Specialization degrades society

Said1 said:
Interesting article.

The division of labor is where it all started. The ability to produce more (food) led to bigger, well fed populations, where each individual didn't have to waste time worrying about producing food. They were able to perfect their trades and make better weaponry, construct better defenses around their perimeters - protect the cheif etc, etc.........or maybe it all started with the invention of the plough? There's a bouncing ball in there somewhere. :D
Click to expand...

Some specialization is natural. But Scientific Management as created by Taylor and bastardized by the world, is inherently an attack on the TRADESMEN, who were specialized to their trade, as it posited that the tradesmen were inherently deceptive about working to their potential, and that management HAD to takeover the manufacturing process, breakdown the tasks, specialize the tasks, dumb down the skill level, and replace the "spoiled worker". This is the intent. Modern neotaylorism is just the same old worker-hostile stuff, but with a smiley face painted on it.

Another tenet is the insistence on hierarchy.

One other theoretic underpinning I find offensive is the idea that the goal of business is MERELY to maximize profit; it's not, it's to provide a living to people as well.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Some specialization is natural. But Scientific Management as created by Taylor and bastardized by the world, is inherently an attack on the TRADESMEN, who were specialized to their trade, as it posited that the tradesmen were inherently deceptive about working to their potential, and that management HAD to takeover the manufacturing process, breakdown the tasks, specialize the tasks, dumb down the skill level, and replace the "spoiled worker". This is the intent. Modern neotaylorism is just the same old worker-hostile stuff, but with a smiley face painted on it.

Another tenet is the insistence on hierarchy.

One other theoretic underpinning I find offensive is the idea that the goal of business is MERELY to maximize profit; it's not, it's to provide a living to people as well.
Click to expand...

Oh, Taylorism. Synonymous to Fordism. I forgot you mentioned that.

I was merely commenting on the article, itself.



The goal of business is to provide wages to people in exchange for performing a task - if they employ people. Who ever said they had to provide minimum living wages, aside from legislation? Cheaper labor, minimum inputs equating maximum outputs ETC. Unless they're a not-for-profit organization.
 
Said1 said:
Oh, go on.

Next thing you know we'll start fighting about nationalism and I'll start crying as the memories come flooding back.
Click to expand...
We could invite OCA over so we can have threads full of, "Gays are bad! I win! See how I destroyed your argument? I said, 'Gays are bad'!"
 
Damocles said:
We could invite OCA over so we can have threads full of, "Gays are bad! I win! See how I destroyed your argument? I said, 'Gays are bad'!"
Click to expand...

Way to totally mis-represent OCA. You know he begins and ends EVERY sentence with 'motherfucker'.
 
Said1 said:
Oh, go on.

Next thing you know we'll start fighting about nationalism and I'll start crying as the memories come flooding back.
Click to expand...

That's why he's disguising his nationalism as an attack on unpatriotic business practices. Kleenex? :tongout:
 
AssHatZombie said:
It uses the field of agriculuture to illustrate the same principles of "scientific management" which are also destroying our society.

But sure, reduce it to a promotion of "subsistence farming". I would hope for a better harvest than mere subsistence, but if you insist on calling a person growing his own food, "subsistence farming" then that only indicates the degree of your own ideological bias.
Click to expand...

You know what I do, AssHat?

I do something useful to society in my time. Then I go, recieve money for this, and pay for my food. It's more efficient than me wasting my time growing food in this clay.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Some specialization is natural. But Scientific Management as created by Taylor and bastardized by the world, is inherently an attack on the TRADESMEN, who were specialized to their trade, as it posited that the tradesmen were inherently deceptive about working to their potential, and that management HAD to takeover the manufacturing process, breakdown the tasks, specialize the tasks, dumb down the skill level, and replace the "spoiled worker". This is the intent. Modern neotaylorism is just the same old worker-hostile stuff, but with a smiley face painted on it.

Another tenet is the insistence on hierarchy.

One other theoretic underpinning I find offensive is the idea that the goal of business is MERELY to maximize profit; it's not, it's to provide a living to people as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you break it down and make it simpler. It no longer requires so much work. If the 'tradesmen' were so great at what they did, why aren't they in business anymore? Anyone?

Is it because of the Jews, the global elite, and the military industrial complex, who have nothing better to do than sit around and pointlessly destroy the world, in ways that only AssHat is capable of understanding?
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
Yeah, you break it down and make it simpler. It no longer requires so much work. If the 'tradesmen' were so great at what they did, why aren't they in business anymore? Anyone?

Is it because of the Jews, the global elite, and the military industrial complex, who have nothing better to do than sit around and pointlessly destroy the world, in ways that only AssHat is capable of understanding?
Click to expand...

but the result for workers is increased production quotas, work that becomes drudgery, has no room for personal problem solving and pays lower wages. Plus, as mentioned, there are hostile, anti-worker assumptions at the core of the "scientific management" movement.

Overspecialization is ultimately a way of devaluing workers, because it denies the existence and value of multitalented individuals. And if you ARE multitalented, the fraudulent paradigm dictates you can only be paid for one thing.

Taylor's notions always included the ideas that workers should GAIN AS WELL if managements work methods netted a productivity increase, but that notion was discarded right from the beginning, in practice. Then he understood worker soldiering, finally.
 
Scientific Management is ultimately elitist, repressive, and cruel.
http://homepage.mac.com/herinst/sbeder/columns/engcol15.html
Sharon Beder
Citation: This is article was published as Sharon Beder, 'Focusing on the quality rather than the quantity of work', Engineers Australia, June 1999, p. 66

This is a final version submitted for publication.
Minor editorial changes may have subsequently been made.

Sharon Beder's Other Publications
Frederick Winslow Taylor is one of the best known engineers of the twentieth century. His innovations enabled more goods to be produced more cheaply and many benefited from this. But at what price? How many people have had to suffer the dreadfully demeaning jobs that resulted from his failure to recognise the dignity, skills and intelligence of manual workers?

Engineers and industrial managers in the later part of the nineteenth century and early part of the twentieth century sought to find ways to control dissatisfied workers and ensure their productivity. Taylor was one of several engineers experimenting with ways of increasing production. He sought to apply scientific principles to human behaviour. Scientific management was based, according to Taylor in his 1911 book Principles of Scientific Management, on four principles:

1. The most efficient way of doing a task should be worked out scientifically using experiment and time and motion studies.

2. Workers should be carefully selected and trained to do the work in this way.

3. Workers would do their work under the close supervision and control of management and paid a bonus for doing exactly as they had been told.

4. Management would take over the planning and thinking part of the work.

Taylor argued that the thinking could be carried out by more intelligent and educated people sitting at desks. He claimed the sort of person who did the planning and thinking should be a quite different sort of person from the one who actually did the work. All the worker needed to do was follow instructions about what to do, how to do it and how much time to spend doing it. Their cooperation was enforced through close monitoring and control by management. Taylor apparently had little respect for the thinking abilities of the manual worker:

Now one of the very first requirements for a man who is fit to handle pig iron as a regular occupation is that he shall be so stupid and so phlegmatic that he more nearly resembles in his mental make-up the ox than any other type.

But Taylor's innovations destroyed the tradition of taking pride in one's work for manual workers. In reducing the activity of workers to the bare necessities of the task in hand and removing any thought or skill from that task he made work monotonous, tedious and unremittingly boring. An editorial in The Engineer at the time stated: "We do not hesitate to say that Taylorism is inhuman. As far as possible it dehumanizes the man, for it endeavours to remove the only distinction that makes him better than a machine&emdash;his intelligence."

It was this separation of mental and manual labour that became characteristic of mass production methods in the twentieth century. Taylor's influence is still evident in many factories today&emdash;particularly in mass production in Australia, the US and Britain. It is manifest in the job fragmentation, minimal skill and training requirements, maximum repetition, separation of thinking and doing, and the lack of variety in workers' jobs. Workers repeat the same simple tasks over and over like robots, have no scope to show initiative or innovation, and utilise a small portion of their capabilities.

Typically the introduction of scientific management, although it greatly increased the number of office workers required, resulted in a significant reduction in production workers and therefore a cheaper workforce. It embodied the ideal of production efficiency. However achieving efficiency at the expense of the quality of people's working lives no longer makes sense. The traditional goal of cheaper and more plentiful consumer goods should no longer be a high priority in a world where overconsumption is destroying the environment. Are such goods really cheaper if the price is the demeaning of millions of workers?

Surely it is time to recognise other priorities, such as reducing working hours and improving the experience of work. There is always more than one way to produce something. Hopefully engineers will consider methods that are less destructive of human capabilities and talents in the future.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top