NationStates Jolt Archive

Just slack off. :)

A new study has concluded that the number one way abused workers get even with their bosses is by slacking off at work.

Abused Workers Fight Back by Slacking Off

Jeanna Bryner

LiveScience Staff Writer
LiveScience.com Mon Oct 8, 4:30 PM ET

Employees toiling under an abusive supervisor often rebel quietly and indirectly by slacking off on the job and handing in sloppy work.

Researchers at Florida State University surveyed more than 180 employees from a wide variety of professions, asking whether they had endured a history of abuse from their bosses, then asking a slew of workplace performance questions.

Employees with difficult bosses checked out in the following ways:

* 30 percent slowed down or purposely made errors, compared with 6 percent of those not reporting abuse.
* 27 percent purposely hid from the boss, compared with 4 percent of those not abused.
* 33 percent confessed to not putting in maximum effort, compared with 9 percent of those not abused.
* 29 percent took sick time off even when not ill, compared with 4 percent of those not abused.
* 25 percent took more or longer breaks, compared with 7 percent of those not abused.

Whether the abusive boss causes apathetic employees or vice versa is not known.

“However, it is clear that employee-employer relations are at one of the lowest points in history,” researcher Wayne Hochwarter said.

Employees who did not have a belligerent boss were three times more likely to proactively fix problems and approach their supervisors with ideas to help the company, according to the new study, which Hochwarter and Samantha Engelhardt plan to submit for publication to a research journal.

Behind the office doors

Employees say that abuse from bosses includes put-downs in front of others, ignored e-mails and other correspondence and being berated.

Hochwarter and his colleagues conducted another survey in 2006, in which they polled about 700 people in a variety of professions about supervisor treatment, finding:

* 31 percent reported their supervisor gave them the "silent treatment" in the past year.
* 37 percent reported their supervisor failed to give credit when due.
* 39 percent noted their supervisor failed to keep promises.
* 27 percent noted their supervisor made negative comments about them to other employees or managers.
* 24 percent reported their supervisor invaded their privacy.
* 23 percent indicated their supervisor blamed others to cover up mistakes or to minimize embarrassment.

Trust and communication

Both studies, Hochwarter says, bring to the forefront the damaging interactions between employees and managers that can get played out on a daily basis. "It calls to light this caustic relationship that management and supervisors are often having these days [with employees]," Hochwarter told LiveScience.

Hochwarter suggested that basic civility, including a commitment to active communication, could resolve many workplace problems.

"If organizations would simply spend much more time addressing issues that relate to trust and communication, then a lot of this would get resolved," Hochwarter said.

Trackback URL for this entry: http://www.infoshop.org/inews/trackback.php?id=20071008203230677
No trackback comments for this entry.

Office Space was right...

Office Space was right...

"You've been missing a lot of work lately, John."

"I wouldn't say I've been missing it." ;)

Certainly not as sexy as a massive general strike, but it gets the point across pretty well. Me no likey boss, me no work goodly.

"Researchers" at FSU.

Now THERE'S a joke.

:cool:

"You've been missing a lot of work lately, John."

"I wouldn't say I've been missing it." ;)

Certainly not as sexy as a massive general strike, but it gets the point across pretty well. Me no likey boss, me no work goodly.

But you know, it works both ways... I certainly wouldn't hesitate to lay off an employee that didn't work as hard or made more mistakes than other employees. It's tough to find good employees, but it's a lot tougher to keep the bad ones.

But you know, it works both ways... I certainly wouldn't hesitate to lay off an employee that didn't work as hard or made more mistakes than other employees. It's tough to find good employees, but it's a lot tougher to keep the bad ones.

Treat us like human beings, and lowly wage laborers like me might not feel the urge to slack.

I want a work slow at work day. It would be a federal holiday that would be a mini-labor/labour day.

Treat us like human beings, and lowly wage laborers like me might not feel the urge to slack.
I don't have any hourly workers that report to me. I don't have any slackers reporting to me, either. I give my employees all the privileges that they want to take responsibility for... As long as the work gets done on time and on budget, it doesn't matter much to me how they get it done.

My advice to you is get a skill. Then you have something to market.

Treat us like human beings, and lowly wage laborers like me might not feel the urge to slack.

No.

No.

?

So they're closing the factory and going back to japan. The man who saved Hadleyville. You're the man who killed Hadleyville, and I' m gonna kill you!

That's a very interesting study, "Trotskylvania." But if you don't start typing those reports I gave you, I'm going to send you to the moon.

That's a very interesting study, "Trotskylvania." But if you don't start typing those reports I gave you, I'm going to send you to the moon.

Not now, New Limacon. I just joined a party of night elves, and we're going to explore the party of Azora together.

you don't need your boss,
your boss needs you.


this is true.
without the workers,
there is simply no way the boss could
do all that work alone.
the employees/workers are who keeps the boss
in his position of $power$.
same as it ever was

you don't need your boss,
your boss needs you.

Just keep telling yourself that. I'm sure it will take you a long ways in the world.

That's a very interesting study, "Trotskylvania." But if you don't start typing those reports I gave you, I'm going to send you to the moon.

We never made it to the moon!

I'm sure it will take you a long ways in the world.

i don't measure "success" in life as how much money i make.

so far i've managed to avoid the sort of indoctrination
that some people have hooked themselves on:
as if having a small bank account equaled...?
what?
less manliness?
I know that sounds weird.
Maybe there is some other sort of thing to compare the size of one's bank account to?
Being religiously pious or moral? makes one more rich?
i feel sorry for anyone who has to suffer due to someone else's indoctrination
such as these things.

Just keep telling yourself that. I'm sure it will take you a long ways in the world.

Without wage slaves, the boss cannot logically exist. His position is defined by his command over wage workers. Our position is not defined by the boss's existence. As the anarcho-syndicalists of the Spanish Revolution proved, worker's don't need their bosses.

Without wage slaves, the boss cannot logically exist. His position is defined by his command over wage workers. Our position is not defined by the boss's existence. As the anarcho-syndicalists of the Spanish Revolution proved, worker's don't need their bosses.

Well, then go form your syndicate then, Ducky.

Trots, read what you just wrote...
Without wage slaves, the boss cannot logically exist. His position is defined by his command over wage workers. Our position is not defined by the boss's existence. As the anarcho-syndicalists of the Spanish Revolution proved, worker's don't need their bosses.


I defy you to make any sense at all of it in the context of the real world.

As I recall, you, or one of your Communist pals, were recently completely unable to explain how a means of production could operate without leadership -- and how that leadership was different than the business structure that exists in every successful ( profit making ) enterprise.

You're welcome to try again.

Myrmi, in the context of the OP, I'm going to have to ask you this. Have you ever been guilty of abuses similar to what was listed in the study?

Trots, read what you just wrote...



I defy you to make any sense at all of it in the context of the real world.

As I recall, you, or one of your Communist pals, were recently completely unable to explain how a means of production could operate without leadership -- and how that leadership was different than the business structure that exists in every successful ( profit making ) enterprise.

You're welcome to try again.

The answer is in my freaking quote. I've already given it to you. If you really must know, then go research the Spanish Revolution.

Nice. Now if only they'd unionize and do it in a concerted manner.

you don't need your boss,
your boss needs you.Indeed. Fire your boss.

Nice. Now if only they'd unionize and do it in a concerted manner.

Indeed. An entire organization, dedicated to simultaneous slacking. :D

Slackers of all nations, unite!

Trots, read what you just wrote...



I defy you to make any sense at all of it in the context of the real world.

As I recall, you, or one of your Communist pals, were recently completely unable to explain how a means of production could operate without leadership -- and how that leadership was different than the business structure that exists in every successful ( profit making ) enterprise.

You're welcome to try again.

How about this? http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/klein_lewis

The workers are doing fine when they're not getting attacked by policemen.

[Someone was] recently completely unable to explain how a means of production could operate without leadership


Of course this person couldn't explain it. Nobody posits that the means of production can operate without leadership; such is impossible. However, methods of leadership alternative to the usual capitalist model (Employer/Employee) are indeed possible, do indeed exist, and are in fact quite successful. Read on...


-- and how that leadership was different than the business structure that exists in every successful ( profit making ) enterprise.


Alternative models:


Worker's Self-Management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_self-management)
Workers' Cooperatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Cooperative)


Practical Examples:

The Recovered Factories Movement in Argentina (a documentary film of which is available here (http://www.thetake.org/)) is an exemplar of Workers' Self-Management. Examples of the cooperative in general (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cooperatives) are bountiful.

Alternative business structures that differ fundamentally from the usual capitalist arrangement by eliminating the necessarily antagonistic Employer/Employee relationship. And profitable to boot.

Indeed. An entire organization, dedicated to simultaneous slacking. :D

Slackers of all nations, unite!Fuck that shit!

Do you have any idea how much work it takes to unite. I am going to have to do it all too, as everyone else does sweet fuck all. You can just go fuck yourself you lousy keener.

I am surprised that the survey did not do anything about how people worked compared to how they thought they were being paid.

Since I have experienced a boss (actually it was the contractor that subcontracted us) go abusive, I would say everything there is true. I believe there is a saying "A happy worker is a productive worker" and the events that took place did nothing but prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Fire your boss.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/Thetake.jpg/416px-Thetake.jpg (http://www.thetake.org)

Office Space was right...

Yes indeed it was. My previous job I would have been up there with this but my new job treats me well and I can't complain so no slacking for me.

Certainly not as sexy as a massive general strike

… fetish.

Just slack off. :)

A new study has concluded that the number one way abused workers get even with their bosses is by slacking off at work.

http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html

The continual suppression of workers rights has placed the general laborer in factory setting with scientific management resulting in extremely high specialization and a general dissatisfaction. I cannot imagine that the current predominant business model of owner -> management -> peon is an accurate reflection of the typical values of the labor force. Workers would likely accept lower wages if it meant more autonomy and less specialization.

This general malaise at their own positions will naturally cause workers to "slack off", and, if the market is freed, said slacking off will result in a shift to business models more conducive to satisfied and more productive workers.

Just keep telling yourself that. I'm sure it will take you a long ways in the world.

You already endorsed that statement when you advised Trot to get a skill and market it.

That is what the market is, getting yours because other people need you to get theirs.

Myrmi, in the context of the OP, I'm going to have to ask you this. Have you ever been guilty of abuses similar to what was listed in the study?
No. Like I said, I give my engineers all the privileges that they want to take responsibility for. Flexible hours, adequate time to do personal business -- we do just fine. In return, they work the extra hours that are needed to bring a project in on time.

In the annual reviews, in fact in weekly staff meetings, my last questions are always, "What can I do to be a better boss?", and "What else do you need to do your job better?" And I take the comments to heart and try to do better. When people do make mistakes -- and it's unavoidable -- I try to make sure we learn from them and "Praise in public, criticize in private" is how I handle that. That's why I have a door on my office.

About the only request I've turned down is the one for Panasonic Toughbooks. I would have approved that if we broke more of our chinsy laptops. But we replace those every two years, as well.

Plus we pay way above the engineering mean for Atlanta. Most of my engineers have been with the company 20 to 30 years, with the new ones at about 12 years. I don't have a turnover problem, but I'll have a replacement problem when those guys start retiring.

The answer is in my freaking quote. I've already given it to you. If you really must know, then go research the Spanish Revolution.
Been here before (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13045962&postcount=41). You ignored me then because you couldn't do any better than "It's the Spanish Revolution". Well, a revolution isn't a sustaining economy. There was one product of the revolution that comes close to your model. That's the Mondragon cooperative. They still have some problems because they are subsidized by the Spanish government and only about half the workers are members of the co-op.

And co-ops are pretty poor examples of worker run businesses, too. The members -- not just the workers -- elect boards of directors, but then lower lever managers are hired, not elected. So spare me the REI example. But then, you probably didn't know about that one either.

As I recall, the Spanish Revolution was your first and last attempt to provide an example of a worker-run business. After I pressed you for a few real-world examples, you bailed...

Why should I expect different now? See you.

You already endorsed that statement when you advised Trot to get a skill and market it.

That is what the market is, getting yours because other people need you to get theirs.
The part of the statement that was wrong was the idea that workers don't need a boss. That's preposterous in any enterprise. There's three essential parts to any profitable enterprise -- Customers, Management, Labor. Ignore any one of those and the business goes to hell.

The part of the statement that was wrong was the idea that workers don't need a boss. That's preposterous in any enterprise. There's three essential parts to any profitable enterprise -- Customers, Management, Labor. Ignore any one of those and the business goes to hell.

I don't know when labor would actually need a boss. The only time "management" is worthwhile is when he is indistinguishable from labor.

I don't know when labor would actually need a boss. The only time "management" is worthwhile is when he is indistinguishable from labor.
On what evidence or experience do you make that claim?

On what evidence or experience do you make that claim?

If management does anything other than contribute labor, then they are dead weight.

Well if I was their boss then I would start paying them less if they slacked off. Now if they worked harder, then I would treat them better.

If management does anything other than contribute labor, then they are dead weight.
There you go making unsubstantiated claims again. You've done nothing more than re-word your last wild claim.

What's the basis for that claim?

How do you define labor?

There you go making unsubstantiated claims again. You've done nothing more than re-word your last wild claim.

What's the basis for that claim?

How do you define labor?

Ever heard of the empty suit? The manager who does nothing but lord over his employees but offers nothing of value to the groups work. Unless a manager is doing what he should be doing (managing properly. No whips, leather and chains, thank you), he is deadweight.

No. Like I said, I give my engineers all the privileges that they want to take responsibility for

See, now, by what you said, you appear to be a good boss. The kind that actually cares about his staff.

But there's a lot more out there that would rather squeeze every productive penny they can out while cutting budgets and pay across the board. The kind that blame the staff for their foul ups.

That's the kind of managers the article is covering. You can't deny those exist. And in large numbers.

There you go making unsubstantiated claims again. You've done nothing more than re-word your last wild claim.

What's the basis for that claim?

How do you define labor?

Labor consists of all those who contribute work to the production process in return for some compensation. As such it includes the tasks of scheduling, organizing, communicating between processes, etc, namely what you would likely call management.

If management gets paid any more than what they directly contribute to the product, what they provide in labor, then they are dead weight and the company will suffer for it.

Furthermore, I can see no reason to think of management as something inherently distinct from labor, nor do I see any reason that there need be a specific level of labor that we would call management. Perhaps it limits the scale of a company (even that is debatable), but a collection of specialized workers could easily delegate and coordinate tasks amongst themselves. I even imagine, from what I have experienced, that workers would vale such a level of autonomy and input far greater than the Taylorism brought on by modern factory style management.

Just proves that ingenious workers will always find a way to fight the Man. :D

I am myself guilty of most of the above.

Ever heard of the empty suit? The manager who does nothing but lord over his employees but offers nothing of value to the groups work. Unless a manager is doing what he should be doing (managing properly. No whips, leather and chains, thank you), he is deadweight.
Bosses aren't pals and they should never be pals. I've never managed a bunch of kids, but I'll bet it takes an entirely different style of management to get things done at a Dairy Queen than it does at my office. I've got engineers that want to do the work we do, not a bunch of teens that just want enough money for the weekend. I would bet that the DQ manager comes across as much more authoritarian than I have to just out of necessity.

What is 'managing properly'?

And how 'bout that Mondragon Co-op? Why is it that it represents a worker-run company, again?

Labor consists of all those who contribute work to the production process in return for some compensation. As such it includes the tasks of scheduling, organizing, communicating between processes, etc, namely what you would likely call management.

If management gets paid any more than what they directly contribute to the product, what they provide in labor, then they are dead weight and the company will suffer for it.

Furthermore, I can see no reason to think of management as something inherently distinct from labor, nor do I see any reason that there need be a specific level of labor that we would call management. Perhaps it limits the scale of a company (even that is debatable), but a collection of specialized workers could easily delegate and coordinate tasks amongst themselves. I even imagine, from what I have experienced, that workers would vale such a level of autonomy and input far greater than the Taylorism brought on by modern factory style management.
Again, I'm not going to get into a big discussion about how a business should be run without some frame of reference. Are we talking about a chapter you read in an economics book? Are we discussing this based on a summer job you held?

Or do you really have the experience or evidence that is required to make claims like "...a collection of specialized workers could easily delegate and coordinate tasks amongst themselves."

From my point of view, anyone who starts quoting theories like Taylorism, doesn't have much practical work experience and really has very little basis to discuss how a complicated business should be run. Documenting what works is one thing, but just promoting a theory, without proof, is silly.

And the whole compensation thing is silly too. One gets paid what the employer thinks he's worth. If the employee isn't worth the price, he can be fired or re-assigned, if he still has some value in another capacity.

####
I'll ignore my own advice and continue...

You've captured some of the the essential elements of management in your first paragraph. Something you miss -- probably from inexperience -- is the obligation that management has to make the worker more productive. We have to refine processes, eliminate steps that aren't part of the core competency of the company, and make sure the workforce has the tools they need to do the job to the peak of their abilities.

Just reading that makes me think of one more thing you left out. Somewhere in the hierarchy of the company, there needs to be a vision of what the company should do. That's not the 'vision statement' everyone thinks they need, it's the path the company needs to follow to sustain growth. That's not going to bubble up from the hourly workers and very few of the salaried workers will have the ideas that will keep the company growing. When they do have those ideas, they need to be rewarded generously and pegged to be promoted into management at some point in the future.

But having goals for the company -- not balance sheet goals, although those are good -- is usually what the director, the CEO, the division VP, etc is there for. Translating those goals into action is what his staff does.

I expect in some places that some workers could cooperate and work together, but they'd be blind to the outside, i.e. the customers. Don't forget that customers aren't automatic. A business needs to make something that customers want. And that isn't always a static target. This is where goals, plans, and vision is important.

Well, it's time to make my business work better. If you have anything worth replying to, post it. I'll see you in the evening.

See, now, by what you said, you appear to be a good boss. The kind that actually cares about his staff.

But there's a lot more out there that would rather squeeze every productive penny they can out while cutting budgets and pay across the board. The kind that blame the staff for their foul ups.

That's the kind of managers the article is covering. You can't deny those exist. And in large numbers.
Like I said, there are three things that a business depends on. I take it personally if my staff can't do its job.

Bad managers? Sure. Large numbers? I don't know. In my post to Trots, I mentioned the differences between managing kids and managing adults. It might be that your (in)experience clouds your judgment here. I can't imagine that a business can grow with managers that don't support their employees. Or that bad managers will last very long in a good business.

Bad managers? Sure. Large numbers? I don't know. In my post to Trots, I mentioned the differences between managing kids and managing adults. It might be that your (in)experience clouds your judgment here. I can't imagine that a business can grow with managers that don't support their employees. Or that bad managers will last very long in a good business.

Where I live, there's plenty of bad managers. They survive on government support until they can find another business to plunder. Heck, the government support is actually used to put them in said businesses.

Where I live, there's plenty of bad managers. They survive on government support until they can find another business to plunder. Heck, the government support is actually used to put them in said businesses.
Are you talking about civil service? Affirmative Action? I'm curious...Sounds like my misgivings about government involvement in commercial enterprises are more than well-founded.

Trolltskylvania, have you ever worked a day in your miserable little life?

Trolltskylvania, have you ever worked a day in your miserable little life?

Yes, I have, FYI. Growing up in a poor, working class family generally means that if you want something, you'll prolly have to buy it yourself. But, given your tone, you probably don't know anything about that, would you? Or what it is like to see both of your parents work full time jobs plus overtime just keep their heads above water, or the pain on their faces when they feel that they've failed at being good parents because they can only afford to provide for necessities. Or the anguish and shame they go through when they have to borrow money from me, knowing they won't be able to pay me back.

It is not for my sake that I am angry at the world, but rather theirs. So unless you have something to contribute to this discussion, STFU.

Trolltskylvania, have you ever worked a day in your miserable little life?

Cut it out.

Yes, I have, FYI. Growing up in a poor, working class family generally means that if you want something, you'll prolly have to buy it yourself. But, given your tone, you probably don't know anything about that, would you? Or what it is like to see both of your parents work full time jobs plus overtime just keep their heads above water, or the pain on their faces when they feel that they've failed at being good parents because they can only afford to provide for necessities. Or the anguish and shame they go through when they have to borrow money from me, knowing they won't be able to pay me back.
How unexpected. A sob story. Though it seems I was correct on one thing...

It is not for my sake that I am angry at the world, but rather theirs. So unless you have something to contribute to this discussion, STFU.
No one ever taught you any manners it seems. Such a shame. I misspelled your screen name, honest. ;)

Again, I'm not going to get into a big discussion about how a business should be run without some frame of reference. Are we talking about a chapter you read in an economics book? Are we discussing this based on a summer job you held?

Or do you really have the experience or evidence that is required to make claims like "...a collection of specialized workers could easily delegate and coordinate tasks amongst themselves."

From my point of view, anyone who starts quoting theories like Taylorism, doesn't have much practical work experience and really has very little basis to discuss how a complicated business should be run. Documenting what works is one thing, but just promoting a theory, without proof, is silly.

And the whole compensation thing is silly too. One gets paid what the employer thinks he's worth. If the employee isn't worth the price, he can be fired or re-assigned, if he still has some value in another capacity.

My experience or inexperience says nothing of the truthfulness of my argument, but I have taken 400 level management courses and I have been employed for the last two years at a manufacturing company of ~60.

As for Taylorism, I have nothing good to say for it, and only mention it only to characterize the type of management that can still be observed in many places. The general assumption today is that further specialization is always better, and because of this managers typically want to micromanage every little detail of a process until the worker becomes as specialized as he can become. Now it is generally true that more specialization generates wealth at a more rapid pace. It is not true, however, that such specialization comes without cost. Such specialization, at some point (likely arbitrary to the worker) becomes dehumanizing and will likely cause a worker to demand more compensation or rebel in ways as documented by the OP.

So this is not an attack on management in general, rather that management has run rampant, especially bad management. I think this has historical roots in political progression that has never fought monopoly or wealth, rather shifted government protection from one wealthy group to another (the paper I posted earlier is a good read on the history of political nature of economic progress). Only in a system such as this, where government constantly has provided the means for the value fulfillment of factory owners over factory workers would such bad management be tolerated.

I do not deny that specialized managerial labor can exist, but it does so as a part of labor.

Lastly, you are the one who originally said that labor needs a manager, I simply denied that. The obligation is upon you to show what role a manager fills that cannot be filled by a shop full of workers. What magical observational or rational function does a manager have that 20 individuals in a shop don't possess?

Are you talking about civil service? Affirmative Action? I'm curious...Sounds like my misgivings about government involvement in commercial enterprises are more than well-founded.

Used to be civil service. Now it's private sectors as well. Not just in management anymore either. Actually, when I think about it, it also affects the public higher education sector too.

Basically, it's affirmative action for the ethnic majority. The civil service sector is bloated with that majority already and there's government pressure on the private sector (which traditionally used to be filled by the other ethnic divides) to take on the newer graduates (again ethnic specific) churned out from local universities who barely earned their degrees.

If you were hoping to rail against the evils of affirmative action for minority groups, sorry, it's the other way around here.

Interesting tidbit. During the formative years, it was heavily argued that the ethnic minorities who did most of the urban development (British colonial practices of labor import) weren't to be given citizenship, never mind generations of labor and investment. Citizenship ended up being given, but that particular faction never went really went away. It's gotten a lot stronger of late.

It's pretty much a race issue gone off the deep end.

My experience or inexperience says nothing of the truthfulness of my argument, but I have taken 400 level management courses and I have been employed for the last two years at a manufacturing company of ~60.

As for Taylorism, I have nothing good to say for it, and only mention it only to characterize the type of management that can still be observed in many places. The general assumption today is that further specialization is always better, and because of this managers typically want to micromanage every little detail of a process until the worker becomes as specialized as he can become. Now it is generally true that more specialization generates wealth at a more rapid pace. It is not true, however, that such specialization comes without cost. Such specialization, at some point (likely arbitrary to the worker) becomes dehumanizing and will likely cause a worker to demand more compensation or rebel in ways as documented by the OP.

So this is not an attack on management in general, rather that management has run rampant, especially bad management. I think this has historical roots in political progression that has never fought monopoly or wealth, rather shifted government protection from one wealthy group to another (the paper I posted earlier is a good read on the history of political nature of economic progress). Only in a system such as this, where government constantly has provided the means for the value fulfillment of factory owners over factory workers would such bad management be tolerated.

I do not deny that specialized managerial labor can exist, but it does so as a part of labor.

Lastly, you are the one who originally said that labor needs a manager, I simply denied that. The obligation is upon you to show what role a manager fills that cannot be filled by a shop full of workers. What magical observational or rational function does a manager have that 20 individuals in a shop don't possess?
Actually, I'm supporting the status quo, and I believe that carries the benefit of the doubt when it comes to requiring proof.

It doesn't matter what level, or who is collected, there will alway be the need to supervise workers. It's true for farmworkers, technical workers, and laborers. I find that it's even true for highly educated engineers. Someone has to keep them on task. Someone has to decide what "on task" means. If you ask 20 engineers what the most important task for the day is, you'll get at least 30 answers. In truth, there's only one most important task and everything else can be prioritized around that.

To think that a room full of individuals will figure that out among themselves, in a timely manner, is folly. As is any scheme where workers control the means of production...

No, history shows us that the way to get a job done is to supervise. Even poor management works better than none -- to a point where it is equivalent to none. But the idyllic situation where workers call the shots is an unattainable utopia. And it always has been.

Used to be civil service. Now it's private sectors as well. Not just in management anymore either. Actually, when I think about it, it also affects the public higher education sector too.

Basically, it's affirmative action for the ethnic majority. The civil service sector is bloated with that majority already and there's government pressure on the private sector (which traditionally used to be filled by the other ethnic divides) to take on the newer graduates (again ethnic specific) churned out from local universities who barely earned their degrees.

If you were hoping to rail against the evils of affirmative action for minority groups, sorry, it's the other way around here.

Interesting tidbit. During the formative years, it was heavily argued that the ethnic minorities who did most of the urban development (British colonial practices of labor import) weren't to be given citizenship, never mind generations of labor and investment. Citizenship ended up being given, but that particular faction never went really went away. It's gotten a lot stronger of late.

It's pretty much a race issue gone off the deep end.
No, this seems more like an opportunity to rant against the involvement of government in private commerce. But I'll save that for another time. I've got several engineers out in the field and I'm trying to do their work and my own.