Search the Nework website    site map

Changing Times

Number 3                                                                     November 2001

Newsletter of the Work & Age Trust

                                                                                 AT THE CROSROADS
                                                                    In An
                          ASYMMERICAL WORLD

- Michael Cash is a Trustee of the Work & Age Trust.

One of the most common responses to 11 September is that we are now living in a different world. We certainly are. But the reality is that this event is only just waking us up to the fact that we have been in a "different" world since 1984. In New Zealand this shift occurred with the onset of the Lange Government, the floating of the dollar, Rogernomics, and the process of "structural adjustment" . Painfully, but by world standards abruptly, we have moved out of one of the most regulated (rule-governed) environments into one of the most deregulated (chaotic, postmodern, asymmetric). 'Asymmetric' is the military term being used about the "war against terrorism" and the term certainly captures how the terrorists operated (by turning the traditional concept of "weapons" on its head), though the response so far looks very like what they said it must not be, like the last war, the Gulf War.

In the asymmetric world the old rules of the pre-1984 world (the rule-governed or normative world) apply less and less. But there is a perception time lag. We operate as though the old rule-governed world still exists. Concepts such as 'war' , 'family' , 'safety' or 'work and age' , as well as the organisations that embody them, are, because of this major shift in consciousness and social reality, "at the strategic crossroads" .

When we are at a real or metaphorical crossroads, we are forced to change direction. At a true crossroads the current direction (the status quo) is not an option, at least not a good option, as it leads to things like buy-out, burn-out of energy/commitment, bankruptcy, and ultimately non-survival. The question becomes: what are the new directions which are acceptable to the stakeholders, suitable to the organisation, and feasible or practical in the current real world situation? The answer, strategically speaking, lies in deciding what business (or businesses) are we in?

The Work and Age Trust is itself born of the shared consciousness that in things work-and-age, the old rules about careers, jobs for life, and  retirement no longer apply universally, and therefore are largely useless as norms. What are the new norms, or, is this question itself outdated? Despite its achievements (such as
Nework), or perhaps because of them, the Trust finds itself again "at the strategic crossroads" .

Some strategic questions are :

• What business is the Trust in? Education/consciousness raising? Advocacy? Support for transition workers? Portfolio education and networking? Research? Nework? Others?

• Should (or when should) the Trust and Nework be split or be more sharply separated? Do they have different but related values?

• What business belongs to each (eg. should education belong to the trust or to Nework, or are we talking about two different kinds of educating?)

• In broad general terms, and given its asymmetric assumptions, how should the Trust run itself and Nework? Where will it find its financial base? How should operate to be effective at what it does?

• Does it need new forms of energy, and, if so, where will it find them?

All these question raise others, but it could be the right time to attempt to think them through both systematically (normatively) since we still operate in lag time (with less aware stakeholders such as  funders ), and asymmetrically (outside the square, using  left-field thinking). At the same time as we think about these higher order things (governing our effectiveness), we can keep our feet on the ground with practical decisions governing our efficiency as an organisation. To be asymmetric implies also being symmetric at least part of the time.

Nework Centre

If you live in Wellington drop into the Nework Centre at level 2, Willbank House, 57 Willis St.

For a small membership fee, you get access to a central city office, lunches and seminars.

For more information, visit our website. www.nework.co.nz

Check these out!

http://freeagentnation.com/


http://www.2030.org.

Changing Times is edited by Elizabeth Clements. If you would like to contribute send your experiences of portfolio work, book reviews, articles on these issues or comments on matters in this edition to portfolio@paradise.net.nz or to PO Box 9826, Wellington.

Basic income for  portfolio workers :
have we got a policy for you!

"Portfolio workers" are people who have adapted to the fluidity and uncertainty of today's life by putting together individual 'portfolios' of paid and unpaid work. Their paid employment often consists of a variety of part-time, casualised and/or contract work; their unpaid work is just as varied and often just as useful to society (if not more so).

This style of career is quite possibly the way of the future. Some people will choose it and some will have it forced on them. It is a trend driven by a number of factors: by technology (especially computers, which have displaced some workers but also created opportunities for mobile or home-based part-timers); by changes to welfare systems (including greater emphasis on individual entitlement and responsibility); but above all by changes in the nature of work itself. The world of employment these days is changeable and fluid. New occupations constantly arise, people travel freely in search of employment, and new forms of intimate relationship and domestic arrangement mean that the orthodox nuclear family is no longer the taken-for-granted backdrop to our lives.

Basic Income (BI) is a policy proposal that responds to these changes by arguing that all citizens should receive as of right an income funded out of general revenue. The level of BI would have to be determined in the light of political and economic constraints and is the subject of great debate but, ideally, it would provide at least the necessities of life to its recipients. Moreover, a relatively ungenerous BI can be compensated for by the fact that there are no means tests to prevent one from topping it up with other income.

Those in steady well-paid employment would in fact not receive a new basic income because they would pay it and much more back in taxes. Nor should they complain. The very possession of one of today's most precious assets "a secure well-paid job" ought to compensate for somewhat higher tax rates than most political parties have advocated in recent decades. Proposals that reduce the competition for such jobs are to the advantage of the jobholders. In addition, the tax base could and should be widened by bolstering eco-taxes on public "bads" . Don' t forget, too, that we would no longer be paying for a massive welfare bureaucracy.

Most importantly, for the increasing numbers of those who are frozen out, or who choose to opt out, of the secure and well-paid workforce, and for the increasing numbers of those who are between jobs, BI makes a lot of sense. In New Zealand, for example, many people would like to take part in seasonal work in the economic growth areas of horticulture and hospitality. Equally, employers would like to be able to attract those workers. But this country s targeted system of welfare assistance and punitive stand-down periods either encourage people to remain on benefits or to cling to jobs in which they have become stale. By contrast, BI ought to appeal to employers in the new environment because it will encourage labour market  flexibility . However, it would be a flexibility in which workers (not employers) would choose which work to go to, at which times and in which places.

Under this system, people would continue to be motivated to work for more pay, as BI allows one to earn freely on top of the basic grant or tax credit. But when basic needs are satisfied, more people will have the freedom to pursue other interests or to add to the social stock of knowledge and art. Even more appealingly, it will reward the carrying out of a great deal of socially necessary work that is currently unpaid because it is deemed to be "voluntary" and therefore too precious to give a monetary value to!

These ideas have been debated and put forward over the last two centuries by some astute and creative people who have not been afraid to think outside the square of conventional political economy. BI draws inspiration from the work of Tom Paine, Bill Jordan, Claus Offe, Hermione Parker, Philippe Van Parijs, Guy Standing, Tony Atkinson, John Keane, David Purdy, James Meade and Sally Lerner (I can provide a reading list to anyone who wants one). Some of these advocates have visited New Zealand and there has been a fluctuating level of support for the proposal in this country over the last fifteen years or so. Keith Rankin, a freelance political commentator and 'portfolio worker' himself, has drafted detailed programmes of 'universal basic income' suitable for the New Zealand context. Ian Ritchie, a former Public Service Association organizer and longtime social activist, has been a stalwart in the intermittent work of Universal Basic Income New Zealand. My own interest was sparked initially by Les Gilchrist, a retired Post Office engineer and mature student in the social sciences, who insisted that we jointly write a submission to the Royal Commission on Social Policy in 1987. As for myself, the greater the pressure that the university system is place under, the more the concept of BI looks like a brilliant idea.

Notes from the road

I went to North America expecting to create new networks, find out about new programmes and contribute to the debate. I did make some discoveries but found New Zealand has much to offer to the debate on the future of work. This strengthened my resolve to develop the unique role of New Zealand's WORK & AGE Trust.

The Work & Age Trust's mission is to stimulate a change in understanding of contemporary work and age issues through public education, networking and advocacy. During my travels I learnt that this mission has applicability to more than the New Zealand context. I'll write more about this in the next issue.

Meantime, here are some observations from my trip -

• The most overwhelming sight was of the homeless 'for me this was stronger than the smoking twin towers. In the major cities of the country often sited as the world's most desirable place to live, the street people, the 'pan handling' , is unbelievable. That there seems to be wide public acceptance that many sleep on the streets of choice is an outrage.

• In Vancouver's east side the hopelessness in the faces of drug affected people and the mental health consumers is just overwhelming. That this could be a future for us is very motivating to try and effect change. Simplistic solutions abound from the "haves". For example, all the shops and cafes have "help wanted signs" - "why don' t they get a job?" they say. A young student in Toronto told me it costs around $2500 - 3000 for a bond and utilities connections to get into a flat. This makes the casual, minimum wage job not a solution at all.

• The basic human need of "involvement" in community is missing for many Canadians.

• 9/11 was a memorable day to be in Manhattan of course, but it was the days after that led me to think about the important of "confidence" to a culture and therefore in an economically driven world to every day life. This was demonstrated in the faces and body language of New Yorkers in the days following. The paradox of people trudging along the streets heads down when they had bowled you over the day before, and the questioning of "why us?" , express the naivety of a city often described as the world' s most sophisticated.

• Then there was President Bush strongly encouraging people to get back to work. Was there a real questioning of the "work ethic" beginning? Why do we go to our jobs when there are so many more important things in our short lives? This was alongside an overwhelming desire of New Yorkers, and many other Americans to volunteer, to do something to help, to become involved.

• While crossing the border between US and Canada on a train, two young UK men who worked as "temp pharmacists" were given a complete going over. They were suspected of being terrorists almost entirely because of their job status. I wanted to lecture the Canadian border people on the fact that over 50% of the UK workforce works in non-standard ways. That young people who work to live rather than live to work must be suspect, shows that the system needs to be challenged to adapt to how people are now choosing to live their lives.

• A more sobering reflection was that where I expected to find "soul mates" or at least a beginning of the debate, I found almost no discussion. The CIVICUS World Assembly, for example, with its great statements on "citizen participation", putting people at the centre, and Voluntary Action Shaping Social and Economic Change, only really highlighted the differing goals of east and west.

Now is the time to lift our game. The just announced PACE (Pathways to Arts and Cultural Employment) programme is just another small step in the major task of re-defining work in the 21^st century, in recognising a positive activity engaged by many New Zealanders, art, as real work. There is a long way to go& but there is hope.

Watch this space.

Collaboration Centres

Creating new workplaces as well as new businesses.

 A Collaboration Centre is a physical, spiritual and virtual home for organisations committed to making a difference in the world. 

At one level nothing more than a serviced office, a Collaboration Centre can be both a model for the workplace of the future and a new business incubator.

There are three levels of engagement with a Collaboration Centre. Partners physically occupy space and are part of the management of the centre. Partners share administrative infrastructure, information technology and ways of operating.

Their aim is to operate their particular organisation seamlessly within the Collaboration Centre. Colleagues use the centre itinerantly as a physical, fax or electronic address (Partners in a centre in one city may well be colleagues of a centre in another city). They are spiritually aligned with the values of the centre and incur interaction fees for their use of centre facilities.

Visitors pay a fee to use agreed resources of the Centre on a rental basis (for example they may hire group computer facilities within the conference rooms).

Collaboration Centres grew out of the observation that there were a large number of very powerful organisations in Australia, each of which had its own history and constituency, both of which tended to require the organisation to operate alone, or within what was at best a haphazard network. The creation of Collaboration Centres is an attempt to strengthen these networks and enhance the professionalism and potential influence of these organisations.

The Centres are evolving new ways of working, and hence providing new workplaces for their employees (both paid and unpaid employees since many Centre Partners are largely volunteer organisations).

They are also creating new businesses as synergies are explored and new ideas generated. Similarly they are challenging those who are suppliers to Centre Partners to change the way their products and services are supplied to meet the needs of a new and innovative organisation.

Although in their infancy, Collaboration Centres are one important way in which the Future of Work Foundation is seeking to live its mission of "engaging all Australians in creating a better future for work".

From Charles Brass - President of Melbourne based Future of Work Foundation Web address : www.fowf.com.au

____________________________

Life & work in 2001

I left my last conventional paid job  that of a primary school teacher  in 1985. Then I had seven rewarding years working for Broadsheet magazine and, during the later stages, Auckland WEA as a tutor organiser. Both positions involved also working in a voluntary capacity in the organisation. Since I left Auckland in 1992 I have cobbled together a living doing a range of things from teaching women s studies to working with non-profit organisations on their structures and processes, supervising and coaching managers in several fields, and, latterly, Human Resources policy and management training.

My present income is derived from several of the above sources, and coordination of the Work & Age Trust s flexible employment project, funded by a modest grant from the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust.

This way of working suits me. I travel to Christchurch regularly, where my major work contracts are still based, although I have not lived there for two and a half years. The bonus in this for me is that I regularly see two Christchurch families with young children who are very important in my life.

I also like to work independently, to not have to  do time at a desk in an office, to have a lot of control of my working life and to be able to make opportunities for writing. My most recent book, Workwise: A New Zealand guide to managing workplace relationships, was published in October this year by Canterbury University Press. I also write poetry, have a completed novel manuscript that may be published next year and have another idea for a novel.

So I am in the fortunate position of having a home office in a wonderful house by the beach which I share with my partner and almost complete freedom to decide what I will do on any given day  with the caveat that all of my paid work involves deadlines! I take some pride in making deadlines on time.

I earn a modest living; less each year than some achieve in superannuation after thirty years or more in a professional job. However, I have been in a position to make choices about how I work and what level of income I achieve  many people live on low incomes because they have no choice about that.

I joined the Nework Centre because of its base in the city and the opportunity to meet with other people who cobble together a living. Sometimes this way of working gets lonely but on the whole that is not a problem for me. Nonetheless, I welcome the opportunity to go to Nework Centre lunches occasionally and meet others working a similar way. And I am now very used to living with uncertainty of income, a factor of life that became easier to deal with when I was no longer supporting children or paying a mortgage.

I have strong opinions and beliefs about the economic/ social/ political aspects of life and engage with these in my writing and my work  lesbian, feminist, left-wing, pakeha  I never have to deny these. I have limited my range of potential paid work contracts to the non-profit and government service areas  as in education, health, etc  and am pleased to have made that decision early in my career as a self-employed person. It has not been a decision based on fear of prejudice but on the fact that the focus of my work has been increasingly on how to create well-functioning organisations and assist people to work productively in them; I do not want to assist organisations or people to be better at exploiting others.

There are times, as I approach 60, that I wonder whether a more cautious and conventional approach to earning a living would have been wiser. However, these moments are fleeting.

I have five more years where I need to earn a living, even more if governments further delay the age of qualification for superannuation. I don t plan to ever  retire ; much of my work, particularly writing in various forms, is an integral part of my life and I certainly will not retire from life.

The  this and that approach  referred to by many as portfolio working  suits me. It would not suit everyone, but I would like to see it accepted as a legitimate way of working for those of us who for whom the identity  consultant is not accurate in terms of either self perception or level of income. The objectives and activities of both the Work & Age Trust and the Nework Centre are contributing to a wider view of work and its place in life.

BOOK REVIEW

(2001) Christchurch: Canterbury University Press

This newly released New Zealand book is a  basket of offerings on management. It s highly readable common sense approach with plenty of real life examples, makes it available to anyone in the workforce who wants their organisation and the relationships within it to work better.

The book explains five basic principles and procedures for effective management, whether your organisation be a small community group or a large business. It provides ideas about effective management of workplace relationships, working in teams and collectives and techniques for self survival.

A good read, not only for managers, but others wanting to improve their place of work.

_________________________________

LOOKING FOR STORIES

The WORK & AGE Trust is carrying out a research project on 'Flexible Employment' under the auspices of the EEO Fund administered by the Department of Labour. The Trust is looking to interview both employers and employees to highlight working examples of flexibility. The examples will be promoted on our website.

© 2003 The Nework Centre   |   email neworknz@yahoo.co.nz

Top of the page