This certainly matches up with a Princeton study that suggested a complete difference between the concerns of the political and economic elite and the average citizen in America. However, as someone who is part of the lanyard class, I think it is important to set the record straight and to share my observations of this group
The term ‘lanyard class’ only appears once in academic literature, and that is an essay penned by a Marxist who uses it in reference to social workers who use what he perceives to be an oppressive system to elevate the underprivileged and reduce inequalities. But I would argue that it is more than that.
I will have to answer the obvious question. Why did I join? It was because the public sector could afford to invest in my development while bearing the costs of my mistakes. Nobody in the private sector should or could hire me because I have no skills from which they can profit. Plus, it provides good job security in the middle of a recession.
This is what I have observed so far: The lanyard class is not a monolith. There are many distinctions within the class: union and non-union, service delivery and policy, fanatics and pragmatics, frontline versus corporates. I will go through each.
First, there are union and non-union members. Not everyone in this class is part of the PSA. Some of us do not like paying dues and having to follow an organisation that fundamentally we disagree with. While it does negotiate a fairer wage it also demands that its members adhere to its woke principles including advocating for ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ in the workplace.
The second lanyard class distinction is between those in policy and those in service delivery. What I mean is that the class can be divided between those who advise on how a ministry should do its duties and the people who act on those duties. The policy types all have university degrees, but what sets them apart is that they all volunteer for various ‘community organisations’, the approved ones that the political class deem to be acceptable.
These are organisations such as Amnesty International and Red Cross, despite these organisations being accused of corruption. These policy types live in Wellington, separated from the rest of the country, and usually have the minister’s ear. They are qualified to be experts on how the country should be run and are usually the ones who set the agenda for the different ministries. Below them are the service delivery people who have the job of enforcing or carrying out these writs from the policy types. Unlike the policy types, the service delivery types have the unfortunate job of dealing with the public, while the policy types deal with ‘academics’ only and approved ‘experts’, which explains why public opinion almost never makes it to policy.
The third lanyard class division is between pragmatics and fanatics. Fanatics truly believe in the mission of the organisation. They believe in whatever the political class tells them to be reality. Therefore they will use their positions to enact establishment issues which means delivering on the policies they agree with and slowing down policies they don’t agree with. The pragmatics are those who continue regardless of who is in government. Whatever new policies come out they try to interpret and utilise them in order to help the public.
Finally, there are corporates and there are frontline workers. The corporates are the CEOs and those in the leadership team, who make decisions for the ministry. They are the ones who decide how the policies and ideas of the minister should be implemented. They are the ones that represent the organisation, marketing its benefits to the public and to the minister to maintain confidence and trust in the organisation. They do this by ordering ambitious projects and by constantly trying to celebrate the organisation’s achievements while ignoring all of its problems. Frontline workers are the ones stuck with dealing with the day-to-day of the organisation. Ensuring that policies are enforced and having to deliver on the projects ordered by corporates. They are well aware of the problems of the organisation. These are your average firefighter, police officer, paramedic and nurse who have to deal with public issues every day.
Ministers are not in control of the government. They may implement different policies and different bills but ultimately it is up to the lanyard class to decide how the ideas of the minister are implemented and it is not always what the minister intended.
The lanyard class reflects what Dwight Waldo coined ‘the administrative state’, a public bureaucracy with the power to decide which ideas of elected members of government are accepted and which ones are rejected. They also decide what information makes it to the minister about their organisation or portfolio, which means issues and problems the public voices may not make it to the agenda.
However, there are many in the lanyard class who are not the lapdogs of the political class. Ordinary people like you are doing this job to bring about positive change or to provide for their families. Some such as myself do not always agree with everything the organisation does, so next time you attack the lanyard class, just remember there is a human being wearing that lanyard.
Dark Jester is political scholar with an interest in foreign interference. Traditional conservative. Came out of a family that fled communism and improved themselves thanks to capitalism but would consider himself a distributionist. This article was first published HERE
The term ‘lanyard class’ only appears once in academic literature, and that is an essay penned by a Marxist who uses it in reference to social workers who use what he perceives to be an oppressive system to elevate the underprivileged and reduce inequalities. But I would argue that it is more than that.
I will have to answer the obvious question. Why did I join? It was because the public sector could afford to invest in my development while bearing the costs of my mistakes. Nobody in the private sector should or could hire me because I have no skills from which they can profit. Plus, it provides good job security in the middle of a recession.
This is what I have observed so far: The lanyard class is not a monolith. There are many distinctions within the class: union and non-union, service delivery and policy, fanatics and pragmatics, frontline versus corporates. I will go through each.
First, there are union and non-union members. Not everyone in this class is part of the PSA. Some of us do not like paying dues and having to follow an organisation that fundamentally we disagree with. While it does negotiate a fairer wage it also demands that its members adhere to its woke principles including advocating for ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ in the workplace.
The second lanyard class distinction is between those in policy and those in service delivery. What I mean is that the class can be divided between those who advise on how a ministry should do its duties and the people who act on those duties. The policy types all have university degrees, but what sets them apart is that they all volunteer for various ‘community organisations’, the approved ones that the political class deem to be acceptable.
These are organisations such as Amnesty International and Red Cross, despite these organisations being accused of corruption. These policy types live in Wellington, separated from the rest of the country, and usually have the minister’s ear. They are qualified to be experts on how the country should be run and are usually the ones who set the agenda for the different ministries. Below them are the service delivery people who have the job of enforcing or carrying out these writs from the policy types. Unlike the policy types, the service delivery types have the unfortunate job of dealing with the public, while the policy types deal with ‘academics’ only and approved ‘experts’, which explains why public opinion almost never makes it to policy.
The third lanyard class division is between pragmatics and fanatics. Fanatics truly believe in the mission of the organisation. They believe in whatever the political class tells them to be reality. Therefore they will use their positions to enact establishment issues which means delivering on the policies they agree with and slowing down policies they don’t agree with. The pragmatics are those who continue regardless of who is in government. Whatever new policies come out they try to interpret and utilise them in order to help the public.
Finally, there are corporates and there are frontline workers. The corporates are the CEOs and those in the leadership team, who make decisions for the ministry. They are the ones who decide how the policies and ideas of the minister should be implemented. They are the ones that represent the organisation, marketing its benefits to the public and to the minister to maintain confidence and trust in the organisation. They do this by ordering ambitious projects and by constantly trying to celebrate the organisation’s achievements while ignoring all of its problems. Frontline workers are the ones stuck with dealing with the day-to-day of the organisation. Ensuring that policies are enforced and having to deliver on the projects ordered by corporates. They are well aware of the problems of the organisation. These are your average firefighter, police officer, paramedic and nurse who have to deal with public issues every day.
Ministers are not in control of the government. They may implement different policies and different bills but ultimately it is up to the lanyard class to decide how the ideas of the minister are implemented and it is not always what the minister intended.
The lanyard class reflects what Dwight Waldo coined ‘the administrative state’, a public bureaucracy with the power to decide which ideas of elected members of government are accepted and which ones are rejected. They also decide what information makes it to the minister about their organisation or portfolio, which means issues and problems the public voices may not make it to the agenda.
However, there are many in the lanyard class who are not the lapdogs of the political class. Ordinary people like you are doing this job to bring about positive change or to provide for their families. Some such as myself do not always agree with everything the organisation does, so next time you attack the lanyard class, just remember there is a human being wearing that lanyard.
Dark Jester is political scholar with an interest in foreign interference. Traditional conservative. Came out of a family that fled communism and improved themselves thanks to capitalism but would consider himself a distributionist. This article was first published HERE
5 comments:
Jester you are correct, there are I am sure people within that layer who do not hold themselves more important than others.
The problem is that Mr & Mrs Joe Average will never make the distinction.
It only takes one bad apple to sow the seed of rot in the publics mindset and when you have people who are clearly unproductive yet overpaid and over perked who think and say and act like they are in a corporate box looking down upon the proles the rot becomes reality.
I, like so many have experienced useless functionaries lauding it over me like I did not understand or was too stupid to realise. These are the true 'lanyard class'. They will sit in a meeting telling you that you are wrong purely because the position they hold makes them right.
Then they will fly off on a junket utilising every available perk and association they touch to facilitate their next high paying job without actually producing a result from their previous role.
You find these sorts in the public service, politics, journalism and academia where accountability is almost non-existent and culpability cannot be found in their dictionary.
I have worked in various public service roles and for the pivate sector. There are PS managers who just keep on moving up the ranks regardless of if they achieve anything or not. They can disrupt the whole office and be hated but happily get promoted to the next chaos. There are a few good ones but generally there is not enough accountability for performance.
MC
Personally I believe that as a society, we, like the rest of the West & in particular the "5 Eyes" nations are at a critical juncture & need to take along hard look at the social contract that dictates not only how we choose to live together as a society, but our relationship with those that are elected to "govern" us, as it is clear that "consent of the governed" is a thing of the past.
No longer are decisions reached through mutual consent & referendum. They have done this without consent, have consistently denied access to any form of debate, have violently stifled any dissent & imposed severe punitive measures for non compliance.
The basis of the "Social Contract" is that we as individuals agree to comply with certain rules & regulations in order to guarantee our rights, our freedom, our safety & uphold the fabric of society & it is blatantly obvious that our "leaders" have failed & continue fail on a level so monumental that one might assume they are doing it on purpose.
Our freedoms & all dissent are being curtailed with every sitting of parliament & it wont be long before Digital IDs & CBDCs are forced upon us. Our safety is declining & not withstanding the fact that the police are spending tens of millions of our money, a criminal could forcibly enter your home, murder you, cook a feed, use your bathroom & make off in your car before the police are even informed via 111 of a crime being committed. Even if apprehended, the perpetrator would receive tens of thousands of dollars of tax payer funded legal aid, undergo tax payer funded assessment by a progressive liberal that would blame society for his criminal actions & get slapped on the wrist with either home detention, or a ridiculously short sentence that provides zero justice to the victims & their families & further endangers society.
The fabric of society has been undermined due to the collapse of our education & healthcare systems, a welfare system that promotes indentured servitude, the adoption of racist policies whereby minorities have more rights than the majority & are able to dictate the terms & conditions that dictate the governance of said majority while forcing their language & culture into every aspect of our lives & the undermining of the family unit through the forced adoption of a homosexual agenda & the use of a govt agency (CWS) that promotes state sanctioned kidnapping without Due Process of Law.
Can someone please spell out to me what this Social Contract is, because I see no equity in it when not only are my ethics & morality being insulted, but the natural & undeniable inalienable rights that must form the basis of the amorphous contract are not only being callously undermined, but increasingly legislated out of existence while we pay ever increasing taxes & fees for the privilege ?
Whether this contract is agreed upon either tacitly or complicity, we still retain the right to remove our consent, but look at the consequences. Taxation is theft & taxation without representation is extortion, yet you will end up in jail & your assets seized for non compliance. Refuse to pay your vehicle registration or RUCs because the roads in you District or Province are falling apart & your vehicle will soon be seized & impounded. Attempt to get off the town water supply because you dont want to drink or bathe in Sodium Fluoride or Chlorine...um...sorry, not permitted. The list goes on & proves that we have become no more than subservient chattels & the social contract has become invalid & I know from history that the current ruling party of our 3 yearly bi partisan merry go round will not change a thing.
What to do ?
Jester, the problem is in perceptions. When we struggle to deal with increased costs (just about on everything) and we read of failures, scandals, massive salaries for top-level public servants, and other relevant issues, we develop a jaded view of folk who are actually meant to be working for the public good (and they are members of the same 'public' after all).
Then add to the fact that public service numbers have ballooned since Labour took the reins and we have an image of an inefficient, self-interested monster. I know that what I'm describing isn't accurate or quite fair, but there it is.
I was a lanyard wearer in a public hospital and definitely a frontline pragmatic, until I wasn't, because my role got 'restructured'.
It was a relief to be let go because I was finding the whole TOW indoctrination, which was obligatory to attend once a year, and the Maori spirituality in regards to everything and anything constantly, extremely oppressive. Such things added no value to the customer, but was a whole gravy train to our 'educators'. Such a waste of taxpayers money.
My sympathies are with lanyard wearers today stuck in a system they have to endure to pay their bills and support their families - I was fortunate I had superannuation to fall back on - and the luxury of being able to think for myself at last.
Post a Comment