‘Winner Takes All ‘ – The Charade of Philanthropy

Winner takes all’ – Charade of Philanthropy by Anand Giridharadas

Yes, its Valentine’s Day and I love how the author, Giridharadas eloquently challenges the ‘new religion’ that plutocrats (super-rich entrepreneurs) are the only ones who can change the world for the ‘better’, not democracy through elected, accountable governments. Such individuals “ are like the arsonists who turn up to put out the fire they started” They start by discrediting government as incompetent having starved them of tax funds so the public becomes convinced government are made up of pointless bureaucrats. Super rich Entrepreneurs then ride in like the cavalry to save the day with public already gaslighted to see them as the superhero’s and elected officials as the villains.

Tax haven counties like the Netherlands are exporting oligarchic systems to ensure all countries go in the wrong direction of making government as small as possible creating laws with no fangs such as addressing gender and ethnicity pay gap which are seen as minority rather than family and class issues. Demands for equality are re-framed in political terms as ‘left’ and ‘right’ rather than ‘top and bottom’ so as to discredit such demands as being of undesirable political persuasion.

Smaller entrepreneurs start to emulate the same behaviours as the oligarchs at a local level and hence the gaslighting seeps into the fabric of local communities quelling the rise of any serious leadership challenges amongst the marginalised and under-represented groups. For this reason it was fascinating to read the research on charities, their homogeneous (white middle-class) workers and volunteers and funding is concentrated in affluent areas and not where there are need most, namely deprived areas of the country and cities across the UK.https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/jan/17/charity-gap-highlights-need-to-rebuilt-society-says-thinktank?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

This system has set up the ‘rich man’s veto’ against laws to ensure they keep money extracted by the labour of the majority that should be used to fund social problems they created in the first place. They are the architects of recent scandals like the growth of food banks (a failure of government but lauded as philanthropy doing good); #Grenfell fire and #Wiindrush sagas #ClinicalNegligence cases in the #NHS and millions spent on fighting legitimate #Whistleblowers where minority voices are missing from public policy and public discourse due to bias in the media run by homogeneous groups aligned to systems of power. The lack of diversity amongst the decision makers who design our public policies, legislation and professions who help to enact these policies whether at national or organisational level ensure such policies are enacted in ways that ensure they will have little measurable impact on lived experiences of minority groups they have no proximity and empathy with. The inter-relationship between proximity, policy and empathy is missing from the equation to effect improved working lives and notions of ‘good work’. Until we have legislation to demand equality impact assessments are carried out we perpetrate the cycle of avoiding accountability and transparency in decision making and public policy enactment.

They prefer philanthropy over taxes because this gives them both credit and control. This helps enhance their reputations and clean up what they did that was bad like hurting the climate, causing the financial crisis, paying people at low levels and employing them insecurely. If they were to pay their taxes anonymously they don’t get personal credit with the photo shoot at Award Ceremonies or control over how the money is spent i.e. boring but necessary things like NI, adoption, fostering, fire services, employment rights, access to justice, roads, schools, childcare, elder care homes, hospitals etc. Instead they can invest in their pet projects like their favourite art gallery, opera house or food banks. Serious thinkers who challenge this system get invited in small numbers to these elite spaces as a pseudo attempt to add spice. They are invited to gently challenge in conversations at elite round table discussions in order to seduce them to water down their objections to a gamed system that relies on whom you know than what you know (the fallacy of meritocracy). These minority voices fall for it because they start to think if I water down demands for income and power redistribution, become grateful and congenial at a personal level  I will get invited back and this converted patronage by those in power will not be withdrawn and replaced by the next dissenter waiting in the wings.

When sitting at the devil’s table or lying with dogs you risk eventually getting fleas so must remain super vigilant to ‘snakes in suits’. The seduction process seeks to get you to take your eye of public policy and how it is being engineered to privilege the few with selected few from the masses to act as its mouthpieces in return for a few crumbs from the table while the ‘Winner takes all’ literally. So it is useful to be reminded of of the wisdom of Plato “The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men”.

Youtube link to interview with Anand : https://youtu.be/qcHlNKLQBIM

Safia Boot – Founder Respect at Work Limited

Date: Friday 14 February 2020

http://www.respectatwork.co.uk

Twitter: @respectatworkuk

© Respect at Work Ltd

#Inequality #SocialJustice #gaslighting #democracy #Oligarchies #EmploymentLaw #Poverty #InstitutionalRacism #EthnicityPayGap #GenderPayGap #AccessToJustice #GenderEquality #Davos #FinancialCrisis #Hubris #Tax #TaxHavens #OffShore #Banking #WhitePrivilege #Class

#MeToo – Rise of Workplace Militancy, ‘Identity Politics’ or Social Justice?

Who runs the world? Beyoncé says girls do but the stats say the world is run by powerful men (largely white). So, you could say behind every ‘Great’ man stands a ‘Great’ invisible woman a few steps behind. The google worldwide walk-out on Thursday 1 November 2018 of 20,000 workers (20% of its workforce) is both a class, gender and race issue (otherwise known as ‘intersectionality’). The Tech workers are protesting lawfully under the USA National Labour Relations Act 1935 that allows for collective action “employees shall have the right to … engage in … concerted activities for the purpose of … mutual aid or protection.” Their protection is afforded under the NLRA rather than the much quoted First Amendment – ‘Right to free speech’ which would not apply unless it was treatment due to State action rather than as in this case in relation to treatment by a private USA organisation that normally has the right to dismiss ‘At Will’ for any reason.

However, this won’t be the case in other countries which have laws requiring adherence to strict procedures before withdrawing labour. In any unlawful strike it would still be a major ER (Employee Relations) and PR disaster to take or threaten disciplinary action for breach of contract. In the Google case, these are prized Tech workers of both genders, middle class and largely white. If they were a bunch of black/migrant/women cleaners in an outsourced low-waged, zero-hours transactional business there is a high risk they would simply and quickly be replaced on an individual basis and get very little media attention. So, the risk of militancy, especially outside any protective legal framework is dependent on the balance of power. Workers who wish to reverse the trend of decades by now joining unions will have greater collective power to resolve issues informally. In that sense Unions are an essential part of any effective democracy. Unions (rightly for cost and alignment with their values) don’t welcome ‘deathbed conversions’ at the point workers find themselves in a dispute with their employer: you either believe in marginalised individuals having a right to social justice via collectivism or you don’t.

However, over recent decades the decline in union membership has been accompanied by an agenda of individualism rather than collectivism. The advocates of Sheryl Sandberg’s ‘lean in’ school of thought (individual empowerment) has played its part in nudging along the ideology of individualism as has our obsession with pointing to isolated ‘heroes’ be-it ‘exceptional’ figures until they’re re-examined by the latest scandal or they simply represent ‘the first, the only and the last’ of their kind to be appointed, if from a minority group. Putting the onus on under-represented individuals to change themselves to fit the status quo fails to address the structural barriers in place. No-amount of individual positive thinking can change macro policy decisions to address significant evidence of disparity for large sections of the population. A collective, sustained and multiplicity of initiatives are required along with enabled individual actions to bring about real change to everyday lived experiences. The solutions are often very simple, we just need to change who is making the decisions and treat all people as the few privileged are being treated. [See also research by Professor Kalwant Bhopal‘White Privilege’; Research by The Runnymede Trust; Daniel Dorling’s ‘Inequality and the 1%’, to name but a few]. 

Evidence of Employee Dissatisfaction and low productivity:

Recently, I was speaking to a highly educated, talented but lowly paid young woman experiencing systematic bullying and under-utilisation by her line manager in the publishing world. She felt her only option was to continue to suffer in silence or leave as soon as her job-hunting efforts yielded a better line manager and prospects for salary and professional growth. Her sense of powerlessness and suppression of her human potential was deeply saddening.

The young woman said she did not even know how to begin to draft a grievance letter or have the confidence to raise the issue informally with anyone in a position of authority. Nor was there was any reference to independent mediation within the organisation, which can work when used appropriately and in a timely way. She was then shocked to be corrected by me on her right to join a union. A co-worker had incorrectly told her there was no point in raising a grievance unless she had the support of a union to represent her at any grievance hearing because,“They don’t recognise unions here!” and the long serving line manager would be believed over her. We have seen numerous examples of individuals who complain of sexual harassment, racial discrimination or bullying to be told at the outset it’s a case of one person’s word over another, more powerful. This is often even before any rigorous, fair, independent and transparent investigation has been commissioned.

In the case study example, being unsupported in raising her concerns was her biggest fear in case it made the bullying worse resulting in either a psychological breakdown or being dismissed for an invented case of poor performance or redundancy. She was unaware under UK employment law, there needs to be no Union Recognition Agreement in place with the employer for an individual to be a member of any registered union and have the legal right for her Union Representative accompany her and advise her on her grievance. She did not feel she could go to HR as they were only ever seen talking to management and otherwise kept to themselves on the upper floors of the building. Clearly, fear, ignorance and a remote HR department combined to reinforce the existing power imbalances. Suffering in silence or voting with your feet are not uncommon ways out for such individuals.

Research suggests that employee disengagement costs the UK economy £340 billion annually, bad leadership is eroding UK productivity (Hay Group now Korn Ferry).With 49% of workers citing poor management as the main reason they’re considering looking for a new job. Nearly half of the UK workforce (47%) will be looking for a new job in 2019, with nearly 1 in 5 people actively searching for new job opportunities (Investors in People (IIP) report in their annual Job Exodus Survey 2018). UK workers have one of the lowest levels of job satisfaction in the world ranking sixth in an international study of 23,000 employees across eight countries (Robert Half ‘It’s Time We All Work Happy®: The Secrets of the Happiest Companies and Employees – June 2017).

Case of ‘Cobbler’s Children’: ‘Do as I say not do as I do’Collective organising, some refuse to see is what big enterprises, the wealthy 1% and privileged already successfully do by political funding, lobbying, networking and donations to prestigious ‘Think Tank’s and Universities and Leadership Institutes. All this helps to shape the cult of leadership and management thinking to influence public policy to support a unitary management perspective and the ‘L’Oreal’ syndrome (because I’m worth it) as to who should be at the top of the food chain. Professional enablers are only too happy to assist them (see leaking of ‘Panama’ and ‘Paradise Papers’ regarding offshoring of wealth to illustrate how the system is ‘gamed’ to favour the few). The richest one per cent now owns more than half the world’s wealth, according a Credit Suisse report. The total wealth in the world grew by 6 percent over the past 12 months to $280 trillion, Credit Suisse reported (December 2017). Yet despite this, the rest of the population gets consistently told there is no money for essential public services that corporations and wealthy 1% rely on to provide compliant workforces.

Take also the case of Glasgow’s c600 male Refuse workers going out on strike (23 October 2018) in support of a decade-old Equal pay claim by 8,000 mostly female cleaners estimated to be worth £1bn (Cleaners in other sectors are often low paid working-class women and BME’s – Black, Minority Ethnic). Or, even the case of the Greenwich Council Cleaner who spotted a shortfall in her wages but found her complaint was not taken seriously by her supervisors saying, she “kept on at the union”to fight the case. “I never gave up” says Julie, 52, who has cleaned South Rise Primary in Plumstead, Greenwich, since 2003. She earned £722 a month as a part-timer when she spotted the shortfall, saying: “£35 a month is quite a lot of money to lose and the thing is, with school staff, a lot of them have young kids; she knew it was wrong” It took her 5 years to get a settlement for herself and her 473 colleagues back dated to 2012 (£4m). The pay formula will now apply to 5,000 staff as the settlement has been agreed ahead of the Employment Tribunal claim being heard. [BBC News – 1 November 2018]

As the saying goes, ‘Where there is muck there is profit’. So, before anyone dismisses this as ‘Identity politics’, just remember there is little difference between us as humans; we have common human desires to live fulfilling lives in reasonable safety, comfort and to be paid a reasonable wage for our labour. Equally, we all have our flaws so apologies there is no ‘Master Race’, we all need a little help to continue to evolve into our better-selves. However, our multiple identities are important in that they determine a material difference in how we are treated by those in positions of privilege and power over resources (knowledge via education, finance, influence through who we network with, access to health, employment, legal rights, etc). Identity is essentially about social justice and access to resources.

Google’s tactic of appearing to support the demands of its workers publicly to address concerns about the culture of bullying and sexual harassment could be viewed as the beginning of serious change. However, it and other technology companies have been slow to come to the table of equality and ‘plenty for all’. This is despite being hailed as a new industry, it has for too long embraced traditional ways of thinking and behaving. Further, the worker demands for a ‘better workplace’ is not confined to the culture but also to wider material issues of racial and gender representation, pay parity and progression to decision making and influencing roles. Without a system of elected, independent and trained representatives with access to their own legal advisers and resources to engage in meaningful negotiations, all this ‘show of muscle’ does is create short-term window dressing for any management discussions to be held behind closed doors within the leadership team and its Legal/HR advisors. Access to dignity and equal pay is not a gift to be bestowed by privileged leadership but a right enshrined in a fair society which our current political system is failing to deliver whilst rewarding leadership for failure.

What our leadership systematically continues to do is fail to grasp in the context of serial corporate scandals and footballer salaries for CEO’s/Board Members, the effect this has on diminishing trust in our leadership and institutions designed to regulate them. We are evidencing rising levels of worker discontent and negative impact on productivity from unexpected categories of workers. These workers in the past would never have deemed they had an ounce of militancy or appetite for public protest in them, so distant are they from lived experiences of hard-won rights of earlier generations. These rights cannot be taken for granted and forever do we need to remain vigilant to their removal by stealth.

The ways in which workers are choosing to amplify their concerns in an age of social media means discontent is reaching the ears of its customer and investor base despite accusations of ‘fake news’ being bandied about like confetti to mis-direct the very people who have most to gain from a review of the current order. People are asking “Do I want to buy this product or service, thereby giving my tacit approval of their methods”; As well asking in the context of environmental concerns “Who said I even need this product?”

In the age of Corporate Mission statements and the importance of aligning yourself to a wider social purpose, platitudes such as ‘’Don’t Be Evil’ and ‘A company’s most valuable asset is its employees’ and the like, ring like hollow propaganda slogans that no Employee Satisfaction Survey report with its ‘socially desirable’ responses or symbolic tokens of gestures like ‘Dress down Friday’, the shiny unused pool table in the corner, etc. can mask the corrosive sub-cultures that exist in pockets of all organisations – public, private or charities.

Have we not had enough banal slogans from the Trump administration and the resulting Brexit campaign arising from the UK’s EU Referendum? Have we not had enough of the ‘Accidental Manager’ fed on a diet off management slogans? (Chartered Management Institute (CMI): Are ‘Accidental Managers’ draining productivity? – September 2017)

Have we not had enough of the double-standards applied to those in positions of privilege versus the rest? Let’s just have simple consistency of treatment, honest facts and transparency without the spin.

[This is an opinion piece representing the author’s views alone]

#MeToo #RespectAtWork #SexualHarassment #Racism #Inequality #EqualPay #Brexit #Trump #EURef #AccidentalManager #CMI #EmployeeEngagement #Unions #HR #BetterWork #Dignity #Productivity #FakeNews #CustomerSatisfaction #EmployeeSurveys #IdentityPolitics #EthnicityPayGap

© Respect at Work Limited

Respect at Work – Have you got it?

Aretha Franklin Blog 001

Queen of Soul, Aretha Franklin, earned the respect of many and spelt out what respect means in her famous song in 1967:

“R-E-S-P-E-C-T find out what it means to me” Action Loudern than words megaphone Blog 001

“Be careful of your thoughts: your thoughts can become your Actions, your Actions can become your Character, your Character can become your Destiny!”

blog3

Keep your words sweet – you never know when you might have to eat them! Cat Staring at Goldfish

Be Curious rather than Certain Four business executives having meeting in boardroom

Don’t assume someone does not wish to be involved in a meeting or decision – Ask!

Respect @ Work – Author Safia Boot

Whenever I carry out a workplace investigation or ask employees about work, invariably the question of what treatment the parties most want comes up. They will likely top their list with the desire to be treated with dignity and respect.  You know when you have respect. You also know when you don’t have respect because of how it leaves you feeling, even long after you have forgotten the details of the situation, you never forget how someone left you feeling. Lack of respect can leave you feeling negative about yourself, the situation and those around you.  When you don’t have the respect you think you deserve you can react in kind, even out of character because of the strong emotions it arouses, or you may withdraw yourself and your co-operation.  In the end everyone loses out.  Disrespect stifles collaboration and innovation – two key ingredients that help us and our organisations prosper and deliver the best we can and be the best we can. But what is respect really? And, how is respect demonstrated at work? You can demonstrate respect with simple, yet powerful actions because actions speak louder than words. These ideas will help you avoid needless, insensitive, unintentional disrespect, too.

  • Sometimes ‘foreign’ or unfamiliar names can be difficult to pronounce.  Ask the person how they would like to be addressed rather than inventing a short name that’s easy for you but could cause offence. If you have difficulty pronouncing a name, come clean at the outset with sincerity and admit that you may get it wrong a few times so need their help in getting it right as your intention is not to offend.  This creates a joint responsibility for how we are treated.
  • Treat people with courtesy and kindness – sometimes it helps to declare your intentions upfront especially when you have difficult feedback to share. People can react defensively because they assume your intention is negative so give them the reassurance they need before giving them feedback.
  • Choose your words carefully – keep them sweet as you never know when you might have to eat them!  Rehearse your opening line.   If you have as a poor opening line it can throw the whole conversation in the wrong direction and make matters worse.
  • Encourage colleagues to express opinions and ideas thereby keeping an open mind to other possibilities, solutions and perspectives.
  • Actively listen to what others have to say before expressing your viewpoint – what you hear may change what you were planning to say or how you think about the other person.
  • After any conversation reflect or better still invite feedback on what percentage of time you listened rather than talked. No one ever gets criticised for listening too much and making the other person late for their next meeting!
  • If you disagree with what the other person is beginning to say or appears to be inferring, don’t let your emotions take you hostage and react in horror. Wait for them to finish rather than cut them off prematurely. Alternatively, return to the conversation later once you have calmed down and can plan your response and any questions that will help clarify what the other person appears to have said. You can resume the conversation by telling them you have reflected further on what they said and how it left you feeling.
  • Enquire further to ensure you understand their point of view, what they are basing that belief on and how did they come to their conclusion. Don’t assume you know everything there is to know about the other person, their origins, values, their situation, their fears and dreams – be curious rather than certain.
  • Use people’s ideas to change or improve work and the experience of our customers and colleagues. Let employees and colleagues know you used their idea (they will feel complimented rather than used), or better yet, encourage the person with the idea to implement the idea or test it out with others to get buy-in.
  • Never insult people, name call, disparage or put down people or their ideas using negative or emotive labels. Stick to the facts or what you have observed using neutral language.
  • In giving feedback focus on their strengths and invite them to consider if there is more they could do or things they could do differently – encouraging self-reflection. Do not nit-pick, constantly criticise over little things, belittle, judge, demean or patronise. A series of seemingly trivial actions, added up over time, constitutes bullying. The person is less likely to seek your feedback in future and everyone misses out on a learning opportunity.
  • Treat people with the same respect no matter their race, disability, religion, gender, size, age, sexual orientation or country of origin. Implement policies and procedures consistently so people feel that they are treated fairly, equally and according to their needs or circumstances. Treating people less favourably because of their personal characteristics (directly or indirectly) can constitute harassment or a hostile work environment.
  • Include all colleagues in relevant meetings, discussions, training, email distribution lists and events. While not every person can participate in every activity, do not marginalise. If you are unsure what they should be involved in – don’t assume, ask them! Sometimes people simply like to be kept in the loop and have the choice of getting involved on an ad-hoc basis.

What Next? Employment Tribunals expect employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment and discrimination. For more information on how we can help you limit the risks arising from inappropriate workplace behaviour via our independent investigation service as well as deal with it appropriately to prevent issues arising, contact us for further information.  www.respectatwork.co.uk

#MeToo #RespectAtWork #SexualHarassment #Racism #Inequality #EqualPay #Brexit #Trump #EURef #AccidentalManager #CMI #EmployeeEngagement #Unions #HR #BetterWork #Dignity #Productivity #FakeNews #CustomerSatisfaction #EmployeeSurveys #IdentityPolitics #EthnicityPayGap

© Respect at Work Limited