Questioning “Work Coverups”

On April 26’s New York edition of The New York Times, Randy Cohen answered a question (here I provide a brief paraphrase, but I recommend that you first read the original question and response) from an employee who works for a nonprofit organization. The employee wanted to know if it’s ethical for the organization to require him to purchase a “sort of uniform” for work.

Randy answers no. He argues that employers must provide the gears specific to the job, but not general items like shoes, which you'll need for any job. Here's Randy's formula: If the clothing can be worn after work, then you are responsible for providing it. Otherwise, your employer is.

Sounds simple enough. However, below I point out four problems for Randy’s response.

First problem: Many real world situations contradict Randy’s formula 

One example is contractors. They are often required to supply their own gear (think of the plumber you hire). Even Randy’s example, a cab driver, contradicts his own reasoning because when you hire a cab driver, you don’t supply the car for the driver. Likewise, a company that wants to get out of paying for work-related expenses can simply hire its staff as contractors or freelancers instead of traditional employees.

Another example is internships. Nowadays, internships (most of them unpaid) often serve as training and preparation for a job. Interns often pay for their own expenses in order to get their feet in the door. Once the intern has developed the skills specific to working at that company, they can get hired, and only then do they start getting paid.

Likewise, employers often don’t pay for training; they just expect job applicants to come equipped with them. In a competitive job economy, employers don’t need to worry about paying for training because applicants know that in order to stand out, they ought to spend their own time and money to acquire the specialized skills for the job they plan to apply to.

Second problem: Are employers really obligated to provide what’s necessary for work?

Let’s consider things that not only allow you to work, but allow you to work well. For example, cooks might want to upgrade to sharper knives to prepare food better, and truck drivers might want to have GPS systems to navigate better. Or how about upgrading your office computer so that it doesn’t take 10 minutes to boot up?

Sometimes safety issues are involved too. The truck driver might argue that a GPS system improves his safety. Are they necessities or luxuries? Can’t employers just claim that these are luxuries and refuse to provide them?

Third problem: Using a formula is not an appropriate approach

Doesn’t it seem weird that there can be an ethical “if…then” formula that differentiates between what that can or cannot be worn after work? How about one for dyeing or not dyeing your hair or wearing or not wearing the Sarah Palin-style glasses?

Randy’s formula does not consider the fact that the worker's uniform in that case is an imprinted polo shirt, which is quite different from a lab coat, an example he uses in his response. The imprinted polo might not be your favorite, but you could wear that after work, whereas with a lab coat you cannot.

Randy’s argument goes as follows: 1.) Employers ought to provide the gear necessary for work. 2.) Clothing could be considered gear for work. 3.) To determine whether it is, look to see if your clothing can be worn after work.

To start off, point #1 is not true in the real world. In addition to what I point out in the second problem, there are many instances when it is considered appropriate for employees to spend their own money in order to function at their jobs. For example, commuting costs, such as bus fare or gas, are usually not covered. Many offices provide coffee machines that make free coffee but vending machines that charge for snacks. Some companies don’t provide parking, or charge for it. What formula is there to govern who pays for these necessities? A lot of these things are just culturally determined; we’re accustomed to them. That’s why using a formula here is not suitable.

Point #3 doesn’t hold up either because as I mentioned, the polo shirt could be considered as something you wear exclusively during work and something you wear after work.

Forth problem: Randy’s logic relies on appealing to our intuition to be convincing. Close examination reveals otherwise.

Randy makes an analogy: “No high-level executive must supply his own desk or chair.” I completely agree. However, Randy has steered our attention away from the issue of clothing to the issue of furniture. It would be outrageous if the nonprofit organization refused to provide office furniture. But what about that polo shirt? This is an issue about clothing! As the third problem has shown, that polo shirt could be worn after work, and that’s what’s really at stake here. Unfortunately, Randy did not comment on this point…but chose to talk about furniture.

Randy makes another such statement, “Nobody wants a shirtless cab driver.” It’s very true (I’ve never seen one!). The naked cab driver, however, is not helping us. We need reasons for why that polo shirt, just because it has a logo on it, disqualifies it from being worn after work. Again, Randy does not offer any explanations here.

Comments

Add New Search

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify Your email address will not be visible to others.
Website:
Title:
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.26

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."