Employer led culture

[WelshBluebird]

More than what, precisely? More than a 1990s level of students with free fees,or more than a 2010 level of students with free fees?

Neil

Apologies I meant the increase in tuition fees under this government.
I'm not going to pass comment on the system before the £3k fees were introduced, as it is not something I know much about.
However, the increase of the fees to £9k a year will result in the taxpayer paying more than if they were kept at £3k a year.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Apart from the uneducated solecism there, you have such little understanding of Conservative values that your opinion becomes worthless

Please do enlighten me what "Conservative values" are?

I thought the corrupt son of a Baronet at the exchequer, selling state assets to his mates for a song, summed them up perfectly. Obviously I'm wrong, so please do correct me?

 

[Oswyntail]

Could you define 'conservative values'?

In that context, it is an essential Conservative value that each individual should be encouraged strive to "better themselves" and it is the duty of those in a position to help to do so. Completely the opposite of the French feudal view that was described. And yes, I do believe the current Conservative party, in the main, holds those values.
I am fed up to the eye teeth with the stupid statements and implications that, just because someone is wealthy or well educated they are self-serving and corrupt, and in some way incapable of understanding other people's positions and points of view. The flip side of that coin is the patronising view that the "working class" are incapable of looking after themselves without state help, which seems to drive some peoples train of thought.

 

[Yew]

I am fed up to the eye teeth with the stupid statements and implications that, just because someone is wealthy or well educated they are self-serving and corrupt,

Oh really, you are telling me that;
a) Osbournes best man didnt make a killing on the sell off of royal mail.
b) the minister of transport at the time of the beeching closures didnt have a large number of shares in a motorway building firm
c) one of the largest collections of former council houses is not owned by the son of the minister responsible for overseeing the introduction of the 'right to buy'.

 

[Temple Meads]

It's grossly unfair to claim that all wealthy people are greedy, in much the same way that it's wrong to suggest that all benefits claimants are scroungers!

Of course there will be some who fit those descriptions, but to tar them all with the same brush is a ridiculous generalisation.

 

[SWTH]

I wonder if anyone here could remind me who actually introduced tuition fees?

I do struggle with the concept of having a free education beyond secondary school. If you wish to better yourself, you need to pay for it. Nobody should expect others to fund their university course. It's not even likes people are being asked to up-front the tuition fees - they are repaid at very reasonable rates with minimal interest only after you start earning decent money.

Perhaps the system is flawed. How many media studies graduates does the country need? Perhaps the universities and government should get together, and work out what professions need more graduates, and which ones need less. Want to be an engineer/nurse/physicist? Certainly. We need those, that's £3k a year. Media studies? £12k p/a fees, subsidising those who are actually useful.

As for how employers treat their staff, twas ever thus. The government should not be creating unnecessary public sector jobs. That was Labours answer to unemployment percentages - what are tax credits if not a job creation scheme? Why not just have a lower tax rate? Of course the Conservatives can't get rid because of the uproar that would follow too many jobs lost and too many sheeple who wouldn't understand.

Regardless of your political persuasions (or an employers, for that matter), the fact is an employer will only pay what is necessary to get the job done. Small family firms tend to care a bit more because the cost of replacing a member of staff is a bigger factor. Larger firms just see employees as numbers, especially those near the minimum wage. The bus industry is one particular example - rather than try to retain staff, most bus companies prefer to run their own training school instead. Easier just to replace when the two years service bond is over rather than try to keep them.

Most things (note not all - the NHS and public services for example) should be privately owned and run - capitalism isn't perfect, but wholesale socialism is a truly frightening concept.

If you're not happy, you have to be the one to do something about it. Nobody else is going to.

 

[Greenback]

I find it depressing that as soon as a discussion becomes interesting, it seems it has to revert back to party politics.

I;d lie to discuss why socialism is a frightening concept now, rather than have a debate about who is or isn't responsible for tuition fees!

So, firstly, how do you define wholesale socialism?

 

[SWTH]

Almost everything state owned. No ambitions, no effort being made. Look at local councils/publically owned services - managers who do the usual merry-go-round of being shifted sideways and upwards with no (or soft) targets to hit, huge ineffiencies (little concern about the company failing), no motivation to do better. No incentive for an individual to do better either.

Also, there's one BIG problem with socialism - even if 99% of the population fall for the idea of helping each other, etc, there'll always be someone like me waiting to take advantage and do better personally, off my own back, rewarding only myself. I'm not saying I don't help others, but when it comes to making money, I have no issues with taking the initiative and the money, before someone else does.

 

[Greenback]

Almost everything state owned. No ambitions, no effort being made. Look at local councils/publically owned services - managers who do the usual merry-go-round of being shifted sideways and upwards with no (or soft) targets to hit, huge ineffiencies (little concern about the company failing), no motivation to do better. No incentive for an individual to do better either.

Also, there's one BIG problem with socialism - even if 99% of the population fall for the idea of helping each other, etc, there'll always be someone like me waiting to take advantage and do better personally, off my own back, rewarding only myself. I'm not saying I don't help others, but when it comes to making money, I have no issues with taking the initiative and the money, before someone else does.

You seem to have helped underline the negative points of capitalism. Maybe under a socialist system there would be no opportunity to reward only yourself, as money would not be the overriding motive for doing something? I accept that it is a powerful motivation for some, but for others it's a means to an end.

It would be fascinating to speculate how positions may be different to what is perceived now, and that those who don't co-operate for the benefit of all could, under such a system, be seen as scroungers when they benefit from the co-operative efforts of others but won't contribute any effort without a monetary incentive!

I'm also interested that you use the example of public services to illustrate the negatives of socialism, even though you state that these should not be privatised.

Part of the difficulty with your argument, as I see it, as that councils and other public services have, over time, been forced to operate more like private companies (high salaries for those at the top, competitive tendering etc) without actually being private companies. I find a contradiction in that, and I believe it has contributed in some part to the malaise that you refer to.

If this discussion is to continue, I'll consider creating a new thread. I think it will be very interesting.

 

[Yew]

Almost everything state owned. No ambitions, no effort being made. Look at local councils/publically owned services - managers who do the usual merry-go-round of being shifted sideways and upwards with no (or soft) targets to hit, huge ineffiencies (little concern about the company failing), no motivation to do better. No incentive for an individual to do better either.

On the other hand, In private companies you get a merry go round of managers, only looking at their 'key performance indicators' to make sure they stand a chance of promotion as soon as possible, with no regard for actually making sure things are working well within the department they manage.

 

[SWTH]

I quite agree, private ownership brings its own issues. However, private companies can (and do) fail, whereas a publically owned company just keeps getting propped up.

The NHS has huge issues that increasing the health budget alone will not solve. Having worked in the NHS, there appears to be almost wilful resistance to change from the management. Certainly any idea that could speed up processes got kicked into touch as soon as they were suggested.

Greenback - you say that in a socialist system there may be no opportunity for me to only reward myself. In which case, why should I bother at all? Why shouldn't I just do the minimum possible to get the same 'reward' as everyone else?

This is EXACTLY why socialism doesn't work. Why make the extra effort for no extra reward?

 

[Oswyntail]

On the other hand, In private companies you get a merry go round of managers, only looking at their 'key performance indicators' to make sure they stand a chance of promotion as soon as possible, with no regard for actually making sure things are working well within the department they manage.

Again, a tidal wave of cynicism :roll:. Yes, there are managers, or firms, like that. But there are also countless examples of good managers and firms who realise that a humane approach benefits the bottom line. Equally, in the public sector, there are good and bad. Why do we always have to deal in stereotypes and caricatures?

 

[SWTH]

Experience?

 

[Greenback]

Greenback - you say that in a socialist system there may be no opportunity for me to only reward myself. In which case, why should I bother at all? Why shouldn't I just do the minimum possible to get the same 'reward' as everyone else?

This is EXACTLY why socialism doesn't work. Why make the extra effort for no extra reward?

Because not everyone is motivated to the same degree by money.

It is indoctrinated into us at any early stage that the ideal world is where we must try and better ourselves materially and financially in order to be considered a success. The acquisition of money and consumer goods is a fundamental principle of capitalism.

Quite a few people have desires to be more creative, whether it be in music art or something else, but they are disincentivised by capitalism as their worth is only seen in monetary terms rather than in the art itself, or the actual act of creating it. The fact that their efforts may make a positive contribution to the good of society in other ways doesn't matter in a capitalist world.

It's also true to say that many advances have come about without money being the prime motive, and that is despite rather than because of the capitalist system. Sadly, in my view, much research is dominated by money and financial gain, such as in the case of medicine and medical research.

Admittedly, it's difficult when we are so immersed in the capitalist vision that is all around us to even to begin to consider alternative ways of looking at things. But I find it both interesting and rewarding to consider alternatives. We are a long way from putting any other way of living into practice at this point in time, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss it and look at things with a bit more of an open mind.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Experience?

It's much easier to deal with in stereotypes and caricatures, and that goes for any side to an argument, including using lazy public sector workers as an example along with draconian managers and greedy owners!

 

[SWTH]

I care not a jot about whether others consider me a success or not. I care about me. Sounds selfish I know, but that's the way it is. I've used 'money' as a basic illustration of reward, but it is only a means to an end. Money means I can enjoy more of life. I'm actually cash-poor, although I have planned ahead I spend most of what I get fairly quickly, enjoying my hobbies.

I don't see why those interested in the arts cannot do so in the same way I enjoy my hobbies: work for a living and then in their spare time indulge their passions for music, visual art etc. If you can't make a living from it you shouldn't expect others to fund it.

At the end of the day it comes back to the same basic idea: if you want it, work for it. Do not expect others to provide.

 

[muddythefish]

I'm completely sick of this employer led culture, this is all Thatchers legacy with her 'the managements right to manage' mantra, more like the managements right to exploit.

.

Absolutely correct. The exploitation of young people that we are now seeing and attack on working people in general over the past 30 years can be directly attributed to the emasculation of the trade unions from the 1980s onwards.

Unions in those days would never have tolerated zero hours contracts and the low wages and part-time jobs that now afflict the economy.

Good post by the way for one so young.

 

[NSEFAN]

I've had discussions about this with different people with different political views. I've noticed something of a pattern, although this is hardly scientific. People who are more socialist seem to prefer to be employees, in that they are paid by someone to do a job, and that's that. On the other hand, those who are more conservative seem to prefer the idea of having their own business ventures and creating their own wealth.

Having discussed topics such as the mass closure of coal mines, those who are more conservative seem to hold the view that such closures were liberating the miners of dirty work. They then see a lack of willpower to move away from South Wales etc as laziness, "Why don't they just create their own jobs or move to find work?" They fail to understand that these entire communities existed solely to work in one industry, and whilst closing the mines may have been necessary, would destroy these peoples' reason for existing. I find those with with socialist views are much more sympathetic towards those who lost their jobs.

 

[Oswyntail]

...

Quite a few people have desires to be more creative, whether it be in music art or something else, but they are disincentivised by capitalism as their worth is only seen in monetary terms rather than in the art itself, or the actual act of creating it. The fact that their efforts may make a positive contribution to the good of society in other ways doesn't matter in a capitalist world. ...

This also illustrates the weaknesses of a Socialist system, as it tends towards standardisation of provision, which is entirely contrary to the spirit of creativity. And anyone who has listened to the turgid outputs of avowedly "Socialist Composers" must realise there is something fundamentally wrong
Perhaps the ideal is - horror - a mixed approach. Which is very much what we have in this country, which most appreciate and are quite happy with. But happiness and compromise seem to have fallen out of the political vocabulary.

 

[SWTH]

This also illustrates the weaknesses of a Socialist system, as it tends towards standardisation of provision, which is entirely contrary to the spirit of creativity. And anyone who has listened to the turgid outputs of avowedly "Socialist Composers" must realise there is something fundamentally wrong
Perhaps the ideal is - horror - a mixed approach. Which is very much what we have in this country, which most appreciate and are quite happy with. But happiness and compromise seem to have fallen out of the political vocabulary.

Quite.

The UK needs the socialist element to temper the worst excesses of capitalism. If we didn't have that we'd be the same as the USA - no thanks.

 

[muddythefish]

I've had discussions about this with different people with different political views. I've noticed something of a pattern, although this is hardly scientific. People who are more socialist seem to prefer to be employees, in that they are paid by someone to do a job, and that's that. On the other hand, those who are more conservative seem to prefer the idea of having their own business ventures and creating their own wealth.

Having discussed topics such as the mass closure of coal mines, those who are more conservative seem to hold the view that such closures were liberating the miners of dirty work. They then see a lack of willpower to move away from South Wales etc as laziness, "Why don't they just create their own jobs or move to find work?" They fail to understand that these entire communities existed solely to work in one industry, and whilst closing the mines may have been necessary, would destroy these peoples' reason for existing. I find those with with socialist views are much more sympathetic towards those who lost their jobs.

Conservatives do not understand that most people do not want to work for themselves and often only do so because they are forced to by circumstances. The majority of people in my view value a secure, reasonably paid job very highly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Quite.

The UK needs the socialist element to temper the worst excesses of capitalism. If we didn't have that we'd be the same as the USA - no thanks.

Quite agree. A mixed economy is better than full blown capitalism.

 

[radamfi]

The Nordic countries (as well as the Netherlands to an extent) are renowned for being socialist. However, they are among the richest in the world, all of them with a GDP per capita considerably higher than the UK. They do have a free market economy with a high level of privatisation, but that runs in tandem with high taxes and high public spending.

 

[21C101]

Conservatives do not understand that most people do not want to work for themselves and often only do so because they are forced to by circumstances. The majority of people in my view value a secure, reasonably paid job very highly.

But, playing devils advocate here, exactly why should anyone have a right to a secure, reasonably paid job?

Is a secure, reasonably paid job an eccentricity of the industrial age. It was veirtually non existent at any time in history before 1830 unless you had a high level of skill/trade and even then you were self employed.

 

[muddythefish]

But, playing devils advocate here, exactly why should anyone have a right to a secure, reasonably paid job?

Is a secure, reasonably paid job an eccentricity of the industrial age. It was veirtually non existent at any time in history before 1830 unless you had a high level of skill/trade and even then you were self employed.

I'm sure employers are delighted that workers have returned to the same position they were in the 1830s

 

[Butts]

Absolutely correct. The exploitation of young people that we are now seeing and attack on working people in general over the past 30 years can be directly attributed to the emasculation of the trade unions from the 1980s onwards.

Unions in those days would never have tolerated zero hours contracts and the low wages and part-time jobs that now afflict the economy.

Good post by the way for one so young.

This is probably true if you could have awoken them from their slumber on The Nightshift at Longbridge - anyone remember "Red Robbo"

Seriously they probably exerted their power a little to far in those day's, arguably it has gone to far the other way now.

 

[radamfi]

I think the Danish 'Flexicurity' model is the most optimal. Employers have the right to hire and fire at will, but in return employees enjoy very generous unemployment benefit combined with good training to help them get another job.

 

[Butts]

I think the Danish 'Flexicurity' model is the most optimal. Employers have the right to hire and fire at will, but in return employees enjoy very generous unemployment benefit combined with good training to help them get another job.

This probably works in a much smaller Economy. The trouble is people in the UK want similar levels of service but are unwilling (or expect someone else) to pay for it through higher taxes.

 

[radamfi]

This probably works in a much smaller Economy. The trouble is people in the UK want similar levels of service but are unwilling (or expect someone else) to pay for it through higher taxes.

I don't see why it can't be scaled up or down to any size economy. A big economy is merely a combination of many smaller ones.

As often in life, you get what you pay for.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I quite agree, private ownership brings its own issues. However, private companies can (and do) fail, whereas a publically owned company just keeps getting propped up.

Like what happened with the banks then?
Oh yeah. NOT like what happened with the banks.

 

[ainsworth74]

Thing is the banks should have been allowed to fail and 'the man on the street' should have been the one to benefit from protections provided by the Government. Propping them up was, if anything, the Government interfering where they shouldn't have been (though, obviously, it would have helped if they'd also been properly regulating from the start).

Seeing as it was a Government to decision to bail them out rather than let them suffer for their own foolish decision making I'm not sure that this is a fair accusation to lay at their door. By all means blame them for what happened but surely it's the Government that should be blamed for agreeing to prop them up rather than allow market forces to do their work?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Thing is the banks should have been allowed to fail and 'the man on the street' should have been the one to benefit from protections provided by the Government. Propping them up was, if anything, the Government interfering where they shouldn't have been (though, obviously, it would have helped if they'd also been properly regulating from the start).

Seeing as it was a Government to decision to bail them out rather than let them suffer for their own foolish decision making I'm not sure that this is a fair accusation to lay at their door. By all means blame them for what happened but surely it's the Government that should be blamed for agreeing to prop them up rather than allow market forces to do their work?

But of course, the banks were never going to be allowed to fail.
After all, look how cosy the political establishment is with the financial industries. There was no way UK PLC was going to let its crown jewels fail. And the banks knew this (and exploited it).