Workers vs. Employees

I have noticed over the past 2 years that Obama and his fellow progressives are fond of the term "worker" when talking about business, economic, and employment issues. There are always programs and strategies to help "workers". Maybe I am reading too much into this, but I think the term implies that there are workers, and then there are non-workers. The workers are the ostensibly the middle class back bone of America folks. And that's fine, hard working, salt of the earth, resilient folks are the backbone of our country and our economy. However, I think the implication of the "workers" as they are always described is one of a perpetually adversarial relationship in the work place. This term implies that there are workers, who are well, working and then there are non-workers - I guess these are the fat cats sitting around with their feet propped up on their desks counting their money - made on the backs of the workers. Workers are good - and I agree, they certainly are both good and necessary for economic prosperity, but if you are not a "worker" it does not mean that you are bad, greedy, or exploitative as is implied in the progressive lexicon.

I think this messaging comes from the perspective of many progressives and many in the current administration who have spent little to no time in the private sector - managing businesses, making payrolls, serving customers, earning profits, and investing in future growth. They never talk about "employees" and "employers" and the mutually beneficial relationship that exists throughout the vast majority of the economy. Employees have a desire to earn money, they have their time, and they have skills to bring to the market. Employers, (businesses and their owners) have jobs that need to be done to deliver value to the market and therefore profits to the bottom line. There is an intersection of mutual interest between employers and employees. In most cases this is a productive and mutually beneficial relationship that fosters a win/win for all parties involved. Most employees are hard working, loyal, and productive. Most employers want their employees to support their lifestyles and have productive careers. Not all employers strive for a mutually beneficial relationship with their employees and not all employees are the model of consistent and selfless performance, but over most of the economy the relationship in the workforce is one of employees and employers working for mutual and common purpose. It is not that of oppressed "Bob Cratchets" scraping around for paltry wages in oppressive working conditions. It is not us vs. them and an on-going struggle against "the man".

However, I think if one's adult background is exclusive to the halls the Ivy league, the government, or the local union, it is easy to believe that there is always someone to go after, someone who is getting more than they deserve, and some fat cat whose pocket can be picked for the benefit of "the worker". In the world of the government, the union, and the academic theoretical, there is always a wrong to be righted and a grievance to be addressed. There is also a belief in perpetual employment stagnation and ignorance that many "workers" today can be employers tomorrow. The reality is, that absent meddling from external forces the employer/employee relationship works well. Market checks & balances and the free will of both parties creates an equilibrium that keeps employers motivated to keep employees happy and therefore productive in the business and motivation for employees to maintain earnings stability and career growth through quality work and skill development over time.

Employees work. Employers work. Managers of business work. To proclaim the focus of topics of business and employment always tilted to the benefit of the "worker" mis-characterizes the nature of most employment experiences. External forces to help workers are usually additional intrusions into a relationship that naturally would work pretty well, if the progressives would simply let it. Maybe their indebtedness to unions won't let progressives change their mantra, but if they want to reverse their losses from the past mid-terms, they might want to project a more business aware image, rather than simply cheer leading for causes that unilaterally transfer funds from one pocket to another.