Hank
|
Poster: Hank @ Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:20 pm
As a straw boss on the production floor, I field a lot of questions from people who are either interested to know about the dynamics of personnel management or eager to gather laughable information from me a la "The Dinner Game."
One of the most common questions is "Why do people work for peanuts?" This question is better phrased as "what is the difference between someone who can climb the ladder of servitude and someone who will be forever trodden in the very most noxious of low-earning realitypain?"
Let's get one thing out of the way straight off : there is no substantial difference between earning a living via a job at an enterprise that is owned by someone else and being a slave. If you depend on a paycheck signed by somebody else to get by, you are their indentured servant. This understanding helps us to grasp the nature of the entire concept of employment and why people behave as they do. It's what Roland Kirk called "volunteered slavery."
Now, to address the question above. There a several basic qualities that managers and owners (you know what that means) value in employees. Here they are, presented in ascending order of value :
5) Aptitude for the job at hand
4) A cheerful attitude
3) Ability and willingness to follow instructions
2) A strong 'work ethic,' that is, an internal drive to do things efficiently
1) Reliability of attendance
The most valuable thing that an 'employee' can do is to show up. If you can spin Ethernet cables into gold, it's no good if you're not there to do it. If you're supposed to do task 'X' on day 'Y,' and you don't show up to do it, it causes a lot of hideous ish to take place. Though you may believe that task 'X' can wait, it probably can't, and the person who was supposed to do task 'Q' will have to pick up the slack. This is an evil domino effect of yipe that creates bad dreams for managers. Most -- most! -- people don't grasp this concept. They have a gut feeling that it is their right to show up more or less when they feel like it. Statistics [ed. note : lies lies lies] on absenteeism in America are staggering. If people get a twinge in their throat, or if they have a stomach-ache, or if they are a little hung over, they just don't show up most of the time. How many times a year are you really and truly too ill to do any work? Maybe once? Less? While people are at home watching golf with a big bottle of NyQuil on ice, all hell is breaking loose and their boss' hairline is retreating.
This is all well and good as long as folks who like to not show up don't expect to escape the grinding depression of the low-wage lifestyle. Fact is that if an 'employee' can't be counted on to show up daily, they're never going to be promoted to or recommended for a job that has significant responsibility.
Many people, especially those in the tech industry, believe that aptitude and skill alone ought to be the criteria of merit in 'employment.' They say, "well, I can program / troubleshoot / assemble my way out of a tar pit, what does it matter how often I'm here? I'm like a Navy SEAL of tech!" These guys have big degrees, big skills, a big ego, and an entitlement complex that severely limits their value as 'employees.' These people are usually the ones that find themselves stuck in low-mid shunt positions at age 35, and they have a huge collection of Japanimation on DVD, a Miata, and no future.
On the other hand, some dropout with a GED and a freakish drive to prevail can be on the grind for a few years and wake up with the bullwhip in his hand.
The short answer to the popular question is that people work for peanuts because they don't want to give up the autonomy of laziness. Calling in sick once in a while gives people a comforting illusion of self-determination, and 'employees' are in general loathe to relinquish this security blanket. These folks inevitably become bitter and feel like they deserve 'more' from their 'jobs,' but deep down they know why they remain in the dregs. Or, from another perspective, they believe that their time is worth more than they could potentially gain by demonstrating reliability. It's just another trade-off, similar to forgoing a cool vintage car in favor of a gas-efficient new compact, or trading five years of your life for the pleasure of eating a delicious cheeseburger with fries.
As Basil Fawlty so pithily put it, one has a choice. In the end, the guy with the bullwhip and the drum is in the same boat as the rowers. Witch dooyoo like?
More fun and games next time on 'Waking Nightmares'
(39,323)
|
Share
