Wages for Dirty Jobs

[MKS]

I read in one of Noam Chomsky's papers or essays that in an Anarchist society he would accept and promote the payment of wages to anyone who was willing to work the "dirty" jobs i.e. Garbage collection, cleaning, maintenance. Any of the jobs that no one would want on the basis of fulfillment with work. Like a Carpenter finds fulfillment out of making things out of wood, a garbage man probably finds no fulfillment from picking up someone’s garbage.

Is paying wages for these jobs a good thing? Does it exploit workers? Is there a better way to ensure these necessary jobs get done?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Is paying wages for these jobs a good thing? Does it exploit workers? Is there a better way to ensure these necessary jobs get done?

I would say personally, the best way for jobs like a Garbage man to be fulfilled. Would be for them to be on a rota basis, therefore everyone must take a turn to do them.

[Regicidal Insomniac]

Ideally, people would clean up after their own bloody selves. In workplaces, all employees should take turns doing the cleanings and there should never be one set 'cleaner'. I am currently working as 'the cleaner' in a restaurant and understand fully the hierarchy and bitterness that merely creating the job can result in, even though I am not paid less than most of the other workers.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Ideally, people would clean up after their own bloody selves. In workplaces, all employees should take turns doing the cleanings and there should never be one set 'cleaner'. I am currently working as 'the cleaner' in a restaurant and understand fully the hierarchy and bitterness that merely creating the job can result in, even though I am not paid less than most of the other workers.

As you correctly observed. I think a lot of it is to do with how the job of "cleaner" is viewed. People, instinctively almost, view cleaning as a degrading job. When, as we all know, it is just another cog in the running of a successful workplace.

Whilst I am in favour of a rota system. I also think in a Communist society, people would realise that being a cleaner, is no more or less important, than being a doctor.

[STI]

Well, for starters, be skeptical whenever you read Chomsky. He says a lot of things (my two favourites are "we can reform our way to anarchism" and "hey, we should vote for Kerry").

Now that the ad hominems are out of the way, on to the real issue...

You know that guy who "takes one for the team"? The guy who voluntarily trops through the mud to get a football. It feels great to be that guy, doesn't it?

So, there's that. If that fails, collective scheduling of "shit jobs" is a definite option. Of course, some people might just choose not to live up to their responsibilities. In that case, a collective shunning from the community would probably be in order (peer pressure can be very powerful. After all, who wants to live life being looked-down-upon by the community because of shirking off a job that everybody has to do?).

[MKS]

You know that guy who "takes one for the team"? The guy who voluntarily trops through the mud to get a football. It feels great to be that guy, doesn't it?

Trust me it dosent feel great to clean garbage and waste. In a large society there will have to be waste removal, sewage removal and other "dirty jobs" just are there are now. Relying on people who want to feel good for doing something for society will not work, the jobs are too big to rely on such idealism and altruism.



collective scheduling of "shit jobs"

Wouldn’t that be the job of a state? To schedule and administer but also enforce the schedule of workers. Wouldn’t that then create an opportunity for corruption and oppression? Let’s say a workers council votes for a certain section of workers to Waste removal and those workers refuse to work, who will enforce the vote?

Instead paying a wage or incentive will give the worker a reason for doing the job, other than altruism, and will protect against possible centralization of power. If the worker chooses to quit the job, then another worker could be found to take his place. No one is compelled, no one is forced. When there are other options, when Capitalism is destroyed, wages stop acting as a restrictive chain and act more as a reward for commitment, hard work and sacrifice for the people and for their community
.

[anarchy]

it does seem to exploit, because it seems as though they need to be insured pay, becasue the job is "dirty" and they(the emplorers) are having pity on them. If I were in this situation I would feel violated, and if I actually cared about their opinion, maybe ashamed. There is a difference between recognition for doing a job, that is not as "desirable" as other, and then there is down right mochary, I suppose in this situation one needs to decide if this line has been broken!

[MKS]

it does seem to exploit, because it seems as though they need to be insured pay, becasue the job is "dirty" and they(the emplorers) are having pity on them

Their employers would be the people. We would not be pitying them, but thanking them for taking the job. How else would you compensate for such work? You could give them property or material items but that would be the same as a wage. Remember no one is being forced to take the job, unlike in Capitalism where there is compulsion by circumstance and necessity. A wage or payment would only be made as a incentive to do the dirty jobs, no one would go hungry or homeless if they refused or chose not to do the dirty jobs.


There is a difference between recognition for doing a job, that is not as "desirable" as other, and then there is down right mochary,

The system presented is not in any way Monarchy, such a claim is not only baseless but also absurd!

Recognition is nice, but I’m sure the guy that has been shoveling garbage all day wants more than a pat on the back and a thank you. Not only are they entitled to more than that, it should be the responsibility of every community to ensure that those who take on the dirty jobs are given everything they deserve.

[JKP]

In communist society, work is "voluntary"...that is, any given person may "take" what s/he "needs" for a dignified life without being compelled to so much as lift a finger.

Thus people will gravitate towards that kind of "work" which they enjoy; people will not have "jobs" but rather interests or projects that they will pursue with considerable diligence...because it's "what they really like to do" since they "are really good at it".

There will be, of course, social prestige attached to particular interests or projects...those who choose interests and projects which benefit society in ways that people perceive as important will be highly regarded. Those whose interests are more personal will probably be looked down upon and possibly even snubbed entirely.

It will be something of a trade-off: "she is an electrical engineer specializing in reliable power generation...and is on the A-list of every social group in the region" while "he spends his time studying old internet archives and only other antiquarians enjoy his company".

But what of the socially necessary tasks that are not interesting and rewarding in themselves?

Or as you will hear from day one of first telling people that you're a communist: who will clean the sewers?

If survival is not at stake, who will have the "incentive" to do the "dirty jobs"?

Let's face it, "boring, dirty, and unpleasant" is a reasonably accurate description of most jobs under capitalism.

Some of this unpleasantness could be alleviated by simple improvements in working conditions and reduction in the hours of work "expected"...it's one thing to spend a day on the back of a garbage truck once a week or once every two weeks and quite another to do it 48 hours a week. It's one thing to do it with a facemask and other protective gear, quite another to do it without.

This suggests one possible approach: divide up the unskilled shit work amongst everyone. Everyone "must" put in, say, 8 or 16 hours a month performing some unpleasant but socially necessary task.

But you see the problem: whenever you say people "must" do something unpleasant, then you open a barrel of unpleasantness yourself. You will have to find people who are willing to enforce the "must"...a very unpleasant job in itself and a sharp reduction in the "freedom from compulsory labor" that we made our revolution to secure.

We could ask for volunteers, of course. And the minority who do volunteer could receive "social rewards" in prestige, public acclamation, etc. We could "teach" an "ethic" of volunteering on behalf of the general welfare and this would somewhat increase the "pool" of volunteers over time.

When 20th century Leninists talked about "the new man of socialist society", this is what they had in mind...even though there was no way any significant number of such "new men" (or women) could emerge in a Leninist class society. In class society, to volunteer for unpaid labor is, from a material standpoint, stupid.

And we know that material reality prevails, do we not?

Were we to "make a list" of the "shit jobs" under capitalism, some interesting conclusions could be drawn.

Many of those tasks will no longer be "necessary" under communism. In particular, the vast armies of clerical workers employed by state and corporate bureaucracies can be demobilized...as neither states nor corporations will exist.

The process of replacing manual labor with machine labor (automation/cybernation) in controlled environments has been going on for a long time and will doubtless continue. By the time of a communist revolution, there may not be much of it left.

Much of the "service industry" may well disappear after the revolution for a different reason--what many people actually do in the contemporary service industry is what servants used to do in the 19th century. It was considered "degrading" then; and is not particularly admired now.

Since a lot of it is not really "socially necessary", a lot of it will probably disappear.

Still, when all is said and done, the sewers must either be cleaned on a regular basis or they will become blocked, turds will float in the streets, and your toilet will stop working. How can we get people to be "willing" to take care of this socially necessary but very unpleasant task?

Well, let's consider. Remember that communism is not "Heaven". However abundant the material goodies of life might be, there will not be an infinite supply of everything that's desirable.

In other words, there will be rationing...to make sure that everyone gets an approximately equal share.

There will also be waiting lists...it's not possible to produce everything that everyone wants all at once. For example, products that require a substantial amount of co-ordinated labor to produce may be in relatively short supply...and though available upon request, may involve a considerable period of waiting before one is ready for you.

Here is a "window of opportunity" that communist society could use: those who are willing to clean the sewers and do the other kinds of boring, unpleasant jobs go to the head of the list for desirable goods in short supply. They do not get "more" than others in the long run, but they get what they want sooner.

What such people lose in "job satisfaction", they gain in "immediate material gratification"...or as close to "immediate" as we can manage.

I regard this as a temporary measure, of course. In the long run, we humans should be able to build robots to do any task that humans find boring or unpleasant. But the artificial intelligence community is still a long way from building anything more intelligent than an insect. So we need a way to "plug" the technological "gap" and make sure that the socially necessary work gets done.

In addition, there is a kind of justice to this arrangement that strongly appeals to me. In capitalist society, those who have the most interesting and challenging careers also gain the greatest material rewards; while millions of people who do the grubby shitwork that keeps civilization functioning receive, for their indispensable labors, shit pay and no respect!

Thus, when you see someone driving a new car or who has a really swell apartment in a new building, unlike now, you will know that they really earned those things, doing work that you would not want to have to do yourself.

As we need to remind ourselves, under communism things will be very different.


-courtesy of redstar
http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.ph...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083202823&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[JKP]

Also, you guys seem to be forgetting that in a communist/anarchist society, money would be abolished. There could be no "wage" as you speak of.

[violencia.Proletariat]

why is being a garbage man so looked down upon? you dont do anything but ride in a truck and press a damn button, why is that so "disgusting" its a good job for "lazy people"

[JKP]

I thought about being a garbage man once actually. Although by the time a revolution happens, garbage men may not even be necessary.

[MKS]

those who are willing to clean the sewers and do the other kinds of boring, unpleasant jobs go to the head of the list for desirable goods in short supply. They do not get "more" than others in the long run, but they get what they want sooner.

How is that different from paying somebody? Remember those at the front of the list will not only get things first but if there are shortages they may be some of the only people to get things thus creating an inequality. Becuase of that others will argue why a garbage mans labour is valued more than a construction workers or a mechanics. As soon as you give reward you create inequality. A wage however would not create inequality, it would simply be a means of reimbursement for time spent. Again since there is no Capitalism it wold not be wage slavery as there is no compulsion to work the dirty jobs, only a fair pay or compensation for taking on a less desirable task.


Also, you guys seem to be forgetting that in a communist/anarchist society, money would be abolished. There could be no "wage" as you speak of.

There would be no wage, but there might still be money. A wage is something you pay a worker for time worked. Money is a unit of gold, paper, silver etc that holds a value. Therefore under an egalitarian society a worker who hauls garbage, pumps out sewers, etc could be given a wage, a compensation that would compensate him/her for their time spent for the betterment of the community. The compensation scale would be decided by the workers and agreed upon by the community, it would not be imposed by an employer but rather agreed upon by the whole of the people.

You quoted a RedStar paper or essay that oversimplifies the matter of "dirty jobs", references to robots and the subjectivity of what a dirty job is that stray from the real crisis or problem of Leftist ideology. The "dirty jobs" are real and there are many of them. I have worked hauling garbage, pumping out sewage treatment systems and washing dishes. People will not work these jobs if they do not have to, if they are not given fair compensation.

The problem with dividing the work among the people is the enforcement of the principle and I suppose law that would be imposed. Not only is a fixed power structure created to enforce the law, but one is created to draft and decide the law or laws. Such a Centralization of power would only create another tyranny. It is very Leninist and something that should never be promoted.

Another problem arises when discussing this topic; intelligence. Some people are not as intelligent as others, its just genetics, but these people are better equipped and more apt to take the dirty jobs, simply because they could not handle complicated jobs such as; engineer, doctor, scientist, teacher, architect, etc. We should not relegate these people as "lower class", we should compensate them for the "dirty jobs" they will undertake, we should treat them as an equally valued member of society, because their job is crucial to the survival of the community.

Dirty jobs are a crucial part of any functioning society, the question of labour and fulfillment is a complicated one, but the a wage/compensation system I believe is best suited to ensure equality and fairness, as well as prevent the creation of entrenched oligarchies or power structures.

[JKP]

The context that you're describing a wage is actually a "labour voucher" (or a modern equivalent).

Just trying to make sure that we're on the same page here.

[MKS]

The context that you're describing a wage is actually a "labour voucher" (or a modern equivalent).

I think you're splitting hairs with that one. There is no difference between a wage and a labour voucher, the only real difference could be that the wage is cash or money whereas a voucher can be redeemed for services or trade of goods.

[KC]

Communism abolishes money. No money means no wages. Nobody gets paid. Everything is free. People that "work harder" or "do dirtier jobs" get just as much out of society as everybody else (although they might get more out of themselves by working harder; i.e. happiness).

Everyone can clean up after their own selves. Payment in a communist society isn't an option. What are they going to do with these vouchers? What are they going to do with their wages? It's a lot easier if people just clean up after themselves. And it would eliminate a lot of jobs. A rotational schedule is a bad idea because it goes against the very foundation of communism - voluntary labour.

[bombeverything]

There are always "better ways", but I am assuming that he meant that since those doing the shit jobs have to put in more effort and sacrifice these jobs should be comparatively rewarded.

Yet at the same time this could obviously result in some people having a monopoly on the good -- less stressful, more empowering -- jobs which would give them more power in the decision making process.

Thus I agree this method alone would not be sufficient for the maintenance of a free and equal society, although I haven't read the paper so I am unsure if this was what he meant.

[STI]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 12:30 AM

collective scheduling of "shit jobs"

Wouldn’t that be the job of a state? To schedule and administer but also enforce the schedule of workers. Wouldn’t that then create an opportunity for corruption and oppression? Let’s say a workers council votes for a certain section of workers to Waste removal and those workers refuse to work, who will enforce the vote?
The collective scheduling would be a safeguard against the failing of altruism.

But there's no reason for there to be a state and have this. I'm definately not a state-socialist, so you don't have to worry about me intentionally setting up a state. What I expect would happen would be just like any other decision in an anarchist society. Some sort of collective meeting where the schedule is made up. No need for any centralization or a state.

[KC]

Or everybody cleans up after themselves. If you want equality then everybody gets the same for what they do.

[SocialistDaveBackFromTheDead]

This isn't the first time I've said this but:

I have a really interesting point. But I don't fell like sharing.

[Lord Testicles]

This isn't the first time I've said this but:

I have a really interesting point. But I don't fell like sharing.

Idiot, that adds to the disscussion how?

anyways i think there should be some kind of rotor system so that people take it in turns to pick up rubish and so on and with the earths population no-one would have to do it tiwce in a long time unless there in a small village of couse, so everyone can take a week of to be a voluntary rubish man.

[KC]

anyways i think there should be some kind of rotor system so that people take it in turns to pick up rubish and so on and with the earths population no-one would have to do it tiwce in a long time unless there in a small village of couse, so everyone can take a week of to be a voluntary rubish man.


Or how about everybody cleans up after themselves instead of having one person clean up after everybody? If you want people equal then you will give them equal responsibility.

[Lord Testicles]

If you want people equal then you will give them equal responsibility.

thats what im saying, see if people clean after themselfs its not equal because one person might make less of a mess than another, were if people take it in weekly turns then there should be more or less the same each week.

[Hegemonicretribution]

This sounds a bit like brave new world minus eugenics.

Perhaps those involved in garbage disposal should do what it is they do. ie they have power over that product of society. If this applied across the board there would be harmony. Prevention of exploitation would be conducted without need for a state, because the withdrawal of labour would affect the larger community. This is not to say that positions are to be used for leverage, rather that the continuation of modern day society without a state would require co-operation amongst the populace. This is just one idea of how this may be possible without force or dreaming that everybody will be perfect. (At least at first)

In a sense I guess it would be like applying market economics to labour, but whether or not this is true, there will always be this analysis to stand by it.

[commiecrusader]

I don't think running garbage collections on a rota basis is a good idea. It is definitely something that needs people to do it for quite a long time because:
1. You need at least one, preferably 2 people who know each round, otherwise it will take forever and areas may not even get done
2. Despite the appearance of many binmen, a high fairly high level of fitness is required due to the gruelling nature of the work. Many people will just not be physically able to do it (it nearly killed me lol)
3. Not everyone can drive a dustcart.

There are other reasons that I can't be bothered to go into, but in short, a rota is a bad idea. I don't necessarily think wages would be required, since the job has it's own perks, e.g. finished work by lunchtime usually, friendly atmosphere (once you get familiar with everyone), different every day, working outdoors. I much preferred being a binman to any other job I've had in my admittedly short employment history. It is hard but rewarding work and despite societie's negative views on binmen, they all know that without them society would quickly start to suffer.

[KC]

People can take their own garbage to the dump.

[visceroid]

in my suburb, the binmen dont have to do anything except drive the truck and push a button, a giant claw grabs the bins and dumps them in the back of the truck, that would be a cushy job imo, if you felt like contributing alot to society without having to physically do alot.

though i dont see how wages will work when you can get stuff for free anyway

[coda]

If communism dispenses with the money system... where is the point in handing out wages to some. The money will be valueless.