tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post203161937660113260..comments2024-03-29T17:12:19.648+13:00Comments on Bowalley Road: Taking Your TimeChris Trotterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09081613281183460899noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-1121732032013512972009-02-25T14:57:00.000+13:002009-02-25T14:57:00.000+13:00Public ownership, by doing away with the need for ...<I>Public ownership, by doing away with the need for profit</I><BR/><BR/>How? I'm personally involved in a non-profit cooperative organisation that runs a festival. We still need to aim for a surplus each year, in order that we have the cash to cover growth and so that if we have a downturn in ticket sales one year, we can survive and keep going.<BR/><BR/>I don't see how any organisation is different (and if a publicly owned company is succesful, governments will tend to leach off it as a tax source).Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17092996828683002246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-3230967758974022182009-02-18T22:20:00.000+13:002009-02-18T22:20:00.000+13:00Ignore all the rest. It comes down to this. Aspir...Ignore all the rest. It comes down to this. Aspiring to excellence rather than mediocrity. Not everyone will own a business and work for themselves but if the product of their labour is excellence and they are justly rewarded there is satisfaction for both producer and buyer. that applies whether a teacher nurse or farmer.<BR/><BR/>If we agree on that we can agree on measures to stop exploitation. Whether from the employer unwilling to pay a fair wage or the union causing strikes on holidays and pay rises far above the value of the product. US car workers pension rights and UK civil servants are both good examplesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-22998084493818150442009-02-18T12:59:00.000+13:002009-02-18T12:59:00.000+13:00Respectfully I must disagree with the idea that on...Respectfully I must disagree with the idea that only someone working for themself as you define can give complete emotional commitment. Stonework on European cathedrals, the inadequacy of british plumbers, a well written journalists commentary, the cynicism of Douglas Myers and the Hotchin brothers, everyone who votes and believes their vote counts in a democracy, teachers, nurses, firemen, policemen are all examples of people who give more or less emotional commitment and get more or less monetary return.<BR/><BR/>I dont believe the unions that caused holiday strikes and destroyed industries had the common good at heart. Demarkation had far more of an impact on job specialisation than the employment contracts act which allowed employees and employers to freely arrange what suited them both. So we can negate unions as agents interested in gaining more control for workers. After control certainly, but not for workers benefit.<BR/><BR/>I agree with you though that loss of control and empowerment is the critical difference between job satisfaction of old and current lack of engagement with work as a source of fulfillment.<BR/><BR/>My point was that the sixties and seventies were a false nirvana. the price of that leisure was paid before and after.<BR/><BR/>"what's in it for the workers when increased effort and improved efficiency merely result in the shareholders receiving a larger dividend?"<BR/><BR/>That really is the crux of the issue. Advanced industralisation has meant incredible specialisation. The end sharholder in most large companies is most likely to be a collection of pension investors through agents completely removed from the reality of ownership or the individual workers providing that larger dividend cheque. <BR/><BR/>Having worked for large and small companies as well as for my own profit what strikes me is how socialist large companies are in behaviour and outlook even though they would be highly unlikely to admit that. Success and advancement is most likely to be achieved through conformity. The software system SAP that is proudly used by so many large companies is centrally determined and demands compliance rather than original thought. <BR/><BR/>The simple union vs shareholder adversarial approach is utterly obsolete in this world.<BR/><BR/>Funnily enough the bankers newly discredited creed of "eat what you kill" is close to what you appear to be endorsing in your final paragraph. There is a direct correlation between skill, effort and reward.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-25209673197603834642009-02-18T11:37:00.000+13:002009-02-18T11:37:00.000+13:00Sagenz, While it is entirely possible that some pe...Sagenz, While it is entirely possible that some people derive immense satisfaction out of working for someone else, my own experience suggests that the happiest people are those who work at something they love. <BR/><BR/>For these lucky individuals the distinction between work and leisure all but disappears. For the rest of us, however, work is what we do to pay the mortgage and put food on the table. Our full emotional commitment is reserved for our family, friends and hobbies. <BR/><BR/>There are two ways to address this problem of alienation. The first is to win more leisure time from one's employer (the NZ solution 1936-1984); the second is to gain more control over the job itself - securing a much greater say in what is produced and the purposes to which it is put. <BR/><BR/>Paradoxically, from the point of view of a convinced neo-liberal like yourself, both of these options tend to increase productivity. The first, by forcing the employer to invest in more efficient, labour-saving machinery. The second, by giving the worker a greater stake in the enterprise, encourages him or her to work smarter and more enthusiastically (as the Japanese discovered decades ago). <BR/><BR/>The solution adopted by neo-liberals in New Zealand - making people work harder and longer for less - removes any incentive to upgrade plant and machinery, just as stripping workers of any control over the job (the intended and inevitable result of destroying the trade union movement) makes any genuine improvement in productivity that much harder to achieve. <BR/><BR/>After all, what's in it for the workers when increased effort and improved efficiency merely result in the shareholders receiving a larger dividend?Chris Trotterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09081613281183460899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-628499478265795072009-02-17T18:45:00.000+13:002009-02-17T18:45:00.000+13:00Sagenz, a very nice post. I agree entirely.Nostalg...Sagenz, a very nice post. I agree entirely.<BR/><BR/>Nostalgia is certainly a wonderful thing, and the dream time of the 60's (I could easily be one of those Pt Chev. teenagers)was magical indeed. But things began to unravel, not just here but more dramatically in the UK. Reality began to bite.<BR/><BR/>Thatcher in the UK had to confront "progressive" forces, and we in our own way had to battle and overcome Muldoon's restriction and over-regulation.<BR/>A lot of that battle has since been lost and the bureaucracy holds sway in much of our lives.<BR/><BR/>Could it be that Key has opened the door to the mystical "3rd way" Could his brand of progressive engagement usher in a new 60's era ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-44505869887392252512009-02-17T00:30:00.000+13:002009-02-17T00:30:00.000+13:00Chris - I come from a different part of the spectr...Chris - I come from a different part of the spectrum but respect the integrity of what the beliefs espoused in this speech.<BR/><BR/>I think your analysis of your childhood suffers through a short historical perspective. Our ancestors came to an undeveloped but lush country but worked hard over decades to develop that land. By the early 1950's New Zealand was among the wealthiest in the world. It is my feeling that New Zealand spent (literally) the sixties and seventies transferring that productivity through social welfare and inefficient state owned enterprises. By 1984 the country had reached crisis and there was no alternative.<BR/><BR/>You may reject that analysis but the simple fable of the ant and the grasshopper is apposite.<BR/><BR/>I would be interested in your view on that context.<BR/><BR/>Additionally you seem to view leisure as the only fulfilment of humanity. There is some value in the "joy through work". Think of your satisfaction after a lot of time spent researching and writing. Your product is thoughtful writing. Would you prefer just to sit in front of a television drinking beer and eating bbq. Is that genuine fulfillment?<BR/><BR/>Equally the house builder, the farmer, the engineer and even the meat factory worker expertly butchering a carcass can get satisfaction from work. I would accept it is difficult for a Mcjob worker to gain satisfaction but to me that is more critical to address than simply questioning the basic need for work.<BR/><BR/>It is interesting to note how much smaller the France workforce is compared to NZ & Anglo saxon countries. From memory somthing like 20-25% less in employment (NB not unemployed) A society in gentle leisurely decline. <BR/><BR/>There is a balance to be had in there somewhere and I am sure we do not have it right.<BR/>Thoughts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com