You are leapfrogging over the discussion into one which I am not having. Though, I have very, VERY clearly stated that once there are details(i.e an example of), that discussion is apt and important. — AmadeusD

Cool.

My guess, here, is that we're just beginning from such philosophically different places that we're talking past one another.

This could be said, and It would be hard to argue against, but there are millions of examples within capitalism where this is not the exchange. Exploitative trade is very much a thing (and imo, a good thing) which doesn't involve any direct relationship with value per se, and instead, value per individual. — AmadeusD

heh. I'm happy to have earned "hard to argue against" :)

Though surely you can recognize that labour-time is appropriate to bring up in a discussion about work environment, in spite of counter-examples?

Hmm... Not in this discussion, no, as it violates the premise being asked about (though, i do intuit that this is by way of the OP being very imprecise in its aim). "the work environment" imports nothing to be discussed, ethically. You have to import some detail to get anywhere. You're basically not disagree with me, but still arguing that my position is off.

Can you just directly address why you think the abstract concept of 'work environment' without any indication of detail is apt for ethical discussion (and this, specifically in opposition to "a work environment, X")?

We're all replying to replies. I am agreeing with Moliere. I think his argument is approximately a million times better than yours. — Leontiskos

You're allowed - but my comments don't change simply because you're justifying ignoring the arguments to agree with a badly-formulated response. *shrug*.

I can't see that you're interacting with my claim.. Which is that 'the work environment' as a concept is literally a tool that appears in infinite forms. It is not a moral concept. It couldn't be, at this stage of analysis. — AmadeusD

Regarding this objection, it strikes me as a subtle ignoratio elenchus. The OP was not speaking about "the work environment" in a purely abstract manner. We know this because of that word, "anymore." The purely abstract notion that you have concerned yourself with does not change from time to time; but that which the OP is talking about does change from time to time; therefore the purely abstract notion that you have concerned yourself with is not what the OP is talking about. Thus you are talking past the OP.

Now the OP certainly needs to give us more information about what he is asking about, but we can be sure it isn't what you make it out to be.

Hmm... Not in this discussion, no, as it violates the premise being asked about (though, i do intuit that this is by way of the OP being very imprecise in its aim). "the work environment" imports nothing to be discussed, ethically. You have to import some detail to get anywhere. You're basically not disagree with me, but still arguing that my position is off.

Can you just directly address why you think the abstract concept of 'work environment' without any indication of detail is apt for ethical discussion (and this, specifically in opposition to "a work environment, X")? — AmadeusD

Does "the work environment" import no detail?

I think it's apt for ethical discussion probably because of my own personal history, of course. It seems to me that there are some environments which are better or worse than others, which means there's an evaluative element, which means -- well, if not ethics, at least aesthetics. Value theory.

Being a land owner in rural Sweden in 1867 meant that regardless of how well you had taken care of your land you would starve to death unless you revolt or emigrate. — jkop

Emigration happens even in far less dire situations.

A huge number of Finns emigrated to Sweden to work in the 1960's and the1970's, which actually took care of our unemployment problem and Sweden got it's first dose of immigrants, which even looked like Swedes and ought to have learnt Swedish in school.

If emigration had not been an option, then revolt seems probable, at least if one considers the fact that these peasants had no political power, they were too poor to be allowed to vote, and thus easy to exploit by the feudal elite. — jkop

Emigration to America was the real blessing to Europe altogether, actually. Yet the driving factor, as I discussed with @NOS4A2 was the population growth that happened because of modern medicine and improved supply of food thanks to improvements in agriculture and global trade. This population growth didn't happen because of political developments and hence immigration and the industrial revolution helped this. Today Third World countries don't have such a nice situation as 19th Century Europe had.

Yet Sweden is a perfect example of that huge transformations can happen without revolts and political turmoil and blood on the streets. England had it's bloody Civil War, France has had multiple revolutions. Places like Sweden and Switzerland stand out from the crowd.

Yet Sweden is a perfect example of that huge transformations can happen without revolts and political turmoil and blood on the streets. — ssu

Right, historically there's been little blood on the streets here. Instead we have this "consensus culture" where open conflict and disagreement is avoided at all cost. It doesn't mean that conflicts and disagreements have disappeared, they just manifest in other ways. Imagine what that can be like at work places, schools, universities, sports clubs etc. If we are supposed to get along no matter what, then less people are likely to speak truth to power, and power can avoid being accountable. This might serve the interests of those in power, for a while, but now we have gang related shootings and bombings in public places, and politics characterized by populism and polarization. Not sure whether it will result in something historically significant. Well, 200 years of freedom of alliance seems to be at an end now that we're about to become members of Nato.

I think it's apt for ethical discussion probably because of my own personal history, of course. It seems to me that there are some environments which are better or worse than others, which means there's an evaluative element, which means -- well, if not ethics, at least aesthetics. Value theory. — Moliere

Yes, good. I think the important part here is the underlined. To my mind, this requires a workplace to begin discussing the ethics. "the work place" is not "a workplace" and therefore has no detail to be discussed, ethically.
It would be like saying "the court room" rather than a particular courtroom with particular policy/protocol/requirement etc... The Court Room, as it stands, doesn't refer to anything whcih could be discussed. Is how I see this.
Is that at all clearer? I do think this applies to any value-driven discussion.

I agree with that. Those are clear standards which should always be discussed beforehand and proven throughout the business procedures otherwise there is a likelihood for error or misunderstanding if a situation arises.

However it is still not that simple because of human error. Regardless of measures that are taken to implement ethical policies there will eventually be an inadequacy found in the system or strictly human behavior. Therefore it must be understood and possibly dealt with differently in each work environment. Some are better than others with how they handle this dilemma.

I like the Scandinavian input. As fellow EU-member (Netherlands), we try to learn from our fellow European countries & nations.

Historically, and I'm speaking hundreds and thousands of years, we are very close to Germany & France. And there is a lot of thought about (work) ethics in both German and French, which has now been translated to English.

Lucky for us!

Good discussion :)

That's very clear.

I see enough generalities that I think the discussion holds together -- we work for money, we want more money and rewarding work in various ways, the establishment of individual property adjudicated by states and courts gives a general social structure -- between a worker and a peasant, as I alluded to earlier, I'd say there's not much to compare.

But it seems our disagreement is whether one can speak in general about "working conditions" at all, which I clearly think we can.

But it seems our disagreement is whether one can speak in general about "working conditions" at all, which I clearly think we can — Moliere

What are the 'general conditions' of 'the work environment'? If you can lay some out, I'd be happy to step back on this. I just can't think of any 'general conditions' as opposed to 'general expectations' which can't really be apt for anything here.

laid out some very good points that should generally hold for all workplaces.

More on the descriptive side: I think the social structure of property is what allows us to coherently speak this way.

Because we have individual property rights that are enforced by a state, and because human beings continue to be what they are, some of the general structures that emerge are: some people must sell their time to people who own things. It doesn't even have to be a bad thing -- I certainly believe that capitalism is better than feudalism, and I'd note an important part of Marx is his fascination with capital rather than his opposition.

So, yeh, that's the theoretical background I'm thinking from, but it seems coherent in practice too -- at least in my experiences. (we need not convince one another here). At a very general level people who own workplaces would like, based on self-interest, for people they pay to produce more value than they pay them for, and people who sell their labor because they have to would generally prefer to work less for more reward. That's just human nature.

Because we have individual property rights that are enforced by a state, and because human beings continue to be what they are, some of the general structures that emerge are: some people must sell their time to people who own things. — Moliere

The phrasing of this betrays the point you want to make, and supports mine. These are various and you need a bit of detail to discuss them with any aptness. Nothing presented enables the conversation.

These concepts above are not able to be discussed ethically. As you said, they need not be bad things - but sometimes they will be. And we need to know about that "sometime" to discuss its ethical implication.

In that case I think the sometimes is enough.

As in, we're both weakening our claims ;)

I'm not claiming universality so much as generality. In the sense of "Generally speaking...", which includes, I believe, some amount of subjectivity. In a way it's like saying "In my experience...." to say, look, I understand my beliefs are informed by my experience and I understand that all of our experiences are wildly different.

But if they are the same?

Then it's pretty easy to talk in terms of working conditions, and the term refers to general things. Time-for-Money being a big one. Even the investor spends time looking at his stocks.

As in, we're both weakening our claims ;) — Moliere

hehe, that's fair. But I disagree with that sometimes is enough to go on, because it doesn't present me with anything to discuss. Which is the problem.

Time-for-Money being a big one. — Moliere

Do you not, then see that this is an aspect of many work environments which still requires the surrounding details to discuss it?

in-and-of-itself its nothing at all to be discussed. Time-for-money? Says nothing ethically.

Here, let's try this: Engage me in the discussion you think you can wrangle out of hte geenral concept of "the world environment".

I will do my best to engage back - but I expect this can't be done

Do you not, then see that this is an aspect of many work environments which still requires the surrounding details to discuss it? — AmadeusD

I do. I think I just have a general structure to think through those specific problems. By analogy I'd say the law and its practice is another structure to think through the problems, though mine is obviously different.
 

I will do my best to engage back - but I expect this can't be done — AmadeusD

Cool. :)

Tonight.... naw. I said enough and have to think. I suspect, of course, that it can be done, but I'm tired now.

Totally fair enough my friend. Sleep well :)

(also, I've set up the Zoom meeting. Check the thread :) )

I like the Scandinavian input. As fellow EU-member (Netherlands), we try to learn from our fellow European countries & nations. — Kevin Tan

It will be interesting to know what you learn from the Mediterranean countries regarding this topic, or whether the gap between North and South Europe is not that great when you leave the political arena.

I can only talk about my actual experiences over 40 years, working in a range of roles. I don't recall any significantly unethical cultures. Sometimes a particular work culture is bad, but this may this be down to malicious colleagues having personality problems and being arseholes from time to time. More unpleasant than unethical.

For the most part, for workers here, conditions have improved over my time. I'm sure there are still primitive conditions in the casualised work force (waiters, cleaners, food delivery people), where workers don't get properly paid, any holidays or training or any benefits. But full-time workers here tend to be protected by robust legislation, are provided 4 weeks holiday a year and are paid for days taken sick. They also can't be sacked without a robust due process.

Sounds like heaven.

Now the OP certainly needs to give us more information about what he is asking about, but we can be sure it isn't what you make it out to be. — Leontiskos

This is an exact ignoratio elenchus. You have literally made my argument, despite pretending to be an objector to it. "I'll leave you to it".

I will research it. Thank you

The general structure I'm coming from is Marxist.

Marx's description of capital points out that there are owners of workplaces and people who work for the owners of workplaces.

I want to, by analogy at least, say this is similar to knowledge of the law.

You can know the law, you can know the previous decisions and know the likelihoods based upon the judge you're talking to. But you cannot know what the judge will say, even if you have a good idea.

I'm thinking from a general description of how economies work -- so of course I cannot say how a particular instance should cache out while being fair. Just like the law this is an understanding of what you can say, what people want, and knowing the likelihoods of being hired or, if you're on the other side, the likelihoods of who gets hired is more in direct control for you, like a judge.

This analogy is the strongest thing I can think of right now.

And, yeah, I was excited that you got a Zoom link! I understand overcommitting :D

It seems to me that there isn't such a thing as 'Mediterranean Europe'. The differences between the individual countries seem too big.

At least that is my impression.

What do you all think?

OK. It is true. Each country has a lot of singularities, and when I wrote 'Mediterranean countries' I was basically referring to South European countries. Thus, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece. As well as the East countries such as Albania or Bulgaria are usually named as the Balkans.

Anyway, you posted that as a fellow EU-member, you try to learn from other European fellows. This surprised me, because I don't know to what extent my country (Spain) can teach you 'something' regarding the working or student environment. Our youth unemployment and dropping out rates are very high.
I guess you were just thinking about other nations like Germany or France, and not a South European country precisely. :smile:

I don't remember what I was thinking. I only know that the Spanish siesta culture is not common in the other countries you mentioned.

But maybe I am wrong...

I knew you would answer with that stupid prejudice. My fault for trying to discuss with you. I wrongly thought that maybe (only maybe) there are no prejudices at all, but yes there are...

I am sorry. I didn't mean it that way.

So I was wrong...

I believe that considering the work environment at large as unethical is a huge generalization, ungrounded as a statement and a quite biased --one-sided and even wrong I could say-- view.

What exactly is the problem with the work environment? In what sense it is unethical and why?
Then, why "anymore"? Was the work environment more ethical or less unethical in the past? E.g. in the times of slavery --ancient and modern? Or before the advancements in the emancipation of women?

Then, do you express this view because of first-hand experience or from examples in real life? Or it is just a theoretical viewpoint of yours?

There is injustice and unfair treatment in companies as there is injustice and unfair treatment in schools and universities as there is injustice and unfair treatment in human relations as there is injustice and unfair treatment in families. Injustice can be met in every aspect and corner of life. The work environment has not the exclusivity in it.