Workplace hierarchy

Don't let managers have 100x the salary of the lowest paid worker. It's not rocket science.

Yes automation is ideals but as of yet not fully practical in every application. There is also the problem of getting workers to work in the hinterland, sure you can market it is an adventure like the military yet really how many people would really want to work in the middle of nowhere Alaska maintaining power lines rather then doing it back in civilization.
Do we have some kind of pseudo conscription where skilled workers have to put their time in the hinterland before being allowed to work in the cities like the USSR did? Or would jobs in the hinterland attract enough skilled workers in a post-capitalist society without society needing to push them?

Conscripting workers is generally a bad option since it would create a tendency to rely on forced labor and make labor costs appear artifically lower. One could imagine some kind of program, depending on the industry, to rotate workers for certain periods in less-desirable locations. Also, there are other kind of job benefits that could be provided in lieu of a pay raise (since I'm assuming we're already dealing with a post-money economy.) Providing good working conditions and investing in proper gear and machinery also goes a long way to improving workplace satisfaction. There are really lots of options that can be pursued to make certain jobs more attractive to workers.

The problem with the hinterland is you have industrial workers surrounded by wilderness. Under capitalism they work in the idea they will eventually can spent their wages when they get back to civilizations (and from pressure of the army of unemployed). The USSR pressured them into the hinterland by requiring work experience in the hinterland for the positions in the cities.
Improving work conditions bumps up against the fact the work takes place on the fringe of human civilization.

Attached: BlackFly.webm (320x240, 12.62M)

How would you even run a nuclear power plant in a "non-hierarchical" way?

Attached: 1522847705160.jpg (260x194, 7.33K)

Tbh, in earlier stages of communism, it makes a lot of sense to have front line "managers" of sorts. But they should obviously not have the hierarchal role that managers take in capitalist society. The point of this kind of manager should be to enforce the decisions that their colleagues have made collectively. Meaning they should be a worker themselves who is elected to take on these extra responsibilities and does the same job as those they manage. To achieve this, the workers in this workplace should vote periodically to keep or replace the current manager and should be able to use a majority vote at any time to remove the current manager. Meaning the power comes from the workers, and this manager only enforces their decisions. (I'm a council-com btw, for those of you who are curious. So essentially I am saying the council of workers should elect one from among them who's responsibility it is to make sure things work as the council decides)

Divvying up responsibilities and controls between more people?

So, they don't have time to manage anything?

You parrot Soviet-style communism (Stalinist era, at least). Other than the weird "does the same job", of course.

Worker’s democratically electing there managers who would in term democratically elect the Executives. All these people elected had to be workers in the factory/shop/whatever before being elected to desk work. Also wages don’t have to be equal, but they have to be pretty similar. No one should make twice the average wage. Workers would also meat evrey Week to talk about how work was and if the workers want to do something differently.

That’s a democratic hierarchy, but a hierarchy never the less. Which is fine, some hierarchy is necessary to un society.

In the hinterlands you make everyone supper educated so there self sufficient in terms of skilled labor. Also many people might voluntarily move there. I don’t see communism killing Agrarian Romanticism.

It's only a hierarchy when someone has authority over other people. If you can't coerce other people (because they'll recall you) then you don't have authority over them. Neither does the general population of workers have authority over the manager, because the manager is also a worker with the same rights. Becoming a manager is voluntary and is taking on additional responsibilities. It's not the same as managers in capitalism who gain prestige and power, clout and extra pay. This is someone who's designated to make decisions. It's delegation of responsibility to relieve most people of having to participate directly in decision making.
Primitive communism would like a word with you.

Well, of course they would wind up doing less of the actual job to allot time for the new responsibilities. But I mean they would default back to the normal job when nothing else is required at that point in time, which would be quite often.

How, in an ideal society of your design, would we deal with the issue of managers being able to make lower level workers do extra work not in their description, and can reprimand them if desired, yet also is unable to offer raises or really any positive enforcement worthwhile?

Theres a system of middlemen separating the owners from the lowest employees.