You can’t go about building a career ladder and professional diversity by-basing it upon vehicular accidents and a career ladder based upon scrabblingover dead bodies and pay
You either work together competitively
or compete upon a fair and diversity of opportunities.
With a limited diversity in career structure then you are forced into theformer, whilst the issue of how times have changed really needs to be taken onboard and what that actually means.
If you work on the basis of a growth sector, then competition is based uponexpansive opportunities, where time is in your favour, where ultimately you getsomewhere within a career structure.
Whilst if you’re in a shrinking or stable sector, with growth work power availablethen you’re talking about maintaining a professional career focus, to maintainor expand objectives.
The 90s afforded the PPG's whilst the PPS concept, working under an extendedargument that is based upon enterprise in the past, as experiential workingmethods, means that the working environment needs to be engaging and supportedfor community engagement and consistently deliverable.
But if there is consistent delivery within stretched overheads, this meansthat there was slack somewhere.
If assumptions of organisational slack are unconsidered within corporateliability, then it falls into the offered argument of fun and communityengagement.
If it is then redistributed amongst the work force as a method of maintainingoverhead costings, then at corporate level, this liability is displaced intopersonal insurances and professional consistency in ensuring that people aregetting to work safely.
If this is equally assumed then nobody is actually taking responsibility forthis and its a matter of make do and carry on, without actual accounting.
Generally that means that the risks and potential further overheads cannotbe incorporated into a actualising business plan.
As such investment is an issue, where too much of the overheads areunaccounted for within the business models, in which case there is no career orprofessional development of diversity or structure.
Under these conditions, this would imply that there is little room forsector growth outside of the office environ, or work flow management, whichwould further add strains within organisational structures.
Potentially by design, or by fortune, this would account for the limitedopportunities for sector growth.
Taking this into consideration alongside career ladders, built upon opportunitiesfor disability inclusion the risks predominantly work upon “you can’t keep up”,“we'll flog you till your gone”, or you can become trapped by the skill gapwhere the flogging is essentially known and designed (in)debt slavery, orfeudalism.
Either way, the pay and hours don’t really matter, but it’s rather “how manypeople do you need to OUTCOMPETE in a VERY small world before you’re satisfiedwith a career and up-skilling opportunities to leave that form of employment?”
That’s not a perspective by which to develop a profession, it’s justdangerous free marketeering (and professionally suicidal)
You either work together competitively
or compete upon a fair and diversity of opportunities.
With a limited diversity in career structure then you are forced into theformer, whilst the issue of how times have changed really needs to be taken onboard and what that actually means.
If you work on the basis of a growth sector, then competition is based uponexpansive opportunities, where time is in your favour, where ultimately you getsomewhere within a career structure.
Whilst if you’re in a shrinking or stable sector, with growth work power availablethen you’re talking about maintaining a professional career focus, to maintainor expand objectives.
The 90s afforded the PPG's whilst the PPS concept, working under an extendedargument that is based upon enterprise in the past, as experiential workingmethods, means that the working environment needs to be engaging and supportedfor community engagement and consistently deliverable.
But if there is consistent delivery within stretched overheads, this meansthat there was slack somewhere.
If assumptions of organisational slack are unconsidered within corporateliability, then it falls into the offered argument of fun and communityengagement.
If it is then redistributed amongst the work force as a method of maintainingoverhead costings, then at corporate level, this liability is displaced intopersonal insurances and professional consistency in ensuring that people aregetting to work safely.
If this is equally assumed then nobody is actually taking responsibility forthis and its a matter of make do and carry on, without actual accounting.
Generally that means that the risks and potential further overheads cannotbe incorporated into a actualising business plan.
As such investment is an issue, where too much of the overheads areunaccounted for within the business models, in which case there is no career orprofessional development of diversity or structure.
Under these conditions, this would imply that there is little room forsector growth outside of the office environ, or work flow management, whichwould further add strains within organisational structures.
Potentially by design, or by fortune, this would account for the limitedopportunities for sector growth.
Taking this into consideration alongside career ladders, built upon opportunitiesfor disability inclusion the risks predominantly work upon “you can’t keep up”,“we'll flog you till your gone”, or you can become trapped by the skill gapwhere the flogging is essentially known and designed (in)debt slavery, orfeudalism.
Either way, the pay and hours don’t really matter, but it’s rather “how manypeople do you need to OUTCOMPETE in a VERY small world before you’re satisfiedwith a career and up-skilling opportunities to leave that form of employment?”
That’s not a perspective by which to develop a profession, it’s justdangerous free marketeering (and professionally suicidal)