Ever ethical?

Never has been. ;)

The work environment can be fixed and improved through organizing with your fellow workers, because that's all workers really have to gain power. i.e. unions.

But that won't address international inequality, for instance, and given that capital -- work -- is internationally linked that's an important part of judging whether it's fair with everyone.

From your post, I couldn't know what you actually want a response to.

What work place? What environment? What factors are relevant to your assertion? Is this just anecdote about where you work?

At base, I vehemently disagree with Moliere there - fundamentally 'the work environment' is not an object of ethical value. It is functional, to my mind. What one does in that environment, though, is obviously ethically-informed and in that sense I'd need some detail about what behaviour or structure you're having a go at..

Whether the work environment is ethical or not is a worthwhile question, but it would be helpful if you set up the discussion with a little more content.

On the one hand, we are not "forced" to take any given job at any wage in any environment; on the other hand, if we do not work for a wage, we will not eat. Capitalism is a system of wage slavery -- per Karl Marx -- and we are a) in the large exploited group; b) in the small exploiter group; or c) scrounging for survival.

On the other hand, we join together in large enterprises to produce the means for a complex society -- everything from picking beans to drawing cartoons for the New Yorker.

The work environment ranges between sometimes really great to much more often really awful, but only through worker solidarity and agitation can work be "fair".

At base, I vehemently disagree with Moliere there - fundamentally 'the work environment' is not an object of ethical value. It is functional, to my mind. What one does in that environment, though, is obviously ethically-informed and in that sense I'd need some detail about what behaviour or structure you're having a go at.. — AmadeusD

Seems to be hedging your bets -- what one does in the environment changes the environment, such as when one builds a house. The work environment is not a neutral thing that will always-and-forever exist -- it can be changed, and has been changed.

What ends up being "functional" depends upon what we want.

Was seeking general discussion relating to the broad range of working conditions, but overall this can be a controversial subject. I agree that it never has been ethical

It takes a lot of communication. A LOT OF COMMUNICATION. (not shouting, just using capitals for emphasis here).

It's something I struggle with most. Especially opinionated outsiders. No, you don't work in my workplace, so you don't know what I'm going through! (this is just me being emotional)

So yeah, I like the topic. As you see I'm very human (although I use AI for my convenience).

I just came back to The Philosophy Forum after half year. So go easy on me please :D:D:D

Those are the sorts of things I like to discuss. Hopefully I haven't poisoned the well too much.

I prioritize money, then insurance (as an USsian), then city, then shift. But I would like a world where these things aren't "individual choices" in light of clear institutional power. (that is, I'm something of a socialist)

Yes changeable because people can find a way to work together (unions) to address when things are unsatisfactory in the work environment if not nothing will get done. Too much groupthink can be detrimental because it limits critical thinking, free thought, and creativity.

Hopefully I haven't poisoned the well too much. — Moliere

I'm sure that's fine. I know some people who would love a well of permanent intoxication (hehe :P).

What do you mean by shift? The quality of workshifts?

1st/2nd/3rd is how the US splits it up, at least colloquially -- since there are also 12-hour, and even more, shifts. Divide 24 by 3 and you have three 8-hour shifts, but they vary quite a bit.

I've learned the shifts I can do and can't do. I'm no night owl.

Yeah, Europe is very different. People are very traditional here compared to (some parts) of the US.

I used to love the night shifts, because they often involved crazy parties (with illegal drugs, :D:P). But I got criticized by people saying that it was bad for my health.

Nowadays I wouldn't let them judge me so easily anymore.

We still have choice if we stay at a job or leave based on numerous factors thankfully. Sometimes things are inevitable especially in worldly matters. Prejudices are very common. If the people try to prevent unethical behavior it doesn’t always work because things are rarely neutral and labels therefore, people find a way around it regardless. All by design I also think the majority is poorly misinformed regarding prejudices/ethics. I say live and let live.

Yes, of course. Live and let live. But sometimes we may be triggered by whatever bothers us. Lash out once, regret it twice. I found out that it is better to sometimes ignore people, because of our dysfunctional dynamics!

That being said; there seems to be a lack of education in the ethics and morality department. That I agree.

exactly

Some businesses are unethical by their very nature: loan sharking; phone / internet fraud; manufacturing products with known serious deficiencies (toys with lead paint); toxic food products. Some businesses tolerate unethical behavior by staff. The unethical behavior can harm co-workers, customers, etc. Some businesses cheat their employees by withholding part or all of their wages. Some businesses discriminate against customers and employees (various types of discriminatory behavior).

The most pervasive fraud perpetrated is the basic labor contract whereby the worker receives a small fraction of the value of the goods he or she produces. Apple Corporation had profits of 97 billion dollars last year. The workers who produced the various products and services that Apple sells receive none of the profits. They receive a wage which amounts to substantially less than all the goods and services they produce. The people who shared 97 billion dollars of net profit did not produce anything at all.

Your typical capitalist does not see anything unethical about this system. Because the fraud is the foundation of wealth, so they have deep interests in NOT seeing capitalism as theft (Proudhon: "property is theft". Balzac: "Under every great fortune lies a swindle")

There's a shortage of teachers. It's rewarding work. In some states it pays really well.

We still have choice if we stay at a job or leave based on numerous factors thankfully. — Born2Insights

Three months ago I yelled at the president of the firm because we couldn't agree with the procedures of a project. I thought it was unethical. I didn't walk out of the office, but I cried. He walked away. I prepared myself for the worse -- fired. (at that point, I didn't care about the job anymore) Three months later, I got my review: not only I got a nice raise, but I got the best office in the suite.

This doesn't seem to be anything more than some rambling (not in a negative sense) about the topic. I don't think you've said anything that addreses what i've pointed out at all.

I'm hedging nothing. Without further context "the work environment" refers to nothing that can be discussed. So, If the point was to ttease out biases in the response, sure this is reasonable. But if the point was to discuss "the work environment" with anything approximating value or meaning, then this is a dead end thread.

The fact is the concept presented for discussion differs from case-to-case-to-case in such wildly intense degrees that this is not a coherent concept in and of itself. Not really apt to be discussed other than....

Giving up your biases and personal desires/offenses in response to OP seems to me the exact opposite of what would be helpful to the poster.

I prepared myself for the worse -- fired. (at that point, I didn't care about the job anymore) Three months later, I got my review: not only I got a nice raise, but I got the best office in the suite. — L'éléphant

It is interesting how our minds always make us think of the worst. I always had similar situations where I had to face disputes, and when the meeting was over or the email sent, I felt like I had to prepare myself for the worst...

But, in most cases, the events didn't turn out as badly as I expected at the beginning. I thought I was very negative regarding facing confrontation, but after reading your post I am not feeling alone any more.

There's a shortage of teachers. It's rewarding work. In some states it pays really well. — RogueAI

Here we have shortage of teachers too. Basically, most of the people don't want this job because it has a low income and the environment (as it is pointed out by the OP) is quite horrible. My generation has lost the basic sense of ethics and civism, and the classrooms are full of bullying, thugs, and stupid teenagers who think they are over of the teacher's authority.

Honestly, I think the worst environments nowadays are high-schools and even universities.

Yeah nowadays people might be hesitant towards that career. Being a teacher is an undervalued job.

"Hedging" on whether the work environment is subject to ethical scrutiny, is what I was thinking -- that the environment can't be judged on ethics, but the person in the environment is ethically informed. It seems backwards to me to not judge an environment on ethical grounds but to hold a person to ethical standards regardless of the environment. That's surely an important part too?

The fact is the concept presented for discussion differs from case-to-case-to-case in such wildly intense degrees that this is not a coherent concept in and of itself. Not really apt to be discussed other than....

Giving up your biases and personal desires/offenses in response to OP seems to me the exact opposite of what would be helpful to the poster. — AmadeusD

I'm not so sure. There's a structure that holds between jobs: the employer and the employee exchange time for money, and people often want similar things out a job. The specifics, mind, can't be ironed out in the clouds -- but the generalities hold, and they hold in such a way that makes organizing a tried and true method of improving working conditions.

It's the organization that's similar between jobs that make "working conditions" coherent.

In the end it does more harm than good. You proved the point precisely. Money/profit is the component at the expense of those who are cheated along the way. Consequently it is unethical.

So long as the environment is presented under the conditions of voluntary cooperation there ought to be no problem. Voluntary conditions makes of employment a partnership between owners and workers. Should any tangental ethical issues arise, or the partnership is violated, there are avenues one can take to resolve them. He can seek compromise, or, absent that, he can terminate the relationship.

Wherever there are involuntary conditions, however, that's where the real ethical issues arise. Why is one forced to seek out employment? When the factory system came into being in England, an army of workers were readily available because the State had expropriated them from their land. It was either go into the factories and work for sustenance wages or else to beg, steal, or starve. These sorts of conditions, and the conditions of statism in general, are the unethical, unjust, and slavish conditions we now find ourselves in.

Privilege is imperceptible to the privileged.

...fundamentally 'the work environment' is not an object of ethical value. It is functional, to my mind... — AmadeusD

This is another of those strange dichotomies, "It is functional, therefore it is not ethical or unethical." Note that things like genocide, slavery, and drug trafficking are functional, along with pretty much everything else.

It's an interesting topic. Someone once noted that humans are more like bees than cats. In the sense that we are programmed to be workers. To keep a system running.

Whereas cats, such as mine, have no inclination to work whatsoever :P

So what is ethical? I don't really question too much. I'm very good at following orders. And when I feel that things get out of hand, I set boundaries. For me this is more of an intuitive matter.

Currently my work-life balance is good. And I intend to keep it that way!

When the factory system came into being in England, an army of workers were readily available because the State had expropriated them from their land. It was either go into the factories and work for sustenance wages or else to beg, steal, or starve. — NOS4A2

As having studied economic history in the university, this sounds quite strange. :brow:

The basic reason is exactly the same why people choose to work in sweatshops in poor countries today: the income is better. The income working in a farm field is nonexistent, especially if and when you are a subsistence farmer. Income at a factory even if lousy with bad working conditions compared to later, it was better. And even today a farmer can have an income basically similar to working at McDonalds, even if he or she would be a millionaire if all the land would be sold.

That then (and now in the poorest countries) people are poor in the countryside isn't because of the state.

I don't know where you get the argument that this was because of the State. But please inform me, if I've gotten it wrong (which is a possibility).

It’s out of Marx’s Das Kapital. The Enclosure’s Acts expropriated the land from the peasantry, creating out of a class of peasant proprietors a class of day-laborers forced to work for other men in order to survive.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch27.htm

What are others views on such topic from experience!? — Born2Insights

Many work places are unethical. I don't think they can be fixed. Just avoid them if you can. Start a better work place.