Sabotage

Starting with the Luddites, the 19th Century machine breakers, sabotage was one way workers resisted exploitation on the job, by stopping the machines that made them work harder. In the 21st Century the new sabotage is to resist work, especially 'team work' and all the management participation programs by becoming disengaged from the work you do, in other words, by marking time on the job, taking sick time, stress leave, and when you are working doing as little as possible.

a recent Gallup survey of 47,000 workers around the world which showed that that Australian workers are among the most dissatisfied in the world with only 18 percent of Australian respondents saying they are fully engaged in their work.“Compounding these results,” writes John Belchamber, “is the finding that almost two thirds of Australian employees are emotionally detached from their employer and only do the minimum amount of work to avoid getting dismissed. 20% of dissatisfied respondents describe themselves as ”actively disengaged” – disliking their organisation, hating their boss and being indifferent to their job. But rather than leaving their jobs, they’re spending their time spreading their negativity amongst others in their team’s.” At the bottom of the table: Singapore and China. A staggering 98 per cent of employees in those two countries admit they’re disengaged with their work, preferring to be doing something else somewhere else. Twenty-three per cent of the British and Kiwis are engaged, one in five Canadians are happy with their work, and in the US, surprisingly, 28 per cent of workers experience high rates of job satisfaction. Overall, the global average is 27 per cent.The problem of employee disengagement is now widely recognized. Its cost to the bottom line has been demonstrated. Actively disengaged employees erode an organization’s bottom line, while
breaking the spirits of colleagues in the process. Within the U.S. workforce, Gallup estimates this cost to the bottom line to be more than $300 billion in lost productivity alone.

Rather than making work productive perhaps it is time we abolished work, wage slavery that is, replacing it with another concept; play. Making work not about production but about our pleasure and happiness, rather than the drudgery we face day in day out, no matter how many happy managers we have telling us to be happy. The work we do is not satisfying our emotional and human needs, it is not playful or fulfilling, it is simply a way of paying the bills.

Or as Herr Doctor Marx once said communism means there is no contradiction between play and work since “nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes . . . to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic” (The German Ideology, Tucker, 160).

It’s not so much what you do, or the money you make, but the level of satisfaction you have with your work and yourself that is of ultimate importance. Your level of job satisfaction carries into all other areas of your life, consciously or subconsciously.

But because most people’s mindset is “how can I work less and play more”, they live for the weekends, obsess about vacations, and dream of the day they retire. (I can’t tell you how many friends and family members I’ve seen fall into a major depression within months of retiring due to the shock that it doesn’t really fulfill their life’s dream) Their sole motivation for work is to not have to work anymore.

Work is work - whether you love it or not. A job is still a job and at it’s core it’s about making money for survival. And while I love what I do, if money was no object, I’d much rather be traveling with my wife, playing with my dog, or dominating 12 year olds in Call of Duty.

According to Frost and Klein (1979), play and work probably lie on a continuum.
However, play can be differentiated from work by defining their unique characteristics.

What makes play "play" and work "work"? Play has at least four fundamental qualities that distinguish it from work; it is designed primarily for its own enjoyment, it is controlled by the child, it has a dose of fantasy, and it is internally motivated.

Play is designed primarily for its own enjoyment. Typically, the process of play
is what is important, not the product. However, work is designed for a product. Work is engaged in for what may be gained as a result (Lefrancios, 1986).
The quality and quantity of play is controlled by the child (McKee, Play working
partner of growth, 1986). When the child decides that he or she no longer wants to play, all the adult encouragement cannot recover the play. However, work is controlled by others. In fact, if a child is required to continue to play even when he doesn't want to, it turns into work.

Work is typically designed for a product, controlled externally, based on reality,
and externally motivated. When a person is required to work, a product is usually
expected to stem from the work. Furthermore, this product is often judged by some
criteria as reflecting "good" work or "poor" work. The judging criteria is determined by some external "correct" model. Good work is reinforced, poor work is usually reprimanded.

Because work entails a product and a judgment, people can easily determine
whether change has taken place in the person’s behavior. Thus, if the product comes closer with the model, or the person produces more (i.e., quality and/or quantity increases) one can say behavior has changed or learning has taken place.
The influences of work is not always with a product. Work is also associated with
stress, ulcers, suicide, feigned illness, etc. It is interesting to note that as our schools have instituted more product oriented teaching, there has been an increase in the incidence of stress and other problems with children.

Has the time come to abandon the Protestant work ethic? As technology advances and the structure of work changes, Pat Kane suggests a different, more creative philosophy to suit the new era

DOES the devil necessarily make work for idle hands? The most momentous changes in the structure of employment are upon us: it is time we looked anew at our oldest prejudices. With the information age transforming all social co-ordinates, we should think about a replacement for the work ethic - in a world where work, as we know it, is evaporating before our eyes. I bid for the play ethic.

The objection to this is simple: how can you sustain a work ethic, when work itself is deconstructing before our very eyes? The massive shifts towards short-term contracts, part-time work, self-employment and manufacturing-to-services are well enough documented. Their causes - new technology, global competition, individualism - are recognised and accepted by most of us. And it is a standby of current social thought that the relentless automation of labour - mental and manual - is laying in store an unemployment problem of massive proportions.

Around 75% of the labour force in any industrial nation is doing little more than simple repetitive tasks, and is thus potentially automatable: less than 5% of companies round the world have begun to use new technologies fully in their workplace (an excerpt from Jeremy Rifkin's The End of Work).

Intellectually at least, the case can be made for play's virtues. Psychologist DW Winnicott cited play as the "creation of personality" - that exciting sharing of self and world that make new ideas possible. The Dutch historian Johan Huizinga has called us Homo Ludens: in that exhaustive book, he states that "pure play is one of the main bases of civilisation". And in the sciences of complexity, play is regarded as the central process that brings order to the chaos of natural creation - in the words of biologist Brian Goodwin, "our creativity is essentially similar to the creativity that is the stuff of evolution".

Of course there can be a downside to ending the work play divide.

According to Prensky, for Digital Natives "play is work and work is increasingly seen in terms of games and game play".²¹ This ethos has not gone unnoticed by some larger organizations, such as the American Army. The army has changed their approach to recruit instruction. Since the majority of the American army's recruits are between the ages of 18 and 22 and require wide- ranging training, the army has developed "an extensive array of gaming simulations"²² to help teach their recruits with great results.

But let's leave the last word to someone who understood the work play dialectic well, Mark Twain;

Tom said to himself that it was not such a hollow world, after all. He had discovered a great law of human action, without knowing it–namely, that in order to make a man or a boy covet a thing, it is only necessary to make the thing difficult to attain. If he had been a great and wise philosopher, like the writer of this book, he would now have comprehended that Work consists of whatever a body is OBLIGED to do, and that Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do.

Take This Job And Shove It



SEE:

tick-tock-we-live-by-clock

The End Of The Leisure Society

Black History Month; Paul Lafargue

Take Time From the Boss

Work Sucks

Time For The Four Hour Day

Goof Off Day

The Right To Be Greedy

The Job Creator Myth

The Harper Government (c)(tm)(r) has spent months promoting the Liberal tax cuts it inherited as being job creators. Well reality of course is a smack in the face with a wet dishrag sometimes, and in the case of tax cuts to corporations=job creation well, that smack you hear is a hard dose of wet reality.

Canadian CEO's were surveyed by the Globe and Mail about how they will use the upcoming tax cuts they get from the Harpocrites and job creation was not a priority in fact doing the same old same old, that is by definition NOT adding productivity to their operations (something the Bank of Canada has complained about) but just pocketing the tax breaks.

While these CEO's in the same survey challenged the government to invest more in R&D, with their pending tax cut they put the same amount into R&D as they proposed to put into hiring, the very source of productivity. In other words 'please sir can I 'ave some more" say the real begging class; the government should invest in areas we are not willing too. Can you say corporate welfare. These are the so called job creators the Harpocrites are using to justify their Liberal tax cut.

What will you do differently as a result of the corporate tax cut?

No change: 31%

Re-invest in business: 26%
...
Don’t know: 11%

Other: 11%

Grow business: 10%

Research and development: 6%

Hire more people: 6%

Almost three in five executives said investing in education and training should have a high priority in the budget, while 52 per cent said investing in research and development is key. Transportation and infrastructure were a top priority for 42 per cent of those who responded, while attacking the deficit came in fourth place – a high priority for 39 per cent of executives.

Canadian Business Not Productive

Despite the tax cuts given to corporations by both the Liberals and Conservative governments, it has not translated into increased productivity, that is both technological innovation and job growth. So the Harpocrites latest national tour promoting Job Creation Through Corporate Tax Cuts, is all a dog and pony show, the facts don't meet the rhetoric. For five years tax cuts have not resulted in increased RD investment by corporations nor investment in technology upgrades, and of course few new jobs.

But hey if you don't believe me how about these guys:

Canada has made major public investments in research, primarily through universities, but private-sector innovation has remained relatively weak. The OECD ranks Canada as 16th in business spending on R&D as a share of the economy, despite having the second-highest level of government support for such investment. The overall policy and economic environment has become much more encouraging over the past decade. The marginal tax rate on new business investment has dropped sharply, making Canada more attractive internationally and opening a significant tax advantage over the United States.

Thomas d’Aquino and David Stewart-Patterson are the former chief executive and president and executive vice-president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and co-authors of the book Northern Edge: How Canadians Can Triumph in the Global Economy. Read more: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/25/unleashing-innovation/#ixzz1DCwwrEmV

And of course Bank of Canada boss Mark Carney regularly reminds us that corporate failure to invest results in lack of productivity. So why give them tax cuts, clearly it doesn't increase productivity or create jobs.

In fact continued tax breaks federally and provincially to Big Oil has had a negative impact on jobs in Canada.

A 2009 Industry Canada report found that 54 per cent of Canada's loss of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs since 2002 is due to the oil sands boom replacing good, stable employment with short-term construction work in the tar sands and low-wage service sector jobs elsewhere in the economy. Canada has lost one-third of its post-war gains in value-added (manufactured) exports since 1999/2000, Canadian Auto Workers senior economist Jim Stanford told the Institute for Competiveness and Productivity in 2008.

The problem is not worker productivity, since workers in Canada are highly productive, its investment in actual technology.

The Canadian manufacturing sector employed more than 2.3 million people in 2002. By last September, manufacturers had shed some 580,000 jobs - more than one in four – and most of these losses occurred before the recession. There are few signs that this trend will reverse itself soon.

the fall in manufacturing employment was largely due to attrition, not layoffs. And one of the surprises of the recession is that manufacturing unemployment is now lower than it was before the recession – although this result was largely achieved by workers leaving the sector altogether.

But it’s a puzzle nonetheless: output per worker in the manufacturing sector has been increasing more than three times as fast as the economy as a whole. If productivity growth is the key to sustained prosperity, then shouldn’t manufacturing be increasing in importance?

Tax cuts have not created jobs, since corporations have used the break to accumulate capital which if invested at all is invested in the stock market and in mergers and acquisitions, not in workers wages, technology or pensions.

Corporations in this country are flush with cash and ready to grow.

"In some ways, corporate Canada has never been stronger than it is right now," Tal said.

"Better-than-expected profitability and a reluctance to spend in recent years has left Canadian businesses sitting on a record amount of cash and confident about the future.”

Swift and strategic downsizing during the recent recession paid off, Tal said. It allowed companies to withstand the downturn and ramp up hiring at a much faster clip than in the U.S.

In fact both private corporations and ironically our public pension fund the CPP have led the way in taking that capital and investing it abroad.

Foreign investment is a two-way street.

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and Onex took top honours for the biggest global private equity acquisition of the year with their $4.4-billion purchase of U.K. manufacturing giant Tomkins.

PricewaterhouseCoopers suspects Canadian companies will continue look past North America to emerging markets for better deals.

Last year, Canadians made major “buys” in nearly every continent with deals in the fourth quarter alone stretching to the Middle East, Asia and Africa.

“These transformational deals are beacons for what will become the norm for Canadian deal making going forward,” Knibutat said.

Joint ventures and minority purchases will also become more popular, it said. These deals allow companies to test drive sectors while minimizing financial and political risk, PricewaterhouseCoopers said.

“Organic growth prospects within North America remain limited, so for many well capitalized corporates and funds, M&A may be the best and only tool for growth,” Knibutat said.

A “perfect storm” of companies flush with cash, improved access to financing and lacklustre organic growth prospects means the M&A outlook is even brighter for Canada in 2011.

Global public companies have an estimated $3 trillion in cash reserves. Private equity firms hold another $500 billion.

Competitive tensions stemming from strong takeover demands are likely to entice sellers back in the market and that should create a more balanced number of buyers and sellers, PricewaterhouseCoopers said.

All this means Canada will likely continue to outpace the globe when it comes to M&A activity, buoyed by a well-capitalized financial system, strong dollar and leadership in hot deal sectors.

So rather than calling corporate tax cuts job creators, we should call a spade a spade; all that tax cuts do is reduce government revenue, social capital, while giving corporations more capital. Tax cuts are public funding of private profits, without having shareholder benefits. Tax cuts are corporate welfare.

A broad look at how corporate tax rates have changed Canada in the past suggests the impact of the small cuts planned for this year and next is marginal for most companies.

The larger impact is on the government's bottom line, not the corporate bottom line — even though corporate taxes have now become key in determining whether there will be a spring election.

Indeed, federal Finance Department documents show that the reduction of corporate income tax — from 18 per cent in 2010 to 16.5 per cent in 2011 and then to 15 per cent in 2012 — will be expensive for any government battling a deficit. The cost is about $1.6 billion in foregone revenue in the 2011-2012 fiscal year, $3.9 billion the year after, and a total of more than $10 billion over three years.

Productivity and Wages

As we know productivity, the bugaboo of the capitalist class, has no relationship to wages. Call it Marxism 101.

Since 2001, middle-class Americans have seen their pay drop by 4 percent, although labor productivity went up by 15 percent during the same period.

SEE:

$63.90 Per Hour

The End Of The Leisure Society

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
workers, variable costs, labour, labor, Marx, variable capital, labour theory of value, social-factory, proletariat, capital, capitalism, profit, productivity,

$63.90 Per Hour

On average, B.C. and Alberta saw productivity gains worth $122,698 per net worker gained from migration. Provinces who lost population due to migration, however, saw average productivity gains of $82,955 per worker.

Based on these productivity estimates it means that workers in B.C. and Alberta should have earned wages of $63.90 an hour. In fact in the Trades most earned less than half that. Leaving the surplus value for the bosses. In Ontario the wages were closer to unionized manufacturing rates at $43.50 per hour.

In fact average wages even in booming Alberta are 1/3 of what each worker creates in surplus value, profit, for the bosses.

Alberta continues to lead all provinces in average weekly earnings despite a drop in May, Statistics Canada reported Thursday.

Earnings for payroll workers, including overtime, hit $818, down from $825 in April but up 2.3 per cent over May, 2006.

Earnings are up 4.3 per cent so far this year, second only to the 5.1 per cent in Prince Edward Island, which has the country's lowest weekly rate at $635.

Ontario has the second highest earnings at $798, up from $796 in April, followed by B.C. at $750, down from $755 the previous month.

Average earnings for hourly paid employees edged up 14 cents in May to $19.04.

Which is why the bosses demand concession bargaining as they are in the case of Molsons Edmonton strike, since the CAW and the Molson bosses are negotiating in Toronto. They are overlooking the Alberta boom and the fact that Molsons corporate productivity and value has increased since its merger with Coors.


SEE:

Pay 'Em What They Want

Labour Boom = Falling Rate Of Profit

Productivity Myth

Canadian Workers Poorer Today Than Yesterday

Variable Capital

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Strike, strike, Molson, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, Beer, CAW, Calgary
paramedics, Strike, Stelmach, anti-strike laws,
workers, variable costs, labour, labor, Marx, variable capital, labour theory of value, social-factory, proletariat, capital, capitalism, profit, productivity,

Deja Voodoo Economics

Gee it was earlier this week that I reported on this.Except that Stats Can report was more blue sky messaging, the glass half full rather than the glass half empty.

In that case you had to read between the lines, this is more honest reporting. No blue skying this, tax changes have only benefited the rich.

Rich get richer, poor get poorer, study finds

Updated Fri. May. 11 2007 8:55 AM ET

Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- A new study says the gap between rich and poor is widening in Canada, appearing to confirm that the rich do indeed get richer while the poor get poorer.

Statistics Canada found that inequality in after-tax family incomes has increased over the past 15 years.

The study says that while the tax-transfer system changed in many ways throughout the 1990s, it reduced income inequality by as much in 2004 as it did in 1989.

The study found that incomes among the top 10 per cent of earning families rose by 22 per cent between 1989 and 2004, while at the same time incomes fell 11 per cent among the poorest families.

SEE:

Canada's Wealthy, Still

Productivity

Taxes

Wealth


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
minimumwages, wages, social-wage, living-wage,
public, Canada, Harper, government, baby, bonus, tax-credit, politcs,
single-mothers, conservative economics, Stats-Canada, Working-Mothers,
StatsCanada, wealth, wealthy, millionaires, taxes, households, inequality, economics,

Not So Good News

The rich get richer and the rest of us run in one place says the latest Stats Can report.

Incomes for senior families and single people remained virtually unchanged, the report showed, at $40,400 and $21,400 respectively.

However, the report also noted that the gap between the highest-income and lowest-income families in Canada widened to $105,400 in 2005, up from $83,800 in 1980.

The gap between the families with the lowest and highest incomes, an indication of income inequality, widened during the past decade, the agency said

Average after-tax income in 2005 was $128,200 for the 20% of families with the highest incomes, compared with $22,800 for the 20% with the lowest.

SEE:

Canada's Wealthy, Still

Productivity

Taxes

Wealth

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
minimumwages, wages, social-wage, living-wage,
public, Canada, Harper, government, baby, bonus, tax-credit, politcs,
single-mothers, conservative economics, Stats-Canada, Working-Mothers,
StatsCanada, wealth, wealthy, millionaires, taxes, households, inequality, economics,

Whine Me A River

The loonie's impact is hardest on manufacturers in Central Canada as its impact on western manufactures is being offset by the high demand for their products, Myers said.

There's not much the Bank of Canada can do to help firms deal with the strong dollar, Myers said. However, governments can continue to cut taxes on investments in new machinery and equipment and reduce their regulatory compliance costs, he said.

"The high dollar has forced manufacturers to become super-efficient, but they still face a lot of mandatory overhead costs," he said.

If they are so efficient then they should be able to plow their record profits back into their companies, instead of investing them in the stock market or sending them offshore to tax havens. Of course "super-efficient" is just another way of saying job cuts.

See:

Productivity Myth

Canadian Workers Poorer Today Than Yesterday

Variable Capital


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, economy, loonie, Bank-of-Canada, inflation, dollar

Tags
economics
Canada
Canada U.S. Trade
Canadian Dollar

Labour Boom = Falling Rate Of Profit

Go figure. Under capitalism an increase in labour, that is real productivity, means a real reduction in profit levels, a decline in surplus value, thus a falling rate of profit.

In other words more workers available means the economy is less productive than if you laid off workers and replaced them through technology or outsourcing. Go figure.

This is of course an analysis that is not based on the labour theory of value, but rather 20th Century Macroeconomics. And yet the mainstream economist outlines the essential truth of the Marxist critique of capitalism.

Last year's freakish growth disguised our falling productivity, said professor Ted Chambers of the Western Centre for Economic Research, University of Alberta. "Full-time employment rose by 7.6 per cent -- 114,000 jobs," he said.

If employment rose even faster than total output, then output-per-worker must have declined, Chambers explained.

"Provincial productivity numbers, released by Statistics Canada not long ago, showed Alberta at the bottom."

Productivity -- not GDP -- drives profits, incomes, and competitiveness.

The reason for the decline in 'productivity', is the decline in profits due to the increase in wages earned by the growing workforce.

Economy churns out 55,000 new jobs in March; unemployment holds at 6.1%

In the first quarter of the year, the agency estimated that employment grew by 158,000, the strongest first-quarter growth since 2002.

The booming job market has also resulted in Canadians earning more. Hourly wages rose 2.4 per cent during the first three months of this year, compared with last year, well in excess of the 1.6 per cent inflation rate.

Alberta's booming economy was mostly responsible for higher wages, rising 5.4 per cent in the first quarter of this year, from the same period in 2006.

The rise in March employment was led by women aged 25 years and older as adult women reached a new high in workforce participation at 59 per cent. In March, women in this age group captured over 39,000 of the new jobs created.

Over the past 12 months, adult women more than doubled their male counterparts in finding new jobs. Women over 55 also reached record levels of participation in the workforce, at 25.8 per cent.

By sector, employment growth in the services sector grew by 66,000 jobs in March, more than making up for the continuing weakness in Canada's beleaguered manufacturing.

Employment in trade grew by 27,000, with Alberta registering almost half the gains. The agency said the strength in this sector in March reflects gains in wholesale trade as a result of increased activity following February's CN strike.

Canada's labour force participation, the proportion of adult Canadians that have jobs or are actively looking for one, has jumped 0.6 per cent since last October and now stands at 67.7 per cent.

See:

Productivity Myth

Canadian Workers Poorer Today Than Yesterday

Variable Capital


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
workers, variable costs, labour, labor, Marx, variable capital, labour theory of value, social-factory, proletariat, capital, capitalism, profit, productivity, Alberta

National Minimum Wage

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has issued a report calling for a National Minimum Wage of $10 an hour indexed to inflation.

Something the NDP has been calling for in Parliament as well as for Ontario.

Ironically last week on Don Newman's Politics show on CBC Newsworld Ontario Finance Minister Sorbara told Don that the reason the Liberal government was unwilling to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour immediately was because he had a report telling him it would mean the loss of 90,000 to 100,000 jobs. Now what report was that?

Back in January Sorbara claimed a $10 an hour minimum wage would lead to a loss of 66,000 jobs. So which is it? Why none of the above of course, it's all speculation.

The reality is that workers in Canada have not had a real increase in our wages since the 1980's. Yet our productivity has increased. Which is why there have been increasing job losses in manufacturing replaced with low paying jobs in the service industry.

MINDELLE JACOBS, writes in the Edmonton Sun today;

Wondering why your money doesn't go as far as it used to? There's a good reason: The median wage has only inched up a mere 1% over the past couple of decades.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) offered up that startling figure, along with an assortment of other disheartening financial tidbits yesterday, in a study calling for a $10 minimum wage.

Unemployment may be about the lowest in 30 years but that masks the hand-to-mouth reality faced by a substantial minority of Canadians.

Take that 1% increase in the median wage over the past two decades. We keep hearing about stagnant wages. Well, the median wage (in 2001 dollars) barely moved between 1981 and 2004 -- from $15.16 to $15.33.

Lots of Canadians are working but huge numbers of them are living from pay cheque to pay cheque. Sure, only 4% of Canadians earn minimum wage and most of them are teens. But there's a whole other block of workers who are making between the current minimum wage and the CCPA's proposed $10 minimum.

As has been pointed out in previous studies, 19% of workers earn less than $10 an hour. While we weren't looking, Canada became a country where almost one in five workers is barely getting by. The lucky have permanent full-time jobs, pensions, sick leave and a host of extended medical benefits. Many others can only dream of such a lifestyle. So how do you like globalization so far?

See;

Minimum Wage

Living Wage

Productivity


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Ontario, NDP, Liberals, MPP, salaries, jobs, minimum wage, MPP salary increase, Sorbara, $10, living wage,
Layton, Canada, politics,