There are words that, from being handled so much, end up losing their true meaning and become a lie. Vocation is one of them. It is always wielded from everywhere with solemnity but also as a reproach. And, on more than one occasion, it is used as the perfect moral alibi to justify abuses that, under another name, no one would dare to defend. Vocation is, in general, love for your profession, and it entails not being dependent on it because when the latter happens, what we have is slavery.
Vocation does not have to be a hidden martyrdom in a sacrifice imposed by others, nor should it be perpetual resignation to depressing working conditions. It does not consist of accepting without complaint what the law does not require. Vocation, in its most basic and honest sense, is professionalism. To be professional is to fulfill the duties of one's position, respect the moral and ethical principles that embody it, and exercise the obligations it entails with rigor, commitment, and dignity.
Everything else is a self-serving adulteration of the concept. And it's important to make one thing clear: when a worker is asked to do more than what the norm dictates and, upon their refusal, is accused of a lack of vocation – among other things – it is not an appeal to commitment and duty, but a demand for submission. And that is no longer vocation; it is slavery disguised in a perverted moral discourse. It is an elegant and cynical way of demanding sacrifices in exchange for nothing
As we see, the trap is effective, but older than bread. It appeals to the "common good," the "duty of service," the "spirit of the position," while normalizing the exploitation of the worker by instilling the idea that labor rights must be flexible in only one direction: the one that harms the worker. This reality, more common than we want to believe in Spain, thus generates a perverse labor culture and a toxic environment where claiming what is rightfully yours is seen as selfishness, and renouncing it, as virtuous. The result is not professional excellence in the workplace, but structural precariousness, forced silence, and total submission to the system—public or private—which is, after all, the one that has the means to solve needs without resorting to subtracting labor rights
What is most surprising in these cases is that those who most insist on this discourse are usually the first to look for comfortable "loopholes," destinations, or structural shortcuts that allow them to live better by doing less while others must sacrifice. And it is that many people demand sacrifice from the sidelines, without practicing what they preach. They demand commitment from the security of their positions—often higher up—and call disloyal, revolutionary, or instigator anyone who tries to set limits or teach how to set them. This reminds me of the famous phrase that says: "People who get angry when you set boundaries are the same ones who took advantage of you when you didn't have them."
A very apt phrase because, from a psychological point of view, people who get angry or resentful when we set boundaries, and try to morally vilify us by appealing to distorted ideas and values, are often the same ones who benefited from our lack of boundaries, because it allowed them to take our time and resources without reciprocity. And reciprocity, which is nothing more than acquired rights, is what the worker obtains for the sacrifice they make, whatever their profession
The reality is that neither private companies nor public administrations can accept that organizational failures, poor resource management, or lack of adequate planning must be compensated at the expense of workers' rights. It is not the worker's responsibility to cover with their time, their health, or their personal life the deficiencies at all levels of those who lead and hold total power in their hands. That is what resources, budgets, and decision-making capacity are for. The opposite is incompetence disguised as excellence and virtue. Defending labor rights does not degrade one's vocation; it protects it. Because only those who work in fair conditions, in a psychologically healthy environment, can exercise their profession with honesty and professionalism, going beyond their obligations out of their own will with the ultimate goal of improving as a person and a professional. Confusing this reality degrades work and makes it unsustainable, toxic, depressing, and, therefore, a slave environment
Consequently, we are going to call a spade a spade. Vocation dignifies labor, whatever it may be, when it is free, justly recognized, and, above all, respected in its fundamental principle: the rights of the worker. When vocation is imposed, when it is demanded as a moral obligation to justify abuses, it ceases to be a virtue and becomes a noose around the neck
And no society, nor any organizational structure that considers itself serious and professional, should feel comfortable confusing one thing with the other
Alejandro Pérez O’pray
Graduate in Political Science and Administration, UNED.
Security Specialist from the Faculty of Law, UNED.
Official Master’s Degree in International Security Studies, UNIR.