Social relationships in workplace
Such arguments are a bit jarring. How can egalitarian liberals oppose a law so central to modern egalitarian states — one that is wildly popular to boot, unlike many transfer programs? In contrast, many labour scholars, trade unionists and lay people intuitively view the minimum wage as a matter of justice. Insofar as that intuition reflects a commitment to a fair distribution of resources, egalitarian liberals have the stronger argument: transfers, especially unconditional transfers, are simply a superior means of ensuring distributive justice. However, there is little empirical evidence that minimum wage laws significantly increase unemployment while wage mandates are kept within historic limits, although at a high enough level minimum wage laws would certainly reduce employment.
In a forthcoming law review article, I defend the minimum wage on grounds of justice. To do so, I accept for the sake of argument—again, perhaps counterfactually—that the minimum wage increases unemployment, relative to either a laissez-faire labour market or to a laissez-faire labour market coupled with redistributive transfers. I then argue that a minimum wage is still worth having, because more than money is at stake here, namely whether our work has social value.
Even if transfers can ensure a more equality of resources, a just state must do more. It must also help ensure “social equality, ” or more equal interpersonal relations. This ideal is most closely associated with left-communitarian and republican theories of justice, but it is also central to certain strands of egalitarian liberalism, including Rawls’ own thought. For example, despite his emphasis upon liberty and his acceptance of wealth inequalities that motivate the talented, Rawls made clear that the “social bases of self-respect” were the most important of the primary social goods. He also emphasized the status harms that can emerge from work. In a just society, he argued, “no one need be servilely dependent on others and made to choose between monotonous and routine occupations which are deadening to human thought and sensibility.” Indeed, Rawls and some other liberals have argued that social equality explains why redistribution is important in the first place: because severe economic inequalities undermine the self-respect of the poor.
To be clear, equality of resources and social equality are complementary rather than competing accounts of what justice requires. Similarly, transfers and minimum wage laws are complementary means of ensuring fairness in the low-wage labour market. Transfers can better redistribute resources, while minimum wage laws can better promote social equality.
You might also like
Bottom line is it's a workplace, not a socialby gatheringorhighschool
There will always be seemingly anti-social types anywhere who just clock in & out, those who by choice or by training from their parents, schools, cultures, or whatever really segregate their personal & professional lives.
It may be possible this young lady is on the insecure side - being young, w/ English apparently not her first language or culture, and maybe still getting used to her new physique, and on top of all that she probably does think or was raised to believe never to mix business with friendship other than w/ the seemingly most basic courtesies.
One does not have to be a minority to keep to themselves, it could be just their personality, it does not necessarily mean they're snobs or serial killers in the making, you know ;)
Some people are very much into meeting their deadlines, etc
Adobe white paper: the four social marketing tools you need — Marketing Week
Social relationship platforms help marketers leverage third-party social sites.
Problematic Relationships in the Workplace
Book (Peter Lang International Academic Publishers)