The abominable Margaret Thatcher was fond of making some extraordinarily dubious claims, which often conflicted with the real world in which most people live.
One of her famed pronouncements was about how she had managed to get rid of the "job for life".
Summat to be proud about?
Hardly.
My father got his first job at the age of 15. Apart from his 4 and a half years as a ground crew mechanic in the Royal Air Force in the Second World War he stayed with that company until he was forced to retire through ill-health at the age of 63. Given his propensity for figures, he would love to have stayed until he was 65, which would have meant a round 50 years of service.
In those days it was known as company loyalty. It was summat that companies appreciated from their employees. There was a mutual respect - the employee did the best work he/she could for the concern, the company in turn showed respect to its longstanding employees.
When my father died, several members of the management from that firm came to his funeral. Respected, and even loved, you might say.
He did not make a lot of money - he might have earned more by leaving and going elsewhere at some point, but his service and experience and loyalty were all valued. And as he got older, he became a point of reference for the younger employees in the company who could rely upon the knowledge that he could impart.
Did this mean that he became complacent as he got older? Not at all. Did this mean that as times and business practices changed, he could not adapt? Again this was not the case. He learned, he adapted.
And throughout he remained the good "company man".
And is getting rid of that the proverbial good thing? See the Thatcher comment above.
These days loyalty has become a one-way street. A company will expect absolute loyalty and commitment from its employees. Still. But it also will not hesitate to kick them out of the door the day that they become too expensive (which often means simply earning a living wage and little more). Why pay a hardworking knowledgeable man or woman in his/her forties when you can get someone in China to do it for less than one-tenth of the costs. Think of all the juicy profits you can make and how many millions you can make for yourself alone!
Is it any wonder why this 1% / 99% split has become so pronounced. Is it any wonder that people in the middle are seeing their lifestyles threatened and the people at the bottom can see no way out?
Before the 2008 financial crash I remember seeing a statistic indicating that the number of people in the UK who were unemployed and over 50 was twice that in percentage terms of people under 50 (that has been skewed somewhat by the number of people under 25 who cannot find jobs since the crash, but the statistics for people over 50 remain, to say the least, grim!).
The ridiculous thing is that a lot of older workers will bring skill, talent and experience to any role (see above). There is an abundance of talent going to waste because of the high unemployment to which they are subject. And getting rid of job security for older workers causes more of them to be fired. The statistics simply do not lie!
In certain countries there are attempts to rectify the problem. The German government offers incentives to employers who will take on older workers. Recently advertisements have started appearing upon billboards here about how important are the skills and attitude that older workers can bring to companies.
How successful this project and its like elsewhere will be I would not like to guess. But what I do know is that any pride taken by any politician in that they succeeded in getting rid of the "job for life" should be treated with the contempt that it deserves!
No comments:
Post a Comment