Some countries and societies in the world, if not many, seem to be on this wave where what would be considered "normal" and "just" in some other parts of the world or were fought for and even accepted and lived just a generation or two ago, are now being seen scrapped and even seen as unnecessary, bizarre, a burden.

This is similar to sheep in a slaughterhouse. And if you think humans are different, just think of countless counterexamples (including those where humans were literally digging their own graves or pushing others into a mass grave knowing that they themselves were the next in line to be killed and dropped in those same mass graves). People do seemingly irrational things.

One of the irrational things people do is creating worse and worse work conditions. Making life worse is not a goal to aspire to, but people do it to each other anyway. And, one way or the other, it affects everyone. But people still take part in those silly and rather stupid games.

HR take part in those games, too.

Legal departments take part in those games, as well.

And, over time, they tend to use a mechanism known as "they do it, so we should do it, too", as a justification for making stupid decisions. This is frequently seen in children and politicians; business so-called "leaders", too, tend to use this stupidity.

I've seen similar policies, or similar issues in employment contracts, in Australia. Worker rights are, in general, much much much much much better than in the USA. However, there are many creeping issues.

No rule is set in stone. However, those who apply the existing rules, are rarely the ones who can change the rules, or are not that much interested in changing or overturning the rules (unless it suits them), or they may be the ones who actually introduced those backward rules that perhaps need to be overturned.

So it's an uphill battle to start with.

This is how it looks from the inside, from the perspective of the administrative staff you might be dealing with:

1. The company [that you're applying to] has a set of unified rules.

2. The set of rules was made by an individual, or a group, over time.

3. For legal and HR rules it is likely the rules were either copied from somewhere else and claimed to be "the golden standard", or emerged from the "company culture" (in many cases this means it came from the top, and the top tends to change from time to time and play whichever tune is popular with whoever appointed them, and may mean the tune is whatever protects and enlarges financial and other interests of the side which is definitely not you).a

4. The rules can be, and in many cases are, created or advised by an external advisory - legal advisory or consultancy or something of that nature. In other words, the responsibility for making a decision and for rationalising the decision has been offloaded onto someone else and now serves as a justification for why the decision (i.e. the set of rules) is good and justified and makes sense.

5. Then comes you. You have a request to change the "well established" rule or set of rules.

6. You may have a decent argument.

7. Your argument may not be able to challenge the legality of their rules, but even if it does it may be an uphill battle for you.

8. Your argument also speaks in the language of logic, worker motivation, productivity; and, ultimately.

9. Your argument also invokes ethics and morals: perhaps it's not ok to treat people like the rules that are applied in this company would treat you and/or your colleagues, and it may not be ok for a myriad of reasons known to ethics.

10. So now you have you and your logical and ethical arguments, and you have an admin person sitting across the table or on the other side of an internet line. For you it's a big thing; for the other side your case is an aberration from the norm.

11. While your case might peak academics' interest, chances are an average legal or HR admin lives in a different intellectual world and has different interests and differing mental needs and frameworks than academicians in the fields of ethics, innovation, leadership, startups, engineering, science, etc. Chances are your HR doesn't think about the problem you just pointed out to them, or doesn't want to think about it, or they think they can't do anything about it. They may say they sympathise with you, whether they mean it or not, and they may tell you the problem is "above their pay grade".

12. To solve this problem, your HR might need to talk to their colleagues and to their manager.

13. What happens from here is bureaucracy. Keep reading...

13.1. Then their manager might need to consult with other HR managers and then with their one-up manager.

13.2. Then that one-up manager would need to consult someone.

13.3. Then they may need to speak to the legal department or that one legal person that is perhaps already overworked or is perhaps already disinterested in these issues, or perhaps is the one who created these rules, etc.

13.4. Then the legal department needs to ask their manager or middle or senior in-house legal counsel(s).

13.5. Then they need to ask their general manager or general legal counsel.

13.6. After this, the legal department may need to consult whichever external legal advisory/company they employed in the first place to create these rules for them. Because, when it comes to specific laws and specific rules, there are legal professionals and legal offices (companies) that do these things for a living and it's most likely them who created these sets of policies for your IT company or your whichever company or organisation or entity that you are applying to. So it is an external body that was paid a good sum of money in exchange for those policies you are now asking to not apply to you.

13.7. The external legal advisory would need to review the existing policies, perhaps the ones on their own making, review your company's reasons and arguments supplied with requests for making and revisioning of those policies, current laws, "best practices", internal consistency in providing legal and advisory services and legal advice (it may be tricky to suggest one legal advice to one company and a very different one to another company on the same legal matter in the almost identical legal circumstances).

13.8. There would be back and forth between all entities involved. It would cost time and money. It would also take some time for this to happen.

13.9. There would be questions on how this may affect those who signed contracts under less favourable policies and rules. And what about those who were perhaps fired under those draconian less favourable rules - could they sue the company or could all of this ruin the company's brand?

14. Equally important, if not even more important: how would this affect those in charge, those in power, in every level that needs to be involved and those above them, and perhaps the executives, and perhaps the board, and perhaps the shareholders? Mostly, how would it affect the CURRENT structures, those CURRENTLY in power? Say there is a risk of brand reputation damage or walkouts or legal battles; that might cost the company's General Legal Counsel and the CEO their jobs, and perhaps someone may lose their seat in the board. And the legal advisory company may lose their contract to one of their major competitors, which might cost some more people their current positions and promotions and even careers.

15. The likelihood of everyone being open to trying their best and moving your case or your request up and up and up, is orders of magnitude times less likely than someone somewhere slowing down or sidetracking or shelving or stopping the process for whichever reason.

From all the above, you can see that to make a significant change, you need to impact the system.

When you apply for a role, you are most likely not in a position to make the system change.

Once you solve your urgent problem or need - which is to get a job - you are more likely to focus on your other needs and wants and pressing issues, and you are more likely to forget about this problem you're facing right now (until you face it again in some form).

You are more likely to have different problems to solve anyway, and perhaps more likely to spend your time and energy on different problems and different pleasures, than to return to this problem and try to solve it. That's how most people operate, for better or worse, especially in places and countries in which the societal fabric is already weak and the society is focused on and organised around consuming and self-indulgence.

And that, my friend, is why great revolutionaries and great leaders are scarce and outnumbered by self-centred, selfish, stressed out, not caring, incapable, average, boring, ordinary, good but not invested in your cause, and by so many other "subgroups" that exist in most likely most of the societies in the world.

This doesn't mean you should give up. This is not advising you on what you *should* or *shouldn't* do.

This is just explaining how things work in our world at the moment, in our "Western World".

Give yourself some time, perhaps a couple of decades, see more of this world, and your views will inevitably evolve (not necessarily to where or in all directions you'd be hoping at present time).

Once you start noticing wrongdoings and injustices, you may notice a dilemma: do I ignore it and move on in whichever direction I can that is good for me right now, or do I analyse the problem and deal with the accumulated underlying issues? Most people move on, only some people stay to fight for what might be right.

That's a true dilemma for life. Good luck figuring it out.

If this answer helps in any way, feel free to use it, incorporate it in your own thinking and life, share it, comment, or do whatever good you want with it.

With love, enjoy your life and make the world a genuinely better place for everyone, not just us.

❤️

Holy macaroni dude you’re not in unit anymore you don’t have to write an entire paper 🤣😂🤣😂