We all carry a strong sense of justice within us. When we feel something is truly unfair, it makes our blood boil, and we might even wish for revenge to balance the scales. We experience this feeling daily, especially at work. Because, let's be honest: jobs are small dictatorships where we are controlled most of the time, and we give our time and energy in exchange for a reward that is almost never fair when compared to what we truly contribute. And we accept it, because 'that's just how it is'.
The problem arises when the injustice is so great that many people feel the same thing at the same time. This is when protests, strikes, and collective demands for better wages and conditions emerge. In response, many companies have swapped the whip for something more modern: coaching, speeches about we are a family, and promises of well-being that are often just window dressing.
The truth is that in nature, selfishness rules, and human beings are no exception. If it were up to the privileged, hierarchies and inequalities would never change. That's why slavery and feudalism existed for so long, and it's why we still see similar dynamics today under different names.
Capitalism, at least, doesn't hide what it is: it gives an advantage to whoever accumulates enough capital to do business. Exchange is necessary, but it should be fair. And here lies the conflict: a liberal would say that wages depend on productivity and company profits. I would reply that this is a naive view. In reality, it's a constant power struggle between workers and employers, and only a balance can maintain harmony in a society.
When employers, directors, managers, etc., ignore the complaints or health problems of their employees, many of them start looking for other opportunities. And what do some employers do? They bring in vulnerable, submissive, or more manageable labor, such as immigrants willing to accept any conditions just to survive. This may serve them in the short term, but in the long run, it degrades work, fragments society, and generates all sorts of conflicts.
In economic (and human) terms, the most sensible thing for a business owner is not to cut costs at any price, but to ensure their team of professionals remains motivated and stable. Paying fair wages, offering suitable working conditions, and listening to the real needs of the staff is not an act of altruism: it is a strategic investment. A well-treated worker is more productive, more innovative, and reduces turnover, which translates into long-term savings and greater competitiveness. Investing in workplace well-being is, in fact, investing in sustained profitability.
On the workers' side, there is also a responsibility. It's not just about demanding improvements, but also about demonstrating productivity, adaptability, and commitment. Training, contributing solutions, and maintaining a high professional standard give you more leverage when negotiating and prevent demands from being perceived as mere complaints. Furthermore, a professional who is aware of their value in the job market will always have more decision-making power.
Who should control this balance?
If we leave it solely in the hands of the market and trust in goodwill, experience shows that inequalities tend to widen. From a liberal perspective, inequality is not necessarily a bad thing. It's seen as an incentive: the less privileged, seeing that others have more, would supposedly be motivated to work harder and climb the socioeconomic ladder. In theory, the important thing would be to ensure that anyone has the tools to try: easy access to a new job, a real possibility to start a business without bureaucratic hurdles, continuous training, and quality education.
But reality is different. Not everyone starts from the same point, nor do we all have the same abilities or circumstances. If there were no minimum social safety net, many people, unable to compete on equal terms, would end up begging or resorting to crime. Therefore, beyond individual incentives, a common framework is needed to ensure basic conditions for everyone.
This is why regulatory frameworks, unions, and bodies that act as arbitrators exist. The goal is not to stifle business freedom or prevent labor flexibility, but to set minimum limits that guarantee fair conditions. The real challenge lies in finding the middle ground: neither excessive control that suffocates private initiative, nor an absolute laissez-faire that perpetuates abuse. Balance, as always, is the key.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario