Hi Charles and Gail, Before I make a few comments on your (Charles' ) posting, let me insert Gail's original comments on this when referring to Arthur's notice about the Conference "The World, The Workplace and We, the Workers".
(GS) <<<< Thanks for this notice. There is, however, so much confusion in this conference between work and employment, and workplaces and employmentplaces, that I wouldn't think it could be very useful. Notice how they use "work" and "employment" as though they were synonymous and use "workplaces" to describe what are really just employment places. Their "e-work" is really just "e-employment" -- paid jobs in the monetized labour market? Rather than "The World, The Workplace and We, the Workers" the conference might better be entitled "The Global Economy, The Employment place, and We, the Employees." Members of the futurework list could never make such elementary mistakes could we? >>>> To my astonishment, I've just realised that sometime recently I've been working for myself for about 20 years, which is about as long as I was employed previously. Despite the fact that in the former period I was highly paid in secure employment (but bored!), and that the latter period as a freelancer included some pretty traumatic episodes financially, I would never go back to be employed. (Not that anybody would want to employ me now!) However, even though the two parts of my adult life have been as distinct as ever they could be, and even though I work far harder now than when I was employed, I'm afraid, Gail, even as a FW subscriber, I still make the 'elementary mistake' of confusing work with employment. For most people, work and employment *are* synonymous and, I suggest, always will be. In a recent survey reported on BBC Radio 4 a couple of months ago, 83% of those sampled said they were reasonably happy with their places of employment. For most people, the prospect of not being employed is frightening. To some extent this may be because most haven't got the skills (or think they haven't, anyway) to be self-employed, but there's also the social factor of wanting to be part of a team -- having a recognised status in the eyes of others. I think this is quite a strong instinct within us and has much to do with our (and our primate predecessors') evolutionary background as a social species which has lived in groups for millions of years. In contrast, quite a few of those on FW List are in the minority -- self-initiating people with strongly independent views who don't necessarily seek the daily approval of others around us. I don't think we should introject too much of our own values into the minds of most people we are concerned about when we think about the future of work. I'm not terribly interested in the future of 'work' as a concept. It may very well be very different in all sorts of ways, philosophically and practically, from what work is now, but I'm very much more concerned about what is the future of some of the badly-behaved children I sometimes see coming out of school, or of the young person (no doubt a young male) who smashed the window of my better-half's car last week in order to steal the radio (no doubt in order to buy a fix) and in doing so caused at least 20 times further economic cost. What is their future? What is his future? What an increasing minority of these young people really want -- but are increasingly unable to get -- is a secure place in society and that means, these days, employment. This is what I worry about. And this is the reason why economics has become such an interesting subject to me in my dotage. Now to Charles: At 15:53 02/02/02 +1100, Charles wrote: (CB) <<<< Much of the traffic on this list, not surprisingly, concerns economics -- since economics and employment are intimately related. Even in the recent traffic it is clear that there is much about economics which is not unanimously accepted. In fact, it seems to me that debate about the merits of various economic principles and proposals keeps most of our politicians, policy makers and media commentators (not to mention collaborators on this list) busy. There do, however, seem to be some (pretty simple) economic issues about which almost everbody agrees - and one of them lead to the creation of this list. Everyone agrees that there is something rotten about the 'present' of work and that some change is needed to create a better future for work. >>>> As already intimated, although I immensely disliked being employed myself, most people want to be employed. What is rotten about the 'present' of work is that there isn't enough of it, for one reason or another, for what appears to be a growing minority of young people -- the phenomenon that, in England and America at least (though perhaps not in Australia yet) is being called the 'underclass'. (CB) <<<< Just what "some change" means has kept this list going for seven years or so. There seems to be no doubt that economics plays some part in configuring a better future for work, but just what part is contentious not just on this list but everywhere. Some of us have come to the conclusion, however, that whatever role economic understanding may play, it is relatively minor and of a short term nature only. In my work in this area I have regularly heard one or more versions of the following five eonomic proposals for improving the future of work. The observation of my own eyes over the past twenty years strongly suggests that none of these has a long term significant contribution to make. Nonetheless, the lack of any certainty about economics provides fertile ground for those who believe in an economic solution to continue to try and modify these in some way or another to do the job. The five conventional solutions to our present problems with work are: 1. economic growth. If countries will only increase the rate of economic growth the necessary jobs will be created >>>> I agree with this. (CB) <<<< 2. international competitiveness. Every country should find the niches in which it has a competitive advantage and become the best in the world in these >>>> I agree with this. (CB) <<<< 3. training and skills development. Modern economies require highly skilled and trained employees, if there is a lack of success in a particular country it is because their employees aren't skilled enough >>>> I agree with this. (CB) <<<< 4. shorten the working week. Average working hours for full time employees are increasing at the same time as unemployment is increasing. Legislatively redistributing working hours is the solution >>>> I don't agree with this because it would be politically unattainable -- at least, it would be in England. At this very moment the Trade Union Congress are raising this as a concern. They say that the average working week is about 49 hours a week and that this is exploitation. But all my experience in industry says that when workers want a shorter working week it is because they want more overtime hours at premium rates. (The French, however, have legislated for a 35 hour working week. It came into effect last year for large emplpoyers, and this year for all employers. It is going to be fascinating to see whether this is going to work. I have little doubt that this will close thousands of small businesses. Or, as scores of small businesses are already doing so every month, those who are able to will increasingly transfer their businesses across the Channel to England.) (CB) <<<< 5. increase the scope of the economic marketplace. Every industry which exists today has emerged when people have outsourced something they once did for themselves. There is still about 35% of human activity which we do for ourselves. If we outsourced this to the market we would create jobs for all those who want them. >>>> No, I don't agree with this. Many new business are just that -- new products or services. I don't think there's a great deal more scope for personal service-replacement businesses. In fact, as Jonathan Gershuny (economist at Sussex University) has been suggesting for some years, the main trend is towards people domesticating a great many jobs that had been paid for previously (do-it-yourself and so on). Also, there have never been so many activity pursuits, associations, holidays as in modern times. They're not community-based as formerly, but they're active, nonetheless. (CB) <<<< Despite much effort on my part over eight years, I can't believe that any of these, or any combination of them, will make anything other than a short term difference. The real problem seems to me to be more fundamental, and requires a shift in our understanding of how things get done in the world - and how we would like them to be done in the future. There is no shortage of things to be done in the world (though there may be a shortage of jobs - which is only one way of packaging work which needs to be done). There is also no shortage of people who say they want to do more than they are currently doing. The challenge for the future is to bring those who want to do something together with that which needs to be done - something economics knows something about, but only at the margin. Hence, my plea to think about the future of work, not the future of employment. The five conventional solutions above are about the future of employment, and have nothing whatsoever to say about all the work which needs to be done which isn't conceived in economic terms (caring for people and the environment, prevention rather than cure, not to mention all the work involved in personal and community growth). >>>> No, as I've written above in reply to Gail, I think there are too many problems concerning educating all our young people into conventional employment before we occupy ourselves with deeper changes in the world of work. These changes are undoubtedly taking place, but I'm much more concerned with the education and skill-training of the new type of underclass which seems to be growing in most of the more mature developed countries. (CB) >>>> I won't go on, because I know many out there still either believe in the power of an economic solution, or believe that the alternative is too horrific to contemplate (ie too wet, messy and humanly subjective to ever be able to be used as the basis of a sustainable society). Which is a pity really....... >>>> Perhaps Australia is different from England, Germany, France, America in that there is no growing unemployment among young people, males mainly. If so, I can only suggest that it will come in due course -- unless you find better educational and skill-training solutions than we have been able to do so far. Best wishes -- nice to hear from you again. Keith <<<< Charles Brass Chairman Future of Work Foundation phone:61 3 9459 0244 fax: 61 3 9459 0344 PO Box 122 Fairfield 3078 www.fowf.com.au the mission of the Future of Work Foundation is: "to engage all Australians in creating a better future for work" __________________________________________________________ “Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say.” John D. Barrow _________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________
