The Redheaded Penguin

Ok, so I was reading a post over at Punk Rock HR about putting men 18-25 to work and how it would solve all these problems in the world. There are so many reasons why I don’t think it would work, but it’s late so I’m not going to go into all of them. It’s very possible that I misunderstood the intent/thought behind the post, but it hit a nerve. So, I just wanted to make a few points/comments, and decided to do it here rather than in the comments there since I’m really not writing this from an HR perspective… plus this is likely to end up a lot longer than a comment should be…

I do believe people feel better about themselves when they work. But, it has to be work that they enjoy and find fulfilling. The notion of hiring people and paying them a “living wage” to sit around a neighborhood on the lookout for stray sheep might be putting them to work, but I don’t think they would really get much from the experience… except that it might make them resentful for having to do something they don’t like and cause other people to “look down” at them becuase they are essentially getting a living wage for doing very little work. (Okay, I’m assuming that the occurance of stray goats and sheep in the neighborhood isn’t a common problem… and if it is, they’d probably be better employed building better fences than waiting around to catch them after they got out.) So, I’m fine with creating a system where people can find (and be strongly encouraged) to find work, but simply forcing people into jobs can too easily become a task of fitting a square peg into a round hole. (I’ll save my concerns over the government deciding which jobs/careers are best for people for another time…)

So, given that there is no guarantee that the person in the job actually wants it, chances are they will slack off at work and be distracted into other activities rather easily. So, the notion of not having time to riot (a point made in that post) really doesn’t hold because it assumes the person who is forced into the job actually wants it and actually shows up to work. (And I’m really not in favor of making the failure to show up to work a jailable offense…) Basically, all the points made about how giving men jobs will prevent them from causing problems, focus them on non-violent issues, etc. really seems to not understand some fundamentals of human behavior. It’s an oversimplification that just doesn’t sit well with me since I”ve heard/read this before… let’s force everyone to work to keep them “in line” and “out of trouble”. Might not be so bad if you’re the “us” doing the forcing, but those being forced to work might not see it the same way. And when you start calling the jobs “national service”, well, that really gets to the heart of it I think. We’re going to force you to work for the state. Sure, we’ll pay you a “living wage”, or at least enough so that we can alleviate our own concerns about what others might call slavery to the state, and remember that you are doing this “for the good of others”, “for the good of the state”, etc. Never mind the fact that you don’t really have a choice, or what some might refer to as freedom, in the matter, you’ll thank us in the end because we’ve managed to reduce crime, violence, etc.

In terms of the disbanding of the Iraqi army, well, it might have had some unfortunate consequences, but if you believe that the Iraqi army was a broken system that was not performing in a way consistent with the desired future of the country, scraping it and starting over might not have been a good solutoin, but it might have been the best solution available given the alternatives.

Now, one of the things that really got me… Laurie (punk rock HR girl), in one of the comments, said:

Also, I’m with you on totalitarian compulsory national service; however, I think that a society that offers much should expect a little in return. If we have a better national healthcare system or better college educational opportunities in the future, national service should be part of the required “payment” for those benefits.

Now, basically she’s saying that she doesn’t want people to be forced into national service, but that if people take advantage of or benefit from all the great things the state has provided, there should be some form of service as “payment” in return. Indentured servitude is such a great thing to bring back I guess. Nevermind the fact that many in the country might find themselves saddled with a national healthcare system they didn’t want, they should be thankful anyway and serve the state as a thank you. Nevermind the fact that not everyone is cut out for college (sorry idealists, but it’s true… and honestly, some of the best people I know don’t have a college degree but are doing things that they enjoy, value, etc.) Now, if someone wants to voluntarily agree to enter a service program in exchange for additional funding for college, health care, whatever, fine… but don’t force me to take advantage of reduced tuition, healthcare, etc. and then try and guilt me into serving the state that took my ability to choose. Sure, given the option, many people likely will choose the lower tuition in exchange for a year or two of community service after graduattion, but give them the choice at the front end. And that choice needs to be an informed choice. In the 18-22 time frame, that reduced tuition might look like a really good bargain, but when they get to graduation they might realize that they’re ready to enter the workforce on their own terms rather than the coerced national service that you have setup for them which you lured them into with the reduced tuition rate several years earlier…

Sure, decreased unemployment can solve a lot of problems. But, as one of the commenters mentioned (I think), it needs to be a “natural” reduction in unemployment and not an artificial reduction created by the government forcing people to work. Many times, there are jobs out there for people, but for various reasons that don’t take them. I’ve actually heard people who are unemployed turn down jobs or refuse to apply for certain jobs because it was “beneath” them or simply “didn’t pay enough”. It isn’t that they couldn’t get the job if they tried, but they have decided not to try for one reason or another. I’m all for reducing unemployment and I can agree that many of social problems can be fixed by reducing unemployment, creating a more stable economy, etc. And I definitely agree that we need to stop allowing laziness being an excuse for people not working. Likewise, I’m all for increased education and more importantly educational opportunity (hey, more students in college means more job security for me), but I want that education to be appropriate for the person and job. And we need to realize that some of these things are a “choice” for some people (not all, but some). If they are capable and choose not to work, they will likely suffer as a result. Sure, we could force them to work, but personally I’d feel better about letting them choose…

Give people the choice. Give people the option. Give people the fredom. Even if it means they might make a choice different from my own. Even if it means they might make bad decisions. Even if it means they will suffer as a result. It still needs to be their choice, and not mine. Force me to help, and I”m likely to fight against doing it… Give me the choice of helping, and I likely will.