The nature of the job really sucks. This is not unusual; there are lots of sucky jobs. So my concern is really whether the employees were informed what they would be exposed to.
Also I’m wondering why they didn’t just quit. Of course the answer is money, but if they knew what they were getting into (or what they were already into), and chose to continue, why should they be awarded more money?
Finally, if they can’t count on employees in poor countries to self-select out when the job became life-impacting, maybe they should make it a temporary gig, eg only allow people to do it for short periods of time.
My out-of-the-box idea is: maybe companies that need this function could interview with an eye towards selecting psychopaths. This is not a joke; why not select people who are less likely to be emotionally affected? I’m not sure anyone has ever done this before and I also don’t know if such people would be likely to be inspired by the images, which would make this idea a terrible one. My point is find ways to limit the harm that the job causes to people, perhaps by changing how people interact with the job since the nature of the job doesn’t seem likely to change.
So you're expecting these people to have the deep knowledge of human psychology to know ahead of time that this is likely to cause them long term PTSD, and the impact that will have on their lives, versus simply something they will get over a month after quitting?
I don’t think it takes any special knowledge of human psychology to understand that horrific images can cause emotional trauma. I think it’s a basic due diligence question that when considering establishing such a position, one should consult literature and professionals to discover what impact there might be and what might be done to minimize it.
The nature of the job really sucks. This is not unusual; there are lots of sucky jobs. So my concern is really whether the employees were informed what they would be exposed to.
Also I’m wondering why they didn’t just quit. Of course the answer is money, but if they knew what they were getting into (or what they were already into), and chose to continue, why should they be awarded more money?
Finally, if they can’t count on employees in poor countries to self-select out when the job became life-impacting, maybe they should make it a temporary gig, eg only allow people to do it for short periods of time.
My out-of-the-box idea is: maybe companies that need this function could interview with an eye towards selecting psychopaths. This is not a joke; why not select people who are less likely to be emotionally affected? I’m not sure anyone has ever done this before and I also don’t know if such people would be likely to be inspired by the images, which would make this idea a terrible one. My point is find ways to limit the harm that the job causes to people, perhaps by changing how people interact with the job since the nature of the job doesn’t seem likely to change.