
Stanford professor: ‘The workplace is killing people and nobody cares’ - kaboro
https://www.fastcompany.com/90282735/the-workplace-is-killing-people-and-nobody-cares
======
jl2718
This article sort of pokes weakly from all angles at an idea that something is
wrong without really pinning it down. And it works because we all see that
indeed there is something wrong.

I would posit that workplace health is like all other longevity studies. The
strength and long-term stability of social connections is by far the dominant
factor in longevity, health, and life satisfaction. Isolation kills.

In today’s workplace, social connection is anathematic. Teams are physically
distributed. Career progress happens only by leaving. Layoffs are preferred to
re-tasking. Homophily is discrimination. Talking about your life with
coworkers is a liability. Telling a joke or asking someone out on a date can
get you fired. Set off the twitter rage machine and not only is your career
over, but the company has a PR nightmare. There are no such things as
friendships at work.

~~~
bootsz
Couldn't agree more. Years ago I used to work for a small dev shop of about 6
people. We were super tight-knit and over time became like family. I'm still
friends with some of them today. I've since gone on to work at BigCo's, and
damn do they feel cold and impersonal by comparison.

> _Homophily is discrimination_

I think you are onto an interesting point here. I do not dispute the
importance of diversity/inclusiveness/fairness, but there is an uncomfortable
truth that these things directly conflict with the factors that facilitate
close bonding in groups. When you force an environment to be absolutely non-
exclusive in every possible way, it becomes rather sterile somehow. I don't
doubt that the homogeneity of my old company was one of the reasons we were
able to become so close. I'm not necessarily suggesting companies should
become more exclusionary, just reflecting on the tradeoffs involved.

~~~
sjg007
I worked at a BigCo and my best friends are still there. Same department but
different teams.

------
haburka
When asked why turning a blind eye to people being laid off was popular, the
researcher said:

> Maybe it’s because we see the polar bears and the trees and the physical
> environment as not being agentic, in the sense of not being able to take
> action to defend themselves. And maybe we see human beings as being more
> agentic and responsible for their own well-being.

Humans are agentic! That means they can potentially find a different job after
being laid off, or move to a different company if they work too many hours.
However, this is mostly only a guarantee if they are high demand, and it can
still be very stressful to interview.

I think the larger issue is that companies aren’t willing to train older
people into learning high demand skills, which means those that are laid off
can’t easily recover.

~~~
ep103
All of these things are only possible for the majority in a labor constrained
economy. Like the ones our parents experienced in the 50s.

We're in a capital constrained economy. Its simply not an option for most
people.

~~~
ApolloFortyNine
There's 7.1 million open jobs in the U.S.
[https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm)

Plus this is hackernews. Does anyone here think software isn't hiring right
now?

~~~
HarryHirsch
Meanwhile, in what's supposedly the best labour market in 50 years salaries
just aren't rising. Who cares about software, software doesn't employ enough
people to make an impact in the economy.

~~~
chrisco255
Yes, they are: [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/31/wages-and-salaries-jump-
by-3...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/31/wages-and-salaries-jump-
by-3point1percent-highest-level-in-a-decade.html)

3.1 percent wage increase in Q3 2018. I see fast food jobs in my city for $13
an hour.

~~~
HarryHirsch
In my corner of the woods they advertised for an entry-level chemical
technician, something that requires a BS in the subject, salary 30 kUSD. How
you can pay on that for groceries, the rent, student loans and save for
retirement is beyond me.

~~~
arcanus
There is a reason that job posting is open: no one is willing to accept that
job

~~~
HarryHirsch
They'll find a taker, the job market in the sciences is lousy.

------
chriselles
I had dinner with Professor Jeff Pfeffer in Auckland, NZ last year with a few
other Stanford classmates.

My perception of our time over dinner with him and reading his book “Dying for
a Paycheck” left me with the following impressions/perceptions:

We will hopefully see a social/cultural awakening to the toxic threat of
workplace stress much as we did with the environmental movement in the 1960’s
post “Silent Spring”.

We have made great strides in enhancing water/air/soil quality at
local/national levels in the last 50 years so there is precedence for
enhancing workplace quality.

Workplace stress “kills”(contributes more to the death of) more people than
smoking, obesity, and alcohol abuse, according to Jeff’s research(admittedly,
I haven’t dug deep to look at data set or measurement methodology).

I’m an employer, a former early stage Amazon employee, and the chairperson of
a large national veteran support charity.

Wearing all 3 “hats” I have seen the negative cost of workplace stress.

I left Amazon due to extreme burnout.

I have provided staff(at great personal cost) unlimited time off benefits
during emergencies my peers called ludicrous, but retain

And I have seen 262 veterans suffering the consequences of varying degrees of
extreme workplace stress.

I think treating stress as an injury is a very important one for both
employees and employers.

I think the future is not about employers handing out free gym membership for
physical well-being, but also providing training and support for
mental/emotional well being.

Treating stress as akin to a traumatic injury that requires immediate
mitigation as well as an ultra local environmental threat akin to breathing
dirty air or drinking dirty water is important.

Well worth taking quite seriously, although I am clearly biased.

------
bko
> You begin with that premise: A large fraction–some estimates are 75
> percent–of the disease burden in the U.S. is from chronic diseases.

> Second, there is a tremendous amount of epidemiological literature that
> suggests that diabetes, cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome—and
> many health-relevant individual behaviors such as overeating and
> underexercising and drug and alcohol abuse–come from stress.

> And third, there is a large amount of data that suggests the biggest source
> of stress is the workplace. So that’s how Chapman can stand up and make the
> statement that CEOs are the cause of the health care crisis: You are the
> source of stress, stress causes chronic disease, and chronic disease is the
> biggest component of our ongoing and enormous health care costs.

This only makes sense if overall stress, specifically workplace stress, is
going up over time. My general impression is that workplaces today are more
pleasant than they have ever been. Managers realized non-monetary benefits are
cheaper and often times more effective than purely monetary benefits. This
means flexible working hours, ability to work remotely and overall workplace
environment.

> Job engagement, according to Gallup, is low. Distrust in management,
> according to the Edelman trust index, is high. Job satisfaction, according
> to the Conference Board, is low and has been in continual decline. The gig
> economy is growing, economic insecurity is growing, and wage growth overall
> has stagnated.

The evidence is just polls rather than more substantial evidence. Even if they
serve as an accurate representation, it may be interpreted in many ways. For
instance, my job satisfaction can be low because its a tight labor market and
I know I can get more money elsewhere, or my standards evolved. To say that
this is evidence that the workplace is "killing people" is a stretch.

> I look out at the workplace and I see stress, layoffs, longer hours, work-
> family conflict, enormous amounts of economic insecurity

This is just objectively false as layoffs are historically low [0] in the US
and working hours are shorter over the last ten years [1] or so. It seems to
me the author is being dishonest and trying to reach a preordained conclusion

[0] [https://www.marketwatch.com/story/layoffs-in-us-could-
soon-d...](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/layoffs-in-us-could-soon-drop-
below-200000-a-week-for-first-time-since-1969-2018-08-17)

[1]
[https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS](https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS)

~~~
jackpirate
> This only makes sense if overall stress, specifically workplace stress, is
> going up over time. My general impression is that workplaces today are more
> pleasant than they have ever been. Managers realized non-monetary benefits
> are cheaper and often times more effective than purely monetary benefits.
> This means flexible working hours, ability to work remotely and overall
> workplace environment.

This comment strikes me as possibly true in the tech/startup world, but
definitely not true in the vast majority of jobs that people work at like
retail/restaurants/other service. While these jobs have existed for forever, I
could see them being more stressful these days as competition has forced
managers to be more cutthroat with hours and benefits offered, and especially
in the bay area where workers can't even afford to live near where they work
and must commute an hour to wait tables.

~~~
bko
I disagree although I have no evidence. But the fixed cost of actually finding
an employee and training them is very large compared to the hourly rate of a
low paid employee. There isn't an endless stream of workers ready to
seamlessly fill a role. How much does it cost to take out an ad or pay a
recruiter, spend time interviewing, background check and onboard?

~~~
jriot
You would be wrong in your assumption. A project I worked on for a client
(data scientist working on labor market issues) wanted to know when he would
run out of candidates in the labor pool as he had a high turnover in 120 zip-
codes. Out of them only 30 would have a dried up labor pool in 15 years. The
rest could go on forever. Why? You forget to count the people aging, the 15
year old who isn't in the labor pool now, will be in a few years.

------
ethiclub
One thing not mentioned in the article is the omission of natural light.

We have forced staff into dark, cramped spaces - Then introduced artificial
light (knowing very little about the brain, light, vitamin D, SAD etc.).

Our office space planning has painted us into a corner. It is now hard to
reintroduce natural light back into the workplace.

------
tu7001
Maybe not only companies, but government too, can help, like lowering taxes,
for example.

~~~
Agathos
With a trillion dollar deficit, what could go wrong?

~~~
ep103
Easy, just cut the spending from the labor rights enforcement agencies. That
should solve our workplace issues.

If we really want to go next level, maybe we can make sure that that tax cut
goes primarily to CEOs, instead of workers, as well.

~~~
Latteland
if we stop protecting people from mistreatment and racists hiring, what would
get better? I don't understand your comment.

~~~
ep103
It was sarcasm. Lowering taxes is often touted by right wing leaning economic
politicians as a way of boosting the economy and making it more competitive.
But that 1) only works in certain types of economic landscapes 2) has a
dubious track record, and 3) leaves out of the picture that often tax cuts
often come at the expense of social programs (in its most extreme, right-wing
form, see Starve the Beast)

Since, in America, the party that most strongly advocates tax cuts, tends to
do so to the benefit of the rich, and at the expense of labor and labor-
helping social and enforcement programs, I was trying to make a joke to point
out how absurd an argument OP was making.

~~~
krageon
The track record is not dubious. Look at the countries that do it most, now
look at what it's like to live there for an average person. The track record
is objectively terrible. The politicians who say otherwise are receiving very
poor advice (or are actively seeking poor advice) to the point where I suspect
it might be active malice for personal gain.

