Reciprocity in Our Society and How Does It Work in Capitalism with Democracy
Essay Preview: Reciprocity in Our Society and How Does It Work in Capitalism with Democracy
Report this essay
Reciprocity in our society. and how does it work in capitalism with democracy
Reciprocity is an important concept in regards to todays relationship between an employer and employee. The diminishing relationship between these two parties has been a growing concern for the American workplace. In The Betrayal of Work, Beth Shulman writes about low wage workers and the working conditions that many of them are faced with. In many of the situations she discusses; the central theme is based on distrust and lack of appreciation for hard working Americans. Jeffrey Pfeffer further emphasizes the distrust between the employer and employee, in Human Resources from an Organizational Behavior Perspective: Some Paradoxes Explained. He talks about the “norm of reciprocity” being one of the most fundamental rules governing human behavior. As Pfeffer points out, there is a lack of reciprocity in the workplace; thus, making it harder to bridge the gap that has been growing between the employer and employee. A capitalist society seeks to gain profit, and it is difficult for reciprocity to have a place in such a society; however, it is necessary in a democratic nation such as the United States who places emphasis on equal opportunity, achievement, success, work and freedom.
An ultimate goal of capitalism is profit maximization. It is important for a developed nation, such as America, to strive to produce and gain profit; however, if approached in a harsh manner, it can be harmful for a company. As Pfeffer points out, there is much distrust in the workplace because employers continue to cut out benefits that workers have become accustomed to because of the pressure to produce in the most efficient way possible. Some companies take the “high road” approach that includes high wages and employment security, while others use the “low road” approach. “there is little evidence that firms that use a low road approach end up being more competitive or productive” (Pfeffer 118). This can be seen when one compares Costo and Sams Club. According to Pfeffer, Costo pays higher wages and offers its workforce benefits, more so than Sams Club offers. In 2003, however, Costo made $13,647 in profit compared to $11,039 at Sams Club. This illustrates that a company who invests in their employees, with higher wages and more benefits, can make a larger profit than a company that does not. Workers may have more loyalty to a company that takes care of them and will, therefore, perform at a higher level. Profit maximization, in this case, is achieved while taking care of workers.
Employers need to take care of employees, as there is a growing distrust and dissatisfaction in the workplace. Shulman speaks about several work environments in which worker are succumbed to subpar conditions and there is a blatant mistrust between the management and workers. A woman that works at a call center in Arlington, Texas, is constricted by a strict schedule. “Her employer also records how much time she spends off the phone, called slippage. When Ellen takes to finish paperwork or go to the bathroom, it is slippage that is docked against her” (51). If management does not trust a worker, what does this say about their intentions? Workers in a democratic nation are entitled to freedom and should be able to have a sense of independence. Pfeffer also highlights the diminishing distrust of management, which takes away the “norm of reciprocity.” Many workers are unhappy with their organizations and the numbers speak for themselves. “Nearly 20 percent of workers say that their companies lie to them…About 44 percent say that top management lacks honesty and integrity” (116). If employees