- Capitalism and Alternatives -

My problem is that job rotation can never be entirely equal

Posted by: Pete on January 30, 19100 at 20:26:32:

In Reply to: Why I hate the idea of Job Rotation posted by Lark on January 28, 19100 at 17:30:49:

: Right it's insinuated time and again that if your not for Job rotation it's because you must be lazy or shy of disagreeable work or whatever.

You know, it's only one guy who has been talking about job rotation, Barry Stoller. So the phrase "it's insinuated time and again" casts a larger net than what is actually the case. If I didn't know you for the dedicated freedom seeker you are, I'd suggest that you're exaggerating so as to contrive to misunderstand. As it is, though, you're just thumbing your nose at Stoller, but you haven't thought this through.

Lark: Here's my take for the no camp.

: I've spent 5yrs so far in education and training so I can become a Social Worker of Business man, I dont mind doing 'lesser' tasks but I dont want to have to spend another 5yrs training for them, then after a year find I've got a further 5yrs training again.

What "lesser tasks" could possibly mean another 5 years training? Most tasks, certainly all the "lesser ones" take no training at all. It's things like taking out the garbage and sweeping floors.

Lark: I dont want the hassle of being transfered about every time I find a job I like with people I like etc.

You know, if we were to make your objections to job rotation a broader rule, then our new socialist society would have problems getting unpleasant tasks done.

Lark: Plus I've got a hatred of the sight of blood, I'm ill tempered under stress, I'm not the greatest at not questioning commands, this makes me an unsuitable physician/medical student, police officer or soldier already, now I could go on.

I can see this, even though I understand Barry's notion that specialization (e.g., "I'm a doctor so I don't have to scrub the toilets") carries within it the seeds of private property. Still, I think you'd agree, Lark, that some more equitable system of labor must be instituted--probably even mandated--so as to prevent disintegration of the entire purpose.

My problem is that job rotation can never be entirely equal, no matter how hard we try. 16 year olds cannot do heart surgery, and (most) 80 year-olds cannot do dockwork. People with handicaps cannot do hard labor, or be firefighters and pregnant women will have a variety of jobs they can't do, which will be established on a case by case basis. (If she's works in radiology, she has to stop immediately.)

Moreover, there are just too many jobs for one person to do, and many many tasks even within a given field. What really constitutes a "job", anyway? I mean, you can say a person works in carpentry, but within that are a variety of tasks--hammering, measuring, working the lathe, some of which may or may not be pleasant. Okay, so we'll strive to have equality in doling out the unpleasant tasks, but this would mean different things on different sites with different crews. It can't really be codified, except as saying "crews should strive for equality in doing unpleasant tasks."

Now, should a heart surgeon be forced to become a carpenter? I don't think so, because she could hurt her hands and thus society would lose a valuable skill. But should this same surgeon clean bedpans? Absolutely.

So, now I have a question for Barry Stoller: Why so many posts on this issue? It strikes me as a very important topic, but one that will become more clear later. Even Krasny said this. As you know, your posts have been quite invidious to some, and while that's no reason to hold back, it does make me wonder the purpose of your persistence on this issue. Could it be that you're trying to figure out who's who (i.e., who is a true revolutionary) before hand? If that's true, then it has a whiff of vanguardism, and that makes me hesitant to get squarely behind you on this question.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup