An egoistic, tyrannical employer would almost always prefer, given the choice, to have workers who are indeed desperate because they have much of whatever economic stability they are grasping for tied to the jobs provided by the former. A worker terrified of having no earnings coming in might leave valid complaints unspoken or not even notice certain forms of exploitation if they are hyper-focused on just doing what they can to financially survive from one day to the next. In dire need of money, they might remain with a company or employer who pays them a less than livable wage/salary since to search for other employment consumes too much energy or time at the moment.
As frustrating or difficult as it could be to have more than one job, not only is it one of the best ways to achieve better financial security, but it is also one of the best ways to give oneself flexibility in negotiations or other decisions pertaining to one of the jobs. Because one does not have a single job to hold onto, if one is taken away or dropped, the financial consequences would not be as severe, for one still has another source of income even if it is not the preferred kind. This can be very reassuring when an employer or manager at one of the multiple jobs tries to pressure one into accepting micromanaging, discrimination, under-compensation, or abusive or gratuitously dangerous conditions.
After all, for someone who is not of a firm personality, having a backup job could ease desperation and provide a source of relief if they push back against stupidity in one workplace. They could always quit or resist with greater ferocity until they are potentially fired. There is still an income if they refuse to submit to some asinine policy or unjust directive. They still have something to support them, and they do not have to hurriedly find another job, or at least not as urgently. Either of the jobs, or more if they work in three separate roles, could perhaps be sacrificed for the other without plunging them into unemployment. There is reason to be more at ease.
None of this means that it will necessarily be easy for someone to obtain a second job and consistently hold it alongside their first or primary one. Security of this type could come with far greater exhaustion, lack of free time, and the forfeiture of taking care of one's physical or mental health. However, aside from the stability it offers when resisting nonsense from an employer in one job, it also accelerates the amount of money one can save or spend on necessities or luxuries alike. Temporarily or on an ongoing basis, it can bring security beyond that of just leverage for handling an oppressive manager.
Even as multiple jobs can help soften the burden of under-compensation at the cost of dominating one's life in the sense of demanding time, unfortunately, it does not follow that economic relief will always be found in this way. Depending on various health or family situations, a person might be spending more than 40, 50, or even 60 hours a week working at multiple jobs and still not have the ability to save the money they need or want to. They would still be better off in that they would be depleting funds or unable to save any money at all without more than one role, but this does not mean it is always worthwhile for everyone to supplement their income with a second or third job. Someone's personal circumstances determine if this a helpful course of action for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment