My friend couldnât protest against an unfair situation at work because the fear of dismissal is very overwhelming. Is it really difficult to do something in such a frightening situation? Do you think itâs becoming normal not to stand up against injustices in the workplace?
This happens a lot at our workplace too. Most people stay silent about injustices simply out of fear of losing their jobs, and then it gets even worse because they target people like that. Iâve experienced something similar; one should find a way to protect oneself.
But how serious is the injustice? Is it about salary cuts or more everyday issues? If you clarify that, the comments will take shape.
@kahvebitmeden They are loading more work. They are expected to handle othersâ tasks more than their own, but they arenât speaking up. There is no salary deduction for now.
@soncaykaldi Thereâs some blame for those who donât speak up out of fear of work. I mean, no one expects anyone to declare war, but this level of passivity is unacceptable. Itâs also ridiculous to knowingly suffer.
If an employer continually pressures someone in this way, it may fall under the definition of mobbing. However, these are difficult matters to prove. I recommend consulting the Ministry of Labor regarding the complaint or the Social Security Institution (SGK). It would also be wise to keep a written note before taking action.
I wrote and drew the same thing. Nothing changed again.
I think your friend should just say directly at least once, âthis is not my job.â If they donât set boundaries from the beginning, it will keep going like this.
If he is silent just because everyone else is silent, it means there is a collective issue in that environment, not just an individual one. If he is going to react alone, he should do it a bit strategically; otherwise, he could become a target. Also, passing the message to someone by saying âthis needs extra supportâ without slowing down might be less risky. He should give it a try.
They are already doing the eye-catching event while relying on the indifference of others. But doesnât anyone ever say anything as a group? If everyone stays silent individually, no one can escape. Fear is like a domino effect.
Itâs logical for a group to say something, but often that group is in a state where they donât have the âcapacity to say anything.â Everyone looks at each other, caught in the mindset of âwho will take the risk first?â Itâs difficult to proceed without identifying who stands to gain the most in the situation, and who is the least afraid of the consequences.
Itâs true that the issue of who will take the first risk is important, but you canât solve things entirely without taking risks. A person can start by softening it by saying, âitâll be more efficient together, but I canât keep up on my ownâ instead of going directly. When you stay passive, it just leads to more problems.
When someone is searching for someone to take the risk, those who have the least to lose generally say, âWhy should I be the first hero?â and remain silent. Is there a way to break this cycle? Collective action is great, but what do we do if that community doesnât take action at all?
I think the way to break that cycle is to test whether that community truly exists. So when we say âletâs move collectively,â is it just empty talk, or can everyone step out with a plan? If people donât clearly support it during discussions, itâs already obvious that one would move alone. Let it be clear in your mind.
The phrase âletâs move collectivelyâ sounds nice, but most of the time everyone is relying on someone elseâs courage. Either one clear person has to insist âletâs go,â or no one will budge. For collective action, it seems necessary for someone to give assurance by saying, âotherwise I can start on my own.â That energy is directly visible.
While everyone waits to see âwho will take the first step?,â hereâs the thing: The mere existence of someone who will do it alone can trigger the groupâs attitude. But letâs say this person steps up, what if the group still remains passive? If support is just a facade, what then? To avoid leaving the person who took the first step alone, can the others provide a simultaneous small reaction or support in a planned manner? Or is this âlone heroâ story always like this?
So how should that âfirst step takerâ approach their method to not jeopardize their own work while also triggering others to genuinely take action? Because sometimes, depending on the way the reaction method is structured, people withdraw completely instead of offering support. Is there such a thing as making noise without making the wrong kind of noise?
The âwrong extractionâ issue is somewhat related to psychology. If you respond too harshly, everyone will withdraw; if you respond too softly, you wonât be taken seriously. But shouldnât we aim to find a balanced tone that fits everyoneâs language and say, âLook, this affects us all, if we stand together it will be resolvedâ? Still, if the group isnât going to take a clear action, itâs important to throw out a small test question at the start, otherwise you might end up sacrificing yourself for nothing. For example, something like, âDo you think we could say something in common about this topic, what does everyone think?â as a trial.
Sometimes even the test question can backfire, and everyone stays silent, leaving you out in the open. Then they might go to management and say, âNo one said anything, only that person complained.â Instead of directly starting a fire in the group, it seems safer to gently check in with two or three people privately, like asking, âIf you feel this way too, should we talk about it together?â Itâs about creating a core team rather than a group.
Building a core team makes sense, but how will trust be established with those individuals? I mean, itâs important to distinguish whether someone truly considers moving forward with you or if they just agree with you and then stay in the background. Shouldnât it be necessary to test their readiness to take action first? Otherwise, you might end up alone again.