I wanted to share a letter of resignation I wrote many years ago to a company who shall remain nameless lest they be known. I left, long after I should have due to their outright corruption and authoritarianism. They were, without a doubt, the most heavy-handed, tyrannical organization I have ever associated with.

I share this for the benefit of anyone who has or was ever stuck in a similar situation, as a way to identify and process the feelings of frustration one feels in these type of jobs. For anyone who has worked hard and received punishment, not reward and recognition, this one is for you. I hope it is of some benefit to you. Enjoy.

To the management at XYZ Company

   As a response to the many conflicts and disagreements I have been party to, I present, for your consideration, the following letter of explanation. I would be grateful if you would grant me the respect of reading this in its entirety as I spent some considerable time and energy in writing it.

   At the outset, I will state on no uncertain terms that those who will make a deliberate attempt to misunderstand me so that they may subsequently misrepresent my positions are of no interest to me. But to those of you in whom there exists and honest desire to know and to understand; to attempt to bridge the gap that exists between labor and management, then it is you with whom I will attempt to reason.

   As you are by now no doubt aware, I have left your organization and only regret not doing so much sooner. I found in my two and a half years at your organization that this was an authoritarian and corrupt hierarchy. Welding skill counted for nothing; political skill was everything. This was and has always been a culture of nepotism where advancement was determined by who was friends with whom or who went to college with whom or who belongs to which particular religion. Positions of absolute authority were doled out like candy based on the arbitrary whims of those who had previously secured power. I can think of only a couple people in positions of power and authority who had actually earned it through professional experience. The idea that one should earn an opportunity to lead seems non-existent in your hierarchy. Has it ever dawned on a single one of you to ask “why” others want positions of power? “Why” exactly did some want the position as lead welder or welding foreman? Might be useful to ask and consider the possible motives for those vying for positions of power. I believe it was Plato who suggested that it was only the man a little reluctant to accept power that should be trusted with it. I would suggest that many of my would-be competition merely wanted power for power’s sake.  Power over others is a troubling motive. As Ayn Rand observed, “power lust is a weed that grows in the abandoned lots of a vacant mind!”

   I wanted the position of weld lead and any “power” that went with it, because of what I was capable of accomplishing with it. I would have made it my mission to improve the quality in the welding and metal fabrication within your organization (sorely needed by the way) and would have used no more power and authority than was necessary to achieve that end. In other words, power was a means to an end for me, not an end in itself. Perhaps this would be one reason for this charge of “attitude” that has been leveled at me innumerable times. I do not accept the absolute authority of those who have, through political skill, conned their way into positions of power and authority over me. Those who can’t do what I can, who do not have the skill or experience that I do yet want to exert tyrannical control over my work. Perhaps this is what you consider “attitude”? If a weld I make fails, it is I who will suffer the consequences of it, both in immediate employment and professional reputation. For that reason, I insist on a certain level of autonomy and independence in my craft. If you find this to be unacceptable, or evidence of this mystic little “attitude” concept of yours then feel free to make good on your threat to find another welder. These are my terms, and I will work on no other.

   And, while I am on the topic, what is “attitude” anyway? Seemingly, anything you wish it to be at any given moment in time. A bottomless grab bag of whatever you need it to be in any given situation. Any question you don’t have an immediate answer for; well, that’s “attitude”! Any concern you don’t wish to be confronted with; just more “attitude”! As this concept is so open-ended and arbitrary as to be virtually meaningless; impossible to define and therefore impossible to defend, it is used not only to end any possible dissent or discussion but to disqualify anyone who would question anything. It is a very insidious anti-concept used with reckless righteousness by insecure and incompetent authoritarian managers. When I hear a manager use the concept “attitude” without cause or evidence, it tells me a great deal more about the man (or woman) saying it than it does about its intended victim. It becomes a way for a corrupt, incompetent (same thing) manager to justify and rationalize the most abhorrent treatment of those in his charge. Send someone home early and deprive them of a day’s pay on an arbitrary whim; perfectly fine; after all, he has an “attitude”. Anything goes on any basis by sufficiently villainizing anyone who would dare question the absolutism of your precious authority. As an aside, I would submit that the more un-earned the authority, the more precarious the manager’s hold on it, the more of this sort of tyrannical behavior you are likely to witness. The man who has earned his position has no need to engage in such behavior.

“Distrust all those in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!” – Friedreich Nietzsche.

   Ayn Rand suggested, correctly I believe, that, “no man is a threat to any other if he can eliminate the irrational from his thinking.” Irrational, as defined by not seeking the unearned; not attempting to fake or manipulate reality in any way. I believe that this is the central reason for the treatment I received, and the accusations made against me. I was, simply put, an existential threat to managers who had not earned their power over me. I was and am more qualified to manage welding operations than any other individual within your organization. If you disagree, please provide evidence. I will compare resumes with anyone in the room as evidence of this assertion.

   Perhaps it is my skill and ability that earned me not recognition and opportunity in your hierarchy, but resentment, contempt, and scorn. As a competent and skilled craftsman, I have no need of a “manager” to direct my every step. I manage myself, as evidenced by the quality of work I have provided you with and was glad to do so. How then does a corrupt manager seek to justify his desire to exert power and influence over me? Gosh, I don’t know, maybe the “attitude” concept is useful to such a manager. It is necessary to villainize those you wish to mistreat in order to justify your absurd behavior. Only in doing so can you feel righteous and just in your treatment of those you wish to treat poorly and hold in contempt. It is for this reason that I contend that authoritarian hierarchies are inherently corrupt and doomed to fail. Authoritarianism is inherently a destructive ethic and counterproductive in welding operations. Welding, as much as any activity I could think of, is an act that requires a certain level of autonomy and independence.

   Independence brings me around to the necessity of addressing another troubling ethic in your culture. I have heard the word “team” bandied about with almost the same frequency as “attitude”. This concept of “team” is used as a moral justification to condemn producers and force them to take up the slack for the lackies in your organization. When I hear “team”, I feel as though I have just been issued a prison sentence as I am now condemned to pull other’s weight. I can no longer work for my own pride and sense of accomplishment; I must now serve the incompetence of others. After all, we’re a team! I would suggest you be a little more careful about what you punish and what you reward and ask yourself what you stand to get less of and more of. The lacky and incompetent can rest assured that the high achievers will be forced to take up his slack. The high achiever now has to work extra to take up the slack for the failure and incompetent.

 “Any man who succeeds is your servant, any man who fails is your master.” – Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.

   I’ll take it a step further. How many people do you think you have working out there in any facet of your business working at less than fifty percent of their actual skill and ability because it is implicitly understood that if they step up and excel in their productivity, they can expect, not reward or recognition, but punishment. They are now condemned to take up the slack for the unable and underperforming. Why then would they bother? (You might consider asking yourself as to those who still do overproduce and ask yourself why.) “Team” is often used as the moral justification for a manager who, having failed to cultivate a hierarchy of merit and competence, now condemns producers to take up the slack for the shortcomings of others, often so the manager can feel very noble and virtuous for taking care of the lackies. Very cheap and cynical to be conspicuously generous with what others will be forced to provide. This may be a viable short-term policy but will prove disastrous and self-defeating over the long-term. Furthermore, this is one more example of incompetent managers sluffing off their responsibility to those in their charge. You fail to hire competent craftsmen, presumably because you have little to no understanding of how to quantify and assess welding skill and ability and now it becomes my problem. Now, you no longer need to understand how to assess welding skill and ability; simply force the high achievers to produce the extra required to offset the deficiency and if they question it, just remember, “we’re a team and don’t have an attitude.” Problem solved. Such is the state of management in the modern era and within your organization. The buck stops down the hall apparently.

   The concept of “team” makes a very critical philosophical error that few seem aware of and fewer still ever question. “Team”, “society” or “the collective”, or whichever iteration is used are merely theoretical concepts and, as such, have no place in physical reality. In reality any “team” is only as good as the individuals who comprise it. In other words, in physical reality, there is no such entity as “team” or “society”, merely any given number of individuals, not some loose aggregate. The “team”, as such has no collective consciousness, no collective volition, no collective will and no collective thought. All of these are the province of the individual, not some larger collective. There is no such thing as “group think”. Any thought arrived at as a group was merely an average of many individual thoughts. You cannot think through another’s mind any more than you can run on another’s legs, or breathe through another’s lungs, or work through another’s hands. Thought and any subsequent action is the responsibility of each man or woman alone. You might want to pay close attention to those who prattle loudest and most frequently about “team” and other similar collectivist notions and ask yourself why. (Here’s a hint; it is not the high achievers and producers who need to secure their ties to others.)

  All the welders who work in your organization, or in any energy company had to EARN their job in a state you consider problematic; the state of being alone. It was the welder, working in a state of relative isolation, who with his own independent judgement, his skill, his hand-eye coordination performed the weld that earned him his position. If said welder fails in his test or fails an excessive number of welds on the job, then it is the welder, the individual; not your precious little kumbaya team or half-wit manager who will bear responsibility and lose their job. It is the individual welder who will ultimately bear the responsibility for his errors, not some larger collective.

   To clear up preemptively any potential misunderstanding, I am not opposed to the principle of a team or to being any part of a team. My concern is the basis for the team or, more properly stated, the moral basis that forms the team. I believe that only a team based on synergistic principles is the proper moral basis for any team. Synergism being the mathematical principle that states that the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. I would love to be part of a team where we all benefit from the exchange. Voluntary trade to mutual advantage is the only “team” I want any part of. I understand that as a welder, I can do only so much alone. I need people to deliver me the materials to weld on. I may need equipment operators to set pipe and equipment for me to weld on. I need engineers to design the systems I need to weld on. We need businesspeople to buy and sell products and services, legal people to manage regulations and legal concerns. Each free to function in their own proper, chosen role. No victims, no parasites, no riders or carriers, no slaves, no masters, no sacrifice and no one collecting sacrificial offerings in the form of the labor of others. Respect and ability, not need.

   Paraphrasing Ayn Rand, I exist by my own effort, not by the alms of others. I neither make sacrifices nor accept them. I want and expect only what I may earn by my own mind and my own hands. Therefore, there are no conflicts among my desires and no victims by my chosen goals. I do not regard my well-being as the purpose of others’ lives, nor do I view the good of others as my purpose or duty and so I do not view others with a cannibal’s lust. I have earned everything I have through hard work and honest trade, and I am proud of every dollar I ever made in this manner.

   This leads me to my final point in this writing which is to address the charge that I do not “help” others. That I am selfish and uncaring and only work for my own interests. If by some miracle you are still reading this and haven’t thrown it away in disgust and righteous indignation, then allow me to explain so that there may be no misunderstanding about exactly who I am. It is true that I have refused to help many others in your organization; many of whom who are very comfortable going into your office and openly lying to you about things I have done and said in an effort to destroy me professionally, because they fear to compete with me honestly and openly. I am not an altruist. I do not give the unearned. The few who I have given to; whether it be my time, knowledge, skill or experience, I gave on the basis of friendship and respect; never sympathy or any precept of altruism. I do not accept the idea of “need” as a claim on my ability or any part of my life. I exist purely as a trader, in the honest and open exchange of value for value. I will not tolerate any relationships in my life or any part of it on any other basis. I will not be stolen from and forced to provide for those who hate me and hold me in contempt. Many of you will cry out, in righteous indignation, ‘’well we don’t need you!” If you propose to treat me as a sacrificial animal and whipping post and openly punish me for my skill and ability, then, for your sake, you had certainly better hope that this is the case. You now announce your “right” to my property and the “right” to take my tools, by force if necessary. (And may this god of yours forgive you for that one.) There can be no “right” that involves the violation of another’s rights. There can be no more a right to steal than there can be a right to kill, maim, rape or injure. A “right” that involves and is dependent on the violation of the rights of others is an absurd contradiction in terms. A “right” must be a standalone concept and cannot force an unchosen burden on others. You whine about the supposed “rights” of those in need. What about the rights of the producers? The rights of any producer must come before the rights of any in need. Without first the production, there is nothing to consume, nothing to redistribute, nothing to steal. By logical extension, the rights of any producer are fundamental and primary. Exactly what incoherent mess of contradictions must you have embraced that led you to adopt these sorts of policies based on coercion and force, when a simple “NO” from your victim was all it took to unravel the entirety of this idiotic scheme!? You expect me to accept a voluntary slavery that you have no power to enforce and then threaten to dismiss me from service when I refuse to be ruled by force and attempts at intimidation. I work to earn reward; in compensation and opportunity for advancement. The best I can hope for in your organization is to avoid punishment.

   Please be honest with me and about me in your evaluation of me. If you are truly correct in your assertions about me, why be dishonest? Isn’t that what it means to be correct? That your beliefs and ideas are commensurate with the facts of reality? When you feel the need to be dishonest, i.e., distort the facts of reality, consider checking your premises. Why do you feel the need to fake reality, if you are truly correct? To those that hate me most, and you know who you are, please ask yourself why. Was it truly something I said or did? Or something you felt? And if you felt it; why? How was my skill, ability or independence any threat to you? I’ll leave you to sort this out for yourself, with this writing as a guide should you truly wish to find the answer. After all, I will no longer be there for you to vent your frustrations on or for you to project your fears, weaknesses and general incompetence on. I am a bad person, by your ethics. I will harm you no longer. I am dangerous and to be shackled by your contradictory morality. I will endanger you no longer, nor wear your shackles. But if your assertions about me are correct, you are better off now with me gone. Myself and my supposed horrible attitude are no longer present to harm you so I suspect that the clouds have parted, the sun is shining and all your problems have now magically righted themselves.

   Lastly, I understand that I have been threatened with being effectively “blacklisted” and put on your dreaded “do not hire list” for my supposed “attitude”. I will close this writing with the full and proper spelling of my full legal name, should you wish to make good on the threat. All the best to you, whichever way you incline.

Sincerely,

Glenn Howard Weidman