Mike Causey – Wrecclesham and Rowledge
Waverley Borough CouncillorArchive for Employment
Back to earth
Why I’m surprised I’m not sure, but on the day that I had planned to spend more time with family, I ‘popped’ into the office for the morning, and ended up being there all day.
It’s made me realise that I need to reconsider the boundaries of work: how I let it (or don’t) encroach on the rest of life. Not that I consider work to be solely secular (and not spiritual) or that there can’t be a certain fluidity to the boundary. More that I need to deliberately ponder and hold in my mind the non-negotiable aspects of family life that cannot be sacrificed on the altar of business imperatives. Yesterday we managed to get by, but I don’t want to unconsciously choose work and career as the most important thing to me, and find out in a few years time that I’ve missed a huge list of my children’s precious growing-up moments, and not rejoiced alongside my wife as we observe the wonder of them learning and experiencing new things.
And so, most importantly, I need to plan my work in order that when I’m with my family, I’m ‘present’ with them: that I’m not mulling over emails in my mind, or quickly checking my iPhone to see if a report has come in during the evening from the US ready for tomorrow. That I’m with my family in body and mind and giving of myself to them more wholely.
Today was a good day for being reminded of the enduring blessings of life an,d I look to God for wisdom to make the right choices and to love my family in the way he commands.
Money, Money, Money
It’s been a big few weeks for virtually every UK resident. The results of the Comprehensive Spending Review have been published, following many pre-emptive policy announcements with financial application:
The removal of child benefit for those earning over £45,000 pa (see yesterday’s blog post)
Lord Browne’s reporting on higher education detailing proposals to allow much higher tuition fees
Reduction of tax free saving amounts
One has to recognise that these things add up to serious pressure on some family’s budgets, but I’m weighing this up against what I believe to be the rightness of these actions.
We have serious political leaders for serious times, and for immensely serious decisions. And they are tackling our difficult finances whilst also addressing fundamental ideological questions of how the state should raise money, provide education, or encourage personal fiscal responsibility.
Thus, when I see the hysterical reaction of union leaders and others reported in the papers, upon hearing the words of IDS about the need for job applicants to be prepared to get on the ‘bus’ to find work, I am incredulous. You see, my rule of thumb about getting offended goes something like this:
If the statement doesn’t apply to you, then don’t get offended – it wasn’t meant for you, and you should be confident that your own actions are good and right.
If the statement does indeed apply to you, then likewise don’t get offended – either get on the bus (or any other mode of transport for that matter) and look for work, or don’t. Choose.
I.e. why get offended at all?
Exasperation kicks in for me when I hear union leaders denounce such sensible words from our leaders. Complain about the bus services themselves (which I am sometimes tempted to do), but don’t completely miss the point of the words – that we should all be prepared to go the extra mile to either find work in the first place, or pay more tax or receive less benefit in the second.
Alumni and Azeris
What a fantastic evening back at my college: Royal Holloway, University of London.
I’d offered to help with the Careers Department, who organise a weekly talk by an alumni about their career since leaving RHUL. Having booked it before the summer, it seemed to come on suddenly, as a hectic month of work, including some travel abroad (which hadn’t happened for some time), caught up with me. However, from the start of the week I’d turned my mind to what I wanted to say, and my content and my head were ready.
Whilst I can’t speak on behalf of the students there, I can categorically say that personally I had a wonderful time. It did seem as though the students were interested in what I had to say, and being able to share something of the choices and challenges that I’ve made and faced since graduating, helped me reflect on what is important in life.
And as an additional dynamic, I didn’t realise that there were some Azeri students in the lecture theatre. I travelled there last week for business (my second visit to Baku) and used a couple of examples from my work there. It was lovely to know that there is quite a group of students from Azerbaijan at the college, and they even said that they would invite to their Independence Day celebrations coming up shortly! I hope so – Azeri hospitality is excellent.
Bully Boys
My new name for the leaders of GMB? Bully Boys. For what else should I now think, having intimated that they will consider not funding the Labour Party should any one but Ed Miliband be voted leader in the coming election. Pathetic, childish, bullying.
The Graduate
Fair? Perhaps Vince Cable hasn’t understood the meaning of this word.
I really did have to do a double-take, when I heard, both on the radio and then via the internet, that Mr Cable believes it will be fair that students who subsequently earn more when they are working, might pay higher rates of ‘graduate tax’ that those who earn less. This, on the basis that those who graduate at the same time, were paying the same annual tuition fees. Uh? Doesn’t this devalue the tuition that was received by those who end up earning less?
My thoughts on higher education are completely thought through – more a reflection of what I’ve read and discussed with friends over the years, combined no doubt, with my sub-conscious political and ideological leanings. However, I offer the following few comments, in the knowledge that they need tested before being my firm beliefs.
(1) Implementing a tax for tuition fees is a risky approach. Such a tax will, over time, become isolated from its original intention. It will become part of the overall tax burden, and thus subject to the vagaries of future political manoeuvring.
(2) Acting as if university education is a universal right is a kind of social engineering. It devalues other training such as apprentices and other professional qualifications, and ignores the perils of setting unrealistic expectations for students of what will be required of them in the workplace. Labour’s target of 50% of school leavers attending university may be a statistic that has been reached, but in the real world, what has that done? Has it improved that standard and maturity of language, of communication skills? Has it enabled graduates to acquire the soft skills of emotional intelligence, perseverance, commitment and good manners that make the world go round?
(3) Further to the above, shouldn’t the government be considering freeing the tertiary educational establishment to charge a full fee for the education that it provides? The US system may have it drawbacks – especially to parents who have to save for many years to send their children to college, but it does mean that there are more scholarships, greater collaboration between academia and industry, and arguably and a higher commitment from students to their study.
In summary, I’ll emphasise once more, that my views need some work and I’ve written them simply as the reactions I’ve had to this guidance that the Secretary of State has given to Lord Browne for his review of student finance. But really, does the ‘fair’ describe this in any way at all?
Faith in the workplace
A rather unlikeable task – washing up after 110 people had demolished a rather good BBQ – was turned into a very likeable one, as the conversation over plates, muck and bubbles turned to thoughts on faith in the workplace.
Interestingly, we were at a political event, and so perhaps it should have turned to faith in politics. However, I was chatting about my morning (and why I was late to get to the BBQ to help), and therefore we turned to the two interviews I had conducted in Farnham Baptist Church: one in each of the two services we hold.
As a church we have always been strong at supporting members and friends who go overseas to work as missionaries. However, equally challenging as the environment in which our missionaries find themselves, is the day-to-day work environment of many of our members. But, we traditionally do not know about these things, and forget that there are probably more opportunities for modelling and sharing the gospel in these local work places, than there are for many missionaries.
And so, for three Sundays I’m interviewing members of the church about where they work and the challenges they face. And it’s been warmly received.
My take on it is twofold:
(1) Hearing about one person’s workplace role and challenges, resonates with many others who can identify the same type of issues in their own employment.
(2) That it really is seen as important by the church to pray as much for the ‘staff canteen’ as it is for those on the traditional mission field.
I hope that these things stick with us as a church, and that we carry with us the need to pray for those things we’ve heard from the interviewees, as well as ask God for the wisdom to know what to say when opportunities arise to share our faith, or particularly model a Christ-like attitude, at work.
Truth? Retribution?
By way of reading the front page of the FT today, and, along with watching Tony Hayward, CEO of BP, appear before a congressional committee tonight, I am struck by how incredibly different one’s response to a media story can be, when one knows something significant about the workings inside the organisations in question. For some time now I’ve held the view that media reporting it less to do with truth, and more to do with what sells, and my experience today only serves to reinforce that belief.
In the example of the FSA, it makes what might be a dry story (and one that could too easily appear to have little impact on me and my colleagues), into a very live issue – how should my business unit plan to change its compliance monitoring and reporting in anticipation of future regulatory framework updates and approaches from the new bodies that our chancellor George Osborne, is embedding into the Bank of England? My previous role in managing compliance, and my existing one as risk manager, mean that decisions about the future of the FSA and the likely remit and strategy of its replacement, are extremely important to my work.
With regard to BP specifically – well, along with every other employee, I’m devastated by the spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But in addition to that, I’ve met Tony Hayward in person, listened to him speak with authority and leadership, and asked him a question about people and priorities. And on that basis I can categorically say that when he tells the United States Congress that safety and people come first, he’s telling the truth. That’s the BP I know, and having travelled to over 15 counties in the course of my work, I find it the same everywhere.
Members of Congress may like to think differently, and irresponsibly tar about 90,000 employees (including over 30,000 in the US) with the same brush, but Mr Hayward is much more correct to point out that we’ll know more when the investigations are complete. (And although he didn’t say it, surely every human being knows that no-one can legislate for human nature – both innocent error and malicious intent).
In addition, second guessing the outcome of three different investigations (one of which is from the President), prior to the blow-out preventer being brought up to the surface or the well being inspected, or all testimonies being taken and documented, is foolish.
It’s entirely right that members of the committee should demonstrate, on behalf of their constituents, the anger, sorrow, and discontent felt by those horribly affected by the spill. But do they really think that (a) the CEO of a huge business knows all the technical details or was involved in the drilling decisions day to day (and if they’d thought a bit more, they might have formally invited others from BP to testify alongside Mr Hayward), and (b) is going to answer dreadfully constructed and loaded questions that are after a Yes/No answer, when the situation calls for much wiser and more carefully worded questions that seek truth rather than retribution?
Finally, in the midst of all this, I’m absorbed by thinking about how I might react as a leader / politician, if something parallel were to happen in the UK. Would I be able to approach the situation with a wise and care-full heart and mind, wanting to find truth rather than retribution? Would I be able to resist asking bad questions simply in order to score points, and instead seek information and testimony that allows the cause of justice to be straight and true?
