So You Automated Your Coworkers Out of a Job (gizmodo.com)

merbs writes: Automation is too often presented as a faceless, monolithic phenomenon -- but it's a human finger that ultimately pulls the trigger. Someone has to initiate the process that automates a task or mechanizes a production line. To write or procure the program that makes a department or a job redundant. And that's not always an executive, or upper-, or even middle management -- in fact, it's very often not. Sometimes it's a junior employee, or a developer, even an intern.

In a series of interviews with coders, technicians, and engineers who've automated their colleagues out of work -- or, in one case, been put in a position where they'd have to do so and decided to quit instead -- I've attempted to produce a snapshot of life on the messy front lines of modern automation. (Some names have been changed to protect the identities of the automators.) We've heard plenty of forecasting about the many jobs slated to be erased, and we've seen the impacts on the communities that have lost livelihoods at the hands of automation, but we haven't had many close up looks at how all this unfolds in the office or the factory floor.

Comments

any job that can be automated

[pezpunk]

should be.

Evolution

[chrpai]

I've spent a career automating processes. My first such innovation came in my first year and I remember having these feelings when I realized the consequences of my proposal. I spoke to my manager and she said it was our duty to make things more efficient for our customer and that if we didn't someone else would. There is always someone paying the bill whether it's customers, shareholders, private investors or tax payers or maybe in a more abstract way the environment. We always have an obligation to use those resources wisely. In the end these people will retrain and do something else as evidenced by our current unemployment rate.

Good employees are gold

[grasshoppa]

I know we're all supposed to fear automation, but the fact of the matter is humans respond best to other humans; there will always be work for people to do.

On that note; if I have a good employee, and I write some code that deprives them of anything with which to pay them for, a few things are happening, and will happen:

1) I was grossly underutilizing the good employee to begin with
2) I will find something else for this good employee to do.

Good employees are like gold; you never throw one away, or waste them in such a manner that they'll go looking for someone to better appreciate them. I realize a lot of managers don't grasp this concept, but enough do that good employees will find one if they keep looking.

Mind you; if I automate someone out of a job, and that's all they're capable of doing, they aren't a good employee. At best, mediocre, but probably lower than that. My payroll is more important to me than their want to waste my money.

Involve workers to increase productivity, wages

[raymorris]

Multiple times I've automated much of the work that a person or department has been doing. In each case, it made the workers more valuable.

I talked to workers and watched them work. Together we looked at what tasks they spent a lot of time on, tasks that could be automated to help them achieve department goals more efficiently, while removing human error from that task. We talked about what their workflow would be after the automation and what additional value they could add after they didn't have to spend time in $menialtask.

Being part of the planning, they were able to think about how they could more effectively accomplish department and organization goals when they were freed up from the time-consuming task we were automating. There are ALWAYS more things the company or department wants to do, worthwhile things for people to work on, that they don't currently have time to do (unless perhaps the company is headed for bankruptcy).

The people I "automated away" didn't sit there and say "well now that I don't have to copy/paste from system A to system B, I'm useless". They said "now that I don't have to copy/paste from system A to system B, I can do these other important things to move the organization forward".

Re:That's right.

[Sarten-X]

Rely on the retraining fairy tale?

Yep.

For one, everyone cannot be retrained for a marketable profession. And who knows what will be marketable by the time they're done. And...

And those are all strawman arguments.

Automation doesn't happen overnight. If I automate a production process, it's just one small part of the industry. There are still jobs available for the displaced workers on other lines production lines or in other departments. As an example, they might not be holding the meter, but they would be reading the test report. In the time it takes to automate a whole industry, the oldest workers usually retire, the mid-career ones head toward management, and the youngest (who started their career when automation was starting) are easily able to move, because they're grown alongside the new automated processes.

It's a common fallacy to think that someone like me (occasionally an automation specialist) will come into a factory in the morning, and put a thousand people out of work by evening. The reality is it takes about 20-30 years to fully automate an industry. Automation just shows such promise that most industries (even those that were reluctant in the 1980s) are about halfway down that road now, so people look around and see automation everywhere, and get worried, even though the unemployment rate has actually dropped, and workforce size has stayed relatively flat.

Now, I'm not saying automation isn't disruptive, and in the short term and small scale it can indeed be devastating to a local economy, but at a national scale it isn't going to lead to any major economic collapse.