Why people in essential jobs are treated with contempt

Essential—as long as they remain in the background

The office is clean every morning, but the people who take care of it rarely appear in the company's success stories. Some people pass them without saying hello, someone else talks to them as though they are not even in the room. In another line of work, an employee hears at a family meeting, "How can you do this?" These examples show that social judgments about work can be transferred to the people who perform it. The usefulness of a service does not always go hand in hand with respect of the person who performs it. In the literature, the term ‘dirty work’ describes work that carries social stigma. The term is not the author's judgment or a claim that the work is inferior. The classic framework distinguishes physical, social, and moral forms of stigma. It may involve contact with dirt or bodily matter, a role seen as subordinate, or an activity viewed as morally objectionable by others. These categories depend on the context and may overlap. Judgments about an occupation can shape how a person is treated, even if the other party knows little about their work. Someone receives less attention, is left out of the group presentation, or hears questions suggesting that their job requires a justification. It is worth noting that the fact that a job is socially essential does not automatically protect against such treatment. People can simultaneously benefit from someone's efforts and not give them the proper respect. Therefore, the discussion of the dignity of work should go beyond the declaration that all roles are important. It is necessary to check whether people in less prestigious roles have access to information, the conditions they need and the opportunity to present their knowledge of the issues directly affecting their responsibilities.

An occupation becomes shorthand for judging a person

Ashforth and Kreiner described the challenge of building a positive identity in stigmatized work. A later review by Kreiner, Mihelcic and Mikolon shows a broader picture of stigmatized work and workers. It is important to distinguish the social significance of a profession from the actual characteristics of the people who perform it. A person may experience disrespect, not because of their behavior, but because of the category assigned to their role. Ashforth and Kreiner, 1999 Kreiner et al., 2022. In practice, such a shortcut can affect who we listen to and whom we consider competent. A cleaning worker knows about recurring problems in the building, but their observations may be ignored. A person who performs difficult emergency-response work is aware of the risks, but those around them focus on the emotional associations with their profession. It's not just a matter of courtesy. An organization may lose information when the status of a role determines the credibility of a statement more than its content.

How people protect the meaning of their work

Persons performing stigmatized tasks may emphasize the social value of their work, required skills or particular responsibility. A professional community can provide language that restores meaning to work in ways outsiders may not see. It can also provide support after difficult situations. These strategies should not be considered as evidence that external disregard is irrelevant. A person can be proud of their occupation and still bear the cost of how others treat them. There must also be room for criticism of the work itself. Respect for a person does not imply a prohibition on evaluating the social consequences of a particular activity. If there are real ethical dilemmas in a profession, they can be discussed without dehumanizing all employees. It is useful to distinguish among the person, the task, and the institutional conditions under which the work is performed. This allows the conversation to be about responsibility and change rather than about how 'people like that' can do such work. Differences in status may also affect whether a warning will be taken seriously. A person who performs a specific activity on a daily basis often notices the problem earlier than someone who designs the process from a greater distance. If their role is dismissed, valuable information may never reach decision-makers. It is therefore worth separating the prestige of a position from the value of a specific observation. This does not mean that everyone has the same knowledge or responsibility. It means that an argument should be assessed on the basis of the content and experience on which it is based. A careful question about the conditions of work is more useful than a symbolic thank you combined with the employee's continued exclusion in matters concerning their daily duties.

Recognition must not replace decent working conditions

A company can call its employees heroes and yet not provide them with the right time, equipment, or opportunity to report problems. Such praise rings hollow if daily practice remains unchanged. In our example, respecting those who care for the office means not only thanking them but also taking their knowledge into account when planning space and schedule. Concrete working conditions show whether the organization takes the role seriously or just wants to improve the way it talks about it. It's worth taking a look at access to information, workspaces and ordinary forms of participation. Do the people employed by an outside contractor know who to report a hazard to? Can they get a response to a problem related to their work? Does the leader react when someone speaks to them contemptuously? Not every organizational difference reflects stigma, but each should have a meaningful justification. 'We've always done it this way' doesn't explain why someone's voice matters less.

How to discuss an occupation without condescension

It's better to ask about real tasks and competencies than to express surprise that someone can do them. 'What's the hardest thing about this job?' opens a different conversation than 'I would never do anything like this,' especially when the second sentence sounds like an expression of disgust. In the workplace, it is best to refer to people and roles by name rather than collective terms that diminish their importance. Respect doesn't require you to idealize an occupation. It requires the recognition that the person performing a necessary function has knowledge, boundaries and a perspective of their own. Respect can be shown through simple, consistent actions: introducing people by name, explaining changes, responding to concerns and providing appropriate tools. It is also important to avoid a patronizing tone. It should not sound surprising that a person doing a job can think clearly or judge a situation accurately. If an organization wants to know the needs of a particular professional group, it should ask its representatives instead of assuming that it knows the answer. Sometimes the most important thing will be a predictable schedule, sometimes reliable equipment, and sometimes the ability to raise a problem without being dismissed. A concrete improvement in working conditions says more than a solemn declaration of recognition, which is not reflected in everyday decision-making and resource allocation.

Occupational stigma shows that the social necessity of work does not guarantee that its performers will be treated with dignity. Recognition should be visible in language, working conditions and access to decision-making conversations. It is possible to talk honestly about difficult tasks and dilemmas without transferring judgments about a role to judgments about a person's worth.

How Empatyzer supports communication across roles

Empatyzer can help prepare a conversation between people whose positions and responsibilities differ. In Talk to Em about a specific person, the user can refine questions about the needs, limitations and observations of the other party, avoiding patronizing assumptions. The available profile helps to take into account the individual way of communicating rather than reducing a person to their occupational role. With Talk to Em about your team, users can prepare ground rules for sharing information and including different roles in decisions. Empatyzer does not rank the prestige of occupations or determine the value of the work done. It also does not replace decisions on wages, resources or employment conditions. Its practical role is in helping people communicate. It can help to formulate a question that genuinely invites the other person to share what they know and a message acknowledging a particular person's contribution. Whether that respect has real meaning depends on the organization's further action and response to the needs that are raised.