The New York Times has discovered that some jobs contain long stretches of doing very little, which is apparently so destabilizing that it requires a full think piece. The language here is doing heavy lifting: what used to be called “underemployment” or “your company has nothing for you” is now repackaged as a personal struggle to “handle” a light workload.
A practitioner in gynecology admits the role leaves her with empty hours she cannot fill. The piece frames this as an existential problem rather than the obvious result of being overstaffed or underutilized. No one asks why the position exists if it generates so little actual work. Instead the focus stays on the individual’s inability to enjoy the paid downtime.
The accompanying sidebar about whether that same practitioner should see one of her own colleagues for care only deepens the awkwardness. It is the workplace equivalent of asking if the person running the empty cafeteria should also cook their own lunch.
Corporate spin has mastered the art of turning structural waste into individual therapy fodder. Employees are now expected to perform gratitude for sinecures while quietly wondering why the role was created in the first place.
