[lbo-talk] Parecon Discussion...

[Kelley]

At 11:37 AM 9/24/03 -0400, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>Kelley:
> > I worked for a catering company that organized its staffing in a
>modified
> > form of parecon. It was based in Ithaca, NY. but it wasn't ideology
>but
>
>It is not surprising that this would work in a catering or retail
>business, because there is relative little job specialization in those
>industries, and the risk associated with error/malpractice is rather
>low. But can you imagine a hospital where surgeons and janitors rotate
>between jobs? Or an airline where a baggage handler gets into the
>pilot's seat after he is done with loading your luggage on the plane?
>Or, for that matter, a sales clerk replacing the brakes or the steering
>system on your car?

can you imagine a dumb ass professor trying to make steak au poivre for the 
faculty retirement luncheon or trying to carry two trays full of food.

i can imagine the janitor spending some of his paid workday learning to 
become a surgeon and the company investing in that training. just like they 
invest in training now. i can imagine a secretary working as a hiring 
manager or book keeper. i can imagine the baggage handler training to be a 
flight attendant or cooking crappy airline food. heh.

these are dumb examples because no one is saying that untrained people 
should have as part of their job complex work for which they aren't 
skilled. presumably, if a sales clerk went on to work as a bookeeper or 
manager, she'd be trained. just as the manager would have to train to be a 
bookeeper, sales clerk, etc. just as a nurse who wanted as part of her job 
complex the work of a proctocologist, she'd be trained. the firm would 
invest in that training and they'd probably be wildly happy to hire someone 
they already knew and who had a commitment to the place because she lives 
in town, likes it, and likes the people she's working with.

kelley