3 ms·
> Take the “when” of work. By default, our days are organised around 9-5, a system that was formalised for factory workers by Henry Ford in the US in 1926. Many
by jschveibinz 5y ago
> Take the “when” of work. By default, our days are organised around 9-5, a system that was formalised for factory workers by Henry Ford in the US in 1926. Many of us do not work in factories however. Why are we hanging on to this linear day as the only schedule in which work can be done?>
The author is questioning the concept of division of labor and the associated efficiencies of that type of organization. Without division of labor, each worker must become an independent craftsperson. In other words, they must be able to do the whole task themselves, start to finish, with all of the necessary equipment at their disposal. Some jobs are amenable to this while still remaining efficient. Most jobs, however, including many technical jobs, are not. That is why people work together and in the same location.
If the issue of “Zoom fatigue”, mental health and remote work space can be addressed such that efficiency of labor is maintained or even improved, then remote work makes sense. It would really help save lives from traffic accidents and reduce carbon emissions.
- teraku 5y agoI agree with your observation but disagree with your conclusion. I believe division of labor is paramount to avoid burn-out. Of course, we would want to have the freedom to split our work around our workday. But that usually means work never ends. And for cognitive workers (like IT), it's hard to just turn it 'off' at some point and think about something else. If something is bugging you, you keep thinking about it. Is that considered work (time)? Also, while I do believe we do not need as many synchronous meetings as we have right now (even remotely), I think we do need some. But people *also* need to get better at asynchronous work.