Anon soliciting feedback: anon has a fren who works at a large financial firm where it was recently decided that bots to complete manual repetitive tasks, that have been saving countless hours of labor time, making for a more cost effective and therefore lower pass down costs to clients, will no longer be permitted.
Fren said the reason given was that bots are "bandaid solution".
Anon has been pondering this and think the decision is not only irrational, but so irrational that anon cannot help but suspect that there is an unstated agenda behind this decision that is not being communicated, and that then leads to suspecting that the reason is unsavory and too cowardly to admit the truth.
Anon starts logically. The direct impact of eliminating automation is that it increases manual labor.
So then anon suspects that it must be known this is the case, no firm that large can not know this.
So then logically it must be the case that there is a conscious desire to want to increase manual labor time on the kinds of repetitive tasks that bots perform.
Anon is just going to throw this out there: Should I tell fren that it is possible, indeed likely, that the "bandaid" reason given is a lie, that the real reason is to increase headcount of manual labor jobs so that the firm can proudly and quite racistly declare that racist demographic hiring "quotas" are being met?
The real reason must be irrational and anti-client focused, there is no good economic reason NOT to utilize automated solutions for repetitive tasks.
Is anon off base? What are your thoughts? Should anon recommend fren quit from what sounds like a toxic racist work environment that is placing racist "anti-racist" practises above efficiency and giving client highest value?