I recently saw an interview with the president of a company I used to work for. He used and was asked about the term “workforce management”. He explained it as the ability to have the right employee, at the right time and in the right place. This information provides managers with the ability to reduce hours or eliminate employees altogether if there was overlap within the “workforce”. Actions like these have greatly increased many companies’ efficiency. But if you use less to do more, and the population is increasing, then up goes unemployment. It’s happening everywhere even while we watch these companies’ evaluations rise to dizzying heights.
When I asked my supervisor how to respond to questions about people losing their jobs when the technology was brought in, I was told to say that the technology isn’t there to take your job, but rather to help you do your job. One time I was confronted with, “But I don’t need any help doing my job.” To that I could just refer her to her boss. But I knew the score. Our equipment indeed replaced many of these people, and helped to find where others were not needed.
My employer had helped bring to the information age the ability to track employees’ hours, vacation, overtime, etc., with terminals (time clocks) that had the internal hardware and software to calculate an employee’s hours for the pay period, or larger amounts of dumber terminals all connected to a computer to apply all the rules.
Then they stepped into the area of scheduling and started using the term, “workforce management.” Experience, availability, and the company’s need at any one time are all entered into a calculation designed to help companies operate at peak efficiency.
They now even help their clients apply psychology to the hiring process since there is such a large pool of people from which to choose. I found this out as I helped a friend who was looking for a job and came across one of their online surveys. It had revealing questions like, “Would you rather be soaking wet, or slapped in the face?”
Does the planet’s collective workforce have to look over its shoulder for the rising tide of efficiency? Or would it be wise to give up some efficiencies in the name of employment? The latter doesn’t seem possible with the extreme competitiveness brought on by the likes of globalization. Will any of it even be sustainable while we require our economies to be constantly growing, and seem to have unlimited supply of people on a limited planet?
We finally even know the sky is limited as we fill it with all our gaseous emissions. I truly wonder, “What price?”
When I asked my supervisor how to respond to questions about people losing their jobs when the technology was brought in, I was told to say that the technology isn’t there to take your job, but rather to help you do your job. One time I was confronted with, “But I don’t need any help doing my job.” To that I could just refer her to her boss. But I knew the score. Our equipment indeed replaced many of these people, and helped to find where others were not needed.
My employer had helped bring to the information age the ability to track employees’ hours, vacation, overtime, etc., with terminals (time clocks) that had the internal hardware and software to calculate an employee’s hours for the pay period, or larger amounts of dumber terminals all connected to a computer to apply all the rules.
Then they stepped into the area of scheduling and started using the term, “workforce management.” Experience, availability, and the company’s need at any one time are all entered into a calculation designed to help companies operate at peak efficiency.
They now even help their clients apply psychology to the hiring process since there is such a large pool of people from which to choose. I found this out as I helped a friend who was looking for a job and came across one of their online surveys. It had revealing questions like, “Would you rather be soaking wet, or slapped in the face?”
Does the planet’s collective workforce have to look over its shoulder for the rising tide of efficiency? Or would it be wise to give up some efficiencies in the name of employment? The latter doesn’t seem possible with the extreme competitiveness brought on by the likes of globalization. Will any of it even be sustainable while we require our economies to be constantly growing, and seem to have unlimited supply of people on a limited planet?
We finally even know the sky is limited as we fill it with all our gaseous emissions. I truly wonder, “What price?”
Last edited by a moderator:
Facebook
Twitter