right. This should be obvious. Of course, the merry-go-round will now require you to explain what money is.
Quoting Moliere
Occasionally it is very useful to pretend not to understand what the words "employer" and "employee" mean. :wink:
I ask because both of your comments are made utterly redundant by my response before yours. Seems like you might be trying to avoid? I've directly addressed why your positions make no sense (though, in response to Moliere). I cannot help but have this thought...
We're all replying to replies. I am agreeing with Moliere. I think his argument is approximately a million times better than yours.
Cool.
My guess, here, is that we're just beginning from such philosophically different places that we're talking past one another.
Quoting AmadeusD
heh. I'm happy to have earned "hard to argue against" :)
Though surely you can recognize that labour-time is appropriate to bring up in a discussion about work environment, in spite of counter-examples?
Can you just directly address why you think the abstract concept of 'work environment' without any indication of detail is apt for ethical discussion (and this, specifically in opposition to "a work environment, X")?
Quoting Leontiskos
You're allowed - but my comments don't change simply because you're justifying ignoring the arguments to agree with a badly-formulated response. *shrug*.
Regarding this objection, it strikes me as a subtle ignoratio elenchus. The OP was not speaking about "the work environment" in a purely abstract manner. We know this because of that word, "anymore." The purely abstract notion that you have concerned yourself with does not change from time to time; but that which the OP is talking about does change from time to time; therefore the purely abstract notion that you have concerned yourself with is not what the OP is talking about. Thus you are talking past the OP.
Now the OP certainly needs to give us more information about what he is asking about, but we can be sure it isn't what you make it out to be.
Does "the work environment" import no detail?
I think it's apt for ethical discussion probably because of my own personal history, of course. It seems to me that there are some environments which are better or worse than others, which means there's an evaluative element, which means -- well, if not ethics, at least aesthetics. Value theory.
Emigration happens even in far less dire situations.
A huge number of Finns emigrated to Sweden to work in the 1960's and the1970's, which actually took care of our unemployment problem and Sweden got it's first dose of immigrants, which even looked like Swedes and ought to have learnt Swedish in school.
Quoting jkop
Emigration to America was the real blessing to Europe altogether, actually. Yet the driving factor, as I discussed with @NOS4A2 was the population growth that happened because of modern medicine and improved supply of food thanks to improvements in agriculture and global trade. This population growth didn't happen because of political developments and hence immigration and the industrial revolution helped this. Today Third World countries don't have such a nice situation as 19th Century Europe had.
Yet Sweden is a perfect example of that huge transformations can happen without revolts and political turmoil and blood on the streets. England had it's bloody Civil War, France has had multiple revolutions. Places like Sweden and Switzerland stand out from the crowd.
Right, historically there's been little blood on the streets here. Instead we have this "consensus culture" where open conflict and disagreement is avoided at all cost. It doesn't mean that conflicts and disagreements have disappeared, they just manifest in other ways. Imagine what that can be like at work places, schools, universities, sports clubs etc. If we are supposed to get along no matter what, then less people are likely to speak truth to power, and power can avoid being accountable. This might serve the interests of those in power, for a while, but now we have gang related shootings and bombings in public places, and politics characterized by populism and polarization. Not sure whether it will result in something historically significant. Well, 200 years of freedom of alliance seems to be at an end now that we're about to become members of Nato.
Yes, good. I think the important part here is the underlined. To my mind, this requires a workplace to begin discussing the ethics. "the work place" is not "a workplace" and therefore has no detail to be discussed, ethically.
It would be like saying "the court room" rather than a particular courtroom with particular policy/protocol/requirement etc... The Court Room, as it stands, doesn't refer to anything whcih could be discussed. Is how I see this.
Is that at all clearer? I do think this applies to any value-driven discussion.
Historically, and I'm speaking hundreds and thousands of years, we are very close to Germany & France. And there is a lot of thought about (work) ethics in both German and French, which has now been translated to English.
Lucky for us!
Good discussion :)
I see enough generalities that I think the discussion holds together -- we work for money, we want more money and rewarding work in various ways, the establishment of individual property adjudicated by states and courts gives a general social structure -- between a worker and a peasant, as I alluded to earlier, I'd say there's not much to compare.
But it seems our disagreement is whether one can speak in general about "working conditions" at all, which I clearly think we can.
What are the 'general conditions' of 'the work environment'? If you can lay some out, I'd be happy to step back on this. I just can't think of any 'general conditions' as opposed to 'general expectations' which can't really be apt for anything here.
More on the descriptive side: I think the social structure of property is what allows us to coherently speak this way.
Because we have individual property rights that are enforced by a state, and because human beings continue to be what they are, some of the general structures that emerge are: some people must sell their time to people who own things. It doesn't even have to be a bad thing -- I certainly believe that capitalism is better than feudalism, and I'd note an important part of Marx is his fascination with capital rather than his opposition.
So, yeh, that's the theoretical background I'm thinking from, but it seems coherent in practice too -- at least in my experiences. (we need not convince one another here). At a very general level people who own workplaces would like, based on self-interest, for people they pay to produce more value than they pay them for, and people who sell their labor because they have to would generally prefer to work less for more reward. That's just human nature.
The phrasing of this betrays the point you want to make, and supports mine. These are various and you need a bit of detail to discuss them with any aptness. Nothing presented enables the conversation.
These concepts above are not able to be discussed ethically. As you said, they need not be bad things - but sometimes they will be. And we need to know about that "sometime" to discuss its ethical implication.
As in, we're both weakening our claims ;)
I'm not claiming universality so much as generality. In the sense of "Generally speaking...", which includes, I believe, some amount of subjectivity. In a way it's like saying "In my experience...." to say, look, I understand my beliefs are informed by my experience and I understand that all of our experiences are wildly different.
But if they are the same?
Then it's pretty easy to talk in terms of working conditions, and the term refers to general things. Time-for-Money being a big one. Even the investor spends time looking at his stocks.
hehe, that's fair. But I disagree with that sometimes is enough to go on, because it doesn't present me with anything to discuss. Which is the problem.
Quoting Moliere
Do you not, then see that this is an aspect of many work environments which still requires the surrounding details to discuss it?
in-and-of-itself its nothing at all to be discussed. Time-for-money? Says nothing ethically.
Here, let's try this: Engage me in the discussion you think you can wrangle out of hte geenral concept of "the world environment".
I will do my best to engage back - but I expect this can't be done
I do. I think I just have a general structure to think through those specific problems. By analogy I'd say the law and its practice is another structure to think through the problems, though mine is obviously different.
Quoting AmadeusD
Cool. :)
Tonight.... naw. I said enough and have to think. I suspect, of course, that it can be done, but I'm tired now.
(also, I've set up the Zoom meeting. Check the thread :) )
It will be interesting to know what you learn from the Mediterranean countries regarding this topic, or whether the gap between North and South Europe is not that great when you leave the political arena.
I can only talk about my actual experiences over 40 years, working in a range of roles. I don't recall any significantly unethical cultures. Sometimes a particular work culture is bad, but this may this be down to malicious colleagues having personality problems and being arseholes from time to time. More unpleasant than unethical.
For the most part, for workers here, conditions have improved over my time. I'm sure there are still primitive conditions in the casualised work force (waiters, cleaners, food delivery people), where workers don't get properly paid, any holidays or training or any benefits. But full-time workers here tend to be protected by robust legislation, are provided 4 weeks holiday a year and are paid for days taken sick. They also can't be sacked without a robust due process.
This is an exact ignoratio elenchus. You have literally made my argument, despite pretending to be an objector to it. "I'll leave you to it".
Marx's description of capital points out that there are owners of workplaces and people who work for the owners of workplaces.
I want to, by analogy at least, say this is similar to knowledge of the law.
You can know the law, you can know the previous decisions and know the likelihoods based upon the judge you're talking to. But you cannot know what the judge will say, even if you have a good idea.
I'm thinking from a general description of how economies work -- so of course I cannot say how a particular instance should cache out while being fair. Just like the law this is an understanding of what you can say, what people want, and knowing the likelihoods of being hired or, if you're on the other side, the likelihoods of who gets hired is more in direct control for you, like a judge.
This analogy is the strongest thing I can think of right now.
And, yeah, I was excited that you got a Zoom link! I understand overcommitting :D
At least that is my impression.
What do you all think?
Anyway, you posted that as a fellow EU-member, you try to learn from other European fellows. This surprised me, because I don't know to what extent my country (Spain) can teach you 'something' regarding the working or student environment. Our youth unemployment and dropping out rates are very high.
I guess you were just thinking about other nations like Germany or France, and not a South European country precisely. :smile:
But maybe I am wrong...
So I was wrong...
I believe that considering the work environment at large as unethical is a huge generalization, ungrounded as a statement and a quite biased --one-sided and even wrong I could say-- view.
What exactly is the problem with the work environment? In what sense it is unethical and why?
Then, why "anymore"? Was the work environment more ethical or less unethical in the past? E.g. in the times of slavery --ancient and modern? Or before the advancements in the emancipation of women?
Then, do you express this view because of first-hand experience or from examples in real life? Or it is just a theoretical viewpoint of yours?
There is injustice and unfair treatment in companies as there is injustice and unfair treatment in schools and universities as there is injustice and unfair treatment in human relations as there is injustice and unfair treatment in families. Injustice can be met in every aspect and corner of life. The work environment has not the exclusivity in it.
I have the same problem you do, but it has been put to me that I was supposed to infer a load of historical context into OP before replying.
My position remains the same "the work environment" is not something apt for ethical discussion. Moliere feels different - but seems to think that context I mentioned is patent, and unavoidable.