Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author(s) do not represent the official position of Barbados TODAY.
by Dennis DePeiza
There is the perception that with the introduction of new workplace arrangements and technologies, workers and workplaces are now better off. From both a worker and employer perspective, it cannot be denied that there are certain benefits to be derived.
Taking an objective assessment of the workplace developments, it becomes questionable whether it can be conclusive that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. It is understandable that workers and employers may welcome new workplace arrangements, as these allow for a measure of flexibility to take place.
Inasmuch as these two groups are likely to share in the benefits of the new arrangements, there is also consideration to be given as to how these impact on service delivery to members of the public, as customers and consumers.
In promoting growth and productivity within the economy of a country, it would seem consistent that there is a need to ensure that the working population is engaged.
If it is that the introduction of new technologies is meant to replace workers, then there is a serious contradiction in the pursuing of a policy which places the economic and social upliftment of people at the centre.
The assumption is that the introduction of new technologies into the workplace, was meant to enhance productivity and efficiency. In this way, it would be safe to say that technology is expected to complement and augment the output of workers, their enterprise and organization.
Workers who have been replaced as a consequence of the introduction of new technology into their workplace, may have every justifiable reason to feel that they have been hard done. This position can be justified in the instances where it is known that employees were not provided with training or retraining in order to make effective use of the new technology. It is disheartening that instead of upgrading the knowledge and skills of these workers, they have been simply replaced under a programme of retrenchment or redundancy.
The sad part of this trend, is that many of those workers who have been removed from the workplace, have given way to new hires; most of whom are inexperienced and are required to learn on the job.
One can spare a thought for those who remain and are charged with the responsibility of training and mentoring the new recruits. It cannot be ruled out that there may be some apathy displayed, against the lingering thought that the individual(s) doing the training and mentoring, may well be preparing another to take the job they now hold.
In the haste of following world trends, it would appear that there is a tendency to embark on whole scale changes without doing an impact assessment on the introduction of the measures. In third world countries, the decision to make changes at will, is more or less tantamount to being aligned with the cliché of ‘keeping up with the Jones’. The effect of some of the radical workplace changes, is that it can accelerate the pace in the race to the bottom.
In third world and small developing countries which are known to have economies of scale, the potential for sustained growth may be limited. Compared to first world countries, there is the absence of a large-scale industrial sector, mining, manufacturing, agriculture, and fisheries industry, a less than energized corporate business sector and the non-existence culture of exportation, this brings to the fore the importance attached to maintaining high levels of employment. If these economies are to sustain themselves and growth is to be achieved, then employment creation and the provision of meaningful and sustained employment is a must.
Part-time and sometimes work is not a workable solution to the growth of an economy. The situation cannot and will not be enhanced were those who are full time employed, are poorly paid. The iniquitous nature of what exists where there is a great disparity in the salaries paid to those at the top as opposed to those at the bottom, once continued to be practised, will most likely contribute to the stifling of growth.
Karl Marx, a 19th Century German philosopher, has long promulgated the view that the exploitation of working-class people will culminate in economic deprivation. He reminded that this is unjust. Hundreds of years after he made this contention, the signs tell us that nothing more than cosmetic changes has come about.
The incentivization of workers is possibly the best way to energize and motivate a deflated workforce. It cannot be ruled out that persons who have remained in the employ of private sector enterprises and in the public service, are not experiencing an uncomfortable state of mind. The new arrangements of part-time, short time, shift work, job sharing, remote work, teleworking and contract work, all reduce the element of secured and sustained employment. It becomes questionable whether the commitment and loyalty of workers can be secured in such a fragile working environment.
Smart employers should see the incentivization of employees way beyond the narrow confines of the offering of an increase in wages and salaries. Whilst this is important, workers would appreciate it even more, if employers were to treat them fairly, with respect and dignity.
Enhanced conditions of work and the provision of benefits can go a long way in making workers feel that they are valued. If it is that employers intend to benefit from the excess labour on the market, then they may wish to consider the wisdom of any exploitation of labour. They ought to guard against being a penny wise and a pound foolish.
Dennis DePeiza is a labour & employee relations consultant, Regional Management Services Inc. Visit our Website: www.regionalmanagement services.com
