SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the you-can-start-tomorrow...-and-finish-next-friday dept.
Over at the Harvard Business Review there's speculation that the paradigm of people working full-time for a single employer has outlived its usefulness:
Our vision is straightforward: most people will become independent contractors who have the flexibility to work part-time for several organizations at the same time, or do a series of short full-time gigs with different companies over the course of a year. Companies will maintain only a minimal full-time staff of executives, key managers, and professionals and bring in the rest of the required talent as needed in a targeted, flexible, and deliberate way.
There are two reasons such a flexible work system is now plausible. The first is societal values. Work-life balance and family-friendly scheduling are much more important to today's workers, and companies are increasingly willing to accommodate them. The second is technology. Advances in the last five years have greatly improved the ease with which people can work and collaborate remotely and companies and contract workers can find each other.
The opinion piece goes on to list how workers, employers and society in general will benefit from this shift. What seems to be missing is speculation on the down sides, both to employers and contractors. Originally spotted on The Eponymous Pickle.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by jmorris on Sunday September 06 2015, @02:10PM
This is the simple rule of nature at work. Things have changed. Progressives changed the rules and now everyone is learning to adjust to them. Of course everything was supposed to just stay exactly the same, only 'better' because of their 'enlightened' rule but they never account for free will in their 'planning.' Probably because it is an alien concept to most of them.
Add on to all of that government misrule a globalized economy, where high wage, high regulation work is directly competing with third world low wage, no regulation labor and it became an explosive situation.
Look at how many ways we made traditional employment less desirable, both to hire -AND- to be hired. Eventually adaptation was required, now it is here and of course the howls are for yet more 'planning' by the government. Of course their answer to everything is another government program.
Start with the 'minimum wage' which of course anything but. What it does is set a floor where any labor worth less can't be given to Citizens, creating not the 'Jobs Americans won't do' but 'the Jobs Americans Can't Do' but an illegal can. Nice fluffy notion that nobody should be hired below a 'living wage' until you think a millisecond. Everybody isn't working to support themselves and a family on the wage, so setting the minimum high enough to 'support somebody in dignity' and other such twaddle had serious bad side effects. Some people are low skill teens looking to make a few bucks and LEARN. Ban them from employment and the near 50% inner city teen unemployment rate is nothing less than a inevitable, premeditated tragedy.
Lots of official holidays, mandated vacations, unlimited (now even payed) maternity (now paternity as well) leave, sound good but they all add up to raising the cost of hiring someone. Then add in the mandated benefits, add in a rule that says keep the number of hours worked below a cap and you can avoid ALL of that and then be shocked, shocked! that employers get the idea to make as many positions as possible part time.
Soon, and we are there already, employers get the idea to just go the next step and pay for the work actually done instead of an hourly rate. Contracting.
And then there is the other side. Progressive entryism into corporate HR practices has made the world of traditional Cubeville a toxic Hell even more degrading than the government regulations forced upon them. Which made sane people welcome the opportunity to escape into contract work, small business which could contract back to the large corporations, etc. Which of course left them competing for contract work with the globalized hordes.
Eventually all this madness will burn itself out, globalization will bring up the third world a bit, lower the first world a lot and misery will be shared equally.... then the optimist says we will all slowly drag ourselves up again. But since I see no practical way to rid ourselves of enough stupid people to make another rise of the Progressives happen again.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Sunday September 06 2015, @04:42PM
This is about exploitation, not evolution.
Of course change, and evolution, always happens. This change, to flex labor, could be to everyone's benefit, but seems more likely to be just another of the many unfair and unwise changes employers have made to tilt the playing field even more their way. The super rich have amassed most of the world's wealth, not by earning it, but by cheating others. They commit wage theft, they don't pay taxes, they bribe and suborn our government, and they manipulate the markets. Either they've made it legal, or they've tangled the system so that although some of their crimes are illegal, they probably won't ever be caught and if they are, the punishment is too feeble to either deter them or redress the damage they've done. Another ugly thing they do is put others under extreme duress to do their dirty work, and, if it goes sour, step back and let the hapless underling take the fall. Have you never experienced your boss ordering you to do something unethical and also likely illegal, and if you express concerns on that point, hit back with questions and doubts about your loyalty to the company and your commitment to the job, as well as dismissive statements about the harm that will be caused and personal risk to yourself by following such orders?
The saddest part are the legions of minions who believe in them, believe that ruthless use of power is a mark of ability, and who want to ride their coattails to success, want to poodle to the appearance of power. I really can't see any other reason for The Donald's appeal. These minions see themselves as fellow passengers on a ship, with a shot at the captaincy, instead of what they really are, ballast to be thrown overboard the moment there's trouble. Naturally, the people in control help foster these illusions. The Donald goes a step further, and has the balls and the gall to label some of the passengers as ballast, in order to win the support of the rest. The minions, many of whom proudly strut their independence, may be the worst problem of all, by being enablers of this gross foolishness. Wall Street could be brought to heel in a very short time, if only there was the public will to do it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @06:11PM
I hesitate to write this, for fear of being "labeled".
I believe that we are in the midst of what is called "bread and circuses". The US Constitution has become toilet paper to those who wield power. I fear for the younger people who will have to deal with the consequences.
What we need is a "stirring of the pot", and for good or ill, a politician like Bernie Sanders may be the only chance of doing so.
I do not agree with all that Sanders says, and I suspect I would have serious objections to his goals and policies. I do believe that his campaign has the best chance of helping the US populace face the truth of how (and by whom) they are governed.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @11:52PM
Can you be the slightest bit specific?
Bernie's 12-Step Economic Agenda For America [senate.gov]
Though Bernie calls himself a "Socialist", he isn't.
(A Socialist wants Capitalism replaced--not just tweaked.)
What Bernie is is a "Social Democrat"--but I'll leave the original tongue-in-cheek headline.
7 Charts Show the Socialist Hellscape America Would Be Under Bernie Sanders [commondreams.org]
...and Bernie just might be the guy to keep Capitalism from completely imploding and things looking very much like France in 1789. [19thcenturyart-facos.com]
Why Bernie Sanders Should Be the Candidate for the 1 Percent [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [alternet.org]
...and I haven't seen anyone in this thread mention worker cooperatives aka being your own boss--the logical alternative to being screwed over by Capitalists.
Bernie Sanders Wants More Worker Cooperatives In The USA [commondreams.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by pinchy on Monday September 07 2015, @02:00AM
1. Rebuilding Our Roads
Any pool old schmuck will read that and go "YES JUST WHAT WE NEED, I hate those damn potholes on my way to work every day"
2. Reversing Climate Change
3. Creating Jobs
I wanna vote for this guy /sarcasm
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday September 08 2015, @06:14AM
Though Bernie calls himself a "Socialist", he isn't.
(A Socialist wants Capitalism replaced--not just tweaked.)
Although if you want to play that No True Scotsman game the ChiComs aren't socialists either. And neither is the worst 'Social Democracies" of dying Europe. In reality Socialism always seems to devolve to a fascist grand bargain between big business, labor and government where all get what they want... until the system goes go Hell. See the world of today if you aren't clear on what the Hell looks like, starting in Greece.
and I haven't seen anyone in this thread mention worker cooperatives aka being your own boss--the logical alternative to being screwed over by Capitalists.
Actually, if you think you can do that, TRY IT. It is the capitalist way. Of course you must be willing to accept the other side of the Capitalist's bargain with society. If you succeed you reap the reward.... if you fail you don't get fired, you FAIL. No fair whining to big daddy government to step in and declare you too important to fail. In reality most workers do NOT have what it takes to be their own boss. Working in cubeville does suck though so there is certainly room for innovation in the continuum between corporate drone and self managing capitalist. Suspect the Internet can play a role disruptive role here and whoever figures it out will be another Gates, Bezos or Zuckerberg... and make millions happier.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by zugedneb on Sunday September 06 2015, @08:39PM
Cool story, bro.
However, I see not the life of any I know in your text...
Can u fuck cunts?
IF NO: CONSUME more to be impressive or drown your sorrows
IF YES
Did ur cunt gave u children?
IF YES: consume to pacify children and frustrated wife
IF NO: lucky sod, or just young...
Cut the crap, and tell me this instead:
why do you consume, and what do you need the shit for?
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @10:19PM
Jesus christ your blather is tedious.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @11:31PM
I'm the guy who works for a TV station. A few years ago, we had some children's shows come in, and some documentaries that we were running. The licence for screening the children's shows expired, and I was ordered to keep running them.
It's my responsibility to ensure that we are obeying the broadcast licences even though I don't have them, nor the legalese to understand them fully. I asked why I should, as I wasn't protected. I was told it's not important, the company will protect me.
It didn't.
As for the documentaries, we were running those without a broadcast licence for four years, and the guy running the place knew it. He eventually had to stop, because the owners started making some noise about it. He blamed me for it, obviously, said it was a mistake I'd made and I'd be dealt with for it.
So I don't have that job any more. The CEO got a bonus, though. The bonus was the care he took in not giving instructions in writing, so the business made money without any responsibility for its failure to obey the law or the contracts we were bound by.
Never trust your boss. He's scamming you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07 2015, @12:35AM
At the first sign that you are working for unethical people, it's time to start interviewing for a new job.
You also need to put a lawyer on retainer.
A note to your boss is in order as well:
2015/09/06
To: Pointy-Haired Boss
Re: Continued airing of unlicensed content
Your directive of 2015/09/06 to continue to air MAFIAA's content beyond the agreed license leaves the company open to a legal mess.
I advise against this practice.
Respectfully yours,
Anonymous Coward
CC: My Shark Lawyer, Esq.
.
.
Use your own wording, of course.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 07 2015, @03:35AM
This is about exploitation, not evolution.
Let us keep in mind that the whole point of working for someone else and the whole value of an employee is that they are exploitable. If your work could not be used by another, then there would be no employment at all.
This change, to flex labor, could be to everyone's benefit, but seems more likely to be just another of the many unfair and unwise changes employers have made to tilt the playing field even more their way.
Because employers like to do things that cost them money? It's already been noted a few times here that most businesses using flex time wouldn't profit from it normally due to the considerable costs associated with it, like increased training costs relative to work performed or the conflicts with other jobs the worker happens to have.
The saddest part are the legions of minions who believe in them, believe that ruthless use of power is a mark of ability, and who want to ride their coattails to success, want to poodle to the appearance of power.
Yes, let's spin imaginary tales to explain away why our ideas suck. It's the worship of power which causes problems for us, not the fact that our ideas don't work.
I really can't see any other reason for The Donald's appeal.
That's merely your problem. A little research would show that there's a huge population of people dissatisfied with the status quo. Who knows? You might even be one of them. Donald is enjoying a brief spurt of popularity because he's the bad boy breaking the china. I doubt most of his current supporters actually approve of his proposed policies.
Wall Street could be brought to heel in a very short time, if only there was the public will to do it.
It always has been very domesticated. It's masters just don't have your interests at heart.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday September 07 2015, @04:34PM
"the whole point of working for someone else and the whole value of an employee is that they are exploitable."
No, it is supposed to be an agreement between 2 parties, to the benefit of both. If all the benefits go to the employer, that's not employment any more, that's slavery.
"employers like to do things that cost them money?"
Of course not. But they often do. They make mistakes, sometimes very stupid, easily avoided mistakes. They get into races to the bottom. They could invest in people, and get back their investment and then some, but they're so afraid of being exploited by employees and of the expense of training that they won't. So they lose out.
A big mistake is treating employees like slaves. There are many employers who can't get past the mindset that people are naturally lazy and prone to thievery and must be constantly prodded to do work, constantly watched to make sure they aren't stealing any company property. If the employer can't trust that most of the workforce is honest and will see thievery as hurting everyone, including themselves, that's the employer's fault.
These slave driving employers never absorbed the lessons of the US Civil War. It's instructive to consider why the Confederacy lost despite having more good, arable land, and having the advantage of being the defender. Certainly both sides made many mistakes, and the Union was especially afflicted by bad generalship, but none of that is as important as the underlying severe imbalance in economic might. Why was the Union so much more populous and stronger? In a word, slavery. Slavery is a poor way to run an economy, guaranteeing that economic output will never come anywhere close to what a free society can do in the same position. The South worked every angle they could stomach, but there was a lot they couldn't stomach. One was the off-limits, obvious idea of considering that maybe, just maybe, the slaves could do so much more for the nation if only they were free. Instead, the Confederates embraced this idea of the "Southern Gentleman" being somehow more manly, virile, stronger and tougher than ordinary men. That thinking cost them dearly, as they preferred aggressive battle tactics with glorious assaults and charges, when their strategic situation called for a very different overall approach to the war. Perhaps the biggest decision they made in that direction was the replacement of their careful, defensive but very competent general with a reckless attacker just before the loss of Atlanta. What didn't help about having a competent aggressive general operating in the most important theater, is that encouraged them to think more aggressively. Despite being on the defensive, many Civil War battles feature Confederate attacks on Union defenses. It was aggressive, hot-headed thinking that had them even try war in the first place. They knew they were overmatched before the war started, but they wishfully hoped that the North might wimp out.
"most businesses using flex time wouldn't profit from it"
Then why do they want to do it? They got the cost benefit analysis wrong? Or, is is another of those ploys to make workers more "reliable" by "investing" in making them more dependent?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 07 2015, @07:35PM
No, it is supposed to be an agreement between 2 parties, to the benefit of both. If all the benefits go to the employer, that's not employment any more, that's slavery.
And it is. The point about exploitation is that's what the worker brings to that table. If their labor isn't exploitable, then there can't be an agreement. There's no slavery here.
Of course not. But they often do. They make mistakes, sometimes very stupid, easily avoided mistakes. They get into races to the bottom. They could invest in people, and get back their investment and then some, but they're so afraid of being exploited by employees and of the expense of training that they won't. So they lose out.
But that's a case by case basis. If a large portion of employers are doing that, then something else is going on.
A big mistake is treating employees like slaves. There are many employers who can't get past the mindset that people are naturally lazy and prone to thievery and must be constantly prodded to do work, constantly watched to make sure they aren't stealing any company property. If the employer can't trust that most of the workforce is honest and will see thievery as hurting everyone, including themselves, that's the employer's fault.
I don't see the point of this argument since that is frequently the case in fact as in perception. If employers trust those particular people, then they just steal more rather than less.
That thinking cost them dearly, as they preferred aggressive battle tactics with glorious assaults and charges, when their strategic situation called for a very different overall approach to the war. Perhaps the biggest decision they made in that direction was the replacement of their careful, defensive but very competent general with a reckless attacker just before the loss of Atlanta.
At that point, just prior to the burning of Atlanta with an outmatched army, the different overall approach would be a negotiated surrender of the entire Confederacy. I don't see it as being analogous to the current situation with employers and employees with societal intervention heavily in favor of employees, but having the unintended consequence of destroying some of the pricing power of employees.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday September 08 2015, @03:26PM
"If employers trust those particular people, then they just steal more rather than less."
I'm saying that it's a lot better to head off thievery by creating an environment of cooperation, a sense of community, so that people do not want to steal, rather than resort to more surveillance or searches or other measures of that sort. In a company where everyone is pulling together, the thieves and slackers among the workers will be caught by their fellow workers. If management has instead created a hostile environment of workers vs the company, and is seen as being thieves themselves, the honest workers will not help stop the thieves. For example, if management likes to dock pay for flimsy reasons, things like "No pay during employees' bathroom breaks, we're paying you to work, not use the toilet", workers will retaliate.
"different overall approach would be a negotiated surrender of the entire Confederacy"
The war need not have even happened. The slave states surely realized that they were badly overmatched and could not win a war, if the free states were determined to fight. That was the only question to be answered by war. Would the Union fight? Before the start, they tried to negotiate a peaceful split. When the Union would not accept that, using their numbers to vote down all such proposals, the Confederacy opted for war. Near the end, when everyone could see that the Confederacy was losing, they tried to negotiate a surrender, but they wouldn't make any substantive concessions. Their offer was to turn the clock back to the legal and political situation at the start of the war. They were desperate to rejoin in time to vote down the 13th Amendment.
"I don't see it as being analogous to the current situation with employers and employees with societal intervention heavily in favor of employees"
Is societal intervention heavily in favor of employees? Why do you think so? Since the 1960s, things have tilted more and more towards employers. What happened to "9 to 5"? It was turned into 8 to 5, with an hour break for lunch. But what did people do for lunch before that change? Lunch was on paid time! It didn't stop at 8 to 5. Now, wage theft is all too common, with employers having turned salary from an employee advantage into a liability, and pushing people to work 50, 60, or more hours per week for the same pay as for 40 hours. Over the years, there have been a steady stream of small changes that collectively have taken the gains in productivity and put it all in employers' pockets, with nothing going to the employees. We've also seen unions steadily beat down. Admittedly, unions have their share of problems, and stupid and unfair demands, but something has to push back against corporate greed. If not unions, then what? Perhaps a revolution. Indeed, that is one of the chief fears of executives, that some among them will push too far, and spark a revolution that sweeps them all out.
But this inability to agree on the facts is one of the biggest problems society faces today. The political right in particular has taken a dangerous, weak course by resorting to propaganda when their best arguments proved wrong. What is the reason, really, to deny that Climate Disruption is real in the face of all kinds of evidence that it most definitely is real? Would admitting that really cost a lot of jobs, as they like to claim? No. Rather than admit they made mistakes, many have adopted this attitude that apologizing or admitting to mistakes looks weak, and refuse to ever apologize or admit error, even going as far to resort to propaganda campaigns. (One thing you've got to give Perry is that he at least was willing to admit it, saying "oops". Of course he was paid back for that by his supporters abandoning him.) I've heard some of them still claiming even today that Iraq really did have Weapons of Mass Destruction all along, and that the reason we didn't find them was that they were smuggled out to Syria when we attacked. Really? Then why haven't our intelligence agencies been able to find them? Are they incompetent? Or is it another conspiracy along the lines of they found them but are keeping it quiet? If that is so, it sure screws W.'s legacy. Surely they would instead shout this from every rooftop, to shore up the conservative brand. The Republicans are looking ever more and more like the Party of Stupid. The liberal media hardly even has to try, the Republicans make themselves look bad more effectively than any media smear campaign could.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 08 2015, @06:04PM
I'm saying that it's a lot better to head off thievery by creating an environment of cooperation, a sense of community, so that people do not want to steal, rather than resort to more surveillance or searches or other measures of that sort.
It's better, unless you can't do that, for example, being unable to easily fire people who aren't contributing to this environment of cooperation and other labor policies that discourage such cooperation.
Now, wage theft is all too common, with employers having turned salary from an employee advantage into a liability, and pushing people to work 50, 60, or more hours per week for the same pay as for 40 hours.
So why should I care about "wage theft"? It's an offer of employment that you can take or leave, even after you've worked there for a while. And recall here, that we're complaining about developed workers who are competing with a vast pool of labor that works for a fraction of the cost. Of course, you're going to have to take a haircut on your wages. Adapt or be unemployed.
Over the years, there have been a steady stream of small changes that collectively have taken the gains in productivity and put it all in employers' pockets, with nothing going to the employees.
So what? You should be glad that they're still employing you rather than several Chinese workers in your stead. The problem here is that all those rules created over the decades which hypothetically protect employees, instead destroy the demand for developed world labor. The very tribulations you describe were created not just by competitive pressure from the developing world, but a half century of terribly misguided labor policies which made the basic problem worse.
We've also seen unions steadily beat down. Admittedly, unions have their share of problems, and stupid and unfair demands, but something has to push back against corporate greed. If not unions, then what?
I don't see that a pushback against corporate "greed" is a good idea here. My view is that US labor should take a considerable haircut in order to stay competitive. My view is also that no matter how we wriggle on the hook, we will be taking that haircut. The decline of labor unions is an example.
What is the reason, really, to deny that Climate Disruption is real in the face of all kinds of evidence that it most definitely is real?
How disrupting and how real? I think a big part of the problem is that climate disruption (as opposed to the observed modest global warming) is primarily a power grab by ideological opponents. The political right would be in support, if it were their idea.
I think the level of attention and resources to climate change which has been devoted, is actually harmful to both our well being and the environment because it distracts from our most important problems, like the work relationship which had degenerated so much over the decades. We can afford to have a world temperature 10 C higher than present. We can't afford to have that and a labor relationship so dysfunctional that we can't adequately respond to the climate shift.
I've heard some of them still claiming even today that Iraq really did have Weapons of Mass Destruction all along, and that the reason we didn't find them was that they were smuggled out to Syria when we attacked. Really? Then why haven't our intelligence agencies been able to find them?
What makes you think intelligence agencies haven't been able to find those WMD? It's not in the current Obama administration's interests to give even slight credence to such a notion. It's worth noting here that the Saddam Hussein regime routinely moved its air force out of the country during its various wars with Iran and the US-led coalitions. So it's not a stretch to suppose that they would have done so for other things that would be politically inconvenient like old WMD designs, some uranium refining equipment, or residual biological weapon stocks.
I don't think that Hussein had an active WMD program going. But he probably kept some old materials around so that he could restart some of the programs quickly when sanctions would have fallen. The 9/11 attacks and the Bush administration's rush to judgment short destroyed that strategy.
The liberal media hardly even has to try, the Republicans make themselves look bad more effectively than any media smear campaign could.
No kidding.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 08 2015, @06:17PM
Is societal intervention heavily in favor of employees? Why do you think so? Since the 1960s, things have tilted more and more towards employers.
Obvious counterexamples in the US: 40 hour work week, disability protection, very hard to fire people even at will, a variety of strongly enforced laws against discrimination, health and safety regulation, increased social safety net programs (such as unemployment insurance, increased Social Security benefits, and Medicare/Medicaid), environmental regulations (which protect workers against workplace exposure), and Sarbones/Oxley (provides somewhat greater clarity into the inner workings of your employer, if they meet the criteria of the law).
But what has also happened is that those laws decrease demand for US labor. And that decrease in demand is what gives employers much of their current power. It's actually rather intuitive. The stronger the demand for your labor and the less competition from other sources, the more power you have over employers.