Sunday, February 18, 2007
Orientation
I am unsure if I am doing this right but here it goes. It seems that Orozco, like the other authers we have read, is describing how people have become more like "machines" in the work force. This particular story describes a job where workers can be fired for almost anything, such as asking too many questions. Is Orozco suggesting that these workers have no individual importance and are simply replacable? As well, this story discusses many of the workers personal lives and individual tendancies but states that none of them are to be acknowledge. For example, the workers do not acknowledge that they are working with a serial killer because he is one of their best workers. Is Orozo argueing that the work force today is solely concerned with making money and suggesting that morality, friendship, justice, and other virtures have less importance or no importance within the work force today?
9 comments:
It seems as if the author is suggesting that the work place has separated itself from the real world. The real world possesses real people, with real problems. By saying that those problems don't really exist (or that the problems are "unknown") is, in a way, saying that they are less of a person.
Yes, to an extent I do think Orozo's satire of the workplace suggests that virtues are of little importance and that money is the number one priority.
Is it the work place has seperated itself from the real world, or is it the real world?
I think that it is not an issue of real world or not, but rather that the workplace tries to fit everything into a certain routine, for example, you have to take eight hours to finish your work whether you have one or twelve hours in your basket. Also, not asking questions implies that the workplace expects no one to question anything too much because questions might disrupt the workplace.
I believe that in the repetition of the possibility of being fired Orozco is suggesting that the workers have no individual importance. I don't believe that there was a sense that they could be easily replaced, just that they had no important (at least to the higher ups). However, everybody seemed to know something or feel something about everyone else. Is there any significance in this contradiction about individual importance and knowing things about others?
I think that, while this is obviously an exaggeration, Orozco is showing us the true reality of the corporate workplace. While they may try to make it seem like we’re important to the company we work for, we can easily be replaced for someone who may follow the rules more strictly. Also, I agree with the reasoning that companies do not want personal matters brought up not so much because they do not care about them as much as they do not want anything to distract the employees from working.
I agree with Stephanie's comment that everything is fit into a certain routine, including the orientation itself. The quick overview that is given of the office seems as if it has been given numerous times in the same order. It almost makes you wonder if they do let a lot of people go since the orientation is so robotic in manner as if it has been rehearsed a million times.
The story is very realistic and reading it reminded me of the orientation I had to take when I worked at Office Depot. Companies just care about money and they can treat some employees however they want to because the demand for jobs is so high that companies can hire someone else instead of dealing with people who ask too many questions or who are virtuous like Patrick said because for companies that is not as important as making money.
I think that the employer at the office is only concerned with making money through replacable employees, but the narrative shows a different dynamic to the workplace. The whole speech is fit into the form of cut and dry directions for how to act at work, but at the same time, the narrator tells the new employee about everybody's personal business. This might be a way of showing that the workers are more unique than it seems and they might care about each other, but any kind of personal relationship is stifled by fear of the employer. Because they do not want to lose their jobs, their personal interactions are limited to gossiping about each other instead of actually trying to address their problems, or reaching out to those who are unhappy or lonely.
Post a Comment