ehenjum@udenva.UUCP (Jack Lindsey) (05/21/85)
Recently, the following quote was taped up by the time cards in my
department:
"The worker ... feels himself at home only during his
leisure time, whereas at work he feels homeless. His
work is not voluntary but imposed, 'forced labour'.
It is not the satisfaction of a need, but only a 'means'
for satisfying other needs. Its alien character is
clearly shown by the fact that as soon as there is no
physical or other compulsion it is avoided like the
plague."
Marx, 'Early Writings'
Understanding that the posting was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, it
points to the fact that many people I have spoken with are
dissatisfied with their jobs, and tend to do the *minimum* required to
keep from being fired, taking the attitude that creativity and
initiative are not attributes which are rewarded in the workplace.
The attitude that work is *only* a "means for satisfying other needs"
does not seem to be unique to a particular industry or salary level,
and, taking the converse, people I have met who find an inherent
*satisfaction* in working do not fall into any particular occupational
or wage category.
I am posting this to net.social, in spite of the reference to Marx,
because I view it as more of a social than a political issue. Is work
something that we must simply tolerate in order to make the $$ to buy
that VCR and keep groceries in the 'fridge, or are the $$ only part of
the reason for working? Most of us spend 40+ hours/week at this
activity, so perhaps a fuller understanding of why we are doing it is
worth seeking.
I am reminded of that old story of the young man who went to the Wells
Fargo office and asked if he could drive a team. The drivers agreed to
take the young man along with them and see how he did. After several
trips riding shotgun, and several trips driving under supervision, the
young man had proved himself to be a competent hand. The young man
was ecstatic when the local agent told him he could have a job and
drive the teams unassisted. The agent told the young man that he
would pay him five dollars a week for the job, to which the young man
replied in astonishment, "You mean people get PAID to do this?"
Comments?
--
--
==================
Jack Lindsey University of Denver
UUCP ONLY: {hplabs, seismo}!hao!udenva!ehenjum
or {boulder, cires, denelcor, ucbvax!nbires, cisden}!udenva!ehenjum
[]sommers@topaz.ARPA (Mamaliz @ The Soup Kitchen) (05/23/85)
In article <686@udenva.UUCP> ehenjum@udenva.UUCP (Jack Lindsey) writes: > > >Recently, the following quote was taped up by the time cards in my >department: > > "The worker ... feels himself at home only during his > leisure time, whereas at work he feels homeless. His > work is not voluntary but imposed, 'forced labour'. > It is not the satisfaction of a need, but only a 'means' > for satisfying other needs. Its alien character is > clearly shown by the fact that as soon as there is no > physical or other compulsion it is avoided like the > plague." > Marx, 'Early Writings' > > >I am posting this to net.social, in spite of the reference to Marx, >because I view it as more of a social than a political issue. Is work >something that we must simply tolerate in order to make the $$ to buy >that VCR and keep groceries in the 'fridge, or are the $$ only part of >the reason for working? Most of us spend 40+ hours/week at this >activity, so perhaps a fuller understanding of why we are doing it is >worth seeking. > Why "in spite of the reference to Marx"? Marx dealt with the human condition as he saw it. Only recently have we split this study up into artificial categories such as "economics", "politics" and "sociology". The quote is part of the basis of his work on alienation. He goes on to say that the worker is alienated from the product of his labor, because he has no control over it. I have heard very few people even try to refute this statement. -- liz sommers uucp: ...{harvard, seismo, ut-sally, sri-iu, ihnp4!packard}!topaz!sommers arpa: sommers@rutgers
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (05/23/85)
It's simply a matter of definition; if it is "work", you are doing it to earn money to really LIVE the rest of the time. If you happen to luck out, and find you can get paid for doing something you enjoy and would do even if you were not being paid for it (assuming you could get access to the equipment, etc.), then maybe it could be better termed a "vocation" instead of "work". (I've never felt that people should be defined in terms of what they do to earn money, yet that is the main factor or quality that is always considered -- you meet a stranger, and, usually, somewhere early in the conversation, one will ask the other, "And what do you do?", meaning what work do they perform. Actually, people are probably better defined by their hobbies than their jobs!) Will
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (05/23/85)
In article <686@udenva.UUCP> ehenjum@udenva.UUCP (Jack Lindsey) writes: > Is work >something that we must simply tolerate in order to make the $$ to buy >that VCR and keep groceries in the 'fridge, or are the $$ only part of >the reason for working? Most of us spend 40+ hours/week at this >activity, so perhaps a fuller understanding of why we are doing it is >worth seeking. By coincidence this subject was covered in some depth last night in a course in "The Human Side of Systems" I'm taking at UCLA. It seems there are a lot of factors involved in job satisfaction and not all of them act as one might expect. I don't have my notes with me, but here's some of what I recall: It's important not to confuse job context with job content. Context includes such things as retirement plans, health insurance, and even salary and raises. The theory is that these things can't make you happy at your work. Their abscence will make you unhappy but there presence only returns you to a not-unhappy condition. Job content is where your job satisfaction really comes from. This is where the concepts of meaningful and creative work come into play. For a person's work to be meaningful to them certain conditions must be met. An analogy was drawn with the activities of a bowling team. On the face of it, rolling a ball at some pins is a pretty simple, mindless activity -- much more so than most of our jobs -- yet people pay for the privilidege of doing it. The motivations are revealed by changing certain aspects of the game and watching the results. First, suppose you're rolling a ball down an alley with no pins at the end. You'd get pretty bored with that in a hurry. Suppose you had to do that all day? Second, suppose the pins are there but there's a curtain across the alley so you can't see them. You have to rely on someone else to tell you how many you hit, or you get no information about it at all. Suppose you didn't think you could trust the person who was giving you the information. While these analogies aren't perfect, the parallels in many work environments are easily drawn. Assembly line workers who never see the final product and get only intermittent feedback on their performance are an obvious case. Of course, if you had to punch a timeclock and bowl 8 hours a day, every day, you'd get pretty fed up with that eventually. Having some say in how and when things get done in the work environment is also important to job satisfaction. Personalities also come into the equations. Some people actually like mindless, monotonous jobs because they have time to think or talk with their co-workers while working. I could go on for a while, but this is getting too long for a first reply. I think Mark Twain had the right idea, anyway. As he put it: "Work is what one is obliged to do. Play is what one is not obliged to do." -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (05/24/85)
> ...many people I have spoken with are > dissatisfied with their jobs, and tend to do the *minimum* required to > keep from being fired... > > Comments? Yes. If you don't like your job, find one you do like. It's ridiculous to spend 40+ hours a week doing something you don't like, when there are plenty of enjoyable things to do for which you can be paid. I think people that stick with jobs they hate are doing it to satisfy some inner psychological need (like, they believe jobs have to be bad and they get to be right about that, and about how the world has "screwed them over", by sticking with a job they hate). I have little sympathy for such people. If you aren't *qualified* to do what you like, then *get* qualified. Go back to school. Do what it takes to get a job you like or don't complain about the job you have. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY "...I may not be right but I've never been wrong It seldom turns out the way it does in the song..."
beth@gymble.UUCP (Beth Katz) (05/24/85)
Greg Woods writes: > . . . If you don't like your job, find one you do like. It's ridiculous to >spend 40+ hours a week doing something you don't like, when there are plenty >of enjoyable things to do for which you can be paid. I think people that stick >with jobs they hate are doing it to satisfy some inner psychological need >(like, they believe jobs have to be bad and they get to be right about that, >and about how the world has "screwed them over", by sticking with a job they >hate). I have little sympathy for such people. If you aren't *qualified* to >do what you like, then *get* qualified. Go back to school. Do what it takes >to get a job you like or don't complain about the job you have. For many of us, Greg's comments are very good. We have opportunities to find something we like to do that also pays fairly well. However, for a great many people in this world, the things they do to put food on the table are not things they would like to be doing. Very often, people don't have a chance to work at something they enjoy. They MAY be given a choice of several jobs that aren't fun, but the one they choose may only be the least boring, distasteful, or degrading. I agree that if they have an opportunity to do something they like, they should grab that brass ring, but few of us have those opportunities. Another aspect of this topic is the mass of students in computer science programs. How many of them really enjoy computer science? How many of them just see it as a means of making money? I know that other fields have had similar problems, but it doesn't look like we've come close to flooding the job market. A few years down the road, I wonder how many of these people will be complaining about their jobs? Beth Katz Univ. of Maryland - CS Dept. {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!beth
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (05/25/85)
In article <ttidcc.441> hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP Jerry Hollombe (The Polymath) writes: > >For a person's work to be meaningful to them certain conditions must be >met. An analogy was drawn with the activities of a bowling team. On the >face of it, rolling a ball at some pins is a pretty simple, mindless >activity -- much more so than most of our jobs -- yet people pay for the >privilidege of doing it. The motivations are revealed by changing certain >aspects of the game and watching the results. > >Second, suppose the pins are there but there's a curtain across the alley >so you can't see them. You have to rely on someone else to tell you how >many you hit, or you get no information about it at all. Suppose you >didn't think you could trust the person who was giving you the information. Boy did that article strike a raw nerve with me! When bowling, suppose your score was based upon what the previous bowler rolled, whereas your pins hit were awarded to the next guy in line. How would that affect your morale and motivation? This is the situation that programmers routinely face. If I develop a kludgy new system as fast as I can, the boss rewards me for being a competent (i.e. fast) programmer. The next guy who must maintain my system takes forever to get anything done because my system is so hard to understand. The boss punishes him for his incompetency. Suppose I take the time to develop a system that is clean, simple and predictable. Since the boss won't read my code, he doesn't appreciate its quality. Since I take longer to complete the project, he has a reduced opinion of my skills. But, when I'm gone, the next guy has an easier job. Not only does this situation produce programmer burnout, it's probably the reason most code today is so bad, and why program maintenance budgets are soaring. Frank Silbermann
rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (05/25/85)
In article <10971@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-bmd.UUCP writes: >(I've never felt that people should be defined in terms of what they >do to earn money, yet that is the main factor or quality that is >always considered -- you meet a stranger, and, usually, somewhere early >in the conversation, one will ask the other, "And what do you do?", meaning >what work do they perform. Actually, people are probably better defined >by their hobbies than their jobs!) How about more flexibity and less dogmatic statements. :-) :-) I think people are defined (whatever that means) by a thing to the degree that the thing occupies the person's energy/thoughts/etc. For some people it's hobbies more than work, for others it's work more than hobbies,... or relationships, or neighborhood, or religion, or minority status. >It's simply a matter of definition; if it is "work", you are doing >it to earn money to really LIVE the rest of the time. If you happen >to luck out, and find you can get paid for doing something you >enjoy and would do even if you were not being paid for it (assuming >you could get access to the equipment, etc.), then maybe it could >be better termed a "vocation" instead of "work". > If I enjoy what-I-get-paid-for one day, but don't want to go to work the next (rather sleep in), just my work appear and a vocation vanish. :-) :-) Let's stick to common ordinary English rather than redefine words. I think 'work' in this discussion was meant to be synonymous with 'occupation', which it often is in common ordinary English. :-) :-) -- Rob Bernardo, San Francisco, California {nsc,ucbvax,decwrl,amd,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob _^__ ~/ \_.\ _ ~/ \_\ ~/ \_________~/ ~/ /\ /\ _/ \ / \ _/ \ _/ \ \ /
neal@denelvx.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (05/26/85)
****************************************************************************** > > The quote is part of the basis of his [Marx's] work on alienation. He goes on to > say that the worker is alienated from the product of his labor, because he > has no control over it. I have heard very few people even try to refute > this statement. > > liz sommers I would (try to refute it) but I'm too busy enjoying my job :-( Regards, Neal Weidenhofer "Blame it on the Rolling Denelcor, Inc. Stones" <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
31698957@sdcc3.UUCP (31698957) (05/30/85)
For those of you who are debating this one, the best thing I have ever seen on this subject is the article "A Message to Garcia" by Elbert Hubbard. The only place I _know_ to find it is Wood's _Treasury of the Familiar,_ but I understand it is rather widely circulated. I would punch it in, but it's several pages. A relevant quote (but get the whole thing anyway): " The point that I wish to make is this: McKinley gave Rowan a letter to be delivered to Garcia; Rowan took the letter and did not ask, "Where is he at?" By the Eternal! there is a man whose form should be cast in deathless bronze and the statue placed in every college of the land. It is not book- learninng younng men need, nor instruction about this and that, but a stiffening of the vertebrae which will cause them to be loyal to a trust, to act promptly, concentrate their energies: do the thing -- 'Carry a message to Garcia.'" Anyway, what I seem to be saying here, is what self- respecting person can take on a job, accept the responsibilities and rewards that come with it, and fail to do at least 100% of the job, let alone to do a better job than that "required" of him, and thereby advance. In any job there is room for the *mind* of the producer to improve the product. *-BlacklighT-*
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (06/03/85)
> I agree that if they have an > opportunity to do something they like, they should grab that brass ring, > but few of us have those opportunities. My point was that, if it is sufficiently important to you, you go out and *create* the opportunity to grab that brass ring, and you start by getting rid of any beliefs you may have that it can't be done, because they will *surely* stop you. Human beings are *very* attached to being right about their beliefs, even negative ones, and will make themselves unhappy all their lives just to avoid being wrong. As a case in point, I used to believe that I was a failure with women, but since I let go of my desire to be right about that, I have created the most wonderful relationship imaginable. It's not so hard to get rid of beliefs; all it takes is an awareness of what they are, and an awareness of the things you do to be right about them. I do not buy it when you say that "some of us never have that opportunity". Obviously, some people *believe* that, and by never even trying they get to be right (*and* stuck in a job they hate, and they get to play martyr, etc.) --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY "...I may not be right but I've never been wrong It seldom turns out the way it does in the song..."