Introduction
Recently, I wrote an article that addressed the structure of the arguments for and against labor unions in the public accounting profession. I didn’t take a stance on whether I think workers should unite and form a union or not; instead, my goal was to frame the discussion properly so that I and other professionals could develop informed opinions on the topic.
I argued that the profession has a narrow view of unions, in general. This makes sense because we seem to be in the early stages of talking about them.
Published statements about unions suggest that common interests - which preclude the formation of a union - only exist within the employment relationship. It is true that by law, bargaining units - which negotiate for better working conditions - begin within vertical silos (e.g. within company hierarchies); however, common interests can be found horizontally as well and often expand outside of those vertical silos. Thus, association can happen through other methods.
Opinions seem to only be formed about the appropriateness of association when there is advocacy directly associated with fixing the issues that a group faces in the profession, industry, or with a specific employer.
Employers worry about some type of uprising at the mere mention of the U word. So, the first step in the natural evolution of seeking better conditions is that employers are comforted. That step is exactly what inspired the Accounting Today article I responded to here.
My article on Unions only hinted at working conditions in public accounting, yet I did analyze the living conditions that are outputs of the professions’ issues.
By this, I mean that long hours are only a problem if you can’t find another job; and a lack of benefits is only a problem if you can’t get them (e.g. affordable healthcare being tied to employment). Thus, it would benefit the employers who might be scared of an uprising; and the employees who want better working conditions, to define what those working conditions are; why they are so bad; what the best techniques are to eradicate them, and understand why these issues are a surprise when they pop up.
First off, let me say this: when we talk about working conditions we need to recognize that they exist on a spectrum.
Everyone’s job conditions are relative. Describing another profession or industry’s working conditions is useful when you need to remind yourself and others about how fortunate you are, but it shouldn’t be used to invalidate someone’s valid skepticism about your profession’s work conditions.
Healthcare professionals were being exposed to COVID-19 daily during the height of the pandemic and even still, now. If we’re comparing Accounting and Healthcare - in terms of immediate danger - healthcare professionals have the trump card. If we were comparing healthcare professionals to citizens fighting for our country in wars, then those veterans would have the trump card. But we’re not. So let’s put that discussion aside.
There is a reason why Accountants didn’t start out working in healthcare and vice versa. Job tasks are intertwined with work conditions. Stop comparing them.
Assessing Working Conditions
I love the quote from rapper and activist Killer Mike that says:
"If you don't believe in freedom of speech for those people you don't agree with, you don't believe in freedom of speech at all.”
In the context of working conditions in Accounting it reads like this:
If you don’t CPAs advocating for things you don’t agree with, then you don’t believe in advocacy at all.
When early career CPAs complain about work conditions, they’re doing so with fresh eyes. Sure these conditions might just be a part of the job, but does that mean they need to go unchecked?
For that reason, I think it’s important to explain the difference between the two types of working conditions. Known conditions Surprise conditions. Let’s be real, there are working conditions that are known about a job and then there are those that are a surprise.
If we go back to our drawing from earlier (below), career choices are made by weighing the pros and cons of both good and bad known conditions.
Before I go through what these working conditions are, in-depth, I want to harp on something for a moment. You can’t criticize someone for being opposed to bad work conditions that were a surprise to them. Furthermore, you can’t use your own decreased sensitivity to those conditions to get the moral high ground on someone who is looking at the situation from a new perspective. This is especially true when the condition in question was a surprise for you when you first joined the profession or industry in question. The longer you stay in the profession the surprises become known and, eventually, they are accepted as par for the course.
Known Versus Surprise Conditions
I’m not going to list all of the working conditions that are known vs. the ones that are a surprise. Why? It implies that each circumstance fits neatly into one of those buckets. That’s just not the case.
To address the known vs. surprise distinction we need to address that a lot of professionals feel as if they are lied to. I remember a colleague straight up asking me:
“Do you feel like they lied to you to get you to join XYZ company?”
I didn’t know how to answer that question.
On one hand, being lied to implies active deception. I don’t think you can really claim deception if you’re told half-truths or if you joined willingly.1 However, at what point does the law place responsibility on the party distributing the half-truth?2
Example
For example, you can be told that you will work long hours, but how long is long? Quantify it.
If you’re an intern and you ask that question, will the team work the same amount of hours next year when you join? Why or why not? How are they coming up with those projections? Do you agree with those assumptions? How do you evaluate the assumptions going into those projections and voice your concerns about the discrepancy? Will the team be open to it?
Moreover, can you physically work those hours? Why do you say that you can? How are you coming to the conclusion that you can or cannot? Does the firm have proven criteria for understanding if someone can physically work those hours? Why or why not?
What about your hours relative to other people in the firm on similar engagements? Is the total quantity similar? Why or why not? How is the team addressing the challenge that makes your engagement harder than others at your level? Can the team execute on removing those barriers? How is the firm addressing these challenges? Are they addressing those barriers at all? Do they normalize ratings to account for these differences when evaluating your performance? How do you know?
Plus, how is the profession dealing with this challenge across the board? How can you evaluate two offers with all of these criteria in mind?
That is what it really means to assess work conditions. And those are just questions that interns and staff should consider. I haven’t even gotten to the others.
Legit Surprises and Precedents
Some work conditions can fall into what I call legitimate surprises. These are instances where you had no idea what you were signing up for.
In a moment, I’ll give a personal example of a legitimate surprise, however, it is worth noting that even these examples might not be surprises.
I don’t consider them complete surprises because they could become known with a little bit of detective work…
For example, when I worked in public accounting there was a client I had to work on that was out of state. A 40-mile drive from where I was living at the time. Prior to me being yanked on the engagement, there was another member of the firm - who was in my cohort - who worked on that engagement. He left the firm, and that’s how I got assigned to it.
I learned later that he cited the travel distance as a reason for leaving. This new working condition was a surprise to me. When I decided to work in New York, I didn’t imagine I would one day be called to work in another state, let alone increase my commute time by miles and hours. However, by studying the firm and its staffing policies I could have concluded that I would have had to deal with these conditions.
Looking back it is easy to say that I could have avoided that situation with better information-sourcing tools or deeper industry knowledge, but that’s a big requirement for someone who was barely 21 and knew little about the profession.
In general, early to mid-career professionals are the ones who tend to be vocal about work conditions.
They are right to be vocal about this. Wasting time when you’re young is worse than wasting time when you’re older. The profession is doing a disservice by not giving these criticisms about working conditions the consideration they deserve.
Complaints begin as questions about expectations, then they morph into peer venting sessions, and then they become whispers. They become whispers because it becomes apparent others have either accepted the status quo or don’t care to change it.
Do you care enough? If so, what are you doing about it?