The shirt on your back

Quote

“Fashion is made to become unfashionable.”  Coco Chanel

News

So far 275 bodies have been pulled of the garment factory in Bangladesh which collapsed on Wednesday, but hundreds of other people in the building are still unaccounted for.  The tragedy has revealed a chain of connections from the grieving community in the outskirts of Dhaka all the way to high streets in Europe and North America.  

At one level this terrible event can be viewed through a culpability lens.  Are the factory directors to blame for ignoring the warning cracks in the structure, or the building owner who failed to meet construction standards?  To what extent is the government liable for its failure to implement health and safety policies, or is it the fault of western clothing brands who are constantly seeking to reduce costs in the supply chain?

It is likely that the pressure to drive down costs and increase profits by companies at the local, national and international levels ultimately influenced the main decisions and short cuts that led to the building collapse on Wednesday with thousands of people inside. 

The average American buys 68 garments and 8 pairs of shoes a year.  The West’s demand for cheap, ‘throw away’ fashion means factories in places like Bangladesh have to minimise their financial costs to stay in business – but at what relational cost?  The supply chain is not just an economic concept – it is a relational one too.

If this tragedy were to spur more consumers in the West to pressure big brands to take more responsibility for the working conditions at the other end of the supply chain, even if it means paying a little more for their clothes, then the loss of hundreds of grieving families outside Dhaka may not be entirely in vain.

Read on…

A seven minute video produced by the Fair Wear foundation, based in Amsterdam, explains the complexities of clothing supply chains, the ways people can be exploited and what can be done to improve the conditions for factory workers. Watch it here.

Walk the talk

Do you know where the shirt you are wearing was made?  Why not go to the website of the retailer you buy from or brand you wear to find out how ethical their supply chain is – and then send them an email with your thoughts?

The last word

From the Bible, Deuteronomy 22 verse 8: “When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.”

The Thatcher legacy: a relational audit

- a personal view by Michael Schluter

 
We depart from our usual Friday Five format to bring a commentary by Michael Schluter on Margaret Thatcher’s legacy.  Michael headed up the ‘Keep Sunday Special Campaign’ in 1985-86, which led to the only defeat of a whole government bill while Mrs Thatcher was prime minister.

Margaret Thatcher is remembered with respect and affection by many, and rightly so, for breaking the power of the unions and re-establishing non-aggressive industrial relations in Britain. From a relational perspective there are few things more damaging to relationships than the breakdown of law and order.  ‘Parity’ in the relationship between unions and management in the coal mining industry, and between unions and government generally, was at a low level when Mrs Thatcher came to power. Some may feel that power swung too far back towards the employers, but I believe everyone should acknowledge there are some important relational benefits in Mrs Thatcher’s legacy.

However, it has to be recognised also that there are significant relational downsides to her legacy. She was so focused on the individual, and rolling back the power of the state, that she famously said ‘there’s no such thing as society’ (see below). Arguably, she went over the top in pursuit of market solutions and ended up closing mines and factories in the Midlands and North of England without making adequate preparation for alternative sources of employment and incomes. This left many communities and households devastated for a generation. The bitterness and resentment of these people has flared up again this week following Mrs Thatcher’s death.

In Europe her fierce defence of British interests gave the UK short-term financial benefits but probably at the expense of long-term goodwill and friendship with our European neighbours.  On the other hand, her contribution to ending the Cold War helped re-establish the relationship between the peoples of East and West Europe.

In terms of family and religious life, she attacked the institution of Sundays, which led on to the substantial commercialisation of Sundays under John Major in 1994. This undermined the opportunity for many to enjoy a shared weekly day off with friends and family.

Above all, through her belief in the magic of the market, Mrs Thatcher’s financial reforms cut off the few remaining relational threads between providers and users of funds for investment, and led to increased relational distance between management and employees as company size and pay differentials burgeoned.

So hers is a complex and controversial legacy from a relationships standpoint. Let’s hope for great leaders in the future with the same dedication and determination, but with a relational vision rather than an individualistic and materialistic agenda.

"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours."  Margaret Thatcher in an interview in 1987

Relationships and reorganisation in the NHS

Quote

“When wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when health is lost, something is lost; when character is lost, all is lost.” Billy Graham

News

Far reaching reforms to the English National Health Service (NHS) were implemented this week, as responsibility for health care spending was passed down to over 200 local commissioning groups.   At the same time, deep problems in the NHS were brought to light in a damning report into poor care in North Staffs, which led to 1200 unnecessary deaths and a culture of neglect.

NHS reorganisations are hugely expensive.  A senior NHS executive admitted that during the last restructuring, the service lost its focus on patients and was preoccupied with managing the changes and merging organisations. 

The effectiveness of any reforms depends on accurate diagnosis and appropriate prescription.  The fundamental issue is an absence of values around care and respect; managers pursue financial targets rather than patient care.  But the prescription proposed is more of the same: setting new targets around values, holding people accountable for care and punishing staff who fail to deliver.

Such remedies view the healthcare service as a giant machine, which can be micro-managed to improve performance.  But what if the NHS is essentially a vast network of relationships?  Changing organisational values and culture then becomes an organic, relational challenge, involving leadership by example, cultivation of trust and responsibility, and a focus on patients’ experiences as much as clinical outcomes.

These softer goals are less amenable to target setting from a centralised bureaucracy; but they are more human, more caring, and more likely to deliver positive outcomes – not only to patients, but to anxious, overworked staff too.  

Read on…

A much more thorough analysis of relationships in the NHS was made by John Ashcroft and Geoff Meads in 1999.  Although the context of the NHS has changed, much of the underlying thinking and analysis is still pertinent.  Read the book online here.

Walk the talk

Is there an organisational problem you are trying to solve by tightening up the rules?   Might a focus on cultivating more healthy relationships of trust and respect produce a better result in the long run?

The last word

From the Bible, Proverbs 11, verse 17: “Those who are kind benefit themselves, but the cruel bring ruin on themselves.”