When did we stop siding with the people?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by eJohn

he attacked my use of a word, so i explained the context. you're on a hiding to nothing here.

He didn't say that they should, he said it was a powerful legal protection. Hence you claiming that he did say that was a strawman fallacy.

Tune in next time for some more exciting post commentary!

[lokken]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

I love how Lokken talks about the "pyramid wage structure". It reminds me of Ricardo, the british economist who Marx smashed to bits over a 100 years ago...

Well

Why do shareholders/original directors make a company?

To make stupid amounts of money.

They will run the company and make the most money.

They will then delegate roles based on expertise and pay people gradually less and less.

You get paid more for being a "coordinator" rather than someone who is "manual" because good coordination = efficiency = profit.

I didn't say this was good/bad, I just said that this was inherent to a company.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by lokken

You get paid more for being a "coordinator" rather than someone who is "manual" because good coordination = efficiency = profit.

This type of heirarchy doesn't exactly seem to be handed down from God. It's quite possible to imagine an organisation without a co-ordinator / "manual" (?) distinction. And as I've argued elsewhere in some types of organisations this distinction would work in a different way anyway (e.g. hospital consultants vs hospital managers, programmers vs PHBs, movie stars vs producers, etc).

[Kurashima]

Its not so much authoritarian as simple fact with regards to those who strike being sacked.

If an agreement is in place, legally, allowing a union to, after a ballot of its members, announce a strike action with a realistic timescale to allow their employers to negotiate, or make alternative arrangements, that should be protected.

If no such agreement exists (case on point : BA recently sacked workers for organising the unofficial walkouts after the Gate Gourmet fiasco) then any employer is within his rights to take the appropriate level of action as defined in an individuals contract.

Im pretty sure that I cant tell my boss "Im unhappy with the air conditioning, its too cold, im going to leave the office, and encourage my colleagues to come with me until such time as you remove the entire system and change it to my liking" without finding myself on a disciplinary for gross misconduct, and probably sacked.

A contract of employment provides legal protection for both parties. If an employee chooses to sign a contract that limits their rights, and calls for unpaid overtime (such a contract cant legally exist, can it?) then that worker needs to renegotiate or resign.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Strawman.

That word looks and sounds better, and has a far better usage within the context of the Rebus novels.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by lokken

I didn't say this was good/bad, I just said that this was inherent to a company.

And I advocated to just remove this layer of people who live off others.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

That word looks and sounds better within the context of the Rebus novels.

If you don't like the font, complain to JJ.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

If you don't like the fonz, complain to Henry Winkler.

Ayyyyyyyyyy!

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

And I advocated to just remove this layer of people who live off others.

Like the government am i rite i think i am in fact i know i am and do you know why i know that it's because i am and i know that i am because i am.












While typing this post I developed a mild peckishness towards a ham and cheese sandwich.

[Kurashima]

In soviet Russia, Comrade Stalin has you executed for wearing a christmas hat after twelfth night.

I know this, as im dead and writing this through a possessed keyboard.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Its not so much authoritarian as simple fact with regards to those who strike being sacked.

I'm not sure I'd use the term authoritarian here, but I can certainly see why somebody would when one group of individuals holds power in such a disproportionate fashion over another, even where this relationship is formally "legal" or even "voluntary" (i.e. contractual).

[Bromcrysal]

Ok

It is the business of a company to make money. That is what they do. They exchange, transport, fabricate or process goods and/or provide services. This money that is generated is not for the company, because a company, as a being, is not in need of money. Obviiously, money goes into a company, as well, labor, purchasing, maintainence, improvement... but this money is spent either to continue making money, or to make even more money. This money that is finally generated/collected has one purpose... to enrich the owners of the company, both on the board/directorship, and the housewife who ownes 5 shares of Boobshack International. That, from the internal perspective, is the sole purpose of any company. It's not there to create jobs, or to serve the public... these are means, not an end. This system has been in place and functioning for hundreds of years.

The problem with these facts that I am seeing so far on this thread is that companies are treating employees analytically, instead or relationally. Meaning that, as companies have been growing larger, the ownership and labor have become so separated, in every sense of the word, that the owners regard the people workiing for them as assets or resources of the company, instead of persons cooperating with them to further the purpose of making money.

The root cause of this is simple. When the first ancestors of modern companies were beginning (in reference here I define this as the beginning of the great trading companies in europe circa 1050 AD, when individual groups of merchants began to exercise themselves beyond authorities of the ruling monarchies) the owner/laborer/customer relationship was quite simple. The owner and the mule driver / sailor / caravan guard, and the consumer looked each other in the eye, face to face. Respect on all sides was earned, never just assumed. And, because of the fact that the system consisted of humans looking at humans, laborers, owners, and consumers treated each other as humans. As companies began to grow, even before the Industrial Revolution (reference: East India Trading Company), this began to change. Companies became too large for the owners to get to know, or even see, the majority of thier employees. PepsiCo employs 153,000 people. General Motors employs 325,000. Most of us can't remember the names of 200 people we've met, much less anything about them. These companies are employing 1000 times that number. So the relationship between owners and laborers has been shattered, because all the owners see of the laborers is analytical statistics.

In the nineteenth century, the evolution of socio-economics came up with a solution to this problem: The Labor Union. When the ownership of a company collectively forget that the people working for them are people, and not just statistics, the union reminds them of this fact, sometimes forcibly. Unfortunately, this also requires money, and over the last century, labor unions have become pseudo-companies in thier own right, collecting dues and even advertizing products made exclusively by their members. This leads us to the present situation.

Laborers are now caught in a bad cycle. Thier companies are trying to get as much work out of them as they can, because work = money, and if they go to the Union, they encounter another corporation, trying to get as much money as they can as well.

I am sorry for the lengthy History discourse, but I believe that the solution to this crisis can be found in history.

You see, the system began breaking down when relationships were lost. The trend in America at present is leaning toward much smaller companies, those that might be in one office or building. This allows the owners to look the laborers in the eye again. And when that happens, when people see other people, meet thier children, hear thier funny anectodes about Cousin Earl, they naturally want to make those people happy: And it is a proven fact that happy workers deliver a better product.

Of course, it's entirely possible that I don't know what I'm talking about

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Bromcrysal

I define this as the beginning of the great trading companies in europe circa 1050 AD, when individual groups of merchants began to exercise themselves beyond authorities of the ruling monarchies) the owner/laborer/customer relationship was quite simple. The owner and the mule driver / sailor / caravan guard, and the consumer looked each other in the eye, face to face. Respect on all sides was earned, never just assumed. And, because of the fact that the system consisted of humans looking at humans, laborers, owners, and consumers treated each other as humans.

I'm not really sure there's any evidence for your general thesis. Labour conditions were utterly dreadful even in small enterprises in the past. In fact, labour conditions are probably on average worse in small companies because they can't necessarily afford luxuries like holidays, sick pay, etc when compared to their larger competitors. And even if people could remember the names of all their domestic slaves/servants it's not like that automatically led to good treatment of one by the other.

[lokken]

Oh, I am someone who believes that ultimately schemes such as outsourcing will fail - simply because the quality of customer service will not be as good.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by lokken

Oh, I am someone who believes that ultimately schemes such as outsourcing will fail - simply because the quality of customer service will not be as good.

The Irony of which is that LTSB (which has a very small proportion of outsourced staff) has told its staff to stop using scripts, but HSBC (MASSIVE proportion of outsourced staff) continues to do so because its got a huge asian infrastructure now which would cost several hundred million to move anywhere else.

[Bromcrysal]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm not really sure there's any evidence for your general thesis. Labour conditions were utterly dreadful even in small enterprises in the past. In fact, labour conditions are probably on average worse in small companies because they can't necessarily afford luxuries like holidays, sick pay, etc when compared to their larger competitors. And even if people could remember the names of all their domestic slaves/servants it's not like that automatically led to good treatment of one by the other.

I think labor conditions are usually a relative thing. By modern standards, the life of a traveling merchant caravan worker was quite harsh, but compare that to Feudal Serfdom? Well, that would be hard to do here, since we have no direct observation of that in the 21st century. So, you're right, the point may be a little moot. Oh, well.

From personal communication with people I know, You are right, that smaller companies often can't afford the benefits package that the larger ones can, sometimes even salaries are lower. But those I've talked to seem to like thier bosses more. They seem to enjoy thier work more. I believe that this can be attributed to the fact that they can see the impact thier work has on the company, and that they get to know the owners and bosses. Now I don't have any data to support this, this is purely from conversations with my friends asking questions like: "How was your day?" If you could find some, I would like to see it. I've got to go eat dinner now

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

but HSBC (MASSIVE proportion of outsourced staff) continues to do so because its got a huge asian infrastructure now which would cost several hundred million to move anywhere else.

While you are undoubtedly correct the "several hundred million" needs to be weighed against the fact HSBC's profit was £9.6bn last year.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Bromcrysal

Of course, it's entirely possible that I don't know what I'm talking about

If you wrote that as a my student (when I become teacher), I will give you an A for comedy and a E for trying.

[midge5]

Originally Posted by lokken

Oh, I am someone who believes that ultimately schemes such as outsourcing will fail - simply because the quality of customer service will not be as good.

I've never really found this. Whenever I have phoned a customer service line, other than the trouble they have understanding my accent (though that also happens with Brits) they generally deal with my query fine. They make some mistakes - someone I heard of was told they couldn't travel to England by an insurance company as they didn't have a passport, and the english of a fair few could be better but then both could be said for companies who don't outsource anyway. The slight annoyance has never really bothered me that much.

Everytime this or similar debates have come up recently I always seem to think of the South Park episode Goobacks.

[G.K Zhukov]

There are a couple of Indians who say you are very wrong Lokken. Including most of Bangalore.

[The_Fish]

Good work ignoring my post Lok.

[furball]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

There are a couple of Indians who say you are very wrong Lokken. Including most of Bangalore.

There's a big difference between the customer service they think they're providing, and the customer service that actually reaches the other end. Certainly the British people as a whole prefer to receive calls from people in the country, even if they're Scottish. There's no time delay on UK calls, and at least my surname will get pronounced properly. Calls are over with quicker because neither party has to repeat themselves so that the other can work out what they're saying. The accents problem is unavoidable - but obviously this doesn't matter to the people who actually make decisions in the companies that out-source.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Bromcrysal

From personal communication with people I know, You are right, that smaller companies often can't afford the benefits package that the larger ones can, sometimes even salaries are lower. But those I've talked to seem to like thier bosses more. They seem to enjoy thier work more.

I think this is broadly correct, yes. There have been some surveys done and I think on average smaller companies have more satisfied employees than larger companies* - just as you say. Probably for the reasons you outline, as well as stronger sense of "being in a team" and things like that. Obviously it's going to vary according to the type of work being undertaken.

However, my point is that historically workers did not start getting shafted when enterprises evolved beyond a certain size. The sweat shops of the East End at the turn of the century (or now) were/are not necessarily part of large conglomerates or listed corporations, but they still had pretty crappy conditions. I'd say that at times, the shift from agriculture (i.e. feudalism) represented a step back in terms of working conditions for some segments of the population. I've read historical studies which theorise that the average peasant in the middle ages actually had quite a lot of leisure time (except at harvest) especially when contrasted with the excessive working hours which characterised the start of industrialisation.

* http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...3/ai_n13246917 is one article, although the site seems pretty rubbish and pop-up filled.

[G.K Zhukov]

Exactly furball. Add to that the benefits it brings to outsource to the bottom line (and whatever they tell us, thats all what matters), and the outsourcing will continue.

[furball]

The point is whether or not people will eventually rebel against outsourcing of call centres. I don't know. No-one really uses a particular company's call centres enough to value customer service above the things that drove them to choose Bank A over Bank B in the first place.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by furball

The point is whether or not people will eventually rebel against outsourcing of call centres.

Well, it depends what you mean by "rebel". People are already fairly anti-outsourcing, as I've said elsewhere when I worked in a tech support call centre people would ask whether I was in India or not and it'd happen more frequently witht he Asian members of staff. They're already unpopular, and I'd imagine some people base their purchase / investment decision primarily on this issue (my employers explicitly stated they had a policy of "UK only call centres" in response to newspaper coverage).

But as you say, who really cares for most services? I don't really phone my bank that often, and there are much more important issues when deciding who I am going to go with (interest rates, number of branches, costs on accounts, etc). As with all things, some services will go overseas for some customers, some will stay domestic.

[JonnyBGood]

Call centres are dreadfully shit places to work in and I severely doubt that anyone short of being clinically retarded could be fulfilled by working in one. As such the darkies are welcome to them.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

Good work ignoring my post Lok.

They're only under an obligation to invest in a pension scheme and then pay you money from the proceeds. If the money properly invested in a reasonable pension fund can't afford to pay it, why should it pay out?

[lokken]

Originally Posted by furball

There's a big difference between the customer service they think they're providing, and the customer service that actually reaches the other end. Certainly the British people as a whole prefer to receive calls from people in the country, even if they're Scottish. There's no time delay on UK calls, and at least my surname will get pronounced properly. Calls are over with quicker because neither party has to repeat themselves so that the other can work out what they're saying. The accents problem is unavoidable - but obviously this doesn't matter to the people who actually make decisions in the companies that out-source.

The fact is that people from the UK are more likely to be clued in with our lifestyle, our accents, language and slang and therefore will provide a more efficient service. It's the fact that call centres in the UK are far more contextually capable which means they will always provide a higher standard of customer service - they can deal with out of the ordinary situations far better.

i believe national rail enquiries outsourced, and a 20 second call might now take 2 minutes.

[midge5]

Originally Posted by lokken

i believe national rail enquiries outsourced, and a 20 second call might now take 2 minutes.

In that case it may be worth phoning up just to ask for details on a train to Llanfairpg

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Exactly furball. Add to that the benefits it brings to outsource to the bottom line (and whatever they tell us, thats all what matters), and the outsourcing will continue.

While there are examples of companies who outsource treating the employees like shit with terrible wages etc... from what I have read this does seem to be in the minority. If you have heard otherwise then fair enough I can understand your opposition, if not though why do you seem to hate outsourcing so much?

[furball]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well, it depends what you mean by "rebel". People are already fairly anti-outsourcing, as I've said elsewhere when I worked in a tech support call centre people would ask whether I was in India or not and it'd happen more frequently witht he Asian members of staff. They're already unpopular, and I'd imagine some people base their purchase / investment decision primarily on this issue (my employers explicitly stated they had a policy of "UK only call centres" in response to newspaper coverage).

But as you say, who really cares for most services? I don't really phone my bank that often, and there are much more important issues when deciding who I am going to go with (interest rates, number of branches, costs on accounts, etc). As with all things, some services will go overseas for some customers, some will stay domestic.

By 'rebel', I mean actively change bank, etc, upon them outsourcing their call centres to India. I don't see many people doing it at the moment - some do, but most of us have higher priorities, as you listed.