THE term ‘professionalism’ is invariably considered the domain of the employees, while the employers have the right and privilege to overuse or warp it to suit their own personal or professional biases. The employees are expected to work regularly, arrive on time, complete the assigned tasks, and remain transparent and honest in every step of their work life. However, by virtue of their position and power, the employers appear insulated from these ideals and principles. The employers can demand extra work for the same amount of pay, be late for meetings when the employees are, anyhow, expected to be punctual, and demand them to project an air of seriousness even when they themselves fail to exhibit anyt-hing that has even the remotest connection with professionalism. The darkest aspect of this brazenly unequal workplace relationship is that the entire day, or even life, of an employee hinges on the fickle moods of the employer. I remember that as children we used to joke after failing a test that our teachers at school might have fought with their families and were using us as a pressure valve to release their pent-up anger. In reality, it was probably not the family members, but rather the principal or the managerial bosses imposing unrealistic expectations on them. So, if I, as an employee, have committed a heinous and unpardonable crime, it might be ‘excused’ if the employer is in a good mood. But if the employer is in a bad mood, even the most innocent of mistakes could be warped into the most gruesome ones, and I could be scapegoated for their lousy temper and ‘fired’ because of (their) ‘unprofessional attitude’. I see this as the gravest form of unprofessionalism that the employers can ever exhibit in their workplace behaviour. The employees should be judged purely and solely based on the quality and originality of their work, not on how good or bad the employer’s mood-swings are. Only then can some semblance of equality be seen to be done in this inherently toxic workplace environment.