- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I have a problem with "rankism" as a term, in that it sort of implies that there's no justification for increased privileges as one ascends the ladder. Although we've surely gone way past the limits in the US regarding executive compensation, etc, I don't think it's unreasonable that the CEO gets a nicer office than the intern. I realize that this isn't what the Mr. Fuller is talking about, but I think the term is badly chosen because this is what it implies.
But more importantly, why do we need to coin a new expression for this? Treating subordinates (or anyone else, for that matter) badly is rude, plain and simple. There are tons of other synonyms that might apply: "abusive" comes to mind. So why do we need to apply a new word for a behavior that already has a name? Adding a new "ism" to the lexicon is going to cause the business community to roll its collective eyes and dismiss the problem. I don't think accusing people of "rankism" is going to get them to do what they should do - be polite.
Sean
