Ooops..... update to the Barriers to Entry..... it seems that the $17,000 I made in 2011 exceed the $15,600 threshold I need for the fee waiver on the application fees. It doesn't matter that in the last year I haven't made $5600 dollars, only that over a year ago I made slightly more than the threshold. What about now? What about that I haven't made much of anything since and have been living off of the assistance of others right now? As if the only people that need fee waivers are the perpetually poor, not the recently unemployed or underemployed. Does poverty only exist in line with the tax year? No, it is endemic and symptomatic of American society, yet we can't even offer education for our citizens to bring themselves out of poverty. Basically, the system that's fucked you, just keeps on fucking you. That's no meritocracy. That's capitalism.
Showing posts with label Capitalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Capitalism. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Profiting from Death
Ok, so this is a tough post to write and one that underplays the huge emotions that go with it. But I am going to try to stick to the situation rather than the emotions as it goes without saying that this was a really tough day. I was at a funeral today, one of the most important men in my life passed away. It was really tough, and my heart bleeds so much for this man and his family.
sigh.............
That being said, I am going to try to write something about the day that really just doesn't seem right. I just can't help but connect this day to the themes and issues that I am constantly seeing each day. Even through the tears it is so hard not to see the exorbitant process and ritualism that has ultimately been fully commodified. What does the funeral parlor cost? And what about flying the remains to another location? $2000. How do you even handle the body if not at a parlor? What does the box of laminated wood cost people are buried in? A $3000 minimum? And a burial plot? To see my friend, who's father it was that passed, have to constantly be pulled aside to sign papers and deal with the business side of the day was really tough to watch.
What was once a ritual, to return our bodies to the earth, has become a capitalist spectacle. Much like any other ritualistic occurrences: weddings, birthdays, holidays. Anyway/thing that you can turn a profit out of. Its amazing that similar rituals used to be more simply managed with just a wooden box, someone digging a plot, a memorial given wherever was appropriate for that person's beliefs, and all was good - a person was remembered and a dead body ended up in the ground to rest. But not now in current day, thousands of dollars later and all of that stuff, and you've got a body buried in the ground to rest.
Take me out into the woods and and let me be. Let the animals eat me, the worms have a little something extra that day to decompose. Hell set me a fire to me out there if you're uncomfortable with it all. Return me to nature with the least cost and for the least profit. Minimize my end please...
sigh.............
That being said, I am going to try to write something about the day that really just doesn't seem right. I just can't help but connect this day to the themes and issues that I am constantly seeing each day. Even through the tears it is so hard not to see the exorbitant process and ritualism that has ultimately been fully commodified. What does the funeral parlor cost? And what about flying the remains to another location? $2000. How do you even handle the body if not at a parlor? What does the box of laminated wood cost people are buried in? A $3000 minimum? And a burial plot? To see my friend, who's father it was that passed, have to constantly be pulled aside to sign papers and deal with the business side of the day was really tough to watch.
What was once a ritual, to return our bodies to the earth, has become a capitalist spectacle. Much like any other ritualistic occurrences: weddings, birthdays, holidays. Anyway/thing that you can turn a profit out of. Its amazing that similar rituals used to be more simply managed with just a wooden box, someone digging a plot, a memorial given wherever was appropriate for that person's beliefs, and all was good - a person was remembered and a dead body ended up in the ground to rest. But not now in current day, thousands of dollars later and all of that stuff, and you've got a body buried in the ground to rest.
Take me out into the woods and and let me be. Let the animals eat me, the worms have a little something extra that day to decompose. Hell set me a fire to me out there if you're uncomfortable with it all. Return me to nature with the least cost and for the least profit. Minimize my end please...
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
hiking (for a nominal advance on wages already earned...)
So I ended up finally getting an email out to my boss at the hiking store. I tried to delicately explain my stance and why I should be paid. His response was, frankly, appalling and literally sent me calling the national lawyers guild. He didn't seem to see anything wrong with not paying me. He had told me that I couldn't count on this job to be my main source of income, thus felt like he was covered and fine in not paying me on time. He also questioned how he could possible pay me ahead of people that had been with him longer, and been waiting to get paid longer. Yes, fair enough... they deserve to be paid as well!! But what arrangement you've made with your other employees is between you and them and none of my business! If you want to come ask me if I will do the same, fine, lets have that conversation. The fact is though, that when you said that work would be sporadic at the store and I shouldn't count on it as my main source of income, you said I wouldn't be getting steady HOURS!! You didn't say that when I did get hours I wouldn't be getting paid for them! I mean, the audacity to even think, nevermind assume, that your workers would just be fine with working and not getting paid.
I waited till the next day to address it in person. It was a struggle right from when I walked in the door though. I saw my other coworker and the boss together. The cold shoulder was evident from both of them. The kind of fake smile and handshake where you are really thinking under your breath: "I hate you, you dirty bastard". It seemed to me that my boss had obviously spoken to my colleague, sullying my name there for simply demanding to be paid for time I'd worked. I can only picture how that story went: "tim is demanding to be paid before you!" "You've been here a year!" "The audacity!"
This is the way ownership gets us. A political game that turns us against each other. We are not supposed to talk about things like this, salaries, conditions, etc. You know how this works. We're NEVER supposed to ask other people what they make. But why not? Because we might all realize we are getting treated very differently? Screwed even? This is the heart of the idea behind collective bargaining and unionizing. It is not so we can get extra days off a year and retire at 40. It is so that there is communication amongst workers. So that we will know if we are all being treated fairly. As individuals we can be hired, fired, and taken advantage of, but as a collective group we can ask to actually get our pay, we can ask for humane working conditions, for dignity and respect in our daily tasks, and maybe even a wage we can live on.
Yeah, frankly I don't trust this guy anymore. I mean, I like him personally I guess. But it is what we do that defines us, our actions, words, and how we treat people. When I spoke to him, it was just as if he was trying to find a way to keep me on for the least outlay, with the least amount of integrity. He agreed entirely to what I was saying bout it all, probably thinking: "yes! he's not actually going to ask for his full salary!" I mean, he basically negotiated me out of demanding full pay for work done. In this whole process he gets to pay me late. Yet somehow I've accepted this. Implicitly or not, I have agreed to getting shafted. He also slipped in there at one point that this week he'd be paying February's wages. This is of course what he said to me about last week as well. But it still hasn't gone out. But the worst thing about it all is that he doesn't realize that this is what he teaches us to say to customers about out of stock supplies and bills. Like we don't recognize ourselves in these narratives. Then, after all this, he then has the audacity to send an email out about a mandatory training a couple Monday's from now (yeah it'll be "paid"). Sorry bro, I'm nannying that day. Working somewhere where I will get paid. Your store is now at the bottom of the totem pole. I will work for you when I can.
There is one other thing that I want to bring up regarding this, which is pure speculation and may be completely colored by a singular and horrible experience in my past. I mentioned that not getting paid like this happened to me once before. That incidence was much worse. The company owed my $29,000 in back pay, was stalling my work visa for that country, and was giving me just enough cash keep above water, but not enough to leave the country. I was trapped and in a situation that was malicious in so many ways. I was promised bonuses and a percentage to offset the situation, yet nothing was materializing while the owner lived it up, stealing money from the company. I eventually got my pay back, but that's a looong story for a book! No matter though, here I am again, with this hiking company getting screwed.
There is one thing that the two men that owned these outfits had in common: they were both long term military men (one British, one America). The way they spoke, the calculations they seemed to take, the rationale they ultimately used, it was all so incredibly similar. It's as if loyalty is a one way street that goes straight down the chain of command. General to private, owner to worker. As if hierarchy knows no bounds; resting upon its highest of peeks maintaining no moral ground from which to look down upon us from. Neither of them seemed to stop paying their rents, their salaries, and their bills.
But anyway, who knows if that is the case here. All I know is that I don't have enough cash to pay a bill that's due this week and be able to eat over the next two weeks. Yeah, I'll get some cash, but I won't get what I'm supposed to, thus my budgeting matters not. But, I've learned something. I've learned not to trust ownership (again) and I've learned to be wary of military ownership, especially those falling on hard times. It also should go without saying that I've also gotten my daily fix of reiteration that our system is fundamentally flawed. But let's just keep moving forward with that one. One step...
I waited till the next day to address it in person. It was a struggle right from when I walked in the door though. I saw my other coworker and the boss together. The cold shoulder was evident from both of them. The kind of fake smile and handshake where you are really thinking under your breath: "I hate you, you dirty bastard". It seemed to me that my boss had obviously spoken to my colleague, sullying my name there for simply demanding to be paid for time I'd worked. I can only picture how that story went: "tim is demanding to be paid before you!" "You've been here a year!" "The audacity!"
This is the way ownership gets us. A political game that turns us against each other. We are not supposed to talk about things like this, salaries, conditions, etc. You know how this works. We're NEVER supposed to ask other people what they make. But why not? Because we might all realize we are getting treated very differently? Screwed even? This is the heart of the idea behind collective bargaining and unionizing. It is not so we can get extra days off a year and retire at 40. It is so that there is communication amongst workers. So that we will know if we are all being treated fairly. As individuals we can be hired, fired, and taken advantage of, but as a collective group we can ask to actually get our pay, we can ask for humane working conditions, for dignity and respect in our daily tasks, and maybe even a wage we can live on.
Yeah, frankly I don't trust this guy anymore. I mean, I like him personally I guess. But it is what we do that defines us, our actions, words, and how we treat people. When I spoke to him, it was just as if he was trying to find a way to keep me on for the least outlay, with the least amount of integrity. He agreed entirely to what I was saying bout it all, probably thinking: "yes! he's not actually going to ask for his full salary!" I mean, he basically negotiated me out of demanding full pay for work done. In this whole process he gets to pay me late. Yet somehow I've accepted this. Implicitly or not, I have agreed to getting shafted. He also slipped in there at one point that this week he'd be paying February's wages. This is of course what he said to me about last week as well. But it still hasn't gone out. But the worst thing about it all is that he doesn't realize that this is what he teaches us to say to customers about out of stock supplies and bills. Like we don't recognize ourselves in these narratives. Then, after all this, he then has the audacity to send an email out about a mandatory training a couple Monday's from now (yeah it'll be "paid"). Sorry bro, I'm nannying that day. Working somewhere where I will get paid. Your store is now at the bottom of the totem pole. I will work for you when I can.
There is one other thing that I want to bring up regarding this, which is pure speculation and may be completely colored by a singular and horrible experience in my past. I mentioned that not getting paid like this happened to me once before. That incidence was much worse. The company owed my $29,000 in back pay, was stalling my work visa for that country, and was giving me just enough cash keep above water, but not enough to leave the country. I was trapped and in a situation that was malicious in so many ways. I was promised bonuses and a percentage to offset the situation, yet nothing was materializing while the owner lived it up, stealing money from the company. I eventually got my pay back, but that's a looong story for a book! No matter though, here I am again, with this hiking company getting screwed.
There is one thing that the two men that owned these outfits had in common: they were both long term military men (one British, one America). The way they spoke, the calculations they seemed to take, the rationale they ultimately used, it was all so incredibly similar. It's as if loyalty is a one way street that goes straight down the chain of command. General to private, owner to worker. As if hierarchy knows no bounds; resting upon its highest of peeks maintaining no moral ground from which to look down upon us from. Neither of them seemed to stop paying their rents, their salaries, and their bills.
But anyway, who knows if that is the case here. All I know is that I don't have enough cash to pay a bill that's due this week and be able to eat over the next two weeks. Yeah, I'll get some cash, but I won't get what I'm supposed to, thus my budgeting matters not. But, I've learned something. I've learned not to trust ownership (again) and I've learned to be wary of military ownership, especially those falling on hard times. It also should go without saying that I've also gotten my daily fix of reiteration that our system is fundamentally flawed. But let's just keep moving forward with that one. One step...
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Hiking for free!
So I'm at work at the hiking store the other day and I finally get my tax paperwork and such in and ask: so when is pay day? It's every two weeks, 1st and 15th is the response. BUT, due to a warm winter with no snow and the growing/planning pains of a new store, they didn't do much business over the winter and struggled to stay afloat. So they are right now only going to be paying for February! ........ yes, a moment to digest.... Now, I can only assume that means that on this 15th they will pay February, and then the 1st will be March and then the next 15th finally to April when I should get some cash. What?!?! So I was hired in mid April and won't get paid until mid June?!? Sigh....
Now yeah, anyone reading this blog regularly is going to understand that I am certainly not in a position to have to wait so long to get paid. There are also a few people that know me going back that know that this isn't the first time that this has happened to me. When I was in Prague I was working in a much different situation and position, but under similar compensatory circumstances. I was a big part of a small company there (working pretty much as the chief operating officer) and was going to be getting a small percentage for all my work and sacrifice. As we looked for an investor I was not paid much of anything for months and was owed thousands of dollars. I was trapped then. They had stalled my visa process so I couldn't get a different job and they owed me money. I couldn't either justify or actually leave with so much invested. Not to mention that I had a lot of me personally invested in this company trying to bring medical evacuation services to Iraq and Afghanistan.
This situation here is different. I am trying to take New Yorkers with disposable income hiking in the Hudson Valley and I have no personal stake in the company other than the energy I bring to work that day. I am just a laborer, working for the man, and I should be paid by the man. Yeah, that may sound a bit mercenaryesque, but isn't that the problem of it all? We take for grated in so many ways the rights of management and ownership. Ownership takes it for granted that they can ask us to wait to get paid. There are only so many jobs out there, so they hold a certain amount of power and control over us. I don't know how much cash the company has or how much the owner is taking for himself. But few people today think to look at that company itself and shame them for having the audacity to ask their workers to make such sacrifices. If I don't just acquiesce my loyalty comes under question. Will I continue to get hours? to have my job? How many people immediately question the employers "loyalty" to their employees and to society? In a hierarchical work structure, it is always about being "loyal" to the boss, the owner, whatever. If we were all truly seen as equal, no one would be asked to be loyal to anyone over the other.
I am sure the owner is paying his rent. And all told, he did offer to give me something as an advance if I was really hurting, but who is he to "offer" such a thing? Where does he assume his power to do that comes from? As if his situation or business is somehow presumptively more important than whatever it is that I have going on? Like we are a team or something with equal shares in victory? I wish we were a team - all equally working towards one goal, but we are not. We are laborers working to make him money, to make his company grow, his ownership and capital expand. Yes, we get our wages but hold no stake in the ownership of the means of this production. That is the system we live in. We are the tools he will use to hopefully get rich. So why should we, or how can he ask us, to make sacrifices not commensurate with our relationship with this entity?
I mean, I don't really hold anything against him personally. I definitely like him. He's a good guy just trying to keep his business a float. But I've been in that position before at another retail store in New Paltz, NY as well. I worked and worked and worked for them on the floor, making them money, probably holding their store together for a time. I tried to offer marketing and industry specific advice (I'd worked in other successful stores in that industry), but it went unheeded and the company went out of business a few months after I stopped working there. So it is tough to see familiar things and have little power to change them, yet still be asked to make sacrifices as if I had power to change something within the company. I think at minimum he should have mentioned it to me when I was hired. At least then I could have factored it into my decision making and/or planning/budgeting. But he didn't, he just left it unsaid. There is certainly little integrity in that.
That however is perhaps why he didn't. He needs people to work for him to help his company move forward. He can't do it all on his own and he is apparently losing two people that have been with him for a while. I don't know why, but it is easy to speculate regarding a lack of both payment and even probably work. I was also just informed, that while I was originally told that I was being hired for both retail sales and as a guide, that I really wouldn't be doing much retail work. And as I see the demand for the tours, it looks like I am really just a standby guide depending on the number of people on the tours (i.e. the company and his ability to market - the same downfall faced in New Paltz).
So the gist of all this here is that I am caught in another powerless dilemma that illustrates how little control most workers have over their lives. What play do I have here? I can say I'm not going to work anymore until I'm paid, but then I'm causing "a problem" and then if he wanted he could just cut my hours/not schedule me. That would actually be the prudent business decision if he couldn't afford to move that expense forward a few weeks. I would also become the guy that isn't "loyal" or isn't a "team player." After all, he holds the power, it is his opinion of me that matters as to whether I work for him. If I do keep working, he gets me more and more by the balls, the more and more that he owes me as the less apt I am to leave him and run the risk of losing everything I'm owed. This is what happened in Prague. I knew that if I left the company, we would never get any investment and I would never get paid what I was owed for the months I had worked.
What we all don't realize is that this is the intended dilemma of capitalism. There has to be the "excess labor pool" of willing but unemployed workers that owners can always go to to replace "bad" or "uncooperative" employees. They can thus act in their own interests as employees are mostly dispensable. If I want to keep this job, and maintain any chance of my getting paid as a business priority or even in general, then I have to do what he tells me. For if I stop working there he is certainly going to pay other bills and workers before employees no long with the company. I am powerless. I have to have a job, and I want to get paid for the time I've already worked. So I can't leave and I can't really cause any commotion. One person told me I should start picketing out front of the store and that I'd be paid by the end of the day! Yeah, and then that would be my last day.
The point of all of this is, that this system as it exists today is not functional. Why should a worker have so little power? Because they "didn't take a risk?" Maybe they didn't have the same opportunity to take a risk, or the same capacity to be able to take risks, or education on how to create a niche and plan through taking on both the risks and the business. The fact is, that without average everyday workers, laborers, businesses can not and would not function. Our system requires both managers and the managed to do their tasks for businesses to succeed. Why then should one side of that equation be so powerless? Why should it be so unbalanced? I go to work, I do my job, and I get paid. That is one of the general principles of capitalist production that little to no one would argue over. So why then am I not getting paid? And why am I so powerless to do anything about it?
A system with such disparities of power is not sustainable for one reason: because intrinsically we all are equal and thus all have the same amount of power. Any system that alters that and skews it so blatantly in one direction or the other is unsustainable, and can only be viewed as temporary. The question we face is just how long are we going to allow ourselves to be so powerless? To be subjugated.
Now yeah, anyone reading this blog regularly is going to understand that I am certainly not in a position to have to wait so long to get paid. There are also a few people that know me going back that know that this isn't the first time that this has happened to me. When I was in Prague I was working in a much different situation and position, but under similar compensatory circumstances. I was a big part of a small company there (working pretty much as the chief operating officer) and was going to be getting a small percentage for all my work and sacrifice. As we looked for an investor I was not paid much of anything for months and was owed thousands of dollars. I was trapped then. They had stalled my visa process so I couldn't get a different job and they owed me money. I couldn't either justify or actually leave with so much invested. Not to mention that I had a lot of me personally invested in this company trying to bring medical evacuation services to Iraq and Afghanistan.
This situation here is different. I am trying to take New Yorkers with disposable income hiking in the Hudson Valley and I have no personal stake in the company other than the energy I bring to work that day. I am just a laborer, working for the man, and I should be paid by the man. Yeah, that may sound a bit mercenaryesque, but isn't that the problem of it all? We take for grated in so many ways the rights of management and ownership. Ownership takes it for granted that they can ask us to wait to get paid. There are only so many jobs out there, so they hold a certain amount of power and control over us. I don't know how much cash the company has or how much the owner is taking for himself. But few people today think to look at that company itself and shame them for having the audacity to ask their workers to make such sacrifices. If I don't just acquiesce my loyalty comes under question. Will I continue to get hours? to have my job? How many people immediately question the employers "loyalty" to their employees and to society? In a hierarchical work structure, it is always about being "loyal" to the boss, the owner, whatever. If we were all truly seen as equal, no one would be asked to be loyal to anyone over the other.
I am sure the owner is paying his rent. And all told, he did offer to give me something as an advance if I was really hurting, but who is he to "offer" such a thing? Where does he assume his power to do that comes from? As if his situation or business is somehow presumptively more important than whatever it is that I have going on? Like we are a team or something with equal shares in victory? I wish we were a team - all equally working towards one goal, but we are not. We are laborers working to make him money, to make his company grow, his ownership and capital expand. Yes, we get our wages but hold no stake in the ownership of the means of this production. That is the system we live in. We are the tools he will use to hopefully get rich. So why should we, or how can he ask us, to make sacrifices not commensurate with our relationship with this entity?
I mean, I don't really hold anything against him personally. I definitely like him. He's a good guy just trying to keep his business a float. But I've been in that position before at another retail store in New Paltz, NY as well. I worked and worked and worked for them on the floor, making them money, probably holding their store together for a time. I tried to offer marketing and industry specific advice (I'd worked in other successful stores in that industry), but it went unheeded and the company went out of business a few months after I stopped working there. So it is tough to see familiar things and have little power to change them, yet still be asked to make sacrifices as if I had power to change something within the company. I think at minimum he should have mentioned it to me when I was hired. At least then I could have factored it into my decision making and/or planning/budgeting. But he didn't, he just left it unsaid. There is certainly little integrity in that.
That however is perhaps why he didn't. He needs people to work for him to help his company move forward. He can't do it all on his own and he is apparently losing two people that have been with him for a while. I don't know why, but it is easy to speculate regarding a lack of both payment and even probably work. I was also just informed, that while I was originally told that I was being hired for both retail sales and as a guide, that I really wouldn't be doing much retail work. And as I see the demand for the tours, it looks like I am really just a standby guide depending on the number of people on the tours (i.e. the company and his ability to market - the same downfall faced in New Paltz).
So the gist of all this here is that I am caught in another powerless dilemma that illustrates how little control most workers have over their lives. What play do I have here? I can say I'm not going to work anymore until I'm paid, but then I'm causing "a problem" and then if he wanted he could just cut my hours/not schedule me. That would actually be the prudent business decision if he couldn't afford to move that expense forward a few weeks. I would also become the guy that isn't "loyal" or isn't a "team player." After all, he holds the power, it is his opinion of me that matters as to whether I work for him. If I do keep working, he gets me more and more by the balls, the more and more that he owes me as the less apt I am to leave him and run the risk of losing everything I'm owed. This is what happened in Prague. I knew that if I left the company, we would never get any investment and I would never get paid what I was owed for the months I had worked.
What we all don't realize is that this is the intended dilemma of capitalism. There has to be the "excess labor pool" of willing but unemployed workers that owners can always go to to replace "bad" or "uncooperative" employees. They can thus act in their own interests as employees are mostly dispensable. If I want to keep this job, and maintain any chance of my getting paid as a business priority or even in general, then I have to do what he tells me. For if I stop working there he is certainly going to pay other bills and workers before employees no long with the company. I am powerless. I have to have a job, and I want to get paid for the time I've already worked. So I can't leave and I can't really cause any commotion. One person told me I should start picketing out front of the store and that I'd be paid by the end of the day! Yeah, and then that would be my last day.
The point of all of this is, that this system as it exists today is not functional. Why should a worker have so little power? Because they "didn't take a risk?" Maybe they didn't have the same opportunity to take a risk, or the same capacity to be able to take risks, or education on how to create a niche and plan through taking on both the risks and the business. The fact is, that without average everyday workers, laborers, businesses can not and would not function. Our system requires both managers and the managed to do their tasks for businesses to succeed. Why then should one side of that equation be so powerless? Why should it be so unbalanced? I go to work, I do my job, and I get paid. That is one of the general principles of capitalist production that little to no one would argue over. So why then am I not getting paid? And why am I so powerless to do anything about it?
A system with such disparities of power is not sustainable for one reason: because intrinsically we all are equal and thus all have the same amount of power. Any system that alters that and skews it so blatantly in one direction or the other is unsustainable, and can only be viewed as temporary. The question we face is just how long are we going to allow ourselves to be so powerless? To be subjugated.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Diamonds??
Written 3/7/2012
So I sat at my little rotating cubical yesterday and heard someone asking if anyone had called someone with the last name of Diamond. It echoed around the room, reverberating to no avail. Whoever this Diamond was, they had spoken to a woman, as it turns out, the woman they spoke to in our office was on the phone with someone else and couldn't take the call back. My immediate thought was, so just jump on there and speak to them, help them out, engage with them. If they're calling back they probably are serious about it all. What if no one gets to speak to them again? Would they still get involved?
Anyway, as I raised this question, I was met with an awkward look. "But that is her lead, her contact, and it wouldn't be right for someone else to jump in there and take that call" (i.e. possible contribution). Well yeah, of course not - if you live in a black and white, me or you world! It seemed so obvious to me. If the goal is to raise money to keep fighting for progressive issues like raising the minimum wage or to stop hydro-fracking, then who cares about the credit for a commission or the quota! Talk to the man!! I mean if its a team, you could always split the amount given anyway!!
But the work there is about quotas, its about meeting them, and its about pressure being applying on people to get them to their quotas. Now granted the pressure at this place is probably as low as it gets in a call center in the capitalist world. They are all great people with good hearts. But I have seen in a week and a half two people let go for missing quotas, and am watching a guy sitting next to me get smothered by the pressure to step up being put on him by both our boss and himself. I can feel the worry, the stress, the negativity emanating from him. And this guy is great! I really get on well with him.
Again though, and I am going to sound like a broken record pushing for occupying everything and everywhere! But why is it that in so many places in business and society we motivate negatively? Get it done or else! If you can't make this happen, you're out of here! Now I am not in the room when he is speaking to the boss, and the boss is a really nice guy. But fact of the matter is, keeping the job is about results. Nothing else. This is the way much of our society is structured, and it is unforgiving.
I have found so much love at Occupy, so much encouragement. Not that there aren't disenchanting issues and/or chaos, even antagonism that turns people off at times, but there is very little pressure to achieve - to personally succeed - that I have felt applied have seen. We work together, we each bring things to the table and no one seems to be chastised for doing or not doing. Things are done in groups horizontally, so no one individual must feel the pressure of us all. At one point, I tried to put a bit of urgency, responsibility on the people in the think tank, and I was not met with any agreement on it. Occupy is about other things. I have found it to be about encouragement, personal empowerment through both the self and others, and uplifting others through one's own self.
When I went down the first day, while no one was helping me, no one was standing in my way either. I was able to find like minded people and do something. A person stood on their own initiative and they were able to make things happen. There were no interviews for a position there, there was no pressure. It was volunteer, it was encouraging, and it was extremely productive as I saw it. I was never told what I couldn't do. And no one ever held anything over my head as a repercussion. I like to think that I felt very comfortable with that and capable. We got a lot done in the think tank, without the pressure of having to do anything.
People often times say pressure brings out both the best and the worst in us. People "step up" to the pressure. But what about those that don't respond so well to it? Are they just supposed to be left behind? If you can't "win" should you be considered a loser if the game isn't best suited for your skillset? Your passions? I would say no. I think we need a social outlet or system that allows for more of our skillsets, psyche's, and passions to be expressed and to have these outlets.
Capitalism often has a winner take all mentality that is exclusionary and which adds a good deal of pressure to 'succeed' to our lives (whatever 'succeed' means). Occupy is a place that I never felt that pressure. I felt welcome, I felt capable, and I felt like I could do anything if I saw a need or wanted to do it. And yeah, maybe that plays into my skillset. But at the same time, with the Occupy/liberty square setting and context aside, is it possible to imagine a society where no one told you you couldn't do something? Where no one told you you had to do something? Where everyone encouraged you, the only pressure on you was your own, and it was to do the things that you felt needed to be done or simply wanted to do?
So I sat at my little rotating cubical yesterday and heard someone asking if anyone had called someone with the last name of Diamond. It echoed around the room, reverberating to no avail. Whoever this Diamond was, they had spoken to a woman, as it turns out, the woman they spoke to in our office was on the phone with someone else and couldn't take the call back. My immediate thought was, so just jump on there and speak to them, help them out, engage with them. If they're calling back they probably are serious about it all. What if no one gets to speak to them again? Would they still get involved?
Anyway, as I raised this question, I was met with an awkward look. "But that is her lead, her contact, and it wouldn't be right for someone else to jump in there and take that call" (i.e. possible contribution). Well yeah, of course not - if you live in a black and white, me or you world! It seemed so obvious to me. If the goal is to raise money to keep fighting for progressive issues like raising the minimum wage or to stop hydro-fracking, then who cares about the credit for a commission or the quota! Talk to the man!! I mean if its a team, you could always split the amount given anyway!!
But the work there is about quotas, its about meeting them, and its about pressure being applying on people to get them to their quotas. Now granted the pressure at this place is probably as low as it gets in a call center in the capitalist world. They are all great people with good hearts. But I have seen in a week and a half two people let go for missing quotas, and am watching a guy sitting next to me get smothered by the pressure to step up being put on him by both our boss and himself. I can feel the worry, the stress, the negativity emanating from him. And this guy is great! I really get on well with him.
Again though, and I am going to sound like a broken record pushing for occupying everything and everywhere! But why is it that in so many places in business and society we motivate negatively? Get it done or else! If you can't make this happen, you're out of here! Now I am not in the room when he is speaking to the boss, and the boss is a really nice guy. But fact of the matter is, keeping the job is about results. Nothing else. This is the way much of our society is structured, and it is unforgiving.
I have found so much love at Occupy, so much encouragement. Not that there aren't disenchanting issues and/or chaos, even antagonism that turns people off at times, but there is very little pressure to achieve - to personally succeed - that I have felt applied have seen. We work together, we each bring things to the table and no one seems to be chastised for doing or not doing. Things are done in groups horizontally, so no one individual must feel the pressure of us all. At one point, I tried to put a bit of urgency, responsibility on the people in the think tank, and I was not met with any agreement on it. Occupy is about other things. I have found it to be about encouragement, personal empowerment through both the self and others, and uplifting others through one's own self.
When I went down the first day, while no one was helping me, no one was standing in my way either. I was able to find like minded people and do something. A person stood on their own initiative and they were able to make things happen. There were no interviews for a position there, there was no pressure. It was volunteer, it was encouraging, and it was extremely productive as I saw it. I was never told what I couldn't do. And no one ever held anything over my head as a repercussion. I like to think that I felt very comfortable with that and capable. We got a lot done in the think tank, without the pressure of having to do anything.
People often times say pressure brings out both the best and the worst in us. People "step up" to the pressure. But what about those that don't respond so well to it? Are they just supposed to be left behind? If you can't "win" should you be considered a loser if the game isn't best suited for your skillset? Your passions? I would say no. I think we need a social outlet or system that allows for more of our skillsets, psyche's, and passions to be expressed and to have these outlets.
Capitalism often has a winner take all mentality that is exclusionary and which adds a good deal of pressure to 'succeed' to our lives (whatever 'succeed' means). Occupy is a place that I never felt that pressure. I felt welcome, I felt capable, and I felt like I could do anything if I saw a need or wanted to do it. And yeah, maybe that plays into my skillset. But at the same time, with the Occupy/liberty square setting and context aside, is it possible to imagine a society where no one told you you couldn't do something? Where no one told you you had to do something? Where everyone encouraged you, the only pressure on you was your own, and it was to do the things that you felt needed to be done or simply wanted to do?
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Dinner time!!
So we call people in the evenings, 4-9 at night with a 6:30-7 dinner break. Last night for my break I went flyering for Occupy Town Square IV at Fort Green Park in Brooklyn (Sat, Mar 25th). We work on the third floor, and underneath us is another politically inclined non-profit. When I walked into their offices thinking I'd hand some flyers out, I was taken aback by the exact same layout and functionality as ours. A bunch of cubicles making phone calls surrounded by the obligtor offices with doors. Wow!! I bet your saying, that's the way everything always is at businesses. But more for me it just brought to question many things that run through my head about our political and non-profit world.
It wasn't the layout, it was the purpose and functionality. Non-profit and political campaigns are simply about asking for money. They are unfortunately not simply funded as an essential apparatus of the operating of a democratic state. We do not as a society have an institutionalized funding apparatus for the things that are actually - to me - the most important to a society en large: governance and assistance. Both of these are corner stones to democratic society. And when I say governance, I do not mean the functionality of the government or what it does, but its guidance. While we spend trillions of dollars on governmental programs from war, to social services, to government workers, we have left democracy fully and totally privatized. There is no funding to amplify those voices being heard in small spaces, nor any funding to assist those not being heard in any spaces get into the public sphere.
No news here, but our democratic process - left unfunded - is left solely to the capitalist system and the free market for regulation. Everything in the electoral system of any scalable importance is privately funded. Hence these two organizations I've referred to spending so much time and effort on fundraising. Why must organizations working so hard to bring to the fore political and socio-economic issues and injustices - so essential to a knowledgeable electorate - be so left upon itself?
Now I know, I am bring up an insurmountable political cauldron, but I am seeking more to just address a question of a principle: political awareness as a human right. Why not? The UN's declaration on Human Rights touches on political issues in article 21, but it's of course toothless and offers no substance. But if anything is of importance, this is the first thing that a society should be promoting and funding: the awareness of our social world in a way that is transparent and builds social and electoral capacity. Yes, I know, there are a million questions about what gets funded, how, by who, and how it would work in general. But those are questions beyond the level of the "principle" that popped into my head, and they should be saved for another day. At its core though, this concept stems from the public financing of elections and runs further into non-profits doing political work, and then even into non-profits doing relief, aid, and empowerment work.
Our society is bleeding. Look around both America and the world. Poverty is our greatest threat. Disparity of means and wealth, health and wellness, human security. Not some dictator or terrorist far off, but the poverty that keeps people down and allows them to be dictated to - our own Dictorship. Our lack of transparency, our lack of democratic and social voice all handcuff us at every moment. We live in a society where political speech is completely regulated on a systemic level in a way that discourages true democratic engagement and disallows true change.
Fact is, these two organizations are both contingent upon not just money, but money that currently must come from private individuals, private foundations, companies, etc. All of these entities have one thing in common: individual AGENDAS! They all come from places not systemically promoting the greater good. I want a political system that funds the agenda of itself, the free and fair democratic rule by the people - alllllllll the people. Not just those with money, not just those with direct stakes in issues, but everyone.
How can this be done? Well in our current context, we have to fund bringing a voice to everyone. Meaning political pressure groups would need to be transparent and funded by a state-like apparatus. Empowerment type groups and community organizations would have to be funded by a state-like apparatus. All political parties would need to be funded by a state-like apparatus based on the common good. They all could illuminate their issues to and for the greater good, and work towards addressing - or having their issues addressed - to and for the greater good.
Obviously, this is an INCREDIBLY complex and incomplete thought and does not actually fit well into our current socio-economic structure. But the point I am trying to make is that a privatization of the democratic process - such as exists in America - does not serve the democratic process itself but rather those who privately can control and affect it through their own private individual means. Again no mystery here, but still, it was tough to walk into a room and see it all so blatantly obvious, so blatantly preposterous. That so much human capital was being spent on trying to make money to try to simply engage in the political process on such a basic level. All this while, so much of our country's financial capital is being given to an effort to destroy both humans and their capital in agenda driven wars and policies throughout the world. Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to make the Pentagon do door-to-door and telephone fundraising for their wars, just like we have to do for the fight against poverty and for a democratic voice.
It wasn't the layout, it was the purpose and functionality. Non-profit and political campaigns are simply about asking for money. They are unfortunately not simply funded as an essential apparatus of the operating of a democratic state. We do not as a society have an institutionalized funding apparatus for the things that are actually - to me - the most important to a society en large: governance and assistance. Both of these are corner stones to democratic society. And when I say governance, I do not mean the functionality of the government or what it does, but its guidance. While we spend trillions of dollars on governmental programs from war, to social services, to government workers, we have left democracy fully and totally privatized. There is no funding to amplify those voices being heard in small spaces, nor any funding to assist those not being heard in any spaces get into the public sphere.
No news here, but our democratic process - left unfunded - is left solely to the capitalist system and the free market for regulation. Everything in the electoral system of any scalable importance is privately funded. Hence these two organizations I've referred to spending so much time and effort on fundraising. Why must organizations working so hard to bring to the fore political and socio-economic issues and injustices - so essential to a knowledgeable electorate - be so left upon itself?
Now I know, I am bring up an insurmountable political cauldron, but I am seeking more to just address a question of a principle: political awareness as a human right. Why not? The UN's declaration on Human Rights touches on political issues in article 21, but it's of course toothless and offers no substance. But if anything is of importance, this is the first thing that a society should be promoting and funding: the awareness of our social world in a way that is transparent and builds social and electoral capacity. Yes, I know, there are a million questions about what gets funded, how, by who, and how it would work in general. But those are questions beyond the level of the "principle" that popped into my head, and they should be saved for another day. At its core though, this concept stems from the public financing of elections and runs further into non-profits doing political work, and then even into non-profits doing relief, aid, and empowerment work.
Our society is bleeding. Look around both America and the world. Poverty is our greatest threat. Disparity of means and wealth, health and wellness, human security. Not some dictator or terrorist far off, but the poverty that keeps people down and allows them to be dictated to - our own Dictorship. Our lack of transparency, our lack of democratic and social voice all handcuff us at every moment. We live in a society where political speech is completely regulated on a systemic level in a way that discourages true democratic engagement and disallows true change.
Fact is, these two organizations are both contingent upon not just money, but money that currently must come from private individuals, private foundations, companies, etc. All of these entities have one thing in common: individual AGENDAS! They all come from places not systemically promoting the greater good. I want a political system that funds the agenda of itself, the free and fair democratic rule by the people - alllllllll the people. Not just those with money, not just those with direct stakes in issues, but everyone.
How can this be done? Well in our current context, we have to fund bringing a voice to everyone. Meaning political pressure groups would need to be transparent and funded by a state-like apparatus. Empowerment type groups and community organizations would have to be funded by a state-like apparatus. All political parties would need to be funded by a state-like apparatus based on the common good. They all could illuminate their issues to and for the greater good, and work towards addressing - or having their issues addressed - to and for the greater good.
Obviously, this is an INCREDIBLY complex and incomplete thought and does not actually fit well into our current socio-economic structure. But the point I am trying to make is that a privatization of the democratic process - such as exists in America - does not serve the democratic process itself but rather those who privately can control and affect it through their own private individual means. Again no mystery here, but still, it was tough to walk into a room and see it all so blatantly obvious, so blatantly preposterous. That so much human capital was being spent on trying to make money to try to simply engage in the political process on such a basic level. All this while, so much of our country's financial capital is being given to an effort to destroy both humans and their capital in agenda driven wars and policies throughout the world. Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to make the Pentagon do door-to-door and telephone fundraising for their wars, just like we have to do for the fight against poverty and for a democratic voice.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Big Picture
Given a comment that I received on one post it seems that I should bump up in order of importance a post about what the ultimate goal of this whole scenario is in terms of meaning and methods. Some of this was touched upon in 'Why Sierra Leone?'. But to elaborate, the ultimate goal with this project is not just about Sierra Leone, it is not about child soldiers, or human trafficking, or any other specific micro issue that one might put their finger on. The issue here is humanity. Take a step back and look at the world in broad terms. Less than one billion people live in 'the West', yet this area dominates the world and its socio-economic directions. The rest of humanity has been forced/enticed into following our ways based on the material outcomes of our society. The problem with all of this is that in order to maintain our level of dominance we in the West have had to expropriate numerous resources - both raw, manufactured, and human - from less 'developed' areas of the world. We are doing this at great cost to the local populations and society at large. We need to rethink our way of living together and the way we produce and reproduce things.
This project in Sierra Leone is not just a hiking project, it is not just a non-profit project for Sierra Leone, it is the foundational element in working towards finding an alternative way of doing things. One that finds a balance between the individual and the community. Communism focused on the community, and it failed for a myriad of different reasons. Capitalism may have 'out produced' communism, and all other systems for that matter, but when I look at the world right now I do not see a blissfully utopian scenario. I see a place where, according to the HIIK Conflict Barometer (for interactive map click here) for 2009, 365 countries maintained active conflicts: 108 latent conflicts, 114 manifest conflicts, 112 crisis, 24 severe crisis, and 7 wars. Where the world has billions of people in need of clean food and water and estimates at the percentage of people living in 'poverty' usually starts at 25% (thats over 1.5 billion people or 5 United States - picture the entire country in poverty, x 5 !!). The rich areas of the world and countries push around those with less and they do this by militaristic and economic bullying.
We plan to do this in practice by creating a business structure that will work to balance these rewards and motivations. The initial entity of ownership in a business/production scenario will be the non-profit (later to be named). This separate business entity will then grant ownership and/or controlling rights to its workers (as part of their pay or a similar scenario) and also to the local community via buy in. Non-profit "x" would maintain a stake for a time as well and act as an incubator of sorts. But not solely as a business incubator, but as a structural incubator designed to initiate and then maintain this symbiotic balance between company, individual, and community.
It is an elaborate concept, that I won't get wholly into yet here. But the outcome should be a company that is controlled in equal aspects by the community, its workers, and the 'investor'/'incubator' (though not permanently). The company itself would function in a manner similar to a non-profit in that profits would not go to enrich the individual stakeholders. All proceeds would be reinvested into either the company or the community. The stakeholders benefit is more in regards to an aspect of control than financial gain.
The principle is to create a non-governmental organization based in a specific locality that would work as an engine for the local community. The business itself would function as any 'typical' business, working to maximize efficiency and incentivize employees in a way to be competitive in the marketplace, but its 'shareholders' (though there would be definite restrictions on transferability, etc) would not be motivated by individual profit seeking, but in terms of individual professional and subsequent local community gains. The profits would go to provide many things considered today to be public works or 'state' provisions - sewage, roads, security, parks, clean water, etc. The community will have a huge stake in what the company does as it is their ticket to better public works, yet it is a private entity run locally by the workers, community and external and/or local investors investors. The business will be set up to sustain business operations, employ local people, and to facilitate local infrastructure and socio-economic development on all levels from roads to parks. A symbiotic relationship between the business, the community, and the individual.
I am not sure that this makes a great deal of sense as I have only brushed the surface of it and there is still a great deal of work to be done on this concept. But I believe it is a positive pathway to continue down and one that perhaps in time could eventually work as a starting point or even societal model for sustainable and productive socio-economic development.
This project in Sierra Leone is not just a hiking project, it is not just a non-profit project for Sierra Leone, it is the foundational element in working towards finding an alternative way of doing things. One that finds a balance between the individual and the community. Communism focused on the community, and it failed for a myriad of different reasons. Capitalism may have 'out produced' communism, and all other systems for that matter, but when I look at the world right now I do not see a blissfully utopian scenario. I see a place where, according to the HIIK Conflict Barometer (for interactive map click here) for 2009, 365 countries maintained active conflicts: 108 latent conflicts, 114 manifest conflicts, 112 crisis, 24 severe crisis, and 7 wars. Where the world has billions of people in need of clean food and water and estimates at the percentage of people living in 'poverty' usually starts at 25% (thats over 1.5 billion people or 5 United States - picture the entire country in poverty, x 5 !!). The rich areas of the world and countries push around those with less and they do this by militaristic and economic bullying.
It is very difficult to look at the world as a whole and say that it is a good place and that the Capitalist direction - based on supremacy of the individual - is going to make things better for more than a few. We don't do much for other places or communities, because our system does not directly reward it for ourselves or our communities. This is specifically the longer term goals of this project, to work towards finding a way for society to develop and excel in a way that favors a balance between both the individual and the community and creates a motivational and reward system from within the localized system. When an individual does something to benefit themselves the system should also provide rewards for it to benefit the community, and vice versa. A symbiotic relationship.
It is an elaborate concept, that I won't get wholly into yet here. But the outcome should be a company that is controlled in equal aspects by the community, its workers, and the 'investor'/'incubator' (though not permanently). The company itself would function in a manner similar to a non-profit in that profits would not go to enrich the individual stakeholders. All proceeds would be reinvested into either the company or the community. The stakeholders benefit is more in regards to an aspect of control than financial gain.
The principle is to create a non-governmental organization based in a specific locality that would work as an engine for the local community. The business itself would function as any 'typical' business, working to maximize efficiency and incentivize employees in a way to be competitive in the marketplace, but its 'shareholders' (though there would be definite restrictions on transferability, etc) would not be motivated by individual profit seeking, but in terms of individual professional and subsequent local community gains. The profits would go to provide many things considered today to be public works or 'state' provisions - sewage, roads, security, parks, clean water, etc. The community will have a huge stake in what the company does as it is their ticket to better public works, yet it is a private entity run locally by the workers, community and external and/or local investors investors. The business will be set up to sustain business operations, employ local people, and to facilitate local infrastructure and socio-economic development on all levels from roads to parks. A symbiotic relationship between the business, the community, and the individual.
I am not sure that this makes a great deal of sense as I have only brushed the surface of it and there is still a great deal of work to be done on this concept. But I believe it is a positive pathway to continue down and one that perhaps in time could eventually work as a starting point or even societal model for sustainable and productive socio-economic development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)