There is a limit of the extent to which a satisfying work life can be achieved for all. And the limit to which one deserves it. I have known a great many people in my working life who’s chief object at work is to gossip and scheme. They are usually miserable and I think they’ve got it coming. Unfortunately they spread it ’round. Also unfortunately many of ‘em become middle managers ’cause they excel only at manipulation and bumlicking.
.
If government decree can change this I think its scope for doing so is limited.
.
However the concept of industrial democracy I believe is a way forward. Not only does it get around the us/them dichotomy it opens firms up to cross-scrutiny by employees across the hierarchy (across not up/down as these structures are concentric not pyramidical). However this is something that needs to be introduced in the private sector. Imposing it from above will not work.
.
Unfortuantely however we are locked in this old class-based theological conflict like Huegonauts and Royaists on St Bartholomew’s Day slaughtering each other ’cause one of us thinks that Mary was no Virgin.
.
Well we don’t slaughter each other literally anymore. So I guess progress has been made. A bit.

This is typical of primates, the lower in the hierarchy, the greater the expression of cortisol, a key stress hormone that at high levels does all sorts of wonderful things like induce glucocorticoid resistance leading to systemic inflammation,

I was havin’ a chin wag da Mort at the TAB the’other dai n’ zat’s wott ‘e said ‘ey? He said he felt like his stress hormones ‘d induced some gluttocorticoid resistance on account of ‘im bein’ such a total loser ‘n all.
.
I says t’im Morty. Maaate! Ye’ve got tae understan’ ye’ve gawt th’ power ta change yer life laddie.
.
He said: Nuh! Gawd wann’d moi da boi a losah ‘n zat’s wott oi am.
.
.
….
The thing about civilization and art n’ stuff John is that it’s basically in aid of refusing Nature’s proscriptions for our fate. We see that low status primates enjoy shitty lives and we want to do something about it. The argument between economic liberals and economic socialists is about whether laissez-faire or regaulation best achieves this.
.
And I guess the what is liberty question.

That was my “fluff” , you stole, fatfingers and you are far too harsh.

I reckon it is great to see “newish” players in the “thinktank” stakes.

In recent times we seen only one kind of truth open to discussion. It is so encouraging to see a little bit of talk about “work” as a slightly secondary consideration.

“Bad work” has big a effect on health and happiness.
Why else would you see such support, between the major parties, in providing post politics, “good job” positions, to former colleagues?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24049930-5016937,00.html

My waste-of-space verbage is better than yours.

workplaces with a certain amount of stress and conflict are often the most productive.

Yes, if there’s “voice” – that is to say, an alternative mode of dealing with conflict other than “exit”.

Maybe a bit of defining terms might have helped on his part. You seem to be doing his work in defining “quality”, as well. It was a good read, but…

Thats a good point about defining quality. Because whilst there are some common points (not getting buillied by management), people have quite a wide range of what they think is a quality job. Although I’d absolutely hate it, some people I work with enjoy work that involve a lot of repetition and not being challenged by something new regularly.

I typically work in offices and found that in that environment I was subject to more personal abuse and and dirty tactics than ever happened at the abbatoir.

The only time I’ve felt fear at work was when I worked at an abbatoir and two line workers with very sharp knives got into a fight. Couldn’t pay me enough to be a manager there. bbqs at that place were excellent though!

(b) that such issues should be addressed collectively. Obviously that agreement isn’t there with some people on this thread.

I think thats where I disagree with you the most. Especially if you means entities controlled external from the organisation. I know there are circumstances where it is necessary, but in general its difficult enough building up enough trust between managers and non-managers and bringing in third parties with their own agenda makes that even harder.

By collectively if you mean ad-hoc groups formed within the company by management and non-management to look at specific problems then I’d agree and suggest companies which function well do this already because there’s a big advantage to both groups and the company in general.

I’ve already told you I read the paper and indeed quoted from it earlier. Don’t be so rude.

In my tertiary studies in business administration I learnt that the relationship wasn’t so clear cut and that workplaces with a certain amount of stress and conflict are often the most productive.

Maybe a bit of defining terms might have helped on his part. You seem to be doing his work in defining “quality”, as well. It was a good read, but…

Are you suggesting productivity and contentment are directly proportional?

There is a very well known correlation between job satisfaction and productivity in the academic literature. This is discussed in the paper, which you might care to take the trouble to read.

Maybe “more quality jobs” could be created,for instance, by paying a reasonable wage to those who wash the bums rather than those who demand that they do.

Agreed, joe2.

I enjoyed working there but for the bad equipment which was often dangerous. I typically work in offices and found that in that environment I was subject to more personal abuse and and dirty tactics than ever happened at the abbatoir.

Again, I think there’s a bit of a misunderstanding here. “Quality jobs” aren’t equivalent to white-collar jobs, which may not be “quality” at all! What’s crucial to “quality of working life” includes a range of minima – including health and safety – and then on top of that, a culture of respect and fairness, among other things.

The problem isn’t “quality jobs” but respect for all work, although it should also be said that SocioTechnical Work Design, originally from Sweden, does offer some good ideas about how to make working life more comfortable and meaningful for people. As one wit once observed: we should actually pay people more for doing “dirty jobs” because no-one else wants to do them. It comes back to status, I made more money in the abbatoir than in office work but the latter confers a certain respectability and many would choose that over a higher wage. Status again and again and again ….

Coats is stimulating debate, it is true, but essentially maintaining the status quo. Work is out there to be done and “more quality jobs” would be great, if one was able to determine exactly he is talking about. It is all so subjective and fluffy.

Maybe “more quality jobs” could be created,for instance, by paying a reasonable wage to those who wash the bums rather than those who demand that they do.

“I’d have thought the economic benefits of a more productive and contented workforce would be obvious.”

Are you suggesting productivity and contentment are directly proportional?

Moreover, those at the bottom of a status
hierarchy are more likely to experience ill-health and have shorter life
expectancies than their higher status colleagues.

This is typical of primates, the lower in the hierarchy, the greater the expression of cortisol, a key stress hormone that at high levels does all sorts of wonderful things like induce glucocorticoid resistance leading to systemic inflammation, loss of immune response, shrinkage of the hippocampus, perturbations of prefrontal function, cancer, heart disease and probably other things as well. There are neuroscientists out there who will swear black and blue that it is very important to reduce chronic stress as it plays a leading role in driving dementias. For example, sustained major depression is a very real risk factor for latter dementia.

Wealth redistribution is not a solution, flattening hierarchical structures can help and let’s be honest here: the determinations of what constitutes status are rather subjective. Socio-Technical Work Design was aimed at helping giving employees more variety and involvement in the design of the work. However in Aus at least it seems to me that we are still very much in the strict hierarchical work design mode.

Globalisation has been a benefit but comes with cost. Increased competition increases stress and uncertainty about the future, it can turn employees against each other, it can lead to sudden changes wages and working conditions, it can make employers particularly ruthless in dealing with their employees. Doesn’t have to be this way and perhaps over time there will be a shift towards a “kinder, gentler” world and I must really stop smoking that stuff … .

Governments have to set minimum standards because there are employers who will do anything to make a buck, including working conditions that threaten the lives of their employees. It is the same with all human behavior: we must have limits because if we don’t someone will hurt someone else. Work and economics are no different, human behavior needs regulation. That’s why we have laws and I have never been able to understand those who argue that the elimination of industrial laws is a good thing. It is as if in economics there is something special about human behavior that makes it distinct from other areas of human behavior. Bollocks I say, industrial laws emerged precisely because of the bad behavior of bosses.

People in the workplace should be entitled to the same respect that they receive in wider society. I’ve worked for some shocking bosses, if they dealt with me that way on the street I would have started busting ribs. Most employers are fine but most people I have known have worked for at least one asshole. I think every manager should read “The No Asshole Rule”, a book by a Harvard Economist.

His attitude has changed since his own wife joined the ranks of the unempowered.
It would be nice to also see a change in heart from the unions who have failed this growing part of the workforce no less than the government and employers.

When has anybody ever won an
election with the slogan: “vote for us and your boss will be nicer to you”?

I dunno Mark. I reckon it’s worth a try.
.
Personally I think that it’s too moderate. How ’bout:
.
VOTE 1
Chunk Shonk
He will make it legal for you to kick your boss every day.
.
Ya gotta love Chuck.