Thanks for coming back F. I'm sorry if I'm not clear - but a lot of the problem is that what I'm trying to communicate is so totally opposite to the way we're conditioned to think. Plus it's not really about 'doing' stuff to people, it's more about 'not doing' the the right things for the right reasons.
Another way of putting it is that almost everybody naturally wants to contribute, to work in a clean and safe place, and to be well thought of by their social grouping - and for this to be a grouping whose objectives they can buy in to. The point is that people in their natural state of mind naturally want to do the right thing, and those few that can't (more than don't) normally get brought along by the dynamics of the group anyway.
They may need assistance in the form of information in the case of stuff that's not self evident, but that's about all. These supposedly uncaring people are for example normally very careful about keeping their own homes and families in good shape.
Law and regulation would in my view do well to act in ways that don't destroy (but instead leverage) these natural tendencies. Which means light touch/last resort thinking, pushing decision making downwards/staying out of the minutiae of people's lives, ending the way it's largely driven by powerful vested interests, and making natural justice the central plank of what it does get involved in.
This isn't make believe - it's the underlying natural reality where the human animal is concerned. Spiritual traditions based on self knowledge the world over have taught this fairly basic fact for millennia. More recently so does the body of 'Lean' methodologies that came out of Japanese manufacturing that are now regarded worldwide as the the closest so far to an optimised system of work. They aspire to doing almost everything via self directed teams - precisely in order to tap this potential. (never mind that many Western organisations with their addiction to unearned power and absolute top-down control have managed to create turnip control and command driven versions of it)
It's in the end our heritage as essentially social or tribal beings. Left to their own devices people not only sort out an informal pecking order, they also commit wholeheartedly to playing their part in ('belonging to') these groups, and to helping the group sort out their direction. They give loyalty and respond to respected leaders.
Power and authority supported by law, regulation and wealth (not to mention daft ideologies), but without the respect of those subject to it are the problem and not the solution. (theory X thinking, as it's known) They treat others as their property, and want powerless and isolated individuals in their organisations so they can easily be manipulated to do their bidding.
They in the end would own and control society/humanity as a whole. By using their influence to hype threats they cause the fearful to support inane law. There's a whole layer of society out there brainwashed into thinking they need to be regulated for their own good. (or seeking to preserve the status quo because they live off it)
Jeff has very nicely set out some aspects and consequences of this set up, and its practical consequences. It's no wonder that this happens. Authoritarian workplaces are run 100% in conflict with the natural flow outlined above. They dance to the wholly selfish tune of unknown and irresponsible shareholders and bonus systems, appoint bosses that haven't earned the respect of those they purport to lead, allow workers minimal or no input to the decisions that decide their futures, allow them little or no return on their input beyond a basic wage/salary, show almost no significant loyalty to them, and generally treat them as second class citizens and pawns.
There's so much that's grossly wrong that the blindness of familiarity and self interest prevents us from seeing.
Is it any wonder that they bring into existence (by these actions) the very things they fear? It's the law of unintended consequences in action, the inevitable consequence of selfish tunnel vision. The result you might say of failing to think globally while acting locally. (what makes short term narrow sense doesn't always add up when the bigger picture is considered)
The price they pay for doing this is that they eliminate any possibility of those workers buying into their aims, or those of the organisation - they destroy all trust and goodwill. (who can feel they 'belong' to an organisation that hasn't got their interest at heart?) The best they can hope for is to buy off those they need allegiance from - is it any wonder that where you find authority like this that there's always layers of self interested 'I'm only doing my job' types with no loyalty to the organisation, or thought or care for what they do??
It'd be a joke if it was funny, but most peculiar of all these people (despite their claiming total power) as Jeff says seem to be responsible for nothing - they get to hide behind law, while it's always the smelly unwashed that screwed up. We've just had a beautiful demo of this sort of abuse of power over here with the EU insisting as a condition of our economic bail out that the bondholders (high end mostly European investors who piled in hoping to profit from the housing boom) in our failed banks are fully repaid by the taxpayer - despite the fact that the ordinary shareholders lost almost everything.
It's dangerous territory, because in the end when those depending on the system for a living passes a critical mass then change becomes almost impossible due to opposition by powerful vested interests. This despite the fact that the waste and inefficiencies they create have also become insupportable. This is the basic reason why societies rise, fail and fall, and we're damn close to the edge. (work it out - between taxes on income, spending and capital and a gazillion more revenue generating charges that amount to more tax well over 90% of what we earn goes to the state)....
It seems to me that the communication and promotion of correct values at all levels (leadership down to workers - walking the talk) is probably the most productive means of positively influencing work behaviours, together with communication of good information.
So where does law come in after this? I guess one key role properly executed might be as a last recourse to keep maverick bosses and organisations in line, plus (rarely) to deal with problem employees. Maybe the lawmakers would do well to focus on large scale white collar crime for a while, or better still on a (genuine) review of the effectiveness of current law???
Diverting more into education mightn't be a bad idea too, but education suffers from the same problem of putting people off by talking down to/lecturing them in an authoritarian way. (selfishness/wrong values often muddy the waters here too - funny isn't it how most of our text books seem designed to make the writer sound expert rather to effectively communicate the content?) Much of the time all people want education for is so they can lord it over others. How might one help to create an environment where people would seek to instead use their education for the good of others?
I don't know if that's going to be any clearer....
