I get your point but I’d hardly say asking people to come to the office for their job 3 days a week is
“tyranny of upper management”. If this is your tyranny then I’d say you have had a pretty lax career.
Good for you I suppose and let’s hope times don’t get tough.
But I do reject the concept of 3 days a week not being an absolutely huge impact on your life, depending on your circumstance. It's life altering for a huge number or people. Others It's fine, or preferred.
If you are doing something against your will, it is tyranny. If you do things based on reasonable conversation, it is partnership. That said, to be fair, most entities are organized as 'on command' workplaces and management does not really understand and/or like empowered workers. Now, we can quibble over money and such, but most employees already voted, quite vocally, some with their feet.
Does an average person wake up and thinks 'gosh golly, today is a good day to write a better way to track people for ad targeting purposes' or 'today is a splendid day to test that software package'?
I don't. If I don't, it is against my will. It is not rocket science. It is basic logic.
Naturally, you could argue that you are doing it for money and this negates it, but, well, it does not. It just means you are paid to do something against your will.
But wait, I can go somewhere else! That is freedom. You are just changing one tyranny for another and that does not change the fact that it is tyranny.
Thanks for the detail. I think I follow the perspective but let me ask a couple of questions to make sure I got it right. (not intended to bait you here but want to know where the nuance lines are)
Is paying for food/rent also a tyranny? (because who actually wants to pay for that)
Is the need to contribute to society a tyranny?
Is it a tyranny to enforce laws like a speed limit through a school zone?
No problem. To me it is an interesting question in itself in general; as such I do not think you are baiting anyone.
I am mildly concerned that what we are experiencing in our chat can be classified as 'cultural differences'. As such, our assumptions and cultural norms may not be the same.
With that in mind, I probably should define few things.
1. What is tyranny[1]?
- oppressive power
- a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler
- a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force
- an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act : a tyrannical act
A lot of people default to the 2nd one, because it is, the one most covered in our history lessons. That said, just because it is the most recognized definition, it is not the only one. I have a pet theory as to why, but that is probably not a place for such musings on my part.
2. Beyond that, I noticed that the questions attempt to conflate societal and governmental rules, which is fair as you want to establish the lines, but I fear it may muddle the point somewhat. It is possible I am channeling Chomsky a little here, but would you be willing to accept a distinction between private power ( corporation ) and societal power ( society and its byproduct government )?
If so, I think we can try to answer those questions.
>> Is paying for food/rent also a tyranny? (because who actually wants to pay for that)
Food and shelter are necessities. For practical purposes, any governing structure quickly recognizes that hungry and homeless population ( especially if it outnumbers fed population and population with an abode ) is a recipe for an end to that governing structure. As such, most bodies do try to keep basic minimum needs met.
That said, it does not appear to meet the definitions above at this time. Although, we are slowly reaching a boiling point of renting/housing being so expensive that it is "oppressive, harsh, or unjust act". Food-wise, it does not appear to be the case yet despite record inflation. Most can still eat, albeit not as much, or as well, as they used to
>> Is the need to contribute to society a tyranny?
Depends. What is the society we are discussing? Is the contribution unfair? If so, tyranny definition could apply.
>> Is it a tyranny to enforce laws like a speed limit through a school zone?
Maybe? Is the law enforced in an unfair manner ( say only women are stopped )? If so, tyranny definition could apply.
In short, I do not really believe in one and zero type answer. If anything, it is a spectrum of sorts and this does not even begin to cover the deeper dive into differences between corporate and non-corporate power structures.
Sorry but where are you getting your definition of tyranny?
“cruel and oppressive government or rule.” It kinda comes with the weight that you have no free will to leave and do something entirely different.
Is it really cruel to make you jump in your air conditioned car and drive to work? While listening to music or a podcast…Then work in an amazing office with fellow gifted engineers and civilized people. Same you did 3 years ago 5 days a week and now 40% less?
I would rather drive the car through a beautiful landscape (that I pick), instead in rush hour trafic that I don't have a choice in..
>Then work in an amazing office..
That I did't choose...
>with fellow gifted engineers and civilized people.
That I didn't pick..
There is a poem in Malayalam with a portion that goes like this "Bhandura kaanjanakkotilanengilum bandhanam bandhanam thanne paaril". It means, "bondage is bondage even if you are in a golden cage".
So the point is that office work is vastly less freedom (thus a kind of oppression), even with all its perks (that is for the few that indeed have those perks).
I think you would agree, when you choose a job you are choosing it based on a few base components. Job duties, pay, culture, location, travel requirements, hours per week etc... If these do not match up with what you want then its your job/right to get a different job at a different place with different components.
Good for you I suppose and let’s hope times don’t get tough.