• 7bicycles [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      True, true, however I’d argue anything over like 5 - 10 people or so is organisational failure again because it just becomes unmanageable for above reasons

      Not that it don’t happen, don’t get me wrong, but that’s just squeezing people

      • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s really hard to make general statements because of the variance in work environments. A big box store, a large restaurant, a factory, a mine, an agricultural job, etc. may have quite a few more people than 10-15 working per shift, but may only require one manager per shift. Those are the areas where managerial work is light (as you pointed out) so you can scale up without adding much more of it. I can also think of more complex jobs where workers are pretty self-contained (law, accounting, medicine), where if your workforce is experienced enough you may need only light managerial work.

        • 7bicycles [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          may have quite a few more people than 10-15 working per shift, but may only require one manager per shift. Those are the areas where managerial work is light (as you pointed out) so you can scale up without adding much more of it.

          I disagree heavily here, again. It’s just all of those people are getting fucking fleeced because nobody wants to pay for a foreman. Join a Union, folks.