Eric Dorkin writes:
>I ask this out of authentic curiosity and NOT
>accusitorily....
>But, why should b-school manager types apply different
>inputs into their cost-benefit analyses (read: more
>human and humane inputs)? If you are willing to act
>anti-human to preserve your job, isn't it thereby
>justifiable for the b-schooler to do the same?
Not getting you there ... it's not a tit-for-tat morality play. We're-- what's the word?--oppressed. The system makes us monsters. (They weren't like that before they went to b-school.) You can resist individually for a while but that wears you out and is generally inefficient. Chuck?
>Aren't you setting back "the revolution" by
>stabilizing the system? Were you and every
>expereinced worker summarily replaced by some newbie,
>then the system would collpse of its own weight
>sooner.
I actually don't want everything to collapse. It's capital that likes to see competition fall face-first in the dirt and have wars to grab more. I just want humane working conditions with the workers in charge, run on a non-profit basis.
I'd say it's a pretty weak strategy to ask individual workers to allow themselves to be replaced and starve for awhile while capital totters under the weight of dreams come true.
>As a lawyer in a soon-to-be mega-firm, I will walk out
>the door before I stop helping people -- even though
>helping people isn't always the smart career play.
Well, I'm not working that type of job anymore, but others are, and I probably will again. It's nice to not be in such straitened conditions that you have some choice in the matter. Mostly, as we can see from the original post, the system runs on us not having much leeway, so individual resistance is a reasonable strategy, though temporary, and soul-damaging.
Jenny Brown Alachua County Labor Party