skiving little fucker

[sleaterkinney]

You're right there: the person at the top of the hierarchy says "do this now" and the person at the bottom gets the chance to say "yes, sir!".

That's hierarchical two-way communication in action!

To the barricades Workers!

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Obviously you can bad managers as well as good ones, that's just people being people

Up to a point, but it's odd. When somebody talks about collectives, people will criticise collectives structurally, i.e. talk about the inherent reasons why they may not work. But when somebody talks about the more common arrangment, the response always seems to be "bad managers" ...

 

[sleaterkinney]

Up to a point, but it's odd. When somebody talks about collectives, people will criticise collectives structurally, i.e. talk about the inherent reasons why they may not work. But when somebody talks about the more common arrangment, the response always seems to be "bad managers" ...

Yes but where there is inherent reasons why collectives don't work, there are not inherent reasons that managers will always be bad. Unless there is an environment where bad management is tolerated that is. In normal circumstances sooner or later they will be found out.

 

[cesare]

Up to a point, but it's odd. When somebody talks about collectives, people will criticise collectives structurally, i.e. talk about the inherent reasons why they may not work. But when somebody talks about the more common arrangment, the response always seems to be "bad managers" ...

Yes, that's what I find odd.

Perhaps poster342002 has some views?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Up to a point, but it's odd. When somebody talks about collectives, people will criticise collectives structurally, i.e. talk about the inherent reasons why they may not work. But when somebody talks about the more common arrangment, the response always seems to be "bad managers" ...

well isn't that due to the inehrtent lack of stucture in a collective and therefore it's a compleate reasonsiblity by the entire group where as poor management is the failure of the indivdual.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Yes but where there is inherent reasons why collectives don't work, there are not inherent reasons that managers will always be bad.

That's your assertion, but why would others accept it? Why might they not argue, for instance, that the hierarchical arragement, with competing interests in a situation where one set of people has powers over others, will necessarily be dysfunctional because it's a situation of mutual mistrust?

 

[butchersapron]

well isn't that due to the inehrtent lack of stucture in a collective and therefore it's a compleate reasonsiblity by the entire group where as poor management is the failure of the indivdual.

What inherent lack of structure in a collective?

 

[sleaterkinney]

That's your assertion, but why would others accept it? Why might they not argue, for instance, that the hierarchical arragement, with competing interests in a situation where one set of people has powers over others, will necessarily be dysfunctional because it's a situation of mutual mistrust?

Why is it a situation of mutual mistrust?. To go back to Eastenders analogy, You employ a plumber to fix the pipes, you pay him money for his labour, he supplies his labour for money, where is the mistrust?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Why is it a situation of mutual mistrust?. To go back to Eastenders analogy, You employ a plumber to fix the pipes, you pay him money for his labour, he supplies his labour for money, where is the mistrust?

Is that supposed to be a rhetorical question?

 

[cesare]

Why is it a situation of mutual mistrust?. To go back to Eastenders analogy, You employ a plumber to fix the pipes, you pay him money for his labour, he supplies his labour for money, where is the mistrust?

Power and the potential for misuse/abuse of it.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Is that supposed to be a rhetorical question?

No, I want to know where you are getting the "mutual mistrust" from?.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

The world is full of people complaining about the work done by people who they've paid to do it.

Even if working relationships were the same (they have something in common but far from everything) the idea that it's a relationship without mistrust is bizarre.

 

[butchersapron]

Employing someone to make surplus value for you is the inherently competitive postion. Employing someone to peform a non surplus value producing service is entirely different. A plumber isn't going to turn out more things that you can sell if you employ your book of make-them-work-harder tricks is s/he?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

No, I want to know where you are getting the "mutual mistrust" from?.

Managers dont't trust employees, employees managers. Both complain about the other lots. Not always, not everybody: but we all understand that that is a "normal" element of that relationship.

The most entertaining rendering of this that I know is in Catch-22 when Major Major Major is promoted...

 

[sleaterkinney]

Managers dont't trust employees, employees managers. Both complain about the other lots. Not always, not everybody: but we all understand that that is a "normal" element of that relationship.

That's a good point, this also:

Power and the potential for misuse/abuse of it.

But do people accept this as a normal way of working?.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

But do people accept this as a normal way of working?

Yeah I think they do, mostly. They probably also accept as normal that it makes them unhappy.

 

[cesare]

But do people accept this as a normal way of working?.

I think so. And the higher up the corporate ladder, the more power there is and therefore the greater potential for misuse/abuse. And fear of that creates mistrust.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

What inherent lack of structure in a collective?

consensious means all mus thave a say all must have a vote (or however you make the final descsions about things practically) and that leads to conflict without hierachy this must come down to whent he conflict has finally played out and eveyrone feels their points are addressed and resolved to their satisfaction... That's the inherent lack of structure...

 

[sleaterkinney]

Yeah I think they do, mostly. They probably also accept as normal that it makes them unhappy.

But seeing as they had a good working relationship in the past would probably think it was a bad manager rather than something being inherently wrong....

 

[cesare]

consensious means all mus thave a say all must have a vote (or however you make the final descsions about things practically) and that leads to conflict without hierachy this must come down to whent he conflict has finally played out and eveyrone feels their points are addressed and resolved to their satisfaction... That's the inherent lack of structure...

But there's still a structure Garf. A different type of structure (flat as opposed to hierarchical) but a structure all the same.

 

[editor]

I'd be quite happy to get involved in a co-op again, but it certainly wouldn't work for all aspects of what I do - e.g. if I could find enough right-minded people, the Offline Club could work great as a co-op, but I wouldn't fancy it for most 'work' jobs I take on, mainly because I'm really not very good at sitting in meetings. I'm a bit too impulsive to plan things most of the time.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

But seeing as they had a good working relationship in the past would probably think it was a bad manager rather than something being inherently wrong....

Well, it would depend. I've had far more "bad managers" than "good managers". This leads me to wonder whether it was really "good" or "bad" at all, but just something in the whole working arrangement that was screwed up: perhaps not insuperable, but tending to knacker things rather than further them.

 

[Hollis]

Employing someone to make surplus value for you is the inherently competitive postion. Employing someone to peform a non surplus value producing service is entirely different. A plumber isn't going to turn out more things that you can sell if you employ your book of make-them-work-harder tricks is s/he?

Yes - quite the opposite.. they produce fuck all and shaft you for as much of your value as they can get. Never trust a plumber!!

 

[cesare]

I'd be quite happy to get involved in a co-op again, but it certainly wouldn't work for all aspects of what I do - e.g. if I could find enough right-minded people, the Offline Club could work great as a co-op, but I wouldn't fancy it for most 'work' jobs I take on, mainly because I'm really not very good at sitting in meetings. I'm a bit too impulsive to plan things most of the time.

I could be wrong here (so I'll ask Sion when I next see him) but I don't get the impression that co-ops necessarily have loads of meetings. For example, there's no reason why a co-op can't collectively vote to devolve day-to-day operating decisions to a particular individual/s and just build in a review process.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

But there's still a structure Garf. A different type of structure (flat as opposed to hierarchical) but a structure all the same.

not one which has generally any level of right you do this i do that they do the other... becuase there's no way of enforcing it when i don't do that... but do summit else...

it takes real deication to remove wall, and barriers which also it assumes that all people have the same abilites in terms of beign able to manage themselves they don't, lots of people need a stick, it's sad but it's true also lots of people are capabile fo following through on their actions or intents or of taking on personal resonsility...

there is a reason this system flawed as it is has evolved and not been abandond and indeed why other systems have fallen by the wayside...

but then if we go down that route it fast leads to talk of leaders and followers...

 

[editor]

I could be wrong here (so I'll ask Sion when I next see him) but I don't get the impression that co-ops necessarily have loads of meetings. For example, there's no reason why a co-op can't collectively vote to devolve day-to-day operating decisions to a particular individual/s and just build in a review process.

You usually need loads when you start up though and even one meeting will be one more than I like to have.

 

[cesare]

not one which has generally any level of right you do this i do that they do the other... becuase there's no way of enforcing it when i don't do that... but do summit else...

it takes real deication to remove wall, and barriers which also it assumes that all people have the same abilites in terms of beign able to manage themselves they don't, lots of people need a stick, it's sad but it's true also lots of people are capabile fo following through on their actions or intents or of taking on personal resonsility...

there is a reason this system flawed as it is has evolved and not been abandond and indeed why other systems have fallen by the wayside...

but then if we go down that route it fast leads to talk of leaders and followers...

OK, let's look at a worked example that I'm comfortable with. For traditional hierarchical structures & in order to comply with the legislation - if someone wasn't performing or was actively misbehaving, there's the minimum of a 3 step procedure to dismiss:

(1) Letter from manager setting out concerns and requiring attendance at a disciplinary hearing (2) Formally convened hearing (3) Letter to confirm outcome & right of appeal to the next manager up.

In a flat structure such as a co-op, it would work differently whilst still complying with the 3 step legislative requirements:

(1) From the outset, the co-op have voted on who is normally responsible for holding disciplinary hearings and appeals plus any other aspect of the process (2) Letter from person-with-disciplinary-responsibility setting out concerns and requiring attendance at a disciplinary hearing (2) Formally convened hearing (3) Person-with-disciplinary-responsibility calls meeting to put the outcome to vote (4) Letter to confirm outcome of hearing + vote & right of appeal to person-with-appeals-responsibility

Takes a bit longer, but it's still a structure, and a workable one.

 

[cesare]

You usually need loads when you start up though and even one meeting will be one more than I like to have.

Yes, it definitely takes a lot of thinking through at the outset and lots of meetings to get the structure and processes in place. It's not for everyone especially at start up.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

OK, let's look at a worked example that I'm comfortable with. For traditional hierarchical structures & in order to comply with the legislation - if someone wasn't performing or was actively misbehaving, there's the minimum of a 3 step procedure to dismiss:

(1) Letter from manager setting out concerns and requiring attendance at a disciplinary hearing (2) Formally convened hearing (3) Letter to confirm outcome & right of appeal to the next manager up.

In a flat structure such as a co-op, it would work differently whilst still complying with the 3 step legislative requirements:

(1) From the outset, the co-op have voted on who is normally responsible for holding disciplinary hearings and appeals plus any other aspect of the process (2) Letter from person-with-disciplinary-responsibility setting out concerns and requiring attendance at a disciplinary hearing (2) Formally convened hearing (3) Person-with-disciplinary-responsibility calls meeting to put the outcome to vote (4) Letter to confirm outcome of hearing + vote & right of appeal to person-with-appeals-responsibility

Takes a bit longer, but it's still a structure, and a workable one.

and how exactly is that not a hiearchy some one either by arbiatary or democratic will has been given the role of hiring and firing that is a position of authority it might not be able to be wielded indiscriminately however each and every time it is it elevates that person even for aonly a short time into the hierachicl postition of chief if you like thus enacts a hierachical structure.

consensious simple isn't going to be an effective form of governeance over a certain size can you imagine having to get total agreement with say 1500 employees.

at a low level where there is in essence a tribal unit then co-ops will work when the tirbe gets too big, it merely becomes to cumbersome, and slow a process to resolve issues.

 

[cesare]

and how exactly is that not a hiearchy some one either by arbiatary or democratic will has been given the role of hiring and firing that is a position of authority it might not be able to be wielded indiscriminately however each and every time it is it elevates that person even for aonly a short time into the hierachicl postition of chief if you like thus enacts a hierachical structure.

consensious simple isn't going to be an effective form of governeance over a certain size can you imagine having to get total agreement with say 1500 employees.

at a low level where there is in essence a tribal unit then co-ops will work when the tirbe gets too big, it merely becomes to cumbersome, and slow a process to resolve issues.

They're not making the ultimate decisions Garf, that's still down to the collective vote. But to the extent that they wield a certain amount of devolved power for a short period of time - well, yes. They have power, but very limited power. And the collective can over-rule them at vote, which limits the potential for misuse/abuse of that limited power.

I agree with your last paragraph, that's what I meant about effective co-ops being self limiting in terms of size.