In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960830045915.0081e2a0@pop.seanet.com>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-online-news@marketplace.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Point by point reply follows.....

On Thu, 29 Aug 1996, Mitch Ratcliffe wrote:

> At 10:38 PM 8/29/96 -0400, S. Finer wrote:
> >It is an article of faith among management consultants that questioning
> >staffing practices in any organizations will make the fur fly.  Too often
> >traditional labor distinctions become a sacred cow.  The tone of this
> >thread proves the point.........there is considerable sensitivity out
> >there.  Ask yourselves, if the point were so "patently" misplaced, why
> >would anyone bother to be troubled enough to respond at all....much less
> >respond with effort or vigor.
> 

> S., you have this habit of driving toward a point where you annoy folks. 

Is the alternative failing to substantiate a point if it annoys folks?
Sometimes folks profit by being annoyed.  Other times, others profit by
observing what annoys folks.  You do not like my point, fine.  I can live
with that, ...easily.

You
> use the response to your incessantly dismissive attitude toward *other people's
> jobs* to prove that only you can see clearly all the problems of the 
> world. 

No, that is not what I am doing.  My attitude is not dismissive toward
your job, or anyone else's.  My point is about the customs in application
of labor in changing circumstances.  Others have personalized it.  I do
reply to their personalization.

>This tactic proves absolutely nothing of substance, except, perhaps,
> any questions we might have about your personality.

Plenty of folks on this list have met me....perhaps they can respond to
this "unsubstantive" jibe.  It appears you are quite upset, Mitch, to
depart from the topic so completely.
 
> I remember a couple years ago when you said that due to my position on some
> subject related to the profitability of using the Net that I must not hold
> any responsible management position with P&L responsibility.  (I said it did
> not matter if a company made money at that time, that the experience they gained
> was worth the price they paid, which has proved to be quite true.)

Vaguely recollect the exchange, but I have always shared what appears to
be the point you make in parens......however, not making a profit is
defensible only to a point....for most organizations.  Ultimately, the
value of experience alone tarnishes, and ROI asserts itself.  If an
organization has built a strong CF, but still bleeds, then
experience-gathering as a goal in and of itself may have become a palid
justification.

 It was just plain insulting.

No one is insulted who does not choose to be.  

> When you attacked my intelligence then I let it go.

I never attacked your intelligence, Mitch.  I questioned your opinion.
Are they the same thing in your book?  

 But now I'm going to put
> this
> argument to bed as clearly as I can: S., you don't know what you are talking
> about,

As evidenced by what, Mitch?  An ill-tempered assertion?  That dog don't
hunt.  Labor rules become ossified in organizations.  The literature on
this extensive.  It happens in news and entertainment organizations as it
does in other organizations.  Are ALL organizations afflicted at all
times...of course not.  Some are, some less so, some are not. 

> so you manufacture responses which you manipulate in ways you perceive to be 
> an advantage to your position. There are no traditional labor distinctions in a 
> newsroom anymore. 

None?  Is this the experience of others on the list?  Job titles and
responibilities formed in past decades have been swept away?  What about
the response to Enrique Gili's note that started the thread?

> Publishers and editors are making decisions all the time
> which might have be considered radical only five years ago. 

Yes, never said they were not.  But in some places the progress is slower
than others, eh?  Mitch, my criticism did not apply to ALL news
organizations in all markets any more than it did to all people.....and I
wonder why you imply it did?  But the problems do exist, and at the root
are organizational behavior issues, workplace politics.  I am not making
such issues up, just surfacing them for discussion. 

> If we on the list continue to insist that a writer might be worth their
> salary if they merely write, it's because it is a profitable position to
> take, not an expression of our ignorance or blindness to the new
> realities of management you espouse.

Well I have some supporting comments sent to me in email, are they
ignorant and blind too, Mitch.  Oh, and was that intended to be an insult?
If so, you'll need to try harder.  8-)

"A writer might be worth their salary if they merely write".  I have no
problem with the veracity of that statement.  Sometimes it must be true. 
Sometimes does not make the general case.

But.....

A writer might be worth more to some publishing organizations if he/she is
cross-trained to do more than write.  Do you dispute this?  It does not
seem like a controversial statement.  I think someone in the thread made a
similar remark.  

If you accept the latter, then it might be worthwhile to ask under what
circumstances the former description pertains, and which the latter.  As
Rich implied, is it a matter of the scale of a writer's remuneration, for
example.  Or as someone else suggested is it a matter of the degree of
automation?  

Such questions appear to be more in the spirit of productive debate than
flat denials of purpose in broaching the issue of flexible work
descriptions.  You do not like it.  Fine.  Ignore it.  

If Steve asks me to drop the subject, I will.  If he does not, and others
reply publicly, I'll probably continue.  But after vacation......   8-)

ciao


+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
This message was posted to ONLINE-NEWS. http://www.planetarynews.com/o-n.html

From owner-online-news@marketplace.com Fri Aug 30 07:13:26 1996
Received: from marketplace.com (majordom@marketplace.com [206.168.5.232]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA01434 ; for ; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 07:13:26 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22616 for online-news-outgoing; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 02:31:46 -0600
Received: from server.indra.com (server.indra.com [204.144.142.2]) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA22610 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 02:31:41 -0600
Received: from indra.com by server.indra.com (8.7.4/Spike-8-1.0)
	id CAA12014; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 02:21:15 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from homer.taynet.co.uk by indra.com (8.7.4/Spike-8-1.0)
	id CAA19879; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 02:21:13 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from [194.247.65.23] (dial2-Port18.sol.co.uk [194.247.65.23]) by homer.taynet.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA01212; Fri, 30 Aug 1996 09:18:36 +0100
X-Sender: dmill@mailhost.taynet.co.uk (Unverified)
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: "Don 'DocDon' Taylor" , online-news@planetarynews.com