# skiving little fucker



## pengaleng (Oct 22, 2007)

Am off work ill and I've been trying to get hold of me temp to check what he's doing and make sure he actually knows what he's doing, looks like the little cunts skived off again, I wouldn't mind, but the excuses he comes up with are so fucking piss poor sometimes it's a fucking wonder that me MD aint told him to leave... 

He called in late today because he's 'lost his bus tickt and has to go home for some reason' I was like how fucking late does he want to be it's nearly fucking 11 o'clock lol  

Just can't get the staff these days


----------



## Pingu (Oct 22, 2007)

a birching is probably in order...


----------



## Loupylou (Oct 22, 2007)

Jeez - he can't even be arsed to at least attempt to sound kosher...


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 23, 2007)

Oh, look, another thread from a boss whining about the behaviour of one of the proles "skiving off"


----------



## TopCat (Oct 23, 2007)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> Am off work ill and I've been trying to get hold of me temp to check what he's doing and make sure he actually knows what he's doing, looks like the little cunts skived off again, I wouldn't mind, but the excuses he comes up with are so fucking piss poor sometimes it's a fucking wonder that me MD aint told him to leave...
> 
> He called in late today because he's 'lost his bus tickt and has to go home for some reason' I was like how fucking late does he want to be it's nearly fucking 11 o'clock lol
> 
> Just can't get the staff these days



pot kettel black./


----------



## Yelkcub (Oct 23, 2007)

TopCat said:
			
		

> pot kettel black./



How does that work then? She's off work sick, but she's still trying to do her job. Or are there other threads with more info than the OP here?


----------



## Pingu (Oct 23, 2007)

this is teeps you realise?


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 23, 2007)

So what?


----------



## selamlar (Oct 23, 2007)

Duck and cover?


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 23, 2007)

I don't see why we should_ have_ to, tbh, nomatter _who_ they are.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 23, 2007)

TopCat said:
			
		

> pot kettel black./


intresting so a confrimed disablity MS is reason enough these days for Mr I'm goign to have you killed nonce here to suggest that MS is a put up job... 

You heard it hear first urban, disableds.  Work shy bastards more like... straight from the anarkids mouth...


----------



## Mr Smin (Oct 23, 2007)

Yelkcub said:
			
		

> How does that work then? She's off work sick, but she's still trying to do her job.



She's off work sick and posting to Urban about staff missing work.

to the OP - I find flaky people like that really annoying as well, but a temp only gets paid for the hours you sign for (ie from when they actually turn up) and as long as they realise this then 
a. they have a genuine reason for being late
b. they consider their 'flexible employment' cuts both ways
c. other

i suggest writing them a howto and then returning to bed [e2a MS so not necessarily to bed but whatever suits], but keep your phone handy in case they call you.


----------



## Yelkcub (Oct 23, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Oh, look, another thread from a boss whining about the behaviour of one of the proles "skiving off"



That's a very dishonest edit.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 23, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Oh, look, another thread from a boss whining about the behaviour of one of the proles "skiving off"


yeah that's rigth sneior filing clerks the world over are responsible for the runiation of man... any chance that by the time you hit 16 you might have grown into the reality of the real world?


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 23, 2007)

Yelkcub said:
			
		

> That's a very dishonest edit.


No, it was taking into account new information I wasn't privy to before (that TP was not actually at wirk themselves). The main thrust of the point, though, still stands. Nobdoy forces anyone to become a boss, so I have no sympathy when they bleat on about "their" staff.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 23, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> yeah that's rigth sneior filing clerks the world over are responsible for the runiation of man... any chance that by the time you hit 16 you might have grown into the reality of the real world?


The "reality" of the world is in my face a lot harder and more often than it's in yours, clearly.


----------



## Yelkcub (Oct 23, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> No, it was taking into account new information I wasn't privy to before (that TP was not actually at wirk themselves).



She said she was at home ill in the OP.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 23, 2007)

Yelkcub said:
			
		

> She said she was at home ill in the OP.


I hadn't read it properly.


----------



## Yelkcub (Oct 23, 2007)

Yelkcub said:
			
		

> She said she was at home ill in the OP.



With the first three words of her post in fact. But you didn't read it properly because your opinion formed by the title post, with no further interest in the facts.

But 'bosses' (even supervisors or people with the slightest bit of authority) are bad and 'workers' (no matter how little intetest they have in what someone else is paying them for) are good - right?


----------



## Yelkcub (Oct 23, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I hadn't read it properly.



We crossed posts, but I was fully aware of that as per post above.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 23, 2007)

Yelkcub said:
			
		

> With the first three words of her post in fact. But you didn't read it properly because your opinion formed by the title post, with no further interest in the facts.
> 
> But 'bosses' (even supervisors or people with the slightest bit of authority) are bad and 'workers' (no matter how little intetest they have in what someone else is paying them for) are good - right?




Don't question him! He's a _proper_ socialist!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 23, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> No, it was taking into account new information I wasn't privy to before (that TP was not actually at wirk themselves). The main thrust of the point, though, still stands. Nobdoy forces anyone to become a boss, so I have no sympathy when they bleat on about "their" staff.


yes that right so when a filing clerk get's a temp in or the employer get's the temp in they of course should resign forthwidth becuase they have no intention of being a boss and it changes the very fabric of the social order to continue in that role...

are you toally uncomprimisingly childish in all you rsourjons to reality... you are rik from the youngones i claim my five pounds...

what are you going to be when you grow up an accountant like all the other hardcore clueless wadicals.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 23, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I hadn't read it properly.


which pales into insignifcance when you then apply the same logic to having thought about it propperly... 

what gcses are you studing i hear they are much easier now so i'm sure you'll get loads... perhaps you might like to with a few of your pals try going behind the bike shed and having a crafty fag between 7 of you... well dangerous man...


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 23, 2007)

Close the internets, we're done.


----------



## Xanadu (Oct 23, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Oh, look, another thread from a boss whining about the behaviour of one of the proles "skiving off"



I was going to post that exact same thing but with a "" at the end


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 23, 2007)

Yelkcub said:
			
		

> But 'bosses' (even supervisors or people with the slightest bit of authority) are bad and 'workers' (no matter how little intetest they have in what someone else is paying them for) are good - right?


Congratulations - you've learnt your first lesson in dialectics regarding workplace relations.

PS: I've seen too many people's lives utterly ruined by people with "the slightest bit of authority", as it usually amounts to total control over whether the person under their boot eats, starves or has a roof over their heads.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 23, 2007)

.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Oct 23, 2007)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> Am off work ill and I've been trying to get hold of me temp to check what he's doing and make sure he actually knows what he's doing, looks like the little cunts skived off again . . .



Temp taking the piss = Exit temp
End of.


----------



## Xanadu (Oct 23, 2007)

A Dashing Blade said:
			
		

> Temp taking the piss = Exit temp
> End of.



Stealing urine in the workplace should never be tolerated


----------



## Yelkcub (Oct 23, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> PS: I've seen too many people's lives utterly ruined by people with "the slightest bit of authority", as it usually amounts to total control over whether the person under their boot eats, starves or has a roof over their heads.



To balance this, I've seen lots of people's lives enhanced by job satisfaction, decent earnings and working practices suited to their lives.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 23, 2007)

Yelkcub said:
			
		

> To balance this, I've seen lots of people's lives enhanced by job satisfaction, decent earnings and working practices suited to their lives.


Who? And what position do they hold?


----------



## Xanadu (Oct 23, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Who? And what position do they hold?



Bet it was just managers of managers, and the workers still had to suffer.  Bunch of cunts - the lot of them!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 23, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Who? And what position do they hold?


not relevant you are living under a capitalist system ergo you cannot berate people for using the mechanisms of the prevailing strutures in order to feed and clothe themselves.  you can berate the system but pointless bickering about indivuals actions is looking in the wrong area....


----------



## Mr Retro (Oct 23, 2007)

pmsl @ poster


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 23, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> you are living under a capitalist system ergo you cannot berate people for using the mechanisms of the prevailing strutures in order to feed and clothe themselves.


I don''t _do_ that. Everyone has to work to live. What they_ don't _have to do is climb the corporate ladder and take on roles which involve wielding the capitalist stick over other workers.




			
				GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> you can berate the system but pointless bickering about indivuals actions is looking in the wrong area....


I berate the system and those people who choose to go beyond what is unavoidable.

A slave in ancient Egypt had to work for the pharoah, for instance. That doesn't justify applying for the position of whip-holder.


----------



## Mr Retro (Oct 23, 2007)

meanwhile back in the real world .....


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 23, 2007)

Mr Retro said:
			
		

> meanwhile back in the real world .....


This *is* the real world. Which planet do _you_ live on where bosses don't control and hire/fire the workers on behalf of the capitalists, then?


----------



## Yelkcub (Oct 23, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I don''t _do_ that. Everyone has to work to live. What they_ don't _have to do is climb the corporate ladder and take on roles which involve wielding the capitalist stick over other workers.
> .



So you propose workers organise themselves to perform whatever tasks are required. Or if not, who should?


----------



## Ted Striker (Oct 23, 2007)

Yelkcub said:
			
		

> With the first three words of her post in fact. But you didn't read it properly because your opinion formed by the title post, with no further interest in the facts.
> 
> But 'bosses' (even supervisors or people with the slightest bit of authority) are bad and 'workers' (no matter how little intetest they have in what someone else is paying them for) are good - right?



In a nutshell


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 23, 2007)

To be fair I think poster is making a real-world point based on real-world experience. I don't wholly agree with it, but having had my life made a misery (and my career in librarianship utterly destroyed) by small-minded and dishonest little fuckers one step up the ladder, I can appreciate his frustration even if I think it is occasionally exaggerated and misplaced.

I might have to make a "some of my best friends" point here. When your academic background is Oxbridge, you tend to know a lot of people who've done well for themselves. Moreover by the time you're past forty, you inevitably know some people who started in one place but have risen to somewhere a bit higher. These people often say they don't have the same point of view that they did twenty years before, and that's not necessarily for self-serving reasons. I can appreciate that, and I also think, having had a couple (but only a couple) that _good_ managers are marvellous to work for. But there's a lot of hypocrites and bullies about.


----------



## Mr Retro (Oct 23, 2007)

Yelkcub said:
			
		

> So you propose workers organise themselves to perform whatever tasks are required. Or if not, who should?



poster?

Fair point by Donna Ferentes though.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 23, 2007)

I'm not going into a derail abotu what a post-capitalist socuiety (fat chance of getting near one with today's attitudes), but in the meantime peopel don't have to go out of their way to help the system beyond what they have to do just to keep afloat.


----------



## EastEnder (Oct 23, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> To be fair I think poster is making a real-world point based on real-world experience. I don't wholly agree with it, but having had my life made a misery (and my career in librarianship utterly destroyed) by small-minded and dishonest little fuckers one step up the ladder, I can appreciate his frustration even if I think it is occasionally exaggerated and misplaced.
> 
> I might have to make a "some of my best friends" point here. When your academic background is Oxbridge, you tend to know a lot of people who've done well for themselves. Moreover by the time you're past forty, you inevitably know some people who started in one palce but have risen to somewhere a bit higher. These people often say they don't have the same point of view that they did twenty years before, and that's not necessarily for self-serving reasons. I can appreciate that, and I also think, having had a couple (but only a couple) that _good_ managers are marvellous to work for. But there's a lot of hypocrites and bullies about.


There are wankers in all walks of life. I've had some crushingly terrible managers, a few that were indifferent, and a couple I genuinely liked working for*. The sad reality of the modern working world is that most of the time remuneration is linked to responsibility. You want to earn more, put a decent roof over your kids heads, save for retirement, etc, you have to accept more responsibility. Some people will always be attracted to power, no matter how miniscule it really is, and they're usually the problematic ones. Many people end up with a little bit of power simply because that's the only way they can progress within a company. Short of massive social change & societal upheaval, I can't see that changing any time soon.

*"liked worked for" is obviously a relative term - I prefer smoking weed, farting and watching the telly, but no one pays me to do it.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 23, 2007)

Up to a point poster but did it occur to you that sometimes the very positions you take might have te opposite effect to the one you want? It's not at all unusual for people who've been on the left for years to start thinking, often practically overnight, that people can't be arsed to think about things so why should _they_ be bothered, and start looking after Number One.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 23, 2007)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> You want to earn more, put a decent roof over your kids heads, save for retirement, etc, you have to accept more responsibility.


More responsibility _in theory_. It's not at all unusual for people to use the power being a manager gives them to _avoid_ responsibility.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 23, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> More responsibility _in theory_. It's not at all unusual for people to use the power being a manager gives them to _avoid_ responsibility.


Indeed. Quite often this extra "responsibility" just gets dumped on the people who have to work for them.

There's something inherantly sick about a society that values people not on the basis of how much work they contribute, but on the basis of how many people they have to do it _for them_.


----------



## Mr Retro (Oct 23, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> More responsibility _in theory_. It's not at all unusual for people to use the power being a manager gives them to _avoid_ responsibility.



Thats the point. I think poster misses it though.


----------



## EastEnder (Oct 23, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> More responsibility _in theory_. It's not at all unusual for people to use the power being a manager gives them to _avoid_ responsibility.


In which case they're shit managers, no argument there.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 23, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Up to a point poster but did it occur to you that sometimes the very positions you take might have te opposite effect to the one you want? It's not at all unusual for people who've been on the left for years to start thinking, often practically overnight, that people can't be arsed to think about things so why should _they_ be bothered, and start looking after Number One.


To be honest, at least you know where you stand with those types. The worst ones are those who still profess to be adhering to socialist or TU principals whilst threatening their staff with disciplinaries the next.

People have to make up their minds which side they're on.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 23, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Indeed. Quite often this extra "responsibility" just gets dumped on the people who have to work for them.


It's funny though, when I was trying to be a librarian, had anybody dumped extra responsibility on me I'd have been glad of it, provided they'd said what they were doing and asked me first. The people I'm thinking of are the ones who sit in their offices avoiding things, who say they'll sort out such-and-such and never do, who give you instructions that put you in a vulnerable situation* and then ignore thm when they're in that situation, who basically put you in a position of having to put your foot down at your own superiors in order to get your job done. At which poimt they can of course claim that there were _going_ to deal with whatever it was, so you should have been more patient and as it ifs you're out of order.

Fuckers.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 23, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> To be honest, at least you know where you stand with those types. The worst ones are those who still profess to be adhering to socialist or TU principles whilst threatening their staff with disciplinaries the next.


Sometimes, though, you have to. You really do.


----------



## Xanadu (Oct 23, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> To be honest, at least you know where you stand with those types. The worst ones are those who still profess to be adhering to socialist or TU principals whilst threatening their staff with disciplinaries the next.
> 
> People have to make up their minds which side they're on.



If you are paying someone to do a job and they fuck off without doing it, are you the cunt, or are they the cunt?  Or are you both cunts?


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 23, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Sometimes, though, you have to. You really do.


Not if you _don't apply to become a manager_. If you're serious about wanting to avoid being placed in such an ethically-compromising situation, don't apply to become a manager. It's simple.

My concience clear and integrity still intact as a result.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 23, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Not if you _don't apply to become a manager_. If you're serious about wanting to avoid being placed in such an ethically-compromising situation, don't apply to become a manager. It's simple.


Yeah, but life isn't. Why should people accept low pay all their lives just so as not to be placed in ethically-compromising positions?


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 23, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Yeah, but life isn't. Why should people accept low pay all their lives just so as not to be placed in ethically-compromising positions?


Because (like mugging to obtain money) it's inherantly to the detriment of others? Essentially, your argument amounts to "if you can't beat them, join them".

if people decide to take the devil's shilling, fine, just don't still then claim to be on our side.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 23, 2007)

People make complex choices in life, poster. Complex and many-sided.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 23, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> People make complex choices in life, poster. Complex and many-sided.


Every wedge has it's thin edge.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 23, 2007)

Only if it's a wedge from a circle.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 23, 2007)




----------



## Firky (Oct 23, 2007)

"senior filing clerk"

is that one of those titles they give to people to make them feel more valued or another gariflend 'fact'? 

*snicker*


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 23, 2007)

Like "jobseeker"?


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 23, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> "senior filing clerk"
> 
> is that one of those titles they give to people to make them feel more valued or another gariflend 'fact'?


Or to make the "junior filing clark" feel small and inferior.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 23, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> There's something inherantly sick about a society that values people not on the basis of how much work they contribute, but on the basis of how many people they have to do it _for them_.



So you don't think that people need to be managed at all?

(not a boss btw)


----------



## Firky (Oct 23, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Like "jobseeker"?



LOL Yeah, I thought that too


----------



## Yelkcub (Oct 23, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Because (like mugging to obtain money) it's inherantly to the detriment of others? Essentially, your argument amounts to "if you can't beat them, join them".



So a bus driver who earns money from driving buses is ok, but a manager who organises who drives which bus when is the spawn of satan? How does the bus driver earn his wages if no-one manages? If no-one should do it because managing is inherently evil, how does saintly driver feed his family without murderous evil manager?


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 23, 2007)

Yelkcub said:
			
		

> So a bus driver who earns money from driving buses is ok, but a manager who organises who drives which bus when is the spawn of satan? How does the bus driver earn his wages if no-one manages? If no-one should do it because managing is inherently evil, how does saintly driver feed his family without murderous evil manager?


All I can say is that if the bus driver stops work during a bus strike, no bus will run. The same cannot be said of when the manager takes a day off.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 23, 2007)

Well, it might be said that the system will grind to a halt if managers don't carry out a number of useful functions.


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 23, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Not if you _don't apply to become a manager_. If you're serious about wanting to avoid being placed in such an ethically-compromising situation, don't apply to become a manager. It's simple.
> 
> My concience clear and integrity still intact as a result.



At the start of the 90s cutbacks meant making middle managers redundant and then giving their responsibility (i.e. additional hours, extra work, 'pastoral' responsibilities, same pay) to their number 2s.

I don't see that as applying for a job? I see that as people being told to be grateful they still have a job.. 

The same ethos applies in part now, people are managers by default.. because they've shown reliability and are then asked to manage people who aren't..


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 23, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> All I can say is that if the bus driver stops work during a bus strike, no bus will run. The same cannot be said of when the manager takes a day off.


So the bus drivers will just orgainise themselves?. Are you sure you're living in the real world?


----------



## Yelkcub (Oct 23, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> All I can say is that if the bus driver stops work during a bus strike, no bus will run. The same cannot be said of when the manager takes a day off.



But if next weeks shift allocation hasn't been done, taking account of pre-authorised annual leave and allowing for normal levels of sickness etc and the manager isn't there, how will the buses run? All the bus drivers will be redundant. 

I'm not saying there aren't managers who are bullies and or incompetent, just like there are workers who are lazy and/or incompetent but your black and white view of the world is ridiculous.


----------



## EastEnder (Oct 23, 2007)

paulhackett66 said:
			
		

> The same ethos applies in part now, people are managers by default.. because they've shown reliability and are then asked to manage people who aren't..


The only responsibility I've ever had has been imposed upon me - I've never applied for any kind of manager/leader role in my life. It was always made very clear that if I wanted to earn more I had to take on more responsibility over time. Personally, I'd rather have earned more _without_ having to be responsible for anything - but that's not the way things work in the real world.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 23, 2007)

Yeah, alright then - I stand corrected. Managers are the new uber-fucking vanguard of the proletariat. 

Ye gods ...


----------



## Yelkcub (Oct 23, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Yeah, alright then - I stand corrected. Managers are the new uber-fucking vanguard of the proletariat.



Yes, because that's what I said isn't it?


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 23, 2007)

paulhackett66 said:
			
		

> At the start of the 90s cutbacks meant making middle managers redundant and then giving their responsibility (i.e. additional hours, extra work, 'pastoral' responsibilities, same pay) to their number 2s.
> 
> The same ethos applies in part now, people are managers by default.. because they've shown reliability and are then asked to manage people who aren't..


Now it's the other way round - most workplaces are scrapping the worker grades and just employing more and more managers. It ensures the workers are marginalised, powerless and isolated if the management-worker ratio is turned on it's head (at one time you had a pyramid structure in most places. Now it's a sort of rhomboid shape).


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 23, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I don''t _do_ that. Everyone has to work to live. What they_ don't _have to do is climb the corporate ladder and take on roles which involve wielding the capitalist stick over other workers.


erm youkinda do actually that's the whole bag with capitalism, either you do it or someone else does. 

now one could make the arguemnt that if more like minded people joined the corperate ranks then you might have an effect in changing the very nature of the system from the inside certainly it's not possible to to change it from outside wittering on about nonsensical bollicks idealism which isn't even workable. period....




			
				poster342002 said:
			
		

> I berate the system and those people who choose to go beyond what is unavoidable.



and you can confidently say what that will be with suifficent depth and knowledge for each and every person in order to say that will never be the case that being an manager is avoidable... no one has explained this whole capitalist system concept to you have they .... unavoidable my arse... 

people exist within the system at present to consume, it mighten be right or the way humans are supposed to be but it's the way it is who are you to remark with disdaine this person is unworthy in my eyes due to these arbiatary unworkable factors i have placed on the sitation... 




			
				poster342002 said:
			
		

> A slave in ancient Egypt had to work for the pharoah, for instance. That doesn't justify applying for the position of whip-holder.



you didn't apply to be a whip holder you were given the role.  and greatful you were for it as it expemted you from back breaking work ... but under your ideal everyone has to dot he shittest jobs imaginable and commit to a life of drugery so they aren't tarnished byt the title of boss and therefore evil satanic overlord....

I cannot beleive in this day and age that we still produce such twaddle and attempt to portray it as informed comment about our society...


----------



## catinthehat (Oct 23, 2007)

Most of them are faux managers though - given the title and a tid of power/responsibility - in terms of their relationship to the means of production they know not if they are brother, sister, grandma or second cousin three times removed.  Which essentially is what is meant to happen.


----------



## pengaleng (Oct 23, 2007)

my temp at the moment is the best I've ever had, does the job well infact, the only thing letting him down is these excuses he keeps making, he is quite young, so one would expect this to happen. the fact that I'm pissed off with it is because we have mountains of work to get through and I wouldn't be taking time off if I was well. do you think that coming in at 12pm is acceptable for the excuse of 'I lost my oystercard'? I don't think so. He wasn't in again today, something about coughing up blood, and I expect that he won't be in tomorrow, however I will be going to work tomorrow even though I'm still bunged up and have a bad cough because I can't really afford to as theres so much work I have to do. if that makes me a 'bad' person then so be it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 23, 2007)

Well that wasn't a very long ban was it


----------



## equationgirl (Oct 23, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> More responsibility _in theory_. It's not at all unusual for people to use the power being a manager gives them to _avoid_ responsibility.



I see you have met the new MD at our place


----------



## pengaleng (Oct 23, 2007)

Citizen66 said:
			
		

> Well that wasn't a very long ban was it



nah, didnt really notice tbh  been watching daytime telly and making hair extensions, got banned for fuck all really, should complain about it but I can't be fucked, made no difference to me


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 23, 2007)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> nah, didnt really notice tbh  been watching daytime telly and making hair extensions, got banned for fuck all really, should complain about it but I can't be fucked, made no difference to me



And to have been enlightened that the Jeremy Kyle show makes this place look like an episode of Bambi must have shaken you to your core!


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 24, 2007)

catinthehat said:
			
		

> Most of them are faux managers though - given the title and a tid of power/responsibility - in terms of their relationship to the means of production they know not if they are brother, sister, grandma or second cousin three times removed.  Which essentially is what is meant to happen.


Doesn't stop them getting on a twisted little power-trip and creating untold misery for the person working for them, though.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 24, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Doesn't stop them getting on a twisted little power-trip and creating untold misery for the person working for them, though.


that's every single manager without exception is it tell me why haven't you written a book on the travels you have whilst you went around and studied each and every human who is currently alive and in management....

tell me do you also have these little prejudical sterotypes about homosexuals where they all wear pink call each other sweetie and love burt bacerach?

or those quaint little pikinini's and their water melon eatting ways, and how their sad brown eyes contain the sprit of jazz and real soul...

you fucking cardboard cut out wadical...


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 24, 2007)

^^^^^^^^^Strawman post of the year.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 24, 2007)

strawman vs cardboard cutout fight!


*deckchair time*


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 24, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> ^^^^^^^^^Strawman post of the year.


where's the straw man love i haev not set up a premise to knock it down but taken your words your post literally and extrapolated the level of prejudicacial sterotyping bullshit to other context to give you and insight into why what your saying is not only wrong but also the worst type of bigotted bollocks the no one better than i bollocks... 

I'm a firm beleiver in people need a stick, if they didn't the wouldn't accept the stick... you cannot concive of this and yet we are living with in the society where you do just that daily... pay a man for your net access abide by his rules.  pay a man for the computor or use of it then abide by his rules use the system of barter which we have accepted you abide by his rules.

you think your 'solutions' are shcokingly radical and better and that becuase you can concieve of them then surely they must be of some cailber yet you still rely on the tools of the oppressive system to express yourself and attempt to communicate with others.  

In what way by doing this are you 
A) not a total hypocrte
B) proving the system fails by using it's tools.

see you cannot be consistant even with in your own argument. 

you claim that exploitation occurs and only when one person a manager of any kind is in effect removed from the process of labour and profits from the labours of others, yet you choose to use a pc in order to do it where the silicon has been taken from one of the poorest countries in the world paid for not at fair trade prices but at what the dominant system tells them they will pay where the workers are exploited and worked to near death in dangerous conditions for pityful pay.

And the you dare to come on to an internet site the last refuge of the petty bourgious and belittle others in order to pour some slav on to you consious and proclaim that you will have no truck with these systems of oppression.

you fucking hypocrtical nonce. 

you bourgious western liberal bleeding heart twat.  

one thinks you need to put into perspective your own sanctimony and hypocrasy before commenting further on others... I take it back you aren't a 6th form radical, even they have the intergrity to have some humiltiy in what they comment on and the self awareness to know when they are straying on to dangerous ground.

Tell me mr wadical when are you goign to set up a workers collective from envriomentally safe and sensieble silicon production when are workers in the mines going be liberated by your reasoned argument as break your backs so you can pontificate about the disaster others are visitng whilst spinning the whole argument away from your own personal responsiblity.

Welcome to the Real world. 

don't enjoy your stay....

sucker...


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> strawman vs cardboard cutout fight!
> 
> 
> *deckchair time*


*grabs ringside seat*


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 24, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> *grabs ringside seat*


would charge you but worries i'd be charged with exploting the masses of workign class editors across the world by doing so and thus making surplus profits from others endevours... 

jesus fuck i hate fundamentalist Swappie bastards...


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 24, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> jesus fuck i hate fundamentalist Swappie bastards...


If you've read ANY of my posts elsewhere, you'd know I certainly was no swappie-supporter ...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 24, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> If you've read ANY of my posts elsewhere, you'd know I certainly was no swappie-supporter ...


that's it... that's your entire response... folded after one post sorry peoples the deck chairs were for nought... poster youneed to change you tag line to caving hypocrite now....


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 24, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> that's it... that's your entire response... folded after one post sorry peoples the deck chairs were for nought... poster youneed to change you tag line to caving hypocrite now....


Not really - I just couldn't be bothered replying to that bizarre assortment of projections, ad-hominems and strawmen contained in that rather lengthy post of yours.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Oct 24, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Not really - . . .



Looks like it from here . . .


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 24, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Not really - I just couldn't be bothered replying to that bizarre assortment of projections, ad-hominems and strawmen contained in that rather lengthy post of yours.


wheres the projection?

you are using a computor - true.

you are using the interent - true.

you are using the tools of a captialist system - true.

by this extrapoliation you are exploiting someone else in order to do so under the capitalist system.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 24, 2007)

Yeah, poster342002 - fuck off back to Russia.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 24, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> wheres the projection?
> 
> you are using a computor - true.
> 
> ...


 
*thinks of his poor friends at pipex who are slaving away under the heel of the opressors to keep their part of the internet working*

hes exploiting my mates!

 Did you hear that?  Did you hear that, eh?
    That's what I'm on about.  Did you see him repressing them?  You saw it,   didn't you?


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 24, 2007)

.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 24, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Yeah, poster342002 - fuck off back to Russia.


christ don't you think russia has enough problems...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 24, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> One thing I'm not doing - which would be a step too far - is apply for a job where part of the job-description involves telling someone "the capitalist employer demands you do xyz for inadequate sums of money - and it's my role to whip your arse on their behalf if you don't" whislt hypocritically claiming to be on their side and invite them to union meetings.


love the dishonest edit too...

but actualyl what you are doing now is paint shades of grey and saying my exploitation is not comparible to your exploitation. 

so what's the scale of exploitation here then care to define it.  do you have at one end soem one on the dole whos exploiting the rest of the wroking populus by virtue of taking from the national fund and increasing the demands goverments make on the exploitation of workers and at the other some big industry fat cat.  

what level of exploitation is perfectly acceptable to you and what is above the pale.

in this non real world capitalism you are living in.

seems to me you are splitting hairs to justify your won guilt at being with in the capitalist system and usig it to your own advantage, and bugger the consiquences for others, then errecting a true strawman by saying all bosses are cunts and that it's beyond the pale to be one. 

hypocyrte.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> *thinks of his poor friends at pipex who are slaving away under the heel of the opressors to keep their part of the internet working*
> 
> hes exploiting my mates!
> 
> ...


to my mind it's a worse form of exploitation he's using the system but denying any culpability for doing so... in other words allowing others to exploit people on his behalf and therefore being the exploited by consent to proxy...


----------



## EastEnder (Oct 24, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> to my mind it's a worse form of exploitation he's using the system but denying any culpability for doing so... in other words allowing others to exploit people on his behalf and therefore being the exploited by consent to proxy...


Might make for some interesting real life exchanges...

A) Hi there, can I help you?
B) Two pints of lager please
A) Coming right up!
B) Hang on a minute, did you ask me what I wanted because you wanted to do so, or because someone's told you to do it?
A) Errr, well the manager asked me to serve people...
B) So you're just obeying the orders of a superior, and if I let you serve me it's tantamount to expressing approval of those orders! I'd be agreeing with your manager!! Cancel the lager, I'm never going to a pub again....


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 24, 2007)

as i said not livign in the real world... 

can i also add at this point. pwned...


----------



## Termite Man (Oct 24, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> A slave in ancient Egypt had to work for the pharoah, for instance. That doesn't justify applying for the position of whip-holder.



The Egyptians didn't use slavery IIRC , or if they did it wasn't for building pyramids etc. as that required a skilled workforce and slaves couldn't be trusted for that job !


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 24, 2007)

Termite Man said:
			
		

> The Egyptians didn't use slavery IIRC , or if they did it wasn't for building pyramids etc. as that required a skilled workforce and slaves couldn't be trusted for that job !


for pyramid building this was certainly true they used artisans who worked for the priviledge of doing the job for their own reputation however to suggest that the isrealities were not slaves during that time and that the attendees to the houses and courts weren't slaves would be streaching it... you know the whole let my people go...


----------



## Termite Man (Oct 24, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> for pyramid building this was certainly true they used artisans who worked for the priviledge of doing the job for their own reputation however to suggest that the isrealities were not slaves during that time and that the attendees to the houses and courts weren't slaves would be streaching it... you know the whole let my people go...



I thought as much although I considered 





> That doesn't justify applying for the position of whip-holder.


to be refering to the commonly held belief that the pyramids were built by large numbers of slaves who were all whipped to speed up construction , thus it was a shit analogy to use and just thought I'd point that out


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 24, 2007)

Termite Man said:
			
		

> I thought as much although I considered
> to be refering to the commonly held belief that the pyramids were built by large numbers of slaves who were all whipped to speed up construction , thus it was a shit analogy to use and just thought I'd point that out



true i assumed to this is what it was reffering to in some enforced colonial sterotyped eurocentric ideal of what those uncultured ay-rabs did.  However, there is evedence of discaplinary measures against revolting slaves which included the whip and of coruse with a poster this inconsistant about their own levels of ethic or moral culpability one expected that the topic of conversation would have drifted off towards waht consistuted a slave in acenitent times and detracted from the debate.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 24, 2007)

...


----------



## Pingu (Oct 24, 2007)

this thread reminds me of a scene from monty pythons holy grail btw


----------



## Xanadu (Oct 24, 2007)

Pingu said:
			
		

> ...



How long before the wedding?


----------



## Pingu (Oct 24, 2007)

Xanadu said:
			
		

> How long before the wedding?


 
8/8/08


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 24, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> as i said not livign in the real world...
> 
> can i also add at this point. pwned...


The rest of us are staring slack-jawed at such an example of pwnness Garf.


----------



## Xanadu (Oct 24, 2007)

If you were rich you could get a servant.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 24, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> The rest of us are staring slack-jawed at such an example of pwnness Garf.


in a double tastic thread first 

commie.  Pwned. 

no he didn't ... touch me, I'm on fire ...


----------



## EastEnder (Oct 24, 2007)

The funny thing is how people get so worked up about corporate hierarchies, yet at the same time have no problem whatsoever with telling other people what to do in less "structured" environments. If I've got leaky pipes, I hire a plumber and, in not so many words, say "fix my pipes and I'll give you money". I'm ordering this person to do something in return for giving him cash. He can refuse, as can any employee, in which case I won't give him any cash, just like the employee might get fired.

Put the same thing in an office context and suddenly it's immoral exploitation....

Obviously the principle in no way excuses bad management, bad leadership and genuine exploitation. But the principle itself is timeless, irrefutable and the reason why we have big, sophisticated societies today.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 24, 2007)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> Obviously the principle in no way excuses bad management, bad leadership and genuine exploitation. But the principle itself is timeless, irrefutable and the reason why we have big, sophisticated societies today.


but you eveeeeeeil capitalist piiiiiiiiiggggggg that negates the gnashing and wailing of teeth and teenage angst which is wrapped up in this juvenile form of politics....


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> would charge you but worries i'd be charged with exploting the masses of workign class editors across the world by doing so and thus making surplus profits from others endevours...
> 
> jesus fuck i hate fundamentalist Swappie bastards...


Whoosh!

That one's gone straight over my head.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 24, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Whoosh!
> 
> That one's gone straight over my head.


the inference being that it'd be exploitation of editors inc yourself to charge your for use of deck chairs not only that but also of course the intial sourcing of the deck chairs would also not be without exploitation of others time/work in their manifacture....

the infference being that fundamentalist SWP types with the workers are being exploited ridiculiousness of all bosses are scum rhetoric being somewhat alienated from reality...


----------



## Pingu (Oct 24, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> the inference being that it'd be exploitation of editors inc yourself to charge your for use of deck chairs not only that but also of course the intial sourcing of the deck chairs would also not be without exploitation of others time/work in their manifacture....
> 
> the infference being that fundamentalist SWP types with the workers are being exploited ridiculiousness of all bosses are scum rhetoric being somewhat alienated from reality...


 
see, obvious when you look at it that way


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> the inference being that it'd be exploitation of editors inc yourself to charge your for use of deck chairs not only that but also of course the intial sourcing of the deck chairs would also not be without exploitation of others time/work in their manifacture....
> 
> the infference being that fundamentalist SWP types with the workers are being exploited ridiculiousness of all bosses are scum rhetoric being somewhat alienated from reality...


Whoosh! There it goes again!

No need to try and explain it again. I'm outta here!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 24, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Whoosh! There it goes again!
> 
> No need to try and explain it again. I'm outta here!


ultra hard line socialist thinks that any form of work where there is a hierarchical structure is a form of exploitation my aside was to suggest that i would be exploiting you if i were to sell you a fictious chair to pull up at fictious metaphorical ring side seats. 

in a parody of their argument it was using both sarcasm and parody to make the point. 

the moment, however has passed


----------



## Hollis (Oct 24, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> what are you going to be when you grow up an accountant like all the other hardcore clueless wadicals.



Watch it Garfied/  

You hear about my past radicalism in the SDP?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 24, 2007)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Watch it Garfied/
> 
> You hear about my past radicalism in the SDP?


Pinko...


----------



## Hollis (Oct 24, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> People have to make up their minds which side they're on.



Its not really a matter of "sides" in your sense though is it?  You get those who try to conduct themselves in a fair and reasonable manner, and you get those that don't.  This doesn't coincide with the manager/"worker" split.


----------



## Geri (Oct 24, 2007)

Why would you even bother to ring work if you were off ill? If you are ill you are ill, and shouldn't have the extra stress of worrying about your work getting done when you are not there.

Last week one of the secretaries at work phoned our regional manager to complain about my boss's handwriting - on her day off.


----------



## EastEnder (Oct 24, 2007)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Its not really a matter of "sides" though is it?  You get themselves who try to conduct themselves in a fair and reasonable manner, and you get those that don't.  This doesn't coincide with the manager/"worker" split.


You don't understand Hollis...

It is physically impossible to hold any position of authority whatsoever without being selfish, evil, lazy, callous, greedy, uncaring, power obsessed, megalomaniacal scum.

As you should know.....


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 24, 2007)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Its not really a matter of "sides" in your sense though is it?  You get those who try to conduct themselves in a fair and reasonable manner, and you get those that don't.  This doesn't coincide with the manager/"worker" split.


This is a quarter-truth, but there's another three-quarters which says that what constitutes "reasonable" may look very differenct according to which side of that split one finds oneself on, and one side has the ability to declare their own behaviour reasonable while the other does not.


----------



## Hollis (Oct 24, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> and one side has the ability to declare their own behaviour reasonable while the other does not.



I think with HR policies and procedures etc... one side has an awful lot of power to complain that their actually 'shite' performance is really rather reasonable..


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 24, 2007)

Hollis said:
			
		

> I think with HR policies and procedures etc... one side has an awful lot of power to complain that their actually 'shite' performance is really rather reasonable..


Yes, I've always been impressed by the impartial and independent nature of HR.


----------



## EastEnder (Oct 24, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> This is a quarter-truth, but there's another three-quarters which says that what constitutes "reasonable" may look very differenct according to which side of that split one finds oneself on, and one side has the ability to declare their own behaviour reasonable while the other does not.


I don't think there's ever been any argument with that - people with power, no matter how little, can use it ineffectually, act inappropriately or be downright corrupt & immoral with it. Most people who've been in the working world for any length of time will attest to the ease with which one can find really shit bosses/managers. But that doesn't in any way imply that it's not possible to be in a position of control and still be a virtuous, considerate leader who at least _tries_ to do a good job. And the idea that just because there are crappy managers out there somehow negates the value of all hierarchical organisational structures in the modern world, as was alluded to in the thread, is just plain barking....


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Yes, I've always been impressed by the impartial and independent nature of HR.



Evil


----------



## Hollis (Oct 24, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Yes, I've always been impressed by the impartial and independent nature of HR.



I dunno if you're being ironic.. Either way.. there's folk out there with a mindset that just see them as a set of 'rules' to work around to their own advantage.  They can follow the letter, play the rules, .. but don't follow the spirit of the things.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2007)

I like co-operatives. No hierarchy there. Tricky to make work successfully though and by their nature need to stay small. Nothing wrong with that though.


----------



## EastEnder (Oct 24, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> I like co-operatives. No hierarchy there. Tricky to make work successfully though and by their nature need to stay small. Nothing wrong with that though.


Surely a co-operative only has no hierarchy if it's absolutely tiny, or only at the organisational level - so you still end up with a hierarchy below it. It might work for, say, a group of farmers, all of whom effectively represent self contained businesses, but for any conventional kind of organisation it just doesn't seem practical.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 24, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> ultra hard line socialist thinks that any form of work where there is a hierarchical structure is a form of exploitation my aside was to suggest that i would be exploiting you if i were to sell you a fictious chair to pull up at fictious metaphorical ring side seats.
> 
> in a parody of their argument it was using both sarcasm and parody to make the point.
> 
> the moment, however has passed


 
...  no you have lost me now.. 

i had it before


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2007)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> Surely a co-operative only has no hierarchy if it's absolutely tiny, or only at the organisational level - so you still end up with a hierarchy below it. It might work for, say, a group of farmers, all of whom effectively represent self contained businesses, but for any conventional kind of organisation it just doesn't seem practical.



Here's one that I know: http://www.calverts.coop/ Small, but not tiny. Consensus management, all workers decide.


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> Here's one that I know: http://www.calverts.coop/ Small, but not tiny. Consensus management, all workers decide.


Nice site. Do you know how many workers there are in total?


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Nice site. Do you know how many workers there are in total?



I think there's about 16. The guy I know from there is also really involved with some sort of federation of co-operatives and happy to talk to people about the principles, explain how it's done, that sort of thing. They also get involved in lots of community type projects where they'll do special deals. A few of them post on here as well, apparently


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> I think there's about 16. The guy I know from there is also really involved with some sort of federation of co-operatives and happy to talk to people about the principles, explain how it's done, that sort of thing. They also get involved in lots of community type projects where they'll do special deals. A few of them post on here as well, apparently


I like the idea of co-ops and almost all of the bands I started up were run on those lines, but it's not always viable. 

If, for example, you've got one incredibly gifted songwriter and an extremely lazy bass player it's hardly fair to split everything evenly, although a lot of bands who share equally end up staying together longer.

I guess if you're lucky enough to put together a team of people with similar levels of expertise/enthusiasm/energy/enterprise and political ideology, a co-op is a great way to go.


----------



## EastEnder (Oct 24, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> I guess if you're lucky enough to put together a team of people with similar levels of expertise/enthusiasm/energy/enterprise and political ideology, a co-op is a great way to go.


Until someone needs to hire an assistant, maybe not as experienced or capable, needs a bit of guidance, learning the ropes, etc.

Will everyone else accept the assistant getting equal pay and having equal say?


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2007)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> Until someone needs to hire an assistant, maybe not as experienced or capable, needs a bit of guidance, learning the ropes, etc.
> 
> Will everyone else accept the assistant getting equal pay and having equal say?


I guess if the others like him/her and can see that he/she has got something positive and enthusiastic to bring to the co-op, hell, why not?


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> I like the idea of co-ops and almost all of the bands I started up were run on those lines, but it's not always viable.
> 
> If, for example, you've got one incredibly gifted songwriter and an extremely lazy bass player it's hardly fair to split everything evenly, although a lot of bands who share equally end up staying together longer.
> 
> I guess if you're lucky enough to put together a team of people with similar levels of expertise/enthusiasm/energy/enterprise and political ideology, a co-op is a great way to go.



I hadn't thought about it from a band point of view before, that's interesting. I guess my take on that would still be equal distribution and input, but relying on peer pressure as any lack of proportionate contribution starts to become apparent. Tricky though.

I think that one of the over-riding principles has to be that everyone's potential contribution is equal although inevitably different. Consensus management takes time and to be effective the communication has to be top notch so that all the members understand the issues and implications before casting their vote.

And that's why I think that to be effective, co-ops are self limiting in terms of size. Which isn't a bad thing.

From my own point of view, it's also interesting to see how co-operatives deal with employment legislation issues, some of which are constructed on the basis of hierarchical decision making. Again, tricky but not impossible.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2007)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> Until someone needs to hire an assistant, maybe not as experienced or capable, needs a bit of guidance, learning the ropes, etc.
> 
> Will everyone else accept the assistant getting equal pay and having equal say?



"Equal Pay" (as a principle) doesn't necessarily mean the *same* pay for everyone i.e. flat rate. But in terms of equal say - why not.


----------



## Hollis (Oct 24, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> If, for example, you've got one incredibly gifted songwriter and an extremely lazy bass player it's hardly fair to split everything evenly, although a lot of bands who share equally end up staying together.



I believe U2 are an example of this.. They even give Paul McGuiness a 20% share.    Not sure about the roadies though.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 24, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> If, for example, you've got one incredibly gifted songwriter and an extremely lazy bass player it's hardly fair to split everything evenly, although a lot of bands who share equally end up staying together longer.


If the bassplayer's lazy the collective probably wants to sack them....


----------



## Hollis (Oct 24, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> "Equal Pay" (as a principle) doesn't necessarily mean the *same* pay for everyone i.e. flat rate. But in terms of equal say - why not.



Yes - I'm wondering how calverts work in practice.. is it just a glorified networking thing?  Its rather like Chartered Accountants who used to operate on a partnership basis.. in the good old days.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> If the bassplayer's lazy the collective probably wants to sack them....




And it's openly put to the vote with the bass player also voting. But that peer pressure aspect would probably kick in long before it escalated into a voting situation (hopefully).


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2007)

Hollis said:
			
		

> Yes - I'm wondering how calverts work in practice.. is it just a glorified networking thing?  Its rather like Chartered Accountants who used to operate on a partnership basis.. in the good old days.



No, it's a proper co-operative in practice. If you're interested they'll show you round and you can talk to them yourself to see how it works.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 24, 2007)

I'm a bit sceptical about collectives, but that's because I like to plough my own furrow. But then, I'm more than a bit sceptical about the normal way in which work is organised.


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> And it's openly put to the vote with the bass player also voting. But that peer pressure aspect would probably kick in long before it escalated into a voting situation (hopefully).


Sadly that never, ever happened in my experience!


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I'm a bit sceptical about collectives, but that's because I like to plough my own furrow. But then, I'm more than a bit sceptical about the normal way in which work is organised.



If it was easy to do effectively, there'd be more of them  But seeing how it _can_ be done is worthwhile.


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> If the bassplayer's lazy the collective probably wants to sack them....


And them there's the thorny issue if whether the Johnny-come lately replacement bass player should get equal shares seeing as they've just rocked up and haven't put any of the effort in that's got the band to where they are.

I think it only really works if it's the same people. Once you start changing the line-up it can get very complicated.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Sadly that never, ever happened in my experience!



Doesn't surprise me! But did the bands actually structure themselves as a co-op in terms of each member having an equal monetary share and a co-operative based process for decision making etc?


----------



## Roadkill (Oct 24, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Yes, I've always been impressed by the impartial and independent nature of HR.



Sarcastic, harsh ... but very fair IME.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 24, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> And them there's the thorny issue if whether the Johnny-come lately replacement bass player should get equal shares seeing as they've just rocked up and haven't put any of the effort in that's got the band to where they are.


I can imagine. But I think if people feel that way (and they've every right to) then an equal-shares collective probably isn't the way to go in the first place.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> And them there's the thorny issue if whether the Johnny-come lately replacement bass player should get equal shares seeing as they've just rocked up and haven't put any of the effort in that's got the band to where they are.
> 
> I think it only really works if it's the same people. Once you start changing the line-up it can get very complicated.



Gotta be equal, voted in, voted out if potential contribution doesn't match actual contribution.


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> Gotta be equal, voted in, voted out if potential contribution doesn't match actual contribution.


It can be a bit tricky at times  to quantify that in a 'creative' band environment though. What happens if the guitarist is a really lazy sod but he writes great songs?


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> Doesn't surprise me! But did the bands actually structure themselves as a co-op in terms of each member having an equal monetary share and a co-operative based process for decision making etc?


 We shared the costs and cash in and made decisions collectively, but we didn't write out any AK-esque mile long 'charters'.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 24, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> It can be a bit tricky at times  to quantify that in a 'creative' band environment though. What happens if the guitarist is a really lazy sod but he writes great songs?


Then you have to decide which way you want to go. Either it's sod it, we're not going to try and add up and balance out everybody's contribution, in which case you can have a collective, or it's not, so you can't.

Collectives can't work unless you trust and respect one another and they can't work where people take the piss. But they can work.


----------



## editor (Oct 24, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Then you have to deicde which way you want to go. Either it's sod it, we're not going to try and add up and balance out everybody's contribution, in which case you can have a collective, or it's not, so you can't.


True. But it's always worth a go. I'm glad I tried it out.


----------



## cesare (Oct 24, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> It can be a bit tricky at times  to quantify that in a 'creative' band environment though. What happens if the guitarist is a really lazy sod but he writes great songs?




Yep, totally. That's why the initial clarity over 'who do we want and with what skills' is so important. Then if you get someone that doesn't contribute the fundamental skills that were needed but contributes other ones ... discussion and then voting about whether that can be accomodated in the interests of the collective. Or not. Takes time and that means there's a risk ofthings going tits up during that decision making process.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 25, 2007)

Hollis said:
			
		

> I think with HR policies and procedures etc... one side has an awful lot of power to complain that their actually 'shite' performance is really rather reasonable..


And HR has the final word in saying "no it's not - your sacked". Regardless of what evidence is supplied.

After  "a full and thoroughgoing whitewa - sorry, Kangaroo Cour - er, I mean, investigation", of course.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 25, 2007)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> It is physically impossible to hold any position of authority whatsoever without being selfish, evil, lazy, callous, greedy, uncaring, power obsessed, megalomaniacal scum.


You don't _have_ to hold a position of authority to be those things, but it helps.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 25, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> And HR has the final word in saying "no it's not - your sacked". Regardless of what evidence is supplied.
> 
> After  "a full and thoroughgoing whitewa - sorry, Kangaroo Cour - er, I mean, investigation", of course.


what the hell are you doing back here on this topic it had moved along quite nicely with out more of your ignornat childish piffle about idealistic nonstarter utopia pipedream 16 year old sixth form wadical bollitics.  

fuck me you are like tory boy but for the pinkos... 

haven't you got some street courner to stand on sell some shite irrelvant middle class appealing paper or a group of real working class people to lecture how they aren't fallig into the party line and should be more relant on your way of thinking as the one true voice of the working class....

go on sling your hook you've polluted this thread enough and i'm feeling to full of cold today to give you the full kick in you deserve...


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> And HR has the final word in saying "no it's not - your sacked". Regardless of what evidence is supplied.
> 
> After  "a full and thoroughgoing whitewa - sorry, Kangaroo Cour - er, I mean, investigation", of course.



I'm sorry that's been your experience.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2007)

poster342002 - don't you have anything to contribute on the subject of co-operatives? I'd have thought that'd be right up your street.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 25, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> go on sling your hook you've polluted this thread enough and i'm feeling to full of cold today to give you the full kick in you deserve...


... and your tired old "internet hardman" persona gets another dreary airing.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 25, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> what the hell are you doing back here on this topic it had moved along quite nicely with out more of your ignornat childish piffle about idealistic nonstarter utopia pipedream 16 year old sixth form wadical bollitics.
> 
> fuck me you are like tory boy but for the pinkos...
> 
> ...


Hmm


----------



## Sue (Oct 25, 2007)

Geri said:
			
		

> Why would you even bother to ring work if you were off ill? If you are ill you are ill, and shouldn't have the extra stress of worrying about your work getting done when you are not there.



Exactly. If you're off sick, you're off sick. It's up to someone else to sort it out.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 25, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> ... and your tired old "internet hardman" persona gets another dreary airing.


yes dear ...

you have totlaly failed to contribute anythign to this thread other than continue self agandiseing propaganda for you own brand of socailist poltics you have fialed repatedly to explain any of the virtues of the things you espouse and indeed have had nothing postive to say regarding the topic of debate.  Subiqeuntly you have gone on to dismiss other contribtuors here who have point out the facile nature and immaturity of your comments and the pityfully weak arugment you place up as support for your posts. 

repeatdly you have wriggled dodged obfiscated back tracked and been generally mealy mouthed whilst in the same breath ranting about your verison of socialism and expecting world to conform to your agenda with out being able to see that acutally that agenda is a polar opposites to the reality.

When this has been show to bed the case oyu slink off only to return a few pages later to start up all over again when the comments which showed up your petty pointless and pathetic argument for what it was to start banging on again in exactly the same manner like come pinko stuck record. 

There's nothing internet hardman about point out that you are doing this but you are right it is tiedious and tired.  Perhapsh you should cease posting in such an uncomprimisingly dullard fashion and then it would cease to be necessaceryy to point you that fishermans nets have less holes in them than your cod socialism... 

just a thought....

contribute with in the terms set out on the thread as is the consenious of all other posters or merely be ignored and riddlculed for your refuseal to do so... 

the mountain has no need to go to mohammad much less the inclination to do so...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 25, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Hmm


oh hmm yourself...

tbh this place is gettign awash with pedants like yourself and poster who are totally without joy or a sense of reality.  You both pontificate continually about how others continue to fail to meet your standards and how they are less vaild as people or posters or opinions as a result.  this level of arrogance isn't without it's consiquences. 

And considering that your stated aim is to mae the place more polite then don't you think it somewhat rude to dane to tell someone else how they may express themselves in a 'Free' medium.  in what way and at what point would that beconsidered polite in any sense.

both of you are reactive hypocryts with little added value...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 25, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> oh hmm yourself...
> 
> tbh this place is gettign awash with pedants like yourself and poster who are totally without joy or a sense of reality.  You both pontificate continually about how others continue to fail to meet your standards and how they are less vaild as people or posters or opinions as a result.


I had thought this latter was actually the point of your posting, from which a sense of joy is curiously absent.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 25, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> Yep, totally. That's why the initial clarity over 'who do we want and with what skills' is so important. Then if you get someone that doesn't contribute the fundamental skills that were needed but contributes other ones ... discussion and then voting about whether that can be accomodated in the interests of the collective. Or not. Takes time and that means there's a risk ofthings going tits up during that decision making process.


Which is why one person making the decisions can be better. All comittees come up with is a hodge-podge of different ideas and visions, if they work at all.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 25, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> All committees come up with is a hodge-podge of different ideas and visions, if they work at all.


Well, not "all".


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 25, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I had thought this latter was actually the point of your posting, from which a sense of joy is curiously absent.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 25, 2007)

Well, "All I've seen" then.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Which is why one person making the decisions can be better. All comittees come up with is a hodge-podge of different ideas and visions, if they work at all.



Well, you see it can be done (as illustrated by Calverts) but I don't disagree that  it can be difficult to do effectively. Which is why there are relatively so few co-operatives, I guess.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 25, 2007)

I think it depends what you're doing. If one person does something, they can often miss things that would be spotted if more than one were involved. But I agree it's normally a better way of going about things in a lot of circumstances. Although that might be because I loathe working with other people.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 25, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I think it depends what you're doing. If one person does something, they can often miss things that would be spotted if more than one were involved.


But you can have this without the other people having an equal say. 

A hierarchy doesn't have to mean that there is one way communication.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 25, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> But you can have this without the other people having an equal say.
> 
> A hierarchy doesn't have to mean that there is one way communication.


No, but it can interfere with that communication.

I remember one particular incident in my library fiasco when we had a meeting to which I brought a large number of well-thought-out ideas. All of these were squashed without proper consideration by the manager, because (although she did not say this) she had obviously decided in advance what was going to be done and how the meeting would go.

I remember this best because a long period of stress-related sick leave began the next day....


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 25, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> A hierarchy doesn't have to mean that there is one way communication.


You're right there: the person at the top of the hierarchy says "do this now" and the person at the bottom gets the chance to say "yes, sir!". 

That's hierarchical two-way communication in action!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 25, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> No, but it can interfere with that communication.
> 
> I remember one particular incident in my library fiasco when we had a meeting to which I brought a large number of well-thought-out ideas. All of these were squashed without proper consideration by the manager, because (although she did not say this) she had obviously decided in advance what was going to be done and how the meeting would go.
> 
> I remember this best because a long period of stress-related sick leave began the next day....


Obviously you can bad managers as well as good ones, that's just people being people, but it doesn't alter the fact that a good one would have taken them on.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 25, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> You're right there: the person at the top of the hierarchy says "do this now" and the person at the bottom gets the chance to say "yes, sir!".
> 
> That's hierarchical two-way communication in action!


To the barricades Workers!


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 25, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Obviously you can bad managers as well as good ones, that's just people being people


Up to a point, but it's odd. When somebody talks about collectives, people will criticise collectives structurally, i.e. talk about the inherent reasons why they may not work. But when somebody talks about the more common arrangment, the response always seems to be "bad managers" ...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 25, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Up to a point, but it's odd. When somebody talks about collectives, people will criticise collectives structurally, i.e. talk about the inherent reasons why they may not work. But when somebody talks about the more common arrangment, the response always seems to be "bad managers" ...


Yes but where there is inherent reasons why collectives don't work, there are not inherent reasons that managers will always be bad. Unless there is an environment where bad management is tolerated that is. In normal circumstances sooner or later they will be found out.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Up to a point, but it's odd. When somebody talks about collectives, people will criticise collectives structurally, i.e. talk about the inherent reasons why they may not work. But when somebody talks about the more common arrangment, the response always seems to be "bad managers" ...



Yes, that's what I find odd.

Perhaps poster342002 has some views?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 25, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Up to a point, but it's odd. When somebody talks about collectives, people will criticise collectives structurally, i.e. talk about the inherent reasons why they may not work. But when somebody talks about the more common arrangment, the response always seems to be "bad managers" ...


well isn't that due to the inehrtent lack of stucture in a collective and therefore it's a compleate reasonsiblity by the entire group where as poor management is the failure of the indivdual.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 25, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Yes but where there is inherent reasons why collectives don't work, there are not inherent reasons that managers will always be bad.


That's your assertion, but why would others accept it? Why might they not argue, for instance, that the hierarchical arragement, with competing interests in a situation where one set of people has powers over others, will necessarily be dysfunctional because it's a situation of mutual mistrust?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> well isn't that due to the inehrtent lack of stucture in a collective and therefore it's a compleate reasonsiblity by the entire group where as poor management is the failure of the indivdual.



What inherent lack of structure in a collective?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 25, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> That's your assertion, but why would others accept it? Why might they not argue, for instance, that the hierarchical arragement, with competing interests in a situation where one set of people has powers over others, will necessarily be dysfunctional because it's a situation of mutual mistrust?


Why is it a situation of mutual mistrust?. To go back to Eastenders analogy, You employ a plumber to fix the pipes, you pay him money for his labour, he supplies his labour for money, where is the mistrust?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 25, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Why is it a situation of mutual mistrust?. To go back to Eastenders analogy, You employ a plumber to fix the pipes, you pay him money for his labour, he supplies his labour for money, where is the mistrust?


Is that supposed to be a rhetorical question?


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Why is it a situation of mutual mistrust?. To go back to Eastenders analogy, You employ a plumber to fix the pipes, you pay him money for his labour, he supplies his labour for money, where is the mistrust?



Power and the potential for misuse/abuse of it.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 25, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Is that supposed to be a rhetorical question?


No, I want to know where you are getting the "mutual mistrust" from?.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 25, 2007)

The world is full of people complaining about the work done by people who they've paid to do it.

Even if working relationships were the same (they have something in common but far from everything) the idea that it's a relationship without mistrust is bizarre.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2007)

Employing someone to make surplus value for you is the inherently competitive postion. Employing someone to peform a non surplus value producing service is entirely different. A plumber isn't going to turn out more things that you can sell if you employ your book of make-them-work-harder tricks is s/he?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 25, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> No, I want to know where you are getting the "mutual mistrust" from?.


Managers dont't trust employees, employees managers. Both complain about the other lots. Not always, not everybody: but we all understand that that is a "normal" element of that relationship.

The most entertaining rendering of this that I know is in Catch-22 when Major Major Major is promoted...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 25, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Managers dont't trust employees, employees managers. Both complain about the other lots. Not always, not everybody: but we all understand that that is a "normal" element of that relationship.


That's a good point, this also:


> Power and the potential for misuse/abuse of it.



But do people accept this as a normal way of working?.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 25, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> But do people accept this as a normal way of working?


Yeah I think they do, mostly. They probably also accept as normal that it makes them unhappy.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> But do people accept this as a normal way of working?.



I think so. And the higher up the corporate ladder, the more power there is and therefore the greater potential for misuse/abuse. And fear of that creates mistrust.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 25, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> What inherent lack of structure in a collective?


consensious means all mus thave a say all must have a vote (or however you make the final descsions about things practically) and that leads to conflict without hierachy this must come down to whent he conflict has finally played out and eveyrone feels their points are addressed and resolved to their satisfaction... That's the inherent lack of structure...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 25, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Yeah I think they do, mostly. They probably also accept as normal that it makes them unhappy.


But seeing as they had a good working relationship in the past would probably think it was a bad manager rather than something being inherently wrong....


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> consensious means all mus thave a say all must have a vote (or however you make the final descsions about things practically) and that leads to conflict without hierachy this must come down to whent he conflict has finally played out and eveyrone feels their points are addressed and resolved to their satisfaction... That's the inherent lack of structure...



But there's still a structure Garf. A different type of structure (flat as opposed to hierarchical) but a structure all the same.


----------



## editor (Oct 25, 2007)

I'd be quite happy to get involved in a co-op again, but it certainly wouldn't work for all aspects of what I do - e.g. if I could find enough right-minded people, the Offline Club could work great as a co-op, but I wouldn't fancy it for most 'work' jobs I take on, mainly because I'm really not very good at sitting in meetings. I'm a bit too impulsive to plan things most of the time.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 25, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> But seeing as they had a good working relationship in the past would probably think it was a bad manager rather than something being inherently wrong....


Well, it would depend. I've had far more "bad managers" than "good managers". This leads me to wonder whether it was really "good" or "bad" at all, but just something in the whole working arrangement that was screwed up: perhaps not insuperable, but tending to knacker things rather than further them.


----------



## Hollis (Oct 25, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Employing someone to make surplus value for you is the inherently competitive postion. Employing someone to peform a non surplus value producing service is entirely different. A plumber isn't going to turn out more things that you can sell if you employ your book of make-them-work-harder tricks is s/he?



Yes - quite the opposite.. they produce fuck all and shaft you for as much of your value as they can get.  Never trust a plumber!!


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> I'd be quite happy to get involved in a co-op again, but it certainly wouldn't work for all aspects of what I do - e.g. if I could find enough right-minded people, the Offline Club could work great as a co-op, but I wouldn't fancy it for most 'work' jobs I take on, mainly because I'm really not very good at sitting in meetings. I'm a bit too impulsive to plan things most of the time.




I could be wrong here (so I'll ask Sion when I next see him) but I don't get the impression that co-ops necessarily have loads of meetings. For example, there's no reason why a co-op can't collectively vote to devolve day-to-day operating decisions to a particular individual/s and just build in a review process.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 25, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> But there's still a structure Garf. A different type of structure (flat as opposed to hierarchical) but a structure all the same.


not one which has generally any level of right you do this i do that they do the other... becuase there's no way of enforcing it when i don't do that... but do summit else... 

it takes real deication to remove wall, and barriers which also it assumes that all people have the same abilites in terms of beign able to manage themselves they don't, lots of people need a stick, it's sad but it's true also lots of people are capabile fo following through on their actions or intents or of taking on personal resonsility... 

there is a reason this system flawed as it is has evolved and not been abandond and indeed why other systems have fallen by the wayside... 

but then if we go down that route it fast leads to talk of leaders and followers...


----------



## editor (Oct 25, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> I could be wrong here (so I'll ask Sion when I next see him) but I don't get the impression that co-ops necessarily have loads of meetings. For example, there's no reason why a co-op can't collectively vote to devolve day-to-day operating decisions to a particular individual/s and just build in a review process.


You usually need loads when you start up though and even one meeting will be one more than I like to have.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> not one which has generally any level of right you do this i do that they do the other... becuase there's no way of enforcing it when i don't do that... but do summit else...
> 
> it takes real deication to remove wall, and barriers which also it assumes that all people have the same abilites in terms of beign able to manage themselves they don't, lots of people need a stick, it's sad but it's true also lots of people are capabile fo following through on their actions or intents or of taking on personal resonsility...
> 
> ...



OK, let's look at a worked example that I'm comfortable with. For traditional hierarchical structures & in order to comply with the legislation - if someone wasn't performing or was actively misbehaving, there's the minimum of a 3 step procedure to dismiss:

(1) Letter from manager setting out concerns and requiring attendance at a disciplinary hearing (2) Formally convened hearing (3) Letter to confirm outcome & right of appeal to the next manager up.

In a flat structure such as a co-op, it would work differently whilst still complying with the 3 step legislative requirements:

(1) From the outset, the co-op have voted on who is normally responsible for holding disciplinary hearings and appeals plus any other aspect of the process (2) Letter from person-with-disciplinary-responsibility setting out concerns and requiring attendance at a disciplinary hearing (2) Formally convened hearing (3) Person-with-disciplinary-responsibility calls meeting to put the outcome to vote (4) Letter to confirm outcome of hearing + vote & right of appeal to person-with-appeals-responsibility

Takes a bit longer, but it's still a structure, and a workable one.


----------



## cesare (Oct 25, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> You usually need loads when you start up though and even one meeting will be one more than I like to have.



Yes, it definitely takes a lot of thinking through at the outset and lots of meetings to get the structure and processes in place. It's not for everyone especially at start up.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 26, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> OK, let's look at a worked example that I'm comfortable with. For traditional hierarchical structures & in order to comply with the legislation - if someone wasn't performing or was actively misbehaving, there's the minimum of a 3 step procedure to dismiss:
> 
> (1) Letter from manager setting out concerns and requiring attendance at a disciplinary hearing (2) Formally convened hearing (3) Letter to confirm outcome & right of appeal to the next manager up.
> 
> ...



and how exactly is that not a hiearchy some one either by arbiatary or democratic will has been given the role of hiring and firing that is a position of authority it might not be able to be wielded indiscriminately however each and every time it is it elevates that person even for aonly a short time into the hierachicl postition of chief if you like thus enacts a hierachical structure. 

consensious simple isn't going to be an effective form of governeance over a certain size can you imagine having to get total agreement with say 1500 employees. 

at a low level where there is in essence a tribal unit then co-ops will work when the tirbe gets too big, it merely becomes to cumbersome, and slow a process to resolve issues.


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> and how exactly is that not a hiearchy some one either by arbiatary or democratic will has been given the role of hiring and firing that is a position of authority it might not be able to be wielded indiscriminately however each and every time it is it elevates that person even for aonly a short time into the hierachicl postition of chief if you like thus enacts a hierachical structure.
> 
> consensious simple isn't going to be an effective form of governeance over a certain size can you imagine having to get total agreement with say 1500 employees.
> 
> at a low level where there is in essence a tribal unit then co-ops will work when the tirbe gets too big, it merely becomes to cumbersome, and slow a process to resolve issues.



They're not making the ultimate decisions Garf, that's still down to the collective vote. But to the extent that they wield a certain amount of devolved power for a short period of time - well, yes. They have power, but very limited power. And the collective can over-rule them at vote, which limits the potential for misuse/abuse of that limited power.

I agree with your last paragraph, that's what I meant about effective co-ops being self limiting in terms of size.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> This *is* the real world. Which planet do _you_ live on where bosses don't control and hire/fire the workers on behalf of the capitalists, then?




My manager has never sacked anyone but she's also a member of the SWP does that make her a class traitor?


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 26, 2007)

cesare said:
			
		

> I agree with your last paragraph, that's what I meant about effective co-ops being self limiting in terms of size.


Give or take Mondragón.


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Give or take Mondragón.



Interesting, when a co-operative becomes hierarchical. The 'backlash' may be directly proportionate to Dunbar's Number being exceeded.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

sleaterkinney said:
			
		

> Yes but where there is inherent reasons why collectives don't work, there are not inherent reasons that managers will always be bad. Unless there is an environment where bad management is tolerated that is. In normal circumstances sooner or later they will be found out.


You'd be amazed that, in the vast majority of cases, the "bad management" is not only tolerated - it is seen as "good" management. As far as being "found out" goes, they often get backed up 100% in every greivance brought against them. The employer knows full well what their attack-dogs are doing.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> You'd be amazed that, in the vast majority of cases, the "bad management" is not only tolerated - it is seen as "good" management. As far as being "found out" goes, they often get backed up 100% in every grievance brought against them.


Quite. I don't necesarily disagree that "sooner or later" they may well be "found out", but the trouble is, it will nearly always be much, much later.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

Grandma Death said:
			
		

> My manager has never sacked anyone but she's also a member of the SWP does that make her a class traitor?


Yes. Members of self-proclaimed revolutioanry socialist organisations should not take on such positions where they're obliged to enforce the capitalist classes workplace diktats. Period. The fact that so many do is a lot of the reason why I've come to despise much of what laughably calls itself "the left" these days. That includes the SWP.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 26, 2007)

The weird thing about Mondragón, by the way, is the period when it developed.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Yes. Members of self-proclaimed revolutioanry socialist organisations should not take on such positions where they're obliged to enforce the capitalist classes workplace diktats. Period.


These would the dogmatists, yeah?

Incidentally, when you're being bullied at work by your colleagues, what are you going to do about it other than go to management and ask them to enforce rules about it?


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Quite. I don't necesarily disagree that "sooner or later" they may well be "found out", but the trouble is, it will nearly always be much, much later.


They get "found out" and then backed 100% by the heirarchy - which is considered a sacred cow in most organisations. There's this holy shibboleth that goes "in a dispute between a senior peron and a junior one, we must ALWAYS back the senior - nomatter what they've done or what the consequences for doing so will be".


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Incidentally, when you're being bullied at work by your colleagues, what are you going to do about it other than go to management and ask them to enforce rules about it?


As many will testify, when you get bullied at work, going to management is pointless anyway as they'll almost always support the bully (who, in 9 out of 10 times, will be your immediate line manager and will be using the corporate performance-management system to [wrongly] frame you for poor performance - having previously made it impossible for your to do your job properly). In cases where the union is up the managment's arse, going to them is similarly futile.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> They get "found out" and then backed 100% by the heirarchy - which is considered a sacred cow in most organisations. There's this holy shibboleth that goes "in a dispute between a senior peron and a junior one, we must ALWAYS back the senior - nomatter what they've done or what the consequences for doing so will be".


I have to ask have you ever had a decent job in a real work place rather than some mickey mouse affair?

that certianly isn't the mantra in the majority of work places i have worked in, often these days it more the mantra of fuck it let's investigate it now or we might get sued...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> As many will testify, when you get bullied at work, going to management is pointless anyway as they'll almost always support the bully (who, in 9 out of 10 times, will be your immediate line manager and will be using the corporate performance-management system to [wrongly] frame you for poor performance - having previously made it impossible for your to do your job properly). In cases where the union is up the managment's arse, going to them is similarly futile.


So it's one of your "futile" arguments? One of these many, many occasions where you pose about slagging off other people for trying to find partial ways to deal with complex situations but coming up with absolutely nothing of substance yourself?


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> I have to ask have you ever had a decent job in a real work place rather than some mickey mouse affair?
> 
> that certianly isn't the mantra in the majority of work places i have worked in, often these days it more the mantra of fuck it let's investigate it now or we might get sued...


You must be fortunate enough to work in an area where they're not prepared to throw unlimited amounts of dosh (which they know the complainant can't match by aa long chalk) at defending these sort of cases in court. They know to take a position of absolute denial fromt he atsrt - from the very first joke of an internal investigation which starts out with a conclusion of "we find no evidence of bullying" and then works backwards to reach that pre-decided outcome.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 26, 2007)

It sounds to me like poster is not happy in their work place or about a recent dismissal and it is that which is coloursing their viewpoint.  personal sour grapes or even rightious anger don't equate to an entre system of employment regardless of how many people may be aware of know of similar things...


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> So it's one of your "futile" arguments? One of these many, many occasions where you pose about slagging off other people for trying to find partial ways to deal with complex situations but coming up with absolutely nothing of substance yourself?


When I've seen enough instances of those "partial ways" actually having no effect at all, how can you blame me?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> You must be fortunate enough to work in an area where they're not prepared to throw unlimited amounts of dosh (which they know the complainant can't match by aa long chalk) at defending these sort of cases in court.


If you are a union member then the court fees arepaid for you, are you even aware of how the employment tribunal system works and if your not a union member then you have to join one... or form one if there is one lacking now the only time oyur going to be in a non unionised work place is if you have mcjob (which is wrong on a social level as all workers have the right and should be able to unionise) Now if you union is a weakarsed bunch of shite then that's a problem...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> When I've seen enough instances of those "partial ways" actually having no effect at all, how can you blame me?


I've seen enough cases where black males have been arrested for a crime can you blame me for thinking they are all criminals...

would that statement be acceptable, appropreate or fair, reasonable even?


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> It sounds to me like poster is not happy in their work place or about a recent dismissal and it is that which is coloursing their viewpoint.  personal sour grapes or even rightious anger don't equate to an entre system of employment regardless of how many people may be aware of know of similar things...


I've seen numerous incidents of this sort from numerous people. It's not even one in particular (which I might be able to write off as an abberation).


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> I've seen enough cases where black males have been arrested for a crime can you blame me for thinking they are all criminals...
> 
> would that statement be acceptable, appropreate or fair, reasonable even?


You _could_ be forgiven for thinking there's maybe a problem with the people wielding the authority in some of those cases - and that itself may be symptomatic of a deeper, intrinsic flaw in the setup of the institution.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> If you are a union member then the court fees arepaid for you, are you even aware of how the employment tribunal system works and if your not a union member then you have to join one [SNIP] Now if you union is a weakarsed bunch of shite then that's a problem...


I've seen people just end up in fuckloads of debt by attempting (unsucessfully) to obtain redress through the ET system.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> You _could_ be forgiven for thinking there's maybe a problem with the people wielding the authority in some of those cases - and that itself may be symptomatic of a deeper, intrinsic flaw in the setup of the institution.


so in essence at least you'd agree with the statement all balck males are criminals due to an intrinsic flaw in their dna... 

I'm not trying to paint you as a racist btw i'm merely using an extreme example to show how the absolutise stance in what your saying applies to some abhorant thinking....


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> so in essence at least you'd agree with the statement all balck males are criminals due to an intrinsic flaw in their dna...


No, I was referring to possible "design flaws" in the setup of the police force.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I've seen people just end up in fuckloads of debt by attempting (unsucessfully) to obtain redress through the ET system.


Then again this is afualt of a weak union.  who should have advised when to call it a day if there person didn't have a vaild claim. 

See the flipside of this is i work in an area with a strong union, nominally they have th esame working practises as every where else and the saem proceedures indeed due to employment law largely there are only slight variences yet We almost never let it get to the stage of Tribunal as the Head of HR say's it's all very well if person x wins there but then we never see them again.  and if they don't win we'd never see them again either... they are concerned with retaining staff.  I know this is mirrored accross my sector as we have very tight rules on discrepancies now whislt this may be atypical of work enviroments the whole argument is the same workplaces don't want to lose staff it costs them in time and money nor dot hey wish to have a situation where staff are bullied or beaten into working.

But then you add the uman element and petty rivailries lazyness and so forth into that mix and sometimes it happens but just as my work places should be considered Atypical so should the converse... there is a happy medium.

Both Donna and it appears you have had rubbish experinces in the work place it doesn't however mean that it's extrapilatable to cover all workplaces...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> No, I was referring to possible "design flaws" in the setup of the police force.


not relevant or comparible to the two statements made though is it it's a digression.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> Then again this is afualt of a weak union.  who should have advised when to call it a day if there person didn't have a vaild claim.


Oh, they had valid claims alright (horrendous cases of workplace abuse - which I won't go into on a open forum). The problems were more of obstructive, useless unions entirely up the management's arse.




			
				GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> See the flipside of this is i work in an area with a strong union, nominally they have th esame working practises as every where else and the saem proceedures indeed due to employment law largely there are only slight variences yet We almost never let it get to the stage of Tribunal as the Head of HR say's it's all very well if person x wins there but then we never see them again.  and if they don't win we'd never see them again either... they are concerned with retaining staff.  I know this is mirrored accross my sector as we have very tight rules on discrepancies now whislt this may be atypical of work enviroments the whole argument is the same workplaces don't want to lose staff it costs them in time and money nor dot hey wish to have a situation where staff are bullied or beaten into working.
> 
> But then you add the uman element and petty rivailries lazyness and so forth into that mix and sometimes it happens but just as my work places should be considered Atypical so should the converse... there is a happy medium.
> 
> Both Donna and it appears you have had rubbish experinces in the work place it doesn't however mean that it's extrapilatable to cover all workplaces...


Unfortunately, most workplaces simply don't care about losing staff. There's a large supply of people outside the door who will take the job the day after someone's left. In the scheme of things, it's small change to most large organisations - and probably considered cheaper to keep losing lower-grade, easily-replacable staff than to set about rectifying their dysfunctional organisations root-and-branch.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> Both Donna and it appears you have had rubbish experinces in the work place it doesn't however mean that it's extrapilatable to cover all workplaces...


It is when you've seen it happen to several different people in several different organisations.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Oh, they had valid claims alright (horrendous cases of workplace abuse - which I won't go into on a open forum). The problems were more of obstructive, useless unions entirely up the management's arse.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, most workplaces simply don't care about losing staff. There's a large supply of people outside the door who will take the job the day after someone's left. In the scheme of things, it's small change to most large organisations - and probably considered cheaper to keep losing lower-grade, easily-replacable staff than to set about rectifying their dysfunctional organisations root-and-branch.


then get soem education and get some skills there's no need to be in a shit job unless you think you can do no better... the better the job you have is the morely likely they are to want to retain you...


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> then get soem education and get some skills there's no need to be in a shit job unless you think you can do no better... the better the job you have is the morely likely they are to want to retain you...


Oh, dear, it's the "oop by yer bootstraps" argument.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Yes. Members of self-proclaimed revolutioanry socialist organisations should not take on such positions where they're obliged to enforce the capitalist classes workplace diktats. Period. The fact that so many do is a lot of the reason why I've come to despise much of what laughably calls itself "the left" these days. That includes the SWP.



Its laughable really. You have no idea in the slightest. Because she has the tag manager in your narrow minded world that ticks all your boxes and thats that. 

She works in the public sector has been a chief steward in the union for 12 years and absolutely is without doubt the most principled manager I have ever worked for.  She has consistently fought for the interests of the membership and involved herself in high profile campaigns-as well as forcing through high profile motions for debates within the union at a national level.

Class Traitor? What a fucking joke you are.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Oh, dear, it's the "oop by yer bootstraps" argument.


Oh, dear, it's the "equality of outcome" rather than "equality of opportunity" argument


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

Grandma Death said:
			
		

> She has consistently fought for the interests of the membership and involved herself in high profile campaigns-as well as forcing through high profile motions for debates within the union at a national level.


So how does becoming one of the bosses advance any of the above cause, then?

That's what makes me sick about the left in Britain today: it seems nigh-on saturated with bosses. The very people who's job it is to make working class people's life a pain in the arse.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

A Dashing Blade said:
			
		

> Oh, dear, it's the "equality of outcome" rather than "equality of opportunity" argument


Give me the justice of Equality of Outcome over the sick joke that is the Equality of Opportunity to climb the ladder and stand on someone else anyday.


----------



## Jografer (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> *I'm not going into a derail abotu what a post-capitalist socuiety *(fat chance of getting near one with today's attitudes), but in the meantime peopel don't have to go out of their way to help the system beyond what they have to do just to keep afloat.



... no, of course not...


----------



## Jografer (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Doesn't stop them getting on a twisted little power-trip and creating untold misery for the person working for them, though.



... what, all of them.....


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> When I've seen enough instances of those "partial ways" actually having no effect at all, how can you blame me?


Because other people _do _find they have an effect. And because if you have nothing constructive to suggest yourself then it's pitiful to blame other people for trying something else. You're always condemning other people but offering nothing yourself. What do you think that looks like from outside? Do you think people say "well thank you sir for your wisdom, do you have anything to add"?


----------



## Jografer (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> If you've read ANY of my posts elsewhere, you'd know I certainly was no swappie-supporter ...




... no, you certianly are one of a kind... not of this world really....


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> ... what, all of them.....


Enough of them. And the ones that don't won't condemn or take action against the ones that do. 

When push comes to shove when a harrassed member of staff makes a complaint they all stick together, close ranks and deny everything.


----------



## Jografer (Oct 26, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> The weird thing about Mondragón, by the way, is the period when it developed.



As with Credit Unions is Ireland, where they were created to fill a gap/provide a service, rather than to 'compete' within the capitalist system...

... I think...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 26, 2007)

You'd like to know, though, wouldn't you? What did Franco have to say?


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> ... no, you certianly are one of a kind... not of this world really....


Try speaking to a few more at the bottom of the pile - you'll find I'm far from alone. A common refrain (which I actually heard from a shop worker a few months ago) is that the managers "think they own you".

There is a deep, slowburning, seething resentment amongst those of us under the boot of the bosses. At the moment we're all isolated, atomised adn withotu any union - but one day that may change.


----------



## Jografer (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, most workplaces simply don't care about losing staff. There's a large supply of people outside the door who will take the job the day after someone's left. In the scheme of things, it's small change to most large organisations - and probably considered cheaper to keep losing lower-grade, easily-replacable staff than to set about rectifying their dysfunctional organisations root-and-branch.



Interesting perspective, shame it's a load of bollocks...

Which jobs are you talking about, that can be done equally as well by some-one off the street in their first day as by somebody who has a few years training & experience.....


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 26, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> Which jobs are you talking about, that can be done equally as well by some-one off the street in their first day as by somebody who has a few years training & experience.


Very few, but at the same time there's a lot of managers who act as if they could be. You often spend a lot of time trying to get the bastards to understand that you can't just cut all the corners and that certain things do need to be done.


----------



## Jografer (Oct 26, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> You'd like to know, though, wouldn't you? What did Franco have to say?



Not sure what you mean with the first bit..   

I thought the Mondragon co-ops were similar in that they filled a vacuum post-civil war, & also that the RC church were heavily involved.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> Which jobs are you talking about, that can be done equally as well by some-one off the street in their first day as by somebody who has a few years training & experience.....


You're talking to the converted, so I suggest you ask those abusive employers that very question and why carrying on the way they do doesn't seem to bother them.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 26, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> Not sure what you mean with the first bit.


It related to the second bit! Given that Franco shot every communist he could lay his hands on, it's really odd that he allowed co-operatives to exist. If there was one thing that irked the Francoists more than anything else, it was collectivisation.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Given that Franco shot every communist he could lay his hands on, it's really odd that he allowed co-operatives to exist. If there was one thing that irked the Francoists more than anything else, it was collectivisation.


Perhaps like with Stalin's "collectivised farms", they weren't_ quite _what it said on the tin?


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Give me the justice of Equality of Outcome over the sick joke that is the Equality of Opportunity to climb the ladder and stand on someone else anyday.



The sad thing is that I believe you really do believe the turgid drivel you're spouting rather than you're attempting to make some bizarre post-ironic comment on knee-jerk, reactionary left-wing views.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

A Dashing Blade said:
			
		

> The sad thing is that I believe you really do believe the turgid drivel you're spouting rather than you're attempting to make some bizarre post-ironic comment on knee-jerk, reactionary left-wing views.


I note that none of your above post actually refutes anything I said.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> You're talking to the converted, so I suggest you ask those abusive employers that very question and why carrying on the way they do doesn't seem to bother them.



Seems to me you were asked a direct (and, in the context of your comments) very relevant question which you refused to answer.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Perhaps like with Stalin's "collectivised farms", they weren't_ quite _what it said on the tin?


Yeah but the thing is, Franco wasn't really noted for his generosity of his approach or his lack of suspicion.....


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I note that none of your above post actually refutes anything I said.



Monsieur Garf Le Chat has already done that far more eloquently than I ever could.


----------



## Jografer (Oct 26, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> It related to the second bit! Given that Franco shot every communist he could lay his hands on, it's really odd that he allowed co-operatives to exist. If there was one thing that irked the Francoists more than anything else, it was collectivisation.



I thought it was the involvement of the RC church that 'spared' them, if that's the right way to put it, but, yes, suprising...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 26, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> I thought it was the involvement of the RC church that 'spared' them, if that's the right way to put it


Quite possibly, but there were more than a few Basque priests shot during the Civil War.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 26, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Yeah but the thing is, Franco wasn't really noted for his generosity of his approach or his lack of suspicion.....


Nor was Stalin. I suspect similar motives were at work.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 26, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Nor was Stalin. I suspect similar motives were at work.


Oh, Gawd.


----------



## Jografer (Oct 26, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Quite possibly, but there were more than a few Basque priests shot during the Civil War.



Hmm, that's the problem with looking for reasons why Franco didn't just send in his goons..... none of them add up totally.....


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 27, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> So how does becoming one of the bosses advance any of the above cause, then?



Is it all people in authority you have a problem with?



> The very people who's job it is to make working class people's life a pain in the arse.




Your textbook wadical replies are really fucking boring-has anyone ever told you that?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 27, 2007)

Grandma Death said:
			
		

> Your textbook wadical replies are really fucking boring-has anyone ever told you that?


dear god yes endlessly... it's like a rik stuck record...


----------



## Jografer (Oct 27, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> dear god yes endlessly... it's like a rik stuck record...



... and it's not as if it was a very good record in the first place...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 27, 2007)

Grandma Death said:
			
		

> Your textbook wadical replies are really fucking boring-has anyone ever told you that?


But has anybody told you that the term "wadical" is rather more boring and just as unoriginal?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 28, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> But has anybody told you that the term "wadical" is rather more boring and just as unoriginal?



Apart from you no.


----------



## jonH (Oct 28, 2007)

don't get on your high horse


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 30, 2007)

If being pissed off about people being kicked around and treated like shit by their "betters" makes me a "wadical" than it's a badge I'll wear with pride.


----------



## Jografer (Oct 30, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> If being pissed off about people being kicked around and treated like shit by their "betters" makes me a "wadical" than it's a badge I'll wear with pride.



..and good for you, so don't mind when the rest of us laugh...


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 30, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> ..and good for you, so don't mind when the rest of us laugh...


Yeah, it's funny watching the proles complain about the way their masters treat them, ain't it. You laugh it up, mate.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Oct 30, 2007)

I think this would be better left where it is since the argument appears to be exhausted.


----------



## Jografer (Oct 30, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I think this would be better left where it is since the argument appears to be exhausted.



..aww, c'mon.... it's like picking scabs innit...


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 30, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> If being pissed off about people being kicked around and treated like shit by their "betters" makes me a "wadical" than it's a badge I'll wear with pride.



So is it all people in authority you have a problem with then?


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 31, 2007)

Grandma Death said:
			
		

> So is it all people in authority you have a problem with then?


I have a "problem" with authority when it is unaccountable, unjust and undemocratic - which is exactly what it is in the vast majority of workplaces. 

I defy anyone to say that's an unreasonable position to take.


----------



## paulhackett (Oct 31, 2007)

Of course it's unreasonable.

They're paying you to do a job that you will have agreed to do for an agreed amount of money (in other words you've made a contract)?

Their authority is that it is their company, and that they shouldn't have to explain every nuance of decision to every employee (unworkable in a large org.).

If you want to change it, then you need to get in a position within wherever it is you work and try to push through changes yourself.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 31, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I have a "problem" with authority when it is unaccountable, unjust and undemocratic - which is exactly what it is in the vast majority of workplaces.
> 
> I defy anyone to say that's an unreasonable position to take.


That's an unreasonable position to take, democratic - do you think people should have votes on what work to do or something?.


----------



## poster342002 (Oct 31, 2007)

paulhackett66 said:
			
		

> If you want to change it, then you need to get in a position within wherever it is you work and try to push through changes yourself.


That's like opposing Dracula whilst seeing nothing wrong with becoming a vampire yourself.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2007)

If _only_ there were no bosses.  Then there would be no poverty, no misery, no hunger, no crime.  We'd all just laze about in luxury every day, if there were just no bosses.

Sigh.  I pine for that boss-free world.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 31, 2007)

kabbes said:
			
		

> If _only_ there were no bosses.  Then there would be no poverty, no misery, no hunger, no crime.  We'd all just laze about in luxury every day, if there were just no bosses.
> 
> Sigh.  I pine for that boss-free world.


might i recommend a swift knock on the noggin and some valium as this will no dobut induce such a world, nothign else is likely to...


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 1, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I have a "problem" with authority when it is unaccountable, unjust and undemocratic - which is exactly what it is in the vast majority of workplaces.
> 
> I defy anyone to say that's an unreasonable position to take.




Are you saying most managers are unaccountable? I'd hate to work in the some of the places you obviously have.


----------



## poster342002 (Nov 1, 2007)

Grandma Death said:
			
		

> Are you saying most managers are unaccountable? I'd hate to work in the some of the places you obviously have.


Where on earth have you worked where managers are accountable to those underneath their boot? Have you worked ANYWHERE where they're not just automatically backed to the hilt by the chain of command whenever they'rein dispute with a subordinate?


----------



## Mr Retro (Nov 1, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Where on earth have you worked where managers are accountable to *those underneath their boot?*


----------



## Yelkcub (Nov 1, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Where on earth have you worked where managers are accountable to those underneath their boot? Have you worked ANYWHERE where they're not just automatically backed to the hilt by the chain of command whenever they'rein dispute with a subordinate?



I have. Particularly when the manager's manager is aware of the role of the worker and how he/she does it.  Althought the manager is accountable to his manager not the worker, natch.


----------



## poster342002 (Nov 1, 2007)

Yelkcub said:
			
		

> I have. Particularly when the manager's manager is aware of the role of the worker and how he/she does it.  Althought the manager is accountable to his manager not the worker, natch.


How that works in practise, in my and others' experience, is that the manager's manager just goes through the motions and - surprise, surprise, backs the original manager against their staff.


----------



## Yelkcub (Nov 1, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> How that works in practise, in my and others' experience, is that the manager's manager just goes through the motions and - surprise, surprise, backs the original manager against their staff.



I have a feeling your employment experienced is coloured by your attitude towards your employer.


----------



## poster342002 (Nov 1, 2007)

Yelkcub said:
			
		

> I have a feeling your employment experienced is coloured by your attitude towards your employer.


Oh, dear, it's the "attitude problem" thoughtcrime now ...  

"A still tongue makes for a peacefull life"

"Questions are a burden unto others and answers a prison for oneself"

Embrace Big Brother! Don't fight him!


----------



## kabbes (Nov 1, 2007)

What kind of accountability are you looking for?

We are each accountable on a personal level to everybody that we deal with.
A manager is accountable in a business sense to his company for how well he manages his staff.

Successful management will mean a well-motivated and well-trained team, which in turn will lead to success.  Poor management will mean a poorly motivated and poorly trained team, which will lead to failure.  Companies are not fond of failure.

It sounds to me an awful lot like you were actually at fault in a situation at work that you got into trouble for, couldn't see that you were in the wrong and ended up with a massive chip on your shoulder as a consequence.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Nov 1, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Oh, dear, it's the "attitude problem" thoughtcrime now ...



are you genuinely serious?  

you think that in some way work is different to the rest of life and that the attitude you go in to a situation with won't affect the outcome of that situation.  so if you are overly arsey then you will be met with and overly defensive response and so on.  The response to anything is always proportional not the information contained with in it but to how it's deleivered. 

christ for a pinko you aren't that bright are you, there's even a whole industry set up around and about this entirely basic human trait called marketing?




			
				poster342002 said:
			
		

> "A still tongue makes for a peacefull life"



Just where has anyone said such a thing, however i reffer you to my previous point.   go to someone and say this and this and this are shit and you are a useless cunt and this company suck and that's why it's not happening.  Isn't going to enamour you to your co workers or manager, however saying i am concerned that this area is causing issues with these areas amd also this is causing issue.  get's a better response.

why well it's very simple really, do you like dealing or helping overley aggressive people?  Or attempting to justify actions to them, particularlly if they aren't fully aware of the entire situation merely the end result or some part of it?

No one likes dealing with overly agressive people.  No one. regardless of their job, role or positition.  






			
				poster342002 said:
			
		

> "Questions are a burden unto others and answers a prison for oneself"



Ask yourself this question does the information i'm requesting affect as in directly affect my job in any way, if it doesn't then it's none of your business.  Unless, you are the MD, if it does then only well reasoned arguments will be looked at not some manicial loon screaming it's all fuckries...




			
				poster342002 said:
			
		

> Embrace Big Brother! Don't fight him!



aren't you being a tad overly dramtic here; hysterical even.  

Big brother?  in the work place?  you are having a bubble right?  When was the last time you worked for any company which didn't require employees to ask after every interaction do you want fries with that? 

most work places are hot beds of departmental squabbling and endless gossip with the bare minimum of work being done at all and often in the most cumbersome outdated process.

The idea that any business is some kind of omniptant being with an ever watching eye and armies of thought police waiting at every turn to trap you and then drag to room 101 until you are a reformed worker, is well in fantile in it's rhetoric...


----------



## kabbes (Nov 1, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> How that works in practise, in my and others' experience, is that the manager's manager just goes through the motions and - surprise, surprise, backs the original manager against their staff.


This is exactly what I am talking about.

If the manager is successful, his manager in turn will give him the benefit of the doubt.  Why should it be otherwise?

If the manager is not successful, his manager will not be impressed.  If the manager has been unsuccessful for a while, his manager may well be glad of the opportunity to get rid of him.

It's quite easy to measure the manager's performance under both financial and non-financial criteria and act accordingly.

I am finding it hard to envisage what kind of situation you are talking about, where a genuinely bad manager (as opposed to one just perceived to be bad by one under-performing member of staff) is somehow backed by their managers despite waves of complaints and poor results.


----------



## poster342002 (Nov 1, 2007)

kabbes said:
			
		

> We are each accountable on a personal level to everybody that we deal with.
> A manager is accountable in a business sense to his company for how well he manages his staff.
> 
> Successful management will mean a well-motivated and well-trained team, which in turn will lead to success.  Poor management will mean a poorly motivated and poorly trained team, which will lead to failure.  Companies are not fond of failure.


Well-spouted from the" little red book" of management doctrine. 





			
				kabbes said:
			
		

> It sounds to me an awful lot like you were actually at fault in a situation at work that you got into trouble for, couldn't see that you were in the wrong and ended up with a massive chip on your shoulder as a consequence.


It MUST be our fault, eh? The system and it's heirarchy CANNOT be wrong.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Nov 1, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> It MUST be our fault, eh? The system and it's heirarchy CANNOT be wrong.



eh?

what do you think you are capable of doing then son?  really?  name the type of society you have build with out the reliance on these systems in any way and how is it's quality of life compared to the current one?  Can you show any practical examples of this new life style? 

have you even worked out a flawless alternative on paper whcih we could all consider whist you establish this new birght shiney future?

What's that?


you haven't?

oh?

so what you are saying in effect is that people shouldn't conform to the current method of society at all that even though it is something that they were born into has raised them and nutured them educated them to interact with in that world they should reject all that because you feel it's wrong and the alternative they have is nothing? 

no alternative at all?

not even a basic tennant or ideal?

you can't change the system by being outside of it because then your voice isn't just marginalised it's non existant.  

outside system: hey it's all bollocks your doing it wrong...
system: have you tried it?  do you actually know anything about it?
no well stfu then until you do. know it all teenage wadicals.
outside system: your all just indoctrinated cattle.
System: sorry was that an attempt to belittle the socity or culture which you have chosen to opt out of and therefore have no direct contact with or any experince of?  have you been at the sugar again?


----------



## Jografer (Nov 1, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> eh?
> have you even worked out a flawless alternative on paper whcih we could all consider whist you establish this new birght shiney future?



Tried that argument a while back, #42, but a neat 'I'd hate to derail' sidestep was used.....




			
				Poster342002 said:
			
		

> I'm not going into a derail abotu what a post-capitalist socuiety (fat chance of getting near one with today's attitudes), but in the meantime peopel don't have to go out of their way to help the system beyond what they have to do just to keep afloat.



Policy, forward planning .... management job, innit...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 1, 2007)

kabbes said:
			
		

> This is exactly what I am talking about.
> 
> If the manager is successful, his manager in turn will give him the benefit of the doubt.  Why should it be otherwise?
> 
> ...


Oh come off it. As long as Manager A (yours) isn't absolutely running the department into the ground in a blatantly obvious way which is resulting in pressure being put on Manager B (A's manager) to do something about it - or B doesn't like A, or A is unpopular and B thinks he can get some sort of advantage out of kicking him, etc - B doesn't give a toss what you think.

B deals with A and not you and doesn't know or likely care much what's actually going on. Part of the point of a management hierarchy is that B doesn't _have_ to micromanage your job. And if you make a fuss in an attempt to get B to realise what's going on, you run the risk of being labelled as having an "attitude problem".

There are all sorts of ways in which A could be crap in a way that isn't significantly damaging to the business, at least not in an obvious way, but makes staff's lives miserable. I've known managers just like that in every job I've had. As long as a department keeps on ticking away, the company doesn't care, and this is particularly the case in industries where there's high turnover and low security anyway.


----------



## poster342002 (Nov 1, 2007)

kabbes said:
			
		

> I am finding it hard to envisage what kind of situation you are talking about, where a genuinely bad manager (as opposed to one just perceived to be bad by one under-performing member of staff) is somehow backed by their managers despite waves of complaints and poor results.


And herein lies the problem: management almost always acts on an automatic presumption that the complainant(s) "must" be an underperforming whinger(s). Even after the manager has sacked the umpdred-and-umpty-umpth "useless" member of staff.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 1, 2007)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Oh come off it. As long as Manager A (yours) isn't absolutely running the department into the ground in a blatantly obvious way which is resulting in pressure being put on Manager B (A's manager) to do something about it - or B doesn't like A, or A is unpopular and B thinks he can get some sort of advantage out of kicking him, etc - B doesn't give a toss what you think.
> 
> B deals with A and not you and doesn't know or likely care much what's actually going on. Part of the point of a management hierarchy is that B doesn't _have_ to micromanage your job. And if you make a fuss in an attempt to get B to realise what's going on, you run the risk of being labelled as having an "attitude problem".
> 
> There are all sorts of ways in which A could be crap in a way that isn't significantly damaging to the business, at least not in an obvious way, but makes staff's lives miserable. I've known managers just like that in every job I've had. As long as a department keeps on ticking away, the company doesn't care, and this is particularly the case in industries where there's high turnover and low security anyway.


This is, of course, entirely true and I have oversimplified enormously.

However, poster's blanket claim that all management will come into step behind "one of their own", regardless of that manager's own performance, feedback, history or anything is preposterous.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 1, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> And herein lies the problem: management almost always acts on an automatic presumption that the complainant(s) "must" be an underperforming whinger(s). Even after the manager has sacked the umpdred-and-umpty-umpth "useless" member of staff.


So is that what happened to you then?


----------



## paulhackett (Nov 1, 2007)

kabbes said:
			
		

> So is that what happened to you then?



Yes exactly. Job history please or at least explain why your 'experience' is any more valid than anyone elses..


----------



## poster342002 (Nov 1, 2007)

yes, I have suffered victimisation at work in the past and so have many people I know in different workplaces. It's a phenomenon that's rife.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 1, 2007)

I see.  Were you fired, held back or simply stymied for reasons that were unfathomable to you?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Nov 1, 2007)

gentel mens of the jury i find the defendant guilty as charged... jailour take him from this place and to a places where no man can return.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 1, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Where on earth have you worked where managers are accountable to those underneath their boot? Have you worked ANYWHERE where they're not just automatically backed to the hilt by the chain of command whenever they'rein dispute with a subordinate?



Public sector off and on and the private sector for 2 decades. I've never known a manager to not be held to account over their actions-your experience is totally alien to me.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 1, 2007)

kabbes said:
			
		

> This is, of course, entirely true and I have oversimplified enormously.
> 
> However, poster's blanket claim that all management will come into step behind "one of their own", regardless of that manager's own performance, feedback, history or anything is preposterous.


I would certainly say that that is usually what happens by default, unless there are extenuating circumstances. Usually there is and has been personal contact between A and B for a while and not with you; people tend to trust other people that they know over other people that they don't.

Also, as a non-manager, you are lower in the company social hierarchy, and it's daft to pretend that there is no irrational hierarchical instinct within companies, particularly where you also combine social differences between those who occupy different roles. (It would be nice if "flat" management structures actually changed that but IME they don't; what you end up with is a really vague, shifting, schoolyard sort of hierarchy, where there are certain people who are in and certain who are out.)

There are degrees of this in different companies and ways around it and so on, but I think it is fair to characterise management response to a criticism by a subordinate of a superior as generally supporting "their own".


----------



## poster342002 (Nov 2, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> gentel mens of the jury i find the defendant guilty as charged... jailour take him from this place and to a places where no man can return.


Just like your average managemant-run workplace kangaroo court (sorry - "full and thoroughgoing HR appeal process" ), then?


----------



## poster342002 (Nov 2, 2007)

Grandma Death said:
			
		

> Public sector off and on and the private sector for 2 decades. I've never known a manager to not be held to account over their actions-your experience is totally alien to me.


I bet it _does_ sound toally alien to you - as the workplaces you've been in have clearly been on some other planet.

Christ, I wouldn't want _you _as my union rep what with the amount of faith you place in the corporate management structure ...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Nov 2, 2007)

Grandma Death said:
			
		

> . I've never known a manager to not be held to account over their actions


I have. Many times. Not every time, but many times.


----------



## Jografer (Nov 2, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I bet it _does_ sound toally alien to you - as the workplaces you've been in have clearly been on some other planet.



Er, no, similar experience to me, & my bus only takes me into central bristol, nowhere more exotic or extra-terrestrial ...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Nov 2, 2007)

Jografer said:
			
		

> Er, no, similar experience to me, & my bus only takes me into central bristol, nowhere more exotic or extra-terrestrial


Isn't it full of zombies?


----------



## Jografer (Nov 2, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Isn't it full of zombies?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Nov 2, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I bet it _does_ sound toally alien to you - as the workplaces you've been in have clearly been on some other planet.



yet again demonstrating how woefully out of contact your wadical politics and you won snese of propotion is with reality... well done... 




			
				poster342002 said:
			
		

> Christ, I wouldn't want _you _as my union rep what with the amount of faith you place in the corporate management structure ...


Yes it's all about sides when being a union rep nothing more...

how can ou be a fuckign pinko and not have the first clue about the subject matter you are chatting on and on about... Real left wing, propper, indeed clueless fop more like...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Nov 2, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> your wadical politics


----------



## poster342002 (Nov 2, 2007)

On this board I'm considered a raving commie, on P&P I'm thought of as a reactionary rightwing arsehole ...


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 2, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I bet it _does_ sound toally alien to you - as the workplaces you've been in have clearly been on some other planet.



Right so obviously you are right then.  




> Christ, I wouldn't want _you _as my union rep what with the amount of faith you place in the corporate management structure ...



Please shut up. You are making my ears bleed.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 2, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I have. Many times. Not every time, but many times.



Ive seen managers sacked probably IIRC as many times as employees. I think riks experiences are tainting his outlook on life to be fair. Now he's been treated like shit it means we are all obviously wrong and we have no idea.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 2, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> On this board I'm considered a raving commie, on P&P I'm thought of as a reactionary rightwing arsehole ...



I think the raving bit is probably quite accurate.


----------



## poster342002 (Nov 2, 2007)

Grandma Death said:
			
		

> Please shut up. You are making my ears bleed.


That's _me _told, then.


----------



## Yelkcub (Nov 2, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> On this board I'm considered a raving commie, on P&P I'm thought of as a reactionary rightwing arsehole ...



So as not to put words in others mouths, on this board *I *consider you a pointless no-mark. There are plenty of posters on here who I disagree with, but I can respect their position because it has a rationale and they have the ability to articulate it clearly. I wouldn't insult sixth-formers by suggesting your arguments are anywhere near the level even the dumbest of them might offer.


----------



## Grandma Death (Nov 2, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> That's _me _told, then.



Im glad we are singing from the same hymn sheet now. I look forward to the silence in this thread instead of your tedious revolutionary knee jerk politics-thanks in advance.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Nov 2, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

>


look love if you have nothing to say then please continue to say precisely that.

stop with your previously got you banned for fuckign about with it when you were called the J word, you using you real name here and on your blog yet you get all shitty about people using, dispite the fact is all over the internet.  So rational discourse with you sweetie and indeed informed comment is in light of those circumstances utterly preposturious...

You are not a MOD, if you find something worth reporting then please go ahead what no one and i mean no one on these boards needs is a tiedious pedant with a panchance for dismissing vaild points with their own tiedious nonsense... we have one of those already whose universally hated for it called lock and light we hardly need you little rural town libraian act into the bag too...


do shut the fuck up there's a good child...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Nov 2, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> On this board I'm considered a raving commie, on P&P I'm thought of as a reactionary rightwing arsehole ...


could it be that actually you have an infantile approach to all forms of poltics thus marking out out to others as being little more than comedy vaule... 

certianly the consensious seems to be dull troll with wadical (i'm goign to use it even more now i know how much it's upsets donna) pretentions...

how wery wadcial....


----------



## poster342002 (Nov 2, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> look love if you have nothing to say then please continue to say precisely that.


Or we could follow your example of taking up huge lengthy posts to say exactly that.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Nov 2, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Or we could follow your example of taking up huge lengthy posts to say exactly that.


prosicution rests for a second time m'lud ti woudl appear the defendant is leaping into the gallows...


----------

