Work ethics

Liz Ryan summarised it as follows:

Five things we owe our employers:

• Focused and earnest work at the time we are paid to work,
• Your good intentions on the job,
• Respect for people, facilities and equipment at work,
• Work integrity,
• Your best possible care to the external party you deal with while at work.

Five things we don't owe our employers:

• Your health.  Don't prioritise work so much that you lose sleep, etc over it.
• Your pretentiousness.  Don't say words you think your employer wants to hear if you don't mean them.
• Unearned loyalty.  Employers cannot tell you who to be loyal to.
• Details of your personal life.  If you can't do something because in encroaches on your personal time, you should be able to explain that without explaining why.
• Your soul.  It is a business relationship.  Your employer does not have the right to drive your whole life.

Would you agree?  How do you set boundaries between your personal life and your work?  Do you give your best at work because that is what you are paid for?

The Economist reckons that we are feeling the need to be busy because of work expectations.  We think we have less time as we feel rushed at work, even though, in reality, we are actually having more leisure time compared to before.  We feel the need to be frugal with our time when we are paid by the hour.  We are afraid of being financially poor if we do not work hard enough.  However, reality is actually different from these perceptions.

Do you feel this way?  How do you avoid this trap of not being as free with your time as you should be?

Do you have time for family, for God, for recreation besides work?  How do you balance time between work and leisure and have good ethics in what you do at work?

Are vocations equal?

Does it matter what job you get?  How long you stay in the job?  Stay within the same career?

Many ask these questions, as they enter the workforce for the first time, or as they leave school and choose their Uni courses.

From one perspective, it doesn't really matter.  So long that you are contributing society.  So long that you feel happy and satisfied.  So long as you have enough to pay your bills.

From another perspective, it does matter.  Some dread going to work, and this is not a happy feeling.

Amy Sherman says it does matter.  Some jobs are immoral.  Others may not be aligned with your personal goals in life, and consequently feel like a waste of your life, even though you might be earning your living.

Amy reckons that ideally, you find a job that fit the gifts you have, where the goals fit where you think God is taking you.

Do you think so?  Is it hard to find such a job?  Do such things come out in job interviews?  Or is the job market so desperate that one needs to take the opportunities that come up even if they do not exactly align?

Amy also recommends that we are aware of our seasons in life.  Some jobs that may be okay when we are younger may not be when we are older.

Do you think this is good advice?  How satisfied are you with your job?

Wealth discrimination

Often, people admire the rich, and shun the poor.  This is a form of discrimination that happens in society.  To avoid this discrimination, most appear middle-class.

Even so, there are struggles.  Some of the poor end up poorer as they take up debts to act middle class.

Barbara Ehrenreich wrote that "it is expensive to be poor".  She notes that in the USA, President Johnson started a war against poverty 50 years ago.  “Better schools, and better health, and better homes, and better training, and better job opportunities” would be the ways the nation accomplishes this.

However, the ideal was not easy to accomplish.  A war in Vietnam took the USA's attention away from this project.  People were prone to addiction.  People have children, and single mothers were an economic drain.  People who stayed home and collecting benefits for their children made the poverty cycle worse, when their children lacked the motivation to work from seeing the examples of their parents.  That caused society to label these people negatively.  But, as Ehrenreich points out, "poverty is not a character failing or a lack of motivation. Poverty is a shortage of money.".

Ehrenreich points out that some entry level jobs that women in poverty find are really a trap.  They cannot advance from these jobs, the pay is abysmal, and the jobs do not allow you the freedom to run your schedule.  I know some garment factory workers in Cambodia who can attest to this.

Another one from Ehrenreich relates to accommodation. One needs to live somewhere where one can access one's workplace within a reasonable amount of time.  Many move to the city for this reason.  This makes rent in the city expensive.  Those who do not earn enough to rent in the city are forced to stay in motels, which cost more money.  It doesn't make sense.

So generally, unless some help is given, the poor end up getting poorer, while the rich live on, unaware of their circumstances.  Do you think so?

A recent discussion on Australian radio relates to the present unemployment situation.  Apparently, the government needs to review the budget, as the trend is towards higher unemployment.  As people demand higher wages, employers find it hard to pay.  Inflation pushes up the wages.  But as business looks for off-shore resources to outsource to, and because of an aging population, this causes fewer employed people to support an increasing number of retirees and unsuccessful job seekers.  How will the economy survive?

What do you think?  Is there a way out of this problem?  How does one escape poverty?  Can the rich help?  How?  Do they want to?  How are governments to create sustainable employment?

Retiring

What happens when your job gets too tough?  When you get too old?

There has been talk in recent times in Australia to raise the retirement age to 70.  This is because people are living longer, and the average age of the population is getting higher.  There is no point having a high rate of unemployment and having older people living lives with less challenges if they are able to work.

On the other hand, as people's memories wane, as their eyesight become too weak to solder, as memories become too weak to do their jobs effectively, as they become too unfit to safely climb up roofs to pull cable, etc, perhaps raising the retirement age does not make sense.  As it is, people who lose their jobs after the age of 50 have a great difficulty finding another job.  So raising the retirement age wouldn't really help.  Instead, it would make it harder for the unemployed older people.  And social security would need to assist.

What do you think an appropriate solution to this problem might be?

As I pondered this question, I was drawn to a few side points that does not exactly answer the question, but adds to the thoughts on this issue:

• In Numbers 8:23-26, Levites were told to be in service from 25-50.  Ie. a retirement age was set.  Some discussion on this study suggested that retirement is Biblical, even if some Christian leaders do not believe in retirement.
  
• The Bible's talk of work vs resting, saving vs. giving, service vs. retirement seems to imply both as a part of living, according to Bob.  It is all a matter of stewardship.
  
• In a particular area of service, ie. school-teaching - about 30% leave their preferred profession after about 3 years.  Some reasons cited for this high drop-out rate were that they lost the passion for this after children have worn them out and other attractive offers come.  People need to have the right preparation and support in order to stay with their vocation.

Do you think so?  What do you think the right balance is?  How do you think one can be motivated, or should be motivated, to stay with one's vocation?  For how long?  Is there really an issue with retirement?