Without further context "the work environment" refers to nothing that can be discussed. So, If the point was to tease out biases in the response, sure this is reasonable. But if the point was to discuss "the work environment" with anything approximating value or meaning, then this is a dead end thread.
The fact is the concept presented for discussion differs from case-to-case-to-case in such wildly intense degrees that this is not a coherent concept in and of itself. Not really apt to be discussed other than.... — AmadeusD
It’s out of Marx’s Das Kapital. — NOS4A2
The enclosure movement started when? In the middle Ages? What I remember is that this took a HUGE time in England, whereas the division of common lands for example here (when we were part of the Kingdom of Sweden) it all was done once in the Great Partition in the middle of the 18th Century. Whereas in the UK this was done it bits and small parcels individually extended through a long time, continuing to the 19th Century. (Or I don't know, is it still done somewhere?)Is it your opinion that the enclosures movement had no effect? — NOS4A2
When the factory system came into being in England, an army of workers were readily available because the State had expropriated them from their land.
Here we have shortage of teachers too. Basically, most of the people don't want this job because it has a low income and the environment (as it is pointed out by the OP) is quite horrible. My generation has lost the basic sense of ethics and civism, and the classrooms are full of bullying, thugs, and stupid teenagers who think they are over of the teacher's authority.
Honestly, I think the worst environments nowadays are high-schools and even universities. — javi2541997
As I thought you were a proponent of capitalism and individualism, I think it's strange that here you go with Marx.Though I still think the enclosures acts were an injustice, and the evicted peasantry were left off with not much else, it cannot be said these acts provided an army of laborers for the factory. — NOS4A2
That's not at all like where I teach at and I teach in a very rough area. Where are you at? — RogueAI
That's a very good point.I hope you realize one needn’t agree with everything an author believes in order to agree on a few points. — NOS4A2
The Swedish account just shows how things like land reform have a lot more nuances as usually is portrayed. And so is with capitalism, and coming back to the topic of this thread, with the work place and workers movement (which is the historical viewpoint of the OP).And though I find your point valid and agreeable, I’m not sure the debate is entirely settled.
Undoubtedly, the Swedish account you describe is more preferable, morally and economically. — NOS4A2
In Sweden there aristocracy was never dominant, they had to take into account the strong position of the peasants, who were independent. You can notice this from the fact that the Swedish peasantry have never revolted. — ssu
Maybe this is intended as a conversation about the ethics of Western capitalism. — Tom Storm
It's the organization that's similar between jobs that make "working conditions" coherent. — Moliere
Yes, it is surprising what works out and what doesn't. It was a crapshoot. I went with my deepest feeling instead of always having to guard what I say to the detriment of my own principles.But, in most cases, the events didn't turn out as badly as I expected at the beginning. I thought I was very negative regarding facing confrontation, but after reading your post I am not feeling alone any more. — javi2541997
Do notice the extremely important thing: 3/4 of the population owned lots. Even if they were very small lots and had only a couple of cows and few patches of land, these people were land owners. The outcome of this you can see actually looking at map of countryside in Sweden or in Finland: the houses are separate and not in Medieval-type villages. This is the effect of the Great Partition.3/4 of the population owned very small lots, so one might have reason to suspect that these peasants were simply too poor to revolt against the ruling nobility, church, and monarchy. — jkop
What are others views on such topic from experience!? Can this actually be fixed or improved within organizations in a way that is justifiable? How can it be done so that it is fair and corresponds with everyone? — Born2Insights
That is, does it offer protections against rascim, sexism and violence in the workplace? Are the benefits promised (like vacation time, daily work schedule) honored? Do you receive credit where due and are you now blamed for things you did not do? Are you treated with respect and given honest feedback? That it what an ethical environment is to me. — Hanover
I do think capitlistic systems grow more ethical over time, making life in a 21st century factory a more ethical work environment than one built when the industrial revolution was first underway. — Hanover
The poverty of peasants isn't at all a reason for there not to be peasant revolts, I'd say it's on the contrary! People that have nothing to lose can lose it. What would they lose if they have nothing to lose? Land ownership is something that makes people to take care of their property. Extreme poverty leads to a very shaky and violent society. — ssu
It's the organization that's similar between jobs that make "working conditions" coherent. — Moliere
There is no universal relationship between employer and employee beyond the "fact of" (which doesn't, on it's face, involve any interaction or disposition at all) — AmadeusD
The relationship between employer and employee has no relationship beyond the fact that they have a relationship, and yet that relationship doesn't involve any interaction or disposition -- ever? — Moliere
which means.. You are leapfrogging over the discussion into one which I am not having. Though, I have very, VERY clearly stated that once there are details(i.e an example of), that discussion is apt and important. Unless you involve some specifics, there is nothing to discuss. "the workplace" doesn't even exist unless you are talking about a workplace. In that case, go for gold and I likely have as many, and similar critiques to yourself. But the concept itself means nothing but that there is a relationship. Not what it is, or that it requires any interaction.on it's face, — AmadeusD
under capital it's a time-for-money system. — Moliere
I give time for money. Unless you're talking something like feudalism or before then I think it holds: under capital it's a time-for-money system. That structure is what makes "working conditions" coherent. — Moliere
The relationship between employer and employee has no relationship beyond the fact that they have a relationship, and yet that relationship doesn't involve any interaction or disposition -- ever? — Moliere
Is there some reason [...] that you're replying to a reply... — AmadeusD
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.