The latter is an ultimatum, there's no way around that. Whether or not the ultimatum is reasonable depends entirely on the specifics, especially in the workplace, employers have expectations which they need to have met.
It's especially distasteful to bake in the assumption that a romantic partner setting conditions to stay in a relationship is automatically being abusive. If someone is presented with an ultimatum to quit problem drinking or lose their partner, which is more likely: that the partner is abusive or that the other partner is an alcoholic? It's certainly not automatic that it's the former!
A policy of never meeting an ultimatum is one way to live your life, I prefer to consider whether the demands are reasonable and proceed on that basis. For me it shows a stronger sense of self worth to consider this kind of thing on the merits, rather than pre-committing to stick to my guns, which is in effect a counter-ultimatum. Sometimes that's the right move, sometimes it isn't.
I think the latter is what OP referenced, if someone is telling you "it's my way or the highway" and they are OK with the highway option, you should listen. They are telling you exactly how much you are valued (or not), as well communicating that they feel they are in no uncertain terms above you.
As you say, an ultimatum isn't necessarily abusive. We all have things we want in life - and some of them are deal-breakers for a relationship. But if you read the sentence as written, I think it's solid advice - don't agree to something when someone is leveraging "power" over you if you can avoid it. That is abusive.
People who've been in abusive relationships can read the difference between a "this is make-or-break for the life I want, you need to make a choice" and "I'm abusing this situation to make you agree to something you don't want to do / is bad for you."
"Honey, playing WoW 12 hours a day is a dealbreaker for me."
"You must enter your information into our new HR system."
Yes, you can construct situations where the ultimatum is reasonable. Yes, you shouldn’t blindly apply this advise all the time without any consideration of the circumstances.
But still, on balance it’s good advise. We all tend to lean too far towards respecting ultimatums from people in power (even when it’s harmful for us). We should collectively shift that balance, and move our default more towards being skeptical of someone giving an ultimatum.
But, yes, when someone gives you advice that comes with a “never” or “always”, it’s usually worth assuming there’s a silent “almost” in there, unless they’re explicit that they mean no exceptions could apply.
Hence "never choose the one giving you an ultimatum" is weird advice.
An essay isn't a hologram, and whatever you're trying to accomplish by treating it as if it were continues, I regret to report, to escape me.
I think the bigger point is that corporations don't value "you" (royal "you") and these days are becoming a lot more blatant about it. Any ultimatim made by someone with power over you isn't a good one to take long term.
> a final proposition, condition, or demand especially : one whose rejection will end negotiations and cause a resort to force or other direct action
An ultimatum is a my way or the highway choice. "Submit or suffer".
Negotiating how much time you invest into the relationship isn't an ultimatum. "Quit WoW entirely or I'm getting a divorce" is.
"Fill out this HR form or leave" is expected for the first day of work.
Similarly "Not playing WoW for 12 hours a day" is probably expected in a committed adult relationship (unless of course this was a norm during courtship).
RTO might well be a norm for people not hired remote. But forcing those hired as remote workers to relocate seems outside of the norms. It's the difference between "Do your job, or your fired" and "Switch to this different job, or your fired."
[edit]
I think there is a third leg to making something an ultimatum, and it's about the degree to which the move is (or is perceived to be) about imposing ones will on another.
"I don't want to be married to someone who plays WoW for 12 hours a day," is a different tone from "Quit WoW, or I'm leaving you," and it's natural for someone to respond differently to those two statements.
The difference between saying that '12 hours is too much', depends on how it is said and what is open to negotiation to keep both sides happy. The thing is that 12 hours may be too much, but 4 hours, for example, might keep both sides happy. Also saying '12 hours is too much' is also an opening gambit that states what the issue is, and opens the door to how two people might come to an agreement.
Ultimatums tend to come in the form of offering a binary choice, one of which is full acceptance of a proposal made by one person. Ultimatums don't come with a 'or we can negotiate something that works for us' addendum, they are usually all or nothing.
While the first type of communication / boundary may well lead to a divorce if it can't be resolved, it isn't necessarily presented as an ultimatum.
It can be.
Whether something is an ultimatum is determined by the consequence not the condition.
If you are quitting your job as coach of the New England Patriots during your losing season don't expect to get $20/million year at your next job after you did your worth searching.
"I don't want to lose myself babe!"
author’s advice, if taken literally, is to homestead? not that i don’t get the appeal — i just don’t think very many are actually cut out for that.
So while I like the concept of this advice, its hard to execute in practice. I'd adjust it to "never choose the one who is unwilling to discuss and come to a compromise"
>Ultimately, never choose the one giving you an ultimatum.
This is such great advice. When you are given an ultimatum it is very revealing. Pretend to comply as the author advises, then find something else.
Your sense of self-worth is more valuable than salary or position prestige. If you comply long term, you lose a part of your self and persona.