will call 'work'.
All this is logically pressuposed in the first reason Neva gave as to
why 'work' is necessary (for all people).
If we are to talk about sustainable work, I suggest that the language
game will need to be both clearer and logically sustainable. The above
is
a hurried
Neva Goodwin:
"At some point, we need to ask, why are we using the word, "work"?
There are other good words -- "self-actualization" (well, that's not
a very euphoneous one, but it has a good meaning), "play" -- I've
tended to assume that "work" had to do with an output of some kind
that was of
- Original Message -
Neva Goodwin:
"At some point, we need to ask, why are we using the word, "work"?
Exactly! In a world with Limits to Growth, only those people who are
"needed" to produce essential goods and services should work. All
the rest should "play". See "The Foulest of
interested in
creating a sustainable work situation, I'd start by getting the workers
together to discuss things like this. If they start with a commitment
to their product, that's a giant step forward.
All sorts of other conditions of work are, of course, also
important. But start with t
I guess I would like to add that sustainable work is that which is something
that the doer finds interesting and/or creative and/or a reflection of
him/her self. Something that seems to provide meaning for the doer.
Something that even in the absence of payment, the doer might continue to
have
deborah middleton wrote:
My thoughts are that the concepts of sustainability may also be able to be
applied to the individual in relation to the organization/social
environment.
Perhaps so; but the number of individuals in relation
to the local ( global) environment (includes org./
social)
Shouldn't an important part of sustainable work be that it produces
something that people want -- that, indeed, enhances the lives
of those using the output? I'd be inclined to put this very high
on the list. (See my essay on "Human Values in Work" in _The
Changing Nature of Work_, ed
