6 ms·

>Our working conditions are deteriorating My paternal grandfather, in common with many of his generation was sent to work in a coal mine at the age of 14. Had

>Our working conditions are deteriorating My paternal grandfather, in common with many of his generation was sent to work in a coal mine at the age of 14. Had he not died from a dust induced respiratory disease a few years back I can well imagine him dying from laughter on reading such a ridiculous statement.

maerF0x0 11y ago
Todays work places are nearly devoid of physical risks and yet rife with psychological and spiritual ones. Sure, RSI maybe the biggest physical risk. But think of the damage caused by unkind work environments, constant fear of losing one's job, the demand to work 45,55,or 65+ hours per week. Having to work those hours despite the research indicating its idiotic. etc. etc. People are unhappy because their workplace (and maybe society in generaly) is full of happiness landmines that didnt exist before.
- stevetrewick 11y ago
  You're right of course, silly me. Stupid things like being surrounded by things exploding and the constant possibility of being trapped underground in complete darkness with no possibility of rescue just pale in comparison to your 40 hours in an office with distasteful wallpaper. The horror. Happiness land mine wise, I am deeply unconvinced. Nothing new under the sun in that department.
  - petegrif 11y ago
    Being facetious doesn't advance your argument. You are of course right that appalling working conditions are not new. The labor movement was a response that such conditions. But the key point being made is not that conditions today are in all regards worse than all conditions in the past but rather that despite all our much vaunted progress and productivity gains many people don't experience the benefits and are in fact working in toxic work conditions that are profoundly stressful. And that point is, I believe, not especially difficult to substantiate.
    - Dr_tldr 11y ago
      I'd agree, but a common doom-mongering narrative is "things are worse than they used to be and they're getting ever worse!" Very few people say "the present has a number of trade-offs that's arguably not much better or about as bad as the past." That said, I think a lot of the gains are invisible to white professional class heterosexual secular/christian males, which is part of the problem. As a pure issue of labor, the average work conditions are probably the same or worse than in 1970 and purchasing power is about the same. Both of those are bad things that need to change, but there are vast cultural and technological improvements that often get diminished, and I think the comment above is a pushback against that, which does advance their argument. If you only identify with the historically most privileged group, a lot of the advantages like "not being provided with inferior safety equipment because of your race" or "living in constant fear of your career being destroyed because of your sexuality" don't seem very important. What seems "toxic" to the most privileged group can seem like "acceptable tradeoffs" to other groups, and this also speaks to the attitudes of many immigrants and H1-B employees.
      - slgeorge 11y ago
        > [... ]but there are vast cultural and technological improvements that often get diminished, and I think the comment above is a pushback against that, which does advance their argument. The comment at top of thread was that relative to the ultra-rich (top 1%), things had got worse for the rest (the other 99%). The commentator expressly accepted that s/he was in a traditionally privileged position - yet it was still difficult. There are many improvements required to help groups within the other 95%, whether that be by country, ethnic group, gender or anything else. But, you're simply having a different argument, when point of consideration is the much biggest gains that the top 1% is making relative to ALL other groups. This both includes the group you define as privileged and underprivileged. Even to engage with your argument - the "trade-offs" you're citing that have led to 'cultural and technological improvements' for disadvantaged groups are social movement that weren't created or aided by the ultra-wealthy or large corporates. Quite the reverse. Using the principle of charity, the only 'improvement' I think you could put in this category would be globalisation - and honestly it's too big a change for us to know the outcome on that one.
  - michaelcampbell 11y ago
    Not everyone was a coal miner.
  - orbitingpluto 11y ago
    But there's a good chance your grandfather had the cojones to join a union to fight for better working conditions. It's better to live a life where you can actually improve your lot than live as a subservient cog holding on for an ever smaller piece of the pie.
    - fennecfoxen 11y ago
      > But there's a good chance your grandfather had the cojones to join a union to fight for better working conditions. Sure, there's a good chance: if he was white and middle-class, a statistically decent bet on this website. But otherwise there's a better chance your grandfather was deprived of a decent job by a union, so that the union members could earn more (at the expense of the hypothetical grandfather and the employer and its customers.) Which isn't to diminish the part about fighting for better working conditions, mind you, which was real enough... but just to point out the checkered nature of this history.
jondubois 11y ago
That sounds horrible. My previous statement used overly strong words and perhaps over-generalized. I do think that working conditions in some industries are better (in particular for blue-collar jobs). My focus is more on white-collar jobs (which apparently makes up most of US jobs today: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/great-news-weve-become-a-white-collar-nation-2010-1?r=US&IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com.au/great-news-weve-become-a-w...). We have become boxed-in and subjected to deteriorating work conditions. I think allowing white-collar workers to work remotely would be a huge step forward. Then more flexibility with regard to work hours would be another big step forward. These two things are so easy for most companies to implement (and studies suggest they would actually benefit form this financially) and yet they don't do it because the executives at these companies want to feel 'in control' of their employees.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  As a remote developer for over a decade, I can agree with this. The thought of going back to working in a box on the warehouse floor they call an office 5 or 6 days a week, makes me dizzy. I will never do that again, now that I know what its like to leave the dark side.
  - rbanffy 11y ago
    I kind of miss the nerf gun fights that broke off from time to time.
popmystack 11y ago
"No complaining! Someone has it worse!" These types of statements are not constructive in any way.

maerF0x0 11y ago

Todays work places are nearly devoid of physical risks and yet rife with psychological and spiritual ones. Sure, RSI maybe the biggest physical risk. But think of the damage caused by unkind work environments, constant fear of losing one's job, the demand to work 45,55,or 65+ hours per week. Having to work those hours despite the research indicating its idiotic. etc. etc. People are unhappy because their workplace (and maybe society in generaly) is full of happiness landmines that didnt exist before.

stevetrewick 11y ago
You're right of course, silly me. Stupid things like being surrounded by things exploding and the constant possibility of being trapped underground in complete darkness with no possibility of rescue just pale in comparison to your 40 hours in an office with distasteful wallpaper. The horror. Happiness land mine wise, I am deeply unconvinced. Nothing new under the sun in that department.
- petegrif 11y ago
  Being facetious doesn't advance your argument. You are of course right that appalling working conditions are not new. The labor movement was a response that such conditions. But the key point being made is not that conditions today are in all regards worse than all conditions in the past but rather that despite all our much vaunted progress and productivity gains many people don't experience the benefits and are in fact working in toxic work conditions that are profoundly stressful. And that point is, I believe, not especially difficult to substantiate.
  - Dr_tldr 11y ago
    I'd agree, but a common doom-mongering narrative is "things are worse than they used to be and they're getting ever worse!" Very few people say "the present has a number of trade-offs that's arguably not much better or about as bad as the past." That said, I think a lot of the gains are invisible to white professional class heterosexual secular/christian males, which is part of the problem. As a pure issue of labor, the average work conditions are probably the same or worse than in 1970 and purchasing power is about the same. Both of those are bad things that need to change, but there are vast cultural and technological improvements that often get diminished, and I think the comment above is a pushback against that, which does advance their argument. If you only identify with the historically most privileged group, a lot of the advantages like "not being provided with inferior safety equipment because of your race" or "living in constant fear of your career being destroyed because of your sexuality" don't seem very important. What seems "toxic" to the most privileged group can seem like "acceptable tradeoffs" to other groups, and this also speaks to the attitudes of many immigrants and H1-B employees.
    - slgeorge 11y ago
      > [... ]but there are vast cultural and technological improvements that often get diminished, and I think the comment above is a pushback against that, which does advance their argument. The comment at top of thread was that relative to the ultra-rich (top 1%), things had got worse for the rest (the other 99%). The commentator expressly accepted that s/he was in a traditionally privileged position - yet it was still difficult. There are many improvements required to help groups within the other 95%, whether that be by country, ethnic group, gender or anything else. But, you're simply having a different argument, when point of consideration is the much biggest gains that the top 1% is making relative to ALL other groups. This both includes the group you define as privileged and underprivileged. Even to engage with your argument - the "trade-offs" you're citing that have led to 'cultural and technological improvements' for disadvantaged groups are social movement that weren't created or aided by the ultra-wealthy or large corporates. Quite the reverse. Using the principle of charity, the only 'improvement' I think you could put in this category would be globalisation - and honestly it's too big a change for us to know the outcome on that one.
- michaelcampbell 11y ago
  Not everyone was a coal miner.
- orbitingpluto 11y ago
  But there's a good chance your grandfather had the cojones to join a union to fight for better working conditions. It's better to live a life where you can actually improve your lot than live as a subservient cog holding on for an ever smaller piece of the pie.
  - fennecfoxen 11y ago
    > But there's a good chance your grandfather had the cojones to join a union to fight for better working conditions. Sure, there's a good chance: if he was white and middle-class, a statistically decent bet on this website. But otherwise there's a better chance your grandfather was deprived of a decent job by a union, so that the union members could earn more (at the expense of the hypothetical grandfather and the employer and its customers.) Which isn't to diminish the part about fighting for better working conditions, mind you, which was real enough... but just to point out the checkered nature of this history.

jondubois 11y ago

That sounds horrible. My previous statement used overly strong words and perhaps over-generalized. I do think that working conditions in some industries are better (in particular for blue-collar jobs). My focus is more on white-collar jobs (which apparently makes up most of US jobs today: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/great-news-weve-become-a-white-collar-nation-2010-1?r=US&IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com.au/great-news-weve-become-a-w...). We have become boxed-in and subjected to deteriorating work conditions. I think allowing white-collar workers to work remotely would be a huge step forward. Then more flexibility with regard to work hours would be another big step forward. These two things are so easy for most companies to implement (and studies suggest they would actually benefit form this financially) and yet they don't do it because the executives at these companies want to feel 'in control' of their employees.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
As a remote developer for over a decade, I can agree with this. The thought of going back to working in a box on the warehouse floor they call an office 5 or 6 days a week, makes me dizzy. I will never do that again, now that I know what its like to leave the dark side.
- rbanffy 11y ago
  I kind of miss the nerf gun fights that broke off from time to time.

popmystack 11y ago

"No complaining! Someone has it worse!" These types of statements are not constructive in any way.