Tuesday, March 20, 2012

I Works Hard

Trey Smith


In the comments section of my post, A Side Road, Baroness Radon wrote the following:
On a totally unrelated point, I am somewhat offended by your blanket statement, "Wealthy people believe in the brand of Christianity which states that wealth is bestowed by God on his favored people." I am not a wealthy Christian, but I know very wealthy Christians who would not say this at all, nor would I describe them that way: they attribute their wealth and success to their own hard work.
Her comment serves as a springboard for me to return to a point I have broached before. Why is it that, by and large, those individuals who work the hardest, often directly with their fellow human beings, and deal with the highest levels of stress are among the least paid in our society? Why is it that, the farther a person gets away from dealing with the targeted population, the more that person is compensated?

Let me use a field I am the most familiar with as an example: state-based social services. The front-line workers are those who deal daily with the human carnage of dysfunctional and, sometimes, broken families and individuals. In most states, this is a white collar job. You need to possess a college degree of a certain type -- it's not the kind of job a person can get just walking in off the street.

While these jobs generally are not physically strenuous, they are so mentally AND emotionally. The burnout rate is high because you must deal with so many people in pain. If you are dedicated to the people you serve, it's next too impossible NOT to take the job home with you. Consequently, it is very difficult to unwind and "let your hair down."

When I worked in this field as a front-line worker in the 1980s, I never earned more than $18,000 in any one year. In more than a few cases, the dysfunctional family I was tasked with helping made far more than I did. In my first job in the field, I brought homes LESS THAN $100 more than the maximum threshold to apply for food stamps at the other end of our agency!

But here's what I find so odd. The farther a person moves away from the direct work of helping dysfunctional families and individuals, the higher the pay scale becomes. The immediate supervisor of front-line workers made hundreds per month more than we did. The County administrator earned 50% more per year. The Regional Managers made 2 -3 times as much as we did and the folks in the state office generally started at $60,000 up to 6 figure salaries.

All of those individuals in the upper echelons of the pay scale were DEPENDENT on those of us out in the field. If we didn't exist, they wouldn't exist! Yet, they were paid handsomely, while we were tossed peanuts.

I don't want anyone to misunderstand my point. I'm not suggesting that the higher ups didn't work hard. I am certain that they had a lot of their own stresses to deal with. But they also enjoyed perks that we peons could only dream about.

The state often provided them with cars; we had to use our own. Many of the them had per diems for meals and whatnot; we paid for such things out-of-pocket. Each month they met for little confabs -- sometimes at snazzy resorts or retreats -- with catered meals and nightly entertainment. I was often lucky between investigations or home visits to grab a bite to eat at a fast food drive-through and, a good deal of the time, I was on 24-hour call.

As stated above, without people like me who toiled away in the trenches trying to save children from abuse and neglect or spouses from being battered to a pulp, the higher ups would have no budgets to crunch or manpower studies to conduct. Their entire livelihood depended on the tireless work of people like yours truly.

So, why is it that they deserve the big salaries and the front-line workers don't?

It seems completely ass backwards to me.

6 comments:

  1. The only answer is that there isn't a good one. And your question is most easily posed by one whose job experience is in "state supported social services" and who detests capitalism. I have noticed too that executive directors of non-profits are often paid disproportionately to the people who do the actual scut work. On the other hand, the ED's are usually "on" 24/7 (as are many executives in profit making institutions). Contrary to what you might think, they don't stop working at 5. (Although certainly there are exceptions, on both sides of the management/worker profile.) Not being an entrepreneur or an ED type myself, I can say I wouldn't do those jobs even for the salary. And I know of at least one instance of someone who turned down a hefty salary increase, choosing to use that money to hire someone who required a higher salary than what was listed. (He said, "I have enough.")

    I once worked for a small company whose entrepreneuial executive team (they were married) were "on" all the time, and they suffered the strain. When they sold the business, Mrs. said to me, "You have no idea what it is to worry about making payroll."

    I'm not talking about the sleazy wall street guys, but honest hardworking business people who do take care of their employees.

    Seems to me your complaint about your former higher ups should be directed to the state.

    Whether they, or anyone, "deserve" their salaries and profits is a question only a socialist would ask. And as I said before, why do some work hard and not succeed. It's fate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Life is not fair. Whether an organization is privately or publicly run does not matter; what matters is how each individual chooses to live their life in the circumstances they are facing. It is up to each person to decide if they wish to join the Cult of Victimhood or not.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ONLY a socialist would ask that question? Gosh, maybe that's what's wrong with our economic system. It sounds to me like you are saying that people shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about silly issues like morality, ethics or fairness.

    Personally, I think describing this situation as "fate" is a cop-out. The system is set up by design to insure that the vast majority of the poor have little opportunity to rise above their circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That's a socialist critique...free market economies do not operate according to what people "deserve." This does not, as I suggested however, mean that all capitalists or entrepreneurs are heartless and plot --design-- ways to keep the poor poor. If anyone designed such a system, it was Mao Zedong.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You should read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein or The Corporation by Joel Bakan. While it's true that most of the cogs within the system have not plotted it out, it is naive to think that there aren't those that have and continue to do.

    Once the system is established, people need to act amorally (in some cases, immorally) in order to succeed or the system will leave them behind. This is precisely what is wrong with this economic model. Doing the right thing by your fellow man or woman too often puts you out of business.

    That ain't fate; it's the way the system operates by design.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.