Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.961219075254.19991E-100000@fox.ksu.ksu.edu> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 08:16:01 -0600 From: kerry miller <mailto:astingsh@KSU.EDU> Subject: Re: Truck troubles To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
On Wed, 18 Dec 1996, Reinaldo Vicini wrote:> Take your example, for instance. If that bridge would have been fixed
> by the truck companies, they would have been arrested because the
> bridge is government property. We have to wait for the Public Works
> Office to fix it and it takes twice as much time and money to get it
> done, and six months later the bridge is in troubles again.
>
Once again, the technological mind focusses on the hardware and its surrogate, bureaucracy. What if, instead, we talk about the drivers? Do you think *any* of those involved in these accidents owned their own trucks? Do you think any of them did the same thing twice? For the same company? Are there correlations between a) driver concern for company (or 'government') property, and b) job training security on one hand, and on the other, c) corporate strategies vis-a-vis surplus labor and d) maintenance of 'infrastructural' social goods?
For extra credit: How hard is it to find out which bridges are dangerous (in the community, from other drivers, from the newspaper)? Outline the career path of one such trucker, prior to as well as after the statistic-generating incident.
kerry