It’s curious how often people mistake their own psychological problems for “truths universally acknowledged”:
What allows us to be happy and satisfied on a daily basis at work? . . In my opinion, the best predictor is how wonderful the people are in our departments and our own labs. What are some other variables that are not as important? In my opinion, that includes funding levels, the type of institution, campus politics, commuting, and many other kinds of stuff.
People described in the linked post make for shitty workers. They believe that work exists in order to provide them with the comforting experience of an idealized, supportive, warm, and cocooning family. They expect a job to fulfill a need that no job is meant to do. In the end, they always end up recreating the unhealthy family dynamic that they come from in the workplace.
However, they are also the ideal type of neoliberal worker. They come to work in order to satisfy a yearning for relationships and emotional fulfilment. You can mistreat them as you wish, deprive them of funding, undermine their research, create intolerable working conditions, yet they will keep coming for more because they are addicted to the illusion of familial relationships at work. Ask these poor sods to unionize, and all you’ll hear in response is a speech on how wrong it is to be adversarial and antagonistic.