Connect with us

Opinion Editorials

Workers of the world, disunite! The gig economy is transforming the future

Independent contractor statuses are being reviewed by the government, but they’re asking the wrong questions and missing this historic moment as we shift toward an entrepreneurial society.

Published

on

the gig economy

the gig economy

Independent contractors are a staple of the “gig economy”

Hiring workers as independent contractors (ICs), rather than employees, is a staple of many “gig economy” company business models. Uber and Lyft are two notable leaders in the new gig economy; nearly all of their drivers are ICs. These drivers work when they want – jumping in and out of service as their schedules allow, or when the feeling strikes that making a few dollars is more desirable than sitting down and marathoning their favorite TV show or writing the next great novel. The use of ICs isn’t contained to ride services, however. Maids on demand, grocery delivery, and online courier services are all types of companies that utilize armies of ICs.

ICs enjoy scheduling flexibility, greater control over tax planning, and a degree of independence and freedom not generally shared by the average employee. In return, they give up security, health benefits, and other things that are the hallmark of most full-time employment positions. There are pros and cons even for companies. ICs can be less devoted to the company than employees and, by law, companies can’t exert much control over ICs. This is why many companies do not like managing ICs.

bar
Do a little online reading, and you are bound to come across articles vilifying the gig economy companies who use ICs. Read too many of these articles, and you may buy the myth that no IC wants to be an IC—that they are all pushed into this precarious status because companies won’t make them employees. Many online commentators are calling for the government to step up and curb the abuses of these companies.

The feds are asking questions, but ignoring the obvious

The Department of Labor (DOL) has prioritized the enforcement of misclassification of workers as ICs for several years. The DOL recently stated that whether a worker is classified as an independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act is based on the “economic realities” test. The DOL listed the following questions to assist in making a determination:

  • Is the work an integral part of the company’s business?
  • Does the worker’s managerial skill affect the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss?
  • How does the worker’s relative investment (this does not necessarily include tools or equipment) compare to the company’s investment?
  • Does the work performed require special skill and initiative?
  • Is the relationship between the worker and the company permanent or indefinite?
  • What is the nature and degree of the company’s control?

Notably absent from the list of questions is the desire of the workers and companies themselves. The DOL isn’t concerned with how companies and workers would like to define their relationship. Shouldn’t that consideration enter into the determination?

The media’s skewed view of the gig economy

As discussed earlier, from the standpoint of each group, there are pros and cons to employee status versus IC status. Does each get exactly what they want, in every context? No, of course not. Let’s consider hypothetical worker, Pat, who values security and would love a full-time job. Not finding that full-time position, Pat starts driving for Uber as an IC. After a couple of months, Uber lets Pat go due to too many customer complaints. Now, Pat is back out of work and can’t claim unemployment.

It is possible that, if Uber had employed her as an employee, they would have hesitated to let her go so quickly? Pat did not get what she wanted – safe, full-time employment. If the media picks up on her story and spins it into a cautionary tale of the gig economy, we all forget about the many ICs who willingly embrace the arrangement. We also forget that Pat might be out of a job even if she had been hired by Uber as an employee.

We may overlook the fact that Pat received an opportunity in the first place.

If you think there will be the same amount of employment “gigs” to go around if all workers are required to be employees, you are incorrect. In most European countries, employers are required to give at least 90 days notice in order to terminate and employee. You may laud that regulation, which is fine, although it’s not debatable that employers who are required to make greater commitments to their hires are less inclined to hire until they know, with absolute certainty, that they need a new employee long-term.

The same thinking is at play with employees (even “at will” employees who can be let go at any time for almost any reason) versus ICs. Companies are quicker to hire the latter, slower to hire the former. Quick hiring is action that is pro-efficiency, pro-progress, pro-company, and pro-worker. Quick firing is the first three, obviously not the latter. On balance, there’s a strong argument that maximizing company flexibility is of the greatest benefit to our overall economic system. Hence why there isn’t ta ton of chatter in the U.S. for modifying the default “employment at will” standard.

Could a self-employed world would be a more productive economy?

So, why do so many people seem to believe that IC status is only good for the companies that engage the ICs and not the ICs themselves? Using IC labor may allow companies to be more nimble, reduce (if not eliminate) pay for periods of non-performance, incentivize workers to continually develop their skills, and demand that workers consistently perform at their peak in order to compete in a more fluid market for talent. All four of these outcomes are clearly pro-company.

However, the last two outcomes are also solidly pro-worker, at least if we gaze beyond the short-term. We all benefit from performance incentives and expectations from others to deliver our best. Admittedly, the process of shifting workers from employment status to IC status may be, for many, painful. Full-time employment is easier, it’s safer. That is exactly what makes it less efficient. It’s human nature to work harder when you need to, when it really matters. Does anyone doubt that, pound for pound, self-employed people work harder, are more dedicated, than regular employees? A world in which everyone was self-employed, no one collecting a steady paycheck, would translate into a more productive economy.

Is government intervention the answer?

But let’s say you completely disagree with me and feel that we’re not talking simply about a fundamental right of companies and workers to freely label their contractual working relationship. Let’s say you believe this is very clearly about companies using their leverage to push their agendas on reluctant workers. And, you also don’t buy my argument that the company flexibility of being able to hire and fire translates, quickly and directly, into pro-worker benefits. In that case, is government regulation the best way to address the problems at hand, to contain these Dickensian companies?

Government intervention has its limits, the primary one being that companies, just like the human beings that comprise them, don’t generally embrace things they are forced to do. They reluctantly comply. They do just enough.

Empowerment is shifting from companies to workers

Guess what’s more effective than using legislation to force companies to change? The free market when it works well. The relationship between companies and workers is changing rapidly and radically. Because we are living through it, it is sometimes difficult to step back and soak in just how much change has already occurred. Empowerment is shifting from companies to workers.

Today, the playing field is considerably leveled, if not slightly tilted in favor of the worker. Among the reasons for this tectonic shift are:

  • Mobility: 100, even 50 years ago, workers were much less mobile. Our modes of transportation and attitudes about relocation have changed remarkably. Meanwhile, the rise of the telecommuter and virtual worker have made physical proximity to the workplace much less critical.
  • Information: Glassdoor, Vault, and similar sites give workers information about which companies treat their workers well and which do not. Company reputations matter today in a big way.
  • The Internet: In the Industrial Age, the means of production was the factory. Factories are expensive and, consequently, the few who could afford to build them, the “industrialists,” became fabulously wealthy while the rest of the population made ends meet. Today, the Internet is the most important means of production and it is just about free to everyone.
  • The Freelance Movement: Freelancing is no longer viewed as something you pretend to do while you’re really scouring for full-time employment. The freelance movement is bestowing a level of independence on workers that was previously unheard-of. Over one-third of the American work force is now made up of freelance workers. According to a new report by the Roosevelt Institute and the Kauffman Foundation, our economy will be “scarcely recognizable” in 25 years, as this number is expected to balloon.

Though full time employment is safer, it is much less empowering. Daniel Priestley, author of Key Person of Influence, speaks about the transition that we are living through from an industrial economy to an entrepreneurial one. He points out that the owners of capital in an industrial economy, the factory-owning industrials we spoke of earlier, are motivated to keep workers just content enough – content enough to keep doing their jobs and to not challenge the system. Employers don’t want to make their employees wealthy and financially independent, because that isn’t ideal for controlling employees. As a society, we can legislate these employers to do a little more – provide more time off, better health care benefits, etc., but they will always do just enough when forced to act. And, “just enough” will never be all that fulfilling for the employees.

Workers have been handed a golden opportunity to wrestle power from companies

Companies can’t control ICs like they do employees. ICs that work for multiple companies have the leverage in the relationship. It’s game-on and it’s not from unionizing and government intervention. Workers are gaining power due to a shifting work landscape. They are gaining power by disuniting.

Admittedly, some workers are not embracing this opportunity with open arms. For them, it may take a while to see the seeds of opportunity planted in this “problem.” As a society, if we adopt the paternalistic viewpoint that companies must give workers employment (as opposed to IC) status, we are disrupting a natural, positive, and powerful rebalancing that is at work in the market. In doing so, we would unwittingly be undermining the power and long-term well being of the very constituency we seek to protect.

We should all be freelancers, self-employed, entirely responsible for ourselves

Those anachronisms of the bygone era of lifetime employment – frothy pensions, gold watch retirement ceremonies, etc. – are not coming back. We can beg the government to step in and try to hold on to the last vestiges of that era, but we will at best be hanging on by a thin thread. And, the security employees seek? It’s been gone for a long time. My parents and their peers expected lifetime employment. No one my age and below expects that.

We all recognize our companies are unlikely to out survive us. In today’s increasingly quick, hyper-competitive, global economy, friction in the employment market is the default standard. There is simply no longer any real security in being a private-sector employee. However, empowered ICs aren’t at the mercy of individual employers. Their security is self-determined.

This is one fight we don’t want the government to win

Many workers are embracing the new gig economy and its flexibility. The option to work as an IC shouldn’t be ripped away due to a misguided sense of paternalism. The process of shifting from employee to IC is challenging for many, and often full of risks, but the ultimate reward of a successful shift is freedom and empowerment. Let’s not force workers to trade the pursuit of those treasures for vision, dental and ten days off per year.

#GigEconomy

Brett is The Startup Shepherd – part startup consultant, part angel investor/financier, and part business lawyer. A six-time entrepreneur and recovering “left brainer,” Brett particularly enjoys helping startups and rapidly growing socially-conscious companies.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
7 Comments

7 Comments

  1. Gabe Sanders

    September 26, 2015 at 1:32 pm

    Yes, I can understand why many workers embrace this concept. Though the ability of the employers (and they are employers) to take advantage of the contractors will grow and potentially do more harm than the potential good.

  2. Robin Bull

    October 7, 2015 at 1:20 pm

    Hi Brett – If you think about it (or, rather, if others think about it), we are all self-employed. For some of us, like me, it’s just more obvious because we work from our homes and with multiple companies. However, even those who work in a more traditional environment (I used to be a paralegal) are still self-employed. It is up to us regardless of the location or type of work that we do to ensure that our clients / employers are happy and that we are able to continue to working. One of the main differences is that what I do as a freelancer is actually more secure. Think about it: what am I going to do – fire myself? Clients may come and go, but at the end of the cycle there are always companies that need good workers. I’m grateful to be able to work on a long term basis with many of my clients (such as http://www.mikogo.com). It definitely helps to have clients that come back on a weekly basis for my services.

  3. Brett

    October 11, 2015 at 8:58 am

    Gabe, I disagree. As (if) IC status grows, I believe it will be more well understood and there will be more opportunities for IC “gigs” (jobs), both outcomes resulting in less power for employers.

    Robin, I agree entirely that everyone should think of themselves as self-employed in that sense. Unfortunately, many don’t, however

  4. Pingback: Solopreneurs - the next wave of economic disruption is here!

  5. Skip Mendler

    June 8, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    So eventually, would all workers need to become conversant in the potentially tricky language of contracts, and the intricacies of arbitration? Gee, they’re going to need lawyers, aren’t they?

  6. Pingback: Next American Economy Covered in the American Genius - Roosevelt Forward

  7. Pingback: Why I reject the idea of the #hustle - Austin Digital Jobs ®

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion Editorials

There is honor in your job, be proud of that

(EDITORIAL) Regardless of what you are doing to make ends meet, whether you have a degree or not, the work you do matters, has honor, and you should be damn proud.

Published

on

honor at work

I was walking my dog the other day and as we were passing a construction site I saw a man in the process of cleaning a Port-A-Potty. My first thought was: “I could never do that.”

As quickly as my gag reflex kicked in, I replaced it with a feeling of respect for the man doing the work. I saw him doing his job and I gave him props because there is honor in work. And, just because I don’t think I could do his job doesn’t mean he shouldn’t feel good about his job.

Just like any employee, he was doing a job he may or may not like or enjoy. And, like any worker his job is providing him with funds to build a life. I don’t know his circumstances, but there is no reason to see him with anything but admiration – if only because so many people may think they are better than, smarter than and more deserving than someone taking on a “dirty job”.

When I was growing up in the Chicago area the steel mills were still open and employed thousands of people – mostly men. Then, the jobs moved overseas, the industry tanked and the mills were left vacant, like ghost towns.

So many workers were let go, including my uncle. He had to start over, but he didn’t let it get him down. He used his knowledge of management, recovered and found another position. Yet, many workers were destroyed when they lost their jobs because they felt unskilled And, at the time, the country was in crisis and there weren’t a lot of other jobs available.

Us kids, we saw the mills and thought, “Why would you want to do that?” It was hot, dirty and dangerous. But, for years those jobs provided steady income and benefits, allowing couples to have homes, build families and live decent lives. Those workers may have had many turn their noses up, but they were proud of what they did, because there was honor in it.

As time moved on, the next generation (X that would be) shied away from manufacturing and the trades. More of us bought into the idea of getting a college degree with the expectation we’d find security and high paying jobs.

ROFL!!!

I’d suggest our view of honor in work has been twisted over time. The idea that doing some types of work elevates a person and makes them superior. Or, as my mom would say, they think “their shit doesn’t stink” but it does.

As much as I believed everyone wanted to be rich and drive a Lambo, it wasn’t and isn’t true. Some folks are happy with the status quo. And, that is Okay. While it is quite a letdown to pursue a degree and then potentially end up in a market where your skills are undervalued, it doesn’t mean the work a person does is any less honorable. The experience of being between a rock and a hard place and surviving is much more honorable, in my mind. It requires a belief in oneself and tenacity. It also provides a great learning experience.

True, once upon a time you could get hired at a company, work there for 40 years and retire. But, no longer. Sometimes folks are required to work two part-time gigs and drive for Lyft or Uber, do Instacart to get by. Some folks love driving for ride services, others do it because there is no other option.

And, that is AOK.

Images perpetuated through movies, ads, social media, etc. have been pretty destructive because IMHO we as a society have this distorted view of what a good life is and what appears to be an honorable way to earn a living.

For young folks today, playing video games or starting a YouTube page with make-up tutorials seems like the way to fame and fortune. For others the stock market and clocking 80-hour weeks still seems rational. While others say, forget that, I’m starting my own business because there is no security.

Let me say: There never was security because things change. Appearances just made it appear as if security actually existed.

All of that aside, whatever you do to make ends meet, whatever work you are doing today and hope to do tomorrow, whether your future holds a Porsche or a Civic – or even a bicycle, whether you want to live in a penthouse or are just happy to have a roof over your head, whatever it is you are doing today to get you where you want to be, there is honor in it. Believe it. And, don’t let anyone else’s IG feed make you feel anything other than proud of who you are.

Continue Reading

Opinion Editorials

Could Facebook’s newest censorship tactic decimate an entire industry?

(BUSINESS NEWS) Facebook’s last line of defense seems to be platform censoring and they’re using it to demolish businesses and advocacy groups.

Published

on

censoring mark

In 2018, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s CEO, proclaimed that Facebook was meant to be a platform for all ideas. This was in response to the public’s theory that Zuckerberg was censoring political posts on Facebook. Even then, it was pretty clear that Facebook was, in fact, censoring by removing pages, profiles, and content related to political posts they saw as misleading or inaccurate.

But recently, Facebook seems to be playing both sides of the fence when it comes to censoring, favoring policies supported by well-known organizations like PETA (People of the Ethical Treatment of Animals), self-proclaimed “animal activists” who claim to focus on 4 main areas related to animals and mistreatment in labs, the food industry, the clothing trade, and the entertainment industry.

Of course, it’s also pretty commonly known that they expand beyond their definition pretty often, frequently attacking the beliefs and practices of some of the best pet owners and wildlife activists out there, like Steve Irwin. In February of 2019, PETA even went so far as to tweet a post on Twitter about how much they think Irwin did both before and during his untimely death.

In more recent news, PETA actually purchased Facebook shares. They did this because they were showing videos on Facebook that were gory, disheartening, and downright sad, which Facebook also censored by requiring a warning before their videos played. PETA obviously didn’t like this, so in a strategic retaliation to end the censoring of them, they bought shares in Facebook. This allowed them to attend shareholder meetings and to ask questions of executives.

This was actually a very clever idea on their part, but it is in no way a new idea. Indeed, they’ve purchased shares from companies like Levi, BooHoo, and Louis Vuitton in the past for similar reasons.

But now, with PETA’s involvement with Facebook, policies that previously went un-policed are quickly becoming top-of-mind for the tech giant. Facebook’s official policies have been notoriously obscure and are only really explained in-depth to Facebook employees or legal entities.

Plus, Facebook doesn’t really have a dedicated customer service team, so even if you found and vaguely understood their policies (again, mostly written in a way only a legal team or Facebook employee would understand) there’s no real avenue to get clarification. More recently though, Facebook posted their policies for all of its users to review.

One big policy that PETA’s involvement looks to be affecting is in relation to animal sales and rehoming. Facebook has had a rule against animal sales and rehoming for many years, but until now, many of its users (breeders, rescuers, and animal advocates included) weren’t aware or fearful of it.

That’s quickly changed over the last few months as Facebook’s vendetta against anyone selling, rehoming, or even reposting content with certain key words that remotely resemble animal sales or rehoming, has continued. Not only is Facebook now taking down pages, groups, profiles, Marketplace listings, and even comments. They’re also rejecting fundraisers, which we’ll talk about more in a few minutes.

Another scary thing they’re doing is putting some power in the hands of the typical Facebook user, in the form of a new content-reporting button, like the one below.

facebok report button

With that, it’s no surprise that legitimate and well-known animal breeders, rescues, and even long-time pages/groups are being affected negatively.

Facebook has historically been an outlet for pet owners, breeders, and rescuers alike, and it makes sense why. Facebook is supposed to be a platform where your friends, peers, enemies, and even “frenemies” come together to create an online community. It’s meant to support both the social and business aspects of a user’s life, but in recent months, it’s certainly not living up those standards. The result: Facebook is quickly being abandoned by users – especially animal lovers and those within the pet space.

Let’s take breeders as an example. Breeders often post animals on Facebook. In the past, they’ve posted photos and pricing. This is something they can no longer do.

Legitimate breeders are usually not too pushy, nor do they typically spam. They don’t usually sell on Facebook directly ether, which is what Facebook strictly prohibits. Instead, they opt for a 3rd party service like Paypal or Square, but that makes no difference to Facebook. Although the animals aren’t being sold on the website, just including a picture and a price are enough for them to take content down. In truth, they’re taking pages down left and right as a direct result of the metaphorical pitchfork they’ve handed users (the “report” button).

Now, not all breeders are good, just like not all taco stands are good, but does that really give Facebook the right to censor you or ultimately close your Facebook account down? I don’t think so, and neither do breeders.

I spoke with Scott Poe of Poe’s Pogonas in Corona, California this week, too. He’s a reputable breeder of high-quality Bearded Dragons (a very popular pet). When asked how Facebook’s policies have affected him, he said “It certainly has made it a little challenging to list Dragons as available for sale…”. He goes on to offer Facebook advice, suggesting that they certify vendors on their site to proactively vet through quality breeders who are looking to improve their niche’s gene pool, and not those who are simply looking to make a quick buck.

We agree that, of course, there are bad breeders out there, but putting a blanket policy over an entire niche of business owners is like prohibiting alcohol – it doesn’t work!

If we were to go a little further into this topic, we’d see that Facebook’s stance on policies is actually likely to deter many other business types that don’t sell exactly what Facebook deems to be “appropriate”. Obviously, this type of practice can have a major impact on those types of businesses.

To drive this point home further, ask yourself this: what if Facebook disagreed with the produce or service you provided. Would you be okay with them taking your page down, one you’ve worked hard at and one with a lot of followers? How would you feel if 3rd party users, who are not even Facebook employees, started reporting you based on their own beliefs?

It’s important to note that Facebook does seem to allow you to post if you are a brick and mortar, so pet stores, you may be safe… for now.

The same logic applies to animal rescuers, except that rescues are most often not for profit. Facebook doesn’t discriminate though, so if you do rescue (even as a person and not a group), they’ll treat you exactly the same way as they do for animal sales-related posts. What we know is that this will absolutely crush any attempts to re-home or adopt out animals in need.

There are a growing number of animals in need of homes, many of which will actually be put down at kill shelters if not adopted within a 3-5 day period, and with Facebook’s policies in place, it has essentially banned helping animals and their advocates through their platform.

To understand more clearly, I reached out to Jeff Stewart, one of the founders of Sunshine’s Shoulders Rescue in Tenaha, Texas, about their experience. He and his wife run a rescue out of their home. Stewart, like most other rescues, rely on donations from a few people to help feed and give care to their rescues, and while they have a vet that works with them on their bills, sometimes it’s not enough.

Stewart goes on to say that he used to do Facebook fundraisers, but there were two issues that forced him to stop. First, Facebook takes a cut of any fundraiser on Facebook, so if you’re donating to a charity, just know that all of those funds are not going to the charity of your choice and are, in reality, lining Facebook’s pockets. The second reason they stopped was due to Facebook’s declining of their fundraisers. Stewart said, “The past 3 times we have tried to have a fundraiser I have gotten a message telling me that it goes against community standards.”

He goes on to say that “the new [Facebook] policy also prevents us from finding adoptive homes for any of our animals through the FB platform.”

Due to the issues they’ve encountered with the platform, Stewart can no longer take in rescues. They’re costs for dog food alone are upwards of $500/month and their vet bills can get pretty extreme, too, reaching more than $2000 a times (even with the negotiated pricing from the vet). And it’s no wonder why they have to stop. Without the support from Facebook patrons, they’re paying for all rescue products and services 100% out of their own pocket.

To clarify though, Facebook’s policies surrounding rehoming are pretty vague. They strictly say no to “live animals”, but they don’t draw any conclusive lines as to what that could mean for a legitimate rescue who has paid their dues (literally) to become an official nonprofit organization. However, because the power now lies in the hands of the Facebook user, discretion seems to be up to them as to what they deem inappropriate.

Playing devil’s advocate here, there are many animals in need of homes as a direct result of a lack of regulation when it comes to pet ownership and breeding. I definitely agree that these things need to be monitored and regulated, but by censoring content for both entities, Facebook appears to be taking a very strong stance that they don’t want to be involved at all with animal-related content unless it’s funny, cute, or meme-worthy.

Finally, it’s important to know that although Facebook seems to want you to learn what you’re doing wrong, they definitely don’t act like they do. When a user is reported, Facebook will let you know. If you disagree with their assessment, you can appeal it. However, again, there’s no way (no easy way, at least) to talk to a real person. Often times the reported post will come back to the poster with some kind of vague warning that doesn’t go into details on what they did wrong. That means that even when your posts are taken down, you may have no idea as to why.

At the end of the day, Facebook does have the right to choose which policies to include and which to enforce, but it’s pretty clear that they don’t really have an understanding of how any of this is impacting their users.

I have one tip for Facebook: I invite you to take another look at your policies (as well as who’s supporting them and what their agenda is), reporting capabilities, and education on restrictions when reported and to consider lifting some of the bans on animal-related posts, groups, pages, and ads. It’s affecting the livelihoods of thousands of breeders and rescuers worldwide, as well as in-need animals that desperately need a home.

Note: The author has years of experience with breeding bearded dragons as well as marketing, and has unique insight into the aforementioned online niche.

Continue Reading

Opinion Editorials

Relax and refresh with our office life movie list

(EDITORIAL) Whether you are considering a new career path or not we have a movie list to pique your interest, and just maybe motivate as much as they entertain.

Published

on

Movie projector

It’s a new year! Woot! Maybe you’re feeling in a work funk and are rethinking your goals and future trajectory. Whether you need something to push you in a new direction, motivate you, make you think about where your career is going, or just to entertain, here are 10 movies about work, work ethic and how we can change our career path by just changing our mind.

Top 10 Movies About Work

1. Glengarry Glen Ross: This take on David Mamet’s play is at the top of the list. If you haven’t seen it, where have you been? If you have, it’s a good one to revisit. This ones got it all raw reality, ego, desperation and some surprising plot twists all with an outstanding cast. If you are in sales, don’t miss this. And, Millennials, take note. You will one day be in the same place as those old fogies – aka Boomers. Oh, and, remember, “Coffee is for closers.”

2. His Gal Friday: An oldie and a goodie with Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell as an editor and reporter who worked together, married and then divorced. This slapstick movie is great for a peek inside media, especially journalism, because it shows the lengths that reporters and editors will go to in order to get the scoop. The movie has great dialog and is timeless. It also shows how fast things can move, which is still relevant today especially with social media and the life of a news story moves even faster.

3. Up In The Air: A hatchet man learns his job is being tweaked. He will no longer need to fly, and now the tables are turned and he is unhappy with his fate. This movie can be a challenge to watch if you recently lost a job. But, one lesson learned is that work isn’t everything, so live your life.

4. Office Space: A funny take on work and life and the balance between the two. Regardless of where you are employed, there are rules, regulations and office BS that can be on the one hand completely pathetic and on the other so laughable. It’s always better to laugh, rather than cry. Oh, and do not touch the red stapler.

5. Working Girl: Maybe you missed this one because it dates back to the days when shoulder pads ruled the workplace and women still wore nylons. Melanie Griffith portrays a secretary (remember this is before that changed to assistant) who is great at what she does. She’s got goals and dreams to take her career to the next level. But, she’s not taken seriously at the investment firm where she works. Sigourney Weaver is the boss and she will do whatever she needs to stay on top. Griffith has a twist-of-fate meeting with Harrison Ford, another executive and she takes a chance on herself and her future. This movie has big hair, humor and a love story to boot.

6. Good Will Hunting: Ok. This one isn’t necessarily about work. But, I picked it because it’s an example of what can happen when you let your past hold you back and you don’t pursue your dreams. We have Matt Damon (Will) a janitor at a prestigious university and his friend Ben Affleck, a brick layer. Damon portrays a guy with a rough past who is going through the motions until he has to work with a psychologist played by Robin Williams. He’s forced to consider his past and his future. He has a gift but what will he do? His friend, Affleck, wants him to pursue bigger things, but can Damon let go of his past and embrace his gift?

7. The Devil Wears Prada: Ah, the evil queen and the naïve princess. That may seem like a different story, but it is a similar plot line with a triumphant finish. Anne Hathaway portrays Andrea who is fresh out of school and lands a job at a prestigious fashion magazine. The fact that she had never read the magazine and got the job is beyond surprising, but regardless she lands the job and works for Miranda, played by Meryl Streep. Streep’s character is a Diva and a demanding and horrible boss. She challenges Andrea on multiple levels. Will Andrea become a workaholic like her boss? As they say, “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.”

8. 9-to-5: Way before the Me Too movement there was Fonda, Parton and Tomlin as three office employees who are sick and tired of their chauvinistic boss, played by Dabney Coleman. The women begin to plot for revenge and take their boss hostage in his home. In the meantime, they begin making changes at the office.

9. The Pursuit of Happyness: If you think your life is rough, maybe reconsider for a moment. This is a story about a man who was determined. He was pushing forward and as much as he was pushing, it seemed that he couldn’t get ahead. But he was resolved in the belief that he could and would make his life better for himself and his son. There is a great quote that says: “The harder I work, the luckier I am.” This movie shows that out.

10. Rocky: This movie made Sylvester Stallone. He wrote it and that my friends is a great story of tenacity too, because before Rocky Stallone was basically a nobody. Rocky is a nobody boxer who gets the chance to take on the reigning champion, Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers). He busts his ass and does whatever it takes to get the job done. This is a story of endurance, dedication and taking a chance on yourself.

This list is not comprehensive, but we hope you find inspiration, motivation and some laughs too. And, remember, work is not who you are, it’s what you do. Now, go get some popcorn and candy and take a break.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Our Great Partners

The
American Genius
news neatly in your inbox

Subscribe to our mailing list for news sent straight to your email inbox.

Emerging Stories

Get The American Genius
neatly in your inbox

Subscribe to get business and tech updates, breaking stories, and more!