Dante Alighieri is often credited for saying that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain neutrality in times of great moral crisis. I say he is right even in the context of labor.

Contrary to popular belief, it’s not those on top who are always at fault in a failing system. Many of our problems in the workplace and in society root from the ineffectiveness, inaction, and selfishness of those whom I call “middlemen” (or middlewomen) or those who are in the middle of the “workchain.”

But who are they? Middlemen are the ones who supposedly bridge the invisible gap between those who lead and those who are led. They are those who relay orders to, lead, or represent a unit, a department, an organization, an institution, or a union. They are those who have authority over us at the baseline. We answer to them while they answer to a higher authority or the authority calling the shots in the entirety of the work’s overall operations. They are the ones who supposedly negotiate for us, if not advance or champion our interests. In other words, they are the bosses who have their own bosses.

There’s a good reason they receive higher compensation, and sometimes a notched-up level of respect, than any of us at the foot of the workchain: Their job is not a walk in the park; it’s not for the faint of heart. When they fail, we wail. When we do, they often face the crisis of taking it up with their boss to do something about what ills us at the bottom of the echelon. And it’s not their job to hurt us even more or pacify us when we cry; they have to solve problems and manage dilemmas.

I will always remember what a good colleague and friend of mine told me once over coffee. “Alam mo, sir, mahirap talaga ang trabaho ng nasa middle.” My simple and unapologetic reply: “Umalis siya kung hindi niya kaya mag-handle ng tao.”

If a middleman can’t live up to their function, somebody else surely can. They could even consider a demotion (that is, going back to the bottom where they don’t have to negotiate for their people). But while they are a step or two higher than any of us in the organizational chart, and especially when they want to climb higher up the professional ladder, we expect them to play the part.

The problem is, we think that a piece of authority is absolute. I’m telling you it’s not when it borders on slavery or slavery-like situations. The last time I checked, slavery was a crime. No one owns a worker or an employee. As much as we are answerable to them, they are accountable to us. Those who pass on to us orders their superiors pass on to them are the ones in a very critical and crucial position. Because they are supposed to maintain balance. They are supposed to filter heavily packed burdens before it gets down to us. They either say yes or no to sometimes baseless and, more often than not, ambiguous instructions on our behalf. The heavier the burden that ends up on those at the baseline, the less effective middlemen are in filtering these unnecessary stressors.

What is more problematic is, most of the time they tell us their hands are tied or their mouths are gagged when we turn to them for help. But if not them, who can we expect to do the job of speaking up or communicating our work-related concerns? And when we “go behind their back” or we “bypass” them, they feel slapped in the face.

They feel useless the moment we decide to take action, thus invalidating the very reason for their existence in the chain of command. It hurts their ego. They think that we’re sending them a message that we are better than them, when all what we want is a better system to be put in place so that we can do our jobs well.

But is it our responsibility to make them feel that way after showing them decency and giving them the opportunity to act on our concerns, on which they decide not to lift a finger? Aren’t they the ones who choose silence and inaction? The last time I checked, they were supposed to be accountable to us, not the other way around (most of the time). There’s a reason why they expect us to go through them before going to the real boss. It is their job, but they don’t do it. And when somebody goes straight to those who can solve issues and problems, they get mad.

This leads us to the third point. They choose themselves over us. The moment they decide to take no action or to remain silent about what needs to be addressed, they choose themselves for fear of possible consequences or the higher authority’s wrath being cast upon them. But it should not be their business to choose themselves. When they handle people, it shouldn’t be their business to fear being put in the hot seat by their superiors — because it is part of, if not their, job. They are middlemen after all.

Those in the middle evade doing their jobs by turning a questionable order into their own, when they should be the one safeguarding the welfare and rights of their subordinates. They evade doing their jobs by refusing to listen to those they govern. They evade doing their jobs when they succumb to self-interest instead of drawing the line between urgent and “made-urgent” workload, between the reasonable “other related duties” and the unreasonable “all other made-related duties,” and many others.

What are we to do then? Watch those in the middle and hold them to account. If they find it too hot where they are, maybe they were not made to endure hell and might as well leave for the sake of those who depend on them. That’s the only way we can ensure getting rid of the evil in the middle. – Rappler.com

Marvin L. Senobio is a public school teacher at San Jose Del Monte National Trade School.