Gregory's ServerThis is honestly the funniest thing Bayer could do. I hope all those workers very quickly realize they need owners as much as they need managers and seize the company for themselves.
|
16 comments
 @waitworry @HeavenlyPossum And of course self-organisation isn't the same as self-determination. The workers aren't going to be able to say "OK we've decided insulin costs $1 now" (I don't know what Bayer make; if not insulin, pick something else with wide desperate need that they're price-gouging). @petealexharris @waitworry @HeavenlyPossum Same reaction. Kinda like this: Bayer: We don't need all those managers. You guys can manage yourselves. Workers: Yay! Stupid bosses. Who needs 'em? Bayer: Okay, all the ledgers, government papers, and that stuff is on the third floor, which is empty now, so- Workers: Wait, we have to do all that? Do we get OT or anything? Bayer: OT? No, bosses are exempt. You're the bosses now. You just get the work, not the pay. We get that. Now back to work. @waitworry @Professor_Stevens @petealexharris That assumes all those managers were actually performing useful work like records keeping, rather than the workers themselves. @HeavenlyPossum @waitworry @petealexharris If the workers were already doing it, they were already doing two jobs on one salary. Bayer owes them back pay. @Professor_Stevens @petealexharris @waitworry Bayer owes them everything, including the entirety of the firm they—the workers—built @HeavenlyPossum @petealexharris @waitworry Well, I predict they won't be getting that. My immediate concern is whether or not those workers are going to be given additional responsibilities and, if they are, whether or not they are going to get all of the following: 1. Increased pay for the extra work. This assumes that managers perform work that workers would need to take on, as opposed to performing guard labor for capitalists that can be readily jettisoned. Of course workers will not gain more economic power (or wages from this), no illusions there. But it is a massive admission that the primary roles of managers are to guard labor and to justify capitalist ownership. @HeavenlyPossum I think you've picked a bad example here. What the capital is contributing in the pharmaceutical industry is paying all those wages for the 10-15 years it takes between "starting work on a new drug" and "having literally anything to show for it". It would be a big ask for other workers to self organise paying all those scientists and researchers and everyone else all that time. By all means put all the middle managers on Ark-B though. Capital didn’t contribute anything. Initial investments—which occurred literally 160 years ago—were either borrowed against future revenue generated by workers or expropriated from previous workers. Capital interposes itself into the flow of resources, but doesn’t actually produce any of those resources. In any case, the people who initially invested are long dead and the current owners played no role in that process whatsoever.  @HeavenlyPossum I'm a bit concerned that the stated reason to eliminate managers is to eliminate rules and processes governing pharmaceutical production. I'm in favor of getting rid of the managers, of course, but I'm concerned about what those rules are the CEO wants to eliminate. @HeavenlyPossum I don't know about Bayer, but in some places managers do actually do some useful admin tasks. (This is not to justify the hierarchy attached to job specialization.) |
Statists: we couldn’t possibly manage to sustain the modern interconnected world without top-down hierarchical control!
Bayer: we’re asking 100,000 workers to self-organize our global, high-tech production