No, I do not agree with this. When you look at the list of jobs in which employment is both large and growing, yuu just don't see this multi-skilling and creation of well-rounded persons. An interesting book on work in the high-tech sector, where this certainly does not appear to be happening for most workers is "High Tech Betrayal" by Victor Davinatz.
In Braverman's chapter on Machinery, he puts the problem nicely. Machines represent a wonderful human achievement, but in the context of capitalism they are used to oppress workers not to liberate them. And just as soon as a new technology does in fact require skilled workers and these workers act to improve their circumstances, then capitalists will try to devise ways to reduce thier reliance on such workers.
Michael Yates
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>
> > 2. Work as meaningful, with a maximum integration, in every job, of
> >our uniquely human capability to conceptualize and carry out
> >work tasks, and a sharing of society's more onerous tasks. A democratic
> >union will naturally turn its attention to the workplace, and the
> >hierarchies found there will be no more tolerable than those in the
> >union. Workplace hierarchies are based, in part, upon an inhuman
> >division of labor, which divides up our jobs and doles them out to us in
> >little mechanical pieces, unfit for truly human labor. From democratic
> >unions to democratic workplaces seems a natural progression.
>
> Michael, I think this is quite well stated. There have been those (Kenney,
> Florida) who argue that as capitalist production now depends on the well
> rounded development of individuals who not only engage in multi-tasking and
> job rotation in complex computer mediated workplaces but also design and
> assimilate continuously new technology. Some then draw the conclusion that
> capitalism itself is developing the skilled, confident and well rounded
> individuals who will be its gravediggers? Do you agree with this?
>
> Rakesh