The motion debated this week was "This House would bossnap."
Those in favour of the motion say 'aye', the others say 'nay'.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
Opposing Team - Closing
According to the proposition team, we can bossnap even though it's illegal, as long as we're desperate and that demonstrating failed. Sequestration, why should we stop there? Since context allows us to break the law, let's break it in a way that solves our problems once and for all : robbing a bank !
More seriously, bossnaping isn't a great tool for social conflict in terms of efficiency. We must admit that lately it seemed to work, but only because such a massive bossnapping movement is quite new : eventually companies will set up a standard policy about bossnapping which will certainly be "no negotiation with criminals", as states did with terrorists.
Proposing team also pointed out the negative impact of demonstration and traffic jamming on public opinion. But what they don't seem to understand is that bossnappers are considered even worse : even if they're defending their job, their salary, for the average citizen they are criminals first. A study lead by IFOP shows that only 30% of the French approve this means of negotiation, whereas 74% approve the next SNCF strike on Thursday, according to BVA-BPI.
Let's analyze now our opponents' last argument (which thus must be the strongest). The primary cause of massive lays off is a voluntarily bad management of companies, which enables bosses to get bossnapped in order to experiment the thrill of being sequestrated. Well, it's an interesting theory, but we can point out a few contradictions. First, the bosses described here, so rich and powerful that they can put their company in bankrupt to fight boredom, aren't really numerous (assuming they even exist). Then, they never get bossnapped : they're working from home or in a building more secure than a military base. Bad luck for them, they will have to find another alibi for adultery. In fact, the so-called bosses that are kept hostage by workers are employees as well, mainly factory directors.
Let's recap our points from the beginning. Bossnapping is illegal, risky for its user since he may not find another job after having napped his boss, unbalancing because it gives employees a too important leverage to negotiate, and almost uneffective means of dealing with social conflicts. That's why we propose instead to restrain employees' way of protesting to demonstrations and strikes, or if they really think that their boss is useless, to experiment self-management of the company. In any case, bossnapping is not the perfect solution unions have always been looking for, and that's why we urge the floor to refuse this motion by voting for us.
More seriously, bossnaping isn't a great tool for social conflict in terms of efficiency. We must admit that lately it seemed to work, but only because such a massive bossnapping movement is quite new : eventually companies will set up a standard policy about bossnapping which will certainly be "no negotiation with criminals", as states did with terrorists.
Proposing team also pointed out the negative impact of demonstration and traffic jamming on public opinion. But what they don't seem to understand is that bossnappers are considered even worse : even if they're defending their job, their salary, for the average citizen they are criminals first. A study lead by IFOP shows that only 30% of the French approve this means of negotiation, whereas 74% approve the next SNCF strike on Thursday, according to BVA-BPI.
Let's analyze now our opponents' last argument (which thus must be the strongest). The primary cause of massive lays off is a voluntarily bad management of companies, which enables bosses to get bossnapped in order to experiment the thrill of being sequestrated. Well, it's an interesting theory, but we can point out a few contradictions. First, the bosses described here, so rich and powerful that they can put their company in bankrupt to fight boredom, aren't really numerous (assuming they even exist). Then, they never get bossnapped : they're working from home or in a building more secure than a military base. Bad luck for them, they will have to find another alibi for adultery. In fact, the so-called bosses that are kept hostage by workers are employees as well, mainly factory directors.
Let's recap our points from the beginning. Bossnapping is illegal, risky for its user since he may not find another job after having napped his boss, unbalancing because it gives employees a too important leverage to negotiate, and almost uneffective means of dealing with social conflicts. That's why we propose instead to restrain employees' way of protesting to demonstrations and strikes, or if they really think that their boss is useless, to experiment self-management of the company. In any case, bossnapping is not the perfect solution unions have always been looking for, and that's why we urge the floor to refuse this motion by voting for us.
Proposing team: final speech
What's that fantasm about sequestering Bill Gates' secretary in a room with a dozen of hairy workers? We will soon have to restrict the access of this website to adult audience because of your almost erotic scripts! I wonder what were the circumstances in which the opposing team wrote its rebuttal...
But let's make an effort to think about it using our brain and not another part of the body. If the opposing team thinks that executives could kidnapp the workers of their company (at least it is what we think they think), they are definitely off-topic. Indeed, bossnapping is a weapon for the so-called"weak side". Bosses have far more pernicious ways to deal with their employees. They can force them to work on days off and threaten them with firing, they can harass them psychologically as well as sexualy. It is a bit as if the tallest kid in the playgroung threatened the smallest one to tell the teacher he has been bullying him. That is pretty stupid, isn't it? Well that is what the opposing team suggests...
We are glad the opposing team feel sympathetic to the desperate workers. But preventing them from bossnapping, is a bit like taking away a soldier's gun in the middle of a battlefield. You feel sympathetic to him, you understand his misery but you leave him with his bare hands to fight against an ennemy carrying heavy weapons. That is clearly hypocretical.
The opposing team should stop sticking its head into the sand like a helpless ostrich: the balance of power between management and workers is heavily biased in favour of the formers. That may be sad, but that is true. There is no easy way out of this situation.
For too long, the workers have been misled by the executives. For too long, they have consented to seeing their purchasing power slowly fall. For too long, they have been the victims of gradual degradation of their condition. Because so is the harsh law of the market -- we usually accept it because its efficiency has been proved more than once.
However, there are some extreme cases that need to be addressed accordingly. What should the workers do when they are told that their factory, or their offices, are going to be closed down to free up money, money that will be used to pay dividends to the stockholders? What should they do when they are faced with disloyal bosses, who could provide them with a decent severance package, but are unwilling to do so, because their own bonuses will depend on how much money they can deprive the ex-workers of?
The world, the real world -- where debates read like debates -- is not as black-or-white as the opposing team tells us. In the real world, some bosses are scums. Some workers are dickheads, sure. But bosses, because of their position of power over the workers, have a social responsability. Some live up to this expectations (for instance, Laffarge pays for the HIV-treatment of its workers in South Africa), but some fail.
And there comes bossnapping. The most convincing way for the workers to get what the boss could give, but did not want to, unless asked convincingly. Thanks to bossnapping, those who could eventually did. Those who couldn't had a refreshing experience. And sure, it is not legal. Just as being on strike was not legal some generations ago. But it is a powerful tool to put the management of a company in front of its responsabilities. We would use it.
Future employers, beware.
And fellow debaters, vote for us !
But let's make an effort to think about it using our brain and not another part of the body. If the opposing team thinks that executives could kidnapp the workers of their company (at least it is what we think they think), they are definitely off-topic. Indeed, bossnapping is a weapon for the so-called"weak side". Bosses have far more pernicious ways to deal with their employees. They can force them to work on days off and threaten them with firing, they can harass them psychologically as well as sexualy. It is a bit as if the tallest kid in the playgroung threatened the smallest one to tell the teacher he has been bullying him. That is pretty stupid, isn't it? Well that is what the opposing team suggests...
We are glad the opposing team feel sympathetic to the desperate workers. But preventing them from bossnapping, is a bit like taking away a soldier's gun in the middle of a battlefield. You feel sympathetic to him, you understand his misery but you leave him with his bare hands to fight against an ennemy carrying heavy weapons. That is clearly hypocretical.
The opposing team should stop sticking its head into the sand like a helpless ostrich: the balance of power between management and workers is heavily biased in favour of the formers. That may be sad, but that is true. There is no easy way out of this situation.
For too long, the workers have been misled by the executives. For too long, they have consented to seeing their purchasing power slowly fall. For too long, they have been the victims of gradual degradation of their condition. Because so is the harsh law of the market -- we usually accept it because its efficiency has been proved more than once.
However, there are some extreme cases that need to be addressed accordingly. What should the workers do when they are told that their factory, or their offices, are going to be closed down to free up money, money that will be used to pay dividends to the stockholders? What should they do when they are faced with disloyal bosses, who could provide them with a decent severance package, but are unwilling to do so, because their own bonuses will depend on how much money they can deprive the ex-workers of?
The world, the real world -- where debates read like debates -- is not as black-or-white as the opposing team tells us. In the real world, some bosses are scums. Some workers are dickheads, sure. But bosses, because of their position of power over the workers, have a social responsability. Some live up to this expectations (for instance, Laffarge pays for the HIV-treatment of its workers in South Africa), but some fail.
And there comes bossnapping. The most convincing way for the workers to get what the boss could give, but did not want to, unless asked convincingly. Thanks to bossnapping, those who could eventually did. Those who couldn't had a refreshing experience. And sure, it is not legal. Just as being on strike was not legal some generations ago. But it is a powerful tool to put the management of a company in front of its responsabilities. We would use it.
Future employers, beware.
And fellow debaters, vote for us !
Laurent and JBH
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Opposing team : Rebuttal
It seems that the proposing team quite agrees on the terms of the definition we gave. But they also want us to makes us think that it neat and clean : “Five o’clock, time to go home, thought Bill Gates. He took his coat, shut down his computer and went to the door and opened it. And here they were, dozens of his factory workers, twice as big as him. They smiled at him and one said : You’re not leaving until you give us a pay rise.” Do you think such that a situation cannot get out of control ? And even if so, I wouldn’t feel good at his place.
But the proposers seem to think that it is a “fair way” for the workers to be heard. Can we reverse the argument? There are indeed many bosses that find our country’s social law are too difficult to be followed: “Five o’clock, time to go home thought Bill Gates secretary…” I think you see my point. If this means was that efficient, we would use it more and more often, in order to save time and money, and on both sides.
We don’t question the distress of the employees, losing their jobs and feeling abandoned. And our thoughts also go to them. If you are found guilty, you risk spending time in jail for kidnapping. But if you are not, be sure that your name will be on every black list there is in every firm you will apply. You are not only taking risks for no results, but also preventing yourself from finding a new job.
Do we need to come back to the cultural aspects? I think that you are all above these so-called cultural aspects. First, this is quite pretentious to say that because it’s the French exception, it is the right thing to do. Secondly, you all know that history and culture can justify everything.
As a conclusion, I will try to make you think of the situation encountered by both the boss and his employees. If they act like this, it means that the firm is in danger :
1. The boss did not do his job, and should be dismissed. That’s the role of the share-holders or the owner of the firm. And they are the people you should put pressure on, not your boss, and without violence.
2. Your boss did all he could. But the factory is not competitive any longer because of the Chinese (maybe you should bossnap 1 billion people), because of the economic crisis or any reason you cannot foresee.
In the second case, what would be the goal of bossnapping ?
In the first, we want to propose something. If the workers are convinced that their firm can go on without their boss, we think that the state can help them become their own boss. These experiments have been made during the last century, some succeeded, some failed. But we think this is worth trying, instead of paralyzing the situation.
But the proposers seem to think that it is a “fair way” for the workers to be heard. Can we reverse the argument? There are indeed many bosses that find our country’s social law are too difficult to be followed: “Five o’clock, time to go home thought Bill Gates secretary…” I think you see my point. If this means was that efficient, we would use it more and more often, in order to save time and money, and on both sides.
We don’t question the distress of the employees, losing their jobs and feeling abandoned. And our thoughts also go to them. If you are found guilty, you risk spending time in jail for kidnapping. But if you are not, be sure that your name will be on every black list there is in every firm you will apply. You are not only taking risks for no results, but also preventing yourself from finding a new job.
Do we need to come back to the cultural aspects? I think that you are all above these so-called cultural aspects. First, this is quite pretentious to say that because it’s the French exception, it is the right thing to do. Secondly, you all know that history and culture can justify everything.
As a conclusion, I will try to make you think of the situation encountered by both the boss and his employees. If they act like this, it means that the firm is in danger :
1. The boss did not do his job, and should be dismissed. That’s the role of the share-holders or the owner of the firm. And they are the people you should put pressure on, not your boss, and without violence.
2. Your boss did all he could. But the factory is not competitive any longer because of the Chinese (maybe you should bossnap 1 billion people), because of the economic crisis or any reason you cannot foresee.
In the second case, what would be the goal of bossnapping ?
In the first, we want to propose something. If the workers are convinced that their firm can go on without their boss, we think that the state can help them become their own boss. These experiments have been made during the last century, some succeeded, some failed. But we think this is worth trying, instead of paralyzing the situation.
Proposing team: Rebuttal
Fisrt of all, I would like to come back on what has been written by the opposing team. They said bossnapping was "a strong attack to the basic rights of the person held hostage". Sure it is! We all agree on that. That is precisely what makes it so efficient compared to going on a strike or demonstrating in the street, wearing LCR red t-shirt and shouting out loud silly songs about how the boss is being evil with the workers. Bossnapping is forbidden, but what is allowed is clearly not enough to express your concern about your job and the entire life that relies on it.
Another mistake made by our opposers is that they think bossnapping is dangerous not only for the boss but also for the workers themselves. Indeed, the closure of a factory may eventually lead to the firing of the worker. And then? If the workers are desperate enough to retain their boss it may be because they feel they are about to be fired anyway! It is a call of despair, the expression that every other means has been pointless and that the workers are left wihout any other option whatsoever.
Let's develop a bit more our point of view now. Why would we bossnap? Well, obviously it is an unviolent way to force the boss of a company to take some time to think about the futur of his workers. Because creating a firm or owning a firm implies to be responsible for the lives of many others, and not only for one's own benefit. Spending some time with the workers of his company can help the boss to understand the concerns that inhabit them, what do they like? what are they confident about and what frightens them? It enables everyone to get to know the one who sits/stands on the other side of the desk.
A great thinker said "the difference between the blue collars and the white ones is that when they go to the toilets, the members of the first category whash their hands before to pee while those of the second one whash it after having peed. But the best of both categories do it before and after" which means that the best workers are those who do their job very carefully (but this is not my point. here it comes... almost there...) and the best managers are those who work so close to their workers that they eventually get dirty. And this is what it is all about, getting dirty once in their life contribute to the magnanimity of the boss and thus to a better social landscape.
A far more practical aspect is that of disturb and bothering. I'd rather nap my boss for 48 hours in his confortable office than jamming the traffic or blocking the train so that the rest of the city blame me for troubling its tranquility. And as a daily user of the transport network I am more inclined to be concerned about the situation of somebody who don't delay all my trains, if not cancel them.
Finally let's face it. A boss has got everything he wants. A nice car, a pretty woman, a nice woman (the difference between both is left to your imagination), a huge house, a well supplied bank account, adorable children (or not), a second home and possibly a third and a fourth... A boss has probably experienced a lot of astonishing activities such as skydiving, car race, dragster race, adultery, scuba diving, wild safari, diving with sharks, climbing Mont Everest and so on. Napping is the very last sensation left to the bosses to feel alive by facing death, even though they are not really facing death but only facing a dozen of angry workers willing to go back home with their wives and their kids with a decent salary to afford Mrs' earring and the kids' video games. Maybe some bosses have already tried to launch voluntarily a social conflict so as to be sequestered at work (perhaps also to avoid his wife's discovery of the other wife) and experience that specific sensation, one of the last left to feel for somebody who has already felt almost everything.
For the next speeches I can only hope that you will keep in mind our main arguments and especially when it will come to voting. So "debater-nap" yourself on the right side and VOTE FOR US!
Another mistake made by our opposers is that they think bossnapping is dangerous not only for the boss but also for the workers themselves. Indeed, the closure of a factory may eventually lead to the firing of the worker. And then? If the workers are desperate enough to retain their boss it may be because they feel they are about to be fired anyway! It is a call of despair, the expression that every other means has been pointless and that the workers are left wihout any other option whatsoever.
Let's develop a bit more our point of view now. Why would we bossnap? Well, obviously it is an unviolent way to force the boss of a company to take some time to think about the futur of his workers. Because creating a firm or owning a firm implies to be responsible for the lives of many others, and not only for one's own benefit. Spending some time with the workers of his company can help the boss to understand the concerns that inhabit them, what do they like? what are they confident about and what frightens them? It enables everyone to get to know the one who sits/stands on the other side of the desk.
A great thinker said "the difference between the blue collars and the white ones is that when they go to the toilets, the members of the first category whash their hands before to pee while those of the second one whash it after having peed. But the best of both categories do it before and after" which means that the best workers are those who do their job very carefully (but this is not my point. here it comes... almost there...) and the best managers are those who work so close to their workers that they eventually get dirty. And this is what it is all about, getting dirty once in their life contribute to the magnanimity of the boss and thus to a better social landscape.
A far more practical aspect is that of disturb and bothering. I'd rather nap my boss for 48 hours in his confortable office than jamming the traffic or blocking the train so that the rest of the city blame me for troubling its tranquility. And as a daily user of the transport network I am more inclined to be concerned about the situation of somebody who don't delay all my trains, if not cancel them.
Finally let's face it. A boss has got everything he wants. A nice car, a pretty woman, a nice woman (the difference between both is left to your imagination), a huge house, a well supplied bank account, adorable children (or not), a second home and possibly a third and a fourth... A boss has probably experienced a lot of astonishing activities such as skydiving, car race, dragster race, adultery, scuba diving, wild safari, diving with sharks, climbing Mont Everest and so on. Napping is the very last sensation left to the bosses to feel alive by facing death, even though they are not really facing death but only facing a dozen of angry workers willing to go back home with their wives and their kids with a decent salary to afford Mrs' earring and the kids' video games. Maybe some bosses have already tried to launch voluntarily a social conflict so as to be sequestered at work (perhaps also to avoid his wife's discovery of the other wife) and experience that specific sensation, one of the last left to feel for somebody who has already felt almost everything.
For the next speeches I can only hope that you will keep in mind our main arguments and especially when it will come to voting. So "debater-nap" yourself on the right side and VOTE FOR US!
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Opposing team - Opening speech
Recently, you could see that the new fashion to help find solutions to difficult negotiations between workers and leaders of a firm is the bossnapping. The idea is that the workers held the boss of the firm hostage into his office until a solution judged good by the workers is found to solve the problems of the firm. It recently happened for a company run by the U.S factory 3M for instance. But our team strongly believe that this new habit isn't a good solution at all.
First, everyone has to understand that this way of acting is a strong attack to the basic rights of the person held hostage, especially to his freedom. And according to laws, it is forbidden to held someone against his will if is this person didn't committed any crime or isn't suspected of having committed some. So, our team is opposed to bossnapping since we strongly believe that there is many other ways to find a solution in this kind of situation which are completely legal and have good results.
So bossnapping make some salaried be outlaw. It is very dangerous for them because it will follow them and if their firm finally go bankrupt, do they really think that an other firm will take the risk to hire them ? Bossnapping isn't only a problem for leaders or for the health of the enterprise, it is also dangerous for the workers who do it. It is a real bet.
But the main reason which makes bossnapping a huge error is that it do not really help the negotiations and complicate it a lot by adding a new dimension to it. Indeed, it is a weak way of pressure. The boss is only blocked into his office and knows that it won't be for more than a week if the workers don't want to have all the public opinion against them. For the company 3M for instance, the boss have been held less than 48 hours. That's why bossnapping could only give an important weight to the workers if they have the possibility to physically hurt the boss, which should be ethically unbearable and would make the “bossnappers” outlaw.
People have to be aware that now, thanks to many laws voted to defend the rights of workers, the leaders ans workers of a firm have almost equal weight in the negotiations in crisis situation. And if the situation is too complicated and the two parts are not able to agree on the best attitude to have, the government often decide to send a mediator who will try to split the difference by a fair way. So today both parts can express their opinion and be listened and have quite the same weight into the decision. So bossnapping only disturb the balance created by the French law and only complicate the negotiations by adding a threat dimension which make more difficult to focus on the situation of the firm and on the right attitude to have to help the workers but also the enterprise.
Here are the main reasons which make that our team is opposed to bossnapping. So don't be touched by the proposing team who will surely try to make you cry with the distress of workers losing their job and obliged to bossnapp their leader to still have a reason to live because these workers have other stronger ways to be listened. That's why you should VOTE FOR US !!
First, everyone has to understand that this way of acting is a strong attack to the basic rights of the person held hostage, especially to his freedom. And according to laws, it is forbidden to held someone against his will if is this person didn't committed any crime or isn't suspected of having committed some. So, our team is opposed to bossnapping since we strongly believe that there is many other ways to find a solution in this kind of situation which are completely legal and have good results.
So bossnapping make some salaried be outlaw. It is very dangerous for them because it will follow them and if their firm finally go bankrupt, do they really think that an other firm will take the risk to hire them ? Bossnapping isn't only a problem for leaders or for the health of the enterprise, it is also dangerous for the workers who do it. It is a real bet.
But the main reason which makes bossnapping a huge error is that it do not really help the negotiations and complicate it a lot by adding a new dimension to it. Indeed, it is a weak way of pressure. The boss is only blocked into his office and knows that it won't be for more than a week if the workers don't want to have all the public opinion against them. For the company 3M for instance, the boss have been held less than 48 hours. That's why bossnapping could only give an important weight to the workers if they have the possibility to physically hurt the boss, which should be ethically unbearable and would make the “bossnappers” outlaw.
People have to be aware that now, thanks to many laws voted to defend the rights of workers, the leaders ans workers of a firm have almost equal weight in the negotiations in crisis situation. And if the situation is too complicated and the two parts are not able to agree on the best attitude to have, the government often decide to send a mediator who will try to split the difference by a fair way. So today both parts can express their opinion and be listened and have quite the same weight into the decision. So bossnapping only disturb the balance created by the French law and only complicate the negotiations by adding a threat dimension which make more difficult to focus on the situation of the firm and on the right attitude to have to help the workers but also the enterprise.
Here are the main reasons which make that our team is opposed to bossnapping. So don't be touched by the proposing team who will surely try to make you cry with the distress of workers losing their job and obliged to bossnapp their leader to still have a reason to live because these workers have other stronger ways to be listened. That's why you should VOTE FOR US !!
Monday, May 18, 2009
Proposing team - Opening speech
Boss-napping (or bossnapping) is a new coined term for an old activity. It consists of preventing the management (hereafter, "the bosses") of a company, or of a plant, to leave the location at the end of the day, when a deep social conflict is on-going. Those people are held overnight by the workers, who act openly -- they do not hide their faces, etc. -- and without any physical violence whatsoever. The bosses are well treated, well fed, and are not threatened.
As we can see, bossnapping is a tool, among others that the workers use in the event of a social conflict -- going on strike, picketting, blocking roads and other strategic means of transportation, witholding production, etc. In the event of bossnapping, no violence is involved. Only fair psychological pressure. Yes, it is true that bossnapping is a very powerful means of pressure, meant to be used as a last resort weapon. But we consider it as being the appropriate response to the most threating situations for the workers and the employees -- being laid off close to the retirement age, with a very small severance package.
For when the workers find themselves in such a situation, they are nearly helpless. Often they do not have the financial resources needed to bounce back and find a new job, when they are young enough to do so. Often, they have devoted all their time and all their energy to the company, adjusting themselves when asked to. They have been for years the silent -- and often, willing -- victims of a cruel system. So, when the situation turns to the worst, when other means of negociations are exhausted, when the management of a company doesn't care about roads being blocked, or workers being on strike, they have to turn to the only possibility they are left with: making the bosses understand, in their flesh, what being trapped into something they do not control feels like.
Nowadays, because of the financial crisis, bossnapping is becoming a national sport. However, it has long been an integral part of the French tradition, dating back to the Front Populaire of the 30's, and was, until recently, a typical French method. The foreign press is now integrating it as a part of the exception culturelle that French people feel proud of and foreigners respect. Cheese, wine and bossnapping.
In our following speeches, we will give a deeper look at the properties of boss-napping: efficiency, speed, fairness and above all, a little bit of adventure, fun, and respect for the bosses in the middle of a financial turmoil. And that, gentlemen, is priceless.
We are not going to debater-nap you until Wednesday, so enjoy yourselves, and vote for us !
Damien and Laurent
Second online debate - This House would bossnap.
Hello,
This week's motion is:
"This House would bossnap."
The proposing team is JBH, Damien V, Laurent S. and the opposing team is Sylvestre A, Matthieu B and Pierre-Louis P.
Enjoy !
Voting time!
Our thanks go to both team for their great argumentations and the skill with which they have led us through this first debate. Now...
Those in favour of the motion say 'aye', the others say 'nay'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)