ya know, one of the TV show I like most is The Undercover Boss.

[napi21]

I don'[t know how much of this is just BS and how much might be real, but I'd LOVE to have not only the corp. execs but the politicians to go "undercover" into society and really see what it's like for their workers/average members in their districts/States. I miss the show somethines byt every time I've watched it. what's really REAL has shocked the execs. I know that's the way it would have been in EVERY job I've ever had & I suspect it's like that where you work too!

[mucifer]

1. I saw that show once and I had the opposite feeling from it. I saw an episode with

the owner of "hooters" who had "no idea" that the business could be considered sexist. It "never occurred to him". He was on camera so he did have to chew out some really awful manager who was playing creepy mind games with the waitresses. And he was "shocked" to find out that the working mom waitress was having trouble making ends meet so he gave her a trip to Bermuda or something. It was contrived and icky. My opinion. It seemed like one hour of a hooters commercial.

[tishaLA]

2. I have the opposite reaction

It seems to me that the show is designed primarily to humanize the boss and to construct him or her as empathetic toward the workers. For the workers, the show ultimately manages to pick out a few examples of suffering and create rewards that are limited to them--a raise for this person, a vacation for that person, a gift of tuition for that person's child--rather than looking at systemic changes that will improve the lives of all the workers. So the show tells us, in effect, the boss is more like us than not; if he weren't so removed from the situation of the worker, he would do things to help, but he just doesn't <i>know</i>.

I also think the show has a kind of phoniness that pervades its very premise: CEOs know that their workers are underpaid and alienated from their labor. That's the nature of the beast and what makes CEO stay CEOs: by keeping a constant eye toward the bottom line and figuring out more ways to increase 'productivity'/eliminate workers. So...they get to see the results of keeping shareholders happy.

[Fire1]

3. Agree. n/t

[napi21]

4. I guess it's all in how you look at it. I know I worked for 14 years at a co. where the

founder & ceo always went to the stores unknown & unannounced, buthe reason was to catch someone doing something that was against his was of doing things & he'd have them fired! That's not what I mean.

I was never a ceo, but I was a manager at the home office & I used to go to the floor of the mfg. operation and ask to be taught how to do different jobs. ACTUALLY DO THEM! It helped me a lot to understand why some things they were asked to do were impossible, and I enjoyed doing it. AND there were some jobs I knew I just couldn't do at all!!!

I remenber a few years ago, there was a local State rep (I don't recall what State) who decided she & her family were going to live for 2 months on the amount of $$ they would have received if they were collecting welfare. One of the networks did a good coverage of following their progress. She admitted at the end of the two months that she had a whole new view of what people face and the problems they have when they have only welfare subsidies to rely on.


I know this is just a tv show & there are producers & I'm sure most if it is not real world, but the idea is a good one, and that's the way I look at it.