Unemployment but do people want to work?

[L00b]

Is John Lewis still paternalistic?

 

At one time it had a reputation for being the best employer in Sheffield with myriad schemes for it's workers including hairdressers and massages. Workers were called 'partners' as they all had shares in the company and regular bonuses.

 

Has this changed? Genuine question.

I don't know. But I wouldn't have called John Lewis 'paternalistic' regardless.

 

"Paternalistic" is all of what a business will do, well above and beyond much of the 'routine' stuff you mentioned (cantines, pensions, etc.), for the well-being of its employees and to effectively "shape" its employees' lives into the mold it wants them to come out of. e.g. housing, organised holidays, schooling and bursaries for kids, OAP housing, healthcare etc. - the works. The clue is in the name, the employer is/becomes the father figure ('paternal') for all households whose livelihood depends on it: the employer owns your life, from birth to death.

 

It was, basically, what the State provides to everyone these days (in terms of NHS, benefits, social housing, etc.), but long before that time and in exchange for labour. So, the concept has become gradually, and ever more, redundant since the late 40s/early 50s.

 

Incidentally, my Dad's engineering degree in the late 1960s was paid for by my grand-dad's paternalistic employers (the De Wendel family). They could not conceive economical progress without social progress and e.g. were the first to introduce proper pensions in France for their workforce, for which nothing was too good (including building and staffing full hospitals!), and which genuinely loved them.

 

John Lewis provides (provided?) all the perks that it does to its owner-employees. Quite different.

Edited June 24, 2013 by L00b

[tinfoilhat]

It's not just about pay, money is only the start, it's about valuing your employees and treating them well.

 

Back in the 60's and 70's a lot of the big companies and works had excellent facilities for their workers; subsidised canteens, social clubs, sports teams, trips out, pastoral care, and the older established workers would take the younger ones under their wing and show them how to behave. There was also job security and mutual respect.

 

I can't imagine that happening now. It all seems to be about exploitation.

 

This works both ways. I know of several people who had their training, some up to a high level, and once qualified waltzed off to pastures new.

[Cyclone]

Then you get nobody working for you

 

Not true, you get nobody working for you who has what you consider to be unrealistic expectations.

 

---------- Post added 24-06-2013 at 17:35 ----------

 

It's not just about pay, money is only the start, it's about valuing your employees and treating them well.

 

Back in the 60's and 70's a lot of the big companies and works had excellent facilities for their workers; subsidised canteens, social clubs, sports teams, trips out, pastoral care, and the older established workers would take the younger ones under their wing and show them how to behave. There was also job security and mutual respect.

 

I can't imagine that happening now. It all seems to be about exploitation.

 

You must be sorely lacking in any relevant experience if you believe that none of those things exists any more.

Being self employed I work for a short time at a lot of different companies, and some have excellent cultures with reference to the things you've mentioned above (and others have terrible cultures and I wouldn't ever consider staying at those places for longer than I have to).

[Peer Gynt]

Sorry this is a bit of a rant ...

 

What more do people want??????

 

Answers on a postcard please!!!

 

A full time job with a decent wage.

 

---------- Post added 24-06-2013 at 17:40 ----------

 

John Lewis provides (provided?) all the perks that it does to its owner-employees. Quite different.

Be interesting to see if John Lewis is in a minority.

[chem1st]

That simply tells you there's an oversupply of well-qualified people with degrees, masters etc. for the number of positions requiring their skills. This is the (entirely predictable-) result of years of degree-for-all policies. But then again...

Our direct experience (Sheffield company, looking to recruit any of BS/MSc/PhD graduates or part-qualified or full-qualified attorneys) says completely different.

 

Surprisingly few applicants (of which many just did not want to come to Sheffield at all for love or money, postulating as they did only "if we'll let them work from home" ), and just about all (incl. the graduates, which is 'bottom rung' in our industry) with completely unrealistic expectations, and who would seemingly rather stay on JSA and 'wait for the right job at the highest price' than adjust their expectations to the industry (benchmarked-) level.

 

We're about to fill the vacancies now (offers sent out), after 12 months of searching/advertising high and low (incl. overseas!)

 

The problem you faced and would still face today is due to the social security system commonly called welfare forcing people to take any job. They stop looking for jobs that meet their skills, and look for any old job. they can only properly look, once they have a degree of unconditional income security. Hence the many that do apply, can afford to pick and choose, having already got that security.

 

Many people are also limited with respect to work due to housing costs, the presence of free housing (with parents for example) and so on.

[Mecky]

Work yourself to death for debt, great