Those low, low prices mean someone else's low, low wages

The world's hunger is getting ridiculous. There is more fruit in a rich man's shampoo than in a poor man's plate...

This is the world we know today- the world of capitalism and consumerism. A world where one can enslave fellow humans, rape the planet and be praised for their good business sense. We all feel sorry for the people in Africa, we cry when we see a hungry child, resembling a skeleton with skin, we protest when we hear about some global companies using sweat shops and child's labour. However, all this is hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy, because despite knowing, for instance, that the phone we want has been constructed in sweat shops in a third world country we would go and buy it. Have you ever wondered why Africa, which has the biggest deposits of diamonds, is the poorest continent in the world? Do you think it is normal people to die in hunger there, when diamonds are the most expensive gemstones? I personally don't think it is.

It is normal people to pay little or no attention to what happens so far away from them, especially when they live a normal life and all their needs are met. However, Napoleon has said something very true- "The world suffers a lot. Not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of good people." Sometimes we close our eyes for what is happening before us and prefer to live in our own, imaginary world instead. We do this in an attempt to lull our conscience, but sooner or later it comes out again, reminding us what's right and what's wrong. Everyone, deep inside them, knows what is good and what is bad and where the border between them lays. However, sometimes this truth is hard to accept because what is wrong could make us happy, while what is right could make us suffer. Having all we need would make us happy. Having more than what we need would make us even happier. Because greed is in our nature. The more the better, they say. But sometimes, the fact we have more might mean someone else has less or even worse, might mean someone else has nothing. Our prime purpose in life is to help others. And if we can't help them, we might at least try not to hurt them.

Consumerism and capitalism idolize money and material goods. People are dazzled by them and don't realise they have become their slaves. Material goods are there to serve us, however, it is the other way around right now - we serve them. People work for the sake of possessing goods rather than using them. Why would you give thousands of dollars for a bag, while some people live with less than a dollar per day?

Of couse every era we live in is associated with something negative - wars, hunger, deseases, poverty etc. But during all eras there are always two types of people - people who live well and people who don't live well. And when those living well give half of their possessions to those who are not living well and when they do it with their hearts, world will know peace and happiness...

Demonising the immigrant- why some stakeholders in the UK are working together to exaggerate the threat of Romanian and Bulgarian immigration

On January 1, 2007, The European Union accepted two new members- Bulgaria and Romania. They were the first Balkan countries, members of the EU, after Greece. Nowadays, six years later they are still not enjoying all of the benefits of full membership of the union, in particular the freedom of movement of labour. However, January 1, 2014 is the expected date for both countries in terms of getting freedom of access to the United Kingdom. This will be followed by many benefits but the most important one is opening the borders for the UK labour market for Bulgarian and Romanian migrants. The consequences of this, however, are a matter of concern for the UK politicians who decided to make a hot topic out of the case.

There has been much speculation in the UK press and political circles about the increasing of the number of Bulgarian and Romanian migrants to the country. The UK Government has taken steps to mitigate what is feared will be a massive influx of new immigrants, launching a negative PR campaign in those countries in order to discourage people from emigrating to the UK.

What makes the other European countries distrust Bulgaria and Romania so much? The level of corruption in both countries is high according to the European Commission and the need to demonstrate that it is decreasing is the main requirement for them to enter the passport-free Schengen zone. The reputation of Bulgaria and Romania does not work well for them either. Eastern European countries in general are seen by Western Europeans as “transition” countries with post-communist influence on their politics, which have not yet entirely applied the democratic model. Bulgaria and Romania have problems with the levels of corruption, their judicial, health and education systems. The living standard is also very low which is why many people choose to emigrate.

Nigel Farage/The Telegraph, 30.12.2013

However, the number of immigrants expected to come to the UK after January 1, 2014 is highly exaggerated by the UK politicians and the media. The leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), Nigel Farage made a statement recently that a wave of 29 million immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania is expected to enter the country if Britain puts down the restrictions after January 2014 (Giannangely 2012). However this statement is untrue and logically impossible as the population of Romania is 21,848,504 (Index Mundi, Romania, 2012) and the population of Bulgaria is 7,037,935 (Index Mundi, Bulgaria, 2012).

Some political and media stakeholders have a vested interest in overstating the threat posed by Bulgarian and Romanian immigration in order to achieve their objectives. The situation is exaggerated as some political parties, like UKIP, which have no seats in the British Parliament can make a good use of the issue by creating a problem out of it and this way, attract voters.

Stakeholder salience is an analysis model of identifying and classifying stakeholders according to three main attributes: Power, Legitimacy and Urgency (Virk 2010). It is a useful tool that could be used to analyse the issue with the Bulgarian and Romanian immigration. The theory suggests that paying attention to stakeholders is good for corporate performance and reputation. Waddock & Graves (1997) argue that corporate performance is all about the relationship between an organisation and its stakeholders (Agle et al. 1999, p. 511).

In the particular case the UK Government and politicians are definitive stakeholders as they possess the three attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency and the media is a dangerous stakeholder as it has power and urgency to maintain the negative image of Bulgaria and Romania, before dropping the entry restrictions in 2014. However, Bulgarian and Romanian governments cannot do much to counteract the negative attitude even though they have strong relationships with these stakeholders, as part of one union- the EU. The reason for that is the actual issue is bigger- the immigration in UK as a whole. Bulgaria and Romania do not have much in common with the larger problem, although they have been targeted as the “villains”. That is why they do not have the power to counteract as they are not the real cause of the main problem, but they are just the latest expression of it. Therefore, it could be argued that stakeholder salience theory does not work in this case.

Anholt (2002, p.27-28) argues that the main obstacle for improving reputation is time. Even if a country is doing quite well, its past image could work against it simply because negative stereotype is difficult to change once “it has taken root”. Therefore bad reputation is a major reason for the UK wave of discontent against Bulgaria and Romania, but reputation management cannot do much about it. And this is simply because of the time limit. Bulgaria and Romania would not change the negative perceptions about themselves in the UK even if they launch the most successful and effective PR campaign. The only thing they can do though is, as Anholt (2002, p.28) suggests, “make themselves famous for what they are going to be, instead of what they have been.”

As discussed above, the media is a dangerous stakeholder- therefore it has the power to influence the situation with the Bulgarian and Romanian migrants in a very big way. However, in this particular case, the media is favouring one side rather than providing equivalent treatment to both sides of this political conflict. This means we are now talking about media framing. The average person normally has little personal experience of politics so they rely on the media to inform them and help them form a view and better understand the political environment. This gives the media power to create its own reality, different from the true one. Semetko and Valkenburg (2000, p.94) argue that “How people think about an issue, especially a political issue that is inherently ambiguous, is dependent on how the issue is framed by the media” (Baysha & Hallahan 2004, p.234).

That is the case with Bulgaria and Romania too; the issue is framed by the UK political and press circles. They put a lot more stress on it than is necessary and create artificial tension in the British people against Bulgarian and Romanian migrants. This does not mean that either of the two countries can do anything to stop the negative press coverage. Most of the leading UK newspapers show only the UK politicians point of view, and the right of response was given neither to Bulgaria nor to Romania.

From here, two questions arise: Why are the Bulgarian and Romanian migrants such a big threat for the UK? And can both countries’ governments do anything to stop the negative coverage and speculations in the UK press and political circles? The answers to both quations are simple- "nothing" to the first one and "no" to the second one. Even though the Government gave official statistics on the number of Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants expected to enter the country in 2014, which was several times less than what was said earlier, the situation did not change. The press and politicians continued blaming them for immigration rates which proves the statement that Bulgaria and Romania are the occasion but not the cause of the problem. Therefore nothing could be done by both countries in order to change the attitude as they have already been given the role of “the villains.” 

References

Giannangely M., 2012-23-12. Britain to face a new immigrant wave; Express

Index Mundi, Romania Demographics Profile 2013

Index Mundi, Bulgaria Demographics Profile 2013

Virk, 2010; Salience Model – Stakeholder Analysis; Leadership and Management

Agle B. R. et al., 1999; Who Matters to CEOs? An Investigation of Stakeholder Attributes and Salience, Corporate Performance and CEO Values; Academy of Management Journal Vol. 42, No.5, 507-525

Anholt S., 2002; Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions; Palgrave Macmillan

Baysha O. & Hallahan K., 2004; Media Framing of the Ukrainian Political Crisis, 2000-2001; Journalism Studies

Colorado State University, 1993-2013; Content Analysis

Macnamara J., 2005; Media content analysis: Its uses; benefits and best practice methodology; Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 6(1), 1–34.

Can a positive discrimination be used to overcome ethnic discrimination?

“Positive discrimination is regarded as the preferential treatment of members of a minority group over a majority group, either by sex, race, age, marital status or sex orientation.”

Could this thing be positive? Could discrimination be a positive thing at all?

Correct answer is no. It is not right to favour one group of people over another, no matter of the reasons you are doing it. This regards to positive discrimination as well. There are so many laws protecting minority groups by race, gender, sexual orientation and so on, but actually no laws protecting the majority of ordinary people. Why is that? Probably laws are protecting minorities so heavily that at some point they start discriminating the majority.

I will illustrate my thoughts by giving an example with Eastern Europe. Everyone knows about the ethnic conflicts that are taking place on the Balkans. There are many minority groups which cannot or do not want to get integrated which causes many ethnic conflicts. Probably one of the most problematic minority groups the Eastern European countries all have is the Roma minority. There is a particular problem in these countries because the percentage of Roma population there is higher. Basically these people or at least most of them do not integrate to the countries they live in and do not even consider themselves as their citizens. Sometimes they cannot even speak the language properly. But the biggest problem is that they live a nomad life and do not follow the rules. They pay no taxes, do all kinds of fraud, riot, abandon their children or send them to beg or steal, etc. Basically they are living off the state.

This is a huge problem the Eastern European countries face with this minority. Unfortunately they cannot do anything about it. They cannot restrict the Roma because it would be considered as an act of discrimination by the Western European countries which suggest that the Roma population should be integrated. But let’s not forget the fact that in August 2010, France expelled from the country a number of Bulgarian and Romanian Roma families and with this act it violated their rights of European citizens which was an overt discrimination.  It also outraged the 2004 EU directive on freedom of movement. However France is one of the leading countries in the European Union and also one of its founders so it had the power to uphold the decision to export the “unwanted Europeans” even though the EU tried to take steps towards legal action against France.

Eastern European countries cannot do anything like that because some of them are new members of the EU and they are not in a position to take decisions which will be contested by the other EU member states. So here we come again with the Roma citizens extradited back to their countries. But the governments of these countries are not allowed to do anything against them because it would be considered as an act of discrimination. On the other hand they cannot integrate them because of the specificity of this ethnic minority as it is not amendable to integration. So here it comes the problem with positive discrimination. The majority of the population is discriminated against because for example if a Bulgarian or Romanian citizen does not pay their electricity bill, it will be switched off. But if a Roma citizen does not pay, nothing will happen to them.

Positive discrimination is even worse than the normal discrimination because you benefit just a small group of people at the expense of the society. That is why I think Eastern Europeans are not racists or discriminators they are the real victims of discrimination. And discrimination in any form cannot be a solution to a particular problem. Because problems do not have colour or gender and they cannot be solved this way.

Can a brutal murder be classified as a manifestation of justice?

 20 October 2011, Muammar Gaddafi is dead! A new era in Libyan history has begun. But one question remains…should it happen this way?

Undoubtedly Gaddafi was one of the world’s most cruel dictators. There would be no point in enumerating his acts, but a constant emphasis is put on the fact that he had shown no mercy to his own people.

Тhe Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor Ashraf

The number of victims of his regime is countless. Let’s not forget about Lockerbie bombings or the eight years of torturing the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian. All being topped up by their unfair trail.  Also the great number of killing, disappearing  or tortures in prisons, suffered by opponents of the regime. All which gave him an ironically sad nickname , “mad dog of the Middle East” by chance.

But let’s not get into headlines which were seen in newspapers the world over. However,  the brutal murder of anyone, no matter who they are, is still questionable.  The so called fighters of the temporary rule in Libya, who in the beginning of the conflict were determined as rebels by the press, are Libya’s heroes today.

But are they actual heroes? Of course, there has always been a debate over the right of killing someone in certain conditions…Are they the defenders of democracy or are they a blood-thirsty group of people with misunderstood ideals of freedom and justice?

The killing of Gaddafi

If the act of killing on its own may be rationalized, there is little room left for morality in the fact that they celebrated over his dead body. This can easily be considered inhumane and it may be argued if this is the first step for the “fighters for freedom” to become just like Gaddafi. With their act, they have also revoked the right of the victims of the colonel’s regime to see him brought to trial and sentenced for his crimes. They have revoked them the right for justice, and receiving what it might be seen as a more fair punishment than death.

The international Human Rights organisation “Amnesty International” has accused of war crimes not only Gaddafi’s regime, but the rebels as well. In a 122 pages report it is said that the rebels have kidnapped, tortured and murdered people suspected (not even proved to be) of loyalty to Gaddafi’s regime. They have also executed (without trial) a great number of mercenaries from Serbia, Russia, Ukraine, Bosnia, Croatia and so on. So we find ourselves questioning… can a wrong be made right by doing wrong? Can crimes against human rights be considered moral acts in an environment in which people were deprived of them in the first place?

The killing of Gaddafi…is it justice? Or is it an act of inhumanity preventing Libyans to break up with their past and put human rights in the heart of their new political system?

As for actual justice… for the triumph of it, a way of doing things ‘the right way’ (according to the democratic, western way of doing things), everyone should pay the penalty of their crimes, both Gaddafi’s supporters and opponents participating in the war. This means the colonel’s murder should be investigated and its authors hold responsible .

Equity and Freedom, values that a young state should hold dear in order to start a fresh, new chapter…can Libya manage to achieve it? Only time will tell…

Redundancy: A nightmare or a new opportunity

Redundancy is the “state or fact of being unemployed because work is no longer offered or considered necessary” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuIJRKVUFLQ&feature=related/ 00:50 min)

During the times of economic recession, everyone is worried about their job. Business contraction affects everyone within an organisation- the managers, the workers, even the cleaner. Redundancy is something terrible which means basically losing your job. However it depends on every single employee to make the most of it. To be made redundant does not mean you are not doing your job well or you are not qualified enough. It means that the company you are working with is in a bad situation and contracts its business which leads to closing job positions. And if you are “lucky” you will be working in the wrong department.

But if you are made redundant this does not mean you are fired. Therefore you need to get compensation package, the so called redundancy package, and negotiate an alternative job position within the same company or in a new one. This gives you the chance to start at a new place and grow in your professional development. Everything however is in the ability to negotiate and persuade the employer to give you the best compensation possible. This means every employer should know their rights and be ready to use that knowledge in order to save themselves from the potential crisis that comes along with losing your job.

However, very often these redundancy negotiations grow into confronting conflicts which are difficult to be solved. This way both the employer and the employee lose because neither of the two party’s needs are met. You need to remember not to break the relationship with the employer but try and maintain it as longer as possible. This way they could link you to other employers or even offer you another job position within the same company.

Remember the steps you need to take in case of being made redundant:

•          Avoid any conflicts with the employer
•          Keep your relationship with the employer and make the most of it
•          Learn your rights and negotiate the best conditions for you

And do not forget to leave the aggression away!

Just graduated? No, sorry we need someone with at least five years of experience.

Have you just graduated? Have you ever heard that excuse? Or the right question should be: how often do you hear that excuse when applying for a job?

The truth is that for students it is extremely difficult to find a good, well-paid job qualifying the preparation they have received from the university and the sphere in which they want to develop professionally. Any employer wants to have experienced people working for them. Very few people are willing to take the risk and trust someone who has just graduated and has no experience.

However it is a matter of negotiation and ability to persuade the employer that you deserve the job position more than someone who has much more experience. In order to achieve this, everyone needs to go prepared to a job interview with a developed BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement). Your BATNA determines the lowest value acceptable to you for a negotiated agreement. You should be able to make the other party an offer that is within their BATNA. You need to make sure that you offer something unique to the potential employer and list other qualities and achievements which compensate your lack of experience.

However there is another problem which stands on graduates’ way. It is true that many big companies have alumni schemes which help young people make a start in their career. But the problem here is that most of these companies are located in London. So does it mean that anyone who wants to have a bright career start needs to go there, where it is at least three times more expensive than in any other town or city in UK? Graduands, welcome to the real world...

Have you ever been discriminated on the workplace?

“Discrimination is the practice of treating one person or group differently from another in an unfair way.” (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English)

Nowadays we are living in a multicultural society where everyone is or at least should be treated equally. However too often we witness unequal treatment in our everyday life and sometimes even become victims of it. When this unequal treatment is done in an unfair way, then we speak about discrimination. Almost everyone has been discriminated against in their life. That is simply because there are so many types of discrimination as all people are part of a particular group- ethnic, gender, social group etc. Being discriminated against affects one's mentality and makes them feel they do not fit in a particular place or position just because they are different in some way.

One of the most common places, where discrimination takes part, is the workplace. A whole variety of conflicts arise on the workplace which predispose people in using unfair methods like discrimination. The most common type of discrimination on the workplace is ethnicity and gender discrimination. Many women are not allowed to reach managerial levels in their jobs because of stereotyping. The equality between the two genders is an issue of concern since very long time. The conflict arises from the fact that men and women are not treated in the same way for the same behaviours. This leads to lack of satisfaction and desire for change in one of the parties taking part in the conflict (the female party) which on the other hand will affect the interests of the other party (the male one).

On the other hand, the ethnic discrimination is an issue with no less importance. Many intelligent and well-educated people are not given the chance to have a good and well-paid job or develop in their career just because of the ethnic group they belong to. For example, there is a long-standing conflict between two Balkan countries- Macedonia and Bulgaria. As a result of this conflict, people who determine themselves as Bulgarians and hold Bulgarian passports are discriminated against from the Macedonian government and are kicked out from their jobs, bullied, ans simply are not allowed to have a normal life.

The discrimination on the workplace causes a serious conflict which could be between managers and employees or team members or leaders. These conflicts cause serious problems which need to be pointed out and discussed on time because otherwise they affect the overall company performance.