81,695
edits
A World Without Work: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
Susskind’s conception of “work” as a succession of definable, atomisable and impliedly dull tasks — a framework, of course, which suits it perfectly to adaptation by machine — is a kind of Taylorism. It is common in management layers of the corporate world, of course, but that hardly makes a case for it. | Susskind’s conception of “work” as a succession of definable, atomisable and impliedly dull tasks — a framework, of course, which suits it perfectly to adaptation by machine — is a kind of Taylorism. It is common in management layers of the corporate world, of course, but that hardly makes a case for it. | ||
The better response is to recognise that definable, atomisable and dull tasks do not define what ''is'' employment, but it’s very inverse: what it should ''not'' be. The [[JC]]’s [[third law of worker entropy]] is exactly that: [[tedium]] is as sure a sign of [[waste]] in an organisation. If your workers are bored, you have a problem. If they’re boring ''each other'',<ref>Hello, financial services!</ref> then it’s an exponential problem. | The better response is to recognise that definable, atomisable and dull tasks do not define what ''is'' employment, but it’s very inverse: what it should ''not'' be. The [[JC]]’s [[third law of worker entropy]] is exactly that: [[tedium]] is as sure a sign of [[waste]] in an organisation. If your workers are bored, you have a problem. | ||
If they’re boring ''each other'',<ref>Hello, financial services!</ref> then it’s an exponential problem. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||