More on the struggle to survive

I recently cross posted an article on the struggle to survive. I want to add to that, but I'm going to repeat the opening of that post to set some broader context:

"I dislike writing about the struggle to survive in the West because of the desperate problems in developing nations, but the existence of worse problems elsewhere does not mean there are no problems here (and the cretins who think distraction with worse problems elsewhere is a valid coping technique, as opposed to solving the problem, are directly and personally responsible for their share of the perpetuation of those problems). I've been moved to write this brief post because I have now come across two more people who are either reducing hours or on leave to deal with the problems caused by modern life pressures."

I've mentioned elsewhere that I have had to cut some of my blogging back for the sake of my health, and most of that is work related. I've now found out a little more about the workload problems in the company I work for:

• we have just over 1,000 people in Australia: we also have job ads out at the moment for around 120 positions; 
• of my immediate team of 8 people, 4 of whom were hired in the last year because I was jumping up and down about the need for more people, we are advertising for a much needed senior position - and four of those people are showing varying degrees of signs of stress; 
• I had a three and a half week break over the end of 2017/start of 2018 period, of which two weeks was time off in lieu (I need the time back: money doesn't make up for loss of health), but said I still wanted to take a couple of weeks off in February (the end of year break, whilst the longest I had had in around twenty years, was just getting me back to a normal state after a year of work - I still needed a normal holiday ... and I've yet to get that (not as a result of pressure from the company - I'm trying to keep clients happy, and, after decades of experience, I know what is involved in achieving that);
• we heard of another resignation related to workload, and I'm aware from talking to friends and other senior colleagues that we need more people than have been advertised for; 
• and the message from management is ... most of our financial indicators are good, but one or two still need to improve.

That last point is not particularly unusual in engineering companies - and is certainly not unique to where I work now. In fact, I've been fighting the utilisation rate battle, as I term it, for four decades now, and we're about where I expect to be in this, the fourth such cycle that I've been through.

In fact, this is one of the reasons that I consider (most) engineers should not be elected as politicians: most of us have a focus on numbers, and either forget to consider what that means for people, or are incapable of doing so (engineering has been plagued by jokes about "being on the spectrum" for decades, but I think it is more than that: there is also a desire to be service to the community which leads to a willingness to do unpaid overtime - but can be warped into thinking one has to make sacrifices "for the company", as if that is the same thing as benefit for the community [there are linkages, but they are separate matters - there is also the question about how much profit companies - including in places like the USA - would be making if all that overtime was actually properly aid]).

The company I work for is by no means unique in this current workload situation. I am fairly regularly contacted by head hunters, and the last one made a comment that I could be placed in another job within a couple of days if I was prepared to move outside my area of speciality (I've declined, on professional grounds - although this also possibly highlights the problem that women are more cautious in that we make sure we can do a job before taking it on).

However, why would I go from a frying pan to another frying pan, if not the fire?

Workload and work stress are OHS liabilities, and companies need to move away from the dollar-focused, neoliberal approach, to thinking about what issues mean in terms of human impact. In my case, I am not doing what I want to in the garden or around the house, nor working on the things I enjoy (work stopped being enjoyable because of the workload a long time ago), and my health and wellbeing has been seriously harmed. I know we had a suicide a few years ago, and I know that there has been speculation that it was work related.

How many resignations, how much suffering, how many suicides, does it take before society starts to look at what it is doing to people through neoliberal-induced financial and time (everything has to be fast-tracked) pressure? 

(That comment particularly applies to consumers and customers more generally who are seeking less expensive goods or services. The worst expression of that demand is modern slavery, but there are other consequences as well.)

There is a joke that you can have it fast, accurate, or cheap: pick any two. (Based on past cycles, it will be concern over "quality problems" [i.e., errors] that drives a re-thinking of the focus on financial only indicators.) That still applies, but needs to be extended somehow to include poor health and suffering as consequences - how much do you want to be responsible for?