Conclusions for modern production
Work not necessarily is unpleasant; workers are not the isolated units; “carrot and stick“ are not the only incentives; workers are guided not only material incentives. Nowadays the policy of heads of industrial production differs in a number of contradictions: sincere care and cold indifference; in anything it so brightly is not shown, as in the relation to changes. All industrialized countries understand that technical changes demand new ways of control of workers. This in itself means essential shift forward. But at the same time the general tone is defined by limited rigidity which conflicts to a level of development of science and equipment of the modern world. It is shown in questions of the state control over the industry. In the history of the great democratic countries it happened so more than once that many thousands of workers lost work owing to actions of the government for production modernization. Perhaps, at the same time the government was guided by the best intentions, but worked with autocratic methods. As voters have an opportunity to express on elections, it is supposed that similar actions quite keep within ideas of democracy. For this reason lack of any preliminary consultations with those whose life depended on these government decisions comes true. A question not in that, these decisions, matter in another are correct or wrong: these decisions are incorrect from the point of view of effective management as the way of their acceptance ignores hopes and fears of workers, and also their real role in the course of production. The statement about what would be unnatural if workers supported own dismissal, is disproved by experience of socialist researches. Discussions of rather social price of mass dismissals of workers during modernization of production show what in them is never mentioned the price of these methods of an arbitrariness. And such price is resistance of changes and decline in production of work. During such discussions neither the word nor the word it is not said about how as a result of such practice the positive relation to work which is possible only where respect workers is suppressed.
Girls from shop on assembly of the relay increased labor productivity, even when them deprived of all improvements in working conditions because they liked work in which they felt conscious participants and therefore that over them there was no ordinary supervisor. The researcher all allowed them: he was that whom would call the democratic head, not authoritative now. Actually girls were under continuous supervision, but were respectful to them also trust what exist in the family relations. Sets this example how to reach the best productivity.
In the conclusion, it would be desirable to tell that society in which free equal participation of all population would be provided can be created only in that case when the huge number of workers is not exposed to tyranny of administration. Such society can be created if conviction that the public system has to submit to the social purposes triumphs and to serve human interests.