The "Productivity" scam...
Working people are always being told to be more "productive" -and this word almost always means working more for less pay, and fewer and fewer hours spent with your family, friends, and to just enjoy what is around you....Mulla Nasruddin says it like it is: :-)
"Nasrudin got a job at a busy granary, loading sacks onto trucks to be taken to market. The foreman, who was keeping an eye on the workers, soon came over to speak to him."Why is it that you carry only one sack at a time while the other workers all carry two?" asked the foreman. Nasrudin looked around and said, "I suppose that they are too lazy to make two trips the way I do."
Mulla sahib, as usual, knows more than he lets on - as this article points out:
Individual worker output collectively rose, from 2000 to 2003, by a full 12 percent. Definitely a bonus for Wall Street – but what about Main Street?
As the meticulous research of the Economic Policy Institute shows(Snapshot, 09/08/04), real family income fell, over the same period, by 3 percent. Contrast this with the economic period of 1947 – 1973 when productivity and real family income moved in tandem, both doubling over those years.What does this suggest?
Americans are working harder and longer for less family income.
As companies downsize or fail to replace workers who leave or retire, fewer staff are left to handle the workload. In fear of losing their own jobs, they respond by accepting new duties and new responsibilities and the added work time that accompanies them.
Sounds familiar? Next time the "big boss" comes down and talks to
you about "productivity" --- don't get mad.
Just start quietly talking to your co-workers... organize
posted by redwood at
12/06/2004 11:42:00 PM
5 comment(s):
By
Anna in PDX, at
12/07/2004 02:02:00 AM
As in the story of Mullah Nasruddin - the big corporations are more interested in doubling the number of sacks you carry on your back. With little or no consideration to what this might do to your back - or to patient/client care.
By
redwood, at
12/08/2004 01:35:00 AM
The employer-employee is a give and take relationship where the value of labor is returned in $$$. Given that the primary goal of the employer is to make money ( vs improved quality of life of employees) and labor is a commodity of variable value, would you fault the employer for seeking cheaper labor?
It would be hasty to blame big corporations for the current economic conditions. One could arguably say that the off-shore competition is killing the businesses at home. Or could this be called the leveling of the playing field in the Global market.
I am not doubting that some corporations are unfair when dealing with their employees. On the other hand the productivity is first thing that suffers when the employement is secure. Look at the Government employees and the unionized construction worker making $ 40/hr whose job is to wave the amber flag on hi-ways. Isn't that unfair too?
By
Jafar, at
12/08/2004 01:30:00 PM
As for the progressive movement, I did understand that most strains of it recognize that there are higher moral values to live by than the profit motive.
By
Anna in PDX, at
12/08/2004 10:08:00 PM
In the U.S. we've lived through such an age (and appear to be returning to it under Bush and Co.) - when child labor, for example, was a norm. Elsewhere people continue to struggle for some these basic rights.
So, business/corporations do have a responsibity - towards their community - workers being the most immediate community.
By
redwood, at
12/08/2004 10:28:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home