On Thu, 31 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Let's take a look at the basic contract - not the legal contract,
> but the social contract of employment:
>
> "I (employee) will give up some of my time and freedom and work for
> you for a set number of hours, doing a set group of tasks.
I'm intrigued by your choice of words. Why should an employee necessarily
give up her freedom? Specifically what freedoms should an individual give
up in exchange for money?
I'll grant that, for example, military service requires the subjugation of
several personal freedoms (free speech is just one), but that's a fairly
special case. I'm more interested though, in hearing what freedoms each of
you would be willing to give up in exchange for steady employment.
I asked myself this question, and found that the answer was virtually
none:
* I will not be told what I can and can't say,
* I will reserve the right to perform a task only when I am
confident that it's the right thing to do[*],
* I will voice my opinion when I choose,
* I will not tolerate ethically wrong behaviour, regardless
of whether it's mandated or encouraged by my employer.
* If there are personal activities that require I mix my personal
and professional time (like writing this message), I will
balance them as I see fit.
[* Frequently, of course, this consists of accepting that so-and-so knows
better about something than I ever will, and following their lead. I have,
in effect, proxied my decision.]
In short, I've contracted with my employer to provide a service. So long
as nothing I do impedes the provision of that service in a timely manner,
I've fulfilled my commitment to my employer. I don't *think* I've given
them control over me in any way, though, and I certainly hope I haven't
given up freedom except according to the most trivial definition.
--
Dan McGarry
http://www.moodindigo.com/
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
