Remember Who the Real Enemy Is
Prevalent cynicism against coworkers may obstruct the labor union movement
A couple of months ago, I was interviewed by three staff from a local company. I knew I had lost the offer the moment they brought up my quite glaring proclivity to take the side of workers as opposed to acting as a neutral party in the situation of workers’ rights fulfillment, mind you, barely scratching the surface of the topic on industrial relations dispute. “It’s impossible to reach the company’s target if your rights as a worker is neglected, you should know that,” I almost bit my tongue off for letting the words escape. On the other hand, my heart pounded rapidly with adrenaline knowing I was fully capable of standing up for the faith I upheld, putting my former selves who could only clam up in the face of intimidation to shame.
Alas, it might as well also be impossible to get a job with such behavior I exhibited.
Quite rampant and repetitive is the occurrence of people advising the internet population to never trust their coworkers, embedding a disparaging image to office relationships. Their disillusionment and frustration against poor organizational performance, disparity of wages between common labors and top management, and workforce reduction is channeled into a particular attitude which exhibits negativity and distrust against their peers (Andersson and Bateman, 1997).
With the aforementioned gap between blue and white collar workers, it’s almost inevitable to be sidetracked by the fulfillment of one’s own interests1 or the resentment that comes from it. Moreover, collective fights against precarious working conditions, a supposedly perpetual movement, is not only restricted by capital owners but also the legislation (Kalil, 2020). In Indonesia, union strikes should adhere to standards of legality. If the union otherwise fails to follow the procedure, the strike is considered illegal thus will consequently affect their wages. Since the main purpose of strikes is halting or hampering a company’s production as a response to, for instance, unjust corporate or national policies, my labor law professor once gave us a lecture about the possibility of capital owners coaxing the union leader into canceling the protest by means of proposal for promotion or other particular functions.
The 12 districts of Panem in The Hunger Games story had been enslaved by The Capitol since the first uprising 75 years ago, perhaps even longer than. Katniss Everdeen sparked an act of rebellion against the capitol seven decades later by defying the rules of a deadly game she was forced to participate in. Her resistance and survival in the arena lit the glimmer of hope in several districts.
The title of this entry is a well-known reference to Catching Fire (The Hunger Games #2), a reminder from Haymitch when Katniss was still confused with her role in the revolution, and one from Finnick as she was getting even more so; witnessing how her Quarter Quell allies from different districts seemingly acted against her and Peeta preceding the collapse of the arena.
Such sentiments as, “Do not trust your coworkers,” or “Maintain cordial relations but never share personal information,” or “You should not be friends with your colleagues” are amplified thousandfold by people who share the same outlook. By no means I encourage people to disagree entirely with the said notions coming from the opposing end of spectrum—if anything, in few cases, we admittedly shouldn’t have to disclose our private lives or identities2 in order to be treated properly or given the equal chances by the institution we’re a part of—which would serve nothing but perpetuation to the preexisting, fully-developed polarizing narratives. But do such notions truly reflect the truth or do we seek an easy target to put the blame for our structural problems onto?
Although the situation presented is rather confusing and tricky―especially so―it’s important to borrow the voices from The Hunger Games’ characters amidst the endless circle of evil and our struggle in understanding class struggle:
“I'm not their slave," the man mutters.
"I am," I say. "That's why I killed Cato... and he killed Thresh... and he killed Clove... and she tried to kill me. It just goes around and around, and who wins? Not us. Not the districts. Always the capitol. But I'm tired of being a piece in their games.”
― From “Mockingjay” by Suzanne Collins3
The real enemy is The Capitol, not the districts. The enemy is poverty. It is exploitation. It is using the term “development” to justify continuous destruction of the natural environment that feeds indigenous people. It is the government that erodes the rights of workers at every newly enacted law.
Our coworkers may look a lot like our rivals with the amount of obstinate arguments have been thrown to and fro. They may indeed be our foes in a personal manner: values that don’t align with ours complemented by unacceptable behaviors.
However, do not mistake an individual’s shortcomings as systemic failure.
According to Reichers et al. (1997), cynical employees are less likely to participate in organizational change efforts, meanwhile workplace partnership is an influential mechanism for improving relations between management and labor unions (Butler and Tregaskis, 2018). So, what is the role of labor unions in ensuring employees’ welfare?
Labor unions or trade unions offer job security, social protection, better wages and working conditions (Visser, 2002). Becoming a member of a labor union may increase one’s bargaining position and offer insurance should they face conflict against the arbitrariness of employers. In Indonesia, a worker may ask for assistance from the union early during bipartite negotiation, the first mandatory step of an industrial relation dispute settlement, and during the following procedure.
The division of employment has existed since the beginning of time. Karl Marx mentioned in “Das Kapital” that cynicism prevails in a world where the working-class (proletariat) is exploited by the middle-class (bourgeois) and greedy employers exist (Yildirim and Yildirim, 2016). In exploitative companies where they are most vulnerable, working-class people’s sentiment and cynicism are rightfully warranted. But does the same thing could be said about middle-class employees who are simply too apolitical, or nonchalant, or comfortable to strive for collective welfare?
Workers are coerced and impoverished enough by the capitalist system; just because one is unaffected by the change of policy, or indifferent about the significance of labor strike, or unaware of anything beyond their echo chamber, doesn’t mean oppression doesn’t happen. As a response to this, I believe that, on an individual level, the act of decentering ourselves―reconsidering the goals of our individualism, taking initiatives in building meaningful interactions, cultivating curiosity about our surroundings―plays an integral role in establishing a healthy and supportive working environment.
Job market is an uncertain, ruthless place. Some people would rather endure a far-from-conducive working environment than doomscroll through job vacancies. Some brave other people would shoot their shot, which brings me to another question: instead of accusing people for not having enough resilience with how often they change workplaces, may we also start asking ourselves if we have garnered enough empathy to understand where this rooted issue might come from?
According to “Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith, people are after increasing their own benefits (Yildirim and Yildirim, 2016).
Related to the entertainment industry, specifically Hollywood: there are somewhat incessant discourses about whether or not queer characters should exclusively be played by queer actors which, in result, requires the actors to disclose the said private information about themselves out of obligation instead of genuine consensus.
The conversation took place when the rebels tried to take down District 2, weapons manufacturer for the capitol, and were met by armed forces and loyalists.