[Draft] Not enough evenings...

[Caracasus]

(Note - this issue is specifically aimed at nations without private industry (Socialist/communist) following Candewhisper's fantastic work in altering/changing options and validity requirements to ensure that they reflect nation's economic outlook more)

[the issue] A recent blip in projected productivity figures across the nation's worker-owned communes has sent a number of economists, representatives from worker's communes and the occasional bureaucrat scurrying to your office, all arguing about what can be done to stave off a potential economic disaster.

[validity] Must have picked option 1 for issue 339 The Bear Necessities. (Alternatively, if coding this would be a pain: High political freedoms/no private industry)

[option] "Sure, it sounds like a nice idea, being able to vote on everything to do with your workplace" grumbles @@RANDOMNAME@@, a worker's representative from a commune that produces toilets. "But the reality? We've had sixteen different meetings this week where workers are just sitting around straining over every tiny dropping of a decision, like whether to spring for the three-ply ripple toilet paper or save money with the coarse grit discount brand. We really need to get to the bottom of this, and wipe away this waste! Of resources! Bring back centralized planning and give workers' control a double flush!"
[effect]the nation has renationalized worker owned workplaces

[option]"The problem isn't that the workers are in control of their workplaces as such", muses @@RANDOMNAME@@, a now unemployed ex-bureaucrat from the former central planning committee "It's that the wrong workers are in charge of the workplace, if you follow me. Under our current system, everyone gets an equal say in the running of the workplace, even those whose loyalty to the revolution may be... questionable. Maybe we should give more control to those workers who display more capability for leadership? And by capability I mean loyalty to the revolution..."
[effect]being able to recite from memory @@LEADER@@'s latest speech is considered a prerequisite to success in many fields

[option]"Sure, this whole workplace democracy thing takes up a lot of time" states @@RANDOMNAME@@, a noted anarcho-syndicalist "But we cannot take a step back now that we are so close to achieving our goals. The problem here isn't with the workers owning the means of production directly, it's that they don't have time to go about running their workplaces. What we need to do is fully automate everything! Once we've got machines and robots doing most of the work, we can all sit back and enjoy our own luxurious worker's paradise."
[effect]the nation's workers enjoy four hour long lunch breaks as machines slave away producing goods

[the issue] Following the transition from central planning to worker's control of the workplace, a report indicating that one @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ commune produced nothing for an entire month as its members spent their work time in meetings on how to run the commune has hit your desk. An emergency meeting has convened to discuss potential solutions to the problem.

[validity] Must have picked option 1 for issue 339 The Bear Necessities. (Alternatively, if coding this would be a pain: High political freedoms/no private industry)

[option] "Sure, it sounds like a nice idea, being able to vote on everything to do with your workplace" grumbles @@RANDOMNAME@@, the worker from @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ that produced the report. "But the reality? Pah. We've had sixteen meetings this week alone about the toilet paper we use in the bathrooms! Everyone is spending so much time arguing over everything I hardly even see my family anymore! Perhaps it would be better if we went back to a more centrally planned economic model..."
[effect]the nation has renationalized worker owned workplaces

[option]"The problem isn't that the workers are in control of their workplaces as such", muses @@RANDOMNAME@@, a now unemployed ex-bureaucrat from the former central planning committee "It's that the wrong workers are in charge of the workplace, if you follow me. Under our current system, the person who mops the floors at the automobile factory has an equal say in how the place is run as the engineers who design them. Maybe we should give more control to those workers who display more capability? And by capability I mean loyalty to the revolution..."
[effect]being able to recite from memory @@LEADER@@'s latest speech is considered a prerequisite to success in many fields

[option]"Sure, this whole Socialism thing takes up a lot of time" states @@RANDOMNAME@@, a noted anarcho-syndicalist "But we cannot take a step back now that we are so close to achieving our goals. The problem here isn't with the workers owning the means of production directly, it's that they don't have time to go about running their workplaces! How about we cut work hours across the entire country by a day or so, freeing up time to run the workplace and see our families! We might take a bit of a hit when it comes to production in the short term - but with some investment in automation I'm sure we'll close the gap with those capitalist profiteers overseas in no time!"
[effect]workers rarely put in more than a couple of hours' productive work a day

[the issue] Following the transition from central planning to worker's control of the workplace, a committee of worker's representatives have called an emergency meeting, citing dwindling (Yes I know, this needs fleshing out)

[validity] Must have picked option 1 for issue 339 The Bear Necessities. (Alternatively, if coding this would be a pain: High political freedoms/no private industry)

[option] "Sure, it sounds like a nice idea, being able to vote on everything to do with your workplace" grumbles @@RANDOMNAME@@, a representative from @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ "But the reality? Pah. We've had sixteen meetings this week alone about the toilet paper we use in the bathrooms! Everyone is spending so much time arguing over everything I hardly even see my family anymore! Perhaps it would be better if we went back to a more centrally planned economic model..."

[option]"The problem isn't that the workers are in control of their workplaces as such", muses @@RANDOMNAME@@, a now unemployed ex-bureaucrat from the former central planning committee "It's that the wrong workers are in charge of the workplace, if you follow me. Under our current system, the person who mops the floors at the automobile factory has an equal say in how the place is run as the engineers who design them. Maybe we should give more control to those workers who display more capability and more loyalty to the revolution?"

[option]"Sure, this whole Socialism thing takes up a lot of time" states @@RANDOMNAME@@, "But we cannot take a step back now that we are so close to achieving our goals. How about we cut work hours across the entire country, freeing up time to run the workplace and see our families! We might take a bit of a hit when it comes to production in the short term - but with some investment in automation I'm sure we'll close the gap with those capitalist profiteers overseas in no time!"

[Trotterdam]

So there's no option for keeping a true democracy? Not gonna fly. Ideally you should have at least two of those, since the hypothetical player already indicated a leaning in that direction.

Also, you can just abstain on votes you find frivolous. Unless your nation made voting compulsory. In which case you could still vote arbitrarily without sitting through the sixteen long meetings debating the subject first.

[Caracasus]

So there's no option for keeping a true democracy? Not gonna fly. Ideally you should have at least two of those, since the hypothetical player already indicated a leaning in that direction.

Also, you can just abstain on votes you find frivolous. Unless your nation made voting compulsory. In which case you could still vote arbitrarily without sitting through the sixteen long meetings debating the subject first.

No doubt. I'm still very much fleshing this one out. Idea is that workers are spending so much time in meetings about how to run the company that they're spending little/no time doing anything else - including working. I'll make that a little clearer in option 1 I think - perhaps someone complaining about the meetings without saying that they sat through them...

I think a 3rd option would be to cut back on work hours or something... honestly working this one out as I go.

[Australian rePublic]

Interesting concept, but every company has its own corporate culture, and every company would make these decisions on its own. I don't see why this would be a national issue.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

Interesting concept, but every company has its own corporate culture, and every company would make these decisions on its own. I don't see why this would be a national issue.

Yeah, the issue description even specifically indicates a move away from central plannng to local workers' control. Whatever their particular level of competence happens to be, I having a hard time imagining a council of syndicalists giving a carp what @@LEADER@@ thinks of it.

[Trotterdam]

Interesting concept, but every company has its own corporate culture, and every company would make these decisions on its own. I don't see why this would be a national issue.

Because this issue is for communists. Please look up the issue this claims to be a followup to.

[Caracasus]

Interesting concept, but every company has its own corporate culture, and every company would make these decisions on its own. I don't see why this would be a national issue.

Yeah, the issue description even specifically indicates a move away from central plannng to local workers' control. Whatever their particular level of competence happens to be, I having a hard time imagining a council of syndicalists giving a carp what @@LEADER@@ thinks of it.

I've re-phrased the options to reflect the various viewpoints of the speakers a little better. Any further ideas?

[Australian rePublic]

Interesting concept, but every company has its own corporate culture, and every company would make these decisions on its own. I don't see why this would be a national issue.

Because this issue is for communists. Please look up the issue this claims to be a followup to.

It doesn't really matter. I have studied buisiness professionally, and (if I remember correctly) there are 4 different styles of management. Each manager manages in his/her own diferent style, and each employee craves a different style of manager. If you work better under a certain type of managment, then you're not likely to want a different type of managment. One type of manager gives constant direction and supervision, which some employees crave, and on the opposite end of the spectrum, there are managers who just tell you what to do, and expect you to do it. If you are the type of worker who wants constant supervision, then you may annoy the second type of manager I mentioned, if you are the type of worker who wants to just get on with your work with no supervision, the first type of manager may annoy you

The second factor is where you sit on the spectrum of innovation and new ideas.

Different departments will have different individuals, with different management styles. Why would the govt. Transport department have the same management style as the education department, or health department? Especially as they are more than likely to operate indipendantly of eachother

[Caracasus]

Because this issue is for communists. Please look up the issue this claims to be a followup to.

It doesn't really matter. I have studied buisiness professionally, and (if I remember correctly) there are 4 different styles of management. Each manager manages in his/her own diferent style, and each employee craves a different style of manager. If you work better under a certain type of managment, then you're not likely to want a different type of managment. One type of manager gives constant direction and supervision, which some employees crave, and on the opposite end of the spectrum, there are managers who just tell you what to do, and expect you to do it. If you are the type of worker who wants constant supervision, then you may annoy the second type of manager I mentioned, if you are the type of worker who wants to just get on with your work with no supervision, the first type of manager may annoy you

The second factor is where you sit on the spectrum of innovation and new ideas.

Different departments will have different individuals, with different management styles. Why would the govt. Transport department have the same management style as the education department, or health department? Especially as they are more than likely to operate indipendantly of eachother

There are oversimplifications here because they need to be simplified somewhat, but please bear in mind that a nation getting this issue would get it because they have moved away from a heirachical model to a more democratic one. There would be no managers as such.

It essentially works on the idea that following institution of democratic workplace control, your workers are spending a lot of time deciding through meetings or committies how best to run their workplaces, cutting into the time that they would otherwise use to contribute to making things or providing services.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

I've re-phrased the options to reflect the various viewpoints of the speakers a little better. Any further ideas?

OK, but in a situation where central planning has been replaced by local workers' control, how is it that @@LEADER@@ gets to decide things like "reduce working hours" or "make non-janitors into managers?" As it is, option one (re-nationalize everything) is the only one which really makes any sense. The other options concern decisions that would be made at the local level, not by @@LEADER@@, given that the current situation is one of anti-central planning.

(And, to be honest, I'm still not buying the premise. The idea that a workers democracy means having to stop and have a secret ballot on every single possible decision everywhere is actually a pretty obvious strawman. Pretty much every worker controlled business with more than a few employees will be organized by a representative/federalist system. Frequently ones, in fact, which simply elect managers from among the workers. Some then make decisions and the rest follow.

Because oddly enough, the people who depend the most on pulling a wage tend to be the ones most concerned with keeping the machines running at full capacity. Seeing as how if the machines stop, so do the paychecks.)

Each manager manages in his/her own diferent style, and each employee craves a different style of manager.

As some one who has worked for a wage for at least a while now, I think the only type of manager I "crave" ( ) is the kind that doesn't think i'm happy to work for free.

[Caracasus]

I've re-phrased the options to reflect the various viewpoints of the speakers a little better. Any further ideas?

OK, but in a situation where central planning has been replaced by local workers' control, how is it that @@LEADER@@ gets to decide things like "reduce working hours" or "make non-janitors into managers?" As it is, option one (re-nationalize everything) is the only one which really makes any sense. The other options concern decisions that would be made at the local level, not by @@LEADER@@, given that the current situation is one of anti-central planning.

(And, to be honest, I'm still not buying the premise. The idea that a workers democracy means having to stop and have a secret ballot on every single possible decision everywhere is actually a pretty obvious strawman. Pretty much every worker controlled business with more than a few employees will be organized by a representative/federalist system. Frequently ones, in fact, which simply elect managers from among the workers. Some then make decisions and the rest follow.

Because oddly enough, the people who depend the most on pulling a wage tend to be the ones most concerned with keeping the machines running at full capacity. Seeing as how if the machines stop, so do the paychecks.)

Granted it's something of a strawman argument - however it's NationStates issues. Most of the issues are over-simplified with plenty of strawmanning in the various options on offer. As for what the leader can and can't do - I see your point there. I will have a think and re-draft. One potential direction could be to expand on the automation of production angle a little more.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

Granted it's something of a strawman argument - however it's NationStates issues. Most of the issues are over-simplified with plenty of strawmanning in the various options on offer.

Right -- in the options, not the issue description/premise. Don't build an ideological argument ("workers' control is inefficient" in this case) into the issue description. Instead, restrict the issue description to the facts of the case -- the who, what, where, and when, but not the why/should. The why/should is ONLY up to the player, via choice of a preferred issue option.

So, make the issue description more neutral/general/vague: "As declining production numbers have set stomachs rumbling in @@NAME@@, economists have been spending some extra time in the 'office' coming up with ways to pinch off an economic downturn before the economy goes completely boom boom."

Then one of the options could be: "We've had sixteen different meetings this week where workers are just sitting around straining over every tiny dropping of a decision, like whether to spring for the three-ply ripple toilet paper or save money with the coarse grit discount brand. We really need to get to the bottom of this, and wipe away this waste! Of resources! Bring back centralized planning and give workers' control a double flush!"

Of course, the issue should also offer a pro-workers' control option and probably a pro-capitalist option. Also, the issue should probably be set in an undergarments factory. And titled "Is It Skid Marks for Workers' Control?"

[Caracasus]

Granted it's something of a strawman argument - however it's NationStates issues. Most of the issues are over-simplified with plenty of strawmanning in the various options on offer.

Right -- in the options, not the issue description/premise. Don't build an ideological argument ("workers' control is inefficient" in this case) into the issue description. Instead, restrict the issue description to the facts of the case -- the who, what, where, and when, but not the why/should. The why/should is ONLY up to the player, via choice of a preferred issue option.

So, make the issue description more neutral/general/vague: "As declining production numbers have set stomachs rumbling in @@NAME@@, economists have been spending some extra time in the 'office' coming up with ways to pinch off an economic downturn before the economy goes completely boom boom."

Then one of the options could be: "We've had sixteen different meetings this week where workers are just sitting around straining over every tiny dropping of a decision, like whether to spring for the three-ply ripple toilet paper or save money with the coarse grit discount brand. We really need to get to the bottom of this, and wipe away this waste! Of resources! Bring back centralized planning and give workers' control a double flush!"

Of course, the issue should also offer a pro-workers' control option and probably a pro-capitalist option. Also, the issue should probably be set in an undergarments factory. And titled "Is It Skid Marks for Workers' Control?"

Thanks for the input! My issues to date have largely been done more for comedy value than anything. Good to get another perspective. I'll sort some of this out later, and thanks again.

[Caracasus]

OK. Thanks for the feedback. I've made some of the suggestions. In the end I chose not to go with a pro-capitalist option as there are already plenty out there for socialist nations to use if they wish to reverse that.

Given that there's already an underpants related option, I decided that it'd be bad form to repeat that joke, though other suggestions for comedy are welcome. A factory producing toilets perhaps? I don't know.