The Essence of Work Dignity: A Cornerstone for business Health.

I wrote this piece for a former employer. God save our souls. 

Title: The Essence of Work Dignity: A Cornerstone for Business Health 

Introduction: In today's dynamic business landscape, where competition is fierce and innovation is the key to success, the concept of work dignity stands out as a crucial determinant of organizational health. Work dignity encompasses the intrinsic value and respect accorded to individuals in their professional endeavors, reflecting not only on personal satisfaction but also on the overall vitality of the business. This short list of comments delves into the profound significance of work dignity, elucidating its pivotal role in fostering employee morale, productivity, and organizational well-being. Motivated leadership at the highest levels sets the tone for the entire organization, fostering a culture of respect, fairness, and engagement, leading to higher productivity and overall job satisfaction. Additionally, it creates a ripple effect, influencing how employees treat each other and the company's reputation in the industry.

The Foundation of Work Dignity: At the heart of work dignity lies the recognition of individuals as valuable contributors to the organization's mission and goals. It transcends mere compensation or job titles, encompassing the acknowledgment of each employee's unique skills, expertise, and potential. When employees feel valued and respected for their contributions, they are more likely to develop a sense of purpose and commitment to their work, leading to heightened job satisfaction and engagement. 

Enhancing Employee Morale and Productivity: Work dignity serves as a catalyst for nurturing a positive work environment characterized by mutual respect, trust, and collaboration. Employees who perceive their work as dignified are inherently motivated to perform at their best, striving for excellence in their endeavors. Moreover, when individuals feel empowered to voice their opinions and ideas without fear of retribution, it fosters a culture of innovation and creativity, driving organizational growth and success. 

Fostering Loyalty and Retention: Businesses prioritizing work dignity are better positioned to attract and retain top talent in today's competitive labor market. Employees are more likely to remain loyal to organizations that recognize and appreciate their contributions, leading to reduced turnover rates and associated costs. Furthermore, a workforce characterized by high morale and job satisfaction becomes a magnet for prospective employees, enhancing the company's reputation as an employer of choice. 

Safeguarding Organizational Reputation: A business's reputation is intricately linked to its treatment of employees and adherence to principles of work dignity. Instances of workplace discrimination, harassment, or exploitation can tarnish the company's image and lead to public scrutiny, legal repercussions, and financial losses. Conversely, organizations that prioritize work dignity attract top talent and earn the trust and loyalty of customers, investors, and other stakeholders, bolstering their long-term viability and sustainability. 

Micro-management can erode work dignity in several ways, and there are telltale signs that indicate its detrimental effects on employees’ sense of value, autonomy, and respect in the workplace: 

1. Lack of autonomy: When employees are constantly scrutinized, and their every action is subject to approval or intervention by a manager, it signals a lack of trust in their abilities. This undermines their sense of autonomy and self-efficacy, leading to feelings of disempowerment and frustration. 

2. Decreased morale and motivation: Micro-management breeds a culture of fear and anxiety, where employees are afraid to take initiative or make decisions without explicit instructions from their superiors. As a result, morale and motivation suffer, as individuals feel undervalued and demotivated in their roles. 

3. Limited opportunities for growth and development: Micro-management stifles creativity, innovation, and learning opportunities, as employees are not given the freedom to explore new ideas or approaches. This can hinder professional growth and development, as individuals feel constrained by rigid guidelines and directives. 

4. Increased stress and burnout: Constant oversight and micromanagement can lead to heightened levels of stress and burnout among employees, as they feel pressured to meet unrealistic expectations and deadlines. This can have serious implications for their mental and physical well-being, as well as their overall job satisfaction and engagement. 

5. High turnover rates: Micro-management is often associated with high turnover rates, as employees become disillusioned and disengaged with their work environment. When individuals feel micromanaged, they may seek opportunities elsewhere where they can have more autonomy and freedom to excel in their roles. 

6. Micromanaging business partners: Micromanaging business partners can strain relationships and hinder collaboration. It creates an atmosphere of distrust and can lead to resentment. Moreover, it may discourage partners from bringing their creativity and innovation to the table, ultimately affecting the quality of the partnership and the outcomes. Trust and open communication are vital for successful collaborations between manufacturing and third-party contractors who design, build, maintain, and provide the all-important quality assurance aspect for a profitable project

*By being mindful of these signs, businesses can recognize when work dignity is being compromised by micro-management, take proactive steps to address underlying issues and foster a more empowering and respectful work environment. 

How do we identify micro-managers? Identifying micro-managers and managers who take credit for subordinates’ success or other department contributions can involve observing their behavior and communication patterns. 

1. Excessive Control: Micro-managers often control tasks and processes excessively, frequently checking in on minute details and making changes without consulting their team. 

2. Lack of Trust: They may demonstrate a lack of trust in their team members’ abilities, constantly monitoring and questioning their work rather than empowering them to take ownership. 

3. Credit Hogging: Watch out for instances where the manager consistently takes credit for the successes of their team members or other departments without acknowledging their contributions. 

4. Communication Style: Micro-managers tend to dictate rather than collaborate. They may give orders rather than engaging in open dialogue or seeking input from their team. 

5. Failure to Delegate: Managers who struggle to delegate tasks effectively may be prone to micro-management tendencies, wanting to maintain control over every aspect of a project. 

6. Blame Culture: Pay attention to how they handle mistakes or setbacks. Micro-managers may blame others for failures while taking credit for successes, creating a toxic work environment. 

7. Feedback Loop: Consider how they provide feedback. Micro-managers often focus on criticism rather than constructive feedback, undermining confidence and morale. 

8. Micromanaging Tools: Some micro-managers rely heavily on tools like excessive reporting, tracking software, or constant status updates to monitor their team’s progress rather than trusting their judgment. 

Identifying these signs can help employees and organizations address and mitigate the negative impacts of micro-management. 

Conclusion: The notion of work dignity transcends mere economic transactions, embodying the fundamental respect and value accorded to individuals in the workplace. By fostering an environment where employees feel valued, respected, and empowered, businesses can unlock the full potential of their workforce and drive sustainable growth and success. Embracing work dignity as a core tenet of organizational culture is morally imperative and indispensable for the health and prosperity of businesses in the 21st century. Work dignity is worth fighting for because it acknowledges every individual's intrinsic value and worth. It ensures fair treatment, respect, and recognition of one's contributions regardless of socioeconomic status. Fighting for work dignity promotes equality, fosters a sense of belonging, and creates a more just and humane society. We are only on this earth for a very short time. Treat each other as brothers and sisters, as family, if you will. 

Reference: 

Attract talents | STORYBOROS. https://www.storyboros.com/attract-talents-to-your-company

Roh, T., Min-Jik, K., Min-Jik, K., Hong, Y., & Hong, Y. (2023). Does Servant Leadership Decrease Bad Behaviors? The Mediating Role of Psychological Safety and the Moderating Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility. Sustainability, 15(22), 15901.

“Democracy Explained, the Constitution Evaluated — and the Second Amendment Omitted”

Joseph Filco has taught economics and American government and writes commentary for the Williamsburg Gazette. He is relatively well-versed, and while I sometimes disagree with his conclusions, I often write my response here because both the Williamsburg Gazette and the Daily Press routinely refuse to print opposing discourse.

In his recent article dated February 10, 2024, Filco raises an important constitutional question: Did our Founding Fathers intend to elevate material needs into rights, or did they envision a system of ordered liberty and limited government whose proper function was to protect the rights of self-reliant people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Democrats, he notes, often point to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to justify federal taxation in the name of the “general welfare.” But what, precisely, is the general welfare?

In my view, the general welfare is limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution as written — such as providing for national defense or maintaining a standing army — not the provision of welfare benefits, food assistance, or federalized school funding for individuals. Those responsibilities were intended to rest primarily with the states, not the federal government.

Democracy is explained, the Constitution evaluated — yet one critical omission stands out: the Second Amendment.

Filco’s article is thoughtful, though simplified for a general audience — which may be necessary, given that many Americans no longer understand that we are a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. The Founding Fathers were deeply skeptical of direct democracy, which they understood as rule by majority passion rather than reasoned law. This is why they established safeguards such as the Electoral College — a system now routinely criticized by modern Democrats, some of whom still claim an election was “stolen” because the popular vote did not prevail. One must ask whether rejecting a lawful constitutional outcome is truly respect for democracy at all.

The Second Amendment remains one of the most debated provisions of our Constitution. Passed in 1789 as part of the Bill of Rights, it is often described as a single sentence open to interpretation. But is it?

When examining historical grammar, we find that the Founders frequently employed long, comma-separated sentences — a common structure in 18th-century English. Modern readers often misinterpret this structure by applying contemporary grammatical assumptions. When parsed correctly, the Second Amendment does not condition the right to bear arms solely on militia service. Rather, it recognizes multiple related principles: the existence of a militia, the individual right to keep and bear arms, and the command that such rights shall not be infringed.

I raised this grammatical and historical interpretation with a constitutional officer in the James City County Police Department during my participation in the Citizens Police Academy. This officer, trained to advise other officers on constitutional matters, agreed with the interpretation.

Yet modern liberals continue to argue for disarming the individual citizen, a trend we see clearly today in the Virginia General Assembly. At the same time, these same legislators often reject meaningful sentencing reforms that would deter violent crime — such as enhanced penalties for using firearms in the commission of crimes. The focus is placed on restricting lawful ownership rather than punishing unlawful use.

This inconsistency reflects a broader pattern. Modern Democratic leadership increasingly favors centralized federal authority when it advances their policy goals, yet invokes states’ rights when federal law becomes inconvenient. Immigration policy provides a clear example: states are told they may not enforce federal border laws, while the federal government selectively declines to enforce those same laws itself. Marijuana policy reveals the same contradiction. Although cannabis remains illegal under federal statute, Democrats routinely defend state legalization in the name of autonomy. This is not principled federalism — it is convenience-driven governance.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court clarified the Second Amendment in 2008, affirming that it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms — a right some on the political left continue to resist.

January 6 is frequently cited as evidence of a threat to democracy. Yet, like the “mostly peaceful” protests of 2020, it was a mass political demonstration in which the overwhelming majority of participants were nonviolent. In both cases, isolated criminal acts occurred — and those individuals should be prosecuted as individuals. What is troubling is the selective application of collective guilt. Entire movements are condemned or excused depending not on conduct, but on political alignment.

The people’s power has undeniably diminished over time, as the federal government has expanded into nearly every aspect of daily life — often choosing which laws to enforce and which to ignore. The Civil War settled the question of federal supremacy over state law, which is why the federal government sued Texas for attempting to enforce federal border statutes. Yet selective enforcement undermines the very legitimacy such supremacy requires.

Peaceful protest should not become a crime simply because it reaches the steps of power. Nor should riots that burn cities be excused because they align with approved narratives. A constitutional republic survives only when laws are applied equally, rights are protected individually, and liberty is not conditioned on political favor.

“Why Nitrogen and Carbon Offset Taxes Should Be Reconsidered”

Response to Skip Stiles on Carbon Taxes and Environmental Offsets

February 2024

Skip Stiles wrote in the Daily Press advocating for a carbon tax, modeled in part on environmental offset programs, as a means to reduce carbon emissions. I appreciate the intent behind your argument. However, based on direct professional experience, I must disagree with the approach and caution against repeating mistakes Virginia has already made with nitrogen offset credits.

During the Obama era, Virginia implemented a nitrogen offset credit program for wastewater treatment plants—both centralized and decentralized—with the stated goal of protecting our waterways. In theory, the program sounded reasonable. In practice, it has often produced the opposite result.

Nitrogen offset credits are expensive and scarce, largely controlled by a small number of large urban wastewater treatment plants. When new or upgraded treatment is needed—particularly in rural or legacy communities—the cost of purchasing credits becomes prohibitive. As a result, rural communities are disproportionately burdened, while urban centers, which generate the largest nitrogen and phosphorus loads through stormwater runoff, face comparatively less pressure.

Local leaders are often reluctant to raise taxes in dense urban areas to address stormwater and nutrient loading. Instead, responsibility is deferred, and regulators’ hands become tied. The result is regulatory gridlock and continued pollution—not because solutions don’t exist, but because the financial mechanism prevents them from being implemented.

This problem is especially acute for aging communities built before 1960 that rely on decentralized wastewater treatment. Today, we can reliably achieve end-of-pipe limits near 10 mg/L BOD, 10 mg/L TSS, and total nitrogen in the 15–20 mg/L range. Yet these communities are still required to purchase credits to offset the remaining load—often on a recurring basis. Large urban treatment facilities understandably hoard credits for future needs, and when credits are offered, they are frequently unaffordable. The result is stagnation, not environmental improvement.

I speak from experience. In October 2024, I presented a paper on this very issue at the NOWRA Conference in Hampton, Virginia.

It is for these reasons that I caution against a carbon tax structured around offset credits. Such systems tend to regulate through financial pressure rather than measurable outcomes, imposing costs on average consumers while producing little global benefit. Even if the United States achieved carbon neutrality tomorrow, global emissions would continue to rise as China and India expand coal-fired power generation at record pace.

Environmental tradeoffs are also routinely ignored. Offshore wind development raises unresolved concerns about right-whale mortality and vessel traffic. Large-scale solar installations remove vegetation and disrupt ecosystems. Every proposed solution carries environmental costs. The question is not whether tradeoffs exist, but who bears them—and whether they meaningfully improve outcomes.

I will add one observation grounded in published research. NASA has documented that large-scale groundwater withdrawal has contributed to measurable shifts in Earth’s rotational axis, known as polar motion. According to NASA researchers, the redistribution of mass caused by groundwater extraction has altered Earth’s axis in recent decades. While this finding does not, by itself, explain climate change, it demonstrates that human land- and water-use practices can influence planetary systems in ways not fully captured by carbon-only climate models. It is reasonable to ask whether such physical changes—alongside atmospheric factors—may contribute to regional climate variation over time.¹

I care deeply about environmental stewardship. But experience tells me that credit-exchange systems often become revenue mechanisms rather than solutions. If you are open to it, I would welcome a conversation. I believe my experience could help inform approaches that actually improve environmental outcomes—without repeating the unintended consequences we are already living with.

Respectfully,
Reed Johnson

---

Reference

¹ NASA Earth Science research on groundwater depletion and polar motion:
https://www.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/groundwater-pumping-and-earths-tilt/

A Poem: Rock Rider

I was working on my next book today. I had been posting Facebook pictures of deep space from our orbiting telescopes. This poem came to me after months of rolling around in my head it just came to me. I wrote the poem in its basic form and then used AI and Grammarly Pro to enhance the poem. I made changes where changes seem to fit with a few literary changes. So enjoy. Copyrighted 1-28-2024. Reed Johnson. 

Upon a rock, we ride through cosmic streams,
Earth, our vessel, in vast galactic dreams.
In Milky Way's embrace, a speck so small,
Life's tale unfolds, a fleeting, cosmic call.

Aboard this orb, where oceans gently sway,
Mere riders on a journey, night and day.
In insignificance, our stories unfold,
A dance of time, a cosmic threshold.

Beneath the stars, our home takes flight,
A ball of wonder in the endless night.
Yet, humbled we stand, 'midst galaxies grand,
A mere breath in the cosmos, grains of sand.

Through eons passing, whispers of our lore,
On this celestial ride, forevermore.
Rock rider, we journey, our tales untold,
In the cosmic saga, our narrative unfolds.

Dispelling false historical narratives portrayed by Democrats in an election cycle.

My discourse on Ms. Laura Hill's commentary found in the Williamsburg Gazette, January 20 2024. Ms. Hill is the executive director of Virginia Racial Healing Institute, which manages the "Coming to the table-historic triangle." Ms. Hills' political attack on Nikki Haley was a most unfortunate decision in an election year. If Ms. Hill is intent on all of us, noting her own goal of being "inclusive," then her commentary failed that mission, and I suspect there are those of us who will never be included in her vision. Not based on skin color but on morals, ethics, political affiliation, and the ability to think. To see both sides of a social issue. In reality, Ms. Hill and I agree that skin color should never be a factor in an action or decision. To base a decision on skin color is immoral in my book of ethics. However, during the past week, in the commentary I read, Dr. Martin Luther King's commentary on judging others based on the content of their character was sorely missed in media coverage and commentary, and I have to wonder why?

This idea of using American slave history to divide our nation every election cycle is worth pointing to the extremes Democrats will go to hold power and garner the black vote. For this nation to move forward and past historical slavery in America, we must stop blaming white people, and that is just what Ms. Hill did in her commentary so shallowly veiled in the darkness of describing Colonalist Europeans as slavers. She blamed white people. Ms. Hill used skin color. Ms. Hill goes on to attack a presidential candidate, and of course, this was surrounded by a false narrative of "the cause of the civil war."  A catch-22 question that, no matter how Nikki Haley answered, would draw ire. A typical Democrat ploy to divide a nation for votes. It seems to me the Democrats cannot stand on their economic record, border security record, inflation record, green policy record, and war record. No, all the Democrats have left is historical slavery to garner votes.

Addressing Laura Hills' attack on Nikki Haley, using simplistic history idealisms, and spewing her false narratives do no one any good when trying to heal a community. Inclusion and equity are what Ms Hill is aiming for, leaving out diversity or DIE, a left-wing calling card. Inclusion means everyone, including Ms. Haley, but no, Ms. Hill attacks. Ms. Hill only seems to want a just community that fits her narrative and disallows all others with whom she disagrees, a Democrat and media calling card. I could write a book, and as luck would have it, many have already been written; slavery was "a" reason for the Civil War, but not the only reason. This is the correct answer you are looking for. If you hate those "English Colonists" who happen to be white people, who you say brought slavery upon your people, then you only need to look in the mirror as to who sold your ancestors into slavery; you will find, in some cases, they look a lot like you. Your simplistic approach to slavery is an uneducated narrative, and the people should be warned. Laying your argument at the feet of the "main reason" for the civil war is a simplistic, uneducated approach to political theater.

"Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South and the Civil War." Anyone can find this book on Amazon if you want to know why the Confederates fought, as history is rarely told truthfully by the victors. I am not saying this book is right or wrong, but to say there are always two sides to every story. Thinking is hard, and inclusion is more problematic when only one voice is in your head. To be able to think, one must have two voices of reason in your head to judge the pros and cons of any topic. This is where Ms Hill needs to improve. It's where most of us fail and thus conflict. 

Slavery is an awful social construct, yet there is even more slavery today in this world than in the 1600s-1800s; we don't see Ms. Hill addressing today's world slavery issues in her ancestral land; no, Ms. Hill chooses to address history. History is, of course, something no one can change. Dr. Walter Williams would be turning over in his grave after comments from Laura Hill, who has now entered political commentary. If you were to be inclusive of Dr. Thomas Sowell, he would tell you the same: For good or bad, Ms. Hill seeks power to force change, which is Marxism or equality for all.  

 

To live in peace is a false narritive

The Daily Press editors wrote an opinion on Saturday, Nov. 4th, 2023. This opinion concerns an interpretation of peace. Basically, it is calling for a cease-fire in Gaza for the sake of civilians. We are now seeing the Democrat Party's alliance with Hamas and Palestinians who chant death to Israel and America. These Democrats are calling for a cease-fire, an opportunity to allow vicious killers to run and hide with American hostages in tow. Now is not the time to slump your shoulders and look defeated; now is the time to throw your shoulders back, hold your head high, and fight the demons who attacked Israel. Who will, in time, garner an attack on American soil again. 

To live in peace is a false narrative.

Humans are tribal by nature. If you don't get anything else out of this letter, humans are naturally tribal. If you don't get anything else out of this letter, Arabs, for the most part, have not and, like other tribes, assimilated well into the White American dream. We only need to look to Minnesota and New York City to see the anti-American protest; these weekend warriors hate not only Israel but also America, the land in which these Arabs live, Arabs we gave a home to. Ultimately, humans are tribal no matter where they live or how well they prosper. Even today, serving as an observation, Blacks and Whites who came from tribes to America, some forced and some voluntarily, are still tribal by nature after over 400 years of being transplanted into the new world, where native Americans themselves lived in tribes, a people with common ancestry, a native people, lived in tribes and still do in a country where tribes still define five boroughs of New York City. "New York has five boroughs: The Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island and Manhattan. These five New York boroughs all have a different vibe and interesting culture. Each borough is different, " says their tourism website. Hampton is tribal based on economic outcomes, where different parts of the city offer different vibes and cultures. 

These cultures, tribes, and people live in peace in America. It is one of the few places in the world where we live in relative peace. A peace, until a black man is shot by a police officer, noting a white man shot by a police officer garners no media attention, no destruction of cities, no protest, no attacks on white people in the streets, no assassinations of police officers. A peace, until deep hatred embedded in Arabs for the hatred of Jews rears its ugly head in protest and shouts for the destruction of America and Isreal and on our soil.

The truth that the Daily Press does not understand is that in the case of Arabs vs. Israelis and America,  you need to pick a side. Brian and Kris cannot ride the fence of Democrats in this case. There comes a time in war when you must choose a side. If the Arabs win, Jews will be slaughtered by the millions. Americans like yourselves sitting on the fence will still be Americans, and Arabs will target you meant for destruction, or do you not remember Charlie Hebdo? I advise you, do not ride the fence, Daily Press; some but not all Arabs will not care where you sit; they only see the destruction of America and Israel. The fact is Palestinians choose their leaders, and those leaders are Hamas. Hamas and other terror organizations have lasted long enough with their threats and hate. Civilian deaths are just a causality of war. As bad as that is in a time of war, it's better there than here. Pick a side, Kris and Brian. Will it be America or the terror group Hamas? 

A brief history of Israel, Judea and Palestine. Who is the real enemy?

History will not be told, so here you go. The media will not tell the truth. Our politicians will lie to you.

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution), which would divide Great Britain's former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948, when the British mandate was scheduled to end. In May 1946, Truman announced his approval of a recommendation to admit 100,000 displaced persons into Palestine, and in October, he publicly declared his support for creating a Jewish state. This is the end of World War II, and the spoils go to the victors. Remember, six million Jews were slaughtered by Nazi Germany, and at the time, it was thought that the Jewish community needed its own state, providence, country, or whatever you want to call it. What better place than the Jewish people's traditional homeland since the Iron Age?

Throughout 1947, the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine examined the Palestinian question and recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state as it was during the Iron Age. The Iron Age lasted from roughly 1200 to 500 B.C.E. This was to be a great reset from a historical perspective of who was there first. The Mandate for Palestine was a League of Nations mandate. The League of Nations, you may recall, was the precursor to the United Nations. This provided a mandate following WWI for the British administration of the territories of Palestine and Transjordan, both of which had been conceded by the Ottoman Empire following the end of World War I in 1918. The Lord knows we don't teach this anymore in our schools.

This territory was put under British administration following the fall of the Ottoman Empire. This was an attempt to keep the peace and local warring factions under control who were feared to turn on each other. This area of the world has been under foreign Empire control since 539 BCE. During the Iron Age, two related Israelite kingdoms, Israel and Judah, controlled much of Palestine, while the Philistines occupied its southern coast. The Assyrians conquered the region in the 8th century B.C.E., then the Babylonians in c. 601 BCE, followed by the Persians who conquered the Babylonian Empire in 539 BCE. We have yet to get to the Roman and Greek Empires! I point out that this region has been under control and in constant occupation for a long time. I point to the Iron Age of control, which was initially Israel and Judah, not Palestinians.

The mandate was assigned to Britain by the San Remo conference in April 1920, after France's concession in the 1918 Clemenceau–Lloyd George Agreement of the previously-agreed "international administration" of Palestine under the Sykes–Picot Agreement. Transjordan was added to the mandate after the Arab Kingdom in Damascus was toppled by the French in the Franco-Syrian War. Civil administration began in Palestine and Transjordan in July 1920 and April 1921, respectively, and the mandate was in force from September 29, 1923, to May 15, 1948, and May 25, 1946, respectively.

If Iran and the Palestinians have an issue, take it to the United Nations, which created the great reset with resolution 181. Revenge, war, terrorism, and sore losers are not the way forward and will only result in more human lives lost. The truth is Iran, who chants for the death of Isreal, also chants for the deaths of Americans. Our true enemy is Iran and its proxy war through terrorist organizations like Hamas, not the Palestinians.