> managers have a duty of care towards their employees.

I agree with this, but I still maintain the original point you were responding to - I still think it is an individual responsibility.

> I'm sorry but employment is a power-relationship and saying that the critical thing is 'self-esteem' is simply wrong.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "power-relationship" a bit more? I still do think self-esteem is a critical component; when you are hiring people to be a cog in the wheel, the last thing you look for is individuality - so yes, when herding the sheep, as a manager you come from the power position and benefit by taking care of your sheep so they output most effectively.

But I suppose the question over which points are being argued here has more to do with what kind of personality we are talking about? Like I said, I agree with what you say when the person in question is desirable as a replaceable part (as is the case in many larger corporations) but I disagree when we start talking about autonomous individuals (the irreplaceable people in an organization - small or large).

I suppose it was my fault for relating the concept of "remote worker" with one of "autonomous individual" - when in fact there are people of many different personality types and roles that engage in remote working.

It's definitely a two-way street. Employees bear some degree of responsibility for self-esteem and upholding of limits. At the same time, managers bear a big degree of responsibility for the productivity and wellbeing of their employees. And when they cross lines and reject reasonable limits, that shouldn't be seen by default as the employee's failing.

I've worked for a big corporation in the past that bore a particularly onerous, victim-blaming animus toward its employees. Anytime anyone, anywhere, had an issue with his boss, he was told to "learn to manage upward." "Managing upward" became a catch-all excuse for allowing a boss's failures to be re-characterized as your own. As it so happened, our division had a few downright abusive bosses. I mean, abusive in the legally actionable sense of the word. And their direct reports would invariably try to "manage upward," then get firmly reprimanded for doing so. To top it off, they'd be labeled internally as malcontents, politically isolated, and subjected to further abuses. Not surprisingly, very few people below the upper-middle-management tier of this company stuck around for longer than a year.

> a power-relationship

I am your boss. I allocate your work. Your pay depends on me. Your promotion depends on me. Your reference for your next job depends on me. I can fire you.

It is pretty straight forward.