As a student of both psychology and philosophy, I pay a lot of attention to the whys. Working at Project Angel Food, a well-known Los Angeles nonprofit, has made me realize they operate from a “the end justifies the means” point of view. You may have heard this phrase before, but what does it mean? In my Philosophy classes, I learned this is a logical fallacy (invalid, flawed, error-filled) found in political Consequentialism. Linguistically, Affirmating the Consequences assumes the ending or result of something while also ignoring interferences. In syllagim form it looks like this: if A then B, it’s B therefore A.
For example: recently PAF is having a conflict with my Cesar Chavez Holiday benefit. Our Employee committee voted to have an extra Floating Holiday (8 hrs of basically vacation) on top of our already given one for the year. Thus, every employee would have 16 Floating Holiday hours. However, despite working on the Federal Holiday (my regularly scheduled day) I was informed that I only have 8 hrs of Floating hours because last year there was a glitch that didn’t put a cap on my Floating Holidays resulting in a -8 hrs this year. Despite this being their error and the fact that on my end it shows no request for this third Floating Holiday, they replied “At least you got paid” and “Legally businesses don’t have to give you Holiday benefits.” If (A) you got paid, then (B) you got your holiday benefit. It's (B) therefore (A).
They are ignoring the fact that the pay app constantly has errors and that a holiday benefit is yearly. This can lead to a circular argument.
If (A) you used three Floating Holidays last year and you're only allowed two a yr, then (B) you only get 8 hours this year. It’s (B) therefore (A).
Again they're ignoring Federal Holiday "rules" to pay me less.Another example: In our last Dispatch meeting our Supervisor addressed the ever-present problem of staff conflicts. She called it pride since we weren’t working as a team and to “just help.” She said we shouldn’t ask if it’s within our parameters/scope/department/wants; “we’re here to work so work.” If (A) the staff are not getting along, then (B) it’s their primary fault. It’s (B) therefore (A).
This assumes the problem is one-sided and easy to fix.
If (A) staff just work as a team then (B) there will be less complaints. It's (B), therefore (A)!
This assumes that if staff just do this one thing, everything will get better. As well as ignoring that our complaints aren't about team members. Work culture is created top down.It makes sense that a business would operate in such a way that they are not to blame. It makes sense that a business would justify their ways if it meant making (or keeping) their status (money and power). However, as stated above (and in previous posts), this is a nonprofit. We are for the people, made by the people. PAF time and time again seems to battle this ethical question: who’s important- the clientele, the volunteers, or the staff? When the answer is everyone; however, if the net is weak how will it be a good support? Yes, we serve a very ill clientele. Yes, we need to stay open because hunger never ends. But this does not diminish, rather demands the rights of workers. We need to be constantly reminded of our value just as much as being reminded of our mission.
The logical argument against our flawed one is dennying the consequence: A, then B. It's not B, therefore not A (Modus Tollens) Simply put, it is a logical argument based on deduction and noting the conditionals in either one or both premises. It uses the rule of Inferences. Remember correlation does not mean causation!
If we run this through our two examples without first filter of benefiting profit over people we would change the argument possibly like this:
If (A)all Federal holidays are honored by PAF, there (B) is a benefit for Caser Chavez of +8 Floating holiday hrs by PAF. If there's no (B) benefit given for Cesar Chavez; therefore, not (A).
I am the only I have found having this problem so far. But others has expressed lost vacation and sick hours which runs in the same system.
If (A) the staff are properly equipped and supported with their conflicts, there would be less meetings about not working as a team. If there's no (B) decline in meetings about working as a team; therefore, not (A).
Just telling someone to do something doesn't imply they know how to do it. Although we would want to hire healthy employees, we can't be sure of people's coping mechanisms until the moment arrives. As leaders, will we model the teamwork we expect?
I have studied Principles in Nonprofits, Multicultural Issues in Human Services, Research Methods for Human Services, History of Modern Philosophy, Community Change in Human Services, Multicultural Psychology, and Philosophy of Social Work. I know some things. But by no means am I an expert. We all need to continue to learn and grow. I’ve learned that I can’t trust management at my job. I’ve learned that for PAF, “as long it takes” translates to “by whatever means it takes.” This might seem great, but it’s full of brokenness like the internal fallacies they’ve given sway to. So long story short, I’ve decided to go back to school in hopes of one day taking over my HR’s job…Do you think they’ll cover some of my cost? (It’s in the handbook.)
*For information on this logical fallacy here are some resources to better explain
Affirming the Consequences Video
No comments:
Post a Comment