Seeking Answers to My Questions

I feel I don't understand very well why someone cannot volunteer for a role in an industry or position of their choice. I will continue to try new techniques, ask questions, and hopefully one day in my life I will understand.

Hello P12

It is obnoxious behaviour, which I find abhorrent, when people are bullied, belittled, abused or experience any other form of ill-treatment. I am disappointed that you have suffered the indignity of being treated in the way that you have described. Though there has been much progress during my work-life, there are still people who think that they have such elevation that they can put others 'down'. Indeed, those who attempt to elevate themselves by demeaning others, show how little they really think of themselves, that they are reduced to using such tactics. Unfortunately, there are also still remnants of such thinking in some management areas, so I can understand the response that you received when you reported the incident. I can only hope that that type of thinking is dying out.

What I was pleased to read about, in your response, was your description of the bush-walks that you lead and the freedom that you have to, presumably, match the duration, difficulty and type to the people to whom you are offering these opportunities.

Yes I am up at some strange times, though while I could be in another country, I live in Western Australia. Sometimes, one might think it is another country, the way that things have been unfolding. So I was writing at about 1:20 am. Living on my own means that I don't disturb anyone else with any of my activities in my home.

My concern at this stage is that, as you say:

“I feel I don't understand very well why someone cannot volunteer for a role in an industry or position of their choice.”

I do believe, that it will only be by understanding the reasons for the difficulty in finding positions that would be available to work as a volunteer, that you will be able to find a way around, through or over that barrier. I also think that as a volunteer, you may find your work conditions very much restricted, since it is likely that you would be offered only the most pedestrian of roles and activities.

I do like your last statement, that while you may not understand the reasons, you will

“continue to try new techniques, ask questions, and hopefully, one day in my life I will........” find the position that suits me best, as a volunteer or paid employee.

That last sentence I have finished off in the way that I hope you might be thinking. To that end, (maybe not end, but rather stage), I would be pleased to discuss any suggestions or proposals that may help you achieve your desired goals.

With My Very Best Wishes

HenryX

Thank you again, @HenryX .

I am inspired by your ideas because they suggest you have a strong understanding of how societies truly operate and this is something in which I am poor. I will practise:

1. Having the ability to understand the economic and social structure of a community so one can position themself in a role where they can earn a basic wage to sustain themself while simultaneously providing themself with opportunities to pursue their goals.

2. Having the ability to persist with my goals using the opportunities provided by myself irrespective of the criticism and exclusion provided by other people.

3. Having the ability to (ethically) work secretly on one's interests and values while seemingly engaged in another role.

4. Having an appreciation of those who persist in practicing values that are seemingly unwanted by society. The best example that comes to mind is religion, but in my experience it also includes science, charity, lifestyle, and all other aspects of the human condition.

A short while ago, I witnessed a homeless person blatently breaking a law while a police officer walked past without saying anything. This made me realise that some, if not all, laws may be notionally only and not truly written for the wellbeing of a government's citizens. I've always believed lawful people don't require laws to live by, for they know how to survive in nature without being told what to do. What is the basis for the having laws that have these strange features?

However, many businesses do enforce rules against their employees. For example, it is supposedly common sense that employees may not discuss business practices with someone from another business, as this will break competitive advantage that one organisation may have over another. But, at the same time, businesses work in only small subsets of practice, and staff are forced to work in roles for which they are poorly suited. What is the basis for these strange practices? And how may a employee find a role more naturally suited to their talents if their employer forbids them from acting against company interest, but they are ill-suited to the role they have?

@P12

Hello P12

Thank you for your notes of the 16 Jun and this evening (30 Jun)

I noted your observations about:

1. Understanding of community in order to position oneself in a role of choice

2. Ability to persist in spite of opposition

3. Ethically work on projects, incorporating our own interests and values

4. Having appreciation for those who continue to practice their lives according to worthy value systems and ideals

"

It seems to be the case that employers in general will reward commitment to the team and organisation. Where a person appears to only have regard for their own interests, they are likely to be side-lined, when a position, that may otherwise suit them, becomes available. It is unfortunately true that organisations, employers and employees, as individuals, often apply the principles of self interest to their organisation and position. A person who recognises that principle may consider themselves likely to be advanced within the structure.

"

In terms of your observation about

“employees may not discuss business practices with someone from another business, as this will break competitive advantage that one organisation may have over another.”

It is not really about the competitive advantage that one organisation may have over another. Rather it is the combined advantage of the two organisations, by virtue of any such agreement to, in effect, cause a higher price to be paid by the consumer.

“

An employee of one organisation might divulge information to another competitive organisation or company, or an actual agreement may be made between the companies. If that information or agreement was considered to be in contravention of the “Australian Competition Law”, the two companies could be liable for prosecution under that law. This legislation is designed to protect the consumer (you and me) against price fixing and other anti-competitive practices. Competition is in this manner, to the advantage of the consumer.

“

The following is copied from the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission ( ACCC) website.

https://www.accc.gov.au/business/anti-competitive-behaviour/anti-competitive-conduct

Quote: “Section 45 of the Competition and Consumer Act prohibits contracts, arrangements, understandings or concerted practices that have the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in a market, even if that conduct does not meet the stricter definitions of other anti-competitive conduct such as cartels.”

"

I like the expression that “lawful people don't require laws to live by”. That expression would be most applicable where everyone lived lawfully. Unfortunately, my feeling is that the opposite is probably true. Currently, laws are making imposition on our lives in ways that are disproportional to any advantage to the wider community. We are having discretion in how we live and our actions restricted in so many apparently petty ways.

"

It is certain that we live in an imperfect social and cultural environment. However, our communications now make it clear that there are, even in this day and age, some very significantly worse countries and states in which to live.

"

We might well have given thanks for the removal of the Berlin wall and the supposed opening of the Russian states. It was not so long ago that we perceived a new dialogue to be possible with China. Both of those aspirations are, by now, no longer evident or considered realistic.

"

I mention those issues, in part, as a reflection on the fact that our lot may not be so bad as it might otherwise be at present. Also, that some of the business structures, practices and ethics, in terms of how business is conducted, actually do provide for us a more decent standard of living than in many (possibly, most) other places in the world.

"

Unfortunately, while we may decry the so-called industrial revolution, it appears that there are countries that will suck all the developed industrial capacity from our country and others, which, in time, may be very much to our cost, in terms of GDP, and such indeterminates as defence.

"

I have only touched on basic economics, but the macro-economic picture at the present time, I would think, is being painted an artificial shade of rose. If the macro structure disintegrates, our primary concern may be where we are going to get food for ourselves, family and friends. If we only have to consider shortage of toilet rolls to be a problem, we are a long way from times of real concern. Indeed, I do believe that the runs on retail products are being orchestrated, from outside this country, in order to artificially create a sense of panic and instability. Cite also, the situation of baby milk formula for example. Fortunately, I believe, that the rather stoic nature of Australians seems not to have risen to that bait.

"

While the picture I paint may seem gloomy, I am hopeful that Australia and Australians are becoming aware that we must diversify our distribution of exports and rely less on one country or cabal for supply of our manufactured goods.

"

I am aware that this little essay is not totally devoted to individual interests, however, I do believe that our individual interests depend heavily on the commercial and economic structure of this country.

"

I would be interested in your thoughts

With Best Wishes

HenryX

@HenryX Would you be willing to explain your statement below? You say that people who only have regard for their own interests are likely to be sidelined, but that a person who recognises that principle may consider themselves likely to be advanced within the structure. These statements seem contradictory.

"It seems to be the case that employers in general will reward commitment to the team and organisation. Where a person appears to only have regard for their own interests, they are likely to be side-lined, when a position, that may otherwise suit them, becomes available. It is unfortunately true that organisations, employers and employees, as individuals, often apply the principles of self interest to their organisation and position. A person who recognises that principle may consider themselves likely to be advanced within the structure."

@P12

Hello P12

Thank you for your reply and request for clarification on the issue of self versus corporate or organisational interest.

What I am saying is that it becomes a matter of self interest for some people to commit themselves to the interests of the organisation in which they are employed or in some way occupied. I believe that applies to any organisational structure, from a business of two people or a major corporation of 100's or 1000's of people.

I believe that I have experienced some of the issues that you have described facing. I worked in a government department where I was supposed to take about 10 minutes per client (probably less). I could not see how I could service the needs of most of the clients I dealt with in that time-frame. Consequently, while the clients may have felt as though they received appropriate service, I was not meeting the organisational objective in terms of the number of clients that I saw each day. I believe, because of that and no doubt, other reasons, I was not successful in gaining promotion to positions at a higher pay level, for which I applied.

Consequently, it may be seen that it would have been in my best interests, from at least an income perspective, to have met the organisational objectives and expectations. So, in many employment situations, there is a conflict between what we see may be a personal sense of achievement and, on the other hand, meeting the organisational expectations and targets, by which other personal objectives, like improved income, prestige, security, etc., are received.

It is by meeting corporate or organisational objectives that we can improve our own position, in terms of security, income, recognition by peers and management. However, there may be times when we forgo those benefits because of our personal beliefs, expectations of ourselves and sense of service to others.

I believe that this conflict of self versus others extends into all areas of life in a community of people.

Please let me know if I have clarified my position on the statement to which you referred.

With Best Wishes

HenryX

Hello @HenryX . Are you willing to explain these sentences further?

"Rather it is the combined advantage of the two organisations, by virtue of any such agreement to, in effect, cause a higher price to be paid by the consumer .... This legislation is designed to protect the consumer (you and me) against price fixing and other anti-competitive practices. Competition is in this manner, to the advantage of the consumer."

Who provides for consumers whose demands are not met by companies and who for workers who are working in roles for which they are not suited?

@P12

Hello P12

In response to your request, that I have included as a quote below, for development of the ideas that I have previously offered:

Quote: “{"Rather, it is the combined advantage of the two organisations, by virtue of any such agreement to, in effect, cause a higher price to be paid by the consumer .... This legislation is designed to protect the consumer (you and me) against price fixing and other anti-competitive practices. Competition is, in this manner, to the advantage of the consumer."

Who provides for consumers whose demands are not met by companies and who (provides) for workers who are working in roles for which they are not suited?}”

I offer the following observations:

1. An extreme example of no competition, in a particular market, is a monopoly. A company that has a monopoly in the market can set their prices at whatever value that their consumer market will bear. Consequently, a company, that has a monopoly in the market, is most likely to set the highest price possible, that the market will accept, on its product or service. The price is likely to increase, until the demand by consumers, in that market, drops and the consumer chooses to forgo any advantage offered by their use of the product, or service, and then chooses not to purchase the product.

2. In the case where there are two or more companies supplying the same or similar products or services, each company now has to consider how low the price is, or will be set, by the other company or companies, as well as the price that the consumer market, to which they are selling, will bear, or pay for that product or service.

   This competition in the market place, effectively puts downward pressure on the prices that the consumer pays for the goods or services supplied to that consumer market. That is presented, to the market, as lower prices that the consumer pays for those products and services.

   If the prices, of products or services offered by companies, are forced too low, it is likely that one or more companies will be forced out of the production of product, or provision of service, in that market. This will, theoretically, occur when the income-price available to the producer, no longer covers the costs incurred in production and distribution of the product or service.

   {This example assumes that a company would continue to produce and provide a product or service to the point of zero profit}.

   In this case, it could mean that the product or service might become unavailable to consumers. There are legal provisions that are designed to protect companies from being forced out of a market or business in this way.

3. The laws that exist and the ACCC, are intended to maintain the competitive advantage that is in favour of the consumer. This type of information, material and knowledge is offered in economics courses in upper secondary school curricula and 101 courses at universities. The information is available through the textbooks and other sources, such as are applicable for those courses.

4. The ACCC acts on behalf of consumers to prevent companies from operating in collusion, and thereby, acting as monopolies or cartels. If you search cartel in your web browser, you will see a description very similar to that which I have given.

“

• Providing for consumers, whose demands are not met by companies?

  ---For this question I would need an example of a consumer need, demand, product or service that is not currently provided to consumers by a company or companies.

  However point 2. above, may, in part, answer that question.

• for workers who are working in roles for which they are not suited?

  ---Would you mind giving me a specific example of a situation where a person, who is currently working, but wishes to change occupation, cannot?

  In Australia, we have a free and open labour market system, as is the case in most democratic countries. No-one is told where they can or cannot work.

  However, incentives may be provided, to encourage applicants for positions that may, otherwise, not be appealing, by virtue of location, type of work involved, conditions, pay rates, etc.

  On the other hand, disincentives may be applied, where people, who are not employed and depend on public funded income, want to move to locations where they have no prospect of gaining employment.

  In some other countries, I believe, many of the working population are not given the opportunity to make such choices about the type of work, conditions or location of jobs for which they are employed. It is my belief that some people still work, in some countries, in what amount to slave like conditions.

  In Australia, job choices and selections are made by people, seeking employment in the market, based on their qualifications, location of position, conditions of employment, style of employer (private or public sector), small business or large, etc.

  In choosing work, a person places values on each of the criteria, in terms of what is more or less important to themselves. I believe, that there are no jobs that suit anyone perfectly. Because of that, we all have to make concessions, in some way, with regard to, and in terms of, our personally desired and qualification determined preferences.

“

I do wish to answer your questions appropriately, and can offer my thoughts, opinions and, or knowledge, with regard and reference to the depth and breadth of information that you offer. If the questions are general and broad in content and context, then that really defines the depth and breadth of any answer that I can offer.

“

If you have any other questions, I would be happy to offer you my thoughts, opinions or knowledge.

“

With My Best Wishes

HenryX

“

PS: I have edited the content of this post with additional ideas and information. 14 July '21

@P12

Hello P12,

The following extract is from a Wikipedia discussion on Thomas Hobbes (5 April 1588 – 4 December 1679), an English philosopher. Hobbes works are, in part, a discourse on his observations about political, commercial, and social ideas of the time. When I read the article, I was reminded of our discussion, which, while mostly specific to our present time and culture, carries some of the ideas that you and I have discussed. I hope that it will add some interest and development to our discussion.

Quote: “Beginning from a mechanistic understanding of human beings and their passions, Hobbes postulates what life would be like without government, a condition which he calls the state of nature. In that state, each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world. This, Hobbes argues, would lead to a "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes). The description contains what has been called one of the best-known passages in English philosophy, which describes the natural state humankind would be in, were it not for political community:[35]

“In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.[36]

“In such states, people fear death and lack both the things necessary to commodious living, and the hope of being able to obtain them. So, in order to avoid it, people accede to a social contract and establish a civil society. According to Hobbes, society is a population and a sovereign authority, to whom all individuals in that society cede some right[37] for the sake of protection. Power exercised by this authority cannot be resisted, because the protector's sovereign power derives from individuals' surrendering their own sovereign power for protection. The individuals are thereby the authors of all decisions made by the sovereign,[38] "he that complaineth of injury from his sovereign complaineth that whereof he himself is the author, and therefore ought not to accuse any man but himself, no nor himself of (suffering 1.) injury because to do injury to one's self is impossible". There is no doctrine of separation of powers in Hobbes's discussion.[39][40] According to Hobbes, the sovereign must control civil, military, judicial and ecclesiastical powers, even the words.”

A few thoughts for reflection and consideration

With Best Wishes

@HenryX

1.) word “suffering” added by HenryX