Well I've started reading a book by Richard Sennett called the corrosion of Character and it's interesting in its criticism of the "new capitalism". I was also thinking about how we talked in one of my Canadian studies classes about "telework" and the call centre experience.
Now that I'm living it I can understand why everyone is so critical about it. I hate it, I find it ridiculous and to be honest I feel like I'm being de-skilled as I work. The lack of control is embedded in the very network idea that we are part of. The constant attempt to fit the normal human behaviour into our patterns and packages of information that are useful to us, is frustrating for us and it must be for the callers as well.
The lack of security and benefits is also an issue. I count myself among the lucky ones, I work for a government call centre though of course I'm not actually employed by the government itself. I can only imagine the hell that would be an outbound call centre.
The thing I'm really scared about it ending up being stuck there for any serious length of time. I already see a lot of people there who are talented smart people stuck in a call centre. It seems to be an employer (not of choice) but of last resort for many young (and not so young people) people. I am afraid of ending up like those people. Unfortunately especially in a "service" industry town like Ottawa the only jobs being created are in call centres, some high tech and financial services.
I tried the financial services angle and it sucked, I actually my time at the bank i worked at was the worst work experience I've ever had. I haven't had a whole lot but it was dismal. What a joke, i can't believe they really expect the bank tellers who have no input into anything, and have to deal with all the stupid mistakes that they make from up top, would actually buy into the system. What a joke!
In reading Sennett's book i realize the horrible language they use to describe what they are doing. Why the hell would my boss be "coaching" me? She's my boss not a coach. I think that's what bothered me the most about the job, they expected loyalty from me for nothing in return. That's the problem with work these days they are trying to extract the old values where people cared about their job without the commensurate responsibility on the employer side.
I've never worked in any other workplace so dominated by the measurement of every single type of activity and the focus on productivity. Being paid the12$ an hour I was making doesn't encourage loyalty especially when the job itself requires little or no skill and you are unable to take any sort of initiative. The attempts to force us into "volunteering" also put me off. I worked in another bank and there was none of that attempt to control everything we were doing.
The bank that I worked at in the past focused on simple customer service. That was all, and that's what people got.
One thing that really bothers me both as a customer and as a employee is the attempt made by companies to make you fit into their mold. "You have to do it this way", why? Because it's easier for us[the company]. If the customer is always right and these companies were serious about customer service we wouldn't have these problems.
March 28, 2007
March 22, 2007
A new project
I've been thinking about this particular project for quite some time.
I'd like to examine the ideological shift that took place in the 1980s in the economic and political thinking of countries like the US (with Reagonomics), the UK (Thatcherism) and New Zealand (Rogernomics) . Although the first two experiences are better known the last example, New Zealand is probably the best example of what the revolution brought on by this thinking could produce. In fact it is a shame that it is not better known.
I also would like to contrast that experience with the backlash that took place throughout the latter part of the 1990s and John Ralston Saul has characterized as the 'End of Globalization'. I think that enough time has passed now that it is possible to examine this period with a bit more dispassion. As someone who "came of age" politically at the end of the 1990s, going back to the 1980s presents a pretty interesting story.
A lot of the groundwork of the globalization ideology that had protesters up in arms in the late 1990s in Seattle came about in the 1980s. In large respect the internationalization of this movement was an attempt to 'lock in' the reforms done at the national level during the 1980s.
Canada also played a role in this, especially contentious for us was the GST but the same was done in most countries (notably excluding the US). Slashing income tax rates and increasing reliance on consumption taxes (which are regressive) was a key plank of the neo-conservative revolutionaries. Canada was to some degree protected by its federal structure which meant that the federal government could never have gone as far as the government of New Zealand could have gone, and thank god! What is interesting is the fact that New Zealand changed its electoral system as a result of the aggressive use of the powers conferred by its first past the post system, and the result was a moderating of the impulse to radically change things.
I see the possibility of using the New Zealand, US and UK possibly also Canada and Australia examples as case studies in the large trend of economic policy making during the period.
These countries are close enough in terms of culture and form part of the English speaking world or English speaking block.
Anyways it should be a huge project but one that I feel is worth exploring.
I'd like to examine the ideological shift that took place in the 1980s in the economic and political thinking of countries like the US (with Reagonomics), the UK (Thatcherism) and New Zealand (Rogernomics) . Although the first two experiences are better known the last example, New Zealand is probably the best example of what the revolution brought on by this thinking could produce. In fact it is a shame that it is not better known.
I also would like to contrast that experience with the backlash that took place throughout the latter part of the 1990s and John Ralston Saul has characterized as the 'End of Globalization'. I think that enough time has passed now that it is possible to examine this period with a bit more dispassion. As someone who "came of age" politically at the end of the 1990s, going back to the 1980s presents a pretty interesting story.
A lot of the groundwork of the globalization ideology that had protesters up in arms in the late 1990s in Seattle came about in the 1980s. In large respect the internationalization of this movement was an attempt to 'lock in' the reforms done at the national level during the 1980s.
Canada also played a role in this, especially contentious for us was the GST but the same was done in most countries (notably excluding the US). Slashing income tax rates and increasing reliance on consumption taxes (which are regressive) was a key plank of the neo-conservative revolutionaries. Canada was to some degree protected by its federal structure which meant that the federal government could never have gone as far as the government of New Zealand could have gone, and thank god! What is interesting is the fact that New Zealand changed its electoral system as a result of the aggressive use of the powers conferred by its first past the post system, and the result was a moderating of the impulse to radically change things.
I see the possibility of using the New Zealand, US and UK possibly also Canada and Australia examples as case studies in the large trend of economic policy making during the period.
These countries are close enough in terms of culture and form part of the English speaking world or English speaking block.
Anyways it should be a huge project but one that I feel is worth exploring.
March 20, 2007
Budget Time
Well no a very exciting budget. Not that I expected much.
I wonder if the provinces will actually shut up now about the "fiscal imbalance" somehow I doubt it. Maybe they'll come up with a different term for the exact same thing. that's what they usually do. It seems to me that everytime the federal government decentralizes or gives the provinces money no strings attached (just the way they like it) they just cut taxes.
I think the real fiscal imbalance is between provinces and cities. Unlike provinces cities do not have access to very many tax options and the taxes they do have mostly the property tax is inelastic and regressive. Cities need the help way more than the provinces do.
The real problem I have with it though is that the provinces just want money without having to raise it themselves. It's irresponsible and it lacks transparency. If you want to spend the money, raise the money. When the Conservatives formed a government, one of the strategies that I though was most likely to end this debate, was to actually lower federal taxes, so as to stop generating surpluses. Then challenge the provinces to take up that room, it would've been interesting to see if that had worked. I have a feeling the conservatives were too timid to actually try it, but if they ever form a majority we'll have to see if that strategy comes back.
Although I think the so called fiscal imbalance is non-existent, I think that if the provinces at least transferred that money to the cities it wouldn't be too bad. The cities are especially hard hit in Ontario (I know that people don't like to hear that), because Mike Harris downloaded tons of services to cities without any money to fund them.
Overall I think my feelings about this budget is the same as feeling about the government, they are accomplishing little, no big ideas but they are not pushing us in a negative direction either. I'm hoping that maybe if they continue to govern for a bit they might become more ambitious. Then again Conservatives don't tend to like government (or so they say) so my hopes aren't that high.
I wonder if the provinces will actually shut up now about the "fiscal imbalance" somehow I doubt it. Maybe they'll come up with a different term for the exact same thing. that's what they usually do. It seems to me that everytime the federal government decentralizes or gives the provinces money no strings attached (just the way they like it) they just cut taxes.
I think the real fiscal imbalance is between provinces and cities. Unlike provinces cities do not have access to very many tax options and the taxes they do have mostly the property tax is inelastic and regressive. Cities need the help way more than the provinces do.
The real problem I have with it though is that the provinces just want money without having to raise it themselves. It's irresponsible and it lacks transparency. If you want to spend the money, raise the money. When the Conservatives formed a government, one of the strategies that I though was most likely to end this debate, was to actually lower federal taxes, so as to stop generating surpluses. Then challenge the provinces to take up that room, it would've been interesting to see if that had worked. I have a feeling the conservatives were too timid to actually try it, but if they ever form a majority we'll have to see if that strategy comes back.
Although I think the so called fiscal imbalance is non-existent, I think that if the provinces at least transferred that money to the cities it wouldn't be too bad. The cities are especially hard hit in Ontario (I know that people don't like to hear that), because Mike Harris downloaded tons of services to cities without any money to fund them.
Overall I think my feelings about this budget is the same as feeling about the government, they are accomplishing little, no big ideas but they are not pushing us in a negative direction either. I'm hoping that maybe if they continue to govern for a bit they might become more ambitious. Then again Conservatives don't tend to like government (or so they say) so my hopes aren't that high.
March 13, 2007
Sarko
So I know it's been over a month since I last posted, but I've been busy and I haven't had a lot to say (hard to believe I know!)
Anyways I caught some of a show on France's TV3 with Nicolas Sarkozy. I have to say the man had some interesting things to say. I've heard a fair about about in him in the media, although we hear a lot more about his opponent Royale.
He seems to be a pretty committed candidate and the one article referred to him being the 'Thatcher' of Britain, and he does seem to want to challenge the state to move in a more minimalist direction. He attacked the fact that France has such a huge public service, and like I think we will end up doing in Canada, he wants to use attrition to shrink the public service.
It's actually interesting to try and understand how France is organized, I did take a course on European politics and we were supposed to deal with France but the class was not that well taught and we ended up skipping a whole lot of stuff.
The other thing I am reading is A History of Postwar Europe. It's pretty interesting and I have for a while been interested in European politics, though that interest has been fading lately. It's an interesting book and tries to put the entire Postwar European experience into a narrative. I'm only about 2/5th of the way through but his focus on Eastern Europe I find particularly interesting and of course he does provide a huge reading list at the end, so maybe i'll do mroe reading about Europe.
One of the books I have had to set aside for the moment but that i think should be extremely interesting is A history of the English speaking peoples since 1900 (which in his case means the Uk, the US and the white dominions) . The thesis itself should prove to be fascinating, in that he argues the war on terror like the second world war as well as the cold war bring together the English speaking peoples in their particular project, which he hasn't quite defined yet.
I assume it is something like promoting peace and democracy for non-English speaking peoples everywhere. Should be fascinating read!
Anyways I caught some of a show on France's TV3 with Nicolas Sarkozy. I have to say the man had some interesting things to say. I've heard a fair about about in him in the media, although we hear a lot more about his opponent Royale.
He seems to be a pretty committed candidate and the one article referred to him being the 'Thatcher' of Britain, and he does seem to want to challenge the state to move in a more minimalist direction. He attacked the fact that France has such a huge public service, and like I think we will end up doing in Canada, he wants to use attrition to shrink the public service.
It's actually interesting to try and understand how France is organized, I did take a course on European politics and we were supposed to deal with France but the class was not that well taught and we ended up skipping a whole lot of stuff.
The other thing I am reading is A History of Postwar Europe. It's pretty interesting and I have for a while been interested in European politics, though that interest has been fading lately. It's an interesting book and tries to put the entire Postwar European experience into a narrative. I'm only about 2/5th of the way through but his focus on Eastern Europe I find particularly interesting and of course he does provide a huge reading list at the end, so maybe i'll do mroe reading about Europe.
One of the books I have had to set aside for the moment but that i think should be extremely interesting is A history of the English speaking peoples since 1900 (which in his case means the Uk, the US and the white dominions) . The thesis itself should prove to be fascinating, in that he argues the war on terror like the second world war as well as the cold war bring together the English speaking peoples in their particular project, which he hasn't quite defined yet.
I assume it is something like promoting peace and democracy for non-English speaking peoples everywhere. Should be fascinating read!
Brier Curling
Three missed shots!! As far as i am concerned Jeff Stoughton had one of the best teams in the Brier, and he could have won it all had it not been for 3 shots. Now in curling it always does come down to a shot or two in each game, and to be honest the Howard rink was the best during the week. I just hope he can keep that team together and win the right to represent Canada at the Olympics in 2010. As for those 3 shots, they are as follows
#1 He was light on a draw for one to beat Ontario
#2 He should have taken a single point in end #8 against Alberta, he would have been up by 3 and had the hammer in 10
#3 The decision to try that super difficult raise in end 4 (I think against Ontario)
All in all we saw some great curling despite the ice conditions, and of course it's very easy for me to say things watching from TV and not having curled more than once in my life, but hey thats what blogging is for, to express my opinions.
I have followed Jeff Stoughton for several years now at least in the Brier, and I really like him as a curler, and he seems like a pretty funny guy too.
#1 He was light on a draw for one to beat Ontario
#2 He should have taken a single point in end #8 against Alberta, he would have been up by 3 and had the hammer in 10
#3 The decision to try that super difficult raise in end 4 (I think against Ontario)
All in all we saw some great curling despite the ice conditions, and of course it's very easy for me to say things watching from TV and not having curled more than once in my life, but hey thats what blogging is for, to express my opinions.
I have followed Jeff Stoughton for several years now at least in the Brier, and I really like him as a curler, and he seems like a pretty funny guy too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)