>Well, speaking as an elite technocrat...
>
>How many meetings would I (or the average worker) have to go to? If
>"controlling the conditions of [your] labor" means that you have to give up
>any pretense at having a life because of the extra meetings you have to go
>to, it would seem to be a mixed blessing at best...
>
>Can't I just wish for a high-pressure economy in which unemployment is low,
>businesses are eager to train, educate, and cosset their workers, and I can
>vote with my feet for the most pleasant employer?
Just back, and catching up. The problem even with a "high-pressure economy" is that it - oh, I know this sounds so 60s - alienates people. They get passive, too; it's very bad for what is recklessly called democracy. Most management-run worker involvement schemes are shams, but they appeal to people's latent desire to have more influence over their work environment. It wouldn't be practical or terribly interesting to have meetings to discuss everything, but why couldn't the big decisions be made by elected managers, and the little ones worked out by those concerned. Lots of the latter already goes on anyway.
Doug