3 ms·

> see the employee-manager relationship as adversarial by default. I don't see how anyone can be happy in their job if that were the default. Maybe I am naive

> see the employee-manager relationship as adversarial by default. I don't see how anyone can be happy in their job if that were the default. Maybe I am naive or lucky, but I have a very goed relation with my boss, as well as with the boss above. When that condition is not fulfilled, i definitely tend to slack off and I will eventually leave. I believe such should be the default.

catlifeonmars 9mo ago
The relationship between owners and workers has always been extractive. The adversarial relationship is built in. That doesn’t mean that you can’t have a good relationship with your employer, but there is always a conflict of interest, so to speak. I’ve had great relationships with my bosses, but they’re always under pressure to extract more work from the workers. In turn, their bosses are also pressured to do the same. So yes, it’s not the default and you and I have both been lucky.
- margalabargala 9mo ago
  This is an oversimplificstion. The relationship between the person holding the scarce resource, and the person holding the common resource, has always been adversarial. As labor becomes more skilled and less common this dynamic changes.
  - catlifeonmars 9mo ago
    I’m looking at the status quo. Which still puts vastly more negotiating power in the hands owners of capital in most economies today. I agree it’s an oversimplification and there are some markets where this is not the case. If I consider my experience it’s clearly still in the minority, so I still consider myself fortunate.
    - margalabargala 9mo ago
      Yeah we're on the same page. I figured it was worth mentioning since the status quo among HN users, skews closer to markets where this does not apply, than the status quo of the general population.
- andy99 9mo ago
  This has almost never been my experience in ~20 years of working. Other than a few fleeting assholes, all of my work relationships have essentially been collegial, with all parties, regardless of position, looking at how we can best get the work done that’s in front of us. I’ve never felt exploited or used and never felt I was exploiting those I managed. I think if one sees their work this way, maybe it comes true? It’s a very cynical way of looking at things.
  - catlifeonmars 9mo ago
    You’ve never worked in retail or service industries, have you?
    - andy99 9mo ago
      I have, and your reply is a pretty weak fallback from The relationship between owners and workers has always been extractive. The adversarial relationship is built in. I’m sure extractive relationships exist, but it’s certainly not an iron law of work, and I’m not even sure it’s that common in most modern workplaces.
      - catlifeonmars 9mo ago
        Why is this a weak fallback? Since we’re speaking anecdotally: I’ve also worked in service industry, and I have personally observed employers/managers abusing their power to elevate themselves at the expense of their employees. Does that make you reconsider? I would hazard to guess it doesn’t. My point being that anecdotal evidence isn’t particularly useful. > I’m not even sure it’s that common in most modern workplaces. I don’t know what to tell you honestly. This is an incredibly naive take Edit: I feel I’ve been uncharitable in responding to you. I think we are likely talking past each other and what an “extractive” relationship is. I don’t think people are malicious. Most people (IMO) are essentially good and maliciousness is relatively rare. That said, if you work for an employer, you will always be resisting pressure from above to do more work for less pay. Maybe you’re lucky and you have an excellent middle manager (I have had some) who are skilled at preventing shit from rolling downhill. The fact remains the pressure exists and eventually, someone breaks. Maybe they have a bad day, or fall into financial distress, or the economy sucks. It doesn’t really matter. The people who pay the highest cost are the people at closer to the bottom of that hierarchy.
- eikenberry 9mo ago
  Classifying a relationship as adversarial presumes a competitive context. I don't believe we are in competition with our employer but in a cooperative relationship, so we're talking game theory. A good employer cooperates with their employees to achieve business goals, a bad manager defects and prioritizes their personal goals/desires above the shared business goals. Your relationship falls out of this behavior (assuming no personal issues).
  - trympet 9mo ago
    What about a farm worker who tills the land? Is every farmer/farm worker achieving business goals through _cooperation_? What about seasonal farm workers? I guess the farmer can set up incentive payments, but even so, are you saying there no adversarial component to the relationship?
    - eikenberry 9mo ago
      Any relationship can be framed however in different ways that embody different ideals. What one person views through an adversarial lens, another can view through a cooperative lens. All (above board) worker/employer relationships can be seen as cooperative. Neither entered into the agreement by force and each is getting something out of it.
      - catlifeonmars 9mo ago
        Yeah the framing is just a tool to do different analysis. Both can be useful simultaneously.
  - dietr1ch 8mo ago
    Isn't there competition for your own time? I'm thinking of crunches, or justifying a schedule despite workhour efficiency varying way too much (what are you going to achieve if you finish your last task at 16:40 on a Friday?)
pessimizer 9mo ago
I'm happy buying groceries at the grocery store without having to pretend that the checkout clerk loves me. I also feel that the emotional attachment to one's source of income could cause people to compromise their morality for them, as if they were family e.g. I don't think one child should be favored over another, but I'm happy when my child is favored over others. > I believe such should be the default. It's delusional. Your boss is trying to pay you as little as possible for as much work as possible, and you are trying to get him to pay as much as possible for as little work as possible. You've both examined your leverage and have come to a temporary accord which may change a year from now (or a day from now if you get another offer.) The relationship is adversarial. It's not a matter of opinion.
- nuancebydefault 9mo ago
  Maybe my knowledge of the English language is subpar but what you describe looks more like _transactional_?
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
starkparker 9mo ago
First, you're certainly lucky. Secondly, the emphasis should be on "by default"; managers can, and some easily and quickly do, prove that they aren't adversarial. But companies (especially tech companies with high stress on unsustainable growth) don't often incentivize that, and sometimes disincentivize it whether they mean to or not.

catlifeonmars 9mo ago

The relationship between owners and workers has always been extractive. The adversarial relationship is built in. That doesn’t mean that you can’t have a good relationship with your employer, but there is always a conflict of interest, so to speak. I’ve had great relationships with my bosses, but they’re always under pressure to extract more work from the workers. In turn, their bosses are also pressured to do the same. So yes, it’s not the default and you and I have both been lucky.

margalabargala 9mo ago
This is an oversimplificstion. The relationship between the person holding the scarce resource, and the person holding the common resource, has always been adversarial. As labor becomes more skilled and less common this dynamic changes.
- catlifeonmars 9mo ago
  I’m looking at the status quo. Which still puts vastly more negotiating power in the hands owners of capital in most economies today. I agree it’s an oversimplification and there are some markets where this is not the case. If I consider my experience it’s clearly still in the minority, so I still consider myself fortunate.
  - margalabargala 9mo ago
    Yeah we're on the same page. I figured it was worth mentioning since the status quo among HN users, skews closer to markets where this does not apply, than the status quo of the general population.
andy99 9mo ago
This has almost never been my experience in ~20 years of working. Other than a few fleeting assholes, all of my work relationships have essentially been collegial, with all parties, regardless of position, looking at how we can best get the work done that’s in front of us. I’ve never felt exploited or used and never felt I was exploiting those I managed. I think if one sees their work this way, maybe it comes true? It’s a very cynical way of looking at things.
- catlifeonmars 9mo ago
  You’ve never worked in retail or service industries, have you?
  - andy99 9mo ago
    I have, and your reply is a pretty weak fallback from The relationship between owners and workers has always been extractive. The adversarial relationship is built in. I’m sure extractive relationships exist, but it’s certainly not an iron law of work, and I’m not even sure it’s that common in most modern workplaces.
    - catlifeonmars 9mo ago
      Why is this a weak fallback? Since we’re speaking anecdotally: I’ve also worked in service industry, and I have personally observed employers/managers abusing their power to elevate themselves at the expense of their employees. Does that make you reconsider? I would hazard to guess it doesn’t. My point being that anecdotal evidence isn’t particularly useful. > I’m not even sure it’s that common in most modern workplaces. I don’t know what to tell you honestly. This is an incredibly naive take Edit: I feel I’ve been uncharitable in responding to you. I think we are likely talking past each other and what an “extractive” relationship is. I don’t think people are malicious. Most people (IMO) are essentially good and maliciousness is relatively rare. That said, if you work for an employer, you will always be resisting pressure from above to do more work for less pay. Maybe you’re lucky and you have an excellent middle manager (I have had some) who are skilled at preventing shit from rolling downhill. The fact remains the pressure exists and eventually, someone breaks. Maybe they have a bad day, or fall into financial distress, or the economy sucks. It doesn’t really matter. The people who pay the highest cost are the people at closer to the bottom of that hierarchy.
eikenberry 9mo ago
Classifying a relationship as adversarial presumes a competitive context. I don't believe we are in competition with our employer but in a cooperative relationship, so we're talking game theory. A good employer cooperates with their employees to achieve business goals, a bad manager defects and prioritizes their personal goals/desires above the shared business goals. Your relationship falls out of this behavior (assuming no personal issues).
- trympet 9mo ago
  What about a farm worker who tills the land? Is every farmer/farm worker achieving business goals through _cooperation_? What about seasonal farm workers? I guess the farmer can set up incentive payments, but even so, are you saying there no adversarial component to the relationship?
  - eikenberry 9mo ago
    Any relationship can be framed however in different ways that embody different ideals. What one person views through an adversarial lens, another can view through a cooperative lens. All (above board) worker/employer relationships can be seen as cooperative. Neither entered into the agreement by force and each is getting something out of it.
    - catlifeonmars 9mo ago
      Yeah the framing is just a tool to do different analysis. Both can be useful simultaneously.
- dietr1ch 8mo ago
  Isn't there competition for your own time? I'm thinking of crunches, or justifying a schedule despite workhour efficiency varying way too much (what are you going to achieve if you finish your last task at 16:40 on a Friday?)

pessimizer 9mo ago

I'm happy buying groceries at the grocery store without having to pretend that the checkout clerk loves me. I also feel that the emotional attachment to one's source of income could cause people to compromise their morality for them, as if they were family e.g. I don't think one child should be favored over another, but I'm happy when my child is favored over others. > I believe such should be the default. It's delusional. Your boss is trying to pay you as little as possible for as much work as possible, and you are trying to get him to pay as much as possible for as little work as possible. You've both examined your leverage and have come to a temporary accord which may change a year from now (or a day from now if you get another offer.) The relationship is adversarial. It's not a matter of opinion.

nuancebydefault 9mo ago
Maybe my knowledge of the English language is subpar but what you describe looks more like _transactional_?
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]

starkparker 9mo ago

First, you're certainly lucky. Secondly, the emphasis should be on "by default"; managers can, and some easily and quickly do, prove that they aren't adversarial. But companies (especially tech companies with high stress on unsustainable growth) don't often incentivize that, and sometimes disincentivize it whether they mean to or not.