JONTILLMAN.COM | part of the problem since 1976

During childhood, at least the sort of idealized childhood we all like to think still exists and that we ourselves had, life was, for the most part, without tension or conflict. As a matter of fact, most of us understand the process of “growing up” to be one of learning to deal with conflict and to balance our competing desires - creating our own dynamic tension.

In particular, adulthood can be boiled down to a tension between the desires for Freedom and Security. We want the freedom to do as we please, and the security to not end up homeless or starving. How we organize our lives is our own response to that question of balance.

Work, as we understand it, is basically a trading of freedom for security. We bag groceries or develop actuarial tables or drive a truck instead of sunbathing or playing golf or sleeping all day in order to satisfy our more base needs (according to Maslow): Shelter, Food, Warmth. Regardless of what the conslutants (not a typo -ed) and “new economy” pundits say, the vast majority of us are not engaged in deeply creative and fulfilling work that makes our every fibre sing with moral joy at being able to work every day in our chosen holy field - we just don’t want to starve or be homeless or late with our child-support payment.

Is it possible that this is what people are talking about (and are upset about) when they speak of the “work/life” balance and how it seems so out of whack now? Is it not so much the amount of work versus the amount of life, but the subtle and not-so-subtle changes to the freedom/security balance that have happened over the last few decades?

At one point, businesses agreed, albeit grudgingly, that this balance existed. Everything businesses offered to their employees at that point was based on the implicit (and occasionally explicit) agreement that the employee was trading their freedom for security, and the company should, as the recipient of the employees freedom and labor, help to advance the employee’s security. Pensions, health-care plans, discount plans, Christmas clubs, all of these things were, along with a salary, designed to help the employee feel (and experience) a healthy measure of security.

This is why so many new economy “perks” look so stupid to people who have had an “old economy” job. Foosball tables, on-site daycare and massage, and gourmet cafeterias do not increase security for the workers at that company. As a matter of fact, they could just as easily reduce security, at least for some workers. Those who do not take advantage of all the “perks” (designed as they are to keep you at work) because they have a family or friends or any sort of a life outside the “campus” could be targeted as not being team players and their jobs put in danger because they didn’t validate the existence of the new perks and the genius of the manager who put them in place after reading about them in Fast Company or Business 2.0.

No matter how much spin you put on it, no matter how much you try to sell the idea of “portfolio careers” or the freedom to move on to another job, it comes across as exactly what it is - a betrayal of the implicit understanding of the tradeoff between Freedom and Security. We don’t want perks, or to be constantly looking for the next gig. We don’t particularly want to work for you at all.

We will, however, be glad to do so for a reasonable number of hours and will give you our best efforts if you recognize that we are there because of our need for security, and do what is reasonable to advance that security. So keep your foosball tables and masseurs. instead, pay us a living wage, have a pension plan and health care coverage and don’t assume that we will be better little worker bees if you ignore these needs.