![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Sideface:
I don't think it makes any difference whether you work in the public/non-profit sector, or in the private/for profit sector - if you hate your job, that's bad news for you and your employer.
blakamin:Sideface:
I don't think it makes any difference whether you work in the public/non-profit sector, or in the private/for profit sector - if you hate your job, that's bad news for you and your employer.
I don't think I agree with that... I haven't liked a job for years, but I always do the absolutely best job I can because I take pride in my work.
It's a personal thing. It's not a bad thing for my employer, but it's a bad thing for me.
Sideface
deadlyllama: I was going to write a long reply to bits of this thread but then realised that I was going into "people are wrong on the internet" mode.
I think rayonline is talking about ethics and morality and is it "right" to take a profit etc ... that's a big can of worms. If you don't think what your employer is doing is right, don't work for them. This gets tricky if you can't find a job working for someone whose ethics you approve of, of course.
richms: Please move to the USA and try out their for-profit health system -- they spend more on healthcare per capita than anyone else, with mediocre results.
AndrewNZ: According to Wikipedia 3/4 of the NZ tax take is personal income tax, and GST. So corporate tax does contribute to public services, but much less than the income tax and GST we all pay.
Sideface:
Unhappy employees tend to under-perform (present company excepted).
Sideface:
So it's indirectly bad for the employer - whether or not the employer knows or cares about the employee's morale/motivation.
rayonline: Maybe a more accurate way to say is - do people in general genuinely enjoy their job?
If one worked as a medic or a receptionist at at local medical centre they can certainly see value in their work. Likewise, life coach, fitness instructors, teachers and nurses. But many of the essential jobs are clerical workers, sale reps, finance managers, frontline staff like customer service on phone or in person.
AidanS: Without profit motivated organisations we (IMO) wouldn't have as high of a living standard as we do now. Profit motivation is what forces businesses (and ultimately people) to increase their efficiency and productivity. This usually happens because of innovation into new methods and technologies and hard work. New technology, new innovation and hard work = better quality of living for us all. I've seen many public organisations and Government departments that simply have no "push factor" to be efficient. A single decision may take 3 weeks to make as it has to pass through 5 people from 3 different departments (for an exaggerated example). Who does that benefit? The 5 people that are employed, sure.
If the fire brigade were a privately owned organisation (as an example, IMO I don't think it should be) at least they would increase their efficiency, response times and technology. I don't think the fire service has "improved" much over the last decade or two as there is no "need to". However if they were a profit motivated service (especially if there were more than one organisation competing in the same market) then you would see response times like no other and technology we possibly can't even think of today.
As for the argument "well if you don't pay your fire brigade premium then they'll just watch your house burn down", a) They wouldn't even bother turning up to your address at all if you didn't pay your premium, b) It's your fault for not paying your premium. Just like if you don't pay your electricity bill your power turns off.
Arguing what should and what shouldn't be privatised is extremely subjective and takes into account large amounts of economic debate.
Sorry for the above, off topic discussion, but finally it broadly relates to the core question...
I think any "job" is important to the benefiting of society. Sure a doctor may be directly saving lives on the front line through a publicly funded service but what about the new innovative equipment they're using? There's a damn good chance that equipment was developed due to the competition in the market for health tools. Likely a private company makes said equipment. Should those employees feel like they "aren't helping society" just because their boss is taking a profit? It's because of the motivation to make the profit that the equipment exists in the first place.
MileHighKiwi: The bureaucracy in govt funded organisations is ridiculous, so much money is wasted and it pisses me off.
AidanS: If the fire brigade were a privately owned organisation (as an example, IMO I don't think it should be) at least they would increase their efficiency, response times and technology.
wasabi2k: I work for a casino.
richms: No, we should ask those places to operate at a profit, particually health.
nathan:
In the US if you don't pay your local rates/fire levy etc, and your house catches on fire, the the fire dept turns up, not to put your house out but in case your fire spreads to neighbours (who have paid)
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |