The analysis of how bureaucracies work is at the heart of sociology. Functionally rational, substantively irrational -- standard concept in the discipline. Mine was just a snark to the list about something we all know the answer to. Most of the time I wear my sociologists hat, but every once in a while you toss it off and like to commiserate with others about a common problem: death and taxes. I sometimes like to take off my lefty hat and bitch to my lefty friends about work. I think Joanna and I were talking about this: how much harder it is some days to just get through the b.s. because one of the reasons we find things disturbing in that milieu is that we look at it through a leftist explanatory framework. As Chuck Grimes noted a couple of months ago, it can stress you out more than you might be otherwise. (When I'm in pain from my work, I don't just whine about the pain. I get to bitch about it in terms of dead labor. :)
I actually thought about hunting down the poor souls who are probably trying to do their best to make things understandable -- finding out more about the training, professionalization, what they think about their jobs, what research they conduct, etc., etc. They would be a lot like technical writers-- you can tell from reading it that effort has gone into make it as simple as possible.
At 05:16 PM 10/12/2004, Carrol Cox wrote:
>snit snat wrote:
> >
> >
> > Aside from which, as best I can tell, the IRS just likes to play hide the
> > salami. snark snark.
> >
>
>I've never read anything about how IRS is organized, so this may be
>irrelevant. If it is, someone will let us know.
>
>I don't think you should personify IRS as itself an agent. That is, it
>is inaccurate to say "The IRS" likes (or dislikes) anything.
>
>You start out with the tax legislation as written by Congress (with I
>suppose lot's of help from technically skilled lobbyists for this or
>that interest). The workforce of IRS is then faced with the task of
>transforming that legislation into tax forms. And while I've never read
>a word of any of that legislation, I wouldn't be surprised if the
>simplest parts of it make your tax form look like Dick & Jane in
>comparison.
>
>And hence, if you (we) find the tax form maddeningly complex, imagine
>how the GS7 or GS9 who has to write the first draft of the tax form
>fitting the legislation must feel. I've only been closely familiar with
>three public work-forces: NSA in the '50s; university civil-service for
>40 years; and the post office (where Jan worked for almost 20 years).
>And the GS3s-GS11s (or equivalents) in all three really tried their best
>to do the work well. I would guess the bulk of the workers at IRS do the
>same. (Probably outside pressure makes a big difference at the upper
>levels of IRS, but that sort of thing filters down in a bewildering
>chaos of ways.)
>
>So it's almost certain that no actual person is trying to make life
>rough for you when you fill out your tax form. And "The IRS" has no
>intentions of any sort whatever. And outside of Congress, my bet is that
>almost every actual flesh-and-blood person involved in the creation of
>that form was trying to make it as simple and clear as can be. After
>all, do you really think a bunch of (probably underpaid and overworked)
>GS7s should have the skill of a combination of Shakespeare, Newton, &
>Wittgenstein?
>
>Carrol
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
"one of the lessons of 1964 that conservatives learned was that it was more important for voters to feel like they were informed than to actually be informed. conservatives now have several places where they can learn this lesson several times a year."
-- ac, the Politics list