Now is the time to advocate for the social structure we need

The government and various agencies representing private sector and public sector interests have publicised recommendations to business leaders and individuals on how to navigate the economic crisis resulting from extreme business disruption with aspects both mandated and recommended by our national Australian government, state governments, some local governments as well as global and localised health authorities.

These recommendations have been backed up by truely helpful policies and legislation - and, in true “Liberal” fashion provide businesses with many choices that don’t compromise the basic well-being of individuals, thus somewhat alleviating business of moral considerations of reducing human resources.

However there is a conflict of ethos that can be read underneath the various recommendations and helpful initiatives.

On the one hand, businesses are being encouraged to continue to employ staff (in various degrees which I’ll break down below) even if that means making a loss in order to simply retain staff, whilst on the other being provided the choice to effectively lay off all staff and pause a business by ensuring individuals have a safety net (the recently doubled JobSeeker allowance).

In a nutshell, a business’ response to COVID can be;

• spend reserves on keeping people employed despite their workload diminishing (to nothing potentially)

• adapt the current business model (say, to “development phase” or “digital delivery”) and change everyone’s job descriptions to be constructive and commensurate to their current salaries.

• use up holiday and sick leave, then go onto “leave without pay” 

• restructure (reduce employment, by making positions redundant or reducing the time people are hired for), which may come in conjunction with adaptation. 

• in the arts, one strategy that’s been aired by various funding agencies is to repurpose grants received to pay salaries. Of course, it is up to individual organisations to interpret this, but generally one has artistic contractors and employed admin staff.

A neo-liberal, capitalist response would be to assess adaptation strategies, and go with the least damaging (or most profitable) - which, in many business’s cases, would be to press pause on a business and resurface in a year’s time. Pressing pause by means of reducing expenses to as close to $0 as possible, contracting current clients to “when this is over we will...” and treating deposits for work as more long term (I.e not repurposing, but delaying).

This may mean reducing human resources (to nil or there abouts) either through redundancies or leave without pay. This response is ok as individuals can turn to Centrelink - our federal government has provided that choice.

Yet businesses (particularly from an not for profit (NFP) perspective) are being encouraged to continue paying staff as normal, adapting their business to offer current employees working environments or adapted job descriptions that respond to the new market environment we’ve found ourselves in. A huge risk, and one that the government acknowledges as such because they’ve offered some reprise from tax associated with payroll. The government, however, have also asked business to shoulder some of the risk themselves by offering cheap loans - a poisoned chalice given the lack of certainty for the future.

From a not for profit arts perspective, we’re being encouraged to pay wages (ostensibly, with job adaptation if possible but not mandatory, given reporting and KPI (key performance indicator) obligations are being lifted) without a guarantee of future support when things are on track (which would be impossible to provide). This risk comes without guarantee of future support. At the end of the day, though, the risk is public funds - no personal long term assets (cash or fixed) are being put on the line with these suggestions.

However this means something entirely different in the private sector than the public or NFP sector because in the private sector you’re talking about personal assets being put on the line to support salaries with potentially no return.... reducing the capacity of business owners to cope with the (previously) normal cash flow fluctuations that they’re likely already prepared for.

Some businesses (private, public and NFP) owners are very cashed up so simply paying salaries for a year won’t matter as much for them (no one will have to sell their house, no one will be on the street - although long term future plans may be affected).... but they’re the exception, not the rule.  Same for NFP sector.

There are myriad of issues beyond paying staff, however. Relationships to stakeholders, clients, competitors, market - are all being disrupted.

Not one solution will suit all, and everyone will need to respond in bespoke ways that suit their business.

But you know what?

Fuck it.

Why would we want to preserve the way of life, our social system, our political system, the way it has been?

The major concern of our times - climate change - which boils down to the relationship between Humanity and the Earth - which is intrinsically connected to our exploitation of the Earth, linked to our lack of moral compass in relation to the Earth - which is intrinsically connected to the social systems in which “business” “for profit” “not for profit” “Liberal” “Labor” “communications” “stakeholders” all exist.

We have an opportunity to start adopting a new vernacular, a new perspective, new behaviour.

Instead of adapting business operandi, why not examine and adapt what it means to be Human?

There are people doing this - right now - and you will probably know a few of them. Share relevant links in the comments to web pages of those Artists, Philosophers, Groups, Organisations who are investigating social behaviour, particularly through the lens of humanity’s relationship to environment.

I’ve been privileged to be working with my partner, choreographer Dean Walsh, on works that do this (EgoSystem, The Instruments). I’m also part of an incredible community called the Anthropocene Transition Network, led by Kenneth McLeod), who facilitate groups of people to inspire and work on human-environment approach (amongst other things). I’ve been reading, avidly - Glenn Albrecht and Nora Bateson are brilliant thinkers for the time we’ve found ourselves in. I know you will have many other suggestions - put one or two (or more) in the comments - encourage others to read, to listen, to subscribe, to converse, to argue.

Let’s manifest the vision for the future we need and want. Define it, Write it down, Chunk it into understandable bytes and promote it to our leadership. The COVID-19 disruption will be long enough for us, as a broad community, to take a step back and think about where we are going and why, and act Now. If we believe in benevolence and supporting the most vulnerable in our communities - then let’s not allow finance, position or perceived “market value” to determine who gets an intensive care unit (ICU) place. Let’s extend that into the broader thinking of our societal construct and promote permanent legislative change to reflect that value. If we condemn selfish behaviours (such as ignoring viral spread and packing into Bondi Beach) then let’s condemn selfish behaviours throughout our system, not just at a health level. If supporting public health and education, let’s encourage public health and education when there is no crisis.

We are now seeing a response to the current crisis that combines multiple perspectives, desires and philosophies. Let’s examine our approach and decide what we want our modus operandi to be - because let’s face it, we live in a world now in a long term crisis due to humanity’s disregard for Earth, and, if we can learn anything from COVID-19, selflessness and wholistic community-supportive approaches are far more productive in a crisis than hoarding and bickering.