Is this liberation or a cause for angst?
As the coalition cuts bite into the public sector, many workers are having to face stark choices – the devil you know or the deep blue sea. Should I take the voluntary redundancy package offered or competitively interview for a job on a lower grade with the possibility of further restructures in March and a compulsory redundancy further down the line?
It is a rather lonely decision these days because there is no collective response. The union is absent. Management ignores them. Threatened employees are invited to individual meetings where management can manipulate insecurities to their advantage. Everyone I know has not bothered to ask the lone union rep to accompany them believing her to be more of a liability than an aid in striking a desperate deal. One or two have asked trusted work colleagues to attend as observers but most have attended these meetings alone and endeavoured to make the best deal possible. However, despite management’s desire to isolate and bully individuals into accepting what they want, we have begun to speak to each other, to share information and to help or advise one another where we can. This is not the same as the old days of group meetings and collective workplace action but it helps to stave off that feeling of persecution and vulnerability.
The climate of deepening recession is not the most opportune moment to apply for a new job or to consider a risky career change, yet one can’t help feeling liberated by the decision to take voluntary redundancy. One reason for this is that the public sector I joined in the early nineties does not feel the same as the one I am now considering leaving. There is no longer an ethos of public service that once provided a measure of job satisfaction despite the lower wages and crappy workplaces we endured in comparison to our private sector counterparts.
These days aloof management is prized over sincerity and passion. Our chief executive invites staff to shadow her for a day in an attempt to show how ‘open’ her style of management is but her ‘openness’ only reveals the lack of values that drive the organisation. She is open about the fact that she doesn’t need to know the issues of every department or the details of every complaint. That’s what her managers are for. Pass it on. This leaves her free to network, to procure funding, to spout the right sound-bites and assuage important groups of irate clients. This can be seen as efficient delegation of responsibilities but it also feels remote.
Her managers do not appear to be driven by values of customer care or public service. They are driven by the requirement to tick boxes: to achieve endless targets, or the obligatory Investors In People certificate, or the two stars to procure government funding and a higher listing in the local government quarterly league tables. The provision of a service to the ordinary individual customer at the front desk or at the end of a phone line comes low down the list of priorities. Of course every poster, leaflet and newsletter says the exact opposite. The customer comes first. Right first time. You matter to us. Our Values are posted up everywhere. The shrill need to assert our values belies the lack of belief in anything. What’s more important is that you answer the phone in three rings. That’s easily measured.
I am reminded of the labour leadership Question Time last night. The repetitive candidate assertions about morals and values punctuating vacuous contributions left me cold. Ironically, Dianne Abbott, who happens to be my local MP and who normally sounds somewhat wooden, appeared the most human of the lot but that’s because she’s really there to keep on board those who Vote Labour With No Illusions rather than win the leadership contest.
The public sector today reflects the lack of belief in our wider society and in western democracies around the world. It would seem that even our Universe lacks a centre; to the glee of a growing band of atheists and pope-haters, Stephen Hawkings recently pronounced that with the development of science there is no longer any need for the existence God. What is there to believe in today? A growing number may no longer believe in God but everyone believes in the doomed message of climate change or the universal prevalence of child abuse and terrorism. But like the father and son in Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, human beings need something to inspire them, something to hope for in order to survive.
Certainly, walking away from a job without meaning feels less scary and more liberating. Perhaps as Bingham in the film Up in the Air says to every worker facing the sack ‘anyone who ever built an empire or changed the world sat where you’re sitting’. That gives me some hope. So if you’re at a loose end this October, you can join me at The Battle of Ideas where changing the world is definitely on the agenda.
Friday 17 September 2010
Wednesday 11 August 2010
Making Cuts: Are We In Danger of Self-Harming
On Monday this week Newsnight ran a report on 'Where does the public think the axe should fall?'. I watched in horror as desperate members of the public volunteered to wield the axe. It was like watching a group of self-harmers up close and live.
This citizen's jury was rounded up by the renowned consultancy firm, Price Waterhouse Coopers to find out, ahead of the coalition government's Spending Review in October, where the public think the cuts should be made.
The first blow was foreign aid. We should not be ring-fencing foreign aid, said this jury. We need to look after our own at a time like this. Nothing was sacred - certainly not the holy cow of universal welfare benefits and that fatted calf of job seekers allowance meant to feed those workless scroungers must be put on half rations.
Should we be surprised by this response? Not really. When David Cameron and Nick Clegg insist that reducing the deficit 'is the most important issue facing Britain' and no-one disagrees then our citizen's jury are rather like hapless survivors on a sinking ship with a pessimistic captain at the helm, desperately deciding who should be saved and who should be allowed to go under.
All over the country, people are making special cases for their service to be saved. Of course we agree that cuts should be made, they say, but not our hospital – it’s essential. Not our pensioners’ community centre – where would they go? Not this facility for our youth – do you want them hanging about on your street with no future? The louder they shout, the more likely they are to be heard; and certainly, the government have caved in to strong local protest groups. Better fight than not, then; but this approach can’t save us all and tends to be divisive – pitting one beleaguered community against another and allowing the government to lower our horizons and buckle under the weight of the budget deficit.
I think this focus must be reversed if we are to save ourselves and stop self-harming. If our only view of the British economy is one of a sinking ship then we are all losers.
We need to focus on economic growth, not the budget deficit. How can we grow the British economy? What ideas do the coalition government have about that? What new sectors have they targeted for investment and development that will create the jobs we all need? They need to think big not small, local and limited.
Big Potatoes is the manifesto of a group who do believe in innovation and growth and thinking big. Be bold. Pick up a copy and chuck the axe away.
This citizen's jury was rounded up by the renowned consultancy firm, Price Waterhouse Coopers to find out, ahead of the coalition government's Spending Review in October, where the public think the cuts should be made.
The first blow was foreign aid. We should not be ring-fencing foreign aid, said this jury. We need to look after our own at a time like this. Nothing was sacred - certainly not the holy cow of universal welfare benefits and that fatted calf of job seekers allowance meant to feed those workless scroungers must be put on half rations.
Should we be surprised by this response? Not really. When David Cameron and Nick Clegg insist that reducing the deficit 'is the most important issue facing Britain' and no-one disagrees then our citizen's jury are rather like hapless survivors on a sinking ship with a pessimistic captain at the helm, desperately deciding who should be saved and who should be allowed to go under.
All over the country, people are making special cases for their service to be saved. Of course we agree that cuts should be made, they say, but not our hospital – it’s essential. Not our pensioners’ community centre – where would they go? Not this facility for our youth – do you want them hanging about on your street with no future? The louder they shout, the more likely they are to be heard; and certainly, the government have caved in to strong local protest groups. Better fight than not, then; but this approach can’t save us all and tends to be divisive – pitting one beleaguered community against another and allowing the government to lower our horizons and buckle under the weight of the budget deficit.
I think this focus must be reversed if we are to save ourselves and stop self-harming. If our only view of the British economy is one of a sinking ship then we are all losers.
We need to focus on economic growth, not the budget deficit. How can we grow the British economy? What ideas do the coalition government have about that? What new sectors have they targeted for investment and development that will create the jobs we all need? They need to think big not small, local and limited.
Big Potatoes is the manifesto of a group who do believe in innovation and growth and thinking big. Be bold. Pick up a copy and chuck the axe away.
Wednesday 31 March 2010
Working For Profit? You’re Having A Laugh!
This was the response of a group of eco-businessmen in St David’s, Wales when interviewed by Paul Mason from BBC’s Newsnight for his report on What’s wrong with Britain.
All five businessmen thought the idea of maximising profit was old hat. They tell Paul that they have learnt their lesson from Nature.
"Nothing in nature maximises," said Andy Middleton, adventure company boss and deep green business guru. "Trees don't ask 'how high can I grow?'"
The buzzword today is optimization not maximization. It allows one to manoeuvre and be more flexible. I presume that - rather like in Nature - if you find yourself in a desert, it’s better to be a dwarf shrub rather than a giant redwood. How different from our Victorian predecessors who sought to tame nature to our needs.
The talk is all about decent margins, low margins, tight overheads and labour intensive rather than machine production. A woman who owned a pottery design business boasted about employing lots of local labour in routine, repetitive jobs that would be better done by machines or cheap labour abroad.
Philip Blond from ResPublica argues for devolving power to the users and re-localising the economy.
All of this smacks of less growth or no growth and low horizons.
‘It’s not capitalism’ says Paul Mason.
True enough. It isn’t capitalism and I ought to be happy about that; after all I’ve argued against capitalism since my University days. But I’m not. The alternative suggested here is even less progressive. At least social progress was driven by the self interest of individual capitalist entrepreneurs. These businessmen are eschewing progress in favour of limiting growth, of allowing nature to determine our boundaries.
Britain’s lifestyle businessmen may feel good about shedding the image of ruthless profiteers but their debts are bankrolled by profit-making countries like India and China and our unprofitable industries are being bought up by those self-same countries.
If British bosses are fighting shy of bigger and better then it’s no surprise that many workers in Britain are being told to make do with less. The vitriol spewed over the BA strikers recently, is an illustration of this trend.
We shouldn’t accept this. We need more than a living wage. It’s only by being dissatisfied with our lot and aspiring for more that human progress evolves at all.
All five businessmen thought the idea of maximising profit was old hat. They tell Paul that they have learnt their lesson from Nature.
"Nothing in nature maximises," said Andy Middleton, adventure company boss and deep green business guru. "Trees don't ask 'how high can I grow?'"
The buzzword today is optimization not maximization. It allows one to manoeuvre and be more flexible. I presume that - rather like in Nature - if you find yourself in a desert, it’s better to be a dwarf shrub rather than a giant redwood. How different from our Victorian predecessors who sought to tame nature to our needs.
The talk is all about decent margins, low margins, tight overheads and labour intensive rather than machine production. A woman who owned a pottery design business boasted about employing lots of local labour in routine, repetitive jobs that would be better done by machines or cheap labour abroad.
Philip Blond from ResPublica argues for devolving power to the users and re-localising the economy.
All of this smacks of less growth or no growth and low horizons.
‘It’s not capitalism’ says Paul Mason.
True enough. It isn’t capitalism and I ought to be happy about that; after all I’ve argued against capitalism since my University days. But I’m not. The alternative suggested here is even less progressive. At least social progress was driven by the self interest of individual capitalist entrepreneurs. These businessmen are eschewing progress in favour of limiting growth, of allowing nature to determine our boundaries.
Britain’s lifestyle businessmen may feel good about shedding the image of ruthless profiteers but their debts are bankrolled by profit-making countries like India and China and our unprofitable industries are being bought up by those self-same countries.
If British bosses are fighting shy of bigger and better then it’s no surprise that many workers in Britain are being told to make do with less. The vitriol spewed over the BA strikers recently, is an illustration of this trend.
We shouldn’t accept this. We need more than a living wage. It’s only by being dissatisfied with our lot and aspiring for more that human progress evolves at all.
Wednesday 17 March 2010
Who’s Afraid of Politics?
Everyone it seems. ‘It’s not political, it’s industrial’ protested Tony Woodley, joint general secretary of Unite. Prime Minister Gordon Brown made the same point with the added epithet that the proposed strike was deplorable.
Who are they kidding? Arguing for or against strike action means taking a political stance and making a political argument for support. In fact, despite their protestations, everyone is taking a political stance.
For the first time in a long while, politics has been pushed onto the agenda by the intrepid stance of BA cabin crew who refuse to accept that they must pay for the recession. Even the hyped-up forthcoming general election hasn’t been able to stir up such a catfight.
Willie Walsh, the British Airway’s chief executive and former trade unionist for the moderate airline pilot’s union at Aer Lingus blames the union’s cynical action for the disruption of his customers travel plans and claims that most of the cabin crew have offered to carry on working. To avoid chaos BA are e-mailing passengers about flight information. They have trained 400 pilots and 600 ground staff to work as temporary cabin crew and have also chartered 22 aircraft and crew to keep some flights running. Mr Walsh warned that he will be forced to implement deeper cuts from the cabin crew budget if the strike goes ahead.
Shareholders have welcomed Mr Walsh’s management style and support his determination to make savings. Share prices in BA have gone up.
The government have rallied around the defiant British Airways management.
Lord Adonis said the strike was ‘totally unjustified’ and argued that the BA strike would destroy the company.
Gordon Brown intoned “It is not in the company’s interest, it is not in the workers’ interest and it is certainly not in the national interest” and branded the strike action as deplorable.
The Tories say they would have deplored the strike action even earlier than Gordon Brown and accused the Labour Party of being in the pockets of Unite; the latter having donated £11m to party funds over a period of three years and whose members have often been putforward to become successful Party candidates.
The media have joined forces in their condemnation of the strike. The Times leader argues ‘Mr Walsh is entirely right to stand his ground. The position of Unite is not just unreasonable, it is self-destructive. It poisons BA’s position with its customers. It harms the union’s own political allies. And it endangers both the future of the airline industry and a flag-carrying British company. In this dispute, Mr Walsh is being reasonable, and greatly to his credit, equally strong-willed.’
On the opposing side, the union appears to be trying hard to defend its position but one gets the feeling that it’s been pushed into a more radical stance by the militant cabin crew and that they are desperate for a deal. Instead of raising the political game and making a strong case for solidarity they continue to plead for talks.
Tony Woodley of Unite claims Mr Walsh is ‘looking for war. He doesn’t want a negotiated settlement.’
Steve Turner, Unite’s national officer for aviation, will meet officials from the Teamsters, a powerful US trade union, to discuss an offer of support. No one knows whether this support will involve solidarity action to frustrate BA flights or simply a gesture of sympathy and possible financial aid.
To be fair, Tony Woodley did make the point on Newsnight on Monday this week that he was proud of the better pay and conditions of BA staff. That shows they are doing a good job as a union, he added. However, it is no surprise that BA cabin crew are looking to replace both general secretaries with one of their own preferred candidates, Len McCluskey who they feel would better represent their interests.
The lesson from all of this is clear. When push comes to shove, you have to take sides and that means being political. In this case, I support the BA cabin crew.
In general these days, political self-interest is rarely expressed and as in the forthcoming general election one is left wondering whether we should bother with politics at all or if there is any side to choose.
If you're wondering whether politics is still worthwhile then, in the spirit of the BA cabin crew, be daring and check out the Institute of Ideas who are getting stuck in at The Battle for Politics this Saturday. I know for a fact that Claire Fox, the director and stalwart of BBC4's The Moral Maze, is not afraid of anything.
Who are they kidding? Arguing for or against strike action means taking a political stance and making a political argument for support. In fact, despite their protestations, everyone is taking a political stance.
For the first time in a long while, politics has been pushed onto the agenda by the intrepid stance of BA cabin crew who refuse to accept that they must pay for the recession. Even the hyped-up forthcoming general election hasn’t been able to stir up such a catfight.
Willie Walsh, the British Airway’s chief executive and former trade unionist for the moderate airline pilot’s union at Aer Lingus blames the union’s cynical action for the disruption of his customers travel plans and claims that most of the cabin crew have offered to carry on working. To avoid chaos BA are e-mailing passengers about flight information. They have trained 400 pilots and 600 ground staff to work as temporary cabin crew and have also chartered 22 aircraft and crew to keep some flights running. Mr Walsh warned that he will be forced to implement deeper cuts from the cabin crew budget if the strike goes ahead.
Shareholders have welcomed Mr Walsh’s management style and support his determination to make savings. Share prices in BA have gone up.
The government have rallied around the defiant British Airways management.
Lord Adonis said the strike was ‘totally unjustified’ and argued that the BA strike would destroy the company.
Gordon Brown intoned “It is not in the company’s interest, it is not in the workers’ interest and it is certainly not in the national interest” and branded the strike action as deplorable.
The Tories say they would have deplored the strike action even earlier than Gordon Brown and accused the Labour Party of being in the pockets of Unite; the latter having donated £11m to party funds over a period of three years and whose members have often been putforward to become successful Party candidates.
The media have joined forces in their condemnation of the strike. The Times leader argues ‘Mr Walsh is entirely right to stand his ground. The position of Unite is not just unreasonable, it is self-destructive. It poisons BA’s position with its customers. It harms the union’s own political allies. And it endangers both the future of the airline industry and a flag-carrying British company. In this dispute, Mr Walsh is being reasonable, and greatly to his credit, equally strong-willed.’
On the opposing side, the union appears to be trying hard to defend its position but one gets the feeling that it’s been pushed into a more radical stance by the militant cabin crew and that they are desperate for a deal. Instead of raising the political game and making a strong case for solidarity they continue to plead for talks.
Tony Woodley of Unite claims Mr Walsh is ‘looking for war. He doesn’t want a negotiated settlement.’
Steve Turner, Unite’s national officer for aviation, will meet officials from the Teamsters, a powerful US trade union, to discuss an offer of support. No one knows whether this support will involve solidarity action to frustrate BA flights or simply a gesture of sympathy and possible financial aid.
To be fair, Tony Woodley did make the point on Newsnight on Monday this week that he was proud of the better pay and conditions of BA staff. That shows they are doing a good job as a union, he added. However, it is no surprise that BA cabin crew are looking to replace both general secretaries with one of their own preferred candidates, Len McCluskey who they feel would better represent their interests.
The lesson from all of this is clear. When push comes to shove, you have to take sides and that means being political. In this case, I support the BA cabin crew.
In general these days, political self-interest is rarely expressed and as in the forthcoming general election one is left wondering whether we should bother with politics at all or if there is any side to choose.
If you're wondering whether politics is still worthwhile then, in the spirit of the BA cabin crew, be daring and check out the Institute of Ideas who are getting stuck in at The Battle for Politics this Saturday. I know for a fact that Claire Fox, the director and stalwart of BBC4's The Moral Maze, is not afraid of anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
