Time To Do Away With Time Costs

Boon Gan Ng

Senior Legal Associate at VanillaLaw LLC

I want to qualify this article by stating that I have never rendered a time cost bill in my entire life. My firm works for a fixed fee in exchange for a well defined scope of work, and I have never seen a client ask to switch to time-cost billing. Even though time cost billing is still a prevalent practice in the legal industry, none of my peers seriously defend it, and we have to acknowledge the problems that it creates for everyone involved.

The customer

1. You have no idea how much you're going to spend in the end until you get your bill. This makes planning and budgeting for legal costs difficult, especially if you run a business with a recurring need for legal services.

2. Some law firms offer to reduce your costs by getting junior lawyers or non-lawyers to do part of the work. But you have no way of verifying who actually did the work, even if they presented their timesheets to you.

3. Do you choose someone who has a higher billing rate who might be able to get the job done faster, or a younger lawyer with a lower rate who hopefully will produce a smaller bill at the end? (But what does this have to do with the quality of service you receive?)

The firm

1. Customers will bargain with you and ask for discounts after you present the bill. You come under constant financial pressure even though you thought you gave the customer advance notice of your rates.

2. If you and the customer can't reach a consensus on the appropriate amount to pay, you have to apply for taxation. You have to spend more resources to get what is owed to you, and even then there's no guarantee that you'll get everything you want.

3. Everyone has a slightly different idea of what a reasonable rate is. Even if you inform the customer of your hourly rate beforehand, you still can be accused of over-charging. Unless you are the sort who thinks any publicity is good publicity, your reputation will take a hit.

The associate

1. You are only as good as the hours which you an record as billable hours. Anything else which is not billable might be considered wasted, depending on how your firm weighs other activities such as business development.

2. To add insult to injury, you have to spend time recording the time you spent which is even less billable time spent. Granted, this activity can be alleviated by practice management software, but you rather spend time on more productive pursuits.

3. You feel pressured on both sides - the firm which has an interest in maximising profits, and the client who has an interest in a lower bill or financial certainty.

Time cost billing should go the way of the dinosaur, given how it has no relation to the value which law firms create for customers. Is our value the time we spend with or for customers? Some people take the view that only what can be measured can be valued, but if you have an instinctive or reflexive dislike for financial uncertainty, then deep down you already know that time cost billing is not for you. Lawyers need to take a hard look at ourselves and ask if time cost billing serves everyone's interests.

When Vision Lies with the Old

My aunt once made the point that Singapore is an unusual place. She observed that in other parts of the world, the youth are generally very idealistic and become less so once the reality of making living sets in. By contrast, the youth in Singapore are very materialistic and become less as they get older and realise that there’s more to life than chasing the almighty dollar.

This fact was personalized by recent events from a close family association. I’m talking about Professor Tommy Koh, our former Permanent Representative to the United Nations, who has been positioning himself as a champion of various social issues. It started out when he called Section 377A a “bad” law and urged the “LGBT” Community to keep trying to get the law removed. Professor Koh has recently gone as far as to publish letters in our national newspaper to suggests that we need a “rule book” on how to treat our domestic workers.

By contrast, Professor Koh’s son, Aun Koh, who describes himself as a “journalism-trained entrepreneur,” seems to have gone the other way. Mr. Koh decided that it was time to tell us that while Singapore could do better in some of its social instincts, he can “no longer blindly defend free speech.” Mr. Koh argued that Singapore’s educated population that had gained prosperity and peace in a multicultural society had done it, partially because the government had the good sense to control things. Mr. Koh’s comments can be read at:

https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/why-my-attitude-towards-free-speech-has-changed 

This is just one example of a father-son duo where the son appears to be more “pro-status-quo” than the son. The Singapore system has one amazing success – it has turned children of dissidents into its greatest champions. Janadas Devan, the government’s spokesperson was the son of a former President (Devan Nair) and then there’s our Senior Minister of State for Ministry of Communications and Information, Dr. Janil Puthucheary, who is the son of a dissident (Dominic Puthucheary).

What accounts for this difference? You could argue that you got to look at the stages of life. Professor Koh, for example, is a highly established figure. He’s reached the stage where he’s got nothing left to prove and there’s nothing else for him to gain. He can afford to speak his mind and you could say his priorities are now focused on trying to right the kinks in the system.

By contrast, Mr. Koh is at that stage where there are things for him to aspire to – hence, he focuses on the “nice” bits that the system offers and defends it. You could call it the stage of knowing what’s good for you.

To be fair, there is much to commend in the Singapore system. As long as you conform to certain expectations, you will not starve. While I’m not exactly a grand winner in the system, I’m grateful for certain things about Singapore like basic safety. I don’t sit up at night worried that my 20-year old might not make it back home if she’s going out with her mates late at night for a few beers.

However, while Singapore may stack-up pretty well against most places, we got to remember that it is not “perfect.” The nation has social issues to address. Take the example of homeless people. OK, I don’t face the line of homeless people outside my door the way I did in London – but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Furthermore, unlike London, where the louts were inevitably young, ours are inevitably the elderly and frail. Unless you have a criminal amount of money in the bank, Singapore is a dreadful place to be old, sick and frail.

I can understand people wanting to defend what they have but there should also be a need to want to make society better and this often requires energy, which should come from the young. You should not expect the old to drive social change just as you should not expect them to be carrying heavy loads.

Isn’t it time we look to our aspiring young and remind them that speaking out for social change is good an investment for everyone? When you do your part to make the world a better place it rewards you in return.

What Do We Have Against the Obvious?

One of the nicest things about living in Singapore is the fact that it’s an exceedingly practical place. The government’s that have lead Singapore, have generally veered on doing the “practical” thing and governments have always worked on the principle of doing “What’s Right rather than What’s Popular.”

The results have been good. Singapore is probably as close as it gets to having a perfect society. We are rich and our “social” issues tend to centre around life getting expensive for Professional and Middle-Class people rather than riots in the streets and violence against particular communities.

Yet, there is one area in which the Singapore government fails spectacularly, namely the question of 377A, the act in which criminalises anal sex between grown men. For the last decade, whenever the topic of 377A comes up, Singapore’s normally pragmatic and rational government rushes to pander to the illogical and irrational. I think of Professor Thio Li-Ann’s speech in parliament in 2007 and ended up marveling at her ability to deliver a long speech without a single rational thought (“We must reject the argument from consent” -being a line from that speech, which is the last thing you’d expect from a learned law professor when discussing laws governing sexual behavior) and yet she managed to convince a room filled with highly intelligent rational people that she had a point. Our rational and pragmatic government decided to come up with a compromise that mocks the concept of the rule of law – keeping the law but promising not to actively not enforce it.

It’s bad enough when you have the government being held hostage to a peddler of nonsense. Then, it gets worse when a government that is so famously principled and pragmatic being the said peddler of nonsense.

This happened recently when the Attorney-General’s chambers responded to three challenges in the court on the constitutionality of 377A. These challenges were heard in court after a former Chief Justice, two former Attorney Generals our former permanent representative to the UN came out to express points that stated that this particular section of the penal code was not only no longer relevant to a modern society but pointless and bad for the legal system. All of the men in question are regarded as highly intelligent establishment figures that no reasonable human being could dismiss easily. You'd expect the establishment to listen.

Another interesting fact about these hearings was the fact that experts of sexuality were called upon to give evidence on the nature of homosexuality. This wasn't just about the concept of equal rights but about the scientific nature of homosexuality. The experts on both sides pretty much agreed that homosexuality is an inborn condition - you are either gay or not and you cannot be "converted" into not being gay. Once again, with the scientist pretty much in agreement, you'd expect our normally rational government to listen

Yet, despite the obvious arguments from the people who knew the law and the science, the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) decided that it was time to retreat to the irrational arguments used by Professor Thio previously to defend keeping a law that most rational people knew made no sense :

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/attorney-general-377a-challenges-constitutional-rights-do-not-include-sexual-freedom-or?fbclid=IwAR3jAPCw0_RG_l6DqbSVyELO7SyKEsINcfrNiAWSicT65Zd5psAxjx55iXo

If you read through the AGC's argument, it is clear the only  rational argument the  was the fact that the courts were the wrong venue to strike out the law.  Let’s look at some of the things said:

“Unqualified rights inherently contradict a key tenet of our Constitution, which is that the interest of the larger community is placed over the interest of the individual,”

It's always interesting to notice how those who believe this law should be kept inevitably talk about "the greater good of the larger community," trumping individual rights. Nobody has stated how this law serves "the larger community," nor has anyone explained how allowing two consenting adults to engage in an intimate act in the privacy of the bedroom would harm the rest of society. Surely, you'd expect the AGC to make its case with proof rather than to talk about a concept in vague terms.

Then there was the argument at homosexuals could control their attraction therefore the act did not discriminate:

Even” Mr Ong’s experts had acknowledged that a person experiencing homosexual attraction can voluntarily control whether to perform the act or not. “

This argument isn't just legally dubious - it doesn't make common sense. All of us feel attraction to all sorts of people but  we only act upon the attraction only when it's mutual. I, as a heterosexual man, am very attracted to the many attractive women around me. However, I don't pounce on the them and I've only slept with women who want to sleep with me.  I can control my urges and I am not a criminal for sleeping with women who want to sleep with me as much as I want to sleep with them.

What is true of myself, as a heterosexual man is also true of homosexuals. The wider homosexual community is not  asking for permission to pounce on people its attracted to. They merely asking for the same rights as everyone else - namely, if you average homosexual finds someone he's attracted to and is willing to do to bed with - he will not be labeled a criminal for doing what is natural for him to do when he meets someone who reciprocates sexual attraction.

The most ridiculous point made by the AGC was against the former Chief Justice’s point that the law had served no purpose because the government’s policy was not to enforce it.

“Section 377A is fully able to serve its purpose, which is to send a certain moral signal, by its mere existence regardless of whether and how it is enforced.”

When you read this argument, you're bound to wonder if the AGC's lawyers are so hyper intelligent that they can create a purpose for laws outside thin air or they are so dreadful that they have to resort to their personal feelings.

Morality and legality may overlap in many cases but there is a distinction. Morality is personal. We as individuals and society can find many things sinful and abhorrent but whether they should be legal or not is another question. We have laws that we enforce because we want to ensure certain outcomes for the greater good of society.

If you follow the AGC's argument on sending out "moral signals," you then have to ask why the government permits the sale of alcohol, does not criminalise adultery and even allows casinos to be built. Adultery and gambling are considered sins in most religions. The evidence to suggests that adultery, alcohol and gambling hurt innocent parties outweighs the evidence that of allowing two consenting adults to engage in a private act in the privacy of the bedroom.

So, following the AGC's argument, shouldn't we send a "moral signal" against drinkers, gamblers and fornicators? 

We have thrived by being a society that is rational and reasonable. Isn't it time, we listened to rationality on this subject and not allow the prejudices of people against a community to dominate our proud legal system? 

How can Managers be more successful in cross cultural environments ?

By Mr. KV Rao 

Spoke at the recent Asian Management Conclave, in Singapore where a large no of Directors / Deans of Management Schools attended. It was an interesting interaction. Here are some snippets ... 

Where theory intersects practice, it a place of pure bliss. ! 

I shared the life stories of  6 successful individuals, (none having any formal management education), who have either worked for me or I have known them closely enough, to sketch the common traits. They span from Russia, CIS, Singapore, Australia, Vietnam, Cambodia & Laos.. and each of them have mastered the art of being successful in a cross cultural and non-native environment. Some characteristics they have are :- 

• Risk Takers. Exceptional positive attitude to life.
• Non-judgmental, build trust and strong relationships.
• Learning on the fly, and continuously reinforcing the learning curve.
• Humility and direct communicators. Don’t leave you in doubt.
• Curiosity and live life to the full - show cheerfulness.
• Adaptive and respectful to cultural diversity.

They substituted what they lacked in education with the wisdom of doing the yards in the markets. 

In international business, success is not about knowing a lot, but doing a lot, trying a lot, with the ability to navigate in rough weather, where you have no google maps !. Often the emphasis on analysis, modeling, makes young MBA managers tilt more to a left brain leaning than a whole brain activity. Need for touch and feel, and using ones senses to succeed in a cross cultural and diverse Asia, needs honing personalities with real life experience than academic excellence alone. 

How could management education-train, coach, teach, impart and develop such managers. Well, the world is beset with problems of poverty and deprivation. Academia could work with industry to take up projects that help to improve peoples lives. Entering difficult and less developed markets is challenge. Business schools could lead the way in exploring new markets well before others and become pathfinders, and guides, and expose young students to do research in unfamiliar areas. How about Myanmar, Laos, Bangladesh. Nepal,  or Bhutan for that matter....

Case writing and codifying knowledge is often post dated, and focused on large enterprises. Shift of focus to smaller, nimble and entrepreneurial ventures and writing cases about them, will bring a richness of insights and knowledge while data gathering could be challenging. 

Often businesses lead, and business schools follow, to codify practices into theory. It could well be the other way round. We need a change in mindsets, on both sides, and pursue what might be the future of integrative learning. 

“Assuredly, I say to you, no prophet is accepted in his own country.” – Jesus of Nazareth

This post is curtesy of my favourite Young Muslim Politician from Pasir Ris GRC, who shared my last posting “http://beautifullyincoherent.blogspot.com/2019/11/system-failure.html,”with his friends. He told me that I was “biased” in favour of the Indian expat community in Singapore because I had received money from them.

I was tickled, both by the remark and by the implications. I openly disclosed my relationship with the community and I don’t think my favourable experiences with the community should have detracted too much from what I expressed.

I also work on the principle that it’s only natural for me to have a favourable view on the community that has provided me with the good things that I have enjoyed. I ask myself whether anyone would have thought differently had I defended the British or American communities instead?

Perhaps it’s just me but I am unable to see how “foreigners,” particularly dark-skinned Asians have damaged my chances in life and I am from a demographic that should feel “displaced,” the “open-door” policy that Singapore had in 2004.

Statistically, I should be burning with resentment against the people who have moved to my country and displaced me. I am a graduate (from the apparently highly respected Goldsmith’s College, University of London) and I belong to the ethnic majority. I never got a plush job in a big company that one assumes my qualifications would have gotten me. I don’t understand how my personal situation is anyone else’s issue other than mine.

It was this simple, when I couldn’t find a job in my chosen field after I left my first job after 5-months in the 2001 recession, I decided to employ myself. A friend from the UK advised me that rather than spend money on searching for an agency to work for, I might as well go and get the money from the client directly.  So, with only four months of work experience, I went to get my own job.

Self-employment is tough. Employees tend to forget that that the business process is larger than their particular scope. An employee merely does his or her job and gets a cheque. However, a self-employed person needs to get the job, do the job and get paid. While there are “windfalls,” there are more moments of poverty.

I had ten-years of struggle and I’ve managed to stabalise my income and financial situation by balancing part-time jobs with side hustles. However, I remember the years of struggle with a certain amount of pride. There were jobs where I was compared favourably with multinationals in the USA (classic line being  “You did more for us than …….in the USA).

When I look back to those moments, I remember the people who gave me work. It started with a great Tamil chap called Raymond, who was the regional operations director for Polaris. Raymond and I would have lunch on a monthly basis. He’d ask how I was doing, then think of something and a few days later, Raymond would call with a job. It wasn’t a princely sum but it was a job that money in my pocket.

When Raymond left Polaris, I worked with Supriyo, who recommended me to his alumni associations, which got me the jobs with the Indian Institutes of Technology and Management respectively (IIT and IIM). When I met the IIM group, I was told, “You don’t need to sell yourself, Supriyo has already done that.”

So, it was the Indians who gave me work. They were there for me when I needed it. By contrast, “my people” were nowhere when I needed work and money. I didn’t have the “respectability” of a big agency behind me.

With a few notable exceptions, “my people” wouldn’t give me a chance. This was brought home to me in 2013, when I was invited to pitch for a government related job. I didn’t get the job, but the fact that I was even invited to pitch was an achievement. I later learnt that my chance came from a man who was born in India, who promoted my name passionately. The Singapore born chairman of that organization had thought of me as “That Blogger.” The man born in India had to stress “He Delivers.”

So, while I understand that everyone wants to have a job in order to feed their families, I find it very hard to internalize and understand the resentments that “My People,” have against the “darkies” for stealing “their” jobs. Where were “My People,” when I was struggling in a way that wasn’t a threat to anyone fighting for a spot in the corner office.

I’m not the only person with this experience. I checked with one of my juniors who had started his own agency. His first big break came from someone from somewhere else. This wasn’t limited to the PR industry. I checked with a liquidator (who for the sake of full disclosure, hired me for five-years) and his first big break came from someone from somewhere else.

“My People,” complain that the “foreigners” are “helping their own kind.” They complain that they’re being shut out from the plush jobs in multinational firms and so on. Yet, when they’re in a position to give a shot to someone struggling against multinationals, they preferred to support the multinationals (For the record, I am not against multinationals, including the ones I took jobs from and lost jobs to). There’s always going to be a limited supply of opportunities from the “big players,” of any industry. However, the opportunities increase when you have people willing to do something for themselves – some of those people may grow into people that can hire others.  

The Working Man Syndrome

By Mr. Mark Goh 
Founder and Managing Director of Vanilla Law LLC 

I have a question, and it involves what people refer to as the Gig economy. I have always wondered, what is the difference between being in Gigs and being self employed?

Being in Manchester, gave me an insight about this concept of being a "working man". It seems that Mancunians pride themselves to being working men/women. After all, their emblem here is the Bee; as in "busy as a bee". I have nothing but profound respect and admiration for the working man/women/mum/father. But, I am equally concerned that many a working man are not aware of the "working man" syndrome.

The symptoms of the syndrome are when you are working on your daily job so intently, that you forget to take time to reflect, learn and strategise for a day when muscles and sinew fail you. What then? Physical failure is inevitable; no one escapes the grim reaper.

I suffered this syndrome as a dispute resolution lawyer for more than 20 years. As a working man with a young child at the time, I worked more than 12 hours daily. My clients' problems became my personal problem. At the peak, I had in my head more than 30 sets of problems at any point in time; to solve for other people. I slept poorly and I ate equally poorly. Ironically, I was just accelerating the working man syndrome. Around the age of 45 years old, I had a wake up call from my doctor who told me if I did not take time to de-stress; I would die in less than 5 years! Is this familiar?

Ever since, I have taken on less cases and only the ones from close and good clients. I have become more reflective and selective. I decided also to invest in Intellectual Property. This is something which separates the Gig workers from the self employed. Being your own boss and owning your own business, gives you the incentive to accumulate, invest in and protect the wealth of experience stored in one's brains. I did this my capturing my know-how in contract drafting and contract pit-falls into a software called VanillaLaw Docs. Gig workers are like nomads, they do not stay long enough in any job to be able to accumulate any experience. Even if they did, many do not see it worthwhile to invest their time and resources to build, own and eventually market their Intellectual Property.

Intellectual Property; I think is the real key and asset for all mature men in this community. It's  the one thing that we can use to secure our legacy.

System Failure

I thank Mr. Ramesh Erramalli for giving me a topic to blog about. A month ago, Mr. Erramalli became the most famous Indian Expatriate when he was caught on video berating his condominium security guard for having the audacity to charge a guest of his, $10 for the right to park in the condominium compound (which was part of the rules of living in the said compound.) 

Mr. Erramalli made some unfortunate comments about how much he paid for his property and then made the mistake of alluding to the fact that his property was not a “Housing Development Board” (HDB) flat (most Singaporeans, myself included, live in an HDB flat). As predicted, the incident went viral and overnight, Mr. Ramesh Erramalli became the most famous person in Singapore.

This isn’t the first incident involving a foreigner being caught in an unfortunate incident with a local. It isn’t the first time that Singapore’s cyberspace has exploded. But what is interesting is that for the first time, the “netizens” went to find Mr. Erramalli’s linkedin profile and after some research alleged that his qualifications were fake and we then had a protest on how the government needed to review the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement or CECA. The more extreme part of cyberspace went as far as to say that the government needed to scrap CECA for the benefit of all Singaporeans.

The nicest thing you can say about Mr. Ramesh Erramalli is that he’s a self-entitled arsehole and his attitude towards an elderly and poorly paid person was horrible. I’m told that many Singaporeans (particularly the Singaporeans of Indian Decent) find the expatriate Indians to be an arrogant bunch.

I don’t doubt that Mr. Erramalli is an arsehole and I don’t doubt that there are many such arseholes in the Indian Expat community (which is incidentally the same thing that can be said for any other community -expat or local, in Singapore). I don’t see how we’ve made the leap from one arsehole to an entire policy. While Mr. Erramalli is an arsehole, let’s not forget that being an arsehole is not a crime.

Unlike Stuart Boyd Mills, a British citizen, Mr. Erramalli never physically assaulted anyone (Mr. Mills received a slap on the wrist of 6-months and didn’t even come close to getting the cane) and nobody made the leap from one impotent prick to wanting to ban British Expats (who have a far higher record of committing physical crimes against the local population than their Indian Counterparts).
So, how is it such that we’re angrier with the entire Indian expat community because of one particular arsehole than we are with other expats, who have produced people who have physically assaulted our locals?

OK, before I continue, I will need to declare my interest. I’ve always been saved by the Indian expat community. My first major client, the guys who paid me more for me than for being someone else’s subcontractor were Indian and two out of three of the major milestones of my working life (as in national level projects) are curtesy of the Indian Expat community. My fastest paymasters were inevitably Indian expats (defined as collecting the cheque a few hours after invoicing). As such, I do have a soft spot for the community.

I believe that the real issues at stake are not so much the Indians or the Indian expats as a group. The key issue should be the fact that Singapore is increasingly unequal. We had the classic case of someone who was very well to do berating someone who is less fortunate for merely doing his job.

Let’s start with the expat system or the system that involves taking someone and plonking them somewhere else in a very plush job. You throw money at him (they’re usually guys), or at least more than he’s seen back home, and you give him a load of freebies like the house and car he’d normally not be able to afford. You drill it into his head that he’s there because the locals would die without him and you also drill it into the heads of the locals that their livelihoods depend on this person from elsewhere. The guy discovers other juicy things like women throwing themselves at him for the mere fact that he’s him.

Now, I’m not disputing the fact that businesses will need people with skills from elsewhere and I’m not disputing that you will need to pay a bit extra for special skills. However, its very clear that in the system as I’ve described, you’re bound to turn otherwise nice people into arseholes. As a nephew by marriage (who happens to be Indian Expat) said, “We expats think we’re gods.” While the majority of expats (of all colours) I’ve met are nice enough, it takes a strong character to remain a decent person at heart when so much comes to you so easily.

So, the first thing that we need to look at is moving our psychological focus away from multinationals being the source of everything and our education system has to move away from training people who merely follow orders to people who can think and lead in the global system. Our local people need to get used to doing things for themselves rather than waiting for someone from elsewhere to do it for them.

Secondly, we need to move to building up our entrepreneurs. I stress that not everybody is meant to be an entrepreneur and being an entrepreneur is often tougher than being an employee. However, entrepreneurs think differently. Instead of seeing new arrivals as competition for scarce jobs, you see new customers. The mindset of the people must change.

I was asked, if I felt threatened and displaced in my own land. The answer is that I don’t. Each new arrival is a potential new customer to me in one of my various gigs. I didn’t get the corporate job that people assume that I should get. It didn’t occur to me that it was someone else’s fault and it never occurred to me that I should blame other people – I merely tried another path.

I’ve never felt bothered by “fake” qualifications, which is a topic that many of my fellow citizens get irked when it comes to the Indian Nationals. I don’t doubt that India faces such issues but its not unique to the Indians and I work on the principle that if I can gets into a multinational and survives more than three-years, its clear he can do the job, so gives a shit if he went to a real university or not. University was a lot of fun but who really cares what happens beyond that. 

The other issue we need to face is the fact that in Singapore, jobs like security guards are often for the lowly educated and worst of all – the old and feeble. Now, I don’t have anything against old people working (I am probably going to be one), but why is it such that our society consistently makes it such that the old and feeble always do the most physically demanding and poorly paid jobs. And in the case of the security guard, he’s doing something potentially dangerous – he’s looking after the security of the residents like Mr. Erramalli.

Unfortunately, the security guard is in Singapore speak, “Uncle,” thus probably not likely to get a job elsewhere and dependent on the pittance paid. As such, he’s the perfect target for bullies like Mr. Erramalli. 

Isn’t it time we look into “upgrading” jobs like that of the security guard? Surely something can be done to give the industry more professionalism and to give people a greater sense of pride and let’s not forget, better pay.

People like security guards shouldn’t be regarded as just the old man in the corner who needs a job. They should be regarded as professionals offering a valuable service and people like Mr. Erramalli should be made to pay fairly for someone to look after their valued possessions. 

What they don’t tell you about the Gig Economy

It has been nearly two months since I returned to the gig economy and I’m happy enough to announce that I’m alive and haven’t starved or gotten myself thrown into debtors’ prison. I have been, as they say, lucky.

I had the good sense to keep the restaurant job, which allowed me to get paid as I network and my stroke of luck included the former boss from the corporate job asking me to help out on “part-time” basis, which has given me a weekly income and enough ours to work on getting “side-gigs,” and to use whatever I’ve earned to stop being poor. In terms of the side gigs, I’ve managed to pack records for a big accounting firm and sell sunglasses.

 My most recent piece of good luck came in the form of a small PR gig for a large multinational Indian company, which bought me breathing space with creditors.

So, while I have yet to “strike-it-rich,” in the gig-economy, I’ve managed to survive in an economy that is slowing. I suppose you could say that I am officially in the position to impart wisdom of sorts. What would that be? 

I guess the first thing to point out is that one needs to accept that the gig economy is becoming a larger reality for an increasing number of people. In the old days (less than a decade ago), companies discovered outsourcing, where they could get the Chinese to make things and the Indians to do the boring back office stuff better and cheaper than anywhere else in the world. Then, just as outsourcing started to become politically dicey, we found “AI” made machines able to do an increasing number of tasks. Machines don’t form unions or expect lunch breaks, thus becoming a cheaper option for corporations.

So, nobody in the workforce should expect a job to be permanent. One must expect that the corporation to be on the constant look out for a cheaper human or a machine to replace you in a matter of time. As such, every employee needs to understand that this is not personal. Corporations work for their shareholders and if replacing you with someone cheaper will give their shareholders a better return, they’ll do it.

If the corporation is looking out for someone or something to replace you, it’s always best to be on the look out for something else and to develop a side hustle or an alternate source of income. Depending on a single employer till the day you die is a sure-fire way to commit financial suicide.

The second expectation is the fact that industries are constantly changing thanks to the ever-changing pace of technology. I take my core skill of “public relations” as an example. In the old days (defined as half a decade ago) it was enough to be able to put the client on TV or the newspapers. These days, that will no longer suffice. People aren’t browsing newspapers on the daily basis. They’re either reading it off their iPads or dare I say, getting it off their social media feeds. PR practitioners need to look at the new medium and reinvent the way they communicate of their clients.

So, the trick here is to learn to stay relevant in your industry and look at how your skills can be adapted to other industries. In 2014, things started to go silent in the PR market for one man shows and the big agencies found ways to extract more from their employees. I got lucky in the sense that I was able to hold onto a single client and I started a job in the liquidations industry. I had to relearn things and learn a new language (I didn’t know things like balance sheets existed before then).

I changed industry but found that I could use my core skill (PR being Public Relations with an emphasis on relations – liquidations being an industry with many stakeholder relationships that need to be managed) and learnt a few side tricks, especially when it involved insolvency and bankruptcy laws. At the time when I was ready to return to the gig economy, I’ve returned with knowledge that I never had before.

The final piece of wisdom would be to encourage people to network and keep in touch. I’ve always tried to be a somewhat likeable person and a person that people vaguely enjoyed working with. I make it a point to remember people on birthdays (which is made easier with social media reminders) and on festivals that mean something to the people I’ve worked with (which in my case is Muslim and Indian festivals).

You never know when you’re going to need a person and its always important to ensure that even in situations where you come into conflict, you do so in a civil manner.

My first gig was packing records for a big accounting firm. The person who gave me that job was a former colleague. My second gig came from my former logistics guy who was selling sunglasses. The PR gig came from staying in touch with the firm’s boss, whom I had known since the IIT Alumni event in 2012. I saw people when I didn’t need them, and they remembered me enough to want to give me a bone when I needed it.

Being in the modern “gig-economy” is exciting but its challenging. While the structure of jobs and the nature of work is being disrupted, one needs to remember the basics in life and to understand that you need to be open to experiences and to remember to be a decent enough person because you never know when you may need them.