Anything Political


Recommended Posts

Reading the above post immediately made me think of Dr. Edward de Bono and his 6 Thinking Hats and other consultant spouted plumbing equipment .... ballcocks.

 

Talking of "scientific management" we could use the expertise of Morris L Cooke who specialised in "obtaining inexpensive electricity for residential use" in the 1940s and 50s today.

Frank Gilbreth's book "Cheaper By The Dozen makes for an interesting read.

 

A personal viewpoint is that Taylor did not give enough credence to the human relations element of "scientific management" Something I learned whilst being trained by Toyota in Nagoya on the Toyota Production System.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

HSR: Col is given a 'free rein to spout his opinions' for exactly the reasons you are, only he does so with more civility.   Recently there have been a couple of attacks on the validity of t

True enough but none quite so 'in your face' or as blatant. To paraphrase Mone "I didn't lie to hide the the fact we're making £60 million and hiding it in a trust, it was to to protect my family

Why do you feel the need to influence others? What is your motivation for so doing? Is it because you think you know better than they? Is it because it feeds your ego if and when you succeed?  Is it b

13 hours ago, The Engineer said:

 

The argument that didn't persuade me was the need for everyone to learn/think 'systems'.  I don't think any amount of scientific evidence or hypotheses will trigger a substantial change in the mindset of the masses (few will follow Meadows' example of going off grid and choosing not to have children).

 

That's one of those arguments I can both agree and disagree with at the same time. I've not read the specific book you refer to, though I am familiar with the rudiments of 'systems theory', mostly from encounters with the work of Talcott Parsons and others.

 

Whether or not Meadows argues that 'everyone', should think systems.. isn't really the point. She provides an additional tool, or method of thought and analysis which can be utilised in order to try to understand complex issues and propose potential strategies to resolve, or at least mitigate those outcomes which would be mutually destructive.

 

And yes, while few will take the 'extreme' decision to 'lead by example' (though living 'off grid' is much more prevalent these days) many more will slowly take on board the bigger message....

As an example, in the past, 'recycling' was an almost totally profit driven activity. As such, metals, fabrics, some paper etc.. were recycled because it paid those who did it. There was little or no environmental, or 'social' responsibility involved.

Now, since awareness of the damage done to say environmental 'systems' by simply 'dumping' stuff, but especially plastics, oil, heavy metals etc., has reached the wider consciousness.. most of us happily begin the process by filling several bags for weekly collection.

I believe that more people than ever now understand that actions have often unseen, or unintended consequences, which in turn can disrupt established systems. Even if people don't sit back and consciously apply 'formal' systems thinking to those issues, I believe that they are more 'systems aware'.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

A personal viewpoint is that Taylor did not give enough credence to the human relations element of "scientific management"

 

A view that led to an ongoing row between those who follow Gilbreth and the followers of Taylorism.

There is an axiom attributed to Bill Gates but actually came from Gilbreth.

"I'll always choose a  lazy man to do a difficult task, he will always find the easiest way to do it"

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Whether or not Meadows argues that 'everyone', should think systems.. isn't really the point

 

Surely that's exactly the point. 

 

Choosing one aspect, recycling, as an instance is not (in my view), really a good example. The mindset of the population is not convinced and thinking in terms of a system. They simply do it because they're told to and have no choice.

 

System thinking is existential, it's simply too big, too complex to consider when standing at the Tesco checkout.

Many people will not discuss politics or religion for similar reasons.

 

But no matter, theories like these be they Parson and sociology, Taylor and management, McLuhan and the global village or Meadows with her combination, are like busses, there'll be another along in a minute.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brew said:

"I'll always choose a  lazy man to do a difficult task, he will always find the easiest way to do it"

I agree Brew, I spent much of my working life in a manufacturing plant that made automotive components. When it came to the Industrial Engineering department doing time studies to set the rates on new products or processes most of the workers were smart enough to fool the IE men with their clipboards, stop watches and video cameras and end up with more time for the task than they actually needed.

It came as a shock to many in the IE fraternity when synthetic MTM and MOST studies came up with more accurate times than studies done with the actual equipment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line to all of the above, is that none of the thinkers mentioned have come up with what might be termed a 'Complete Answer', or a 'Unifying Theory' etc.. even within their own field, or specialism.  They are all open to valid criticism.

Much less have they come up with anything which offers a way of completely understanding and even managing both human socio-political relationships and our collective relationship with our environment I.E. our finite planet.

 

I encountered most of those mentioned whilst at Uni in the early 1980s. We were introduced to the works of the great thinkers and then required to demonstrate our understanding by writing essays on set questions..discussion in small 'seminar' groups  and final year exams.

 

I've often said since, that I didn't come out of all that with any answers.. but .. I like to think I came out with a tendency to question, and a better quality of question.

 

All of which is a long winded way of me saying that I'm not besotted with Meadows, but I do think she added something of value to the mix.  I feel the same about Plato, Aristotle, mediaeval 'Scholastics', Machiavelli, JJ Rousseau, Thom. Payne, Hobbes, Locke, Burke, Marx, Engels, etc. All added to our 'toolbox', for ways of viewing the world and its political processes.

 

As for management theorists.. again, Taylor was very much of his time and while some of his stuff now looks quaint, or even silly, he still made the basic point that a Manager's job is not to achieve 'efficiency', and 'productivity', by cracking the whip, or imposing sanctions, but by understanding the processes in manufacture and actively seeking ways to improve them, to remove obstacles, etc.  Even Stalin embraced elements of Taylorism..

Henri Fayol, seems to get less exposure these days, but also took the same basic line..that management is (or should be) more of an 'enabling' function, than purely a 'control' function, even if he focused on different elements.

 

As for dismissing Meadows, and implicitly others, by comparing them to 'faddish' or 'flavour of the month' management theorists, I think you do them a disservice.

Firstly, as I've already said, I think they all added something to the mix, but more importantly, what would you propose we do instead?

 

 Surely, we either stop thinking and accept the current status quo.. or we continue to try to develop our World, its society, its economy and its environment, in sustainable ways.  If, as I prefer, it's the latter.. then we must have room for both grand theories such as Meadows et.al. and ultra specialists coming up with specific solutions to specific issues.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brew said:

"I'll always choose a  lazy man to do a difficult task, he will always find the easiest way to do it"

 

I can quote an example which validates both Taylor and  Gilbreth.

 

I worked in a Lead Refinery, on a Rotary Furnace. When we 'tapped' the furnace, the contents poured into approx 2 foot square moulds. We were instructed to use an overhead crane to move the moulds onto the shop floor, with two men guiding the moulds and another operating the crane. the moulds were then laid out on the floor in neat rows.

 

Thing is, they mostly contained red hot slag, which took a while to cool down and therefore was a huge risk if spilled, or if a mould was stepped into.  It was all very unsatisfactory and bloody dangerous. Hot slag or metal, hitting a cold and potentially damp floor, is an explosive recipe.

 

Over time, we worked out ways in which the moulds could be lifted with a fork lift truck and placed outside the furnace house. Everyone stayed clear while the fork lift driver moved the moulds. If, as happened hardly ever, a mould was dropped, the only risk was to the driver and that was minimised as he was protected by the mast of the truck.

 

Management grudgingly accepted our method, but claimed putting moulds outside was a risk to other workers at the plant.. so we suggested they make a fenced off compound for the moulds to cool off in.  They did so.

We later found a way to turn the moulds over to empty them, which did away with the need for us to insert hooks into the slag , which also carried risks. But doing so began to damage the concrete yard.. so we suggested that management get hard cobbles laid where the concrete was too weak.  they did that too.

 

So, in the first instance Taylor was proven right in terms of managers needing to enable the workers' activities and in the second place Gilbreth was proven correct that workers will find the easiest ( and in this case the safest) way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems is that people who fall under the heading ‘management’ often get there because they’ve taken a few exams and therefore think they can manage any business or process.

 

They’ve studied management theory - whatever that is - but it isn’t connected to the real world.

 

In a work environment, no-one should have the power to tell you to do something unless they know how to do it themselves.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

In a miss-timed but classic example of system failure leading to unexpected consequences... we've just had yet another brief power cut. The result was my loss of a brief but telling reply..which I will try to replicate...

 

 

2 hours ago, Brew said:

They simply do it because they're told to and have no choice.

 

Firstly, they do have a choice. One of my neighbours has never chosen to use any of the recycling bins we are all provided with and continues to just chuck everything into the bin assigned for 'general' (i.e. not currently re-cycled) waste. In a wider context, some choose to make compost, some don't..some choose to chuck litter everywhere, some use bins, some take their litter home. Choices.

 

2 hours ago, Brew said:

The mindset of the population is not convinced and thinking in terms of a system.

 

A rather large generalisation there Jim. I'd argue that there are at least three categories of mindset.

 

1. Those who are both unconvinced, ignorant and indifferent.

2. Those who see the 'sense' of recycling, both in terms of economy and environment, but without maybe a deeper environmental grasp.

3. Those who are like '2' above, but also understand that recycling relates to systems, such as resource management, pollution control etc. Although even they may not habitually 'think in systems', they are aware that ecological systems exist and are threatened by our activities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Cliff Ton said:

One of the problems is that people who fall under the heading ‘management’ often get there because they’ve taken a few exams and therefore think they can manage any business or process.

 

Agreed.  Equally, both Civil Servants and Public Sector workers suffer from a similar attitude from politicians, who often confuse policy and delivery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I ran a factory I could do every shop floor job myself and show others how it should be done. I was instrumental in buying and commissioning the machinery, designing and supervising new building construction and implementing the computer systems. I would sometimes make the coffee at break times as well and I’ve been known to unblock the toilets!

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a foreman in an engineering factory we were bought out by another firm. They were run by accountants who did not have the faintest idea what engineering was . Their ideas were totally unworkable and nigh on destroyed the company. Their contempt for the workforce was unbelievable.  I had worked there for over twenty years, having worked my way up from being a green apprentice and did not agree with a lot I was being told to do. I had a good team of workers under me who knew that I would be reasonable to work for and I had very little trouble until this shower took over. They then decided to do away with foremen so I took redundancy. At an hours notice of leaving they tried to reduce my redundancy package due to "miscalculation". The judge at the County Court did no more than order them to pay the original amount plus costs. They were not very quick in paying so they also had to pay the cost of a Warrant of Execution. They also got caught out by the major customer who found they had been false information and were in effect put out of business. It was a prime example of the lunatics taking over the assylum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

I can quote an example which validates both Taylor and  Gilbreth.

Certainly not Taylor. His instructions to 'Sven' (probably fictious) when loading pig iron into a rail truck, was not to think but simply do exactly as told and no more, but I take your point,

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

1. Those who are both unconvinced, ignorant and indifferent.

2. Those who see the 'sense' of recycling, both in terms of economy and environment, but without maybe a deeper environmental grasp.

3. Those who are like '2' above, but also understand that recycling relates to systems, such as resource management, pollution control etc. Although even they may not habitually 'think in systems', they are aware that ecological systems exist and are threatened by our activities.

!. I would rewrite as 'or' indifferent and contend that they are in the majority.

2. Agreed are a  goodly proportion and have a vague notion of what it's all about, but without some form of enforcement would probably lapse.

3. These are a minority, the 'greens' if you like but I maintain none, or maybe the smallest percentage, would think in  terms of it being a system or recognise the global scale of interconnectivity.

 

Part of my irritation with these wonderful words of wisdom is not that I don't agree, but the presentation. I hinted earlier these writers seem to need to demonstrate how clever they are and ignore the fact the target audience should be the ordinary chap in the street and not the lofty halls of academia. 

 

Going back to Meadows, she died over twenty years ago, how many here had even heard of her and her theory until this discussion? Pontification is no use if no one hears it..

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Brew said:

Certainly not Taylor. His instructions to 'Sven' (probably fictious) when loading pig iron into a rail truck, was not to think but simply do exactly as told and no more, but I take your point,

 

Well yes.. my example, thinking about it, reveals one of the tensions in Taylor's theory.. He invokes managers to seek ways to 'enable' workers, but simultaneously instructs workers that there is 'one best way' to carry out a specific task...

 

But.. as I think I've at least tried to say above.. all important works of theory have internal tensions. For e.g, Rousseau really struggled with the idea that his Social Contract might not lead to all citizens embracing his route to freedom, such that he said some might have to be 'forced to free', which led to later accusations of 'proto fascism'.

 

I'm straying into less certain territory now, but as I recall, both Hegelian 'idealist' dialectic, and later Marxian 'materialist' dialectic, employ argument and analysis to attempt to resolve tensions in theories by using thesis, and anti-thesis to lead to synthesis of a newer theory.  Or summat :blink:..

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Brew said:

!. I would rewrite as 'or' indifferent and contend that they are in the majority.

2. Agreed are a  goodly proportion and have a vague notion of what it's all about, but without some form of enforcement would probably lapse.

3. These are a minority, the 'greens' if you like but I maintain none, or maybe the smallest percentage, would think in  terms of it being a system or recognise the global scale of interconnectivity.

 

1.  OK.

2. But are for e.g. council re-cycling schemes enforcement, or enablement?

3. I'm not so sure about that.. It would make me a 'Green', yet I'm not quite there yet.  I reckon many more than you recognise now see the clear symptoms of environmental interconnectivity in warming, changing/more extreme weather/ population movements, species movement, melting glaciers, shrinking poles, etc.,etc., etc., which are mentioned pretty much daily in the media.

 

21 minutes ago, Brew said:

Going back to Meadows, she died over twenty years ago, how many here had even heard of her and her theory until this discussion? Pontification is no use if no one hears it..

 

Well yes, but clearly many did hear her and I suspect awareness is growing..if not of her, but of the underlying principles of her work.

Someone like Attenborough is continually reinforcing 'green' messages and backing them with evidence.  Is he educating.. or 'pontificating'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And in other news.. what do we think of Sunak's environmental back tracking on North Sea Oil?  

I wonder how much that cost the IEA and other Tuffton St lobbyists?

 

Then his  desperate attempts to 'woo' the motoring lobby with gimmicks and even opposition to his own party's emission reduction policies.?

 

You won't be surprised that I see it as pure hypocrisy, born of a combination of both externally directed electioneering, and internally directed attempts to placate the Tory far right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Council recycle centres are covert enforcement, use them or pay to have your unwanted items taken away.

Which ties in nicely with non-system thinking. Forcing people to use them means countless more miles of air polluting journeys and traffic congestion. Whereas a single truck would be a far better solution.

 

----------------------

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

And in other news.. what do we think of Sunak's environmental back tracking on North Sea Oil?

 

I obviously don't know, but there may be more to Sunak's decision and it may be a Brexit bonus/penalty.

We are tied to Europe by 5, soon to be 6 electricity interconnectors and 2 gas connections. We also provide Ireland with 75% of its gas. In the EU we could demand support for our energy needs.

Should the situation in Ukraine deteriorate the security of those supplies, and even the security of the undersea infrastructure, cannot be guaranteed and he may see that as a threat and is taking action to mitigate it.

 

Hopefully it won't, but should the worst happen, and we run out of oil and gas I don't have to think too hard about the screaming from the public and opposition that we were unprepared.

 

The cynic side of me of course thinks much the same as you and it's a knee-jerk reaction to try and win support at the ballot box.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We used to have a recycling centre, hidden from view, up a track near Southwell which also served the surrounding villages. It was always busy. They closed it so now we have to make a 25 mile round trip to take our rubbish. It appears that local authorities, whatever their political colour, are run by blithering idiots.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Brew said:

Council recycle centres are covert enforcement, use them or pay to have your unwanted items taken away.

 

I think it's far from that simple and in any event, when does a council recycling scheme flip from being a service, to enforcement?

 

Local Authorities have Waste Management and increasingly Recycling as part of their statutory duties and there is a long history of such, going back to the days of 'Muck Majors' and 'Night Soil' men and much earlier.

 

Firstly though.. what happened before such recycling centres existed?  My only memory is of the old style galvanised steel bin, which would mostly just contain coal ash and maybe a few cans or jars, but then milk, pop and other bottles carried a returnable deposit or were collected and re-used and plastic bottles were vitually unknown.. Pretty much everything which would burn, would end up on the coal fire.

 

Back in the 19th C, I believe that the coal ash 'Dust', which remained when 'rags and bones' had been separated, also had a value, for brick making.  (This trade was examined through the character of Nicodemus Boffin in Dicken's 'Our Mutual Friend')

 

As I recall, people habitually dumped stuff wherever they could find a bit of wasteland, although far less stuff was just dumped, as few had the wherewithal to be replacing furniture and other large items with anything like the frequency seen today, or the transport to shift large items. Also, good old Bonfire Night was a great way of disposing of old furniture etc.

There may have been Council services for large items back then, but I never heard of them.

 

Back to 'recycle centres'. They are only a part of the story round here.  Yes, we had a small one in the village, another in Rainford, and there was one over the border in Wigan, not too far away. All gone now, but the replacement, in St Helens, is a far better organised, purpose built centre, away from residential property, where you can take Garden Waste, Timber, Scrap Metal, Hard Plastics, Paper, Cardboard,Car Batteries, Old Oil, Small and Large appliances, Building Rubble, etc..etc.. I'd like to think that much of that is sold on for more specialist recycling and to generate revenue. Of course if you resent dumping car batteries, copper,brass etc.. you always have the option to take it to your local scrap dealer who will pay you cash. You'll probably barely recover your fuel costs on small amounts, but at least you'll know it's going to be recycled.

 

So local recycling centres provide a disposal route for anything you can get into your car.

 

Locally, we used to have a free 'bulky rubbish' collection, useful for old beds, mattresses, sofas etc.  They make a charge now, but it's not excessive and they turn up as arranged.

 

We also have a number of charities, who will collect stuff which is still useable and pass it on to those in need.

 

And we  have a couple of 'tatters', who patrol the area on a reasonably frequent basis, such that an old washing machine or whatever will not stay at the end of your drive for long..  We also have a lady scrap collector, who will respond to a text by coming out either same or next day.  She arrived to collect our old gas fire and boiler, only to find that one of the casual 'tatters' had arrived at the same time by coincidence.  They seemed to 'divvy up' the spoils amicably enough.

 

And finally, we have weekly collections of cans, bottles, jars, plastics, food waste and cardboard,the alternate week collections of 'general waste', and the optional (charged) garden waste. We could get picky about the details, but I reckon that's a pretty comprehensive service.

 

It's neither a 'single big truck', nor a single household system. It's effectively a 'hybrid' system. We get a weekly visit from the recycling truck which has separate spaces for the different classes of stuff, and a weekly visit of either the 'General/Residual' Waste, or Garden Waste.

 

I don't feel at all 'compelled' to cooperate with a system which makes sense, and which I'm paying for anyway via my Council Tax.

 

I should add that Mrs Col also takes used batteries, dead light bulbs and soft plastics to local supermarkets for recycling.

 

Very little makes it into our 'Residual Waste'.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Brew said:

Should the situation in Ukraine deteriorate the security of those supplies, and even the security of the undersea infrastructure, cannot be guaranteed and he may see that as a threat and is taking action to mitigate it.

 

And yet..oddly, I don't recall him or anyone else making that point.  Also, it seems that whatever oil is produced will go into the global market which is sewn up by 'interested' parties anyway, so it's all just another triumph for lobbyists and vested interests.

 

It's a bent decision.

 

Warning.. as ever Jonathan Pie is rather sweary, but exceptionally incisive in his analysis.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And what, also, of Sunak's 'War on..' 'The War on Motorists'...  You really couldn't make this stuff up..  It's pretty much a re-working of  'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', but in a laughable way.

 

We all know that espansion of the Greater London 'ULEZ' proved very unpopular in Uxbridge when sentiments were whipped up, such that a barely articulate Tory candidate, who was almost certainly put up as a sacrificial lamb in the certainty of his failure..actually scraped through by a few hundred votes.

And yet, my 20 year old car passes the ULEZ test, as will the vast bulk of properly maintained vehilcles...

 

Still Sunak has declared war on his own party's' emission control policies, as well as the expansion of 20 mph zones and other measures..presenting himslef as a 'Friend' of 'The Motorist'.

 

I have no problem with 20 mph zones in residential and shopping areas etc. Nobody should be exceeding those speeds in such places anyway, but I'd prefer them to 'passive' controls such as speed bumps.

 

But the real point here is that Sunak is targetting and inflating the effects of essentially minor changes.. pretty much 'Tilting at Windmills', in a desperate attempt to recruit 'The Motorist', to his side, and to deflect from his monumantal failings over literally every other policy area.

 

And even more telling.. he'd be much more of a 'friend' to 'the motorist', if he actually did something to ensure that Road Tax went into roads, Fuel Tax was reduced, 'Smart Motorways' were reversed, potholes repaired, and Public Transport issues, both road and rail..addressed, to minimise the need for motoring.

 

I'm not holding my breath.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

Jonathan Pie is rather sweary, but exceptionally incisive in his analysis.

 

Certainly an expletive laden diatribe; though it was always indicated to me that if you have to resort to bad language and personal attacks - you've already lost the argument.

 

He's only incisive to those who are of  a somewhat extreme mindset. There are no facts, just a rather excitable man expressing an opinion and twisting details to fit with his invective. He hopes to impress  ranting his views to his followers, an  audience that need no convincing really, They're a mutual admiration society cheering him on. The more extreme he gets, the more they cheer. 

He's not incisive, he's biased beyond belief and pandering to the hard of thinking. To those muppets who don't know what they want, and will never be satisfied, nor will they ever accept reality, unless it brings back page three.

Remove the foul language and you could say just as much in about three lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim.. he's a bit of light relief in a world of very serious Govt. malfunction and skullduggery..

 

I'm not sure quite how to pigeonhole him.. .. somewhere between a satirist and a comedian..but I don't take him half as seriously as you do.  I just enjoy his rants. I find them both cathartic, topical and accurate enough for that purpose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...