this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
160 points (97.6% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
6562 readers
61 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, standing in front of a blast furnace all day just does kinda inherently suck and people tend to not do it when given the choice, and it puts a lot of stress on your health so it's reasonable for people to want to exit. See the Soviet experience of industrial development - this was a country that had all the social benefits you mention but they still struggled to attract people to jobs in heavy industry especially after the war.
They came to the same conclusion - If you want workers in those kinds of jobs you have to add extra incentives.
I think we are generally in agreement that standing in front of a blast furnace all day would suck pretty badly. But I am not sure such work must always be miserable. To be fair I have never worked with a blast furnace, but I don't see why someone's job should be to do the same thing every day for years on end. Management should switch up worker roles frequently, perhaps multiple times a day if the task is particularly odious. And if there are ergonomic or environmental reasons it isn't tolerable or safe, those reasons should be addressed, such as providing better PPE or custom built tools.
Adding extra incentives is part of making factory work sustainable in the long run, but it's going to take more than an extra $(insert number)/hour to make workers safe and happy. And I really don't think we should give up on trying to make factory workers safe and happy.
you want to be productive and efficient and that means promoting specialization/division of labor as much as possible
Sure, I can agree that division of labor is crucial. But I work in a factory where what I suggest is somewhat of a reality. Cross training is a purposeful practice because it creates a more flexible/robust workforce. Jobs that are the worst to work are typically shared amongst a large number of people so that nobody has to do it all day, which promotes worker wellness and thereby efficiency. Ergonomic and safety concerns are addressed so that workers stay healthy and can work more efficiently.
The place I work is a B corp.
Your implied stance that people should only do one thing ever doesn't make sense to me. For the more specialized roles at my facility that are potentially odious, they generally have a much easier workload, and they aren't doing only that one task anywhere close to all day most days.
So let's not say that people should give up on making factories places where workers can be happy. You can have efficient workers who know how to do more than one thing.