----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Grimes" <cgrimes at rawbw.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:44 PM Subject: Re: Tight-Lipped Old Hands
>
>
> ``..a long time ago i heard a lecture by a Boeing engineer,
who
> claimed they were the first large corporation to fully
integrate
> CAD/CAE into their entire operation. and i mean ENTIRE. if i
recall
> correctly this allowed for an unusally high level of
interplay between
> designers, high-level engineers, and floor fabrication
people...''
>
> Les Schaffer
> ----------
>
> Yeah, that's exactly the kind of thing I had in mind.
>
> The WSJ article example of manufacturing high pressure pumps
was
> interesting because it inadvertently illustrated part the
deeper
> problems, probably none of which the writer understood. That
is, fluid
> dynamics is so complex (Ian should love this) that it can't
be
> completely engineered and rationalized in advance. So you
absolutely
> depend on skill and experience with how certain fluids under
a range
> of temperatures and pressures behave. Notice also for
example that it
> was the company chief and managers who met with production
line
> workers. Our example pump business had to depend on lower
waged
> workers to refine the original engineering. So, my question
is where
> were the engineers who originally designed these pumbs? Laid
off no
> doubt long ago in some previous cost cutting move.
================
Or they found equally remunerative work at another firm before they "transferred" their skills to new hires, or they retired with their *defined benefits* pension plan.
>
> That this kind of knowledge was considered shop lore and
voodoo,
> really illustrated why US business culture (with its WSJ
ideologues,
> neoliberal political hacks, and MBA clones) has become
incompatible
> with high level manufacturing and a highly skilled work
force.
=================
Oh, they want the skills; they just want to pay as little as possible to have them. Actually folks across the spectrum, from Michael Polanyi to Michael Burawoy have talked about how the tacit dimensions of knowledge "production" and "distribution" on the shop floor could in no way be considered voodoo.
>
> As Ian noted, FedEx does just-in-time labor, but as I wrote
offlist,
> FedEx isn't manufacturing. It's a shipping service. So my
conclusion is
> that Taylorism works fine as long as there is no tangible
product or
> if the product doesn't matter.
===================
You've got my offlist reply. Taylorism worked fine even as it was contested, until the advent of Toyota-ism and MSoft-ism.
> As for Eric's question:
>
> ``...Were you and every expereinced worker summarily
replaced by some
> newbie, then the system would collpse of its own weight
sooner...''
>
> We have been replaced, and the system is collapsing. The
neoliberal
> trick (talk about lore and voodoo) to keep it all going has
been to
> direct the economy in a race to the bottom where all we have
are FedEx
> and MacDonalds---the kind of business sectors where high
Taylorism
> works, the product whatever it is doesn't matter, and
niether does the
> skill level of the labor. What is the real cost of a fucked
up
> hamburger or a damaged package? It is practically nil
compared to a
> crashed airliner or an exploding oil line pump.
==================
Lost packages cost FedEX millions a year, and that's not counting litigation over the contents of the data in the packages which effects other firm's bottom lines. When I left in June 2000, the company was still putting out notices looking for a package shipped by GM in the late 1980's that was worth *a lot* of $. And the thing weighed less than 8 ounces.
> Remember the Ford Explorer v. Firestone? A great example of
how US
> corporate savvy met the limits of engineering and production
line
> craft, and successfully over came them with marketing,
management, and
> a lot of lawyers.
>
> Chuck Grimes
===========
Careful, Justin might get mad............:-)
Ian