"Here's the deal" (I have an anecdatum) is not an inclusive way to start a discussion. I'm guilty of it myself but when my anecdata flies boldly in the face of the statistics being discussed, I try to temper my arrogance.

Your first post was an essay on social darwinism: some jobs suck, average is over, survival of the fittest. Your second post is basically some jobs suck because capitalism, fortunately capitalism. That's a Milton Friedman canard, by the way - if people really cared about worker rights, they'd pass laws ensuring worker rights. If people really cared about the environment, they'd pass laws protecting the environment. It's your duty as a capitalist to take every advantage of every externality up to the point where you're violating the law, and then you're supposed to do a costs-benefits analysis on the price of breaking the law.

The labor movement fundamentally argues that jobs shouldn't suck. And the problem is that generally, those who work the jobs have less power than those who hire the jobs. Sure, "4th estate" and all that but you can't pit "Kirby" against an algorithmic reduction of 10% of the workforce per year in a really shitty job and act like it's all just the circle of life.