Once again, this depends on the context. I could see this sentence sounding just fine, or sounding a bit awkward, depending on the circumstances.
Let's say your company is about to hire a new person, and you will be that person's supervisor. A search committee is in charge of the hiring. You've looked through a stack of résumés, and brought three finalists in for interviews. One person (I'll call him Joe), has impressed everyone greatly. During a meeting to discuss the final details of the hiring, the discussion goes like this:
Committee Member: "Well what did you think of Joe?"
You: "Oh, he impressed the heck out of me. I'd love to have him work for me."
That remark shows you're enthusiastic about making him a member of your team. Assuming you're a fair boss who treats your workers with decency and respect, there's nothing negative about that statement; it conveys respect for Joe's potential.
Then again, we could change the scenario around, and a remark that sounded enthusiastic and positive can suddenly sound domineering and creepy. Assume a team of well-credentialed professionals have been hired to do some kind of work, but you like to take advantage of that, and frequently assign them menial tasks. You ask them to walk down to the company cafeteria and bring you back coffee. You give them menial secretarial work, such as asking them to retype memos for you. Another manager in your company thinks maybe you're abusing your authority, and decides to mention that to you:
Follow Manager: "Don't you think maybe you're asking your engineers to do a few things outside their job description?"
You: "What's wrong with that? I want them to work for me."
In other words, there's nothing inherently wrong with alluding to the fact that the employee works for the employer. I work for my boss, and I wouldn't be insulted if my boss said that I work for him.
If you ever say something like, "I want him to work for me," and you think it may have sounded awkward, then you can always follow that up with something like, "I think he'd do a great job," to emphasize how you meant your remark as an indication of respect for that person's abilities, potential, or work ethic, as opposed to some selfish gain.
Best Answer
Or just more interesting example, as it contains the "unknown" element and the Roman numeral for 10.
Let's get this one out of the way; a xylophone is a wooden thing that makes sounds; ξύλον (xylon) "wood" + φωνή (phonē) "sound", along with the common change in pronunciation that ξ has when borrowed into English at the start of a word, where we pronounce it /ˈzaɪ/ or /ˈsaɪ/ rather than /ksi/, because we don't pronounce anything as starting with /ksi/. (See Why are there so few English words that begin with the letter X?).
Well, x is commonly used to represent an unknown thing in algebra. More to the point, it is often used to mean a currently-unknown but sought thing in algebra, in those cases where we can "solve for x".
And as a rule, the figurative uses are not just for things that are unknown, but for things that are unknown, that we want to make known.
From this use in algebra, we have figurative use of both "X" and "XYZ" for unknown or undetermined things not sensibly describable through algebra:
And from there we have the X-Factor and X-Rays (Röntgen was quite explicit in his naming after the unknown) and so on.
But why X in algebra?
Reason one:
Descartes used a, b, c,… for known quantities, and x, y, z (giving three quantities and then working backwards from w if necessary) for unknown, because they were far away from each other. He also used p, q, r, s… in yet other contexts, O for a chart origin and n was already in heavy use in mathematics. In all, he was picking his choice of letters so as to give himself space in the alphabet and avoid collisions between different uses.
Reason two:
X doesn't stand for very much (See again Why are there so few English words that begin with the letter X? and note that it applies to many other languages too), so x doesn't become the abbreviation of anything, so x as used by Descartes is "safe", in that it can go a good 350 years without causing confusion with a use of X as an abbreviation.
Reason three (doubtful, often stated but without much supporting evidence):
X can be press-ganged into all sorts of jobs because it's a bit superfluous in most languages' use of the Latin alphabet. In translating الشيء ("thing" and used by the Arabs when they invented algebra for unknown qualities, much as x is now) into Spanish, scribes used x to represent the ﺶ of الشيء, which doesn't have an equivalent sound in Spanish.
Reason four (even more doubtful):
A symbol that looks a bit like x was used as an abbreviation of res (thing) or radix (root) in Latin, much as & and ⁊ were used as an abbreviation of et, % for per 100, vi⁊ or viȜ for videlicet (itself short for videre licet) and so on. It then mutated further to become identical with the letter x much as vi⁊ or viȜ mutated to become viz.
These reasons are not mutually exclusive. We can be sure that the first and second were definitely influences on how we got to the current state. If there is truth to the story behind the third and fourth then they are also reasons, rather than "the real reason".