Due to my inability to ignore bad processes and my wanting to get paid more, over the last couple years I've been moving from a 100% design role to a part-design, part staffing manager. I now assign fellow designers in my engineering sub-department to the projects our company is hired for. I have very little input in what projects we take on, but from my position I can read their budgets and expected hours for various client submissions, I then take this info and try to balance the work between my coworkers. In the past 6 months we've been completely overwhelmed with work, too many hours of work to do for our team. Thankfully, our project managers and clients have had project deadlines slip but the projections always show a ton of work upcoming and many coworkers are working unpaid overtime. I've been advocating for hiring more designers, and in the last month have become very explicit in voicing this need, but, I think, worry about economic recession has kept management from posting a job opportunity online.
Does anyone have an idea or opinion that can help me? Am I selling out by leaving my design only role?
I am considering looking for a new job, I'm very in demand as there are few electrical engineers in my field. I'm also considering applying to grad schools in Europe, cheaper and more relevant to my specific goals, but my undergrad GPA was pretty bad. I worry that I'm running from my life though, and I could have an opportunity here to positively change my firm's culture?
Wouldn't that also be necessary under communism? Weren't factories given targets, and weren't there bureaucrats assigning and verifying those targets, and assigning tasks to workers and so on? In my mind it's hard to imagine not having managers in an industrial society
There were some important differences in the ussr, especially around firing practices. Hell, there still are. My understanding is that Russia still has a lot of labor protections unheard of in the us.
One of the main issues with managers under capitalism is hiring and firing power. It's literally the power to kill those who are insufficiently profitable. In theory, at least, that power doesn't exist in a socialist society - everyone's needs are met, employment is a right and society constructs systems to ensure that everyone who can work is connected with useful work within their abilities. Workplace democracy also changes the situation a great deal. My understanding is that in many parts of the ussr management power was far from absolute or unilateral. While there may not have been actual strikes labor still had a great deal of power and management had to be considerate of that if they wanted things to run smoothly.
There's also a difference between managers and supervisors. If you don't have the power to fire people or cut their pay you're probably not a manager in the sense that the word is used when discussing labor struggle. Being a supervisor and directing work within a team or shop is fine. Even an ideal non-hierarchical group will often find benefit in having a chosen person working in a leadership role to coordinate the actions of the group and facilitate communication and cooperation.
This is a big thing. There's a change in dynamic because a worker has no incentive to stay at a workplace beyond being productive there and enjoying it, therefore you'd only 'fire' people who were less useful than nobody at all.
Yeah but the relation between manager and staff would be so different that they would be very different positions. For example there is no reason under communism managers should not be elected