Page 1267 of 1274

Re: Richard Littlejohn

Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2020 7:10 am
by AOB
Is Littlejohn implying staff in a physical workplace don't slack? I've been to many a job interview that has involved walking across an office of staff to the interview room and have glanced down at their computer screens to see media websites, occasionally the Mail showbiz pages, on them. And it could be argued working from home eliminates the prolonged standing round chatting that some people are fond of, this more productivity.

Childcare can be an issue particularly for single parents of toddlers/young children, particularly. I know some who have really struggled during lockdown juggling caring for a young child whilst simultaneously working and being isolated from their support network. That aspect may change from September onwards though.

Privacy is a factor for some in their line of work. Telephone appointments for some workers in social care and the judiciary, can involve discussions with drug users and sex offenders, something a parent wouldn't want their child overhearing.

Overall though, for many, a mixture of WFH and workplace could be a good thing. I emphasise a mixture, some people who live alone might not want to spend every working day from here on in with no human interaction. It would be interesting if there was a comprehensive survey (and not just a poxy 500 respondents) undertaken say next Spring, to find out whether it has benefitted or negated peoples lives and also their mental health. It could be a morale boost for many, particularly in terms of it "breaking the week up", thus increase productivity.

Re: Richard Littlejohn

Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2020 9:38 am
by Scarlet emperor
There are so many studies that show working from home increases productivity as well as improves mental health and morale. However, it is a fairly modern phenomena so the Mailite reaction is it must be wrong. See their similar reactions to teachers during lockdown - workshy, leftie skivers putting a few worksheets online and then sitting in the garden. That's down to their ignorance of the amount of work teachers and anybody working from home is doing. Because it's not real work.

Re: Richard Littlejohn

Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2020 11:37 pm
by davidjay
The Mail line is to be against WFH not just because of the damage to shares in property companies but also because they don't like change. Change erodes their traditional values; it gives power to women, the gays, darkies, workers. It makes people think for themselves. It threatens the established order. And it moves the idea that it's not a proper job if you don't get your hands dirty even further into the past.

Re: Richard Littlejohn

Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2020 7:31 am
by youngian
Millions of self-employed are already based from home. Particularly trades people but they get out and about to do jobs to avoid social isolation and can take an apprentice with them. How do younger people learn from their mentors if they never see them? These are problems but not insoluble ones with thought and planning.

Re: Richard Littlejohn

Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2020 10:54 am
by Bones McCoy
Are we to believe that Littlejohn hops on a shuttle from Vero Beach Intl to London City twice weekly.
Then takes a cab to the Dacrebunker where he submits his copy from a dusty Remington.

Re: Richard Littlejohn

Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2020 11:10 am
by Boiler
He could post it?

Re: Richard Littlejohn

Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 10:29 am
by crabcakes_windermere
The mail are against working from home because if you work from home you don't dress in a suit and tie and waste 2 hours a day commuting to sit in a bland office where you can be bullied and harassed by people like Paul Dacre on one hand who just like the power trip, or people like Trump on the other who like to see their employees cranking out long hours for shit-all while they pop out to the golf course.

It's much harder to talk over people in zoom conferences with hot air that makes you seem important when you're just loud. It's much harder to steal people's work and ideas and pass them off as your own when you don't get to see them first. It's much harder to micromanage people to disguise your own inadequacies. It's much harder to marginalise people for who they are.

So yeah, I can see why the mail and Littlejohn hate it. Because they'd not thrive under it.

Re: Richard Littlejohn

Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 10:58 am
by youngian
An office team does need some form of real life contact as its good for morale and mental health. Sharing ideas and picking a colleague up having a bad day is however doable online.

Re: Richard Littlejohn

Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 11:03 am
by Malcolm Armsteen
crabcakes_windermere wrote:
Mon Aug 10, 2020 10:29 am
The mail are against working from home because if you work from home you don't dress in a suit and tie and waste 2 hours a day commuting to sit in a bland office where you can be bullied and harassed by people like Paul Dacre on one hand who just like the power trip, or people like Trump on the other who like to see their employees cranking out long hours for shit-all while they pop out to the golf course.

It's much harder to talk over people in zoom conferences with hot air that makes you seem important when you're just loud. It's much harder to steal people's work and ideas and pass them off as your own when you don't get to see them first. It's much harder to micromanage people to disguise your own inadequacies. It's much harder to marginalise people for who they are.

So yeah, I can see why the mail and Littlejohn hate it. Because they'd not thrive under it.
I think it's way simpler than that. Mail readers are incapable of understanding that others are different from them, and they assume that everyone skives off if unsupervised, like they would. An underdeveloped concept of self, and a very primitive level of moral decision making.

TAPS

Re: Richard Littlejohn

Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 12:30 pm
by Boiler
It occurred to me the other day that given RL's cultural references are in the 70s and 80s, has he taken the lyrics of Money For Nothing to shape his viewpoint?

Re: Richard Littlejohn

Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:11 pm
by crabcakes_windermere
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:
Mon Aug 10, 2020 11:03 am
I think it's way simpler than that. Mail readers are incapable of understanding that others are different from them, and they assume that everyone skives off if unsupervised, like they would. An underdeveloped concept of self, and a very primitive level of moral decision making.

TAPS
This is undoubtably true, but I think having people have to troop in, conform, doff the cap etc. with all the real power and deals being done by handshake in clubs and societies outside of work is all very pleasing a concept to them as well, ideally with the threat of a swift sacking should you be a troublemaker. A place for everyone and everyone knowing their place etc. A combination of endless sitcom farces where the boss comes round for tea and the hapless husband accidentally serves him prune juice instead of sherry so he gets the runs, and real-life Rowley Birkin types arranging over brandy for their witless sons to be parachuted in to managerial roles for 20 years of pinching the bums of the ladies in the typing pool between rounds of golf.

You can see why the old ways would appeal to Littlejohn. The only women are "totty", the only dark-skinned faces bring you drinks and laugh politely when you call them golliwog, and everyone would sit back and commend him on his endless wit. Instead, he's a clapped-out old has been overtaken by technology, culture and fashion who can only appeal to a dwindling pool of racist pensioners who don't see him as a witless end.

Re: Richard Littlejohn

Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:42 pm
by Andy McDandy
Yeah, hence his love of Minder and OFAH. A world where blokes sort stuff out over a pint in the snug/members only club, and the only birds are either humourless harridans or saucy bints who give as good as they get.

Funnily enough I was flicking through Nigel Farage's autobiography the other day (look, I was young and needed the money, OK?) and he bangs on at length about how he could never work in the City these days because it's all been ruined by compliance laws and red tape. Reading between the lines, he longs for the days when it was boozy lunches and fart about, before the trading firms started demanding people work.

Re: Richard Littlejohn

Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 3:03 pm
by The Red Arrow
There are tales that Turd of Turd Hall was deemed 'surplus to requirements' due to his extended boozy lunches and farting about. Quite an achievement in those boozy, farty times. Still, the City's loss was the nation's gain, eh, kids?

Re: Richard Littlejohn

Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 6:05 pm
by mr angry manchester
It was a bit like that in insurance when I started working in it when I left school in 1978. Every Friday afternoon we would all go to the George and Dragon and come back at about 3 in the afternoon a bit pissed.

It was a laugh admittedly :D

One thing I struggle with us the fact that you could piss about under Wilson/Callaghan, but when Thatchcunt got in, who Littlejohn/Farage liked, this agreeable method of working was swept away in a quest for being dynamic and enterprising.

Confused :?

Re: Richard Littlejohn

Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:21 pm
by crabcakes_windermere
Classic Face-eating leopard scenario - Dickie and Fag breath probably liked Thatcher because they thought she’d make other people’s lives cushier and theirs easier. They weren’t expecting to have to put in any effort, let alone more!