The demands of a job vary over time and with the circumstances of the moment. When the employer insists that an "eager beaver" employee move to the night shift, is this an attempt at exploitation of the employee's relative eagerness, or is it a legitimate response by the employer to some changed circumstance? When an employee is sent out on the road for the fourth time in a month (when the implicit understanding has been two trips on average per month), is this exploitation or a temporary increase reflecting scheduling irregularities?
If employees can't tell the difference, they don't know whether to carry out threats against the employer or how to reassess her reputation. Doing nothing invites exploitation; perhaps the employer is pushing the envelope, to see if the employees will respond. But overreacting is bad for both: Threatening to quit, or actually quitting, costs both sides. Withdrawing cooperation only shrinks the pie the two sides have to split. Insisting on written guarantees in place of implicit agreements reduces flexibility and pads the pockets of the lawyers. Employers and employees both benefit when balance-of-power and reputation-based guarantees can be monitored easily and without too many mistakes being made. leia todo o artigo
