Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor From: sebarber@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Barber) Newsgroups: comp.society Subject: Re: Examples from Scandinavia Message-ID: <1819@hplabsc.HP.COM> Date: Wed, 13-May-87 16:12:04 EDT Article-I.D.: hplabsc.1819 Posted: Wed May 13 16:12:04 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 16-May-87 07:08:58 EDT References: <1723@hplabsc.HP.COM> Sender: taylor@hplabsc.HP.COM Distribution: world Lines: 37 Approved: taylor@hplabs - - Thank you for your response, and especially for the Postman quote. If you read D.F. Noble's Forces of Production or Bob Howard's Brave New Workplace, they make the point that the U.S. labor unions in effect traded off their chance at particpatory management in the middle decades of this century in exchange for job security for current union members, mostly out of the fear that their jobs would be otherwise eliminated through automation. Upon reflection, this action seems like a massive sell-out on the unions' part, although I must admit I don't know what I would do if I were in the unions' position. In part, this is what is happening in Scandinavia: the unions there, who are more secure than the unions in the U.S. and who therefore did not feel compelled to negotiate away their say in corporation management, are encouraged and required by law be allowed to participate in the application of new technology. In the "Computers in Context" video, one of the examples had the workers participating in the design of a system which they would use in redefined job roles since their old jobs (bank tellers) were being automated away. The guiding principle in both these cases seems to be that the unions are trying to cut their losses due to automation. It would be difficult to argue that automation in many cases is not a good thing. However, if we accept the premise that the increase in GNP that is due to automation genuinely benefits society (and benefits it fairly)* in the long run, then there will be always be the short term disruption when a new technology is introduced (short term in this context is something like 5 to 20 YEARS for cases with a large enough effect to worry about from a public policy standpoint). -Steve Barber * I find this premise to be problematic at best, but let's let it stand so people don't start calling me a Luddite and then ignore the labor issue.