Co-operation- A way to advance industrial management

[MykeAdams]

In the 1800, an American mechanical engineer called Frederick Winslow Taylor searched for ways to improve industrial efficiency. The actual or sole aim of an industry is to lay out product output, this can’t be accomplished without cooperation between the managers and laborers.

However, managers shouldn’t always spend time showing how technical and more advanced they can be instead, they should most times try and relate or show a little bit of intimacy towards the laborers concerning their responsibilities to maximize product efficiency in the workplace. Whereby, if these two parties (managers/laborers) efficiently maximize product output continuously through cooperation as a skill, it can increase profits in a positive way which can benefit both the managers and laborers.

For instance, how do you think countries like China, USA, Germany and Russia were titled “World powers”? A major role or skill wish made who they are today falls under cooperation. Cooperation led these countries to making accurate and necessary decisions wish in return developed them in various industrial aspects.

I kindly urge every developing country to see cooperation not just a skill but a weapon or tool used to build in a nation in various ways to avoid stigmatization from neighboring countries.

[franky1]

labourers already know that they need to perform efficiently, as they know if they dont reach targets/remain efficient, they wont get fully paid or keep their job
also we cant ignore technology replacing labour, so again labourers know they have to be efficient to keep their job.

we are at a period of history where labour is not the most important part of industry, infact its becoming the most costly part and most inefficient part.
one machine can perform 24/7 on one task, which if calculated in human labour would require 4 labourers to do same task 24/7
so if talking about maximising production to maximise profit. a manager would always choose technology over forming happy/healthy relationships with well kept labourers

in a managers eyes, employees can be replaced.

..
as for communication with different nations this is about maximising profit of the supply and demand of materials and products, having more sources of cheaper more available materials ensures production continuation, and having more customers worldwide ensures continual demand

this is where managers of business develop the mantra "the customer is always right" rather then the employee.. in short the 'buyer' is always right and needs to be pleased and met expectations
a. because the relationship between supplier and manufacturer is the supplier communicating and forming a happy relationship with manufacturer(as buyer) to give them affordable available supplies at a efficient rate thats beneficial and profitable for both supplier and manufacturer
b. because the relationship between manufacturer is the manufacturer communicating and forming a happy relationship with the customer to give them affordable available products at a rate thats benefit for both manufacturer and customer

..
appeasing an employee costs a manufacturer more. holding onto deadwood inefficient employees just to hold onto relationships costs a manufacturer more. both of which ends up dis-pleasing the customer because the costs rise..

so managers would prefer to appease the customers not the employees

[caroasi]

If I understand your concept I'm in general agreement. Even full free-market capitalism still allows companies to cooperate as much or more than compete. I've been working on an on organizational cooperative structure and just yesterday wrote the part of the organizational plan that stated interacting with "competitors" is totally fine. I also plan to start an organization based on that cooperative structure. It is all based on Caroasi organizational concepts linked to in my signature.

Where I might disagree is allowing cooperative structures to monopolize a need through cooperation. There is a fine subjective line to be drawn there. The Apple app store is something that has been targeted by anti-trust policies, but actually Apple phone software is not a physical need and therefore it is something I'd consider ethical to monopolize. Cellular phones in general are a need in some circumstances, but not all. For example, if you're lost in the middle of a large nature preserve and need food, a cellular phone would be a need, So it would be acceptable by some perspective to de-monopolize smart phone app stores. Phone service is a basic physical need during emergency situations. So by this more flexible concept, many to most monopolies are ethical to bust because many to most business offerings can be considered needs. So, I would certainly not want Apple app store and Android app store to cooperate on rules for app allowance, as competition in these markets is sparse.

[MykeAdams]

labourers already know that they need to perform efficiently, as they know if they dont reach targets/remain efficient, they wont get fully paid or keep their job
also we cant ignore technology replacing labour, so again labourers know they have to be efficient to keep their job.

we are at a period of history where labour is not the most important part of industry, infact its becoming the most costly part and most inefficient part.
one machine can perform 24/7 on one task, which if calculated in human labour would require 4 labourers to do same task 24/7
so if talking about maximising production to maximise profit. a manager would always choose technology over forming happy/healthy relationships with well kept labourers

in a managers eyes, employees can be replaced.

..
as for communication with different nations this is about maximising profit of the supply and demand of materials and products, having more sources of cheaper more available materials ensures production continuation, and having more customers worldwide ensures continual demand

this is where managers of business develop the mantra "the customer is always right" rather then the employee.. in short the 'buyer' is always right and needs to be pleased and met expectations
a. because the relationship between supplier and manufacturer is the supplier communicating and forming a happy relationship with manufacturer(as buyer) to give them affordable available supplies at a efficient rate thats beneficial and profitable for both supplier and manufacturer
b. because the relationship between manufacturer is the manufacturer communicating and forming a happy relationship with the customer to give them affordable available products at a rate thats benefit for both manufacturer and customer

..
appeasing an employee costs a manufacturer more. holding onto deadwood inefficient employees just to hold onto relationships costs a manufacturer more. both of which ends up dis-pleasing the customer because the costs rise..

so managers would prefer to appease the customers not the employees

Clearly your arguments simply outlines view of modern industrial capitalism and manager’s priorities, pointing out to labor and global supply movements, making it look as if somehow technology is way better than laborers.
Laborers are aware that in order to get paid they need to meet their targets through their performances. If they are not efficient they would be replaced asap. Speaking of technology on the other hand is impressive and brings great value when offered in industry but it has limits I must say, for a while now, Mosts progressive industries won’t be those that replaces humans, but certainly empower them, laborers bring creativity and ethics, these are things machines can’t do or replicate.
For an industry to succeed they need to be empowering laborers through meaningful work, fair treatment and collaboration alongside technology, certainly not by replacing them with it.

[aoluain]

Cooperation has been key to human evolution for 10's of thousands of years.

We started out as foragers singly or with a partner/family, then we became
farmers but in a community because working as a group in cooperation brought
bigger yields. The next step was gods and deities, these meant we started
believing the same things, worshiping the same gods and thinking the same way  
further compounding "cooperation", it just didnt start all of a sudden in the 1800's

How was the great Aztec empire built, the great Pyramids for example?
It wasnt only slavery but cooperation.

Cooperation is still an important tool today, we dont actually need to dwell on it,
it just happens, any company in order to function needs everyone to cooperate.

[franky1]

Clearly your arguments simply outlines view of modern industrial capitalism and manager’s priorities, pointing out to labor and global supply movements, making it look as if somehow technology is way better than laborers.
Laborers are aware that in order to get paid they need to meet their targets through their performances. If they are not efficient they would be replaced asap. Speaking of technology on the other hand is impressive and brings great value when offered in industry but it has limits I must say, for a while now, Mosts progressive industries won’t be those that replaces humans, but certainly empower them, laborers bring creativity and ethics, these are things machines can’t do or replicate.
For an industry to succeed they need to be empowering laborers through meaningful work, fair treatment and collaboration alongside technology, certainly not by replacing them with it.

technology always replaces labour

17th century glass was handmade. metal work was man handled.  these days its industrialised via machines. the whole point of industrialisation is to scale up production. which labour force has a limit to its scaling in comparison to machinery

even the 19th century farming was mostly 'family farms' but now its just one guy mowing a field of wheat with one machine(harvester) where the field is the equivalent of 50 family farms. there was no way they could scale up 200 people(50 families) via labour, however the only way to scale up was machinery

check out modern retail. with self checkout and other tech replacing retail employees. even mcdonalds have their self order machines
banks are disappearing from mainstreets and replaced by ATM's and internet banking. there is only so much a human cashier can do which cant be replaced by machines

these days with so many humans wanting jobs but the jobs market drying up, labourers cannot really pressure bosses to give them worthy bonuses, or flexible hours, because these things cost the business money. and in the end the manager would just replace someone with someones else, younger and more naive and more pliable to just get on with the job in silence. meaning managers dont need to be amenable to their employees. everyone is replaceable these days, no one has job security anymore.
we are no longer in the 19th century where people have lifetime careers. the average:
born 1940-1960 average job longevity 10-15years
born 1960-1980 average job longevity 5-10years
born 1980-2000 average job longevity 3-5years

we are not entering an era where employment leans in favour of the labourer, but instead it leans in favour of the business efficiency/productivity/profitability. so pretending employers have to lose profits and time just to be amenable to temporary human labour will never happen. far easier to replace the employees not happy with the opportunity given

as for ethics.. many labourers are known to cut corners to save time, even if it means shoddy work, which is where accidents can happen or products can break hurting customers. then there are other labourers whom would fake productivity to hit targets they never really met, just to ge paid...
.. yet a machine just does what its programmed to do. and ethics can be programmed into a machine

where as employing more people and trying to get them to be super efficient to compete against a machine is where ethics can go wrong, employees get treated like slaves in sweatshops.. which again is where machines can replace labourers and reduce the unethical sweatshop industry

heck lets take bitcoin as an example
lets imagine bitcoin was invented 100 years ago, where mathematicians had to hand calculation block hashes..
do you think mathematicians would have good employment with coffee served at request, and masseuses on staff to massage their aching hands from all the writing.. no, course not
do you think today(2025) we would have billions of people employed handwriting bitcoin block hashes.. no..
it would still develop into cpu mining then gpu then fpga then asic mining

heck its not even 1 asic 1 human. these days its 30,000 asics per 5 people (mining farm operators)