Deception In The Workplace

No one can be deceived unless they actually believe in things they could not prove in the first place, so there is a way to avoid all deception.  It requires a total devotion to rationalism in order to avoid assumptions, though, something the majority of people are too emotionalistic and intimidated to ever actually do.  Even if a person prevents themselves from being deceived by not believing something is true because of hearsay or perception, others might still lie to them in hopes of deceiving them, and the workplace can be riddled with attempted deception at the very least.  No workplace is a den of lies by necessity, as being an employer or an employee does not mean someone will be dishonest one way or another.  Everything from revenge to desperation could nonetheless motivate either party to tell lies that they would despise if they came from the other side.  While employers who cling to the tenets of American capitalism (which is not the sole possible version of capitalism) might think lying is a morally legitimate expression of their workplace power  because it can benefit them, and employees who are only insincerely concerned with morality might lie to employers thinking their lower position on the hierarchy justifies it.

The ways employers could deceive or mislead current or potential employees are plentiful: they could provide false pay information in job listings, say one thing in casual conversations and then claim they never said such a thing, promise something they do not intend on carrying out, and so on.  Because of the possibility that they could be lied to, whenever they can ensure it, it is ideal for employees to secure written statements about everything from compensation increases to promised promotions to other favorable changes.  The same is true when an employer openly admits to engaging in invalid discrimination, misleading workers, or underpaying them.  Even if a dishonest employer or other people in the company bent on protecting the lie, it would be much easier to expose what they are doing if there is an email or a printed--and perhaps signed--document making the promise or admitting to the exploitation.  There is more to deception in the workplace than just malicious employers alone, however.

There is a kind of worker who, like the kind of employer they despise (though they might wrongly think that simply being an employer by necessity means someone is cruel), is really only interested in doing whatever feels right to them or whatever is convenient for their own goals.  At the same time that they rage against deceitful employers, they are willing to lie to employers as if the moral permissibility of an action is determined by whether or not it is directed at workers.  Full of hypocrisy, pettiness, egoism, and general stupidity, an employee like this is only different from a deceptive employer when it comes to their positions within a company.  Each of them would maliciously lie to the other if only it meant they could personally benefit in some way, even just in the sense of feeling emotionalistic satisfaction that they have.  If it is morally wrong for an employer to lie to their workers, since lying is still being practiced by dishonest employees who use deception as a tool of revenge, then it would also obviously be immoral for workers to do the same in return.

Now, employers do not need to hear everything about an employee's situation, and there are many ways to actually avoid dishonesty while still keeping personal circumstances or directly work-related details out of a conversation.  Being selective and precise with wording can even make it seem as if one is implying something that is not at all being suggested.  Employees can use this to their advantage.  After all, one is not forcing the other party to make assumptions or stating things that are not true; one is just admitting certain things or refraining from drawing attention to others.  Non-rationalists will almost certainly make assumptions in response, but it is not as if a rational person wants them to make assumptions or made them do so, as they are only trying to strategically navigate conversations in such a way that they neither lie nor bring attention to something the employer might misunderstand anyway.

Non-rationalists are also prone to fiercely commit to beliefs based upon subjective perceptions and personal gain.  As such, it would not be unusual if they were to always think that it is permissible for them to lie regardless of whether they have the role of worker or employer.  An irrationalistic employee who resents their employer for lying about compensation or policies would almost certainly lie if they were to rise to the same position.  Inversely, those who deceive and otherwise trample upon their workers would almost certainly oppose the practice if it was them in the position of the employee being lied to.  Too stupid to understand that consistency is a requirement for philosophical validity and too selfish to care about consistency, so many people one might encounter or hear about in the American workplace are hypocrites who would do whatever it takes to obtain or preserve power and condemn almost anyone else for doing the same.  Deception in the workplace is not something only people in one position or another can practice.