4 ms·

Your argument being ... that they should simply get a new job if it's so bad, or that the article must be misrepresenting the job if they don't?

• creaghpatr 7y ago
  Both! It's right there at the beginning: >But had his managers asked, they would have learned that Speagle had a history of anxiety and depression, and that he might not be suited well for the role. No one did. Perhaps when he realized he was going to be viewing graphic content for the entire workday- he might have reconsidered whether the job was right for him? The framing is clearly trying to pin the blame on the company and/or facebook and while they definitely misrepresented the job (and the company sounds like they committed a lot of workplace violations in general),no one was forced him to be there. And then he got laid off, he didn't even quit on his own.
  • fzeroracer 7y ago
    I mean by your own argument, workers are not allowed to criticize their working conditions ever. You're technically not being forced to work there (even if you have a family to feed, poverty preventing access to better jobs etc), therefore you just gotta chin up and deal with it. This is an argument entirely unrelated to the article at hand which specifically calls out how terrible these working conditions are and how Facebook perpetuates it.
• workingpatrick 7y ago
  I agree, we can't blame people with limited economic opportunities for taking a relatively 'good paying' job. We can absolutely blame one of the largest corporations in the country for offering jobs with such demanding and damaging work while offering few support services and allowing these sub-contacting companies to treat employees in such a manner.