h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Alas, as you hinted at, if the Mail is reporting something as a fait accompli then we're probably less likely to see it happen than have Jesus descend from heaven singing Mistletoe and Wine in time for Christmas. There is one crucial factor, of course, in gauging the veracity of a Mail story: the presence of 'an expert'. If 'an expert' was involved then give up all hope of the EU ever introducing anything to help the workforce. If one *was* involved in this story I'd hazard they were someone purporting to be on the side of employees, just as 'experts' who tell us that women shouldn't drink or take the pill or go to work are usually women. The thinking is, I suppose, 'look, *she* says so, and she's a woman so it *must* be true'.

How I wish I'd never nagged my parents to stop buying the Sun.

And now you tell us that drinking to forget won't work! Will the misery never end?!

Merry Christmas Ormy!
spimc
Ps. Did you see that Saltaire Mill is one of three in line for World Heritage status?

Ormy,

You make the assumption that employees will not tend to want to damage their companies. I'd disagree; they may not want to directly damage the company, but they tend not to mind if the company suffers as a side-effect of them getting what they want. What's worse; they sometimes want their objective and neither understand nor care how a company is affected. At least, not in my experience of several different small(ish) manufacturing companies in Lancashire.

If there are moves to include employees in the commercial decision-making process, I'll bet it won't include an obligation for the employees to actually understand the issues at hand.

I'm currently dealing with complaints about a course of action that resulted in differing treatment for different sections of the workforce. This course of action was specifically requested by the workforce, but instead of "sucking it up" and taking the consequence of their own decision, they're whining away looking to blame someone else. The company doesn't care, it makes no gains or losses either way.

I've been management for only six months, and have attended only one union meeting, so please don't write me off as a fat cat capitalist a la "1984". Is it so horrible that people be expected to know what they're on about before they come to the negotiating table?

Geoff

Thank you, spimcoot. I grew up near Saltaire, and I was absolutely delighted to hear that it had been given official recognition. I don't know if you've been there, but it is all very scenic, and the historic old mill is now a very nice arts and crafts gallery. It's well worth a visit. Happy Christmas to you too!

Geoff: I do agree that workers' representatives should seek to understand the issues when they're joining in the decision-making processes of companies. That way, they can serve the employees' long-term interests better.

But when you say '...they tend not to mind if the company suffers as a side-effect of them getting what they want...', what do you mean by 'suffer'? If it's a case of the employees demanding something that really threatens the future existence of a company, then obviously that's short-sighted and stupid.

However, if you're just talking about the shareholders getting a slightly smaller dividend in order for the employees to be treated better, then I think the employees have a perfect right to pursue that. How often do shareholders really mind if the employees suffer as a result of them getting what they want?

I worked for a company where the middle management were told that every time they got rid of an employee and didn't replace them, they would be paid that employee's wages for a year. There was no union: the management refused to recognise one. Result: lots of dismissals on flimsy pretexts, and huge stress for the increasingly overworked staff who remained. It was that company that drove me to a nervous breakdown, which is why I feel rather strongly about this sort of thing.

Perhaps I'm naive to expect any other attitude from employers. Perhaps, as a management person, you'd view what I've just described as 'effective, dynamic cost-cutting to maximise productivity', or something. (I love corporate-speak, though I prefer English). But when a company treats you as nothing more than a cost, and patently doesn't give a about your well-being, do you owe it any loyalty?

There are, I'm sure, many commercial organisations where the management recognise the curious fact that people often function better when they're not permanently tired and stressed-out. Unfortunately, there are also plenty of the other kind. That's why, inconvenient though it may sometimes be for people in your line of work, I believe that it's both right and necessary for employees to have a say in commercial decision-making.

By "suffer", I mean a significant loss in profits. Profits aren't just parcelled out to the owners, they fund new investment. Investment is necessary for the future of a business. Therefore, profits are necessary for the future of a business. The fact that there are still those who abuse their staff for short term gain doesn't fault the principle.

Here's my brief theory of a company... any organisation has the same access to customers, materials and plant as any of its competitors. The only thing that can set a company apart is its people and processes. Both need to be looked after properly if a company is to succeed.

Employees are an ASSET to be looked after, not a COST to be managed. Anyone who thinks differently is a short-sighted moron.

I don't think we've got an argument here, Ormondroyd. I don't view what you described as "effective, dynamic cost-cutting to maximise productivity". I call it stupid. (and by the way I'm surprised that you'd take such a cheap shot at me . Have I really come across in that way?)

My reservation is a simple one... that people understand the issues they want to have a say in before they actually have their say.

I don't think we've got an argument either, Geoff, and perhaps that comment of which you complain was unjust *in your case*. If so, I'm sorry. Hey, it's Christmas...

But from my (very painful) experiences, those of people I know, and many cases I've read about, that attitude of seeing employees as a costly necessary evil rather than an asset is very common in modern management. If you're bringing a more enlightened attitude to the task of management, then good luck to you.

Have a cool yule, sir



Geoff