Lyons, Roger. Now We Can Build Jerusalem. Londres: New Statesman; Vol.12, Art.579, Pg.R14;

Lyons, Roger. Now we can build Jerusalem. Londres: New Statesman; vol.12, art.579, pg.R14; 1 de novembro de 1999.

Now we can build Jerusalem New Statesman; London; Nov 1, 1999; Roger Lyons;

Abstract: A "satanic mill," where employees are forced to work long hours in high-stress situations, or a "Jerusalem," where employees are valued and empowered, are the choices to make in the new world of work. With new employment rights coming on-stream, working people have the opportunity to choose and create a world of work fit for the 21st century.

[Headnote] We must make a-choice about the new world of work, argues Roger Lyons

For the majority of people in Britain not directly involved in the development ofe-commerce, their workplace in the 21 st century will be much the same as it is now. Whether it will be a better or worse place to work will depend on the choices they make collectively. For many, it could be a futuristic "satanic mill", where employees are forced to work long hours in high-stress situations; where they are kept under close electronic surveillance and control; where their employment is insecure and casual, their pay low and their skills never enhanced. The alternative could be "Jerusalem", the family-friendly workplace where employees are valued and empowered; where their work and personal lives are balanced and their skills are enhanced through investment in lifelong learning. A company where their job security and conditions of employment are protected through a partnership between their employer and their union, whether in a traditional workplace, at home or on the road. I say it could be either, because I believe that working people have the power to make a collective choice about the future of work. More so now than they have had in the past 20 years. There are already examples of both of the above workplaces already-in existence. For enlightened employers and organised workers, mutual rewards are already being reaped from forming partnerships. In return for involvement in business decisions and the development oftheir own jobs, employees are working flexibly and adding value to their company. Managers in partnership-based companies are not troubled by the European Working Time Directive restricting weekly hours to 48. They realise that long hours cause stress, and stress costs money. The idea of allowing employees to fit work around family responsibilities is recognised as a gateway to greater productivity, not a burden to business. For these good employers, investment in training and non-vocational education is not seen as a waste of money, but a part of their duty as major stakeholders in society. The employees in these new-age companies - and they exist - take fewer days off sick, achieve more and are more creative in their approach to work. Sadly the opposite side of industrial relations is developing in a very sinister way. Bad employers - and there are many voice their disapproval of any social development that involves effort on their part. They attack the Working Time Directive, saying that keeping records is a burden. They disapprove of parental leave, as they believe that employees will use the right for time off for family emergencies to skive off. These bad employers claim that all forms of regulation are bad because of additional administration. Ironically, it is these very employers who are now going to extraordinary lengths, using new technology in a paradoxically 19th-century manner, td monitor and intimidate their staff in a crude attempt to improve quality and productivity. My union, MSF, commissioned a study of workplace surveillance earlier this year, and the report The Wired Workhouse revealed some disturbing trends in workplaces in every sector of industry. In the UK, employers can tap phones, read e-mail and monitor computer screens. They can bug conversations, analyse computer and keyboard work, peer through CCTV cameras, use tracking technology to monitor personal movements and demand the disclosure of intimate personal information. Bad employers justify their action on the grounds of health and safety, customer relations or legal obligation. The real purpose of most surveillance, however, is for performance monitoring or outright discrimination. Call centres are the biggest growth areas of employment in Britain, and it is here that the good/bad employers' comparison is most easily made. Some ofthe best employers that MSF does business with run call centres where we have comprehensive agreements covering pay, health and safety, surveillance and training. There are a number that fit neatly into the "Jerusalem" model already. Call-centre workers in non-union companies suffer the most from surveillance. It is often a condition of their employment that their phone and keyboard activity is monitored. The numbers of keystrokes per hour is measured, as is the time the computer is idle during the day. Computer analysis of phone conversations tracks correct language usage and even the tone of voice used by the operative. The workers' knowledge that this is happening makes stress worse. They are continually compared to their fellow workers and pressured with threats of dismissal. Add to this low pay, unrealistic targets, an unsuitable and often uncomfortable working environment and little or no training, and it is no surprise that these call centres have a very high turnover of staff. Most working people had to get used to taking whatever work they could under the Tories. But now, with new employment rights coming on-stream, working people have the opportunity to choose and create a world of work fit for the 2 1 st century. They should join trade unions and help build "Jerusalem" for us all. [Author note] Roger Lyons is general secretary, MSF union Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.