How unethical is student financial aid?

[Brant Gaede]

I am not arguing anything. It was just a thought about the balance of power in a workplace. I was just sayin'.

Sometimes I take a break from relentlessly advancing Agenda 21 and, you know, just say stuff. Especially here on OL.

My dear, you argue everything. I've back-tracked you to northern Ontario and your den filled with little arguments and OL carrion.

--Brant

relentless

[caroljane]

lol... the balance of power in the workplace is heavily in favor of the worker.

And for that reason the consumer is fucked (also the worker).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

RB,

You are definitely a cup half empty kind of person. Thus, I don't ever see you in management unless you get there by something like seniority or a sporadic automatic reward until you reach your level of incompetence like in the Peter principle.

Drawing out talent in people is not rosy-colored glasses looking out on a land of milk and honey.

I used to be a conductor and the orchestra I worked at was made up of civil servants. I had a reputation for competence and really good concerts. Many other conductors (not all), some of whom were better musicians than I was at the time, produced lousy concerts.

Ditto for pop records and shows I produced.

Why?

Drawing out talent is a skill set.

You learn it or you don't.

It's really that simple at the premise level.

I wish I knew then what I know now about human nature because I think some of my really good stuff would have become far more amazing than I can even imagine, but still, I knew enough back then to know that managing people is not just barking out orders and screwing over those who don't jump. That's why I got results where others didn't.

You can mock the "open culture" and mention bureaucratized attempts like Yahoo! all you want, but those are trappings, not the essence. If you give people loafing time and play games with them, that is not drawing out talent. They will loaf and play games.

Regardless of the trappings, whether traditional or experimental, try pushing hard for results instead of obedience, constantly demanding employees raise their own bar, serving by example, owning up to your own errors and fixing them in view of everyone, just plain old seeing them within their contexts, and celebrating their achievements. That would be a good start.

Give them a mission to believe in, one which you are engaged in heart and soul. Make them feel the grandiosity of the mission when they do good and shame when they do lousy. Inspire them to want to live up to it. Get their dopamine and serotonin pumping overtime. That's the key.

You'll get talent galore out of the worst dork you could ever look down your nose at.

That is not milk and honey. That is hard work and using your brain.

In your story, you talked harshly about the deficiencies of those you work around. I didn't notice you talk about what they could do. Your attitude suggests they basically mooch off the company in a job they don't deserve. I am almost sure this attitude bleeds over and they perceive it even if you don't say it.

Guess how much real talent and gumption they will offer you? From your own words, not much.

You've got a really good brain. But so long as you have given up on people, no amount of using it will work for consistently getting good results from them.

It's OK not to be interested in learning how to draw talent out of people and inspiring them to go the extra mile. No amount of rationalizing will ever convince someone who knows how to do it that this is silly, though.

It's a skill set anyone can learn. If I could learn it, I know anyone can.

It's a beautiful world out there, and it gets even more beautiful when you know how to get others to see it. What's more, you don't sit back and accept it that way. You roll up your sleeves and make it that way.

Michael

EDIT: Could you post the link to that viral video you made? I study online virality and I would like to see what you did right.

[caroljane]

Dgl,

Your notion of workplace power balance is at odds with mine, and the law's.

It is the absolute right of management to manage, to exert the authority mentioned by RB above, to give orders. It is the duty of the worker to obey these orders, always, unless they physically endanger or clearly incriminate you.

It is the absolute right of an employer to fire any worker at any time without cause.

It is the right of the employee to be paid fairly and on time for his work and to work in a physically safe environment.

Workplaces are about money. Of course no sane employer acts like a totalitarian idiot, exercising her rights in a counter-profitable way. But the employer who provides the capital and the livelihoods does have dictatorial powers, and workplaces cannot be democracies.This is clearly acknowledged in the law and in every collective agreement. Of course employer-employee is a voluntary contract, and ideally and often, both sides can flourish and we pile up value for the company. Our jobs are so personal to us that we cannot help but see them more in terms of individual relationships, and group dynamics, than as bloodless business arrangements -- even though most jobs are as RB noted, mundane.

But the average organization chart is pretty mundane too and pretty top-down. Everybody has a boss, bosses have "reports", and everybody, usually, gets paid on time.

[Dglgmut]

Dgl,

Your notion of workplace power balance is at odds with mine, and the law's.

It is the absolute right of management to manage, to exert the authority mentioned by RB above, to give orders. It is the duty of the worker to obey these orders, always, unless they physically endanger or clearly incriminate you.

It is the absolute right of an employer to fire any worker at any time without cause.

It is the right of the employee to be paid fairly and on time for his work and to work in a physically safe environment.

Workplaces are about money. Of course no sane employer acts like a totalitarian idiot, exercising her rights in a counter-profitable way. But the employer who provides the capital and the livelihoods does have dictatorial powers, and workplaces cannot be democracies.This is clearly acknowledged in the law and in every collective agreement. Of course employer-employee is a voluntary contract, and ideally and often, both sides can flourish and we pile up value for the company. Our jobs are so personal to us that we cannot help but see them more in terms of individual relationships, and group dynamics, than as bloodless business arrangements -- even though most jobs are as RB noted, mundane.

But the average organization chart is pretty mundane too and pretty top-down. Everybody has a boss, bosses have "reports", and everybody, usually, gets paid on time.

But they don't have any real authority. They have no power to threaten employees with... All they can do is stop paying them.

Legally, though, there are so many risks an employer takes when they hire someone--but this does not go both ways.

For the type of business you would be happy with, it would only be fair that every employee be required to invest an equal amount into the company and get paid a percentage of profits--but most people would not be willing to invest. That's the difference between workers and job creators, and it's crucial for proper allocation of resources (real value production).

[caroljane]

I perceive the threat of not getting paid as pretty powerful, and representative of real authority.

[Darrell Hougen]

RB,

You are definitely a cup half empty kind of person. Thus, I don't ever see you in management unless you get there by something like seniority or a sporadic automatic reward until you reach your level of incompetence like in the Peter principle.

Drawing out talent in people is not rosy-colored glasses looking out on a land of milk and honey.

I used to be a conductor and the orchestra I worked at was made up of civil servants. I had a reputation for competence and really good concerts. Many other conductors (not all), some of whom were better musicians than I was at the time, produced lousy concerts.

Ditto for pop records and shows I produced.

Why?

Drawing out talent is a skill set.

You learn it or you don't.

It's really that simple at the premise level.

I wish I knew then what I know now about human nature because I think some of my really good stuff would have become far more amazing than I can even imagine, but still, I knew enough back then to know that managing people is not just barking out orders and screwing over those who don't jump. That's why I got results where others didn't.

You can mock the "open culture" and mention bureaucratized attempts like Yahoo! all you want, but those are trappings, not the essence. If you give people loafing time and play games with them, that is not drawing out talent. They will loaf and play games.

Regardless of the trappings, whether traditional or experimental, try pushing hard for results instead of obedience, constantly demanding employees raise their own bar, serving by example, owning up to your own errors and fixing them in view of everyone, just plain old seeing them within their contexts, and celebrating their achievements. That would be a good start.

Give them a mission to believe in, one which you are engaged in heart and soul. Make them feel the grandiosity of the mission when they do good and shame when they do lousy. Inspire them to want to live up to it. Get their dopamine and serotonin pumping overtime. That's the key.

You'll get talent galore out of the worst dork you could ever look down your nose at.

That is not milk and honey. That is hard work and using your brain.

In your story, you talked harshly about the deficiencies of those you work around. I didn't notice you talk about what they could do. Your attitude suggests they basically mooch off the company in a job they don't deserve. I am almost sure this attitude bleeds over and they perceive it even if you don't say it.

Guess how much real talent and gumption they will offer you? From your own words, not much.

You've got a really good brain. But so long as you have given up on people, no amount of using it will work for consistently getting good results from them.

It's OK not to be interested in learning how to draw talent out of people and inspiring them to go the extra mile. No amount of rationalizing will ever convince someone who knows how to do it that this is silly, though.

It's a skill set anyone can learn. If I could learn it, I know anyone can.

It's a beautiful world out there, and it gets even more beautiful when you know how to get others to see it. What's more, you don't sit back and accept it that way. You roll up your sleeves and make it that way.

Michael

EDIT: Could you post the link to that viral video you made? I study online virality and I would like to see what you did right.

Wow! Have you thought of starting a second career as an inspirational speaker? I bet you could do very well at it.

Darrell

[Robert Baratheon]

RB,

You are definitely a cup half empty kind of person. Thus, I don't ever see you in management unless you get there by something like seniority or a sporadic automatic reward until you reach your level of incompetence like in the Peter principle.

Drawing out talent in people is not rosy-colored glasses looking out on a land of milk and honey.

I used to be a conductor and the orchestra I worked at was made up of civil servants. I had a reputation for competence and really good concerts. Many other conductors (not all), some of whom were better musicians than I was at the time, produced lousy concerts.

Ditto for pop records and shows I produced.

Why?

Drawing out talent is a skill set.

You learn it or you don't.

It's really that simple at the premise level.

I wish I knew then what I know now about human nature because I think some of my really good stuff would have become far more amazing than I can even imagine, but still, I knew enough back then to know that managing people is not just barking out orders and screwing over those who don't jump. That's why I got results where others didn't.

You can mock the "open culture" and mention bureaucratized attempts like Yahoo! all you want, but those are trappings, not the essence. If you give people loafing time and play games with them, that is not drawing out talent. They will loaf and play games.

Regardless of the trappings, whether traditional or experimental, try pushing hard for results instead of obedience, constantly demanding employees raise their own bar, serving by example, owning up to your own errors and fixing them in view of everyone, just plain old seeing them within their contexts, and celebrating their achievements. That would be a good start.

Give them a mission to believe in, one which you are engaged in heart and soul. Make them feel the grandiosity of the mission when they do good and shame when they do lousy. Inspire them to want to live up to it. Get their dopamine and serotonin pumping overtime. That's the key.

You'll get talent galore out of the worst dork you could ever look down your nose at.

That is not milk and honey. That is hard work and using your brain.

In your story, you talked harshly about the deficiencies of those you work around. I didn't notice you talk about what they could do. Your attitude suggests they basically mooch off the company in a job they don't deserve. I am almost sure this attitude bleeds over and they perceive it even if you don't say it.

Guess how much real talent and gumption they will offer you? From your own words, not much.

You've got a really good brain. But so long as you have given up on people, no amount of using it will work for consistently getting good results from them.

It's OK not to be interested in learning how to draw talent out of people and inspiring them to go the extra mile. No amount of rationalizing will ever convince someone who knows how to do it that this is silly, though.

It's a skill set anyone can learn. If I could learn it, I know anyone can.

It's a beautiful world out there, and it gets even more beautiful when you know how to get others to see it. What's more, you don't sit back and accept it that way. You roll up your sleeves and make it that way.

Michael

EDIT: Could you post the link to that viral video you made? I study online virality and I would like to see what you did right.

I share your vision of inspiring others to reach their potential. Where we disagree is on the universality of potential out there. I see real biological and developmental factors that prevent some from contributing to projects requiring sophisticated or specialized skill sets. In other words, I don't think just anyone off the street can be an effective engineer, attorney, doctor, artist, or musician if provided with opportunity to do so. Therefore, hiring the right people for the job is one of the most essential tasks of a manager, in my opinion, and managers should be held accountable for those they hire - something my organization never did, hence the problem. Garbage in, garbage out, to borrow a phrase from the computer science field.

I coach chess on the weekends, and it's well known among professional players that if a player doesn't begin at an early age, his brain won't develop the proper wiring for being a master-level player later in life. I've heard the same from many of the serious music teachers I know. Thus, when I take on a new 50-year-old student, I do so with the knowledge that however effectively I instruct and inspire them, they're never going to be really great at it (of course I can still share my love of the game and teach them things). There is another inescapable reality I've learned, which is that some people - although otherwise very smart or creative - just really suck at chess and should focus on other pursuits.

My video can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2zMkWQ4lDY I wouldn't call it viral - just more widely viewed than your average game cam.

[Darrell Hougen]

Dgl,

Your notion of workplace power balance is at odds with mine, and the law's.

It is the absolute right of management to manage, to exert the authority mentioned by RB above, to give orders. It is the duty of the worker to obey these orders, always, unless they physically endanger or clearly incriminate you.

It is the absolute right of an employer to fire any worker at any time without cause.

It is the right of the employee to be paid fairly and on time for his work and to work in a physically safe environment.

Workplaces are about money. Of course no sane employer acts like a totalitarian idiot, exercising her rights in a counter-profitable way. But the employer who provides the capital and the livelihoods does have dictatorial powers, and workplaces cannot be democracies.This is clearly acknowledged in the law and in every collective agreement. Of course employer-employee is a voluntary contract, and ideally and often, both sides can flourish and we pile up value for the company. Our jobs are so personal to us that we cannot help but see them more in terms of individual relationships, and group dynamics, than as bloodless business arrangements -- even though most jobs are as RB noted, mundane.

But the average organization chart is pretty mundane too and pretty top-down. Everybody has a boss, bosses have "reports", and everybody, usually, gets paid on time.

But they don't have any real authority. They have no power to threaten employees with... All they can do is stop paying them.

Legally, though, there are so many risks an employer takes when they hire someone--but this does not go both ways.

For the type of business you would be happy with, it would only be fair that every employee be required to invest an equal amount into the company and get paid a percentage of profits--but most people would not be willing to invest. That's the difference between workers and job creators, and it's crucial for proper allocation of resources (real value production).

I don't know what kind of work you do, but I'm going to have to go with Carol on this one. It's true that employees can sometimes get away with dragging their feet and not acting very appropriately for a time, but it is certainly harmful to their continuation with the company, their yearly raises, etc. A good employee tries to keep his manager happy all the time and, to the extent he is successful, is rewarded. Of course, a good manager will put himself at the service of his employees too. He'll make sure he listens to their concerns and provides them with the resources they need to get their jobs done. But, if it comes down to a conflict between a manager and an employee, the manager wins or the employee is done. The manager isn't done. The employee is. That's the way it works.

Darrell

[Dglgmut]

I perceive the threat of not getting paid as pretty powerful, and representative of real authority.

And the threat of quitting isn't? You are assuming every business has some sort of special privilege.

[caroljane]

I assume you are referring to the right to strike, the threat of quitting, or work stoppage en masse. Yes, that is a legal power whose authority varies among different industries depending on the resources of the employer, (who has the equal right to lockout). Strikes are a last resort for employees and not available to the majority of workers, who are not unionized. An individual worker who threatens to quit, or does quit, may cause difficulties for the employer , but he still has his business and the worker now has no income. You call that power?

[Dglgmut]

No, I was talking about just quitting. Unless you were talking about firing en masse.

Edit: You're assuming it's better to be an employer than an employee without any explanation. What if you hired someone to do some work for you and they didn't do anything you told them to? Why is your money insignificant but theirs should be everyone's concern?

You're assuming we're talking about an economy with more people looking for jobs than jobs are available. What if it were the other way around? Then would we need laws protecting employers from predator employees?

The employee could quit and get another job right away, and the employer would be shit out of luck with nobody to hire!

[caroljane]

I am most certainly NOT assuming it is "better" to be an employer. I would hate to be an employer and would be terrible at it. I am just pointing out that it is the employer who holds the actual power. Using that power to best advance the company, dealing with difficult employees, finding staff during a labour shortage, etc. --these are indeed constant woes for managers, and these problems have spawned a thriving industry in Effective |Management courses and books.

[caroljane]

Interestingly to your point about a more-jobs-than workers economy, the greatest labour shortage in English history occurred after the Great Famine and the Black Death, and the government passed laws forbidding wage rises - so that what workers there were would stay put and not be lured away by other employers offering more pennies .

It didn't work of course, wages kept rising. The Crowned Head was no match for The Invisible Hand.

[Robert Baratheon]

I think it's safe to say that an employee's leverage is proportional to the value the employee adds to the organization. If an employee is performing unskilled labor or performs work poorly, he can easily be replaced and has very little leverage (but not zero - there are costs to rehiring the employer would like to avoid). If an employee is of average ability, there are significant costs to replacing him, but the employer makes the ultimate decision. A superstar employee like I described above - capable of doing the work of many others or tasks that only the employee can do - has a great deal of leverage because the employer will go to great lengths to retain him. This is the Hayekian order of the workplace: labor is bought and sold through decentralized pricing mechanisms according to its true value, as it should be.

Unions can be a natural and efficient development when working conditions are poor or an employer lowers wages too far. The problem is that unions carry with them an inherent political power, due to their uniformity of their interests and their built-in grassroots fundraising and voting capabilities, so they tend to hijack the political process and award themselves all sorts of special priviileges and coercive powers. Mandatory unions, which exist in over half the states, are an abomination to markets and spell a death sentence for any host organization. Mandatory unions so greatly distort the price of labor, they make the host organization inefficient and hopelessly uncompetitive. In the case of public employee unions, it's only a matter of time before the cost of pensions and benefits so greatly exceeds government's ability to pay that there is inevitably a harsh correction through the political process. As we are seeing today with examples such as Detroit and the municipalities in Rhode Island, the laws of economics are the laws of nature and cannot be muted indefinitely.

[caroljane]

The cost of labour is, of course, the largest cost borne by employers. It is also the cost that is easiest for them to cut, as it is the only factor in the economic equation of their business which is in their control. But it is not the only factor in a business failure, and it is often a lose-lose solution when used to help a failing business survive.

[Brant Gaede]

I think it's safe to say that an employee's leverage is proportional to the value the employee adds to the organization. If an employee is performing unskilled labor or performs work poorly, he can easily be replaced and has very little leverage (but not zero - there are costs to rehiring the employer would like to avoid). If an employee is of average ability, there are significant costs to replacing him, but the employer makes the ultimate decision. A superstar employee like I described above - capable of doing the work of many others or tasks that only the employee can do - has a great deal of leverage because the employer will go to great lengths to retain him. This is the Hayekian order of the workplace: labor is bought and sold through decentralized pricing mechanisms according to its true value, as it should be.

Unions can be a natural and efficient development when working conditions are poor or an employer lowers wages too far. The problem is that unions carry with them an inherent political power, due to their uniformity of their interests and their built-in grassroots fundraising and voting capabilities, so they tend to hijack the political process and award themselves all sorts of special priviileges and coercive powers. Mandatory unions, which exist in over half the states, are an abomination to markets and spell a death sentence for any host organization. Mandatory unions so greatly distort the price of labor, they make the host organization inefficient and hopelessly uncompetitive. In the case of public employee unions, it's only a matter of time before the cost of pensions and benefits so greatly exceeds government's ability to pay that there is inevitably a harsh correction through the political process. As we are seeing today with examples such as Detroit and the municipalities in Rhode Island, the laws of economics are the laws of nature and cannot be muted indefinitely.

All very well and good but we don't know how these generalizations will work out respecting different types of jobs and employment until they are applied with appropriate modifications to fit differing circumstances. This doesn't even address how effective manager A is in getting "average" employee AA to perform compared to manager B. Then there is the role of teamwork and how you can get effective work from a team with all kinds of individual abilities or how bad the actual hiring process is in finding out how good an employee will be until he gets to work, especially over time.

The union part of your post is the best part.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

The cost of labour is, of course, the largest cost borne by employers. It is also the cost that is easiest for them to cut, as it is the only factor in the economic equation of their business which is in their control. But it is not the only factor in a business failure, and it is often a lose-lose solution when used to help a failing business survive.

Nothing you are saying here is necessarily true. You seem to be arguing out of a philosophy unleavened by experience; I can't tell.

--Brant

[caroljane]

The cost of labour is, of course, the largest cost borne by employers. It is also the cost that is easiest for them to cut, as it is the only factor in the economic equation of their business which is in their control. But it is not the only factor in a business failure, and it is often a lose-lose solution when used to help a failing business survive.

Nothing you are saying here is necessarily true. You seem to be arguing out of a philosophy unleavened by experience; I can't tell.

--Brant

Nor is it necessarily untrue.

[Darrell Hougen]

Pandemic of pension woes plagues nation.

... just to reinforce what Robert B. was saying.

[Brant Gaede]

The cost of labour is, of course, the largest cost borne by employers. It is also the cost that is easiest for them to cut, as it is the only factor in the economic equation of their business which is in their control. But it is not the only factor in a business failure, and it is often a lose-lose solution when used to help a failing business survive.

Nothing you are saying here is necessarily true. You seem to be arguing out of a philosophy unleavened by experience; I can't tell.

--Brant

Nor is it necessarily untrue.

So, now you're saying your post was both true and untrue? That's what I said. Thanks for agreeing with me.

--Brant

[caroljane]

Huh? "Not necessarily untrue" does NOT mean "both true and untrue". It means possibly true, or possibly untrue. I believe my post to be true as I am not in the habit of posting untruths.

You have been hanging out too much with those Epistemologists again.

[caroljane]

They are nice boys but they fill up your head with silly ideas.

[Darrell Hougen]

Huh? "Not necessarily untrue" does NOT mean "both true and untrue". It means possibly true, or possibly untrue. I believe my post to be true as I am not in the habit of posting untruths.

You have been hanging out too much with those Epistemologists again.

They are nice boys but they fill up your head with silly ideas.

Hey! We're not the ones filling his head with silly ideas.

Darrell

[caroljane]

Well, maybe it was the Metaphysicians then - so hard to keep you all straight wearing those hoods and everything!