While the Student Union was happy with their efforts to have tuition fees cancelled, I believe that they are pushing the university in the wrong direction. In this post, I would like to explain why paying for education is a good thing.

Project Constraints

I remember having a discussion with my previous boss (yes, I do have many discussions!) and he pointed out that the reason why public institutions can’t seem to get projects moving effectively is because, in private companies, projects are conducted under the constraints of time and budget. Since the two are relatively absent in public institutions, projects aren’t carried out in the most efficient and effective ways.

In other words, time and budget constraints are needed for the project to be completed. Constraints do not necessarily mean that the quality of the project is compromised. Or, put in another way, the constraints are needed in order to make the most effective use of the resources available.

If you have a project that can be completed in one day, but the deadline for it is set for a year from now, you might postpone completing the project until you come closer to the deadline. If there is no deadline, you might not even complete the project at all!

When your budget is set to “unlimited,” how will you determine what resources to use to get the work done? How do you choose the specifications for the devices to purchase? A task that can be completed by a computer with minimal specifications can be done on a computer with the most advanced specifications in the market. There is no real reason why the institution should not opt for the best that’s available. There is no real need to reduce costs. Therefore, decisions aren’t made to make the most effective use of the resources available. When the budget is a blank cheque, a team can be assigned to do work that can easily be done in the spare time of a part-time secretary.

Cash Flow

Private companies are established in order to make money. Money is their lifeline. No money, no company (this rhymes so it must be true!).

Therefore, private companies seek to increase their customer base, and to increase their prices as much as they reasonably can. This will help them survive and expand. No money, no expansion (this doesn’t rhyme, so it’s partly true! Companies can expand first in order to make more money).

In order to have more money, companies need to satisfy their customers. Customer care is essential for the success of the company. This means that the company needs to increase the quality it provides and to make the customer’s experience as easy and enjoyable as possible.

A public institution that doesn’t wish to retain or gain customers isn’t interested in either offering quality, or improving the customer’s experience. If you don’t like what’s being offered by the institution, you are directed towards the door. Whether you are happy with the service you receive or not, the employee will still keep his job, and the institution will continue to exist. The customer isn’t involved in the cash flow. He is simply an annoyance the employees would like to ignore and avoid.

Setting Priorities

With the absence of time and budget constraints, who sets what the priorities of a public institution are? What services should be offered, and for what reason? What is a public institution’s measure of success? In a private company, the standard of measurement is clear: the customer, and the success of the company is demonstrated by the amount of profit it can make.

A private company has to take the customer’s interests and concerns into consideration. The customer gets to decide what the priorities are, and what the company needs to invest its resources in. Public institutions in Kuwait spend bucket loads of money on leaflets and public relations campaigns to show how great the institution is and what it has achieved. Money is wasted on amplifying the institution’s achievements, when neither the achievement nor the self-praise contributes anything to the “customers” (referring to their victims as customers is a stretch).

Providing Quality

A private company does not have as many resources, or as big a budget, as a public institution. In this respect, it may be said that its quality will be less than the quality that can be provided by a public institution. We have already mentioned why this is not necessarily the case. But an important point to note is how money is tied to the level of quality provided by a private company.

Customers (usually) pay for a product or a service, they believe, is worth the money they are willing to part with. If a product isn’t worth its big price tag, we either ask for a discount or choose not to buy. A private company takes this into consideration. It sets its prices according to how much its potential customers value the quality of service it provides. If it cannot offer quality service, it reduces its prices. If customers are willing to pay huge amounts of money for its services, it can increase its prices. In this case, it would not be exploiting the interest it has generated. People are getting the quality of service they are paying for.

A private university can attract a handful of customers by providing good education for a small fee. It can increase the services and facilities it provides, and charge a larger fee. The more students it attracts, the more money it can make, and the more quality it can provide. Quality is tied to the amount if interest there is, which is expressed in the amount of money the university has attracted.

The students that pay to enter a private company usually (though not always) appreciate what they are paying for, and make full use of the education they are provided with.

In Kuwait University, there is no connection between the student’s interest in getting into the university and the level of service the university provides.

If Kuwait University students ever complain about the standards of teaching at Kuwait University, or any other aspect of university life, my simple answer to them is: “You’re getting what you paid for.“

A Note on Slavery

Before I analyse the writer’s views on employment, we must realise that slavery is immoral from both directions. That is, it is immoral to enslave, and immoral to accept being a slave. It is not immoral to be forced into slavery, because morality comes into play only when we are able to choose. To be forced into slavery is not the issue, but to accept being a slave without challenging your conditions, or at least acknowledging that it is wrong to be enslaved, is immoral.

When the writer likens employment to slavery, he is not simply saying that it is not the optimal way to live, but that it is wrong to continue accepting your “enslavement.” He is not offering a way out of employment as a better alternative, but that the “better alternative” should be our only choice. Employment – as slavery – should not be accepted. And if we wish to accept our enslavement, we should do so with a sense of guilt, because we are accepting something which is immoral.

This is the idea that I wish to challenge by offering an alternative understanding of employment.

Examples of “Slavery”

The writer offers several examples to illustrate how employment is slavery. The article begins by describing one employee’s hectic life, to the extent that he has been unable to furnish his house, or let alone see the rest of his house apart from the room that he sleeps in, because he’s been too busy with work to pay attention to his personal life. The article also criticizes those who have nowhere to go once their workday ends, and so they feel compelled to stay after hours.

The fact that many workers drink coffee in the morning to face their day is viewed by the writer as a sign that we need coffee (i.e. a drug, because we wouldn’t be able to experience wakefulness without it) because we are of those who struggle to remember “who they are, or what they are.”

The writer also mentions some of his personal experiences to show what modern day slavery (i.e. employment) is like, and how he has suffered (or may continue to be suffering) under this slavery. He has been affected by his son’s request not to leave to work, and feels that the best years of his life and his son’s life are lost to employment. He also experienced health problems as a result of the stress and routine he had while working.

Our dependency on technology are the chains of slavery in the eyes of the writer, because it indicates how we are slaves to technology rather than being its master. And while this may be seen as a critique of our lifestyle, the criticism is deeper than that, as the writer reveals in another point he makes: the writer doesn’t simply consider technology a burden, but criticises (presumably Arab or Muslim) employees whose primary language is English. But why did he make this point? Why should the language we use be an indication of the “slavery” we experience?

The fact is, it’s not the consequences of technology on our lives that the writer finds troubling, but our dependency on the technology produced by the West. It’s not the slavery to work that the writer finds upsetting, but slavery to Western culture. His remarks on the language we use reveal the real intentions behind the entire article, and explains why the writer condemns corporate life, and why he does not address the issue objectively: he seeks to attack Western culture and is using employment as a vehicle towards those ends. When the writer can state that the majority of a person’s life is spent in employment, but that it “rarely has a positive effect on the life of the employee,” then you know that he’s being extremely biased in dealing with the subject.

Classic Slavery vs Modern Day “Slavery”

Just like the slaves who built the pyramids, the writer notes, who may have felt a sense of pride in constructing the greatest monuments in human history, modern day workers should not feel pride or a sense of accomplishment for what they achieve because, at the end of the day, they are all slaves.

But modern day “slaves” are worse than the slaves of the old days, according to the writer, because the slaves of the past were forced into slavery, whereas modern “slaves” are slaves to the idea that they have to work, and that they have to become better slaves!

To help us determine when we’ve become slaves, the writer offers these three indicators:

1- If you work over hours

2- If you consistently think about your work, even when you’re in bed

3- If your closest friends are your colleagues at work

I should note that while the writer seems to be targeting employees in his article (who are slaves to their employers), all his criticisms are applicable to both employers as well as freelancers who work by themselves, but offer their services for others. Looking at all the points the writer raises, it seems that employment is not what he’s attacking, but the idea of having to work to earn a living. All the negative effects of employment seem to be potential symptoms for anyone engaged in any productive activity.

The Writer’s Utopia

The writer asks two important questions:

What is the nature of work?

What is the nature of life?

He believes that the aim of life is to be happy, and while he does not offer an explanation of what work is or means, he follows this with the question: If work doesn’t make us happy, why are we still working?

The article ends with a call to retire from work, before we are forced to retire. How can we retire and earn a living? The writer doesn’t explain. All that he leaves us with is a sense of guilt if we don’t cast our chains and jump on his bandwagon (which, presumably, leads to nowhere).

The article lacks any specifics, apart from criticising some of the symptoms of modern life. It doesn’t explain the nature of work, what it means to be happy, or how work and happiness relate to human nature. To better understand the issues addressed in the article, it is important that we clarify the main concepts and understand them for what they are. To simply appeal to our moral conscience, while ignoring the facts is a cheap way of presenting one’s views.

A Look at Reality

Human history reveals the hardships we had to endure to survive on earth. We never had our food delivered without having to struggle (or at least work) for it. We do not receive our sustenance by default. When humans had to search, or hunt, for food, “not working” was not an option, unless you were prepared to die, or to depend on others for your meals. With the advent of the industrial revolution, in which production, with the use of techonologically advanced production methods, jumped exponentially, and the effort that had to be put in through manual labour was dramatically reduced, yet the output in production was dramatically raised. This meant that we were able to free up more of our time that we would have otherwise spent in search of our basic necessities.

The benefits that the industrial revolution offered mankind are enormous, and I cannot expand on them fully in this article. But we must note that we are living in an industrialized world, and this is what the writer seems to be attacking. What the writer seems to ignore is that the alternative to the work he is criticizing is a return to farming, or hunting for food, or depending on others for our sustenance. Since life on earth requires that we work for our needs, this fact cannot be ignored. You cannot simply wish to survive living the way that makes you happy, without considering what it takes to survive on earth.

And while hunting, or farming, can be accepted as natural needs, the idea of working for a living seems to be artificial, because we cannot see the direct connection between working at a desk and earning our food. Why should we put in such effort in order to live? Is this not slavery in the modern sense, where we must please our masters in order to earn our daily bread? The fact is, this is far from slavery. Because we are not all obliged to work on farms, it does not mean that we are automatically entitled to the food the farmers harvest. Just because farmers can now produce far more food (surpassing their personal needs), it does not mean that we have a right to that food.

One of the basic human interactions that have existed throughout the centuries is trade. Farmers are willing to give you what they produce in exchange for the goods that you produce. In modern times, we do not have to go directly to the farmers to offer our services or goods, but can exchange our services to other members of society, using the medium of money, to represent the services – or value – that we have rendered. What our money represents to the farmers (or the tailors, or any other professional whose goods are of use or desire for us) is the value that we have produced, which he can then exchange with others to gain what he pleases, for the value that he has offered.

The concept of trade treats the two parties involved as equals, exchanging value for value. Neither one is a master, or a slave.

Being an Employee

The idea of trade is at the heart of employment. Just because you work within someone else’s corporation does not mean that you are a slave to your employer. What it does mean is that you are willing to offer your services, in exchange for the goods or services other members of society offer. You do not have to earn your food or clothing from your boss, but from any other member of society, using the money you gain for your work.

Brian Tracy, a businessman and speaker, says that you should see yourself as a corporation that is offering its services to the corporation you work for. That is, rather than see yourself as a cog within the company (system) you work in, see yourself as a separate entity that is offering value, in exchange for the value you will receive in return.

Given this understanding of employment and trade, it is extremely noble for someone to offer value for value, whereby nobody is exploited in the process. And it is also noble to seek to improve your ability to produce greater value for those you deal with, so that you can earn more, and to improve the quality of your life. What the writer of the article criticising employment fails to realise is that his criticism of modern day work is centred on the symptoms of work, and not work itself. And as I will show, these symptoms can be avoided by dealing with the real issues at the root of these problems.

The Causes and the Symptoms

Most of the problems modern day workers experience can be avoided by changing their lifestyles and work habits. The reason why so many workers need to spend long hours to get their work done isn’t due to the nature of their work (sometimes it is), but mostly to do with the amount of value they produce while they work. Since they do not produce a lot of value in one hour, they must put in extra hours to compensate for their low productivity. How can this be resolved? Not by abandoning work, but by increasing the value we can produce and decreasing the time it takes to produce that value. In other words, by being more efficient.

Many, many hours of the day are wasted in confusion and lack of concentration, where workers have not decided on what they will produce, and so end up surfing on the Internet, or chatting with colleagues, etc. Studies on productivity have shown that the average employee may only work one or two hours out of the whole workday, so it’s no surprise if he needs to put in extra hours to compensate.

A lot of the health problems workers suffer from are not due to the nature of their work, but their decisions on what to eat and how to live. Although some workers might feel stressed from work, but it does not mean that they don’t have a half hour to spare a day for exercise, or that they cannot arrange to eat healthier food to boost their energy, without the negative side effects. The poor decisions workers make are not the fault of their work.

If we look at all the criticisms thrown towards work and corporate life, we will see that many of the problems can be avoided by taking decisions on how one chooses to work and to live his life. Career choices impact the levels of happiness we experience. If we choose a job that we hate, we will live miserable lives. Rather than blame the job for it, blame yourself for choosing that job.

In Closing…

Although living life as an employee may have more restrictions than working as a freelancer, we cannot escape the fact that we need to work to earn our living. We need to produce value if we expect to receive value. This isn’t something that we should feel guilty about, or try to avoid. Our sense of accomplishment should not be frowned upon but be embraced.

Productivity is a human virtue we should feel proud about, and we must continuously strive to increase the value we produce and improve the skills we possess, so that we can be of greater importance to others, and so that we can afford to live the life we want to live.

I recently cancelled my W-Net subscription due to the terrible customer service I received, and thought I should share with you my thoughts about Wataniya’s customer service, and what you will need to do about it so that you can stop losing your customers.

I was happily using my W-Net device for a few months, until I changed my laptop, and my device was no longer usable. I am not sure why I did not purchase another device at the time, or contact Wataniya to explain my problem. I admit that this is an error on my part. Also, it was wrong of me to stop paying for the service, seeing that I was still subscribed, but I did not see that it made sense to pay for a service that I wasn’t using. I admit that I did not make the right decisions. However, having put myself in my awkward position, I was hoping that Wataniya would a) attempt to understand my situation b) consider a solution that is beneficial to both parties, or c) explain the impossibility of (b), should such a situation exist.

Since I was under contract to subscribe to the service for one year, it would have been feasible for Wataniya to pardon me for not paying for the months in which I did not use the service, but expect me to extend my subscription for a few extra months so that I complete a full year of used service. This solution seemed impossible for your customer service staff member to understand, or even consider. And if you think the same way, then the root of the problem is deeper than I thought.

But rather than apologising for the fact that Wataniya could not make such an arrangement (which I don’t see why they cannot), or even try to explain to me why it was not possible, or even check with her superior if it was possible, the customer service employee demanded that I pay the amount I had to pay, and in full. When I tried to explain my situation, she replied (with the now funny response): “It’s not the company’s fault.”

The saying “the customer is always right” may have been worn out, but it expresses a truth that all customer service departments, managers and staff need to understand and focus on: the company exists to serve its customers in the best way possible, for the customer, and not for the company. The company exists for the customers, but the customers don’t exist for the company. But by offering the best customer service possible, both customers and the company get to benefit, and you wouldn’t end up losing customers because of their bad experience. I used to recommend the W-Net service to family and friends, but you can be sure that I will no longer do that. In fact, I will begin to warn people about seeking the services of a company that does not care about the interests of its customers.

The behaviour of the customer service employee seems funny now that I’m not one of your customers, but I have pity for your company and your customers, which is why I would like to share some advice with you, in the hope that you can improve your customers’ experience of your services:

- No need to find who to blame:

It is interesting how the employee that “served” me insisted that I was the one in the wrong, and how I should pay for my mistakes. The truth is, companies should not put their customers in the position of guilt, or feel happy that their customers are the ones to blame for the problem. Blame is not an issue, and your employee should neither feel defensive, or need to get offensive. Rather than focus on who to blame, she should have thought about what can be done to make my experience positive, and seek a solution that best serves the customer and the company.

- Applying rules while blind to reality:

A common problem encountered by many customers is when the customer service staff don’t bother to understand the nature of the problem, but instead seek to apply a set of rigid rules that they cannot see as being impractical and unnecessary. So what if my subscription is monthly, and I wish to skip a few months because I had personal issues? How does that affect the company? And can’t Wataniya understand that it’s painful for a customer to pay for a service that he has not used, or can’t it attempt to find a solution in which the customer gets to enjoy the service that he is paying for?

I still remember the time my brother paid for an annual membership in a climbing centre, and when he injured his arm, he did not go for a few months. The centre called him to ask why he has not been visiting the centre. He informed them about his condition, and they were willing to refund him his money for the months that he did not visit the centre! Instead, he suggested that they offer me and my brother-in-law an extension to our memberships, to which they complied.

This shows how the centre was flexible with its rules because it was more interested in best serving their customers, rather than making a profit for a service that their customers did not use, or sticking to rules that did not make any sense to the customer. It also shows how my brother was willing to see them profit because of their customer service, which is why he suggested a solution that had them keep the money that he paid.

- Should be interested in retaining your customers:

All the employees I contacted at Wataniya were not interested in keeping me as a customer. Maybe because they’re used to having people terminate their subscriptions, and they no longer have the energy to attempt to keep their customers. However, it also reveals how much interest they have in their customers. The woman I spoke to seemed to enjoy the idea that I would be cancelling my subscription. It would seem that she thought that it was a “victory” for her, for having me comply with her rules. But this, again, shows how “highly” your employees think of their customers.

- Everybody is a potential customer:

You may think that if a person can no longer make use of your services, then you will not be interested in him as a customer. However, everyone is a potential customer. A person who may not need your services at the moment may need it in the future. To treat those who are currently not in need of your services as useless individuals not only prevents them from considering your services again, but you can be sure that they will spread the word about how horrible your treatment is.

- Customer service covers the entire customer experience:

Many companies assume that their customer service department is the one responsible for customer service. But this is not true. The fact is, the customer judges the service of a company based on his entire experience of that company. This means that any interaction with the company constitutes a customer service. Solving technical problems is a customer service (interestingly, I found that Wataniya’s technical staff to be more friendly and helpful than the employee that’s specialized for customer service and “PR”). Therefore, you shouldn’t assume that your responsibility ends where other departments begin. Your responsibility is to monitor the entire customer experience, and to see how to improve your customer’s experience in every way.

- A smile would be nice:

A smile and nice words are pleasant additions to the customer experience, but they do not form the basis of customer service. An employee who can only smile and say sweet things does not solve the problems your customers face. These things certainly influence the experience, but they are not primary. Companies shouldn’t be fooled by the idea that their customer service is great because of how their employees smile, or that they have a customer service department, or by the number of times the employee says: “inshallah” or “is there anything else I can help you with?” If the employee isn’t helpful or pleasant, then you know that your customers certainly don’t want another service from him, or her.

The woman I spoke to from the customer service department never even bothered to smile, or use any pleasant words. She didn’t express any care or concern, and made me uncomfortable simply trying to speak to her. There isn’t a single service or gesture that she made, which could lead me to say that she was worth my wait or my efforts. The only thing she did was have me wait once again in line so that I can speak to a technical support staff, who happened to be far more helpful and pleasant than she was.

This is all I have to say for now. I’m sure that I speak for many people who have had bad experiences with your customer service staff, but I hope that you will learn from my experience on how to improve your services. And with talk of a third telecommunication company to be set up in Kuwait, if Wataniya continues to have such horrible customer service, we will end up with only two telecommunications companies, but Wataniya will not be one of them.

I hope this letter will help you realise the grave problem you are facing, and has shed some light on the solutions you can implement to solve this problem.

I wish you and your customers all the best.

Haider