Media and Ruling Class Undermine Social Values by Labelling Valid Demands as Extreme

Ever wonder why the media will report a few protesters breaking windows or fighting police when a hundred times as many register their protest peacefully? Naturally, like much media focus, it distracts from the purpose of the protest, but new research shows how support for a popular cause can be cut by labeling it as “radical” or “extreme”. Thomas Nelson, co-author of the study and associate professor of political science at Ohio State University, said that is why calling political opponents extremists is so effective, and popular as a political tactic. he added:

The beauty of using this “extremism” tactic is that you don’t have to attack a popular value that you know most people support. You just have to say that its supporters are going too far or are too extreme.

And people fall for it because we mostly consider ourselves civilized, and not at all extreme, and so tend to divorce ourselves from the extreme cause or group, even though we might actually prefer it given a fair chance. Thus people supported a gender equality policy when other supporters were not mentioned, but when the proposers of the same policy were described as “radical feminists”, participants in the study supported the policy much less.

Experiments in Evidence

1. 233 undergraduate students were asked to read and comment on an essay that they were told appeared on a blog. The blog entry discussed the controversy concerning the Augusta National Golf Club’s “men only” membership policy. This policy caused a controversy in 2003 before the club hosted the Masters Tournament. Participants read one of three versions of an essay which argued that the PGA Tour should move the Masters Tournament if the club refused to change this policy:

1. One group read that the proposal to move the tournament was led by “people” or “citizens”.
2. Another group read that the proposal was led by “feminists”.
3. The third group read that the proposal was led by “radical feminists”, “militant feminists”, and “extremists”.

Additional language reinforced the extremist portrayals by describing extreme positions that the groups allegedly held on other issues, such as getting rid of separate locker room and restroom facilities for men and women.

Participants were then asked to rate how much they supported Augusta changing its membership rules to allow women members, whether they supported the Masters tournament changing its location, and whether, if they were a member, they would vote to support female membership at the club.

The findings showed that participants were more supportive of the golf club and its rules banning women, less likely to support moving the tournament, and less likely to support female membership, when the proposal to move the tournament was described in language redolent of extremism and radical feminism. Nelson explained:

All three groups in the study read the exact same policy proposals. But those who read that the policy was supported by “radical feminists” were significantly less likely to support it than those who read it was supported by “feminists” or just “citizens”.

By associating a policy with unpopular groups, opponents are able to get people to lose some respect for the value it represents, like feminism or environmentalism.

2. In another experiment, 116 participants read the same blog entry used in the previous experiment. Again, the blog entry supported proposals to allow women to join the golf club. One version simply attributed the proposal to citizens, while the other two attributed them to feminists or radical feminists.

Next, the subjects ranked four values in order of their importance as they thought about the issue of allowing women to join the club:

1. upholding the honor and prestige of the Masters golf tournament
2. freedom of private groups to set up their own rules
3. equal opportunities for both men and women
4. maintaining high standards of service for members of private clubs.

How people felt about the relative importance of these values depended on what version of the essay they read:

1. Of those participants who read the proposal attributed simply to citizens, 42 percent rated equality above the other three values. But only 32 percent who read the same proposal attributed to extremists thought equality was the top value.
2. On the other hand, 41 percent rated group freedom as the top value when they read the proposal attributed to citizens. But 52 percent gave freedom the top ranking when they read the proposal attributed to extremists.

Observations and Conclusions

Nelson commented:

Tying the proposal to feminist extremists directly affected the relative priority people put on gender equality v group freedom, which in turn affected how they felt about this specific policy. Perhaps thinking about some of the radical groups that support gender equality made some people lose respect for that value in this case.

This tactic of attacking a policy by tying it to supposedly extremist supporters goes on all the time in politics. Opponents of President Obama’s health care reform initiative attacked the policy by calling Obama a “socialist” and comparing the president to Adolf Hitler. Nelson explained:

These tactics can work when people are faced with competing values and are unsure what their priorities should be.

Environmental values, for example, may sometimes conflict with economic values if clean air or clean water laws make it more difficult for companies to earn a profit.

If you want to fight against a proposed environmental law, you can’t publicly say you’re against protecting the environment, because that puts you in the position of fighting a popular value. So instead, you say that proponents of the proposed law are going to extremes, and are taking the value too far.

The problem with this tactic for society is that it damages support of the underlying values, as well as the specific policy. Nelson:

If you use this extremism language, it can make people place less of a priority on the underlying value. People may become less likely to think environmentalism or gender equality are important values.

Maybe that is why supporters of the Republican Party in the USA seem to be utterly immoral and obnoxious in general, although large numbers of them profess Christianity. As their bibles say, if they ever got round to reading them, you cannot serve God and Mammon. They serve Mammon, and so their Christian values, if they had them in the first place, evaporate.

When the media run down anyone whose policies seem fair and right, remember these studies. Even civilized people might have to protest violently to stop the propagation of obnoxious and selfish ones by the 1% and their media and academic lackeys. So look carefully at what extremists are extreme about. You might agree with them.

GBS—The History of the English Parliament—and the American Congress?

What is the historical function of Parliament in this country? It is to prevent the Government from governing. It has never had any other purpose. If you study the constitutional history of this country, you will see that Parliament has grown up out of the old struggle against tyranny.

The Englishman, being a born Anarchist, always calls government tyranny. The result of that generally is that the Government does become a tyranny, because its subjects cannot interfere intelligently with it—they can only riot and get their heads broken.

Parliament was not in the first place an English institution. It was introduced into this country by a Frenchman named Simon de Montfort, whose father was concerned with the Parliament of Toulouse in France. Its object was to resist and disable the King. Its use—the only use it has ever had—was to ventilate grievances, to give the people it represented an opportunity of complaining of how they were being made uncomfortable.

But it never forgot its object of delaying, defeating, and if possible destroying whatever power happened to be governing the country at the time, whether it was the king, the Church, the barons, or the Cromwellian Majors-General. Bit by bit it broke the feudal monarchy, it broke the Church, and finally it even broke the country gentlemen.

Then, having broken everything that could govern the country, it left us at the mercy of our private commercial capitalists and landowners. Since then we have been governed from outside Parliament, first by our own employers, and of late by the financiers of all nations and races.

G B Shaw, In Praise of Guy Fawkes (1932)

Who Would Want to be a Teacher in Walker’s Wisconsin?

Craig A Olson, a University of Illinois professor of labor and employment relations, and an expert in employment relations and labor economics, shows the salaries of Wisconsin teachers have fallen behind changes in the cost of living as well as wage growth in the private sector over the last 16 years.

By comparing public data from 1995 to 2009 of the earnings of an average college graduate employed in the private sector in the US versus the earnings of an average college educated teacher in Wisconsin, after accounting for inflation, and not counting fringe benefits, Olsen found:

1. in Wisconsin, the average teacher’s salary declined by 10 percent,
2. the average private sector college graduate’s weekly earnings increased by 10 percent.

In 1995, the average college educated private sector worker in the US earned 17 percent more than a Wisconsin teacher, in 2009, this gap had increased to 36 percent. Olson commented:

Not only did Wisconsin teachers not keep up with inflation, their earning power also fell behind their private sector counterparts.

Many teachers accept that they have some security of employment compared with many in private industry, and have school holidays—though they seem a much better perk than they are because the have to spend more time preparing for the academic semester than many onlookers think. So they are content not to be paid the same salary as their fellow graduates in the sometimes riskier private sector, but this work shows that their wages are getting progressively worse, with no added benefits to compensate for the decline.

Governor Walker argued that Wisconsin public employees should be required to pay higher premium co-payments to match the higher co-payments paid by employees in the private sector. In Illinois, the average inflation adjusted premium for a family health insurance policy for Illinois teachers increased from $5,758 to $10,905 from 1993 to 2008. Health insurance premium costs for the private sector also have risen sharply during that time, increasing from $5,742 in 1999 to $13,770 in 2010, adjusted to 2009 prices.

But typically, when premiums have gone up the most, teachers, through their local unions, accepted lower salary increases or agreed to higher teacher health insurance premiums when compared to districts that faced smaller increases in premiums. And Wisconsin teachers did protect their health benefits when premiums were rising rapidly… by accepting lower wage increases.

Olson thinks that Walker’s budget bill will have ill considered consequences. While these changes will save Wisconsin school districts some money in the short term, he thinks it will have an adverse impact on the quality of the state’s teacher workforce:

My rough calculations of the changes in employee pension and health benefit contributions required under the proposal suggest the changes will cost the average Wisconsin teacher about $5,000 in total compensation. This reduction in total compensation is equal to about 10 percent of the salary for an average Wisconsin teacher. Since salary increases under the bill are limited without a voter referendum to changes in the cost of living, teachers will have great difficulty negotiating higher pay to offset these higher contributions. Obviously, it will make it more difficult for Wisconsin to attract high quality young adults into teaching. What parent in Wisconsin would encourage their child to become a teacher given the trends of the last 16 years and Governor Walker’s proposal?

The cause of the Walker attack is supposedly the deficit. And whose deficit is it? Clinton had a virtually balanced budget, but the aim of Republicans is to stiff the poor to give the rich more wealth. Theft from the poor is the source of the deficit, most obviously the manufacture and sale of junk bonds and the accompanying accumulation of banking bonuses in the so-called banking crisis. Banks now are back to their old tricks, and so Joe and Jane Public are forever coughing up their hard earned moolah for the benefit of the already sickeningly rich. Hillary Clinton tells us the US is losing the information war. Without proper education, the country will nosedive into the trough. The pigs at the top already have already had their nose in it for the last thirty years. If many Arabs, every American’s favorite bogeymen of the hour, can evict their corrupt leaders, maybe it is time smart Americans did.

Managers Make Staff Work Harder with Less Reward

Unless you are a banker, one might add!

King’s College London and law firm Speechly Bircham have surveyed 550 senior personnel of firms, with a combined workforce size of more than two million, to discover the state of human resources in the UK. It highlights the problems faced by employers, as they struggle to find ways to address gender pay inequality. They are unprepared for forthcoming changes to the retirement age, and are facing greater workplace unrest as austerity measures, longer working hours, stress and a skills shortage take their toll on the workforce. Richard Martin, Partner and Head of Employment at Speechly Bircham, said:

This sends a clear warning to employers. The combination of increased workplace conflict, longer hours and rising stress levels is a potent cocktail that could lead to a significant rise in tribunals and industrial action, if not properly addressed.

Despite our last survey showing that UK employers regarded employee engagement as their number one priority, reported levels of employee engagement have fallen. Skills shortages are worsening and the rigid cap on immigration means that employers are left with few tools with which to plug the skills gap. Only a small percentage of businesses have any measures in place to deal with pay inequality despite the Equality Act looming.

Perhaps most worrying is what can be read between the lines of the survey about employee wellbeing and engagement. At a time when employers should be focusing on re-engaging with staff and repairing the damage caused by the recession, staff are instead being made to work ever harder, without reward. An economic recovery built on working reduced workforces harder and harder is clearly not sustainable and could lead to major problems for employers—particularly in the public sector.

The gist of the report is:

• More than 50 per cent of firms reported an increase in working hours, while pay rises and bonuses are being withheld. Longer working hours correlated with increased absence, sickness, stress-related problems, and more grievances. Increasing working hours causes workplace unrest and higher staff turnover.
  
• 42 per cent of respondents employing non-EU workers reported that the immigration cap is affecting their business adversely. One in three businesses have an bigger skills shortage compared to last year when it was 22 per cent. Where there are skills shortages, staff turnover is increasing and more working days are being lost through sickness and absence.
• Deteriorating employee relations, high stress levels and workforce disputes appear endemic, particularly in relation to bullying, harassment and relationships with line managers.
• 46 per cent of respondents said that stress-related problems have gone up, while 30 per cent had seen grievances increase over the past year. Organisations that noted higher levels of stress showed a direct correlation with higher levels of sickness absence.
• In 2011, 40 per cent of respondents expect worse employee relations, 42 per cent expect higher stress levels and 29 per cent see rises in employee grievances.
• Most firms say they have equality of pay but admit they do not have any ways to check it. 84 per cent claimed no material gender pay inequality, but only a third had any means to monitor gender equality of pay.
• Most businesses are unprepared for the scrapping by law of the compulsory retirement age from April 2011. 78 per cent of respondents still had a retirement age of 65, and another 5 per cent had some other compulsory retirement age. Only a third of organisations thought it was an issue.
• Downsizing of workforces remains largely unchanged and flexible working continues to increase. 70 per cent were still having to make compulsory redundancies in 2010, hardly any improvement on the 72 per cent who downsized in 2009. Flexible working continues to be a popular workforce strategy in difficult conditions, with 36 per cent of respondents identifying an increase in the use of these arrangements.
• Macho management remains the fashion, even though poor relations with staff are the biggest source of grievance, formal grievances arising from employee relations with senior/line managers for 40 per cent of firms.
• Though job design, employee participation and procedural fairness have more impact on employment than supposedly more effective leadership and management, macho management continues to retain its appeal among management.

Stuart Woollard, Managing Director of King’s HRM Learning Board and co-author of the survey report, says the survey…

…should worry all business leaders and HR directors as the results question the sustainability of current strategies to keep workforces performing at the required level. Organisations must carefully consider the likelihood of erosion in employee productivity, work quality and performance as a consequence of lean workforces and additional working hours. With an apparent leadership/management disconnect with staff, firms may also not realise the nature and extent of the problems ahead.

Organisations that are able to understand and alleviate employee anxieties and provide effective ways to counter the impact of high pressure work environments will ensure that they retain more engaged and productive workers, making a route through the economic uncertainties far clearer. There is evidence in our survey that those firms who are able to implement effective HR strategies that drive higher levels of engagement may find that these initiatives will differentiate them in terms of organisational performance.

Anyone looking on with a critical eye cannot fail to wonder why bankers need huge bonuses to motivate them to work, but people doing something useful, making things we need in a factory, or distributing them, whether laborers or skilled technicians, need to be threatened and bullied according to the continuing fashion for macho management. The macho managers haven’t the wit to realize that cutting and cutting staff levels, and forcing people to do more for less, while refusing to train the staff in the skills they, and we, need is destroying our potential for surviving. Moreover, the more people have to work and the less they have to spend and the less leisure time in which to spend it, the less will be bought. It forces us into depression. In short, our governments and the management they represent could hardly do worse.