I think that the main obstacle comes from the fact that generally the employers' world has a negative vision of its staff. It would be so bosses' minority which(who) have a positive vision of it. According to certain Douglas McGrégor, expert in the material(subject), I imagine, the first ones would apply the theory X and the second the theory Y. Here is of what consists these two theories. The theory X relates to the conventional tasks of the direction(management). These concern the use of the energy for the needs of the company.
The theory X leans on three fundamental hypotheses:
These three hypotheses are completed by five postulates;
It seems although this theory considers the man as a child and is built on them " ten fingers useful for the factory " of past. This theory could obtain satisfactory results when the men(people) had for purpose first to satisfy their primary needs. She(it) was incapable to get them the satisfaction of the needs of superior order. It is for that reason that MacGrégor proposes a theory pressed on hypotheses more in touch with the nature of the men(people) and their motivation, the theory Y. She(it) melts itself on the hypotheses following ones:
These methods consist in supplying the means, in killing(abolishing) the obstacles, in encouraging the development and the forming(training), in driving(guiding) the efforts. Whereas the theory X treats the men(people) as children, the theory Y treats them as formed, aware(conscious) and responsible adults.
The theory Y establishes(constitutes) the foundation of the participative direction(management) by objectives.
I believe that the majority choice of the theory X could explain itself by the problems that would have had the employers' world during periods which one could qualify as full employment. Twenty five years ago, I was a witness of what could take place in one of these periods. However, for defence of my working colleagues of this time, I should say that the conditions of employment were pretty poor. In fact, it is rather about a caricature, so the working climate had deteriorated. The ease to be an employment(use) somewhere else returned the arrogant, undisciplined employees and the foremen became scapegoat. Medical certificates and even strikes were activated(started) for minor points.
It seems to me evident that for the companies which underwent similar tests, the theory X seems to them the most plausible. It seems to me as evident that for the bosses the full employment appears to them as a disaster. I am not so surprised that a councillor of Mister John Crow, a governor of the Bank of Canada in 1993 declared that a rate natural from 6 to 8 % of unemployment is necessary simply to reduce the demands of pay rises.
I am not surprised being made it to suspect the existence of a dialogue between the governments and the employers' world to maintain this unemployment rate much superior to this already unbearable threshold on the human plan to make lower(dim) salaries and transform the stable employments(uses) into temporary employments(uses). As if it was not enough, this dialogue went as far as restricting the accessibility to the assurance - employment in only 36 % of those that had nevertheless paid the contribution in 40 %, I believe. With this strategy, the employers think of having found the magic potion so that salaries get closer more and more to those of the Third World because besides discouraging the employees to leave an employment(use) even if it(he) is not convenient for them, they will have unemployed persons' bank who will be ready to accept any conditions of employment. Some more to put of pressure on the employees, when these express their dissatisfaction, they threaten to close or to move somewhere else.
This situation will not change as long as the employers' world will not abandon the theory X to take the theory Y because it is he who finally holds(detains) the power. The governments are there only to obey the orders through the lobbies who use(employ) the appropriate means dépendamment if the politicians react to the payoffs or under threats variously. Once the will of these lobbies was expressed to the cabinet, nothing more can stop(arrest) the process of decision. Indeed, made to this stage this will is protected by the sacred solidarity ministerial and seen out to the representatives who are subjected to the line of party. It is very rare that representatives of the party in the power dare to vote against the government. For example, in Ottawa in the debate on the hepatitis C, some liberal representatives showed their discord with the high authorities of the party. One of theirs nevertheless dared to denounce(cancel) the concentration of powers on the Parliamentary Hill in these terms: < The Ministers monopolize the power and they kidnap of us more and more. They of are 18 , 19 or 20 of it which(who) seem to hold(detain) all the power and there is no counterweight in the system. Committees were neutralized and maintaining, by creating this scenario of vote of confidence, one terminates the discussion >. Informed Vice Prime Minister of this discord of some representatives refused to say which measures could be taken against the representatives who would rest(support) the Opposition. This proves that the young representative of the Lake St - Jean who took out his(her) seat of the parliament was right to assert that the power of a representative is non-existent in front of the globalization of markets. In summary, the line of party and the ministerial solidarity are only in fact the corridor(lane) of the power of the world of the finance or the money(silver).
