Because work is being defined primarily as a negative, as are some advances in productive techniques (i.e. industrialization). In Albert & Hahnel's conception, you almost have to define work negatively in general so it makes sense to spend so much time developing judgement calls about what work is pleasant and what work isn't to develop the job clusters or whatever they call them. My main objection to Albert & Hahnel is that they take what is fairly simple and make a mind-bogglingly complex bureaucratic nightmare. What's wrong with washing toilets for 4 months (at say 20 hours/week) and then going to school for 2 years, farming for the harvest season, and then spending three years working as a road engineer? That shares the shit work, too. Or in Edward Bellamy's conception, shorten the hours for unpopular jobs, in effect increasing the pay, until you can fill them. There's your market, Justin. But in a situation with no involuntary unemployment, the market is in jobs, not labor.
Also parecon (at least in the book--I haven't followed the web stuff) has some issues with paid work / unpaid work. The point Justin makes about chores is a good one (and feminist). Why is taking care of your kid paid but taking care of my own kid isn't? Obviously, because I won't show up to take care of your kid unless you pay me. But if the guiding principle is to split up work equitably, there's no sense in counting this work out.
But I'm with billbartlett if we gotta be doing all this parecon beancounting and parallel coercion why the hell not just institute a guaranteed annual income.
Jenny Brown