I'm having some difficulty with my tax consultant, so I may have to switch consultants... we'll see.
***
I'm skipping sections to "The Geopolitical Environment."
"An important contectual factor when discussing organizational citizenship is that organizations are embedded in geopolitical units (e.g., nation-states) having their own distinctive traditions regarding citizenship (cf. Scott, 1988). This fact sets constraints on what an organization can do. For example, where slavery is outlawed, organizations cannot legally coerce members to belong. Further, where employees have the right to quit (a civil guarantee in the example by the state), employers find themselves obliged tooffer acceptable intraorganizational rights (e.g., fair treatment, competitive wages, and a voice in decisions affecting employee interests) in order to induce employees to join and stay in the organization." (P. 257)
So technically, if I had known the Austrian law and it had provided for "the right to quit", then I should have been able to invoke that law when I was offered to return to the USA because I had "culture shock" (!?!). Of course, that would have been the unusual missionary who would have come to the field equipped with the knowledge of the local employment laws. I can imagine what kind of a response that would have evoked, since they themselves had little regard for written rules. So for me to evoke the Austrian law! I wonder how they would have respnded? My first guess is that they would have called my sending mission's local office to get me out of there because they would figure I'd be a major threat if I was going to do things like evoke national laws. Even if it were arguable that the law might not apply in the situation, they might decide it wasn't worth raising a scandal over, so it would be better to just let me go quickly and quietly as I asked. It's also possible, however, that they might pull some fast ones to try to somehow silence my possible testimony back home, but I couldn't even try to conjecture what they might do.
***
"In addition to protecting civil rights (such as employment-at-will), the state may also guarantee social rights (such as minimum hourly wage rates and pension protection), and political rights (such as union organization and representation). The point of these examples is that rights exist at two levels: the geopolitical environment and the organization. If an organization violates individual rights guaranteed by the state, organizational members have recourse to the state's legal system, i.e., organizational members have recourse to the state's legal system, i.e., to exercise their societal civil rights to foce the organization to come into compliance." (p. 257)
I don't suppose anyone in the mission would have wanted to organize unions (since they had internalized the organizational/management norms and values so well), but if they has it certainly wouldn't have been well received. On the other hand, maybe if I had tried to onionize the mission I wold have had more legal rights, although I don't know what kinds of exceptions ther emight have been for nonprofit and church organizations. Besides, O woudln't have had any money for legal fees so that would have had to come from somewhere.. maybe a nonprofit somewhere that specialized in such things. This is just speculation, however, and no one would have been interested in joining a union except for possibly newcomers. So that confirms what I've been saying that they had all internalized the norms and values. They were so united that there was no one who would critique the organization. It was a HUGE case of groupthink, if you will.
***
"The fact of organizational embeddedness in larger geopolitical systems not only sets a floor for organizational rights; it also suggests as a variable of interest the degree to which organizational rights exceed those required by the state. ...
...
Proposition 1. Organizational policies and practices granting more member rights than those required by the geopolitical environment strenghthen the relationshial ties member-citizens have with their organization." (p. 258)
Hah! I would be very, very shocked if the Vienna mision knew anything about Austrian employment law. However, I supposed they had a lawyer, but I'm not sure what issues they used him for. I suspect they had to know what kinds of visas were needed for missionaries (and coming from the various countries), how money needed to be handled regarding taxes, how much could be brought into the countrey, etc. and those kinds of things. But I doubt very much they knew anything about the Austrian employment law. But then the thing is, did it apply to them? It seems like they couldn't have completely escaped its reach, but I don't know that. That might be a good thing for a missionary to know, though: whether the employment laws of the country they're going to apply to the mission they'll be working for. Trust me, you never know if you'll need it and not all missions are as ethical as they seem back home. Heaven forbid you might need it thhouth, hopefully you won't.
That's it for now.
