Forum - View topicAnswerman - Is Working To Death Really A Thing In Japan?
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Paiprince
 Posts: 593 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
@BadNewsBlues
Being poor doesn't necessarily correlate to hard working. A large chunk of the poor are poor because they never get off their asses to work and if they do, they splurge it on booze, drugs or gambling. Customers being overdemanding pricks is an inevitability and the only way you can deal with those types is to reach a compromise that heavily favors them. They tend to be a real annoyance otherwise since they will go to the ends of the Earth and broadcast how your company and its workers are literally the worst of the lot while peppering in exaggerations in their personal anecdotes. @zrnzle500 Yes, the contempt of the young by the old has been going on for ages, but you can't seriously believe that Millennials have exponentially increased their indifference lethargy because they now have more toys and time to goof around. Back then, children would be beaten if they so much so were caught just idling about. But ever since bleeding hearts started having actual power, we've let kids pretty much run amuck. At this point, only closed communities like the Amish have it right in raising their children. You call it compensation, but then workers will demand more and more and more and if you even so much as resist they will go on strike (see the recent video game VA strike that just happened.) until their increasingly unreasonable demands are met. And robots can only do so much. Yes, they are efficient, but they'll require some overseer and maintenance crew to continue performance. At least, they don't complain and go on strike though. @Galap That's not any obligation of the employer. His only priority is to satisfy his or her workers through wages. Any other services should be considered an afterthought. Having to consider the "well-being" of everyone in the company can potentially lead to favoritism, and workplace politics is one of the many culprits of business breakdown. @Emma_Iveli No, but I was brought up to consider myself to always be lower than my superiors and never to question them since they are the ones who are keeping me from living on the streets. It has served me well to this day. @NapoleondeCheese I'd thank you not to do an involuntary psychoanalysis of me while dissecting my post. My username among many other personal assumptions you've made are irrelevant to the issue at hand. I was not disrespecting anyone, here especially. Rather, I'm just expressing the cold, hard truth that is the employee-boss dynamic and I could sum it up as the superiors to always have a skeptical attitude to those under him lest he or she chooses to be taken advantage of. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Emma Iveli
Posts: 679 Location: Hobo with internet |
|
|||||||||||||||||
What does that have to with being born before or after 1982? |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
zrnzle500
 Posts: 3767 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
Frankly that last sentence probably captures the reason why your position is so...unpopular to say the least. These workers are literally giving their lives for their employers and the one who you are concerned about being taken advantage of are their employers. At worst the employers get less money. These employees are losing their lives. Valuing the money of the rich over the lives of everyone else is..unpopular indeed, even if not explicitly. I don't believe you do believe that, but that is the logical conclusion of your position. At the very least it shows your priorities are not in the right place on the issue. Now others here have said workers deserve more compensation than just wages, but I have only called for one thing here, that employers make sure their employees don't die from preventable causes in the workplace. If that is a bridge too far for the employer, the employees should be running out of the building. Not that I don't agree that employees ought to be compensated in more than just wages. I will 100% question my superiors if they want me to give my life for them, and these people who have died have not been served by not doing so. When the issue is should employers or employees get more money, a position of holding firm against employee demands is fine, even if I don't necessarily agree. But when the demand is not being worked to death or dying from other preventable causes in the workplace, the employers should not be allowed to deny that demand. If that means they need to spend more money, so be it. As to Millenials, yeah Baby Boomers and Gen X'er were beat when they were misbehaving (I don't buy they idea that children back in the day were never allowed to play ever at pain of physical punishment). And they were just as selfish and lazy as teenagers and young adults today, so a lot of good that did them. And I'll call BS on children being allowed to run amuck given some people have been arrested for letting their children go to a playground unattended. Yes today's parenting can be more lenient than in the past in some aspects, but in others it can be more controlling (granted today's kids are in the next generation which I'm not sure of what the name is). Being rich doesn't necessarily correlate to hard work either. Now certainly if you bring yourself up from being poor or middle class to rich, you have to work hard, but there are plenty of people who were born into their wealth. Certainly even those who inherit their wealth can be hard workers, but the difference is the hard work of the rich goes much further than that of the poor. From my time working in minimum wage jobs, I've seen workers in whose household both of the adults work multiple jobs, and they still needed public assistance. They are working hard to just tread water not even advance their position. And yes some of the poor make bad decisions, but studies have shown that being worried about money leads to poor decision making, so that is not surprising. And furthermore, many rich and even middle class people splurge on drink, drugs, and gambling, but the difference is the poor have little to no margin of error. You can say if they have so little margin of error, they ought not make those mistakes, but people make mistakes, and I think it is unfair to say they deserve what's coming to them when those better off can make the same mistake and get off much easier. They deserve help not contempt. I think on some level the rich want to believe that the poor are where they are because of laziness or poor decision making, because otherwise a) they would have to admit their position is in part due to the luck of being born to the right parents and not just their own hard work, and b) (in America specifically) part of the American dream, namely if you just work hard you can do well, is not being fulfilled and really they are the ones who will be called on to rectify the situation via paying higher taxes, wages, and/or benefits. Probably need some money from the middle class too but good luck getting a politician to do that. That doesn't mean the poor ought to be fatalistic, but just that they and everyone else should realize they have to work much harder to improve their station than those above them do, and believe you me, they know that better than anyone. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Alan45
 Village Elder Posts: 9840 Location: Virginia |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
zrnzle500 wrote:
I'm a couple of years older than the baby boomers and lived through the entire period he is describing. It doesn't sound like any period of the past I remember. It sounds more like the early 1800's and probably wasn't completely true then. Kids ran just as wild when I was young and have since then. I got out of the service and entered the workforce in the early 1970s. Every group of new hires had its share of hard workers and goof-offs. To slap a label on a group of people and then treat everyone in that group as if they were the same is basically prejudice. It is not a nice thing. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
garlogan78
Posts: 171 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
I'm doing the JET program right now, and it isn't working to death or anything for the teachers there, but I leave every day at 5 on the dot. But every other teacher is still at their desk. Sometimes one of the English teachers brags to me how he came to work at 5 AM that day or how he stayed working on something until 9 PM the night before. To me it just blows my mind because that sounds awful and he isn't getting paid extra hourly to do that....
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
NapoleonDeCheese
Posts: 26 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
Being rich doesn't necessarily relate to hard working either, but let's conveniently ignore that because it doesn't fit your viewpoint.
And an even larger chunk doesn't. And a large chunk of rich peple also splurge their money on booze, drugs and gambling, even in the cases when they have earned it, Your point being, then? Please don't keep pretending having money is an automatic badge of virtue and not having it is an automatic sign you are inferior.
Beaten. Okay. Let's see, now we can add support on child abuse to social prejudice. Keep on talking, man. This is good stuff. This 'point', let's be generous and call it such, is a strawman based on extremes, the kind fanaticism tends to use to justify extreme positions, so I'd advice you to stop resorting to such debate tools before people start mistaking you with a fanatic of an extreme position yourself, which I'm sure none of us wants. To the point, there is a large gap between 'beating your children', 'raising your children like Amish' (and while Amish certainly are entitled to their lifestyle if they really want to keep it and don't just keep it because of pressure from their peers or family) and 'letting kids run amock'. Pretty much the same kind of gap there is between 'letting criminals do whatever they want' and 'rampant police brutality'.
Yeah, because they're just tools and not human beings. Then again, we've aleady established workers should be just tools and not human beings with rights of their own, I suppose, so let's move on.
Again we go with the use of quotation marks as a tool to attempt and disqualify a concept. Please stop to consider the meaning of what you've just written. Favoritism is, by definition, favoring some over others. When you say considering the wellbeing of everyone leads to favoritism you're engaging into a self contradiction, because favoritism happens to be, well, placing the wellbeing of SOME above that of EVERYONE. I don't see what's so complicated about that as a principle, even if the specifications of its application on the practice are a complex case-by-case analysis subject.
And again here we go with the self-victimization as a defense mechanism in debate, while certainly not being shy of throwing insulting generalizations on human groups perceived as inferior and, by default, worth of exploitation and distrust.
I'm of the school of thought personal analysis is something that should be avoided at all costs in objective debate, but when a side takes extreme personal subjective opinions and trying to pass them as absolute truth, then that person certainly makes it rather dificult to separate the message from the person expressing it. When a person tries to throw blanket statements on whole groups of people in a pre-existing state of social or economic disadvantage, it's extremely hard to analyze that without stopping to analyze the reasons why someone would issue statements charged with partisan socioeconomical vitriol, because when an individual starts trying to pass personal views as complete truth, then that person already sort of has made it personal in the first place. Believe me, please, I'd rather prefer if such wasn't the case, but when one person assumes a radical position based on apparent prejudice and reactionary segregation, that tends to merit a study of why that person would hold that kind of views. It's a touchy issue, I'll admit it freely, and of course no one likes being put under the microscope, but ultimately I think it often does us all a lot of good to stop and pause to study ourselves, even through the eyes of others. No personal desire to hold you to any ill will is intended.
Again, I might take offense to the default opening salvo of 'hard truth' to express something that is still just a personal opinion, and one increasingly falling out of touch with society as a whole, but since it's clear you have little but contempt for such society, as can be read from previous paragraphs and the ideas in them concerning social change, I doubt it'd change much in the course of the conversation. And I don't doubt you don't think you are being offensive, but in my opinion, well, you are being so regardless, because offense is a concept that goes beyond calling others mean names directly. Demeaning other social segments is also offensive. Just thought I'd like to express I find there to be a dissonance of sorts between the core idea of admitting one socioeconomical segment as 'superiors', which implles a pre-set position of advantage over others, and then, in the same breath, resorting to the core idea of saying a weaker, 'inferior' group working for the first one is the one taking the advantage in said relationship. Again, I find the concepts to be sort of mutually sabotaging, unless the idea is to express the principle one kind of superiority should always be uncontested, unchallenged, and unquestioned under any circumstances, which is the safest and quickest path to totalitarianism.
I'm sure it has served your superiors even better. Also, you know what? I'm not fully sure or anything, but I'd be willing to guess it has been, not only those superiors, but your own work, which granted you the rights to enjoy its fruits which has kept you from living on the streets. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
CandisWhite
Posts: 282 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
1) In her book "Lean In", Sheryl Sandberg speaks about Fred Kofman, a former MIT professor and author who heads management training programs; Her training-hating husband came home praising and quoting the man so she asked him to do his thing at Google, where she worked at the time: "Fred showed up at Google, and his teachings changed my career and life. He is one of the most extraordinary thinkers on leadership and management I have ever encountered. Many of the concepts discussed in this chapter originated with him and reflect his belief that great leadership is 'conscious' leadership." A condensed extraction and part of the blurb from Kofman's book 'Conscious Leadership', as posted on Amazon: "To be conscious means to be awake, mindful. To live consciously means to be open to perceiving the world around us, to understand our circumstances, and to decide how to respond to them in ways that honor our needs, values, and goals. To be unconscious is to be asleep, mindless. To live unconsciously means to be driven by instincts and habitual patterns. Have you ever driven down the highway on cruise control, engaged in a conversation or daydreaming, only to realize you missed your exit? You didn’t literally lose consciousness, but you dimmed your awareness. Relevant details, such as your location and the actions needed to reach your goal, receded from the forefront of your mind. Your eyes were open, but you didn’t see. This is a poor way to drive—and an even poorer way to live." "A conscious business fosters personal fulfillment in the individuals, mutual respect in the community, and success in the organization, teaches Fred Kofman. 'Conscious Business' is the definitive resource for achieving what really matters in the workplace and beyond". 2) I have been around the salon industry all of my life, as I am related to people who are involved in it, including those in positions of power. I have seen this ↑ be the best way to run a company and to engage your employees AND your clients: Making sure all are respected emotionally, physically, financially, etc., makes it a lot easier to get everyone to pull their oars, in calm waters and in rough, all hands on deck, crunch time, swells; This leads to a business that runs smoothly and successfully, with clients satisfied both by atmosphere (important in retail) and experience. zrnzle500, here are the gens by name: Millennial- born 1980-1998ish. They are the young adults and new parents of today. Centennial- born 1999ish-present day. They are the teenagers and children of today, perhaps even the offspring of 2 Millennials. People have been referring to teens as Millennials for so long that they forget those kids have aged; That's where the confusion for so many comes in. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
zrnzle500
Posts: 3767 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
I am familiar with the date and age range of my own generation. As to the next generation's name, it doesn't seem like there is a consensus as of yet, since I've found at least 5 other names than the one you gave. Certainly Millenials also have alternative names like Generation Y (given the prior one is X) but 95% percent of the time at least they aren't referred to as such. We'll see what name will stick soon enough.
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
belvadeer
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
You're in the JET program? How is that working out for you? I tried to apply to it twice over ten years ago and I wasn't even considered both times. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Snomaster1
Subscriber Posts: 2796 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
I remember first hearing about karoshi on the news. I think it was on the news program "20/20,"I don't really know. It's one of those things that makes me grateful to be an American and be in this country. I don't know about anyone else but that's the way I feel about it.
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
leafy sea dragon
 Posts: 7163 Location: Another Kingdom |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Makes me wonder if this whole karoshi schtick is something deviced by company leaders--nothing's better for your bottom line than to have your workers shame each other for not being dedicated enough. You could even get people who will try to sneak in work for free!
Or maybe it's just based on my perspective working in retail. The guys who ran the whole organization seemed to know only one answer to when their business contracts, which is "downsize." I managed to dodge every layoff, but with each layoff, the work expected of me increased while the quality of the stores' items, cleanliness, and service plummeted. Over time, it became a vicious cycle. In any case, my point is that we were getting taken advantage of more and more, and because contact from corporate is strictly one-way (letters sent snail mail from a P.O. box), there was nothing that could be done about it.
A lot of the Asian Parent stereotype comes from this idea too, between the seriousness they exude (due to not having many hobbies, or none at all, via a work-dominated life) and their distancing of themselves from westerners, who are perceived as lazy and hedonistic.
Isn't that what mid-day breaks are for? To recover one's stamina a bit to stretch out that productivity through the day?
There is a major difference that I think must be considered though, which is perception of one's superiors at work. People in Japan are expected to dedicate their lives to their work, whereas in the United States, such a dedicated person would be compared to dogs. Depending on your line of work, you are expected to hate your job and complain about it. I'd guess lots and lots of Japanese do too, but honesty is serious business in the United States, and you are expected to show how you truly feel here.
Unfortunately, as mentioned in the article itself, karoshi is poorly understood and barely studied. It looks like people who are suffering working in Japan are also expected to hide it and look like you're in peak condition. What you're suggesting is definitely the logical thing to do, but it looks like Japanese businesspeople are so eager to please their employers that they will try to look like they're sturdier than they actually are.
Well, that depends on the culture. We all know there are countries where the latter has stomped all over the former, due to a multitude of reasons (corruption of regulating bodies, mainstream preference of price over quality, ease of creating back-alley businesses, etc.) My aunt consciously avoids legitimate businesses whenever she learns of an illegitimate business because she cares more about what she pays than anything else. They might do an okay job instead of a good one, but it doesn't matter much to her because she's saved money. If there is a place where her mindset is the prevailing one, I can see legitimate businesses losing to those shady pseudo-legitimate ones.
There's an illustration by Norman Rockwell I have been looking for for years, as I don't know its name, but it depicts a butcher and a customer looking at the reading on a scale for a slab of meat the customer is about to buy. The butcher is secretly pushing down on the platform on the scale, while the customer is secretly pushing it up. Without any words, this single illustration, I think, sums up a relationship between a customer and a business better than anything I've ever seen. It is a battle of wits between sides, both of them trying to trick the other into a disadvantageous position.
I still see this happen in the restaurant business, though more often among local independent restaurants and local chains than wide-region chains. But I think that's because I see perfectionist and cautious streaks among chefs. It comes with the territory when you're trying to satisfy the appetites of everyone who walks in and when you're handling many sharp tools and open flames at once.
If you're referring to people born in the 2000s and later, I have sometimes seen the term "Generation Z." I have no idea what they'll do after that though, and I have a hard time finding any consensus on patterns in their behavior and thinking.
If you want to understand, you must question everything around you. Doesn't mean you have to disagree with everyone or everything. It simply means that you have to think "Why?" and "How?" for whatever it is and understand people's positions. If you never question your superiors, then you will never truly understand them and you'll have an information disadvantage. When the superiors have an information advantage, the opportunity arises for them to create further advantages. And if said superiors are unwilling to be questioned, then that means they're doing something they're ashamed of. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor
 Posts: 9902 Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Just got this update: Government officials investigating "working death" issues are overworked themselves and might already have victims: http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20161107-00010001-socra-soci
How ironic. 
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Tuor_of_Gondolin
 Posts: 3524 Location: Bellevue, WA |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
dormcat, you do realize that hardly anyone that frequents this site is able to read that, right? Maybe... some sort of rough translation or brief synopsis would be useful.
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Jose Cruz
 Posts: 1773 Location: South America |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Let's look at the data on average number of hours people work per year:
Japan: 1,729 hours USA: 1,789 hours UK: 1,677 hours Korea: 2,124 hours https://data.oecd.org/emp/hours-worked.htm So on average the Japanese work less than the Americans do and slightly more than Brits. Although it's probably true that there are more extreme cases of working to death the typical Japanese works a similar number of hours as in other advanced countries. The Koreans are truly workaholic however. Hourly pay is similar measured in compensation costs for employees to the US and UK, the three countries pay about 30-35 dollars per hour in manufacturing firms in compensation costs. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Polycell
 Posts: 4623 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
If the Japanese are killing themselves at 1700 hours, how are the Koreans surviving at 2100? Does it count lunch breaks used for power naps?
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group