For example, there was a case of an internship for working on a train. The company had the interns driving trains from one end of their yard to the other under close supervision. The moving of the trains was completely unnecessary and was just being done to train the potential employees.
It seems to me that this is a rather vague, academic argument.
Maybe the trains benefit from occasional movement in order to keep their mechanical systems lubricated, so that certain fluids and pressure chambers don't go flat, etc.
Obviously, I have no idea if that's true. I don't know a thing about trains or other mechanical systems.
The point is that if one wants to, one can probably make the claim - however tenuous - that just about any sort of 'kinetics' of supposedly "no value" to the company do, in fact, have some benefit.
Grooming potential future employees by having them do "useless" work can lower future recruitment costs and reduce risk. Isn't that "valuable?"
It seems to me that this is a rather vague, academic argument.
Maybe the trains benefit from occasional movement in order to keep their mechanical systems lubricated, so that certain fluids and pressure chambers don't go flat, etc.
Obviously, I have no idea if that's true. I don't know a thing about trains or other mechanical systems.
The point is that if one wants to, one can probably make the claim - however tenuous - that just about any sort of 'kinetics' of supposedly "no value" to the company do, in fact, have some benefit.
Grooming potential future employees by having them do "useless" work can lower future recruitment costs and reduce risk. Isn't that "valuable?"