Are Employee-Employer Relationships a Marriage? A Response to “Can This Marriage Be Saved?”
There was an article in the American Nurses’ Association magazine titled “Can This Marriage Be Saved? Nurses and Health Systems in Crisis” draws an analogy between the relationship of nurses and their employers and that of a troubled marriage. While the sentiment of seeking reconciliation between nurses and the healthcare system is commendable, I must respectfully disagree with the premise. The employee-employer relationship is not, and should not be, likened to a marriage. Here’s why:
1. Historical Context: Employer-Employee Origins
The modern employer-employee relationship evolved from the servant-employer dynamic. Historically, this was a transactional relationship: labor was exchanged for compensation, often under conditions far from equitable. Over time, labor movements and legal protections have shifted the dynamic, but the essence remains transactional. A marriage, in contrast, is deeply personal and emotional, grounded in mutual love, respect, and shared goals.
To equate these vastly different relationships risks romanticizing what is, at its core, a professional contract. Nurses do not “vow” loyalty to a hospital; they commit to their patients and their profession.
2. Power Dynamics
In any marriage analogy, we must address the inherent power imbalance between nurses and healthcare systems. Employers hold significant control over wages, working conditions, and job security. Nurses, while indispensable, often lack equal bargaining power. In a true marriage, both parties share power and decision-making. By framing this relationship as a marriage, the article obscures the reality that many nurses face systemic inequities and limited autonomy in their workplaces.
3. Emotional Labor vs. Professional Boundaries
Nursing is a profession that demands immense emotional labor, but this does not mean nurses owe emotional commitment to their employers. The marriage analogy risks perpetuating the expectation that nurses should “give more” to the system, just as one partner might sacrifice in a relationship for the greater good. This mindset undermines the professional boundaries essential to maintaining nurses’ well-being and dignity.
4. The Risk of Blaming Nurses
When we use the language of marriage to describe professional relationships, we risk placing undue blame on nurses for the “failure” of the relationship. Just as marriages often fail due to mutual fault—or systemic incompatibilities—the struggles between nurses and health systems are often rooted in systemic failures, such as inadequate staffing, poor leadership, and profit-driven motives. Nurses’ dissatisfaction is not a personal failure or a lack of commitment—it is often a reasonable response to unsustainable conditions.
5. A Better Framework
Rather than viewing the nurse-employer relationship as a marriage, we should adopt a framework of mutual respect and accountability. Employers are responsible for providing safe working conditions, fair compensation, and opportunities for professional growth. Nurses, in turn, fulfill their roles as healthcare providers. This is not about “saving” a relationship but creating a functional, professional partnership.
The language we use matters. By moving away from the marriage metaphor, we acknowledge the professionalism of nurses and the systemic issues that need addressing. The goal should not be reconciliation at all costs but fostering workplaces where nurses feel respected, valued, and supported.
Final Thoughts
Nursing is a calling, but it is also a career. Nurses deserve workplaces that respect their professional and personal boundaries. Let’s leave the marriage metaphors behind and focus on tangible solutions to the systemic problems in healthcare. Only then can we truly address the crisis facing nurses and the healthcare systems they serve.
