|
Looking
Forward. By Michael
Albert and Robin Hahnel 2.Participatory
Workplaces
|
|
|
"We say only that pain can
be diminished and pleasure enhanced by overcoming unnecessarily
authoritarian, alienating, unfair, and uninformed facets of work life -not
that all work can be transformed into distilled ecstasy." "Under participatory economics,
since all do rote work, all will want
to minimize it. Since everyone does
creative work, everyone will want to increase the amount to go around and no one will lose their livelihood if automation eliminates rote tasks workers
disliked in the first place." We refuse to buy the right not to die of hunger by running the risk of
dying of boredom. -Student Slogan, Paris 1968 "The only inflexible rules are those recluding
methods that obstruct participation or deny equitable access of all workers
to equal opportunities for fulfillment and influence. "
He, who before was
the money owner, now strides in front
as capitalist; the possessor of labor -power follows as his laborer. The one
with an air of importance, smirking, intent on business; the other hesitant,
like one who is bringing his own hide to market and has nothing to expect but - a hiding. -Karl Marx Capital |
Northstart
Efficiency
The
reader may wonder: 1. Won't
Northstart workers be frustrated because work is too fragmented? Is this a
road to enrichment or psychosis? 2. Won't
it take endless hours to train people for so many jobs? Is this excellence or
institutionalized chaos? 3. Won't
people ignore the authority of "leaders" on team A,when these same
"leaders" are subordinate on team B? 4. Will
one's co -workers provide enough motivation and oversight to prevent shoddy,
dilatory work? In answer to question I -won't fragmentation frustrate Northstart
workers? -first, having many responsibilities makes work life richer and more
diverse and is therefore positive, not negative. Of course, tasks and
schedules could be fragmented to the point of distraction, but if a group
decides it has "gone overboard," it has only to make the required
correction. Changing from capitalist to participatory economics would mean that
instead of most people doing rote work all the time -and being bored most of
the time - everyone will spend at least some of their work day doing
interesting work. Moreover, because boring tasks will be distributed
equitably, these too will be more bearable, though certainly not joyful. We
do not claim that digging ditches, pushing buttons, or dangerous work will
become joyful merely because one does it in a good society, at one's own
pace, and in teams with friends, much less because one basks in the glow of
some great leader or is sustained by the memory of some longpassed
revolutionary upheaval. We say only that pain can be diminished and pleasure
enhanced by overcoming unnecessarily authoritarian, alienating, unfair, and
uninformed facets of work life -not that all work can be transformed into
distilled ecstasy. Moreover, there will be every reason to automate or eliminate rote
work whenever doing so will enhance productivity or diminish the human
burdens of work. Under capitalism automation is a crucial area of conflict
between labor and capital - - -capitalists seek to enhance profits by
automating some people's livelihood out of existence while workers try to
defend their jobs to avoid becoming obsolete and unemployed. Under
participatory economics, since all do rote
work, all will want to minimize it. Since everyone
does creative work, everyone will want
to increase the amount to go around and no one will lose their livelihood if
automation eliminates rote tasks workers disliked in the first place. Question
1 really comes down to what happens to people who under capitalism have
responsibilities which are almost entirely interesting and empowering. Yes,
in participatory workplaces such work complexes will disappear because
everyone will share rote work. Elementary justice dictates this, just as
elementary justice dictates that consumption opportunities greatly in excess
of average consumption must be eliminated. Those who have benefited from
coordinator monopolization of desirable work will resist job balancing just
as capitalists who monopolize wealth will resist income balancing. Both
capitalists and coordinators advance arguments tojustify their advantages
but the truth is, in both cases, these arguments are fanciful, self -serving
rationalizations. In fact, even those who now do no rote work need not be any
more "fragmented" by having to do some cleaning, filing, and
production than they are currently. For under systems in which they
monopolize desirable work opportunities, these people are constantly distracted
by having to always oversee others even as they regulate their own behavior
in the presence of superiors. Anyway, anyone who knows anything about
business in capitalism knows that upper -level workers spend much of the time
they are not worrying about protocol day -dreaming, chatting on the phone, or
designing and scrapping projects that will never be implemented. Beside being
a waste of productive talent, this is not even a particularly enjoyable way
to idle time away. In
answer to question 2 -won't it take endless hours to train people for
balanced job complexes? -at Northstart, training everyone to do editorial,
business, and production work will admittedly take more time than training
people to do just one of the three types of work. Likewise, developing skill
in three areas will certainly take longer then developing skill in only one.
But the mutually enforcing benefits of knowing more about each type of work,
the enrichment that comes from having diverse responsibilities, and the
increase in morale that accompanies understanding the whole publishing
process will more than offset these additional training costs. Or, if
workers in a particular publishing house prefer the savings from reduced
training over the benefits of greater diversity, then, provided equitable job
complexes can be arranged in which each worker has fewer differently skilled
responsibilities, workers can choose this option. In
answer to question 3 -won't useful, needed lines of authority deteriorate if
there are no fixed hierarchies? - respect for a team leader need not be
undercut because she is in a nonleader role on other teams. At Northstart
respect for leaders will depend on the logic of particular assignments and
the need for tight coordination, oversight, or scheduling in those
assignments. Far from diminishing the credibility of legitimate leadership,
eliminating fixed hierarchies will undercut many impediments to efficient
expression of leadership, for example, class hostilities. In
answer to question 4 -will there be sufficient motivation?the desire to do a
good job worth doing, and, when necessary, peer pressure and the desire to
keep one's job will more than adequately ensure that people work hard. Of
course there will be disagreements and personality clashes. But surely these
will be more manageable once demeaning hierarchy is eliminated. Intractable
personality clashes will eventually be resolved by transfers. Arguments about
who is doing how much work, how well, how hard, and with what degree of
sympathy for coworkers, will be resolved by participants, or, when necessary,
through council oversight. Sometimes "firing" will occur, but not
at the whim of a "boss" or in such a way as to threaten one's
income. In essence, the workday at Northstart is self -managed in the context
of assessing the collective's well -being and its desires to publish desired
books in an effective, efficient fashion. The only inflexible rules are those
precluding methods that obstruct participation or deny equitable access of
all workers to equal opportunities for fulfillment and influence. We
should note, however, that since the Northstart work complex has more
creative and fewer distasteful qualities than the average workplace in the
economy, Northstart workers have to put in some of their worktime elsewhere.
Some Northstart employees work in community clean -up squads. Others do rote
tasks at a neighboring plant that produces computer equipment. In any event,
everyone does his or her share of outside work to balance the relative
advantage of working at Northstart. Would a
sensible person rather work at a capitalist or participatory publishing
house? Since we have not yet described allocation, we only partially
understand how participatory economic decisions are made. But allocation -related
issues aside, the quality of participatory work should be obviously superior. 1. The
hassles of hierarchies disappear. 2. The
pleasures of publishing for human well -being rather than capitalist profits
are significant. 3.
Opportunities for personal development and camaraderie with coworkers abound. 4. No
one does solely debilitating, subordinate work. Though
work at Northstart isn't without conflict and drudgery, it is nonetheless a
generally pleasurable and enriching means to personal development and
integrity within a supportive community of coworkers. |
|
|