GOLDEN HANDCUFFS

Mickey Skidmore, AMHSW, ACSW

In last month’s “Perspective” while exploring the political underpinnings of large bureaucratic organisations I made reference to “golden handcuffs.”

In such agencies, where financial compensation may be lacking, the perks of a permanent position often includes: sick leave; annual leave; leave loading; public holidays; (eventual or potential) long-service leave; superannuation contributions; and opportunities for salary packaging. Furthermore, if this is a governmental system, it is incredibly difficult for your position to be terminated — regardless of one’s work performance. (Such are the circumstances contributing to longevity incompetence).

Over time, it is easy to see how an employee could become increasingly comfortable in such an arrangement and in such an environment. Yet when the dynamics of the organisation no longer align with one’s personal or professional values; or rise to the level of dysfunction and/or corruption, the employee can find themselves in a bind. In such circumstances, most seek out strategies to better cope or manage in such situations. However, if these dynamics persist or become increasingly pervasive, these options are often reduced to two primary options: identifying reasonably and healthy strategies that might enable one to “survive” within the system; or voting with their feet and choosing to walk away. Such a choice — between personal and professional integrity and the ability to earn a living is for many an unfair choice that leave many feeling trapped. I often refer to this scenario as the dynamic of the “golden handcuffs.”

For many, the perks and benefits that accompany their position are the reason why they will tolerate unpleasant, undesirable and even toxic work environments. If they are the sole or primary breadwinners of their family they are even less inclined to realistically make a choice of personal or professional integrity over financial income and security — even if the toll results in adverse impact on their health and well-being. Such is the power of the golden handcuffs.

Recently I had a conversation with an Australian who acknowledged not having any direct knowledge of the overall vocational environment in America, essentially assuming it to be “ruthless.” From that position however, one can organise a strategy to cope with such a reality. They went on to point out the contrast in Australia — which emphasises labour unions; touts the societal value of a particular standard of living; month long annual holidays; work-life balance and professing the importance of embracing ideas and viewpoints from its workforce — only to sadly discover once you’re engaged that much of this is an illusion … a fantasy … and simply a mirage. With few exceptions, most Australian organisations or private companies are not truly interested in a workers genuine, honest feedback — especially if it is counter to whatever narrative they have planted and spun within the public media landscape.

I recently said to a colleague that “it shouldn’t be so hard to be true to yourself.” And even though it can be difficult at times, I still find it difficult to walk away from these values and choose an easier  or simpler path. Perhaps this is the unspoken challenge for many professional Social Workers.