> Hardly. It's simply a recognition that a temp worker and temp opportunity recognize the fleeting nature of a particular job position. Again, it's moving the

> Hardly. It's simply a recognition that a temp worker and temp opportunity recognize the fleeting nature of a particular job position. Again, it's moving the goalposts to say these situations "don't pass the smell test," then turn around to say "but it's OK because they're temps." > Is it really necessary to know that the gentleman calls his wife Perhaps not, but it's more engaging writing, and there's plenty of factual reporting there as well. > Indeed, these workers are people. And because they aren't unthinking machines, they shouldn't work in a place that doesn't place any value on their well-being. The market will then sort out poor employers appropriately. The thing is, the real situation is usually more complicated and often doesn't offer such easy choices for the actual workers. It's telling that, on the one hand, you excuse these work environments as being fit for non-information-workers, then turn around an expect these workers to have information-worker levels of economic power in job choice. While it can be quite comforting to believe the market will sort this all out, I think that's naive and causes some people to blind themselves to the actual problems out there.