Inequality in Britain

[Laddy Muck]

Please don't laugh, but...

Tea Ladies! And, in order to comply with equality legislation, a male would - of course - have to be included within that definition.

But seriously, they could be one answer to making the workplace a more pleasant environment and a small step to genuinely increasing productivity. For starters, people wouldn't have to leave their desks to head for a robotic coffee dispenser (though there is a separate argument for saying that leaving the desk is beneficial).

How much would it cost to employ a tea lady vis a vis the cost of purchasing, installing, maintaining and refilling/cleaning/repairing a coffee machine? Then there are the morale-boosting aspects of having a live person pass through the workplace with real tea/coffee and (hopefully) a biscuit or two. Employees with high morale = happier employees = higher productivity? Yes? My first employer hired a Tea Lady. She came around at the same time every day. We all looked forward to her cheery smile (s/he would have to possess a cheery smile or it wouldn't work) as we heard the rattling and tinkling of her trolley approaching. We were allowed a hot drink of our choice and two biscuits (one of which could be chocolate). Those little things made us happy. They were the days.

And, on the rare occasion she was sick, we missed her. As for her holidays - didn't bear thinking about! We probably didn't realise it at the time, but I definitely think she had a positive effect on workers. Marge was her name - bless her!

*hopes no-one will piss-take*

[Huguenot]

No pisstaking - a degree of confusion though.

Everywhere I've worked full time (always in London) we had the equivalent of a tea lady, in fact there were several.

They were invariably called the 'sandwich man' even if they were female. They arrived on bikes with big flat bakers baskets on.

Entrepreneurialism at its best.

[Laddy Muck]

Your "sandwich man" sounds as though s/he was brought in from outside? The Tea Lady I am talking about was an employee of the company. Her goodies were prepared on site. She was an integral part of the workforce. S/he was one of us - a small cog on a massive wheel - and yet she socialised with everyone on an equal basis. I.e. whether you were the company director or a minion like myself, we were treated equally in terms of a quick chat, a hot drink of choice and 2 biscuits. No exceptions. In short, it made us feel good - and valued. Simple, but true.

[Laddy Muck]

I forgot to mention...the goodies were free. A perk of the job, if you like. I suspect your "sandwich man's" wares were for sale - and thus available only to those who could afford them? Apologies if I am mistaken.

[Huguenot]

I don't really see what difference it makes who employs the sandwich man, it was always the same person, and we had great relationships.

Here in Singers they're usually paid by the company, but they don't do sandwiches. They're all called Auntie (a bit like you Auntie Mimi), and they hang around your desk crapping on for hours about distant relatives with minor ailments and telling you that you shouldn't drink cold water. They make plenty of tea, badly, but they keep putting milk in mine. A tradition I've never entirely understood and it tastes like poo.

The free food thing though, that's just about employee perks. It's a straightforward cost/benefit calculation on the part of the company. Don't have an opinion either way.

[david_carnell]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As a result all countries who have full employment

> strategies, as the UK usually does, and Thatcher

> did in the mid eighties, are the whipping boys of

> the 'productivity' tables. But it's all bollocks,

> as are, frequently, the French ;-)

Sorry - I've just read this bit again. You what? Thatcher had a full employment strategy? Did she bollocks! Her economic policy was that of inflation controlling monetarism. As long as inflation remained low, she was happy. The resulting unemployment rate reaching an unprecedented 4 million was a direct reflection of this.

[david_carnell]

French productivity 'gains' in the mid eighties were anything but - in fact the gap was a reflection of Thatcherite strategies that reduced unemployment from 11.3% to 6.7%

Selective use of stats here. The ONS show that unemployment was hovering around 5.5% when she came to office so not only did it then increase to over 11% during her tenure in office she never managed to get it down below the level she inherited.

If that's evidence of a full employment strategy it seems a pretty poor effort.

[Huguenot]

I was comparing the different employment philosophies of France and the UK and the consequences it had on 'productivity' measures. I don't want this to turn into a debate about Thatcher.

[david_carnell]

I'm not making it personally about her either.

But you claimed her economic policies were based on a strategy of full employment unlike the French. And I'm calling you on it and saying that's nonsense.

Her economic policies, right or wrong, were based heavily on keeping inflation under control and unemployment was a cost worth paying for that. Hence the 11% figure.

Do you dispute that?

[Huguenot]

I'm a bit bored with it.

You cited the French as an example of high productivity based generally accepted figures. I pointed out how these figures were generated and observed that UK 'productivity' dropped as employment rose.

I pointed that in periods of economic depression it's 'high value' jobs that are kept - and when employment once again rises its usually in low value roles, so due to the way it's calculated, 'productivity' appears to drop.

Traditionally the Frence have less of a focus on high employment. That's why unemployment for the under 25s is running at 50%

Hence their 'productivity' has nothing to do with the efficiency and capability of molly-coddled French workers - the point you appeared to be making.

That's all I'm saying. If you want to carry on nit-picking issues that I'm not trying to raise you'll need to do it with someon else ;-)

[david_carnell]

Do you think the other nations I highlighted, such as Finland, also fail your test for the same reason?

And don't get all antse about me highlighting a flaw in your argument...you do it to others all the time. It's what you're good at!

[Huguenot]

I wasn't antse about the flaw in the argument, it was because it was becoming an argument about Thatcher which I had no intention of being dragged into.

You have to take each country on a case by case basis. Finland is not comparative. It only has a population of 5m, which introduces all sorts if statistical aberrations. Its primary industries are electronics (like Nokia) and wood, which are both export businesses.

If you cherry picked the 5m people in the UK that worked in the electronics and export industries, you'd find UK 'productivity' would be sky high too.

The problem is that unlike Finland, we have an additional 55m people, and not everyone can work in electronics and exports.

My point is that sweeping statements about worker efficiency based on national GDP divided by worked hours is not a valid foundation from which to build an argument about employee welfare rights.

In fact it's quite the opposite - it tells us that if you want to increase worker productivity, fire a lot of people...

[david_carnell]

But then any economic comparisons are going to be flawed because no two economies or demographics are the same.

Only three countries in Europe have comparable populations and you've already dismissed France. So that leaves Germany and Italy who also manage to be more productive per hour worked.

But no doubt you'll have reasons why their economies are wildly different as a basis for comparison.

Yet I can't shake the nagging feeling that the protestant work-ethic that invidiously infects the workers and managers in Britain, that demands that we work the longest hours in Europe, is fundamentally flawed. It creates more problems, primarily social, than it solves financially.

[Huguenot]

I understand that - but I think it's a bit disproportionate, after all it's only a couple of hours!

I'd accept comparisons between institutions that have equivalence - maybe if we took it on an industry by industry basis: for example how does a UK protestant slogging electronics industry match up against the Finnish one?

I'm not sure where to look for the data for that one, but it must be there.

[david_carnell]

Well whilst I have a hunt (during my unproductive working day!) I shall leave with the Parkinson's Law which states that:

"....work expands to fit time available"

[Laddy Muck]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well whilst I have a hunt (during my unproductive

> working day!)...

And you have the temerity to speak of those "lazy Finns"!?

[Odyssey]

The slippery slope of inequality and discrimination in this country?

[DJKillaQueen]

Yep...when I saw this I was speechless. What world do some of these MPs live in?

The tories opposed any idea of a minimum wage in opposition and in power before that, claiming that it would cost jobs. All the evidence says that it hasn't.

Also almost 700,000 households on low incomes (which ARE minimum wage jobs) need help to make ends meet from the benefits system. There is no sense in lowering that rate for anyone.

Getting the LTU and disabled into work is a challenge....but it's only one that can be solved by a change of attitude from employers. Lowering the minimum wage as some kind of means to make already vulnerable people attractive as cheap labour is not the answer and quite frankly insulting to those people.

On another note...did anyone see the excellent but heart wrenching doc the other week 'Poor Kids' ?

[Undisputedtruth]

Another Tory showing his true colour.

[Huguenot]

It was an absolutely bizarre proposal, I hope it costs him his job at the next election.

[StraferJack]

I doubt you could call djkq a Tory

Or a he

But you ARE undisputedtruth so who am

I to argue.

[DJKillaQueen]

I think UDT was referring to the MP making the porposal?

[StraferJack]

good point DJ - ooops

[Laddy Muck]

I think, utterly grotesque, is how I would sum up Philip Davies' words. The MP can have absolutely no idea of what life is like for a disabled/mentally ill person. Moreover, it is not something they (the disabled/mentally ill) choose to be - for heaven's sake.

It has taken us years to reach the stage we have vis a vis equality in this country. To take this man's words seriously would undo much of it. The minimum wage is there for good reason.

[Loz]

You mean DJKQ isn't Dave Cameron? Damn. I thought I'd sussed him out.