Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

Comment by roenxi | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This article just seems a little bit unbelievable

> They ran roughshod over their new bosses. They went joyriding in the expensive cars in their care. Of course, they too skimmed their operations money, but they did so without the veneer of social decorum.

The word "roughshod" seems wholly unjustified unless it is some sort of pun on horses that I'm missing. I can imagine a chauffeur joyriding and skimming money, but to say that represents "run[ning] roughshod" seems a bit much. The employer obviously wasn't showing that much care to the money and how big a deal is it if the guy drives the car occasionally? The coachman was skimming money and could ride the horse around if he put his mind to it. The horse isn't going to dob him in.

> I spent years at the mercy of technical typists. They were underpaid, but they were in control.

Again, I don't see how "in control" can be used to describe an underpaid technical typist. It doesn't sound that hard to check what they typed and replace them with someone else. If they're underpaid then they're easy enough to replace.

I wouldn't usually jump at two word choices, but the article seems to hinge on some sort of power imbalance favouring employees that is not demonstrated.

It's written from the perspective of one of the masters.

> The role of the head coachman was well defined. Toward his superiors, he was deferential and obedient.

So the chauffeurs and typists are not as deferential and obedient as the author would like.

The author never lived in that era, and is making some of that shit up. "Ran roughshod" is overkill, I suspect, for the fact that the mechanic/chauffeurs did not come from a servant background, where the slightest failure to observe decorum could result in dismissal (or worse, being made an indentured servant for several years - in slightly earlier years).

> The author never lived in that era, and is making some of that shit up.

Lienhard cites Borg [0], who is writes "Between 1903 and 1912 howls of protest arose over chauffeurs’ arrogance and insubordination and the pages of the automotive trade press overflowed with letters, articles, and editorials describing, complaining about, and offering solutions to the 'chauffeur problem.'" [1]

One might quibble about a specific subjective characterization or if the description should use the norms of the period or today, but that is a far cry from "making some of that shit up."

0. Borg, K., The "Chauffeur Problem" in the Early Auto Era: Structuration Theory and the Users of Technology. Technology and Culture, Vol. 40, No. 4, October 1999, pp. 797-832.

1. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/33428

I stand corrected.

Cheers.

Lienhard is a Houston institution (warts and all, some people can't stand listening to his voice) and having listened to his show forever, some "don't you neg that nice John Lienhard" energy really came out.

Kind of like how programmers today refuse to wear suits: roughshod in the minds of the elite.

Regarding the typists: 1. The author was born in 1930 and probably did have a secretarial pool to handle transcribing his notes into typewritten pages for publication.

2. Roenxi, I don't know where you are from, but you could check into how people are at the mercy of bureaucrats in the Department of Motor Vehicles in the USA if you want a similar complaint to being at the mercy of low paid, low-skilled workers with bosses that don't report to you.

You might also check into Kafka. He is pretty much famous for describing the problem.

While I dearly love Kafka, I am not sure it’s correct to look at him as a documentarian of realistic social behaviors.

There's a big difference between being at the mercy of government bureaucrats and what is described here, which is being at the mercy of an employee acting above his station (paraphrasing the author).

I do not believe there is much of a difference between being at the mercy of a government bureaucrat and being at the mercy of another bureaucrat.

I think one of the key things you and the original objector miss is that the typists were usually not under direct administrative control by the people using them. Instead, there was a side bureaucracy that hired and fired them. They could generally behave with impunity as long as they were following the rules as written and had the support of their own management.

Are you familiar with our employment laws? Firing someone can cause the bureaucracy to be involved.

There is exactly one state in the US that does not have at will employment.

That is not the only employment law.

Firing someone translates to a higher likelihood that they will seek revenge, and it is trivial to get the state to accomplish that (e.g. filing a false claim).

This potential liability causes a lot of side effects, such as refusing to give references to former employees. Or ever asking any personal questions about any topics surrounding protected status.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com