N***
It appears to me that this discussion of Jobs and motivation has descended
to the anectodal; amazing cases of people who transform what we regard as
boring inadequate occupations into research projects, dance, or social
welfare. Individual styles of work, like individual experience, is so
varied that exceptions to all "laws" of relations of labor are an inevitable
feature of objective experience with work and workers. Then too, the
emotional states of happiness, of coping, and so on,are too subjective to be
in themselves a sure basis for analysis. At best we can discuss the
objectifications of "happiness" that may comprise part of the properties
considered important in certain relations between worker and consumer,
worker and employer and so on; e.g. the relations between a real-estate
salesman and prospect, between house-servant and her mistress, and so on.
A rational consideration of the issue of job statisfaction in the general
sense would be based on the relation between the outcomes of the job and the
objectives of the laborer. Obviously these latter are complex and often
likely to be contradictory. For example, a worker may endure boring and
difficult labor to bring home the paycheck that purchases room and board for
his or her family. In any case considering the complexities of the human
will, it is likely that a job may satisfy all workers some of the time, some
workers all of the time, but never all workers all of the time.
Clearly, objectives of workers and the degree to which their occupations
satisfy these are a function of historical conditions. The issue here is
the determination of the particular conditions current to the labor
relations under examination. A trade union that is facing new management
that has announced its intentions to streamline the productive process is
likely to present different conditions for job satisfaction than it would if
it was just renewing an old contract with a well-domesticated management.
Jeff Heyward's interpretation of Andy's objection to the research results of
the Taylor committee are misdirected. The problem is one of taking into
account the current conditions (political, economic etc.) of the labor
sector or group studied, rather than of an issue of depth, i.e. duration of
the investigation.
Concerning the issue Andy raised of the unemployed and underemployed by
choice. Most research on unemployment and underemployment till now has been
imbued with the work ethic of pre-, proto- and -modern capitalism: "the
plight of the demoralized unemployed," " the marginal culture of the
chronically unemployed," and like themes. The declining demand for
productive labor, the development of cheap access to vast amounts of
information, and the globalization of communications have and will change
attitudes towards labor, the formation of social and personal goals and the
desireability and even the possibility of realizing them through gainful
employment. It appears to me that we are facing a major cultural
revolution and no one is really very excited about examining where it is
going.
Victor
----- Original Message -----
From: "N***" <vygotsky who-is-at nateweb.info>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: Jobs and motivation: Help is needed
> Andy,
>
> That was partly what I was getting at. Coping
> strategies like the friendly cashier, toll booth
> operater etc can appear to an outsider as enjoyment or
> to use your word happy. Those "coping strategies" may
> even become virtues so to speak such as "work ethic",
> or doing ones best.
>
> Yet, to even take your assertion that most poor
> workers are not "happy" in their jobs, what does that
> mean? What does it mean to be happy in ones job?
>
> The lottery question has, of course, as its
> assumption, money. That if ones motivation is money,
> and ones job is oppressive, then they would take the
> money and run. If there are other factors to ones
> motivation, then this would not hold true. This, of
> course has nothing to do with enjoyment or happiness
> per se.
>
> One may very well stay in an oppressive situation
> because of habit, it houses ones social network etc.
> This would be particularily true for those who have
> worked at a particular company for generations.
>
> Yet, I have to admit, I am still wondering what
> "happy" in ones job looks like.
>
>
> --- Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> > I guess we like these stories because getting
> > enjoyment and fulfillment out
> > of a routine unskilled job takes a special talent.
> > One gets the feeling
> > that Ana's traffic cop, your cook or my
> > toll-collector could have earnt
> > lots of money, but their special quality allowed
> > them to get total
> > fulfillment from what we could never cope with. I
> > think this is something
> > different from the "Aunt Jamima Syndrome". Poor
> > people doing routine jobs
> > are not usually happy in their job. But the prospect
> > that anyone is capable
> > of enjoying their job is a kind of Utopian vision,
> > and just a few people
> > are capable of living that vision.
> >
> > Andy
> > At 03:46 AM 17/12/2003 -0800, you wrote:
> > >There is a local resturaunt by our house which is a
> > >favorite because of the cook. Usually the cook is
> > kind
> > >of hidden in the back, but this one comes out, goes
> > to
> > >your table, and cracks a joke or two. One day, the
> > >summer after 9-1-1, my kids and I went there and a
> > >group of elderly church like ladies came in with
> > red
> > >hats. This cook came out out and loudly asked,
> > "what's
> > >up with those red hats". He then loudly proclaimed,
> > >"Ladies and gentleman, beware its the red hatted
> > >terrorists."
> > >
> > >Yet, there seems to be this other side too, Aunt
> > >Jaminma factor. If one looks at old 1930's
> > cartoons,
> > >which were clearly propaganda, one sees these
> > strong
> > >images of African Americans happy as shit in their
> > >oppression.
> > >
> > >So, I have these mixed feelings. On the one hand, I
> > >agree with much of what is said. Those that are
> > >economically and socially oppressed are able to
> > find
> > >enjoyment in their work. Yet, what interpretation
> > does
> > >the powers that be make of this with studies that
> > >focus on enjoyment. Is it like the Aunt Jamina
> > >propaganda films that aim to show society that
> > 1930's
> > >African American life can't be that bad if Aunt
> > Jamima
> > >is that happy.
> > >
> > >I remember this old Christmas story that might be
> > >pertinant. Its begins like the classic two worlds
> > >story. There are two children, one rich and one
> > poor,
> > >the day after Christmas. One, the rich child, got
> > all
> > >the newest toys; DVD player, X-Box, Bratz dolls,
> > wide
> > >screen tv etc, while the other, the poor child,
> > only
> > >got a big bag of shit. After about an hour the rich
> > >kid is bored and not sure what to play with next,
> > >while the poor kid is still enjoying playing with
> > his
> > >shit.
> > >
> > >I'm not sure why I was told this story as a child.
> > >Partly I suppose to demonstrate how I was much
> > happier
> > >than any rich child with a silver spoon in his
> > mouth.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >=====
> >
>
>
> =====
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 01:00:09 PST