He's right because the work place is a place for individual effort and efficiency, unhindered by less worthy motives.
He's wrong because party govenment creates fear and conflict - failing to provide the unifying democratic leadership which alone can take the heat out of industrial relations.
Employers are often slow to appreciate the concerns of employees, especailly perhaps in the area of work safety. Unions are the result.
On the other hand it is clear that an employer needs an efficient and profit-sustainable business. To an employer, an employee who gives diligent, intelligent attention to the business is like gold. Equally, one who does as little as he can get away with, or just puts forth a very basic effort on behalf of his employer is as much a liabiity as an asset.
But let's understand the fears that drive many to defend jobs by a less than full effort to be an efficient and valued worker. We are talking here about the trust that must exist between employer and employee.
Attitudes of both vary considerably. There are good examples and bad examples on both sides.
There tends to be the idea that there are not enough jobs. Both right and wrong - because the job-pool is not fixed. Employers are understandably not enthusiastic about creating jobs for people who have no interest in the employer's concerns. If on the other hand an applicant for a job seems a good risk then a job can be found.
I was out of work once and being sick of waiting for a reply to all the job ads, I sallied forth to a local factory. I got a job after some hesitation. When I started on a drill (a boring job!) I was soon advised to slow down. I was shifted around and eventually moved into the store. Later I drove a fork lift and cleaned up all the rubbish blocking up the tracks. The previous guy had done nothing he was not told to do. I found later that when I was hired they had been planning retrenchments. That's why they seemed hesitant when I showed up. They later sacked a dozen men. When I resigned they obviously did not want me to go.
The point is that go-slow tactics did not save jobs. In fact, those tactics could well have been the cause. they were not seen as valuable enough to hold for an upturn in business. I remember a girl a long time ago who was being helpful. When I thanked her for the help she said: "Thus I make myself indispensible!".
On another occasion I was promoted and somwhat surprised. I asked how come. The reply was: 'Well some just haven't got it, or just don't try.'
The job killer is self interest of employees and employers. If the latter care only for profits and share prices, they will not be slow to sack staff. (But it may not be that simple if business is bad.) If the former care only for their pay packets and an easy day's work, then they are not likely to be valued.
The plain fact is that the profitability of many businesses can be quite borderline. Success demands a cooperation by both sides if jobs (and businesses) are to be secure in difficult times.
Talking to some from Asian work situations, the contrast of Asian work pressure with Australian conditions is considerable. This our future and will not change for the better.
Industrial relations have too long been a difficult issue, in an industrial atmosphere contaminated by distrust, sharemarket pressures, and union antagonism. But fear and greed are the driving forces.
What is missing is the kind of democracy which can resolve these conflicts by a real involvement of the people in society's issues.
Party politics creates conflict, does not solve it. Only parliamentary government - with the secret ballot enabling the people to govern, through their representatives - can void the conflict-generating power and illegitmate government of party executives.
Back to : Secret Ballot Party
No comments:
Post a Comment