6 ms·

I feel this is a variant of victim blaming, shouldn't we put more blame on the ones who freely exploit loyal workers? Exploiting loyal people seems to be accep

I feel this is a variant of victim blaming, shouldn't we put more blame on the ones who freely exploit loyal workers? Exploiting loyal people seems to be accepted in society and we simply blame those individuals for being gullible. Whereas the exploiters get rewarded for their successful exploitation and learn that exploiting others is the best way to get ahead in life.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
What does blaming the exploiters solve? Educating the exploited or potential exploited seems like a more impactful action if the goal is to reduce the number of exploited.
- armada651 3y ago
  There is a smaller number of exploiters than people who are loyal. Loyalty comes naturally to people because being loyal to your tribe was evolutionarily beneficial. Whereas continuously exploiting others requires a mental illness such as narcissism. Perhaps by focusing on the exploiters we can reduce the damage they do to others.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    These seem like big assertions, especially with the difficulty in even defining exploitation, and that the same person is capable of sometimes exploiting and sometimes not exploiting.
    - armada651 3y ago
      Right, but an empathetic individual would stop the exploitation when they become aware that the exploitation is happening. The narcissistic exploiters will not stop the exploitation even if it is patently obvious, especially if the exploitation is financially rewarding to them. We don't really protect workers from that nor do we financially punish the exploiters, in fact many of them go on to be very financially successful. And as a society we have simply accepted burnout as being the fault of the individual who did not do enough to protect their work-life balance.
randomdata 3y ago
> shouldn't we put more blame on the ones who freely exploit loyal workers? Problem is, there is no realistic way for that group to be able determine if what they are doing is exploitation or a perfectly fair trade without the worker telling them. That is why the onus falls on the worker. Only the worker knows their situation. If the worker happily shows up and doesn't make it clear that something is wrong, one has to assume that the trade is considered fair. That is what the information available is telling.
- armada651 3y ago
  This is a perfectly good explanation of how capitalism works, especially if you operate your company by the numbers, but we don't have to accept that as the way things are. We already have social policies to protect workers from exploitation even if they themselves do not consider it exploitation, those policies need to be strengthened. At the very least we should mandate that overtime is compensated to a degree that represents the cost to society of burnt out workers who require healthcare or exit the labor force entirely.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    Technically the policies you speak of are not to prevent exploitation per se (although that may happen as a side effect), but to limit the competitiveness with other workers. Workers have shown that they can be quite nasty towards each other, even accepting exploitation if it means they can screw over the guy beside them, and that is what we seek to control. However, the topic of discussion is about blaming the exploiters. Laws to try and help prevent exploitation does not speak to that.
- trickstra 3y ago
  If I pay one guy X and another guy half as much, but the second guy works much better, I know it's not fair, they don't need to tell me. Doesn't matter that they both agreed to it.
  - randomdata 3y ago

lotsofpulp 3y ago

What does blaming the exploiters solve? Educating the exploited or potential exploited seems like a more impactful action if the goal is to reduce the number of exploited.

armada651 3y ago
There is a smaller number of exploiters than people who are loyal. Loyalty comes naturally to people because being loyal to your tribe was evolutionarily beneficial. Whereas continuously exploiting others requires a mental illness such as narcissism. Perhaps by focusing on the exploiters we can reduce the damage they do to others.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  These seem like big assertions, especially with the difficulty in even defining exploitation, and that the same person is capable of sometimes exploiting and sometimes not exploiting.
  - armada651 3y ago
    Right, but an empathetic individual would stop the exploitation when they become aware that the exploitation is happening. The narcissistic exploiters will not stop the exploitation even if it is patently obvious, especially if the exploitation is financially rewarding to them. We don't really protect workers from that nor do we financially punish the exploiters, in fact many of them go on to be very financially successful. And as a society we have simply accepted burnout as being the fault of the individual who did not do enough to protect their work-life balance.

randomdata 3y ago

> shouldn't we put more blame on the ones who freely exploit loyal workers? Problem is, there is no realistic way for that group to be able determine if what they are doing is exploitation or a perfectly fair trade without the worker telling them. That is why the onus falls on the worker. Only the worker knows their situation. If the worker happily shows up and doesn't make it clear that something is wrong, one has to assume that the trade is considered fair. That is what the information available is telling.

armada651 3y ago
This is a perfectly good explanation of how capitalism works, especially if you operate your company by the numbers, but we don't have to accept that as the way things are. We already have social policies to protect workers from exploitation even if they themselves do not consider it exploitation, those policies need to be strengthened. At the very least we should mandate that overtime is compensated to a degree that represents the cost to society of burnt out workers who require healthcare or exit the labor force entirely.
- randomdata 3y ago
  Technically the policies you speak of are not to prevent exploitation per se (although that may happen as a side effect), but to limit the competitiveness with other workers. Workers have shown that they can be quite nasty towards each other, even accepting exploitation if it means they can screw over the guy beside them, and that is what we seek to control. However, the topic of discussion is about blaming the exploiters. Laws to try and help prevent exploitation does not speak to that.
trickstra 3y ago
If I pay one guy X and another guy half as much, but the second guy works much better, I know it's not fair, they don't need to tell me. Doesn't matter that they both agreed to it.
- randomdata 3y ago