12 ms·
Such a toxic attitude can go two ways. Isn't then an employee a soulful being that exists for the purpose of extracting as much value from the employer as poss
by HatchedLake721 5y ago
Such a toxic attitude can go two ways.
Isn't then an employee a soulful being that exists for the purpose of extracting as much value from the employer as possible with the least amount of work delivered to only provide value to itself in a form of an end-of-month salary?
Employers and companies are built of people. Calling them a soulless construct and pretending everyone in the world is out there to get you is not a healthy attitude.
- kubanczyk 5y agoTo ease on the toxicity, I think I would replace the grandparent's argument by this: The employee is one person, which you can choose to trust or not. The employer are multiple people. Of these, maybe dozens or hundreds can impact employee's work. You can trust all of them or not. This is the crucial difference.
- wing-_-nuts 5y agoI see it as realistic, not toxic. A single employee is a human that has greed as one of their drives. Not everything is about money. I'm quite certain I could earn more if I applied elsewhere, but my current company is a nice place to be. On the other hand, a company is an entity almost singularly driven by the need to maximize profit for shareholders. I have seen multiple teams work months of crunch time, only to be cut loose shortly after they delivered for the sake of 'streamlining'. Now, did the management who did the firing agree with that course of action? Heck no! They were livid. Many walked. But the C suite decision makers found cost savings that would give them fat bonuses and decisions were made. I often wonder why the same people who are so hesitant to trust government turn right around and blindly trust corporations. The snake is not evil. The snake is a snake. Calling this view toxic or unhealthy does not change the facts on the ground.