>Btw, management, which involves the exercise of authority and
>occasionally some coercion ("I think you'd be happier in a different
>job"), is a real skill, not widely shared, as anyone who has worked
>under a bad boss -- or a really good one -- knows. Maybe I can make
>widgets, but that doesn't mean I or my fellow able widget makers
>know best how to organize people how to make widgets. We really want
>people with that talent running things. On a reasonably short leash.
>Bot so short that they can't do it or feel they can't do their job,
>not so long that they get above themselves and us widget makers.
I couldn't agree more. The logic behind the idea of having what work everyone does being completely separate and unrelated to what income they have is precisely that it would be just such a safeguard. Managers would be able to manage and would have to manage without the coercive tool of being able to threaten those they manage with loss of income. The other powers they have could be determined democratically, but that should not be a tool they can employ. It would make for much more efficient enterprises and ensure that the sort of people who want the job simply because it gives them power over others aren't attracted to such posts.
There's no other way of ensuring managers are kept on a short leash, as you put it, in a classless society. Making it democratic is no help whatsoever, unless you consider that a decision to put someone out on the street to starve is just fine and dandy provided that it is put to a vote first.
Frankly, I wouldn't want to live in a society where that could happen. I'd rather be sacked by a boss than be sacked by a vote of my fellow workers. I'd prefer to live in the society where where I can be sacked by a boss than a society where I can be tossed out on the street to starve by a political ballot of my fellow workers. That latter is a nightmare scenario, the very opposite of a society based on solidarity.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas