It's a way to tip the turnover scales in favor of the employer. Dangerous jobs weed out the people who care enough to complain about conditions that are less dangerous but still degrading. If you're willing to put up with situations where people lose limbs or die, you're probably not worried about lunch break violations. You also have the option of giving a "problem" employee the worst tasks until they decide to leave.
"Humiliating" is also good for employers, when they can get away with it. If you make your employees put up with undignified conditions - long hours, short breaks, arbitrary rules, embarrassing or onerous security policies - you appropriate their focus or attention either directly or through the stress of having to put up with those circumstances. That's less time and cognitive power to organize, budget properly, find another job, or really plan for the future in any way.
Your job as an employer is to squeeze as much work out of your employees as possible. That means doing everything legal to keep them from leaving (have to make back that training investment), or to have the option to quickly dismiss them if they're sub-optimal or causing problems.
I'm working from the perspective of having worked in retail and supply chain, but HN's main demographic should listen up: crunch is a solved problem. Think about what your employers have to gain from not implementing those known solutions.
> Your job as an employer is to squeeze as much work out of your employees as possible. That means doing everything legal to keep them from leaving (have to make back that training investment), or to have the option to quickly dismiss them if they're sub-optimal or causing problems.
If one accepts this point, both "dangerous" and "humilating" are counterproductive for the employer, since these properties of jobs provide a good incentive for an employee to leave as soon as he/she can afford it.
"Humiliating" is also good for employers, when they can get away with it. If you make your employees put up with undignified conditions - long hours, short breaks, arbitrary rules, embarrassing or onerous security policies - you appropriate their focus or attention either directly or through the stress of having to put up with those circumstances. That's less time and cognitive power to organize, budget properly, find another job, or really plan for the future in any way.
Your job as an employer is to squeeze as much work out of your employees as possible. That means doing everything legal to keep them from leaving (have to make back that training investment), or to have the option to quickly dismiss them if they're sub-optimal or causing problems.
I'm working from the perspective of having worked in retail and supply chain, but HN's main demographic should listen up: crunch is a solved problem. Think about what your employers have to gain from not implementing those known solutions.