Month: March 2007

Born to Dave and Joy a little boy – 7lb 4oz. Both Mother and baby are well. She had an easy labour I believe. They have not announced the name as yet – I vote for little Dave but I suspect I am going to be over ruled!

The Mirriam Webster’s dictionary amongst its definitions of the word resource has the phrase “computable wealth”.

There is a common practice today of referring to people as resources. This sounds like a lovely professional term but what are we implying here? In business I often hear the phrases “We need more resources”, or “We are under resourced”, or “Resource allocation”. When I first heard the term I was rather confused because I had always thought of a “resource” as a consumable or disposable and variable commodity. It took me a while to come to terms with the fact that the business was referring to people in this way.

Over the years the English speaking peoples have hijacked a number of words and altered or narrowed their use such that they have been lost to general conversation. Such words as Chauvinist, nigger and gay spring to mind. Use the word Chauvinist in general conversation and people stare at you blankly with no idea what you mean. In this instance however the opposite has happened. That which is being defined has altered and a word chosen to match that altered definition.

When the industrial revolution began one of the major commodities was the people. As long as the factory owners had a sufficient supply of people and power they could continue to accumulate their fortune. People were just another disposable input to their business.

Fast forward to the post war economy where business began to thrive with most white collar employers looking on their employees as a valuable part of their organization with benefits and conditions indicative of the esteem in which the employees were held. Generous superannuation schemes, generous bonuses, and incentives for company loyalty. The relationship was almost paternalistic where employees were encouraged to see their relationship with the company as being life long. There was still an unsettled relationship between many blue collar workers and their employers such there was the whole gamut of managerial approaches from the commodity view through to the familial type relationship.

In the 80s this was all about to change. The world wide recession enabled the Keynesian’s and those advocating micro economic reform to rule the shop. Do not get me wrong, we do need to change our approach to cater for technological and economic change but the problem is we tend to throw out the baby with the bath water. One of the most socially destructive changes is to take the most de-humanising aspects of the industrial revolution and apply it to modern business practice.

Business practicioners  have been trying to “deregulate the labour market” for a long time. What they mean is convert their employees to a disposable resource, hence the “resource” monika.

Just for the record I resent the term “resource” when applied to people. I think it is an indication of a morally vacuous business model that treats their employees like pens or writing pads that can be cast aside when they are no longer useful. I find it hypocritical to say that “people are our most precious resource”. As son as the term resource is applied to people it makes them no more important any any other consumable that that business requires.

People are more than an offset against the bottom line, a tax deductible commodity that can be cast aside like yesterday’s pencil shavings. It is an indication of moral bankruptcy that we not only allow this concept to flourish but build a business infrastructure on this evil concept.

In our increasingly globalised society we increasingly deal with people for whom English is not their first language. We have all laughed over the “chinglish” that we often see in the operating instructions for our domestic equipment. The following email appeared addressed to a colleague who was leaving the organisation. The author was clearly trying to express his thoughts in English for which he has a less than perfect grasp. How well he expresses those sentiments I leave to you. I have only removed the names.
Hi *****,

Last few days it is that our friendship has been established but I did not know who are you. But you know, in our journey very few people are there who can get a good friend like you. It is true that, I miss u a lot but, hope and pray to god, one day you will touch the sky.
So, I don’t want to drop my tears for you now bcoz I am confident that one day will come  when two good  friends will kiss there hearts again. Keep in touch and wishing u a very happy journey.

Thanx & Regards

*****

There has been a plethora of requests from various “owners” of video material that the hosting sites such as Yo Toob remove material which the “owner” claims ownership to. This being the latest.

Now I have a question. What or who is being hurt by the presence of these videos? Is taking them down going to stop their promulgation? Are these people removing the head of the goose laying the golden egg?

Scenario one.  The videos stay. They are small, low resolution highlights of already past matches where people can highlight various aspects of the game that appeal to them. They are in fact promoting the game and indeed the tournaments. They can indeed be considered as free advertising.
And I cannot for the life of me how they could impact negatively the game or anybody involved in the game.  And they provide access to games that would otherwise be completely inaccessible.

Scenario two. The videos are removed. The complainants appear disingenuous to the point of stupidity. They loose a major source of promotion. The public are deprived of seeing their favourite tennis players strut their credentials. In fact the game is diminished by making it more elite. IMHO this helps nobody.

Of course there are many other instances of material being removed that is more or less harmless. But there are many more outlets for this material. Yet another King Canute.