4 ms·

> because it's in the interest of the people offering them (people with more power than the people they are hiring) to offer them in the most humiliating, dange

> because it's in the interest of the people offering them (people with more power than the people they are hiring) to offer them in the most humiliating, dangerous, and cheapest way possible. "cheapest" is obvious, but why "most humiliating, dangerous"? What incentive do the latter serve?

RodgerTheGreat 7y ago
"Dangerous" is a tradeoff between potential liability for the employer and saving money. Greedily pursuing short-term gains can often make workplaces more dangerous than they need to be. "Humiliating" can be inherent to the structure of a job (it can feel humiliating to be obligated to do unpleasant tasks, or even simply to be stripped of personal agency), or it can be a source of pleasure for the employer. Some people enjoy dominating and belittling others, and subordinates without alternative jobs available are a ripe target.
- commandlinefan 7y ago
  > Some people enjoy dominating and belittling others I suspect that's partly behind the preference for foreign workers who are tied to their employers for visas: they'll accept a lot more abuse than somebody who can just pick up and find another job tomorrow.
bsanr2 7y ago
It's a way to tip the turnover scales in favor of the employer. Dangerous jobs weed out the people who care enough to complain about conditions that are less dangerous but still degrading. If you're willing to put up with situations where people lose limbs or die, you're probably not worried about lunch break violations. You also have the option of giving a "problem" employee the worst tasks until they decide to leave. "Humiliating" is also good for employers, when they can get away with it. If you make your employees put up with undignified conditions - long hours, short breaks, arbitrary rules, embarrassing or onerous security policies - you appropriate their focus or attention either directly or through the stress of having to put up with those circumstances. That's less time and cognitive power to organize, budget properly, find another job, or really plan for the future in any way. Your job as an employer is to squeeze as much work out of your employees as possible. That means doing everything legal to keep them from leaving (have to make back that training investment), or to have the option to quickly dismiss them if they're sub-optimal or causing problems. I'm working from the perspective of having worked in retail and supply chain, but HN's main demographic should listen up: crunch is a solved problem. Think about what your employers have to gain from not implementing those known solutions.
- wolfgke 7y ago
  > Your job as an employer is to squeeze as much work out of your employees as possible. That means doing everything legal to keep them from leaving (have to make back that training investment), or to have the option to quickly dismiss them if they're sub-optimal or causing problems. If one accepts this point, both "dangerous" and "humilating" are counterproductive for the employer, since these properties of jobs provide a good incentive for an employee to leave as soon as he/she can afford it.
  - bsanr2 7y ago
    Except for the ways explained above that those conditions serve to make leaving difficult.
markvdb 7y ago
Because you want to instill fear. As an employer offering shitty jobs, you probably want to make it 100% clear to your employees that they can easily be replaced. "Humiliating and dangerous" can "help" instill fear in people living hand to mouth.
MisterBastahrd 7y ago
Humiliating? You're a cog. Cogs don't get treated like people. Dangerous? See cog. And cheapest. If you're a business owner running any kind of business that requires physical labor, then you've probably got five things in your favor automatically over your employees: money, a lawyer on retainer, experience dealing with litigation, a system that has been designed to favor you, and insurance. Most poorly paid employees don't know their legal rights and they don't really expect the system to work for them, either, so in the event that a serious injury occurs, they will usually just sit there and take it. If you drive in the cities of Harahan and Gretna near New Orleans, you will find billboards of maritime injury lawyers all over the place. Why? Because ships are huge business, working around them is extremely dangerous, they are insanely profitable, people get hurt working on them all the time, and employees don't know their rights because there's zero legal incentive to educate them past the bare minimum HR deems necessary.

RodgerTheGreat 7y ago

"Dangerous" is a tradeoff between potential liability for the employer and saving money. Greedily pursuing short-term gains can often make workplaces more dangerous than they need to be. "Humiliating" can be inherent to the structure of a job (it can feel humiliating to be obligated to do unpleasant tasks, or even simply to be stripped of personal agency), or it can be a source of pleasure for the employer. Some people enjoy dominating and belittling others, and subordinates without alternative jobs available are a ripe target.

commandlinefan 7y ago
> Some people enjoy dominating and belittling others I suspect that's partly behind the preference for foreign workers who are tied to their employers for visas: they'll accept a lot more abuse than somebody who can just pick up and find another job tomorrow.

bsanr2 7y ago

It's a way to tip the turnover scales in favor of the employer. Dangerous jobs weed out the people who care enough to complain about conditions that are less dangerous but still degrading. If you're willing to put up with situations where people lose limbs or die, you're probably not worried about lunch break violations. You also have the option of giving a "problem" employee the worst tasks until they decide to leave. "Humiliating" is also good for employers, when they can get away with it. If you make your employees put up with undignified conditions - long hours, short breaks, arbitrary rules, embarrassing or onerous security policies - you appropriate their focus or attention either directly or through the stress of having to put up with those circumstances. That's less time and cognitive power to organize, budget properly, find another job, or really plan for the future in any way. Your job as an employer is to squeeze as much work out of your employees as possible. That means doing everything legal to keep them from leaving (have to make back that training investment), or to have the option to quickly dismiss them if they're sub-optimal or causing problems. I'm working from the perspective of having worked in retail and supply chain, but HN's main demographic should listen up: crunch is a solved problem. Think about what your employers have to gain from not implementing those known solutions.

wolfgke 7y ago
> Your job as an employer is to squeeze as much work out of your employees as possible. That means doing everything legal to keep them from leaving (have to make back that training investment), or to have the option to quickly dismiss them if they're sub-optimal or causing problems. If one accepts this point, both "dangerous" and "humilating" are counterproductive for the employer, since these properties of jobs provide a good incentive for an employee to leave as soon as he/she can afford it.
- bsanr2 7y ago
  Except for the ways explained above that those conditions serve to make leaving difficult.

markvdb 7y ago

Because you want to instill fear. As an employer offering shitty jobs, you probably want to make it 100% clear to your employees that they can easily be replaced. "Humiliating and dangerous" can "help" instill fear in people living hand to mouth.

MisterBastahrd 7y ago

Humiliating? You're a cog. Cogs don't get treated like people. Dangerous? See cog. And cheapest. If you're a business owner running any kind of business that requires physical labor, then you've probably got five things in your favor automatically over your employees: money, a lawyer on retainer, experience dealing with litigation, a system that has been designed to favor you, and insurance. Most poorly paid employees don't know their legal rights and they don't really expect the system to work for them, either, so in the event that a serious injury occurs, they will usually just sit there and take it. If you drive in the cities of Harahan and Gretna near New Orleans, you will find billboards of maritime injury lawyers all over the place. Why? Because ships are huge business, working around them is extremely dangerous, they are insanely profitable, people get hurt working on them all the time, and employees don't know their rights because there's zero legal incentive to educate them past the bare minimum HR deems necessary.