The Student Room Group

Brits think they would be better of without bosses

There is still hope.

https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results#/survey/42394b90-f81d-11e6-be7f-f68fc8817848/question/8da464c0-f81d-11e6-8f53-9abb5416ed7a/toplines

1. A Swedish software company employing 40 people has been working for three years now without a CEO (an overall boss). The company holds four-day meetings for all staff two to three times a year where key decisions are made based on an agreement through discussion. Which comes closer to your view:

54% answer this is a better way to run a business and

only 12% thought it was a worse way to run a business

Socialism is common sense people.
(edited 7 years ago)
This doesn't surprise me at all and is a very encouraging development for the potential of economic freedom he working classes.
Reply 2
Knowing the average lazy and uneducated (non-middle class) British worker (have you ever read the productivity stats for the UK?) this would be a good way to bankrupt a company in record time.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Ferrus
Knowing the average lazy and uneducated (non-middle class) British worker (have you ever read the productivity stats for the UK?) this would be a good way to bankrupt a company in record time.


Having worked with the British working class in warehouses they work extremely hard and are totally exploited.
(edited 7 years ago)
I am working class, have been working in healthcare since I was 18. Most of healthcare workers are (or have come from) working class backgrounds. Depending on which field (in my case dementia care/Huntington's/mental health) it is poorly paid work and VERY hard. I've very rarely met lazy people in my work.

In reply to the OP, I agree that socialism is the way forward.
I feel like there's always going to be some bias here - if you've got a boss who isn't all that good or at least in your eyes isn't then of course you'd think you'll be better off without them.
However, there's always going to be tasks that your boss does behind the scenes; maybe they don't seem to do an awful lot of work from your POV but actually do a lot that you don't really notice.
While some workers would be just as productive without a boss (and may actually increase their performance), some certainly won't. It all depends on self-discipline & how much motivation you have. This varies per person - I've worked with people who need almost constant prompting to do their work and will only do the bare minimum they can get away with; others will get it done regardless due to their self-discipline & may even pick up some of the other work that gets missed.

Original post by KittyAnneR
I am working class, have been working in healthcare since I was 18. Most of healthcare workers are (or have come from) working class backgrounds. Depending on which field (in my case dementia care/Huntington's/mental health) it is poorly paid work and VERY hard. I've very rarely met lazy people in my work.

In reply to the OP, I agree that socialism is the way forward.


While I disagree with your solution, I have a lot of respect for people like you. I personally would struggle to think of too many industries I'd less like to work in than healthcare. It always sound likes long hours, relatively low pay and generally having to deal with individuals who are unfortunately no longer in their best frame of mind due to ill health.
Agree with Ferrus. There are far to many piss takers about to not have bosses. Half the people at my work don't turn up if they know the bosses won't be in and those that come in slack off.

Let's face it, few people like work especially menial work. People will do less of it if they know they can get away with it.
(edited 7 years ago)
It can work if the company is full of hard working respectable people who all have the right attitudes and aptitudes.

unfortunately a lot of time many people do not have the right aptitudes or skills to contribute to the running of a business.

Also a lot of people put in the work they need to. If they have a Boss that will be strict or not take crap sure They will work hard but once they can get away with slacking they will.

I wont say this applies to every individual or every business obviously however It will be the case a lot of the time.

Socialism is a bad idea because we want to encourage hard work if we all get equal outcome the standard of effort will drop.
Original post by Sternumator
Agree with Ferrus. There are far to many piss takers about to not have bosses. Half the people at my work don't turn up if they know the bosses won't be in and those that come in slack off.

Let's face it, few people like work especially menial work. People will do less of it if they know they can get away with it.


Lets take a quick look at the incentives here.

Under our current system, I turn up for work early, I leave late, I work through my lunch hour, I give my all to my job and at the end of the month I get paid exactly the same as if I just turned up and dossed about for 7 hours. Other than the threat of losing my job (for which I only have to do the bare minimum) there is no incentive for me to increase performance because if I do the only person that benefits is the person who owns the company.

In a socialist system, where workers directly own the means of production, whenever I work harder and the business does better I make more money. If the company continues to grow my colleagues and I can hire more workers and we can make the same amount with less personal time investment.

If you want people to act in a certain wayyou need to incentivize them to do so, unfortunately, ism and the State apparatus that supports it engineer a **** tonne of perverse incentives like the one we have examined here.
Original post by mojojojo101
Lets take a quick look at the incentives here.

Under our current system, I turn up for work early, I leave late, I work through my lunch hour, I give my all to my job and at the end of the month I get paid exactly the same as if I just turned up and dossed about for 7 hours. Other than the threat of losing my job (for which I only have to do the bare minimum) there is no incentive for me to increase performance because if I do the only person that benefits is the person who owns the company.

In a socialist system, where workers directly own the means of production, whenever I work harder and the business does better I make more money. If the company continues to grow my colleagues and I can hire more workers and we can make the same amount with less personal time investment.

If you want people to act in a certain wayyou need to incentivize them to do so, unfortunately, ism and the State apparatus that supports it engineer a **** tonne of perverse incentives like the one we have examined here.


I agree that incentives need to be there. In an ideal world people would be paid directly in proportion to their productivity but for most jobs it is difficult to monitor.

The trouble with worker ownership is you still have a freeloader problem. If I work for a company with more than a handful of employees, my effort is going to have a negligible effect on the profitability of the business. If I'm a self stacker at tesco, I can work like crazy, it is not going to increase my pay packet because it's split with too many people. It can only really work for people who can make an impact on the performance of the business as a whole. That's why senior executives have their pay structured in this way.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
There is still hope.

https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results#/survey/42394b90-f81d-11e6-be7f-f68fc8817848/question/8da464c0-f81d-11e6-8f53-9abb5416ed7a/toplines

1. A Swedish software company employing 40 people has been working for three years now without a CEO (an overall boss). The company holds four-day meetings for all staff two to three times a year where key decisions are made based on an agreement through discussion. Which comes closer to your view:

54% answer this is a better way to run a business and

only 12% thought it was a worse way to run a business

Socialism is common sense people.


Original post by ChaoticButterfly
There is still hope.

https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/results#/survey/42394b90-f81d-11e6-be7f-f68fc8817848/question/8da464c0-f81d-11e6-8f53-9abb5416ed7a/toplines

1. A Swedish software company employing 40 people has been working for three years now without a CEO (an overall boss). The company holds four-day meetings for all staff two to three times a year where key decisions are made based on an agreement through discussion. Which comes closer to your view:

54% answer this is a better way to run a business and

only 12% thought it was a worse way to run a business

Socialism is common sense people.


Me is dumb working class prole! Must need Ceo to take 20% of my wages and look down at me. TV told me this is the only way!

Quick Reply

Latest