Is Taylorism so demeaning to workers?

In my work experience I've had the opportunity to deal with various styles of management and some of these have led me to conclude that Taylorism may not be an optimal method of dealing with employees it is much superior to some, such as those Taylor mentions.  Some supervisors can be extremely disconnected from their workers and from what encourages them to better performance.

Many of my former jobs have required "looking busy", which I assume to be similar to what Taylor describes as "soldiering."  Some jobs have lull times and busy times, but even when there are no jobs to be done workers must appear to be doing something.  My co-workers have almost always confided in me that they would rather be doing a project with a purpose than fiddling around without any real productivity.

Most provide less training than would be desirable.  I take pride in the jobs that I do and want to do them well, but often times I am not given the tools to do so.  Taylor hits on some very applicable points which I feel are useful but in certain sectors may have been taken beyond their optimal purpose.  For instance, working my current retail job, there is some training in the beginning on attributes and aspects of the products but virtually none on salesmanship.  I have had to discover for myself what arguments work with customers and which do not.  The unification of methods is not all in the pursuit of evil.  To the open-minded employee, a proposed more efficient method is almost always preferrable to an inefficient method the worker has merely stumbled upon.  In fact, I have found a resistance to change in methods from management when I have discovered or come up with something more efficient than the system already in use.  This can be quite discouraging to the workforce.

I would say that scientific management is much preferable to what I have most often experienced which I refer to as 'emotional management'.  Some managers can be demoralizing to their workers with outbursts of anger that result not from the worker's performance but merely from the manager's state of mind.  I have at times yearned for a more structured management that at least provides some predictability, even if it involves more oversight. 

Television and Class

As I watch very little television I will depart from the prompt a bit to discuss other topics.

Like many Americans I was raised to think in very conservative terms.  By that I mean the beliefs that unions are evil, the poor are lazy and criminal, the wealthy are to be revered, and government should keep its fingers out of nearly everything.  My father instilled most of these beliefs in me through repetitious mumblings and denunciations of liberal politicians as running this glorious country into the ground.  During my initial college years I encountered ideas that ran in direct contradiction to those I had been brought up with.  I quickly siezed onto these liberal ideologies, due not only to their logical appeal but also, no doubt, to my young adult's rebellious instinct.

Many of the original ideologies have been difficult to uproot, however.  The distrust of unions was so deep seated in my childhood psyche that I have had difficulty accepting them as necessary or helpful.  But the reading from Mantsios and particularly the Salon interview with Adam Smith have helped me to understand the logic of laborers working together.  I have seen in my own personal work experience the attempts by management to divide workers against each other.  Logically considering the power of "the master" and the upper classes it makes sense for labor to form unions to plead their case and increase their power collectively.  The "masters" are certainly collecting their power through mergers and tacit agreements.

I think Judis makes an excellent point that what we are experiencing is not a decline in morality but a departure from morality or a change of what we believe morality to mean. Though a Christian myself I find it unwise to foist the the mantle of Judeo-Christian values on those who profess no faith. The older generation calls the younger "morally bankrupt" and the younger is unaffected. The population in general has decided that happiness on earth is the most important pursuit, turning away from delayed gratification. This has affected all ages and classes - the old are not immune to consumerism. My grandmother has entirely filled her house with "stuff" - random cheap items, 50% of which she will never look at again.

I find the distinctions made in Hill's history between Lutheranism and Calvinism to be very interesting. While I had always thought of Luther as having the greater global impact, if we judge by Hill's arguments Calvin's theology set up the philosophical backdrop or justification that encouraged the world's evolution into capitalism. "Encouraging the pursuit of unlimited profit" sounds like greed to me. No wonder the Catholic Church was less than pleased with these upstarts.

Reading the 4 sections in Gig I found to be be very enjoyable. The format of the book as transcribed spoken interviews makes it easy to get to know the speakers quite guickly. I immediately, without thinking, began mentally putting together rough faces for each person, no doubt based on people I know with similar vocations or speech patterns. Classifying them by their approach to work seems relatively simple.

Jim's job as Wal-Mart greeter would probably be somewhere between a job and a calling though not really associated with many of the typical connotations of either. It's a calling in that he enjoys it and wants to do well at it, but it's not really a life goal. It's a job in it's generality. Jim could enjoy and be good at a lot of things but this is just kind of where he ended up. A job is usually associated with being a drudge though, and Jim definitely doesn't see it as that.

For William UPS is just a job. It pays the bills and sometimes gives him the opportunity to read porn and swim on the clock, but he hates the work in and of itself. He has no desire to move up in management and he hopes to quit soon. Even when he tries to think of it as a calling, finding "meaning in everything you do in your life" he doesn't care.

As a mom, Elise is working a job and stuck in a career she doesn't really want. She says "Obviously I love my children" but even then she doesn't talk about how her kids make her happy. She just talks about how much other parents' kids suck. She definitely sees herself as a martyr - the work is only a means to an end, having reasonably well raised children.

Katy is living a calling. It could turn into a career but she's not thinking about that right now. She says it's a hard job, but that's only ever after talking about how much she enjoys it. Even when she temporarily returns to what she was originally interested in, she's drawn right back to teaching.

The Dalai Lama speculates on the proletariat, and bell hooks bores

While reading the excerpt from "The Art of Happiness at Work" I found myself largely agreeing with the Dalai Lama about the ability to find happiness in any job. Many times in the past I've thought about the rationale each person might use in assigning value to their means of financial support. The bartender is helping hardworking people relax from their stress and sorrows, the garbage collector is freeing people from the consumerist junk that holds them captive, the tow-truck driver is enforcing essential rules necessary to the smooth flow of society.

I have actually used such rationalization in my own work experience. When working as a butcher at a natural foods store, I quite simply told myself that I was supplying people with healthy, delicious food. Working at an outdoor outfitter I've been able to say that I am helping people reconnect with nature and all the benefits that provides. These are easy answers. Under scrutiny I'm sure it could be shown that the jobs I've held provide less societal benefit than I'd like to believe, but if we're talking about happiness at work I'm sure everyone is entitled to a little willful ignorance.

I have a great deal of empathy with the Dalai Lama's thoughts on work with the higher purpose of supporting a family. Before reentering college I enjoyed my job to a certain extent. I liked working with gear and advising customers on their purchases. I know however, that I'll never be able to support a family on a retail salary. I know that my expected career path now will probably put me in a position of working for "the man" but I want my wife and my kids to be safe and comfortable. I also want my work to be appreciated and to have a job in a field where my greatest talents lie. I know it's not the most purely anti-consumerist logic, but I think that one could do much worse.

bell hooks, while possibly more realistic, held very little interest for me. I found myself merely trying to push through to the end of the reading. I was continually waiting for her to actually make a point. The few that she did make were not particularly strong and she took much too long in getting to them. The reading was very much like what I would expect from a reasonably skilled high school or college writer