From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Sat Nov 16 2002 - 20:12:05 MST
Alexander Sheppard wrote: --but why not just have a system where the people
who produce something care about producing it because they think producing it
is important? Instead of having a system which is essentially a war of all
against all, why not have one where people cooperate voluntarily for purposes
they see as important? Is nothing meaningful to anyone except a threat? Are
people really that stupid, and the masters really that intelligent? And how
is this a humanistic system?
## Guys, several of you have tried to debate Alexander on this point.
Alexander's basic problem is that he keeps dreaming of a capitalist system
and doesn't realise it.
In a capitalist system:
1. Producers have to put their customers first or the first competitor that
does do so will have all the business.
2. People who are best as producers are people that care deeply about their
work and produce the best quality possible for the lowest costs possible.
3. People who are best as employers and make the most money are people that
find way to compensate and treat their people fairly. They spend a great
deal of time trying to decide how to get the employee what he or she is
wanting.
I remember being at Ford in the manufacturing area as a management
consultant. I was teaching Ford engineers and managers how to do an old, old
technique called Work Simplification. I also spent a lot of time during my
four years on that assignment (off and on) reading up on the history of Ford
and how he did business. He was the first to raise the pay of his workers to
$5/day. He immediately antagonised the other employers -- but then he got
the best employees. He brought in the best management consultants and tested
their knowledge in his plants.
To this day I have never heard of one management techinque for use in
manufacturing that was not tried first at Ford. Yes, that includes the
modern Japanese methods.
The explanation was very simple -- Ford was in love with making cars
and looked for every method he could to make more, cheaper and better. In
addition he raised pay for his workers to the point of alienating his
competitors.
Later as he got older stories went around that were not too kind to
the old man. Maybe he stayed too long at the ball.
Ron h
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:11 MST