Archives for posts with tag: The Economist

(~850 words) This week’s Bartleby column, Network Effects (sorry, paywall), looks at corporate networking through the lens of Marissa King’s book Social Chemistry: Decoding the Elements of Human Connection. The upshot of the Bartleby column is that the ways people connect in the workplace are hard to categorise, but courtesy increases cooperation.

This week’s Laptops at the Ready column, The lockdown has helped Greece to digitise (also paywalled), discusses improvements in the Greek education system’s distance learning program. In a nutshell, Greece started this year with a deficit of distance learning capabilities on the parts of both students and teachers. The first school shutdown in March saw a distinction between maths and science teachers being prepared to move to digital learning while ‘some history and literature specialists without digital skills refused to cooperate.’ Being one of those liberal arts types who does have digital skills, this sort of statement has me itching to see the writer’s sources.

With pushes to distribute tools and skills more evenly, November’s lockdown tested a new online teaching system. ‘When a chaotic first session triggered a social-media storm of protests from angry parents, glitches were quickly smoothed out.’

And this is where the two articles collide for me. In the workplace, incivility creates a toxic environment. This applies both when the people interacting are peers and when there’s a power differential. Anecdote: Last week I was in a Slack chat with a colleague about a work matter. In the course of our chat, I expressed an opinion about a recent political event, thinking he would share my feelings. He responded that he felt differently and asked that we not discuss politics. It was a situation that could have been much more difficult, but wasn’t because he was civil and I backed off. I would have backed off had he not been civil, but it would have strained on our ability to work together.

Much like the assertion regarding humanities teachers’ resistance to change, I want more supporting data on the chaos of the first sessions in November and the social media storm of protest. What both of these pieces suggest (especially in the context of recent events and the ease with which one can anger and be angered when we’re not looking at the people we’re talking or listening to) is that we benefit more from being nice. I wish I could be more sociopolitical when I say things like this. Wrap it in something that says how much it is in your/my/our self-interest as individuals to be nice to one another. But this is not that blog.

Greek parents who hopped onto social media to protest problems in a new system might have been effective in one or two definitions of the problem at hand. When a child’s room is dirty and a parent yells at him, he cleans his room and the parent is no longer angry at the state of his room. It’s not indicative of effective communications between parents, administrators, students, and teachers (or between parents and children, says Mr. Childless here). In the moment yelling seems to work. Whatever problems the new education system faced weren’t solved by the yelling. Developers, systems administrators, technical writers addressed the bugs at the software, network, and documentation level, and teachers were able to do their jobs. Problems that were apparent the moment it went online may not have been apparent before a million and a half students and teachers logged on at the same time. Inviting anger and agitation on social media put pressure on those IT people, but it didn’t smooth out or solve the problems.

What all that protest did do was make it more difficult for the participants in the discussion to communicate without rancor in the future. This isn’t the only parents vs. school system argument I’ve read about recently. There seems to be a vested interest (in some circles) in portraying teachers and schools administrators as somehow having far more power (and free time) than they do in reality. There’s another discussion that covers who has more power, input, and influence in the circle of people and institutions that make up a school district. What is of interest is how the players perceive their own power. Near the end of his column, Bartleby writes, ‘Ms. King invokes the aphorism that “assholes can be identified by observing how they treat people with less power.”‘ In that same discussion, perhaps we can talk about how people who perceive themselves as powerless treat people who probably don’t have any more power.

In business and society, we form networks with others and belong to some networks by virtue of certain relationships. I belong to networks of colleagues I didn’t hire and networks of friends I choose. Parents belong to networks involving schools they don’t necessarily choose, but they belong to those networks nonetheless. The degrees to which we are active in these networks may vary, but courtesy makes everyone’s participation in the networks more effective. Bartleby’s conclusion: ‘”Don’t be an asshole” is not a scientific statement, but it is still a pretty good management motto,’ applies to these other relationships as well.

Image source: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-will-coronavirus-school-closures-affect-americas-children-136602

My best beloved reads the Economist every week, and occasionally I’ll read an article or two as well. She’s noted to me that periodicals like the Economist, the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal are written for people with an interest in the proliferation of money. As such they’re (historically) neither right-wing nor left-wing. Save for the elephant in the room, of course.

I was rereading a column from last June from the Economist’s ‘Bartleby Blog’. On the web site, this blog is subtitled ‘Thoughts on management and the world of work, in the spirit of the “scrivener” of Herman Melville’s 1853 novel’. This alone is problematic for a number of reasons:

  • Bartleby the Scrivener is a short story, not a novel.
  • The titular character of Bartleby the Scrivener would rather starve than work. His catch phrase is ‘I would prefer not to.’ He utters this phrase whenever his boss or others ask him to do something.
  • It seems that whoever named the blog took note of Bartleby’s initial burst of hard work, not the fact that by the end of the story, he’s been evicted, arrested, and starves in the Tombs, Manhattan’s municipal jail.

With all of this in mind, I point you to the June 29th edition of the blog in which the writer discusses the differences between American and European working hours and vacation habits.

First point: In 1979, the average worker in the US and Europe put in about 38.2 hours per week. Later measurements diverge. By 2000, the US worker was putting in 39.4 hours. This fell to 38.6 hours in 2016.

Second point: European and US workers differ in the amount of holiday they take. Rather than looking at the number of days off each culture has, the blogger points out that over the course of a year, Americans average 34 hours per week, the French 28 hours and the Germans 26.

Third point: The wealthy in the US work longer hours, but still tend to work in daylight as opposed to cleaners and food delivery people who mostly work at night.

Why the differences? Taxation? Possibly. But the key point is made in the passive voice: ‘Another potential explanation is that a decline in trade union membership has weakened American workers’ bargaining power. Except that unionization rates in France and America are not far apart.’

Let’s take a look at that for a moment: What happened to the unions in the US shortly after the 1979 calculation? I’d point to Ronald Reagan’s firing of almost the entire membership of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization rather than bargaining in good faith, given that he had supported the union during his campaign. This act alone signaled the death knell for unions in the United States.

The blogger distinguishes between unionization and policy. What isn’t spoken is how a well unionized country affects policy. Employers in underunionized countries also affect policy. Far more now than they used to. In the US, legislators financed by large employers have succeeded in gutting union power in a variety of areas. And they also succeed in breaking labor laws that protect the rights to unionize. So the question of who shapes policy goes unanswered.

I can’t speak for unionization rates in France, but labor in general speaks louder in Western Europe. Mandated holiday time of at least 20 days per year as a matter of national policy in most EU countries makes a big difference in that average number of hours worked.

Continuing through the blog, we get an assertion that ‘champions of workers’ rights have focused on raising the minimum wage (so far to little avail at the federal level)’. Again, begging the question as to WHY these efforts fail at the federal level. Might it have something to do with who is financing those who set the policy? I have a feeling that it might.

The writer then discusses the longer hours worked by the higher paid than the lower paid in the US. And this class of people discussed: cleaners and food delivery workers? Take a wild guess as to the areas of employment that are the least stable from the employee perspective? And which have unionization efforts stymied by both legal and illegal measures almost before such efforts have begun? Yeah, that would be those classes. It’s not that unionization rates have dropped simply through attrition or that the US minimum wage has stagnated through some kind of Adam Smithian invisible hand of the market. Those with money have made it higher to increase either one to the point of impossibility.