Automation replacing people

A previous plant wide system installation left 15 people reassigned (not "Fired" mind you).
First, the people would actually produce about 1 hour a day in their old position. The rest of the time was spent napping, reading, placing bets etc. (I saw or heard all of this over 2 years on site)
Second, their new positions required more attention so their employer actually got 8 hours of work for 8 hours of pay - seems fairer.
Third, Yes, it was a government job.
 
J

John Palmisano

[Originally posted 2/3/1998]
This is certainly the first time I can remember a thread like this being explored on this listserv.

Has anyone made the connection to Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.'s "Player Piano"?

John P.
 
D
[Originally posted 2/3/1998]
Ken Roach from Rockwell, John Kowal of The Brady Company and Neil
Waddell from Stoughton Trailers have the grasp of this issue. If the point is going to be debated, though, you have to maintain a strict difference in the debate between micro and macro economics. Something that is tragic in the particular may be beneficial in the general. When a wildebeest on the Serengetti Plain sadly succumbs to the lion's
predation, it would be absurd to respond by preventing lions from hunting. If a family member or friend loses their job due to an influx of automation, our natural instinct is to rail against a heartless employer even though we can simultaneously acknowledge the possibility
that the employer's pruning will create a net beneficial effect in the longer term. Generally speaking, employers who sack people unnecessarily
usually have the consequences of their foolishness visited upon them and don't ultimately survive.

Ideally, redundancy should be seen as (and indeed, is for many) an opportunity to upgrade skills, improve qualifications and/ or retrain.
IMHO the debate, if its going to do any good, should concentrate on the obstacles and barriers to people re-joining an increasingly
technology-based economy.

We might start for example, by examining what part we play in creating these barriers. As engineers, we are often guilty of rendering
technology innaccessible and even frightening to people who didn't enjoy the benefit of an engineering education - and even those who were
educated a few cycles ago, but didn't keep up.

We insist on using gobbledey-gook words and if we can't find an obscure, confusing term for something - we invent one with relish. We all too
often take an active pleasure in writing undocumented code that no-one (not even ourselves after a while) can figure out, let alone those
people whose livelyhoods depend on the process being controlled. We systematically err on the side of over-complexity and happily justify
this with the extra "features" we have created (even if they don't actually work) without feeling any need to question whether there is
any real economic (much less social or environmental) justification for what we are doing.

Let's face it, we engineers have big egos and we love erecting monuments to our self-perceived cleverness. As a breed, we have reduced the
effective economic life cycle of most technology to approx 3 years and yet we take great satisfaction in claiming that the fruits of our labour will last for 20 years! We, who uniquely understand the folly of positive feedback loops, have majestically created this crazy technology
race, a self-perpetuating arena of bloody combat, and then, it seems, loftily tut-tut at the advent of casualties.

Maybe we should try a to follow the example set by Rufus Smith and engage more in an examination of what the future consequences of our endeavours may be. I certainly believe we should be better prepared to communicate about technology and its prospective consequences in terms more accessible to the public at large.

Food for thought?

Best regards
Derek Jones
 
J
[Originally posted 2/3/1998]
Today, unemployment is the lowest its been in over a decade, despite
many advances in automation. I believe that automation creates more opportunities than it takes away.

For those that advance their skill sets, the ensuing opportunities are more rewarding than the more menial tasks that are being replaced by automation.

If a company decides not to automate so as to keep more people employed, then that company is at a disadvantage compared to its competitors. It can lose business, go out of business, or be acquired by its competitors. Each of these scenarios also will most likely lead to job layoffs. However, if a company gains a competitive advantage via automation, it may actually have to increase staff to handle an increased market share.

The business market and job market are today very dynamic. People have to adapt. Adapting can be difficult or even painful for some people; and ideally if more help existed for helping these people adapt, then you might not feel so guilty.
 
W
[Originally posted 1/29/1998] What about all the previous centuries, when we nerds were forced to exist outside of our cubicles, perhaps farming, fishing, or selling cardamom pods? We're just getting even!

Anyway, for an opposing view (I notice that most of these posts justify automation), please see the complete unabomber manifesto at:

http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~mszydyk/unabomber/

;-) Willy Smith
 
K
[Originally posted 2/2/1998]
To list,

This topic surely has touched everyone. But, technology changes and society must change with it. I'm sure there were many blacksmiths, stable
owners, wagon makers, and sailmakers that would not vote for cars, gasoline engines, or non-wind driven ships.

How do you make sure it doesn't happen to you??? Unless you inherited lots of money, the only answer is to make sure you have a skill that
society needs and will pay for. Period. (ok, ok, winning the lottery might be another method but I wouldn't count on it)

Don't fool yourself into thinking that YOU don't "contribute" to the effect. Every time you email this list asking for help, comments, advice,
etc., it means you are doing your job more efficiently and your employer needs fewer employees with which to solve problems, get products to market, etc. Everytime you email someone, there is no letter to mail -
contributing to fewer paper mill operators, ink factory workers, postal carriers, etc.

The issue of re-training about-to-be-displaced workers is a valid concern and a separate, but related, issue. Companies many times forget the morale impact of "sacking" workers and the potential in re-training already loyal employees. The cost of training people can be high, especially if they get trained and get better jobs elsewhere. But, what if you DON'T train them and they stay? Then, you are forced into unpleasant alternatives to survive as a company.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth.

Kevin Wixom
[email protected]
 
W
[Originally posted 2/2/1998]
In the early 1980's, we developed a computer controlled electrochemical
process that today would be called a light's out factory. It has run commercially since 1990. No new people were added to integrate it into an
existing facility. It didn't create employment, it runs so well that one of our customers using the technology wants to convert the control system to another vendor because the maintenance people know the other product so much better because they have to work on it all the time. When you are successful in creating a no maintenance, no people attention necessary
systems, it is very difficult to justify maintaining skill levels necessary to cope with the problem that might arise. Thank heaven for modems and the people that developed the system. They can diagnose and repair worldwide from one central source. This is a changing world. We have been at the future and see what's coming! People will have a different role in the automated production systems of the next millenium.
 
A

A. V. Pawlowski

[Originally posted 2/4/1998]
I like idea 1. I have tried to work that way for many years when I
worked for myself. I did not retire, but I cut back my paid working hours, did more volunteer work and took more vacation. I simply set rates to give me an income that would have been the same as the average for someone working typical 40 hour weeks. Life was good.

Now I work for someone else again. In the Southeast yet. Life is not as good as it was. My experience is that you would be hard pressed to find one willing to share the wealth with employees to the extent of reduced hours. Most companies are just not that enlightened. I look forward to the time when they will be, or I start working for myself again (we probably don't need to guess which will be first).

I had not thought about ideas 2.1 and 2.2. They seem reasonable, but that good old capitalistic "greed factor" probably makes idea 1 more
radical than ideas 2.1 and 2.2
 
J

Johnson Lukose

[Originally posted 2/4/1998]
May I suggest that yourself and your company are in a better position to appreciate the talents, skills and intellectual property of these people in
automating, testing and commissioning food processing systems.

Therefore you / your company is best placed to offer them a position which will allow you to use their resources in similar future undertaking.

thanks.

Can be reached at;
=S= (M) Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia
Tel : +60 (0)3 7051150
Fax : +60 (0)3 7051170

I speak for me, myself and I... sometimes I am talking to myself!
 
[Originally posted 2/3/1998]
This snippet from Kevin Wixom brings up a question:

>The cost of training people can be high, especially if they get
>trained and get better jobs elsewhere.

A US colleague of mine who's now working at a Philips machinefabrik in Holland was amazed at the in-depth training of machinists there.

Apprentices spend three years learning not just how to operate a CNC, but physics, math, metallurgy, etc. Afterward, the workers are expected to be loyal, and of course, most European political and cultural systems encourage staying at the same job.

Now, a top notch tool & die maker in the US, such as my brother-in-law, can move anywhere he wants, and he's done so. But he never received formal training from an employer, and paid for his own
technical school tuition.

Would long term contracts in return for training help US mfrs acquire and retain workforces with the right skills, or am I naive?
Or are highly skilled "knowledge workers" better off as free agents in the US?


John Kowal
Account Manager
The Brady Company

Marketing o Advertising o Public relations
email: [email protected] N80 W12878 Fond du Lac Avenue
T: 414 255 0100 Menomonee Falls, WI 53051-4410
F: 414 255 3388
 
A

Allison Walker

[Originally posted 2/3/1998]
From yet another soapbox ...
The world is not going to stop automating processes. Because of the global drive for more, automation is inevitable and we must all prepare. Job training and ongoing re-training are extremely important. Companies need to be proactive in educating their workforce to deal with new skills. This helps employees feel more secure, LOYAL TO THEIR EMPLOYERS, and happy in their jobs/lives. Some will leave once they are educated, but you can't punish everyone (by not providing training) to prevent the few from leaving. A day or week's worth of downtime in
a plant probably costs more than a year's worth of education classes. Many of our students come to class angry and doubtful they can learn to use new technologies. It is a delight to see their faces light up as they write logic for a PLC or troubleshoot a field problem using a PC. Jobs are changing. The better prepared we are, the easier the transition will be and the more we will
be included in the change.

Education is the key

Allison Walker
[email protected]
 
D

David Lawton Mars

[Originally posted 2/3/1998]
Derek

I do agree with some of the things you state. However, I think you are *wrong* to tar all control people with the same brush. I personally pride myself on the level of documentation I provide in the software I write, and furthermore, run training courses for our maintenance people to ensure that they grasp it. Sure, some don't get it, but I'm making the effort. This effort is positively received by *everyone* involved at our
company on the maintenance side, and they appreciate the effort I put in. Okay, so I've got the so-called high-flying degree, and some of the code I write can be complex *when it needs to be*.
As I say, most of what you wrote is probably true, but there are a few control people out here who are actually *HUMAN*, and do understand the impact their systems can have on a 24 hour a day, 364 days a year production plant.
Regards
David.
 
H

Hevelton Araujo Junor

[Originally posted 2/4/1998]
I think that your suggestion to Americans (shorter work week) can be
applied for everyone. In highly industrialized countries, I believe that it is the only effective way to distribute the wealth; other countries can do other things, like land reform, state sponsored constructions, etc. But sticking to the issue at hand (Automation replacing people), my opinion is that the first thing we should do is to do a research/poll to find out the real numbers. Automation people (and I am one of them) say that automation creates more jobs than it takes away; non-automation people say differently. So we should have an independent research to determine the true facts and discuss from there. I personally believe that automation
eliminates more jobs than it creates. And it is only reasonable, since what we do is to have that once were done manually, to be done automatically. And I don't think that the re-placement/re-train can work very effectively
most of the time, because we need different people to do different things (I would certainly appreciate Mr. Sweeney's words on how that is done at PM). I believe that we have to face the fact that the work we do (automation) does cause people to lose their jobs, and at the rate technology is changing, these numbers (of people being replaced by automation) tend to grow. WE have to start looking for alternatives, like sorter work week, because the problem, I believe, is just starting.

Hevelton Araujo Junior
IHM Engenharia e Sistemas de Automação LTDA
[email protected]
 
R

Randy Sweeney

[Originally posted 2/3/1998]
We also have had the problem of "excess" reliability in some systems... but the answer is not to get less reliable equipment but to retain skills using
simulation and off-line systems.

BTW... not retaining skills is not an option since even the most reliable system eventually fails and when it does your goose is cooked if you don't even know how to open the cover!

If MTBF gets too high MTTR can skyrocket if you don't watch out.

Randy Sweeney
Philip Morris R&D
 
J
[Originally posted 2/4/1998]
Allison Walker makes a great point...(some snips)

>Job training...helps employees feel more secure, LOYAL TO THEIR EMPLOYERS.
>Some will leave once they are educated, but you can't punish everyone

And some of those who leave will become your loyal customers at their new companies.


John Kowal
Account Manager
The Brady Company

Marketing o Advertising o Public relations
email: [email protected] N80 W12878 Fond du Lac Avenue
T: 414 255 0100 Menomonee Falls, WI 53051-4410
F: 414 255 3388
 
W
[Originally posted 2/4/1998]
John Kowal wrote:
>
> Now, a top notch tool & die maker in the US, such as my brother-in-
> law, can move anywhere he wants, and he's done so. But he never
> received formal training from an employer, and paid for his own
> technical school tuition.
>
> Would long term contracts in return for training help US mfrs
> acquire and retain workforces with the right skills, or am I naive?
> Or are highly skilled "knowledge workers" better off as free agents
> in the US?

Kowal makes an interesting point. Very few people recognize a trained instrumentation technician or a tool and die maker as a
knowledge worker, but they are! So is a master machinist, and so are many other "hourly workers" from years past. It is in a company's best interest to offer as much training and incentive to keep these knowledge workers as they can, because if it is done with the right attitude by the company, it will reinforce the loyalty
needed to keep these workers for years and years....

....how will unions deal with their members asking for individual contracts because of their specialized knowledge?

Walt Boyes
 
[Originally posted 2/5/1998]
Hi,

Industry is subject to continuous change. All of which result in changes affecting employees. The acceptance of single employer for life is rapidly fading worldwide and this includes Japan. The wave of re-engineering exercises being conducting has led to more and more people being self employed.

Similarly the growing number of acquisitions invariably leads to a reduction in head count. There is a new class of industry emerging as a point of sale mass customised manufacturers whose products will be produced on demand to customer specified requirements. This move will be heavily dependant on automation and provide opportunities for self employment.

The point I am making is that when one door closes another opens and perhaps our educational systems should offer training in the skills
needed to develop and operate a business.


Grenville
[email protected]
 
R

Ramer-1, Carl

[Originally posted 2/5/1998]
I tend to disagree with a good portion of the above. The Industrial Revolution isn't just starting, it's been here through all of my
lifetime.

Innovation in any industrial process is likely to reduce the need for "dumb" labor. Can you imagine how demeaning, boring and dehumanizing a
job like filling the bottles in a Coca Cola plant would be for a human? It reminds me of having water buffalo walking in a circle tied to a yoke
for pumping water.

I agree that the best way to speak from fact rather than opinion is through a study. Perhaps the next student who write to the list could
take on the task for his or her thesis. I certainly don't have the time and resources, and wouldn't believe a government study on the subject. My opinion on the issue is that populations continue to grow. The only way that's possible is if enough food, water etc., is available to sustain them, and sufficient income available to the population to acquire those commodities. Is it "noble" work? Who knows. My job is to improve industrial processes. Some people consider that with less esteem than prostitution. I consider some professions with high regard, others with less. But I sleep well because my conscience is clear.

The personal opinion of:

Carl Ramer, Sr. Engineer
Controls & Protective Systems Design
EG&G Florida
 
J

Jobe, John W

[Originally posted 2/5/1998]
> I believe that we have to face the fact that the work we do
> (automation)
> does cause people to lose their jobs, and at the rate technology is
> changing,
> these numbers (of people being replaced by automation) tend to grow.
> WE have
> to start looking for alternatives, like sorter work week, because the
> problem, I believe, is just starting.

While I certainly see your point, I think you discount the fact that those resources, human and capital, become available for another organization to employ. If an organization saves N dollars by employing automation, it will use those N dollars for investment in other ventures, or possibly to help finance the growth of the organization, thus creating *more* jobs.

Ultimately, the only true resource is the power of human intellect and creativity. A buggy-whip builder may be overtaken by technology; but by use of his mind and his creativity, he can become a PLC programmer. The human brain is far more flexible, I think, than to be permanently unemployable because a given type of work is no longer available.
 
J

Johnson Lukose

[Originally posted 2/4/1998]
>Allison Walker makes a great point...(some snips)
>
>>Job training...helps employees feel more secure, LOYAL TO THEIR EMPLOYERS.
>>Some will leave once they are educated, but you can't punish everyone
>
>And some of those who leave will become your loyal customers
>at their new companies.
>
And some will help your competitors beat you.

Notice how many football players score against their old club even when they are not 'goalscorers'??

thanks.

Can be reached at;
=S= (M) Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia
Tel : +60 (0)3 7051150
Fax : +60 (0)3 7051170
 
Top