Broken Promise backs Dubious Dealing

Do these people ever see the bleeding obvious? wonders Agamedes.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Today's West has an article headed, "Health cash on collision course" (30 Jun 10). There's a supporting article, "Pollies playing stupid games" and an Editorial on the same topic.

The topic? The federal government offers to fund state health. In exchange, the federal government will take a portion of the state's GST income. Take with one hand, give with the other. The idea is, that the federal government can... somehow... better manage a health system. The West's Editorial is vaguely supportive of the idea.

Now let me point out the bleeding obvious: Money given to the federal government is spent by the federal government. It is spent as the federal government decides.

Is there something wrong with that? Not if you believe that the federal government will keep its promises, to provide a "better" health system for each state.

Let's ignore -- for now, various questions associated with better: Why do we expect one government to run health "better" than another? If the same money is to be spent, how will the system become "better"? What funding will the federal government provide, once the initial agreement is complete and health is firmly committed to federal control? How long will the initial agreement last?

Let's look at what has actually happened so far:

The state premier played hardball. Actually, he refused to hand more state money to the federal government. So federal agreed to hand over money anyway -- federal agreed to give $350 million to help run the state health system. Now, from the article in The West, "[federal] Health Minister Nicola Roxon yesterday reneged on a promise to pay $350 million directly to State hospitals."

Federal health minister Nicola Roxon reneged on a promise.

All we have so far is a promise. And that promise is already broken.

Would you give money to that politician -- to any politician -- in the hope that the politician would hand it all back? Would you risk millions of dollars on a politician's promise?

I would not even buy a used car from a politician. Federal or state.

And the further the money is passed -- the less chance there is, that any of it will get back again.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Logical Equivalence

Agamedes offers his own fingers, to help others count up the costs.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Bring our soldiers back from Afghanistan and use the money saved to give pensioners and refugees "everything they need", writes Simon Jones of Morley (The West, 23 Jun 10).

Let's suppose that there are a hundred Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. A thousand refugees on Christmas Island. Ten thousand refugees just waiting for an opportunity to escape Afghanistan and flee to Australia. One hundred thousand pensioners already in Australia.

How far will we get with the money saved, when the soldiers return home? Don't forget, we will still be paying them all to be soldiers. The actual savings will be on overseas allowance and danger zone payments.

How many refugees and pensioners will you support with the money saved? How many will get "everything they need" if we follow Jones' solution?

Come on. Get real.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

The Answer to Raging Hoons is Traffic Calming

Calm traffic hoons with subtlety rather than a big stick, says Agamedes. You can always use the big stick as well.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Traffic calming.

"Traffic calming is the slowing or reduction of motor-vehicle traffic to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists and improve the environment for residents." That's from Wikipedia. There's even a traffic calming website:

"Definitions of traffic calming vary, but they all share the goal of reducing vehicle speeds, improving safety, and enhancing quality of life. Some include all three "Es," traffic education, enforcement, and engineering. Most definitions focus on engineering measures to change driver behavior. Some focus on engineering measures that compel drivers to slow down, excluding those that use barriers to divert traffic." www.TrafficCalming.org

So what?!

In Western Australia we have laws to take cars away from hoon drivers. In almost twelve months, 1,827 cars have been impounded for hoon offences committed by their drivers (The West, 23 Jun 10).

A few weeks ago, The West reported that residents were complaining that their street was used as a race track by hoon drivers.

And yet...

We still build roads to be wide and smooth -- ideal for racing. We still build roads to be straight and long -- ideal for speeding, spinning and fast get-aways.

Here's a thought: Build the roads for normal use.

Read up on traffic calming. At least one West Australian academic has done some reading on the subject. Ask around and look around. "Slow down" our roads, so that drivers will also -- naturally -- slow down.

Design our built environment for essential transport. Not for speeding hoons.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

The Risk of Breaching Protocol

Rules? Bah! Rules don't apply to me, rages Agamedes.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

" ... its decision to ... was in breach of normal protocol but it was the result of a lack of other ... options."

How often have you heard that excuse? It's against the rules... but we had no other options... What a load of rubbish!

How often has a company cut corners -- because they didn't know any better, or to save money -- only to find that, this time it did not work.

• Apache Energy. A gas explosion at its gas processing plant on Varanus Island. We are told that an aging part was at fault. Was it too expensive to repair or replace, or did someone say, We can bend the rules and get away with it, this time. Even after the explosion, a spare part could have quickly restored gas supplies. So why did it take so long to restore gas supplies? Was it too expensive to carry a spare? Was there a conscious decision, We won't carry a spare; it will probably be okay, this time.
  
• Beaconsfield Gold. Miner killed in mine collapse, two miners trapped alive for 14 days. "The inquest into the death of Beaconsfield miner Larry Knight has heard evidence from a former production engineer that managers ignored key safety advice in the lead up to the incident in 2006... The inquest has also heard claims that the mine set unrealistic performance targets before the rockfall... Tasmania's Chief Inspector of Mines was too busy to visit the mine in the lead-up to the fatal rockfall despite there being 24 other rockfalls in the two-and-a-half years before the incident." OHS Reps SafetyNet Journal Did someone decide, Rules are fine but we have a practical business to run.
  
• Fortescue Metals Group... "has issued a statement to the Australian Stock Exchange expressing deep regret over the impact of cyclone George in Western Australia." ABC News Online Two people died because their work took them to and left them in the path of a cyclone. The companies involved took precautions which they considered to be adequate. The precautions were not adequate.
  

This week it's the turn of Sundance Resources.

"Sundance Resources conceded yesterday that its decision to send the entire board of directors on a small plane to fly to a remote mine site in Africa was in breach of normal protocol but it was the result of a lack of other transport options." (The West, 22 Jun 10, my emphasis added) How often have you heard that excuse, that there were no other options? What about a second plane? Or the same plane but on another day? Or separate visits by each board member? Too hard... It's easier to just breach the normal protocol.

There is a difference, though.

This time, breaking the rules resulted in the death of rich and powerful directors. So the news is spread over the front page and over several other pages of the daily newspaper.

At the level of personal loss, this is a tragedy. As an example of "protocols are for you, not for me," perhaps it's a lesson. It's not always "someone else" who suffers, when you break the safety rules.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Sucked in by Expert PR

Does any journalist stop to question? wonders Agamedes.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Today's West (19 Jun 10) has an article headlined, "Hapless BP chief [Tony Hayward] shouldn't have fronted posturing lynch mob". The byline is Matthew Lynn, the source is Bloomberg. The "comment" is nonsense.

"All they managed to accomplish was to highlight Mr Hayward's main failing: lack of the necessary verve and aplomb to turn the conversation around."

Really?!

A man who is paid possibly millions a year -- in whatever currency he likes -- who is paid to run a major company -- lacks verve and aplomb? Come on! The man could buy and sell politicians (and possibly does). Why would he be at a loss in front of a committee of politicians?

Who is his real opponent?

"The committee members showed zero interest in getting to the real causes of the environmental disaster unfolding in the Gulf." No interest? Naturally. These are politicians. They are only interested in staying in power -- in gaining votes. They can do that by attacking today's public enemy number one.

When it came to actual facts, Hayward "argued that we should wait for the results of a full investigation". That is, he did not answer any questions.

Hayward "pointed out that he had not personally managed the rig. But his body language was that of a beaten man." So he is denying all responsibility -- denying all responsibility for the actions of the company of which he is the ultimate boss. He denies responsibility, while sitting there looking like a beaten dog.

This is, pure and simple, an exercise in public relations.

"It wasn't me," he cries, "But feel free to hit me." Doesn't matter -- hit as hard as you like -- he's well padded by his huge salary.

And speaking of that huge salary... Why is he paid a huge salary? You and I would think: huge salary, huge responsibility. But no, he had not personally managed that rig. No responsibility at all. All that he had done was to demand that the work be done cheaper and faster. I wonder if he ever used that ever-popular management demand, "I don't care how you do it -- just make it happen."

If the CEO is not responsible for the actions of a company -- who is?

Who is BP's real opponent?

When Tony Hayward turned up at the US House Energy and Commerce Committee meeting, who were his true opponents? Certainly not the committee members, they were just there to score political points with their own electorates.

BP's true opponents are the pissed-off public.

The politicians asked questions which made them look concerned. The politicians wanted the voters to see and hear their concern. Other results were irrelevant. Just as well, since there were no other results.

Hayward wanted the public to see him as a beaten and remorseful man. Politicians can be bought; the public can only be influenced. When the fuss dies down, the politicians will crawl back into BP's pockets. Meanwhile, the public may somehow damage BP's profits.

As long as the voting public are baying for blood, politicians are under pressure to take some real and effective action against BP. After all, staying in power is essential; there are plenty more companies offering to buy the politicians... as long as the politicians have power that they can sell.

The main objective of BP must be, to quiet the public outcry.

"Look at me!" cries Tony Hayward, "I'm soooo beaten! Pity me... you have won... oh woe is meeeee!" He beats his chest, cries in front of the cameras -- and continues to deny all responsibility.

"Oh, woe, look at my suffering! No, I'm not going to do anything... I'm not telling anyone what actually happened... I'll still be earning millions a year while your business is broke and your environment is destroyed.. But Oh, woe! see how I can pretend to suffer!"

The public sees the suffering. So-called journalists like Matthew Lynn demand public sympathy for a filthy rich CEO with no conscience but with excellent acting abilities.

And the world goes on.

Downhill.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Crime and Non-Punishment

Agamedes explains why laws suit criminals rather than the rest of society.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

A man is jailed, on various counts, for 30 months. He has already been held in jail for 15 months -- waiting on his trial but with bail refused or not paid. For a 30 month sentence, parole is available after 15 months.

As soon as this man is convicted -- he is eligible for parole. As soon as he is found guilty -- he can go home.

The logic is sound: He has served 15 months in jail; his sentence, if parole is approved, is 15 months; he has done his time so he should go home.

The logic is sound -- and one-sided.

• If a man is "innocent until proven guilty" -- why is he held in jail at all?
  
• Is jail while "innocent until proven guilty" the same as jail for the guilty? Is a person charged with unprovoked and vicious murder held in the same low-security cells as the people charged with minor but wilful damage to property?
  
• If jail is for rehabilitation -- what rehabilitation is offered to a person who is still presumed innocent?
  
• If jail is for revenge or punishment -- is the effect the same on a person presumed innocent as on a person who has been proven guilty?
  
• If jail is to protect society -- why are we being protected from people who are presumed to be innocent!
  

There are various views of the role of a jail. No matter what your view of the role of a jail, it should be different for those who are presumed innocent and those who are found to be guilty.

Jail while awaiting trial must be different -- must serve a different purpose -- to jail served for a crime committed. Yet the law treats both as being the same. A 30 month sentence is reduced to 15 months because of time spent in jail waiting to go to court.

The logic is sound -- but it is wrong. So why does it happen?

The law is influenced by those who "care" about the law. Who are these people?

• Some of these people who care are those who see a general wrong and want to correct it. They care -- until the perceived wrong is corrected.
  
• Some people care about the law because they believe that they have been unjustly charged with a crime. They care -- until they are declared innocent. Though they may then join the people who care because they see a general wrong and want to correct it.
  
• Those who suffer injury or loss due to the apparently criminal actions of others, are also concerned with the law. They care -- until their injury or loss is repaid or revenged.
  
• Lawyers care about the law. They care -- until their clients' money runs out.
  
• Criminals care about the law. They want the law to allow whatever action it is that criminals do but that the rest of society has declared illegal. At the very least, criminals want to minimise punishment for their own crimes. They care -- for as long as they are criminals.
  

Which of those groups have a long-term interest in affecting and changing the law? Criminals. Which group has -- by sheer weight of numbers -- the most involvement in the law, therefore the most interest and influence in matching laws to their own concerns? Criminals. Which groups -- by weight of numbers, knowledge, power and influence -- can have most impact on laws? Criminals and their lawyers.

The innocent are seldom affected -- directly -- by the law. The innocent are only affected when someone else breaks a law. The innocent do not have the time, the interest, the need nor the knowledge to set or change laws.

So who does have the time, the interest, the need and the knowledge to set and change laws? Criminals. And their lawyers.

Time spent as an "innocent" in jail awaiting trial is not the same as time spent in jail as a guilty criminal. Yet it is treated the same. Why? Because that supports the interests of the criminals.

The laws may set by people who see a wrong and attempt to right it. The laws are then adjusted, interpreted and misapplied by criminals. With the support of lawyers. Who deal daily with criminals rather than with people who wish to be protected from criminals.

Another reason why the law is an ass.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

The Journalistic Nose for Old News

Agamedes wonders if "journalists" are paid by the newspapers or by other big businesses.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Isn't it amazing the way that journalists dig out the great news stories! I mean to say, just look at today's (19 Jun 10) front page headline on The West: "DJs' boss flees country with pregnant lover". Wow! Such a nose for breaking news!

Until you read the articles.

"But it is believed that Mr McInnes' flirtatious behaviour to a number of female staff had reached the ears of some directors over the years." And it was not newsworthy until Mark McInnes finally quit over an apparently similar series of events? And the David Jones directors felt no need to take action to discourage whatever incidents finally led to McInnes' resignation?

Then turn to page 5, where the "exposé" continues:

"But a photograph of him [McInnes] walking several steps behind Gale, eyes fixed on her bottom as a smile played on his lips, constantly appeared in the press." Megan Gale is a model -- a woman who is paid serious money to be photographed so that men (and women) can stare at her bottom. Is there something wrong with McInnes, that he enjoyed staring at the real thing?

If there is something wrong -- why was there no condemnation at the time? If there is something wrong -- why was McInnes not cautioned and corrected at the time? If there is something wrong -- why is it that the photo "constantly appeared in the press"?

Surely -- if there is something wrong, with McInnes staring at Gale's bottom -- surely the constant re-publication of the photo is an example of the press supporting, condoning and repeating this "wrong" behaviour.

If the staring is wrong... If the photo is wrong... Then the editors who published the photo should also be resigning, for supporting, condoning and repeating this "wrong" behaviour.

It is too late for the press to now shout, "Holier than thou!" and condemn McInnes for an interest which -- until today -- they have apparently supported.

And speaking of "too late"... Where were the journalists over the years when DJ directors were hearing of McInnes' flirtatious behaviour? No questions, no challenges -- is the man too rich and powerful? Where were the journalists in the seven days between McInnes coming clean with his board and McInnes hopping on a plane out of the country? Are the journalists just lazy... or are they just incompetent?

Where were the journalists?

I would guess that the journalists were at the fashion shows. Sipping champagne, snacking on canapés. Hoping for a glimpse of Megan Gale's bottom. Skimming the DJ press releases.

Waiting for a "news" story to arrive from easy and accredited sources.

Did any of the business or fashion journalists ever consider that perhaps there was a story behind the carefully controlled press releases?

Whatever happened to "investigative" journalism.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Extra Feature at Innaloo Cinema

Alcohol at the cinema? Nope, can't fault that, thinks Agamedes.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Really, there's only one thing worse that not being able to get drunk when you're waiting for the Australia Day fireworks. What could be worse than that, you wonder? Not being able to get drunk at the movies, of course!

It's un-Australian, that's what. I mean, what wowsers would object to booze at the cinema?! Alcohol bid by cinema panned, is the headline (The West, 15 Jun 10). Where else could you go, if Greater Union at Innaloo is not allowed to sell booze? It's just such a perfect spot for drinking...

There's a huge carpark. Get pissed as a fart, do a couple of donuts, drive home. Perfect! Too drunk to find your car? No worries! All those dark theatres, lots of seats, chunder on the row in front then fall asleep across several seats. And no-one will notice your snoring, if you pick a good action movie for your pre-hangover snooze.

Lots of kids hanging round, send them off to pick up a burger and chips from across the road. Offer them a free ticket -- or a swig from your brown paper bag -- and it's better for them than pocket money. I mean, kids and pocket money, what a waste, give them something useful. And something useful to do.

Parents wondering what to do while their brats are locked away in a movie? Enjoy the wait -- get a glow on. No screaming brats complaining, where were you when I came out of the movie? You'll be there, ready and waiting. And happy enough to put up with the endless discussion of the movie, as you drive them all home.

Alcohol in the cinema? Nope, can't fault the idea.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Odds and Sods

Agamedes gets over-excited when solutions are demanded and proposed for the wrong problems.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Ocean dumping a symptom of wider malaise

That's the Editorial in today's (14 Jun 10) West. Potentially toxic materials are being dumped, from stormwater drains, into our oceans. This, "has wide implications for the health of the beaches and for swimmers."

The Editorial cites a "sensible" proposal by Cambridge Town Council, to redirect one stormwater drain into a depleted water table. "Meanwhile," the Editor continues, "authorities charged with responsibility for our coast and waterways [the ever-present and highly fallible "they"] should be directing their best efforts to finding similarly creative solutions before it is too late."

According to this Editorial the problem is, that stormwater drains are draining into the ocean. The "sensible" solutions is, to pump this polluted water into our water tables.

And the real problem is...

The real problem is, that our stormwater drains are carrying toxic chemicals!

Previous studies have found that stormwater drains in Perth can contain heavy metals, general litter, nitrogen, phosphorous, sewage overflow and hydrocarbons, including oil. Where does all that muck come from? What are heavy metals, litter, sewage and oil doing in our stormwater drains? Who is dumping toxic muck into our drains?

There is the real problem: toxic muck is getting into our stormwater drains.

Once the muck gets into the drains, it will flow with the stormwater. Out to sea? That will kill fish, sea vegetation and ocean swimmers. Into the water table? That will kill vegetation, waterbirds and anyone who pumps water from the water table.

Yes, we need to worry about toxic water flowing into our oceans. We should also worry about toxic water flowing into our underground water tables. First, though, we should worry about the source of all that toxic waste.

The real problem is the source of the toxic matter in our stormwater drains. Stormwater has always run out to sea, usually via rivers. What we have allowed, is the addition of toxic material to that stormwater.

Prevent toxic material from getting into stormwater drains. Stop the problem at its source. Look for solutions to the real problem.

Anecdotal aside

I once worked for a computer service company which supported a small accounting system. In all the chain of programming logic, no-one could understand why a certain row of totals always printed as double the correct value. Somewhere in the system, a number was being added to itself. That doubled-up number was subsequently printed.

The real problem was, that a number was being doubled. We were not able to solve that real problem... so we "fixed" a simpler problem...

The printed value is twice what it should be? No worries... Just before printing -- divide the number by two. Then print.

Were there other issues -- other as-yet-undiscovered problems -- associated with the doubled-up numbers? Who knows? Who cares! We had removed the visible evidence. The real problem is irrelevant.

Or is it...

Imported politicians rally in Perth

On the Letters page of The West (14 Jun 10), N. Cox of Doubleview has pointed out that the anti-tax rally was "a gathering of whingeing iron ore billionaires" -- we should also remember their paid employees -- "and an orchestrated muster of Tories..."

Good grief! Tories! All the way from England! Isn't it great, that the Motherland sill cares for and supports us in our battles against taxation with elected representation. And I suppose that the Whigs will be here next week, for a pro-taxation rally?

Please, N. Cox, remember where you are. Australia has Labor, Liberal, National, Greens and perhaps a few others. England has Tories and Whigs.

Wake up, and remember where you are.

Hooray for Henry and his tax reforms!

Is it true? Did the Henry review really, as suggested in a letter from Robert Wardrop of Willeton (14 Jun 10), did the review really suggest ways to simplify our Australian tax system?

I've read plenty about government plans to add a new tax. The new tax will apply to selected companies and will follow new rules for selective impact at various levels of carefully calculated profit. Nothing simple there.

The new tax money will be -- selectively -- returned to selected mining companies. This is because the mining companies will be forced to pay more superannuation to employees. The government will take the new tax and -- so it now says -- return it to the companies. This may or may not be correct. Nothing has actually been decided. Whatever happens, though, will certainly not be simple.

The government is also promising to use the new tax on infrastructure. That is, the government will take money from mining companies -- money that the company would have spent on infrastructure, if it needed infrastructure -- and the government will spend the money on infrastructure. For the same companies? I'm not sure. Is this the same money that will be returned to pay for superannuation? I'm not sure.

But it's certainly not simple.

Why did I pick on the letter from Robert Wardrop, to introduce this rant on taxes? Because Wardrop actually suggests an approach that would lead to a simpler tax system.

Better than the real problem -- here is the real solution!

But that's enough of someone else's idea... Here is the Agamedes simple tax system:

• Start with the GST: the tax to replace all other taxes.
  
• Replace all other taxes with the GST. But call it ETax, the Envy Tax. You have more money than me? You should pay more tax. You spend more on consumer goods? You should pay more tax. ETax, the Envy Tax... just what everyone really wants.
  
• Every time you earn some money, you set aside a portion and pay it as ETax. This replaces today's Income Tax.
  
• Every time you receive goods or services in exchange for your efforts -- or for no reason whatsoever -- you pay a fraction of the value as ETax. This replaces Fringe Benefits Tax.
  
• Every time you buy any goods or services, the seller pays part of the price as ETax. This replaces GST (and various other taxes which GST was supposed to replace).
  
• If you pay for goods or services by barter -- by providing your own goods or services in exchange -- you pay a fraction of the value given, as ETax.
  
• Both sides pay. An employer pays ETax based on salaries paid and fringe benefits provided (there goes Payroll Tax). An employee pays ETax on salary paid and fringe benefits received. In other transactions, both buyer and seller pay ETax. All fair, all equal.
  
• Are there any tax deductions? No: the more you buy, sell, earn or pay, the more ETax you will be paying. No matter what the reason.
  

Okay... even I can see problems. But every tax has problems. ETax brings all the problems under one tax regime -- and simplifies the entire system.

Will ETax be paid at 10%, the same as today's GST? It's a good place to start... Easy calculation, quick transfer from GST calculations, far less than income tax...

Will the ETax rate vary, depending on the transaction? No way! That would defeat the whole simplification process.

Will ETax vary over time? Certainly! If the government needs more money -- for election promises or to satisfy elector demands for new services -- money will be raised by raising the rate for ETax. For everyone. For everything.

Ask the questions. ETax has the answers. ETax has the answers -- and they are simpler.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Rich Richard Rewrites Rules of Grammar

If only I were rich and powerful, thinks Agamedes... I too would rewrite the rules of grammar

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Of all the grammatical slips that really bother me, few compare with an improperly used 'they'. So writes Richard Branson, in an attack on disobedient employees (No third person in 'are you being served?', The West, 10 Jun 10).

Grammatical slips?!

Come on, Branson. You -- or even "they", your ghost writers -- are pushing a management control trick. Your article is about imposed group-think. It is not about a grammatical slip.

Branson is making a simple point, that he does not like his employees to tell customers that the faceless company "they" are responsible for a poor decision. Branson would have his employees shoulder a share of the blame, by telling customers that "we" made that decision. Fair enough, too -- if "we" were actually involved in making the decision.

Branson provides the example of the redesign of an aircraft cabin:

If you insist, say, that the marketing, design and management teams are involved ... that new product will have the impetus of a huge pride of association. 'We came up with this as a team.'

So. You're a passenger, sitting in the newly redesigned aircraft cabin. "Why are the seats crammed so closely together?" you ask the management team member. "Because we care for profit over your comfort," replies the management team member -- with pride. Or, more realistically:

"Why are the seats crammed so closely together?" you ask the cabin crew team member. "Because that's the way they designed them," replies the cabin crew team member -- the person who actually works with customers in the redesigned cabin -- and who was not involved in the redesign because the cabin crew team are only staff and not management. Whoops!

I, we, them, us and they

There is no "I" in "team". Durr! There is also no "we", no "you" and certainly no "customer". But it's a clever catchphrase. Meaningless, of course. And badly misused.

One of my managers once told me, "You are not a team player." Why? Because I questioned my manager's ideas. That is the practical implementation of team-work: listen to the boss, agree with the boss, do as the boss tells you.

If your boss tells you not to say that "they" made a poor decision... For goodness sake, do not say that "they" made a poor decision! To be safe, try not to even think that "they" made a poor decision! Branson is very specific on this aspect of group-think:

When someone on our team tells me, 'Sorry, Mr Branson, but they don't let us do that any more," my standard response is, '"They"? Oh, I'm sorry, I mistook you for someone who works here.' This, claims Branson, is "tough love".

Actually, it's a threat.

Did you also notice the revealing use of "our" and "I"? It's "our" team -- but "I" can terminate your employment. "Our" team when Branson pretends that the employee has some say in running the team. But "I" am the real boss -- the person who can fire you.

Another of my managers had an interesting way of using "I" and "we" and an employee's name... Our group was responsible for numerous projects; some were successful, some less so. When a successful project was being presented to senior managers, my manager would say that "I" did this and that. For projects which were failing, my manager would use the project manager's name. For example, "John did this and that." When a project looked good but it was still too early to be certain, my manager would say that "we" did this and that.

Separate the grammar from the management

The use of "they" -- as in, "They don't let us do that any more," -- is grammatically correct. "They" is used as an "(indefinite pronoun, vague meaning) People; some people; someone" (they, Wiktionary, Jun 2010). When you don't know or care who they are but they are definitely not you, you say that "they" did it.

Of course if you work for Richard Branson it may be grammatically correct but a clear CLM... career limiting move.

If you are rich and powerful -- or you want to be rich and powerful -- and you are happy to treat other people as interchangeable rungs on your ladder to success... feel free to use catchphrases and blunt objects to control staff. For everyone else, here are some suggestions:

• Work as a team. Remember that you are also a member of that team.
  
• Democracy and team decision-making are very seldom effective in business. Don't pretend that the team makes the decisions -- unless they really, really do.
  
• Listen to and consult with team members. Be very clear -- with team members and in your own mind -- that you are team leader. You are paid to make the final decisions.
  
• If you delegate decisions, really delegate them. Delegate a decision to a person who can make the decision, who will make the decision and who cares about the result. Support them but do not question their decision.
  
• "We" are a team, "we" did the work. "I" am team leader, "I" am responsible for the actions of my team. If "we" made a mistake then you will tell "me". "I" will then deal with "my" team, to correct the mistake and to prevent it happening again.
  
• You are my manager; trust me to deal with my team. If you do not trust me to deal with my team then you should replace me as team leader.
  
• Buzzwords, cliches and catch-phrases encourage group-think; this is fine if group-think makes your team work better. Do not pretend that group-think is good team work.
  
• If you want your team to really share values -- listen even more than you talk. And be honest. Especially with yourself.
  

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Advertising Fails the Truth Test

Oh dear! Agamedes discovers that an advertisement may not be the absolute truth!

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Coles had a double-page ad in The West, on 4 Jun 2010 and other days. The giant heading on the second page is, "Down down Prices are down". I checked some of the facts.

There are two sample sales dockets showing the "was" and "now" prices of a range of items. The total of the "was" docket is $164.39, the "now" total is $148.35. "Quality food costs less at Coles", is the claim at the foot of the page.

Beware of selective sampling

NIVEA VISAGE FACIAL WIPES 25 PK is on the list:

• Nivea price as it "was": $6.99. Price as it is "now": $6.50. Claimed saving: 49 cents.
  
• In the six months between 3 Dec 09 and 3 Jun 10, we bought nine of the 25-pack Nivea facial wipes. The average price was $6.54 -- giving an actual "now" saving of just four cents.
  
• To get that average price, I played my own games with statistics. When the price was at $5, we bought two packs. So $6.54 is the average price that we paid. The average price on offer -- sampled on dates when we actually bought the product -- would be $6.74. See what a difference you can get with some selective sampling?
  
• The maximum price that we paid was $7.62.
  
• The minimum price that we paid was $5.00. Yes -- just $5 -- $1.50 cheaper than the advertised "now" price. Why are Coles not able to hold the price at that low $5? The facts are, that $5 is a possible -- an actual -- price. So why are Coles so pleased to sell at $6.50 -- which is 30% above a price that they were able to offer within the last six months?
  

The Coles ad claims that "Prices are down". In truth, prices are -- if the "now" docket price is actually available in the shops -- prices are way up (30%) on the minimum, somewhat down (17%) on the maximum and a bit down (between 0.6% and 3.7%) on the average.

There are several possible lessons from this ad:

1. If prices are held steady at the advertised $6.50, the average shopper will save a few percent, if they continue to shop at Coles.
   
2. If prices continue to jump up and down, a shopper can save even more by buying when prices are low. (But check the next section of this post.)
   
3. Advertisers can "prove" anything, with selective sampling.
   

Aged items on sale

Call me slow, if you like, but it was my wife who pointed out the basis for some Coles cost reductions: the items are about to expire. Why is the price so low? Check the use by date.

Over the last six months, the price of Uncle Tobys Vita Brits has varied, in our local Coles, from $4.00 per kilo to $4.99 per kilo. That's a variation of 25%. It was my wife who spotted the key factor: the use by date... When Vita Brits are on special, it is likely that they will expire within six months.

We know approximately how fast we use Vita Brits. (And various other groceries.) If a pack were due to expire within a month -- that would be too soon. Six months is fine. What we have, is another factor to consider when buying on "special".

As an aside: Many years ago, I was browsing through a "discount computer goods" shop. Nothing I really wanted, I was just browsing. The only item that I could possibly want to buy, was printer ink. Printer ink was marked, in that shop, as being sold at a huge discount.

I checked the price.

The "discount" ink was, in fact, more expensive than the ink that I had recently bought at a regular, brand-name shop. Worse yet, the ink being sold at an very expensive "discount" was past its use-by date!

Lessons can be learnt:

1. Check the use-by date.
   
2. Know how fast you use a product. Only buy -- even at a discount -- if you can use it before it expires.
   
3. Do not believe a shop that claims to sell at a discount. Check the prices at other shops!
   

A simple as a marketer's mind

There's a full page ad in The West of 8 Jun 2010, for MySolar, pushing rooftop solar panels for generating your own electricity.

Down the left of the page is a diagram of the steps taken to get network power to your house: hills blown up, dug out, transported... etc etc. Six steps involving explosions, burning, transport and so on. So very, very wasteful.

Down the right of the page is the one simple step to solar power: a solar panel to your roof. Isn't that so very simple? So, simple, green, economical... and false.

The ad shows sun powering a panel providing energy to your home. "As simple as it looks", says the ad. Now look at the truth:

To create that solar panel takes all of the blowing up, digging out, transporting, burning, etc, etc... that it takes to get energy through a network to your house. But that is just to get the energy to build the solar panel! Then there's the blowing up, digging out, transporting, etc, etc... to get the materials for that solar panel. Plus a bit of extra transport -- big trucks burning lots of fossil fuel -- to transport that solar panel to your house.

Look at the entire process. A solar panel is not at all the "simple" option. There are lessons here:

1. An advertisement is not the truth. An ad is designed to sell product to you, the consumer. An ad may lie by omission; an ad may be telling only a fraction of the story.
   
2. An ad is designed to present a specific message. There is no need to trust that message. Think before you believe.
   

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com