********I

W h i t t e d for the degree of PhD

in Sociology
9.5.86
.
 THE LABOUR PROCESS AND CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS

Contents

PART 1

Chapter 1 Theory of t h e Labour Process............................l

Chapter 2 Control................................................34

Chapter 3 The C a p i t a l i s t Labour Process..........................67

Chapter 4 The "Real World" of Workers...........................llO

Chapter 5 The P o l i t i c a l Side of Economisrn.......................l40

PART 2

Chapter 6 Case Study 1...............................1..........16,

Chapter 7 Case Study 2..........................................231

Chapter 8 Conclusions...........................................294
 m m :..Aw.h. .cm.. .................. . SERW No: tI.!?b.&?+7
:-D ...fi3D.....................................
TITLE op' -1s: . . ~ . . l ~ ~ ~ .......
~. ~
...............................................................................
...............................................................................
I copiinn that I am willing that m~ thesis be nmde available to readers
and mpy be pbctocopied. sub?ect to the discretion of the Librar-..

Signed: .............................................
JbLis G - Date: r4r2. r 7
.................

.
 USTRACT

T h i s t h e s i s proceeds v i a a c r i t i q u e of t h e labour p r o c e s s d e b a t e a n d i t s

c e n t r a l conception of " c o n t r o l " t o t h e a t t e m p t t o develop an a l t e r n a t i v e

theory of t h e labour p r o c e s s based on an a n a l y s i s of e x p l o i t a t i o n . T h i s

i n v o l v e s t h e u s e of a c l a s s i c a l Marxist model of c a p i t a l i s t economics i n

which t h e primary o b j e c t i v e of v a l o r i s a t i o n i s emphasised a s s t r u c t u r i n g

t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n of t h e contemporary labour process. Two a s p e c t s of t h i s

o b j e c t i v e a r e invoked; t h a t r e l a t i n g t o t h e e x t r a c t i o n of s u r p l u s value,

i n which both t h e i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n and a b s t r a c t i o n of labour a r e n o t e d a s

c o n t i n u i n g t e n d e n c i e s i n t h e development of t h e labour process, and t h a t

r e l a t i n g t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between p a i d and anpaid labour time, i n which

t h e commodity s t a t u s of labour i s seen a s c e n t r a l i n i n t e g r a t i n g t h e i s s u e

of s u b s i s t e n c e i n t o t h e h e a r t of t h e labour p r o c e s s i t s e l f .

I n l o c a t i n g t h e s e i n t e r l i n k e d s t r a n d s i n t h e s t r u c t u r i n g of t h e labour pro-

c e s s t h e t h e s i s t a k e s on two f u r t h e r t a s k s : f i r s t l y t o demonstrate t h e cen-

t r a l i t y of c o n t r a d i c t i o n s w i t h i n t h e c a p i t a l i s t labour process; and secondly

t o u n i t e o b j e c t i v e and s u b j e c t i v e i n t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h a t labour pro-

cess. T h i s l a t t e r t a s k shapes t h e t h i r d theme w i t h i n t h e t h e s i s , t h e ana-

l y s i s of worker response or " c l a s s consciousness".

Our argument i n t h i s r e s p e c t has focussed on t h e need t o r e c o g n i s e worker

response and r e s i s t a n c e a5 c e n t r a l l y "economistic", b u t a t t h e same time

has i n d i c a t e d t h e p o l i t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of such response. Empirical mat-

e r i a l from t h e two c a s e s t u d i e s undertaken w i t h i n t h e t h e s i s i s p r e s e n t e d

i n o r d e r t o s u s t a i n t h i s argument, along with a b r i e f e r survey of some pub-

l i s h e d s t u d i e s . O v e r a l l , t h e a n a l y s i s h o l d s t h a t w h i l e worker response must

be recognised a s economistic r a t h e r than "control"-oriented, such response

i s rooted i n t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s of t h e c a p i t a l i s t labour process,and can

t h u s be understood a s endemically undermining i t s s t r u c t u r e s .

 -1-
W I E R ONE

Theory of t h e Labour P r o c e s s

Introduction

T h i s t h e s i s i s about t h e n a t u r e of work, and i t s impact on workers,

under capitalism. A s such i t canes w i t h i n t h e s p h e r e o r i g i n a l l y

d e s i g n a t e d by Yarx a s " t h e labour process". This term has itself

r e c e n t l y enjoyed a r e v i v a l i n t h e c o n t e x t of a v i g o r o u s "labour

p r o c e s s debate" sparked off i n 1974 by t h e p u b l i c a t i o n of Harry

Eraverman's i n f l u e n t i a l book Labour and Monqmly Capital (Braveman,

1974 ) *

Cur t h e s i s i s i n t e n d e d as a c o n t r i b u t i o n t o this d e b a t e . A t t h e

same t i m e , however, i t i s c r i t i c a l of s o m e of i t s m o s t fundamental

assumptions. Chief among t h e s e i s t h e n o t i o n that a political

dynamic o f "control" i s d e c i s i v e i n governing management/worker

r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e contemporary labcur process. I n c o n t r a s t , o u r

argument is concerned t o advance an understanding of t h e econanic

c a t e g o r y of e x p l o i t a t i o n a s central t o t h e a n a l y s i s of t h e

s p e c i f i c a l l y capitalist labour process.

Cur approach, t h e r e f o r e , d i f f e r s from much of t h e argument w h i c h

has followed i n t h e w a k e of Braverman i n a d o p t i n g a p r i m a r i l y

economic p e r s p e c t i v e on t h e nature of work. T h i s attempt t o redress

what h a s been u n t i l now overwhelmingly a reworking of p o l i t i c a l and

ideological themes w i t h i n l a b o u r p r o c e s s t h e o r y i s extended w i t h i n

t h e t h e s i s t o our t r e a t m e n t of worker response, which w e a r g u e i s

itself p r i m a r i l y "econanistic" and centred on e q d o i t a t i o n .

I n t h u s q u e s t i o n i n g sane of t h e Widely accepted tenets of t h e

a r r e n t labour process d e b a t e (which themselves are examined i n

more detail below) w e i d e n t i f y our own theoretical p o s i t i o n With

 -2-

sane c l a s s i c a l p r i n c i p l e s of Marxist e c o n a n i c theory. c h i e f l y t h e

conception of t h e c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r p r o c e s s as governed by t h e

c e n t r a l o b j e c t i v e of v a l o r i s a t i o n . As w e s h a l l see, w h i l e t h e l a b o u r

p r o c e s s d e b a t e as a whole p u r p o r t s to draw i t s t h e o r e t i c a l i n s p i r a t i o n

from Marxirm, i t h a s e f f e c t i v e l y abandoned many of t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s .

While n o t i n s i s t i n g on s o m e s t a t i c model of t h e o r e t i c a l r e c t i t u d e ,

w e n e v e r t h e l e s s m a i n t a i n t h a t t h e a n a l y s i s of t h e c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r

p r o c e s s contained w i t h i n C a p i t a l i s of c o n s i d e r a b l e e q l a n a t o r y p o w e r

i n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e twin issues of managerial s t r a t e g y and worker

response i n t h i s f i e l d . What i s more, t h e abandonment of such an

a n a l y s i s w i t h i n t h e contemporary l a b o u r process d e b a t e appears t o

owe more t o a sweeping d i s t a s t e f o r "economic d e t e r m i n i m " t h a n t o

any a t t a n u t t o e v l i c i t l y engage w i t h Marx's own arguments.

Within t h e p r e s e n t t h e s i s , t h e n , sane attempt i s made t o r e i n t e g r a t e

Marxist econanic t h e o r y , and i n g e n e r a l a more m a t e r i a l i s t approach

which, w e argue, more a c c u r a t e l y reflects t h e n a t u r e of worker

response. i n t o t h e a n a l y s i s of t h e contemporary l a b o u r p r o c e s s . The

a n a l y s i s of workers' s t r u g g l e s , t h e corresponding t r e a t m e n t of

managerial s t r a t e g i e s and an o v e r a r c h i n g t h e o r y of t h e r a t i o n a l e

of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s under c a p i t a l i s n are undertaken w i t h i n t h e

framework,as w e have s a i d , of a concept of e x p l o i t a t i o n which i t s e l f

i s two-dimensional. On one s i d e , it refers t o w h a t i s argued t o be t h e

c e n t r a l o b j e c t i v e of management under capitalism, t h a t of m a h i s i n g

s u r p l u s value. On t h e o t h e r , i t i n d i c a t e s b o t h t h e impact of t h i s

o b j e c t i v e on t h e workforce i n terms of t h e q u a n t i f i c a t i o n and

i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of l a b o u r , and t h e relationship b e t w e e n t h e effort

t h u s e x t r a c t e d and t h e reward t o t h e l a b o u r e r .

The theme of e x p l o i t a t i o n , which i s developed more f u l l y i n Chapter

3, structures the t h e s i s i n two ways c o r r e s p m d i n g roughly t o t h e

two dimensions o u t l i n e d above. F i r s t l y a t h e o r y of t h e n a t u r e of

 t h e l a b o u r process under capitalism i s o u t l i n e d i n which t h e

q u a n t i f i c a t i o n of l a b o u r , s h a m i n t h e measurement and s e t t i n g of

c a l c u l a t e d t a r g e t s of o u t p u t , i s i d e n t i f i e d as a primary f e a t u r e

of t h e labour p r o c e s s which i t s e l f i s s t r u c t u r e d by t h e g e n e r a l

need t o reduce s o c i a l l y n e c e s s a r y l a b o u r t h e w i t h i n c a p i t a l i s t

p r c d u c t i o n . T h i s f e a t u r e i s seen as having a two-fold e f f e c t on

t h e e x p e r i e n c e of work through a simultaneous a b s t r a c t i o n and

i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of l a b o u r . Thus work, w i t h i n t h e mass-production

semi-skilled manual sector w i t h which w e are concerned, i s p r e s e n t e d

i n t h i s a n a l y s i s b o t h as atomised and i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e and as r e q u i r i n g

h i g h , sanetimes impossible, l e v e l s of e f f o r t . T h i s t h e o r e t i c a l

d e s c r i p t i o n i s given empirical c o n t e n t i n t h e a c c o u n t s of t h e case

s t u d i e s undertaken w i t h i n t h e r e s e a r c h i n Chapters 6 and 7. In t h e

f u l l e r treatment of e q l o i t a t i o n i n Chapter 3, an a n a l y s i s i s

developed which locates e q l o i t a t i o n as c e n t r a l t o t h e s t r u c t u r e of

t h e c a p i t a l i s t mode of p r o d u c t i o n as a whole. T h i s i s because t h e

p r o d u c t i o n of exchange v a l u e s or commodities, which d e f i n e s t h i s

m d e , i s dependent on t h e production of s u r p l u s v a l u e w i t h i n t h e

l a b o u r p r o c e s s , which i n i t s t u r n i s d e f i n e d i n t e n s of t h e e x c e s s

of unpaid labour t i m e above s u b s i s t e n c e . The price of labcur power,

and t h e degree t o which production c a r r i e d o u t by t h e worker exceeds

this i n value, t h u s b e m e c e n t r a l v a r i a b l e s i n t h e f u n c t i o n i n g and

development of c a p i t a l i s t production. The e f f o r t / r e w a r d struggles

which w e argue are endemic w i t h i n t h e capitalist l a b o u r p r o c e s s can

thus be seen as f o c u s s i n g on s u b s i s t e n c e a s a g a i n s t t h e p r e s s u r e t o

maximise t h e production of s u r p l u s v a l u e . Workers' attempts t o

m a i n t a i n or i n c r e a s e t h e v a l u e of t h e i r labarr power are p i t t e d

a g a i n s t a c o n t i n u a l tendency towards i t s cheapening, e i t h e r r e l a t i v e

to t h e value of c o n s t a n t capital or i n a b s o l u t e terms brought about

by d e s k i l l i n g , a f e a t u r e t o which Braverman has drawn a t t e n t i m

(Braverman, 1974 @ O f f ) .
 -4-

The second u s e for t h e concept of e x p l o i t a t i o n i s i n e x p l o r i n g and

understanding worker response. A s w e mentioned i n t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y

paragraph, most workplace s t r u g g l e s are b o t h e c o n a n i s t i ' c and p a r o c h i a l ;

that i s , t h e y have been concerned w i t h b a s i c i s s u e s of l i v i n g

s t a n d a r d s w i t h i n l i m i t s which extend very l i t t l e beyond t h e workplace

or even t h e workgroup. Perhaps because such s t r u g g l e s seem t o have so

l i t t l e p o l i t i c a l p r a n i s e , d i s c u s s i o n of c o n f l i c t w i t h i n t h e workplace

has tended t o emphasise (as w e argue i n more d e t a i l below) t h e

"alienated" n a t u r e of t h e e x p e r i e n c e of work under capitaliyn, which

can be l i n k e d t o t h e tendency t m a r d s a b s t r a c t i o n of l a b o u r i n d i c a t e d

above. However, it i s i n f a c t rare for o v e r t c o n f l i c t to o c c u r

e x p l i c i t l y over t h e n a t u r e of work i t s e l f . The econmistic n a t u r e of

most workplace conflict h a s t o be confronted. I t i s t h e contention

of t h i s t h e s i s t h a t such econcmisn b o t h calls for r e c o g n i t i o n i n i t s

own r i g h t ( s i n c e i t i s what workers a c t u a l l y "do") and a l s o carries

i n h e r e n t p o l i t i c a l meaning.

The p o l i t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of workplace s t r u g g l e s relate f i r s t of

a l l t o t h e s t r u c t u r a l effects of exploitation itself. Thus such

s t r u g g l e s both r e f l e c t and are a p r o d u c t of t h e u n d e r l y i n g

c o n t r a d i c t i o n s w i t h i n t h e c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r p r o c e s s . I n o t h e r words,

whatever managerial " s t r a t e g y " i s adopted ( r e s p o n s i b l e autonomy,

t o l e r a n c e of "games", b u r e a u c r a t i c c o n t r o l etc.) c o n f l i c t w i l l tend

t o s u r f a c e a s a result of t h e i n h e r e n t l y a n t a g o n i s t i c r e l a t i o n s

involved i n t h e nexus of e m l o i t a t i o n .

Secondly, because of this i r r e d u c i b l e l e v e l of c o n f l i c t , workplace

s t r u g g l e s , as w e l l as c o n s t a n t l y drawing i n new groups from t h e

workforce, have a spontaneous and "explosive" character which h a s

t h e power t o c h a l l e n g e much wider levels of p o l i t i c a l and state

c o n t r o l . This i s , of c a r s e r an argument which has t o be t r e a t e d

w i t h care, g i v e n t h e h i s t o r i c a l f a i l u r e of t h e working c l a s s s i n
 -5-

B r i t a i n a t least, t o go beyond reformism. However. i t i s worth

r e a s s e r t i n g , i n t h e face of theory which g e n e r a l l y sees such s t r u ? g l e s

as s i g n i f i c a n t only i n s o f a r as they 90 beyond economism, t h a t many

i f not most of t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n s which have a t least begun t o expose

t h e class n a t u r e of s o c i e t y have had t h e i r roots i n a simple defence

of l i v i n g s t a n d a r d s . That t h i s i s t r u e o f , f o r example, Russian

r e v o l u t i o n a r y s t r u g g l e s is shown i n c h a p t e r 5 , which c o n s i d e r s t h e s e

i s s u e s i n more depth. The case study material, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n

Chapters 4, 6 and 7 a l s o p r o v i d e s swe empirical examples of t h e

p a t t e r n and meaning of workplace conflict.

A t h i r d u s e of t h e concept of e x p l o i t a t i o n i s , p a r a d o x i c a l l y , that

of h e l p i n g u s t o e q l o r e t h e n a t u r e of c o n s e n t . If w e accept t h a t

t h e p r a c t i c a l meaning of work for most semi- or u n s k i l l e d workers

i s as a b a r g a i n i n which t h e p r o v i s i o n of l a b o u r i s s e e n quite

e x p l i c i t l y as i n v o l v e d i n t h e a n p l o y e r ' s p u r c h a s e of l a b o u r p a v e r , i t

i s clear that i s s u e s such as t h e t r a n s l a t i o n of labour paver i n t o

l a b o u r w i l l not i n themselves be p o i n t s of conflict. S i m i l a r l y ,

t h e understanding of l a b o u r under advanced capitalism a s e s s e n t i a l l y

a b s t r a c t allows f o r t h e r e c o g n i t i o n that w o r k e r s i n t h i s s e c t o r are

u n l i k e l y t o t a k e action over i s s u e s of working methods and

o r g a n i s a t i o n . Rather, r e s i s t a n c e w i l l t e n d t o t a k e place around

i s s u e s r e l a t i n g to t h e terns and conditions for t h e sale of l a b o u r

pavers which terms and c o n d i t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e workers' s t a n d a r d s Of

l i v i n g . T h i s comparative " i n d i f f e r e n c e " t o t h e p r o v i s i o n and

o r g a n i s a t i o n of labour i t s e l f beyond e f f o r t / r e w a r d c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

is a r e c u r r e n t theme i n t h e t h e s i s , developed both w i t h i n t h e case

s t u d i e s and i n chapter. 5 through a r e f e r e n c e to H a w r t h and Ramsie's

concept of t h e " d i f f e r i n g universes" of management and l a b o u r (Wworth

and Ramsie, 1985).

 -6-

Marxism and t h e Labour Process Debate

The p o s i t i o n o u t l i n e d h e r e can be viewed ( i n me s e n s e ) as a

development of classical Marxist p r i n c i p l e s o u t l i n e d by Elarx i n his

r m a r k s on " t h e labour process" and taken up i n sane respects by

Braverman. Slch p r i n c i p l e s have g e n e r a l l y been v i e w e d s i n c e t h e

p u b l i c a t i o n of Braverman's book as c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e f o u n d a t i o n s of

t h e "labour p r o c e s s debate". Flowever, i t i s our c o n t e n t i o n that t h e

assumptions used i n t h i s d e b a t e have d i v e r g e d f a r from such Marxist

p r i n c i p l e s , i f indeed t h e y have taken them up a t a l l , and t h a t i n

connection w i t h t h i s t h e y have f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e an a c c u r a t e

c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n of t h e "realities" of i n d u s t r i a l l i f e . I

The i n t r o d u c t o r y c h a p t e r s of t h i s t h e s i s are t h e r e f o r e concerned w i t h

t h e c o n t e n t of t h e "labour p r o c e s s debate", c o n s i s t i n g a s it does of

most contemporary t h e o r i s i n g a b w t work, and w i t h t h e location of

cLlr o m perspective within i t . I n the p r e s e n t chapter we o u t l i n e

f i r s t l y an argument about t h e o v e r a l l d i r e c t i o n of t h e study of work

both b e f o r e and after Braverman, and s e c o n d l y a n a l y s e t h e major

emphases of c r i t i q u e s of Braverman i n t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s d e b a t e i t s e l f .

I n Chapter 2 w e go on t o d i s c u s s i n more d e t a i l t h e concept of

" c o n t r o l " which i s i d e n t i f i e d a s central t o t h e labour p r o c e s s d e b a t e ,

and begin t o develop an a l t e r n a t i v e p o s i t i o n w h i c h i s d e a l t w i t h more

f u l l y i n t h e c h a p t e r on "Eixploitation".

W e begin, t h e n , by l o o k i n g a t t h e l i n e s of d e v e l q m e n t of " t h e l a b a u

process debate" and t h e way i n which t h e s e r e f l e c t p r e o c c u p a t i o n s

which have existed, w e argue, for many years i n t h e study of work

prior to Braverman.

Such a p o s i t i o n r u n s m n t e r t o t h e common conception of B r a v e m a n ' s

book and t h e r e s p o n s e t o i t as r e p r e s e n t i n g a new d e p a r t u r e i n t h i s

 -7-
f i e l d . Braverman's r e v i v a l of t h e Marxist term " t h e l a b o u r process"

i n his a n a l y s i s of changes i n the s t r u c t u r e and n a t u r e of work t h a t

have t a k e n p l a c e o v e r t h e l a s t 1 0 0 years i s seen as i n t r o d u c i n g a

Marxist p e r s p e c t i v e which h a s been l a c k i n g i n t h e empiricist and

u n s t r u c t u r e j area of "industrial sociology". An example of this

view i s found i n P a u l Thompson's u s e f u l s u r v e y of t h e development

of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s d e b a t e (Thanpson, 1983), i n which T h a n p s o n

states t h a t : "Even t h e best concepts f r m t r a d i t i o n a l i n d u s t r i a l

s o c i o l o g y do n o t g r a s p t h e i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n social r e l a t i o n s and

t e c h n i c a l o r g a n i s a t i o n w i t h i n t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s as a whole" (p21) op c i t .

The unique c o n t r i b u t i o n of Bravennan i s seen as l y i n g i n h i s

"successful attempt t o renew E'arx's t h e o r y of t h e l a h r p r o c e s s

and apply i t t o subsequent h i s t o r i c a l development, t a k i n g a f r e s h look

a t skills, technology and work o r g a n i s a t i o n " (p73)-Braverman1s book i s

c h a r a c t e r i s e d as p l a y i n g "a p i v o t a l r o l e i n l a t e r d e b a t e s b e c a u s e

he combined a renewal of Marx's categories w i t h an e x p l a n a t i o n of

t h e dominant t r e n d s i n t h e world of work" ( p 6 7 ) .

In spite of t h i s wholehearted endorsenent of Braverman's roots i n

classical Mardso,it i s n o t a b l e that Thanpson's concerns w i t h i n

l a b o u r p r o c e s s a n a l y s i s echo t h o s e of t h e labwr p r o c e s s d e b a t e a s

a whole i n e s s e n t i a l l y d e p a r t i n g f r o m sane of t h e major t e n e t s of

classical Marem. Thus, c o r r e c t l y a s far as it g o e s , Thanpson roots

t h e wave of p r e s e n t - d a y r e s e a r c h i n t o work i n t h e f a c t that "postwar

capitalist development had c r e a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t new developments for

t h e n a t u r e of work and for c l a s s fonation"(p67).However, these

developments are overwhelmingly c h a r a c t e r i s e d i n terms of t h e

s u b j e c t i v e e x p e r i e n c e of work, t h e n e g l e c t of which i s , i n cannon

w i t h most o t h e r commentators, t h e s u b s t a n c e of Thanpsonts criticisms

of Bravennan. T y p i c a l l y , T h q s o n f o l l o w s his historical sunandry Of

developments i n work and class patterns by ( i n a g r e m e n t w i t h K u h )

i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e associated workplace s t r u g g l e s as " f u r t h e r evidence

 -8-

of an i n c r e a s i n g r e s t l e s s n e s s about the q u a l i t y of w o r k i n g l i f e

and t h e n a t u r e of t h e job i t s e l f " (w).

The focus of labour p r a e s s a n a l y s i s i s s h i f t e d f i r m l y f r m t h e

Marxist concern w i t h economic i s s u e s of v a l o r i s a t i o n t o t h e

s u b j e c t i v e experience of work, an area which n e e d not exclude t h e

former concern b u t which i n p r a c t i c e , f o r reasons w e shall s h o r t l y

examine, t r a d i t i o n a l l y has done. The d i r e c t i o n of t h e a n a l y s i s is

shown i n Thanpson's i n i t i a l criticism of Marx for imposing 'la

deDaration of t h e spheres of p o l i t i c s and economics, or factory and

s t a t e " ( p q o n t h e development of b o t h theories of work and socialist

thought. The "politics". Thanpson argues i n canmon w i t h w r i t e r s such

as Eurawoy, E r i k Olin Wright and indeed A l t h u s s e r and those associated

w i t h him, must be brought back i n t o t h e a n a l y s i s of t h e econanic i n

p r o d u c t i m through t h e acknowledgement ( w h i c h h e claims i s absent i n

Marx) of worker r e s i s t a n c e w i t h i n t h e labour process.

I t i s this concern w i t h t h e s u p e r s t r u c t u r a l , though o f t e n expressed

more c o n c r e t e l y i n terms of d. specific focus on s u b j e c t i v e mrker

response, which links t h e labour process debate i n w i t h a broader

t r a d i t i o n of "western F l a r d s t " r e p u d i a t i o n of economic determinism.

A t t h e Same t i m e t h e expression of this concern through a n emphasis

on workers' response t o t h e experience of " a l i e n a t i n g " work and

managerial d a n i n a t i o n carries echoes of two o t h e r earlier t r a d i t i o n s :

t h e g e n e r a l preoccupation w i t h i n " i n d u s t r i a l sociology" w i t h j o b

s a t i s f a c t i o n (or lack of i t ) and t h e related concern with t h e

p r i n c i p l e s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s involved i n running an o r g a n i s a t i o n .

We go on t o shcm hav and why labour process t h e o r y s i n c e Braverman

has continued t o promote a p e r s p e c t i v e which r e t a i n s i n a confusing

fashion elements of both t r a d i t i o n a l i n d u s t r i a l sociology and t h e

" w e s t e r n M a d s t " approach, rather than, as claimed, b r i n g i n g a

c r e a t i v e renewal of Marxist p r i n c i p l e s i n t o t h e s t u d y of work.

 -9-

A w r i t e r who, l i k e Thcmpson, h a s t a k e n on t h e t a s k of p r o b i n g

developments i n Marxism s i n c e t h e second w r l d w a r , though f r a a

d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e , i s E l l e n Fleikens Wood i n " M a r ~ s owithout

C l a s s S t r u g g l e ? " (Wood, 1 9 8 3 ) . Addressing h e r s e l f t o t h e q u e s t i o n

of W e s t e r n Marxism" Wmd a r g u e s that t h e rmts of b o t h Althusser-

i a n i s n and mroccmmunisn are " u l t i m a t e l y grounded i n t h e same

historical r e a l i t y t h a t h a s so profoundly shaped Western Marxist

t h e o r y and practice i n g e n e r a l : t h e d i s i n c l i n a t i o n of the working

class for r e v o l u t i o n a r y politics" b 2 4 6 ) o p c i t . and t h a t t h e r e l a t e d

p o l i t i c a l strategies have "demanded nothing less than a r e d e f i n i t i o n

-
af c l a s s itself and of t h e whole conceptual a p p a r a t u s on w h i c h t h e

t r a d i t i o n a l Marxist t h e o r y of class and c l a s s struggle has r e s t e d

...a displacement of production r e l a t i o n s and exploitation f r a t h e

core of social structure and process, and much else b e s i d e ? " (p248).

A q u e s t i o n i n g of t h e s e fundamental c a t e g o r i e s i s , as w e shall see

below, a r e c u r r i n g theme of much l a b o u r process a n a l y s i s , so t h a t

whether t h e q u e s t i o n i n g i s i n i t s e l f r i g h t or wrong (and w e s h a l l

argue t h a t i t l e a d s t o sane important misapprehensions of t h e n a t u r e

of workplace s t r u g g l e s ) i t p u t s i n some doubt t h e c l a i m t o be

r e s h a p i n g t h e a n a l y s i s of work i n a Marxist mould. Wood c o n t i n u e s

t h e argument by t r a c i n g t h e roots of t h e rejection of "econmism"

c e n t r a l t o b o t h Western Marxism and t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s d e b a t e back t o

t h e p o l i t i c a l a t t r a c t i o n f e l t by t h e "Elay '68" g e n e r a t i o n tcwards

hkoism and t h e concept of " c u l t u r a l revolution'' as c o v e r i n g

" r e v o l u t i o n a r y movements w i t h o u t specific p o i n t s of c o n c e n t r a t i o n

or focused p o l i t i c a l targets, c h a r a c t e r i s e d i n s t e a d by a d i f f u s i o n of

s t r u g g l e throughout t h e p o l i t i c a l 'system' and a l l i t s i n s t r u m e n t s of

i d e o l o g i c a l and p o l i t i c a l i n t e g r a t i o n '' (p248-249)Wood d r a w s a direct

connection between this p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h i d e o l o g y and " c u l t u r e "

 -10-

and t h e later shift by P o u l a n t z a s , one of the l e a d i n g exponents

of t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , "fran an apparent d e p r e c i a t i o n of l i b e r a l

democratic forms t a v a r d s an a l b e i t cautious acceptance ...of t h e

Eurocanmunist view of t h e t r a n s i t i o n t o socialism as t h e e x t e n s i o n

of e x i s t i n g bourgeois danocratic forms "(p2ri9).In o t h e r words, t h e

i n s i s t e n c e on t h e c e n t r a l i t y of ideology and p a v e r - r e l a t e d p o l i t i c s

t h e a n a l y s i s of class and work has c l e a r , and far from radical,

political implications.

I t i s no part of t h e p r e s e n t argument to endorse econanisn per se,

or indeed any v e r s i o n of e c o n m i c determinism. The s i g n i f i c a n c e

of e c o n m i s t i c strategies by workers i s , a s has been indicated, a

major item of d i s c u s s i o n i n t h e t h e s i s as a whole, and t h e i s s u e

of econanic determinism arises t o sane d e g r e e i n this a r e a and i n

t h e d i s c u s s i o n of d e s k i l l i n g . What w e are concerned t o argue h e r e

i s that t h e r e a c t i o n a g a i n s t "econanism", which e x t e n d s t o a

r e p u d i a t i o n b o t h of t r a d i t i o n a l t r a d e u n i o n s t r u g g l e s and any

a n a l y s i s of work which emphasises t h e econorPic concerns embodied

i n such s t r u g g l e s , i s c a m o n both t o t h e broad t h e o r e t i c a l

t r a d i t i o n of Western Flardsm and t o c e n t r a l c u r r e n t s w i t h i n t h e

labour p r o c e s s debate. The d e b a t e , r a t h e r than launching an a n a l y s i s

of work which can i n s a n e way relate t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of v a l u e i n

capitalist p r o d u c t i o n , h a s picked up and e n l a r g e d thenes w i t h i n a n

earlier and broader t h e o r e t i c a l tradition, applying t h e s e s p e c i f i c a l l y

t o t h e study of work. Thus for example Buraway a r g u e s d o n g

A l t h u s s e r i a n l i n e s (Burawoy, 1978) that ".Any w o r k c o n t e x t i n v o l v e s

an economic dimension (production of t h i n g s ) , a p o l i t i c a l dimension

(production of social r e l a t i o n s ) and an i d e o l o g i c a l dimension

(production of an e x p e r i e n c e of t h o s e r e l a t i o n s ) . . . T h e so-called

econanic realm i s itself inseparable fran i t s political and

 -11-

i d e o l o g i c a l effects, and from s p e c i f i c a l l y political and

idedbgical ' s t r u c t u r e s ' of t h e worlcplacei (p274)op c i t . Cm this

b a s i s Buraway d e f i n e s Taylorism, for example. p r i m a r i l y i n terms

of i t s f u n c t i o n a s a "mode of l e g i t i m a t i o n " ( p 2 7 + I t has becane

even more canmon among recent l a b o u r p r o c e s s writers t o emphasise

t h e overwhelming role of t h e i d e o l o g i c a l and p o l i t i c a l i n s t r u c t u r i n g

managerial a c t i v i t y and worker response.

Havever v a l u a b l e t h e s e i d e a s , what i s b e i n g argued h e r e i s t h a t

t h e y o b l i t e r a t e crucial areas of Marxist t h e o r y f o r t h e s t u d y of

work. Although t h e notion of i d e o l o g y h a s a c e n t r a l p l a c e i n

Marxism, i t i s advanced (as i s o f t e n c r i t i c a l l y n o t e d ) on t h e b a s i s

of an e s s e n t i a l l y material a n a l y s i s of production and s o c i e t y .

Arguments as t o t h e r e l a t i o n between base and s u p e r s t r u c t u r e are

taken up i n Chapter 5 . What needs t o be s a i d h e r e i s t h a t i n ,

i m p l i c i t l y or e x p l i c i t l y , embracing t h e t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e

of Western Marxism, contemporary a n a l y s i s of t h e l a b o u r process

has l e f t many aspects of Marxist t h e o r y , mainly r e l a t i n g t o

c a p i t a l i s t o b j e c t i v e s of v a l o r i s a t i o n and t h e a s s o c i a t e d impact of

e w l o i t a t i o n , e s s e n t i a l l y unexplored. F u r t h e r , and as i m p o r t a n t l y ,

t h e A l t h u s s e r i a n emphasis on t h e overdetermination Of ideological

and p o l i t i c a l s t r u c t u r e s a l s o raises t h e more practical q u e s t i o n

of how anything i s e v e r going to break through t h e charmed circle

c r e a t e d by t h e s e structures. Rather t h a n emphasising t h e r o l e of

working class s t r u g g l e , as i t claims t o do, t h e "Western Marxist"

s t r a i n of labour process a n a l y s i s i n f a c t t e n d s t o i g n o r e or

d e n i g r a t e t h e s t r u g g l e s which do t a k e place.

That t h e t h e o r e t i c a l response t o Braverman has l a r g e l y c o n s i s t e d

of t a k i n g t h e Marxism o u t of bhrx i s f u r t h e r demonstrated within

t h e l a b o u r process d e b a t e through i t s c h a l l e n g i n g Of a number of

 -12-

knportant Marxist p r i n c i p l e s . These can b e summed up a s

r e s p e c t i v e l y t h e c e n t r a l i t y of l a b o u r to t h e p r c d u c t i m of p r o f i t ,

t h e l a b o u r t h e o r y of v a l u e , and t h e commodity s t a t u s of labour.

In t h i s way, p a r a d o x i c a l l y , t h e specific meaning of labour under

c a p i t a l i s m has been removed from t h e a n a l y s i s of t h e labour p r o c e s s .

Rather than t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a s p e c i f i c a l l y capitalist l a b o u r

process, a t t e n t i o n h a s s h i f t e d (as sane a u t h o r s spell o u t e x p l i c i t l y )

t o t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of an a h i s t o r i c a l l a b o u r process whose

fundamental p r i n c i p l e s are i n v a r i o u s ways denied or contradicted

by capitalism. \Wle this argument as t o t h e i n h e r e n t c r e a t i v i t y

of l a b o u r , etc., i s i n i t s own tenus worthwhile, i t fails t o cane

t o g r i p s w i t h t h e logic of t h e specific s t r u c t u r i n g of t h e l a b o u r

process under capitalism i n terms of t h e goal of v a l o r i s a t i o n , and

t h u s simultaneously evades d i s c u s s i o n of a r e l a t i o n s h i p c e n t r a l to

and c o n s t i t u t i v e of t h e capitalist l a b o u r process, t h a t of e x p l o i t -

ation. We are l e f t i n s t e a d with a r e c y c l e d and more s q h i s t i c a t e d

v e r s i o n of i n d u s t r i a l sociology. as sane of Braverman's c r i t i c s are

ready t o acknowledge. The connections between arguments developed

w i t h i n t h e labour process d e b a t e and t h e o l d e r , less s e l f - c o n s c i o u s l y

"radical" t r a d i t i o n are now explored.

Sociology and "Social Relationships"

I t would seem somewhat i r o n i c a l t h a t B r a v e m a n ' s Labour and Monopoly

C a n i t a l . lauded by Thompson a s r e p r e s e n t i n g a " r e t u r n t o Marx"

(Thanpson, 1983, 7 2 ) and t h u s t a k i n g d i s c u s s i o n of work beyond

"even t h e best c o n c e p t s frcm t r a d i t i o n a l i n d u s t r i a l sociology"

(Thompson, 1983, 21) has i n f a c t proved a c a t a l y s t for t h e massive

expansion of Marxist and necMlarxist comment m t h e labour process

which itself has turned p r e c i s e l y bade t o t h o s e s u b j e c t i v e and

"behavioural" i s s u e s w i t h which i n d u s t r i a l s o c i o l o g y had t r a d i t i o n a l l y

been concerned. The pre-occupation w i t h "social r e l a t i o n s " which

 -1 3-

merge i n w i t h "social r e l a t i o n s h i p s " , or i n other words social

i n t e r a c t i o n between groups, a t t h e p o i n t of p r c d u c t i o n , i s o n e

a s p e c t of this, as w e shall c o n s i d e r later. Another i s t h e concern

w i t h t h e content or q u a l i t a t i v e n a t u r e of work w h i c h i s dwonstrated

i n t h e d i s c u s s i o n s of d e s k i l l i n g , creative p o t e n t i a l o f labour etc

in which t h e u s e v a l u e aspects of l a b o u r are given overwhelming

p r i o r i t y over i t s role i n t h e c r e a t i o n of exchange value. These are

t h e same concerns which are a t large i n t h e '69s d i s c u s s i o n s of

" a l i e n a t i n g " w o r k and t h e more c o n v e n t i o n a l w o r r i e s of. so t o speak,

applied i n d u s t r i a l s o c i o l o g y or " b e h a m u r a l s t u d i e s " (McGregor,

Herzberg etc) as t o how t o improve job s a t i s f a c t i o n and increase

worker m o t i v a t i o n . The arguments of Friedman (1977,1978) and Cressey

and .?facInnes (1977,1980) w h i l e w r i t t e n from a "radical" p e r s p e c t i v e ,

i n fact deal w i t h much t h e same i s s u e s and advocate sane of t h e Same

s o l u t i o n s : " b h i l e labour process s t r u g g l e s may be i n s u f f i c i e n t for

transforming t h e working class i n t o a r e v o l u t i o n a r y c l a s s . . . t h e y

are n o t i n s u f f i c i e n t t o changing t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n of work or i n v e s t -

ment p a t t e r n s u n d e r capitalism " (Frie&an,1977,45) .

In b o t h cases, t h e concerns and arguments are a r e s p o n s e t o a r e a l

development; t h e d a n i n a t i o n of work i n t h e postwar period by t h e

r w t i n i s e d , f r a g n e n t e d , i n many cases t i g h t l y timed and measured

t e c h n i q u e s associated w i t h mass p r o d u c t i o n . In b o t h cases, b u t

p e r h a p s more u n d e r s t a n d a b l y i n t h e case of conventional i n d u s t r i a l

s o c i o l o g y , t h e argument skirts round t h e root causes and f u r x k a - n t a l s

of working class response t o this development. Thus, for example,

w h i l e t h e B r i t i s h workgroup based struggles w h i c h beg% i n t h e ' 5 0 s

mainly i n e n g i n e e r i n g were almost e n t i r e l y concerned w i t h d e t a i l e d

e f f o r t / r e w a r d q u e s t i o n s , t h e s o c i o l o g y of Work b o t h p r e - and post-

Braverman h a s , i n i t s c o n c e n t r a t i o n on t h e " a l i e n a t i n g " n a t u r e of

t h e work i t s e l f , abandoned t h e a n a l y s i s Of such s t m g g l e s almost

 -14-

wholly to t h e s p h e r e of " i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s " . In this latter

s p h e r e some extremely v a l u a b l e work has indeed been done

( B a t s t o n e . Boraston and F r e n k e l , 1977: Brown a n d ~ T e r r y , 1978:

Edwards and sCu11iOn,1982) p a r t i c u l a r l y i n c h a r t i n g t h e development

of "informal" b a r g a i n i n g strategies, b u t of i t s n a t u r e such work

can p a r t a k e o n l y t o a l i m i t e d degree of t h e t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s

a v a i l a b l e t o s o c i o l o g y a s a whole.

Secondly, t h e a n a l y s i s of t h e rationale of " a l i e n a t i n g " work

c o n d i t i o n s has been c a r r i e d o u t w i t h i n t h e framework, a t least

for t h e l a b o u r process debate. of t h e d r i v e for managerial

"control" and " d m i n a t i m " . The o p p o r t u n i t y t o e q l o r e t h e

material c o n d i t i o n s which have l e d t o t h i s breaking daun and

s p e c i a l i s a t i o n of work, i n t h e c o n t e x t of a n a n a l y s i s of i n t e n s i f -

i c a t i o n of labour centred on t h e o b j e c t i v e of maximising s u r p l u s

value through t h e r e o r g a n i s a t i o n of work, i s overlooked i n t h i s

p e r s p e c t i v e . A f o c u s on t h e o v e r r i d i n g tendency towards

i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of l a b o u r can a l l o w us t o understand t h e changing

n a t u r e of work i t s e l f i n terms of t h e economic r e q u i r e m e n t s b u i l t

i n t o t h e l a b o u r process which i n themselves l e n d l a r g e a r e a s of

p r o d u c t i v e work an e s s e n t i a l l y abstract and q u a n t i t a t i v e c h a r a c t e r .

The most i m p o r t a n t t h i n g t o u n d e r s t a n d abmt Taylorism i s n o t i t s

u s e as a means of managerial d a n i n a t i o n or " m o d e of l e g i t i m a t i o n "

b u t i t s role (and purpose) i n i n t e g r a t i n g requirements of valor-

i s a t i o n i n t o t h e f a b r i c of t h e labour p r o c e s s . Thus, w h i l e b e f o r e

this p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t i n t h e develcpment of capitalism t h e methods

workers used had been v e r y much l e f t up t o them, t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n

-
of t i m e and method (or "motion") study linked t h e two aspects of

t h e production process under capitalism, d e f i n e d by Marx as a l a b o u r

p r o c e s s and a process of v a l o r i s a t i o n , and e x p l i c i t l y allowed the

 . -1%

objectives of one to s t r u c t u r e t h e c o n t e n t of t h e other. I t i s for this

reason, arguably, that Braveman describes Taylorism as an e x p l i c i t

v e r b a l i s a t i o n of the c a p i t a l i s t m o d e of production" (Braverman. 1974,

pB6+.

Y e t t h i s p o i n t has been c o n s i s t e n t l y overlooked by commentators both

on Taylor and Braverman. Rod Coombes, for example (Combs, 1978) expresses

a typical misconception i n t h e assessment of Braverman's work when he

c m m e n t s that "Braverman i s presumably u s i n g t h e term 'mode of production'

to refer to the technique of production rather than to c a p i t a l i s m itself

(p83). Coanb's reading of t h i s p o i n t i s perhaps r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of many

w r i t e r s on t h e l a b o u r process i n that i t fails t o appreciate t h e way i n

w h i c h " s c i e n t i f i c management" is i n t r i n s i c a l l y tied i n w i t h the v e r y

logic of p r o f i t a b i l i t y , rather than being a strategy of "control" or

" d e - J c i l l i n g " for i t s own sake.

Such views can also be said t o underestimate t h e ways i n which this

q u a n t i t a t i v e logic(a) c a n achieve some o b j e c t i v e advances i n e f f i c i e n c y ,

such as t h e c u t t i n w u t of needless movements, which are probably w h a t

attracted Lenin (much maligned i n t h i s respect) t o Taylorism. A f u l l

e x p l o r a t i o n of w h a t are arguably some genuinely " s c i e n t i f i c " aspects of

s c i e n t i f i c management i s undertaken i n chapter 3.

Contemporary a n a l y s i s of t h e labour process, then, shares an e s s e n t i a l l y

similar perspective w i t h pre-Bravermanian i n d u s t r i a l sociology

i n that i n both cases a n y s u s t a i n e d attempttto explore t h e

material s t r u c t u r i n g and impact of work is missing. As w e

shall see h l w , the s i m i l a r i t y extends to a n explicit disavowal

by some labour process t h e o r i s t s of any conception of a

s p e c i f i c a l l y c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r p r o c e s s , a l o n g w i t h a call for

t y p o l o g i e s and t h e r e c o p i t i o n of complexity w h i c h takes us

s u s p i c i o u s l y close to t h e n e a t c a t e m r i s i n g s of a Woodward or
 -16-

Burns and S t a l k e r .

A t least part of t h i s r e l u c t a n c e t o t a k e on any of t h e more

s t r a i g h t f o n u a r d l y economic aspects of ?larxist t h e o r y i n t h e

a n a l y s i s of work,despite t h e obeisances towards > l a r e m , can

be a s c r i b e d t o t h e background of many c o n t r i b u t o r s t o t h e d e b a t e

i n o r g a n i s a t i o n a l sociOlOgy. While i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o d e f i n e t h e

d i v i d i n g l i n e between t h e s t u d y of o r g a n i s a t i o n s and a more

"production"-orientated approach, t h e emphasis of o r g a n i s a t i o n a l

t h e o r y on p r i n c i p l e s of o r g a n i s a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n i n g (or a l t e r n a t i v e l y

"dysfunction") has removed such theory even f u r t h e r from any

l o c a t i o n of c o n f l i c t i n t h e m a t e r i a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n s w i t h i n t h e

p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s i t s e l f . T h e oaradign of an " o r g a n i s a t i o n " i s a n

office; l i g h t , q u i e t , '@production-less". Fran this p o i n t of view

any examination of t h e factors i n f l u e n c i n g , for example, "workgroup"

a c t i v i t y (and o r g a n i s a t i o n a l theory has moved f r e e l y & t w e e n the

s t u d y of p r o f e s s i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and t h a t of t h e p r o d u c t i v e

workforce i t s e l f ) has taken p l a c e i n a c o n t e x t devoid of any

r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e material r e q u i r m e n t s of p r o d u c t i m and p r o f i t -

ability .
I t i s t h i s "absence" which h a s been one o f t h e l e g a c i e s of

o r g a n i s a t i o n a l t h e o r y t o t h e l a b m r process d e b a t e . " i x g a n i s a t i o n s " ,

or, simply, workplaces, are viewed i n terms of sets of social

interactions r a t h e r than as p a r t of t h e b u s i n e s s of production.

Weber d e f i n e d o r g a n i s a t i o n s a s " s t r u c t u r e s of daninancy"; Salaman

t e l l s u s t h a t t h e y a r e " s t r u c t u r e s of c o n t r o l " (Salaman, 1981, 143).

While t h e unmitigated view of o r g a n i s a t i o n s as r a t i o n a l and t h u s

e f f e c t i v e b u r e a u c r a c i e s has been fundamentally challenged. t h e

c o n f l i c t t h a t i s acknowledged has been l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e same

framework of r e l a t i o n s of a u t h o r i t y , l e g i t i m a t i o n and damination,

 -1 7-

r a t h e r t h a n , even w i t h i n t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s d e b a t e , being

r e l a t e d t o t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s i n h e r e n t i n the e x t r a c t i o n of

s u r p l u s v a l u e . Thus John s t o r e y , f o r example, can s a y i n a

c o n t r i b u t i o n located f i r m l y w i t h i n t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s l i t e r a t u r e ,

t h a t "cur earlier r e c o n c e p t u a l i s a t i o n s of o r g a n i s a t i o n s . . .depicted

them n o t a s n e u t r a l t e c h n i c a l systems b u t a s ensembles of

f o r m a l i s e d a c t i o n designed t o secure danination" ( S t o r e y , 1983,

1 2 3 ) . While i t i s no p a r t of our i n t e n t i o n t o argue that organis-

a t i o n s should be seen as " n e u t r a l t e c h n i c a l systems". Storey's

d e s c r i p t i o n d o e s raise the q u e s t i o n of w h a t e x a c t l y i t i s so

n e c e s s a r y t o s e c u r e d a n i n a t i o n over.

Thus o r g a n i s a t i o n a l theory, w h i l e n o t c e n t r a l l y concerned w i t h

p r o d u c t i o n i n a w i t a l i s t s o c i e t y , has n e v e r t h e l e s s "appropriated"

a t c e r t a i n p o i n t s issues of c l a s s , t r a d e unionism and workplace

c o n f l i c t , t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e on which has then been

u n c r i t i c a l l y absorbed i n t o t h e l a b r p r o c e s s d e b a t e . I n c o n t r a s t

t o t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f l a b o u r p r o c e s s t h e o r y as r e p r e s e n t i n g a new

d e p a r t u r e fran t h e l i m i t a t i o n s of orthodox i n d u s t r i a l sociology, no

such r e p u d i a t i o n of o r g a n i s a t i o n a l theory has t a k e n place. I n f a c t

a confused merger s e a s t o c o n t i n u e between t h e t w o disciplines,

which, g i v e n t h e "absence of production" t o which w e have r e f e r r e d

i n o r g a n i s a t i o n a l t h e o r y , could be said to be even more dangerous

t o t h e development of a class a n a l y s i s of work t h a n a more ''simple"

i n d u s t r i a l sociology. Presumably no one w r i t i n g w i t h i n the contempor-

a r y l i t e r a t u r e on work and t h e labour p r o c e s s would wish t o c l a i m

t h a t t h e o r y s i n c e Braveman has been t o t a l l y unmarked by i n f l u e - c e s

from earlier traditions. N e v e r t h e l e s s i t appears ironical t h a t a

t h e o r e c t i c a l c u r r e n t which proclaims i t s e l f a s d i s t i n c t i v e i n

r e v i v i n g a s p e c i f i c a l l y Marxist p e r s p e c t i v e i n t h e s t u d y of work

should have r e v e r t e d so c l e a r l y , via the i d e o l q i c a l and p o l i t i c a l

 -18-

emphasis of Western Marxism. to t h e c o n c e r n s of o r g a n i s a t i o n a l and

i n d u s t r i a l sociology. A c l o s e r look a t t h e argument w i t h i n Braverman's

book i t s e l f , and t h e specifics of t h e r e s p o n s e t o i t i n t h e "labour

process debate", may i n d i c a t e some of t h e c a u s e s .

Back t o Braverman

I t i s n o t t h e purpose of t h i s t h e s i s to p r e s e n t a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s

of Braverman's book, or t o "defend" it as an u n a s s a i l a b l e pr-

nouncement on t h e n a t u r e of work i n l a t e capitalism. N e v e r t h e l e s s ,

i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t that some of t h e arguments i n t h e book have, i n

our view, been w i d e l y m i s i n t e r p r e t e d in ways which axe common t o

d i f f e r e n t writers. We shall b e g i n , then, b y b r i e f l y s e t t i n g o u t

w h a t Braverman's book i s "abcut" and go on t o a n a l y s e t h e response

t o i t i n o r d e r to s u b s t a n t i a t e t h e case m a d e c u t above a s t o t h e

d i r e c t i o n t h e l a b o u r process d e b a t e has t a k e n .

Braveman makes t w o statenents i n his i n t r o d u c t i o n , t h e f i r s t of

which h a s been l a r g e l y ignored and t h e second of w h i c h h a s proved

c o n t r o v e r s i a l . I n h i s f i r s t statement, Braverman s a y s that t h e

o r i g i n a l motive behind t h e book i s t o p r o v i d e " l i t t l e more than a

s t u d y of o c c u p a t i o n a l s h i f t s i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . I was i n t e r e s t e d

i n t h e structure of t h e working class, and t h e manner in which i t

had changed (Braveman, 1974, 3). T h i s t h e n "'began t o broaden t o

i n c l u d e t h e evolution of l a b o u r p r o c e s s e s w i t h i n occupations a s

w e l l as t h e s h i f t s of l a b o u r among occupations ...Before l o n g I

found myself a t t e m p t i n g a s t u d y of t h e development of t h e capitalist

mode of p r o j u c t i o n & r i n g t h e past 100 years '' (p4).The second

statement i s t h a t "No a t t e m p t w i l l be made t o d e a l w i t h t h e modern

working class on t h e l e v e l of i t s c o n s c i o u s n e s s , organisation Or

a c t i v i t i e s . T h i s i s a book about t h e working c l a s s a s a class &

i t s e l f . n o t as a class for i t s e l f . . . w h a t i s needed f i r s t of a l l i s
 -19-

a p i c t u r e of t h e working class a s i t exists, as t h e shape given t o

t h e working p a p u l a t i o n by t h e capital accumulation process (~26).

This e-licit "opting out" has been seen a s an i n e x c u s a b l e defect

i n Braverman's a n a l y s i s by many of his c r i t i c s .

Braverman's i n i t i a l statement of his i n t e n t i o n s i n t h e book makes

i t clear t h a t h i s s u b j e c t matter i s t h e s t r u c t u r a l or technical

development of t h e labour process under c a p i t a l i s m . In o t h e r words

he is not concerned w i t h "the l a b o u r process" as a set of, l i t e r a l l y ,

social r e l a t i o n s , or more a c c u r a t e l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s , a s many more

r e c e n t labcxlr process writers sean t o be (see below) b u t a s a

p a r t i c u l a r t e c h n i c a l o r g a n i s a t i o n of work. Second, or r a t h e r a t t h e

same t i m e , h e i s concerned w i t h t h e s t r u c t u r i n g of that o r g a n i s a t i o n

by capitalism; w i t h a s p e c i f i c a l l y capitalist labcur p r o c e s s . I t i s

from t h i s p o i n t of view t h a t Braverman's e x p l o r a t i o n s i n t o t h e

Marxist concept of "labour process" and his specific i n t e r e s t i n

t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between conception and execution are undertaken.

The u n i t y of conception and execution is upheld, n o t , as sane of

Braverman's detractors assume, a s a f e a t u r e of a lost b u t still

memorable paradise of "craft c o n t r o l " b u t as t h e d e f i n i n g f e a t u r e

of t h e notion of "labour process" as such, ahistorical, o u t s i d e

any specificdass s t r u c t u r e , as Marx first d e f i n e s i t i n order

more c o n c r e t e l y and h i s t o r i c a l l y t o s p e c i f y t h e character of t h i s

labour process under d i f f e r e n t modes of p r d u c t i o n .

To p r e s e n t Braverman's argument i n t h i s l i g h t i s t o extrapolate

i t t o a p a r t i c u l a r logic and l e v e l of o b j e c t i v i t y n o t always

p r e s e n t i n t h e book itself. Braveman's personal n o s t a l g i a f o r h i s

p a s t a s a craftsman emerges c l e a r l y enough and c a n be Seen t o

p r a n o t e an a t times idealistic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e craft

t r a d i t i o n a s having embodied a nag lost u n i t y of conception and

 -20-

execution. His own u s e of t h e term "control". a t which w e l o o k

i n more detail i n t h e next c h a p t e r , i s itself ambivalent, though

t h i s i s perhaps n o t s u r p r i s i n g given l a c k of,foreknowledge on how

h e would b e a t t a c k e d for his u s e of t h e concept. But t h e major

project of the book r a n a i n s t h e l o c a t i n g and listing of t h e

specific dimensions of t h e labour p r o c e s s under c a p i t a l i s m .

Thus Taylorism, which s y s t e m a t i c a l l y works t o s e p a r a t e conception

frcm execution as p a r t of an explicit t e c h n i q u e f o r r e n d e r i n g

work o p e r a t i o n s more efficient, i s a c e n t r a l focus of t h e a n a l y s i s

i n which "technique" i s not a side i s s u e but an i n t e g r a l part of

understanding t h e c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r process. I n c o n t r a s t t o almost

e v e r y other w r i t e r i n t h e f i e l d , Braverman p e r c e i v e s t h e c r u c i a l

p o i n t that i n " s c i e n t i f i c management" t h e r e occurs a union of

technique or o r g a n i s a t i o n of work and t h e production i m p e r a t i v e s

imposed by t h e c a p i t a l i s t r e n u i r e n e n t of v a l o r i s a t i o n .

Under c a p i t a l i s n , p r o d u c t i o n is s t r u c t u r e d and labour i s "drawn

cut" of the workforce by t h e o v e r r i d i n g o b j e c t i v e of producing

s u r p l u s value. S c i e n t i f i c management e x p l i c i t l y structures t h e

d e t a i l e d o r g a n i s a t i o n of work i n tenus of this o b j e c t i v e . I n t h i s

way t h e c o n t e n t of l a b o u r - i t s use-value aspects - i s matched,

s t r u c t u r e d and approximated to i t s purpose of producing exchange

value. The q u a l i t a t i v e i s shaped by t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e . T h i s is w h a t

Marx meant by t h e real subordination of labour, though he never

witnessed "Taylorism". The c e n t r a l i t y of Taylorism t o Braverman's

argument is r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of i t s symbolic and real s i g n i f i c a n c e

f o r t h e specifically c a p i t a l i s t - valorisation-oriented - structurinq

of t h e labour process. As t h e e x p r e s s i o n of t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n of

production f o r exchange, T a y l o r i s n (or any form of work s t u d y ) c a n

a l s o p r o v i d e u s w i t h an understanding of t h e approximation w i t h i n
 -21-
semi-skilled work tcwards the concept of abstract l a b o u r w h i c h i s

c e n t r a l t o mrx's economic t h e o r y and to w h i c h Braverman also a t

v a r i o u s p o i n t s links his a r g u n e n t : "This mechanical exercise of

human faculties according to motion types which are. s t u d i e d

independently of t h e particular kind of work b e i n g done, b r i n g s

t o life the mrxist conception of 'abstract l a b o u r ' . W e see that

this a b s t r a c t i o n fram the concrete forms of labour...is not

something t h a t exists o n l y i n t h e pages of thefirst chapter of

Capital, b u t exists a s w e l l i n the m i n d of capitalists, t h e manager,

the i n d u s t r i a l engineer" (Braverman, 1974, pl81).

N o n e of this argument has a n y t h i n g to do with dssuos of "control"

i n t h e Sense of domination/subordination r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Y e t i t i9

t h e q u e s t i o n of "control" which has been overwhelmingly taken up

i n criticisms of Bravenuan. An argument has been advanced which assumes

t h a t Bravenuan holds t h e same conception of * t o n t r o l ' ~as his critics, and

that he has used this concept wrongly and m e c h a n i s t i c a l l y . I t i s assumed

that this notion of "control1' as his critics, and that he has used this

concept wrongly and m e c h a n i s t i c a l l y . I t i s assumed t h a t this

n o t i o n of ''control", as i n the alleged argument t h a t d e s k i l l i n g

i s projected i n o r d e r to give more c o n t r o l to t h e c a p i t a l i s t class,

i s c e n t r a l to t h e book. Y e t w h i l e Braverman does indeed u s e the

term "control" throughout, i t can be argued that his b a s i c stand-

p o i n t of a n a l y s i s i n terms of economic requirements of accumulation

and p r o f i t a b i l i t y means that he occupies a d i f f e r e n t pround on

c o n t r o l from many of his critics. While "control" i s ( i m p l i c i t l y ,

a t l e s t ) conceptualised by most of Braverman's critics i n terms

of r'political" r e l a t i o n s h i p s of dcinination and subordination

w i t h i n the workplace, for Braverman the term can be taken to

refer to techniquesckrhereby slrployers more e f f e c t i v e l y maximise

s u r p l u s value. The former i s s u e can, of murse, be argued to be

s h p l y a dimension of the l a t t e r . T h a t the t w o p e r s p e c t i v e s are

i n fact c r u c i a l l y distinctis shown i n more d e t a i l as part of t h e

 -22-

argument i n t h r . n e x t c h a n t e r .

Response to araverman

The emphasis on "control" i n criticisms of Braverman 1s i n itself,

however, o n l y one aspect of t h e & n e r d theoretical s t a n c e from

which most of t h e c r i t i q u e s have been w r i t t e n . Having attempt& t o

e s t a b l i s h t h r c e n t r a l p o s i t i o n of Sraverman's book a g z i n s t what

h a s been s u g g e s t e d are w i d e s p r e a d m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , ue nOIi go

on t o a broader s u r v e y of t h e response t o B r a v e m a n i r o r d e r t o

chart t h e main l i n e s of t h e labour p r o c e s s debate.

The overwhelming theme a p p a r e n t i n b o t h e a r l y a n d l a t e r criticisms

of araverman ( a n d t h e response t o t h e book has b e e n a h o s t e n t i r e l y

c r i t i c a l , despite an e n t h u s i a s t i c early r e c e p t i o n ) i s t h e n p g l e c t

of s u b j e c t i v i t y or worker resnonse from Braverman's a r d y s i s .

Braverman's d i s c l a i m e r that "This i s a book a b o u t t h e working class

a s a class i t s e l f , n o t a s a c l a s s for itself"( p 2 7 , : s scorned a s

i n a d e q u a t e t o a work purporting t o p r o v i d e a wideranping t h e o r y of

t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s . While t h e d e t a i l s of t h i s c r i t i q u e are

c a n p a r a t i v e l y undeveloped i n t h e f i r s t r e s p o n s e s t o Eraverman, b y

t h e s t a g e o f arguments such as t h o s e of Lazonick (19EI or

Thompson (1983) i t has developed i n t o a fully-fledgec' argument

o v e r h w t h e a b s e n c e of a n acknowledgement of worker r e s i s t a n c e

w i t h i n t h e l a b o u r process v i t i a t e s n o t o n l y Rravermar!'s argument

b u t Varxist t h e o r y on t h e labcur process as a whole, T a r t i c u l a r l y

a s r e o r e s e n t e d i n t h e c o n c e p t of t h e r e a l s u b o r d i n a t i i m of labour

(see below,.

Cc t h e b a s i s of t h i s c e n t r a l c r i t i q u e t h e labour proc?ss d r b a t e

s i n c e Braverman has t e n d e d t o take t h e form of a development of

arguments which will i n o n e way or a n o t h e r make un f o r t h i s

n l l e g w ' d e f i c i e n c y . These c a n be s a i d t o have t a k e n ;:ace within

 -2%

one or o t h e r of two broad frameworks: w o r k e r s ' experience of t h e

q u a l i t a t i v e c o n t e n t of t h e i r work, and t h e social n a t u r e of

r e l a t i o n s a t work. The former i s extended t o t a k e i n t h e

" d e s k i l l i n g d e b a t e " , worker knavledge and t h e creatiye p o t e n t i a l

of l a b o u r ; t h e l a t t e r t o cover a generalc$mamic of managerial

domination and an accompanying " c l a s s s t r u g g l e " which i n i t s e l f

i s i n t e g r a l t o t h e development of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s . Same

a s s o c i a t e d i s s u e s which a r e more d i r e c t l y connected w i t h t h e

umbrella concept of " c o n t r o l " a r e f u r t h e r d i s c u s s e d i n t h e n e x t

chapter.

First of a l l , t h e n , t h e argument over t h e meaning and i m p l i c a t i o n s

of t h e n o t i o n of " d e s k i l l i n g " . C l e a r l y i t i s seen a s a key p r o p o s i t i o n

of B r a v e m a n ' s book that t h e development of t h e l a b o u r process under

l a t e c a p i t a l i r m has imposed a remorseless t r a j e c t o r y of d e s k i l l i n g

and "degradation of work" on t h e working class. While t h e o v e r a l l

tendency can h a r d l y be s e r i o u s l y q u e s t i o n e d , criticism has tended

t o c o n c e n t r a t e on t h e " u n i d i r e c t i o n a l " a n d i n e x o r a b l e nature of

t h i s tendency i n t h e Bravemanian p e r s p e c t i v e . Thus E l g e r , a n e a r l y

c r i t i c of Bsaveman o v e r t h i s i s s u e , a r g u e s t h a t i n p l a c e of a one-

s i d e d a n a l y s i s l i k e h i s should cane a n a w a r e n e s s of t h e c a m p l e x i t y

and r e v e r s a b i l i t y of t h e d e s k i l l i n g process, s p e c i f i c a l l y based on

a n acknowledgement of worker r e s i s t a n c e ( E l q e r , 1979).

The r o l e of worker resistance i s s e e n as central i n two ways; ,

f i r s t l y a s p l a y i n g a n i n t e g r a l p a r t i n t h e develqxnent of t h e l a b o u r

p r o c e s s a s such, and secondly a s b l o c k i n g t h e o v e r a l l c a p i t a l i s t

imnulsion towards d e s k i l l i n g . Thus Foster i s c i t e d a s a r g u i n g

t h a t working class m i l i t a n c y i t s e l f " p r e c i p i t a t e d major efforts

t o r e o r g a n i s e t h e labour process of b o t h e n g i n e e r i n g and s p i n n i n g "

( C l g e r , 1979, 73).Again, i n c o n t r a s t t o Steadman-Jones' argument

t h a t c r a f t workers through s t r u g g l e managed t o r e t a i n a fOma1

s t a t u s for t h e i r s k i l l s , Wger claims that "they w e r e transformed

and encapsulated within modem i n d u s t r y i n ways w h i c h s u s t a i n e d

s i g n i f i c a n t forms of expertise " ( ~ 7 4

).

I t is clear t h a t worker response and r e s i s t a n c e do p l a y an i n t e g r a l

part b o t h i n t h e o v e r a l l development of t h e labour process and i n

i t s everyday management and o r g a n i s a t i o n . But i n acknowledging this,

t h e crucial q u e s t i o n remains as t o w h a t t h i s resistance i s about.

For Elger i t i s c l e a r l y seen as d e s k i l l i n g , that i s about

t h e c o n t e n t and p o s s i b l y t h e s t a t u s of types of work. A t t h e same

time, t h e rationale of t h e d e s k i l l i n g process itself for capitalism

i s seen n o t i n r e l a t i o n to the technology involved and its p o t e n t i a l

f o r increased p r o d u c t i v i t y b u t a s a strategy f o r weakening organised

worker r e s i s t a n c e (though t o w h a t i s u n s p e c i f i e d ) . Thus t h e

a l l e g a t i o n that Braverman "is limited i n his understanding of t h e

e x t e n t t o which working class cppositim d e f e a t e d T a y l o r i s n and

pushed capital t o employ more s u b t l e means of m n t r o l i n i t s quest

for a u t h o r i t y (Palmer, 1975, 32, cited i n Elger, 80) e n c a p s u l a t e s

b o t h p o s i t i o n s . The emphasis on skill as a key focus of worker

r e s i s t a n c e i s s u s t a i n e d i n t h e criticirm of Braverman's alleged

imputation of "a s w i t c h frm thoroughgoing craft c o n t r o l s t o pervasive

capitalist d i r e c t i o n of t h e labour process" ( W g e r 1979, 63),for

f a i l i n g to aupreciate i n p a r t i c u l a r " t h e manner i n v h i c h foms of

specialised expertise and craft canpetence may be embedded with a

ccmolex structure of c o l l e c t i v e l a b o u r e f f e c t i v e l y subordinated t o

capital accumulatim "( ~ 6 3 ) .

I t i s n o t so much that such processes do n o t occur, but that t h e y

are n o t n e c e s s a r i l y c e n t r a l t o t h e pattern of worker r e s i s t a n c e and

managerial decision-making, that we w a t l d raise a g a i n s t this arguyent.

Although Elper criticises Bravennan for n o t i n t e g r a t i n g t h e specific

 -25-

"exigencies" of pressures towards p r o f i t a b i l i t y and accumulation a t

d i f f e r e n t h i s t o r i c a l periods i n t o h i s argument, this concern wi+h

t h e econanic s t r u c t u r e of capitalism i s raised more a s p a r t of a

plea f o r g r e a t e r canplexity i n the argument, and recognition of

pressures caning f r a n working-class r e s i s t a n c e , than a s an attempt

t o chart t h e r a t i o n a l e of trends of development w i t h i n t h e labour

process i n economic terms.

In c o n t r a s t t o Elger's argument i t may be suggested t h a t workers,

while n a t u r a l l y -posed t o the erosion of t h e i r craft skills as

/
such, w i l l tend t o undergo a process of s t r u g g l e i n which while

some attempt i s made to preserve the content of t h e i r j o b s as such,

t h e emphasis w i l l be on r e t a i n i n g sane of t h e privileged aspects of

pay, job security etc. which go along with skilled work - hence the

well-known p h e n a e n m of "red-circling!'. Even more c l e a r l y , a

r a t i o n a l e f o r the implementation of d e s k i l l i n g w h i c h must s u r e l y be

taken i n t o account i s simply t h e necessity t o increase t h e product-

i v i t y of labour and thereby p r o f i t a b i l i t y . Thus Taylorisn, which

t h e response t o Bravennan has seen almost e n t i r e l y a s a s t r a t e g y of

"control" i n t h e sense of domination and suppression of t h e work-

force, must also be allowed a case for examination i n i t s own t e r n s

as a technique f o r breaking down and r e c o n s t i t u t i n g the organisation

of work i n t o p a t t e r n s which could lead t o . i n Marx's w o r d s , a c l o s e r

filling-up of t h e pores of t h e working day" (Marx, 1976. 5 3 4 ) .The

implication of t h e "labam process debate" argument about d e s k i l l i n g

i s that the i s s u e s r a i s e d can be examined s o l e l y within a framework

of use-value aspects of t h e labour process; of workers' resistance

t o changes i n t h e orqanisation of t h e s e aspects. and managerial

strategies aimed a t weakening this resistance by f u r t h e r changing

such organisatiar. mestions of t h e impact of production for

exchanqe value and workers' struggles to defend t h e i r standards

of l i v i n g as a central f e a t u r e of their i n t e r a c t i o n d t h t h e c a p i t a l i s t

labour process are again absent from this analysis.

Fran another p o i n t of view, preoccupation with t h e use-value aspects

of t h e labour process i s w e l l i l l u s t r a t e d w i t h i n t h e debate by t h e

writings of Qessey awl MacInnes (1980). Writing i n t h e context of

an examination ob capital’s “material r e l a t i o n w i t h lab air'^ Cressey

and ElacInnes focus t h e i r a n a l y s i s on what t h e y see as a key contradict-

ion within c a p i t a l i s t labour processes, the repression and

subordination of workers‘ knowledge and c r e a t i v i t y through the

h i e r a r c h i c a l and power-centred s t r u c t r e s of capitalism. Thus w h i l e

c a p i t a l i s t s , by v i r t u e of t h e i r whole p o l i t i c a l and ideological

p o s i t i o n , dauinate and cppress workers within t h e labour process,

they a l s o continually need t o call on t h e knowledge, motivation and

c r e a t i v i t y possessed by t h e s e workers. This c o n s t i t u t e s a central

contradiction: “It is p r e c i s e l y because c a p i t a l must surrender

the u s e of i t s means of production t o labcur t h a t capital must t o

sane degree seek a cc-operative r e l a t i o n s h i p with it...The two-fold

nature of the relationship of capital t o labaur inirLhe workplace

*lies d i r e c t l y contradictory s t r a t e g i e s f o r both labwr and

capital.. .I1 (Cressey and Flaclnnes, 1980, 14). In Managerial

Preorogative and t h e mestion of Control (Storey, 1983) John Storey

l o c a t e s a s i m i l a r fundamental contradictim, also centred onthe

q u a l i t a t i v e c o n t e n t of production. As p a r t of a call for a d i a l e c t -

i c a l approach t o analysis of t h e labour process, he SUQgeststhat

q’Control s t n r c t u r e s and s t r a t e g i e s t y p i c a l l y contain t h e i r own

inherent contradictions. Braverman implies d e - k i l l i n g i s almost

an objective o r end i n i t s e l f . Yet...capital (accumulated, dead

labatr) r e q u i r e s l i v i n g labour t o continue t h e cycle of p r a d u c t i m

and v a l o r i s a t i o n . I n the f i n a l a n a l y s i s the inanimate f a c t o r s of

production must be placed i n t h e hands of l i v i n g labour if sulplus

 -27-

value i s t o be r e a l i s e d " (Storey, 1983. 8 ) .

Despite the use by both these writers of central Marxist concepts

such as contradiction and, i n Storey's case, t h e d i a l e c t i c , neither

makes t h e point t h a t Marx's concern with contradiction is one used

t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e i n t e r n a l tensions within a given system. The very

notion of t h e d i a l e c t i c i n d i c a t e s an i n t e r a c t i o n of opposites

which are defined i n r e l a t i o n to one another r a t h e r than to any

variable outside t h e bounds of t h i s interaction. In t h e emphasis

of both Storey and Cressey and MacInnes on t h e c r e a t i v e p o t e n t i a l

of labour per se t h e r e i s an implicit c o n t r a s t between capitalism

and sane o t h e r , more i d e a l system which would be able t o a c t i v e l y

employ t h i s p o t e n t i a l . Yet, through this very c o n t r a s t , t h e notion

of a pure, a h i s t o r i c a l "labour process" i s made primary. As

Cressey and MacInnes themselves m a k e clear i n another paper

(Qessey and MacInnes 1977), t h e "social relations" of capitalism

a r e seen a s a r t i f i c a l l y and i l l o g i c a l l y imposing t h e i r c o n s t r a i n t s

on t h e development of this "natural" labour process. In this w a y

t h e useful aspects of production, rather than the exchangevalue

aspects which i n f a c t daninate w i t h i n capitalism, becane the

exclusive function of analysis. me location of c e n t r a l contradict-

ions within capitalism i n t h e arena of the q u a l i t a t i v e o r use-value-

related content of work -methods, e x p e r t i s e , c r e a t i v e i n i t i a t i v e

- indicates, as w e argue throughout. a s i g n i f i c a n t absence within

t h e labour process debate of any s e r i o u s a t t e n p t t o get t o g r i p s

w i t h t h e dynamics of value creation as they Operate within t h e

c a p i t a l i s t labour process.

I f t h e organisation and content of the capitalist labour process

i s seen as revolving r a n d a dynamic of worker r e s i s t a n c e which

i n i t s turn c e n t r e s on t h e q u a l i t a t i v e or "use value"-oriented

a s p e c t s of t h e labour process, w e a r e left without, a s i t were,

a material handle w i t h which t o grasp t h e basis of e x i s t i n g worker

antagonisms and c a p i t a l i s t imperatives which d a i l y surface w i t h i n

t h e c a p i t a l i s t enterprise. Without denying the salience of workers'

subjective experience of t h e content of work, i t i s the contention

of t h i s thesis t h a t econanic i s u e s centring on the s t r u g g l e t o

maintain bnd improve l i v i n g standards form t h e major focus of

worker r e s i s t a n c e i n the context of workers' "given" position a s

sellers of t h e i r labour power.

I t i s worth mentioning i n t h e context of these arguments t h a t

t h e r e i s a widespread h o s t i l i t y t o t h e notion of "real subord-

i n a t i o n of labour" p a r t i c u l a r l y among those writers who emphasise

t h e importance of r e s i s t a n c e by workers on "control" grounds. The

notion of r e a l subordinatim has, as w e argue i n more detail i n

Chapter 3, been widely misinterpreted as implying a p o l i t i c a l

repression and subordination by management of workers w i t h i n the

labour process - a point which Marx s p e c i f i c a l l y denies (Marx,

1976, 1026). I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t that many writers w i t h i n the labour

process debate have i n t e r p r e t e d a c r u c i a l Marxist argument about

the develqvnent and impact of t h e valorisation o b j e c t i v e within

capitalism i n terms of a p u r e l y g o l i t i c a l dauination and subordin-

ation (which they argue i s countervailed by worker resistance

a g a i n s t t h i s p o l i t i c a l repressim). This alwst exclusive focus on

t h e "social" aspects of t h e capital/labour r e l a t i o n a t t h e point

of production i s examined i n t h e next p a r t of the argument.

Littler and Salaman (1581) i l l u s t r a t e t h i s concern with "social

relations", t h e seccnd focus of a n a l y s i s i n the labour process

debate, i n t h e i r canplaint t h a t "throughout Braveman's analysis

t h e r e runs a highly meachanistic, deterministic s t r a i n whereby

 -29-

relationships, once established as necessary, a r e regarded as

s a t i s f a c t o r i l y understood and e x p l a i n e d . Braverman i s not

interested...in questions of how t h e s e t h e o r e t i c a l l y required

relationships are a c t u a l l y organised and structured i n practice."

( ~ 2 5 1.The
) p o i n t i s echoed ( i n f a c t predated by) t h e arguments

of Richard Edwards, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n an a r t i c l e itself e n t i t l e d

"The Social Relations of Production a t t h e Point of Production"

(Fdwards, 1978) .Here he declares t h a t "Whereas Braverman concerned

himself primarily with the technical a s p e c t s of the development of

the labour process - "technical" i n the sense of workers' r e l a t i o n s

t o the physical process of production - my a n a l y s i s w i l l focus on

t h e develcping r e l a t i o n s of production a t t h e p o i n t of

production 'I (p110).Fran Edwards' subsequent argrmrent, i t i s clear

t h a t i t i s the i s s u e of "control" (simple, technical and bureau-

cratic) that he has i n mind i n making these emendations. Hcavever,

i n t h e same way that t h e concept of tfcontrol" i s itself highly

ambivalent and "loaded", the recanmendation to explore "social

relations" ( t o which John Storey, as quoted cm p.17, adds his

voice) appears based on an e l i s i o n whereby w h a t are u n d a b t e d l y

"social" r e l a t i m s - the r e l a t i o n s of production specific t o

capitalism - are transnuted i n t o social relation- i n the sense

of t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between groups a t t h e workplace. I t i s

unquestimable that both the technology and t h e patterns Of Caamand

and conflict within labour processes are bcund up with t h e mode of

production and ensuing r e l a t i o n s of production within which work

takes place. I n t h i s sense t h e nature of work i s i n h b i t a b l y "social".

ht these "social"/production r e l a t i o n s must not be reduced t o

t h e l e v e l of aspects of social i n t e r a c t i o n surrounding purely

lpmer" r e l a t i o n s h i p s a t work. Issues such as e x p l o i t a t i o n and

t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e structuring of work towards p r o f i t a f i n e d targets

 -33-

must be taken i n t o acccunt when discussing t h e . s t r u c t u r i n g of work

itself by t h e c a p i t a l / l a h r r e l a t i o n .

That an a n a l y s i s based on production relations has been allowed t o

merge i n t o one primarily concerned with t h e nature of i n t e r a c t i o n

between groups i s P a r t i c u l a r l y c l e a r i n t h e writings of John Storey

(1983). After t h e statement defining organisations as "ensembles...

designed t o s e c u r e danination" this author goes on t o say t h a t

"Work organisations therefore w i l l be viewed a s s o c i a l outcanes

and mre s p e c i f i c a l l y as emergent prcperties of class struggle. In

place of technological determinism cur model p o s i t s s o c i a l relation-

ships shaping t h e technology which i s created and which i n t u r n

r e a c t s upon s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s I' (Storey, 1983, p123).

T h i s i s perhaps a key passage i n l o c a t i n g sane aspects of can-

tenporary labour process theory w i t h i n what amounts t o a sophisticated

version not 50 much of i n d u s t r i a l sociology as social psychology.

The argument can a l s o be recognised a s a small-scale r e p e t i t i o n

of t h e p l e a s of f o r example Thumpson and Wlrawuy f o r t h e i n t e g r a t i o n

of the " p o l i t i c a l " , i e labour process terms t h e e d s t e n c e of

c o n f l i c t u r a l social r e l a t i o n s h i r s a t work, within t h e ecmanic. Such

arguments have been extended by many writers i n t h e assumption

that struggles w i t h i n the labour process function on t h e reproduction

of t h e r e l a t i o n s of p r a t u c t i m themselves. This point i s d k u s s e d

i n more d e t a i l in the next chapter.

In fOcussing a t t e n t i o n on "social r e l a t i o n s " , c r i t i c s of Bravernan

c l e a r l y intend to p a i n t a more realistic p i c t u r e of t h e s h i f t i n g

Datterns of c o n f l i c t and consensus a t work. Eut if we approach t h i s

undarbtedly canplex and contradictory a r e a unanned with t h e

"deterministic simplicities" of Bravennan or Marx, w h a t fram-rk

are we t o use t o m a k e sense of i t ? The c r i t i c i s m of labour process

 -31-

writers' project of exploring d e t a i l e d p a t t e r n s of c o n f l i c t a t work

i s not intended as a d e n i a l t h a t such c o n f l i c t exists - quite the

reverse. The argument i s p u t to make t h e p o i n t that such c o n f l i c t

cannot be considered i n i s o l a t i o n - simply as a'biven" fact about

t h e r e l a t i o n s between managers and workers and work which i s itself

explained i n s e l f - d e f i n i n g terms of managerial danination and

worker antagonism. We need t o look a t these r e l a t i o n s h i p s , but w e

a l s o need t o look a t t h e s t r u c t u r e of v a l o r i s a t i o n and exploitation

that l i e beneath them. This t h e s i s i s a p l e a for, and an attempt a t ,

an a n a l y s i s of t h e labour process i n t h e s e tenus.

The C e n t r a l i t y of t h e Labour Process?

Two f u r t h e r p o i n t s are worth making. The first is that i n defining

t h e labour process simply as the s i t e of "control" struggles, " c l a s s

struggle" over such o v e r t l y p o l i t i c a l issues as worker r e s i s t a n c e

t o t h e r e l a t i o n s of production i n themselves, political r e l a t i o n s

of managerial danination and so on, labour process w r i t e r s them-

s e l v e s have, a s i t w e r e , p u t t h e f i n a l n a i l i n t o t h e i r am coffin.

I t i s not surprising that w r i t e r s l i k e Littler and Salaman end up

( L i t t l e r and Sal-, 1982, p257) -

arguing against "the continued c e n t r a l i t y of labatr and t h e labour

process" If t h e lakxlr process i s simply a s h e l l i n which a f e w

rather i n c m c l u s i v e battles f o r control are fought, r a t h e r than,

as w e would argue, t h e c r u c i a l s i t e f o r t h e production of surpl!as

value which continues to s u s t a i n t h e capitalist econany, i t can

hardly continue t o be of much i n t e r e s t t o theorists concerned to

get t o t h e heart of contemporary r e l a t i o n s of production. As w e see

i n Chapter 3, this argument as t o the p u r e l y "control-centred"

significance of the lakxlr process and t h u s i t s irrelevance t o

important econanic concerns i s put a l s o by p o l i t i c a l econanists

l i k e John Roeher (1982) who see themselves as Centrally concerned

w i t h exploitation. To argue that the labour p r m e s s i s i n fact

 -32-

c m s t i t u t i v e of production r e l a t i o n s under capitalism (or, i n

f a c t , any o t h e r m o d e of production) i s t o sane e x t e n t t o attempt

a defence of t h e labcur theory Of value, a task w e *take on i n

Chapter 3. For t h e manent, however, i t can be said that t h e argu-

ment t h a t t h e labour process i s much more than simply a bundle of

"control" r e l a t i o n s i s t h e c e n t r a l theme of this t h e s i s .

A second point r e l a t e s t o t h e c r i t i q u e of labour process writing

which has been p u t within this chapter. The argument has been that

labour process w r i t e r s have apparently embraced, but have t h e n

l a r g e l y disgarded, classical Marxism. This argument has n o t been

put i n order t o embrace sane r i t u a l i s t i c shibboleth of Marxism as

t a b l e t s of stone. I t has been put t o make the point that t h e r e i s

a wealth of a n a l y s i s of t h e labour process within classical Marldsm

(eg i n Volume 1 of Capital) w h i c h appears t o have been more or less

ignored by contemporary writers i n eramining t h e labour process.

This material deserves t o be used, and n o t merely out of archival

interest. I t deserves t o be used, i n cur view, because i t encapsulates

a theory of t h e labour process which, i r o n i c a l l y , can reflect t h e

nature of worker response (and managerial s t r a t e g y ) f a r more

accurately than t h e kinds of perspectives on the labour process

which w e have attempted t o survey i n this chapter. T h i s thesis

attempts t o demonstrate this p o i n t both t h e o r e t i c a l l y , and, i n t h e

case studies, empirically. The t h e s i s can be regarded as an attempt

t o use the p r i n c i p l e s of c l a s s i c a l Marxism t o analyse t h e cantemp

orary labaur process.

w i n g LQ

In t h i s chapter w e have attempted to draw out two c o n t r a s t i n g

approaches t o t h e study of work under capitalism. I n t h e f i r s t ,

which w e have argued both pre- and post- dates Braverman, work i s
seen e s s e n t i a l l y i n q u a l i t a t i v e terms - as a process of making
things, of handling materials and t o o l s i n order t o create a useful

product. This may seem a logical and indeed unquestionable way of

looking at work. However, t h e capitalist mode of production i s

r a r e l y logical and frequently questionable: and i t i s within t h i s

mode of production that t h e second, our own approach, i s located.

Thraugh recognising t h e e x i s t i n p dynamics of this system we

arrive a t an a n a l y s i s of t h e contemporary labam process within

manufacturing i n which work i s examined for what i t is; a

q u a n t i t a t i v e l y assessed, frequently interchangeable and thus

"abstract" series of movements s t r u c t u r e d by the requirement

of p r o f i t a b i l i t y , to which w r k e r s not unnaturally respond with a

s i m i l a r l y pragnatic and "cash-news"-orientated approach.

while t h i s i s a harsh picture w h i c h i n practice may be frequently

modified, the c o n t r a s t i n g emphasis on w h a t i s i n effect a "pure"

labour process w e r l a i d with s o l e l y p o l i t i c a l and ideological

c o n s t r a i n t s emanating f m m capitalism appears t o u s t o offer a

curiously u n r e a l i s t i c perspective bereft either of t h e ecmamic

c o n s t r a i n t s which a c t u a l l y govern the operation of t h e capitalist

labcur process or of any recognition of the overwhelmingly

% c o d s l t l c * nature
~ of vorkers' real rerponse. 91ch anisrims are

perhaps caopamded most of a l l i n t h e debate's canception of, and

major q h a s i s an, the notion of %mtrol". I t is this ccncqt

wfrich we go an t o d e f i n e , & critidse, i n the next chapter.

 -34-

CHAPTER 'Iwo

Control

T n n t r o l t t has emerged as a key wncept i n t h e theoketical development

of l a m process Ylalysis surveyed i n t h e l a s t chapter. while used

with a confidence which supgests that its meaning is widely under-

stood, the concept nevertheless carries a wide range of perhaps

unexamined implications w h i c h w e now set o u t t o explore. I t is suw

gested t h a t the a n a l y s i s projected i n these implications falls short

of a f u l l understanding of the forces influencing t h e nature of w o r k

under capitalism, and i n p a r t i c u l a r that i t indicates a profoundly

a h i s t o r i c a l view of t h e labour process.

I n c o n t r a s t t o t h e perspective thus c r i t i c i s e d w e shall attempt to

show how managerial a c t i v i t i e s and patterns of worker response which

have tended t o cane under t h e loose heading of " c m t r o l " can be

analysed i n terms of t h e s t r u c t u r i n g of such i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s

and techniques by requireaents specific t o capitalism. The forms of

'kontrol't w i l l be sham to be constructed by p r o f i t a b i l i t y , r a t h e r

than being, as they a r e frequently depfcted, a condition of i t . The

i n t e r r e l a t i o n of "control" and "efficiency" w i l l s i m i l a r l y be con-

sidered and a s p e c i f i c a l l y capitalist " m o d e l " of e f f i c i e n c y demon-

s t r a t e d . I t i s i n terms of these two overriding requirements -

p r o f i t a b i l i t y and a q u a n t i t a t i v e understanding of efficiency - that

t h e concept of "control" can, w e s u h i t , be most u s e f u l l y understood.

C e n t r a l i t y of "Control" t o t h e W r Process Debate

T h a t t h e ccncept of control has both been c e n t r a l t o t h e arguments

of the post-Brave- debate and assumed t o be central t o those of

Braverman i s taken for granted by w r i t e r s wi-n t h e debate. Littler

and Salaxnan, for exlmtple, refer i n their introduction to "Braverman's

a n a l y s i s of a process as c e n t r a l to his a n a l y s i s as it i s to t h e
 -3.5-
capitalist labour process - the organisation and achievenent of
control (Littler and Salaman, 1982, p251). Y e t the concept itself,
despite its c r u c i a l siglificance, has so far escaped being subjected

to any rignrws analysis. As C n s s e y and bmcInnes, thgeelvts vi+

orous propanrnts of the concept, justifi.blsy amplain: "spite the

siglificance of control (and its close conceptual partner ' p e r ' ) i t

i s a concept t h a t is woefully h a d e q u a t e l y theorised, when it i s

theorised a t a l l , so t h a t i t i s used i n a contradictory fashion not

only by different writers, but e m by the same w r i t e r s i n d i f f e r e n t

conkxts" (C~CSSOY
m$ ~ ~ C I ~ I W1977,
S , ~280)

In resparse to this l a c k of c l a r i t y , and w h a t w e see as thedigrifi-

cance of w r i t e r s ' use of this concept, i t w i l l be t h e ain of this chapter

to explore t h e assumptions implicit i n this use and to reconstruct

an understanling of %ontrol" located i n the historical s p e c i f i c i t y

of the capitalist labour process.

Theories of Wmtrol"

There appear to be three main strands of ar-t or approaches to

a n a l y s i s of the labour process invalved i n the use of the concept

of "control" by labour,..psocess w r i t e r s . Theserlll be aamined &p

turn and their siaificance for the overall understanding of the

labour process assessed.

(i)"Forms" of cartrol .
Considerable amounts of the l i t e r a t u r e appear to be devoted to t h e

a r g u w n t that the dynamic of control i s n o t as mechanistic or one-

directional as, i t is alleged, Elravenurn suggests. A n d m Friedman

is an e a r l y contributor to this position, with his theory of

"reapandble autnxmy versus d i r e c t control" ( F r i d n n , 1977) The -

invocation of a dual managnment strategy - the drst strand of which
''attempts to hamess the a d a p t a b i l i t y of labour pwer" and thus to
 -36-

" c a p t u r e t h e b e n e f i t s of v a r i a b l e capital", and t h e second t o

" l i m i t i t s harmful e f f e c t s and treat workers a s though t h e y w e r e

machines" (D49) i s made s p e c i f i c a l l y i n o r d e r t o emphasise t h e

s a l i e n c e of r e s i s t a n c e by workers, a factor which, i t i s alleged,

b o t h Marx and Braverman damagingly n e g l e c t . Thus, t y p i c a l l y , Friedman

i n t r o d u c e s h i s a r t i c l e w i t h t h e a l l e g a t i o n that "Marx and Marxists

have presumed t h e development of t h e l a b o u r process under c a p i t a l i s m

t o i n v o l v e a p r o g r e s s i v e rise i n direct managerial c o n t r o l ...Harry

Braverman, i n p a r t i c u l a r , has argued t h a t t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n of work

d u r i n g t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y capitalism h a s been guided by T a y l o r i a n

p r i n c i p l e s which would i d e a l l y i n v o l v e t h e c o n t r o l of a l l worker

t i m e and movement.. ."(~43).

Like many criticisms of Marx i n t h i s respect, t h e f i r s t s t a t e m e n t

i s t e x t u a l l y i n a c c u r a t e ; " c o n t r o l " i s n o t a central concept i n

Marx's a n a l y s i s of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s . However, t h e purpose of t h e

i n t r o d u c t i o n f o r Friedman's argument i s that b o t h w r i t e r s have

n e g l e c t e d t h o s e l e v e l s of worker r e s i s t a n c e a t t h e p o i n t of product-

ion which may a c t u a l l y have a p r a c t i c a l effect i n changing t h e

o r g a n i s a t i o n of p r o d u c t i o n , as opposed t o overthrowing t h e system

a l t o g e t h e r . I t i s t h e s e forms of r e s i s t a n c e , d e s c r i b e d as c a u s i n g

"accanmodating changes w i t h i n t h e mode of p r o d u c t i o n " , which are

seen a s l y i n g behind t h e development of diverse forms of worker

c o n t r o l by management.

A still more i n f l u e n t i a l w r i t e r w i t h i n t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e has been

Richard Edwards, whose a n a l y s i s of t h e l a b o u r process i n terms of

a % s t a g e p e r i d c i s a t i o n of "simple", "technical" and " b u r e a u c r a t i c "

c o n t r o l (Edwards, 1979) h a s gained widespread a c c e p t a n c e w i t h i n t h e

d e b a t e . The n o t i o n t h a t c a p i t a l i s t s do n o t r e l y on a s i n g l e " s t r a t e g y

of c o n t r o l " . and t h a t t h e a l t e r n a t i o n between t e c h n i c a l and bureau-

 -37-

c r a t i c forms represents s i g n i f i c a n t r o o m f o r manmvre i s indeed

t h e focus of many more recent contributions w h i c h emphasise t h e

a v a i l a b i l i t y of choice i n managerial s t r a t e g y a s opposed t o what

i s seen a s the one-dimensional t r a j e c t o r y imposed by Marx and

Braverman.

Flan and Braverman, w e repeat, cannot j u s t l y be accused of oper+ting

w i t h t h e same authority-related model of "control" as these authors,

but t h i s i s not t h e main p o i n t w e w i s h t o make here. Rather, w e

would emphasise t h a t while i t i s undeniable t h a t complex and

d i f f e r e n t i a t e d forms of organisation and d i r e c t i o n of the labour

nrocess exist, t o focus on then within t h e p a r t i c u l a r conceptual

framework implied by t h e term "control" i s t o lend t h i s framework

an exclusive emphasis which c r u c i a l l y l i m i t s our understanding of

t h e c a p i t a l i s t labour process. Thus the use of t h e term'bureaucratic

control" implies t h a t s t r a t e g i e s which i n f a c t a r e directed a t t h e

incorporation of organised labour i n a context of what can most

b r i e f l y be sunnnarised a s " i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s " are p a r t of t h e same

problematic of a u t h o r i t y r e l a t i o n s directed a t regulating t h e pro-

duction of use-values as i s indicated by t h e term "technical

control". S i m i l a r l y , t h e use of t h e term " s t r u c t u r e s of control"

implies t h a t aspects of t h e f a c t o r s w h i c h influence managerial

and worker a c t i v i t y a t the l e v e l of the l a b r process, from p l a n t

o w n e r s h i D t o organisation of working methods, a r e embraced within

t h e same framework of e s s e n t i a l l y power and a u t h o r i t y r e l a t i o n s .

For many labour process w r i t e r s , then, t h e labour process

"control'*. A s w e attempted t o show i n the last chapter, arguments

which take the issues which surface within t h e labour process up

t o the sphere of employment r e l a t i o n s i n order t o see them a s worth

a t t e n t i o n paradoxically d i s n i s s the labour process a s "merely" a

s i t e of c o n t r o l i s s u e s . I n t h e same way, t o see t h e labcur p r o c e s s

as e x c l u s i v e l y invoking s t r a t e g i e s of control i s tockaw m i s l e a d i n g

d i s t i n c t i o n s between, amongst o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e o r b a n i s a t i o n of t h e

l a b o u r p r o c e s s itself and i s s u e s surrounding terms and c o n d i t i o n s

of employment which have normally been seen a s the s p h e r e of

" c o l l e c t i v e bargaining". A s w e have argued, t h e v e r y concept of

" b u r e a u c r a t i c control" as expounded by Fdwards e n c a p s u l a t e s t h i s

approach. W e n m go on t o m a k e more explicit our critique of t h e

c e n t r a l i t y of "Control" as an e x p l a n a t i o n of l a b a u r p r o c e s s dynamics

by u n d e r t a k i n g a more thorough .going e x p l o r a t i o n of t h e concept

itself.

( i i ) Labour and Labour Power

me u s e f u l way of g e t t i n g t o g r i p s w i t h what many l a b o u r p r o c e s s

writers are g e t t i n g a t when t h e y t a l k about " c o n t r o l " i s t o l o o k a t

%he u s e of t h e concept i n arguments on t h e t r a n s l a t i o n of l a b o u r

power i n t o l a b o u r . Hraverman i s p r a i s e d by Littler and Salaman

(1982, p252) f o r r e c o g n i s i n g t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e s e t w o

aspects, b u t d e p l o r e d for i g n o r n i n g i t i n h i s later a n a l y s i s . Friedman

r o o t s t h e i s s u e d i r e c t l y i n h i s understanding of managerial " a u t h o r i t y " ,

about which he attributes t h e same view t o hlarx: "The second sort

of managerial f u n c t i o n i s t o exercise a u t h o r i t y over workers. Marx

emphasised t h i s managerial problem under c a p i t a l i s m by c a l l i n g l a b o u r

power v a r i a b l e capital" (Friedman, 1977, ~ 4 8 ) .

In f a c t Marx coined t h e term "variable capital". as i s argued a t

m o r e length i n t h e next chapter, i n order t o i n d i c a t e n o t a

"managerial problem" b u t a p o t e n t i a l for t h e expansion of v a l u e v i a

t h e "fermenting agent" of l a b o u r . T h i s i s n o t to deny t h a t t h e sale

of labour-power by a worker t o a c a p i t a l i s t c o n s t i t u t e s an unusual

k i n d of b a r g a i n i n which t h e q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y of t h e goods cannot

be specified i n advance. Labour p r o c e s s writers have, however, i n our

 -39-

view exaggerated t h i s indeterminacy of l a b o u r i n an argument which

t a k e s as t h e c e n t r a l i s s u e t h e w i l l i n g n e s s of workers t o s u r r e n d e r

l a b o u r a s such. T h i s i s seen a s a c e n t r a l focus o f ' f f c o n t r o l f f

s t r a t e g i e s : "To t r a n s l a t e l e g a l ownership i n t o real p o s s e s s i o n t h p

employer must erect s t r u c t u r e s Of c o n t r o l over labour" (Littler and

Salaman, ~ 2 5 2 ) .Edwards m a k e s t h e same p o i n t : "Labour power can be

bought, b u t between t h e p u r c h a s e of l a b o u r power and t h e real apprc-

p r i a t i o n of labour power comes a wedge; t h e w i l l , m o t i v a t i o n and

c o n s c i o u s n e s s of t h e worker ..'y 1979, p l l l ) - f I e h a s earlier argued

t h a t , for t h e same reasons, "Employers n o t o n l y c o - o r d i n a t e , they

also compel ...c a p i t a l i s t s must seek t o c o n v e r t t h e l a b o u r power

t h e y have purchased i n t h e marketplace i n t o u s e f u l l a b o u r under

c o n d i t i o n s i n which t h e possessor of t h e l a b o u r power h a s l i t t l e

t o g a i n from p r o v i d i n g u s e f u l labour"(p110).

I n o t h e r words, i t i s t h e a t t i t u d e of t h e worker ( " w i l l , motivation,

consciousness") which i s seen as j u s t i f i a b l y g e t t i n g i n t h e way of

t h e employer's requirements a t t h i s p o i n t of t r a n s l a t i o n . Friedman

sums t h i s up: "The problem i s t h a t p e o p l e are n o t machines. They

may sell t h e i r l a b o u r power b u t t h e y cannot a l i e n a t e t h e i r mind? or

t h e i r w i l l . According to t h e direct c o n t r o l s t r a t e g y c a p i t a l ' m u s t

c o n t i n u a l l y subdue workers' independent and o f t e n h o s t i l e w i l l s

by a p p e a l i n g t o t h e i r economic s e l f - i n t e r e s t . H e r e w e have t h e

second problem w i t h t h e d i r e c t c o n t r o l s t r a t e g y ' s v i s i o n . The w i l l

of workers i s n o t guided simply by econanic s e l f - i n t e r e s t " (1977, p50).

While t h i s i s true, a f u r t h e r problem i s t h a t Friedman h a s n o t

-Tecified w h a t workers' w i l l s are a c t u a l l y h o s t i l e 2. If it i s

indeed simply t o t h e u s e of t h e i r l a b o u r power as l a b o u r , i t w i l l

indeed be n e c e s s a r y for employers t o "erect s t r u c t u r e s of c o n t r o l "

merely t o e n s u r e t h a t workers work a t a l l . However. t h e r e i s ample

evidence t h a t i t i s only a t q u i t e high l e v e l s of i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n

of labour that workers resist t h e obligation t o work a s such. Other-

wise, t h e work behaviour i m p l i c i t i n t h e exchange of an employment

c o n t r a c t i s normally "pragmatically accepted"; a somewhht value-

laden indication of t h i s being contained i n the slogan of "A f a i r

d a y ' s work for a f a i r d a y ' s pay."

The f a c t t h a t t h e w r i t e r s c i t e d above have had recourse to ephemeral

notions such as " w i l l " t o c h a r a c t e r i s e worker r e s i s t a n c e indicates a

fundamentally m o r a l i s t i c approach t o t h e labour process w h i c h itself

e n t a i l s a lack of understanding of t h e f o r c e s a t work within t h a t pro-

cess. While workers' resentment a t t h e i r dehumanisation i s indeed

a powerful force demanding recognition, i t has n o t , perhaps fortun-

a t e l y , i n itself been c a t a l y s t for tangible forms of resistance. And

though t h e cpposition of i n t e r e s t s i n terms of ownership i s a f ? c t o r

t h e c e n t r a l i t y of which our own argument confirms, e q l i c i t recog-

n i t i o n and repudiation of this by workers a t t h e i r everyday tasks

i n t h e labour process cannot r e a l i s t i c a l l y be seen a s a focus Of

resistance or of managerial "control" s t r a t e g i e s . The l e v e l of

a u t h o r i t y ccmmonly assumed by labour process w r i t e r s t o be necessary

simply to keep workers a t work (see a l s o Friedman 1985) i s i n most

production contexts obviated by the existence of a widespread

s t r u c t u r e of machinery, measured t i m e s , work layouts and production

flows which t o a considerable e x t e n t i n themselves ordain work fran

workers. Workers may indeed not work a t t h e l e v e l s of i n t e n s i f h c a t i o n

of labour required of them, but t h i s i s a r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t matter

t o be discussed i n more detail i n t h e next chapters.

What emerges f r a n t h i s location of "control" arguments i n t h e labour

power/labour d i s t i n c t i o n i s t h a t those who place i s s u e s of control

a t t h e point of a l i e n a t i o n of labour no longer w i s h t o s e e labour

 41-

mer as a ccmmodity. Indeed, t h i s view h a s been made e x p l i c i t by

sane r e c e n t writers (MacInnes, 1984, G i n t i s and B o w l e s , 1979) whose

views w i l l b e examined i n more d e t a i l i n t h e n e x t c h a p t e r . B r i e f l y ,

t h e argument i s t h a t l a b o u r power i s a "canmodity" so affected b o t h

by b r o a d e r i d e o l o g i c a l and political factors ( f a m i l y , s c h o o l i n g ,

state, etc.) and also by i t s own use-value aspects which employers

cannot a f f o r d t o i g n o r e ( i n terms of t h e need to g a i n co-cperation

f r a n t h e workforce i n o r d e r t o g e t p r o d u c t i o n o u t a t a l l ) t h a t i t

can no l o n g e r be regarded, l i k e o t h e r commodities, i n p u r e l y

econanic tens.

A s a g a i n s t t h i s , for t h e manent w e would argue simply t h a t w h i l e

l a b o u r power i s indeed a unique c m d i t y i n t h e s e n s e , amongst

o t h e r t h i n g s , of b e i n g a b l e t o create a v a l u e greater than i t s own,

t h e evidence i s t h a t workers themselves da r e g a r d i t i n pragmatic

t e n s as a canmodity, or a b a r g a i n t h e i r s i d e of which t h e y are

p r e p a r e d to "reasonably" f u l f i l , and t h a t i t i s n o t t h e a l i e n a t i o n

of t h e i r l a b o u r which normally p r u n o t e s r e s i s t a n c e b u t a s p e c t s

of t h e terms of sale of t h e i r l a b o u r paver - i n o t h e r words, t h e i r

own " l i v i n g " . Thus managerial "control" strategies are d i r e c t e d n o t

p r i m a r i l y a t c o e r c i n g workers i n t o p r o v i d i n g l a b o u r b u t a t frag-

menting and r e c o n s t r u c t i n g work p a t t e r n s i n a manner which will

Drovide t h e g r e a t e s t possible p r o d u c t i v i t y from t h e l a b o u r power

a v a i l a b l e t o them. T h i s argument i s expounded i n more d e t a i l

below.

(iii) S o c i a l Relations/Subordination and Dcmination

Most of t h e o t h e r s t r a n d s of t h e " c o n t r o l " argument, which ms w e

have seen are n o t o f t e n e x p l i c i t l y u n t a n g l e d , can b e g a t h e r e d w i t h i n

a g e n e r a l s p h e r e of a view of t h e l a b o u r process p r i m a r i l y i n terms

of r e l a t i o n s , or relation- w i t h i n t h e workplace, of a u t h o r i t y
 42-

and domination. Although m o s t of t h e arguments o v e r l a p and i n t e r -

relate, t h e f o l l a n ' n g s u b s i d i a r y views can be found amongst them:

( a ) S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s i n t h e Factory: "Bosses and B Q S S ~ ~ "

e have a l r e a d y seen i n Chapter 1 hau t h e Marxist t r e a t m e n t of

W

p r o d u c t i o n r e l a t i o n s as e s s e n t i a l l y social has been t r a n s n u t e d w i t h i n

contemporary "labour process" arguments i n t o a t r a d i t i o n a l l y

s o c i o l o g i c a l concern w i t h social r e l a t i o n s h i p s between groups. The

n a t u r e of these r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s viewed " r a d i c a l l y " a s imbued w i t h

c o n f l i c t , b u t t h e issue of what t h e c o n f l i c t i s about has been

l o s t i n a circular argument whereby managerial c o n t r o l strategies

are shaped by t h e need t o subdue worker resistance which i n i t s turn

i s assumed t o b e r e s i s t a n c e a g a i n s t managerial d a n i n a t i o n .

The c e n t r a l f o c u s of a n a l y s i s of " c o n t r o l " r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n t h e

f a c t o r y , t h e n , h a s been t h i s n e m s of domination and s u b o r d i n a t i o n ,

which i n t h e less a n a l y t i c manents of t h e argument i s assumed t o

simply "be". Richard Edwards' argument i n t h e " S o c i a l Relations of

Production a t t h e P o i n t of Production" (Edwards, 1978) i s a

p a r t i c u l a r l y good example of t h i s : "Chtside t h e firm...the 'equality'

of market r e l a t i o n s p r e v a i l s . I n s i d e t h e f i r m , relations between

capitalists and workers take t h e form of boss and bossed; that i s ,

a system of control p r e v a i l s " p l l l . Littler and Salaman (1982)

connect t h e same a n a l y s i s t o t h e i r argument about t h e need for t h e

a n p l o y e r t o c o n t r o l workers i n o r d e r t o extract l a b c u r l k a n t h e i r

l a b o u r power: "...the i n t e r i o r of t h e firm cannot be reduced t o a

bundle of exchange r e l a t i o n s . Market m o d e l s or n o t i o n s of c o n t r a c t

are i n a d e q u a t e c o n c e p t u a l l y t o g r a s p t h e r e l a t i o n s of s u b o r d i n a t i o n

and d a n i n a t i o n governing t h e l a b o u r process" (p252).

 43-

( b ) Work and t h e Containment of Conflict

There are o t h e r v e r s i o n s of t h i s argument, h a v e w r , i n which t h e

need for managerial c o n t r o l or domination i s set i n a c o n t e x t of

i n h e r e n t l y c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s . I n Edwards' a n a l y s i s , for example,

t h i s c o n f l i c t i s i n h e r e n t i n t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e employer's g o a l

of p r o f i t a b i l i t y - y e t , i r o n i c a l l y , i t i s n o t this g o a l itself which

s t r u c t u r e s t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n of work, but t h e need t o repress t h e

c o n f l i c t somehow a s s o c i a t e d w i t h it: "(Employers') g o a l remains

p r o f i t s ; t h e i r strategies a i m a t e s t a b l i s h i n g s t r u c t u r e s of c o n t r o l

a t work. That i s , c a p i t a l i s t s have attempted t o o r g a n i s e p r o d u c t i o n

i n such a way as t o minimise workers' o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r r e s i s t a n c e . . .

work h a s been o r g a n i s e d , t h e n , t o c o n t a i n c o n f l i c t " (my emphasis)

(Edwards. 1979, p 1 6 ) .

In many ways t h i s argument sums up t h e d i f f e r e n c e of p e r s p e c t i v e

between t h e a n a l y s i s w e have been c o n s i d e r i n g , based on a n o t i o n

of "control", and t h e p o s i t i o n advanced i n t h i s t h e s i s i n which

both t h e roots o f c o n f l i c t a t work and t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e l a b o u r

process itself o b t a i n t h e i r n a t u r e and r a t i o n a l e fran t h e o v e r r i d i n g

o b j e c t i v e of p r o f i t a b i l i t y . Thus i t i s t h e mechanics of making a

p r o f i t i n terms of t h e e x p l o i t a t i o n of l a b o u r which engender c o n f l i c t

b o t h over pay and over t h e s t r u c t u r i n g of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s i t s e l f

towards e v e r - i n t e n s i f y i n g l e v e l s of e x p l o i t a t i o n or i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n

of l a b o u r . I n Fxlwards' argument w e g e t a t a n t a l i s i n g g e s t u r e i n t h e

d i r e c t i o n of connecting c o n f l i c t w i t h p r o f i t a b i l i t y , o n l y t o f i n d

our way d i v e r t e d by a d e t o u r i n which t h e c o n f l i c t i t s e l f i s

undefined and t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s i s s t r u c t u r e d n o t towards p r o f i t a b -

i l i t y b u t towards s u p p r e s s i n g t h i s unexplained " c o n f l i c t " .

C l e a r l y Edwards' argument i s n o t r e a l l y as unconnected as this, and

sane of t h e assumptions i n h e r e n b i n i t are clarified i n an argument

a l o n g s i m i l a r l i n e s by Stephen H i l l , (Hill, 1981). l t i l l introduces

kis book on C a n p e t i t i o n and C o n t r o l a t Work by l i n k i n g t h e need for

c o n t r o l a t work w i t h t h e "ccmpetition" (by which he means o b j e c t i v e

r a t h e r than o v e r t c o n f l i c t ) of econanic i n t e r e s t s of t h e p a r t i e s

i n employment. S i n c e t h e s e differences of i n t e r e s t are a " s t r u c t u r a l

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of econcmic o r g a n i s a t i o n " it follows t h a t c o n t r o l

will b e n e c e s s a r y for one p a r t y t o e n f o r c e t h e cc-operation of t h e

other.

We have a l r e a d y r e f e r r e d t o t h i s argument on pp5-7'; again, it l i n k s

back t o t h e l a c k of " i n t e r & s t " of t h e worker i n p r o v i d i n g u s e f u l

l a b o u r . T h i s c l a s h of i n t e r e s t s , this l a c k of "anything i n i t for

m e " a s f a r as t h e worker i s concerned, i s h e l d t o i n d i c a t e t h e n e e d

f o r compulsion and c o n t r o l i n management-worker relations.

An a n a l y s i s which refers t o a c l a s h between class i n t e r e s t s i s

c e r t a i n l y , from o u r p o i n t of view, g e t t i n g closer t o t h e nub of

what a c c o u n t s for worker c o n f l i c t w i t h i n t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s than

one which simply asserts " r e l a t i o n s of s u b o r d i n a t i o n and d a n i n a t i o n "

per. Hcwever, t h e r o u t e whereby t h i s argument locates t h e c l a s h

of i n t e r e s t s a t t h e l e v e l o f , as it w e r e , " p r a p e r t y r e l a t i o n s " or

t h e c a p i t a l - l a b o u r r e l a t i o n itself. i s one which w e cannot follow.

I n o u r view c o n f l i c t i s located'at a much lower, more c o n c r e t e l e v e l

of t h e e x p r e s s i o n of e x p l o i t a t i o n w i t h i n t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s . The

q u e s t i o n w e r e a l l y have t o a s k i s how t h i s d i f f e r e n c e of i n t e r e s t

a c t u a l l y manifests i t s e l f within t h e labour process - and t h i s ,

w e would submit, i s n o t i n terms of " a u t h o r i t y r e l a t i o n s " ( r e f e r e n c e

t o which merely begs t h e q u e s t i o n ) or t h e explicit r e c o g n i t i o n of

unequal p r o p e r t y r e l a t i o n s , b u t i n terms of t h e "surfacing" of

s t r u c t u r a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n s embodied i n t h e r e l a t i o n s of e x p l o i t a t i o n

and e x t r a c t i o n of surplus v a l u e i n h e r e n t i n t h e c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r
 45-

process. Thus " c o n t r o l " r e l a t i o n s becane n e c e s s a r y because of t h e

e x i s t e n c e and working o u t of t h e s e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s , n o t because of

t h e i r t r a n s p a r e n c y a t t h e l e v e l of t h e employment.relationship.

( c ) Keeping t h e R e l a t i o n s of Production Going.

A less ccmmon argument about c o n t r o l and d a n i n a t i o n w i t h i n t h e

l a b o u r process i s one which assumes an ongoing "class s t r u g g l e "

a t work i n which b o t h ccmbatants a r e p r e s e n t e d a s having r w g h l y

e q u a l power. Thus for example b o t h S t a r k (1978) and Friedman

(1978) c r i t i c i s e t h e o r i e s which assume t h e domination of c a p i t a l i s n

i n t h e development of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s , on t h e grounds t h a t

workpr r e s i s t a n c e h a s p l a y e d an i n t e g r a l role i n t h a t development.

e have a l r e a d y ( i n Chapter 1) c o n s i d e r e d a similar argument by

W

F l g e r (1979) i n t h e c o n t e x t of d e s k i l l i n g . Again, w h a t i s q u e s t i o n e d

h e r e i s n o t t h a t a n t a g o n i s t i c relations are embodied i n t h e traject-

o r y of develmment of t h e l a b o u r process, b u t t h e assumed basis of

t h e s e a n t a g o n i s t i c r e l a t i o n s . According t o t h e Brighton Labour

P r o c e s s Group, who s h a r e t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e of an a c t i v e and ongoing

"class s t r u g g l e " a t t h e h e a r t of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s , t h e f o c u s

of t h i s s t r u g g l e i s t h e v e r y r e l a t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n themselves:

.
f'. . t h i s r e l a t i o n of c a p i t a l t o I a b m r i s n o t a s t a t i c one, but i s

c o n s t a n t l y reproduced i n new c o n d i t i o n s . I t i s a s i t e of c o n s t a n t l y

renewed class struggle"(I3LPG. 1977, 11) The a r t i c l e goes on t o

approvingly c i t e t h e arguments of one A.n. Elagaline, who w r i t e s t h a t

"In t h e c a p i t a l i s t mode of p r o d u c t i o n t h e p r i n c i p a l s i t e of t h e

r e p r o d u c t i o n of t h e r e l a t i o n s of production i s t h e c l a s s s t r u g g l e

i n production ...which i s e x p r e s s e d i n t h e c o n t i n u a l upheaval i n

t h e t e c h n i c a l and social o r g a n i s a t i o n of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s , i e

i n t h e c o n t i n u a l r e v o l u t i o n i s i n g of t h e f o r c e s of production" (pll).
The v e r y r e l a t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n themselves, t h e n , according to

t h i s view, are c o n s t a n t l y b e i n g c h a l l e n g e d by workers and t h u s

r e q u i r e c o n t i n u a l "reproduction" w i t h i n t h e fabric' of t h e l a b o u r

p r o c e s s . The development of t h e f o r c e s of p r o d u c t i o n , also, i s

a t t r i b u t e d to t h e attempt by t h e b o u r p o i s i e to keep t h e upper hand

w i t h i n this process of upheaval and d e f i a n c e of t h e i r r u l e .

An i n t e r e s t i n g v e r s i o n of t h e same argument i s posed by David

mrdon i n h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of " C a p i t a l i s t E f f i c i e n c y and S o c i a l i s t

F f f i c i e n c y " (Gordon, 1976) ..::As w e d i s c u s s i n more d e t a i l below,

Cordon u s e s D r e c i s e l y cmposite c r i t e r i a i n h i s c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n

of c a p i t a l i s t a s d i s t i n c t from socialist e f f i c i e n c y from those used

i n t h e p r e s e n t t h e s i s . Thus f o r Gordon "production processes embody

c a p i t a l i s t e f f i c i e n c y if t h e y best reproduce c a p i t a l i s t c o n t r o l

over t h e production process and minimise p r o l e t a r i a n r e s i s t a n c e t o

t h a t control"(Gordon, 1976, 2 6 ) . Elsewhere he h a s noted that " t h i s

d e f i n i t i o n of t h e q u a l i t a t i v e aspect of e f f i c i e n c y embodies what

Braveman, P h r g l i n (1976) and o t h e r s call ,'Control' "(p36fIn c o n t r a s t

(see below) i t i s c e n t r a l t o our awn argument that c a p i t a l i s t

e f f i c i e n c y i s d e f i n e d a s e s s e n t i a l l y q u a n t i t a t i v e . Leaving this

aspect of t h e argument aside, however, w e n o t e h e r e t h a t Gordon

bases h i s d e f i n i t i o n of c a p i t a l i s t e f f i c i e n c y as " q u a l i t a t i v e " on

an explicit a s s e r t i o n of t h e need for c a p i t a l i s m to c o n t i n u a l l y

reproduce i t s own r e l a t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n : " I n any class s o c i e t y , a

m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n can c o n t i n u e t o d a n i n a t e i f and o n l y i f p r e v a l e n t

p r o d u c t i o n processes reproduce t h e class r e l a t i o n s d e f i n e d by ( t h e

logic o f ) t h a t m o d e of production" ( ~ 2 2 ) .

The whole m o d e of o p e r a t i o n of t h e capitalist labour p r o c e s s i s

t h u s d e f i n e d i n e x c l u s i v e l y p o l i t i c a l terms r e l a t i n g t o t h e mainten-

ance of t h e o v e r a l l system r a t h e r t h a n i n terms of p r o d u c t i o n of

value and t h e pressures surrounding t h i s . While, a s w e have noted

abow, Gordon i s not alone i n t h i s outlook, t h e premisses on which

i t rests should perhaps be examined more f u l l y . These are f i r s t l y

t h a t a given mode of production a c t u a l l y needs t o have i t s r e l a t i o n s

continually and painfully "reproduced"; and secondly that t h i s

process of reproduction takes place a t every l e v e l including the

l e v e l of production. Thus, f o r example, a l i t t l e f u r t h e r on i n

Gordon's argument " c l a s s struggle" i s assumed t o take place within

production a s a countervailing force t o "competition" and t h e

r e l a t i o n between t h e two t o be subject t o t h e same d i a l e c t i c a s

t h a t mediating t h e r e l a t i o n between q u a n t i t a t i v e and q u a l i t a t i v e

efficiency. H e r e " c l a s s struggle" i s evidently understmd as a

struggle against the r e l a t i o n s of p o l i t i c a l daninance embodied i n

Gordon's notion of " q u a l i t a t i v e efficiency". I n t h i s way any con-

ception of struggle over the imperatives of g u a n t i t a t i v e e f f i c i e n c y

i s overlooked.

I would argue, i n c o n t r a s t , t h a t c a p i t a l i s t r e l a t i o n s of production

a r e , t o a s i g n i f i c a n t e x t e n t , self-sustaining in t h e i r o v e r a l l

s t r u c t u r e and t h a t conscious e f f o r t s t o reinforce o r reprocbce

them a r e made a t t h e ideological l e v e l through c u r r e n t s which

permeate society as a whole r a t h e r than being the focus of specific

concrete struggles a t t h e p o i n t of production. I t i s misleading t o

see the c a p i t a l i s t labour process as t h e s i t e of t h i s "reproduction",

w h i c h i s not i t s purpose. To present t h e labour process a s

exclusively o r primarily a context f o r e x p l i c i t ideological o r

p o l i t i c a l struggle i s t o d i v e r t a t t e n t i o n fran t h e c e n t r a l i s s u e s

fundamental t o the functioning and purpose of t h e c a p i t a l i s t labour

process, those surroudning t h e creation of surplus value a t t h e

p o i n t of production i t s e l f .
 -48-

The h r p h a s i s on Use-Values: An Ahistorical V i e w of t h e Labour P r o c e s s

We now p a s s on t o t h e c e n t r a l i s s u e i n t h i s argument, t h e u n d e r l y i n g

view of t h e l a b o u r process by writers i n t h e f i e l d . w h i c h has allwed

t h e " c o n t r o l " p e r s p e c t i v e i t s unquestioned c e n t r a l i t y . The argument

w i l l be approached through f i r s t d i s c u s s i n g an as y e t u n c o n s i d e - d

s t r a n d of t h e " c o n t r o l " p e r s p e c t i v e , t h a t emphasising t h e use-value

aspects of t h e l a b o u r process. Through e x p l o r i n g t h e implications i n

t h i s a n a l y s i s w e go on to p r e s e n t an a l t e r n a t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e i n which

s t r u c t u r e s specific t o t h e c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r p r o c e s s are shown t o

o r d a i n t h e k i n d of work p a t t e r n s which have e i t h e r been a t t r i b u t e d

t o managerial "danination" or m i s t a k e n l y excluded f r a n c o n s i d e r a t i o n

of t h e l a b o u r process a l t o g e t h e r .

Although Littler and Salaman, for example, have p r e s e n t e d an argument

i n which control i s s u e s are c o n s i d e r e d l a r g e l y i n t h e c o n t e x t of

work c o n t e n t i n a q u a l i t a t i v e s e n s e , t h e most d e t a i l e d e x p l o r a t i o n

of use-value aspects of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s has been undertaken by

C r e s s e y and MacInnes i n two r e c e n t papers, (1977, 1980). Here t h e y

e x p l o r e f i r s t l y w h a t i s seen as t h e c e n t r a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n between

t h e need for capitalists t o e l i c i t t h e co-aperation of workers and

t h e antagonism i n h e r e n t i n t h e c a p i t a l - l a b o u r r e l a t i o n , and secondly

what t h e y d e s c r i b e a s t h e " s t r u c t u r e o f c o n t r o l " which i s argued t o

embrace managerial d e c i s i o n m a k i n g a t b o t h c o r p o r a t e and p l a n t l e v e l ,

and also t o raise t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of l a b o u r extending i t s c o n t r o l

beyond t h e p l a n t t o l e v e l s such a s investment planning.

I n b o t h of t h e s e approaches t h e key p o i n t b e i n g made by Cressey and

MacInnes i s t h a t t e c h n i c a l u s e - v a l u e . a s p e c t s of t h e l a b o u r process

are n o t " n e u t r a l " . Rather, such aspects b o t h demonstrate c o n t r a d i c t -

i o n s which are i n h e r e n t i n t h e surrounding c o n t e x t of capitalis+

social r e l a t i o n s , and are themselves c r u c i a l l y distorted by ' t h o s e

 49-

r e l a t i o n s . Thus i n c r i t i c i s i n g t h e f a l s e d i s t i n c t i o n said t o have

been made between t h e "technologico-material process of production"

and "the social r e l a t i o n s surrounding production" they argue t h a t

"it i s that v e r y process of production i t s e l f which i s d i r e c t l y social

and h a s t o be analysed as such " (1977, 283).This argument i s

extended t o examine the influence of t h e "social aspect" of product-

i o n on t h e shape takm by material/technical factors within t h e

labour process itself i n t h e sense t h a t while " I t i s exactly f o r

t h i s ( t o 'control' nature) t h a t labour paver i s purchased a t a l l . . .

y e t because i t i s so purchased, fran the s o c i a l aspect i t appears

t h a t within t h e process of production i t i s purely t h e o b j e c t , not

subject, of c o n t r o l " (1977, 287).

What Cressey and MacInnes seem t o be arguing here i s t h a t super-

imposed on t o a "natural" labour process, i e t h e production of use-

values, a r e "social relations" which impose p a r t i c u l a r kinds of

w p r e s s i v e and contradictory c o n t r o l s on labour. The same "social"

d i s t o r t i o n of a "natural" labour proaess i s a l s o implied i n t h e

associated contradiction w i t h i n c a p i t a l i s t production which C r e s s e y

and MacInnes regard a s c e n t r a l , that between management's need f o r

worker cc-operation and t h e oppressive c o n t r o l s which capitalism

imposes on labour.

The authors have e a r l i e r c i t e d Marx's dictum t h a t " t h e work is not

done twice over. once t o produce...a use-value...and a second t i m e

t o generate value..." (1977, 287) t o support t h e i r argument as t o

t h e s t r u c t u r i n g of work organisation by these s o c i a l f a c t o r s . Unfort-

unately t h e i r analogy f a i l s on the very p o i n t of how t h e operation

of a s p e c i f i c a l l y c a p i t a l i s t labour process i s t o be understood. Thus

while Marx's whole argument i s imbued by reference t o t h e a e n t r a l

o b j e c t i v e of t h e labour process under capitalism of c r e a t i n g value,

Cressey and FlacInnes' argument i s s i l e n t on t h i s p o i n t , s u b s t i t -

u t i n g o n l y t h e t o o t h l e s s c o n s t r a i n t of " c o n t r o l " . A s i n t h e arguments

w e examined earlier, "social r e l a t i o n s " or r e l a t i o n s h i p s , w i t h a l l

t h e i r o v e r t o n e s of o p p r e s s i o n , domination etc, have been s u b s t i t u t e d

f o r t h e concept of "production r e l a t i o n s " which p i n p o i n t s t h e n a t u r e

of v a l u e c r e a t i o n w i t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r mode of production. An a n a l y s i s

such a s t h i s can h e l p u s o n l y t o appreciate t h e q u a l i t a t i v e , and n o t

t h e c r u c i a l q u a n t i t a t i v e , p r e s s u r e s a t work w i t h i n t h e c a p i t a l i s t

l a b o u r process.

A second p o i n t c e n t r a l to Cressey and MacInnes' argument a l s o i n d i c a t e s

t h e specific view of t h e l a b o u r process, ccmmon t o many w r i t e r s , which

w e s h a l l o u t l i n e below. T h i s i s t h e argument t h a t i t i s n o t i n fact

" n a t u r a l l y " more e f f i c i e n t t o have h i e r a r c h i e s , d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of

f u n c t i o n , s e p a r a t i o n of conception and e x e c u t i o n , etc. o p e r a t i n g w i t h i n

production. I n t h i s way t h e p o t e n t i a l for more democratic forms of

"labour c o n t r o l " , such a s workers' a l t e r n a t i v e p l a n s , i n t e r v e n t i o n

i n investment p l a n n i n g etc. i s invoked w i t h i n t h e p r e s e n t o r g a n i s a t i o n

of nroduction.

While w e can a g r e e w i t h C r e s s e y and MacInnes on t h e o b j e c t i v e i n e f f i c -

i e n c y of r i g i d h i e r a r c h i e s and d i v i s i o n s of f u n c t i o n w i t h i n p r o d u c t i o n

(and, i n our case a t least, d i s a g r e e on t h e a b i l i t y of capitalism t o

anbrace t h e forms of "labour c o n t r o l " listed) n e i t h e r of t h e s e is, for

t h e moment a t least, t h e p o i n t . The p o i n t i s i n s t e a d t h a t t h e m i s s i o n

of any a n a l y s i s i n terms of v a l u e m a k e s t h e forms of c o n t r o l cited by

Cressey and MacInnes i n e x p l i c a b l e i n t h e i r am r i g h t . There appears t o

be no e x p l a n a t i o n as t o why workers should be pushed i n t o r i g i d l y

s t r u c t u r e d , fragmented, " d e s k i l l e d " methods of working apart f r m

t h e wish by c a p i t a l i s t s t o dominate and c o n t r o l t h e wrkforce.

Correspondingly, worker r e s i s t a n c e i s seen a s a response p u r e l y

 ~~

-51-

a g a i n s t that o p p r e s s i o n and d a n i n a t i o n and towards t h e i r own

c o n t r o l of t h e c o n t e n t of work; and even more s i g n i f i c a n t l y , n o

real reason exists a s t o why t h e s e antagonisms w i t h i n t h e

p r o d u c t i o n process should n o t b e c o - o p e r a t i v e l y overcane. Thus a

l a r g e n a r t of Cressey and MacInnes' p o s i t i o n i s t h a t labour h a s a

c r e a t i v e p o t e n t i a l which n o t o n l y needs t o b e harnessed by management

b u t c a n also p r o v i d e t h e b a s i s f o r i n i t i a t i v e s by workers i n t h e

areas of investment p l a n n i n g , etc., r e f e r r e d t o above.

In fact both t h e emphasis on t h e u s e - v a l u e r e l a t e d or " c r e a t i v e "

and p o t e n t i a l l y " c o - q e r a t i v e " a s p e c t s of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s (along

w i t h t h e i l l u s i o n t h a t t h e s e can be s u c c e s s f u l l y i n t e g r a t e d i n t o

c a p i t a l i s t p r o d u c t i o n ) and t h e simultaneous e x c l u s i v e c o n c e n t r a t i o n

on p o l i t i c a l elements of domination and oppression, s p r i n g from t h e

s a m e source - a profoundly a h i s t o r i c a l conception of t h e l a b o u r

p r o c e s s . The "labour process" i s seen as a nature-converting

f u n c t i o n independent of any specific m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n ( t h u s t h e

argument t h a t t h e purpose of purchasing l a b o u r p a v e r i s t o " c o n t r o l "

n a t u r e i g n o r e s t h e fact t h a t l a b o u r h a s always been " c o n t r o l l e d "

even i n modes of production which do n o t i n v o l v e t h e purchase of

l a b o u r power), on t o which are superimposed t h e elements of danin-

a t i o n and c p p r e s s i o n which, f o r writers l i k e Cressey and MacInnes,

a p p a r e n t l y d e f i n e capitalism. Such a c o n c e p t u a l i s a t i o n of t h e system

i s e s s e n t i a l l y moralistic and cannot h e l p u s t o g a i n a real under-

s t a n d i n g of t h e system's m o d e of o p e r a t i o n .

A n i m p o r t a n t example of t h i s can be found i n Cressey and MacInnes'

a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e forms of o r g a n i s a t i o n o f , p r o d u c t i o n , or w h a t

t h e y term " c o n t r o l " , under capitalism, are n o t " n a t u r a l l y " more

e f f i c i e n t . While t h i s i s of c o u r s e c o r r e c t , i t misses t h e p o i n t

t h a t t h i s i s t h e way capitalism, by d e f i n i t i o n , o p e r a t e s . Such

 -52-

forms may n o t be "good", but t h e y are i n t r i n s i c t o t h e meaninq of

e f f i c i e n c y under capitalism. S t r u c t u r e s such as d i v i s i o n of l a b o u r ,

f r a p e n t a t i o n and s p e c i a l i s a t i o n of l a b o u r , s e p a r a t i o n of conception

and e x e c u t i o n and even h i e r a r c h y of a u t h o r i t y (though t o a lesser

e x t e n t ) are imposed by employers p r i m a r i l y i n o r d e r t o i n c r e a s e t h e

p r o d u c t i v i t y of l a b o u r , t o reduce time spent on p r o d u c t i o n , n o t

because such forms are seen as p o l i t i c a l l y desirable. The whole logic

of c a p i t a l i s t p r o d u c t i o n i s q u a n t i t a t i v e , one i n which t h e e x t r . - c t i o n

of t h e m a x i m u m amount of v a l u e i n t h e minimum t i m e i s t h e d r i v i n g

force; i t i s t h i s which s u s t a i n s t h e system. Thus m o s t of t h e elements

of " c o n t r o l " focussed on by l a b o u r process w r i t e r s are i n fact methods

d i r e c t e d a t reducing labour time. Time i s an issue almost t o t a l l y

ignored i n t h e literature. y e t one which i s of crucial importance

( i t w i l l be considered i n d e p t h i n t h e n e x t chapters).

P r o f i t a b i l i t y and E f f i c i e n c y as t h e y S t r u c t u r e "Control"

\\'hat i s a t i s s u e i n a n a l y s i s of t h e c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r p r o c e s s , t h e n ,

i s n o t what i s m o r a l l y r i g h t and p r o g r e s s i v e , or what i s t o be

m o r a l l y condemned as a r b i t r a r i l y g e t t i n g i n t h e w a y of t h e o p e r a t i o n

of a "pure" l a b o u r p r o c e s s , b u t t h e way i n which t h e requirements of

t h e c a p i t a l i s t mode of p r o d u c t i o n s t r u c t u r e t h e methods of p r o d u c t i o n

i t s e l f . I n c o n t r a s t t o m e of t h e p o s i t i o n o u t l i n e d above, t h e r e f o r e ,

w e wish t o p u t t h e follcxving arguments:

( i )p r o f i t a b i l i t y structures t h e patterns of "control" ( r a t h e r

than c o n t r o l b e i n g a c o n d i t i o n of p r o f i t a b i l i t y )

( i i ) There i s a s p e c i f i c a l l y c a p i t a l i s t logic and meaning of

e f f i c i e n c y which i s n o t p r i m a r i l y t o be u n d e r s t m d i n terms of

authority relations.
 -53-

( i )P r o f i t a b i l i t y and t h e P a t t e r n s of Control

W e have a l r e a d y listed j u s t above sane of t h e examples of managerial

patterns of work o r g a n i s a t i o n which are o f t e n grouped under t h e

t e n "control" - d e t a i l l a b o u r , conmand h i e r a r c h i e s , etc. Though

f e w a u t h o r s p r o v i d e a l i s t of what c o u n t s a s "control" a t work,

S t o r e y i s an e x c e p t i o n - in Managerial P r e r o g a t i v e and t h e m e s t i o n

of Control ( S t o r e y , lQ33), he p r o v i d e s a whole series of examples,

ranging f r o m changing shop steward s t a t u s through t h e Ford d i s c i p l i n -

ary code ( a p n l i e d t o workers who f a i l t o work normally) t o t h e B r i t i s h

Steel "rescue plan" which i n v o l v e d n e w working p r a c t i c e s , e l i m i n a t i o n

of overmanning, and i n t e n s i f i d w o r k i n g arrangements. Scme of t h e s e

examnles u s e f u l l y raise t h e i s s u e of " i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s " , which

w e a t t e m p t t o locate w i t h i n t h e " c o n t r o l " p e r s p e c t i v e below. :)thers

are examples of t h e k i n d of i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of l a b o u r s t r a t e g i e s

which w e have a l r e a d y d e s c r i b e d as s e r v i n g more fundamental needs

of capitalism than "control". s t o r e y , i n c m o n w i t h many o t h e r

w r i t e r s , p r o j e c t s an o b j e c t i v e for management of " c o n t r o l " per se.

However, sane w r i t e r s have gone f u r t h e r than t h i s i n drawing a

connection between c o n t r o l and p r o f i t a b i l i t y , and i t i s t h e s e argu-

ments w e wish t o examine.

L i t t l e r and Salaman. t o t a k e o u r f i r s t example, are almost a g g r e s s i v e

i n t h e i r i n s i s t e n c e t h a t " C a p i t a l i s t s are n o t , after a l l , d e s p i t e t h e

i n s i s t e n c e of sme r e c e n t a u t h o r s , i n t e r e s t e d i n c o n t r o l per se."

They go on t o say t h a t , "The f i r s t p r i o r i t y of c a p i t a l i s n i s

accumulation, n o t c o n t r o l . Control o n l y becanes a concern when

p r o f i t a b i l i t y i s threatened " ( L i t t l e r and Salaman, 1982, 2 6 5 ) .

U n f o r t u n a t e l y t h i s argument seems t o b e used as a b a s i s f o r s a y i n g ,

n o t t h a t " c o n t r o l " i s s u e s are a s u b s i d i a r y e l e m e n t i n the management,

of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s , b u t t h a t t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s i t s e l f i s of less
 -54-

importance i n p u r s u i n g p r o f i t a b i l i t y than are a c t i v i t i e s "away f r a n

t h e n o i n t of production" a l t o g e t h e r . (We have d i s c u s s e d this argument

more fullyabov?, Chapter 1 ) . W c e a g a i n , t h e l a b o u r process

"control"; if w e d i m i s s c o n t r o l i s s u e s , w e dismiss t h e labour process.

A t t h e sane t i m e i t i s i m p l i e d t h a t a loss of c o n t r o l can " t h r e a t e n "

profitability.

Stephen H i l l i s more e q l i c i t i n h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n of c o n t r o l w i t h i n

t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s a s a c o n d i t i o n of p r o f i t a b i l i t y . Arguing on t h e

b a s i s of t h e need f o r c o n t r o l posed by t h e fundamental worker/

management c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t s over t h e a l i e n a t i o n of l a b o u r , H i l l

concludes that " P r o f i t a b i l i t y w i t h i n c o n v e n t i o n a l c a p i t a l i s t and

s o c i a l i s t e c o n a n i e s a p p e a r s t o d q e n d on d e p r i v i n g employees of

t h e i r indenendence and e n s u r i n g t h e i r s u b o r d i n a t i o n ( H i l l , 1981, 13).

Later, i n t h e c o n t e x t of an argument (which w e c o n s i d e r i n more

d e t a i l b e l o w ) about t h e p o s s i b l e embodying of " c o n t r o l " i s s u e s

w i t h i n t h e development of new technology, h e comments t h a t managerial

v a l u e s "embody a c e n t r a l f e a t u r e of conventional c a p i t a l i s t product-

i o n , t h a t c o n t r o l i s one s o n d i t i o n of p r o f i t a b i l i t y '' (1981, 122).

I t i s important to n o t e , of c o u r s e , t h a t for Hill t h i s i s o n l y "one

c o n d i t i o n " , b u t n e v e r t h e l e s s t h e d r k t i o n of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between

c o n t r o l and p r o f i t a b i l i t y ( a n d indeed. whatever t h e o t h e r "conditions"

of p r o f i t a b i l i t y are supposed t o be) remains clear. Reminiscent of

t h e Steedman argument on t h e l a b o u r t h e o r y of v a l u e (see Chapter 3 ) ,

" p r o f i t a b i l i t y " i s o n l y a l l w e d t o emerge, as i t w e r e , f r a n t h e

production p r o c e s s after c e r t a i n l i m i t i n g c o n d i t i o n s (which, i n

S t e d a n ' s case. i n c l u d e t h e weather) have been o v e r c m e . The role

of t h e o v e r a l l phjeetive of p r o f i t a b i l i t y i n s t r u c t u r i n g t h e n a t u r e

of t h e l a b o u r process, and t h e p a r a l l e l d e f i n i n g f e a t u r e of l a b o u r

w i t h i n capitalism of producing g r e a t e r than i t s own v a l u e , are

overlooked.
 -55-

In c o n t r a s t w e maintain t h a t t h e patterns of work organisation w i t h i n

t h e c a p i t a l i s t labour process, such as assembly-line or conveyor-belt

flows of production, detailed systems of work measurement, and

standardised working methods, are a c t u a l l y constructed by the r e q u i r e

ments of capitalism rather than being "control techniques" devised

i n order to subdue worker r e s i s t a n c e and t h u s i n s o m e convoluted way

permit p r o f i t a b i l i t y . The task of malcing a p r o f i t i s , indeed, far

too c r u c i a l to be l e f t to such roundabout methods - or a t least

this i s t r u e of l a t e capitalism w i t h the realsabordination of labour.

I t has t o be guaranteed r i g h t i n t h e heart of the labour process

through techniques which are -red unremittingly towards the maXimum

i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of labour.

"Bureaucratic control" and the place of I n d u s t r i a l Relations

However, t h e associated ar-ent t h a t worker r e s i s t a n c e i s confronted

by management as a c o n s t r a i n t on p r o f i t a b i l i t y must be considered.

I t i s no part of the p r e s e n t argument to attempt to dawnplay the

role of worker r e s i s t a n c e . W h a t w e would wish to focus on, as w e

have reiterated t h r o u g h u t , i s w h a t the r e s i s t a n c e i s =..If this

can be understood, then 90 can t h e role of "control".

In fact w e would argue that i s s u e s w h i c h have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been

placed under t h e heading of " i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s " are c e n t r a l to the

management of the labour process, r a t h e r than as has cormaonly been

supposed a separate category. Once again, unwillingness to allow

anything but a u t h o r i t y r e l a t i o n s and q u e s t i o n s of job content i n t o

t h e a n a l y s i s of t h e labour process has allaved a c u r i o u s r e v e r s a l

i n which w h a t are i n fact managerial strategies directed towards

iswes surrounding t h e terms of conditions of employment are

gathered under t h e r u b r i c of "control" i n the sense of a u t h o r i t y .

As w e have argued above, John S t o r e y ' s wide-ranging list of "control'!

i s s u e s , i n a t h e o r e t i c a l c o n t e x t i n which " c o n t r o l " c l e a r l y means

a u t h o r i t y r e l a t i o n s , i s an example of t h i s . So i s t h e concept of

" b u r e a u c r a t i c control". flav, t h e n , c a n w e relate worker r e s i s t a n c e

w i t h i n our own argument t o t h e p a t t e r n s of work o r g a n i s a t i o n c i t e d

above a s being o r d a i n e d by t h e . d r i v e tcwards i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of l a b o u r ?

AS w e noted i n Chapter 1, t h e r e h a s been a c u r i o u s m i s s i o n f r o m t h e

a c c o u n t s of worker r e s i s t a n c e w i t h i n t h e "labour process debate"

of t h e s t r u g g l e s around piecework norms, overtime and o t h e r pay

i s s u e s which i n f a c t are an everyday c h a l l e n g e t o management w i t h i n

t h e c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r p r o c e s s . Alongside t h i s s i l e n c e , t h e r e h a s been

a s i m i l a r r e l u c t a n c e t o explore t h e processes involved i n workers'

own g r a s s r o o t s forms of o r g a n i s a t i o n around t h e s e i s s u e s , eg t h e

s i g n i f i c a n c e of shop steward r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . Such areas are normally

assumed t o f a l l o u t s i d e t h e p r o v i n c e of t h e "labour p r o c e s s debate"

and t o belong, as w e have s a i d , t o t h e s p h e r e of " i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s " .

However, t o r e l e g a t e i s s u e s surrounding t h e terms and c o n d i t i o n s of

employment, such a s pay, bonus, overtime, j o b e v a l u a t i o n and j o b

g r a d i n g , and aspects r e l a t i n g t o employment l e v e l s and employment

s e c u r i t y i t s e l f , t o a s p h e r e separate from t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s i s t o

i g n o r e t h e c e n t r a l i t y to i t . C o n f l i c t over such i s s u e s permeatesthe

l a b o u r p r o c e s s ( f a r more so, i n p r a c t i c e , than c o n f l i c t s over j o b

c o n t e n t , worker autonany or managerial d a n i n a t i o n ) and i t i s t h e

o r g a n i s a t i o n of workers around them which c o n c r e t i s e s t h e capital-

l a b o u r antagonism i n t o real b a s t i o n s of organised r e s i s t a n c e c o n s t i t -

u t i n g an obstacle t o the smooth implementation of managerial o b j e c t i v e s

i n t h e l a b o u r process. Both t h e s e aspects of eveqrday'lreality" w i t h i n

t h e l a b o u r process arise i r o m t h e e x i s t e n c e of b a s i c c o n t r a d i c t i o n s

w i t h i n t h e value-producing process under c a p i t a l i s m , m o s t n o t a b l y

exploitatinn, which n o m w n t of " a l t e r n a t i v e forms of managerial

 -57-

s t r a t e g y " can p r e v e n t from i n t e r m i t t e n t l y s u r f a c i n g .

"erhaps one r e a s o n why t h e s e areas of c o n f l i c t have n o t r e c e i v e d as

much a t t e n t i o n w i t h i n t h e d e b a t e a s t h e i r p r e v a l e n g e would s e e m t o

d e s e r v e i s t h a t issues which may be c o n s i d e r e d a p p r o p r i a t e s u b j e c t s

f o r b a r g a i n i n g or n e g o t i a t i o n are seen a s " b u r e a u c r a t i c " and as n o t

s u f f i c i e n t l y r e v e a l i n g t h e social u n d e r c u r r e n t s which o p e r a t e w i t h i n

t h e labour process. W
e have a l r e a d y t r i e d t o i n d i c a t e t h e way i n which

such i s s u e s re t h e undercurrents - do p r o v i d e t h e main f o c u s for

concern by workers i n t h e most g r a s s r o o t s , informal way. Hwever, i t

i s p e r h a p s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t one of t h e few t h e o r e t i c a l attempts t o

c o n f r o n t t h i s t o p i c w i t h i n t h e labour p r o c e s s d e b a t e h a s been p l a c e d

under t h e heading of " b u r e a u c r a t i c c o n t r o l " .

I n t h e 3rd part of h i s %stage a n a l y s i s of c o n t r o l , Richard
Fdwards (Fdwards. 1979) c o n s i d e r s t h e employment strategies t y p i c a l l y

adopted by l a r g e c o r p o r a t i o n s such as P o l a r o i d . Here " i n c o r p o r a t i st"

elements such a s p r e o r d a i n t e d pay g r a d i n g s t r u c t u r e s , agreed r u l e s

for promotion, job s e c u r i t y and s e n i o r i t y , and beyond t h i s an i n s t i t -

u t i o n a l i s e d and emasculated role for t r a d e unions w i t h i n t h e company,

a r e emphasised by Edwards i n terms of y e t a n o t h e r , s t i l l more e f f e c t i v e

" c o n t r o l " s t r a t e g y beyond t h e r e l a t i v e l y u n s o p h i s t i c a t e d means afforded

by " t e c h n i c a l c o n t r o l " .

We have a l r e a d y i n d i c a t e d why w e do n o t c o n s i d e r t h e above t o be

" c o n t r o l " i s s u e s i n t h e " a u t h o r i t y " s e n s e normally i m p l i e d i n t h e u s e

of t h e term. Ilmever. Fdwards' implicit i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of e x p l o i t a t i o n -

based i s s u e s w i t h e x a c t l y t h i s " a u t h o r i t y " - c e n t r e d dynamic allows

t h e employer strategies which he groups under t h e term " b u r e a u c r a t i c

c o n t r o l " to be regarded p u r e l y i n terms of t h e i r r o l e i n s u p p r e s s i n g

worker r e s i s t a n c e . I n t h i s way, a s w e have noted above, such s t r a t e g i e s

a r e located w i t h i n a p e r s p e c t i v e of t h e labour process "control"

 -58-

i n which t h e v e r y work itself "has been o r g a n i s e d . . . t o contain

conflict" (see p9). And f u r t h e r such s t r a t e g i e s when t a k e n t o t h e i r

b u r e a u c r a t i c extreme are seen as being p o t e n t i a l l y capable of r e s o l v i n g

t h e whole problem of c o n f l i c t a t work: "...for a t i m e bureaucratic

c o n t r o l appeared t o have r e s o l v e d t h e whole problem of c o n t r o l -

i t w a s t h e f i r s t system w i t h o u t c o n t r a d i c t i o n s " (Edwards, 1978, 1 2 3 ) .

h%at t h i s argument f a i l s t o recognise i s t h a t t h e whole system referred

t o by t h e term " b u r e a u c r a t i c c o n t r o l " - one of s c p h i s t i c a t e d n e g o t i a t -

i n g systems, agreed p r o c e d u r e s , pre-planned and p r e s e c r i b e d working

methods ax1 pay g r a d i n g s - i s one which i s on c o n t r a d i c t i o n s .

"Hureaucratic c o n t r o l " r e p r e s e n t s an attempted accanmodation and t h u s

implicit r e c o y i t i o n of t h e i n h e r e n t antagonisms involved in

e x p l o i t a t i o n . I n t h i s way t h e e x i g e n c i e s of p r o f i t a b i l i t y , through

t h e r e l a t i o n of e x p l o i t a t i o n , once more can be seen t o s t r u c t u r e

p a t t e r n s of "control". The very m r k e r o r g a n i s a t i o n which corporate

s t r a t e g i e s set o u t t o cc-opt, arises and i s s u s t a i n e d by p r e c i s e l y

t h e s e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s a t t h e h e a r t of t h e c a p i t a l - l a b o u r r e l a t i o n ;

and t h e s e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s in t u r n are embodied i n t h e whole s u b s t a n c e

of t h e c a p i t a l i s t labour p r o c e s s as a p r o f i t - m a k i n g a c t i v i t y .

Tn t h i s s e n s e t h e more s c p h i s t i c a t e d " i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s " p r o c e d u r e s

- indeed sane of t h e more workaday o n e s as w e l l - r e p r e s e n t an

i m p l i c i t r e c o g n i t i o n that p x p l o i t a t i o n and i t s effects cannot be

e l i m i n a t e d , and t h e r e f o r e some p r o v i s i o n must h e made for them. Con-

f l i c t i s thus to a c e r t a i n extent "institutionalised". i n the sense

of acknowledging i t as i r r e d u c i b l e . In t h i s way managerial s t r a t e g i e s

a r e n o t simply a t t e m p t s a t imposing a u t h o r i t y b u t workable p r o c e d u r e s

aimed a t extracting maximum p r o f i t a b i l i t y i n t h e context of an

acknowledged antagonism.
 -59-

In t h e above w e have argued f i r s t l y t h a t i s s u e s surrounding " e x t r i n s i c "

aspects of work such as pay must be r e g a r d e d as part of t h e l a b o u r

process i n t h e s e n s e t h a t t h a t p r o c e s s i s c e n t r e d on e x p l o i t a t i o n . W e

went on t o a r g u e t h a t s t r a t e g i e s developed t o d e a l w i t h t h e e n s u i n g

c o n f l i c t and i t s o r g a n i s a t i o n are n o t u s e f u l l y d e f i n e d a s " c o n t r o l "

s t r a t e g i e s if t h e s e are understood i n t h e s e n s e of s u b o r d i n a t i n g t h e

workforce t o managerial a u t h o r i t y . R a t h e r , t h e c e n t r a l requirement of

p r o f i t a b i l i t y which d e f i n e s t h e capitalist labmr p r o c e s s o r d a i n s

s t r u c t u r e s and p r o c e d u r e s which have t o be c r e a t e d i n o r d e r t o aeal

with t h e a n t m i a s i n h e r e n t i n o p e r a t i n g that requirement. I n t h i s

s e n s e w h a t " p o l i t i c a l " aspects of l a b o u r process r e l a t i o n s which may

be i d e n t i f i e d must be recognised a s stemming f r m much m o r e c e n t r a l

and fundamental econunic c o n s t r a i n t s .

( i i )The C a p i t a l i s t Meaning of "Efficiency"

I n t h e above w e have attempted t o show how s p e c i f i c p a t t e r n s of

work o r g a n i s a t i o n under capitalism, for example t i g h t l y measured and

atomised " t i m e and motion" p r o c e d u r e s , can b e regarded as d i r e c t l y

s t r u c t u r e d by t h e ongoing need for capitalism t o reduce s o c i a l l y

n e c e s s a r y l a b o u r t i m e and t h u s i n c r e a s e p r o f i t a b i l i t y and competitive-

n e s s . I n this concluding s e c t i o n w e want t o a r g u e t h a t t h i s relates t o

a specific, q u a n t i t a t i v e meaning of e f f i c i e n c y under capitalism. The

r e l a t i o n between t h i s view and t h e o r i e s of "control" i s usefully

brought o u t i n t h e article by David Gordon (Gordon, 1976) d e s c r i b e d

earlier. W e s a w above (p12) that f o r Gordon t h e e f f i c i e n c y of a

p r o d u c t i o n process under capitalism i s a c t u a l l y d e f i n e d i n terms of

i t s e f f i c a c y i n reproducing t h e class r e l a t i o n s of a mode o f p r o d u c t i o n

- i n o t h e r words i n overwhelmingly p o l i t i c a l terms. Thus, for Gordon,

w h i l e "In g e n e r a l , a p r o d u c t i o n process i s quantitatively (most)

efficnent i f i t e f f e c t s t h e g r e a t e s t p o s s i b l e useful physical output

from a g i v e n set of p h y s i c a l i n p u t s ...I n class societies, a p r o d u c t i o n

i s q u a l i t a t i v e l y e f f i c i e n t if i t b e s t reproduces t h e c l a s s r e l a t i o n s

of a mode of p r o d u c t i o n '1 (1976, 22) .

-
T h i s argument h a s t w o i m p l i c a t i o n s . The f i r s t i s t h a t a l l modes of

p r o d u c t i o n have sought t h e maximisation of o u t p u t ; t h a t t h i s i s t h e

" n a t u r a l " or "real" meaning of e f f i c i e n c y . The second i s t h a t t h e

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a class-specific n o t i o n of e f f i c i e n c y e n t a i l s t h e

i n t e g r a t i o n of p o l i t i c a l aspects of t h e "reproduction" of w h a t Gordon

terms " r u l i n g c l a s s dominance". Both of t h e s e i m p l i c a t i o n s run c o u n t e r

t o t h e argument w e are t r y i n g t o develop h e r e on capitalist "efficiency'l.

F i r s t of a l l , as w e have t r i e d t o show, maximisation of o u t p u t on t h e

basis of a minimisation of i n p u t ( s o c i a l l y n e c e s s a r y l a b o u r t i m e ) ,
Gordon
indeed p r e c i s e l y t h a t q u a n t i t a t i v e aspect which i d e n t i f i e s , i s what

i s specific t o c a p i t a l i s m as a market and canmodity-producing economy.

I t i s n o t a "natural". ongoing or a h i s t o r i c a l c r i t e r i o n of e f f i c i e n c y .

I t i s t r u e t h a t i n e a r l y t r a n s i t i o n a l socialist societies encountering

o p p o s i t i o n and competition from c a p i t a l i s t states such q u a n t i a t i v e

elements have remained t h e c r i t e r i a for p r o d u c t i v e e f f i c i e n c y , b u t ,

a s Gordon himself a r g u e s later, such would n o t be t h e case i n a f u l l y -

develcped s o c i a l i s t economy, and i t c e r t a i n l y would n o t appear t o have

b e e n t h e case w i t h i n s u b s i s t e n c e e c o n a i e s such a s feudalism. Thus

f a r from s p e c i f i c a l l y c a p i t a l i s t criteria of e f f i c i e n c y being defin-

able i n " q u a l i t a t i v e " terms i n Gordon's s e n s e , i t i s t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e

o b j e c t i v e s of p r o d u c t i o n which u n i q u e l y express t h e logic and r e q u i r e -

m e n t s of capitalism. m a l i t a t i v e e f f i c i e n c y i s i n fact t h e other side

of t h e e q u a t i o n - t h e k i n d of "real" e f f i c i e n c y t h a t could b e gained

ahrough workers' f u l l involvement i n p l a n n i n g and o r g a n i s a t i o n of

production.

The p o i n t about a s p e c i f i c a l l y capitalist meaning of e f f i c i e n c y i s

w e l l i l l u s t r a t e d i n an example fran t h e second case s t u d y p r e s e n t e d

 -61-

i n t h i s t h e s i s (see Chapter 7 ) . Here what w a s o b j e c t i v e l y an extremely

i n e f f i c i e n t l o r r y d e l i v e r y s e r v i c e run by a p r i v a t e company w a s sub-

jected t o p r o f i t - o r i e n t e d time-study criteria which reduced t h e

s c h e d u l e s i s s u e d t o d r i v e r s t o what w e r e i n practice i m p r a c t i c a b l y

t i g h t l e v e l s . The poor d e l i v e r y r e c o r d a c t u a l l y itself arose from t h e

s h o r t a g e of d r i v e r s which i n i t s t u r n w a s encouraged by a payment system

a l a r g e element of which w a s overtime. Roth management and d r i v e r s

p r e f e r r e d t o keep s t a f f i n g l e v e l s l o w , i n t h e f i r s t case t o save money,

i n t h e second t o make i t . The o n l y "way out" t h e company could see from

t h e s e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s w a s t o t i g h t e n t h e screw on t h e d r i v e r s ' d e l i v e r y

timesa;to impossibly high l e v e l s . Thus t h e " e f f i c i e n c y " e x t o l l e d i n

p r i v a t e i n d u s t r y under capitalism a c t u a l l y came down t o e x t r a c t i n g

maximum l e v e l s of l a b o u r i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n from t h e m r k e r s , a s t r a t e g y

t o which, given t h e s t r u c t u r e of t i g h t s t a f f i n g combined w i t h overtime

imposed by t h e profitability/exploitation nexus, t h e r e w a s n o real

alternative.

I s "Control" h i l t i n t o Technology?

e have t r i e d t o show i n t h e above t h a t under c a p i t a l i s m " e f f i c i e n c y "

W

i s n o t a matter of r e p r e s s i o n and domination, b u t of g e t t i n g t h e m o s t

vmrk p o s s i b l e o u t of t h e least working t i m e . N o t w, b u t how much;

not e,
b u t how q u i c k l y , have been t h e c r i t e r i a of s u c c e s s w i t h i n t h e

c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r p r o c e s s . I n o u r concluding remarks w e examine f i r s t l y

why c a p i t a l i s m a d o p t s w h a t are " o b j e c t i v e l y " or " n a t u r a l l y " i n e f f i c i e n t

methods and secondly whether production technology i s s t r u c t u r e d r a n d

t h e i s s u e of I!control" or simply faster o u t p u t .

CM t h e f i r s t i s s u e , Cressey and MacInnes are of c o u r s e c o r r e c t i n

minting cxlt t h a t "There i s n o ...p h y s i c a l law...that proves t h a t a

sharp h i e r a r c h y , d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of f u n c t i o n , and d i v o r c e and concen-

t r a t i o n i n a few of t h e p r o d u c e r s of c o n c e p t i o n , and d i r e c t i o n a s
 -62-

Opposed t o e x e c u t i o n , i s , t e c h n i c a l l y speaking, more ' e f f i c i e n t @ . l l

(1977, 287-8) I<owever, a s w e have p o i n t e d o u t , t h e i r own a n a l y s i s

e show i n t h e case s t u d y
makes capitalist strategies i n e x p l i c a b l e . W

c h a p t e r s how managerial l a c k of i n t e r e s t i n or awareness of what w e r e

i n f a c t important aspects of worker knowledge ( a m a n a g e r i a l m i s s i o n

comnounrld by workers' own f e e l i n g s t h a t work o r g a n i s a t i o n w a s "not

our job") caused s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n s and holdups i n t h e product-

i o n process. Far f r o m a s i t u a t i o n of management e l i c i t i n g worker

co-operation. i t w a s a case Of management beinq unconcerned w i t h

worker behaviour or a t t i t u d e s beyond t h e b a s i c i s s u e of "performance",

and c a l c u l a t i n g and imposing p r o d u c t i o n norms i n which t h e l a s t con-

s i d e r a t i o n w a s worker " c r e a t i v i t y " or p o t e n t i a l f o r more e f f e c t i v e l y

o r g a n i s i n g t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s . Such n e g l i g e n c e (which of c o u r s e h a s

been m o d i f i e d r e c e n t l y w i t h t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t e c h n i q u e s l i k e

q u a l i t y circles) w a s not due t o t h e k i n d of d r i v e s towards h i e r a r c h i c a l

a u t h o r i t y i m p l i e d i n Cressey and ElacInnes' a n a l y s i s , b u t t o t h e over-

whelmingly q u a n t i t a t i v e criteria of e f f i c i e n c y i n o r g a n i s i n g t h e labour

process which d a n i n a t e d managerial t h i n k i n g . F i n a l l y w e turn t o t h e

meaning of " e f f i c i e n c y " a s embodied i n t h e development of new tech-

nology under capitalism. Given t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e logic which w e have

d e s c r i b e d a s governing t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n of t h e l a b m r process, i t can

be assumed t h a t t h e same d e s i d e r a t a of maximising p r o d u c t i v i t y would

a p p l y t o the develqxnent of new manufacturing techniques. However, t w o

a u t h o r s who c o n s i d e r t h i s q u e s t i o n have i n j e c t e d , a g a i n , a t ' c o n t r o l ' f

element i n t o t h e a n a l y s i s of such development. Thus David Noble h a s

devoted much of h i s work t o shnwing how " t h e social r e l a t i o n s Of

p r o d u c t i o n shape t h e technology of p r o d u c t i o n as much a s t h e o t h e r way

round" (Noble, 1979, 5 0 ) w h i l e Stephen H i l l a r g u e s more t e n t a t i v e l y

t h a t although p r o f i t a b i l i t y can be seen t o be a fundamental element

i ~ nt h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of new production t e c h n i q u e s , "What a r e important

 -~
-63-

a r e t h e i n t e r n a l i s e d d e s i g n v a l u e s and unconscious assumptions about

what c o n s t i t u t e s 'progress' which managers and Pngineers b r i n g t o

h e a r when' 6hey a p p l y s c i e n t i f i c and t e c h n i c a l knowledge t o i n d u s t r y '1

( H i l l , 1981, 122).These v a l u e s are s a i d t o f o c u s on t h e s a l i e n c e of

control as "a c e n t r a l f e a t u r e of conventional c a p i t a l i s t production."

Thi.s argument of Hill's relates t o h i s b a s i c t h e s i s t h a t t h e c l a s h

of i n t e r e s t s a t t h e h e a r t of t h e c a p i t a l - l a b o u r r e l a t i o n r e q u i r e s

i n p u t s of managerial c o n t r o l a t a l l l e v e l s t o s u p p r e s s resistance.

at t h e same t i m e , however, H i l l r e c o g n i s e s t h a t w h i l e "(he way of

improving p r o f i t a b i l i t y i s t o create a p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s which

p r e v e n t s t h e c o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t i n i n d u s t r y from h i n d e r i n g accum-

u l a t i o n " n e v e r t h e l e s s " t h i s i s by n o means t h e o n l y impetus towards

new t e c h n i q u e s '' ( H i l l , 1981, l l 2 b Y e t a g a i n , Braveman i s u n j u s t l y

( i n our view) a l l e g e d t o " o v e r e s t i m a t e t h e e x t e n t t o which c o n t r o l

i s i n f a c t achieved t h r m g h t h e d e s i g n of new methods" (112) .

respite t h e importance of " c o n t r o l " i n h i s argument, t h e n , Hill allows

some r e c o g n i t i o n of o t h e r f a c t o r s which may i n f l u e n c e t e c h n o l o g i c a l

development, p r o f i t a b i l i t y a p p a r e n t l y b e i n g chief among t h e s e . The

argument of Noble, i n c o n t r a s t , i s d e d i c a t e d t o showing t h a t " c m t r o l "

o b j e c t i v e s a r e embedded i n t h e d e v e l w m e n t of new p r o d u c t i o n t e c h n i q u e s ,

b o t h a s a motive f o r t h e i r a c t u a l i n s t i g a t i o n and i n terms of a

subsequent "monitoring" f u n c t i o n a t work.

The n o t i o n of a "choice" of t e c h n o l o g i e s i s c e n t r a l t o N o b l e ' s t h e s i s

t h a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r p a t h of develmment of technology i s shaped n o t

by SMP i n d m e n d e n t d r i v i n g - f o r c e w i t h i n t h e technoloqy i t s e l f , b u t

by t h e social s t r u c t u r e surrounding i t . The example of t h e development

of n u m e r i c a l l y - c o n t r o l l e d machine tools i s used t o demonstrate t h i s .

I n n o t i n g t h a t t h e earlier p r o t o t y p e of "record-playba&",which involved

r e c o r d i n g t h e c r a f t s k i l l s of t h e o p e r a t o r i n making t h e t a p e , w a s
 -64-

abandoned i n favour of a system u s i n g numerical c o d i n g s r e p r e s e n t i n g

each d e t a i l of t h e r e l e v a n t work p a t t e r n , Noble argues t h a t t h i s

c h o i c e i s i l l u s t r a t i v e of t h e i n f l u e n c e of social r e l a t i o n s on tech-

nology i n c u t t i n g cut e l e m e n t s of worker d i s c r e t i o n . S i m i l a r l y ,

t h e d e c i s i o n i n d i c a t e s t h e " d r i v e for t o t a l automation" which Noble

i d e n t i f i e s on t h e p a r t of management,and t h e way i n which t h i s

"ideology of e n g i n e e r i n g ...m i r r o r s t h e a n t a g o n i s t i c social r e l a t i o n s

of c a p i t a l i s t production" (Noble, 1979, 30).

Noble i s a c c u r a t e i n i d e n t i f y i n g a " d r i v e f o r t o t a l a u t a n a t i o n " (1979,

3)a s t h e f o r c e behind t h e development of new p r o d u c t i o n t e c h n i q u e s

i n l a t ? c a p i t a l i s m . !Vhat n e e d s t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d i s t h e r a t i o n a l e

behind t h i s " d r i v e " , which Noble a p p e a r s t o d e f i n e once a g a i n i n terms

o f a u t h o r i t y r e l a t i o n s : "There i s no q u e s t i o n b u t t h a t management

saw in h./c t h e p o t e n t i a l t o enhance t h e i r a u t h o r i t y over production

and s e i z e d on i t , d e s p i t e q u e s t i o n a b l e c o s t - e f l e c t i v e n e s s " (1979, 34).

I t i s u n q u e s t i o n a b l e t h a t c a p i t a l i s t s a i m a t t o t a l c o n s i s t e n c y , pre-

d i c t a b i l i t y and s t a n d a r d i s a t i o n i n t h e u s e of t h e i r l a b m r - p a u e r . Rut

whether such o b j e c t i v e s are a matter of managerial a u t h o r i t y a s p i r a t -

ions i s less clear. Labour which i s m a c h i n e l i k e - measured, target-

o r i e n t e d . s u s t a i n a b l e over a long p e r i o d - i s c l e a r l y considerably

more p r o d u c t i v e than human l a b o u r which i s variable, intermittent,

u n a b l e c o n s i s t e n t l y t o adhere t o maximalist t a r g e t s . The less human

i n t e r v e n t i o n (as i n t h e case of "record-playback'' v e r s u s N/C) t h e less

i n t e r r u p t i o n of a s m o o t h , mechanised f l o w process. And indeed t h e very

technology o f n u m e r i c a l l y - c o n t r o l l e d t a p e s , based on be minute d i s -

s e c t i o n and numbering of elements of human l a b o u r , r e p r e s e n t s t h e

q u a n t i t a t i v e r a t i o n a l e of capitalist p r o d u c t i o n , which. r a t h e r than

more w h e n e r a 1 aspects of " a u t h o r i t y " r e l a t i o n s , i s what i s i n t e g r a t e d

i n t o t h e d e s i g n and o p e r a t i o n of t h e machine.
 -6.5-
Conclu sim s

Thus w h i l e issues of " a u t h o r i t y " a r e p r e v a l e n t i n t h e o p e r a t i o n of

t h e c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r p r o c e s s i n t h e s e n s e t h a t management (and t h e

workforce) c l e a r l y se^ s m e areas, and n o t o t h e r s , ' a s t h e i r prern-

g a t i v e (cff n77) w e must be c a r e f u l n o t t o i d e n t i f y such "political"

aspects of i n t e r g r o u p r e l a t i o n s w i t h an o v e r r i d i n g r a t i o n a l e g o v e r n i n g

t h e o v e r a l l o p e r a t i o n of t h a t p r o c e s s . I n t h i s c h a p t e r w e have tried

t o s h m hcm t h e meaning of " c o n t r o l " , a c o n c e p t c l e a r l y c e n t r a l t o

t h e d e b a t e b u t a s y e t i n a d e q u a t e l y t h e o r i s e d , h a s been overwhelmingly,

if a t t i m e s i m p l i c i t l y , d e f i n e d i n t e r m s of r e l a t i o n s of d a n i n a t i o n

and s u b o r d i n a t i o n w h i t h i n t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s . These " r e l a t i o n s " have

i n t h e i r t u r n been s h a m to be c o n c e i v e d a s p u r e l y "social", i e

u n s t r u c t u r e d by s p e c i f i c material aspects of t h e m o d e of p r o d u c t i o n .

Tn t h i s s e n s e t h e p e r s p e c t i v e on t h e l a b o u r process i n d i c a t e d i n t h e

iise of t h e term " c o n t r o l " h a s been argued t o be p r o f o u n d l y ahistorical;

to h a v e s u b s t i t u t e d for a n a n a l y s i s of t h e s p e c i f i c a l l y capitalist

process of p r o d u c t i o n t h e image of a "pure" l a b o u r p r o c e s s i n w l v i n g

i n p r i n c i p l e t h e " c r e a t i v e " p r d u c t i o n of u s e - v a l u e s , on to which

h a s been superimposed by t h e p r i m a r i l y p o l i t i c a l o r d i n a n c e s of

c a n i t a l i s n a set of d i s t o r t i n g r e l a t i o n s of d a n i n a t i o n and subord-

ination.

T t i s hoped t h a t i n t h i s c h a p t e r , through t h e u s e of some c o n c r e t e

examples a s w e l l as argument, w e h a v e begun to e s t a b l i s h t h e v a l i d i t y

of a n a l t e r n a t i v e c o n c e p t i o n which, l i t e r a l l y , " r e v o l u t i o n i s e s " these

p o i n t s of view o n t h P labour process; t u r n s them on t h e i r head b y

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , i n s o f a r a s t h e c o n c e p t of '!control" i s u s e f u l a t a l l ,

i t can b e u n d e r s t o o d as i n d i c a t i n g p a t t e r n s of work o r g a n i s a t i o n which

a r e s t r u c t u r e d b y t h e requirement of p r o f i t a b i l i t y , n o t v i c e versa.

T h i s n o i n t of view i s a r r i v e d a t b y r e g a r d i n g t h e l a b o u r process under

c a n i t a l i m p r i m a r i l y i n t e r m s of i t s o v e r r i d i n g o b j e c t i v e of v a l o r -
 -66-

i s a t i o n which c o n s t r u c t s t h e whole i n t e r n a l o r g a n i s a t i o n of t h e

labour process. I t i s t o t h i s i s s u e of v a l o r i s a t i o n t h a t w e n m t u r n .
 -67-

CHAPTER THRFE

The Capitalist Labour Process

In the last chapter w e were concerned t o show t h a t ceTtain f o n s of the

organisation of work, grouped under t h e t i t l e of "control" by labour

process t h e o r i s t s . w e r e i n f a c t created and structured by the o v e r a l l

requirement of p r o f i t a b i l i t y of t h e c a p i t a l i s t mode of production. I n

going on t o examine, i n t h i s chapter, t h e specific character of t h e cap-

i t a l i s t labour process, w e s h a l l explore t h e operation of t h i s requirement

w i t h i n t h e labour process i t s e l f through t h e use of t h e Marxist concept

of v a l o r i s a t i o n . W e shall then d i s c u s s how the r e l a t e d process of

exploitation both c o n s t r u c t s worker response and i n d i c a t e s a centra! link

between t h e labour process and the o v e r a l l c a p i t a l i s t mode of production.

In t h e a n a l y s i s of exploitation w e emphasise the twin aspects of hbour

i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n and subsistence.

Valorisation

This conept w i l l be made c e n t r a l t o the a n a l y s i s of the s p e c i f i c a l l y

c a p i t a l i s t labour process f o r two reasons. F i r s t l y , because it pinpoints

an area of Marx's w r i t i n g s on t h e labour process (mainly i n t h e section

of 1- Volume 1 (Marx, 1976) e n t i t l e d "Results of t h e Imediate Process

of Production") which appear t o have been u n j u s t l y neglected by labour

process t h e o r i s t s . This would, of course, be i n s u f f i c i e n t j u s t i f i c a t i o n

w i t h m t the second reason, which i s that t h e concept and i t s accanpanying

a n a l y s i s l o c a t e s t r u c t u r e s and processes which continue t o d e c i s i v e l y

influence the day-t-day operations of the labour process w i t h i n modem

manufacturing concerns. Considering the concept of "valorisation" w i l l ,

w e hope, enable u s t o bring i n t o sharper focus the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between

p r o f i t a b i l i t y and "control" s t r a t e g i e s which w e attempted t o o u t l i n e i n

the l a s t chapter.

mrx*s theory of valorisation brwWdavn into four areas:

 -68-

i ) The "simp'le" explanation a s t o the expansion of v a l u e w i t h i n the labour

process;

ii) The u n i t y of labour process and v a l o r i s a t i o n process i n the c a p i t a l i s t

mode of production;

iii) The r o l e of labour i n i t s i n t e r r e l a t i o n with c a p i t a l ( t h e c r u c i a l

"reversal" t h e s i s ) ;

i v ) The location of p r o f i t generation within t h e sphere of production

r a t h e r than c i r c u l a t i o n .

W e shall d i s c u s s these aspects of the a n a l y s i s one by one, &ring which

w e hope t h e i r relevance will become clear.

i ) F q a n s i o n of Value

We have c a l l e d t h i s argument "simple", but i n fact i t contains within

itself the whole d e f i n i t i o n of both "capital" and capitalism. Leaving t h i s

a s i d e f o r a manent, however, w e need to consider t h e b a s i c meaning of the

term "valorisation".

Valorisation i s simply t h e expansion of a given q u a n t i t y of value i n t o a

l a r g e r q u a n t i t y , s p e c i f i c a l l y i n a context of c a p i t a l and wage l a b w r .

C a p i t a l , i n i t s most a b s t r a c t form, i s money ( t h e ultimate logic of the

q u a n t i t a t i v e l o g i c of capitalism referred t o i n t h e l a s t chapter) and the

process of v a l o r i s a t i o n can be defined as that of increasing a given sum

of money i n t o a l a r g e r sum. However, money, a s Marx p o i n t s out, i s only

p o t e n t i a l l y c a p i t a l , and i t i s only c a p i t a l that i t c a n become p a r t of

t h e process of valorisation. In other words, money, o r exchange value, i s

advanced w i t h i n the c a p i t a l i s t process of production i n order t o create more

money: " I n itself t h i s sum of money may only be defined a s capital i f i t

i s employed, spent, with t h e a i m of increasing it..." ( ~ 9 7 6 1 .

However,the very form i n which t h i s process takes place, t h e apparently

"Dure" and a b s t r a c t transformation of money i n t o more money, d i s g u i s e s ,

 -69-

a s Ffarx recognises, t h e &, t h e "real procedure by means of which x

i s changed i n t o x+Ax (I (p976).The e s s e n t i a l element i s , of course,

wage labour. The aspect of t h e labour i s emphasised because i t i s

c r u c i a l t h a t a c e r t a i n amount Of t h e o r i g i n a l sum of money has t o be

a l l o c a t e d t o p r e c i s e l y t h i s , i e t h e "means of labour". If not f o r t h e

f a c t t h a t a specified amcant of value has t o be set a s i d e t o purchase labour,

or r a t h e r labour-power, i t would be impossible f o r a surplus of value

beyond t h i s t o be created and measured within the production process.

But of course i t i s t h i s surplus, which "is nothing but t h e production of

surplus labour, t h e appropriation of unpaid labour i n t h e course of t h e

a c t u a l process of production" (p978), which i s the a d d i t i o n a l increment

of value involved i n t h e v a l o r i s a t i o n process.

I n t h i s s e n s e labour i s c e n t r a l t o t h e v a l o r i s a t i o n process, which 'n

i t s turn i s i n t r i n s i c t o the whole d e f i n i t i o n of capital. Marx makes i t

clear t h a t t h i s i n t e g r a t i o n of labour i n t o v a l o r i s a t i o n takes place within

a "real" production process r a t h e r than belonging, as t h e p o l i t i c a l

econanists of h i s day ( a s w e l l a s , perhaps, s o m e of t h e labour process

t h e o r i s t s of ours) assumed, t o t h e sphere of c i r c u l a t i o n . I t i s t h i s u n i t y

of t h e concrete process of production, o r labour process, and the overall

o b j e c t i v e of v a l o r i s a t i o n , t h a t w e nav go on t o consider.

ii) Unity of Labour Process and Valorisation Process

A s many labour process theorists have pointed o u t , Marx i s clear that

"The w o r k i s not done twice over, once t o produce. ..a use-value...and a

second t i m e t o generate and surplus value, t o v a l o r i s e value ''

(p991).In other words, there i s o n l y one labour process, and t h a t process

i s concrete and product-specific. Where t h e issue gains complexity i s i n

t h e a n a l y s i s of the 'twofold form" of labour, and this a t first r e t u r n s

us to t h e basic d e f i n i t i o n of Walorisation" contained i n (i)above.

 -70-

There i t was pointed out t h a t t h e s u r p l u s involved i n v a l o r i s a t i o n i s only

quantkfdable i n r e l a t i o n e a specific proportion of the o r i g i n a l value

which i s set a s i d e ta purchase l a b o u r p e r ( i e "variable c a p i t a l " ) .

However. t h i s still leaves open t h e question of exactly how extra value

i s gfmerated by labour w i t h i n the production process. The key element i n

the explanation of this is 2,which as w e s a w i n Chapter 2 is a c r u c i a l

p r a c t i c a l i s s u e i n considering organisation of and worker response to t h e

labour process. In terms of the generation of value, w h a t t h i s means i s

that if t h e work, as Naxx p u t s i t ( ~ 9 9 2 ) ."stops short" a t t h e p o i n t a t

which the amount that has been produced is equivalent to the amount of

(any) conwodities that make up the w r t h of t h e wage, then no extra value,

c l e a r l y , has been obtained fmm t h e w r k e r . I t is only when the l a b o u r

process has been extended beyond t h e time i n which t h e m r k e r produces

t h e wage-equivalent that e * t a value can be generated.

How, though, can an equivalence be drawn between a q u a n t i t a t i v e element

such as t i m e and the concrete, varied content of the worker's labour?

The answer i s to be found i n j u s t this q u a n t i t a t i v e aspect of the labour

- i n other words, as w e noted i n Chapter 2, not w h a t thewrker i s making,

but how much - not how, but how quickly. W e see below that t h e development

of the labour process under capitalism has incorporated a change from t h e

extension of the working day (absolute surplus value) to the i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n

of labour within t h e working day ( r e a l t i v e surplus value) a s s t r a t e g i e s f o r

t h e maximisation of t h i s surplus..Wlt either way the labour i s judged i n ,

terms of whatever s o c i a l l y necessary, or s o c i a l l y average, amount i s needed

t o create a surplus a t a given l e v e l of technical ckvelopent. Thus the

concrete labour invested i n t h e labour process is judged a s a g u a n t i t y

of s o c i a l l y necessary labour, which i n t u r n transforms the labour pracess

i n t o a valorisation process insofar as that q u a n t i t y represents "an

excess over the amount contained i n w a g e s " ( ~ 9 9 2 ) .

 -71-

The c a l c u l a t i o n of surplus value i n terms of an amount (measured as time

x output) of undifferentiated, q u a n t i f i a b l e labour allows us t o understand

the c r u c i a l a b s t r a c t dimension i n the twofold character of labour. We w i l l

be saying more about abstract labour later, a s w e w i l l about the i s s u e of

i t s i n t e n s i t y i n t h e discussion of "real subordination of labour". What

mrx labels " s o c i a l l y necessary" or "socially averagc" labour i s clearly

w h a t he refers t o elsewhere as abstract labour, and i s t h e aspect which

he c o n t r a s t s with "concrete labour i n t h e use-values mf the .tY"

(p992) i n h i s description of labour's dual form.

But how can t h e same labour have two d i f f e r e n t aspects - the concrete,
use-value-creating form and t h e undifferentiated form i n w h i c h i t can be

calculated s o l e l y i n terms of value? The c r u c i a l p o i n t here i s that tht

domination of t h e useful labour process by the o b j e c t i v e of v a l o r i s a t i o n ,

t h e overriding purpose of t h e process as a w h o l e of t h e production of value,

conditions the purpose, meaning and treatment of useful labour. mrx sees

this d i s t i n c t i o n between useful and v a l o r i s i n g labour as a r i s i n g within t h e

labour process itself: "It i s no longer w e who make it; instead i t i s

created i n t h e p-ss of production itself "(9933),Here Marx refers t o

t h e relation between objectified (use-value) labour and objectifying

( v a l o r i s i n g ) labour within t h e labour process. The e x i s t i n g use-values

used a s means of production, m a t e r i a l s etc. can only increase t h e i r value

by t h e addition of l i v i n g labour within the a c t i v i t y of the labour process,

so that this l i v i n g labour i s both considered a s value-creating a c t i v i t y

and i s itself measured i n terms of value, i e money.

On the one hand, t h e n , Elam emphasises t h e purpose and result of

c a p i t a l i s t production as defining t h e process: T h e production of surplus

-
value...appcars therefore as t h e determining purpose, t h e d r i v i n g force

and the f i n a l r e s u l t of t h e c a p i t a l i s t process of production, a s the means

 -72-
through which t h e o r i g i n a l value i s transformed i n t o capital" (~9760.

01t h e other, he shows more p r a c t i c a l l y e this overriding purpose

a c t u a l l y reverses t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s p e r t a i n i n g i n the " n a t u r a l " labour

process. I t is this reversal which w e go on t o consider i n looking a t

the t h i r d aspect of valorisation.

iii) I n t e r r e l a t i o n of Labour and capital

mrx refers a t several p o i n t s i n h i s a r g u w n t to the notion of c a p i t a l

as "absorbing" or "sucking in" l i v i n g labour, and indeed this metaphor

seems t o express t h e essence of t h e process of v a l o r i s a t i o n . We shall see

i n a moment how t h i s "absorption" f u n c t i o n creates a r e l a t i o n s h i p i n

which t h e worker, rather than employing the means of production, i s as

i t w e r e anployed by than - t h e well-knaun concept of thewrker a s the

"tool of the machine", but expressed i n t h i s a n a l y s i s more f u l l y as part

of thevhle transforming role of production r e l a t i o n s as such.

F i r s t of a l l , hcwever, it i s important to understand t h e MtUe of

the i n t e r r e l a t i o n between c a p i t a l and labour, w h i c h , despite the

apparently passive nature of l a b o u r ' s "absorption" assumes i n Marx's

analysis a highly a c t i v e fonn. The " l i v i n g labour" which i s "sucked

in" t o the means of production during the canbined labour and v a l o r i s a t i o n

process i s seen as playing almost a f e m m t i n g role i n a c t i v a t i n q "dead

labour": '%y incorporating l i v i n g labour-power i n t o t h e material con-

s t i t u e n t s of c a p i t a l , the l a t t e r becomes an animated monster and it

starts to act 'as if consumed by love' (~1007).mrx makes the same p o i n t

a t the end of Part 1 of Chapter 7 on t h e 1abourFocess: T h e labour process

i s a process between things the c a p i t a l i s t has purchased, things which

belong to him. Thus t h e product of this process belongs to him j u s t as

much as t h e w i n e which i s t h e product of t h e pmcess of fermentation

going on his cellar '1 (Mi=, 1976, p292)-

 -73-

There i s thus, i n p r i n c i p l e , a symbiotic i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between c a p i t a l

and labour -a "creative" interconnection w h i c h belies t h e notion, considered

below (px)) t h a t t h e labour theory of value can be understood i n terms of

static p o r t i o n s of "emhxiied labour t i m e " . . A s t h e twin aspect to the

"absorbing", "evouring" role of capital i n r e l a t i o n to labour (which mrx

c o l o u r f u l l y i l l u s t r a t e s with his description of Whe means of production"

a s "no more than leeches drawing off as large an w u n t of l i v i n g labour a s

they can" - p988) there i s also t h e positive, almost l i t e r a l l y "life-giving"

p o t e n t i a l of labour for c r e a t i n g value.

This p o s i t i v e , c r e a t i v e aspect of l a b o u r i s apparently drawn a t t e n t i o n

to i n Cressey and M3cInnes' argument as described i n Chapter 2 (p15).

However, f o r these authors t h e c r e a t i v e aspect of labour i s seen e n t i r e l y

i n terms of i t s function i n the production of use-values. The v a l o e s a t i o n

aspect, which i s w h a t here d e f i n e s t h e creativity of labour for Man, i s

ignored. Similarly, the description of the a c t i v i t y of labour i n the

v a l o r i s a t i o n process sheds a d i f f e r e n t l i g h t on another i s s u e taken up

by labour process w r i t e r s ; the transformation of labout-paver i n t o laboui.

In the argument w e have j u s t examined, t h e creation of value by labout,

rather than being a process which i s itself problematical, is again part

of t h e d e f i n i t i o n of the production process under capitalism.

of course, to cite the Marxist argument itself i s to beg the question as

to whether aspects of worker response do not i n fact i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h i s

very process of v a l o r i s a t i o n . Marx's conception of t h e "real subordination

of laboi:P, itself an expression of the logic of t h e v a l o r i s a t i o n objective,

has b o t h been criticised for refusing to deal w i t h the i s s u e of worker

r e s i s t a n c e and inaccurately described as r e l a t i n g s o l e l y t o i s s u e s of power

and domination in the labout process. This question w i l l be d e a l t w i t h

f u r t h e r belm. For t h e moment, i t i s important to make the p o i n t that

w h i l e labour i n i t s r e l a t i o n t o c a p i t a l i s ' k r e a t i v e " i n the sense that

 -74

it expands value, which presupposes that some l e v e l of surplus value will

be generated, t h i s " c r e a t i v i t y " is n o t a free capacity. but i s subordinated

t o and defined by thedaaands of valorisation: IThe worker treats t h e hide

he i s tanning simply a s t h e o b j e c t of his c r e a t i v e activity...If w e consider

production j w s t as a labour process. t h e worker consumes the means of

production as t h e mere m a n s of subsistance of labour. B u t production i s

a l s o a process of v a l o r i s a t i o n , and here t h e c a p i t a l i s t devours t h e

labour-paver of t h e worker, er appropriates h i s l i v i n g labout as the life-

blood of capitalism '' (~1007).

So the objective of v a l o r i s a t i o n as i t w e r e cCmMnds t h e labour of

t h e worker, provides an overriding imperative which overwhelms t h e

subjective, use-valuecreating aspect of t h e labour process. In this way

t h e "absorbingf' or "devouring" role of capital i n r e l a t i o n to labout

assumes an almost concrete presence i n confrontins the worker as an

o b j e c t i f i e d s t r u c t u r e w h i c h reverses the tllogical" r e l a t i o n s h i p between

a worker and h i s o r her means of labour. This, of course, i s not sane

t h e o r e t i c a l process but a real s i t u a t i o n i n which the means of production

confront labour not only "in t h e context of the capitalist process of

v a l o r i s a t i o n i n general ( i n the role of t h e m a n s of production as devourers

-
of l i v i n g labout)" but also "in t h e developlllent of t h e s p e c i f i c a l l y

c a p i t a l i s t mode of production ( i n which machinery, etc., becaaes the real

master of l i v i n g labout) ."(p983)

In other words, the overall o b j e c t i v e of v a l o r i s a t i o n comes to be

expressed i n the form of advanced machinery and technology, and t h i s i s

t h e l o g i c of the "re1 subordination of labout" which w e discuss below.

Finally, hanrever, w e need to d e f i n e the dynamic behind this reversal

i n which the means of production render t h e worker t h e i r object. Once

again, w e find a strange parallel here between the political economists

c r i t i c i s e d by Mrx. and modem theorists of the labout process, i n that

 -75-
both fasten on a specific agent to explain t h i s o b j e c t i f i c a t i o n . For the

-
political cconaalsts, the means of production are c a p i t a l ; the things

a c t u a l l y used i n the process of production take on the p r o p e r t i e s of w h a t

i s a c t u a l l y a social r e l a t i o n , and "act" as capital. In other words,

c a p i t a l is f c t i s h i s e d i n these assumptions.

For labour process t h e o r i s t s , on the o t h e r hand, t h e subordination of

workers t o t h e means of production i s caused by t h e p o l i t i c a l l y or

id&logically-inspired wish of capitalists to daninate t h e workforce.

This view, and i t s implications, have been well documented above

(Chapter 2 ) . The c r u c i a l argument of Irtsrx which can be used i n r e b u t t a l

of either of these views i s that it i s the r e l a t i o n s of production of

capitalism, t h e r e l a t i o n between c a p i t a l and wage-labour i n which

production i s based on surplus value, which brings about the transformation

of labour f r a n subject to object. Rather than the means of production

tcthcmselvesf' taking on the paver to draw labour f r o m t h e worker, or

c a p i t a l i s t s i n person d i r e c t l y imposing t h e i r d r i v e f o r domination on

the workforce, i t i s the relation between t h e means of production and

t h e w o r k e r which have undergone a transformation, or reversal, with

t h e onset of cumnodity production.

I t i s p r e c i s e l y this reversal, and t h e cconanic relationships w h i c h

construct it, to which w e tried t o draw a t t e n t i o n i n the argument that

the requirement of p r o f i t a b i l i t y s t r u c t u r e s "control" rather t h a n vice

versa, and it i s this a n a l y s i s which makes the concept of valorisation

50 important for an understanding of t h e c a p i t a l i s t labour process.

i v ) Surplus value i s produced within t h e Labour process

'he f i n a l area of t h e v a l o r i s a t i o n argument i s i n SMBc ways the most

fundamental. S t a r t i n g again with t h e impact of the o v e r a l l purpose of

v a l o r i s a t i o n on the s t r u c t u r e and organisation of t h e labour process

("Since the labour process is only the instrument and a c t u a l form of

 -76-
t h e v a l o r i s a t i o n process, i e s i n c e i t s purpose i s t o employ t h e labour

materialised i n wages...to create surplus-value..." ~ 1 0 0 9 ) MIX w s

on to state that "the crux of the e n t i r e process i s the exchange of

o b j e c t i f i e d labour for l i v i n g labour, of less o b j e c t i f i e d labour for more

l i v i n g labour" (~1009).

There are two p o i n t s here: f i r s t l y that this exchange of "less" for %ore",

i e t h e value represented i n t h e worker's w a g e s and means of production

fo; an extra amount of value beyond this supplied by t h e worker's labour,

-
i s t h e process of c r e a t i n g surplus value; and secondly that this exchange,

this process, takes place within the labour process.

C a p i t a l i s t s , workers, political economists alike. Mrx argues - all those

who "fetishist" Capital - are unable to understand t h e nature of this

exchange, because to than i t appears t h a t the labour, once "bought",

is simply another form of c a p i t a l , a value-creating substance added to

the value already seen as "naturallyll embodied a s capital i n the means of

production. In other words i t i s assumed that a c e r t a i n quantity of labour

i s bought outside the labour process, i n t h e sphere of c i r c u l a t i o n through

t h e payment of wages, and that no f u r t h e r exchange of more value for less

takes place w i t h i n t h e process of production itself. In this way "the

exchange process that takes place between variable c a p i t a l and labour

p e r " o u t s i d e t h e labour process, i s i d e n t i f i e d w i t h "the process i n

which l i v i n g labour f i n d s itself sucked up and absorbed by constant

capital (~1009).

Thus t h e same fetishisation w h i c h trs*tg useful labour purely as value-

c r e a t i n g substance, because of t h e overriding requirement of p r o f i t a b i l i t y ,

i s that which f a i l s to understand the actual productive process i n which

the q u a n t i t y of use-values represented i n the worker's w a w i s exceeded

by t h e q u a n t i t y of u s e v a l u e s produced w i t h i n the working day through t h e

 -77-

extension of unpaid beyond paid labour t i m e . The s p e c i f i c i t y of t h e

capitalist labour process i s lost i n a perspective which assumes that

Itcapital" i s embodied i n the physical means of production of any labour

process ( j u s t as, i n the emphasis by labour process t h e o r i s t s purely on

the use-value-creating function of labour, a l l labour processes are

subsumed under an ahistorical category of simply %&ing things").

In f a c t the s p e c i f i c i t y of capitalism lies i n i t s requiranent of sulpEus

value, and the-generation of t h i s within t h e labour process, and t h e

recognition of t h i s has two important implications. The first, a s w e

have suggested, i s fundamental for t h e w h o l e understanding of c a p i t a l i v n

as a mode of production; p u t very b r i e f l y , i t i s that capitalism i s pre-

dicated on the existence of wage labour. If not for the payment o f ? wage,

there would be no surplus. liDre to the p o i n t f o r our own a n a l y s i s , this

means that the c a p i t a l i s t labour process i s based on e x p l o i t a t i o n , a

r e l a t i o n s h i p of which Warx's political economists were n o t aware (under-

standing, a s they did, labour within t h e labour process simply a s a resource

unrelated to the price p a i d for labour paver) and which i t would appear from

t h e w r i t i n g s of many of today's labour process t h e o r i s t s that they p r e f e r

to ignore. W e shall d i s c u s s exploitation,and i t s relation fn t h i s respect

to subsistence i s s u e s within t h e labour process, i n more detail a t a l a t e r

stage i n this paper.

The second p o i n t i s again more d i r e c t l y related to discussion of t h e labour

process as such. I t i s t h a t i f w e accept t h e p o i n t t h a t value i s created

within the c a p i t a l i s t labour process, and that the labour process under

capitalism i s organised a value-creating process, then i s s u e s r e l a t i n g

t o t h e reduction of s o c i a l l y necessary labour time, t h e i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n

of labour and ultimately the "abstraction" of labour become c e n t r a l t o

our considerations. It i s these i s s u e s which w e go on t o explore i n looking

a t Marx's theory of t h e "Real Subordination of Labour".

 -7%

R e a l Subordination of Labour - Mechanisation and Abstraction

RSL, a s w e shall now term i t , i s considered here p a r t l y as bringing out

the l o g i c of Egrx's theory of v a l o r i s a t i o n i n the context of the develop-

ment of the labour process, and p a r t l y i n order t o f u r t h e r define t h e

i s s u e s of i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of labour, etc., r e f e r r e d to above. I t also

serves, however, to locate some s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n emphasis and

approach between Marx and curremt labour process t h e o r i s t s . This section

w i l l therefore be divided i n t o three areas: Recent t h e o r e t i c a l responses

to the concept of RSL; the theory itself i n the context Of Marx's o v e r a l l

a n a l y s i s of the labour process; and f i n a l l y and most importantly t h t way

i n which t h e R S . manifests itself within today's labour process.

( i )RSL w i t h i n the labour process debate.

The response of many present-day t h e o r i s t s to the notion of the RSL i s

that i t somehow eliminates worker r e s i s t a n c e and should be c r i t i c i s e d for

t h i s . For example, L i t t l e r and Salaman argue t h a t "In general i t i s

d i f f i c u l t to avoid the conclusions of Friedman and Cressey and EgcInnes

that t h e 6SL (formal subordination of labour)/RSL d i s t i n c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s

an inadequate theorization of t h e r e l a t i o n between capital and labour a t

the p o i n t of production" and they note sympathetically that Tfiedman i n

fact suggests discarding the... d i s t i n c t i o n altogether if it i s going to lead

people away from dealing w i t h class relations and c l a s s struggle within

modern capitalism" (L&S, 1982, ~253).

If this i s an attack on t h e w h o l e v i a b i l i t y of the theory of R S L , the

"defence" (which i n fact precedes mst of these criticisms )takes place,

paradoxically, along almost the same l i n e s . Thus t h e Brighton Labour Process

Group, i n a 1977 paper w h i c h aims to t h e o r i s e the s p e c i f i c a l l y capitalist

labour process, begains i t s a n a l y s i s of RSL with t h e rousing phrases:

"capital must create capitalist labour process. I t must have p e r i n the

very heart of production itself so that it can have a s o l i d material basis

f o r i t s overriding objective: !Ir (BPLG, 1977, p9).

Similarly, having described t h e way i n which machinery allows "capital

t o break through t h e l i m i t s represented by the speed with which labour

could perform these functions" (plZ),the w r i t e r s go on to refer to this

a s t h e "real p e r of control" of c a p i t a l and ask how this 'rpower" i s used

to achieve v a l o r i s a t i o n , answering t h e i r cam question w i t h t h e s t a t e m e n t

that "The c o l l e c t i v e worker of machinofacture allcws t h e imposition of

the a u * h o r i t y of c a p i t a l (plZ).The section concludes, indeed emphasises,

that: "....the c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r process i s that specific form of t h e

c o l l e c t i v e worker based on machinofacture i n w h i c h c a p i t a l , having a

monopoly of howledge and power over the r e l a t i o n s between labour and the

means of production,uses this pwer, this real domination, i n order to

enforce t h e objective of v a l o r i s a t i o n 'I (BFLG, 1977, p13)r

In t h i s way, r a t h e r than R S L being understood a s i n itself the v e h i c l e ot

s t r u c t u r e of v a l o r i s a t i o n , i t i s seen i n terms of a r e l a t i o n s h i p of "paver"

which i s used t o "enforce" valorisation. This i s a c r u c i a l s h i f t of

emphasis from t h e YarxLst perspective, and i s of course echoed i n the

later criticisms of the concept, t h e a u t h o r s of w h i c h see R S L ( w h i c h i s i n

fact t r a n s l a t e d as real subsumption of labour i n the Mandel e d i t i o n of

C a p i t a l ) i n e x a c t l y those terms of r e l a t i o n s of paver and domination w i t h

w h i c h they a r e themselves preoccupied, and thus as invoking an implausibly

t o t a l p i c t u r e of t h e purposive d m i n a t i o n of c a p i t a l over labour.

(ii)MIX'S Theory of RSL

I n t e r e s t i n g l y , M a n h i m s e l f e x p l i c i t l y rejects i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of t h e

i n i t i a l "takeover" of the l a b o u r process by c a p i t a l put i n terms of

political daeination: "subordination i n t h i s case (appropriation of

surplus labour) a r i s e s from t h e specific content of t h e sale - there is

n o t a subordination underlying it...determined n o t j u s t by money...but,

l e t us say, by political constraints...There i s no fixed political and social

 -80-

r e l a t i o n s h i p of supremacy and subordination " (~1025).

What, then, c o n s t i t u t e s t h e real subordination (or real subsumption) of

l a b o u r for Flarx? A s might be imagined from the foregoing, t h e concept of

v a l o r i s a t i o n i s c r u c i a l i n a r t i c u l a t i n g t h e argument. R e a l subordination

of labour i s t h e expression of the way the capitalist l a b o u r process has

developed i n order to f u l f i l l more adequately t h e p r e v a i l i n g objective of

valorisation. .
The d e v e l o p e n t of real from formal subordination of labour under capitalism

i s predicated on two related conditions: a l e v e l of mass production

s u f f i c i e n t to operate capitalism on a s o c i a l rather than individual scale,

and t h e t r a n s i t i o n f mabsolute to r e l a t i v e s u r p l u s value, i e from the

maximisation of surplus l a b u r based only on an extension of labour t i m e

t o one based on the more i n t e n s i v e or productive use of labour time. Both

these f e a t u r e s a r e r e l a t e d by N a r x to s p e c i f i c a l l y c a p i t a l i s t forms of

-
production: "The enlargement of scale c o n s t i t u t e s t h e real foundation on

w h i c h t h e s p e c i f i c a l l y capitalist mode of production can arise...." (~1022)

and W i t h t h e production of r e l a t i v e surplus value t h e e n t i r e real form of

production i s altered and a s p e c i f i c a l l y c a p i t a l i s t form of production

comes i n t o being ( a t the technological l e v e l too) 1' (p1024).Within this

development of techniques for r e l a t i v e increases i n surplus value, essent-

i a l l y based on t h e continual, canpetition-inspired, d r i v e to reduce

s o c i a l l y necessary labour time, a l l the mechanical, technological and

eventually organisational techniques for t h e i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of labour

gathered under the t i t l e "real subordination of labour" come i n t o t h e i r

cwn.

Thus w h i l e t h e i n i t i a l takeover by c a p i t a l i s n of the e x i s t i n g labour

process applied i n production brings about no i n s t a n t , dramatic change

i n the concrete form of that labour process, the transformation i n

 -8 1-
r e l a t i o n s of production located i n that takeover carries with it a l o g i c

the ultimate r e s u l t of w h i c h i s that ' W i t h the real subswnption of labour

under capitalism a complete...revolution takes place i n the mode of

production, i n t h e productivity of workers and i n the r e l a t i o n s between

workers and capitalists." (~1035)

W h a t brings t h k about? The p o i n t i s that a l l the tendencies for real

.
subordination l i e w i t h i n t h e transformed r e l a t i o n s of production which

frame t h e formal subordination of labour. I t i s n o t that some n a t u r a l

property of w a p i t a l " imposes itself on labour, changing its content,

but that the p r i m r i t y under capitalism of the extraction of surplus value

operates t o develop these tendencies tauards a system of production

adequate for the o b j e c t i v e of maximisation of s u r p l u s value. The tendencies

involved here are those of accumulation with i t s accompanying increase

i n the s a l e of production, competition which forces t h e reduction of

s o c i a l l y necessary labour time, t h e development of the forces of production

(machinery, technology) which i n t e r a c t w i t h and ensue f r o m both these

tendencies. Thus w e again have t h e d r i v e tmards v a l o r i s a t i o n as the

c a t a l y s t for developwnts which have either been seen as inhering i n the

Watural" properties of %spital" o r as ensuing from the otherwise un-

explained d e s i r e of capitalists t o dominate the labour process. As w e have

t r i e d to explain, "real subordination" a s expaunded by Elarx denotes n e i t h e r

of these but the way i n w h i c h t h e r e l a t i o n s of production under capitalism,

centred on t h e production of surplus-value, develop i n a d i r e c t i o n which

most f u l l y expresses the requirements of t h i s c e n t r a l function.

(iii)I n t e n s i f i c a t i o n and Abstraction of Labour under RSL

As w e have seen, t h e t r a n s i t i o n to RSL i s defined c e n t r a l l y i n terms of

t h e e x t r a c t i o n of relative (as opposed to absolute) surplus value.

"Relative" i s used i n relation t o a.

Thus, i n the extraction of absolute

surplus value, t h e amount of value i s t h e maximum t h a t can be provided given

the standard provision of l a b o u r within the l i m i t s set by the length of the

 -8%

working day. The o n l y way to i n c r e a s e t h e amount of value a v a i l a b l e t o

the c a p i t a l i s t a t this stage was t o increase the number of hours worked -

a s t r a t e g y w i t h built-in l i m i t a t i o n s , even for Victorian taskmasters. As

Mrx expresses it, r e l a t i v e surplus-value "arises when t h e individual

c a p i t a l i s t i s spurred on to s e i z e the i n i t i a t i v e by the fact t h a t value=

the s o c i a l l y necessary labour-time o b j e c t i f i e d i n the product and that

therefore sulplus-value i s created f o r him as soon as t h e individual

.
-
value of his product f a l l s below i t s social value and c a n be sold accord-

ingly a t a p r i c e above i t s individual value." (p1023-4)

How can this " f a l l i n value" of t h e product come about? By a reduction

i n the time taken by t h e worker t o produce i t . Thus t h e drive t o reduce

labour t i m e , bringing w i t h it an o v e r a l l reduction i n s o c i a l l y average or

socially necessary labour time, becomes a c e n t r a l f o r c e operating within

t h e capitalist labour process. I t does not, of course, mean an easier l i f e

f o r the worker - though it does allow for an extension of l e i s u r e hours.

What i t does mean i s an i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of labour during t h e time spent

a t work - an immense increase i n the r e l a t i v e p o t e n t i a l of each hour spent

a t work for t h e production of value.

Mechanisation and m e r i e n c e of the Labour Process

An important d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e labour process of Warx's day and

that of the present i s revealed i n t h e fact that Mrx s a w w h a t he termed

Ycachinofacture" as t h e major vehicle of this o v e r a l l reduction of labour

time. The era of " s c i e n t i f i c management", of detailed a t t e n t i o n t o and

breaking down and measurement of workers' actual work p a t t e r n s , had not

y e t dawned as W ~ r xdeveloped h i s theory of the real SUbordiMtiOn of

labour. Thus the development of machinery involved i n large-scale production,

w h i l e bringing about "objectively", as i t w e r e , a massive i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n

of labour i n terns of the reduction of labour t i m e , w a s not a function

of production aimed d i r e c t l y a t systematising p a t t e r n s of work organisation

a s suchi
 -83-

Leaving aside f o r t h e moment, then, t h e impact of techniques aimed

d i r e c t l y a t w h a t might be called t h e "software" of the labour process

on the experience of the wrker, w e can d i v i d e Egrx's cmnnents on the

mct of RSL on workers' experience of the labour process i n t o two

areas:

a ) The o b j e c t i f i c a t i o n of t h e means of production. T h i s can be dealt with

f a i r l y b r i e f l y , as much has already been s a i d above (p-), i n discussing

the i n t e r r e l a t i o n between labour and c a p i t a l , on t h i s issue. However,

i t may be worth reminding ourselves of t h e l i n k Egrx draws between

"the c a p i t a l i s t process of v a l o r i s a t i o n i n general" and "the development

of t h e s p e c i f i c a l l y c a p i t a l i s t mode of production ( i n w h i c h machinery,

etc., becomes t h e real master of l i v i n g labour)" (p983) a l i n k which

a n t i c i p a t e s the l a t e r argument on the real subordination of labour. I n

other words, t h e reversal of t h e producer means of production r e l a t i o n s h i p

u l t i m a t e l y assumes, on the basis of a scale of production w h i c h can

d i r e c t l y apply "the sciences, of mechanics, chemistry etc., f o r specific

ends, technology, etc." (p1024), a highly d e f i n i t e and material shape

i n t h e form of machinery which d i r e c t l y confronts t h e worker as t h e

consumer of his or her labour.

%e experience of the worker, then, i n t h e face of widespread mechanisation,

i s one i n w h i c h the organisation of the labour process, t h e labour process

a s o b j e c t , has l i t e r a l l y been taken out of her or his hands. The worker's

labour i s dominated by the o b j e c t i f i e d forms of capital. I t thus becomes

w h a t can be argued t o be, even i n e x p e r i e n t i a l terms, a b s t r a c t labour.

b) The a b s t r a c t i o n of labour. This immanence of a b s t r a c t labour as

an actual aspect of t h e organisation and experience of the labour process

becomes, as w e shall see b e l o w , even more pronounced a t a later stage of

c a p i t a l i s t development than that t y p i f i e d by mechanisation. Nevertheless,

mrx's awn d e s c r i p t i o n i n the Grundrisse of the impact of mechanisation

- , ,
 -04-

on the worker express pcwerfully the a b s t r a c t i o n of labour itself w i t h i n

t h i s structure.

“In the machine...the u s e value, i e the material q u a l i t y of the means of

labour, i s transformed i n t o a n existence adequate to...capital a s such....

The workerls a c t i v i t y , reduced t o a mere a b s t r a c t i o n of a c t i v i t y , i s

determined and regulated on a l l sides by t h e m e m d n t of the machinery,

and not the opposite...The production process has ceased to be a labour

process i n the sense of a process dominated by labou? a s i t s governing

unity. Labour appears, rather, merely as a conscious organ, scattered

among t h e individual l i v i n g workers a t numerous p o i n t s of t h e mechanical

system....” (luBrx, 1973, p693).

Later i n t h e same passage, luBrx makes t h e p o i n t that “the production

i n enormous mass q u a n t i t i e s which is p o s i t e d with machinery destroys

every connection of the product w i t h t h e direct need of t h e producer,

and hence w i t h direct use value; i t i s already posited i n the form of

t h e product’s production and i n the relations i n which i t i s produced

that i t i s produced only as a conveyor of value, and i t s use value enly

as condition to that end ‘’ (Marx, 197% p694).

In this way the p o s i t i o n of labour viewed purely as value-creating,

as a b s t r a c t labour, is applied d i r e c t l y t o t h e labour process itself.

mrx makes clear t h e connections between t h e v a l o r i s a t i o n objective

and t h e a b s t r a c t i o n of labour i n the Resultate: “Complete and t o t a l

a b s t r a c t i o n i s made...fran its particular u t i l i t y , its particular n a t u r e

and kind i n s o f a r a s i t i s reckoned as value-forminq e l w e n t and t h e

c d i t y i s reckoned as i t s o b j e c t i f i c a t i o n ” (Dragstedt, 1976, p94-5).

W e n m go on to examine the concept of a b s t r a c t labour mre closely

as a p o s s i b l e aid i n understanding today‘s labour process.

Abstract Labour

The concept of a b s t r a c t labour, p a r t i c u l a r l y when applied d i r e c t l y

t o t h e labour process, has been viewed with suspicion by many w r i t e r s

who see i t a s negating t h e constructive c o n t e n t of labour. However,

there have been some who have w r i t t e n i n defence of t h i s idea. Lucio

Colletti, for e%uaple, has used it t o make a l i n k between the discussion

of a l i e n a t i o n i n the e a r l y work of Karx and a materialist a n a l y s i s of the

c a p i t a l i s t mode of production based on valorisation. Thus he argues that

"in the r e a l i t y of t h e world of cormoodities...individual labour powers

a r e equalised p r e c i s e l y because they are t r e a t e d as a b s t r a c t or separate

f r o m the real empirical individuals t o whom they belong...'Abstract

l a b o u r ' , i n short, i s alienated labour, labour estranged or separated

with respect t o man himself'' (Colletti, 1969, p84).

Geoffrey Kay, a more recent w r i t e r some of w h o s e criticisms of the notion

of a b s t r a c t labour w e w i l l be discussing f u r t h e r below, has also expanded

on t h e concept on an earlier, less critical article. Agreeing with Marx

that "The e x p l o i t a t i o n of labour by c a p i t a l ...i s much more than the

appropriation of surplus production through the free exchange of

rorrnnodities. I t i s no less t h a n the mode of production itself", (Kay,

1976, p4) Kay asserts of the process c e n t r a l t o t h a t mode, "The very

process of value production i s itself....the real process through which

labour becomes a b s t r a c t " (Kay, 1976, p l ) . Relating this "real process" t o

the c a p i t a l i s t labour process under machinofacture, Kay concludes, 'I...

whereas i n manufacturing the content and organisation of the labour process

starts from t h e specific concrete c a p a c i t i e s of t h e workforce, modern

industry a b s t r a c t s these capacitkes and starts from tne technical Imper-

a t i v e s of the machine".(Kay, 1976, p4)

I n this way t h e same c e n t r a l i t y of w a g e labour and exploitation to t h e

c a p i t a l i s t mode of production which w e pointed a u t above ( p l l ) i s used

 -86-

to demonstrate t h e rationale of a b s t r a c t labour for the c a p i t a l i s t

labour process. A s w e shall see below, Bravennan draws even more s p e c i f i c

connections between t h e d r i v e for p r o f i t a b i l i t y and t h e approximation

towards a b s t r a c t labour i n the labour process of l a t e 'capitalism.

Not a l l w r i t e r s , hwever, are so sympathetic. Kay h i m s e l f , i n a lat-r

change of mind. feels forced to admit i n the context of a s p i r i t e d

defence of the labour theory of v a l u e a g a i n s t Marx's major critic b h n -

Bawerk that "To posit abstract or general human labouf i s apparently ...
t o advance an a b s t r a c t i o n which has no more content thanthe category of

general u t i l i t y that Bohn-Bawek's criticism implies." (Kay, 1980, p54)

For Kay, Marx's categorisation of a b s t r a c t labour a s w n e r a l 'productive

expenditure of human muscles, nerves, b r a i n s etc." (Kay, p55) i s a s

u n r e a l a l o g i c a l deduction a s bhn-Bawerk's reduction of use-value to

a common property of a l l o b j e c t s (whereas the w h o l e theory of exchange-

value i s based on t h e fact that caranodities are q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t ) .

However, i n r e j e c t i n g on these grounds t h e notion of "abstract labour"

iwhile being prepared t o accept the formulation of "socially necessary

labour") Kay f a i l s t o engage with the w h o l e area of t h e nature of the

labour process itself i n which the atomisation. etc., of work can indeed

be seen a s a n approximation i n r e a l i t y t o the v a l u e d e f i n e d concept of

"abstract labour".

I t is exactly this i s s u e , however, which i s made c e n t r a l t o the a n a l y s i s

of t h e labour process by David G l e i c h e r . I n c o n t r a s t to Kay, Gleicher

argues t h a t "the problem of a b s t r a c t labour i s l o g i c a l l y p r i o r t o t h a t

of socially-necessary labour" (Gleicher, 1983, p98).This is because the

measurement of t h e value of cormnodities i n terms of amounts of socially

necessary labour presupposes that this labour i s measurable i n u n i t s of

some q u a l i t a t i v e l y canparable substance, i e a b s t r a c t labour. Gleich-r

 -8 7-

therefore proposes "the rendering of an ontology" of a b s t r a c t labour. H e

begins by c i t i n g the need for an h i s t o r i c a l approach i n which "abstract

labour i s taken to be a c t u a l (concrete) labour that has become independent

of, and hence homogeneous across, various use-values, and w h i c h comes i n t o

existence ...only w i t h the advent of c a p i t a l i s m " (Gleicher, 1983, p107).

Gleicher proceeds t o examine this, as i t w e r e , historical development of

-ever.
.
a b s t r a c t labour i n terms of t h e developing tendencies of capitalism.

for our purposes the crux of h i s argument comes when he begins

to d i s c u s s t h e exact nature of the "abstractedness" of a b s t r a c t labour i n

noting t h e " f l u i d i t y of labour" which capitalism develops. Returning t o

the problem Kay has already referred t o , that of t h e s e t t i n g up of a l o g i c a l

c o n s t r u c t "abstract labour" a s though i t w e r e a concrete r e a l i t y , he

rejects t h e "solution" proposed by the Rubin school that this real essence

of an a b s t r a c t i o n can "appear h i s t o r i c a l l y as t h e social form, money"

(pll2).This, Gleicher argues, locates t h e understanding of a b s t r a c t labour

i n the sphere of c i r c u l a t i o n , whereas "to t h e contrary, i t i s through the

development of c a p i t a l i s t relations of production that labour - which i s

otherwise a b s t r a c t e d from the technical aspect of t h e labour process only

i n thought - becomes t h e substance of value; ie, a real social phenomenon"

(P113).

S i g n i f i c a n t l y , Gleicher goes on almost immediately to quote from Braverman's

reference t o how Taylorism and similar work organisation techniques "bring

to l i f e the mrxist concept of ' a b s t r a c t labour' '' (Bravenoan, 1974, ~181).

Within t h i s perspective, Gleicher can now go on t o locate s p e c i f i c a l l y how

the a n a l y t i c a l concept of a b s t r a c t labour "comes t o l i f e " a s it w e r e within

t h e a c t u a l organisation of labour under real subordination.

Gleicher himself t a k e s as c e n t r a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t the "Babbge p r i n c i p l e " which

argues for the divisionof labour i n t o i t s simples elements, which are then
 -8%

d i s t r i b u t e d among t h e mrkforce, not o n l y on the grounds of efficiency b u t

a l s o b e c a u s e such a d i v i s i o n depresses w a g e s by d e s k i l l i n g . Leaving aside

t h e wage i s s u e for t h e moment (this i s s u e w i l l recur i n t h e discussion of

e q l o i t a t i o n below) for our present purposes the significance of the

p r i n c i p l e i s i t s transformation of work i n t o " d e t a i l labour, no longer

being t h e production of a use-value." (p115)

I t i s t h i s breakdown, t h i s atomisation of labour as such i n t o a series

of minute units which can be adapted t o produce any u s b v a l u e t h a t i n our

view c o n s t i t u t e s t h e r e a l i t y of "abstract labour" w i t h i n t h e everyday

workings of the c a p i t a l i s t labour process. A s Cleicher concisely sums up

t h e i s s u e earlier i n his article: "Abstract labour, then, i s subjective

a c t i v i t y of producing U-value that i s not specific t o the production

of any s i n g l e use-value, but w h i c h , t o t h e contrary, represents t h e

p o s s i b i l i t y of producing a wide v a r i e t y of use-values" (p107).Mechan-

i s a t i o n , he later notes, "deepens" this process through extending t h e

implementation of detail labour throughout t h e hierachy of skills so t h a t

labour power %ecomes, f o r t h e first t i m e historically, capable of b e i n g

anployed across i n d u s t r i e s i n the proportion d i c t a t e d by t h e rate of

profit" (plll).The role of mechanisation i n the real subordination of

labour i s thus again linked i n with t h e development of a b s t r a c t labour.

Hawever, i t i s t h e d e t a i l e d breakdown of working m e t h o d s and techniques

under " s c i e n t i f i c management" which i s perhaps the f u r t h e s t refinement

of t h i s tendency, one charted i n full by Braveman.

Braverman's € a m e n t s on the r e a l i s a t i o n of a b s t r a c t labour within t h e

labour process itself have already been alluded to, and it w i l l perhaps

be useful to see a t this p o i n t w h a t more he has to say on the slbject.

In the conclusion to his chapter on "The Scientific-Technical Revolution

and t h e Worker" i n which he has already noted, as the prelude to a d e t a i l e d

discussion of Taylorisn, that "The reduction of t h e wrker t o the l e v e l

 -89-
of an i n s t r u m e n t i n t h e production process i s by no means exclusively

associated w i t h machinery", (Braverman, 1974, p172) Braverman w r i t e s :

"It i s , f i n a l l y , worthy of n o t e that i n management's eyes as w e l l a s i n

t h e p r a c t i c e i t d i c t a t e s , the more labour i s governed by c l a s s i f i e d motions

which extend across t h e boundaries of trades and occupations, t h e more i t

resolves i t s concrete forms i n t o t h e general types of work motions..This

mechanical exercise of human f a c u l t i e s according t o motion types which

are studied independently of t h e p a r t i c u l a r k i n d of work being done, brings

to l i f e the M d s t conception of ' a b s t r a c t labour'. W

.
e see that this -

a b s t r a c t i o n from t h e concrete forms of labour - t h e simple 'expenditure

of human labour i n general' i n M a r x s phrase - w h i c h Marx employed as a

means of c l a r i f y i n g the value of caomodities...is n o t something that

e s s t s only i n the pages of t h e f i r s t chapter of Capital, but e x i s t s as

w e l l i n the mind of the c a p i t a l i s t . t h e manager, the i n d u s t r i a l engineer.

I t i s p r e c i s e l y their effort and m e t i e r to v i s u a l i s e labour n o t as a

t o t a l human endeavour, but t o abstract from a l l i t s concrete q u a l i t i e s

i n order t o comprehend i t as universal and endlessly repeated motions.. .

Labour i n t h e form of standardised motion p a t t e r n s i s labour used as an

interchangeable part, and i n t h i s form comes ever closer t o corresponding,

i n l i f e , t o the abstraction employed by Mam i n a n a l y s i s of t h e c a p i t a l i s t

made of production." (Braverman, 1974, p181)

Thus, w h i l e Braverman was not primarily concerned w i t h demonstrating the

r e a l i t y of the p r i n c i p l e of a b s t r a c t labour, his w h o l e analysis of t h e

labour process i n terms of t h e separation of conception and execution leads

l o g i c a l l y t o t h e i n t e g r a t i o n of a b s t r a c t labour within t h i s analysis. The

p r a c t i c a l expression of t h e separation of conception and execution is,

h i s t o r i c a l l y , " s c i e n t i f i c management". and w e now turn t o the examination

of this and i t s impact on workers' experience of the c a p i t a l i s t labour

process.
Although M r x could not have been aware of the development of scientific

management, i t s p r i n c i p l e s i n fact extend and develop t h e implications of

t h e v a l o r i s a t i o n o b j e c t i v e f o r t h e content of t h e labour process which he

i d e n t i f i e d i n m e c h a n i s a t i o n . The aims of s c i e n t i f i c management are a s f a r

a s p o s s i b l e t o systematise and quantify the methad and t i m i n g of jobs

( a s w e l l a s r a t i o n a l i s i n g p l a n t layout, t h e progressing of components

through the production process, the machine/wurker r e l a t i o n s h i p through

ergonomics, etc.). I t s focus, then, i s t h e w h o l e area,of t h e organisation

of work, a n area i n t o which capitalism i s forced to extend i t s g r i p once

the requirements of p r o f i t a b i l i t y can no longer s u f f i c i e n t l y be m e t by

advances i n mechanisation alone. The p r i n c i p l e s of work organisation i n

t h i s a r e a a r e normally presented for p r a c t i c a l purposes as "time and motion

study".

I t may be useful to b r i e f l y d i s t i n g u i s h between the two elements of "time"

and "motion". O f t h e two, the latter perhaps more clearly deserves the

label of " s c i e n t i f i c " . "Motion study" a s such was most f u l l y developed

by the Gilbreths, working i n t h i s f i e l d a t roughly the s a m e time a s F.W.

Taylor. Their a n a l y s i s of movements i n work w a s based on films of workers'

a c t i v i t y which w e r e slaved dawn 50 that t h e motions used i n work could be

analysed i n t o fractions of a second. These were then reconstituted 50

that t h e smoothest, most u n i n t e r r u p t e d f l o w of work could be achieved i n

t h e least possible time and with maximum "efficiency". Thenotion of a

minimisation of effort and fatigue on the part of the worker as endorsed

by work study p r a c t i t i o n e r s takes i t s meaning from t h i s attempt to maximise

the e f f e c t i v e i n t e r l i n k i n g of work motions r a t h e r than from any relaxation

i n t h e i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of labour - i n fact q u i t e the reverse.

The u n i t s of labour i s o l a t e d by the G i l b r e t h s are a t the m e time used as

the basis for t i m e study. Here a t i m e i s allocated to t h e performance of

each movement (usually a f r a c t i o n of a second) and the times b u i l t up t o

 ~~ ~

-91-

c a l c u l a t e t h e expected tperformancet' for t h e range of a c t u a l jobs on t h e

shops floor. Such t i m e s t u d y i s almost i n v a r i a b l y l i n k e d i n w i t h a n

i n c e n t i v e system of payment meaning that any worker who a c h i e v e s more

t h a n 'performance", i e works a t a faster rate than e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e

s t a n d a r d times, earns a bonus. The timed u n i t s of motion used as a basis

for such schemes ( o f t e n referred to as "time-measured u n i t s " ) are a clear

e x p r e s s i o n of t h e f l e x i b i l i t y and a d a p t a b i l i t y of a basic substratum of

worker a c t i v i t y which can o n l y be referred to as "abstract labour".

.
I n t e n s i f i c a t i o n , - a n d l a b o u r time, i n d i f f e r e n c e and e x p l o i t a t i o n

W e have gone on from o u t l i n i n g Karx's t h e o r y of abstract l a b o u r as

embodied i n h i s a n a l y s i s of v a l o r i s a t i o n and the p r a c t i c a l e x p r e s s i o n of

t h e v a l o r i s a t i o n o b j e c t i v e i n t h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s i t s e l f ,

to showing hav through t h e development of t h e l o g i c of i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of

l a b o u r i n t h e t e c h n i q u e s of s c i e n t i f i c management t h e w o r k e r ' s e x p e r i e n c e

of work becolpes, almost l i t e r a l l y , "abstract"; work becomes a r o u t i n e

series of detailed movements which for b o t h t h e worker and t h e work s t u d y

t e c h n i c i a n are to a l l i n t e n t s and p u r p o s e s i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e as t h e worker

moves from job to job. Here w e are t a l k i n g a b o u t semi-skilled d i r e c t

p r o d u c t i o n jobs i n manufacturing i n d u s t r y , b u t t h e p o i n t c o v e r s a w i d e

area. The i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e e x p e r i e n c e of work i n jobs which have been

atomised, " s y n t h e t i c a l l y " measured or time-studied, r o u t i n i s e d and cast

i n a set series of p r e - p l a n n e d movements w i l l n m be explored.

I n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of l a b o u r

HDW, t h e n , does t h e worker e x p e r i e n c e work, i f i t i s n o t in terms of i t s

q u a l i t a t i v e c o n t e n t ? The anwer i s p r e c i s e i n terms of those q u a n t i t a t i v e

aspects t o which F a n has drawn a t t e n t i o n i n h i s e x p o s i t i o n of t h e

measurement of v a l u e , s o c i a l l y n e c e s s a r y l a b o u r time. For F a n . " s o c i a l l y

a v e r a g e labour" & "abstract labour"; b u t , e w c t l y as such, it i s judged,

n o t i n terms of i t s u s e f u l c o n t e n t , b u t i n terms of i t s q u a n t i t y , which,

when t h e l i m i t i n g factor i s time, becomes i t s i n t e n s i t y . The c o n t i n u a l goal

of c a p i t a l i s t s i s to maximise t h e i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of l a b o u r , meaning t h a t
 -92-

when t h e e q a n s i o n p o t e n t i a l of machinery and technology i n t h i s regard

reaches i t s temporary limits, a t t e n t i o n i s switched to t h e a c t u a l organis-

a t i o n of l a b o u r itself.

For t h e workforce i n s t a n d a r d manufacturing concerns this i s clearly

experienced i n terms of an overwhelming p r e s s u r e towards speed and

effort; if n o t direct p h y s i c a l effort, then a n i n t e n s i t y of c o n c e n t r a t i o n

as
.
and p r e s s u r e of a p p l i c a t i o n which means that t h e experience of work comes

close a s i s feasible to t h e c o n s i s t e n c y , c o n t i n u i t y and p r e d i c t a b i l i t y

that would be expected of a machine. The comments of two workers quoted i n

W w Beynon's book Working For Ford sum up this p o i n t : "I j u s t c a n ' t get

going on n i g h t s . Y e t you've always got t h e same t i m e s : Ford's times..."

"They decide on t h e i r measured day how f a s t w i l l w o r k . They seem to

forget w e ' r e n o t machines y'knav...f' (Beynon, 1973, ~ 1 3 5 ) .

There are c o u n t l e s s other examples of t h i s expression of semi-skilled

workers' experience, as w e l l as managers' matching preoccupations. Such

empirical "evidence" w i l l be d i s c u s s e d a t more l e n g t h i n our n e x t chapter,

as w e l l as i n the case s t u d i e s . Meanwhile w e need to ask: If workers i n

t h i s s i t u a t i o n do n o t respond t o t h e i r work p r i m m i l y i n terms of i t s

-
q u a l i t a t i v e c o n t e n t , i n w h a t terms do t h e y respond?

I n d i f f e r e n c e t o c o n t e n t , concern w i t h reward

Marx is q u i t e clear a s to t h e lack of concern sham by workers under t h e

real s u b o r d i n a t i o n of l a b o u r to t h e c o n t e n t of t h e i r work, both i n terms

of t h e specific task itself and t h e branch of i n d u s t r y i n which he or she

works: "Just as capital...views w i t h indifference the particular physical

guise i n which l a b o u r appears i n t h e l a b o u r process...so too t h e worker

looks upon t h e p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e n t of his l a b o u r w i t h equal i n d i f f e r e n c e .

His work belongs to c a p i t a l , i t i s o n l y t h e use-value of the commodity

that he has sold, and he has o n l y s o l d it to a c q u i r e money and, w i t h the

 -93-

money, t h e means of subsistence...If h i s indifference t o the p a r t i c u l a r

content of h i s work does not give h i m t h e power to vary h i s labour-power

to order, he w i l l express h i s indifference by inducing his replacements,

the r i s i n g generation, to move from one branch of industry t o t h e next,

depending on the state of t h e market." (~1013)

The requirement of industry f o r f l e x i b i l i t y and m a l l e a b i l i t y of labour,

then - f o r labour that i s 'Mved around" a s required for the o b j e c t i v e of

.
v a l i r i s a t i o n - i s reflected i n t h e lack of concern of t h e s e m i - s k i l l e d

worker over the a c t u a l work done and her focus, instead, on the sale and
price of labour-power. I t is this i n t e r a c t i o n between the sale of labour-

power, taking p l a c e t h g h i t does "outside" t h e labour process, and worker

response w i t h i n the labour process itself, which inour view forms a c r u c i a l

focus for the study of t h e labour process w i t h i n l a t e capitalism.

A useful way of approaching s o m e of these i n t e r r e l a t i o n s i s through t h e i r

treatment i n a paper entitled '2abour T h e , Work Measurement and t h e

Commensuration Of Labour" by P.S. Taylor. While i t i s g r a t i f y i n g to see

a t t e n t i o n being paid to the i s s u e of labour-time i n the a n a l y s i s of t h e

labour process, Taylor's treatment itself reflects a familiar preoccupation

with the use-value aspects of labour. I n h i s a n a l y s i s of worker response t o

T a y l o r i s t work measurement schemes, Taylor attacks Sohn-Rethel's contention

that u n i t times under such schemes have a n o b j e c t i v e s c i e n t i f i c v a l i d i t y ,

through the argument that t h e timing of jobs i s always "a process of

mutually conditioningcalculation on t h e part of those being timed and those

undertaking the timing" (Taylor, 1979, p27).Taylor uses t h e undoubted

existence of such "workers' measurement" of work as a basis f o r emphasising

the q u a l i t a t i v e , concrete aspects of work i n the worker's experience, and

quotes Mxxls dictum that "the work i s n o t done twice over" (see above,

p3) t o prove his point.

 -94

To t a l k about %workers' measurement" i s n o t , i n fact, t o demonstrate

-
convincingly that there i s no " s c i e n t i f i c " component i n t h e systema+ic,

standardised measurement of work times by management. Y e t even on t h e

"workers' side", Taylor's exposition can be taken t o prove exactly t h e

opposite of w h a t he i s arguing; that workers' "physicaltt knowledge of

their jobs, w h i l e undoubtedly far more i n t i m a t e t h a n that of mangement,

i s n o t judged and valued 5 concrete, specific l a b o u r , by i t s p r a c t i t i o n e r s ,

.
but i n t e r n s of ways around the job which can be turned t o t h e i r advantage

when bargaining with management.

The concrete content of work, then, i n terns of f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h materials,

t o o l s , working methods. i s not t h e content of some worker experience w h i c h

reflects an i n t r i n s i c a l l y different approach to work from t h a t of

management, but i s e,
j u s t a s management uses i t , i n a monetary

calculation. Workers subjected to routine and undifferentiated work p a t t e r n s ,

in which t h e i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of labour as value-creation is the prime

perspective of management, w i l l out of t h e eaperience of that i n t e n s i f i c a t -

ion and a b s t r a c t i o n see t h e i r labour not primarily as concrete and useful

but a s an element i n a value calculation which i n t h e i r case r e l a t e s t o

t h e value of t h e i r subsistence. Andit i s t h i s dual conditioning of worker

response to the labour process by the o b j e c t i v e of v a l o r i s a t i o n and i t s

c o r o l l a r y i n the purchase of labour power - in t h e endemic s t r u g g l e between

effort and reward - that t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of e x p l o i t a t i o n , t o w h i c h w e now

t u r n , f i n d s i t s expression i n t h e heart of the labour process.

Exploitation and t h e Labour Theory of Value

The understanding of "exploitation" on which w e have progressed so farl

and which w e shall c o n t i n u e to uphold, i s one which i s premiss& on an

a n a l y s i s of production of surplus value within t h e c a p i t a l i s t labour

process. This i n turn b l d s two f u r t h e r implications for the management

or experience of t h e labour process : t h e extraction of effort on the one

 -95-

hand and t h e s t r u g g l e for subsistence on t h e o t h e r . The concept of "surplus

value" is, hcwever, itself c o n t r o v e r s i a l , and therefore before t u r n i n g to

m e t h e o r i e s of exploitation i t w i l l be n e c e s s a r y t o t a k e a brief excur-

s i o n i n t o t h e defence of t h e l a b o u r t h e o r y of v a l u e .

What has been q u e s t i o n e d by critics of t h i s theory, l e a v i n g t h e more

complex t e c h n i c a l i t i e s behind, i s f i r s t l y t h e l a c k of canmensuration

.
between exchange v a l u e s , as measured i n terms of embodied l a b o u r time, and

secondly t h e w h o l e n o t i o n that l a b o u r should or can be considered as t h e

sole "determinant" of v a l u e .

The f i r s t criticism can be approached v i a Mam's ccmment on classical

political economy that "it has never once asked t h e q u e s t i o n why...labour

i s expressed i n v a l u e , and why the measurement of l a b o u r by i t s d u r a t i o n

(Marx, 1976, p174).
i s e x p r e s s e d i n t h e magnitude of t h e v a l u e of t h e product" I n o t h e r words,

Ricardo's n o t i o n of embodied l a b o u r t i m e s a s t h e measure of exchange v a l u e

p r o v i d e s no room for t h e concept of upaid l a b o u r time a s t h e basis of

surplus v a l u e and for t h e concept of s o c i a l l y n e c e s s a r y l a b o u r t i m e

( r a t h e r t h a n actual l a b o u r t i m e s ) as a s t a n d a r d for t h e measure of t h e

amount of surplus v a l u e n e c e s s a r y for firms t o s u r v i v e under c o n d i t i o n s of

c a p i t a l i s t competition. Along t h e Same l i n e s , Ricardo made no d i s t i n c t i o n

between l a b o u r and l a b o u r power. For h i m l a b o u r w a s j u s t l a b o u r - bought

by t h e c a p i t a l i s t as such and embodied i n specific t i m e m e a s u r e d segements

of production. There i s no r e c o g n i t i o n i n t h i s a n a l y s i s of l a b o u r ' s p o t e n i

t i a l to produce more v a l u e t h a n i s r e q u i r e d for the r e p r o d u c t i o n of labour-

power, or of t h e way i n which t h i s p o t e n t i a l i s e s t i m a t e d according to t h e

given l e v e l of development of t h e forces of p r o d u c t i o n to r e s u l t i n a

corresponding s o c i a l l y a v e r a g e rate of surplus value. I t is t h i s static,

c o n c r e t e view of labour which leads N?.m t o camnent that Ricardo 'I....

does n o t examine t h e form - the peculiar characteristic of l a b o u r that

creates exchange-value or m a n i f e s t s itself i n exchange-value - the nature

 -96-
of t h i s labour" (Elarx, 1969, p164).

I t i s through the examination of this ' p e c u l i a r characteristic", as

(1978)
h e l w e i t and Mohun shw, t h a t t h e problem of t h e "lack of canmensuration"

between exchange-value and p r i c e s can be overcome. cnce i t i s emphasised

that s u r p l u s value i s produced w i t h i n the process of production i t s e l f ,

through the unique "use-value" of labour power, as opposed to s i m p l y being

r e a l i s e d through exchange, then t h e l i n k between t h e two elements i n t h e

r e l a t i o n between value and p r i c e , s o c i a l l y necessary labour time and paid

labour t i m e , c a n be understood i n t h e framework of c a p i t a l i s t competition.

Different c a p i t a l s w i l l attempt t o compensate for higher than socially

necessary labour t i m e s through the p r i c e mechanism, but a t t h e same time

the attempt to equate paid l a b o u r times through the i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of

labour takes place within t h e production process itself.

The Same significanceand uniqueness of t h e use-value or labour i n the

creation of surplus value can be invoked i n challenging the second

criticism mentioned above, t h a t there i s no basis for "privileging" labour

a s the sole determinant of value. An example of t h i s i s the argument of

Cutler e t a l , cited by Olin Wright (cf Steedman, 1981) that a number of

v a r i a b l e s including t h e socio technical conditions of production, the

f i n a n c i a l a c t i v i t i e s of capitalists, and even the weather, play equally a s

important a part as labour i n "determining" whether o r n o t p r o f i t s w i l l be

produced. However, such conditions come i n t o a d i f f e r e n t explanatory

category than t h e "surplus value" which i s listed alongside them; they

c a n only be "determinants" (possible excluders, or necessary conditions)

and n o t sources of p r o f i t . Obviously there are a range of conditions which

have to be f u l f i l l e d i n order for p r o f i t s t o be produced, of which labour

can be said t o be only one; &ever, t h e specific r o l e of labour ha- t o

be understood i n terms of i t s unique capacity to create more value than

i s required for i t s C*VD reproduction. To overlook t h e difference between

 -97-

t h e s e categories i s once a g a i n to relegate l a b o u r to t h e s t a t u s of a

q u a n t i t y of embodied l a b o u r time which can be added on t o o t h e r equiva-

l e n t c o n s t i t u e n t s t o produce (or n o t , i f o n e of t h e "conditions" i s a b s e n t )

t h e f i n a l r e s u l t , profit. To do t h i s , a s w e have tried to shau, i s to

misunderstand t h e unique character of l a b o u r i n i t s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h

c a p i t a l as t h e c r e t o r of v a l u e and surplus-value.(For t h e s t r a n d of this

argument r e l a t i n g to t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between labour-power and l a b o u r , see

P.7ff above, also ch. 2 ) . .

The Cormnodity S t a t u s of Labour

The t h e o r y of t h e unique surplus-value c r e a t i n g f u n c t i o n of l a b o u r , t h e n ,

far from b e i n g undermined by t h e argument that l a b o u r i s no more e s s e n t i a l

to v a l u e p r o d u c t i o n than any o t h e r "factor" of p r o d u c t i o n , i s i n fact

e s s e n t i a l to a n understanding of capitalism as d i s t i n c t from o t h e r modes

of production. The fundamental role of surplus-value production is, hauever,

i n i t s t u r n c o n d i t i o n a l on a n o t h e r dimension of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p e q u a l l y

i n t r i n s i c to t h e w h o l e o p e r a t i o n of c a p i t a l i s m ; w a g e l a b o u r , e q r e s s e d i n

t h e commodity s t a t u s of l a b o u r . As a p r e l u d e to examining the n a t u r e of

e x p l o i t a t i o n , i t i s n e c e s s a r y to a t least b r i e f l y touch on this concept

( i t s more p o l i t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g w o r k e r response are d i s c u s s e d

i n t h e n e x t chapter).

The concept of the c d i t y s t a t u s of l a b o u r , w h i l e accepted w i t h o u t

much comment by many w r i t e r s w i t h i n t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s d e b a t e , has r e c e n t l y

undergone some q u e s t i o n i n g . The major t h e o r i s t s w h o appear to have s e r i o u s l y

criticised t h e concept are John FlacInnes (1984). W i l l i a m Lazonick (1983).

and H e r b e r t a n t i s and Samuel Bowles (1981). The main argument behind t h e

criticism i s that l a b o u r i s i n fact not l i k e ' t y , but i s

any o t h e r conrmodl
 -98-

c r u c i a l l y d i f f e r e n t , n o t indeed i n i t s c a p a c i t y to g e n e r a t e surplus

value, b u t i n i t s "belonginess" to human b e i n g s , i e p e o p l e who are a )

open to i d e o l o g i c a l i n f l u e n c e s from family, school and state and b)

l i a b l e to resist and oppose t h e u s e of t h e i r comoodity.

Much of t h i s ground bas a l r e a d y been gone o v e r i n t h e d i s c u s s i o n of

t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between labour-power and l a b o u r , b u t t h e q u e s t i o n i n g of

t h e s t a t u s of labour a s a commodity r e p r e s e n t s an even s t r o n g e r attempt

by t h e o r i s t s to remove i s s u e s surrounding t h e organisa'tion of an response

t o t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s o u t of t h e economic s p h e r e a l t o g e t h e r . Thus G i n t i s

and m l e s remark towards t h e end of t h e i r article: "...by banishing

politics and c u l t u r e from t h e w r k place, t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of l a b o u r

as t h e use-value of l a b o u r power promotes a t e c h n o l o g i c a l view of t h e

l a b o u r p r o c e s s , t h e r e b y undermining t h e c r i t i q u e of t h e a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m

of c a p i t a l i s t everyday l i f e . F u r t h e r , i n t h i s view i t i s t h e p r o p e r t y

r e l a t i o n s h i p , n o t t h e mare i n c l u s i v e domination of t h e l a b o u r process,

which assumes t h e c r u c i a l a n a l y a i c a l role. C l a s s i c a l m r x i a n economics

t h u s comes close to t h e n e o c l a s s i c a l c o m p e t i t i v e model i n which, as

Samuelson a p t l y o b s e r v e s , 'it makes no d i f f e r e n c e whether t h e c a p i t a l i s t

h i r e s t h e worker, or t h e o t h e r way around'." ( G i n t i s and -le*, 1981, pi")

The conception of labour-power as a commodity, i n t h i s a n a l y s i s as i n ,

say, Lazonick's, i s supposed t o remove a l l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of response or

r e s i s t a n c e from t h e a n a l y s i s of t h e l a b o u r process. But t o understand t h e

r o l e of l a b o u r p e r as a commodity i s to p e r c e i v e t h e very opposite of

t h i s . The sale of l a b o u r power i s p r e c i s e l y seen to be not "interchangeable"

between c a p i t a l i s t s and workers i f w e understand t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between

t h e amount of value paid o u t i n w a g e s and t h e g e n e r a t i o n Of surplus value

i n t h e labour process. Even more i m p o r t a n t l y , to understand t h e role of

wage-labour a s a commodity i n t h e workings of c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t y i s to

understand first of a l l tbat workers have t o sell t h e i r l a b o u r power and

 -99-

secondly, and c r u c i a l l y for o u r understanding of t h e l a b o u r process, that

they have to defend and f i g h t for i t s p r i c e . R e s i s t a n c e w i t h i n t h e l a b o u r

p r o c e s s i s t h e r e f o r e based on p r e c i s e l y t h o s e grounds - defence of the

p r i c e of l a b o u r power, or s u b s i s t e n c e , on t h e one hand, e x t r a c t i o n of

m a x i m surplus value on the o t h e r - which surround t h e commodity s t a t u s

of l a b o u r . The commodity s t a t u s of l a b o u r i s t h u s i n t r i n s i c to e x p l o i t a t i o n ,

which i n o u r argument i s submitted to be c e n t r a l to worker r e s i s t a n c e i n

t h e c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r process.

Exploitation

In t h o s e t h e o r i e s which have been developed concerning explo*tion itself,

however, w e a g a i n f i n d a r e l u c t a n c e to c o n f r o n t any economic rationale f o r

a n a g e r i a l s t r a t e g y and worker response i n t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s . Thus w h i l e

w e have argued that s u r p l u s v a l u e i s i n t r i n s i c to e x p l o i t a t i o n , Geoff

W g s o n has argued i n an e a r l y p i e c e on e x p l o i t a t i o n that "Under feudalism

and s l a v e r y , for example, e x p l o i t a t i o n can t a k e place w i t h o u t s u r p l u s value"

(Hodgson, 1976, p3) and this i s developed t o p r o v i d e a t h e o r y c e n t r e d on

"appropriation" r a t h e r than e x p l o i t a t i o n .

In t h i s way i n later v e r s i o n s of his argument Hodgson e x t e n d s h i s "non-

labour-theory-of-value" d e f i n i t i o n of e x p l o i t a t i o n (1982, Ch.18) to embrace

f o u r c a t e g o r i e s : corporeal, a u t h o r i t y , class and, i n "pre-contractual"

r e l a t i o n s , b a r g a i n i n g e x p l o i t a t i o n . To l o o k a t t h e concept i n t h i s way

i s of c o u r s e to e l i m i n a t e t h e n o t i o n of t h e value-producing aspects of t h e

c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r p r o c e s s ; a n d i n fact Hodgson replaces t h i s w i t h a

conception of e x p l o i t a t i o n a s t h e a p p r o p r i a t i o n of s u r p l u s v a l u e by t h e

dominant class, which can o c c u r i n any c l a s s - d i v i d e d m o d e of production.

F x p l o i t a t i o n i s t h u s "criticised" on grounds of i t s contraventionc.of

b o u r g e o i s ideals of j u s t i c e and fairness: "The l a b o u r e r p r o v i d e s than

an a p p r o p r i a b l e object. But, a c c o r d i n g to b o u r g e o i s ' j u s t i c e ' , the

c a p i t a l i s t r e c e i v e s a reward for p r o v i d i n g an a p p r o p r i a b l e object"

(HodgsOn, 1976, ~ 1 5 ) .
The concept of e x p l o i a a t i o n i s t h u s l i f t e d o u t of t h e context of p r o d u c t i o n

and v a l u e - c r e a t i o n and removed to the s p h e r e of political and i d e o l o g i c a l

relations a s an i s s u e of t h e i n e q u i t a b l e a p p r o p r i a t i o n of p r o p e r t y .

A similar view of e x p l o i t a t i o n a s " a p p r o p r i a t i o n " of s u r p l u s P a b w r and t h u s

a s i n d i c t a b l e p r i m a r i l y i n moral or " r a d i c a l " grounds r a t h e r than i n terms

of an i n h e r e n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n w i t h i n capitalism, can be found in-i:the work

.
of John E. Roemer. Roemer b e g i n s w i t h a complex e x c u r s i o n i n t o v a r i o u s

imaginary "models" which p u r p o r t t o show that e x p l o i t a t i o n o c c u r s even

where t h e r e i s no system of p r o p e r t y ownership, no s u r p l u s and no i n s t i t u t -

i o n f o r l a b o u r exchange. In t h u s moving towards t h e goal of a "general"

theory of e x p l o i t a t i o n , he p r e s e n t s t h e argument that e x p l o i t a t i o n can be

s o l e l y d e f i n e d a s the e x p r o p r i a t i o n of l a b o u r (in an economy w i t h 2

producers, if 'fMr i works more than b, and Ms j w o r k s less t h a n b,

then j i s exploitAng i? and that this must "force a r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of

t h e classical Marxist claim that e x p l o i t a t i o n takes place p r i m a r i l y i n t h e

l a b o u r market and i n t h e e x t r a c t i o n of s u r p l u s l a b o u r a t t h e p o i n t of

production" (Roemer, 1982, ~ 2 5 8 ) .

For R o e m e r , exploitation i s a simple r e l a t i o n s h i p p o s i t e d p u r e l y i n terms

of "a d i f f e r e n t i a l . - o w n e r s h i p of t h e means of production" which can e n a b l e

one p r o d u c e r , even i n a n economy w i t h o u t a l a b o u r market, to extract a

more t h a n e q u i v a l e n t share of social l a b o u r from a fellow producer.

However, i n order t o modify t h i s "general" m o d e l towards what Roemer

conceives of as t h e mrxist t h e o r e t i s a t i o n of e x p l o i t a t i o n and class, s o m e

n o t i o n of coercion i s seen a s n e c e s s a r y . I t i s on t h e basis of t h i s that

Roemer b o t h ( c o r r e c t l y ) locates such c o e r c i o n a t t h e l e v e l of t h e economic

compulsion involved i n m a i n t a i n i n g p r o p e r t y r e l a t i o n s a t t h e l e v e l of t h e

market and ( i n c o r r e c t l y ) dismisses l a b o u r process a n a l y s i s for making

such c o e r c i o n c e n t r a l t o t h e task of " e x t r a c t i n g s u r p l u s l a k o u r d i r e c t l y

from t h e worker".
 -101-.

W i t h t h i s second argument Koemer has i d e n t i f i e d a p o s i t i o n which sees t h e

labour p r o c e s s a s c e n t r a l to e x p l o i t a t i o n w i t h one which p r e s e n t s "coercion"

a s e q u a l l y c r u c i a l t o a c h e i v i n g e x p l o i t a t i o n w i t h i n t h e l a b o u r process.

Although K o e m e r i s perhaps j u s t i f i e d i n t h e c o n t e n t of t h e c u r r e n t l a b o u r

p r o c e s s debate i n imputing such a p o s i t i o n , t h e r e i s i n fact n o n e c e s s a r y

connection between t h e two arguments. I t i s q u i t e p o s s i b l e to a r g u e , as

Karx d o e s , that t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s i s t h e site of t h e p r o d u c t i o n of f u r p l u s

value and also to a g r e e w i t h Roeaer t h a t such p r o d u c t i c n does n o t depend on

d i r e c t c o e r c i o n which r a t h e r e x i s t s i n t h e form of economic compulsion a t i

t h e l e v e l of t h e exchange of l a b o u r power. Roemer himself, however, a p p e a r s

t o have as i t w e r e t h r a m o u t t h e w h o l e of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s p e r s p e c t i v e

w i t h t h e n o t i o n of coercion. T h i s d i s m i s s a l of t h e l a b o u r process a s c e n t r a l

to e x p l o i t a t i o n i s i n i t s t u r n possible for Roemer o n l y because of h i s

p e r s i s t e n t c o n c e p t u a l i s a t i o n of e x p l o i t a t i o n as t h e a p p r o p r i a t i o n :>f surplus

l a b o u r . H e r e t h e r e t e n t i o n of "labour" r a t h e r than v a l u e a s t h e c o n t e n t of

t h e a p p r o p r i a t i o n i s perhaps mre fundamentally s i g n i f i c a n t even t h a n t h e

i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e term ' ' a p p r o p r i a t i o n " itself. I t i s l o g i c a l i n view of

his r e f u s a l to t a k e t h e a n a l y s i s beyond t h e s u r r e n d e r of l a b o u r to t h e

c r e a t i o n of v a l u e t h a t Koemer should now 90 on to pose w h a t he himself

d e s c r i b e s a s the "venerable" q u e s t i o n of why "mrxists choose l a b o u r power

a s t h e numeraire commodity for d e f i n i n g v a l u e and e x p l o i t a t i o n " ( K o e m e r ,

1982, ~ 2 7 3 ) .

In a r g u i n g that "Labour power as a c o n a o d i t y i s n o t unique i n i t s magical

p r o p e r t y of producing more v a l u e than i t embodies" (p273) Koemer misses t h e

p o i n t t h a t labour i s t h e sole a c t i v a t i n g ( v a l o r i s i n g ) force for all forms

of c a p i t a l and t h a t i t i s p r e c i s e l y i n t h i s that the endemic c o n t r a d i c t i o n s

between capital and l a b o u r , e m b o d i e d i n e x p l o i t a t i o n , l i e s . R o e m e r i s f o r c e d

to look r a t h e r for such s t r a n g e s e l f - j u s t i f y i n g ' p u r p o s e ( s ) of a t h e o r y of

e x p l o i t a t i o n " a s t h e need for MvBndsts to e x p l a i n and j u s t i f y t h e h i s t o r i c a l

phenomenon of 'poor workers f i g h t i n g r i c h c a p i t a l i s t s " (Roemer, 1982, ~275).

 -102-

Once a g a i n , a t h e o r y which d e f i n e s e x p l o i t a t i o n simply i n terms of t h e

a p p r o p r i a t i o n of s u r p l u s l a b o u r has failed to locate e x p l o i t a t i o n as t h e

site of an i n h e r e n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n c a p i t a l i s t r e l a t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n .

S u b s i s t e n c e as C o n t e s t e d w i t h i n t h e Labour P r o c e s s

In o u r own i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , on t h e o t h e r hand, a d u a l approach to t h i s

c o n t r a d i c t i o n i s developed i n which n o t o n l y t h e i n c e s s a n t d r i v e to

maximise surplus v a l u e through t h e i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of l a b o u r is emphasised

but also t h e pressure on workers' subsistence i n terms of t h e expansion

.
of p a i d i n r e l a t i o n t o unpaid l a b o u r t i m e .

I t i s important to acknowledge n o t o n l y t h e maximisation of unpaid as

opposed to paid l a b o u r t i m e i n terms of t h e i n c r e a s e d p r o d u c t i v i t y of

labour v i a machinery, technology, work o r g a n i s a t i o n e t c , b u t also t h e

p r o c e s s e s whereby t h e v a l u e of l a b o u r power i s a c t u a l l y l a v e r e d i n a b s o l u t e

terns i n two ways: f i r s t l y i t s "cheapening" v i a d e s k i l l i n g and seco?dly

mre d i r e c t a t t e m p t s to reduce w a g e s through c u t t i n g pkerates, r e d u c i n g

overtime etc.

In drawing a t t e n t i o n t o t h e cheapening of l a b o u r power through d e s k i l l i n g

w e do n o t maintain t h a t c a p i t a l i s t s have i n t r o d u c e d t e c h n i q u e s which

d e s k i l l l a b o u r w i t h t h e primary purpose of reducing wages; w e adhere

r a t h e r t o t h e argument p u t so f a r that such t e c h n i q u e s are i n t r o d u c e d i n an

a t t e m p t t o reduce s o c i a l l y n e c e s s a r y l a b o u r time and i n c r e a s e p r o d u c t i v i t y .

However, t h e effect of such developments i s that a smaller p r o p o r t i o n of

c a p i t a l i s devoted to t h e p u r c h a s e of l a b o u r power, b o t h i n t h e w n s e that

purchased l a b o u r i s more p r o d u c t i v e of s u r p l u s and also that, i n a b s o l u t e

terms, s e m i - s k i l l e d and u n s k i l l e d l a b o u r i s worth less on t h e l a b o u r

market. T h i s process i s t h u s c l e a r l y a v i t a l aspect of t h e c o n t i n u e d p o t e n t -

i a l of capitals to g e n e r a t e p r o f i t and i s r i g h t l y emphasised by G l e i c h e r

(1983, ~ 1 1 5 ) .
 -103-
The second p o i n t , however, i s more c e n t r a l t o o u r c u r r e n t argument. I n

s t r u g g l e s o v e r reward w i t h i n t h e workplace i t s e l f , whether i n i t i a t e d by

workers or management, t h e i s s u e of s u b s i s t e n c e can be a r w e d t o be brought

d i r e c t l y i n t o t h e l a b o u r process a s such. With t h i s s u g g e s t i o n , important

to o u r awn t h e s i s as a w h o l e , w e can be s a i d t o go f u r t h e r than W i n , w h o

n o t e s i n p a s s i n g that "These means of s u b s i s t e n c e themselves form no p a r t

of t h e l a b o u r process, which, apart from t h e p r e s e n c e of e f f e c t i v e l a b o u r

paver, r e q u i r e s n o t h i n g b u t t h e materials and means of l a b o u r

. '' (Man, 1970,

1004) .
A t t h e s a m e time i t is, as w e have seen, c r u c i a l to t h e w h o l e argument

a b o u t v a l o r i s a t i o n that Wken w e l o o k a t t h e p r o c e s s of capitalist

-
production as a whole and n o t merely a t t h e immediate p r o d u c t i o n of

comnodities, w e f i n d that a l t h o u g h t h e sale and p u r c h a s e of l a b o u r F e r

...i s e n t i r e l y separate from t h e immediate p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s , and indeed

precedes i t , y e t i t forms t h e a b s o l u t e f o u n d a t i o n of c a p i t a l i s t p r o d u c t i o n

and i s an i n t e g r a l merit w i t h i n it." (~1005)

A s t h i s " a b s o l u t e foundation", t h e l e v e l of s u b s i s t e n c e i s c o n t i n u a l l y

c o n t e s t e d w i t h i n capitalism, and one i m p o r t a n t e x p r e s s i o n of t h i s , w e w l d

sutmit, i s the endemic s t r u g g l e o v e r t h e relation between effort and reward

which actually takes place w i t h i n the l a b o u r process itself. C l e a r examples

of t h i s are t h e p r e s s u r e s on piecework norms and o v e r t i m e o p p o r t u n i t i e s which,

a s o u r case s t u d i e s show, d a i l y t h r e a t e n w o r k e r s ' l i v i n g s t a n d a r d s as an

inmediate aspect of t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s .

There are two ways i n which t h e " s u b s i s t e n c e " s t r a n d of e x p l o i t a t i o n d i r e c t l y

a f f e c t s w o r k e r s ' e x p e r i e n c e of and response to t h e l a b o u r process:

( i )Workers' v a l u a t i o n of t h e i r labour as t h e s u b s t a n c e of a commodity

W e have a l r e a d y discussed, i n l o o k i n g a t t h e ccxmnodity s t a t u s of l a b o u r ,

t h e way i n which workers'response to t h e l a b o u r process i s based c e n t r a l l y

on r e s i s t a n c e around and defence of t h e price of l a b o u r paver. More

immediately i n terms of t h e rationale and meaning of work as a d a i l y

experience, it can be s a i d that for workers engaged d i r e c t l y i n producing

surplus this i s seen overwhelmingly i n terms of s u b s i s t e n c e , of "working

for money". This c e n t r a l conception of work i n terms which relate to t h e

market has an i m p a c t evenuhere s u b s i s t e n c e i s n o t d i r e c t l y tied i n w i t h

t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n of t h e l a b o u r process itself; workers a t Ford's, for

example, who w e r e p a i d on a day r a t h e r t h a n a piecerate, w e r e n e v e r t h e l e s s

so d i s e n c h a n t e d by t h e company's a t t i t u d e towards p a r i t y and o t h e r pay

i s s u e s that c m i t m e n t to t h e work itself dropped s h a r p l y (Beynon, 1973);

similar r e l a t i o n s h i p s are shown i n Edwards and S c u l l i o n ' s (1982) study.

(ii)Pay as an " i n c e n t i v e "

N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t i s w i t h t h e direct u s e of pay a s a s a n c t i o n w i t h i n t h e

labour process - as an "incentive" - t h a t w e are m o s t concerned. While

PEirx a g a i n s p e c i f i c a l l y rejects t h e s i g n i f i t a n c e of piecework - t h e piece-

wage i s n o t h i n g b u t a c o n v e r t e d form of t h e time wage"(p692) - i t i s clear

from o u r case s t u d y examples ( c h a p t e r s 4-7 passim) that t h e u s e of piecework

and o t h e r forms of bonus, a s w e l l a s o v e r t i m e payments, p l a y s a crucial role

i n t h e i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of l a b o u r . A s maximiserstof t h e i r OWD s u b s i s t e n c e ,

workers c l e a r l y have a motive for c o n t i n u i n g i n such practices; a s a worker

i n o u r f i r s t case s t u d y comnented, "They (management) d o n ' t like lw

performance, t h e p e o p l e on t h e floor d o n ' t like l o w performance e i t h e r . " The

o b j e c t i v e s of management and workers are h e r e i n h e r e n t l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y ;

t h e y can be expressed as t h e maximisation of on t h e one hand unpaid a n d

on t h e o t h e r paid l a b o u r time. But, w i t h i n t h e reward/effort nexus

i n t e g r a t e d i n t h i s way i n t o t h e l a b o u r process itself, t h e two c o n f l i c t i n g

o b j e c t i v e s c r u c i a l l y i n t e r a c t and form a n edemic basis for c o n f l i c t . A s

such t h e s t r u g g l e o v e r s u b s i s t e n c e i s brought d i r e c t l y i n t o t h e h e a r t of

t h e l a b o u r process itself and i n t e r a c t s w i t h t h e capitalist o b j e c t i v e of

valorisation.
 -105-

In t h i s prior s e c t i o n on e x p l o i t a t i o n w e have attempted t o locate t h e

c o n t r a d i c t i o n s i n h e r e n t i n t h e p r o d u c t i o n of s u r p l u s v a l u e and to expand

t h e a n a l y s i s i n t o t h e h p c t of e x p l o i t a t i o n on workers n o t o n l y i n terms

of t h e i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of t h e i r l a b o u r b u t also i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r

s t a n d a r d s of l i v i n g . W e CJO on to examine hcw t h i s fundamental structure

of e x p l o i t a t i o n may a c t u a l l y s u r f a c e , or be ' p h e n m e n a l i s e d " , in the daily

e x p e r i e n c e of t h e worker.

W e conclude, then, by l o o k i n g a t t h e way i n which t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s

d i s c u s s e d may emerge i n the e x p e r i e n c e of t h e m r k e r , f o c u s s i n g on t h e

q u e s t i o n : Can workers p e r c e i v e e x p l o i t a t i o n ? C l e a r l y , a l t h o u g h w o r k e r s

o f t e n refer to a d i s t i n c t i o n between %y t i m e " and " t h e company's t i m e "

(see case s t u d i e s ) t h e d i v i d i n g l i n e between t h e amount of v a l u e r e p r e s e n t e d

i n w a g e s and t h e surplus v a l u e produced beyond t h i s i s n o t one which can be

"perceived" i n t h e c o u r s e of a working day, even by t h e most c l a s s - c o n s c i o u s

worker.

The "phenomenalisation" of e x p l o i t a t i o n i n t h e e x p e r i e n c e of t h e worker

does n o t , then, l i e i n t h e any direct p e r c e p t i o n of t h e e x t r a c t i o n of

unrecompensed v a l u e , b u t i n t h e e x p r e s s i o n of t h i s p r o c e s s i n terms -f an

endemic s t r u g g l e w i t h i n i t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s o v e r factors themselves

e x t r i n s i c to t h e c o n t e n t of work itself, t h e amount of effort r e q u i r e d of

t h e workforce and t h e l e v e l of reward r e c e i v e d by them. To pose t h e

material e x p r e s s i o n of e x p l o i t a t i o n i n terms of t h i s effort/reward nexus

is to reeall t h e concept of t h e "effort b a r g a i n " developed by Baldamus (1961)

i n t h e 50s and now e n j o y i n g s o m e renewed a t t e n t i o n as a p e r s p e c t i v e on t h e

l a b o u r powerjlabour q u e s t i o n . However, Baldamus' c o n c e p t i o n of t h e effort

b a r g a i n c o n t a i n s no a n a l y s i s of c o n f l i c t , c o n c e n t r a t i n g r a t h e r on t h e

%argain" side of the managerial problem of t h e incomplete contract between

gnployer and employee. By c o n t r a s t , o u r argument, w h i l e emphasising t h e

e x p r e s s i o n of e x p l o i t a t i o n a s a s t r u g g l e which embraces b o t h effort and

reward, invokes an i n h e r e n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n and t h u s i r r e c o n c i l a b l e c o ? f l i c t

between t h e i n t e r e s t s of l a b o u r and c a n i t a l .

An i n t e r e s t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e a t t e m p t a t a phenomenalisation of e x p l o i t a t i o n

i s made by S r i k O l i n Wright (cf Steedman, 1981, p67) i n h i s c a t e g o r i c a t i o n

of d i f f e r e n t s t r a t a of l a b o u r time and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to “forms of class

s t r u g g l e “ . The s i g n i f i c a n c e of Wright’s complex d i v i s i o n of t h e working day

i n t o many more l e v e l s than are i m p l i e d by t h e simple d i s t i n c t i o n between

p a i d and unpaid l a b o u r t i m e lies n o t 50 much i n any a t t e m p t to invoke worker

p e r c e p t i o n of such d i v i s i o n s a s i n t h e argument t h a t battles o v e r l a b o u r time

can once a g a i n be l i n k e d to t h e “ v a r i a b i l i t y ” of l a b o u r and t h u s to managerial

problems of “ c o n t r o l ” . Thus W r i g h t ’ s l a t e r argument appears to s u g g e s t that

t h e s t r u g g l e s o v e r the l e n g t h of rest b r e a k s , etc., which o b v i o u s l y do go

on a t t h e p o i n t of p r o d u c t i o n , are a t t h e c e n t r e of t h e s t r u g g l e to extract

s u r p l u s v a l u e . I n t h i s way emphasis i s l a i d on t h e a t t e m p t to minimise non-

p r o d u c t i v e t i m e r a t h e r than on the i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of l a b o u r d u r i n g product-

i v e t i m e i n order to maximise surplus v a l u e . I n fact t h e r e i s a b u i l + - i n

l i m i t to t h e e x t e n t that managerr.ent can c o n t r o l t h e v a r i a b i l i t y of l a b o u r

p e r by i n s i s t i n g that as many p r o d u c t i v e hours as possible be worked,

and t h i s i s the l i m i t to which Marx drew a t t e n t i o n i n h i s d i s t i n c t i o n

between a b s o l u t e and r e l a t i v e s u r p l u s v a l u e . The real nub of t h e s t r u g g l e

over e x p l o i t a t i o n , t h e n , must be seen i n t h e a t t e m p t to minimise p a i d

l a b o u r t i m e w i t h i n p r o d u c t i o n , by d e c r e a s i n g s o c i a l l y n e c e s s a r y l a b o u r t i m e

through t h e i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of l a b o u r , r a t h e r than by l i m i t i n g non-

p r o d u c t i v e t i m e . Part of t h i s s t r u g g l e o n t h e workers’ side i s also t h e

a t t e m p t to maintain or i n c r e a s e reward or, i n a d i f f e r e n t f o r m u l a t i o n , to

maximise t h e amount of paid l a b o u r t i m e .

E x p l o i t a t i o n , c o n s c i o u s n e s s and r e s i s t a n c e

One o b j e c t i o n t o t h e p e r s p e c t i v e w e have tried t o o u t l i n e i n t h i s c h a p t e r

is t h a t i t assumes t h e e x i s t e n c e of e x p l o i t a t i o n and t h i s i t s i m p a c t i n

s t r u g g l e whether or n o t workers are c o n s c i o u s of t h e fact that t h e y are

 -107-

e x p l o i t e d . m p l o i t a t i o n , a s w e have a l r e a d y p o i n t e d o u t , cannot be

' p e r c e i v e d " as such, b u t our argument does n o t depend on t h i s p e r c e p t i o n .

A s Cutler e t a1 c o r r e c t l y p i n t o u t , "kBrx d o e s n o t make t h e class s t r u g g l e

dependent on c o n s c i o u s n e s s of e x p l o i t a t i o n " (Cutler e t a l , 1977, p469. The

way i n which class e x p e r i e n c e and t h u s c o n s c i o u s n e s s i s m e d i a t e d by t h e

underlying r e a l i t y of e x p l o i t a t i o n w i l l be examined more c l o s e l y i n a

moment. Meanwhile w e 90 on to e x p l o r e t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s of c e r t a i n ways of

p r e s e n t i n q ! t h e a n a l y s i s of e x p l o i t a t i o n .

A s an example, w e have s o m e d e f i n i t i o n s by E r i k O l i n Wright i n an earlier

p a r t of t h e a r t i c l e discussed above. Wright observes: " C l a s s s t r u g g l e s do

n o t d i r e c t l y affect surplus-value and e x p l o i t a t i o n , b u t operate through

effects on t h e socic-technical c o n d i t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n ...and on t h e real

w a g e of workers...In c a p i t a l i s m , p r e c i s e l y because t h e performance 0.9

surplus %abour i s d i s g u i s e d through t h e exchange process and t h e organis-

a t i o n of p r o d u c t i o n as a c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r process, class s t r u g g l e s are never

over surplus l a b o u r assuch" (Steedman, 1981, p54).Gf c o u r s e , assessment of

t h i s argument depends p a r t l y on the d e f i n i t i o n o f "class struggle". But,

if i t i s extended t o i n c l u d e everyday r e s i s t a n c e by workers w i t h i n t h e

capitalist l a b o u r process, e v e n i f class s t r u g g l e s are n o t "over" e x p l o i t a t i o n

they can be regarded a s a f u n c t i o n of i t (and t h u s , i n t u r n , as " a f f e c t i n g "

i t ) . W h a t Wright i s doing h e r e i s t a k i n g t h e "obscuring" or m y s t i f y i n g

of e x p l o i t a t i o n a s t h e basis for t h e assumption that t h e r e f o r e t h e r e i s

no r e l a t i o n s h i p between e x p l o i t a t i o n and class s t r u g g l e . Workers do n o t

p e r c e i v e t h e i r e x p l o i t a t i o n ( e i t h e r i n r e a l i t y or c o n c e p t u a l l y ) , t h e r e f o r e

t h e i r s t r u g g l e s can have n o t h i n g t o do w i t h i t .

In c o n t r a s t t o t h i s w e are concerned to s h w that i t is t h e u n d e r l y i n g

s t r u c t u r e of e x p l o i t a t i o n which has t h e immanent effects w i t h i n t h e c a p i t a l i s t

l a b o u r process which workers resist. In t h i s s e n s e w e have t o ask: w h a t i s t h e

meaning of e x p l o i t a t i o n for t h e mrker? T h i s way of p o s i n g t h e q u e s t i o n i s

 -108-

provoked by a n o t h e r formulation of e x p l o i t a t i o n , t h i s time p u t by G.A.

Cohen. Cohen a r g u e s (on t h e basis of a "reduced" d e f i n i t i o n o f exploitation

s t a t i n g simply that workers r e c e i v e less v a l u e than t h e y create) that "The

l a b o u r t h e o r y of surplus-value is, t h e n , unnecessary to t h e moral c l a i m

Wmists make when t h e y s a y that capitalism i s e x p l o i t a t i v e . I t does n o t

matter what e x p l a i n s the d i f f e r e n c e between t h e v a l u e t h e worker produces

and t h e v a l u e he r e c e i v e s . W h a t matters i s j u s t that t h e r e i s t h a t d i f f e r e n c e

between t h e v a l u e t h e worker produces and t h e v a l u e he r e c e i v e s . W h a t matters

i s j u s t that t h e r e i s that d i f f e r e n c e . (Cohen, 1981, p208) But t h e

-
e x p l a n a t i o n , or t h e reason, for "that d i f f e r e n c e " d o e s matter i n that i t i s

t h e i n c e s s a n t d r i v e to extract s u r p l u s v a l u e , w i t h i t s consequent a s s a u l t

on workers' l i v e s and l i v i n g s t a n d a r d s , which c o n s t r u c t s t h e e x p e r i e n c e of

l a r g e numbers o f , i n p a r t i c u l a r , semi-skilled workers. When a s k i n g whether

i t m a t t e r s f o r moralists, s o c i o l o g i s t s or p h i l o s o p h e r s , i t would perhaps

n o t be o u t of p l a c e to a s k whether it matters f o r t h e working class.

In c o n c e n t r a t i n g on workers' e x p e r i e n c e of e x p l o i t a t i o n through t h e a n a l y s i s

of i t s e x p r e s s i o n i n t h e effort b a r g a i n and s t r u g g l e s around l a b o u r t i m e , w e

have n o t o n l y sought to locate t h e a n a l y s i s of e x p l o i t a t i o n i n surplus-value

production b u t have also, through t h i s l o c a t i o n , p r e s e n t e d a c o n t e n t of

worker r e s i s t a n c e which i s p r i m a r i l y Ileconomistic"- concerned w i t h pay,

a l l o c a t i o n of j o b s , job t i m i n g s , j o b s e c u r i t y - r a t h e r than c e n t r i n g on

i s s u e s related to t h e use-value-producing aspects of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s .

The i m p l i c a t i o n s of a t h e o r y of e x p l o i t a t i o n based on t h e p r o d u c t i o n of

surplus v a l u e w i t h i n the c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r process are t h u s two-fold. On

t h e one hand i t i n d i c a t e s a l e v e l of i n t e r n a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n w i t h i n c a p i t a l i s t

r e l a t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n which, it i s argued, i s more fundamental and t h u s mre

g e n e r a t i v e of c o n t i n u e d r e s i s t a n c e than t h e moral i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s which are

h i g h l i g h t e d by a conception of e x p l o i t a t i o n as "appropriation". On t h e o t h e r ,

i t f o c u s s e s on t h e need to examine t h e material impact of t h e s e c o n t r a d i c t -

i o n s w i t h i n the d a i l y o p e r a t i o n of t h e capitalist l a b o u r p r o c e s s and i n t h i s

 -109-

l i g h t to reasses t h e c o n t e n t and l i k e l y t r a j e c t o r y of worker r e s i s t a n c e .

W e t h u s a r r i v e a t an a n a l y s i s which t u r n s t h e p r o b l e m a t i c , so to speak,

t h e o t h e r way round - from the of e x p e r i e n c e i n c a p i t a l i s t r e a l i t y

to c o n s c i o u s n e s s and r e s i s t a n c e by workers, r a t h e r than f r o m t h e l e v e l of

m n s c i o u s n e s s i m p l i e d by an assumption of o v e r t r e s i s t a n c e to t h e develop-

ment of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s as such, to t h e W o n t r o l ' L b a s e d r e s i s t a n c e which

i s p r e d i c a t e d on that consciousness. Notions of s t r u g g l e w i t h i n t h e l a b o u r

p r o c e s s centred p u r e l y on t h e a r t i c u l a t i o n of "power" r e l a t i o n s between

management and t h e workforce must be re-evaluated i n the c o n t e x l of an

a n a l y s i s which locates an endemic l e v e l of c o n f l i c t i n econmnic c o n t r a d i c t -

i o n s r a t h e r than i d e o l o g i c a l s t r u g g l e s .

The response w i t h i n i n d u s t r i a l s o c i o l o g y t o c o n f l i c t a t t h e p o i n t of

production has veered from p o r t r a y i n g shop-floor s t r u g g l e s as irredeemably

p a r o c h i a l and r e s t r i c t e d to p r e s e n t i n g them a s r e v o l u t i o n a r y examples of

"workers' c o n t r o l " . The l a t t e r i s o b v i o u s l y far from t h e t r u t h . N e v e r t h e l e s s

it i s worth q u e s t i o n i n g t h e c u r r e n t p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h ideological categories

i n t h e a n a l y s i s of t h e l a b o u r process and e x p l o r i n g t h e p o s s i b l e political

i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e more pragmatic s t r u - l e s focussed on in the above. These

q u e s t i o n s w i l l be d e a l t w i t h a t more l e n g t h i n the n e x t c h a p t e r .
 - 110-

The "Real World" of Workers

1 Introduction

In t h e analysis M f a r w e have both criticised t h e c u r r e n t "labour

p r o c e s s debate" for p l a c i n g too l i t t l e emphasis on t h e material consider-

a t i o n s underlying b o t h " c o n t r o l " and " r e s i s t a n c e " w i t h i n the l a b o u r F r o c e s s

and a l s o , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e l a s t chapter. p r e s e n t e d a n a n a l y s i s of t h e

s p e c i f i c a l l y c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r p r o c e s s which locates worker r e s i s t a n c e i n

t h e fundamental economic c o n t r a d i c t i o n s a t the h e a r t of t h a t process. From

both of t h e s e p o i n t s of v i e w w e have a r r i v e d i n effect a t a oonception of

worker response to the labour process as p r i m a r i l y economistic; and i t is

t h i s conception which w e now set o u t t o defend.

A defence i s r e q u i r e d , for t h e n o t i o n of %conomisml', f i r s t identified

by Lenin, i s n o t a popular one. The response of most t h e o r i s t s has been

either to condemn e c o n o m i s t i c a c t i v i t y on t h e part of t h e working class as

" i n c o r p o r a t i o n i s t " or " l a b o u r i s t " , or simply t o p r e t e n d t h a t it does n o t

e d s t . . I n this chapter I set o u t f i r s t of a l l t o show t h a t worker response

-
is l a r g e l y economistic, and secondly to b r i n g o u t t h e political implications

of this very economism i n terms of t h e f o l l o w i n g three p o i n t s :

( i )llKcOnanistic" s t r u g g l e s by workers, i e those surrounding p a y and

other terms and c o n d i t i o n s of employment, are based on fundamental c o n t r a d i c t -

i o n s w i t h i n p r o d u c t i o n which i n f l u e n c e and characterise t h e capitalist

system as a whole.

(ii)The n a t u r e of emnomistic r e s i s t a n c e is n e i t h e r as static or a s

i n h e r e n t l y l i m i t e d a s much of t h e literature has s u g g e s t e d . EcOnOruistiC

a c t i v i t y by workers i s not o n l y endenic, becasuce of t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s

referred to above, i t i s also dynamic and e x p l o s i v e - movanmts based on

ecamic demands can much f u r t h e r than t h e demands themselves. F i n a l l y ,
 -111-

t h e role of economistic s t r u g g l e s i n undermining t h e p o l i t i c a l and i d e o l o g i c a l

hegemony to which r e c e n t writers have dram a t t e n t i o n , should be recognised.

(iii)Spontaneous outbreaks of r e s i s t a n c e by workers which are t r i g g e r e d by

t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s w i t h i n t h e capitalist l a b o u r process may themselves be

t r a n s i t o r y (as many of t h e examples below s u g g e s t ) but t h e y c o n t r i b u t e to

t h e b u i l d i n g up of Working c l a s s o r g a n i s a t i o n , w h i c h itself has political

r a m i f i c a t i o n s and may l e a d to widespread a c t i o n i n defence of t h a t o r g a n i s a t i o n

w i t h t h e p o t e n t i a l to c h a l l e n g e t h e capitalist state.

In e q x n d i n g on t h e s e t h r e e p o i n t s t h e argument w i l l engage n o t o n l y w i t h

t h e approach t o worker response presented most r e c e n t l y w i t h i n t h e l a b o u r

p r o c e s s debate, but also w i t h the much w i d e r l i t e r a t u r e on "class conscious-

n e s s " which has c a p t u r e d t h e a t t e n t i o n of t h e o r i s t s o v e r much t h e Same p e r i o d

a s t h e large-scale d e v e l o p e n t of mass p r o d u c t i o n and apparent d e c l i n e i n

revolutionary a c t i v i t y by t h e working class, i e t h e post-war y e a r s . W e v e r ,

s i n c e i t i s w i t h t h e l a b o u r process itself that we are c e n t r a l l y concerned,

w e begin by l o o k i n g more c l o s e l y a t w h a t t h e l a b o u r process debate h a s had t o

say about worker response.

2 Workers and t h e Labour Process: A " F r o n t i e r of Control"?

I n earlier chapters, e s p e c i a l l y Chapter 1, w e attempted to s p e c i f y the main

f e a t u r e s of t h e position w i t h i n t h e l a b o u r process debate on worker response,

which, as w e a w , w a s p i n p o i n t e d by many writers as t h e major ormoission of

Braverman's a n a l y s i s . Three key areas w e r e picked out: worker r e s i s t a n c e t o

d e s k i l l i n g , resistance t o t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of l a b o u r m e r i n t o l a b o u r , and

a dyaamic of class struggle/managerial domination i n which the main i s s u e Of

c o n t e s t , if any, i s the r e l a t i o n s o f p r o d u c t i o n themselves.

Htwever, none of t h e s e three areas give us a very p r e c i s e description of t h e

actual n a t u r e of w o r k e r r e s i s t a n c e on a d a y - t e y basis w i t h i n t h e labour

p r o c e s s , p a r t i d r l y given t h e insistence of many w r i t e r s that struggle
 -112-

c o n t i n u e s under t h e real subordination of l a b o u r ( a p o i n t w h i c h , as w e have

t r i e d to s b , n e i t h e r F l a n nor Brave- would wish to deny). The most

specific r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e a c t u a l n a t u r e of wor@lace s t r u g g l e s seem m

appear once a g a i n under t h e heading of "control", t h i s time discussed from

t h e W o r k e r s ' side". W e s h a l l t h e r e f o r e b r i e f l y survey t h e examples of

"control" which a r e p r e s e n t e d as e i t h e r aspired t o or exercised by workers

w i t h i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e , and gu on t o relate t h e s e to t h e conception, c u r r e n t l y

enjoying a p o p u l a r r e v i v a l , of a " f r o n t i e r of control".

(he area i n which a clear s p e c i f i c a t i o n of "control" objectives by workers

i s a r t i c u l a t e d a p p e a r s t o be t h a t of d r i v e s towards worker " d i s c r e t i o n " or

tlautonomyt*. Here a d e f i n i t e f o c u s on job c o n t e n t i s marked o u t by t h e

argument. L i t t l e r and Salaman, for example, q u o t e Bendix i n p o i n t i n g o u t

t h a t "'...there exists an exercise of d i s c r e t i o n i n p o r t a n t even i n r e l a t i v e l y

menial jobs. ...'I* to which they add: ' W h i l s t such zones of d i s c r e t i o n may be

squeezed by T a y l o r i t e employer s t r a t e g i e s or by t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of new

technology, i t never i s reduced to zero. Thus workers are s t i l l raced w i t h

a l t e r n a t i v e courses of action when presented with a piece p a s s i n g by on t h e

assembly l i n e " ( L i t t l e r & Salaman, 1982, p262).The same rather marginal

degree of worker choice over t h e outcome of t h e l a b o u r process i s referred t o

i n W o o d and M i n w a r i n g ' s notion of "Vacit skills" (cf Wood and Wainuaring, 1984)

Writers like Hill (1981) and S t o r e y (1983) have also a t times defined

m n t r o l on the part of workers i n t e r m s of discretion and autonomy; Hill

i n c o n t r a d i s t i n c t i o n to the strategies 0l.ployed my ~MMgersto +in control:

The concern to restore creativity and mtrol is a reaction a g a i n s t

those -+rial strategies described e a r l i e r . . A l t h o u p h ...n e campanies

hsve learnt that an acceptable degree of managerial control Can mr be

maintained w i t h o u t t o t a l l y denying shopfloor discretion...the control

issue...brings i n t o the open the fact that p r o f i t a b i l i t y has depended on

denying autommy and c r e a t i v i t y . " (Hiill, 1981,131)-

 -113-

Storey again directly r e l a t e s t h e two i s s u e s of autonomy and control

(on t h e workers' part), emphasising the "importance of preserving sane

scope for autonomous regulation, t h e need f o r some measure of control.

I t i s hard to imagine a 100 per cent production standard being maintained

precisely as ordained without s o m e attempt being made to vary the routine.

m u a l l y , other forms of r e s t r i c t i o n of output cannot be equated w i t h this

drive for autonomy " (Storey, 1983, 169).

As sham belcw, it i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y p o s s i b l e to a n a l y t i c a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h

a d r i v e for "control**per se on the part of workers. -ever, t h e problen

i s t h a t both i n p r a c t i c e and as t h a t practice is reflected i n t h e comnents

of the t h e o r e t i c i a n s , such i s s u e s are r a r e l y separated from w h a t are,

i n terms of the q u e s t f o r "wntrol", t h e much muddier waters of workers'

general defensive strategies a t the p o i n t of production. -ugh a

theoretical s l e i g h t of hand, rather similar to that involved i n the a n a l y s i s

of management, a conflation o c a m s between these r a t h e r more down-to-earth

a c t i v i t i e s and an assumed overarching objective of "controlp1.

Thus d i r e c t l y after d e f i n i n g c o n t r o l i n terns of a n immediately jot+

related autonomy. Storey provides on the next page as a n example of a

control struggle by workers the response of the S o l i h u l l Rover shop

stewards to the planned closure of their plant. Earlier, a list of exanples

of worker resistance ranges from the h a l t i n g of the BL Metro Line because of

speed-up, through the miners' r e v e r s a l of the p i t closures plan i n 1980-1

to the defeat of the I n d u s t r i a l Relations A c t . While these are indeed a l l

examples of worker resistance, they cannot be presented i n an undifferentiated

fashion a s i n s t a n c e s of the managerial d i f f i c u l t y w i t h transforming labour

parer i n t o labour, as i s the case i n Storey's argmemt.

 -114-

A s i m i l a r conflation i s evident i n Paul Thanpsonrs (1983) presentation

of a number of d i f f e r e n t arguments by labour process writers on the

i s s u e of tocontrol" by workers. Thus Thcmpson, having aligned t h e

arguments of Friedman on "responsible autonomy" a l o n g w i t h those of

mrawoy and Edwards i n making the p o i n t t h a t the concentration of

capital itself pushes managers to grant or concede levels of discretion

to t h e shop floor", refers to the major empiriral example i l l u s t r a t i n g

Friedman's thesis, the car i n d u s t r y i n Coventry. i n which the p r i n c i p l e

of muta&lfty has long been a key f e a t u r e of worker a r g a n i s a t i o n . In t h i s

way q u e s t i o n s of the %tidiscretion" or "autonomy** of workers on the shop

floor are d i r e c t l y tied i n with w h a t , when looked a t closely, is a hard-

nosed and extremely effective example of workers organising round

p r i m a r i l y eomcnuic issues. *lE+rtuality" i s defined i n this very a r g m e n t

a s process of m u t u a l determination of piecewDrk p&ccs, and of t h e

introduction of new methods w h i c h would affect these prices, between tbe

mrkforce and managaacllt. A r e we then t o conclude that the notion of "control"

boils dam to no more than the paruckid1 and piccsacal bargaining over

effort and revard which i n t h e past, a s pointed out i n Chapter 2. has b e e m

regarded as being o u t s i d e t h e territory of the l a b o u r process debate?

If this i s indeed the case, the l i t e r a t u r e shavs l i t t l e recoqiition of it.

The a m f l a t i o n between thc kind of defensive pxuduction-related activity

which can p l a u s i b l y be glven the titic of "job amtrols" and the far

b d & r and more elevated objective of "wrkers' control" i s i n c i s i v e l y

demonstrated by Jean Wmds (1976) i n his critique of the argmmts of

labour h i s t o r i a n s such a s Wmtpomery. Stone ud Hinton. Y e t Thmpson

again glosses over the crucial differences between these two areas when

he writes t h a t ~y;oodrich~s classic study of workshop politics shaved har

rorkers countered ranagerial p e r by extending their om 'frontiers of

control' w i t h respect to o r g a n i s a t i o n of rrork. changes i n tcchnolosly, and

 -115-

methods of payment. Demands f o r workers' c o n t r o l were an e x t e n s i o n of t h e

degree of j o b c o n t r o l a l r e a d y e x e r c i s e d " (Thompson, 1983, 59).

The i r o n y i s t h a t Goodrich, author both of t h e book and of t h e phrase, "The

Frontier of Control", which has r e c e n t l y gained such p o p u l a r i t y among the-

o r i s t s of t h e labour process, c a r r i e d o u t extremely p a i n s t a k i n g attempts t o

d i s t i n g u i s h t h e o r e t i c a l l y between t h e d i f f e r e n t i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e term

"control". He was well aware of i t s ambiguity: "Nor i s c o n t r o l so simple and

d e f i n i t e a thing...in a c t u a l r e f e r e n c e t o t h e f a c t s o f i n d u s t r y i t breaks up

i n t o a bewlidering v a r i e t y of r i g h t s and claims..." S h o r t l y a f t e r w a r d s he

quotes a contemporary r e p o r t i n p o i n t i n g o u t t h a t "It i s e s s e n t i a l . . . t o dis-

entangle a s f a r a s p o s s i b l e t h e economic and non-economic f a c t o r s " (Goodrich,

1975, 18).

No such c a u t i o n a s t o d e f i n i t i o n appears t o a f f e c t t h e l a t t e r - d a y u s e r s o f

t h e concept, a s demonstrated i n Edwards and S c u l l i o n ' s The S o c i a l Organisa-

t i o n of I n d u s t r i a l C o n f l i c t (1982), a s t u d y i n t h e " i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s "

school whose c o n t e n t s we s h a l l be examining more c l o s e l y below. The a u t h o r s

introduce t h e concept of "control", and i t s f l u c t a t i n g n a t u r e , by s t a t i n g

t h a t "...the f r o n t i e r o f c o n t r o l has been s h i f t e d more i n t h e s h o p f l o o r ' s

favour i n t h e two Company B p l a n t s than i n any of our o t h e r f a c t o r i e s . Shop

stewards played a c r u c i a l r o l e i n a l l a s p e c t s of t h e wage-effort bargain,

having a S U b s t a n t i a l r o l e i n t h e planning of work, being a b l e t o prevent...

t h e movement of workers between Jobs, and c o n t r o l l i n g r o t a s f o r overtime

themselves" ( ~ 2 2 ) .

"Control", then, i s d i r e c t l y i d e n t i f i e d h e r e w i t h t h e "wage-effort bargain".

Yet both Goodrich's own arguments, and t h e a c t u a l use of t h e term "control" by

labour process t h e o r i s t s , a r e testimony t h a t i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s go f a r beyond t h i s .

On pp36-7, f o r example, Goodrich s t a t e s t h a t " c o n t r o l i s a p o l i t i c a l word" and

then n o t e s : " ' P o l i t i c a l ' , t h a t is, in t h o wide sense o f being concerned w i t h

a u t h o r i t y r e l a t i o n s h i p s . " Goodrich's own d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e " f r o n t i e r " o f control

 -116-

( a s opposed to "control" i t s e l f ) can be related to another aspect of

Edwards and Scullion's approach (and indeed t h a t of o t h e r s who have used

the concept); the assumption that the "frontier" of control i s a kind of

-
marker indicating h w much control workers and stewards may have w i t h i n

the l a b o u r process a t any one t i m e . "Control". indeed (rather l i k e value

i n t h e c a p i t a l i s t perspective) appears to be regarded as an undifferentiated

substance of which the question to beasked i s not w b t i t i s about, but

hav much of i t there is.

Qessey and McInnes have remarked on his "quantitativett approach to control

i n their -ent t h a t "Judging by the use of concepts l i k e a f r o n t i e r of

control...it (control) appears to be a zero-sum concept. That is to s a y ,

i t makes sense to think of a d i s t r i b u t i o n of c o n t r o l , w i t h the i m p l i c a t i o n

t h a t what one s i d e gains t h e other loses (Cressey & MacInnes, 1877, ~ 2 8 0 ) .

Wever. they use this as a basis f o r arguing their am -se for a n

i n t e g r a t i v e perspective on control r a t h e r than attempting to e q l o r e (despite

t h e i r r e c o p i t i o n t h a t i t i s '%oefully inadequately theorised") w h a t control

i s a l l about.

Gmdrich himself uses the notion of a f r o n t i e r of control i n two ways.

While the usage to which -st current authors refer, that of the f l e x i b i l i t y

and dynamic nature of the balance of parer between workers and management,

is undoubtedly intended, Goodrich a c t u a l l y introduces the concept i n tenus

of a dividing line or "borderline" between t h c amcems which are seen as

qmpriate t e r r i t o r y for r a r k e r s and for managment. As be asks i n beginning

his chapter: Where does the i s s u e ODme i n t o the open? A t w h a t p o i n t d a s the

employer say - beyond t h i s there s h a l l be no disatssion, the rest i s my

business alone?" (Qxdrich. 1975. ~ 5 6 ) .

Ihc d i f f e r e n c e between t h i s and thc conception of 'Ifrantier of cantrol"

purely i n terns of struggle. of %nntested t e r r a i n " , i s t h a t the attunpt to
 -117-

locate the '*borderlinet' engages w i t h t h e i s s u e of w h a t ficontroltv i s about.

me discussion s h s convincingly t h a t t h e areas i d e n t i f i e d i n c o i i e t i w

agreements, etc., as exclusively t h e sphere of the employer are

c o n s i s t e n t l y r e f e r r e d t o as those of "discipline and management".

D i f f i c u l t though these terms are thenselves to p r e c i s e l y define, it seems

clear that they denote spheres the a s p i r a t i o n to which by workers might

plausibly under
C Q ~ Q the heading of the demand for control per se.

, more deserving of the t i t l e of "control",

Y e t , p a ~ d o l d ~ a l l ythe the

less such demands seem to be either aspired to or achieved by workers.

Defining thau as ~ ~ l i t i c a lt~

demands, coodrich d i s t i n w i s h e s between

"the damand not to be c o n t r o l l e d disagreeably, the demand not to be

c o n t r o l l e d a t a l l , and the demand to take a hand i n a c m t r o l l i n g ~ and

t poes

on: 'The first runs through a l l t r a d e union a c t i v i t y . The second i s less

widespread...% third - the desire for a share i n the job of running

things - i s real but less h e d i a t e '1 (p37).And in the subsequent chapter

on Control, Goodrich answers his own question 'What degree of control do

the trade unions exercise Over the t e l a t i o n s of man to man i n industry -

tho employment and discipline relationships; and over the r e l a t i o n s of man

to t h e work itself - to the plans, process, and techniques of industry?"

w i t h the confession that t*Thc first and obvious answer is - d i r e c t l y and

e x p l i c i t l y , very l i t t l e 'I (~55).

Yet this r e c o q t i t i o n of the lack both of a s p i r a t i o n towards and

achievement of what can u n a p b i ~ r o u s l ybe termed "control" by workers need

not be used as the bods for a cynical dismissal of such objectives.

Rather, both i n Goodrich's a n a l y s i s and i n the currat arwnent, such

recornition can be used to locate the sigrificance of workers' underlying

r c m t m e n t a t being denied d i s c r e t i o n md d i m i t y i n their work. With
Goodrich, we m assess t h i s on&ng a n h s i t y as a b r e a d i n p m for
 -118-
more e x p l i c i t conflict r a t h e r than a focus for Overt conflict b itself;

as t h e source of dislocation and a l i e n a t i o n f r a n t h e perspective of the

employer r a t h e r than an explicit ground f o r organisation a w i n s t that

employer. Goodrich d i s t i n g u i s h e s c l e a r l y between the +licit. 'political"

demand for control and t h i s more widespndd resentment:

"The demand for personal freedan w i t h i n industry i s n o t i d e n t i c a l w i t h

the demand for political paver w i t h i n industry; the one begins as a

desire for no government, the other i s a desire for a share i n self-

government *' (p34).Yet t h i s vaguer need for 'personal freedom" i s

recognised as underlying much more specific c o n f l i c t s : "...the occashm

or f o m a t e d i s s u e of a strike, as of a mar, i s o n l y a part of i t s &se

or of the emotions t h a t are & l e d out; surely a part of the emotion that

gathers around any i d s t r i a l struggle i s that of servant a g a i n s t master.

I t is i n t h i s sense that Mr S t r a k e r (Miners' Federation leader) calls

' t h e s t r a i n i n g of the w i l l of man to be free' t h e root cause of labour

unrest!'(p33).

A dialectical r e l a t i o n s h i p is thus indicated between fundamental %mtrol"

m r i a b l e s and the more pressing needs that a c t u a l l y propcl workers i n t o

struggle - a relationship that w i l l be returned to when w e examine t h e

dynamic betweem worker aaquiescence and r e s i s t a n c e in Chapter 5 bel-.

Meanwhile, t h i s i n s i g h t that a conscious, explicit fornulation of

grievancesp or programes b u i l t around -se grievancesp is not a

necessary feature of s t r u g g l e s which i n fact do draw much of their

s t r e n g t h fmm such grievances, leads us to the final point w e wish to

d r a w fraa Coodrich's analysis.

This is that, first of all, workers on the w h o l e do not see, or wish

to see, their needs and dmnands as e a t i n g i n the same sphere as

those of management. Not only does the enployer n o t wish organised

workers to take p a r t i n the d c c i s i m n g process regarding investment;

 -119-

most workers, t r a d i t i o n a l l y a t least, would see this as "not t h e i r

business". This p o i n t i s f u r t h e r pursued when w e look, again i n c h a p t e r

5 , a t mworth and mmsie's notion of the separate 'kniverses" of management

and labour.

Second, and more germane to our present argument, the sphere that workers

do, of necessity, regard as c e n t r a l l y their "business" is, of course, that

of subsistence, both initself and i n its relation t o effort.It is thus t h a t ,

as acknowledged by Goodrich and i n practice, most workgroup a c t i v i t y

referred to by a term, llcontrol", which w e have seen to have considerably

wider implications, i n fact relates to j u s t this primarily lleoOnamistic"

dynamic. In Goodrichls w o r d s %ost of the complicated forms of control are

themselves merely elaborate saf-rds of the standard of living" ( ~ 2 0 ) .

To make t h i s p o i n t , havever, i s not to a&pt the mechanistic p o s i t i o n that

no i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h "control" variables per se i s indicated i n workers'

struggles, or that 'Workers' control" i s not a concept that workers can ncw

or could ever relate to. I t i s to emphasise, strongly, t h a t such struggles

which raise the p o t e n t i a l for w i d e r "control" deutands themselves spring

from, are rooted i n , basic econamic contradictions a s expressed a t the p o i n t

of production i n the r e l a t i o n between effort and reward. As w e shall see

later, to maintain that workers' struggles a r e i n fact d s t i c i s n o t

to i n s i s t that they are thereby l i m i t e d . Y e t a t the same tine i t has to be

recoplised that the relationAyetween workers' cconamistic cknands and a wider

p o l i t i d wnciousness is a wntxadictory, explosive, dynamic one rather t h a n

a smooth progression 4 8 s implied by Thaapson p6). Richard Hymn expresoes the

nature of this r e l a t i o n s h i p c l e a r l y i n his introduction to Goodrich's book,

which also remg-iises the primarily defensive n a t u r e of w r k e r a c t i v i t y :

"(Goodrich) makes clear that the forms of *orkersl control then i n evidence

were t y p i c a l l y reactive or protective i n i n t e n t , a -s to defend specific

material i n t e r e s t s rather than am a s s e r t i o n of the p r i n c i p l e of i n d u s t r i a l

 420-

democracy as an end i n i t s e l f . He shows that the boundary between

workers' control as a means and as an end i s by no means inflejrible;

actions and s t r a t e g i e s which are primarily defensive may spill over i n t o

demands for p o s i t i v e control over the direction of industry...it (viii,

Goodrich, 1975).

I t becxmes important, then, i n nnderstanding the nature and dynamic of

worker r e s i s t a n c e , to examine its i n w h a t w e have argued are econanic

i s s u e s , and their articulation w i t h the non--econamic, rather than embracing

the w h o l e area i n the i n h e r e n t l y ambiaous CategDry of ltcontrol". I n order

to explore sane of these a r t i c u l a t i o n s , t h e r e f o m , w e ncm take a step i n t o

w h a t may be called the "real world" a s documented in a number of

sociological and i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s case studies.

3 The R e a l World

'Ib go dawn i n t o 'Ithe real world" i s to ask w h a t the kind of %ontrol"

s t r u g g l e s amply referred to, but not often empirically documented i n the

l a b o u r process literature, are a c t u a l l y s.

W e have already r e f e r r e d

(chapter 2) to the unfortunate d i v i s i o n which seems to exist i n the study

of work between "labour process" and "industrial r e l a t i o n s " approaches,

i n t h a t the latter, w h i c h might be expected to engage w i t h the MtuTe and

content of shop floor s t r u g g l e s which reflect V o l l e c t i v e bargaining'' i s s u e s ,

does not appear to be drawn on to substantiate the theo*tical work of the

fonoer. ( I n t e r e s t i n g l y , the r e l a t i o n s h i p does appear to work the other m y ;

i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s , as w e l l as organisbtional theory,appear to have been

expensively influenced over the last few years by radical labour process

approaches centring on "control").

MI& recent w r k i n the i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s f i e l d has b e e n preoccupied w i t h

the effects of recession and political change on levels of shop steward

o r e n i s a t i o n , a focus which i n its turn reflects t h e overall concern w i t h

 -121-

shop steward/member and shop stewardhnanagement r e l a t i o n s in terms of t h e

measurement of power. A r e c e n t study which u s e f u l l y (and, a s we have suggest-

ed, unusually) combines labour p r o c e s s and i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s approaches,

Edwards and S c u l l i o n ' s The S o c i a l O r g a n i s a t i o n of I n d u s t r i a l C o n f l i c t (1982)

a l s o seeks t o e s t a b l i s h l e v e l s of c o n f l i c t and t h e d e g r e e s of "control" sur-

rounding t h e s e r a t h e r than s e t t i n g o u t t o a s s e s s t h e c o n t e n t of such c o n f l i c t .

Nevertheless, because i t provides a wide range of examples perhaps even more

d e t a i l e d than t h o s e of o t h e r r e c e n t i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s c o n t r i b u t i o n s , t h e

study provides some u s e f u l e m p i r i c a l m a t e r i a l f o r e x p l o r i n g t h e n a t u r e and

c o n t e n t of worker r e s i s t a n c e . We t h e r e f o r e begin our survey o f t h e " r e a l

world of workers" w i t h t h i s book.

The S o c i a l O r g a n i s a t i o n o f I n d u s t r i a l C o n f l i c t i s a s t u d y of f i v e p l a n t s

w i t h i n two i n d u s t r i e s , engineering and c l o t h i n g , i n t h e c o n t e x t of which a

number of examples o f i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s "problems" such a s turnover, ab-

senteeism, t h e e f f o r t bargain and j o b a l l o c a t i o n a r e examined. Again i n v i t -

i n g comparison w i t h t h e r e a l world, few of t h e s e forms of worker/management

i n t e r a c t i o n appeared t o develop i n t o dramatic i n s t a n c e s of i n d u s t r i a l con-

f l i c t . Following Goodrich, we can perhaps d i s t i n g u i s h between a ' b e g a t i v e "

avoidance of managerial s t r u c t u r e s o f e f f i c i e n c y on t h e one hand and a

" p o s i t i v e " a s s e r t i o n of workers' n e e d s and i n t e r e s t s on t h e o t h e r . However,

t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h i s and an " a u t h o r i t y " - r e l a t e d perspective is that

i n t h e examples given both s e t s of r e s p o n s e s represented p o s i t i o n s on a

spectrum of e f f o r t and reward. T h i s "time and money" c o n t e x t f o r a range of

l e v e l s of worker response and r e s i s t a n c e i s i l l u s t r a t e d c l e a r l y , f i r s t of

a l l , i n t h e example of " e a r l y leaving".

T h i s problem was a t i t s most a p p a r e n t i n one of t h e e n g i n e e r i n g p l a n t s , t h e

Large Metals Factory, which had t h e s t r o n g e s t t r a d i t i o n of workplace organi-

s a t i o n and i n which t h e r e had r e c e n t l y been a switch from piecework t o meas-

ured day work. In Edwards and S c u l l i o n ' s words: "Put c r u d e l y , a s h i f t to day

work had removed any i n c e n t i v e t o work h a r d e r , and workers now sought increased

l e i s u r e i n s t e a d " (Edwards and S c u l l i o n , 1982, 137).

 -122-
The p o i n t a b u t a shift tcnvards e f f o r t (or r e s t r i c t i o n of it) from reward

w i t h i n t h e effort bargain is made a t many other p o i n t s i n the analysis. What

emerges most c l e a r l y i n this example i s that w h i l e e a r l y leaving as an

a c t i v i t y w a s d e a r l y a kind of worker behaviour which management found

problenmtic, i t was not seen by the workers concerned as part of a

%pearhead" of invasion i n t o mnagerial prerogatives. Rather i t w a s iiimpiy

a spontaneous response to the d e t a b n t of reward fran e f f o r t , combined

with obvious aversion to t h e work itself and the logical position that

"as several pointed out, they had &ne their work and management had no

reason to keep them inthe p l a n t " (p13B). The actual p o i n t of conflict

related to management's attack on the practice, w h i c h w a s resisted as

c o n s t i t u t i n g a threat to organisational s t r e n g t h s and r i g h t s which had

been b u i l t up by the workers over the years as an e s s e n t i a l defence of their

i n t e r e s t s . s i q i f i a t l y , even this w a s n o t taken up as a point of p r i n c i p l e

i n a vacuum, i n which, d e a r l y , it could have no pertinence, b u t i n the

context of a dispute about overtime.

This d i s p u t e , w i t h i n the Large Metals Factory, began when a foreman

discovered t h a t only w of a group of four w e l d e r s w h o 4 ~ =-sed

0 to be

doing overtime were present. He threatened to sbp the pay of the two absent

workers, a t which the two w h o w e r e in the shop walked o u t . The irmmediate

problen was settled through the convenor agreeing to i n f u t u r e formally

rutmit a list of names of those doing overtiw,.Wwever, the i s s u e resurfaced

s b o r t l y afterwards when management t m k the i n i t i a t i v e of demanding d o c k i n g

cut a t the end of the ~ a t u r d a ymorning overtime period. The convenors s a w

this as an attadc on long-established custanary rights and h n o d i a t e l y

c a l l e d an overtime ban, which surprised P a n a g e m a t with the extent of its

support.

The p o i n t here i s that this d i s p u t e was not a b o u t "control" i n terms of

a r e b e l l i o n by t h e workforce expressd through leaving early i n o r o u t

of wertime periods, but about the realities of effort and production. The
 -123-

customary p r a c t i c e s b u i l t up by the w r k e r s and stewards were not defended

simply as p o s i t i o n s won i n the battle over c o n t r o l , but as representing

material advances i n the t e r n s f o r t h e sale of labour F e r . The

achievement of such advances, such as regular ovettime. w a s located by

the shop stewards i n the context of a more realistic approach to production

which would take account of woikers' i n t e r e s t s : "If managers wanted

production the best way to get i t was to t r y to w e p e r a t e w i t h the shop

floor on the b a s i s of customary understandings" (~140).

This simultaneous

acceptance of and undermining of managerial perspectives i l l u s t r a t e s a

c e n t r a l l y important f e a t u r e of worker response which w i l l be more closely

examined bel- under m r d s and Scullion's heading of "non-directed c

conflict".

While, therefore, "early leaving" might appear to be a prime example of

"control't-centred r e s i s t a n c e to managerial d i s c i p l i n e and t h e alienation

of labour, a c l o s e r examination reveals the a r t i c u l a t i o n of e f f o r t and

reward i s s u e s fundamental to the organisation and corresponding impact of

the l a b o u r process. In this case the dynamic was i n terms of the r d r t i o n

of reward to effort rather than t h e reverse. b!dMgement had done away With

piecework i n order to canbat earnings d r i f t ; the twrkforce, i n response,

developed a s t r a t e g y of enhancing their earnings t h r o u g h w h a t were usually

"falsett l e v e l s of overtime. 'Ihis involved a s e l f - o r g ? i n i s a t i o n of the labour

pmcess by theworkforce which included e s t i m t i n g the amount of labour time

necessary'tfor production", i n o t h e r words, f o r the firm to procbrce and

compote r e a l i s t i c a l l y i n t e r n s of the prevailing social average. A t the

same time an "incentive" f o r accepting w h a t were i n fact restricted earnings

W r t u n i t i e s w a s imposed a t a "customMDd-practice" l e v e l i n terns of

worker-imposed absenteeism which on the one hand afforded the workforce

increased l e i s u r e time and on t h e other took i n t o account the "necessary"

production l e v e l s referred t o above..It should be noted t h a t the w r k e r s '

o p t i n p o u t i n terms of hours did not n e c e s s a r i l y have iaplications for

 -124-

t h e i r l e v e l s of effort w h i l e a c t u a l l y a t t h e workplace, a l t h o u g h Edwards

and S c u l l i o n imply t h a t t h e s e , too, w e r e v i t i a t e d by a g e n e r a l l a c k of

s a t i s f a e t i o n itself connected w i t h t h e d r a s t i c d e c l i n e . i n e a r n i n g s

s u f f e r e d by t h e workforce: "...workers had l o n p s t a r d i n g g r i e v a n c e s about

w a g e s and what t h e y s a w a s general managerial incompetence, and t h e c u r r e n t

s i t u a t i o n merely i n c r e a s e d t h e s e feelings. Workers f e l t d i s g r u n t l e d and

plodded through t h e i r work t a s k s , l o o k i n g for reasons to stop work whereas

normally they were eager t o f i n i s h as q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e (under piecework)"

(~142) -
The a p p a r e n t l y f u t i l e a t t e m p t by management i n t h i s f a c t o r y to s h i f t t h e

balance of t h e e f f o r t - r e w a r d r e l a t i o n s h i p p o i n t s to sane of t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s

between worker i n t e r e s t s and managerial o b j e c t i v e s which c l e a r l y undermine

any l a s t i n g attempt to a t t a i n a s a t i s f a c t o r y effort "bargain". In the

components f a c t o r y belonging to Company A of the s t u d y , for -le, while

t h e "reward" end of t h e spectrum w a s comparatively stable, given t h e small

p r o p o r t i o n of total e a r n i n g s r e p r e s e n t e d by the t o n u s and t h e stewaras'

s e n s e that t h e y had won a u s e f u l series of r e c e n t v i c t o r i e s on t h e i s s u e of

e a r n i n g s , i t w a s t h e problem-,of i n c e n t i v e i n r e l a t i o n to effort w h i c h w a s

nav becoming t h e main concern o f management:

" h n a g e r s i n Canpany A w e r e concerned n o t about t h e usual problem of

p i e c e m r k such a s a d r i f t away from standards and t h e growth of l e a p f r o g g i n g

claims by m i l i t a n t stewards but about t h e problem of motivation. With t h e

gradual rise i n day work r a t e s as a p r o p o r t i o n of average e a r n i n g s it was

felt t h a t t h e i n c e n t i v e element had been lost" ( p 1 8 1 ) . h d i t w a s i n terns

of t h i s o v e r t i d i n g m n c e r n about p r o d u c t i o n on t h e part of s e n i o r management

t h a t t h e uneasy balance t h a t had so far been a t t a i n e d between effort and

reward was, t h e a u t h o r s feel, i n i m n i n e n t danger of b e i n g upset:

 -125-

"....senior managers, who are more concerned than w e r e shop managers

w i t h labour costs and p r o f i t a b i l i t y . . . m a y then act to a l t e r the system,

which may w e l l set off a c y c l e of renewed shopfloor-level conflict".

A similar p r o c e s s was, i n f a c t , developing i n the much less w e l l o r p n i s e d

Underwear Factory i n which the "simple and d i r e c t c o n t r o l which was based

on the a b s o l u t e r i g h t s of management Qo manage, w a s f e l t by a self-

consciously modernising management to give i n s u f f i c i e n t l y precise c o n t r o l

over piece-rates on p a r t i c u l a r jobs and w a s being replaced by a more ' r a t i o n a l '

system. This system m i g h t be eqected to b r i n g conflict more i n t o t h e open

a s t h e process of rate-fixing becomes more open to n e g o t i a t i o n " (~1%).

E&S n o t e that "the case eemplifies the p o i n t made earlier that any system

of c o n t r o l tends to c r e a t e problems for those managers most d i r e c t l y

concerned w i t h costs, e f f i c i e n c y , and t h e c o n s i s t e n c y of a p p l i c a t i o n of

t h e payment system. R e f o r m s may w e l l g i v e a new impetus to irmnediat-2

c o n f l i c t a t shopfloor l e v e l " ( ~ 1 9 7 ) .

The p o i n t illustrated i n this, as i n t h e previous example, is that

managanent's i n a b i l i t y t o ''leave w e l l alone", to p e r m i t a n indulgency

p a t t e r n w h i c h would allow r e l a t i v e l y conflict-free r e l a t i o n s i n the

f a c t o r y , is f u e l l e d c e n t r a l l y by p r e s s u r e s of cost and e f f i c i e n c y .

S i m i l a r l y , the Wycle of c o n f l i c t " which W a r d s and S c u l l i o n a c c u r a t e l y

describe a s renewed by such "mrrective" action, w h i l e no doubt f u e l l e d

by workers' i r r i t a t i o n a t ensuing new forms of managerial oppression,

i n practice centres on the economic areas where such d i f f e r e n t sets of

i n t e r e s t s c l a s h head-on, rather than on t h e underlying resentment itself.

Such i n t e r a c t i o n s are again i l l u s t r a t e d i n the f i n a l example from Edwards

and S c u l l i o n ' s s t u d y , t h e d i s p u t e i n t h e -11 Metals Factory-

 -126-

A series of problems started i n t h i s f a c t o r y when a worker was taken "off

t h e clock" for f e f u s i n g to move to a n o t h e r job. T h i s w a s seen by t h e

stewards as a p r o w c a t i v e managerial a c t i o n s i n c e job mobility w a s

customarily s u b j e c t to shop steward agreement. I n fact higher management

did n o t approve of t h e a c t i o n , but s t u c k by it, as i n t h e above example,

a s part of t h e i r "broad aim of r a t i o n a l i s i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s " ( ~ 2 4 0 ) .

The d i s p u t e then took on a d i f f e r e n t dimension, i n t h a t management became

concerned a t t h e frequency of shop steward meetings called t o d i s c u s s

these and other problems. The effect on production w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y acute

i n t h e i n s p e c t i o n department, where the original "off t h e clock" episode

had occurred, a s here w o r k e r s had banned a l l m o b i l i t y of labour as a

p r o t e s t , t h u s no l o n g e r p r o v i d i n g the usual c o v e r for the steward. As a

r e s u l t , management decided t o s t o p t h e i n s p e c t i o n shop steward's pay for

any time t h a t he was a b s e n t from his s e c t i o n , and i n response t h e whole

shop stewards' committee left t h e p l a n t and i n v i t e d management to stop

t h e i r pay. However, management did n o t take u p t h i s opportunity t o start

a strike, and t h e stewards w e r e a t this p o i n t e q u a l l y r e l u c t a n t to escalate

t h e d i s p u t e . The push i n t o more drastic s a n c t i o n s Came from a decision by

management to c u t d a m o v e r t i m e l e v e l s , t h u s o v e r r i d i n g a n "overtime b u f f e r "

which had been fought for and secured by the stewards a few ywrs p r e v i o u s l y

to p r o t e c t workers a g a i n s t t h e continuous threat of short time working.

'Ihe d e c i s i o n w a s t h u s seen by b o t h stewards and workers as a conscious

attempt by management to p i l e on p r e s s u r e , and t h e y responded w i t h a tatal

overtime ban and, after c o n s i d e r i n g and r e j e c t i n g other s a n c t i o n s , a p o l i c y

of Working t o the hour".

In t h i s example, then, also. t h e crux of the d i s p u t e seemed to revolve

around an attempt by management to ' p u l l back" t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n of the

l a b o u r process i n t o some sort of shape conforming to their criteria of

e f f i c i e n c y , w h i l e workers' defence of their ovn i n t e r e s t s both disrupts

 -121-

t h i s o b j e c t i v e and c o n s t r u c t s forms-of o r g a n i s d t i o n w h i c h , i f challenged

by management, respond w i t h s t r o n g defensive a c t i o n . Thus workers b o t h

resist attacks by management on t h e " s t a t u s quo" t h e y have b u i l t up. and

b u i l d up this s t a t u s quo through an ongoing w a r of a t t r i t i o n which d i r e c t l y

reflects their c l a s s i n t e r e s t s as workers. The c o n t r a d i c t i o n s for management's

avn o b j e c t i v e s w h i c h emerged through t h i s " r e a c t i v a t i o n " of c o n f l i c t , and

their outcome i n a n u n o f f i c i a l p o l i c y of " f i r e f i g h t i n g " , c r o p up a l x , i n my

avn case s t u d i e s and are examined i n more d e t a i l there.

A clear p i c t u r e emerges i n the a n a l y s i s as a w h o l e (despite i t s somewhat

d i v e r g e n t theoretical objectives) of c o n f l i c t as structured a l o n g

dimensions Of effort and reward, whatever t h e immediate cause or underlying

antagonism i n w l v e d . The demand for o u t p u t on t h e managerial s i d e and the

corresponding n e c e s s i t y to defend s t a n d a r d s of l i v i n g on t h e part of those

s e l l i n g t h e i r l a b o u r paver c o n s t i t u t e an i r r e d u c i b l e framework i n terms of

which c o n f l i c t , whatever i t s more "humanistic" or "political" aspects, is

a s i t w e r e f o r c e d i n t o expression. That this takes place whatever the

ideology or conscious motive of those involved i s demonstrated i n the f i r m l y

p r o d u c t i o n - a r i e n t a t e d o u t l o o k of t h e shop stewards i n W a r d s a n d S c u l l i o n ' s

study (see page 13) w h o s e own a c t i o n s i n defence of t h e i r membership

n e v e r t h e l e s s undermined p r e c i s e l y those o b j e c t i v e s . This c o n t r a d i c t o r y and

i n c o n s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n between a c t i o n and consciousness is one w h i c h w e eaplore

i n more d e t a i l belm. Meanwhile. some of the more q u a l i t a t i v e and s u b j e c t i v e

s t u d i e s which have appeared o v e r the l a s t few years w i l l IMW be surveyed i n

order to supplement our "evidence" as t o the a c t u a l concerns of w o r k e r s .

€ V e r i e n t i a 1 Evidence

Such "observer-participation" t r e a t m e n t s as Ruth Cavendish's Women On The

-
Line, Anna Pollert's G i r l s , W i v e s , Factory L i v e s (Pollert, 1981) and Sallie

Westwood's A l l Day Every Day (1984) ( t h e p r i n c i p a l three to be m n s i d e r e d

 -128-

h e r e , though o t h e r s t u d i e s w i l l be r e f e r r e d to) p r o v i d e us w i t h a v i v i d

p i c t u r e of t h e s u b j e c t i v e e x p e r i e n c e of r o u t i n e semi-skilled work which

might be expected to emphasise aspects such as b o r e d o m or " a l i e n a t i o n "

( i n t h e s e n s e i n which i t is misconceived by Robert Blaun e r ) . N e v e r t h e l e s s ,

w h i l e such f e a t u r e s do emerge, t h e overwhelming impression once a g a i n is one

of t h e remorseless twin p r e s s u r e s of e f f o r t and reward. The message of s l c h

d e s c r i p t i o n s of f a c t o r y l i f e under t h e real s u b o r d i n a t i o n of l a b o u r i s that

i s s u e s of and a s p i r a t i o n s tcwards "control" are, simply, i r r e l e v a n t to s u c h

workers' q e r i e n c e . N o t o n l y may w r k e r s i n these circumstances n o t

-
p a r t i c u l a r l y want to t h i n k a b o u t v t c o n t r o l " , t h e y also, q u i t e l i t e r a l l y ,

c a n ' t - t h e r e i s n e i t h e r t h e t i m e n o r t h e o p p o r t u n i t y . The q u e s t i o n , in
-9

c o n d i t i o n s of atomised, r o u t i n i s e d , pre - s t r u c t u r e d l a b o u r , simply does

n o t arise.

W e shall now attempt t o d a s s i f y t h e e x p e r i e n c e of t h e wrkers p o r t r a y e d

i n t h e s e s t u d i e s under some of t h e same headings a s w e r e used i n t h e

p r e v i o u s chapter to a n a l y s e real s u b o r d i n a t i o n of l a b o u r , i e a b s t r a c t i o n ,

i n t e n sif ica t i o n , e x p l o i t a t i o n etc.

( i )Abstraction of Labour a s sham i n t h e case-studies

t h e Line, d e s c r i b i n g t h e i n t e n s e pressure of timed work patterns

In Wmen 0-1

on the "girls", Ruth Cavendish w r i t e s :

" D i f f e r e n c e s between t h e jobs w e r e minor i n comparison w i t h t h e speed

and d i s c i p l i n e which t h e l i n e imposed on u s a l l . " krlier, positively,

s h e has d e s c r i b e d jobs which w e r e part of an assembly-line "chain" as " l i k e

b e i n g one large collective worker '1 (Cavendish, 1982, p41). More e x p l i c i t l y

and more g e n e r a l l y , b u t s t i l l i n direct relation t o the workers she s t u d i e d

in G i r l s , Wives, Factory L i v e s , Anna Follert makes t h e same p o i n t :

 -129-

"The women a t Churchmans, as i n factories a l l o v e r t h e world, w e r e

producing commodities. They happened to be h a n d l i n g tobacco - but life

would have been much the same had they been making c h o l a t e m i n t s ,

cardboard boxes, or s i l i c o n c h i p s . For work was e s s e n t i a l l y u n s k i l l e d ,

boring, r e p e t i t i v e . a l i e n a t e d - something to be endured f o r t h e sake of

t h e wage packet a t the end. And to t h i s e x t e n t meaningless work, work for

p r o f i t , feels t h e same whether i t i s done by a man or a m a n q t ( P o l l e r t ,

1981, p75).

Fullert herself r e l a t e d this "conmodified" s t r u c t u r i n g of l a b o u r directly

t o i t s parallel e x p r e s s i o n for t h e worker i n terms of viewing h i s or her

am l a b o u r m e r a s a conrmodity: (Quote f r o m h y i n Paul W i l l i s '

Learning to Labour) " I t ' s j u s t a fucking way of earning money. T h e r e ' s

that many ways to do it...Jobs a l l achieve the same, t h e y make you money,

nobody does a job for t h e love of a job" (p75).

The view of l a b o u r a s a n u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , "fluid" substance, t h e

a c t u a l c o n t e n t of which is irrelevant i n terms of t h e firm's o b j e c t i v e s ,

i s p o w e r f u l l y confinned i n Pollert's l u c i d uncovering of the r a t i o n a l e

behind Churchman's job evaauation scheme, t h e alleged " s c i e n t i f i c

o b j e c t i v i t y " of which i n fact r e p r e s e n t e d l i t t l e more than a s o p h i s t i c a t e d

d e v i c e for t h e cheapening of l a b o u r paver. Thus when W i t h t h e impressive

r e s p e c t a b i l i t y of numbers, judgements of v a l u e are t r a n s l a t e d i n t o

judgements of q u a n t i t y " (p67), such concrete d i f f e r e n c e s a s &st between

jobs disppear before t h e i m p e r a t i v e of "grading"; y e t there appeared

t o be l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e value-creating capacities of t o b a c c o

workers and, say, c i F r - m a k i n g machine operatives that would o b j e c t i v e l y

j u s t i f y the placing of the former i n a lower p a y g r a d e than the latter.

me a r t i c u l a t i o n of pay g r a d i n g and l a b o u r time/output i s examined more

c l o s e l y i n t h e following s e c t i o n s . Meanwhile. hauever, the p o i n t has been

 -130-

made t h a t t h e e s s e n t i a l l y u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and t h u s " a b s t r a c t e d t i nature

of t h e work i t s e l f precluded any immediate concern by workers w i t h c o n t r o l

over i t s o r g a n i s a t i o n , c o n t e n t and methods.

(ii) The I n t e n s i f i c a t i o n and " t e c h n i c a l s t r u c t u r i n g " of l a b o u r - its

r e l a t i o n to "control".

The Same p e r v a s i v e p r e s s u r e on workers which made more ephemeral

c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of " c o n t r o l " i n c o n s e q u e n t i a l is shown still more t e l l i n g l y

i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n s of effort l e v e l s and o u t p u t targets which dominate t h e

s t u d i e s . Ruth Cavendish shavs lxw "control" c o n s i d e r a t i o n s were eliminated

by t h e t e c h n i c a l s t r u c t u r i n g of t h e "line":

"The women r a n t h e l i n e , but w e w e r e also j u s t appendages to i t . Its

d i s c i p l i n e w a s imposed a u t o m a t i c a l l y through t h e l i g h t , t h e m n v e w r

belt and the bonus system. We j u s t slotted i n like cogs i n a w h e e l . Every

movement w e made and e v e r y second of o u r time was c o n t r o l l e d by t h e l i n e ;

t h e chargehands and supervisors d i d n ' t have t o t e l l us when to get on.... You

c o u l d n ' t r e a l l y oppose the orcymisation of t h e work because it operated

mechanically. ..the s u p e r v i s o r s ' j o b w a s r e a l l y done for them" ( ~ 1 0 7 ) .

A s w e l l as demonstrating t h e absence of any c e n t r a l need for "bossingft,

t h e a n a l y s i s p o i n t s to fhe second-by-second maintenance of effort b u i l t i n t o

the l a b o u r process. This w a s made e m i n e n t l y clear by t h e fact that the l i n e

ran, as described above, a t a pre-set speed which was i n fact t h e "top"

speed, so t h a t i t r e p r e s e n t e d the m a d m u m i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n o f labour -

workers simply could not work any faster: "It i s impossible to p u t over i n

w r i t i n g the speed of t h e l i n e , t h e pace of work, and t h e f i d d l i n e s s of t h e

j o b s w e had to repeat a l l day long, a s t r a y follared t r a y dcnn the l i n e .

W e were p h y s i c a l l y geared up, s t r a i n i n g t o get i t done as fast as w e

c o u l d , and t h e atmosphere was f r a n t i c " ( p l l l ) . The pace and p r e s s u r e of t h e

l i n e in~pcsedrelentless r e s t r i c t i o n s i n terms of time: 'We couldn't do t h e

 -131-

t h i n g s you would normally n o t t h i n k twice about, l i k e blauing your nose or

f l i c k i n g hair o u t of your eyes - t h a t cost valuable s e c o n d s - it m s n ' t

i n c l u d e d i n the l a y o u t so no t i m e w a s allaued for it" ($1).

The Same i n t e n s e p r e s s u r e on workers i n terms of time and o u t p u t targets

i s documented by Pollert: " T i m e and theuork-study man w e r e t h e mastersl'ltl).

Pollert shows how t h e pay grading system, dried i n more d e t a i l i n t h e

next section, interacted w i t h t h e production goals set by t h e f i r m to

produce a n exact measurement and allocation of e v e r y movement: "The

(grade) dictated t h e exact rate for doing a job. To keep up demandec?

perfect 'economy' of movement; i n other words. not using one n e r v e ,

muscle or limb w h i c h was n o t d i r e c t l y n e c e s s a r y to do t h e job. I t meant

keeping p a r t of t h e body s t i l l , and t u r n i n g arms, w r i s t s , hands and

f i n g e r s i n t o a high-speed machine" (p62).

I n t e r e s t i n g l y . w h a t Pollert calls t h i s 'Onminute hold of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s

o v e r t h e girls" (p61) can be compared w i t h i n the s t u d y t o t h e p r e v i o u s

system of ''normal" piecework within which a measurable "sleek" i n effort

had been i d e n t i f i e d by management and s u p e r v i s i o n :

"It was an accepted f a c t t h a t you d i d a f a i r d a y ' s work for a f a i r

d a y ' s pay. But to t h e worlcpeople, a f a i r d a y ' s work was about a 7CR

day, the other Jm, of the day was spent going forwards or b a d w a r d s

to breaks, or g e t t i n g ready tci go hane or something" (Supervisor) (p61).

Such q u a n t i f i c a t i o n of effort i l l u s t r a t e s c l e a r l y the p o i n t that the

problem for management i s n o t t h e t r a n s l a t i o n of l a b o u r power i n t o

l a b o u r per se, but its i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n t o a degree which can match

t h e maximalist targets imposed by t h e requirements of p r o f i t a b i l i t y .

The i m p a c t of t h i s maximisation on the everyday experience Of workers

is reflected i n the title of "The Minutes" given by the s a n w n t workers

i n Westwood's All Cay Every Day t o t h e i r measured d a y work system; and

 -132-

the preoccupation w i t h and corresponding p r e s s u r e on workers of time

i s v i v i d l y i l l u s t r a t e d i n a number of d e s c r i p t i o n s of the s u b j e c t i v e

e v e r i e n c e of work, such a s L i n h a r t ' s The Assembly L i n e ("the speed of

the l i n e dictates everything, without respite...* could I have imagined

that they could have sto%en one minute from m e , and t h a t t h i s theft would

cause m e more pain and h u r t than the most sordid of crimes?" (Linhart,

1981, p33) and Richard Pfeffer's Working for Capitalism (Pfeffer, 1979).

Ultimately, as i n d i c a t e d i n h l l e r t ' s p o i n t above ( ~ 2 1 about

) the

"economy of movement11 required by the p l a n t ' s new "Pay and Productivity"

system, managerial requirements of p r o f i t a b i l i t y and the desired

o r g a n i s a t i o n of the labour process came together i n the p r o j e c t i o n of

the worker i n t o a machine; c o n s i s t e n t , p r e d i c t a b l e , measurable and

reliable. Such a goal i s reflected i n management's criteria for t h e

o r g a n i s a t i o n of the labour process i n terms of t h e maximum technically

possible Output, as sharn i n t h e camnent of a manager quoted i n I-~Iw

mynon's Working For Ford:

WO: 1 may be naive over this b u t I can't see that a t all. Minapewnt

don't set difficult work standards. All w e w a n t is madppum use or the

plant.. ..All w e want then i s t h e plant 461 produce the number of cars

that w e lcmv i t can produce - we're s i n p l y a s k i n g for good continuous

effort" (HE'S emphasis).

?he manager uses t h i s 'Qbjective" criterion ( t h e number of cars the

plant Eproduce) to measure w h a t i s described as a ttreasonable"

level of effort ("The unions...seem to think that increased e f f i c i e n c y

means we're asking the men t o sweat blood. We're not doing this a t

all. W e aim to set standards t h a t can reasonably be met") (P134) - Yet

the impact on the workforce i s experienced i n terms of the attempt to

turn them i n t o machines, reflected i n the p r e c i s e l y calculated units

of output measured by the work study department:

 -133- '

t h e preoccupation w i t h and corresponding p r e s s u r e on workers of

i s v i v i d l y i l l u s t r a t e d i n a number of d e s c r i p t i o n s of t h e s u b j e c t i v e

e w e r i e n c e of work, such as L i n h a r t ' s The Assembly L i n e ( " t h e speed of

t h e l i n e dictates everything, without respite...Mw could I have imagined

t h a t t h e y could have s t o l e n one m i n u t e from m e , and that t h i s t h e f t w u l d

cause m e more pain and h u r t t h a n t h e most sordid of crimes?" ( L i n h a r t , 1981,

p33) and Richard P f e f f e r r s Working f o r Capitalism (Pfeffer, 1979).

Ultimately, as i n d i c a t e d i n Pollert's p o i n t above (p21) about t h e

"economy of movement" r e q u i r e d by the p l a n t ' s new '*Pay and P r o d u c t i v i t y "

system, managerial requirements of p r o f i t a b i l i t y and t h e desired

o r g a n i s a t i o n of t h e l a b o u r process cane t o g e t h e r i n t h e p r o j e c t i o n of

t h e w r k e r i n t o a machine; c o n s i s t e n t , predictable, meaarable and

reliable. Such a goal is reflected i n management's criteria for t h e

o r p n i s a t i o n of t h e l a b o u r process i n terns of t h e m-un technically

possible output, a s shawn i n t h e conrment of a manager qu,ted in Huw

Beynon' s Working For Ford:

"No: I may be n a i v e over t h i s b u t I c a n ' t see that a t all. Mamyanent

d o n ' t set d i f f i c u l t w o r k standards. All w e want i s maxhuln u s e of the

plant...All we want then i s t h e p l a n t t o produce the number of a r s

that w e h w i t can produce - we're simply a s k i n g €or continuous

effort" (m's emphasis).

The manager uses t h i s "objective" c r i t e r i o n (the number of cars t h e

plant produce) to measure w h a t i s described a s a ''reaSOMble"

l e v e l of effort ("The unions...seem to t h i n k t h a t i n c r e a s e d e f f i c i e n c y

means we're asking the men t o sweat blood. We're n o t doing this a t
a l l . W e aim to set standards t h a t can reasonably be mer") (~134).Y e t

the impact on the workforce i s experienced i n terns of the attempt to

t u r n them i n t o machines, reflected i n t h e p r e c i s e l y calculated u n i t s

of o u t p u t measured by the work study department:

 -134-

"They s a y t h a t t h e i r t i m i n g s are based on w h a t a n 'average man' c a n do a t

an 'average time of t h e d a y ' . T h a t ' s a l o a d of nonsense that. A t t h e

beginning of t h e shift i t ' s a l l r i g h t b u t l a t e r on i t &ts harder...Yet

you've always got t h e same t i m e s : Ford's times. I t ' s this numbering a g a i n .

They t h i n k that if t h e y number u s and number the job e v e r y t h i n g i s fine".

"They d e c i d e on measured day hcxv fast w e w i l l work. They seem t o

forget that we're n o t machines you know. The s t a n d a r d s ihey work t o are

e x c e s s i v e anyway. They expect you to work t h e 480 m i n u t e s of t h e eight

hours y o u ' r e on t h e clock..." ( q u o t e s f r o m two assembly l i n e workers) ( ~ 1 3 5 ) .

The i n t e r a c t i o n of "work-studied" o u t p u t targets, t h e drive towards t h e

r e d u c t i o n of n e c e s s a r y l a b o u r t i m e , and t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g r e l e n t l e s s

i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of l a b o u r , i s clear i n t h e a c c o u n t s of t h e everyday e p e r i e n c e

of t h e workers i n t h e s e s t u d i e s . A s w e argued i n Chapter 2, i n s o f a r a s t h e

n o t i o n of "control" i s meaningful, i t i s examplified i n t h e operation of

such q u a n t i t a t i v e goals which structure b o t h the organisation of t h e l a b o u r

p r o c e s s and i t s impact on workers. PoUert n o t e s that '1.. .behind t h e ' f r i e n d l y

r e l a t i o n s ' t h e girls had l i t t l e more freedom or control Over t h e i r l i v e s than

i n t h e d a y s of the i r o n f i s t e d boss. They d i d n o t need to be bossed, because

they had t h e i r hands tied anyuay...Paver and d e c i s i o n s were somewhat ' o u t

t h e r e ' , never i n t h e f a c t o r y , l e t a l o n e t h e sbop floor" ( p 6 1 ) .

Pollert herself relates this "perlessness" a t least p a r t l y t6 the

i n c o r p o r a t i o n of t h e Churchman workers' union, b u t t h e lack of " c o n t r o l " ,

or a t least i t s ralience a s a n o b j e c t i v e for the workforce, was also c l e a r l y

hilt i n t o t h e r e l a t i o n between l a b o u r process and reward system f o r t h e

workers. I t i s to this a r t i c u l a t i o n between pay and effort and i t s

i n t e g r a t i o n of pay issues i n t o the workings of the l a b o u r p r o c e s s *hat

w e n m turn.
 -135-

( i i i ) Time and k n e v - the exploitation nem5

In making t h e p o i n t , a t e d above, that t h e kind of strategic d e c i s i o n -

making recanmended by for example Cressey and PacInneq a s a "control"

s t r a t e g y for workers was remote from t h e very conception of work a t

Churchman's, Pollert goes on t o n o t e that w r k e r s t h e r e w e r e a l s o

"hamstrung a t a n o t h e r , v e r y immediate level'' (p61) - t h e o p e r a t i o n of the

new payment scheme, embodying a g r a d i n g s t r u c t u r e , a n d i t s impact on the

o r g a n i s a t i o n and i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of l a b o u r . Churchman's, i n fact, w a s

unique among the case s t u d i e s i n o p e r a t i n g a combined system of work

measurement and j o b evaluaakon rather than t h e mre t r a d i t i o n a l piecework.

The scheme, i n t r o d u c e d i n t h e m i d - 6 0 s , w a s known a s PPS ( p r o f i c i e n c y pay

scheme). This d i v i d e d jobs i n t o f o u r categxies, e a c h of which r e t a i n e d a

c e r t a i n l e v e l of s t a b i l i s e d pay related t o performance, which could be

varied b o t h through "job plusages" (a form of g r a d i n g ) and s o m e o p p o r t u n i t y

f o r " p r o f i c i e n c y pay". Failure t o a t t a i n performance was also s a n c t i o n e d ,

havever, so that "the 'stick' w a s i n fact a s i m p o r t a n t a s t h e 'carrot' i n

s o m e types of jobs" ( p 5 5 ) -

The "performance standards" which had b e e n set by t h e work s t u d y department

w e r e t i g h t l y maintained through t h e i r i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r grade,

supported by r e l a t e d s a n c t i o n s . If a worker's o u t p u t f e l l below t h e precise

amount required over the four-week "reference period" s h e would be warned,

then dcnvngraded, and would r e c e i v e t h e lower rate of p a y for the w h o l e Of

t h e n e x t month, even i f she s u b s e q u e n t l y improved. Thus i n some cases t h e

company c o u l d be r e c e i v i n g standard p e r f o n m n c e from a p a r t i c u l a r worker a t

belw w h a t had been a s s e s s e d to be t h e price of h e r l a b o u r p e r .

What Pollert calls t h e "minute h o l d of t h e labour p r o c e s s over t h e g i r l s "

e f f e c t i v e l y secured by a system i n which 'This t h r e a t of demotion hung over

every g i r l and secured h e r more t i g h t l y to h e r j o b t h a n the strictest

s u p e r v i s o r . I t guaranteed s t a b i l i t y of output to t h e m p a n y , s t a b i l i t y of

e a r n i n g s to those w h o ~ c o u l dkeep up and s t a b i l i t y of g r a d i n g t o those who

 -136-
could n o t . This w a s the c l a s s i c i r o n f i s t beneath t h e v e l v e t glove" (p62).

Again t h e i m p l i c a t i o n of a lack of any need for a n i n t e r p e r s o n a l F e r

r e l a t i o n s h i p between management and t h e workforce i s clear.

The major p o i n t h e r e i s that of the e x t e n s i v e a r t i c u l a t i o n between p a y and

the o r g a n i s a t i o n of t h e l a b o u r process. E f f o r t and reward are almost

i n e x t r i c a b l y l i n k e d , tothe e x t e n t t h a t a d e f i n i t e , q u a n t i f i e d - and maximum

- amount of l a b o u r i s tied i n w i t h an e q u a l l y p r e c i s e l e v e l of reward. Drop

the e f f o r t / o u t p u t below a c e r t a i n l e v e l , and t h e reward drops too. T h e r e

appears t o be no escape for t h e worker from t h i s tredmill.

In her chapter "Cp a g a i n s t t h e Minutes" Sallie Westwood p r e s e n t s a n e q u a l l y

overwhelming portrait of the u n r e m i t t i n g p r e s s u r e s of time-measured payment

systems on t h e l a b o u r process. "The minutes" w a s t h e t i t l e given by t h e

workers to t h e MYA system used i n t h e f a c t o r y . A s a t C h u r c h i l l ' s , t h e system

related pay to a specified l e v e l of p e r f o n a n c e , rather than a l l o w i n g a

v a r i a b l e l e v e l of performance to determine pay as w i t h piecework sch-es.

The workers were graded i n t o seven bands linked to l e v e l s of performancej

if an operator's performance f e l l below t h e l e v e l specified i n her b n d ,

she would be downgraded. I t w a s , havever, s t i l l p o s s i b l e t o earn a bonus

by producing more than t h e given w u n t i n the time. Workers w e r e assessed

on performance once a month a t a meeting of management, supervisors and trade

union r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .

A system i n which, a s w e have argued in Chapter 2, a profit- r e l a t e d and

t h u s e s s e n t i a l l y q u a n t i f i e d conception of e f f i c i e n c y meant t h e split-second

fragnentation of jobs w a s monitored w i t h equal p r e c i s i o n by t h e women, o f t e n

a s the basis of a s i m r i n g resentment:

"I'm supposed t o make a dozen tee-shirts, sides and s l e e v e s i n 10.47

minutes and produce 55 dozen a day as a n A grade, and Shanta, as a star

grade has to produce 50 dozen and 10 a day. I t ' s r i d i c u l o u s . Every time

t h e minutes are given they get worse, t h e y want more f r o m u s e v e r y t i m e .

Well, I t w n ' t work. I c a n ' t do t h e target': (Westwood, 1984, p51).

Thus w h i l e t h e pay grades remained t h e same, new l e v e l s of o u t p u t were

imposed w i t h e a c h new job, i n w h a t amounted t o a class example o f managerial

rate-utting - this time fromtfie effort end of t h e spectrum. And this was i n

i t s t u r n c l e a r l y and a n g r i l y r e l a t e d by t h e w o r k e r s to reward:

"You knau... t h e minutes are so hard now that the company can save money.

They g i v e o u t s u c h high minutes that a l l t h e girls are g e t t i n g dmngraded,

50 i t ' s cheaper t o employ them t o do w h a t an A grade u s e d t o do. I t ' s n o t

f a i r . I t ' s n o t r i g h t t h a t t h e y should treat people l i k e this" (p55).

The e x t e n s i v e a r t i c u l a t i o n of effort and reward w i t h i n t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s

itself, t h e u s e of a range of payment systems - bonus schemes, measured day

work, "Pay and P r o d u c t i v i t y " - in t h e same "carrot andstick" fashion to

o r d a i n t h e madmum i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of l a b o u r , would n o t of c o u r s e be

r e l e v a n t or possible w e r e i t n o t for t h e central importance of pay to t h e

m r k e r s , t h e i n t e g r a t i o n of their v e r y "means of l i f e " i n t o "the minutes"

or " t h e bonus". Ruth Cavendish d e s c r i b e s the drect c o n n e c t i o n between

production, money and time for t h e workers:

"The extra or m i s s i n g p e n n i e s r e p r e s e n t e d d i r e c t l y that we'd been very

hard pushed or that a hold up had a f f e c t e d t h e bonus...bney w a s w h a t you

were t h e r e f o r , and i t was up to you to d e c i d e if you c o u l d a f f o r d a couple

of h o u r s off...In comparison, a monthly s a l a r y (made) the r e l a t i o n between

t i m e and money (seem) very obscure" (~133).

The c l o s e n e s s t o basic s u b s i s t e n c e of many production uorkers' w a g e s i s i n

itself a major factor i n t h e imnediacy of the effort/-rd relationship.

As Cavendish describes h e r ~ u enx p e r i e n c e i n wing from a m m f o r t a b l e monthly

s a l a r y t o "wages": T h e i n t e r e s t and emotion aroused by a few pennies and

pounds may seem odd to someone w h o has never uorked on t h e shopfloor.. .My

a t t i t u d e changed completely as a r e s u l t of being i n the Same s i t u a t i o n . The

minutiae of wage s e t t l e m e n t s , bonus rates, and overtime pay w e r e n o t t r i v i a l

i s s u e s i n the l e a s t . . . t h e r e was 50 l i t t l e money that you had t o make Sure you

 -138-

r e c e i v e d e v e r y penny you w e r e e n t i t l e d to, because i t r e a l l y did m u n t " ( ~ 1 3 1 )

CONCLUSIONS

The p i c t u r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e account go f a r may a p p e a r . t o be of somewhat

powerless and bemused workers, unaware of t h e e x t e n t of t h e i r e x p l o i t a t i o n

or a t l e a s t unprepared t o do v e r y much about it. I n fact, to take up o u r f i n a l

p o i n t a b o u t t h e workers' own conceptions of t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n p y and

l a b o u r t i m e , t h e r e appeared to be a s u r p r i s i n g (given t h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y

of "perceiving" e x p l o i t a t i o n ) d e g r e e o f awareness a b o u t t h e difference between

p a i d and unpaid l a b o u r t i m e :

( V e r a from G i r l s , Wives, F a c t o r y Lives): "Once you've done your work for

your grade, that's it. What you do o v e r , t h e f i r m hes...But you c a n ' t c g

home, n o t till t h e buzzer goes. So you've pt tu sit and work for nothing"

(P175) -
Ruth Cavendish draws a similar d i s t i n c t i o n between "our time" and " t h e i r

time": "....the f i g h t s o v e r c l o c k i n g off w e r e of more t h a n symbolic

importance - t h e y were real attempts by them to encroach on o u r time, ard

by us, t o resist such e n c r o a c h m e n t s . . . W m u n t e d t h e m i n u t e s between 4.10

and 4.15 i n l o s t WDs" ( ~ 1 1 7 ) .

I t w a s r e s i s t a n c e t o t h e restriction of t h e ( a p p a r e n t ) o p p o r t u n i t y to "work

f o r y o u r s e l f " which had existed under piecework t h a t pushed t h e wmen a t

Chuckman's i n t o a dogged, though u l t i m a t e l y u n s u c c e s s f u l , f i g h t a g a i n s t t h e

operation of t h e grading s t r u c t u r e . S i m i l a r l y , the f i n a l d i s p u t e a t S t i t c h

( t h e f a c t o r y d e s c r i b e d i n A l l Day, Every Day) exploded as a d i r e c t result

of t h e workers' p e r c e p t i o n of t h e i r e x p l o i t a t i o n , triggered off by t h e

i m p o s i t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r l y impossible target o n a b a t c h of baby clothes:

"Take t h e minutes. I ' m n o t k i d d i n g , w h i l e I ' v e been h e r e i n t h e last f o u r

y e a r s t h e y ' v e #me down and down. They get t i g h t e r and t i g h t e r and you c a n ' t

get t h e target out...The m n p a n y i s swindling us by making t h e m i n u t e s lower

and lauer which means w e c a n ' t get the target 50 w e are downgraded, 50 they
 -139-
have to pay u s less t o do t h e Same amount a s w e w e r e doing l a s t year f o r more

money"(p56f.

The "explosive" n a t u r e of worker r e s i s t a n c e and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to

c o n t r a d i c t i o n w i l l be considered i n mre d e t a i l i n chapter 5. I n t h e above

arguments w e have been most m n c e r n e d t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e a r t i c u l a t i o n between

l a b o u r time, pay and e f f o r t a t t h e h e a r t of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s , and t h e role of

t h i s i n e r a c t i o n i n e f f e c t i v e l y o r d a i n i n g t h e r e q u i s i t e , or close to t n e

r e q u i s i t e , l e v e l s of i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of l a b o u r from t h e workforce. In t h e

n e x t c h a p t e r w e 93 on to examine hcw t h i s p o r t r a y a l of t h e e x p e r i e n c e of t h e

l a b o u r process i n e s s e n t i a l l y economic terms can be used to challenge t h e o r e t i c a

approaches which emphasise t h e i d e o l o g i c a l i n c o r p o r a t i o n of t h e mrking

class.
 CMPTER FIVE

The Political S i d e of Economisn

The last c h a p t e r set o u t t o c k m n s t r a t e , i n some detail. that t h e p r e s s u r e s

on, and a c t i o n s and motivations of, workers are overwhelmingly economistic

i n n a t u r e . But having "proved" this, i t may w e l l be asked how much f u r t h e r

w e have q t . For t h e r e exists a considerable, i f n o t dominant, body of o p i n i o n

t h a t sees economistic s t r u g g l e s by workers either a s themselves "incorporation-

ist", binding workers to t h e verysystem t h a t oppresses them, or a s i r r e l e v a n t

straws i n the wind before an o v e r r i d i n g r u l i n g class hegwmny.

Both s t r a n d s of this approach have d i s t i n g u i s e d forbears. I n t h e case of

t h e f i r s t , Lenin, who f i r s t brought the term "economism" i n t o prominence

i n t h e c o n t e x t of a polemical debate d t h f e l l o w Social Democrats, places

t h e a n a l y s i s i n t h e context of a call for r e v o l u t i o n a r y leadership. In t h e

second, the emphasis on political and ideological " o v e r d e t e n i n a t i o n s " a s

part of a c r i t i q u e of economic determinism can be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h A l t h u s s e r ,

although that a u t h o r would himself ascribe much of his argument on class

consciousness t o the influence of G r a m s c i . As w e shall see, the theories

of G r a m s c i taken o v e r a l l do n o t e n t i r e l y favour this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .

In this s e c t i o n w e shall undertake a brief survey of the&velopment, and

i m p l i c a t i o n s for c u r r e n t theory, of b o t h sets of ideas. following i n the

next w i t h a c r i t i q u e based both on a l t e r n a t i v e theories and t h e a c t u a l n a t u r e

of w o r k i n p c l a s s r e s i s t a n c e -
i ) From "econamism" to "instrumentalism".

The debate on econmimt i s almost as old a s i t s s u b j e c t - a c t i v i t y by

workers c e n t r e d on the terms and w n d i t i o n s of employment, and the alleged

l i m i t s of such a c t i v i t y i n terns of a t t a i n i n g any w i d e r socialist

consciousness. The term *'economim'l itself stems from a debate e n t e r 4

i n t o by Lenin over t h e alternative s t r a t e g i e s of r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s confronted

 -141-

with such s t r u g g l e s . Since Lenin a p p e a r s to have been t h e f i r s t t h e o r i s t ,

socialist or a t h e r w i s e , to have begun t o e x p l o r e t h e c o n n e c t i o n s between

" t r a d e union" and " s o c i a l i s t " c o n s c i o u s n e s s ( i n his own words, t h e " r e l a t i o n

between consciousness and s p o n t e n e i t y " ) his w r i t i n g s are an a p p r o p r i a t e p l a c e

to begin d i s c u s s i o n of t h e i s s u e .

Lenin's c r i q i q u e of economism is o n t h e surface a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d polemic

w i t h a contemporary tendency w i t h i n t h e S o c i a l Democrats who, as t h e i r name

suggests. favoured t h e p a t h of a n c r i t i c a l support for workers' "purely

economic" s t r u g g l e s . -ever, i n t a k i n g t h e %conomists" -

to t a s k i n What

Is To Be Done? (Lenin, 1902) Lenin appears to c o n s i d e r a b l y beyond t h e

r e l a t i v e l y u n c o n t r o v e r s i a l argument that socialists o u g h t to be t r y i n g to

t a k e such s t r u g g l e s on tD a more political l e v e l . Rather, Lenin a r g u e s that

n 6 t o n l y can trade union s t r u g g l e s themselves p r o v i d e no opening for socialist

ideas, b u t t h a t t h e y a c t u a l l y impose a "bourgeois politics" on t h e working

class; that by itself the working class can o n l y spontaneously achieve this

" t r a d e union '1 l e v e l of consciousness; and t h a t it f o l l o w s that o n l y a

socialist p a r t y p a r t l y made up of e l e m e n t s from t h e i n t e l l i g e n t s i a can p r o v i d e

t h e n e c e s s a r y socialist i n p u t i n t o working C l a s s C O n s C i O U u l e S S .

This somewhat extreme p o s i t i o n can i n s o m e ways be modified by considering i t s

contemporary c o n t e x t . I t seems clear f r o m the arguments Lenin used i n WITBD

that t h e Ecomrnists themselves took a t t h e t i m e an a b s u r d l y "tailist" stance;

Lenin q u o t e s them a s a r g u i n g i n t h e i r paper that "the economic basis of t h e

movement i s eclipsed by the effort n e v e r t o f o r g e t t h e political idea". F u r t h e r ,

t h e Economists' slogan of "The w o r k e r s for t h e workers" reflects another

s t a n c e t o which Lenin was u n d e r s t a n d a b l y opposed. namely that Social Democrats

should restrict t h e i r e f f o r t s to the struggle a g a i n s t t h e T s a r i s t gJvernment,

w i t h resistance to capitalism itself b e i n g led by workers backed up, presumably,

by "Economist" s u p p o r t .
 -142-

This a p a r t , however, L e n i n ' s p o s i t i o n t h a t tsocial-Democratic consciousness.. .

can o n l y be brought t o t h e workers from without" and t h a t t h e "trade union

consciousness" spontaneously developed by t h e w o r k i n g class a u l d o n l y lead

t o i t s "becoming subordinated to bourgeois ideology" appears t o exclude a n y

connections between t h e material experience of w o r k e r s and t h e meaning and

r e l e v a n c e of socialist i d e a s . Brought to t h e workers, a s Lenin emphasises,

"from without", and a s a "choice" which e l i m i n a t e s any v e s t i g e of trade union

consciousness, socialism i s p r e s e n t e d a s a r i s i n g " s i d e by s i d e " w i t h w o r k e r s '

s t r u g g l e , r a t h e r than as rooted i n or connected w i t h i t ; "Each arises out

of d i f f e r e n t premises" (Kautsky's words, quoted a p p r o v i n g l y by Lenin).

As Paul Thompson has p o i n t e d o u t , this p o s i t i o n has provided t h e basis for

an " i d e a l i s t formulation" of consciousness which has been extended by l a t e r

writers s u c h a s Poulantzas to a r g u e for t h e t o t a l domination o f working class

a c t i v i t y by bourgeois ideology. The aspect of Lenin'a argument i n WITBD which

a l l o w s s u c h r e i f i c a t i o n of working class c o n s c i o u s n e s s i s t h e dichotemy drawn

between t h e character of working class a c t i v i t y i n response to material

c o n d i t i o n s and a socialist a n a l y s i s which can locate these c o n d i t i o n s i n a

general c r i t i q u e of capitalism. A t this p o i n t i n L e n i n ' 6 a r w e n t t h e r e i s

no conception of a n y dialectical connection between "spontaneous" r e s p o n s e s

to t h e r e a l i t y of e x p l o i t a t i o n and t h e triggering of r e v o l u t i o n a r y conscious-

ness -a r e l a t i o n s h i p whoch Lenin himself f i n a l l y adcnowledged, a s w e see

below, i n t h e l i g h t of his am experience of t h e 1905 and 1917 r e v o l u t i o n s .

I t may seem a l o n g way from Lenin and p r e - r e v o l u t i o n a r y Russia t o t h e more

p r o s a i c p a s t u r e s of Luton and the attempt by t h e B r i t i s h sociologists

Goldthorpe. Lockwood et a1 to debunk t h e myth of "embourgeoisment" which had

g r a m up i n t h e wake of t h e much-vaunted "affluence" of t h e 50s and e a r l y 60s.

N e v e r t h e l e s s , Coldtharpe and Lockwood's c o n c l u s i o n s reflect many of the Same

p r e o c c u p a t i o n s and, d e s p i t e their praiseworthy dissection of earlier

sociological complacencies, some of t h e same somewhat s t a t i c a n d mechanistic

 -143-

assumptions aC Lenin's argument.

Like Lenin, Goldthorpe and Lockwood ( G o l d t h o r p , Lodcwood et a i , The Affluent

Worker, 1968) confront t h e r e a l i t y of 'kxonomisticif or i n t h e i r t e n s

t t i n s t r u m e n t a l t ~atc t i v i t y by workers; l i k e Lenin t h e y r e f u s e t o a d m i t t h e

p o s s i b i l i t y of any r e l a t i o n s h i p between Such a c t i v i t y and the p r o j e c t i o n

i n t o political awareness. I n Goldthorpe and Lockwood's case, w h a t t h e y w e r e

faced w i t h w a s a working class very d i f f e r e n t , a d m i t t e d l y , from that of

L e n i n ' s Russia; a working class w o r n down by s e v e r a l decades of d i s i l l u s i o n -

ment and also newly provided w i t h a comparatively comfortable standard of

l i v i n g . Newrtheless, w h i l e the q u e s t i o n of r e v o l u t i o n was c l e a r l y n o t on

t h e agenda, Goldthorpe and Lockwood's a n a l y s i s reflects i n m i n i a t u r e , as i t

w e r e , many of t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s b u i l t i n t o t h e argument of W h a t Is To Be Done?

Thus, i n t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a "new", p r i v a t i s e d stratum of the working

class, and the c o n t r a s t between this and the " t r a d i t i o n a l " and "solidaristicff

working class of t h e older i n d u s t r i a l regions, Goldthorpe and Lodovood Can be

argued t o throw o u t t h e baby w i t h the t h e o r e t i c a l bathwater. These new

p r i v a t i s e d workers t h e "sdlidary" bonds and trade union idealism of

their older t r a d i t i o n a l forbears - -, preoccupied as they w e r e w i t h

home f i t m e n t s and consumer durables, t h e y w e r e no l o n g e r suitable revolution-

a r y or even strike material. S i m i l a r l y , the a u t h o r s ' research p o l i c y of

l e t t i n g t h e workers' cum a t t i t u d e s l a r g e l y d e f i n e t h e s i t u a t i o n b e i n g

looked a t misfires on t h e i r one-dimensional and mechanistic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s

of "(work)mates are n o t friends" statements and those f o r w e a r i n g t r a d i t i o n a l

union loyalties. Lacking i n "solidary"-ness, t h e Luton workers must a l s o be

i n c a p a b l e of s o l i d a r i t y ; c y n i c i n about t h e union i s taken a s p r e c l u d i n g a n y

s i g - t i f i c a n c e to the mrkers of t h e i r own shop-floor o r g a n i s a t i o n .

As Robin Blackburn p u t s i t i n his c r i t i q u e of Goldthorpe and Lockwood

i n The Incanpa t i b l e s (Blackburn and Cockburn. 1967). "Wrely c a n a

sociological s t u d y such as t h i s have been so c r u e l l y p u t to the test'' (p48).

 -144-

Scarcely a m n t h j a f t e r the p u b l i c a t i o n of The A f f l u e n t Worker, i n October

1966, a massive strike involving "near r i o t c o n d i t i o n s " broke o u t a t

M u x h a l l t s . B u t even if e v e n t s had n o t d e a l t such a resounding raspberry

to Goldthorpe and Lodouood's conclusions, t h e i m p l i c i t i o n s of their a n a l y s i s

would s t i l l demand i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n to broader theories of class

consciousness.

In fact t h e assumptions behind Goldthorpe and Lockwood's almost reproving

allegation of t h e lack of "true" trade unionism a t V a w h a l l t s are c l e a r l y

brought o u t i n much of t h e work on class consciousness which follmed i n t h e

wake of "The A f f l u e n t Worker". The u s e f u l body of work d n g under the

heading of Workers' images of s c i e t y " w i l l be examined i n more d e t a i l

i n t h e next s e c t i o n , but some of t h e more mainstream i n d u s t r i a l / p o l i + i c a l

t h e o r i s i n g carried Out by for example m n n and Giddens is r e l e v a n t i n this

con text.

A s M o o r b u r p o i n t s o u t i n h i s c r i t i q u e of these two writers (Moorhouse, 1976)

t h e t h r e e f o l d "classification" of class consciousness provided by Goldthorpe

i n a concluding paper t o t h e A f f l u e n t Worker study bears remarkable similarit-

ies to those of Giddens (1973) and Mann (1970). While, for Goldthorpe, class

consciousness rewires

( i )a n awareness of s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s and i n t e r e s t s

(ii)a d e f i n i t i o n of these i n t e r e s t s as i n fundamental c o n f l i c t with those of

a n o t h e r class, and

(iii)a conception of class a s permeating the t o t a l i t y of e x i s t i n g social

r e l a t i o n s and as c r u c i a l l y determining t h e f u t u r e social order,

Giddens and E.Bnn a s k for, r e s p e c t i v e l y , class i d e n t i t y , c o n f l i c t consciousness

and r e v o l u t i o n a r y consciousness. and class i d e n t i t y , Class o p p o s i t i o n , class

t o t a l i t y and "an a l t e r n a t i v e " .

Such t h r e e - or four- fold c a t e g s r i s a t i o n s of the "conditions" for class

 -145-

c o n s c i o u s n e s s appear to p r e s e n t a m o d e l of a c h awareness a s e x i s t i n g ,

a s i t w e r e , "on high" - a t a p i n n a c l e of i d e o l o g i c a l p u r i t y towards which

o n l y t h e most determined and purposive w r k e r s c a n hope t o reach. Any n o t i o n

of a wider consciousness a s a t t a i n a b l e i n terms of a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a c t i o n

i s a b s e n t from t h i s sterile perspective, which isolates "class consciousness"

as a desideratum on an e n t i r e l y s e p a r a t e plane from that of workers' am

humdrum and everyday s t r u g g l e s .

D e s p i t e i t s r i g i d i t y , however, t h e unquestioning d i s m i s s a l of " i n s t r u m e n t a l "

or " e c o n m i s t i c " a c t i v i t y c o n t i n u e s t o i n f l u e n c e c u r r e n t t h i n k i n g on class

and i n d u s t r i a l i s s u e s . While t h e t h e o r e t i c a l p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h "class

consciousness" a s such a p p e a r s t o have d i e d o u t i n t h e ' x ) s , more r e c e n t

d e b a t e s , mainly on t h e l e f t , concerning t h e political s t a t u s and d i r e c t i o n

of t h e labour movement, c o n t i n u e t o p r o j e c t a d i s p a r a g i n g dismissal of

"labourism". I n c o n t r i b u t i o n s w i t h i n t h i s tendency such a s those of Hobsbawm

(1983) and W11 (1983). hcwrever, t h e influences of ' W e s t e r n Marxism" are also

strongly apparent, 50 that t h e t h e o r e t i c a l circle between Lenin and A l t h u s s e r

i s nau complete.

ii) A l t h u s s e r - The Charmed C i r c l e

A l t h u s s e r ' s work, w h i l e p i o n e e r i n g i n many respects, c a n be p l a c e d i n t h e

historical c o n t e x t o f a r e a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e economic determinism and

m e c h a n i s t i c b@andun embodied i n S t a l i n i s t regimes. S i m i l a r l y , a r e a c t i o n

a g a i n s t w h a t w a s seen as t h e + * e c o n m i cdeterminism" of L e n i n i s t c o n c e p t i o n s of

class c o n s c i o u s n e s s became part of t h e annoury of B r i t i s h M r x i s t s i n their

s e a r c h for e x p l a n a t i o n s of working class acquiescence; and this r e s u r r e c t i o n

of t h e ideological and political as of equal w e i g h t w i t h t h e economic i n the

determination of class consciousness has drawn much of i t s theorettcal sustenance

f r o m the work of A l t h u s s e r . Although A l t h u s s e r ' s theories are WO canplex to be

a d e q u a t e l y explored here, those of most relevance t o our c ~ v nconcerns c a n now

be b r i e f l y summarised.
 -146-

For A l t h u s s e r , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s Of hBrx, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e

experience of S t a l i n i s m and t h e consequent crisis of the l e f t , w e r e

dominated by two opposing errors; on t h e one hand the economism/Stalinism

t r a d i t i o n to which the 'Wew L e f t " i n B r i t a i n was a l s o opposed, b u t on t h e

other t h e "humanism" and emphasis on the e a r l y w r i t i n g s of mrx which many

of t h a t grouping embraced as a response. In f a c t , to A l t h u s s e r , S t a l i n i s m

was i t s e l f a combination of economism and humanism.

I n response t o these errors A l t h u s s e r emphasises, f i r s t l y , t h e r e l a t i o n s

between base and s u p e r s t r u c t u r e , and t h e i n t e r n a l character of t h e s e r e l a t i o n s ,

and second, t h e a b s t r a c t i o n of c e r t a i n examples of these r e l a t i o n s f r o m t h e

social f o m t i o n as a w h o l e as "instances" - i n s t a n c e s of, for e q l e ,

the r e l a t i o n between t h e economic and t h e political, t h e ideological and t h e

juridical. me reason for t h i s i s to make t h e p o i n t that t h e social f o m t i o n

cannot be analysed as one i r r e d u c i b l e whole, i n terms of humanism, econanism

or any o t h e r v a r i a n t of Marxism; r a t h e r , t h e v a r i o u s c o n j u n c t u r e s within t h e

social formation have t o be "thought" or conceptualised d t h the aid of a l l

t h e Marxist tools of a n a l y s i s a v a i l a b l e to US. I n o t h e r words, society i s a

"complex unity" each aspect of w h i c h has to be understood rather t h a n simply

invoking t h e a u t o m a t i c a p p l i c a t i o n of a d e t e r m i n i s t m o d e of a n a l y s i s seen a s

"explaining" s o c i e t y en bloc. For our purposes, however. t h e most r e l e v a n t

aspect of this argument i s i t s p r e s e n t a t i o n of ideology as, f a r f r a a mere

s u p e r s t r u c t u r a l a b s t r a c t i o n , an i r r e d u c i b l e , even material element i n s o c i e t y .

As Richard Johnvon p u t s i n i n his a r t i c l e (Johnson, 1979) "Three F'roblematics:

elements of a t h e o r y of working-class c u l t u r e " , i n which he capares otthodox

FBrxism, k u l t u r e " t h e o r y and a l t h u s s e r i a n s t r u c t u r a l i s m : "Ideology i s so far

from being d i s p e n s a b l e that i t i s t h e medium i n which people, i n a l l societies,

l i v e t h e i r a n d i t i o n s of e x i s t e n c e , experience their w o r l d " . Ideology, a super-

s t r u c t u r a l factor, reflects itself i n , r e i n f o r c e s , and most importantly

reproduces the base.

 -147-
T h i s tota1 integrationof ideology with c a p i t a l i s t society, t h i s
ovemhelming dominance, a g a i n calls f o r t h pessimistic conclusions on class

consciousness. If workers are faced on t h e one hand w i t h an economic base which

has a s i t s e s s e n t i a l c o n d i t i o n t h e i r e x p l o i t a t i o n , and.on t h e o t h e r with, equal

e s s e n t i a l to t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n and reproduction of t h a t system, s u p e r s t r u c t u r a l

factors s u c h as ideology, politics, *&e l a w , w h a t r o u t e exists for them t o

escape such a system? The answer perhaps c o u l d be, a s Johnson p o i n t s o u t ,

though even for A l t h u s s e r this does n o t always follow, t h a t "ideology i s an

important and necessary site of political struggles; that t h e r e i s , i n d e e d a

class s t r u g g l e i n ideology" ( ~ 2 2 6 ) .

This point has indeed been taken u p by more r e c e n t theorists, for example

i n the labour process debate, t o support their argument that ideology pervades

a l l l e v e l s of s t r u g g l e , r i g h t down to t h e p o i n t of production; t h a t i t is,

a t this l e v e l , of equal weight w i t h economic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n working o u t

the "effort bargain"; that, c o n t r a r y to e a r l i e r a r w e n t s , the c a p i t a l / l a b o u r

r e l a t i o n can never be seen a s a naked "cashnexus". Michael mrawoy has perhaps

taken t h i s argument f u r t h e s t w i t h i n t h e l a b o u r processdebate w i t h his

i n s i s t e n c e that "any work c o n t e x t i n v o l v e s a n economic dimension (production

of t h i n g s ) a political dimension (production of social r e l a t i o n s ) and an

i d e o l o g i c a l dimension (production of an experience of those r e l a t i o n s ''

(wlrawoy, 1979, p16). The i d e o l o g i c a l and political a r e thus i n t e g r a t e d

i n t o production i t s e l f . Some of the i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s and t h e Althusserian

a n a l y s i s as a w h o l e , i n terms of a charmed circle from which workers cannot

hope to break, are examined inmore d e t a i l i n the next s e c t i o n . F i n a l l y ,

hcurever, w e t u r n t o a n o t h e r t h e o r e t i c i a n w h o has e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y , if

posthumously, been aQpted by ' W e s t e r n Marxists" - Antonio G r a m s c i .

The A l t h u s s e r i a n concept of " r e l a t i v e autonomy", which i s used t o challenge

the alleged mrxist c r u d i t y that the base f ' d e t e n i n e s " the s u p e r s t r u c t u r e ,

i s seen a s f i n d i n g a clear p a r a l l e l i n G r a m s c i ' s t h e o r y Of state hegemony.

 - 148-
In n o t i n g t h e c u l t u r a l , i d e o l o g i c a l and p o l i t i c a l c o m p l e x i t i e s of " c i v i l

s o c i e t y " a s i n t e r p o s i n g between economic c a u s e s and political effects,

G r a m s c i w a s c e n t r a l i n c h a l l e n g i n g t h e m e c h a n i s t i c bhrxj.sn then emerging

w i t h i n t h e Second International. The c o u n t e r v a i l i n g emphasis on t h e need

to p e n e t r a t e t h e consensual hegemonic formation w i t h socialist i d e a s

a p p e a r s t o l e n d powerful s u p p o r t t o t h e A l t h u s s e r i a n emphasis on t h e

superstructural.

However, as w e shall see below, G r a m s c i was able t o g r a s p i n a far more

complex and s u b t l e way than t h e A l t h u s s e r i a n s t h e c o n t r a d i c t o r y r e l a t i o n s h i p s

between economistic s t r u g g l e s and ideological r e s t r i c t i o n s . To c o n c e n t r a t e ,

i n r e c o g n i s i n g t h e importance of ideology, almost e n t i r e l y on i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s

i n terms of t o t a l i t y , w h i l e a t t h e same t i m e d e p i c t i n g t h e economic base

e x c l u s i v e l y i n terms of "determination", i s to o v e r l o o k t h e c r u c i a l role of

economic factors i n b o t h e x p r e s s i n g t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s i n h e r e n t i n the base

and, through t h i s v e r y p r o c e s s , c o n t i n u a l l y undexnininS.,the s u p e r s t r u 2 t u r e .

These aspects of c o n t r a d i c t i o n , of dynamism, a n d Of t h e d i a l e c t i c are

explored i n our next section.

Underminings

( i )The "Gap".

W e b e g i n this s e c t i o n , perhaps oddly, by l o o k i n g a t an absence; a t w h a t

working class consciousness i s n o t about. W e have a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d w h a t

worker resistance is about (making a l i v i n g ) a n d to s m e e x t e n t w h a t it i s

n o t a b o u t (job c o n t e n t , t h e a l i e n a t i o n of l a b o u r , c a p i t a l i s t r e l a t i o n s of

p r o d u c t i o n as such). Here w e want t o observe a "gap" w h i c h has been n o t e d

i n w h a t w e r e called, i n the s t u d i e s (mainly of t h e ' 7 0 s ) which t r i e d t o e x p l o r e

such i s s u e s . 'Workers' images of society".

 -149-
The burden of many such studies, f e w of them sympathetic to t h e cause of

t h e w r k i n g class, has been t o shckv that, beyond t h e most immediate d a i l y

e q e r i e n c e s , t h e grasp of " t h e powerless" on g e n e r a l social i s s u e s i s n o t

o n l y vague b u t f r e q u e n t l y i n t e r n a l l y i n c o n s i s t e n t , b o t h between d i f f e r e n t

i s s u e s and on t h e same i s s u e f r o m one sentence to t h e n e x t . These f i n d i n g s

a r e d u p l i c a t e d i n study after s t u d y , i n c l u d i n g Howard Newby's survey of

a t t i t u d e s t o class among farm workers, (Kewby, 1977), %ward Davis'

comparative s t u d y of c r a f t , steel and clerical workers, ( m v i s , 1978) and

many of t h e articles i n t h e Bulmer c o l l e c t i o n , Working Class Images of

Society (Bulmer, 1975).

Perhaps the clearest w r y of this t k h i s Michael I*Bnn's a r t i c l e on

"The Social Cohesion of L i b e r a l Democracies" (btann, 1970) i n which FPnn

u s e s t h e r e s u l t s of surveys on workers' a t t i t u d e s to a r g u e that t h e o v e r a l l

response of t h e working class to the o b j e c t i v e i n j u s t i c e s and i n e q u a l i t i e s

of s o c i e t y is one of 'praqnatic acceptance". m n n a r g u e s t h a t , rather t h a n

p o s i t i v e l y conforming t o r u l i n g - c l a s s values i n the w a y that previous

s t u d i e s have argued that t h e y must do t o consent, workers are i n fact

i n d i f f e r e n t t o most such v a l u e s (such as "social j u s t i c e " , ttdmocracytt,

"peace"), which are seen a s irrelevaat t o t h e d e t a i l s of t h e i r everyday

l i v e s . Thus, r a t h e r than a n e n t h u s i a s t i c "value consensus" i n t e g r a t i n g

beliefs a b o u t t h e i n d i v i d u a l s ' own p o s i t i o n s w i t h t h e i r a t t i t u d e s to more

g e n e r a l social i s s u e s , w h a t w a s revealed w e r e "schizophrenic" i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s

between the answers to q u e s t i o n s or s t a t e m e n t s l i k e "Do you approve of

Medicare?lt and ' W e should r e l y more on i n d i v i d u a l i n i t i a t i v e ...and ?ot

so much on government welfare programmes" ( t h e f'concretef' q u e s t i o n normally

being answered in t h e affirmative w h i l e the g e n e r a l statement w a s disagreed

w i t h by the same respondent).

T h i s frpquehtly-revealed "gap" between w h a t are p o s s i b l y radical views on

t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s own circumstances and what a r e much more l i k e l y t o be

c o n s e r v a t i v e on more a b s t r a c t i s s u e s combine t o produce a situation in

 -150-

which, as Richard Howrt has g r a p h i c a l l y described i t , %3en people feel

t h a t t h e y cannot do much a b o u t t h e m a i n elements i n t h e i r s i t u a t i o n . . .

they adopt a t t i t u d e s towards that s i t u a t i o n which allow them t o have a l i v e a b l e

l i f e under i t s shadow, a l i f e w i t h o u t a c o n s t a n t s e n s e ' o f t h e larger

s i t u a t i o n " (Hoggart, 1958, p92). A contrast i s t h u s p r e s e n t e d between t h e

workers' 'pragmtic acceptance" of t h e i r avn s i t u a t i o n and t h e i r alternate

n e g l e c t of, or c o n s e r v a t i v e or i n c o n s i s t e n t views on, l a r y r i s s u e s .

-
T h i s "absence", t h i s lack of a c o h e r e n t i n t e g r a t i o n of ruling-class ideology

i n t o t h e practical e x p e r i e n c e of t h e worker, has i t s p a r a l l e l w i t h i n t h e l a b o u r

p r o c e s s i n t h e absence of any p s i t i v e a c c e p t a n c e of managerial ideology a s

t h e basis for worker a c q u i e s c e n c e . Thus t h e need t o work ("you have got to

work ....really a man works because he knows i n his aun h e a r t that h e has

got t o work, i t i s a case of having to do i t r q( N i c h o l s and S y n a n , 1977,

~ 1 3 4 )i s f a t a l i s t i c a l l y acknowledged a s p a r t of t h e b a r g a i n s t r u c k w i t h

capital, a humdrum n e c e s s i t y characterised by Y a r x a s "the d u l l compulsion

of labour".

In t h i s s e n s e , t h e i n d u s t r i a l worker w i t h i n advanced CapiGlism a c c u p i e s

a p l a c e w i t h i n a s t r u c t u r e which p r e s e n t s itself as m.The o b j e c t i v e

p o s i t i o n of m o s t workers is n o t s u c h t h a t t h e y can r e a d i l l . take an overview

of t h e s t r u c t u r e s and s t r a t e g i e s of c a p i t a l i s m . W h i l e capitalists o n i n i t i a t e ,

a n t i c i p a t e and t o a c e r t a i n degree p l a n t h e i r p r o d u c t i o n and i n v e s m - n t

strategies, the view of l a b o u r i s of n e c e s s i t y b o t h n a r r m ' a n d short-term.

Such a p e r s p e c t i v e i s c u l t u r a l l y as w e l l a s economically c o n s t r u c t e d , as i s

shown b y w r i t e r s like W-rt and Paul W i l l i s ( i n his i l l m i n a t i n g a n a l y s i s

of t h e o p p o s i t i o n of workers t o "theory"). But from b o t h p o i n t s of view w e

have t h e o p p o s i t e of t h e v i g o r o u s and explicit "class s t r u g g l e " by workers

a g a i n s t the r e l a t i o n s of p r o d u c t i o n per se propounded by many of the labour

process w r i t e r s d i s c u s s e d above; or, indeed, the e q u a l l y coherent endoresement

of r u l i n g - c l a s s ideology evoked i n t h e o r i e s of "consent".

 -151-
The a i f f e r i n g conceptual %niverse" of labour from that of t h e r u l i n g c l a s s

i s f o r c e f u l l y described i n t h e a n a l y s i s of workersq response to multinational

capital put forward by Haworth and Ramsey i n Workers of t h e World &tiedt*l

(Harrorth and Ramsey, 1985).Lhder the heading, 'Labour &d I n t e r n a t i o n a l

Capital: A D i f f e r e n t Departure" they argue, 'There seems no good reason

for presupposing that t h e universe of a c t i o n and associated organisational

p r i n c i p l e s for a multinational management, and those f o r c o l l e c t i v e ? a t o u r ,

are t h e Same o r even similar (p8)". Developing this argument through an

i n t e r e s t i n g a n a l y s i s of t h e relationship between a b s t r a c t andconcrete labour,

t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e 6nployer is seen as approximating far mre c l o s e l y to the

a b s t r a c t imperatives of p r o f i t a b i l i t y than thaf of the worker t i e d to

concrete labour: "For management purposes, t h e task i s to arrange and secure

t h e input of labour a s a resource, a d j u s t i n g sourcing and c o n t r o l strategies

to minimise t h e cost per u n i t of production. This view of labour as calculative,

o b j e c t i f i e d , impersonal aggregates i s l i k e l y t o become more dominant as

t h e e n t e r p r i s e gmws..." (pll).

Such a perspective, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n i t s implications f o r the gmwth of

multinational and finance capital, " e n t a i l s a f u r t h e r distancing of t h e logic

of multi-national company a c t i v i t y designed t o maximise i t s r e t u r n from the

t r a d i t i o n a l terrain amprehended by labour i n terms of the wages, conditions,

productivity o r p r o f i t a b i l i t y of a s i n g l e plant...In this s e n s e , labour and

capital i n WCs are n o t u e n fighting i n t h e same dimension - out since the

i n i t i a t i v e is capital's, labour's counter b l a v s simply f i n d no t a n g h l e

opponent o n which to land" ( p l l ) .

Wworth and Wmsey's argument, w n i l e displaying a refreshing, and productive,

appreciation of c u r r e n t i n d u s t r i a l realities, nevertheless must be seem as

perms over-uupbsising the "perlessness" end of the spectrum of capital-

labour celatiars. Y e t the absence of a cohercnt world v i m on the part of

vorkers, involving as i t docs a non-accsptpnce, i n practice, of ruling-class

views of hcw the world mrks, i s not without i t s oum subversiv= or c e n
 -153-

The same element of fear, on a more 'kicro", shopfloor level, i s shavn

by Pollert t o d i s s i p a t e t h e incipient r e s i s t a n c e and s o l i d a r i t y among thtj

workers i n her case study: "...they w e r e stuck i n a r u t of fear - fear of

lack of backing f r a n the union, fear of l a c k of support f r o m each other.

The shop-floor was f r a q n e n t e d by m i s t r u s t and individualisn, i n s p i t e of t h e

importance of personal friendship and 'mucking in''' (Pollert, 1981, p181).

A t t h e basis of this fear, a s Pollert shows clearly, w e r e the u n c e r t a i n t i e s

attached to the grading system, carrying with than t h e cunstant fear of

bcing downgraded, so that "Insecurity about proficiency performance standards

had turned fomc women i n t o compulsive workers11(~182).

Linhart locates t h e same elcment of fear i n h physical s t r u c t u r e of the

labour process itself: "Fear oozes o u t of the factory because t h e factory,

a t the most elementary, obvious l e v e l , constantly t h r e a t e n s the men i t uses.

When there's no boss i n s i g h t , and we forget the informers, it's t h e Cars

t h a t are watching us through their measured progress, our rn tools t h a t

are threatening us a t the s l i g h t e s t i n a t t e n t i o n , t h e gears on the l i n e t h a t

are c a l l i n g us to order i n brutual fashion. The d i c t a t o r s h i p of the r n e r s

i s exercised here i n the first place by thc all-powerfulness of the

objects" (Linhart, 1978, p65).

Hdkever, d e s p i t e the pressure on time, and despite the fear, L i n h a r t does

d i s t i n g u i s h the beginnings of resistance, which f o r him r e s i d e not only i n

the t y p s of IPW caused by the chopping off of a minute fran the break, ht

also i n "Attitudes, too. Holding yourself straight. Taking as much care as

possible with ywr clothes". Linhart sees the clotkroap as an important

c e n t r e of this fundamental resistance; here workers t r a n s f o m d themselves

from the d n b l n d l i a t i o n of their ipagc i n the f a c t o r y i n t o mart,

iamaculate presences for vhrm there is hope of being o l l c d 'mister' .e*

Subjective though t h i s form of response may seem, for Linhart *'It's here,

i n these minute si-s of resistance that I ob- every day, lore than i n
 -154-

political a n a l y s i s , t h a t I find zeal r e a s o n s for hope. A t the worst

moments of exasperation there's still a vagm, almost unconscious,

c e r t a i n t y that there's a subterranean paver q u i t e n e a r , and one d a y i t w i l l

break out" (p67-68).

I t is t h i s "subterranean power", and t h e channels through which i t does

break o u t , which we now propose t o examine.

( i i ) A Me1 for class Consciousness?

In c r i t i c i s i n g , as above, the straightforward i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of worker

"acquiescence't w i t h acceptance of managerial l e g i t i m a c y and/or r u l i n g - c l a s s

ideology, w e have attempted to indicate the other side of the -in to this

"non-acceptance1f; the r o o t i n g of r e s i s t a n c e i n e a m o m i s t i c struggles which

themselves are untrainnelled by any ideological preconceptions. The i n s i s t e n c e ,

i n s t i g a t e d by A l t h u s s r and fellw "Western f.amst" writers, and propounded

mst emphatically w i t h i n the labour process debate by Burawy, t h a t

ideological and political s t r u c t u r e s must be seen as " o v e r d e t e m i n i n g t ~or

integrated i n t o the economic base, s p e c i f i c a l l y d e n i e s the p o t e n t i a l afforded

by the "absence*' of ideology for such struggles, which, when t h e y are

considered at 111, are seen as embodying an i n h e r e n t incorporationism or

"consent". kkwever, to regard any s e p a r a t i o n between base and ( r u l i n g )

s u p e r s t r u c t u r e as invoking a crude d e t e r m i n i s t model i n w h i c h the economic

base shapes e x i s t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s i s to iplore the whole u n d e d n i n p role

of c o n t r a d i c t i o n s a t the base and their ocpression i n the axmaaistic

activity of workers.

This emphasis on t h e ideological itself i n fact iprores s m e aspects w l a t i n g

to t h e mots of class consciousness which, a s Johsm arg.res i n his

caaanntary on Althusser, should have been included. ' W e m i g h t oqwct i t

(Althusser's ideological State Apparatuses. essay) to deliver an account of

the forms of class struggle i n ideology: the way i n which u p i u l and the

agencies of the capitalist s t a t e seek to secure the r e p r o d u c t i m of a w r k i n g

 -155-
class i n a form appropriaee t o the requirements of accumulation and the

ways i n w h i c h , on t h e basis of t h e i r own cconanic conditions of existence,

proletarians s t r u g g l e a g a i n s t t h i s process" (Johnson, 1979, p219) (my italics).

In general, as w a s suggested earlier, such argments oycremphasise the

universal hold of ideblogy a t the expense of any rccoqition of t h e w l a t i l i t y

and sudden changes of consciousness w h i c h can occur within the working class.

Perhaps fortunately, w e can p o i n t to flaws w i t h i n A l t h u s x r ' s cnvn argument

which reduce its force a s a back-up to t h i s %tatic" v i e w of class

consciousness. h e example of these is the way i n which the concept of

"ideology" i s conflated with ideological i n s t i t u t i o n s such as schools and

the family so that these become ideological c o n s t r u c t s i n t e r n s of which

ideology i s presented a s a material force. I n a similar i d e n t i f i c a t i o n

of representation w i t h a c t u a l i t y , t h e reproduction of c a p i t a l i s presented

as being carried o u t & ideology r a t h e r than as a set of econanic relations

d a t e d by a capitalist state which may w e l l use ideology as one of i t s

weapons.

Both these a r w e n t s demonstrate a perspective in which ideology i s

d i s t o r t e d l y seen as a material force rather than a m e d i u m through which

ideas which j u s t i f y the particular material basis of a society are conveyed.

A s such not only does Althusser's work suffer fran some basic conceptual

errors; it also producer political mistakes which flaw f m these. In

~~hnson'swords: 'We are returned to a very familiar model of one-dimensional

control i n which a l l sense of struggle or contradiction i s lost" ( ~ 2 2 2 ) .

Interestingly, the f a i l u r e of Buraur~yi n his turn to r m s e the

mle of contradiction ( i n fact elsewhere Le spc;rks of the "concrete

c o e d i n a t i o n of i n t e r e s t s " between labour and c a p i t a l ) i s reflected i n his

-licit r e j e c t i o n of m y conccption of a q x x i f i o a l l y capitPlist labour

process. criticising w h a t is yet a&n rlleged t o be Braverman's theory of

 -156-
the separation of conception and execution in terms of -genal dosination,

he w r i t e s : Were we s h a l l pursue a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t course, d e f i n i n g t h e

labour process by the social r e l a t i o n s i n t o which men and -n e n t e r i n order

to produce useful things. I call these s o d a 1 r e l a t i o n s between and among Worker:

relations i n production. These must be distinwised frcm the r e l a t i o n s of

exploitation between labour and sapital. Whereas t h e former refer to the

organiaationof tasks, the latter refer to the r e l a t i o n s through which

surplus i s pumped out of t h e d i r e c t producer" (Burawoy, 1985, p13).

In t h i s way a separation i s invoked i n which " r e l a t i o n s of exploitation"

a s p a r t of the o v e r a l l r e l a t i o n s of production, bemme w h a t is politically

specific to the capitalist mode of production and thus, political

r e l a t i o n s , require "reproducing" within the labour process i t s e l f : 'I.. .

we refer not t o t h e c a p i t a l i s t labour process b u t t o t h e l a b o u r process in

c a p i t a l i s t society. Once a notion of the labour process a s t h e unity/

separation of conception and execution i s replaced w i t h a relational notion,

thc emphasis shifts f r a u a question of dunination to one of reproducinq

social r e l a t i o n s " (p14).

W h a t i s not apparent here is that, rather timn politics and ideology being

integrated i n t o the labour process under capitalism, the **imperatives'' of

capitalism i t s e l f ( p r o f i t a b i l i t y , caapetitivmess, accumulation) a r e

i n t e g r a t t d i n t o and s t r u c t u r e the production process. There is no separatim,

such as IUrawoy imagines, between r e l a t i o n s of and relations i n production;

the first, as w e t r i e d to s h a ~when examining "control" chapter 2, umstructs

the second. In this way, production of surplus value (whether "obscured" or

0theniSc)is the p i v o t around which managerial c o n s t r a i n t s and workinw3ass

resistance xwolve.

To present r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n the capitalist labour process c e n t r a l l y in

terns of overt p o l i t i a processes i s to alar no scope for the conccptian

of any relationship between the actual c c a d s t i c resistance w h i c h d s t s
 -157-

t h e labour process and a challenge to j u s t those overall r e l a t i o n s

of production which are placed foremost on t h e agenda by Ebrawoy and other

writers. Father, political awareness ot "class consciousness" is left as

sanething which w i l l emerge, Athene-like, fnrn the heads of mrkers w h o

suddenly apprehend (perhaps w i d e d by i n t e l l e c t u a l s ) t h a t what they have been

"reproducing" a l l this t h e i s not the f i r m ' s product, but the r e l a t i o n s of

production. Such an u l t i m a t e l y mechanistic view of consciousness is rooted

i n i t s turn i n a f a i l u r e to perceive the nature of t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between

superstructure and base.

A similar view of the p o s s i b i l i t y , or n e c e s s i t y , of swrkers some*

achieving a fully-fledged "class consciousness" i s e f f e c t i v e l y dis-ted

by W r e h o u s e i n his c r i t i q u e , referred to above, of t h e "typologies'' of

Goldthorpe and Lockwood, Giddens and Fgnn. As he remarks: "The first p o i n t

t o make about a l l these e l e g a n t constructions is t h e emphasis p u t on

i n t e l l e c t u a l understanding as an apparently necessary precondition for a l l

radical action. secondly, i t should be noted that they seem to as- that

a l l , and c e r t a i n l y a majority, of the working class should a t t a i n 'revolutionary

consciousness' or ' g r a s p the alternatives' before any radical a c t i o n i s

possible" ( b o r h o u s e , 1976, p471).

And y e t , as hwrhouse shws i n his avn survey of p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a r e n t

strike, radical attitudes o f t e n exist amongst workers a t , 80 to speak, a

%ubliminal'\ d i s j o i n t e d and fragnented level, activated and f u e l l e d by

struggles which arise cpartaneaudy Out of the material pressures w h i c h

force workers to take a c t i o n . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between consciousness and

action is, then, c l e a r l y an i n t e r a c t i v e o r dialectical one i n which practice

o r experience forms t'thcory" and vice versa - the u n i t y to which Grapld

q v e the name t'praxislt.

And w h a t i s i t that begins this process, that provides the c a t a l y s t w h i c h

may force workers, if only f o r a t i m e . o u t of their "pramtic acceptance"

amd a t least raise t h e questionof a challenge to the e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e ?

Over and over, both i n major events of history and t h e smalldscale

"subterraneant' u n r e s t of the c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r process, class s t r u g g l e s

have been shum t o Irexplode" o u t o f , to be triggered by, the contradictions

within capitalism which have their d a i l y material impact on workers' l i v e s .

For vivid i l l u s t r a t i o n of this p o i n t w e need look no f u r t h e r than our two

sources on lteooncxnism" or "instnrmentalisn" referred t o above, both of w h i c h

were forced to a t least p a r t i a l l y eat their w o r d s by events which follcnued

their deliberations. In the case of Goldthorpe and Lockwood, a s w e have

seen, p r a c t i c a l m f u t a t i o n came hard on t h e h e e l s of their dismissal of

trsolidarity" for Vauxhall's car workers, i n t h e shape of a n a l l d u t strike

and "riot" over t h e Z E % recbrction i n w a g e s caused by a four-day week. 'Ihis,

combined with profit f i g u r e s which had r e c e n t l y been issued shaving General

?&tors w e l l ahead of Ford and "EX", spurred the two thousand strong workforce

i n t o %cenes...with men singing 'The Red Flag' and c a l l i n g ' S t r i n g him up'

whenever a director's name was mentioned" which "made yesterday's demonstration

outside the executive offices seem mild" according to t h e contemporary Times -

report.

I\roimportant f e a t u r e s emerge fmm an event Such a s this; i t s *kxplosive"

character, and the emergence of underlying h o s t i l i t y a g a i n s t management and

'profits" which without a specific trigger re l a t i n g to h e d i a t e problems

of making a l i v i n g w k l l tend to remain dormant. Mann, indeed, has recocpised

t h i s "exqldsiveness" p o i n t w i t h o u t a l l w i n g it tis f u l l implications in terms

of an expression of underlying contradictions w h i c h may take the ensuing

struggle beyond i t s inmediate cause. To the credit Of Goldthorpe and Loda*ood.

"real evonts" d i d cause them to reconsider their original conclusions; as

Westerwrd (1970)uannents. t h e study's "insufficient s e n s i t i v i t y to the

contradictions of rorWng class wndwsness, and e s p e c i a l l y to the nature

of the l a t e n t p o t e n t i a l for change suggested by those contradictions" (1973)

gives way to "a rccoQlitim by the a u t h o r s of just such an uncertainty, just
c -159-
such c o n t r a d i c t i o n s , i n t h e prospects for the f u t u r e " (131) i n their

third, post-strike 'Luton monograph". A t thesame time Westerpard n o t e s

c r i t i c a l l y "the assumption - maintained from t h e ealier reports of the

study - t h a t production r e l a t i o n s , the worker's employment s i t u a t i o n , are

u n l i k e l y to be a source of social t e n s i o n or to engender more than localised

and ' i n s t r u m e n t a l l y , directed conflict" (~132).

Any such assumption w a s , of c o u r s e , r a t h e r more s p e c t a c u l a r l y r e f u t e d

by the 1905 wave of strikes and unsuccessful r e v o l u t i o n a r y u p r i s i n g s a f e w

years after the p u b l i c a t i o n of What Is To Be Done. Lenin himself w r o t e i n

response to this corollary of " e c o n m i s t i c " s t r u g g l e s :

'%e is s t r u c k by the amazingly r a p i d shift of t h e movement from the

purely cconaoic to the political ground, by the tremendous s o l i d a r i t y and

energy d i s p l a y e d by hundreds and thousands of p r o l e t a r i a n s - and a l l this,

notwithLtandlng the fact that conscious Social Democratic influence is

lacking o r i s but s l i g h t l y evidentV(Lenin, 1962, 92-3).

Later, on the eve of the 1917 r e v o l u t i o n , h e d e v e l o p e d this p o s i t i o n still

further: "A s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o l e t a r i a n weapon of struggle - the strike - was

-
the p r i n c i p l e means of b r i n g i n g the resses i n t o motion. . M y strugPe
e&cates t h e exploited class...The econanic s t r u g g l e , the struggle for

inmediate and direct improvement of c o n d i t i o n s , is alone capable of m u s i n g

the most backward strata of the ucploited masses...." (Lenin, 1964, p239-42).

tiii) Grapscian Caeplexities

Such c o n c r e t e events, as w e l l as theoretical m n s i d e r a t i o n s , c a n provide us,

then, w i t h a more complex view b o t h of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between econamistic

struggles (which as w e have !seen are i n reality the major form of struggle of

thc w r k i n g class) and broadar political structures. and, a s w e see below,

the cyclical i n t e r a c t i o n between prarsroots s p o n t e n e i t y and refornisn.

Few c a n have expressed such c o m p l e x i t i e s .ore s u p e r l a t i v e l y than G r a m s c i .

despite the fact that his r e u x m i t i o n of "the a u t o m a t i c t h r u s t due to the

 -160-
econoroic factor" appears to have been l a r g e l y ignored by those more

i n t e r e s t e d i n an a l l - e n c l o s i n g "hegemony'!.

Some of G r a m s c i ' s most p e n e t r a t i n g remarks on the actual n a t u r e of

w o r k i n p c l a s s consciousness came i n the s e c t i o n of t h e prison Notebooks

e n t i t l e d "The Study of Philosophy" i n which he first discusses the notion

of ~*canwnsense" i n a manner reminiscent of t h e 'pragnatic acceptance"

noted by our '70s sociologists. While r e c o m i s i n g that such *philosophical"

a t t i t u d e s "contain an i m p l i c i t i n v i t a t i o n to resignation and patience"

Gramsci nevertheleks a r g u e s t h a t "the most important p o i n t i s rather the

i n v i t a t i o n to people to reflect and to realise f u l l y that whatever happens

is rational and must be confronted as such..." (Grarnsci, 1971, 3 2 8 ) .

In this way G r a m s c i d r a w s a connection between workers' lack of impetuous

"radicalism" and t h e i r r e c o w i t i o n of economic r e a l i t y , a p o i n t w h i c h was

discussed on page 38 above. -ever, e x i s t i n g "philosophies" are shaun to

by no means relate unprobliematically to action:

"Various philosophies or conceptions of the rrorld exist, and one always

makes a choice between then. HW is this choice made? Is it merely an

i n t e l l e c t u a l event, or is i t sanething more mmplex? And i s i t not

frequently the case that there i s a c o n t r a d i c t i o n between one's i n t e l l e c t u a l

choice and one's nude of conduet? Which t h e r e f o r e would be the real

conception of theworld: that l o g i c a l l y affirmed as an i n t e l l e c t u a l choice?

or that which .lerges from the red1 a c t i v i t y of each man, which i s implicit

i n his mode of action?" (Gramsci, 1971, p326).

The % m t r a o t betwen thought and action" thus a r w d is shown, w h e r e it

m a r s i n "the l i f e of g r e a t masses" to be the expression of the more

fundamental amtmsts, between ideology and experience, which exist within

the d a l system itself. In this way V t ugrifies that the social group

i n question m y indeed have its cun concrption of the rarld, even i f only

embryonic; a concoption which manifests itself i n action, hut occasionally

 -161-

and i n flashes...But this Same group has...adopted a conception w h i c ! is

not i t s own b u t i s borrcwed from another group; and i t affinns this conception

verbally and b e l i e v e s i t s e l f to be following it, because t h i s i s t h e

conception w h i c h i t follows i n 'normal times' - that i s when i t s conduct

is not independent and autonanous, b u t sutmissive and subordinate') ( ~ 3 2 7 ) .

Ihe c o n t r a s t which G r a m s c i d r a w s between periods of s t r u g g l e by workers

(and these can be extremely "parochial", as both my own and o t h e r case

s t u d i e s shcNI, y e t still create this p r i s i n p a a y from accepted frameworks)

and V~oxmal times" is i n itself illuminating. Harever, as a direct corollary

of his recognition of the i n t e r m i t t e n t , "flashing" n a t u r e of working-class

resistance and consciousness (recognised i n similar tems by Anna Fullert:

%eneath the general l u l l i n the factory, i n t e r e s t f l a s h e d o u t , then died

dam, j u s t l i k e phosphorus" (Pollert, 1981, p212). G r a m s c i ' s a p p r e c i a t i o n

of the e s s e n t i a l l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y n a t u r e of such consciousness i s even more

pertinent:

"The active man-in-the-mass has a p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t y , b u t has no clear

t h e o r e t f c a l consciousness of his p r a c t i c a l a c t i v i t y , which none-the-less

involves understanding the world i n s o f a r as i t t r a n s f o m s it. His theoretical

consciousness can %ndeedb historically i n opposition t o his a c t i v i t y . h e

m i g h t almost say that he has two theoretical consciousnesses (or one

contradictory consciousness) : one w h i c h i s implicit i n his a c t i v i t y and which

i n r e a l i t y unites him with a l l his fellas-workers i n the p r a c t i c a l

transformation of the real world; and one, s u p e r f i c i a l l y a p l i c i t and verbal,

which he has i n h e r i t e d from the past and u n c r i t i c a l l y absorbed') (~3%).

'Ihis p o i n t is crucial to our am a r w t . If i t i s reuxmised that the

'practical a c t i v i t y t t of t h e worker, itself fuelled by objective circumstances

and as ouch not the p d c t of any -licit '~consciousness", a n undermine

and undercut those o m c e p t i o n s of the world imposed by the daninant hegemmy,

w e can r e t a i n a mdti-dioensional, open-ended view of c l a s s struggle i n w h i c h

 -162-

t h e e x p e r i e n c e of c o n t r a d i c t i o n s a t t h e base can be s e e n to have t h e

p o t e n t i a l of pushing workers through t h e ideological barrier.

A p r a c t i c a l i l l u s t r a t i o n of the c o n t r a d i c t i o n s to w h i c h G r a m s c i refers i s

afforded by the shop stewards i n the Edwards and - S c u l l i o n s t u d y d i s c u s s e d

earlier. Here,while t h e stewards f u l l y accepted t h e managerial

(and c a p i t a l i s t ) goal of 'production", their m actions i n defence of their

a m b e r s c o n t i n u a l l y undermined that goal. A s the a u t h o r s p u t it: "There was,

a s i t w e r e , an unconscious fom of r e s i s t a n c e whereby stewards' everyday

p r a c t i c e s challenged managerial r i g h t s i n many ways eventhough their

a r t i c u l a t e d ideology involved & b e n t to the same aim ef producing large

numbers of hi-uality p r o d u c t s " (Edwards and Scullion, 1982, p198). Thus

the a c c e p t a n c e of managerial noms, l i k e t h e agreement w i t h broad areas of

r u l i n g class ideology, i n n o way implies a c o h e r e n t course of a c t i o n i n t u n e

w i t h such conceptions.

Conclusions

e have been concerned, i n t h i s c h a p t e r , to show f i r s t of a l l t h a t worker

W

r e s i s t a n c e i n the l a b o u r process i s %cancanistic" (rather than c e n t r e d on

the depand for c o n t r o l ) and secondly t h a t such econanistic a c t i o n need not

be dismissed as i n c o r p o r a t i m i s t ht has dynamic, subversive and c h a l l e n g i n g

implications. Such r e s i s t a n c e , moreover, is n o t the r e s u l t of a n explicit

rejection of ruling-class i d e o l o g y but of t h e impact of c o n t r a d i c t i o n s which

mifest themselves w h a t e w r the apparent strength of state hegemony.

In this sense w e arrive at an a n a l y s i s which i n fact has more far-reaching

"radical" implications t h a n o n e r e l y i n g on a f u l l y - f l e d g e d appreciation by

workers of political forms of domination, coupled with a mherent struggle

for cantml. Were these the c o n d i t i o n s for breaking through the e x i s t i n g

impasse, there m u l d indeed be gIounds for the assumption which w e have seen

as implicit i n A l t h u s s e r that there i s no m y out, or a t least none w h i c h can

be i n i t i a t e d by workers. Ihther, we Imve tried to p o i n t to the positive

r

-163-

implication of everyday working-class s t r u g g l e s for c l e a r i n g away, even

for a short time, t h e m y s t i f i c a t i o n s of r u l i n w l a s s ideology.

In doing so w e have emphasised contradiction, and t h e pressures which push

workers i n t o s t r u g g l e as a r e s u l t of these c o n t r a d i c t i o n s . W e v e r , such

struggles are important not o n l y i n expressing t h e d a i l y impact of the c a p i t a l -

labour r e l a t i o n on workers, b u t also i n themselves generating forms of

organisation and experience which provide an ongoing material s t r u c t u r e

for the defence of working-class i n t e r e s t s . As Ruth Cavendish describes the

aftermath of the strike a t UMX:

T h e whole t h i n g wasn't a complete f a i l u r e . Cur stewards were much better

and eventually might have some way on the Works Gxmittee. It gave us g r e a t e r

strength on the shopfloor *o have more of them. People got to knw each o t h e r

better and w e f e l t much closer to workers i n otherparts of the factory who

had supported US. I t marked a breakthrough i n w h a t the wawnck?ed &...Next

time, they would make sure everyone stuck it o u t together to the bitter end"

(Cavendish, 1982, p155).

Recognising that working-class s t r u g g l e s might i n themselves be t r a n s i t o r y ,

W r x made the same p o i n t regarding the *ins i n terms of organisation: "Nw

and then the workers are v i c t o r i o u s , tut only for a time..The real f r u i t of

the battle lies, not i n the M a t e results, b u t i n the cver-expanding

union of the wrkers" (Wrx, 1933, p235).

m i s p o i n t regarding the process of struggle, i n terms of i t s creation of

w o r k i n M a s s ideas, experience and organisation, has two impxtant implicit-

ions. The first i s that battles by workers cannot and are not fought o n l y

on t h e gxvund of ideas. Organisation i s a crucial dimension i n t h e dwelop-

ment of consciousness, and organicration cannot be b u i l t around ideas alone;

it has to have .ow practical target, aane material sanction such as the

w i t l - d r a w a l of labour or rent.
 -164-

The second p o i n t relates to w h a t has to be recognised as the outcome of

most such struggles i n terms of accommodation and compromise. Working class

s t r u g g l e s b u i l d working class organisations, and these have not t r a d i t i o n a l l y

been concerned to challenge t h e system. Y e t theprocess of s t r u g g l e , the

impetus towards o r g a n i s a t i o n , continue to create their own independent

b t e r p r e t a t i o n s of t h e w o r l d .

This p o i n t i s recognised by Richard Hyman, who, with G r a m s c i , characterises

reformism or trade union consciousness as a n e s s e n t i a l l y ambivalent response

to the need by the working class to f i g h t for, and have represented, i t s

cwn i n t e r e s t s . Questioning L e n i n i s t assertions on the limits of spontaneous"

trade union consciousness, Hyman sets o u t a more open, dialectical perspective

i n which trade union struggles, hwever " e c d s t " may n e v e r t h e l e s s alert

wrkers' m i n d s fb f u r t h e r questioning of the type of s o c i e t y they l i v e i n .

Ihe two s i d e s of this crucial ambivalence most explored by G r a m s c i w e r e

f i r s t l y the tendencies tamrds i n t e g r a t i o n and b u r e a c r a t i s a t i o n always

i n h e r e n t i n trade unionism, and secondly its positive c o n t r i b u t i o n to working

class cohesion, o r g a n i s a t i o n and confidence.

The success of trade unions i n winning real refoms for t h e working class

has been oeen by scnne r e v o l u t i o n a r i e s as a fatal block t o the growth of

revolutionary consciousness among thevorking class; here, Hyman argues,

the crucial question i s E these reforms are achieved and how workers see

the g a i n s made. W uses Lenin's -le of the %read" to shcnv this:

"In a s m a l l working-class house in... Petrograd, dinner i s being served.

The hostess p u t s bread on t h e table. The host says, 'Look w h a t f i n e bread.

llhoytt dare not give us bad bread naw.. .

l

"I was .mazed a t this c l a s s appmsal of the A l y days...As for bread, I, w h o

had not kKwn want, did not give it a thwght...This member of the oprressed
 -165-

class, hauever,...takes the b u l l by t h e horns with that a s t o n i s h i n g simplicity

and straightfonvardness...from which w e i n t e l l e c t u a l s are a s remote as

the stars i n the sky...

"'We squeezed Vhem" a b i t ; 9 h e y " won't &re to lord i t over u s as they d i d

before. W e ' l l squeeze again - and chuck them o u t a l t o g e t h e r ' ; that's hau

t h e worker thinks and feels" (Lenin, 1917, ~ 1 2 0 ) .

However, Hyman also recognises t h e other elements i n trade unionism which,

centring as they do around mutinism and accaamodation and a t r a d i t i o n of

"defence not defiance", tend to f a l l i n t o t h e gap between consciousness which

may be raised by concrete struggles, and a n y f u r t h e r a c t i o n . While acknowledp

ing such l i m i t a t i o n s , w e conclude by emphasising t h e i r i n t e r v e n i n g role i n

"heading-off" or d i s s i p a t i n g working class struggles, rather than preventing

such s t r u g g l e s a t t h e o u t s e t . Grams& expresses the same p o i n t , as i t w e r e ,

i n reverse:

"....mass ideological factors always l a g behind mass economic phenomena,

and... therefore, a t c e r t a i n mOments, the automatic t h r u s t due to the eoonaaic

f a c t o r i s slaved down. obstructed or even momentarily broken by t r a d t i o n a l

ideological elements - hence...there must be a conscious, planned s t r u g g l e

t o ensure t h a t t h e e d g e n c i e s of t h e econanic p o s i t i o n of the masses...are

understood" ( G r a m s c i , 1971, ~ 1 6 8 ) .

The impetus required to a c t u a l l y challenge the "nonorrpal", to overthrcw

w h a t i s and always has been the worker's framework of existence, i s

enonnous. Nevertheless to ac)oxwledge that hegepony has continued to

triumph " f r o m the top", reinforced by the vWorking-class ideology" of

refonnisn, must not be to assume that hegmony is s t r u c t u r e d i n t o the

mots of w o r k i n M a s s -rience. Thesubversive p o t e n t i a l of "cconamistic"

struggles continues.
 -166-
C " E R SIX

Case Study Cme

Before p r e s e n t i n g t h e first of two case s t u d i e s , it w i l l be useful

to review the theoretical concerns w h i c h w e r e subjected to empirical

test.

Theoretical Concerns

The thesis so far has focussed on t h r e e areas;

1) C r i t i c i s m of the "control" p e r s p e c t i v e which has doninated theory on

work and the labour process pre and post-Braverman.

I t w a s suggested (chapter 2) that the use of "control" as a c e n t r a l

concept i n analysing the labour process rested on an assumption t h a t

social r e l a t i o n s h i p s between management and theworkforce are a primary

factor defining the n a t u r e of the labour process, s p e c i f i c a l l y i n terms

of domination and subordination. This i n i t s t u r n rested on a conception

of t h e workforce a s fundamentally r e s i s t i n g the a l i e n a t i o n of i t s labour

and therefore r e q u i r i n g "subordination" i n a political sense i n o r d e r to

coerce it i n t o surrendering labour. Both assumptions w e r e criticised as

ignoring the material basis for managerial objectives and worker response

within the labour process.

2) The advance of an alternative theory of e x p l o i t a t i o n as the c e n t r a l

focus of s t r u c t u r e and response within the c a p i t a l i s t labour process.

I t w a s argued (Chapter 3) that the organising p r i n c i p l e of t h e c a p i t a l i s t

labour process should be seen as c e n t r i n g on t h e need to extract s u r p l u s

value a t s o c i a l l y competitive rates, This has the following consequences:

a ) a continual drive by management to shorten necessary labour t i m e s .

b) a corresponding impact on workers i n terms of t h e increased

i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of labour.

c ) Labour can be wst u s e f u l l y understood w i t h i n t h i s framework as

abstract labour, i e labour of which t h e g u a n t i t y expressed as time/output

 -1C7 -
i s more important t h a l h i t s q u a l i t y .

3 ) ~ s m i n i n gthe content and i m p l i c a t i o n s of worker response/ r e s i s t a n c e

mm a review of e x s i t i n g case studies (chapter 4) i t w a s concluded

that worker r e s i s t a n c e (both covert and o v e r t ) revolves p r i m a r i l y

around economic i s s u e s . AlienMion of labour i n itself w a s n o t a focus

of r e s i s t a n c e . Surrendering of labour w a s seen a s an acceptable part of

the employment bargain ( " w i l l i n g e s s to work") though above a c e r t a i n

level i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of labour would be resisted for a number of reasons

including simple i n c a p a c i t y 6s w e l l as economic factors such as the

maintenance of piecework norms). While r e s i s t a n c e was an e x p r e s u o n of

i n h e r e n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n s w i t h i n the labour process and w a s p r i m a r i l y

ewnomistic, i t evoked political i m p l i c a t i o n s r e l a t i n g to t h e s e contrad-

i c t i o n s and to i s s u e s of class mbd ownership.

In r e l a t i o n t o these theoretical concerns t h e e m p i r i c a l research sought

to test the following hypotheses:

a ) Management would be p r i m a r i l y concerned with material factors such

as labour cost/labour time reduction, rather than w i t h t h e political task

of maintaining domination over the wrkforce.

b) Workers w o u l d experience t h e labour process primarily i n terms of

q u a n t i t y zather than q u a l i t y of labour

c ) Resentment/resistance would occur p r i m a r i l y over economic i s s u e s

centred on the effortlreward r e l a t i o n s h i p , n o t issues Of llcontrol".

These hypotheses and t h e i r theoretical framewurk embrace f o u r major

variables: reduction of labour t i m e , i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of labour, a b s t r a c t i o n

of labour and t h e s t r u c t u r a l determinants of r e s i s t a n c e . These are

pursued within the t h r e e main s e c t i o n s of t h e case study report;

mnagement Objectives, Worker Experience of the Labour Process, and

Worker Resistance.
 -162-
Overall, i n t h e l i g h t of our c r i t i q u e of some of the key themes i n the

labour process debate, and t h e a t t e n p t to establish an a l t e r n a t i v e

a n a l y s i s centred on e x p l o i t a t i o n , the research set o u t t o assess

a ) t h e r e l a t i v e importance for wrkers of "control" v a r i a b l e s such

as "discretion", "autonomy", influence on working methods etc. and

the i s s u e s of reward and effort on which our theoretical approach has

centred

b) w o r k e r s ' a t t i t u d e s to the a l i e n a t i o n of their l a b o u r and whether

or n o t t h i s was i n itself a focus of resistance; i f n o t , w h a t were t h e

t r i g g e r s of wert c o n f l i c t

c ) for mana-ent, the r e l a t i v e importance of c o n s i d e r a i o n s of "control"

i n terms of r e l a t i o n s w i t h the wrkforce and their possibly repressive

function, as opposed to considerstions of cost and p r o f i t a b i l i t y .

Research a t Landis and Gyr

1) Research s e t t i n g

The research w a s carried o u t i n t h e London p l a n t of Landis & Gyr, a

B r i t i s h - b a s e d multinational d n u f a c t u r i n g e l e c t r i c i t y m e t e r s , ceptral

heating p r o g d n g c o n t r o l s , and same telephone equipment. The London

p l a n t employed mughly 450 of whom 240 w e r e t h e direct production

manual workers on w h a o the research was focused. The p l a n t manufactured

most of i t s wm parts for assembly i n t o t h e f i n i s h e d product, and the

factory floor w a s therefore divided i n t o manufacturing and assembly

areas, t h e former w i t h a predominantly male workforce and the latter

predominantly fanale. The production process began w i t h bakelite p e l l e t s

being melted davn and moulded i n t o meter and prograormer u n i t cases i n

the moulding shop. The m e t a l p a r t s f o r t h e products, including most

screws, cogs etc. w e r e produced i n the adjacent Press shop, then plated

and finished. I n i t i a l assembly w a s carried o u t i n the Light Machine Shop

and f i n a l assembly i n t h e assembly area, which was divided i n t o peter,

 -164-

d i a l and programming departments. The main difference between the

manufacturing and assembly areas w a s t h a t work i n the former w a s machine-

based whereas the assembly w a s carried out almost e n t i r e l y 'With handsf*.

The management s t r u c t u r e i n the f a c t o r y w a s f a i r l y complex, w i t h b o t h

l i n e and staff functions w e l l represented. An o v e r a l l Works Director

presided over two superintendents. one manufacturing and one assembly,

each of whom had both foremen and chargehands supervising t h e i r separate

departments. Gn t h e staff side w e r e a production cnntrol manager, a work

study manager (as w e l l a s , temporarily, a work study consultant w h o had

been involved i n t h e recent job re-measurement exercise), a personnel

manager, q u a l i t y control manager, production engineering manager and

factory accountant. T h e r e w a s also a post known as Cperations Executive

occupied by t h e man w h o had been supplanted by the new Works Director,

and w h o was ncw e f f e c t i v e l y his deputy.

2) Interviewing schedule

Over a period of approximately 6 weeks 44 interviews w e r e carried o u t ,

14 of which w e r e with management, 2 with foremen, 3 w i t h shop stewards and

25 w i t h the direct workforce. Among management, t h e Q u a l i t y Control

Manager, A s s e m b l y Superintendent and Personnel Manager w e r e interviewed

twice. A l l t h e major management representatives w e r e interviewed, two o u t

of six d i r e c t production foremen, seven o u t of fourteen shop stewards and

22 out of about 200 d i r e c t production workers (more w e r e spoken to during

observation). A comparatively s m a l l number and proportion of foremen and

shop stewards w e r e interviewed because t h e i r position w a s seen as less

c e n t r a l to the concerns of the research.

I n addition to internixwing, informal "observation" took place m the

shop floor, a f h r d i n g aany opportunities for '2cmuents f r o m workers

w h i c h are reproduced b z l w ( i t is indicated whether a m e n t s w e r e recorded

i n observation o r interview). h r i n g t h e period of t h e research I attended

 -170-

one management meeting and, during the tw>-week dispute which began

two weeks after the start of t h e research, t h r e e s t r i k e meetings.

3) Recent History and Current S i t u a t i o n

The s i t u a t i o n i n t h e factory a t the t i m e of the research w a s daainated

by the i s s e of "performance", i e the number of u n i t s a worker w a s

scheduled t o produce i n a set t i m e under t h e w o r k measurement system

(mo r Methods-Time Measurement. The d e t a i l s of the system a r e discussed

i n s e c t i o n 2 b e l o w ) . The e x i s t i n g performance s t a n d a r d s w e r e t h e r e s u l t

of a widespread "remeasurement exercise" on job t i m e s which had been i n

progress i n t h e f a c t o r y over a number of years and had only recently

been completed. T h i s exercise had been preceded i n 1975 with the

introduction of a new job evaluation system and had culminated i n agree-

m e n t s over t h e l a s t two years (1982 and 1983) which traded d e t a i l e d

productivity provisions for specific percentage increases. T h i s approach

had been i n i t i a t e d by the new Works D i r e c t o r , brought i n t o the company

i n e a r l y 1981 as p a r t of a management shakeup. The 1983 agreement which

he had co-ordinated was p a r t i c u l a r l y controversial because of its

introduction of the ooncept of "job families". This integrated job

f l e x i b i l i t y i n t o t h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e labour process through acceptance

of the p r i n c i p l e that workers could be moved f r o m one to the o t h e r of

a range of purportedly interchangeable jobs.

Three s i g n i f i c a n t changes had thus taken place over t h e previous e i g h t

years i n t h e factory:

i ) The introduction of a new job evalua*ion scheme and grading

structure

ii) The remeasurement and consequent "tightening" of t i m e s on a l l

d i r e c t production jobs; t h e introduction of "job families".

iii) The i n s t i g a t i o n of a new and more aggressive top management With

an e x p l i c i t policy of incorporating productivity t a r g e t s i n t o pay

negotiations.
These changes w e r e the r e s u l t of:

i ) An o v e r a l l d e t e r i o r a t i o n i n the company's competitive p o s i t i o n

ii) A loss of control by management over w o r k &gets and bonus

equivalents.

These f a c t o r s w i l l be examined i n more detail i n t h e a n a l y s i s of

managerial o b j e c t i v e s and a t t i t u d e s .

4 ) MMgement Responses

The a n a l y s i s begins by presenting the expressed o b j e c t i v e s of management,

which f a l l i n t o two main categories, technical functions and cost

reduction. W e then go on to probe t h e underlying implications of

management's professed attitudes i n the section on "control", which

also takes up the linked issues of labour flexibility and 'performance".

Finally, the obstacles to the attainment of managerial objectives, and

management's response to these obstacles. are discussed.

i ) lvanagerial objectives, as management sees them.

Before beginning t h i s section, i t i s p e r t i n e n t t o add a brief n o t e

on t h e concept of managerial strategy, w h i c h has become a focus of

debate over t h e l a s t few years. This debate appears t o have centred on

the question of w h e t h e r there exists the p o s s i b i l i t y of s t r a t e g i c choice.

I n the s i t u a t i o n p r e v a i l i n g within the factory, i n which harsh

axnpetitive pressures appeared t o i n w k e an overwhelming imperative of

cost reduction, t h e idea of any such choice appares l a r g e l y irrelevant.

-ever, this point need not r u l e out any conception of a strategy. I t

can be s a i d t h a t managerial s t r a t e g y - the l o n p t e r m and m e d i u m - t e r m

plans within t h e coropany - was directed a t achieving a highly specific

goal i n the most e f f e c t i v e way. Thus, although t h e term managerial

o b j e c t i v e s i s used as r e l a t i n g more d i r e c t l y to t h e managers' dlyn

conceptions of those o b j e c t i v e s , i t i s not meant as a r e j e c t i o n Of the

notion of managerial strategy. Rather, such objectives are seen as

 -172-

occurring within an e x i s t i n g construct of o v e r a l l s t r a t e g i c choice

determined a t a higher l e v e l of s t r a t e g i c planning such as that

involved i n choosing markets, etc.

Secondly, i t has been seen as valuable to express managerial o b j e c t i v e s

as t h e managers themselves s a w than, from t h e point of view that w h a t are

viewed a s p r i o r i t i e s by managers are most l i k e l y to govern managerial

behaviour, whether or not such perceptions accurately reflect the

f e a s i b i l i t y of achieving the o b j e c t i v e s ( i n the l i g h t of f a c t o r s to

which t h e managers devoted r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n , i e aspects of

worker response). Thus i t i s argued t h a t i t i s goals or targets,

s p e c i f i c a l l y of a q u a n t i t a t i v e nature, rather than more q u a l i t a t i v e

f e a t u r e s of everyday experience, which p r i n c i p a l l y s t r u c t u r e managerial

behaviour and which are seen and expressed as o b j e c t i v e s by those

managers. W h i l e R i c h a r d iiyman i s correct to argue t h a t such "determin-

a t i o n s " of s t r a t e g y "are themselves contradictory" ( m n , 1984, p4) t h e

fact that managenent f a i l s t o t h e contradictions i s i m p o r t a n t i n

shaping t h e actual behaviour of managers and i t s consequent impact on

the workforce.

W e now go on t o look a t how managers defined t h e i r objectives.

B)rTechnical"Functions

M o s t managers i n i t i a l l y responded t o the question 'What do you see

as your main role as a manager?" i n tenus of t h e i r QYT~ s p e c i f i c

"technical" function. By "technical" w e mean functions which are

defined without reference to management/wsrker relations, i n purely

productive terms. Responses included:

 -173-
"I work towards an ideal s i t u a t i o n - t h e monthly build programme -
w e aim to match a l l customer orders w e e k to w e e k to d e l i v e r y dates"

- Production Control Mnager.

'Work study includes two d i s c i p l i n e s , w o r k measurement and method

study" (followed by a technical e q l a n a t i o n of both d i s c i p l i n e s ) -

Work Study Mnager.

"1 supervise and am responsible for t h e assembly and test of meters

and c e n t r a l heating controls, a s w e l l as the cardphone" - Assembly

Superintendent.

'Wmaging the production u n i t , t h e w o r k s division. Quantity, m i x of

products and q u a l i t y , a l l to be r e a l i s e d a t c e r t a i n cost levels" -

Works D i r e c t o r .

A l l nine managers d i r e c t l y questioned on their objectives i n i t i a l l y

replied i n these technical terms. Such a functional d e f i n i t i o n of

objectives, w h i l e perhaps predictable, i s s i g n i f i c a n t i n showing that

managers did n o t see t h e i r role irpmediately i n terms o f social relation-

ships w i t h the workforce. Workers themselves w e r e i n fact s e l d o m mentioned,

even by t h e personnel manager, except as a n undifferentiated cormnodity,

"labour", and as a cost. The response also shows that production i s

seen by manacpment as primarily "neutral" and technical, rather than as

a battle for control i n which a m a j o r p r i o r i t y i s the suppression of a

r e c a l c i t r a n t workforce. However, when a supplementary question w a s asked

as to f u r t h e r managerial functions, t h e t e c h n i c i s t approach w a s found

to f r o n t a problematic of *'cost" and competition.

b)Cost Reduction

he Ysecond-order" d e f i n i t i o n of objectives w a s given, again almost

uniformly, i n terms of costs. 8 o u t of 9 managers mentioned reduction

of costs a s their prime goal, as opposed to function. The p r i o r i t i s a t i o n

of cost factors over and above more ''human" aspects of management w a s

 -l'p+

p a r t i c u l a r l y noteworthy i n the case of themrk study and personnel

managers, both of w h o s e roles related d i r e c t l y , though i n d i f f e r e n t

ways, to the c e n t r a l p o i n t s of conflict w i t h i n the factory. Thus the

work s t u d y manager gave a s t h e d e f i n i t i o n of his department's overall

o b j e c t i v e s : 'We're t r y i n g to determine the most cost-effective methods

i n order to achieve p r o f i t a b i l i t y for the company - to minimise the

manufacturing costs involved...The w h o l e c o s t i n g s t r u c t u r e of the

m p a n y i s geared t o work standards." The personnel manager, d i s c u s s i n g

t h e progress of the 'perfonaance"-related i n c e n t i v e scheme, displayed a

similar outlook: "(The scheme) i s worth i t because the a s t of the

s a l a r y i s offset by w h a t t h e y ' r e producing - t h e canpany g a i n s more by

a higher level of performance - t h e more that's produced the lower t h e

p o p o r t i o n of costs...we're now i n t h e stage of t a k i n g money off them."

What i s n o t a b l e a b o u t both these s . e t e m e n t s i s n o t 50 much the

presumption of t h e scheme's s u c c e s s ( i t s e l f remarkable i n view of t h e

large m i n o r i t y of workers still f a i l i n g to achieve performance) b u t

t h e "absence" of the workers w h o w e r e a c t u a l l y s t r u g g l i n g to produce

to these work s t a n d a r d s . The impact of the scheme was assessed s o l e l y

i n terms of a c o s t - b e n e f i t c a l c u l u s rather than being seen as a vehicle

of managerial t'control". T h i s attitude, everyday enough i n hardheaded

management circles, n e v e r t h e l e s s belies some of t h e preoccupations

attributed to management i n l a b o u r process theory.

The p r i o r i s a t i o n of "cost" w a s affirmed by b o t h t h e l i n e managers, t h e

assembly and manufacturing s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s . The assembly s u p e r i n t e n d e n t

p u t i t most c l e a r l y : "Getting the product on l i n e a t t h e r i g h t t i m e

w i t h all costing ...It's co-ordination - g i v i n g guidance to foremen -

e f f i c i e n c y can become slack, for example, on timekeeping. Also going

i n t o costs - trying t o c u t down on costs." T h i s included "Cutting indirect

time down to the minimm - for example w a i t i n g time, machine breakdown,

 -175-

parts n o t avaizable etc." The manufacturing superintendent, l o g i c a l l y

for one i n charge of a machine-based department, w a s more concerned

with p l a n t investment and i t s r e l a t i o n to the competitive p o s i t i o n

of t h e company:

Wy long-term o b j e c t i v e s on the p l a n t side are to do w i t h investment

planning f i v e years ahead...In investment planning you t r y t o go w i t h

the t i m e , be a s up to date as p o s s i b l e i n equippent i n order to be

cmpetitiw - there's fierce competition i n t h e market."

Staff IIIaMgerS reinforced the "cost" p e r s p e c t i v e from t h e standpoint

of t h e i r own p a r t i c u l a r specialisus. For example, e n l a r g i n g on the

d e f i n i t i o n of his overall o b j e c t i v e s a s "to produce i n the most

e f f i c i e n t manner a t t h e least possible wst" the production engineering

manager went on: "Each employee should earn his am s a l a r y by wst

reduction. Can you e l i m i n a t e a worker operation altogether? Can you

wmbine one operation w i t h another - get t h e operator to do two things

a t once? T h i s i s &ne through m e t h o d s improvement. Or, can you improve

it by using d i f f e r e n t j i g s o r tools? Provide a j i g 50 that a g i r l

can use two hands, d r i l l two holes a t once.. .?'I

This interview w a s conducted during a two w e e k strike which had occurred

over a t h r e a t to dismiss WO workers for l o w performance, y e t the

manager's analysis w a s presented e n t i r e l y i n terms of cost criteria,

w i t h no mention of worker response. S i m i l a r l y , i n an interview w i t h t h e

f a c t o r y accountant which w a s also carried o u t during t h e strike, t h e

manager referred to labour only as a "cost": "For any part of the

product, w e e s t a b l i s h t h e standard cost of manufacturing, like i f you

t a k e a prog-er case...We know how much powder, how much l a b o u r content

g w s i n t o make up a standard cost per case." Tabour" w a s n o t only

correlated w i t h 'pcwder" as a c o n s t i t u e n t of t h e product, b u t w a s also

subjected t o the same standards of m s u r e m e n t : We u s e the materials

 -176-

i n stock to start w i t h to make standard values -when w e issue t h e cost,

w e s t i c k to t h e standard. When i t ' s labour, w e stick to s t a n d a r d hours -

this goes through a t standard labour costs, a l l through the factory.''

Despite the emphasis on measuring and monitoring rather than d i r e c t l y

influencing production l e v e l s , the accountant's department could be

seen as c e n t r a l to the issues of conflict within t h e factory. The

department worked t o cost standards, of which s t a n d a r d labour hours

(the measured level of "performance") w e r e a c e n t r i r component; i t s

job w a s t o monitor these and report variances to higher management.

Thus the accountancy department was c e n t r a l l y involved i n t h e criteria

by which the work rates of t h e 'people u p s t a i r s " w e r e judged; i t attached

the c r u c i a l variable, cost, to t h e standards established by t h e work

study department. Any f a i l u r e t o m e a s u r e up to these standards had i t s

correlate i n pounds and pence. As t h e accountant himself concluded:

We get the f i n a n c i a l side on to production systems - w e need production

control knavledge, work study h a u l e d g e , w e have to hang money on to

a l l the systems and procedures that they work to".

The l a s t thing the f a c t o r y accountant w a s consciously concerned about

was t h e i s s u e of workers' experience of and response to t h e labour

process, yet t h e work of his department had a c e n t r a l impact on that

process. T h i s echoed a paradox prevailing throughout management i n t h e

factory. The single-minded emphasis on q u a n t i t a t i v e and measurable

criteria regarding "labour" i s n o t taken t o preclude any w i d e r

managerial ideology a l l o c a t i n g a subordinate political position to t h e

workforce. The p o i n t i s that this w a s how management s a w their E.

Their d a i l y a c t i v i t y consisted c e n t r a l l y i n carrying out the p r a c t i c a l

outcomes of an overwhelming imperative of cost reduction. The s t r u c t u r e

of control over thewrkforce, if a s s u c h i t should be seen, itself

 -177-
stennned e n t i r e l y f r o m this imperative. There appeared lbot to be a

largescale ideological determinant either i n management's a c t i v i t y

or their expressed opinions which c a r r i e d with i t a specific goal

of subordinating or exercising a u t h o r i t y over thewrkforce.

Finally, although t h e emphasis w a s mainly on the reduction of

costs i n order simply to keep afloat i n the competitive struggle,

this w a s c l e a r l y connected to an o v e r a l l goal of p r o f i t a b i l i t y . The

Works D i r e c t o r linked the two issues:

'The job of management i s to use a l l a v a i l a b l e resources, including

human, etc., but a l l resources f o r the main o b j e c t i v e - profit, where

it a l l comes from." The production engineer, too, w a s clear that

the e f f i c i e n c y he w a s t r y i n g to pranote w a s n o t an end i n itself,

but would "depend on w h a t output you want" - i e t h e state of the market.

W e have seen t h a t , as hypothesised, t h e managers interviewed expressed

or sought to engage with w o r k e r response. This w a s paradoxical, s i n c e

t h e defined o b j e c t i v e s i n fact r e l i e d on factors c e n t r i n g on worker

response such as "perfomnce". However, i t i s supgested that,

f i r s t l y , the p r i o r i t i s a t i o n of economic goals steimned from t h e real

mmpetitive pressures p r e v a i l i n g i n the world outside t h e c m p n y ;

and,secondly, i t w a s t h e managerial d e f i n i t i o n s of t h e s i t u a t i o n stermning

from these, rather than worker response, which structured how the

labour process w a s a c t u a l l y managed, i e w i t h a view t o the maxirpum

i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of labour.

ii) "Control", Performance, F l e x i b i l i t y

I n t h i s section w e attempt to 93 beyond managers' own rather restricted

d e f i n i t i o n s of their o b j e c t i v e s to t h e nature of the p r i o r i t i e s which

determined t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s and ha# these i n t e r a c t e d with their r e l a t i o n s

w i t h workers.
a ) "Control"

In order to a r r i v e at some connections between t h e "'tost" problematic

and t h e related area of worker response which management was i n fact

forced to confront, the research tested managerial a t t i t u d e s towards the

concept of "contmlff of w h i c h , as set o u t above,& t h e s i s as a w h o l e is

critical. A limited number of responses w e r e obtained w h i c h dealt purely

w i t h t h i s i s s u e ( i n reply to a 'knultiple-choice" question w h i c h asked

managers t o choose between various aspects of management):

"1 would go for oc-ordination rather than c o n t r o l . There's Dot a problem

of exercising control....who goes on w h a t job - that should be and i s

management's function. Old-fashioned 'work hard*-type control i s

irrelevant" - the manufacturing superintendent.

On the r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o n t r o l and a u t h o r i t y , the as-bly

superintendent said, "I don't deal w i t h t h e day-to-day running of

work - i t ' s t h e foreman's job to maintain a u t h o r i t y over t h e workforce.

T h e r e ' s no real control function. ... Y e s , I agree manaqment has a r i g h t

t o manage - that's w h a t i t ' s a l l about...managenent's job i s long-tern

planning, o v e r a l l long-term s t r a t e g y , making Sure t h i s i s the r i g h t way

of doing things."

Insofar as there w a s any a c t i v i t y of "controlling" workers t o ensure

that they surrendered the right amount of labour, then, t h i s w a s

relegated dawn to supervisory l e v e l . W e shall see below (section iii)

t h a t the foreman did not see their main role a s the coercion of the

workforce. In any case, it w a s clear from t h e manager's comments

that t h i s w a s not a c e n t r a l area of "overall long-term strategy".

b s t managers responded t o t h e question on "control" obliquely,

w i t h a m e n t s like (Works Director): "Control over people? They're

one v i t a l resource, I treat them a l l the Same way" or t h e manufacturing

 - 179-
superintendent's response i n terms of job a l l o c a t i o n and f l e x i b i l i t y .

'Well, I have o v e r a l l c o n t r b l over manpcnver - w e haven't got a s u r p l u s

of manpower -I have to a s s s s how many w e should have, how many w e need".

The area i n which theconcept came most i n t o i t s own w a s i n discussion

of t h e h i s t o r y and r a t i o n a l e of t h e w r k measurement changes. H e r e ,

several managers spoke spontaneously i n terms of a dynamic of control'^:

"The t i g h t e r rate system w a s introduced because people queried t h e t i m e s

a l o t , t h e w e a k e r management gave i n , times gJt o u t of c o n t r o l , they were

far too generous, people w e r e earning l o t s of money for l i t t l e return"

(manufacturing superintendent).

"The company w a s l o s i n g money - t h e times w e r e o u t of control - there

was no i n c e n t i v e - people w e r e being paid for no effort" (Quality

Control Mnager) -
"Far too many jobs w e r e being queried, t h e system w a s grinding to a

standstill...There w e r e effects on o v e r a l l e f f i c i e n c y - w e w e r e paying

more money o u t than w e w e r e g e t t i n g back as regards output. I t w a s moving

o u t of o u r hands...We w e r e gradually l o s i n g c o n t r o l of m e of the work,

because w e couldn't c o n t r o l and plan it, because w e were g e t t i n g large

amounts of unmeasured work...People wouldn't p u t i n reasonable effort

on queried and unmeasured work." ( w e r a t i o n s EXecutive) .

The Quality Control manager enlarged on the dynamics of the s i t u a t i o n :

"Management j u s t didn't have a system. The union had driven a w e d g e through

i t , w i t h leapfregging etc. Managenent lost c o n t r o l rather than the

workforce gaining it. Management l o s t c o n t r o l through t h e i r own i n e r t i a .

Remeastummentwasn't an attempt to break worker r e s i s t a n c e , b u t to get

the system back."

Managers' responses t o q u e s t i o n s on Itcontrol" p r i m a r i l y i n terms of the

work measurement system demonstrated that their d e f i n i t i o n s of the concept

w e r e located i n w h a t w a s itself an econaaic rather than political dynamic

 -180-
of t h e r e l a t i o n between bonus and output. I t w a s this managerial approach,

rather than any more abstract notion of domination over t h e workforce,

w h i c h both determined and reflected the organisation of t h e labour

process. There w e r e , then, two main p o i n t s regarding this s e t t i n g for

"control" relationships: f i r s t l y that the s i t u a t i o n seemed to be less

one of t h e workforce gaining c o n t r o l than of management gradually l o s i n g

it; and secondly that t h e overwhelming use of t h e term "control" w a s i n

r e l a t i o n to labour time. I t w a s n o t the wrkforce, t h e i r response and

r e s i s t a n c e , t h a t w a s o u t of c o n t r o l . b u t t h e speed and measurement of

output. Thus t h e management and timing of w o r k i s seen as a crucial

aspect of the r e t e n t i o n of management c o n t r o l s , w h i c h i n their t u r n

are an ecomic rather than a political necessity: "banagement's right

to manage i n t e r r l a t e s w i t h c u t t i n g costs" (Assembly Superintendent). The

notion of "control" w a s m e d i a t e d through t h e s e t t i n g and imposition of

q u a n t i t a t i v e targets for worker "performance", rather than by any

reference to n o t i o n s of worker r e s i s t a n c e or consent.

b) Performance. The issue of "performance" d i v i d e s i n t o two areas: t h e

m e t h o d s and approach used i n c a l c u l a t i n g performance targets, and the

significance of t h e targets for company wls, t h e s t r u c t u r i n g of t h e

labour process, and management-worker r e l a t i o n s h i p s . This l a t t e r i n c l u d e s

managerial approaches to and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of t h e problems of "lau

perfdrmance".

The c a l c u l a t i o n of performance targets w a s t h e job of thevork study

department, w h o s e o p e r a t i o n s w e r e divided i n t o work measurement and

m e t h o d study. Although m e t h o d study w a s c l e a r l y r e l e v a n t to t h e o v e r a l l

a i m of reducing t i m e , d t h i n t h e system adopted by the work study

department i t was mainly carried o u t a t t h e production planning stage,

since t h e department itself worked mainly to "synthetic" times c a l c u l a t e d

according to the wrk measurement system k n m as MIM ("Methods-The

 -181-
Measuaement") . The elements from which times i n this "pre-detemined
motion-time system" w e r e c a l c u l a t e d w e r e known as W s - time-measured

units - each of w h i c h represented .ooO1 of an hour. A number of these

w o u l d go i n t o the measurement of a basic motion such as reach, grasp,

t r a n s f e r etc., any one of w h i c h , or a canbination, could be used i n an

u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d range of work tasks. " P e r f o m n c e " w a s then c a l c u l a t e d

on t h e basis of t h e standard time for a job based on adding together a l l

t h e TMls contained i n t h e basic motions that went i n t o making up that job.

If an operator carried o u t t h e job within that time, she would be said to

have achieved 100, or "performance"; i f she d i d the job more quickly, she

would q u a l i f y for a bonus; i f she took more t i m e over i t than t h e standard,

she would still earn t h e basic w a g e , b u t would be open, a t Landis and Gyr,

to t h e first steps i n t h e "low performance procedure". This key i s s u e of

performance raises a number of p o i n t s , both theoretical and research-related,

which are examined i n the following sections.

Abstraction of Labour. The microscopic elements i n t o which labour w a s

divided i n the MTM system appeared symbolic of t h e tendency towards

a b s t r a c t i o n of labour w h i c h i s discussed below i n the ccinments on worker

response. Examination of the MTM tables reveals

a d i s s e c t i o n and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of basic work motions which robs labour

of any specific use-related content. Precise c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s i n t o , for

example, G r a s p : regrasp, transfer grasp, object jumbled w i t h other objects,

etc., n o t only subject labour t o such detailed measurement as to i n d i c a t e

an overwhelming preoccupation w i t h labour time b u t also, p a e c a l l y ,

rob labour of any i d e n t i f i a b l e content by making it a l l reducible to the

same interchangeable components.

Counterposing of mathematically c a l c u l a t e d work standards to actual

worker performance. The work standards which w e r e c a l c u l a t e d within t h e

MrM system had a twin r a t i o n a l e for the company: f i r s t l y , they w e r e t h e

 -In-
standards of performance and output t h e company required to be

competitive; secondly, they represented the maximum t h e o r e t i c a l l y

possible e x t r a c t i o n of surplus value. For b o t h of these reasons, the

MTM standards stood as an unchallengeable representation of "paper"

production imperatives set by t h e company. A t t h e same time, they ignored

both t h e actual complexities of t h e labour process and any considerations

of worker response. W e examine t h e r e l a t i o n of these imperatives t o

compaay goals and to the s t r u c t u r i n g of the labour process.

Significance of the Targets f o r Company Goals

The workstudy manager himself had pointed o u t that " t h e whole costing

s t r u c t u r e of the company i s geared t o work standards", b u t the Personnel

manager, speaking during t h e strike, put t h e point more e x p l i c i t l y :

"The times are t h e basis of t h e costing s t r u c t u r e , the c o s t i n g s t r u c t u r e

i s the basis of p r o f i t s . You're n o t j u s t measuring jobs, you're making

s u r e that you have an accurate basis f o r mstings...The i s s u e of

e f f i c i e n c y i s about imposing e f f i c i e n c y through changes i n work design,

new machinery, changes i n work performance. If w e ' r e not prepared to b i t e

the b u l l e t , w e down...For example, w e put a tender i n t h e Hong Kong

market, El0 per i t e m . The Japanese put i n €7. A t E10 w e make no p r o f i t ,

a t €7 w e lose i t - we missed t h e order. The d i f f e r e n c e i s labour costs,

a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of that d i f f e r e n c e i s worker perfonoance..."

T h i s , then, w a s the imperative behind t h e s e t t i n g of the performance

targets, but invoking i t c o u l d not overcome t h e fact that these targets

w e r e not, or a t least not uniformly or c o n s i s t e n t l y , being m e t . This w a s

the general problems of "low performance" w h i c h was t h e n dominating t h e

factory. Before looking i n detail a t managerial responses t o this

problem, however, w e examine a more fundamental theoretical issue, the

role played by the s e t t i n g of the targets i n drawing Out the maximum

amount of surplus value from the p o t e n t i a l offered by the workforce.

 -183-
The Structuring of the Labour Process

The works d i r e c t o r spelt this o u t , f i r s t i n his adcnowledgement of t h e

lack of p r a c t i c a l realism i n t h e targets:

Wur output projections a r e n ' t based on MIX standards - these assume

that theory l i v e s up to p r a c t i c e . In p r a c t i c e t h e r e ' s a l o t of disruption.

Fmn one s i d e MIM i s very i m p o r t a n t for the w a g e s t r u c t u r e , for budget

estimates, from the o t h e r w e use i t to c a l c u l a t e a r o l l i n g average f o r

production over t h e q u a r t e r , month etc...If you look from the t h e o r e t i c a l

side you imply a l l waste w i l l be eliminated...The budget sets a t a r g e t -

i t ' s a reference. The p r a c t i c a l figures may or may not match. Budget

f o r e c a s t s are needed t o take decisions - for d a i l y management, forget

it."

W h a t then w a s the p o i n t of using the standards? The wrks director

w e n t on to say:

"In the opinion of t h e experts the times are accurate - I feel they're

accuratewithin S%. By s e t t i n g targets you improve by 10% anyway. The

difference between having MM and having no objectivefi i s %."

W i t h this calculus t h e works d i r e c t o r indicated c l e a r l y the impact of

q u a n t i f i e d performance t a r g e t s on the s t r u c t u r i n g and organisation of

the labour process. Q u a n t i t a t i v e , "scientificallyt'-calculated work

s t a n d a r d s defined what w a s expected of the workforce by providing measured

output goals amund which t h e labour process was b u i l t and txwards which

the workers struggled. I t was MTM t h a t w a s t h e slavedriver, not management

or the foreman.

magement and ' L u v Performance"

Few o t h e r managers shared the clear-eyed perspective of t h e w r k s

d i r e c t o r . FPst e i t h e r assumed that the work standards were an

acceptable and normal aspect of production ("The times axe then issued

to the shop f l o o r and people work t o them" -work study manager) or t r e a t e d

t h e problems as a m i n o r i r r i t a n t :
 -184-
" I t ' s a day-to-day event for people t o query times - i t causes minor
i n t e r r u p t i o n s i n production, means discussing t h e matter with the operator,

t h e representative etc. I n the long term i f they see they c a n ' t j u s t

query things for the sake of i t t h e y ' l l j u s t get on with the job."

Mnufacturing Superintendent.

The problem,then, w a s t o s o m e e x t e n t seen a s i n e v i t a b l e . "ever,

opinions differed as to whether i t had its mots i n structure or a t t i t u d e ,

and the best way of dealing with i t . W e conclude this s e c t i o n by looking

a t s o m e of these issues.

Mnagerial a t t i t u d e s t o the problem of low performance

The problem of low performance was formally, if t a c i t l y , adolowledged

i n the p l a n t through the operation of a Low Performance Procedure,

which consisted i n i t i a l l y of the i s s u i n g of a warning letter to a n y

employee w h o s e average performance over a month had f a l l e n b e l o w 100.

Such a letter would i n s t i g a t e a three-month investigation period, a t

the end of which, i f the operator w a s considered responsible for t h e

low performance, d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n might be taken. Any warning would

"last" f o r 6 months, although an improvement i n performance to 100 or

above would be expected within two, and continued l o w performance would

lead t o Ita second and a t h i r d w r i t t e n warning and ultimately dismissal

from the ampany".

-ever, the procedure had i n effect a purely d i s c i p l i n a r y role, r a t h e r

than i n d i c a t i n g any concern t o engagedth t h e problems leading to l o w

performance. f.Imagers present a t a meeting t o d i s c u s s a s l i g h t revision

i n the procedure revealed a simple perspect i v e of "operator failure":

" A l l t h e conditions are there t o p e s f o m - if they don't make 100, t h e

operator must be to blame. W e can only afford t o have a f e w of those

around, or w e won't make any money."

 -185-
t'Rlaming t h e operator", where t h i s p o s i t i o n on worker r e s p o n s e w a s

pursued, c o u l d o n l y lead to a r o o t i n g of t h e problem i n a f a i l u r e of

worker a t t i t u d e s :

"It i s n ' t a n ideal system - t h e r e ' s too many loopholes. A f t e r t h e y ' v e

been h e r e a w h i l e t h e y know haw many t h e y have to do, t h e y pace themselves.

They're r e a c h i n g w h a t t h e y want, n o t g i v i n g t h e maximum" ( P r e s s Shop foreman).

The works director, too, when i t came t o a n a l y s i s of t h e problem a n d i t s

possible s o l u t i o n s , abandoned his earlier more sober a s s e s s m e n t s for a

r h e t o r i c of moral exhortation:

"If you measure an i n d i v i d u a l job, t h e y can e a s i l y do 130 i n a n

hour." (Workers later c h a l l e n g e d t h i s w i t h t h e argument that "I can

run f r o m my house t o my car, b u t I c a n ' t keep that speed u p for 20 m i l e s " ) .

"People must realise t h e y ' r e n o t paid for a t t e n d a n c e , b u t for effort. W e do

have a problem of p e o p l e n o t working hard enough. I t ' s a q u e s t i o n of

organisation - w e do have to e l i m i n a t e bad parts, etc. o r g a n i s a t i o n can

g i v e them a n excuse - t h e r e a s o n s must be e l i m i n a t e d . This i s t h e job of

s u p e r v i s i o n . Low performance must be overcome by ' p r e a c h i n g ' to people -

t h e p o i n t of t h e low performance programme i s n ' t to make people redundant,

but to eliminate t h e c a u s e s of bad performance."

U l t i m a t e l y , then, l a v performance w a s s e e n a s a q u e s t i o n of " a t t i t u d e " ,

to be overcme by "preaching". I n practice, however, such C N d a d i n g

f e r v o u r w a s a r a r i t y , even for t h e Works D i r e c t o r . B a s i c a l l y , t h e i s s u e

of worker response w a s n o t taken s e r i o u s l y by management. P h i l o s o p h i s i n g

a b o u t such i s s u e s as " n o t i v a t i o n " w a s a l u x u r y , a n o c c a s i o n for p r o d u c t i o n

of knowledge of "Theory X 1' and "Theory Y", b u t n o t a process on which

a n a l y s i s and a c t i o n w a s based. These w e r e confined to t h e c a l c u l a t i o n

of w h a t l e v e l s of perfQnnance w e r e needed, n o t w i t h whether t h e y c o u l d

be achieved.
 -186-
A s opposed to t h i s , however, t h e r e w a s s o m e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e

s a l i e n c e of s t r u c t u r a l factors i n i n f l u e n c i n g worker performance. The

D i a l Assembly foreman d i s m i s s e d t h e warning letters i s s u e d under t h e

l o w performance p r o c e d u r e a s p o i n t l e s s :

"Cn t h a t d i s c i p l i n e - I've been g i v e n t w o " ( 1 e t t e r s ) "this morning -I

j u s t d o n ' t feel j u s t i f i e d i n g i v i n g letters to people w i t h o t h e r problems.

I t won't do them any g o d . W e a r e n ' t j u s t i f i e d i n i s s u i n g people w i t h

warnings. The letters themselves have got to t h e stage of b e i n g meaningless

- t h e y a l l knm t h e y ' r e n o t e a r n i n g 100 performance. ..

A t t h e moment w e ' r e n o t pushing p e o p l e to work harder because w e know

t h e r e are so many o u t s i d e problems. A f t e r q u a l i t y , l a y o u t , method i s s o r t e d

out w e ' l l then s a y , now you can make performance. Jigs, f i x t u r e s , etc.,

t h e y ' l l a l l a problem. The l a y o u t ' s t o t a l l y wrong, jobs are bouncing

around a l l o v e r t h e p l a c e . I n s u f f i c i e n t c o n t a i n e r s for p a r t s , no one to

f e t c h and c a r r y t h i n g s , bad q u a l i t y parts. These t h i n g s are more important

than l a c k of motivation. They ( t h e operators) t h i n k that if t h e y get

s t u c k i n , somewhere a l o n g t h e l i n e t h e y ' l l h i t a snag."

There w a s a m i x t u r e h e r e of "attitUdiM1" factors and t h e m y i n which

these i n t u r n , j u s t i f i a b l y a c c o r d i n g to the foreman, w e r e affected by

t h e s t r u c t u r a l i n a d e q u a c i e s of work o r g a n i s a t i o n . There was no p o i n t i n

t h e workers t r y i n g to work to the r e q u i r e d l e v e l - sooner or later they

would be brought up a g a i n s t a n obstacle which w a s n o t t h e i r f a u l t . A t t h e

same t i m e , despite t h i s more tolerant v i e w born perhaps of his c l o s e n e s s

to the production process, t h e foreman still i n s i s t e d t h a t the MIM targets

-
w e r e ultimately attainable. In h i s v i e w t h e key t o this w a s t r a i n i n g :

'With t r a i n i n g , t r a i n i n g , t r a i n i n g you get t h e r e i n t h e end. Is i t counter-

p r o d u c t i v e to set h i g h numbers? N o t if you have back-up - workstudy, quality

c o n t r o l , t r a i n i n g etc. Same of t h e s e jobs are i m p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t basic

 - i a 7-
t r a i n i n g - w e need someone to shav t h e s e g i r l s w e ' r e i n t e r e s t e d i n them

g e t t i n g performance."

T h i s foreman appeared t o have a view Of w o r k e r s as a k i n d of "tuneuppable"

machine - i f t h e process w a s repeated o f t e n enough, t h e y m u l d e v e n t u a l l y

p e r f o m a n a d e q u a t e l y and p r e d i c t a b l y . The Assembly S u p e r i n t e n d e n t also

shaved some awareness of t h e importance of s t r u c t u r a l factors, though

seeming almost r e s i g n e d to a n i n e v i t a b l e s h o r t f a l l i n performance i n h i s

department, which, as t h e most l a b o u r - i n t e n s i v e i n t h e f a c t o r y , w a s

c u r r e n t l y r e c o r d i n g o n l y 76% "achieved hours". Pushing t h e workforce

was i n f a c t seen as c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e :

"There's a c o n t i n u o u s s t r u g g l e to get more effort o u t , w e ' d l i k e to be

always p u s h i n g up effort, or t h i n g s get slack, costs go up. W e c a n ' t go

tdo h a r d , or t h e y start r e b e l l i n g . The s t r u c t u r i n g of t h e w r k i s more

i m p o r t a n t . If t h e r e ' s a c o n s i s t e n t f l a w of work, the workers are more

motivated, there's a n a t u r a l i n c r e a s e i n o u t p u t . If w e keep pushing t h e

workforce you may get a limited i n c r e a s e , b u t t h e n t h e y ' l l ctdck vu...

Mnagement's r i g h t to manage i n t e r r e l a t e s w i t h c u t t i n g costs. If you

push them a l o n g , c o n t r o l them, you get m o t i v a t i o n because the work i s

c o n t i n r i a l l y going a l o n g . T h e r e ' s a f l a w of work. The operators a r e n ' t

p a i d to solve problems."

There w a s a n i n t e r e s t i n g a s s i m i l a t i o n h e r e between t h e f u n c t i o n s of

management, t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n of work, and t h e m o t i v a t i o n of t h e wrkforce.

The job of management, even i t s "rigtht to manage", w a s n o t s e e n as " c o n t r o l "

i n t h e a u t h o r i t a r i a n s e n s e b u t as t h e s t r u c t u r i n g of p r o d u c t i o n i n s u c h a

way that a flaw of work w a s a c h i e v e d which i n i t s t u r n would m o t i v a t e

t h e workforce by p r o v i d i n g them w i t h a meaningful work p a t t e r n and a

clear o p p o r t u n i t y to enhance e a r n i n g s . T h i s s t r u c t u r i n g of work, overcoming

of problems or h i c c u p s i n t h e smooth p a t h of t h e p r o d u c t i o n process, w a s

 -188-
managementts f u n c t i o n (and n o t , i t w a s emphasised, t h e w w b r s t ) .

There w a s c e r t a i n l y no p r i n c i p l e d attempt t o impose managerial a u + h o r i t y

for i t s own sake - i n fact if anything t h e r e v e r s e : '

"If t h e job changes, you get r e s i s t a n c e - so changes are introduced

a s l i t t l e a s possible - if you're g e t t i n g e f f i c i e n c y , d o n ' t touch i t .

N o t because t h e w r k e r s are s t r o n g , b u t because d i s r u p t i o n u p s e t s

everything. If there i s n ' t a n e c e s s a r y cost reason for change, w e won't

d i s r u p t .If

Here a problematic of "efficiency" and "cost" w a s e x p l i c i t l y s u b s t i t u t e d

for one of managerial a u t h o r i t y and t h e suppression of worker r e s i s t a n c e .

To sum up, then, "control" for management a t Landis and Gyr w a s mediated

through 'Iperformance",which itself w a s seen s t r i c t l y i n materialist

terns rather than as a n aspect of any k i n d of power struggle.

F i n a l l y , w e c o n s i d e r a n o t h e r dimension of t h i s pattern of work r e l a t i o n s h i p s ,

f l e x i b i l k t y , which can be seen a s itself a f u r t h e r i l l u s t r a t i o n of t h e

a b s t r a c t i o n of l a b o u r implicit i n the M1M system.

c ) F l e x i b i l i t y of Labour

A g e n e r a l goal of management, f l e x i b i l i t y had r e c e n t l y taken a h i g h l y

specific shape w i t h i n Landis and Gyr through t h e "job families" system

included i n the June 1983 pay agreement. T h i s w a s t h e culmination of

a - g e n e r a l w a r on "custom and practice" and s i m i l a r obstacles t o f u l l

managerial c o n t r o l over wrk o r g a n i s a t i o n w h i c h had been ua@ by t h e

Dutch mrks director s i n c e his i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e company two y e a r s

p r e v i o u s l y . Immediately s t r u c k by t h e lack of f l e x i b i l i t y i n the

workforce, h i s f i r s t move w a s t o e l i m i n a t e t h e customary 1C% leve! of

guaranteed overtime, follaued by the i n t r o d u c t i o n of fixed-tern temporary

l a b o u r c o n t r a c t s to deal w i t h peaks i n orders. The manager then, on the

basis of f u l l implementation of t h e still o n l y half-completed work

 -189-
measurement programme, i n t r o d u c e d i n t h e 1982 agreement t h e p r i n c i p l e

of t r a d i n g a w a r a n t e e d l e v e l of 'performance" for p e r c e n t a g e i n c r e a s e s .

In 1983 t h e p r i n c i p l e w a s extended to t h e specific measures c o n t a i n e d i n

t h e concept of "job f a m i l i e s " ;

We asked t h e union: 'Do you a g r e e that if a person knows haw t o p u t

screws i n , he can do i t for a n y t y p e of screw - a small one, large one,

b l a c k or green one?' They a g r e e d t h e p r i n c i p l e , and w e said, 'Okay, w e

w i l l b r i n g t o g e t h e r a l l t h e jobs t h a t w e t h i n k r e q u i r e t h e same t r a i n i n g

and t h e same skills."

I n f a c t this innocuous-sounding " p r i n c i p l e " brought i n i t s t r a i n a

c o n s i d e r a b l e i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of l a b o u r , made worse by t h e a b r u p t r e d u c t i o n

i n t r a i n i n g allowance based o n t h e alleged s i m i l a r i t y of new jobs to t h e

o l d . The impact on t h e workforce of sudden s w i t c h e s to "new jobs" w a s

c o n s i d e r a b l e , a s w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d i n more detail below.

N e v e r t h e l e s s , that t h e scheme w a s c o n c e i v a b l e and a t least i n part

workable i s t e s t a m e n t to e x a c t l y t h e l a c k of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between

jobs suggested i n t h e "same t r a i n i n g , sme skills" concept to which t h e

manager referred. T h i s k i n d of total job f l e x i b i l i t y . total interchange-

a b i l i t y between j o b s , can be a f u n c t i o n o n l y of a l a b o u r process t o t a l l y

given o v e r to t h e p r o d u c t i o n of v a l u e , n o t use. Indeed, t h e d i f f e r e n c e

between j o b s which workers cited a s making t h e achievement of performance

i m p o s s i b l e w e r e d i f f e r e n c e s of speed, n o t j o b c o n t e n t , mainly a t t r i b u t a b l e

to t h e lack of t r a i n i n g on new, i f n o t e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t , jobs. The D i a l

Assembly foreman had drawn a t t e n t i o n to t h i s : "One week a p e r s o n ' s doing

a job - 1x) performance - n e x t week they're training - back on the ( l o w

performance) l i s t . . . . S u p e r v i s i o n w a s supposed to t r a i n people up on t h r e e

jobs b y Christmas - they c a n ' t get performance on one, l e t a l o n e three."

The k i n d of f l e x i b i l i t y of l a b o u r shown i n t h e j o b families programme

i s o f t e n seen as a f u r t h e r i n s t r u m e n t of managerial c o n t r o l , s p e c i f i c a l l y
i n terms of overcoming s o m e worker c o n t r o l s w i t h i n t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s

such a s j o b demarcation. Indeed, t h e system of j o b families w a s e x p l i c i t l y

launched i n order to remove demarcation and t h u s fill i n some of t h e p r e s

i n t h e l a b o u r process: "....an employee w h o s e job i t w a s to i n s e r t screws

might r e f u s e to t r a n s f e r t o a n o t h e r , v e r y similar job. S u p e r v i s i o n had to

spend a l o t of t i m e t r y i n g to get people to move to o t h e r work when t h e i r

jobs w e r e stopped...The employees p r e f e r r e d to be booked on w a i t i n g time

- t h e y d i d n ' t want t o mow."

Whether t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of f l e x i b i l i t y between jobs i s used a s a means

of r e i n f o r c i n g managerial a u t h o r i t y i s h m e v e r a d i f f e r e n t matter. The

manufacturing s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y welcoming t h e job families

scheme as " r e a l l y planned f l e x i b i l i t y " , p r e s e n t e d i t i n a n e u t r a l and

" t e c h n i c a l " l i g h t a s an aspect of t h e specification of work w i t h i n t h e

job e v a l u a t e d g r a d i n g s t r u c t u r e : "People know w h a t i s t h e range of work

for which t h e y g e t paid." What i s more, he claimed ( i n a c o u r a t e l y , as it

t u r n e d o u t ) that "People are completely co-operative i n changing round w i t h i n

grades." The scheme w a s c l e a r l y n o t seen a s having as i t s specific

purpose a s t r e n g t h e n i n g of managerial a u t h o r i t y .

The u s e o f labour f l e x i b i l i t y a s a mangerial w e a p o n w i t h which to

f u r t h e r s u b o r d i n a t e t h e workforce is, t h e n , q u e s t i o n e d i n this a n a l y s i s .

W h a t i s emphasised i s i t s u s e to f i l l i n the "pores" of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s

and t h u s g a i n more c o n t i n u o u s p r o d u c t i o n , and also i t s roots i n t h e

a b s t r a c t i o n of l a b o u r . Managerial " c o n t r o l s " are c e r t a i n l y h e r e counterposed

to worker " c o n t r o l s " b u t i n b o t h cases t h e c o n t r o l s are aspects i n Ile

e x p l o i t a t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p and are n o t p r i m a r i l y weapons i n a power struggle.

In i t s examination of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between e x p r e s s e d managerial

o b j e c t i v e s and a possible hidden agenda of W o n t r o l " , t h e research sbWed

 - 19 E-
t h a t any "control" considerations on t h e p a r t of management w e r e

a r t i c u l a t e d through a framework of l a b o u r t i m e and performance. Evenwhen

focussing on the l a t t e r i s s u e , which w a s a major area of w n f l i c t i n

the factory a t the t i m e , there w a s l i t t l e spontaneous discussion of

worker response and no apparent managerial perspective w h i c h had t h e

crushing of worker r e s i s t a n c e a t i t s centre. Although, f i n a l l y , the

latest proposals concerning p e r f o m n c e had a specific effect i n increasing

labour f l e x i b i l i t y , the o v e r a l l purpose w a s again conceived as ashortening

of l a b o u r time.

I n our t h i r d s e c t i o n on managerial responses, w e go on to look a t

o b j e c t i v e s were carried
hav successfully these trperfo;rmancett-related

o u t with regard to their imposition on t h e workforce, and how management

d e a l t w i t h a n y o b s t a c l e s t o t h e i r o b j e c t i v e s i n t h i s respect.

iii) Objectives and O b s t a c l s

Obstacles to managerial o b j e c t i v e s have often been assumed i n the

l i t e r a t u r e t o c o n s i s t of organised wrker r e s i s t a n c e and associated

'kontrols" to w h i c h managwent responds w i t h a set of s t r a t e g i e s centred

on t h e subordination of theworkforce. A t Landis and Gyr i t w a found

that w h i l e t h e introduction of f o r example job families had had t h e

effect of lessening w h a t worker d i s c r e t i o n existed within the labour

process, i t was, i r o n i c a l l y , management's disregardinq of i s s u e s of

worker response which brought about s o m e of t h e more s i g n i f i c a n t o b s t a c l e s

i n t h e way of management objectives. These c l u s t e r e d around two sets

of contradictions centred on, respectively, performance and work

organisation.

Performance

W e have a l r e a d y dealt with many of the issues surrounding t h e

managerial attitude to performance. Here w e Zocus on t h e implications

 -192-
of managenent's f a i l u r e to confront the response of m r k e r s faced

w i t h t h e o r e t i c a l , numerically c a l c u l a t e d n o m s of w r k performance.

This managerial evasion of workers' f e e l i n g s about the labour process

took two forms:

a) The disputes p r o c e d u r e d c h had been set up to deal w i t h specific

complaints a b o u t work rates w a s i n e f f e c t i v e .

b) The agreements, p a r t i c u l a r l y the most recent, w h o s e p r a c t i c a l

effect was a s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n labour i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n , had been

forced through without an assessment of t h e i r p o t e n t i a l for c o n f l i c t .

a ) The d i s p u t e s procedure.Because of the s t r u c t u r i n q of t h e labour

process towards mathematically c a l c u l a t e d targets as opposed to any

assessment of productivity based on empirical examination of the a c t u a l

labour process, the workers' own experience was not only discounted

but was in P r a c t i c e helpless i n the face of management's d e f i n i t i o n

of the s i t u a t i o n . Thus t h e disputes procedure which w a s supposed t o

be set i n motion when a worker queried a rate was i n r e a l i t y a d e d

letter, meaning usually a period of two to t h r e e months before anyone

from t h e Work Study department would c o m e to look a t t h e job. The post

of Trade Union representative on timings, as w e shaw later, w a s s i m i l a r l y

meaningless, s i n c e t h e mrker's own experience of the job w a s u s e l e s s

i n t h e face of the work study calculations. Paradoxically, haxever. t h i s

relentless imposition of managerial d e f i n i t i o n s created another obstacle

to the achievement of performance, in terms of a loss Of worker

motivation. Talking about the rates d i s p u t e s procedure, the Press Shop

foreman said:

*Thiscauses a problem because they expect an imoediate reply, I have

t o 90 through the work study department, and i f t h e y don't get service

a s soon as possible they get discontented. There's no stoppaw of the

job no matter w h a t t h e query, the time on t h e job w i l l stand and t h e y ' l l

work to that, otherwise w e ' l l u s e t h e d i s c i p l i n a r y procedure ...Production

 - 103-
carries on, the o n l y t r o u b l e i s k a m e t i m e s t h e y feel t h e time i s

n o t going to be changed - ' I ' m n o t going to r e a c h the time so I ' l l

j u s t get by."

b ) Problems w i t h t h e agreements. Because of t h e overwhelming s a l i e n c e

of t h e profitability/performance i m p e r a t i v e for the company, management

was u n a b l e to face up to the p o s s i b i l i t y of and basis for a worker

response which c o n f l i c t e d w i t h t h i s imperative:

"I c h a l l e n g e them t o prove I'm not right - if p e o p l e d o n ' t want to

perform w e ' r e back to t h e o r i g i n a l s i t u a t i o n w i t h the company t h r e a t e n e d

w i t h shutdawn..." - works director..

Unfortunately, this p e r s p e c t i v e l e f t t h e same manager, when he d i d

pronounce on t h e s u b j e c t , unable to p r o v i d e more than a c a r i c a t u r e of the

n a t u r e of worker r e s p o n s e and resistance:

"1 t h i n k some workers are t h e r e o n l y to f i g h t management. Evenif you

say you are going to d o u b l e t h e i r s a l a r y t h e y r e p l y , ' W e d o n ' t accept

i t , and if you g i v e it to us w e ' l l strike!'"

In t h e l o n g t e n t h e r e f u s a l to c o n f r o n t and understand t h e n a t u r e

of worker response and r e s i s t a n c e led t o a " f i r e f i g h t i n g " approach

which c o u l d be said t o be countexproductive i n terms of t h e o b j e c t i v e

of c o n s i s t e n t and predictable l e v e l s of o u t p u t . A s t h e assembly

s u p e r i n t e n d e n t p u t i t d u r i n g t h e s t r i k e , t a l k i n g about t h e agreement

m b c d y i n g "job families" which w a s a t t h e root of t h e d i s p u t e : "If

they'd rejected i t , i t c o u l d have been r e n e g o i t a t e d i n more detail, w e

could have reached a compromise. A s i t i s , t h e i s s u e s are b e i n g f o u g h t

o u t now r a t h e r than being n e g o t i a t e d . "

Thus t h e i m p o s i t i o n of targets o v e r which t h e r e could i n fact have

been 'kxxnpromise" w a s accepted as l e a d i n g to t h e o c c a s i o n a l e r u p t i o n of

c o n f l i c t , r a t h e r than b e i n g modified t o f i t i n w i t h t h e real c o n d i t i o n s

of the l a b o u r process. Indeed, t h e manager abandoned h i s brief concession

cereaifities
to t h e workers' p o i n t of view f o r refuge i n t h e quantitative

of capitalism:

"Is conflict i n e v i t a b l e ? W e l l , people have g o t to understand a l o t

more of t h e d e t a i l e d side of f i n a n c e and c o s t i n g s ...I n t h e end w e

are g o i n g to s a y W e l l OK you know about i t , you accept i t or - It'll

make us less competitive w i t h o t h e r companies if w e c a n ' t get performance."

Obstacles t o O b j e c t i v e s i n Work O r g a n i s a t i o n

This p e r s i s t e n t c o n f l i c t between a n e c e s s a r y , from t h e managerial p o i n t

of view, i n s i s t e n c e on q u a n t i a a t i v e targets and the q u a l i t a t i v e c o n t e n t

and e x p e r i e n c e of t h e l a b o u r process i s echoed i n thesphere of t h e

technical o r g a n i s a t i o n of work itself. Here t h e problems can be classified

i n t o two areas, p r o d u c t i o n e n g i n e e r i n g and q u a l i t y c o n t r o l .

a ) Production Engineering. The o v e r a l l o b j e c t i v e s of t h e p r o d u c t i o n

e n g i n e e r i n g department w e r e t h o s e of monitoring t h e d e s i g n of p r o d u c t s

and machinery, developing more e f f e c t i v e p r o d u c t i o n methods and improving

job d e s i g n . These w e r e a l l c r u c i a l to t h e 1onFtex-m p o s i t i o n of t h e

company as an i n t e l l i g e n t i n v e s t o r and c o m p e t i t i v e u n i t . Hawever, s u c h

h i g h e r - o r d e r o b j e c t i v e s w e r e r a r e l y obtained because, i n t h e Production

E n g i n e e r ' s words, W e spend -50% o f o u r t i m e 'trouble-shooting' .It

T h i s problem w a s caused, fundamentally, by l i n e management's f a i l u r e

to u s e m r k e r knowledge as a way of s o r t i n g o u t everyday p r o d u c t i o n

problems which cropped up on t h e shop floor: "The reasons? Supervision

relies on p r o d u c t i o n e n g i n e e r i n g t o h e l p t h e m s r t o u t t h e i r problems....

parts are never going to go smoothly. A s l i g h t change i n material may

need a change i n temperature, etc. The operator w i l l see t h e problem, w i l l

t e l l t h e s u p e r v i s o r b u t won't have t h e knmledge to p u t i t r i g h t . I t

probably w o u l d help i n some i n s t a n c e s for t h e operator t o have more

 -189-
knowledge...then h e could deal w i t h t h e problem a t t h e g r a s s mots

r a t h e r t h a n c a l l i n g on US."

b) Q u a l i t y C o n t r o l . The C o n t r a d i c t i o n s s u g g e s t e d i n t h e Production

F n g i n e e r ' s account appeared i n a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t form i n the s p h e r e

of q u a l i t y c o n t r o l , w i t h t h e major o b j e c t i v e of improving q u a l i t y

c o n s t a n t l y f r u s t r a t e d by the emphasis on o u t p u t . T h i s w a s expressed i n

t e n s b o t h of the r e l e n t l e s s managerial p r e s s u r e for p r o d u c t i o n and

of employees' avn concern for t h e i r bonuses:

"Not g e t t i n g rejects i s v e r y d i f f i c u l t - you have three problems:

f i r s t of a l l , i f you s t o p t h e job because of bad q u a l i t y , i t affects

o u t p u t ; secondly, t h e t o o l i n g of t h e machine may be i n a c c u r a t e ; and

t h i r d l y t h e operators themselves a r e n ' t that q u a l i t y c o n s c i o u s because

of the b0nus.f' There was a f u r t h e r c o n f l i c t between t h e manufacturing

workers' "bashing o u t " of p a r t s , & i v e n on by t h e bonus, a n d t h e e n s u i n g

poor q u a l i t y of the parts passed on to t h e assemblers. Underlying t h e s e

problems w a s a basic worker distrust of management, which made them

r e l u c t a n t to cooperate i n t h e q u a l i t y c o n t r o l campaign because of i t s

implications for t h e i r workload ( i n fact, a c c o r d i n g to workers I spoke to

later, t h e y simply did n o t have t i m e to c a r r y o u t t h e m o n i t o r i n g r e q u i r e d

i n t h e campaign). T h i s m i s t r u s t found i t s e n d o r s ' e m e n t i n t h e low

opinion by management of workers' capabilities: "You would need

r e a s o n a b l y i n t e l l i g e n t p e o p l e wanting tia be i n v o l v e d i n work. The main

factors f o r workers are money and social life...They haven't W t

technical r e a s o n i n g overall - t h e y d o n ' t h o w why i t goes t o g e t h e r

or w h a t happens" ( t h e assembly s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s r e s p o n s e to t h e

s u g g e s t i o n of ' ' q u a l i t y circles").

The"mistmstrfof management by t h e workers and managerial r e l u c t a n c e

to g i v e up t h e i r monopoly on i n f o r m a t i o n which marked the i s s u e s

d i s c u s s e d above c a n be seen a s typical of t h e overall antagonism of

i n t e r e s t s which existed a t a s t r u c t u r a l ( n o t n e c e s s a r i l y p e r s o n a l )
 -196-
l e v e l i n t h e f a c t o r y . Other roots, and e x p r e s s i o n s , of this fundamental

antagonism w e r e found of c o u r s e i n t h e related areas of work measurement,

f l e x i b i l i t y of l a b o u r , bonus and "performance". P a r a d o x i c a l l y , hawever,

a central p o i n t emerging from our s t u d y of managerial a t t i t u d e s was that

managers d i d n o t i d e n t i f y t h e i r tasks, f u n c t i o n s or o b j e c t i v e s i n t e r m s

of t h e need to deal w i t h a ( p o t e n t i a l l y or a c t i v e l y ) r e s i s t a n t workforce.

In f a c t mamgenent w a s n o t i n t e r s t e d i n worker c-peration, or worker

response of any k i n d . The i s s u e s around which t h e l a b o u r process revolved,

for them, w e r e t h e t e c h n i c a l and "cost" i m p e r a t i v e s o u t l i n e d a b v e w i t h i n

which l a b o u r remained, however a w k w a r d and u n p r e d i c t a b l e , e s s e n t i a l l y a

oomnodity.

i v ) Conclusions on Management Response.

e can sum up our f i n d i n g s on management response i n terms of t h e s e

W

u l t i m a t e l y q u a n t i t a t i v e o b j e c t i v e s and their d e t a c h n e n t f r o m any

problematic of "control". Bearing i n mind our o r i g i n a l h y p o t h e s i s a b o u t

t h e managerial procuupation w i t h material i s s u e s , w e conclude that:

L m n a g e r i a l a c t i v i t i e s and o b j e c t i v e s w e r e c l a s s i f i e d by them i n t o

t h r e e main groups: monitoring/reducing costs, reducing labour t i m e

( a c h i e v i n g "performance") and i n c r e a s i n g l a b o u r f l e x i b i l i t y . These a l l

reflected a conception of management which w a s p r i m a r i l y economic

(concerned w i t h q u a n t i t i e s of o u t p u t ) r a t h e r than political (concerned

w i t h r e l a t i o n s of s u b o r d i n a t i o n and domination).

2,'There w a s a pazadox between t h i s problematic on t h e part of

management and t h e f a i l u r e to e x p l o r e t h e c a u s e s for t h e p r e v a i l i n g poor

performance record which c l a s h e d w i t h t h e "costs" o b g e c t i v e . Thus w h i l e

t h e o b j e c t i v e s themselves w e r e b e i n g undermined by aspects of worker

response, management l a r g e l y f a i l e d to engage w i t h such response, even

when i t e r u p t e d i n t h e fonn of a s t r i k e .
 -197-
3.The emphasis on q u a n t i t a t i v e factors (hinv much, how q u i c k l y ) i n t h e

o r g a n i s a t i o n of the l a b o u r process led to a n e g l e c t of factors l i k e

p r o d u c t q u a l i t y and machine t o o l i n g , w i t h t h e r e s u l t that t h e o v e r a l l

objectives of t h e company i n t e n s of a n e f f i c i e n t l y produced and

saleable p r o d u c t w e r e i n themselves c o n t i n u a l l y f r u s t r a t e d . T h i s i n v o l v e d

aspects of worker r e s p o n s e - worker knwledge and t h e need for c o - o p e r a t i o n

- which management, i n t h e i r p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h economic targets, appeared

to see as i r r e l e v a n t .

W e nau go on to examine t h e r e s p o n s e of t h e w o r k f o r c e t o t h e s i t u a t i o n

a t L a n d i s and Gyr.

2. Worker Responses

Worker responses are d i s c u s s e d under t h r e e headings, which i n

d i f f e r e n t ways refer t o t h e consequences of the managerial d r i v e

towards t h e r e d u c t i o n of l a b o u r t i m e for workers' e x p e r i e n c e of t h e

l a b o u r process. The f i r s t of t h e s e d i s c u s s e s workers' own p r e o c c u p a t i o n

w i t h q u a n t i t a t i v e aspects of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s , i n c l u d i n g t h e impact of

increased l a b o u r f l e x i b i l i t y . The second covers the area' of worker

response to working methods, q u a l i t y etc. The third c o v e r s i s s u e s of

a c q u i e s c e n c e and r e s i s t a n c e , examining f i r s t of a l l t h e i s s u e of " w i l l i n g -

n e s s to work" and g o i n g on to l o o k a t workers' attitudes towards t h e

d e s i r a b i l i t y a n d f e a s i b i l i t y of o v e r t r e s i s t a n c e . T h i s s e c t i o n i n c l u d e s

a brief a c c o u n t of t h e strike.

The f i r s t two M t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s of worker response can be l i n k e d

w i t h t h e t h e o r e t i c a l i s s u e s of t h e i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n and a b s t r a c t i o n

of l a b o u r , w h i l e t h e third provides SOme empirical background r e g a r d i n g

t h e c o n t e n t and i m p l i c a t i o n s of worker r e s i s t a n c e .
 -198-
i ) Q u a n t i t y not q u a l i t y .

The f i r s t p o i n t to be made h e r e i s t h e p r i o r i t y w h i c h workers i n b o t h

manufacturing and assembly gave t o q u a n t i t a t i v e f a c t o r s , w h e n asked a g e n e r a l

q u e s t i o n on t h e i r " f e e l i n g s a b o u t work". O f t h e 45 workers spoken to i n

i n t e r v i e w or o b s e r v a t i o n , 33 r a i s e d t h e "performance" i s s u e spontaneously

a s t h e i r f i r s t p o i n t , and 5 a s t h e i r second. Few workers of t h e i r own

accord prioritised factors such as j o b c c n t e n t , skill l e v e l , worker

autonomy/discretion or l e v e l s of managerial d i s c r e t i o n , a l t h o u g h two

workers i n t h e moulding shop c o n c e n t r a t e d t h e i r i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w comments

a r o u n d t h e i s s u e of s u p e r v i s i o n . Four o u t of t h e 17 d i r e c t production

workers i n t e r v i e w e d d i d make a n i n i t i a l comment r e g a r d i n g the more

' q u a l i t a t i v e " i s s u e s listed above, b u t t h e bulk of t h e i n t e r v i e w material

tended to c e n t r e on i s s u e s of MTM/performance. The meaninq of t h e work

w a s , for t h e s e workers, effort, "performance", o u t p u t . In examining t h e i r

comments w e focus on t h r e e categories, though t h e s e f r e q u e n t l y o v e r l a p :

whether or n o t t h e worker a c t u a l l y makes performance, or a tonus; hau hard

they worked, i n e i t h e r case; and t h e i m p a c t of j o b families. W e p r e f a c e

t h e s e comments, however, w i t h an a n a l y s i s of some of t h e firm's Own

statistics on performance.

These f a l l i n t o t h r e e groups: a comparison of bonuses between d i f f e r e n t

d e p a r t m e n t s for 2 w e e k s i n 1983/84, a p e f o m n c e summary for f o u r w e e k s

i n 1983, and d i f f e r e n c e s betweenachieved and measured hours i n 1983.

O f t h e s e , t h e first shows that bonuses

i n a l l t h e d e p a r t m e n t s listed, b o t h manufacturing and assembly, tended to fal:

between w e e k s 12 of 1983 and 1984. The second i t e m shows g e n e r a l l y h i g h e r

performance a v e r a g e s among manufacturing workers, though some, for

example i n t h e p r e s s shop, b a r e l y m a k e performance d e s i p t e t h e b u i l t i n 20%

machine allowance. Performance rates w e r e g e n e r a l l y h i g h i n the l i g h t

machine shop, butwhen w e r e a c h t h e assembly area the f i g u r e s drop: 8

 -199-
o u t of 19 workers i n d i a l assembly, for example, made less than 100

performance-in t h e second week. The t h i r d set of t a b l e s shcms t h e

p e r c e n t a g e of achieved a g a i n s t measured h o u r s , i e t h e e x t e n t t o which

workers achieved performance as measured under MIM, 'to be between 80 and

W% i n meter assembly, 60-8W0

in W
WB (programmers) and o n l y 6cX i n dial

assembly, as opposed to 110-2070 i n t h e l i g h t machine shop and j u s t over

10% i n t h e moulding a n d press shops. The a v e r a g e for t h e f a c t o r y as a

w h o l e w a s j u s t o v e r 90%. The o v e r a l l message of t h e f i g u r e s i s t h a t

w h i l e t h e m a j o r i t y of workers d i d a c h i e v e performance or a bonus, a

s u b s t a n t i a l m i n o r i t y did n o t . From my own d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h workers, t h i s

p r o p o r t i o n i s estimated a t 20-2s. %me typical c m e n t s were:

"For t h e m a j o r i t y , people a r e n ' t a b l e to do t h e number s i n c e i t W ~ S

retimed, They're p r o b a b l y g e t t i n g t h e q u a n t i t y b u t n o t t h e q u a l i t y

s i n c e b m " (Meter Assembly worker, i ).("i"i n d i c a t e s comments o b t a i n e d

&ring interview, "01' during observation).

"1 h a v e n ' t made performance for t h e l a s t two y e a r s - I j u s t get t h e

basic, s i n c e t h e jobs w e r e retimed...The number i s too high. They have

a number which I d o n ' t t h i n k any human could do" ( D i a l Assembly worker,

i).

In g e n e r a l i t w a s n o t l a c k of w i l l i n g n e s s to do t h e work, b u t t h e

s h e e r i m p o s s i b i l i t y of "making t h e number" which w a s cited:

"They t r y to make o u t i t ' s o u r f a u l t w e c a n ' t make performance, but you

w a n t t o work, get your number up". ( D i a l Assembly Worker, 0).

For those w h o could "make t h e number", t h e p r e s s u r e of s h e e r hard work

w a s clear. Workers made t h e f o l l o w i n g conunents on effort l e v e l s :

"You've got to work for i t , norldoubt about it. If you d o n ' t make

performance, you get a warning letter. You go r i g h t to i t , no q u e s t i o n

of a b r e a t h e r . I ' m wiped o u t a t t h e end of t h e day" P r e s s Operator, i.

ay you d o n ' t have time to go to t h e l a v a t o r y - if you lose f i v e minutes,

you c a n ' t m a k e i t up. A l l t h e t i m e you're checking you've done enough

for one hour - l o o k i n g a t your watch e v e r y f i v e minutes" Programming

Assembly worker, 0.
 - 200-
"I always make 127. I set a goal for e v e r y hour - I like to work on

t h e clock - 22 an hour. I can do i t because I never spend a penny,

never once get up, n e v e r t a l k or l i f t my head till lunchtime. I think

everyone works l i k e that." Programming Assembly worker, i .

The l e v e l of i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of l a b o u r and t h e importance of l a b o u r t i m e

i n t h e s e workers' p e r c e p t i o n of t h e i r work w a s clear. I t can also be

seen that there w e r e f r e q u e n t r e f e r e n c e s to t h e advantage of b e i n g on

t h e same job, or problems w i t h changing j o b s . The r e l a t i o n between

performance l e v e l s and f r e q u e n t job changes w i t h i n t h e job families

system w a s exemplified i n workers' cDmmentI that:

"YOU have t o be l i k e a n o c t o p u s to do t h i s job - it's t h e s e job families!'

"You jump f r o m j o b to job - what you make on one job you love on another.''

- b o t h d i a l assembly wowkers, 0.

In fact i t was by now becoming clear that i n a d d i t i o n to t h e 10 p o i n t s

which had a l r e a d y been withdrawn on w a i t i n g time ( i e w a i t i n g time w a s

now to be paid a t 10 p o i n t s b e l o w t h e operator's average performance)

management had begun to "renege" on t h e t r a i n i n g p r o v i s i o n s which had

been i n c l u d e d i n t h e job families agreement, or a t least w a s a r g u i n g

t h a t workers had n o t f u l l y understood them. Thus, w h i l e it had been

implied i n t h e agreement t h a t workers would be t r a i n e d on up to 10

jobs, t h i s w a s now b e i n g i n t e r p r e t e d a s for example 10 hours' t r a i n i n g

for one job. E i t h e r way, i n a d d i t i o n to t h e f r u s t r a t i o n s of t r y i n g to

c a r r y o u t j o b s a t speed for which t h e y w e r e u n t r a i n e d , t h e scheme

was a f f e c t i n g workers i n terms of d r a s t i c r e d u c t i o n s i n t h e i r bonus.

I n t h i s s e n s e i n c r e a s e d l a b o u r f l e x i b i l i t y through t h e j o b families

system w a s experienced by workers n o t as an i n c r e a s e i n managerial

domination b u t d i r e c t l y i n terms of t h e i r own i n t e n s i f i e d e x p l o i t a t i o n .

The nexus between effort and reward, explored throughout t h e t h e s i s ,

can now be f u r t h e r assessed a s a c e n t r a l facet of wcwkez. e x p e r i e n c e

a t Landis and Gyr i n terms of t h e areas now to be examined.

 -201-

ii) E f f o r t and Keward.

W e have seen that effort i s an overwhelmingly ' p r e s e n t i n g " factor i n

workers' p e r c e p t i o n s of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s . W e now 90 on to look a t

reward, and t h e relationship between t h e t w o factors, a s possible f u r t h e r

dimensions of workers' " q u a n t i t a t i v e " view of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s . Two

hypotheses have a l r e a d y been proposed i n this area i n r d a t i o n to the

t h e s i s as a w h o l e and t h e case s t u d y i n p a r t i c u l a r . These are f i r s t l y

that e q l o i t a t i o n i s t h e c e n t r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p i n t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e

c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r p r o c e s s ; and secondly t h a t workers i n the c a s e s t u d y

s a w t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s i n terms of i t s q u a n t i h t i v e rather than

q u a l i t a t i v e aspects. Looking a t w o j k e r s ' comments on t h e i s s u e of effort

and reward h e l p s us to explore b o t h p r o p o s i t i o n s .

a ) " W i n g money". One aspect of t h i s i s t h e e x t e n t t o which w o r k e r s

-
s a w t h e l a b o u r process a means, for them, of l i t e r a l l y 9naking money".

Thus j u s t a s management tended to see i t p r i m a r i l y as a p r o c e s s of

producing v a l u e rather than producing t h i n g s (cf the preoccupation w i t h

''costs"), so workers showed a n u n s e t t l i n g tendency to i n t e r p r e t "making"

i n terms of "riwney". A common e x p e r i e n c e was t o ask a worker d u r i n g

observation w h a t s h e was making and to receive an answer l i k e "Oh, I

d o n ' t make much on t h i s job." Workers also f r e q u e n t l y s u b s t i t u t e d rldoing"

for "rmking money" - for example "You c o u l d be switched around and not

haw done anything" (by which he meant 'made any bonus") "all day because

the rate i s 50 high" ( P r e s s Cperator, i ) .

b ) "Mking for myself, making for them"..

Workers s a w t h e job b o t h i n t e n s of "the number" and i n terms of i t s

e a r n i n g s e q u i v a l e n t . Both p e r c e p t i o n s p r e c l u d e d any major concern w i t h

i t s q u a l i t a t i v e c o n t e n t or process. Another example of t h e c o r r e l a t i o n

between %aking" and %aking money" w a s t h e d i b t i n c t i o n which large

numbers of workers made between l a b o u r t i m e s p e n t producing t h e amounts

 -202-

specified under the MlM standards and labour t i m e beyond this p o i n t ,

which w a s seen a s time spent producing "for myself":

" I ' m not r e a l l y making anything f o r myself - I might earn 115 on one

job, then 70 on another. I ' m working f o r t h e company, not f o r myself"

Programming Assembly worker, i.

"I'M p u t t i n g i n the effort I should be p u t t i n g i n , n o t t h e nerve-

wracking s t u f f . Instead of myself, I ' m making t h e company happyfr

(Light machine shop worker, i ) . This worker c l e a r l y r e p r d e d the l e v e l

of e f f o r t s h e would have t o put i n to make something "for herself" a s

f a r beyond w h a t w a s acceptable. A second Light Machine Shop worker was

more sdnguine: ' ? I ' m working f o r the company and also f o r myself, i t ' s

a job and I ' m g r a t e f u l for that - for t h e i r interests and my i n t e r e s t s

a s well."

I n general, havever, t h e 'Working f o r myself/working f o r t h e company"

d i s t i n c t i o n was the occasion for d i s g u s t a t the r a w d e a l the workers

f e l t they w e r e getting:

"1 think you're working f o r the company most of t h e time, because you

don't 9 t nothing - it's disgusting - i t would be n i c e t o look a t your

payslip and t h i 4 ah, for working hard I got t h i s , but you get nothing"

( P r o g r m i n g Assembly worker, 0).

Another worker was explosive about t h e minor concessions made on

"perfonnance" a f t e r t h e s t r i k e :

"The stewards say t h e times are better but performances of 110 a d

thereabouts are rubbish - you're slogging your guts o u t f o r f 3 a week

and a l l f o r t h a n - I ' d rather take i t easy..." (Meter Assembly w r k e r , 0).

The company/self d i s t i n c t i o n was f u r t h e r a r t i c u l a t e d by many workers i n

a sharp awareness of t h e p r o f i t motive:

wm do you feel about t h e job depends on the t i m e s - you know a t the

end of t h e day you're j u s t producing for t h e company's p r o f i t s , not f o r

you - if i t w a s f a i r you'd be doing a f a i r d a y ' s work f o r t h e company,

a f a i r d a y ' s work for you i n t h e s e n s e of making a w a g e . If you f i n d
- 203-
y o u ' r e n o t making for y o u r s e l f some workers w o n ' t p u s h themselves any

f u r t h e r to let t h e company gain."

c) "mre work for less money".

C x 1 t h e whole, however, comments on bonus w e r e intermingled with those

on effort and "performance" i n a s t r a i g h t f o r n a r d ( i f g e n e r a l l y dissatisfied)

a n a l y s i s of t h e effort/reqard r e l a t i o n s h i p :

"They want more work o u t of you b u t t h e y ' r e n o t about to pay you gon

i t . These days t h e y want more work for less money" Progrannbing Assembly

Worker, 0.

"The work is r e a l l y veryhard - t h e y expect too much for w h a t t h e y

pay" D i a l Assembly worker, i .

"It's t h e m n e y makes m e do t h e number. 017 one week off this job,

my bonus dropped. I t ' s r e a l l y k i l l i n g , you d o n ' t get i t for nothing"

Programming Assembly, i.

A moulding shop worker posed t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p i n terms of a d e f i n i t e

calculation:

'They might g i v e you a 4% i n c r e a s e , b u t t h e y ' l l take back 2-35? i n terns

of effort. Minagement i s always pushing for more and more effort."

A f u r t h e r aspect of t h e d i s c o n t e n t expressed by many workers w a s t h e

f e e l i n g that c o n d i t i o n s had become much worse o v e r t h e l a s t few y e a r s

i n t h i s respect. A s a D i a l Assembly worker p u t it:

"It's a l l changed s i n c e ( t h e works D i r e c t o r k came h e r e . They've made i t

h a r d e r for t h e working class. I used to earn a bonus, b u t s i n c e w e w e r e

retimed I ' v e found i t impossible t o e a r n mney."

"Things have now g o t v e r y hard - I d o n ' t have a minute t o t u r n - five

minutes can make a b i g d i f f e r e n c e to t h e w a g e s . I used to earn E T )

bonus - I worked hard b u t got something for i t . NOW I ' m working harder

and g e t t i n g less" m e t e r assembly worker, i.

 -204-

In t h e i r p r i o r i t i s a t i o n of labour t i m e , l a b o u r i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n and pay as

primary f e a t u r e s of t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e of t h e l a b o u r process, workers i n

effect evoked e x p l o i t a t i o n as d e f i n i n g t h e n a t u r e of.t h a t e x p e r i e n c e .

T h i s w a s clear b o t h i n t h e c e n t r a l i t y of t h e i s s u e to t h e i r comments on

work and t h e number of comments which spontaneously a d d r e s s e d t h i s facet

of t h e l a b o u r process.

Whatever t h e evidence that b o t h management and workforce saw the

l a b o u r process p r i m a r i l y i n terms of v a l u e p r o d u c t i o n , however, i t i s n o t

t h e i n t e n t i o n to a r g u e that t h e l a b o u r process, even under capitalism,

a c t u a l l y i s or could be a one-dimensional a c t i v i t y of 'pure'' v a l u e

production. The p o i n t i s that i t i s the domination of t h e c a p i t a l i s t

l a b o u r process by t h e i m p e r a t i v e s of v a l u e p r o d u c t i o n that c a u s e s

c o n t r a d i c t i o n s between t h e s e i m p e r a t i v e s and t h e a c t u a l requirements of

t h e c o n c r e t e p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s . Some of t h e s e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s are e v i d e n t

i n t h e comments of workers on working methods, q u a l i t y etc., looked a t

below.

iii) Working methods, worker knowledge, q u a n t i t y v e r s u s q u a l i t y .

There werefrw s t r o n g f e e l i n g s on t h e i s s u e of working methods, most

workers r e p o r t i n g t h a t , as one p u t i t w i t h a d o c i l i t y that would have

p l e a s e d Taylor,

"I do t h e j o b t h e way I w a s t r a i n e d i n t r a i n i n g school, t h e r e i s o n l y

one way" ( L i g h t Machine Shop worker, 0) -

Another worker a t t r i b u t e d t h i s l a c k of d i s c r e t i o n to t h e t e c h n i c a l

s t r u c t u r i n g of work:

You have t o do t h e job the way t h e y t e l l you. T h e r e ' s no way you can

do it q u i c k e r than t h e machine does, you've got t h e l a y o u t , you do i t

t h e way t h e l a y o u t says" ( P r e s s Operator, 0).

I t w a s clear that workers w e r e less concerned w i t h job c o n t e n t a s such

than w i t h the r e l a t i o n of t h e mrk to t i m i n g and performance r a t i n g .

 -205-
A s a programming assembly worker p u t i t i n i n t e r v i e w :

"I u s e t h e m e t h o d sham - I don't change t h e m e t h o d - i t ' s t h e only

method t h e y show you. I d o n ' t mind how the job's done a s l o n g a s I

can e a r n performance."

A s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t p i n t of view n e w r t h e l e s s conveyed t h e Same

r e l a t i o n s h i p between working methods and p e r f o m n c e :

"Workers u s e t h e i r own l i t t l e dodges - you f i n d y o u r s e l f d o i n g better.

I f you did i t t h e same way t h e y shavcsid you, you wouldn't make a bonus.

R u t you f i n d a l i t t l e way to do i t , you make something for y o u r s e l f f '

( P r e s s operator, i ) . From t h e s e comments i t w a s clear that workers

p o t e n t i a l l y had a s i g n i f i c a n t part to p l a y i n the o r g a n i s a t i o n of

working methods and assessment of problems of production and q u a l i t y .

W e 9 on to explore this p o t e n t i a l and t h e associated, c o n t r i b u t i o n s

i n t h e following sections.

a ) Worker Knowledge.

The workers' i n t i m a t e knowledge of t h e j o b meant, of c o u r s e , that

t h e y w e r e much better q u a l i f i e d t o s u g g e s t e f f e c t i v e changes i n

m e t h o d than management and even t h e foreman. That t h i s knowledge remained

unused, w i t h t h e consequences for p r o d u c t i o n e n g i n e e r i n g and e f f i c i e n t

work organisation that w e s a w above (pp188ff ), can be e x p l a i n e d i n

terms of a mutual dynamic of worker d i s t r u s t and managerial d i s d a i n .

In t h i s s e n s e t h e u n d e r l y i n g ahmagonism between workers and management,

w h i l e n o t t h e occasion for o v e r t r e s i s t a n c e , provided n o t o n l y t h e s o i l

for that resistance (see C h a p t e r 4 ) b u t also a powerful bar to e f f e c t i v e

o r g a n i s a t i o n of t h e l a b o u r process. The obstacles worked i n s e v e r a l ways;

one, which might be described as "peer-group p r e s s u r e " , w a s s h a m i n an

example f r o m a meter assembly worker:

"I would t e l l t h e foreman a b o u t a new method b u t n o t t h e g i r l s because

t h e r e ' s a l o t of j e a l a s y t h e r e , they'd s a y I w a s shaving off.

 -206-
There w a s a case l a s t w e e k - I suggested to t h e g i r l s on t h e bench t h a t

w e had c h u t e s for t h e parts - t h e y d i d n ' t want t o h o w - I went to

Q u a l i t y C o n t r o l w i t h t h e i d e a , t h e chargehand thought i t w a s a good i d e a .

I t o l d him n o t to s a y it w a s my i d e a - t h e g i r l s then w e l c o m e d it."

S i g n i f i c a n t l y , t h i s r e l u c t d a c e to assist i n t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n of t h e l a b o u r

p r o c e s s w a s a t t r i b u t e d p a r t l y to the f e e l i n g that this w a s simply n o t

part of t h e wodcers' s p h e r e of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y :

"I do make s u g g e s t i o n s , b u t I d o n ' t l i k e poking my nose i n , i t ' s n o t

my b u s i n e s s , I c o u l d g e t i n t o t r o u b l e . They've got e n g i n e e r s , if t h e

e n g i n e e r s c a n ' t do i t t h e y ' r e n o t going to get p r o d u c t i o n . I t ' s n o t t h e

workers' job" L i g h t M c h i n e Shop worker, i.

As a g a i n s t this a p o s i t i v e h o s t i l i t y w a s expressed i n terms of t h e

opposing i n t e r e s t s of workers and management:

"I would s u g g e s t better ways of doing the j o b b u t you d o n ' t get

compensation so you d o n ' t bother, you keep i t t o y o u r s e l f . They'd

j u s t u s e i t a p i n s t you - if you g o t something back, you might do

i t " ( m u l d i n g Shop worker, 0)-

Workers' r e l u c t a n c e t o offer t h e i r s u g g e s t i o n s w a s r e i n f o r c e d by

t h e awareness that management w a s t o t a l l y unconcerned a b o u t t h e i r

views and experience:

"These new boxes - t h e y j u s t brought them a l o n g , t h e y d i d n ' t ask

us - t h e y ' r e n o good. If they'd asked us, t h e y w o u l d have had more

idea a b o u t it. They d o n ' t a& t h e m r k e r s because t h e y probably d o n ' t

t h i n k welve got a n y i n t e l l i g e n c e . I t ' s j u s t done d o w n s t a i r s , t h e y d o n ' t

a& u s - now t h e r e a r e n ' t enough boxes, t h e work's p i l i n g up" ( D i a l

Assembly worker, i ) .
F i n a l l y , i n spite of a l l t h e s e obstacles, s o m e had offered s u g g e s t i o n s ,

b u t had been rebuffed:

911 can t h i n k of more p r o d u c t i v e m e t h o d s - yes, d e f i n i t e l y . For

 -207-

example t h e c o i l - you have t o wrap i t in your hand - you could J u s t

chop o f f t h e scrap. T h i s t o o l could knock f o u r heads o f f , n o t j u s t

one. I have made s u g g e s t i o n s , b u t I ' m recommended t o p u t them in t h e

s u g g e s t i o n book - t h e y ' r e n o t i n t e r e s t e d , so why should anyone e l s e

be i n t e r e s t e d ? T h e r e ' s no response. ..The company d o e s n ' t t a k e much n o t i c e

of what you t h i n k - y o u ' r e h e r e t o do your j o b and t h a t ' s i t "

P r e s s Operator, i.

To sum up t h i s s e c t i o n , i t can be s a i d t h a t i t was workers' conueptions

of management and t h e r o l e of management, and v i c e v e r s a , t h a t stood

i n t h e way of much of t h e i n t e r c h a n g e of information t h a t should have

been p o s s i b l e . In t h i s s e n s e t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n was more deepseated than

t h e one w e a r e about t o look a t , t h a t between q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y . I t

resembles t h e p o i n t made by Cressey and MacInnes about t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n

between t h e oppression of t h e workforce and t h e need f o r i t s co-operation,

with t h e d i f f e r e n c e t h a t management d i d n o t -
seek t h e co-operation of t h e

workforce, echoing t h e a t t i t u d e of t h e workforce who on t h e whole d i d

n o t see t h e i r i n t e r e s t s a s in t h e same s p h e r e a s t h o s e of management.

Seeing production in terms of o i t p u t r a t h e r than c o n t e n t , management d i d

not seek workers' views because they simply d i d n o t regard i t a s p a r t of

t h e j o b o f t h e workforce t o do o t h e r than, merely, produce. This s t r u c t u r i n g

of t h e labour p r o c e s s towards o u t p u t was, more t r a n s p a r e n t l y , r e s p o n s i b l e

f o r t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s between q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y expressed by t h e

workforce i n t h e i r commonts below.

b) Quality versus quantity

In t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e campaign which had j u s t been launched by t h e

Q u a l i t y Control manager which r e q u i r e d o p e r a t o r s t o record problems

in q u a l i t y w n i l e c a r r y i n g o u t t h e i r work, most respondents were

s c o r n f u l i n t h e i r assessment of what they saw a s t o t a l l y c o n f l i c t i n g

 -208-
priorities:

"If t h e y w a n t t h e g i r l s to produce better work, t h e y s h o u l d g i v e

them more time - t h e y want q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y . You do your best,

b u t i f t h e y want a c c u r a c y t h e y should g i v e you more t i m e " L i g h t

Eachine shop worker, i.

"They want p r o d u c t i o n , n o t q u a l i t y ...t h e y s h o u l d be more exact a b o u t

q u a l i t y t h a n q u a n t i t y . They still want q u a n t i t y no matter what -
o t h e r w i s e y o u ' r e d o w n s t a i r s , you g e t t h r e e warnings...They're t r y i n g to

push t h e operators too much - i f t h e y want q u a n t i t y , t h e y won't get

q u a l i t y " L i g h t btachine Shop worker, i.

In t h e assembly department, t h e clearest demonstration of t h e c l a s h

between q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y w a s t h e problem of bad p a r t s c a n i n g through

f r o m manufacturing, t h i s problem itself b e i n g caused by t h e p r e s s u r e s

of t h e iTM/bonus system:

"There's bad parts coming through so w e c a n ' t m a k e bonus - i t happens

because t h e p r e s s operators are t r y i n g t o make bonus."

"The parts are bad more o f t e n t h a n n o t - We're constantly struggling

to get t h e p a r t s to f i t - t h e r e ' s a c l a s h between q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y "

( D i a l Assembly workers, 0).

F i n a l l y , t h e somewhat w i s t f u l comment of t h e Programming Assembly

worker q u o t e d earlier shaved t h e c o u n t e r v a i l i n g p r e s s u r e of o u t p u t

even on a worker wplo c l e a r l y cared a b o u t q u a l i t y for i t s Own sake:

"I'm on loom s o l d e r i n g - i t ' s i n t e r e s t i n g because no two l o o m s are

t h e same - I l i k e t h e v a r i e t y . The number i s h i g h - it takes M e of

t h e enjoyment o u t of i t , I would l i k e more t i m e t o do a p e r f e c t loom.

I t ' s n o t a s qxd a s I would l i k e , I feel I ' m r u s h i n g and r u s h i n g ....'I

These comments speak for themselves i n i n d i c a t i n g t h e competing

p r e s s u r e s of r e d u c i n g l a b o u r t i m e and improving the q u a l i t y of t h e

p r o d u c t , i n which t h e l a t t e r c l e a r l y l o s t o u t . The economics of t h i s ,

 -209-
i f n o t t h e l o g i c , w e r e sound; speaking to t h e D i a l Assembly Shop

steward d u r i n g t h e s t r i k e about t h e remeasured F?TN system, and b e i n g

t o l d once a g a i n that a major problem was t h e h i g h number o f bad

p a r t s b e i n g s e n t f r o m o t h e r departments, I p u t t h e p o i n t that t h i s

appeared to c o n f l i c t w i t h company o b j e c t i v e s , to which s h e replied

that t h e company w a s still producing t h r e e times t h e amount t h e y had

before the new system was introduced.

A t t h e same time t h e connnents of one of t h e s k i l l e d workers i n the

t o o l r o o m i n d i c a t e d from a d i f f e r e n t p o i n t Of view some of t h e c o n f l i c t i n g

p r e s s u r e s which c o n t i n u a l l y dogged e f f e c t i v e p r o d u c t i o n . Speaking of

t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n of work i n lhis s e c t i o n , he said:

"There should be more p l a n n i n g i n the t o o l r o o m , b u t t h e r e are too

many breakdowns, etc. You start t o p l a n ahead for new jobs b u t then

- ' u r g e n t job' a g a i n because t h e r e ' s been a machine breakdown. The

breakdowns happen because of MIM - u s e of t h e tool i s t h e secondary

factor. I n t h e past, t h e y would p u t u s e of t h e tool before o u t p u t .

MrM h a s r u i n e d t o o l i n g . They're n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e tools themselves.

llventy y e a r s ago if a press operator n o t i c e d a change i n t h e blanks

he'd s t o p t h e machine, now h e ' l l go on producing for t h e bonus -

i t ' s w a s t e d m n e y , t h e f i r m c o u l d pay more w a g e s o u t Of their profits."

T h i s w o r k e r ' s comments p i n p o i n t e d c l e a r l y t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s between t h e

firm's p r e s s i n g need for h e d i a t e o u t p u t and t h e longer-term requirements

of p l a n n i n g and c a p i t a l investment. The c o u n t e r p o s i n g of t h e bonus

as an i n c e n t i v e to t h e n o t i o n that t h e f i r m could pay t h e same amount

of w a g e s "out of profits" belies t h e "piecework myth" w i t h i t s shrewd

s u g g e s t i o n that t h e bonus itself made no d i f f e r e n c e t o t h e firm's w a g e

asts. Thus t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e bonus i s n o t an attempt by t h e firm

to save l a b o u r costs through a possible r e d u c t i o n i n bonus when workers

f a i l to e a r n a bonus, b u t to i n c r e a s e performance to a l e v e l which,

i n t h i s worker's view, w a s c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e .

In a way t h i s sums up t h e whole dilemma t h e f i n w a s i n . They had t o

increase worker performance to c e r t a i n - p r e c i s e l y q u a n i f i e d - levels,

or else, as t h e Personnel Elanager had p o i n t e d o u t w i t h this example of

t h e Japanese f i r m , t h e y w e r e Out of t h e competition. They simply did

n o t have time, and for the same r e a s o n s d i d n o t have r e s o u r c e s , to

r e l y on a n y t h i n g b u t i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of l a b o u r t o get them o u t of t h e i r

s t i l l s o m e w h a t backward competitive p o s i t i o n . And indeed t h e

remeasurement exercise had, a s t h e Personnel &nager p u t i t , ' p u l l e d

t h e company round". The problems w e r e f i r s t l y that, as w e s a w above,

t h e raised o u t p u t requirements had i n t e n s i f i e d l a b o u r to such a d e g r e e

t h a t workers w e r e o f t e n simplyunable to a t t a i n t h e targets, and

secondly that, as t h e toolmaker quoted above made clear, t h e y led

d i r e c t l y tothe sort of problems w i t h work o r g a n i s a t i o n , q u a l i t y

c o n t r o l and loss of worker knowledge which have j u s t been d i s c u s s e d .

The worker r e s p o n s e s examined so f a r can be s a i d to reflect less a

fundamental protest a t the alien&tibn of l a b o u r and removal of worker

d i s c r e t i o n than a thwarted practical s t r u g g l e to a t t a i n f r e q u e n t l y

p r o h i b i t i v e n m r s of l a b o u r i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n . Workers also had a

p e r c e p t i o n of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s s,l i t e r a l l y , "making money".

Although " a t t i t t u d i n a l " f a c t o r s more familiar to i n d u s t r i a l s c i o l o g y

w e r e i m p o r t a n t i n , for example, demonstrating a basic h o s t i l i t y towards

management which made workers r e l u c t a n t to p o s i t i v e l y offer co-operation,

i n none of t h e response i s a clear?pattem of o r g a n i s e d and o v e r t worker

r e s i s t a n c e around elements of t h e c o n t e n t of t h e l a b o u r process a p p a r e n t .

One of t h e c e n t r a l o b j e c t i v e s of this t h e s i s has been to e x p l o r e *hat

t h e i s s u e s are around which worker r e s i s t a n c e does c e n t r e , and to

follow through t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s c o n t e n t of r e s i s t a n c e . These

themes are now taken up i n t h e f i n a l s e c t i o n of t h e report.

 -2'11'-
i i i ) W i l l i n g n e s s to Work, Fatalism, The T r i g g e r s of R e s i s t a n c e .

The basis and c o n t e n t of worker r e s i s t a n c e are explored i n this

s e c t i o n . W e begin by l o o k i n g mre c l o s e l y a t t h e e x t e n t t o which

worker r e s i s t a n c e may be focussed around a basic protest a t t h e

need to s u r r e n d e r l a b o u r to a n employer, which i s examined i n the

c o n t e x t of 'WillinSpless to work". I n t h e f o l l c w i n g two s e c t i o n s

w e l o o k a t t h e paradoxical c o n n e c t i o n s between an a p p a r e n t r e s i g n a t i o n

by workers i n the face of w h a t are seenas impossible odds, and t h e

sudden "explosion" i n t o r e s i s t a n c e . F i n a l l y w e p r e s e n t a brief a c c o u n t

of t h e strike which w a s t h e v e h i c l e of t h i s r e s i s t a n c e , examining t h e

i s s u e s a t i t s c e n t r e and thos which s u r f a c e d d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h e

strike and p r e s e n t e d s o m e crucial obstacles t o t h e w o r k e r s ' s u w e s s .

a ) W i l l i n g n e s s to Work.
W e b e g i n t h i s s e c t i o n w i t h t h r e e t h e o r e t i c a l p i n t s of r e f e r e n c e .
F i r s t l y , t h e r e has been a s u g g e s t i o n i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e (Friedman, 1977

Carchedi, 1977) that workers resist, a t t h e m o s t fundamental l e v e l , t h e

a l i e n a t i o n of their l a b o u r to t h e employer. Secondly, w r i t e r s such a s

W a r d s and L i t t l e r & Salaman, as w e argued i n Chapter 2, have l a r g e l y

d e f i n e d t h e "control" i s s u e w i t h i n t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s i n terms of t h e

d i s t i n c t i o n between l a b o u r power and l a b o u r , and t h e d i f f i c u l t y faced

by t h e a n p l o y e r i n t r a n s l a t i n g o n e i n t o t h e o t h e r , w i t h o u t specific

a t t e n t i o n b e i n g given to t h e level of l a b o u r i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n . T h i r d l y

w e refer, more i n l i n e w i t h t h e e n s u i n g argument, to t h e i n v o c a t i o n of

I Z a r x ' s concept of t h e " d u l l compulsion of l a b o u r " by A b e r c r o m b i e , Hill

and Turner i n t h e i r Dominant Ideology T h e s i s (1984). I t i s argued t h a t

i t i s not p e r - c e n t r e d c o e r c i o n b u t s i m p l e economic n e c e s s i t y , r e c o g n i s e d

by workers i n a spirit of "pragmatic acceptance", which p r e v a i l s upon

them to s u r r e n d e r t h e i r l a b o u r .

I n a d d i t i o n , i n r e l a t i o n t o t h i s it has been h y p o t h e s i s e d i n the c u r r e n t

t h e s i s (see C h a p t e r s 2 & 4 ) that t h e r e i s a level of effort which i s

 - 232-
"acceptable" to workers and up to which t h e y d i s p l a y a n uncoerced

w i l l i n g n e s s to, or acceptance of, work. I t i s a t p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l s

of h i g h i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of l a b o u r , such as t h o s e a t L a n d i s & Gyr,

t h a t workers may "resist" i n t h e s e n s e of b e i n g unable, u n w i l l i n g ,

or a b l e o n l y a t g r e a t cost to themselves t o work a t such l e v e l s . The

c e m e n t s from workers below demonstrate a clear ' W i l l i n g n e s s t o work"

up to t h i s p o i n t :

"I work j u s t a s hard when I ' m on a 'no time' job because I ' m n o t

l a z y , I g i v e a f a i r deal...It d o e s n ' t affect thevork I ' m doing -

I always work, always t r y a y best" P r e s s Operator, i.

"People are c o n s c i e n t i o u s , t h e y c a r r y on d o i n g t h e i r j o b . You do i t

because i t ' s your job" (Moulding shop w o r k e r ) .

"...It's work. Once I ' m on a job I t r y my best, work a s hard as I can.

W e have t o , even i f you're n o t on the bonus t h e y pay you, M you have

t o do t h e r e a s o n a b l e t h i n g - once I s t a r t t o work I j u s t wrk...I'm

h e r e t o w r k , w h a t t h e foreman g i v e s m e I j u s t do."

"1 j u s t keep on i n t h e same way as i f t h e r e w a s no time on t h e job.

Some people on a n-time job might slow down, b u t I j u s t work normal

because everyone has to work for a l i v i n g -I l i k e to p u t i n a f a i r d a y ' s

work - no one w i l l pay you for it i f you d o n ' t work."

Even a worker who emerged as one of the most fOEefUl s u p p o r t e r s of t h e

s t r i k e e x p r e s s e d t h e f o l l o w i n g view:

"I'm t h e t y p e that would do it for myself and the f i r m , I f e l t j u s t as

much for t h e firm as for myself - if I w a s asked to s t a y late, I would.

M o s t p e o p l e d o n ' t g i v e a damn, that's t h e f a u l t of management...'' (meter

assembly worker, i f .

Gnmnents l i k e the l a s t may seem to 90 beyond " p r a g n a t i c acceptance"

t o a p o s i t i v e a f f i r m a t i o n of t h e d u t y to work, the need of t h e f i r m

t o p r o s p e r etc. Hauever, whether " w i l l i n g n e s s to work" i s e x p r e s s e d

 - 2 13-
i n terms of a n e u t r a l component of t h e employment r e l a t i o n s h i p or a s

a moral o b l i g a t i o n , t h e o v e r a l l r e s u l t i n r e l a t i o n to t h e c o n t e n t of

worker r e s i s t a n c e i s t h e same - t h e issue of t h e s u r r e n d e r of l a b o u r

i n itself i s not made a f o c u s of that r e s i s t a n c e . T h i s p o i n t i s n o t

made to a r g u e a t h e o r y of "consent" b u t to s p e c i f y w h a t r e s i s t a n c e i s

about (and to emphasise t h e f a c t that t h e i s s u e s concerned w e r e

fundamental enough to overcome any minimal moral obligation t o t h e

employer). What brought t h e m r k e r s a t Lads & Gyr o u t on s t r i k e

w a s n o t having t o work, b u t having to work hard,- so hard that they

c o u l d n ' t "make t h e number" - and even this w a s n o t r e s i s t e d u n t i l two

of them w e r e t h r e a t e n e d w i t h d i s m i s s a l a s p a r t of t h e company

s a n c t i o n s a g a i n s t l o w performance. U n t i l . t h e n , as w e s a w , t h e high

s r k s t a n d a r d s w e r e viewed w i t h resentment and i n c r e d u l i t y , b u t w e r e

n o t r e b e l l e d a g a i n s t for t h e i r own sake.

b) Fatalism.

I'art o f t h e slowness t o resist c a n be said to l i e i n t h e huge

p r a c t i c a l , political and economic obstacles c o n f r o n t i n g workers who

may a c t u a l l y contemplate t a k i n g a c t i o n a g a i n s t a n employer. To t a k e

up a n o t h e r t h e o r e t i c a l r e f e r e n c e , arguments such a s t h o s e of eg E l g e r ,

S t a r k and Friedman, which p l a c e class s t r u g g l e as a c e n t r a l determinant

i n t h e development of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s , o f t e n appear to s u g g e s t a l e v e l

of e x p l i c i t "protest" a g a i n s t c a p i t a l i s t c o n t r o l of t h e l a b o u r process

which is i n f a c t l a c k i n g i n most even o v e r t worker s t r u g g l e s . While

i n h e r e n t antagonism i s b u i l t i n t o t h e c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r p r o c e s s , m r k e r s

a r e n o t hot-headed rebels grabbing a t e v e r y o p p o r t u n i t y t o f i g h t t h e

"class s t r u g g l e " on t h e shop floor. R a t h e r , t h e y are pragmatic p a r t i c i p a n t s

i n a b a r g a i n which d e l i v e r s to them t h e i r means of making a l i v i n g .

I t takes q u i t e a l o t to s h i f t workers from t h i s c a u t i o u s awareness of

"reality", t h e economic and practical parameters of which are again

expressed i n t h e comments of workers fran Landis & Gyrt

 -214-
''1 see t h i s f i r m as m u l t i n a t i o n a l I t has t h e power t o close down t h i s

f a c t o r y . The workers won't c o m e o u t - they c a n ' t d o a n y t h i n g . Every

shop sees t h i n g s d i f f e r e n t l y . Workers won't act because t h e y ' r e worried

about t h e i r jobs. m n g on h e r e as t i g h t a s you can - you've got no

choice - you c a n ' t go anywhere. O t h e r firms pay even lower w a g e s "

( P r e s s Operator, 0).

'I)o w e work hard? Oh yeah, s i n c e t h e l a s t pay round everybody p u t s i n

a l o t more effort. Management can get away w i t h t h i n g s because of

unemployment. People won't s t a n d up for t h e i r r i g h t s because of t h e

climate outside...I doubt if t h e y ' l l do a n y t h i n g about t h e bad

working c o n d i t i o n s . Knowing w h a t ' s o u t t h e r e y o u ' l l s u f f e r h e r e i n

s t e a d of o u t t h e r e . Everybody i s w e l l a w a r e of t h e circumstances. If

t h e r e w a s a s t r o n g l e a d e r s h i p from t h e trade union s i d e everybody would

want to do samething about i t . The stewards are aware of t h e s i t u a t i o n ,

but a t the moment t h e i r hands a r e b e i n g t i e d . I ' m n o t blaming them,

i t ' s t h e s i t u a t i o n o u t s i d e " (Moulding shop worker, i ) .

Workers i n t h e assembly department broadened t h e a n a l y s i s to b r i n g

i n t h e g e n e r a l political s i t u a t i o n (as indeed d i d a large number of

workers) :

"These problems w e have h e r e i s h e r f a u l t , b k s Thatcher. S h e ' s made

t h e unemployment and a l l . Workers h e r e t h i n k t h e y c a n ' t do nothing,

t h e y ' l l lose t h e i r job" ( 2 d i a l assembly workers, 0).

Y e t any p o t e n t i a l for r e s i s t a n c e w a s viewed p r e s s h i s t i c a l l y by t h e

D i a l Assembly shop steward ( i n t e r v i e w e d one day before t h e s t r i k e broke

out):

"The main ' s h o u t s ' are a b o u t t i m e s on jobs and bad p a t s - it's

r i d i c u l o u s w h a t y o u ' r e supposed to work w i t h . Who g i v e s t h e work, who

t a k e s i t away. Some d a y s t h e r e ' s t h r e e or f o u r people coming w i t h

problems, some d a y s i t ' s t o t a l l y q u i e t . They p u t a l o t on t h e stewards,

emect t h e steward t o sort e v e r y t h i n g o u t , t h e y j u s t want to c a r r y on

 -215-
working, won't do anything. I can see people j u s t p u t t i n g up w i t h

things - they've g i v e n up nu#, t h e y ' v e l o s t a l o t of i n t e r e s t i n t h e

l a s t s i x months to a y e a r , they've gone down r a p i d l y f r o m w h a t they'd

do before. They're worried a b o u t t h e work s i t u a t i o n , t h e y ' r e now t o l d

do i t or get o u t , t h e r e ' s t h e dmr. I f t h e y do a n y t h i n g they won't get

anywhere, t h e y ' l l lose money. If I ' m t a l k i n g to k y department, 1'11

say w e should do something a b o u t i t , b u t w e won't 90 o u t if o t h e r

departments won't 90 o u t , w e ' l l j u s t lose money. People are afraid

of l o s i n g t h e i r j o b s , t h e y feel why bother, w h a t ' s the good of it."

D e s p i t e t h i s s t e w a r d ' s personal w i l l i n g n e s s to f i g h t , s h e had caught

t h e p r e v a i l i n g mood o f fatalism i n t h e face of e x t e r n a l economic

realities which c h a r a c t e r i s e d a l l t h e workers' comments on resistance.

Of a l l those who r a i s e d t h e i s s u e , e i t h e r spontaneously or i n answer

to a q u e s t i o n , n o t one expressed a m i l i t a n t d e t e r m i n a t i o n t o 90 on

strike - i n fact t h e comments quoted s h overwhelmingly t h e d i r e c t i o n

of thought i n t h e f a c t o r y . T h i r t e e n o u t of 45 workers "observed" or

i n t e r v i e w e d raised t h e i s s u e of r e s i s t a n c e , a l l of them from a "nothing

you can do" p e r s p e c t i v e .

cy T r i g g e r s of R e s i s t a n c e

W e have a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d (Chapter 4) t h e i m p o r t a n t d i s t i n c t i o n between

o v e r t and c o v e r t c o n f l i c t . One of t h e q u e s t i o n s this t h e s i s sets o u t to

i n v e s t i g a t e i s w h a t are t h e t r i g g e r s that a c t u a l l y push workers who may

be r e s e n t f u l , " a l i e n a t e d " b u t n e v e r t h e l e s s p a s s i v e i n t o a c t i v e resistance

t o t h e employer. W h a t a r e t h e i s s u e s t h a t workers cannot b u t s t r u g g l e over?

Looking a t t h i s q u e s t i o n may g i v e u s some i n d i c a t i o n s a s t o t h e class

s i g n i f i c a n c e of "everyday" s t r u g g l e s -

In t h e case of Lanids & Gyr, t h e comments j u s t quoted, typical of

t h e w o r k f o r c e ' s a t t i t u d e of "There's n o t h i n g you can do" w e r e a l l

recorded d u r i n g the two-week run-up t o w h a t t u r n e d o u t t o be t h e

 -216-
most major s t r i k e i n t h e f a c t o r y ' s h i s t o r y . The shop s t e w a r d ' s a n a l y s i s

of h e r m e m b e r s ' p o t e n t i a l for action w a s i n fact made one day before t h e

s t r i k e broke o u t . To g e t s o m e i d e a of t h e i s s u e s which pushed workers

i n t o what was c l e a r l y a n e x p l o s i o n of r e s i s t a n c e , l e t u s examine t h e

factors which workers themselves l i n k e d t o t h e q u e s t i o n : "But w h i t

can you do about it?" Of t h e t h i r t e e n workers who commented ( n e g a t i v e l y )

on t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r resistance, n i n e r e l a t e d t h e problems i n t h e f a c t o r y

to effort or t h e e f f o r t / r e w a r d r e l a t i o n s h i p ; t h e rest simply mentioned

t h e r e c e s s i o n and i t s e f f e c t on the workforce a s t h e i r f i r s t comment

about work, making i t p a r t of a g e n e r a l p o l i t i c a l overview of t h e firm's

s i t u a t i o n . T h i s emphasis on effort and i t s i n t e r r e l a t i o n w i t h reward

i s p e r h a p s predictable i n view of t h e preponderance of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p

i n workers' e x p e r i e n c e . liowever, it i s worth r e i t e r a t i n g that " c o n t r o l "

i s s u e s i n t h e s e n s e of l a c k of autonomy, c o e r c i o n to work, etc, made

n o appearance i n workers' c o n c e p t i o n s of t h e r a n g e of i s s u e s e l i g i b l e for

resistance; o n l y one "non-effect" i s s u e , t h e bad working environment,

w a s i n f a c t mentioned i n t h i s connection, and even h e r e followed t h e

spontaneous c i t i n g of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n c r e a s e d i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n

of labour and unemployment. Three workers whd e x t e n s i v e l y d i s c u s s e d l a c k

of autonomy and managerial o p p r e s s i o n d i d n o t l i n k t h e s e g r i e v a n c e s to

any p o t e n t i a l r e s i s t a n c e .

J t may Sean paradoxical, i n a s e c t i o n l o o k i n g a t "Reeistance", to d e v o t e

almost t h e w h o l e of t h e argument t o t h e a n a l y s i s of why workers d i d n o t

resist. But w h a t i s b e i n g a r q e d h e r e i s p r e c i s e l y that worker r e s i s t a n c e

i s a p a z a d o x i c a l , or a t least a c o n t r a d i c t o r y phenomenon. Despite t h e

resentment that s h e r e d throughout t h e f a c t o r y , workers did n o t take a

c a l c u l a t e d , strategic d e c i s i o n t o act a g a i n s t t h e employer. When t h e y d i d

a c t , t h e basis of t h e r e s i s t a n c e w a s clear, and t h e d e p t h of f e e l i n g

a p p a r e n t , i n workers' spontaneous comments d u r i n g t h e s t r i k e meetings.

'3ut t h e push towards a c t i o n w a s , a s it w e r e , d e l i v e r e d to them by a

 -217-

management a c t i o n which r e l a t e d c e n t r a l l y to t h e f o c u s of p o t e n t i a l

c o n f l i c t i n t h e f a c t o r y ; two workers w e r e t h r e a t e n e d w i t h d i s m i s s a l

for l o w performance.

Thus, w h i l e t h e s i t u a t i o n w a s itself i n h e r e n t l y e x p l o s i v e , t h e workers

d i d n o t of themselves decide to set off t h e e x p l o s i o n . The seeds of

c o n f l i c t l a y not i n t h e o v e r t political c o n s c i o u s n e s s of t h e workers

b u t i n t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s endemic i n t h e c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r p r o c e s s to

which t h e workers e s s e n t i a l l y reacted. W e have a t t e m p t e d t o chart t h e

p o l i t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s dynamic of worker response i n o u r l a s t

chapter. W e can now i l l u s t r a t e t h i s p o i n t w i t h a brief account of t h e

s t r i k e and t h e i s s u e s i t raised.

d ) The s t r i k e .

The d i s p u t e began as a spontaneous stoppage of work by operators i n

t h e Assembly Department after i t w a s heard that two meter assembly

workers had been t h r e a t e n e d w i t h d i s m i s s a l for l o w performance. A

meeting called that a f t e r n o o n d e c i d e d unanimously to s t a y o u t and to

come i n o n l y for a s t r k m e e t i n g t h e following Monday.

The d i s p u t e l a s t e d for two weeks, b u t remained c o n f i n e d to t h e assembly

department, w i t h no clear a t t e m p t being made to call t h e manufacturing

workers o u t . During t h i s time t h r e e s t r i k e meetings w e r e h e l d and

management made a number of c o n c e s s i o n s , i n c l u d i n g withdrawal of t h e

p a r t i c u l a r warnings t h a t had been i s s u e d , i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e two

jobs concerned, and t h e s e t t i n g up of d e p a r t m e n t a l working parties

i n v o l v i n g shop floor workers i n o r d e r t o l o o k i n t o t h e t i m e s of jobs i n

g e n e r a l . The s t r i k e r s f i n a l l y r e t u r n e d a f t e r t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n of t h e

f u l l - t i m e district union o f f i c i a l , a l t h o u g h f e e l i n g s w e r e mixed and many

s t i l l argued that t h e y should have s t a y e d o u t .

 -2w-
( h r assessment of t h e s t r i k e c e n t r e s on t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s :

a ) W h a t t h e g r i k e r s thought i t w a s about ( i n c l u d i n g comments recorded

a f t e r t h e s t r i k e ) ; b ) t h e c h a r a c t e r of t h e shop steward l e a d e r s h i p and

t h e f a i l u r e to extend t h e s t r i k e t o t h e manufacturing department; c )

t h e t h e o r e t i c a l and practical obstacles that stood i n t h e way of t h e

s t r i k e r s ' determined p u r s u i t of t h e i r ends.

a) "Fetter times on jobsl"

€%Q n o t a b l e € e a t u r e of strike meetings w a s t h e c o u n t e r p o i n t hetween t h e

stewards' i n s i s t e n c e ( t h e meetings w e r e chaired and dominated by t h e

convenor and h i s immediate d e p u t i e s ) that t h e d i s p u t e w a s a b o u t t h e

specific warnings t h a t had been given t o t h e two workers, and t h e

s t r i k e r s ' spontaneous f e e l i n g that t h e i s s u e c e n t r e d on the times

themselves, a f e e l i n g which coalesced i n t o t h e demand for "No more

warnings". Thus, w h i l e t h e r e was concern a b o u t redundancy, t h e s t r i k e r s

w e r e more focussed on the s t r u c t u r a l s i t u a t i o n which a l l n u e d management

to i s s u e t h e threats i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e as a s n c t i o n a g a i n s t low

performance. T h i s led, i n i t i a l l y , t o an i n t e r e s t i n g i n t e r c h a n g e i n t h e

f i r s t s t r i k e meeting i n which t h e convenor a t t e m p t e d to r e a s s u r e t h e

workers by a r g u i n g , "The company i s n ' t going to want to get r i d of a l l

of you - between you you share y e a r s of experience."

The s t r i k e r s , w i t h a r a t h e r more a c c u r a t e assessment of t h e d t u a t i o n ,

shouted hack -
"Oh, t h e y can get anyone i n off t h e street."

The gap between t h e stewards' p o s i t i o n of n e g o t i a t i n g a b o u t t h e e x i s t i n g

warnings and t h e s t r i k e r s ' r e p u d i a t i o n of t h e performance standards and

of t h e s a n c t i o n i t s e l f , which p u t t h e whole managerial strategy into

q u e s t i o n , w a s brought o u t in a direct c l a s h between stewards and strikers

towards t h e end of t h e second strike meeting. A f t e r a p r o t r a c t e d d i s c u s s i o n

on t h e period management had o f f e r e d for i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o t h e

 -219-
t h r e a t e n e d j o b s , which b o t h t h e s t r i k e r s and some shop stewards s a w as

i n s u f f i c i e n t , t h e convenor p u t i t to t h e meeting: "If t h e y ' r e p r e p a r e d to

withdraw t h e warnings, you're prepared to go back? Let's be clear. Do you

resume back to normal working?"

A t t h i s t h e meeting d i s s o l v e d i n t o confusion, w i t h workers o b v i o u s l y

f e e l i n g that a r e t u r n to work would t h r e a t e n t h e i r u n d e r l y i n g s t a n c e

on " t i m e s " . There w e r e s h o u t s of "Proper t i m e s on j o b s l " and 'We c a n ' t

make i t , j u s t c a n ' t make it". Another shop steward then i n t e r v e n e d ,

" L e t ' s g e t i t s t r a i g h t . If t h e s e warnings are withdrawn, t h e r e ' s no

reason why you s h o u l d n ' t r e t u r n to normal working." A t t h i s t h e r e w e r e

f u r t h e r p r o t e s t s of " Y e s t h e r e i s l " , "No more warnings", ' W e c a n ' t make

t h e jobs" etc. A m e t e r assembly worker s w e d i t up:

"You how h o w much that i s , 90 performance? They d o n ' t l i k e l o w

performance, t h e p e o p l e on t h e floor d o n ' t l i k e low performance e i t h e r . "

llere s h e w a s c l e a r l y r e f e r r i n g to t h e a r t i c u l a t i o n of w h a t w e r e f e l t to

he impossibly high performance l e v e l s w i t h b e low e a r n i n g s seffered by

most of t h e assembly workers.

Some of t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e shop steward5' p e r s p e c t i v e and

t h e more immediate response of t h e s t r i k e r s are examined below. One

clear i s s u e u n i t i n g t h e s t r i k e r s , M e v e r , w a s t h e u n i v e r s a l i t y of

t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e of s t r u g g l i n g w i t h high performance t a r g e t s , which

l e d to t h e f e e l i n g that t h e warnings "could have happened to any one

of US". T h i s argument wasput by programming assembly workers w a i t i n g i n

t h e c a n t e e n before t h e v o t e to s t r i k e , and w a s echoed by assembly workers

i n t h e i r l a t e r a s s e s s m e n t s of t h e d i s p u t e :

" I t ' s my p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n t h a t t h e same t h i n g c o u l d have happened t o m e

- I w a s down for a low performance l e t t e r because of s w i t c h i n g jobs"

(Programming Assembly worker, i ) .

"The s t r i k e ? The Same t h i n g could happed t o m e - Joy'd been h e r e 5

y e a r s , if she c a n ' t do t h e job no one can" ( D i a l Assembly worker, i).

 -220-
"The same t h i n g could have happened to any one of u s - i f I w a s taken

o f f my j o t , I ' d get a letter for l o w p e r f d m a n c e , b e c a u s e on s o m e jobs

you j u s t c a n ' t - people a r e n ' t l a z y , you $ust c a n ' t do it" (Programming

assembly worker).

Thus i t was t h e times on jobs, and t h e s h a r e d and p o t e n t i a l l y i n t e r -

changeable experience of d i f f i c u l t y w i t h them, a h a t for t h e s t r i k e r s

l a y a t the core of t h e dispute.

b) "Ebst union organisers are i n d i r e c t . .. .If

The comment that a press operator had earlier made, t a l k i n g about t h e

obstacles t o e f f e c t i v e r e s i s t a n c e , that "fLbst union o r g a n i s e r s are

i n d i r e c t , t h e y ' r e n o t on bonus. Anything management t e l l s them, t h e y ' l l

a g r e e , t h e y ' r e n o t l o s i n g " summed up a c e n t r a l aspect of t h e conduct

of thestrike and i n d e e d t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n of the f a c t o r y . The h i n a t i o n

of t h e n e g o t i a t i n g committee, t h e shop steward body t h a t conducted

d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h management, by maintenance and craft workers ( o n l y

one m e m b e r of t h e committee was a n assembly shop steward) compounded

t h e conservatism that w a s a p r o d u c t of t h e i r long entrenchment w i t h a

total &bsence of t h e e x p e r i e n c e that had s e n t the MlMworkers on to t h e

p i c k e t l i n e s . T h i s shaved itself n o t o n l y i n t h e i n s i s t e n c e , n o t e d

above, t h a t t h e d i s p u t e was a b o u t t h e r e l a t i v e l y "negotiable" i s s u e of

t h e t w o t h r e a t e n e d workers, b u t also i n t h e a t t i t u d e towards approaching

management i n general. From t h e beginning, t h e convenor had argued t h a t

'!you c a n ' t d i c t a t e " t o management, and was c l e a r l y working w i t h i n

a framework of c o n t i n u a l p r e p a r e d n e s s to make c o n c e s s i o n s .

This mingled w i t h a s o m e w h a t l o f t y a t t i t u d e towards t h e s t r i k e r s , i n

which it w a s made clear, through a semblance Of t r a d e union b u r e a u c r a t

p a r l a n c e , that t h e l e a d e r s h i p w a s a l o n g way from identifying itself

w h o l e h e a r t e d l y w i t h t h e s t r i k e r s ' cause:
 -221-

'We've t r i e d to get something - if you want t o s t a y o u t , tell us...

You're t h e iones l o s i n g money. You t e l l u s w h a t you want" (convenor).

" I t ' s up to you people w h a t y o u ' r e going t o do" (deputy convenor).

In g e n e r a l , t h e d i v o r c e between a c a u t i o u s i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s a t i o n of

c o n f l i c t and any f u l l b l o o d e d s o l i d a r i t y w i t h t h e s t r i k e r s w a s

a r t i c u l a t e d through t h e n o t i o n of " n e g o t i a t i n g under duress". In t h e

face of t h e s t r i k e r s ' i n s i s t e n c e t h a t ? U n t i l t h e y take t h e s e warnings

back w e ' l l do nothing" (meter assembly shop steward) t h e convenor

complained, " I t ' s v e r y hard for u s t o do a n y t h i n g w h i l e you're o u t " ,

to which t h e branch chair added, Wanagement d o n ' t l i k e n e g o t i a t i n g

under duress."

T h i s culminated, as w e s a w above, i n a direct c l a s h betweenthe

workers' i n c i p i e n t c h a l l e n g e of e x i s t i n g r e l a t i o n s of production and

t h e 8tewards' p h i l o s o p h y of n e g o t i a t i o n w i t h i n an e s t a b l i s h e d s t r u c t u r e :

"I d o n ' t b e l i e v e i n n e q o t i a t i o n s , w e should s t i c k . t o w h a t w e want"

(meter assembly w o r k e r ) .

"If t h e y withdraw t h e warnings, w h a t then?" (deputy convenor).

"No more warningst" ( s h o u t s from w o r k e r s ) .

"You might as w e l l f o r g e t i t , you'd be t a l k i n g f o r e v e r and a day.

N o d i s c u s s i o n s , n o t h i n g a t all. N o t a cat i n h e l l ' s chance" (deputy

convenor ) .
The s t e w a r d s ' r e j e c t i o n of t h e workers' s t a n d as e s s e n t i a l l y

amateurish went a l o n g w i t h an u n c r i t i c a l embracing of many of t h e

company's p e r s p e c t i v e s . T h i s w a s clear n o t o n l y on t h e i s s u e of

performance itself ( t h e convenor had argued a t t h e f i r s t meeting that

t.he company had "got i n t o a p r o f i t s i t u a t i o n " through remeasurement -

to whichhis audience retoled "On t h e o p e r a t o r s ' backs") b u t also i n

t h e o v e r a l l s u p p r t given to management's r a t h e r than t h e strikers'

d e f i n i t i o n of t h e s i t u a t i o n :
 -222-

!?If t h e working p a r t y w a s set up, t h e company would come o u t better

than you would. If a CSEU/EEF agreement on peformance i s s i g n e d ,

t h e r e ' s n o t h i n g t o s t o p t h e m d i s m i s s i n g you" (bbuldiing shop steward).

T h i s l u k e w a r m a t t i t u d e t o t h e d i s p u t e w a s shown m o s t s e r i o u s l y i n t h e

f a i l u r e to b r i n g o u t t h e manufacturing department i n s u p p o r t of the

s t r i k e r s . Thus a t t h e f i r s t strike meeting t h e convenor f i n a l l y

y i e l d e d , after r e s i s t i n g for a l o n g time, to p r e s s u r e to h o l d a m a s s

meeting of MIM departments t h a t had n o t come o u t , by s a y i n g t h a t he

would g e t t h e departments t o clodc o u t for a meeting. towever, t h e r e

was no subsequent e v i d e n c e that t h i s meeting, or any a t t e m p t to call

it, a c t u a l l y took place. A t t h e s a m e time i t w a s clear, from

d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h workers and shop stewards d u r i n g t h e s t r i k e , t h a t

s u b s t a n t i a l s u p p o r t did exist for t h e stoppage:

"If you a l l come t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e m e m b e r s , management would climb

down v e r y e a s i l y , because you're t a k i n g away t h e i r bread and b u t t e r ,

t a k i n g t h e blood away from them. T h i s d i s p u t e m i g h t j w be a start..."

L i g h t b'achine Shop steward.

"It c o u l d be m e next - I ' d come out of t h e shopdid" P r e s s Operator.

We h a v e n ' t had much information on w h a t t h e s t r i k e i s a b o u t - we need

a m a s s meeting. T h e r e ' s been no guidance f r o m t h e shop stewards. The

times are r i d i c u l o u s , w e ' r e doing much mre for much less - if t h e y

b r i n g t h i s i n i t t h r e a t e n s a l l of u s . I support t h e 'no warnings'

s t a n d because i f t h i s w a s brought i n a l l jobs would be threa*ed"

bbulding Shop worker.

A t the same time t h e f e e l i n g by even t h e m o r e m i l i t a n t shop stewards

that it was not t h e i r place to exert p r e s s u r e on the roanufacturing

workers ("You can't put p r e s s u r e on - the decision h a s to be l e f t u p

to them" D i a l Assembly shop steward+ c m b i n e d w i t h the u s u a l

s e c t i o n a l i s m , a c c u s a t i o n s of p r e v i o u s t r e a c h e r y etc., c o n s p i r e d
 -223-
t o keep t h e manufacturing workers p a s s i v e . A s t h e L i g h t Machine shop

steward, one of t h e few who had made an attempt to get h i s s e c t i o n o u t ,

put it:

"I s a i d a t t h e meeting, L e t ' s f o r g e t t h e past. S t i l l t h e m e m b e r s said

t h e agreement s h o u l d n ' t have been s i g n e d . ..People were a b i t r e l u c t a n t .

They c o u l d see t h e warnings c o u l d a p p l y t o them, b u t t h e y w e r e r e h u c t a n t

because t h e y w e r e a g a i n s t t h e union for f o r c i n g t h e agreement through. ..

Ienagement has now g o t e v e r y t h i n g t h e y want - they're making t h e s e people

s u f f e r , and reducing earnings."

c) "He'll j u s t tear you to pieces".

F i n a l l y , however, t h e factor that most weakened t h e strikers' r e s o l v e

was t h e i r mdor sem&nt, a e i n s t a l l e x p e r i e n c e , of t h e " s c i e n t i f i c "

l e g i t i m a c y of MIM s t a n d a r d s . T h i s emerged m o s t c l e a r l y i n t h e d i s c u s s i o n ,

d u r i n g t h e second s t r i k e meeting, of t h e management proposal to set up

'Working parties" which would i n v e s t i g a t e t h e e x i s t i n g performance

s t a n d a r d s i n r e l a t i o n t o specific jobs:

"They've given you t h e working p a r t y , t h e warnings f r o z e n etc. The

people t h e y p u t on t h e committees (working parties) a r e n ' t r e a l l y

s t r o n g enough t o face t h o s e t h e y ' v e got to face - t h e y need t r a i n i n g "

(convenor)

'Working p a r t y ? Last t i m e t h e w r k i n g p a r t y w a s thrown o u t - p e o p l e

d i d n ' t know JM""D i a l Assembly worker -

"People have to have knowledge of MTlrl, p r o c e d u r e s etc. I t ' s no good

job, h e ' l l j u s t tear you to p i e c e s " (convenor).

a r g u i n g a b o u t your a ~ n

IWm've w e (Xt t o do t h i s ? "

'mot enough e x p e r i e n c e s - how w i l l w e know i f t h e y ' v e g o t enough

exwrience?"- strikers.

Thus, w h i l e t h e e x p e r i e n c e of n o t being a b l e to make t h e t i m e s w a s

t h e main d r i v i n g force behind t h e s t r i k e , t h e workers' a c c e p t a n c e of

 - 224-
t h e o b j e c t i v e v a l i d i t y of measured work targets echoed managerial

p e r s p e c t i v e s i n i t s c o n c e p t u a l i s a t i o n of t h e l a b u r process a s

p r i m a r i l y about numbers, n o t q u a l i t a t i v e j o b c o n t e n t . The most

s i g n i f i c a n t t h i n g a b o u t t h e above i n t e r c h a n g e w a s t h e m r k e r s '

c o n v i c t i o n , b o l s t e r e d by t h e convenor, t h a t they w e r e i n c a p a b l e of

mustering t h e t e c h n i c a l expertise demanded by MTM. T h i s w a s one of

t h e c e n t r a l d i f f i c u l t i e s f a c i n g t h e direct workforce; t h e workers

knew t h e y c o u l d n ' t m a k e t h e t i m e s , b u t t h e system s a i d t h e y could.

The system, w i t h i t s p a n o p l i e s of c o n s u l t a n t s , tables, c a l c u l a t o r s

and stop watches, possessed a t e c h n i c a l mystique t h e workers could

never hope to c h a l l e n g e ; s u r e l y , b e i n g so " s c i e n t i f i c " , i t must be

r i g h t . The system possessed t h i s a u t h o r i t y even i n t h e d i r e c t face of

t h e workers' experience; t h u s t h e s t r i k e r s , d e s p i t e t h e i r c o n t i n u a l

p r o t e s t s a t n o t b e i n g a b l e to make t h e t i m e s , w e r e thrown i n t o confusion

by t h e spectre of "knowing bTW' that c o n f r o n t e d them w i t h t h e

proposal of t h e working p a r t y ( t h e convenor's comment t h a t t h e y would be

"tom to p i e c e s " seemed o n l y too a p t ) . MIPl had, indeed, proved i t s

u n a s s a i l a b i l i t y even t o t h e p r o b i n g s of a f o r m a l l y approved "trade

union rep on timings." T h i s p o s i t i o n had e x i s t e d for some t h r e e y e a r s ,

s i n c e t h e beginning of remeasurement, b u t t h e p r e s e n t incumbent

( i n t e r v i e w e d d u r i n g t h e s t r i k e ) had r a r e l y managed to make any

e f f e c t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n on behalf of t h e workforce:

" I t ' s n o t o f t e n I manage to get a n y t h i n g o u t of them. Only on f o u r or

f i v e o u t of t h i r t y or f o r t y cases i n two y e a r s have I managed to get

any t i m e . m
1 gets i t a l l b u t t o n e d up before I get t h e r e . I o n l y do i t

from t i m e to t i m e , I d o n ' t get any p r a c t i c e . I ' v e checked t h e j o b , and

t h e r e ' s n o more t i m e to be found. You c a n ' t j u s t go down and a y , T h i s

t i m e i s r i g h t , you need proof ...T h e r e ' s three g i r l s ' jobs I c h a d ,

they w e r e e a r n i n g 70 performance, t h e foreman knew t h e workers w e r e n ' t

real slackers. I s p e n t days on t h o s e f o u r or f i v e jobs and I c o u l d n ' t

f i n d any extra t i m e - on s o m e jobs t i m e c o u l d be taken off ...Findlng

 -225-
pxtra t i m e - if t h e r e ' s n o extra moments which a r e n ' t accounted for by

FiTM, you c a n ' t f i n d extm t i m e . "

It w a s clear t h a t everyday c o n c e p t s l i k e n o t b e i n g a b l e to do a j o b

i n t h e t i m e given found no place i n t h e predetermined r i g i d i t i e s of MTM

- "time" w i t h i n t h i s system meant a d i f f e r e n t and more a r t i f i c i a l t h i n g

than i t d i d i n t h e world o u t s i d e . While, a s w e see i n t h e f i g u r e s i n t h e

Appendix, i t i s cler that o n l y a m i n o r i t y of workers a c t u a l l y c o u l d n o t

m a k e performance a t a l l , t h o s e who d i d , or even made bonus, d i d so by

working, as t h e t i m i n g s rep s a i d , " l i k e a b l u r " - so fast t h a t i t w a s

d i f f i c u l t to s t u d y them. I t was for t h i s reason that t h e assembly

workers, a t any rate, f e l t ovefihelmingly that t h e t h r e a t e n e d dismissals

f o r n o t r i s i n g t o t h e requirements of Em1 were "something that c o u l d

happen to any one of us".

The d i r e c t c o n f l i c t between workers' e x p e r i e n c e of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s

and t h e managerially imposed o u t p u t norms w a s , a s w e have said, t h e

basis of t h e s t r i k e . A t t h e same time, and for t h e same r e a s o n s , i t

made t h e s t r i k e itself u l t i m a t e l y unwinnable, o t h e r t h a n by o v e r t u r n i n g

t h e whole s t r u c t u r e of management and ownership i n t h e f a c t o r y , E v e n t u a l l y ,

t h e workers would h3ve to p back, b u t t h e q u e s t i o n of how to produce an

a p p a r e n t l y a c c e p t a b l e s e t t l e m e n t was d i f f i c u l t .

There was confusion and u n c e r t a i n t y , b u t i n t h e end it was t h e

i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t o f f i c i a l , brought i n to persuade t h e

s t r i k e r s to "be reasonable" and h o l d over t h e i r heads t h e p r o s p e c t s of

t h e firm's c l o s u r e , which proved d e c i s i v e . C l e a r l y i t w a s impossible

for t h e strikers to win t h e i r a c t u a l Bmand ("no more warnings") which

s t r u c k c e n t r a l l y a t t h e firms s t r a t e g y of t y i n g the p u r c h a s e of l a b o u r

power t o a specified l e v e l of p r o d u c t i o n ; t h e y were also f a t a l l y weakened

by t h e f a i l u r e of t h e o t h e r , s l i g h t l y less h a r d h i t , MTM departments

to j o i n them i n t h e i r stoppage. N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e strikers had gained

 -226-

some concessions. The t w o workers had n o t been sacked; and t h e y had

b e e n o f f e r e d t h e j o i n t working parties, which i n t h e hands of t h o s e more

s u r e of themselves than t h e krPi workforce might have been turned i n t o a

s i g n i f i c a n t n e g o t i a t i n g weapon ( i n t h e e v e n t t h e y d i e d o u t after a f e w

weeks). B a s i c a l l y , as t h e strikers themselves s a w it, t h e y had "taken a

stand", t h e y had "refused to l e t management walk a l l o v e r them", and,

as a r e s u l t , management had been f o r c e d to, hcwever s l i g h t l y , retreat.

The w a r of a t t r i t i o n continued.

The s i g n i f i c a n k e of t h e s t r i k e w a s two-fold. F i r s t l y , i n i t s expression

of t h e seemingly i n e v i t a b l e s u r f a c i n g of c o n t r a d i c t i o n s w i t h i n t h e

c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r p r o c e s s j secondly, i n i t s symbolisation of t h e

bedrock of resistance which, however a p p a r e n t l y p a s s i v e t h e workforce,

w a s a c t i v ated by t h e impact of t h e firm's r e q u i r e m e n t ' s on t h e workers'

l i v i n g s t a n d a r d s . The shop steward o r g a n i s a t i o n i n t h e f a c t o r y , w i t h o u t

which, as t h e convenor had p u t i t i n an earlier i n t e r v i e w , " t h i s f i r m

would run so sweetly" w a s a p a r a l l e l example of t h i s basic i n t r a n s i g e n c e .

For a l l t h e i r conservatism, t h e stewards' p o s i t i o n as workers and

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of workers i n e v i t a b l y gave them an understanding and

awareness of t h e problems of t h e shop floor:

"...The main i s s u e i s money. People c o m e h e r e for a wa-, to work i n

comfort. k b s t i s s u e s you get a r e money - bonus i s t h e number one

problem. Everyone keeps moaning a b o u t t h e bonus e a r n i n g s . Tenper c e n t

of t h e f a c t o r y i s n ' t a c h i e v i n g bonus, 20$:,i s g e t t i n g t h e minimum, ill-5

a week. The m a j o r i t y of workers are i n t h e range around 120 performance.

m e n those on maximum bonus are s t i l l being short-changed - they think

t h e y ' r e having to work too hard for t h a t b i t of m n e y . The new times

w e r e brought i n g r a d u a l l y - now t h e y ' r e humanised robots" (convenor

i n an earlier i n t e r v i e w ) .
 -227-
The e x i s t e n c e of t h e stewards i n t h e f a c t o r y w a s t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n a l

e x p r e s s i o n of t h i s o n w i n g antagonism, t h e i r r e d u c i b l e l e v e l of c o n f l i c t

that revolved around t h e central dynamic of effort and reward,

performance and p r o f i t . A confused and c o n t r a d i c t o r y e x p r e s s i o n , as w a s

t h e s t r i k e i t s e l f , b u t n e v e r t h e l e s s a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e force which meant

t h a t management, even w i t h t h e b i t between i t s t e e t h as w a s now t h e

c a s e , w a s s t i l l t r e a d i n g a dangerous p a t h w i t h t h e i n c r e a s i n g l y common

i n t r o d u c t i o n of new working arrangements "over t h e heads" of t h e shop

stewards. T h i s tendency, which w a s becoming clear tmards t h e end of

my t i m e a t t h e f a c t o r y , had meant r e v e r s a l s on t r a i n i n g time and

flexi-time agreements, and w a s now, i n t h e a f t e r m a t h of t h e s t r i k e ,

l e a d i n g to t h e strict enforcement of a "bench-tpebench" 9-minute

tea-bmk which o v e r s t e p p e d ( i n an echo of t h e then r e c e n t B r i t i s h

Leyland d i s p u t e ) t h e custom-and-practice time allowed f o r "wa?shing

UP".

The danger of t h i s strategy f o r management w a s t h a t i t brought t h e

stewards closer t o t h e i r g r a s s r o o t s , d e f e n s i v e role. T h i s i n c r e a s i n g

l ' f i l l i n q i n of t h e pozes" of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s , a l o n g w i t h a growing

managerial a r r o g a n c e , w a s r e s e n t e d by t h e workforce, who began pushing

t h e e q u a l l y i n d i g n a n t shop stewards back to t h e i r older, more

" c o n f r o n t a t i o n i s t " p o s i t i o n . The s i t u a t i o n a t t h e close of r e s e a r c h w a s

b a l a n c i n g on something of a k n i f e edge of competing class forces. The

management, i n c r e a s i n g l y c o n f i d e n t , w a s beginning t o behave more and

m o r e a s i f t h e stewards d i d n ' t exist. But the stewards d i d , and t h e

k i n d of i s s u e s which management w e r e now imposing over t h e i r heads

w e r e p r e c i s e l y t h e k i n d which g i v e workplace r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i t s meaning

and r a t i o n a l e . The stewards' i d e o l o g i c a l s u b s e r v i e n c e , and t h e i r

confusion i n t h e face of managerial s o p h i s t i c a t i o n , prevented t h e m

f r o m c l e a r l y s e e i n g i t i n that way; bM t h e i r class p o s i t i o n - m e a n t

that t h a t w a s w h a t t h e y d i d .
 -228-

Conclusions on Worker Response.

The f o r e w i n g p r o v i d e s s o m e evidence that workers s a w t h e l a b o u r

p r o c e s s i n q u a n t i t a t i v e r a t h e r than q u a l i , t a t i v e terms, that i s t h a t

t h e i r primary p o i n t s of reference w e i e t h o s e of 'performance" and t h e

e f f o r t / r e w a r d r e l a t i o n s h i p r a t h e r than job c o n t e n t , autonomy,&iscretion,

skill etc. In t h i s s e n s e hypotheses

b ) Workers would e x p e r i e n c e t h e l a b o u r process p r i m a r i l y i n t e n s of

q u a f i t i t y r a t h e r than q u a l i t y of l a b o u r , and

c ) Hesentment/resistance would o c c u r p r i m a r i l y o v e r economic i s s u e s

c e n t r e d on t h e effort/reward r e l a t i o n s h i p

are t e n t a t i v e l y c o n f i n e d . The r e s e a r c h also shuxed that o v e r t

r e s i s t a n c e w a s provoked by economic i s s u e s r e f l e c t i n g c e n t r a l c o n t r a d i c -

t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n by any g e n e r a l d e s i r e for "control".

In t h i s s t u d y some of t h e major p o i n t s made by writers on t h e l a b o u r

p r o c e s s w e r e set a g a i n s t t h e e x p e r i e n c e and response of workers i n an

e x i s t i n g "direct production" c o n t e x t c h a r a c t e r i s e d by d e t a i l e d work

measurement, extreme d i v i s i o n and s p e c i a l i s a t i o n of l a b o u r , and a

c a l c u l a t e d i n t e r l o c k i n g of newer, more i n t e n s i f i e d working practires

w i t h s u b s i s t e n c e . The p r e o c c u p a t i o n s of w r i t e r s such as E l g e r w i t h

work c o n t e n t , of C r e s s e y and MacInnes w i t h t h e c o n t r a d i c t o r y requirement

f o r worker c o + p e r a t i o n , and of Fri-an, Edwards e t a1 w i t h worker

r e s i s t a n c e to t h e a l i e n a t i o n of t h e i r l a b o u r , are set a g a i n s t t h e

e m p i r i c a l realities of a work s i t u a t i o n i n which none of t h e s e a r e a s

was a s i g n i f i c a n t f o c u s for e i t h e r managerial s t r a t e g y or worker

response. Indeed, t h e overwhelming meaning of t h e p r o d u c t i o n process

f o r b o t h "sides" w a s q u a n t i - t i v e r a t h e r than q u a l i t a t i v e , and a s w e

s a w , such q u a n t i t a t i v e i m p e r a t i v e s were forced upon t h e t w o g o u p s ,

r a t h e r t h a n being t h e r e s u l t of d e l i b e r a t e c h o i c e between two

e q u a l l y feasible a l t e r n a t i v e s , through c o m p e t i t i v e p r e s s u r e s on one

 -229-
s i d e and t h e s t r u g g l e for s u b s i s t e n c e on t h e o t h e r .

I n t h i s s e n s e n o t o n l y t h e hypotheses onworker response b u t o u r

i n i t i a l h y p o t h e s i s regarding management, that t h e i r primary concerns

would be material r a t h e r than p o l i t i c a l , are c o n f i n e d i n t h e r e s e a r c h .

bbreover, t h e dynamic of management/worker r e l a t i o n s p u t forward i n o u r

t h e o r e t i c a l arguments a s stemming from t h e u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r i n g of

production tauards v a l o r i s a t i o n w a s if a n y t h i n g "over-conf6rmed" by t h e

s i t u a t i o n a t Landis Gyr. The maximalised norms of o u t p u t o r d a i n e d by

b T N and t h e i r direcdl l i n k w i t h t h e company's p r o f i t l e v e l s imposed a

q u a n t i t a t i v e s t r a i t j a c k e t on t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s i n which e v e r y method

and e v e r y movement weEe t a i l o r e d to t h e requirements of v a l o r i s a t i o n .

In t h i s s i t u a t i o n a n y s u g p s t i o n of a c e n t r a l plitical c o n t e s t a t i o n of

"control" or preoccupation b y w o r k e r s w i t h t h e c o n t e n t and a v n e r s h i p of

t h e i r labour appears increasingly i r r e l e v a n t .

We set o u t to "test" e m p i r i c a l l y whether, w i t h i n a range of v a r i a b l e s ,

worker response would fall closer to t h e political or t h e material end

of t h e s p e c t m. I n each case i t w a s found t h a t , of n e c e s s i t y , material

i s s u e s b o t h c o n s t r u c t e d experience and governed response; and t h i s w a s

also t r u e , ultimately, i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e " t r i g g e r s of r e s i s t a n c e " t h a t

f i n a l l y pushed a g e n e r a l l y p a s s i v e and f a t a l i s t i c workforce i n t o o v e r t

conflict. In t h i s s e n s e t h e t h e o r e t i c a l arguments set o u t i n chapter 5

r e g a r d i n g t h e dynamic and e x p l o s i v e n a t u r e of worker r e s i s t a n c e w e r e

t - m p i r i c a l l y confirmed. A t t h e Same time t h e uneven and e s s e n t i a l l y

spontaneous n a t u r e of worker response w a s p a r a l l e l l e d by a " f i r e f i g h t i n g "

approach on t h e p a r t of a management unable to s u b o r d i n a t e i t s

r q u i r e m e n t s of v a l u e p r o d u c t i o n to any concern w i t h , or acknowledgement

of, t h e p o s i t i o n of i t s workforce.
 -230-
We cjo on now, i n o u r second case s t u d y , to examine a l a b o u r p r o c e s s

s t r u c t u r e d e q u a l l y c e n t r a l l y by c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of v a l u e , b u t i n

which t h i s s t r u c t u r i n g and i t s associated c o n t r a d i c t i o n s emerged

i n a s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t form.
 -231,-

CHAPTER SEVEN

Case Study 2

Our second c a s e s t u d y was c a r r i e d o u t i n t h e Wembley, West London branch

o f t h e B r i t i s h Oxygen Company, a branch once c e n t r a l t o BOC's o p e r a t i o n s

i n t h e Southern Region, b u t a t t h e t i m e of t h e research, a s we s h a l l

s e e , undergoing some d e c l i n e . The r e s e a r c h was c a r r i e d o u t o v e r approx-

i m a t e l y t h e same p e r i o d , and using t h e same i n t e r v i e w i n g methods and

q u e s t i o n s , a s i n o u r p r e v i o u s s t u d y a t Landis & Gyr.

Landis & Gyr is o n l y one f a c t o r y , and in approaching t h e very d i f f e r e n t

circumstances of a branch of t h e massive BOC combine i t was by no means

c e r t a i n t h a t t h e r e s u l t s obtained i n o u r f i r s t c a s e s t u d y would be re-

peated. There were two f a c t o r s about BOC Wembley which u n d e r l i n e d t h i s

doubt; t h e use of p r o c e s s r a t h e r than product technology, and Wembley's

membership of a v a s t conglomerate with r e s e r v e s f a r exceeding t h o s e of

Landis 6 Gyr. In t h i s l i g h t we were concerned t o show t h a t t h e c e n t r a l

hypotheses of t h e t h e s i s could n e v e r t h e l e s s be s u s t a i n e d - viz:

a ) t h e a c t i v i t i e s and o b j e c t i v e s o f management would express t h e o v e r a l l

p r i o r i t y of v a l o r i s a t i o n through a primary concern w i t h such f a c t o r s a s

i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n o f l a b o u r , reduction o f s o c i a l l y n e c e s s a r y l a b o u r time,

and t h e general s t r u c t u r i n g o f t h e labour p r o c e s s towards t h e production

o f v a l u e i n terms o f t h e c a l c u l a t i o n and i m p o s i t i o n of q u a n t i t a t i v e

norms of production;

b ) workers i n t h e i r t u r n would be concerned w i t h e q u a l l y q u a n t i t a t i v e

i s s u e s , i e s u b s i s t e n c e , l e v e l s of labour i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n , and t h e r e -

l a t i o n s h i p between them. These i s s u e s would b e more c e n t r a l t o worker

e x p e r i e n c e of t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s than f o r example t h e q u a l i t a t i v e con-

tent o f work or any c o n t e s t a t i o n of t h e p r o v i s i o n of labour a s such;

c ) t h e a r e a s of resentment and " t r i g g e r s of r e s i s t a n c e " f o r workers

~ ~~~~

-232-

would f o c u s on t h e o v e r a l l e x i g e n c i e s o f "making a living", i e pay,

e a r n i n g s enhancement, j o b s e c u r i t y e t c , r a t h e r t h a n on t h e more sub-

jective and p o l i t i c a l i s s u e s emphasised by w r i t e r s on t h e labour process.

In u n d e r t a k i n g t h e c a s e s t u d y a t BOC, w e expected t o f i n d t h e same over-

a l l p r e v a l e n c e of economistic concerns both amongst workers and manage-

ment a s a t Landis & Gyr, b u t perhaps l e s s s h a r p l y focussed around a

c e n t r a l e f f o r t / r e w a r d nexus in what was a f t e r a l l a less d i r e c t l y "prod-

u c t i v e " c o n t e x t . In g e n e r a l , a l e s s s t r u c t u r e d set of r e l a t i o n s h i p s around

t h e p r o d u c t i o n of s u r p l u s v a l u e was a n t i c i p a t e d . Given t h e r e l a t i v e "loose-

ness" o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between labour p r o c e s s , s u b s i s t e n c e and s u r p l u s

value involved i n a p r o c e s s p l a n t w i t h a r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e p r o f i t base,

t h e g r e a t e r p o t e n t i a l f o r more " s o p h i s t i c a t e d " forms of c o n f l i c t c e n t r e d

around i s s u e s of managerial domination and t h e " c o n t r o l " of work was r e c -

ognised. Had such concerns been found t o be paramount, t h e major t h e o r e t -

i c e 1 p r o p o s i t i o n s of our t h e s i s would, of course, have been s e r i o u s l y un-

dermined.

These p r o p o s i t i o n s - summed up in t h e o v e r a l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t both mana-

g e r i a l o b j e c t i v e s and worker response a r e p r i m a r i l y s t r u c t u r e d by q u a n t i -

t a t i v e and economic f a c t o r s - were, a s w e saw, s u b s t a n t i a l l y confirmed by

t h e s t u d y a t Landis 6 Gyr. Here a major d i s p u t e had indeed spontaneously

broken o u t o v e r t h e issue o f "performance" which had been shorn t o be t h e

c e n t r a l dynamic o p e r a t i n g in management/worker r e l a t i o n s . However, i n our

second study, while no such d r a m a t i c c o n f l i c t e r u p t e d , t h e major axes o f

management/worker r e l a t i o n s were n e v e r t h e l e s s r e v e a l e d t o be s t r u c t u r e d

around t h e same central p o i n t of p r o f i t and s u b s i s t e n c e . The p a r t i c u l a r

p a t t e r n through which t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s were expressed was i n i t s e l f

h i g h l y symbolic of t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e p r i o r i t i e s and c o n t r a d i c t i o n s on which

t h e t h e s i s h a s focussed, and w i l l be examined in d e t a i l i n t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n

of o u r f i n d i n g s .
 -233-
P r o d u c t i v e Context, Current S i t u a t i o n , Recent Changes

The major d i f f e r e n c e between t h e productive s e t t i n g provided by our new

c a s e study and t h a t of t h e l a s t was t h a t between p r o c e s s and production.

While t h e Landis & Gyr workers moulded b a k e l i t e c a s e s , p r e s s e d o u t screws

and assembled t h e s e components i n t o a f i n i s h e d product, t h e d i s p e n s e r s ,

c y l i n d e r f i l l e r s and s o r t e r s and f o r k l i f t d r i v e r s a t BOC Wembley simply

processed g a s e s from bulk l i q u i d form i n t o s m a l l e r t r a n s p o r t a b l e c y l i n -

d e r s , and then loaded t h e s e c y l i n d e r s t o be " f e r r i e d " longer or s h o r t e r

d i s t a n c e s t o customers i n t h e surrounding a r e a s .

The workforce a t t h e Wembley depot c o n s i s t e d f i r s t o f a l l of t h e (nomin-

a l l y ) s i x d i s p e n s e r s (in r e a l i t y f o u r ) who piped o f f t h e l i q u i d gases

from b u l k c o n t a i n e r s which were s t i l l , a t t h e s t a r t o f t h e research, a r -

r i v i n g by t r a i n from t h e Northern p l a n t where t h e g a s was produced. The

r e s e a r c h was c a r r i e d o u t a t a time when, amongst many o t h e r changes, t h e

d i s p e n s i n g and t r a n s p o r t of l i q u i d gases was due t o be c e n t r a l i s e d a t

Thame r a t h e r than Wembley. The a r r i v a l of t h e f i n a l t r a i n t o b r i n g a bulk

d e l i v e r y was t h u s witnessed d u r i n g t h e period of t h e r e s e a r c h ; an event

which in i t s t u r n p u t i n t o grave question t h e j o b s of t h e four d i s p e n s e r s .

The d i s p e n s a r s a t t a c h e d p i p e s t o t h e tanks on t h e t r a i n ; the l i q u i d g a s

was t h e n e i t h e r t r a n s f e r r e d t o huge cooling towers, t h e steam from which

made t h e p l a n t e a s i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e from a d i s t a n c e , or piped d i r e c t l y in-

t o t h e t a n k s on t h e backs of t h e " l i q u i d " l o r r i e s . From t h e c o o l i n g towers

t h e processed gas was piped t o t h e v a r i o u s a r e a s o f c y l i n d e r f i l l i n g , of

which t h e l a r g e s t was t h e c e n t r a l f i l l i n g a r e a , b u t which a l s o included

f o r example t h e compressing a r e a in which gas was p r e p a r e d and f i l l e d f o r

aircraft.

The c e n t r a l f i l l i n g a r e a , which employed t h e l a r g e s t group of workers on

t h e s i t e , was t h e r e s u l t of the i n t e g r a t i o n , i n 1979, o f t h e t h r e e origi-

n a l "docks" - those handling argon, oxygen and n i t r o g e n . This i n t e g r a t i o n

had been accompanied, or s h o r t l y preceded by, t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f " p a l l e t -

 - w-
i s a t i o n " i n which t h e c y l i n d e r s f o r t h e gases, r a t h e r t h a n being loaded

d i r e c t l y on t o t h e l o r r i e s by hand, were placed on wooden p a l l e t s which

could be t r a n s p o r t e d by f o r k l i f t t r u c k e i t h e r t o t h e l o r r i e s or, when

empty, t o t h e f i l l i n g shed. F i n a l l y , a t t h e same time as t h e t r a n s f e r

t o t h e C e n t r a l F i l l i n g Area, t h e f i l l i n g p r o c e s s i t s e l f was computerised.

The impact o f t h e s e changes, and o f changes i n o t h e r work a r e a s d e t a i l e d

below, w i l l be d e a l t with more f u l l y i n t h e r e l e v a n t s e c t i o n s . Meanwhile,

we go on t o l i s t t h e o t h e r workgroups on whom t h e r e s e a r c h focussed.

These were, r e s p e c t i v e l y , t h e c y l i n d e r t e s t o p e r a t i v e s , a l s o r e c e n t l y a f -

f e c t e d by computerisation; t h e f o r k l i f t t r u c k d r i v e r s who t r a n s p o r t e d p a l l e t s

t o and from t h e l o r r i e s and from t h e t e s t shop t o t h e c e n t r a l f i l l i n g area;

t h e s i t e s e r v i c e s workers, who d e a l t with r e p a i r and maintenance j o b s around

t h e s i t e and who were t h e most f l e x i b l e group o f workers; and, of course,

t h e lorry d r i v e r s . These l a s t were d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e groups, VCH or cyl-

i n d e r d r i v e r s who took 5 - , 8- or 1 0 - p a l l e t v e h i c l e s o u t on l o c a l rounds,

t h e " f e r r y " d r i v e r s , using a r t i c u l a t e d l o r r i e s with t r a i l e r s , who drove

longer d i s t a n c e s with 16-18 p a l l e t loads, and f i n a l l y t h e "cryospeed" d r i v e r s ,

t a k i n g s m a l l samples o f l i q i d n i t r o g e n o r argon t o f i r m s i n t h e area t o h e l p

them d e c i d e on t h e b e s t u s e of t h e s e gases w i t h i n t h e i r production processes.

O f t h e s e workgroups, t h e p r o p o r t i o n s interviewed were as follows:

C e n t r a l F i l l i n g Area ( c y l i n d e r f i l l e r s and s o r t e r s ) 12 of 13

Fork L i f t Truck d r i v e r s 4 of 6

Cylinder Test o p e r a t i v e s 4 of 6

S i t e S e r v i c e s workers 5 of 9

Dispensers 4 of 5

Compressors 3 of 4

Cylinder d r i v e r s 2 o f 19

Liquid drivers 1 of 7

These groups o f workers were chosen f o r t h e i r involvement i n t h e most d i r -

e c t l y "productive" a r e a s and f o r t h e s e m i - s k i l l e d n a t u r e of t h e i r work.

 - 235-
Thus f o r example s i t e s e r v i c e and c y l i n d e r t e s t workers were interviewed,

d e s p i t e t h e i r i n c l u s i o n by BOC i n t h e c a t e g o q o f "Technical S e r v i c e s "

workers, r a t h e r than t h e v e h i c l e maintenance workers a l s o i n c l u d e d i n

t h i s c a t e g o y whose work contained some c r a f t elements. O t h e r groups of

workers t h u s omitted were engineering maintenance craftsmen and a n c i l l a r y

workers such a s t h o s e in t h e canteen. For similar reasons, t h e women wor-

k i n g i n t h e s c h e d u l i n g o f f i c e were a l s o excluded, even though t h e i r cur-

r e n t employment p r o s p e c t s posed s i g n i f i c a n t i s s u e s with t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n

of computerisation.

The main f o c u s of r e s e a r c h , then, was on what was known as t h e "Operations

and D i s t r i b u t i o n " department, one o f t h r e e departments i n t o which t h e

Wembley branch was s t r u c t u r e d ; i n a d d i t i o n t o Technical S e r v i c e s , t h e r e

was a l s o t h e Commercial department, which handled o r d e r s and s a l e s and t h e

workforce of which was white c o l l a r a p a r t from two men who s e r v e d on what

was known a s t h e "Bearer Dock", r o l l i n g c y l i n d e r s on and o f f a c o n c r e t e

deck in t h e old-fashioned manner f o r i n d i v i d u a l c a l l i n g customers.

The management and s u p e r v i s o r y s t r u c t u r e followed t h e l i n e s o f t h e s e t h r e e

departments. There was an o v e r a l l Branch Manager with r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r

t h e whole o p e r a t i o n , with each department i n t u r n headed by i t s own manager.

Beneath t h i s l a y e r , a t l e a s t i n t h e O p e r a t i o n s / D i s t r i b u t i o n and Technical

S e r v i c e s departments w i t h which t h e r e s e a r c h was t h e most concerned, t h e r e

was a c o n s i d e r a b l e a d d i t i o n a l l e v e l o f s u p e r v i s i o n , i n c l u d i n g i n t h e c a s e

of " O p s / D i s t " two Cylinder foremen with beneath them two C e n t r a l F i l l i n g

s u p e r v i s o r s , one s u p e r v i s o r f o r t h e compressors, and two T r a n s p o r t foremen

o v e r s e e i n g t h e d r i v e r s ; in Technical S e r v i c e s t h e r e were a S i t e Services

and a Cylinder t e s t s u p e r v i s o r i n t h e a r e a s w i t h which w e were concerned,

a s w e l l a s an Engineering Maintenance foreman and a foreman f o r t h e depart-

ment as a whole (who a l s o doubled as works engineer). Of t h e s e mamagers and

s u p e r v i s r s t h e f o l l o w i n g were interviewed:

Branch Manager, O p e r a t i o n s / D i s t r i b u t i o n Manager, Technical S e r v i c e s Manager,

 -236-
two C e n t r a l F i l l i n g Area foremen, two Transport foremen, one Technical

s e r v i c e s foreman, one S i t e S e r v i c e s s u p e r v i s o r , one Cylinder T e s t s u p e r -

v i s o r . a n d one Compressors s u p e r v i s o r . The branch and r e g i o n a l personnel

managers were a l s o interviewed. As in our previous c a s e study, t h e f i n d - -

ings from t h e s e d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h management w i l l be p r e s e n t e d b e f o r e w e

examine t h e response of t h e workforce and t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .

The above, then, was t h e employment s t r u c t u r e of t h e Wembley branch o f

BOC, numbering roughly 1 7 5 employees, a s i t e x i s t e d a t t h e time of t h e

r e s e a r c h (Spring, 1985). However, many changes, p r i n c i p a l l y a f f e c t i n g

manpower, had taken p l a c e o v e r t h e previous t e n y e a r s and more r e c e n t l y ,

and t h e branch was d u r i n g t h e time of t h e r e s e a r c h undergoing s t i l l more

d r a s t i c change in t h i s r e s p e c t . During t h e p a s t y e a r , f o r example, t h e

number o f " l i q u i d " d r i v e r s employed a t t h e branch had been reduced from

25 t o 7 in r e a d i n e s s f o r t h e t r a n s f e r of t h e e n t i r e l i q u i d gases d i s t r i -

b u t i o n o p e r a t i o n t o Thame. This in i t s t u r n a f f e c t e d , as we have noted

above, t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e d i s p e n s e r s , who by t h e time t h e r e s e a r c h was

under way v e r e i n l i t t l e doubt t h a t t h e i r jobs would be redundant by t h e

time ( u s u a l l y estimated a s September 1 9 8 5 ) t h a t t h e t r a n s f e r was complete.

The r e p e r c u s s i o n s of t h e t r a n s f e r echoed through t h e p l a n t , and i n f a c t

d u r i n g t h e f i n a l week of t h e r e s e a r c h period i t was announced t h a t 16

workers amongst t h e manual workforce a s a whole were t o be made redundant.

Alongside t h e s e f a r - r e a c h i n g changes was t h e ongoing development of

c o m p u t e r i s a t i o n i n t h e o r d e r i n g and scheduling of d e l i v e r y o f gases,

which a g a i n d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d of t h e r e s e a r c h r e s u l t e d i n t h e compulsory

redundancy of n i n e of t h e ( f e m a l e ) gas o r d e r s c l e r k s - half of the exist-

ing v o r k f o r c e . Indeed I was f r e q u e n t l y t o l d d u r i n g t h e period o f my re-

s e a r c h a t Wembley t h a t t h e v o r k f o r c e a s a whole had been more than halved

over t h e p r e v i o u s ten y e a r s as t h e r e s u l t of such changes i n combination

with a g e n e r a l d r i v e towards t h e reduction o f manpower.

The same p r e s s u r e s t h a t had l e d t o t h i s d r i v e a l s o underlay o t h e r changes

 -237-

in work o r g a n i s a t i o n and p r a c t i c e s which had, a s many managers p u t i t ,

been forced on t h e company by t h e r e c e s s i o n . These included work meas-

urement and p r o d u c t i v i t y programmes, themselves o r i g i n a l l y motivated

by t h e d e c i s i o n t o i n v e s t "in a b i g way" i n t h e p l a n t ; meaning t h a t man-

agement "had t o g e t c o s t s down". The changes which c u r r e n t l y a f f e c t e d

workers a t BOC Wembley can be summarised a s follows:

1966 F i r s t Work S t u d y Review, i e work measurement e x e r c i s e , which

in t h e Personnel Manager's words "slashed hours and reduced

wag e s 'I.

1969 USR 2 - a more complex review t a k i n g p l a c e o v e r t h r e e years

which measured p r o d u c t i v i t y in each a r e a t o f i n d o u t f o r ex-

ample how long i t took t o move c y l i n d e r s - "a long e x e r c i s e

in work measurement".

1971

1972

1973
I P r o d u c t i v i t y schemes " f i n a l l y agreed" a f t e r t h e work study

reviews enabled t h e company t o "drop a l o t o f workers".

"Model Plans" drawn up which included r e l a x a t i o n o f demarc-

a t i o n l i n e s , i n c r e a s e d f l e x i b i l i t y , and t i m i n g s on jobs.

Monthly " P r o d u c t i v i t y Meetings" inaugerated t o d i s c u s s any

problems w i t h t h e s e p l a n s and p r o d u c t i v i t y g e n e r a l l y .

1979 A "stre.pllining exercise" or ongoing p r o d u c t i v i t y d e a l i n i -

t i a t e d a p r o c e s s whereby "year by y e a r t h e y come i n and say

they want t o g e t r i d of x people, h e r e ' s t h e money" (dispen-

ser). While t h e e x e r c i s e was o f f i c i a l l y " j u s t about numbers"

it had a l s o led t o some changes i n working p r a c t i c e s (eg t h e

systems of "coverage" and "dead man s h i f t s " which were forms

of enforced overtime).

1978 I n t r o d u c t i o n of p a l l e t i s a t i o n f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f c y l i n d e r s

1979 I n t e g r a t i o n of s e p a r a t e docks i n t o C e n t r a l F i l l i n g Area

1979-80 Computerisation of c y l i n d e r f i l l i n g p r o c e s s

1904 Announcement of Thame t r a n s f e r

 -238-
. 1985 I n t r o d u c t i o n o f computerisation i n t o d r i v e r s c h e d u l i n g

1985 Computerisation of c y l i n d e r t e s t i n g process.

The impact of t h e s e changes f o r t h e current n a t u r e o f management/

worker r e l a t i o n s and t h e labour p r o c e s s a t BOC Wembley can be summed

up in terms o f a c e n t r a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n between o b j e c t i v e s on manning

and overtime on t h e p a r t of both workers and management. T h i s ordained

an entrenched s e t o f antagonisms which, w h i l e l e s s immediately dramatic

and e x p l o s i v e than t h e "performance" c o n f l i c t a t Landis 6 Gyr, was a s

f a r r e a c h i n g in i t s e f f e c t s . B r i e f l y , t h e c o n f l i c t i n g o b j e c t i v e s can be

l i s t e d a s follows:
MANAGEMENT
Wants r e d u c t i o n s t o achieve
"'ING c o s t savings
Has t o i n c r e a s e / e n f o r c e t o
make up f o r l a c k of f l e x i b i l i t y
caused by manning r e d u c t i o n s ;
a t t h e same time a t t e m p t i n g t o
OVERTIME
reduce i n o r d e r t o c o n t r o l c o s t s .
Would p r e f e r t o r e t a i n r a t h e r
than i n c r e a s e b a s i c r a t e
WORKFORCE
Opposes r e d u c t i o n s , b u t
a l s o opposes r e c r u i t m e n t
and redeployment as t h i s en-
croaches on t h e i r overtime
Resents l e v e l s o f b u t seeks
o u t in o r d e r t o enhance r e l -
a t i v e l y low b a s i c r a t e .
Uses a s main b a r g a i n i n g coun-
t e r but o b j e c t s t o l e v e l s of
intensification associated
w i t h forms of o v e r t i m e such
a s "coverage".

The impact of t h e s e i n h e r e n t l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y o b j e c t i v e s on both manager-

i a l o r g a n i s a t i o n o f a n d worker response t o t h e labour p r o c e s s a t BOC

was, as we have i n d i c a t e d , s r e c u r r i n g f e a t u r e of our f i n d i n g s . The

c o n s t r a i n t s w i t h i n which both management and workers found themselves

a l o n g t h e s e l i n e s w e r e f u r t h e r i n t e n s i f i e d by t h e d e t e r i o r a t i n g posi-

t i o n o f t h e p l a n t i t s e l f . Once t h e c e n t r e o f o p e r a t i o n s i n t h e Southern

Region, with a degree of worker c o m b a t i v i t y t o match, i t was now reduced

t o something of an o u t p o s t , i t s key o p e r a t i o n s d i v e r t e d t o an o u t l y i n g

ares and i t s e l f now by no means Immune t o t o t a l c l o s u r e . As t h e Oper-

a t i o n s and D i s t r i b u t i o n s Manager p u t It: "About t e n y e a r s ago, n o t very

 -239-

long ago, Wembley w a s very big, t h e b i g g e s t in t h e country - t o sug-

g e s t Wembley c o u l ? c l o s e was a Joke. Now i t would b e no problem t o

close - i t ' s g e t t i = < t h a t r e a l i s m a c r o s s t o people.".

A t t h e same time, b w e v e r , whatever i t s immediate p r o s p e c t s , BOC

Wembley remained p r r t of a v a s t multimational conglomerate f a c i n g

minimal c o m p e t i t i a c . Indeed BOC's problem was n o t t h a t of i n c r e a s i n g

i t s revenue, whict. u n u l d have brought it i n t o c o n f l i c t with t h e Mon-

o p o l i e s Commission, b u t of keeping down i t s c o s t s . A t t h e same time

t h e company's p r o f i t s were, t o s a y t h e l e a s t , h e a l t h y ; t h e Company

Report f o r 1986, X C ' s c e n t e n a r y year, announced "record p r o f i t s on

worldwide t u r n o v e r of around f2 b i l l i o n " , w h i l e p r e - t a x p r o f i t s had

r i s e n 24% d u r i n g 1355 and t u r n o v e r stood a t €2261.4111 as opposed t o

t h e 1984 f i g u r e of S443.Om.

There was, then, uo c o n c e i v a b l e danger of BOC as a company going o u t

of business. A s the g l o s s y pamphlet promoting t h e BOC Group begins:

The BOC Group - t r i b u t e s t o t h e economies of some 50

countries throc&out t h e world. I n each of t h e s e economies
i t manufacturea as s e l l as markets one o r more o f i t s major
product l i n e s : i z d u s t r i a l g a s e s , h e a l t h c a r e , carbon-based
and welding prcdxacts. In a l l of t h e s e p r o d u c t s t h e Group
i s e i t h e r wrL& l e a d e r o r among t h e world's major producers.

. A QlBATU l e a f l e t puts i t perhaps less wholeheartedly, a f t e r quot-

i n g both t h e y e a r - a n d p r o f i t s of f138 m i l l i o n and the f771,600 p a

s a l a r y of Dick Giordrno, Group Chief Executive:

Now t h a t means a s u c c e s s f u l company i n anybody's language -

don't i t j u s t :
And a l l t h e CZ3 v a n t s i s a SHARE IN THE WEALTH.
Sounds f a i r t o a s ... pardners:

I n t h i s s e c t i o n w e have summarised some of t h e r e c e n t changes, regard-

i n g b o t h manpower P d working p r a c t i c e s , which l a y behind t h e produc-

t i v e and i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s s i t u a t i o n i n Wembley. In our n e x t sec-

 -240-

t i o n we go on t o look a t t h e d e f i n i t i o n s o f , and a t t i t u d e s towards,

t h i s s i t u a t i o n by Wembley managers.

THE flAh'AGERS

D e s p i t e t h e a p p a r e n t l y u n s e t t l i n g l e v e l of employment i n s e c u r i t y and

f l u x e x i s t i n g a t t h e depot, t h e g e n e r a l atmosphere, among management

a t l e a s t , was one of a calm pragmatism which c o n t r a s t e d n o t i c e a b l y

w i t h t h e nervous a g g r e s s i o n of t h e management a t Landis & Gyr. T h i s

was undoubtedly due a t l e a s t in p a r t t o t h e s e c u r e p r o f i t s s i t u a t i o n

mentioned above. A t t h e same time, n e v e r t h e l e s s , c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of

c o s t and p r o f i t a b i l i t y were found again t o be more p r e s s i n g concerns

for management than any o b j e c t i v e of " c o n t r o l " p e r s e - conceptions

o f "control", where mentioned, being t i e d ( a s a t Landis & Gyr) t o a

s p e c i f i c s e t of r e l a t i o n s between time and money. In L a n d i s 6 Cyr's

c a s e t h i s s e t c e n t r e d on t h e i s s u e of "performance"; f o r BOC Wembley

i t was t h e manninglovertime nexus deccribed above. We now go on t o ex-

amine the managerial responses o b t a i n e d a t Wembley in t h e l i g h t of

t h i s ongoing, and c o n t r a d i c t o r y , r e l a t i o n s h i p between o b j e c t i v e s on

manning and overtime, beginning w i t h t h e frequently-used concept of

"management of change".

"Management of Change"

A s s t a t e d , t h i s was a p h r a s e f r e q u e n t l y employed by managers both a t

t h e p l a n t and a t r e g i o n a l l e v e l t o d e s c r i b e t h e i r c e n t r a l t a s k and ob-

j e c t i v e . As the Regional Personnel Manager p u t i t , "The r o l e of my de-

partment is t o e f f e c t i v e l y manage change and and minimise t h e damage

t o peopleand t h e company." The Technical S e r v i c e s manager r e f e r r e d t o

f a c t o r s such as "too many people, overtime a b i t high - t h i s would

s e t o f f t h e process of change."

Such r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e "management" and "process" of change a s c e n t r a l

t o t h e business of management might be thought t o r e f e r t o t h e g e n e r a l
 -241-

a c t i v i t y of p l a n n i n g and implementing an o v e r a r c h i n g managerial s t r a t -

egy. Indeed, comments were made which r e f e r r e d (in a p a r t i c u l a r l y rea-

l i s t i c f a s h i o n ) t o t h i s f u n c t i o n of s t r a t e g i c planning:

"...You've g o t t o know 3 , 4 , 5 y e a r s where y o u ' r e going. That does tend

t o change. Equally w e l l I t h i n k w e a r e i n a depot t h a t ' s c o n t i n u a l l y

changing by f o r c e s beyond our c o n t r o l , so t e c h n i c a l changes and p l a n s

w i l l be modified...you never g e t t h e r e " (Technical S e r v i c e s Manager).

"...Working t o a p l a n almost i m p l i e s b u i l d i n g a c a s t l e , and once i t ' s

b u i l t i t ' s s t a t i c , but i t ' s a dynamic business, your p l a n never ends.

We' 11 s t i l l go down t h e same t r a c k , b u t w e ' 11 n e v e r get t h e r e " (Oper-

a t i o n s / D i s t r i b u t i o n manager).

T h i s r e a l i s a t i o n , on t h e one hand e x p r e s s i n g an almost d i a l e c t i c a l grasp

of t h e c o m p l e x i t i e s of t h e p r o c e s s o f change, and on t h e o t h e r r e f l e c t -

i n g a r e a l i s t i c pragmatism, c o n t r a s t e d w i t h t h e i n s i s t e n c e o f t h e Land-

is & Gyr management on imposing a s p e c i f i c set of o b j e c t i v e s whether

or n o t t h i s accorded with e x i s t i n g i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s dynamics. This

was n o t because BOC managers were n o t prepared t o u n i l a t e r a l l y imple-

ment, a s w e see below, b u t q u i t e p o s s i b l y because w h i l e t h e s u r v i v a l of

BOC Wembley might be threatened, t h a t of t h e company a s a whole was

n o t i n question. However, t h e r e was a more immediate and p r a c t i c a l rea-

son f o r management's p h i l o s o p h i c a l acceptance o f change a s an ongoing

process - and t h i s was t h a t "change" and "the management o f change" were

in f a c t euphemisms f o r t h e r e s t r u c t u r i n g and d e s t a f f f n g o f t h e Southern

Region a s a whole and BOC Uembley in p a r t i c u l a r .

That t h i s was t h e c o n c r e t e n a t u r e of t h e "change" b e i n g "managed" was

c l e a r i n t h e managers' a n a l y s i s o f workers' r e s i s t a n c e , or a s t h e

Technical S e r v i c e s manager p u t i t , " i n e r t i a " , t o change. Not only t h i s

manager b u t management i n g e n e r a l appeared t o view worker response i n

t h i s a r e a aa a t e c h n i c a l problem, comparable t o , a s t h e Technical Ser-

v i c e s manager's terms s u g g e s t s , a problem i n engineering. However,

s i n c e t h e i s s u e of worker r e s i s t a n c e in t h i s a r e a and management's

view o f t h i s r e s i s t a n c e t a k e s us i n t o a d i s t i n c t and complex sphere,

we s h a l l postpone c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h i s t o a l a t e r s e c t i o n . Meanwhile

we examine t h e u n d e r l y i n g r a t i o n a l e of t h i s c e n t r a l programme of change

- r e d u c t i o n s i n manning, r e d u c t i o n s i n overtime through t h e e l i m i n a t i o n

of r e s t r i c t i v e p r a c t i c e s - which, n o t s u r p r i s i n g l y , was presented by

management in terms o f c o s t r e d u c t i o n .

Management of Change - ( i ) C o s t Reduction

Many managers prefaced t h e i r remarks on t h e need f o r change with a ref-

e r e n c e t o "the recession". T h i s was seen a s a c a t a l y s t for a l r e a d y re-

q u i r e d change r a t h e r than a d i r e c t cause in i t s e l f : "The r e c e s s i o n hap-

pened and i t h i g h l i g h t e d and emphasised t h e problems of low p r o d u c t i v i t y .

Management perceived themselves forced t o reduce c o s t s " (branch person-

n e l manager). When t h e s p e c i f i c n a t u r e of these r e c e s s i o n - and c o s t -

induced changes was gone i n t o , t h e c e n t r a l i t y of t h e overtimehnanning

nexus became c l e a r : "With t h e d e c l i n e i n b u s i n e s s i n t h e l a t e '705,

t h i s h i g h l i g h t e d overtime and manning. When t h e r e was l o t s of work and

c o n s i s t e n t growth t h a t d i d n ' t matter. The c l i m a t e of i n d u s t r i a l r e l a -

t i o n s was then, a t a l l c o s t s d i s r u p t i o n must be avoided t o maintain

production. I'

Overtime and manning were, t h e n , t a r g e t t e d by t h e Personnel Manager as

"obvious" c a n d i d a t e s for change, with t h e emphasis on t h e r e d a c t i o n o f

overtime as a p r a c t i c a l p r o j e c t s t e p s towards which could now be under-

taken:

"I d o n ' t have a long-term p l a n - I c o n c e n t r a t e on t h e obvious problems.

It's well-knnwn amongst management h e r e what needs t o be done t o improve

things - g e t c o n t r o l of o v e r t i m e , manning, understanding of procedures,

b e t t e r communications...The f i r s t s t e p is t o analyse overtime l e v e l s i n

 -243-

r e l a t i o n t o a c t u a l requirements - set p r i o r i t i e s f o r changing w h a t ' s

necessary. I'

For t h e Branch Yanager, too, t h e removal o f t h e " r e s t r i c t i v e p r a c t i c e s "

a s s o a i a t e d w i t h o v e r t i m e vas seen a s a p r i o r i t y :

"We a n a l y s e d a l l b l o c k a g e s - I asked t h e foremen t o l i s t t o me i n

t h e i r s e c t i o n s what r e s t r i c t i v e p r a c t i c e s t h e r e were - identifying

them, r a t h e r t h a n d o i n g a n y t h i n g a b o u t them, i n t h e f i r s t year."

I t was c l e a r t h a t s u c h concern a b o u t " r e s t r i c t i v e p r a c t i c e s " was i n

t h e main r e l a t e d t o t h e d e v i c e s used by w o r k e r s t o i n c r e a s e t h e i r o v e r -

time o p p o r t u n i t i e s and t h u s t h e i r e a r n i n g s : "The d a n g e r i s o f manufac-

t u r i n g a d d i t i o n a l pay by t a k i n g 9 h o u r s ' work and s t r e t c h i n g i t t o 1 2

- t h e r e ' s an advantage t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l i n doing t h a t " ( T e c h n i c a l Ser-

v i c e s Xanager). The Branch ilanager a l s o r e f e r r e d t o t h e a r t i f i c i a l

" s t r e t c h i n g " o f J o b s by workers: " T h e i r performance r a t e i s t h e i r ac-

t i v i t y time - t h e time t a k e n t o c o m p l e t e c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s . They n e v e r

r e a c h t h e t i m e b e c a u s e o v e r t i m e comes i n t o p l a y b e f o r e t h e y g e t t h e r e . "

In f a c t , t h e whole wage b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e s s i n t h e p l a n t r e v o l v e d

a r o u n d o v e r t i m e . A s t h e T r a n s p o r t Foreman p u t i t , " T h e y ' r e l o o k i n 2

f o r t h i s e x t r a time - we've g o t t o t h i s s i t u a t i o n , i t ' s a r i d i c u l o u s

s i t u a t i o n , y o u ' l l come up t o me and s a y I want q u a r t e r o f an h o u r be-

c a u s e I had t o w a i t t o g e t o u t t o E a s t Lane - f a l s e o v e r t i m e , a11 f a l s e

overtime ...Everyone's l o o k i n g f o r o v e r t i m e , b u t no o n e seems t o want t o

work i t . "

A c e n t r a l a s p e c t o f t h e "change" r e f e r r e d t o by management w a s , t h e n ,

c l e a r l y t o r e d u c e t h i s l e v e l of a r t i f i c i a L o v e r t i m e w i t h i t s d e l e t e r -

i o u s e f f e c t s on c o s t s . B u t a t t h e same time t h e c o n f l i c t i n g p r e s s u r e

f o r p r o d u c t i o n c o n t i n u a l l y undermined t h i s o b j e c t i v e . A s t h e same

foreman p u t i t : "We h a v e t o be c o s t c o n s c i o u s - we g e t p r e s s u r e from

p e o p l e above. O v e r t i m e - you have t o t r y t o keep i t down - a v e r y hard

 -244-

t h i n g t o c o n t r o l . So many t h i n g s go wrong, t h e o n l y way you can

g e t t h e j o b i s by p a y i n g p e o p l e " ( i e g i v i n g o v e r t i m e ) .

Yet t h e company p r i o r i t i e s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s c o n t r a d i c t i o n were made

b r u t a l l y c l e a r i n t h e same f o r e m a n ' s c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e c o m p a r a t i v e

i n v e s t m e n t s i n v o l v e d i n l o r r y and d r i v e r . "The company d o e s i t on a

cost basis - l o r r i e s c o s t f15,300 f o r c y l i n d e r , 6130,003 f o r a l i q u i d

tanker - you pay t 2 5 f o r o v e r t i m e . I t ' s worth i t , b u t i t means t h e

customers a r e n ' t g e t t i n g service."

The r e l e n t l e s s c o s t p r e s s u r e s weighing on management exposed them t o a

c o n t i n u a l , and unwinnable, b a l a n c i n g of p r i o r i t i e s w i t h i n i m p o s s i b l y

t i g h t c o n s t r a i n t s . I t was no wonder t h a t managers r e f e r r e d r e s i g n e d l y

t o the lack of progress i n t h e p r o j e c t of reducing overtime levels.

"I d o n ' t t h i n k a t t h e moment i t h a s been t a c k l e d w h o l e h e a r t e d l y - I

d o n ' t t h i n k much h a s come o u t o f i t . I t h i n k t h e management l o c a l l y -

t h e b r a n c h management - t h e y ' r e u n s u r e a b o u t where t h e y can reduce

o v e r t i m e w i t h o u t c o n s t r i c t i n g s e r v i c e s " (Branch P e r s o n n e l kianagerj.

Overtime, t h e n , f i l l e d i n t h e c r a c k s l e f t by t h e manpower r e d u c t i o n s ,

b u t a t a c o s t t o which management could n o t q u i t e r e c o n c i l e themselves.

The p a r a l l e l p r o j e c t o f r e d u c i n g manning was, o f c o u r s e , a l s o d i c t a t e d

by c o s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , b u t w i t h i n t h e o v e r r i d i n g s e t o f p r e s s u r e s o r -

d a i n e d by " c o s t " i t a p p e a r e d a t t i m e s t o be a somewhat ad hoc d e c i s i o n

a s t o w h e t h e r t h e b a t t l e a g a i n s t o v e r t h e , o r t h e need t o m a i n t a i n ad-

e q u a t e c u s t o m e r s e r v i c e on t h e b a s i s of a d w i n d l i n g and o v e r s t r e t c n e d

w o r k f o r c e , would be t h e immediate p r i o r i t y . That t h e c e n t r a l i m p e r a t i v e

g o v e r n i n g m a n a g e r i i l a c t i v i t y was i n d e e ? c o s t was as c l e a r a t BC:

Wembley a s i t had been a t L a n d i s h Gyr:

"1:id-term aims a r e i n f l u e n c e d by t h e budget e v e r y 1 2 months - you have

t o r e d u c e c o s t s by x - t h a t ' s what i n f l u e n c e s what y o u ' r e t r y i n g t o do

w i t h t h e w o r k f o r c e , i n f l u e n c e s what y o u ' r e t r y i n g t o do. I t ' s t h e main

 - 245-
f a c t o r which i n f l u e n c e s day-to-day m a n a g e r i a l p r a c t i c e . . . A t t h e end

of t h e day I ' v e always g o t t h a t f e e l i n g which s a y s , How much i s i t ,

w h a t ' s c o s t and revenue" ( T e c h n i c a l S e r v i c e s Hanager). And t h e o v e r -

a l l programme for r e d u c i n g " r e s t r i c t i v e p r a c t i c e s " was sunmed up by

t h e Branch iianager i n t h e same terms:

"It was f e l t n e c e s s a r y t o remove t h e s t i n t p r a c t i c e s b e c a u s e t h e y

were hampering t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e branch - we were n o t c o s t e f -

f e c t i v e , w e were n o t competitive...So c o n t r o l meant t o manage c o s t s ,

t h a t ' s what i t meant, manage c o s t s . Managing c o s t s o b v i o u s l y meant p e o p l e

had t o work a l i t t l e b i t h a r d e r . Harder i n t h e s e n s e t h a t t h e y had t o

work c o n t i n u o u s l y f o r l o n g e r p e r i o d s , i n s t e a d o f s w e a t i n g . "

I n a few s e n t e n c e s , t h e Branch P:anager had i n t e r r e l a t e d t h e i s s u e s of

c o s t , "control", imposed by t h e s e c o s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , l a b o u r t i n e and

1abour r e o r g a n i s a t i o n and i n t en s i f i c a t i o n .

,?!anagement of Change - "!linimisation of Disruption"

I n t h e f o r e g o i n g we have a t t e m p t e d t o r e l a t e t h e p r o c e s s o f change t o

t h e meaning management t h e m s e l v e s g a v e t o i t - t h e r e d u c t i o n of c o s t s

i n t h e a c c o u n t i n g terms of b u d g e t , cost c e n t r e s e t c , which i n t h e i r

p r a c t i c a l r e a l i s a t i o n took t h e s h a p e o f t h e programxe of r e d u c i n i o v e r -

t i m e and manning. However, t h e r e i s o f c o u r s e a f u r t h e r dimension i n

which t h i s p r o c e s s c r u c i a l l y i n t e r a c t e d w i t h t h o s e who r e p r e s e n t e d t h e

c o s t t o be reduced - t h e workers. J u s t a s w e have t r i e d t o show t h e o r e t -

i c a l l y how v a l o r i s a t i o n w i t h i n , and t h u s t h e s t r u c t u r e o f , t h e l a b o u r

p r o c e s s depends on a nexus o f s u r p l u s v a l u e / s u b s i s t e n c e , or p a i d and

unpaid l a b o u r t i m e , s o w e would p r e s e n t t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n a s t h e s t r u c -

t u r a l b a s i s o f l a b o u r p r o c e s s o r g a n i s a t i o n and conduct a t Cembley.

N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e v e r y " c o n d i t i o n s " which management s e t o u t t o r e g -

u l a t e a s p a r t of t h e i r c o s t r e d u c t i o n p r o c e s s - t h e workers - were, o f

c o u r s e , l e a s t s u s c e p t i b l e t o a s y s t e m a t i c programme of improvement.
 -246-

Nanagement t h e m s e l v e s showed a l i v e l y a w a r e n e s s o f t h e "blocking"

r o l e of w o r k e r s i n t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e i r o b j e c t i v e s :

"'rhe b i g g e s t o b s t a c l e was worker r e s i s t a n c e - technical factors aren't

an o b s t a c l e - t h e y ' r e p r a c t i c a l t h i n g s t h a t c a n be d o n e i f t h e y ' r e

well planned. P e o p l e changes a r e h a r d e r t h a n machine changes" (Branch

bianager). The same manager added l a t e r , "Worker o r g a n i s a t i o n i s an

interfa@ - i t ' s always t h e r e " - a comment which, a s we go on t o s e e ,

c a n be s a i d t o sum up t h e r e a l i t y o f worker r e s i s t a n c e w i t h i n t h e p l a n t .

The O p e r a t i o n s / D i s t r i b u t i o n manager made t h e same p o i n t : "Uorker resp-

o n s e i s v e r y i m p o r t a n t i n g e t t i n g i n t h e way. Most of o u r p l a n s a r e

very simple, t h e o n l y r e a s o n we d i d n ' t do them y e s t e r d a y i s because

i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s h a s d i c t a t e d t h a t we c a n ' t . . . I f t h e r e wasn't t h a t

problem, you c o u l d p u t a monkey i n my j o b . "

We h a v e a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d some o f t h e ways i n which w o r k e r s , through

a process of a t t r i t i o n o r i n some c a s e s o u t r i g h t r e s i s t a n c e i n s t r i k e

action, blocked the managerial o b j e c t i v e of reducing overtime - helped,

a s we h a v e s e e n , by t h e f a c t t h a t management t h e m s e l v e s had l i t t l e a l -

t e r n a t i v e o n e c c a s i o n b u t t o h a v e r e c o u r s e t o o v e r t i m e a s a means of

overcoming g a p s i n s e r v i c e l e f t by t h e r e d u c t i o n i n manpower. The Dp-

e r a t i o n s / D i s t r i b u t i o n s manager summed up t h e c o n f l i c t i n g dynamics o f

this situation:

"Changes happen a l l t h e time. I n t h e long term t h e t i g h t e r t h e r u l e s t h e

l e s s t h e d i s r u p t i o n . The d i s r u p t i o n a r i s e s b e c a u s e p e o p l e a r e working a t

t h e edge o f t h e r u l e s - up t o t h e l i m i t and w i t h what t h e y can g e t away

w i t h . I f t h e r u l e s a r e c l e a r c u t we can minimise d i s r u p t i o n . T h e y ' r e n o t

s o c l e a r c u t b e c a u s e i f t h e y work t o r u l e , n o t h i n g g e t s done. i o I r e l y

on t h e w i l l i n g n e s s t o work t o g e t h e r - t h a t works f i n e i f W E have t h e

same common aim. I d o n ' t b e l i e v e we o f t e n do have."

T h i s m a n a g e r ' s u s e of t h e n o t i o n s of "rules" and " d i s r u p t i o n " provided

 - 247-
an i n t e r e s t i n g c o n c e p t u a l i s a t i o n o f t h e r o l e of w o r k e r s a s t h e " f l y i n

t h e o i n t m e n t " i n p e d i n g m a n a g e r i a l p l a n s . D e s p i t e t h e sor!ewhat p h i l o s o p h -

i c a l t o n e o f h i s a n a l y s i s , " d i s c i p l i n e " and " r u l e s " were c l e a r l y n o t ab-

s t r a c t d e s i d e r a t a b u t p a r t o f t h e ongoin; and e v e r y d a y b a t t l e between

pay and p r o d u c t i v i t y . As an example, t h e x a n a g e r s a i d , "'The l i q u i d t r a n s -

f e r " ( t h e t r a n s f e r of l i q u i d t a n k e r d r i v e r s t o T h a a e ) " i s c l a s s i c - they

c a n ' t c o n t r o l t h i s s o why n o t c a u s e maxiTun d i s r u p t i o n . I wan: minimu?

disruption, t h i s i s not t h e i r aim...their aim i s d o l l a r s today."

The " r u l e s " which t h e w o r k e r s c o n t i n u a l l y b r o k e o r c h a l l e n z e d x e r e t h o s e

g o v e r n i n g t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n o f l a b o u r time and a l l o c a t i o n of o v e r t i m e ;

t h e " m i n i m i s a t i o n of d i s c i p l i n e " f o r which t h e manager s t r o v e was o n e i n

which t h e m a n a g e r i a l l y - s t r u c t u r e d l a b o u r p r o c e s s was c a r r i e d o n w i t h a s

l i t t l e i n t e r r u p t i o n and w i t h d r a w a l o f l a b o u r a s p o s s i b l e . a u t t h e break-

i n g o f s u c h " r u l e s " was n o t a t t r i b u t e d t o any wish by t h e workforce t o

u s u r p t h e m a n a g e r i a l i m p o s i t i o n o f working norms, b u t s i m ? l y t o t h e aim,

i r r e c o n c i l a b l e w i t h t h a t o f management, o f " d o l l a r s t o d a y " - acknowledged

i n t h e m a n a g e r ' s l a c o n i c comment t h a t "I d o n ' t b e l i e v e we o f t e n do have"

( a common aim).

I n d e e d , i n o n e way t h e r e was a c l e a r r e c o g n i t i o n by b o t h t h e G ? e r a t i o n s /

D i s t r i b u t i o n and Branch managers of t h e v e r y p r a c t i c a l r e a s o n s behind

t h e workers' intractability:

"I b e l i e v e I ' m c o n s c i e n t i o u s . My a i m i s a l o n g term s o l i d f o u n d a t i o n we

c a n b u i l d on. Some h i g h l y p a i d p e o p l e a r e l o o k i n g f o r pounds today. They

s e e t h e y c a n ' t c o n t r o l tomorrow, j u s t today. I d o n ' t blame t h e 7 € o r mak-

i n g a buck."

"People do t r y t o c r e a t e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r e a r n i n g more, which t h e y can

o n l y do t h r o u g h o v e r t i m e . I f I was them, I ' d do t h e same t h i n g - I ' d be

bound t o form a s i m i l a r p l a n , i f I wanted more money o u t o f t h e s y s t m . "

I n t h i s t h e managers e x p r e s s e d a c u r i o u s pragmatism, apparent i n the

 -248-

g e n e r a l etmosphere o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s a t t h e p l a n t , i n which managers

and shop s t e w a r d s a p p e a r e d t o meet on t h e same t e r r i t o r y o f h a r d -

nosed m a t e r i a l i s m . T h i s t o t a l l y i n s t r u m e n t a l r a t i o n a l e was acknow-

ledged i n t h e a c c e p t a n c e , o r o t h e r w i s e , by w o r k e r s o f t h e much-discussed

"change":

"ir'hen I was t r y i n g t o i n c r e a s e t h e c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y o f t h e v e h i c l e s ,

a l l t h e s t e w a r d s were on my s i d e e x c e p t one, b e c a u s e he was making o v e r -

time. ~ l t hl e o t h e r s were q u i t e happy, b e c a u s e t h e y want t h e company t o

be profitable...Divergence from t h a t comes when i t a f f e c t s a n i n d i v i d -

u a l ' s pocket...Some o f t h e t i m e w e ' r e working t o g e t h e r e f f e c t i v e l y , f o r

example t h e changes on n i g h t s - the blokes a r e helping us because i t

doesn't k i t t h e i r pockets" ( O p s / D i s t Xanager). I n g e n e r a l terms t h e

manager r e c o g n i s e d t h a t w o r k e r s "work t o 1 ;ve, t h e y d o n ' t l i v e t o work.

Money i s t h e i r t o p p r i o r i t y . "

In everyday terms, t h e n , t h e manager r e c o g n i s e d t h a t i t was economic

r a t h e r t h a n i d e o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s which came i n t o p l a y i n t h e t h w a r t i n g

by workers o f m a n a g e r i a l p l a n s ; where such p l a n s d i d n o t " h i t t h e i r

p o c k e t s " workers might w e l l j o i n w i t h management i n "wanting t h e com-

pany t o be p r o f i t a b l e " . The same a l m o s t twin o u t l o o k on t h e p a r t o f

management and w o r k f o r c e was r e f l e c t e d i n t h e Branch Manager's a s s e s s -

ment o f workers' a t t i t u d e s towards him:

"Workers see me a s a manager, a p e r s o n t r y i n g t o g e t t h i n g s done a s

c h e a p l y a s I can - t h e y s e e t h e i r j o b a s t r y i n g t o g e t a s much o u t o f

management a s t h e y can."

I n t h i s s e c t i o n i t h a s been made c l e a r f i r s t l y t h a t Wembley managers,

l i k e t h o s e a t L a n d i s & Gyr, saw t h e i r o b j e c t i v e s p r i m a r i l y i n t e r m s o f

c o s t ; but t h a t , s e c o n d l y , t h e i n t e r m i t t e n t t a s k o f " m i n i m i s a t i o n o f

d i s r u p t i o n " was s e e n a s n e c e s s a r y i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e t h e s e o b j e c t i v e s .

So f a r t h i s approach c a n be summed up n o t so much a s a d r i v e f o r man-

 -149-
a ; , e r i a l a u t h o r i t y or " c o n t r o l " - i n d e e d , a s we s h a l l show, many e x p l i c -

i t l y r e j e c t e d such a n o u t l o o k - a s t h e s t a n c e o f a somewhat wary com-

b a t a n t aware and t o sone e x t e n t r e s p e c t f u l o f t h e o p p o n e n t ' s g r i e v a n c e s

and s t r e n g t h . : a n a g e r i a l p r i o r i t i e s c l e a r l y remained i n t h e a r e a o f c o s t

r e d u c t i o n r a t h e r t h a n worker r e s i s t a n c e and i t s r e p r e s s i o n .

The a n a l y t i c a l c r u n c h , however, comes when we p r o b e f u r t h e r i n t o how

t h i s e s s e n t i a l l y u n d e s i r a b l e r e s i s t a n c e i s t o be engaged w i t h and o v e r -

come, an i s s u e e x p l i c i t l y t a k e n u p i n t h e r e s e a r c h i n an a t t e m p t t o push

t h e " c o n t r o l " q u e s t i o n t o i t s f i n a l f r o n t i e r s i n terms of t h e m a n a g e r i a l

r e s p o n s e t o worker r e s i s t a n c e . We t h e r e f o r e go on t o examine a number o f

f a c t o r s : whether t h e managers' p r a g m a t i c and e c o n o m i s t i c acknowledgement

o f w o r k e r s ' motives a l l o w e d them t o concede any ground; t h e t a c t i c s u s e d

t o a c h i e v e m a n a g e r i a l g o a l s i n t h e f a c e o f worker r e s i s t a n c e ; m a n a g e r i a l

a t t i t u d e s t o c o n t i n u e d r e s i s t a n c e ; and t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of u n i l a t e r a l imp-

l e m e n t a t i o n o f , or c o n f r o n t a t i o n i s t i n s i s t e n c e o n , m a n a g e r i a l g o a l s .

"Control" and C o n f l i c t

i ) Sympathy but...

AS we saw above, managers when q u e s t i o n e d were c l e a r l y aware o f , and t o

some e x t e n t even i d e n t i f i e d w i t h , t h e i r w o r k f o r c e ' s m o t i v a t i o n s i n man-

i p u l a t i n g t h e w a g e - e f f o r t b a r g a i n , e t c . However, i t was c l e a r t h a t such

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n no way l e d t o c o n c e s s i o n s by managers t o t h e demands

themselves. A s t h e Operations/Distributions Fianager p u t i t :

"I can u n d e r s t a n d , s y m p a t h i s e , b u t t h a t d o e s n ' t mean I can a g r e e or c a n

accept - I can s e e i t t h r o u g h t h e i r e y e s , b u t t h a t d o e s n ' t mean I s h o u l d

c o n t i n u e t o accept t h e poor levels of p r o d u c t i v i t y . "

The R e g i o n a l P e r s o n n e l Manager, i n h i s t u r n , c o n f i r m e d t h e t e n a c i t y o f

management i n t h e f a c e o f developments which m i g h t t a c t i c a l l y s t r e n g t h e n

t h e w o r k f o r c e . "Some t h i n g s we've done have s t r e n g t h e n e d t h e i r a b i l i t y

t o be d i f f i c u l t - f o r example c e n t r a l i s i n g a t Thame. Also t h e C e n t r a l

F i l l i n g Area, c e n t r a l i s i n g i t h a s made them s t r o n g e r . B u t s e t a g a i n s t

 -
- 250-
t h i s i s t h e s i t u a t i o n t h a t we w i l l manage t h e s i t u a t i o n and n o t run away."

D e s p i t e a t r a d i t i o n , o n c e c o n s i d e r a b l e b u t now much weakened, o f work-

group s t r e n g t h and endemic r e s i s t a n c e a t Wembley, management knew them-

s e l v e s t o b e t h e s t r o n g e r p a r t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e c u r r e n t economic c i r -

cumstances. Sooner o r l a t e r , though worker r e s i s t a n c e c o n s t i t u t e d a tiresome

o b s t a c l e , t h e y would g e t t h e i r way.

i i ) "Yodify y o u r aims.. ."

How, then, was t h i s o b s t a c l e , w i t h a l l i t s r o o t s i n t h e half-acknowledged

need f o r w o r k e r s t o make a l i v i n g , a p p r o a c h e d and d e a l t w i t h ? W e sax. a t

L a n d i s & Gyr how a d i r e c t c l a s h between m a n a g e r i a l o b j e c t i v e s and workers'

n e e d s and c a p a b i l i t i e s , n e v e r f u l l y c o n f r o n t e d by management, led to a

" f i r e f i g h t i n g " syndrome i n which u n r e s o l v e d i s s u e s e r u p t e d u n p r e d i c t a b l y

i n t o c o n f l i c t . A t BOC Wembley a l s o t h e r e was something o f a t r a d i t i o n of

" f i r e s " b r e a k i n g o u t i n t h e s e n s e of w o r k e r s ' tendency t o walk o u t i n "un-

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l " s t r i k e s , and i n f a c t two s u c h a c t i o n s t o o k p l a c e d u r i n g t h e

p e r i o d of t h e r e s e a r c h . A t t h e same t i m e , however, t h e r e was t h e impression

o f an ongoing and c o m p a r a t i v e l y e f f e c t i v e machinery f o r h a n d l i n g c o n f l i c t -

n o t so much t h e o f f i c i a l machinery o f t h e p r o c e d u r e agreement, which a s t h e

branch p e r s o n n e l manager mourned was f r e q u e n t l y i g n o r e d , o r even t h e lower-

l e v e l n e g o t i a t i n g s t r u c t u r e o f t h e monthly p r o d u c t i v i t y m e e t i n g s , but a w i ; -

l i n g n e s s by management t o t a k e on and d i s c u s s worker r e s p o n s e :

"The achievement o f change i s by p e r s u a s i o n . You s i t down and t a l k t o people

... I f i t ' s a minor change, u s u a l l y t h e r e ' s coapromise. The o n l y way i s t o

s i t down and t a l k t o p e o p l e , modify y o u r aims w i t h i n t h e g e n e r a l goals"

( T e c h n i c a l S e r v i c e s J.:anager).

"Opposition i s bound t o b e t h e r e - how do you minimise i t ? Ey b e i n g a s open

a s p o s s i b l e a b o u t c h a n g e s t h a t m u s t come" ( O p s j ' J i s t h a n a g e r ) . Cunning, too,

was i m p o r t a n t i n g e t t i n g t h r o u g h m a n a g e r i a l o b j e c t i v e s : " U t h e r t e c h n i q u e s ?

Sneaky t h i n g s - a s k f o r 100 ~ when you o n l y want 4 3 ,, s o t h e g u y s a r e pleased

 -251-

t h a t i t ' s o n l y 40.. Change from x t o z s p r e a d a b o u t h7hen i t ' s r e a l l y x

t o y..." The s a n e manager c o n c l u d e d t h a t "I u s e c u n n i n g , n o t b r u t e f o r c e ,

b e - a u s e w i t h b r u t e f o r c e y o u ' r e on t h i n i c e , w i t h c u n n i n g you keep t a l k -

ing. "

O t h e r managers a g r e e d , i d e a l l y , w i t h t h i s s o f t l y , s o f t l y a p p r o a c h :

"I s e e z a n a g e m e n t ' s j o b a s t r y i n g t o r e d u c e r e s i s t a n c e , ease the transition,

by i n v o l v i n g t h e employees c o n c e r n e d i n a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t h e r e a s o n why

c h a n g e s a r e n e c e s s a r y " ( 3 r a n c h i ' e r s o n n e l ':anager) . 3nce again, here there

was no c o n c e s s i o n t o t h e a c t u a l n e e d s o f t h e w o r k f o r c e , b u t a d i p l o m a t i c

commitment t o p e r s u a s i o n - worker r e s p o n s e was t a k e n s e r i o u s l y , even i f

i t s a c t u a l c o n t e n t was n o t i n t e g r a t e d i n t o m a n a g e r i a l p l a n s .

i i i ) h'orkers and t h e i r " P e r c e p t i o n s " .

Such m a n a g e r i a l a t t i t u d e s d i s p l a y e d a n a d m i r a b l e a d h e r e n c e t o teXtbOOK

i d e a l s of "communication" i n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e w o r k f o r c e . However, i n t h e

n a t u r e o f t h e c a s e i t had t o be a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y acknowledged t h a t "com-

m u n i c a t i o n " i n i t s e l f was n o t enough, s i n c e c o n f l i c t c o n t i n u e d . From t h i s

p o i n t o f view i t was i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h e m a n a g e r i a l a t t i t u d e towards

worker r e s p o n s e , which d e s p i t e t h e s i m u l t a n e o u s r e c o g n i t i o n o f hard-headed

economic m o t i v a t i o n , was c h a r a c t e r i s e d a s " i l l o g i c a l " : "Clearly ws'd l i k e

t o , n o t h a v e a weak w o r k f o r c e , b u t a more l o g i c a l one - some arguments a r e

illogical - more r e a l i s t i c I g u e s s " ( O p s / D i s t manager).

And w o r k e r s were o v e r - e m o t i o n a l :

" S t r i k e s a r e e m o t i v e , n o t v e r y well t h o u g h t o u t . Workers and management

a r e e q u a l l y e m o t i v e , b u t management w i l l n o r m a l l y s t e p back and r e f l e c t "

(Branch P e r s o n n e l >:anager).

The R e g i o n a l P e r s o n n e l Planager a g r e e d :

"If you t a k e s t o p p a g e s , t h e y a r i s e from e m o t i o n . . . T h e r e ' s lack of c l a r i t y ,

emotions, a f l a s h p o i n t . A buildup, t h e s t r a w t h a t b r e a k s t h e c a m e l ' s back."

I n a s i m i l a r fashion, workers' r e s p o n s e s t o m a n a g e r i a l p l a n s were d e s -

c r i b e d i n terms o f " p e r c e p t i o n s " which, i t was i m p l i e d , might e a s i l y b e a s

 -252-

s u b j e c t i v e and u n r e l i a b l e a s i n t h e more e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l meaning o f t h a t

term. Such " p e r c e p t i o n s " were t h e c h i e f problem f a c i n g t h e branch person-

nel officer:

"We have s i g n i f i c a n t changes coming t h r o u g h which a r e p e r c e i v e d a s b e i n g

of disadvantage. For example t h e new d i s t r i b u t i o n s c h e d u l i n g system r e -

q u i r e s g r e a t e r p r o d u c t i v i t y from d r i v e r s . The p e r c e p t i o n w i l l be, we have

t o work h a r d e r f o r no more pay." Overt worker r e a c t i o n t o such e v e n t s had

l o n g been b e l e a g u e r e d by e q u a l l y i n a c c u r a t e " p e r c e p t i o n s " :

" T h e r e ' s no r e a s o n why we c a n ' t have h i g h t r a d e union a c t i v i t y and y e t

s t i l l good i n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s - our f o r m a l s t r u c t u r e assumes a h i g h l e v e l

of c o n s u l t a t i o n and n e g o t i a t i o n w i t h t h e u n i o n s - what n e e d s t o change is

t h e p e r c e p t i o n t h a t u n o f f i c i a l a c t i o n i s needed t o be e f f e c t i v e . "

i v ) The heeds of t h e B u s i n e s s

However u n r e a l i s t i c s u c h " p e r c e p t i o n s " , t h e p r o b l e n was t h a t f o r one r e a s o n

o r a n o t h e r t h e y e x i s t e d and l e d w o r k e r s t o t a k e a c t i o n which was i n many

cases, a t l e a s t temporarily, e f f e c t i v e i n thwarting managerial plans. 30

how d i d management d e a l w i t h worker r e s p o n s e which was i n t h i s way iminune

t o "communication" and "compromise"?

I!hile managers were, a s we have s e e n , r e l u c t a n t t o a d o p t a p o s i t i o n o f

o u t r i g h t c o n f r o n t a t i o n , t h i s was a c c e p t e d a s a normal p a r t o f t h e i n d u s -

trial relations scene:

"It sometimes comes down t o c o n f r o n t a t i o n when t h e t a l k i n g f i n i s h e s - dif-

f i c u l t t o s a y how o f t e n . I f i t ' s a s e r i o u s problem, i t u s u a l l y comes down

t o some form o f c o n f r o n t a t i o n . . . I f y o u ' r e a l o n g way o f f t a r g e t , i t l e a d s

t o confrontation. If you're near, t h e r e ' s n o t a l o t of mileage i n losin2 a

c o u p l e o f d a y s ' pay" (Tech S e r v i c e s . , a n a g e r ) .

The Regional P e r s o n n e l l l a n a g e r was c l e a r i n i d e n t i f y i n g t h e p o i n t a4 which

a t t e m p t s a t n e g o t i a t i o n and compromise were no l o n g e r p o s s i b l e : "There have

been i n s t a n c e s when t a l k i n g h a s t o s t o p , due t o t h e n e e d s o f t h e b u s i n e s s ,

t h e r e ' s n o t h i n g f u r t h e r t o d i s c u s s . For example t h e C e n t r a l F i l l i n g Area -

we've answered a l l y o u r q u e s t i o n s , we've shown you t h e f i g u r e s ...w e ' l l im-
 -253-
p l e n e n t on J a n 3. I f we g e t no agreement, w e ' l l go a h e a d i f a l l i s s u e s

h a v e been exhausted."

However, such u n i l a t e r a l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n was n o t c a r r i e d o u t i n a s p i r i t o f

w i s h i n g t o c r u s h o r weaken t h e workforce. S e v e r a l managers were e m p h a t i c

t h a t t h i s was n o t t h e c a s e . The branch p e r s o n n e l manager v a s anong them i n

p o i n t i n g o u t t h e d a n g e r s o f such a s t r a t e g y :

"?\educing o r g a n i s a t i o n i s n ' t a v i a b l e p o l i c y , b e c a u s e i f y o u ' r e s e e n a s

a t t a c k i n g t h e ztewards o r t h e u n i o n , t h i s would s t r e n g t h e n r e s i s t a n c e , i n -

d u c e u n i t y , encourage u n i t y o f a c t i o n and mutual s u p p o r t " - clearly the

l a s t t h i n g s t h e branch p e r s o n n e l manager wished t o s e e .

O t h e r managers echoed, i n d i f f e r e n t ways, t h i s r e l u c t a n c e t o t a k e on a

head-on c o l l i s i o n w i t h t h e t r a d e u n i o n o r g a n i s a t i o n i n t h e p l a n t . F o r o n e

t h i n g a "weak" o r g a n i s a t i o n was s e e n a s " i l l o g i c a l " and a s " l e a d i n g t o a r -

guments among themselves" ( O p s / D i s t manager) and s e c o n d l y , any n o t i o n of

a "power" o r " c o n t r o l " s t r u g g l e between management and workforce was d i s -

missed a s w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e i n t h e managers' c o n c e p t u a l v o c a b u l a r y - in-

deed, c o u l d a t b e s t be g i v e n a " p e r s o n a l " meaning:

"In t e r m s of a long-term power s t r u g g l e , I d o n ' t know, I wouldn't have

t h o u g h t t h e guys on s i t e s e e i t i n t h o s e terms - some of them z i g h t have

been i n t e r e s t e d i n s e r i o u s s o c i a l change, b u t f o r most i t ' s much more

personal - money's t h e i r p r i m a r y aim" (Tech S e r v i c e s :lanager).

"A b a t t l e f o r c o n t r o l ? D i f f e r e n t s t e w a r d s t r e a t i t i n d i f f e r e n t ways -
t h e r e a r e two s t e w a r d s who want c o n t r o l . You c o u l d sum i t u p a s t h a t .

T h e s e two guys want c o n t r o l f o r t h e i r own p e r s o n a l gain...You g e t power

a t different levels - o t h e r s t e w a r d s g e n u i n e l y r e p r e s e n t t h e i r members -

t h e s e o t h e r s a r e i n a power s t r u g g l e t o h e l p t h e m s e l v e s p e r s o n a l l y - more

o v e r t i m e , p r o t e c t i n g t h e i r j o b s , more p e r k s " ( O p s l D i s t manager).

B u t , w h a t e v e r t h e s t r e n g t h o r weakness o f t h e shop s t e w a r d o r g a n i s a t i o n in

the plant - and i t was r e c o g n i s e d by many managers t h a t t h i s was s e r i o u s l y

weakpned by s e c t i o n a l i s m - t h e s i t u a t i o n was s e e n u l t i m a t e l y in t h e terms

 - 2 54-
summed u p by t h e branch p e r s o n n e l manager:

"I e x p e c t t h e r e w i l l be r e s i s t a n c e " ( t o t h e programme o f o v e r t i m e reduc-

t i o n ) "but i t w i l l have t o be a c c e p t e d e v e n t u a l l y , s i n c e i n t h e f i n a l an-

a l y s i s t h e y d o n ' t c o n t r o l i t , so t h e y must a c c e p t it."

I n t h e above we a t t e m p t e d t o a s s e s s m a n a g e r i a l a t t i t u d e s t o " c o n t r o l " i n

terms of t h e f o l l o w i n g a r e a s : m a n a g e r i a l r e c o g n i t i o n o f worker m o t i v a t i o n ;

m a n a g e r i a l r e s p o n s e t o worker r e s i s t a n c e ; and how f a r managers were p r e p a r e d

t o push t h e i r o b j e c t i v e s a g a i n s t c o n t i n u e d o p p o s i t i o n . I n r e s p e c t o f a l l

t h r e e of t h e s e a r e a s , t h e f i n d i n g s c a n p e r h a p s b e s t b e summed up by t h e rec-

o g n i t i o n t h a t n e i t h e r m a n a g e r i a l a t t i t u d e s n o r t h e t e n a c i t y of worker r e s -

i s t a n c e weighed s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g m a n a g e r i a l a c t i v i t y

a g a i n s t t h e o v e r r i d i n g q u a n t i t a t i v e g o a l s o f c o s t and p r o d u c t i o n - the

'needs of t h e business".

h ' h i l e , a s w e h a v e seen, t h e s e economic o b j e c t i v e s w e r e m e d i a t e d p r i m a r i l y

t h r o u g h t h e d u a l programme o f r e d u c t i o n s i n manning and o v e r t i m e , t h e r e

were a l s o c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f "performance" by t h e w o r k f o r c e which, whi l e

l e s s c e n t r a l t h a n a t Landis & Gyr, w e r e imposed w i t h a n e q u a l l y r e l e n t l e s s

d i s r e g a r d f o r t h e p r a c t i c a l o b s t a c l e s e n c o u n t e r e d by t h e workforce. Some o f

t h e s e a r e d i s c u s s e d i n o u r n e x t s e c t i o n , which a l s o examines m a n a g e r i a l a t -

t i t u d e s t o t h e p r o v i s i o n of labour i n i t s e l f .

W i l l i n g n e s s t o Work, and "Performance"

i ) "They've g o t a j o b t o d o , and t h e y know i t "

I t was c l e a r from t h e comments o f b o t h managers and foremen t h a t workers'

p r e p a r e d n e s s t o work was n o t a q ' o r p r o b l e a a t Wembley. However, i n t h e

n a t u r e of t h e management s t r u c t u r e a t Wembley, i t was foremen and s u p e r -

v i s o r s who were a c t u a l l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e day-to-day t a s k of s e e i n g t h a t

work g o t done, and i t was t h e y who t e s t i f i e d t o w o r k e r s ' o v e r a l l c o - o p e r a t i o n :

"There's n o t a c o n t r o l problem i n g e t t i n g them t o do t h e work i t s e l f ' ' (Trans-

p o r t Foreman).

"If t h e y ' r e i n t h e r i g h t frame o f mind t h e y d o n ' t need me t o s u p e r v i s e them

 - 255-
...I f t h i n g s a r e g o i n g n i c e l y , no h a s s l e s , n o f r i c t i o n between men and

foreman, you g e t w i l l i n g n e s s t o work...You g e t w i l l i n g n e s s t o work - if

you h a s s l e them t h e y ' l l go slow" ( O p e r a t i o n s Foreman).

O t h e r foremen, and managers, emphasised t h e n e c e s s i t y o f o r g a n i s i n g t h e

work so t h a t i t flowed smoothly, r a t h e r t h a n d i r e c t l y c o e r c i n g w o r k e r s

t o do i t . The S i t e S e r v i c e s foreman, f o r exa-nple, s a i d : " - , r g a n i s i n z h,ork

o r c o n t r c l l i n g t h e workforce - I s h o u l d say o r g a n i s i n z . Once y o u ' v e g o t

y o u r p r i o r i t i e s r i g h t and g o t i t o r g a n i s e d - t h i n g s r u n s r o o t h l y once

you've organised."

For t h e Zranch i:anager, such p r e s t r u c t u r i n g o f work t o e n s u r e a smooth

f l o w was a p r i o r i t y :

" . S e t t i n g s r o d u c t i o n more e f f i c i e n t ? I t ' s a l l t o do w i t h t h e p r o c e s s o f work

- h a v i n g t h e c y l i n d e r s r e a d y h7hen you need them. !.ii.e ?alletisation - it

was a t e c h n i c a l evenin;-out o f t h e f l o w of work." The g r e a t v a l u e o f t h e

j o i n t p r o c e s s e s of p a l l e t i s a t i o n , i n t e g r a t i o n o f t h e docks and i n t r o d u c t i o n

of f o r k - l i f t t r u c k s had been, a s b o t h h e and t h e Kegional . ' e r s o n n e l ..anager

emphasised, t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f "peaks and t r o u g h s " i n t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s .

?re-integration, w o r k e r s had o f t e n been " f o r c e d " t o r e a a i n i d l e d u r i n g

s l a c k p e r i o d s when no c y l i n d e r s could be b r o u g h t t o t h e x . ;;ow:

I,
i'eaks and t r o u g h s h a v e been e l i m i n a t e d . . . B r i n g i n g 511 thE v a r i o u s groups

t o g e t h e r i n a s m a l l a r e a means good u s e o f f o r k - l i f t t r u c k . I t ' s more of

a flow p r o c e s s than a s t o p - s t a r t ' ' ( R e g i o n a l P e r s o n n e l :ianager).

S t r u c t u r i n g t h e work t h r o u g h t h e s e t e c h n i c a l and o r g a n i s a t i o n a l i n n o v a t i o n s ,

t h e n , was s e e n a s t h e e f f e c t i v e f a c t o r i n r a i s i n g p r o d u c t i v i t y , r a t h e r than

t h e h a r r a s s m e n t o f employees. I n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of l a b o u r , however, f o r t h e s e

same employees - a g a i n n o t i n terms of " s l a v e d r i v i n f " b u t of a s u b s i s t e n c e -

r e l a t e d r e o r g a n i s a t i o n o f l a b o u r time - was u n d o u b t e d l y an e q u a l l y important

contribution. We examine t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s between some a s p e c t s o f t h e u s e

o f o v e r t i m e t o e x t r a c t more h o u r s o u t o f t h e workforce, and t h e a t t e m p t t o

impose measured "performance" s t a n d a r d s , i n t h e n e x t s e c t i o n .

 -256-

i i ) Performance

C l e a r l y t h e i s s u e of "performance", i n t h e s e n s e t h a t i t had loomed a t

Landis & Gyr. was n o t paramount i n t h e minds of t h e s e managers and f o r e -

men i n a s s e s s i n g t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s . While, a s we s e e

below, w o r k e r s s u b j e c t e d t o " a u t o m a t i c c o v e r " and o t h e r k i n d s o f semi-enforced

o v e r t i m e ( d e s c r i b e d i n more d e t a i l i n OUK s e c t i o n on K o r k e r s ) r e s e n t e d t h e

i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n o f l a b o u r e n s u i n g from t h e a s s o c i a t e d p r a c t i c e o f "covering",

t h i s was f a r from b e i n g t h e i s s u e , i n terms o f a n x i e t y a b o u t and f a i l u r e t o

conform t o work measurement t a r g e t s , t h a t i t had been f o r t h e Landis 6 Gyr

workers. C o n f l i c t a t BOC Wembley c e n t r e d around t h e a l l o c a t i o n of o v e r t i m e

r a t h e r t h a n problems d i r e c t l y t o do w i t h t h e i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n o f labour.

However, "performance" d i d crop u p as a n i s s u e i n two r e s p e c t s : one, r e l -

a t i v e l y minor, t o do w i t h t h e l e n g t h of work b r e a k s , and a n o t h e r , a l r e a d y

r e f e r r e d t o , i n r e s p e c t of workers' " s t r e t c h i n g " of t h e i r a l l o c a t e d work

times i n o r d e r t o g e t i n t o t h e o v e r t i m e b r a c k e t . These w i l l be b r i e f l y

d e a l t with i n t u r n .

a ) Breaks

l:ork b r e a k s which went on f o r l o n g e r t h a n had been a g r e e d , r a t h e r t h a n

" s l a c k i n g " w h i l e a c t u a l l y i n v o l v e d i n p r o d u c t i o n , was mentioned by foremen

and managers a s a common problem i n s l o w i n g down t h e p a c e o f work:

" h e ' v e been p u s h i n g up t h e numbers" ( o f c y l i n d e r s t e s t e d ) "not by making

p e o p l e work h a r d e r , j u s t by g e t t i n g them t o change t h e i r working p r a c t i c e s ,

f o r example c o v e r i n g f o r t e a - b r e a k s . L e ' s @ i n a s i t u a t i o n where p e o p l e j u s t

t a k e i t f o r g r a n t e d t h a t t h e y t a k e much l o n g e r b r e a k s t h a n t h e y should be..."

(Sraduate Engineer).

The Works E n g i n e e r , however, was o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t c h a n g i n g t h i s p e r v a s i v e

p r a c t i c e was n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y c e n t r a l t o a c h i e v i n g maximum p r o d u c t i v i t y :

"I d o u b t i f you'd g e t much more a t t h e end o f t h e day i f you c u t down t o t h e

o f f i c i a l times. Orr t h e o p e r a t i o n s s i d e we can a c t u a l l y s a y we a r e xi. e f f i c i e n t ,

and i f d u r i n g t h e day w e ' r e up t o 9'3: o f t h a t , we won't be concerned w i t h 1 0 .

 -257-

h e r e OK there. .4t t h e end o f t h e day, I e x p e c t t h e work t o be done and

I won't b e t o o c o n c e r n e d i f t h e y spend a l i t t l e m o r e t i m e t h a n t h e y ought."

T h i s seemed t o i n d i c a t e a r e l a x e d a p p r o a c h t o an " a c c e p t a b l e " l w e l of

e f f o r t x h i c h p e r h a p s matched t h e w o r k e r s ' own s t a n d a r d s i n r e j e c t i n g ex-

tremes of i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of labour f o r a "reasonable" provision. The

Branch . : a n a g e r ' s a s s e s s m e n t of worker b e h a v i o u r was, howtver, r a t h e r more

critical:

"They can do i t " ( m a t c h up t o measured work t a r g e t s ) " p a r t o f t h e t i m t ,

but...It's a q u e s t i o n o f takin: breaks. FOK example t h e y t a k e t o o long be-

f o r e t h e y s t a r t , f a r t o o l o n g f o r b r e a k s , a smoke t a k e s l o n g e r t h a n t h e f i l -

ling of cylinders." .And, h e added, "The b u i l d i n g U? o f o v e r t i m e i s a major

motivation i n that."

b ) " j t r e t c h i n g " work

This comnient o f t h e Branch ,hanager's t a k e s u s on t o t h e second i s s u e r a i s e ?

i n r e l a t i o n t o "performance", t h e a r t i c u l a t i o n by w o r k e r s o f e x t e n d e d Labour

t i m e w i t h t h e e a r n i n g s o p p o r t u n i t i e s a f f o r d e d by o v e r t i n e . The 3 r a n c h . . a n -

a g e r w a s I'erhaps t h e most e x p r e s s i v e on t h i s :

"\:hatever t h e y ' r e g i v e n a s a d a y ' s work, t h e y ' l l t r ) . t o e x t e n ? i t t o g c t

overtime - a l o t of OUK work i s c o n t r o l l i n g o v e r t i z e . You c o u l d s a y x a n z i e -

ment i s t r y i n g t o make i t c h e a ? e r and c h e a p e r , b u t we h a v e a c o d e o f p r a c t i c e ,

an agree< performance r a t e - t h e r e s h o u l d n o t b e o v e r t i m e t i l l t h e y meet t h e

performance r a t e - t h e y n e v e r r e a c h t h e p e r f o r m a n c e r a t e b u t t h e y have h i g h

overtime.. .
"I would l i k e t o b e a b l e t o g e t t h e s t e w a r d s t o come on t o t h a t p l a t f o r m ,

g e t them t o a g r e e t h a t p e o p l e s h o u l d r e a c h c e r t a i n p e r f o r n s n c e r a t e s . i'hc

s t e w a r d s s a y , ' i , : e ' l l do what WE c a n ' , b u t you c a n measure i t , you can g e t

away from, '>,de'Ll do what we can, w e ' l l d o o u r b e s t ' . . .

? I 1 we can do i s , o v e r t h e y e a r s , g e t p e o p l e t o u n d e r s t a n ? a b o u t t h e meas-

urement of a d a y ' s work, t a k e t h e m y s t i q u e o u t of i t . The m y s t i q u e i s c r e -

a t e d by t h e i r mates."
 -258-
T h i s "mystique" and i t s peer-group r a m i f i c a t i o n s w e r e presumably c r e a t e d

by j u s t t h a t r a t i o n a l e which t h e manager h i m s e l f r e c o g n i s e d , t h a t "2eople

d o t r y t o c r e a t e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r e a r n i n g more which t h e y can do o n l y by

o v e r t i m e . " A g a i n s t t h i s "mystique" t h e manager t r i e d t o p i t t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e

c e r t a i n t i e s o f t h e work measurement scheme, b u t t h i s was, a s h e appeared t o

r e s i g n e d l y r e c o g n i s e , something o f a l o s t c a u s e g i v e n t h e c e n t r i n g o f t h e

whmle e f f o r t / r e v a r d nexus a t t h e p l a n t on o v e r t i n e . With i t s r o o t s , a s we

have s e e n , i n t h e d r a s t i c r e d u c t i o n of manning, t h i s d o m i n a t i o n o f t h e o r -

g a n i s a t i o n o f work by o v e r t i m e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s had s p r e a d even more damagingly

t o t h e d e l i v e r y a r e a , where a long-term s h o r t a g e o f c y l i n d e r d r i v e r s aggra-

v a t e d t h e a l r e a d y a p p a l l i n g d e l i v e r y r e c o r d ( c a l c u l a t e d a t 50% by t h e works

e n g i n e e r ) , and t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f c o m p u t e r i s e d s c h e d u l i n g f o r t h e s e and

o t h e r d r i v e r s had s i m u l t a n e o u s l y s l a s h e d t h e i r e a r n i n g s and f u r t h e r a f f e c -

t e d t h e q u a l i t y o f s e r v i c e by undermining d r i v e r s ' p e r s o n a l knowledge of

r o u t e s and p a s s e n g e r r e q u i r e m e n t s .

I n an i n t e r e s t i n g r e v e r s a l of t h e n o t i o n o f " m y s t i f i c a t i o n " w i t h which we

c h a r a c t e r i s e d t h e a t t i t u d e s t o performance s t a n d a r d s a t Landis 6 Gyr, man-

agement a t Wembley a t t r i b u t e d w o r k e r s ' transgressions over the standards

t o an i r r a t i o n a l "mystique"to which was c o n t r a s t e d t h e s c i e n t i f i c c a l c u l -

a t i o n s of work measurement. Again, t h e n , a s a t L a n d i s & Gyr, measured t a r -

g e t s o f p r o d u c t i o n l i n k e d t o t h e l e v e l o f economic v i a b i l i t y o f t h e branch

were u s e d a s c e n t r a l a x e s w i t h which t o s t r u c t u r e and a s s e s s t h e l a b o u r

process. The i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r e n c e t h a t , a t Wembley, s u c h s t a n d a r d s were c u t

a c r o s s i n a c o n t r a d i c t o r y f a s h i o n by t h e p r e s s u r e from b o t h management and

w o r k f o r c e f o r o v e r t i m e , d i d n o t h i n g t o reduce t h e v a l i d i t y f o r management

o f time-measured p r o d u c t i o n norms a s key c r i t e r i a f o r j u d g i n g t h e e f f e c t i v e -

n e s s o f t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s ; a s was c l e a r l y d e m o n s t r a t e d i n t h e example of

t h e l o r r y d r i v e r s ( s e e below, Workers, s e c t i o n I)whose problems i n ach-

i e v i n g s c h e d u l e d d e l i v e r y times were w i t n e s s e d on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s by

management y e t t r e a t e d a s of l i t t l e a c c o u n t a g a i n s t t h e work s t u d y d e p a r t -
 -259-

m e n t ' s c a l c u l a t i o n s . I t was t h e s e p r o d u c t i o n t a r g e t s , t h e n , and t h e i r i n -

t e r r e l a t i o n w i t h t h e v a r i o u s s t r a n d s o f economic p r e s s u r e a f f e c t i n g t h e

b r a n c h (summed u p i n t h e need t o r e d u c e c o s t s w h i l e m a i n t a i n i n g "customer

s e r v i c e " ) which s t r u c t u r e d t h e dynamic o f managementlworker r e l a t i o n s ,

r a t h e r t h a n any c e n t r a l c o n c e r n by management t o e x e r c i s e d o m i n a t i o n o v e r

t h e workforce.

"Au t h o r i t y " and "%espon s i b i 1i t y "

IVe h a v e s e e n i n t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n t h a t any a s p e c t s of Tanagementl

worker r e l a t i o n s which might p l a u s i b l y b e comprehended Under a r u b r i c o f

" c o n t r o l " were i n r e a l i t y shaped by and s u b o r d i n a t e d t o much more d i r e c t l y

economic c o n s t r a i n t s . .;est managers, i n d e e d , a s i t w e r e s u b l i m i n a l l y ac-

c e p t e d t h i s i n d i r e c t i n g t h e i r remarks a l o n g a n a x i s o f c o s t and economic

v i a b i l i t y r a t h e r t h a n one of d o m i n a t i o n and s u b o r d i n a t i o n . une manager,

however, who more e x p l i c i t l y t o o k on managementlworker r e l a t i o n s from a

p e r s ? e c t i v e o f m a n a g e r i a l " a u t h o r i t y " and worker r e s i s t a n c e , o r non-co-

o p e r a t i o n , was t h e Branch ,;anager. h e s h a l l t h e r e f o r e c o n s i d e r h i s r e m a r k s

i n some d e t a i l b e f o r e p a s s i n g t o OUT concluding section.

The views of t h e ;ranch ~ i a n a g e rwere , e r h a p s t h e most d e f i n i t i v c i n a r t i c -

u l a t i n g t h e s h i f t i n ; r e l a t i o n s h i ; > s between ; m n a g e r i a ! o b j e c t i v e s and worker

r e s p o n s e i n t h e p l a n t , between t h e r a t i o n a l e f o r " c o n t r o l " and t h e c o r r e -

s p o n d i n g o b s t a c l e s g e n e r a t e d by t h e workforce. T h i s manager d e l i v e r e d a

s t r o n g n e g a t i v e t o t h e n o t i o n t h a t he might wish t o "show t h e workers who's

b o s s h e r e " and was adamant t h a t any "long term p o l i c y o f e s t a b l i s h i n g man-

a g e r i a l a u t h o r i t y " v a s " t o t a l l y unnecessary". A t t h e same time, i n an e a r l i e r

i n t e r v i e w , h e had argued t h a t " t h e a s s e r t i o n o f m a n a g e r i a l a u t h o r i t y " was

needed " i f y o u ' r e always s p l i t down t h e m i d d l e , on two s i d e s . "

-
I n o t h e r words, t h e need f o r a u t h o r i t y stemmed from c o n f l i c t , r a t h e r t h a n

causing i t - an argument w i t h which we a r e f a m i l i a r t h r o u g h , f o r example,

t h e w r i t i n g s o f Stephen Hi11 ( 1 9 6 1 ) d i s c u s s e d in C h a p t e r 2, b u t which g o e s

 - 260-
on6 s t e p f u r t h e r t h a n t h e assumption, c r i t i c i s e d i n C h a p t e r s 1 and 2 ,

t h a t worker r e s i s t a n c e i s a r e s p o n s e t o m a n a g e r i a l r e p r e s s i o n . On t h e

o t h e r hand, what a r e t h e "two s i d e s " a b o u t ? They can h a r d l y b e , a s c e a r -

gued i n Chapter 2 , a d i r e c t r e s p o n s e t o i n t e r e s t s e x p l i c i t l y r e c o g n i s e d

around t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f e x p l o i t a t i o n and p r o d u c t i o n of s u r p l u s v a l u e ,

s i n c e such a r e c o g n i t i o n would imply a n a r t i c u l a t e awareness o f c a ? i t a l i s t

p r o d u c t i o n r e l s t i o n s . F o r t h e Branch :.ianager, t h e d i v i d i n g l i n e was de-

f i n e d i n terms o f " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " and " r u n n i n g a b u s i n e s s ' l i

" C e r t a i n l y t r a d e u n i o n r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s a r e s u c h t h a t t h e y d o n ' t n a c -

e s s a r i l y a g r e e w i t h r u n n i n g a b u s i n e s s . Why?...trade unions l i v e i n the

p a s t , you c o u l d s a y managements l i v e i n t h e p a s t , b u t t h e y c a n ' t l i v e t o o

f a r i n t h e p a s t , t h e y have t o d e a l w i t h t h e f u t u r e - t r a d e unions d o n ' t

h a v e t o d e a l w i t h t h e f u t u r e , o r t a r g e t s , or g e t t i n g s t u f f t o c u s t o r . e r s . "

In t h i s a n a l y s i s o f t h e r e a c t i v e r o l e of t r a d e u n i o n s and i t s i m p l i c a -

t i o n s f o r t h e d i v i s i o n o f l a b o u r u n d e r c a p i t a l i s m , t h e Branch bianager's

remarks echoed t h o s e o f l i i c h a e l Edwardes, i n Back From The B r i n k ( 1 5 ~ 3 )

when h e c a s t i g a t e d t h e YL shop s t e w a r d s f o r t h e i r " i r r e s p o n s i b l e " a t t i t u d e :

" I t i s management who have r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e b u s i n e s s ; i f t h e pawer i s

t o move t o t h e shop s t e w a r d s , l e t them have r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e b u s i n e s s ,

l e t them f i n d t h e banks t o l e n d t h e money, l e t them p e r s u a d e g o v e r n r e n t s of

any c o l o u r t o t i d e them o v e r bad times, l e t t h e n p e r s u a d e c o m p e t i t o r s t o

c o l l a b o r a t e ; and l e t t h e u n i o n s p e r s u a d e c u s t o m e r s t o buy t h e p r o d u c t s t h e )

d e s i g n , b u i l d and d e l i v e r . "

The Branch Xanager was r e a l i s t i c a b o u t h i s w o r k f o r c e ' s r e f u s a l t o t a k e

"responsibility", d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t h i s g o a l s were d e f i n e d v e r y x c h

i n t h e s e terms:

"I b e l i e v e t h a t w o r k e r s ou;ht t o be a c c o u n t a b l e f o r e v e r y t h i n g t h e y do. I

would l i k e t o see l e s s s u p e r v i s i o n and t h e w o r k f o r c e made a c c o u n t a b l e . I

d o n ' t t h i n k t h a t ' s p o s s i b l e , so what we have i s a w o r k f o r c e t h a t d o c ' t

accept responsibility - a b s o l u t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r e v e r y t h i n g t h a y do -
t h e y a c c e p t a c e r t a i n amount o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , they accept t h a t they've

g o t t o come i n h e r e , do a c e r t a i n amount o f work. I n t h e i d e a l s i t u a t i o n

t h e y ' d c h e c k t h e q u e r y for t h e c u s t o m e r , e t c . "

The need f o r " c o n t r o l " , t h e n , was a p r a g m a t i c r e s ? o n s e t o t h e n e e d s o f

p r o d u c t i o n , which were f u l f i l l e d o n l y i n p a r t by t h e w o r k f o r c e . "Each

p e r s o n s h o u l d b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r own j o b - t h a t makes nanagerjent

v e r y e a s y . I f t h e y ' r e n o t p r e p a r e d t o a c c e p t r e s l o n s i b i l i t y you need con-

trol. C o n t r o l g e n e r a l l y means management c o n t r o l , more s u p e r v i s i o n , t h e y ' r e

more t i g h t l y s u p e r v i s e d . ,411 I want i s r e s u l t s - I ' m going f o r r e s u l t s -

how do I g e t t h e r e ? T h e r e ' s a number o f a l t e r n a t i v e s , and o n e o f t h o s e i s

people taking responsibility."

.And, l a t e r , "You use t h e system of m a n a g e r i a l a u t h o r i t y t o g e t work done,

t h a t ' s what t h e s y s t e m i s about."

Nevertheless, t h e r e remained t h i s i n v i s i b l e , i f w e l l - d e f i n e d l i n e beyond

which w o r k e r s were n o t p r e p a r e d t o go i n o r d e r t o " g e t work done". i s we

h a v e s e e n , t h i s was n o t a q u e s t i o n o f n o t b e i n g p r e p a r e d t o ''come i n h e r e

and do a c e r t a i n amount o f work" b u t o f a c t u a l l y e x e r c i s i n g a n overvieh- o f

t h e production process, i t s aims, r a t i o n a l e and c o - o r d i n a t i o n , which becane

by d e f a u l t t h e s p h e r e o f m a n a g e r i a l " c o n t r o l " .

Nhen i t came t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f why w o r k e r s were n o t p r e p a r e d t o go beyond

t h i s p o i n t (which, i r o n i c a l l y , many l a b o u r p r o c e s s w r i t e r s h a v e s e e n a5

" c o n t e s t e d t e r r a i n " between workers and management from p r e c i s e l y t h e op-

p o s i t e p o i n t o f view) t h e e x p l a n a t i o n was u n e q u i v o c a l l y economic. 'Yhy

a r e n ' t t h e y p r e p a r e d t o t a k e on r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ? They d o n ' t g e t p a i l f o r i t ,

t h e y ' r e governed by d i f f e r e n t r u l e s . The r u l e s o f t h e union a s such, oi

u n i o n g r o u p s , somehow come down t o r e s t r i c t i n g what you h a v e t o do i n t n e

c o u r s e of a day."

The "somehow", however, t h e r a t i o n a l e of what t h e s e r u l e s "came dohn t o "

emerged a s c l e a r l y r e l a t e d t o t h e w o r k e r s ' struggle f o r subsistence:

'They w i l l s a y t o me, look how much t h e company makes...they f e e l they

 h a v e more o p ? o r t u n i t i e s t o make more - ' I t ' s a b i g company, t h e y c a n a f f o r d

i t ' . I ' v e s a i d t o t h e s t e w a r d s , 'You've g o t t h i s s i t u a t i o n , you can choose

- e i t h e r money r e l a t e d t o p r o f i t , o r money r e l a t e d t o t r a d e union n e g o t i a -

tion! I f i t ' s t h e f i r s t , t h e n t h e y m u s t b e p a i d i n r e l a t i o n t o any d r o p i n

profit, i f i t ' s t h e second, t h e y g e t t h e b e s t d e a l , a market d e a l . T h e r e ' s

a m a r k e t , t h e y r i l l go i n and s a y we w2nt t h e minimum..."

The i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h e m a n a g e r ' s argu,-le;it h e r e i s t h a t workers' commitment

i s t o a " n e g o t i i t i o n " o r "market" p e r s p e c t i v e - i n o t h e r words, b a r g a i n i n g

f o r t h e b e s t deal within a given range of subsistence. Thus w h i l e h e a p p e a r e d

t o s e e no t h e o r e t i c a l r e a s o n why w o r k e r s s h o u l d n o t b e a b l e t o t a k e on a
I,
managing" f u n c t i o n i n t h e s e n s e o f c o - o r d i n a t i n g and t a k i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

f o r production - " T h e r e ' s n o t h i n g magic i n management, g e t t i n g j o b s done. If

y o u ' v e g o t two 2 e o p l e and a b u s i n e s s , t h e y ' r e b o t h managing and t h e y ' r e both

working'' - a t t h e same t i m e t h e Branch .:anager was f o r c e d t o r e c o g n i s e t h a t ,

p r i m a r i l y due to t h e i r "negotiating" stance, workers were n o t i n f a c t pre-

p a r e d t o t a k e on such f u n c t i o n s . The two a p p r o a c h e s were i n f a c t incompat-

i b l e ; speaking of t h e r e s t r i c t i v e t r a d e union "rules", t h e manager c o n c l u -

ded, "...they c a n ' t manage. One o r t h e o t h e r , you c a n ' t do b o t h . "

"Control", t h e n , was n e c e s s a r y i n t h e a b s e n c e o f w o r k e r s ' w i l l i n g n e s s ( r a t h e r

t h a n c a p a c i t y ) t o t a k e on m a n a g e r i a l f u n c t i o n s . The n e e d f o r " r e s u l t s " , the

meeting of "targets", " g e t t i n g work done" n e c e s s i t a t e d a c o n t r o l s t r u c t u r e

which would b e i r r e l e v a n t i f w o r k e r s were p r e a p a r e d t o e x t e n d t h e i r r e l a t -

i o n s h i p t o work beyond a " b a r g a i n i n g " a?proach. But t h e y were n o t , and t h i s

i n i t s t u r n made f u r t h e r c o n f l i c t i n e v i t a b l e . To r e t u r n t o t h e Branch .:an-

a g e s ' s o r i g i n a l p o i n t : "The a s s e r t i o n o f management a u t h o r i t y i s needed i f

y o u ' r e s p l i t dohm t h e m i d d l e , o n two s i d e s . " The "two s i d e s " c o u l d o n l y have

t h e i r o r i g i n s i n workers' s t r u g g l e f o r s u b s i s t e n c e and l a c k o f i n t e r e s t i n

o t h e r a s p e c t s of t h e l a b o u r process.

Managers and C o n t r o l : Summing-Up

The p r e s e n t a t i o n o f our f i n d i n g s on management h a s a t t e m p t e d p r i n c i p a l l y t o

 -263-

f o l l o w t h r o u g h t h e d y n a n i c o f m a n a g e r i a l o b j e c t i v e s i n r e l a t i o n t o worker

r e s i s t a n c e ; how such r e s i s t a n c e i s looked on, i n t e r m s of i t s u n d e r l y i n g

r a t i o n a l e , and what l e n g t h s managers a r e p r e p a r e d t o t a k e t o d e a l w i t h i t .

C l e a r l y t h e p r o j e c t i o n o f a more or l e s s d e f i n i t e s e t of m a n a g e r i a l ob-

j e c t i v e s , and t h e i n t e n d e d O K a c t u a l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f such o b j e c t i v e s i n

t h e f a c e o f worker r e s i s t a n c e , c a n b e p r e s e n t e d i n t e r m s o f a d r i v e f o r

manaserial "control". However, t h e r e was l i t t l e of such an a b s t r a c t p o l i t -

i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e i n t h e managers' a t t i t u d e t o a c h i e v i n g t h e i r t a s k s , o r t o

t a c k l i n g worker r e s p o n s e w i t h i n t h i s p r o c e s s . The t a s k s t h e m s e l v e s , d e s p i t e

t h e somewhat g r a n d i o s e d e s c r i p t i o n "management of change" g i v e n by many o f

t h o s e i n t e r v i e w e d , emerged a s t h e s p e c i f i c and u n e q u i v o c a l l y economic

g o a l s of r e d u c i n g o v e r t i m e and manning. Nor were t h e y s e e n a s p a r t o f a

consistent overall strategy, l e a s t o f a l l one a i 3 i n g a t a c h i e v i n g m a n a g e r i a l

" c o n t r o l " and i n f a c t n o t even r e l a t e d t o t h e more modest g o a l s o f t e c h n i c a l

and o r g a n i s a t i o n a l change. R a t h e r t h e s i t u a t i o n was acknowledged a s b e i n g

t o o dynamic and u n p r e d i c t a b l e t o a l l o w f o r any such l o n g - t e r m p l a n n i n g ; .

S p e c i f i c m a n a g e r i a l o b j e c t i v e s , however, were r e a l enough ( d e s p i t e b e i n g ,

a s we p o i n t e d o u t , i n t e r n a l l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y ) and managers had n o h e s i t a t i o n

i n implementing them when t h e o c c a s i o n demanded. s u c h s i n g l e - m i n d e d n e s s ,

however, was l i n k e d t o " t h e n e e d s o f t h e b u s i n e s s " r a t h e r t h a n t o any wish

t o a s s e r t managerial a u t h o r i t y a s such - t h i s notion, i n f a c t , being vig-

o r o u s l y d e n i e d on more t h a n one o c c a s i o n . Indeed t h e managers seemed t o

d i s p l a y a k i n d o f p r a g m a t i c empathy w i t h t h e n e e d s o f t h e w o r k f o r c e , ar,

e v e r y d a y r e c o g n i t i o n o f worker r a t i o n a l i t y , u n d e r x i n e d o n l y when worKers'

continued r e c a l c i t r a n c e led t o the mystified c h h r a c t e r i s a t i o n of w o r ~ f r s '

behavtour a s " i l l o g i c a l " .

I n t h i s c o n t e x t t h e r e does seem t o emerge a p i c t u r e o f w o r k e r s and manage-

ment a t Kembley a s a l m o s t " p a r t n e r s " linked i n a kind of complicity of the

c a s h nexus. L e s t t h i s s h o u l d c o n j u r e up a p i c t u r e o f two r o u g h l y e q u a l

c o m b a t a n t s i n an o n g o i n g " c l a s s s t r u g g l e " ( c f t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f Friedman,

 1978, i n Chapter 2 ) , such an i m p r e s s i o n s h o u l d s w i f t l y be removed by r e -

minding o u r s e l v e s o f t h e f a r more f o r m i d a b l e power of t h e managers, p a r -

t i c u l a r l y i n hembley's c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n , t o " u n i l a t e r a l l y implement". .Is

t h e b r a n c h p e r s o n n e l manazer had p u t i t , "In t h e f i n a l a n a l y s i s t h e y d o n ' t

c o n t r o l i t , s o t h e y m u s t a c c e p t it:' I n t h i s c o n t e x t worker r e s i s t a n c e r e -

mained i n t h e n a t u r e o f a war of a t t r i t i o n , a c o n t i n u a l i r r i t a n t and o b -

s t a c l e t o managerial objectives, b u t i n no way, a s t h e managers t h e ; i s e l v e s

r e c o g n i s e d , a n o v e r t o r a g g r e s s i v e "power s t r u g g l e " .

:.;anagers a t Kembley, t h e n , had o v e r a l l " c o n t r o l " o v e r what went on, m i t i -

g a t e d more by t h e c o n f l i c t i n g economic c o n s t r a i n t s w i t h i n which t h e y were

f o r c e d t o work t h a n by any s u s t a i n e d l e v e l o f worker r e s i s t a n c e . Such

" c o n t r o l " was, however, a f a c t o f l i f e o r d a i n e d , f i r s t o f a l l , by t h e com-

p a n y ' s economic supremacy and n e c e s s i t a t e d , s e c o n d l y , by t h e workers' in-

d i f f e r e n c e t o m a n a g e r i a l f u n c t i o n s and commitment t o s t r u g g l i n g f o r t h e i r

own s u b s i s t e n c e . I t was n o t a d e l i b e r a t e p o l i t i c a l g o a l o f domination and

s u p p r e s s i o n o f t h e w o r k f o r c e ; n o r was i t i n i t s e l f made n e c e s s a r y b y any

d i s t u r b i n g l e v e l o f worker r e s i s t a n c e o v e r e i t h e r t h e p r o v i s i o n of l a b o u r

or any o t h e r issues f u n d a m e n t a l t o management/worker r e l a t i o n s a s such.

R a t h e r , t h e a c h i e v e m e n t o f m a n a g e r i a l o b j e c t i v e s a t Kembley a p p e a r e d t o be

undermined more s e r i o u s l y by t h e i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s and c o n t r a d i c t i o n s w e have

d e s c r i b e d between c o n f l i c t i n g s e t s o f t h e s e o b j e c t i v e s t h a n by any s u s t a i n e d

problems w i t h worker r e s p o n s e . A t t h e same time, t h e whole i s s u e o f o v e r -

t i m e was c r u c i a l l y t i e d i n w i t h w o r k e r s ' s u b s i s t e n c e and t h u s t h e i r c e n t r a l

r e s p o n s e t o t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s ; and i t is t o t h i s and t h e o t h e r major f e a -

t u r e s o f worker e x p e r i e n c e a t Wembley t h a t we now t u r n .

THE WOKKELS

As i s c l e a r from t h e m a n a g e r i a l i n f o r m a t i o n , w o r k e r s a t BOC Kembley had

f o r some y e a r s now s u f f e r e d a s y s t e m a t i c e r o s i o n o f t h e i r s t a f f i n g l e v e l s

which had, a l o n g w i t h o t h e r changes, led to a structured intensification

o f l a b o u r t h r o u g h "coverage", "dead man s h i f t s " and s i m i l a r p r a c t i c e s

 - 265-
i n v o l v i n g enforced overtime. I t was t h i s development which now c e n t r a l l y

i n f l u e n c e d t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f and r e s p o n s e t o t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s f o r wor-

k e r s a t t h e Kembley branch. We s h a l l t h e r e f o r e b e g i n by l o o k i n g i n more

d e t a i l a t t h e d i m e n s i o n s of t h i s o v e r t i m e / m a n n i n g n e x u s , w h i l e o t h e r re-

lated issues, such a s worker knowledge and w i l l i n g n e s s t o work, w i l l be

examined i n d u e c o u r s e .

i ) O v e r t i m e and :arming - the r e a l i t i e s

Since t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s a f f e c t e d p a r t i c u l a r groups of t h e workforce i n d i f -

f e r e n t ways, we s h a l l l o o k a t t h e i m p a c t on t h e v a r i o u s g r o u p s - Central

F i l l i n g Area and a s s o c i a t e d w o r k e r s , s i t e s e r v i c e s w o r k e r s , d i s p e n s e r s ,

and d r i v e r s - i n turn.

C e n t r a l f i l l i n g Area a ) Overtime

k'orkers i n t h e C e n t r a l F i l l i n g Area, c y l i n d e r t e s t s h o p , and compressing

shed, a s w e l l a s t h e f o r k l i f t t r u c k d r i v e r s s e r v i n g t h e s e areas, shared

t h e same ",.:ode1 k'lan" a g r e e m e n t , d a t i n g from 1973, h.hich gave them f i v e

hours' g u a r a n t e e d o v e r t i m e i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e b a s i c 38-hour week;. A s w e l l

a s t h i s , a l l w o r k e r s i n t h e s e a r e a s were e x p e c t e d t o b e a v a i l a b l e f o r
I,
coverage", t h e system whereby w o r k e r s could b e c a l l e d o u t fro::. home i n

t h e ( t y p i c a l ) e v e n t o f h a v i n g t o o few workers t o c o v e r a s h i f t . .".iter-

n a t i v e l y , a s i n t h e c o m p r e s s i n g a r e a , s p e c i f i c a g r e e m e n t s might r e q u i r e

t h e a l r e a d y s m a l l number o f w o r k e r s t o p r o v i d e r e g u l a r e x t r a h o u r s i n o r d e r

t o make up f o r a permanent s h o r t f a l l i n t h e w o r k f o r c e . 3 0 t h t h e s e k i n d s o f

e n f o r c e d o v e r t i m e , though p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e f i r s t , v a r i e d throughout t h e

y e a r , becoming p a r t i c u l a r l y p r e v a l e n t i n t h e summer.

Workers had, a s might b e e x p e c t e d , a m i x t u r e o f f e e l i n g s towards t h i s s y s -

tem, which b r o u g h t them e x t r a e a r n i n g s b u t a l s o c o n s i d e r a b l y r e s t r i c t e d

t h e i r l i v e s o u t s i d e work, even l e a v i n g a s i d e t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e i n t e n s i f i -

c a t i o n o f l a b o u r ( d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r b e l o x ) which t h i s i n t e r l i n k i n g o f l o n z e r

h o u r s and manning r e d u c t i o n s b r o u g h t a b o c t .
 -266-

"The 7a:n t o 6pm s h i f t , you g e t o v e r t i m e b u t f o r t h e amount o f o v e r t i n e

y o u ' r e e x p e c t e d t o do an awful l o t . Between u s w e ' r e o n l y working 6 hours

o f t h e 9 h o u r s t h a t man does, so we h a v e t o cra:n i n an e x t r a 3 h o u r s . I t ' s

a way o f e a r n i n g a few e x t r a pounds, b u t a t t h e same time i t ' s too much"

( J o e and Ken, c o n p r e s s o r s ) .

"This e a r l y s h i f t ' s n e a r l y a s bad a s t h e l a t e s h i f t used t o be...:.ox you

c a n ' t g e t o u t a t n i g h t . They n e v e r c o n s i d e r t h a t , t h e y e x p e c t you t o be

behind t h e d o o r w a i t i n g f o r t h e phone t o r i n g " ( J i m and A l f , f i l l e r o?er-

ators).

Thus, w h i l e t h e e x t r a money p r o v i d e d by o v e r t i m e was s e e n a s welcome, even

i n d i s ? e n s a b l e , t h e r e was some r e s e n t m e n t o v e r t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s e enhanced

e a r n i n g s had t o be g a i n e d by such a demanding means. : l o s t worKers em?hasisea

how e s s e n t i a l t h e e x t r a e a r n i n g s were t o t h e i r income:

"You have t o do o v e r t i m e t o g e t a l i v i n g , w i t h o u t o v e r t i m e t h e wages i s

u s e l e s s ' ' (Ed, f i l l e r / s o r t e r ) .

"We d o n ' t f e e l w e ' r e b e i n g t r e a t e d r i g h t . We're l i v i n g on o v e r t i m e . . . I t

makes t h e d i f f e r e n c e between l i v i n g w e l l and j u s t managing" ( J i m and A l f ,

f i l l e r operators).

I n t h i s c o n t e x t i t should be remembered t h a t Biz, n o t s u r p r i s i n g l y given

i t s m u l t i n a t i o n a l s t a t u s and i m p r e s s i v e p r o f i t f i g u r e s , was n o t o r i o u s a s

a "high payer" i n t h e a r e a ; i n d e e d , some workers who had been employed f o r

t h e r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t p e r i o d of 4 - 5 y e a r s s t i l l c o u l d n o t q u i t e b e l i e v e t h e i r

luck. A t t h e same t i m e , a s t h e worker j u s t q u o t e d p o i n t e d o u t , "It would be

w i s e r f o r p e o p l e t o remember t h a t a c t u a l l y t h e b a s i c r a t e i s lower than t h e y

t h i n k i t i s , because of guaranteed overtime."

b ) !tanning r e d u c t i o n s and i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of l a b o u r

A s we have i n d i c a t e d , t h e e x i s t e n c e o f o v e r t i m e w i t h i t s i n c r e a s e d e a r n i n g s

o p p o r t u n i t i e s was i n t e g r a l l y l i n k e d t o t h e d r a s t i c d e c r e a s e s i n manning

which had t a k e n p l a c e o v e r t h e p r e v i o u s decade o r so. The outcome of t h e s e

 -267-

combined f a c t o r s was t h a t w h i l e d u r i n g t h e same p e r i o d t h e work had be-

come p h y s i c a l l y much e a s i e r , t h e r e was a marked i n c r e a s e i n t h e p a c e and

i n t e n s i t y of labour. The i n t r o d u c t i o n o f p a l l e t i s a t i o n and f o r k l i f t t r u c k

c o n v e y i n g o f c y l i n d e r s , which had r o u g h l y c o i n c i d e d w i t h t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f

t h e t h r e e o l d d o c k s i n t o t h e C e n t r a l ? i l l i n g Area, had t r a n s f o r m e d t h e

n a t u r e o f t h e work p r o c e s s from a s t r e n u o u s l i f t i n g of h e a v y m e t a l "bot-

t l e s " ( c y l i n d e r s ) on t o t h e backs of l o r r i e s t o a comparatively i m i o b i l e

p r o c e s s o f m o n i t o r i n g a n d c h e c k i n g . The w o r k e r s a 2 p r e c i a t e d t h e e a s i n g o f f

i n physical hardship:

"It was j u s t l i k e c a r t h o r s e s o v e r t h e r e , t h e work, e v e r y t h i n g was d o u b l e

work. The j o b h a s c h a n g e d i n s o f a r a s where you had t o r o l l t h e b o t t l e s o f f

t h e l o r r i e s and r e l o a d them, now i t ' s b e e n p a l l e t i s e d . The main c h a n g e i s

f o r the better. I t ' s easier i n t h a t sense - n o t a s much w a l k i n g i n v o l v e d "

(Harry, f i l l e r / l o a d e r ) .

Asked w h e t h e r t h e s e c h a n g e s had meant a g e n e r a l i a p r o v e m e n t , t h e same worker

commented t h a t " Y o u ' r e f i l l i n g more c y l i n d e r s now t h a n you was, o n l y one man

f i l l i n g on e a c h g a s , i t u s e d t o be two, so i n t h a t respect y o u ' r e f i l l i n 2

more gas t h a n what you d i d b e f o r e p e r man. You're w o r k i n g h a r d e r f i l l i n , . "

The d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n i n t e n s e p h y s i c a l e f f o r t and i n c r e a s e d i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n

of l a b o u r was r e c o g n i s e d by many w o r k e r s , w i t h r e s e n t m e n t f o c u s s e d on t h e

r e d u c t i o n i n manning and t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g i n c r e a s e i n e f f o r t ( a s well a s

t h e i m b a l a n c e i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n e f f o r t and r e w a r d , t o b e d i s c u s s e d

more f u l l y b e l o w ) :

" I t ' s g o t f a s t e r , t h e y h a v e n ' t a s much hand o n t h e b o t t l e s a s t h e y used t o

have - w i t h t h e new system, f i l l i n g b o t t l e s i s f a s t e r . h e ' r e w o r k i n 2 h a r d e r

now t h a n we u s e d t o , t h e r e ' s f e w e r men d o i n g a l i t t l e more work" ( . , i c h a e l e,

fork lift truck driver).

*,We're d o i n g way more work now, a l o t o f men h a v e gone. T h e r e u s e d t o be

t h r e e s h i f t s , more r e s t time. Then t h e y t o o k o f f t h e n i g h t s h i f t , we had t o

 -268-

c a t c h up on t h a t . . . L ' e ' r e d o i n g t h e work o f two n e n , g e t t i n g more work,

o p e n i n g up new s h o p s , g e t t i n 2 r i d o f t h e o l d way o f d e l i v e r i n g ...The

work s i d e i s g e t t i n g h a r d e r a l l t h e time" ( T i n , , f i l l e r / s o r t e r ) .

S i t e i e r v i c e s k'oriiers a ) Overtir-le

.tit t h e t i m e o f t h e r e s e a r c h t h i s g r o u p o f w o r k e r s , who m a i n t a i n e d t h e s i t e

and f i l l e d i n on t h e o p e r a t i n g s i d e when r e q u i r e d , % e r e p a r t i c u l a r l y a f f e c -

t e d by t h e o v e r t i : : : e ; l o s i t i o n i n t h a t t h e i r r e g u : a r xeE4end o v e r t i r : e , i S i c h

h a d been a v a i l a b l e t o the:,, f o r s o a t s e v e n y e a r s , h a < a b r u p t l y been w i t h -

drawn. S o t s u r p r i s i n g l y t h e y were somewhat d i s g r u n t l e d by t h i s move, which

had t a k e n p l a c e w i t h o u t u s e o f t h e normal p r o c e d u r e s , and had s t a g e d a t h r e e -

d a y s t o p p a g e , ended when management a g r e e d t o t c l k s . ?'he w i t h d r a w a l o f t h e

r e g u l a r o v e r t i m e , a n d i t s s u b s t i t u t i o n w i t h o c c a s i o n a l weekends f o r o n l y

o n e o r two w o r k e r s , had meant a c o n s i d e r a b l e d r o p i n i n c o n e f o r t h e s e ernploy-

e e s , who w e r e n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e " c o v e r a g e " o p p o r t u n i t i e s o f f e r e d t o t h e

c e n t r a l f i l l i n g workers.

The w o r k e r s w e r e p a r t i c u l a r l y a g g r i e v e d by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e y had n o t been

o f f e r e d any c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r t h e i r l o s t e a r n i n g s , a p r e v i o u s "custon, and

practice" right:

"Fe f e e l v e r y bad a t t h e monent, t h e weeke;ids hzd t o coine t o a c l o s e soii:e-

time, b u t o t h e r d e p a r t m e n t s h a v e b e e n c o m p e n s a t e d , t h e y ' r e t r y i n g t o back

out in relation to us - w h a t ' s f a i r f o r one i s f a i r f o r a n o t h e r . "

The l o s s o f o v e r t i m e u n d o u b t e d l y meant a c o n s i d e r a b l e d r o p i n income:

"We'll miss i t , make no m i s t a k e . . . i f t h e b a s i c r a t e was h i g h e r , you c o u l d

h a v e a d e c e n t l i v i n g wage - w i t h t h e T o r y government e v e r y t h i n g ' s g o i n g up.

A l l t h a t ' s b u g g i n 2 u s i s money - we l o s e €70 a week t a k e home pay - we u s e i

t o c l e a r t 1 8 3 a week, w o r k i n g a 46 h o u r week i t ' l l be k115" ( t h e s i t e s e r -

v i c e s w o r k e r s a l r e a d y h a d 6 h o u r s a week c o n t r a c t u a l o v e r t i m e ) .

As mentioned e a r l i e r , t h e o v e r t i m e h a d been w i t h d r a w n w i t h o u t g o i n g t h r o u g h

t h e a g r e e d procedures (management's j u s t i f i c a t i o n b e i n g t h a t t h e r e was no

 - 269-
c o n t r a c t u a l o b l i g a t i o n ) a n d t h e w o r k e r s ' r e s p o n s e had f o c u s s e d a r o u n d t h i s

v i o l a t i o n o f s t a t u s quo:

"When t h e y t o l d u s t h e y w e r e n ' t g o i n g t o g i v e o v e r t i m e , no way w e ' d t a k e

i t s i t t i n g d o m , i t ' s a h e l l o f a l o s s . iie w e n t a n d s a i d t h e r e was a d i s -

p u t e , w e a s k e d f o r t h e s t a t u s q u o t o be r e s t o r e d , t h e foreman s a i d t h e

s t a t u s q u o i s t h e model p l a n . . . t h e l a d s came t o me" ( a i l 1 5, t h e s t e w a r d )

"and a s k e d me t o go u p s t a i r s , a s k f o r s t a t u s quo - t h e y t o l d me t h a t s t a t u s

quo i s t h e model p l a n , I s a i d i t ' s a s you were. Lie g a v e them t h r e e h o u r s '

w a r n i n g , w e p l a y e d them r i g h t t o t h e book" ( t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e t h r e e - d a y

walkout).

T h e s e w o r k e r s , t h e n , b a c k s a g a i n s t t h e w a l l o f t h e s e e m i n g l y i n e v i t a b l e er-

o s i o n o f s t a f f i n g and h o u r s i n t h e b r a n c h , were s t u b b o r n l y p u r s u i n g t h e i r

c a s e f o r t h e r e s t o r a t i o n o f p r e v i o u s income i n terms o f t h e " r e a l " c e a n i n g

of s t a t u s quo - t h e r e t e n t i o n o f e x i s t i n g c u s t o m a n d p r a c t i c e ("as y o u were")

u n t i l a l l p r o c e d u r e s h a d b e e n e x h a u s t e d . Any e f f e c t t h e i r o r i g i n a l w a l k o u t

m i g h t h a v e h a d was d i s s i p a t e d by t h e d e f e r e n c e o f b o t h s t e w a r d and m e n b e r s

f o r f o r m a l p r o c e d u r e s a n d by, a s emerged l a t e r , a n a l m o s t t o t a l l a w o f Frat-

t i c a l s u p p o r t from t h e c o n v e n o r . a t h e r w o r k e r s a t t h e b r a n c h , a l s o , w e r e r ~ l -

u c t a n t t o s u p p o r t t h e s i t e s e r v i c e s w o r k e r s , who t h e y saw a s g r e e d y and a s

h a v i n g f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e them w i t h s u p p o r t i n t h e p a s t . .As t h e d i s p u t e wen-

d e d i t s s l o w way t h r o u g h p r o c e d u r e , t h e p r o s p e c t s f o r t h e r e s t o r a t i o n o f t h e

s i t e s e r v i c e s workers' formerly "privileged" p o s i t i o n appeared i n c r e a s i n g l y

bleak.

Dispensers a ) O v e r t i m e a n d work t i m e

As m e n t i o n e d i n o u r i n t r o d u c t i o n , t h e d i s p e n s e r s h a d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e re-

s e a r c h been p l a c e d i n a n i n c r e a s i n g l y u n c e r t a i n p o s i t i o n d u e t o t h e e n d i n g

o f r a i l d e l i v e r i e s o f l i q u i d g a s t o t h e Leinbley b r a n c h . This s i t u a t i o n , it-

s e l f b r o u g h t a b o u t by t h e " l i q u i d t r a n s f e r " t o Thame, w o u l d r e m a i n u n r e s o l v e d

u n t i l t h e t r a n s f e r i t s e l f h a d been f i n a l l y d e a l t w i t h , o s t e n s i b l y t h a t Sep-
 - 2 70-
tember ( i e w i t h i n s i x months).

'Yeanwhile, t h e p a t t e r n o f work f o r t h e d i s p e n s e r s had slowed doh- almost

t o a s t a n d s t i l l , w i t h t h e a d d i t i o n a l i r o n y t h a t t h e y were a l l on l a r g e

amounts o f o v e r t i m e . T h i s was a g a i n d u e t o t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s e 6 manning

s h o r t a g e . The e s t a b l i s h e d number o f d i s p e n s e r s was s i x , b u t o n e o f t h e s e

p o s t s r e m a i n e d p e r m a n e n t l y u n f i l l e d ; t h e o t h e r was o c c u p i e d by t h e c o n v e n o r ,

and was t h e r e f o r e i n p r a c t i c e u s u a l l y u n s t a f f e d . The c o n v e n o r ' s a b s e n c e , t h e

"dead man s h i f t " ( a s c o v e r i n g f o r t h e u n f i l l e d p o s t was c a l l e d ) and t h e t e c h -

n o l o g i c a l n e c e s s i t y t o k e e p t h e d i s p e n s i n g f u n c t i o n s t a f f e d arotind t h e c l o c k ,

meant t h a t i t was common f o r t h e d i s p e n s e r s t o work e x t r e m e l y long, o f t e n

12-hour s h i f t s .

P i s p e n s e r s d e s c r i b e d t h e p a t t e r n o f work and i t s c h a n g e s s i n c e t - e announce-

ment o f t h e t r a n s f e r t o 'l'ha:ne:

" T h e r e ' s a s t e a d y rundown o f l o r r i e s corning i n , p r i v a t e c ~ s t o m e ~a sr e slow-

i n g down a s w e l l ...T h e r e ' s n o c h a n g e s on o v e r t i m e , t h e r e ' s f i v e :f u s up

h e r e , one who's convenor, h e ' s h a r d l y e v e r h e r e , we've g o t t o ccver h i s j o b .

The t r a i n ' s s t o p p e d noi;. T h e r e ' s n o t h i n g t o d o . I n t h e l a s t eig?.: m o n t h s ,

t h e r e ' s been l e s s a n i l e s s work...Yefore t h i s , we had ii h e l l of i l o t . In

t h e l a s t two y e a r s t h c l i q u i d we had g o i n ; o u t n e a r l y doub!ed....nere's been

a c h a n g e o v e r from i n t e n s e work t o n o t h i n g " ( P a u l 5 . )

"l,hen I f i r s t came i n , t h e r e was p l e n t y o f work, wagons a l l o v e r t h e p l a c e .

I t ' s d i f f e r e n t now, I f e e l I ' m w a s t i n g my t i m e . . . L v e r y o n e here feels the

same way - we've j u s t l o s t i n t e r e s t - t h e p l a c e i t s e l f h a s real!:%. gone down-

hill - i t ' s on a k n i f e e d g e - a l l r i g h t , t h e y ' v e i n s t a l l e d a nel; b u i l d i n z "

( t h e C e n t r a l F i l l i n g A r e a ) " b u t t h e y c o u l d j u s t p i c k up t h e m a c h i n e r y a n t

go - nothing's p e r m a n e n t , I t h o u g h t I was h e r e f o r l i f e b u t n o t now" ( i a u l

and :)artin).

While t h e e a r n i n g s a f f o r d e d by t h e c o n t i n u e d h i g h l e v e l s of o v e r t i m e w e r e

a p p r e c i a t e d , a t t h e same time t h e r e was r e s e n t m e n t a t t h e e n c r o a c h m e n t i n t o

workers' lives:
 -271-

"I d o n ' t want weekends" ( o v e r t i m e ) . " I f I ' n d o i n g o v e r t i m e , I ' d l i k e t o

f i t i t i n t o my l i f e , n o t f i t my l i f e round o v e r t i m e " (Yaul ;;).

"I d o n ' t t h i n k we should have t o work o v e r t i m e t o g e t a d e c e n t wage - I

d o n ' t t h i n k we s h o u l d have t o work a 40-hour week t o . I ' m g e t t i n g ripped

o f f by iiOC" (Alan).

was c l e a r from t h i s s t a t e m e n t , t h i s worker was m o r e e x p l i c i t l y p o l i t i -

c a l l y aware t h a n most a t Wembley. i a r l i e r ke had co;nzented t h a t "iiorkers

a r e always b e i n g t o l d t h e b u s i n e s s i s b e i n g squeezed, maybe t h a t ' s t r u e on

c y l i n d e r s , b u t on b u l k l i q u i d management's making money hand o v e r f i s t , b u t

a l l w e ' r e g e t t i n g i s j o b l o s s e s , c u t b a c k s and clawbacks on pay - I don't

l i k e working o v e r t i m e , b u t t h e r e a l i t y i s b l o k e s on t h i s s i t e d o n ' t work

o v e r t i m e b e c a u s e t h e y a g r e e w i t h i t , b u t because i t ' s t h e o n l y way t o make

a d e c e n t wage ...You're e c o n o m i c a l l y f o r c e ? t o do more h'ork t o g e t overtiine."

T h i s l a s t comment summed up i n a p a r t i c u l a r l y u s e f u l way t h e c r u c i a l i n -

t e r a c t i o n s between w o r k e r s ' s u b s i s t e n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s and t h e m a n a z e r i a l o r -

g a n i s a t i o n o f l a b o u r time, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n view o f t h e s i m u l t a n e o u s i n t e n s i -

f i c a t i o n and e x t e n s i o n o f l a b o u r t h a t v a s t h e s p e c i f i c f e a t u r e o f t h e organ-

i s a t i o n o f t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s a t Lembley. i s Alan p o i n t e d o u t , w o r ~was

" f o r c e d " o u t o f workers, n o t by any c0tlt-c i v e a c t i v i t y on t h e p a r t o f man-

agement, b u t t h r o u g h t h e p r e s s u r e of workers' own n e e d t o make a l i v i n z .

S o r , i n a v a r i a t i o n from L a n d i s & Gyr, was such "work" n e c e s s a r i l y always

of a d i r e c t l y o r i n t e n s e l y p r o d u c t i v e k i n d , b u t might c o n s i s t o f p r o t r a c t e d

h o u r s o f r e l a t i v e l y p a s s i v e m o n i t o r i n g o r d a i n e d s i m p l y by t h e t e c h n i c a l r e -

quirements of t h e product.

b ) ::anning and U n c e r t a i n t y

T h e most s a l i e n t f a c t o r i n t h e d i s p e n s e r s ' work l i v e s a t t h i s p o i n t was, of

c o u r s e , t h a t a l l " s i x " o f t h e i r j o b s were i n q u e s t i o n i n t h e c o n t e x t of t h e

impending t r a n s f e r t o Thaine and t h e a s s o c i a t e d e n d i n g o f r a i l d e l i v e r i e s .

U h i l e t h e w o r k e r s knew what was happening, no one had spoken f o r m a l l y t o

them a b o u t t h e situation:
 - 272 -
" I t ' s n e a r l y f i n i s h e d , we d o n ' t knox i f w e ' r e coming o r g?ing...iie keep

g e t t i n g t o l d no compulsory r e d u n d a n c i e s , w h a t e v e r v a c a n c i e s a r i s e w i l l be

f i l l e d by u s o r someone e l s e , v e h i c l e m a i n t e n a n c e f o r e x a n p l e . . . I t a f f e c t s

them a s w e l l . T h a t ' s w h e r e t h e problem i s - t h e r e m i g h t n o t be a n y j o b s . . . "

(Paul 1:).

A l o t o f workers nade t h e p o i n t t h a t , a s Alan p u t i t , '%ow t h e o l d men a r e

gone." I n o t h e r k - s r d s , management had r e a c h e d , a s i t w e r e , t h e bone i n c u t -

t i n g down on t h e w o r k f o r c e ; t h e r e w e r e no more men who would w i l l i n g l y go.

A s Alan p o i n t e d out, t h i s t h r e a t o f c o m p u l s o r y r e d u n d a n c y f o l l o w e d w h a t was

f o r many w o r k e r s a n e x p e r i e n c e o f b e i n g h e r d e d r o u n d t h e s i t e w i t h " c o n s t a n t

f e a r of j o b loss" - " F o r e x a m p l e t h e two Z a u l s w i l l b e r e d e p l o y e d - this is

t h e s e c o n d t i n e i n two y e a r s - t h e y become l i k e i n d u s t r i a : g y p s i e s . For t h e

Thame d r i v e r s t h i s w i l l o n l y l a s t f i v e y e a r s , t h e n t h e y ' l l be t r a n s f e r r e d

t o iouthampton."

i 4 o r k e r s ' a t t i t u d e t o t h i s c o n t i n u a l i n s e c u r i t y was o n e o f m i n g l e d r e s e n t m e n t

and r e s i g n a t i o n :

" T h e r e ' s no p o i n t i n t a k i n g a c t i o n , t h e w o r k ' s g o n e anywe:;. ~ o o ka t i t a l l ,

i t ' s c o s t . i t makes s e n s e t o move t o t h e j o u t h e r n S e L i o n , t h a t ' s k-here t h e

wori: i s . . . T h e men on t h e f l o o r know w h a t ' s g o i n g on a n d x x t s h o u l d b e done.

3 u t h 7 h a t ' s coming down from t h e t o p h a s t o h a ? ? e n . ?or ex2,:iple t h e t r a n s f e r

t o T h a n e i s g o i n g a h e a d e v e n t h o u g h %!eknow i t w o n ' t work" ( ? a u l and . ; a r t i n :

The w o r k e r s a c c e p t e d , t h e n , w i t h a r e s e n t f u l f a t a l i s m , t h a L t h e r e was

l i t t l e t h e y c o u l d i o a b o u t t h e d i s a ? ? e a r a n c e o f t h e i r j o b s . .\t t h e s a n e tirlE

t h e r e was s o n e t h i n s o f a d i s l o c a t i o n between t h i s a c c e ? t a ; l c e o f t h e i n e v i t -

a b l e a n d t h e w o r k e r s ' o p i n i o n s a b o u t what o u g h t t o be d o n e , b o t h i n terms

o f t h e f u t u r e o f t h e p l a n t a n d r e g i o n ( t h e w o r k e r s j u s t ~ u o t e dwere n o t a l o n e

i n t h i n k i n g t h a t t h e t r a n s f e r m i g h t n o t work, o t h e r s c a s t i n g d o u b t o n wheth-

e r Thame c o u l d a c t u a l l y cope w i t h We-ibley's work a s w e l l a s i t s own) and a l -

s o w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e u n i o n ' s f a i l u r e t o f i g h t . The u l t i m t e s e n s e o f pow-

e r l e s s n e s s by w o r k e r s was d u e n o t o n l y t o t h e o v e r w h t l n i n , w e i g h t o f Aci,.:'s
 strength as a multinational, q u i t e c r u s h i n g enough i n i t s e l f , b u t a l s o t o

t h e g e n e r a l l a c k o f e f f e c t i v e t r a d e union o r g a n i s a t i o n or. t h e s i t e , which

i n i t s t u r n was r o o t e d i n t h e s e c t i o n a l i s t d e f e n s i v e n e s s of o t h e r workers

i n j e a l o u s l y g u a r d i n g t h e i r o v e r t i m e . These prob1er.s w i l l b e looked a t i n

niore d e t a i l l a t e r . Lieanwhile, t h e r e a p p e a r e d t o be l i t t l e t h e d i s p e n s e r s

c o u l d do b u t a p a t h e t i c a l l y c a r r y on w i t h t h e semblance o f what had once

been p u r p o s e f u l j o b s .

D r i v e r s a ) Overtime a n d s c h e d u l i n g

O v e r t i m e f o r t h e d r i v e r s was l a r g e l y a q u e s t i o n o f e s t i m a t e d j o u r n e y t i m e s ,

which i n t h e p a s t had o f t e n been l o o s e enough t o g i v e t h e 2 a c o m f o r t a b l e

m a r g i n o f e a r n i n g s . how, however, a g e n e r a l t i g h t e n i n g - U ? o f t i m e s , p a v i n g

t h e way f o r t h e c o x p u t e r i s e d s c h e d u l i n g o f d e l i v e r i e s d u e i n A u g u s t , threat-

ened t h i s p r a c t i c e :

"If t h e y ' v e g o t a j o b i n I p s w i c h , f o r example, t h e n o t i o n a l t i m e i s 1 3 hours

- t h i s i s what t h e y ' r e p a i d however long i t t a k e s , a f t e n i t ' s s h o r t e r . . . . , a t -

i o n a l l y , o v e r t i m e i s now b e i n g a t t a c k e d . No d r i v e r a c t u a l l y d o e s more t h a n 9

h o u r s , b u t t h e y were g e t t i n g 1 4 h o u r s - i t ' s a pay c u t o f between 2 4 9 an?

f69" ( k l a n , d i s p e n s e r s ) .

K h i l e t h i s might a p p e a r a c l a s s i c example of t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i s e d " f i d d l e " ,

what i t had a c t u a l l y r e s u l t e d i n was s i m p l y a c o m f o r t a b l e l i v i n g wage f o r

t h e d r i v e r s , which would n o t have been a t t a i n a b l e on b a s i c pay. Alan, i n

f a c t , saw c o m p u t e r i s a t i o n i t s e i f p r i m a r i l y i n terms o f a pay c u t :

"Computer t i m e s - well, t h e i s s u e i s n o t i o n a l because i t ' s t h e pay p a c k e t

r e a l l y and management's i n t e r e s t i s i n c u t t i n g t h e i r pay ? a c k e t . . ..;anage:ent

i s more i n t e r e s t e d i n c u t t i n g pay t h a n i n c r e a s i n g j b b s " ( i e i n t e n s i f y i n :

l a b o u r ) "though t h a t w i l l co:ne, E s T e c i a l l y w i t h rha .E."

Whether o r n o t t h e s o l e o r even t h e major p u r p o s e of i n t r o d u c i n g c o m p u t e r i s a -

t i o n was t o c u t pay, t h i s was c e r t a i n l y o n e o f i t s e f f e c t : . The c o m ? u t e r i s e d

s c h e d u l i n g o f z a s d e l i v e r i e s , u s u a l l y r e f e r r e d t o a: L : . , o r Branch L i s t r i b u -

t i o n S c h e d u l e , had t w o a s p e c t s : t h e d i r e c t l i n k a , ; r :f t h e c u s t o i : i e r ' s k;?s

 -274-

sup:.rlies v i t h t h e b r a n c h , s o t h a t t h e corj?uter c o u l d "inform" t h e b r a n c h

i f s u p ? l i e s were getting l w ; and t h e c o n p u t e r i s e d c a l c u l a t i o n o f d e l i v e r y

routes, s 2 e e d s and t i n e s . I t was on t h i s second s c o r e t h a t t h e d r i v e r s ' pay

and c o n d i t i o n s x o u l ~s~u f f e r t h e w o r s t , w i t h t h e i r overti::e 02portunities

b e i n g t h r e a t e c s d i n two ways; t h e i n c r e a s e i n e a t i m a t e d T i l e s p e r h o u r , and

the tightenin: o f t h e t i n e s p e c i f i e d for t h e a c t u a l d e l i v e r y . The f i r s t

would a l s o ? u t : ? a t i c a l l y i n c r e a s e t h e number o f " d r o p s " a c y l i n d e r d r i v e r

( o n e making s h s r t e r l o c a l t r i p s ) would be e x p e c t e d to mace.

T h i s i n c r e a s e d p r e s s u r e on d r i v e r s was p a r t o f a n o v e r a l l tendency which

had t a k e n p l a c e o v e r some y e a r s , c u l m i n a t i n g i n what were s e e n a s t h e un-

r e a l i s t i c t i m e s c a l c u l a t e d by t h e computer:

"...you're g i v e n t h r e e minutes t o u n l o a d , t u r n a r o u n d , b u t you c a n ' t ques-

t i o n i t because ' i t ' s i n t h e c o n p u t e r ' . 335 i s meaningless because t r a f f i c

c o n d i t i o n s chenge a l l t h e time" ( A l a n ) .

"The t i m e s a r e t o o t i g h t . The t r a f f i c ' s i n c r e a s i n g , management's t r y i n g t o

g e t t h e t i m e s dorm. Times t i g h t e r s t i l l , how t i g h t c a n you g e t i t : D r i v e

l i k e a maniac:" ( 3 e o r g e 'T).

The " m e a n i n g l e s s n e s s " o f a t t e m p t i n 2 t o measure and t i g h t e n d e l i v e r y t i n e s

i n any s y s t e n e t i c and a c c o u n t a b l e f a s h i o n had i n d e e d been e m p i r i c a l l y dem-

o n s t r a t e d more t h a n o n c e t o t h e O p e s a t i o n s l b i s t r i b u t i o n manager when h e had

accompanied c y l i n d e r d r i v e r s o u t on t h e i r r o u n d s :

"I've n e v e r been a b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d i t . He knows t h e problems, h e went o u t

w i t h s e v e r a l f e l l o w s so h e knows i t ' s n o t a wind-up o r n o t h i n g l i k e t h a t .

\$e was d o i n g i t by t h e book, we do i t o u r way - we c a n do more, b u t h e

w a n t s u s t o d o more t h a n t h a t . . . \ i e had a u n i o n m e e t i n g one n i g h t , he con-

ceded a c e r t a i n amount o f c a l l s was t o o much, w e came i n t h e n e x t morning

and i t was e x a c t l y t h e same, we'd wasted our t i m e " (George T ) .

Nanagement, then, i n a manner r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e "performance" calculation5

a t Landis E. Gyr, were d e t e r m i n e d t o a d h e r e t o a q u a n t i t a t i v e c a l c u l a t i o n o f

what times were, presumably u n d e r i d e a l c o n d i t i o n s , a t t a i n a b l e , r a t h e r t h a n

 -215-

a c c e p t i n g a more r e a l i s t i c , and a c t u a l l y o b s e r v e d , q u a l i t a t i v e a s s e s s m e n t

o f t h e a c t u a l work p a t t e r n . Given t h i s e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e m a n a g e r i a l res-

ponse, t h e a d v e n t o f coniputerised times was seen a s b a f f l i n g , i f n o t im-

possible:

"I d o n ' t t h i n k t h e r e ' l l be enough t i m e t o do t h e j o b anyway. I f i t ' s going

t o b e a s t i g h t a s t h e y s a y i t i s , we'd b e t t e r do s o m e t h i n 2 b e f o r e we a l l

g e t t h e s a c k f o r n o t b e i n g a b l e t o do t h e work" (George T).

I n t h i s impending s i t u a t i o n t h e r e was, t h e n , an i n c r e a s i n g c o n v i c t i o n a:nong

the drivers that, l i k e t h e workers a t Landis 5 Cyr, t h e y s i m p l y v o u l d n o t

b e a b l e t o a d h e r e t o new m a n a g e r i a l norms o f p r o d u c t i o n . The d i s t i n c t i o n

between " w i l l i n g n e s s t o work" and r e s i s t a n c e t o , o r i n c a p a b i l i t y o f , max-

i m a l i s e d i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n o f l a b o u r was h e r e d e f i n e d once more.

b ) ..anning

T h e r e was no d o u b t t h a t t h e d r i v e r s had s u f f e r e d by f a r t h e l a r g e s t r e c e n t

r e d u c t i o n i n t h e i r numbers. The t r a n s f e r t o Thame a l o n e had s l a s h e d t h e

number of l i q u i d d r i v e r s from 25 t o 7 w i t h i n a v e r y s h o r t p e r i o d , w h i l e

t h e number o f c y l i n d e r d r i v e r s had a l s o droppet? d r a s t i c a l l y , o v e r a l o n g e r

t i n e s c a l e , from 6 6 t o 2 2 .

!!hile t h e r e d u c t i o n i n l i q u i d d r i v e r s followed l o g i c a l l y from t h e t r a n s f e r

t o Thame, t h e i n s i s t e n c e on c u t t i n g down on n u n b e r s o f c y l i n d e r " f e r r y "

d r i v e r s , backed up by t h e c o n t i n u o u s p r e s s u r e f o r i n c r e a s e s i n p r o d u c t i v i t y ,

c l e a r l y c u t a c r o s s any a t t e m p t t o improve on t h e d e c i d e d l y p o o r (50;:) del-

i v e r y r e c o r d . Attempts t o t a c k l e t h i s seened t o b e d i r e c t e d towards t h e com-

p u t e r i s e d methods of i n c r e a s i n g p r o d u c t i v i t y and a s s e s s i n g customer denand

r e f e r r e d t o above, r a t h e r t h a n r a i s i n g an) r e n o t e l i k e l i h o o d o f i n c r e a s i n g

t h e number o f d r i v e r s .

I n d e e d , t h e c u r r e n t p o l i c y seemed t o b e havin; r a t h e r t h e r e v e r s t e f f e c t ,

a s t h e M n c h was h a v i n g d i f f i c u l t y f i l l i n g t h e f o u r p o s t s f o r c y l i n d e r d r i -

v e r s t h a t were c u r r e n t l y v a c a n t and suspended u n t i l t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e

t r a n s f e r t o Thame. i v e n t h e t h r e a t e n e d d i s p e n s e r s were n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n
 -276-

t h e s e j o b s , which c a r r i e d a r e p u t a t i o n for t h a n k l e s s s l a v e d r i v i n ~ . The

l e v e l o f speedui, was T-.~V

SUC!~ t h a t t h e r c w a s a h i g h t u r n o v e r even axon,

t h e c u r r e n t k , o r k f o r c e ; a s o n e o f thein, , e o r g e T , iumir.ed i t up, the exist-

i n ; nor.:. o f 2 5 c a l l s i d a y i i a s a l r e a d y , even b e f o r e t h e a d v e n t 0 5 co:n?uter-

i i z t i o n , "a h e ; r t - a t t . ? i k job".

i i ) :;es-,o-se= an; ~..t,actio!is - t h e wor::fcrce BS a v11ole

T!le !!onin:J,nce o f o v e r t i y e i n c!l these ur':ers' l i v e s i n two s e n s e s -

f i r s t l y i n i t s s t r u c t c r i n a o f t h e l a b o u r p r o c e s s and s e c o n d l y a s a v e h i c l e

for increasinz t h e i r subsistence - h e l d the:i t o soxe e x t e n t trap?ed i n a

form o f c o l l u s i o n w i t h management. A s we i n d i c a t e 6 i n o u r i n t r o d u c t i o n ,

b o t h managertent and t k s w o r k f o r c e s i m u l t a n e o u s l y s o u g h t and r e j e c t e ? o v e r -

t i n e , f o r d i f f e r e n t re'sons: on t h e wor::ers' p a r t t h e w i s h and need t o

enliance e a r n i n g s i n c o n t r a d i s t i n c t i o n t o t h e r e s e r . t e d i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n and

e x t e n s i o n o f l a b o u r ; on m a n a g e m e n t ' s thc. d r i v e t o c u t dohn on l a b o u r c o s t s

as a g , a i n s t t h e need t o c o v e r f o r t h e i n f l e x i b i l i t i e s t h a t t h i s caused.

The p u r s u i t o f , a n d a t t e m p t t o c o n t r o l , o v e r t i m e a n d j o b s e c u r i t y on t h e

o n e h a n d , s t a f f i n g an? c o s t r e d u c t i o n s on t h e o t h e r , was t h e n a t t h e c e n t r e

o f c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n w o r i f o r c e and m a n a g c e n t a t I.:eibley. 3efore :ookin_

more c l o s e l y a t t h e d i r e n s i o n s o f w o r k p l z c e o r g a n i s a t i o n i n t h e b r a n c h i n

r e l a t i o n t o t h i s q u e s t i o n , we s h a l l e x p l o r e two f u r t h e r a r e a s which h a v e

been assuned i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e t o p r o v i d e f o c a l p o i n t s o f worker r e s i s t a n c e ;

w o r k e r k n o w l e d g e l c r e a t i v i t y , and w i l l i n g n e s s t o work. 'de s h a l l a l s o l o o k a t

what h a s b e e n a r g u e d i a t h e t h e s i s t o be a more s a l i e n t b a s i s f o r s u c h res-

i s t a n c e , workers' r e s p o n s e t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n e f f o r t and reward.

a ) h!orker Knowledge: '"iou work i n t h e r e , y o u ' r e a l l i d i o t s "

T h e r e was n o d o u b t t h a t w o r k e r s w e r e a w a r e o f , and c y n i c a l a b o u t , management's

l a c k o f r e s p e c t f o r t h e i r a b i l i t i e s . A t t h e same time t h e i r own i n t i m a t e

knowledge o f t h e p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s d e l i n e a t e d f o r them t h e a r e a s where

management was nowhere n e a r g e t t i n g i t r i g h t :

,,,,>E c o u l d d e f i n i t e l y r u n t h i s o u r s e l v e s , more e f f i c i e n t l y w i t h fewer losses,
 -277-
more safely...For example, g e t r i d of t h i s system" ( t h e computer console)

" - t h e y ' r e making l o s s e s because t h e y ' r e pumping t h e s t u f f through so f a s t

i t ' s h e a t i n g up and t h e y ' r e l o s i n g more" (Alan, d i s p e n s e r s ) .

"If we had a say i n t h e running of t h i n g s , w e could run i t b e t t e r than

that. We have no say i n t h e c h o i c e of v e h i c l e s , t h e y ' r e sometimes u n s u i t -

a b l e , they p u t t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n s , t h e tanks, in s i l l y p o s i t i o n s , everyone's

t h e r e e x c e p t t h e d r i v e r " ( P e t e U, l i q u i d d r i v e r ) .

A t t h e same time, i t was accepted t h a t management had no i n t e r e s t in any-

t h i n g t h e managers might want t o say:

"The guv'ners don't l i k e t o be t o l d anything, we had a suggestion box, b u t

management d o e s n ' t l i k e t o t h i n k t h a t workers a r e doing t h e i r work" (Eugene,

filler).

"With modern management, they d o n ' t r e a l l y l i s t e n t o what you've go t o

say - they do things t h e i r way, u p s t a i r s somewhere, t h e y don't l i k e t o be

proved wrong" (Ken and Joe, compressors).

"More s a y ? You don't g e t a l o t . I t ' s always been t h e same, 'Because you

work i n t h e r e , y o u ' r e a l l i d i o t s ' . Even though you do t h e Job day i n day

o u t " (Jim and A l f , f i l l e r operators).

However, w h i l e workers c l e a r l y recognised t h a t t h e y knew more about t h e j o b

than management and t h a t management had high-handedly c u t o f f t h i s a r e a of

knowledge from t h e i r own o p e r a t i o n s , such i l l o g i c a l i t i e s were viewed pass-

i v e l y , r a t h e r than being a f o c u s of a c t i v e resentment. So f a r were workers

from f e e l i n g any commitment t o " c r e a t i v i t y " in t h e i r work ( t h e o p p o r t u n i t y

f o r which was, i n any case, h a r d l y overwhelming) t h a t while recognising

t h e i r r o l e a s a "tool of t h e machine" they p o s i t i v e l y welcomed t h i s :

" I t ' s much e a s i e r than when you had t o f i l l them" ( t h e c y l i n d e r s ) "before

- everything's done i n t h e c o n s o l e s " ( i e computerised). "I suppose i t is

a bad t h i n g because you a r e t h e s l a v e of t h e machine...It doesn't a f f e c t

me t h a t much...It's much e a s i e r with t h e machine" (John, f i l l e r o p e r a t o r ) .

"The machine r e a l l y in some r e s p e c t s i s c o n t r o l l i n g you. r a t h e r than

 t h e o t h e r way round...Before you could work o u t f o r y o u r s e l f how you

d i d t h e work. Do I miss i t ? Not a t a l l - i t was old-fashioned" (Richard,

t e s t shop).

Among t h e d r i v e r s , however, t h e r e was some f r u s t r a t i o n over how t h e tak-

i n g o v e r of t h e i r own o r g a n i s a t i o n o f t h e j o b by computerisation influenced

t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e customer: "Our knowledge of t h e j o b is j u s t

wasted, gone by t h e board now...It's a l t e r e d a l l t h e work p a t t e r n - it

used t o be compact, now i t ' s spread o u t a l l o v e r t h e p l a c e . . . I d o n ' t bother

r e a l l y , we j u s t do our d a y ' s work and t h a t ' s i t . In t h e o l d days i f you'd

done t h e round and had a b i t of l i q u i d l e f t , you'd drop i t o f f " ( P e t e k,

liquid driver).

A t t h e same time, any a c t i v e attempt t o a l t e r t h e s i t u a t i o n was seen a s

going beyond t h e workers' b r i e f . As t h e VCH d r i v e r p u t i t :

"The planning of t h e d r o p s d o e s n ' t make sense - two wagons can end up going

t o t h e same p l a c e on t h e same day - we know, because we do t h e j o b , b u t

management - i f you suggested anything management would t h i n k you was a

r i g h t creep - 'rho the h e l l i s t h i s l i t t l e u p s t a r t ? ' - you s t a r t g e t t i n g

o u t o f your own s p h e r e and, you know, 'What do you know about i t ? ' "

b ) Willingness t o Work: "Your j o b comes up t o you day a f t e r day"

J u s t a s t h e above comments were reminiscent of t h o s e of Landis & Cyr workers

i n t h e i r awareness o f , b u t r e c o n c i l i a t i o n t o , managerial a t t i t u d e s , so t h e

Wembley workers shared a s i m i l a r "pragmatic acceptance" with r e g a r d t o t h e

o b l i g a t i o n t o work. W
e have a l r e a d y seen from t h e comments of both super-

v i s i o n and management t h a t "chasing" t h e workforce was n o t a major necess-

i t y or preoccupation (up t o t h e p o i n t of " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " d e f i n e d by the

Branch Manager) and t h i s was r e f l e c t e d in workers' remarks:

. .
"Supe'rvision? We &n i t o u r s e l v e s . We're a law unto o u r s e l v e s up here, un-

l e s s they send d i f f e r e n t l o r r i e s . We do t h e s u p e r v i s i o n o u r s e l v e s , we

know what's t o be done" ( g a u l M, d i s p s ) .

 -279-

There was a g e n e r a l r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t i t made very l i t t l e s e n s e f o r

workers t o do anything e l s e but work:

"I enjoy i t because i f I d o n ' t someone e l s e w i l l . Someone's g o t t o f i l l

i t so I might a s w e l l f i l l i t in good f a i t h " (Winston, C e n t r a l F i l l i n g

Area ) .
R e f e r r i n g t o t h e f i l l i n g o f j o b s r a t h e r t h a n c y l i n d e r s , t h i s comment

could be seen a s an e l o q u e n t statement of t h e i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e and com-

modity s t a t u s of labour. As t h e same worker had s a i d e a r l i e r , "no one

f e e l s anything g r e a t about work, y o u ' r e h e r e f o r your wages, you do

what you have t o do f o r your wages.'' H i s workmate expressed (independent-

l y ) a s i m i l a r point: "Like i t ' s f o r a d a y ' s wages and t h a t ' s i t - you

have t o work someplace and t h a t ' s i t . When you c a n ' t have what you l i k e

t h e n you m u s t l i k e what you have" (Eugene, CFA).

Most workers expressed a s i m i l a r f e e l i n g t h a t t h e s i t u a t i o n was so b a s i c

a s t o be unquestionable:

"The j o b is a l l r i g h t . . . i t ' s a job, i s n ' t i t . I f t h e k i t c h e n is too h o t ,

you g e t out" (Monahan, t e s t shop).

"There's no good p o i n t s about work. I j u s t t r y t o ignore i t and j u s t g e t

on with t h e j o b and do i t and t h a t ' s a l l t h e r e is t o i t " (Harry, f i l l e r /

loader).

"Your J o b comes up t o you l i k e day a f t e r say, you j u s t keep going l i k e

and do i t " (Michael and Michael H, f o r k i f t truck drivers).

One worker, i t was t r u e , took t h i s b a s i c acceptance o f work a l i t t l e fur-

ther: "I work r i g h t up t o my time. I b e l i e v e t h a t when you're a t work the

governer has bought your time, i t d o n ' t belong t o you, i t belongs t o him,

so i f you t a k e time o f f you're s t e a l i n g " (Monahan, f i l l e r ) .

mile, a s w e s h a l l s e e , t h e r e was c o n s i d e r a b l e awareness of and r e j e c t i o n

o f p r o f i t a s a c o u n t e r t o t h e i r own l e v e l o f reward among t h e workforce,

t h i s was n o t r e l a t e d by any of them t o t h e p r o v i s i o n of labour, with t h e

e x c e p t i o n of Alan from dispensmrs. As he p u t i t :

 -280-
"If I d i d n ' t f e e l t h a t t h e purpose of my pork is t o make some o t h e r

bugger r i c h , I ' d p u t a l o t more e f f o r t in. In g e n e r a l , t h a t ' s shown by

f o r example w i t h t h e h o s p i t a l s " ( t o which BOC s u p p l i e d oxygen) 'I - people

w i l l p u t themselves o u t because they f e e l t h a t t h e NHS is p a r t of them.

In t h e Falklands war, t h e b l o k e s who supported i t worked very hard...I

d o n ' t t h i n k p r i v a t e p r o f i t can g e t work o u t of workers - we come t o work

t o make a living."

Here Alan was e x p r e s s i n g a c r u c i a l d i s t i n c t i o n which in h i s experience

r e g i s t e r e d in t h e response of t h e r e s t of t h e workforce, while n o t nec-

e s s a r i l y being e x p l i c i t l y r e c y i s e d by them - t h a t between t h e p r o v i s i o n

o f , and a t t i t u d e towards, t h e use o f t h e i r l a b o u r power a s a commodity,

and any p o s i t i v e c r e a t i v e involvement in t h e work i t s e l f . The same d i s -

t i n c t i o n t o which t h e Branch Manager had drawn a t t e n t i o n t o in h i s argu-

ment about " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " , i t in a sense r e v e r s e s t h e conception (with-

-
in t h e labour p r o c e s s d e b a t e ) of workers a s s t r i v i n g f o r more "autonomy",

more " d i s c r e t i o n " o v e r t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n of t h e i r work. B u t t h i s r e s i s t a n c e

was n o t due t o any o v e r t " h o s t i l e w i l l " (Friedman, 1977) on t h e workers'

p a r t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n of t h e i r labour a s such; r a t h e r t h e l i n e i s drawn

simply by t h e d e f i n i t i o n of work in t e r m s of "making a l i v i n g " - of the

s a l e of labour power a s a b a r g a i n which i n v o l v e s Just as much labour a s

is r e q u i r e d t o "do your j o b " - "and t h a t ' s it".

We now go on t o look a t i s s u e s which have been argued w i t h i n t h e t h e s i s

t o be more c e n t r a l t o workers' response t o t h e l a b o u r process than t h e s e

more q u a l i t a t i v e q u e s t i o n s ; t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between e f f o r t , reward and,

where r e l e v a n t , p r o f i t .

c ) P r o f i t s and Wages: "We g e t t h e crumbs''

Although employees d i d n o t e x p l i c i t l y l i n k t h e i r p r o v i s i o n of no more

- and no less - than what was r e q u i r e d by t h e "bargain" of employment, t o

t h e p r o f i t motive i t s e l f , s e v e r a l of t h e i r comments showed t h a t t h e y were

s h a r p l y aware o f , and b i t t e r about, t h e d i s p a r i t y between t h e i r OM pos-

 -281-
i t i o n a s workers whose pay could only be r a i s e d above t h e average by

l a r g e amounts of overtime, and t h a t o f BOC a s a v a s t m u l t i n a t i o n a l con-

glomerate w i t h a very h e a l t h y turnover. T h i s d i s p a r i t y had a p a r t i c u l a r l y

c l e a r expression i n t h e gargantuan s a l a r y o f BOC's Group Chief Executive,

Dick Ciordano, whose pay a t t h e time of t h e r e s e a r c h had j u s t r i s e n 48;.

t o f 7 7 1 , 6 0 0 a year. As Paul H from t h e d i s p e n s e r s p u t it:

" I t ' s a s o r e p o i n t w i t h Ciordano - t h e r e was a n f 8 0 m p r o f i t r i s e f o r the

f i r s t s i x months o f t h i s y e a r - h i s s a l a r y r i s e s accordingly - they could
a f f o r d t o pay t h e workers a r i s e . " I n f a c t t h e "union s i d e " o f t h e nation-

a l n e g o t i a t i n g committee had now agreed on a claim of 257. on t h e b a s i c

r a t e , with a d d i t i o n a l bwnefits, t o be p u t forward a t t h e annual n e g o t i -

a t i o n s t h e following month, but few among t h e workforce hoped f o r any-

t h i n g more than s i x or seven p e r cent.

Ciordano tended t o be t h e f i g u r e on whom workers pinned t h e i r resentment

a t n o t g e t t i n g a " f a i r share", p a r t i c u l a r l y s i n c e he himself was rememb-

e r e d f o r having announced, perhaps r a s h l y , some y e a r s b e f o r e t h a t he

thought workers ought t o g e t more b e n e f i t from company p r o f i t s :

"Pay - i t ' s n o t a l o t , compared w i t h some j o b s o u t s i d e i t ' s good, b u t

when you look a t t h e p r o f i t s i t ' s n o t a l o t . Giordano's t h e man who s a i d

workers should be g e t t i n g more, t h e r e ' s no sign of i t here" ( J o e and Ken,

compressors).

There was a g e n e r a l s e n s e , then, t h a t w h i l e t h e advantages of working f o r

a company a s l a r g e and s t a b l e a s BOC were p o t e n t i a l l y c o n s i d e r a b l e , they

somehow were n o t f i n d i n g t h e i r way t o t h e workers:

"Working f o r BOC - b i g g e r p r o f i t , you should g e t b i g g e r wages, but

so

i t ' s n o t always l i k e t h a t - too many shareholders. With t h e t r a n s f e r t o

Thame d r i v e r s a r e l e a v i n g and n o t being r e p l a c e d - t h e company's saving

money, economising, making p r o f i t s - it's good l u c k i f we g e t a b i t "

( P e t e W, liquid driver).

"Pay? When you look a t t h e p r o f i t s t h e y ' r e making, you c a n ' t say i t ' s
 -282-

fair - we g e t t h e crumbs'' (Harry, f i l l e r / l o a d e r ) .

T h i s d i s p a r i t y between t h e unusually high company p r o f i t s evinced in

t h e s e workers' employment, and t h e i r own comparatively humble l e v e l of

s u b s i s t e n c e , was f u r t h e r underlined by a more common resentment a t t h e

widening gap between e f f o r t and reward:

"There's u n f a i r t r e a t m e n t i n r e s p e c t of money - more and more, we're n o t

on bonus, they keep adding and adding, we're producing q u i t e a l o t and

t h e r e ' s half the s t a f f - a third...They c u t t h e i r running c o s t s , t h e y ' r e

g e t t i n g more work done w i t h l e s s men - l o v e l y f o r them, t h a t ' s b u s i n e s s

a i n ' t it" (Jim and Alf, f i l l e r o p e r a t o r s ) .

"Management's got greedy nowadays - they want more and more o u t o f you

f o r l e s s and l e s s - more production f o r no more money, more d e l i v e r i e s

i n t h e same amount of time...You have a tendency t o f e e l we're doing t h e

a c t u a l work, t h e y ' r e g e t t i n g t h e b e n e f i t s . I t doesn't a f f e c t t h e a c t u a l

work, b u t your a t t i t u d e - you do t h e j o b and t h a t ' s i t " ( P e t e W).

Yet, however u n s a t i s f a c t o r y , i t was money and money alone t h a t was marked

o u t a s t h e c e n t r a l m o t i v a t i o n both f o r working a t a l l and a l s o f o r any

involvement i n o u t r i g h t r e s i s t a n c e :

"I only come t o work f o r money so I can do t h e b e s t for my f a m i l y - the

s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g is going t o go down...If i t comes down t o rock bottom,

might have t o g e t a n o t h e r j o b a s w e l l " (George T, VCH d r i v e r ) .

"That's what we're h e r e f o r - we're a l l h e r e t o work f o r money. w e ' l l

come o u t f o r money" (Jim h Alf, f i l l e r o p e r a t o r s ) .

i i i ) So What Can You Do About I t ? worker O r g a n i s a t i o n and R e s i s t a n c e a t

BOC Wembley

6) No more Numbers - t h e Erosion of Employment

The Wembley branch of BOC d i f f e r e d from t h e Landis 6 Gyr f a c t o r y in hav-

i n g had a long-term r e p u t a t i o n , damaged o n l y r e c e n t l y , f o r i m p r e s s i v e

workplace s t r e n g t h and o r g a n i s a t i o n . As t h e convenor p u t it: "We're in a

weak p o s i t i o n i n r e c e n t y e a r s compared t o what i t used t o be. We used t o

 -283-

d i c t a t e more or l e s s what we wanted. I t ' s t h e h i g h l e v e l s o f unemploy

men t .'I

Not o n l y unemployment a s s u c h , b u t a l s o t h e change i n t h e p o s i t i o n Of

t h e Wembley branch i t s e l f from t h e s t r a t e g i c centre of o p e r a t i o n s in t h e

S o u t h e r n Region t o what was p o t e n t i a l l y , w i t h t h e t r a n s f e r t o Thame,

l i t t l e more t h a n a d e p o t , was behind t h i s development. The c o m p a r a t i v e l y

s t r o n g p o s i t i o n o f b o t h t h e b r a n c h and t h e u n i o n o r g a n i s a t i o n w i t h i n i t

had been c l e a r a s r e c e n t l y a s 1977, when Wembley d r i v e r s had p l a y e d a

l e a d i n g p a r t i n t h e s u c c e s s f u l n a t i o n a l four-week l o r r y d r i v e r s ' d i s p u t e .

T h i s a p p a r e n t o r g a n i s a t i o n a l t e n a c i t y was, however, something o f a

temporary h a l t in what was i n f a c t a long term p r o c e s s o f d e c l i n e i n em-

ployment and t h u s o f b a s i c w o r k p l a c e s t r e n g t h , which t h e conveuor d a t e d

from 1964. Somewhat b e l a t e d l y , t h e convenor now announced h i m s e l f d e t e r -

mined t o stem t h i s flow, w h i l e a t t h e same time d e m o n s t r a t i n g h i s aware-

ness of t h e i n e v i t a b l e a d v a n c e o f "progress":

"A l o t o f p e o p l e have been made redundant - b u t t h e y were a l l a b o u t 6 0 ,

q u i t e happy to go - b u t now we're g e t t i n g t o t h e s t a g e where t h e w o r k f o r c e

i s g e t t i n g younger. We'll o p p o s e on p r i n c i p l e , i t w i l l be opposed from

now on...Obviously you c a n ' t o p p o s e p r o g r e s s , s a y Thame, you c a n ' t i n s i s t

on m a i n t a i n i n g j o b s when t h e y ' v e j u s t d i s a p p e a r e d . B u t l a t e r we w i l l have

t o h a v e a p o l i c y o f m a i n t a i n i n g j o b s b e c a u s e we w i l l have a younger work-

f o r c e w i t h no i n t e n t i o n of l e a v i n g . We h a v e n ' t adopted a Luddite s t a n c e

- t h e r e ' s no op t i o n b u t t o change. BOC had t o compete i n t h e market, b u t

w e had no problem b e c a u s e so many p e o p l e wanted t o l e a v e - we d i d n ' t try

t o s t o p them...In f u t u r e we w i l l f i g h t i t j o b by j o b - t h e b l o k e s work

q u i t e a l o t o f overtimw - i t ' s d i f f i c u l t t o s a y t o p e o p l e We'll t a k e pe-

o p l e o u t o f t h e d o l e queue, you d r o p your o v e r t i m e . It might be a l l r i g h t

t o have h i g h - f l y i n g t h e o r i e s a b o u t t h e 25-hour week and so on, p e o p l e

j u s t t h i n k o f t h e m s e l v e s and t h a t ' s u n d e r s t a n d a b l e . "

In t h e s e comments t h e convenor e x p r e s s e d a number of c o n f l i c t i n g p r e s s u r e s

 -28t-

and r e a l i t i e s about t h e s i t u a t i o n f a c i n g t h e BOC workforce. The almost

c a s u a l response by stewards and t h e workforce t o t h e l a r g e s c a l e redund-

a n c i e s which had taken p l a c e i n t h e p l a n t was, i t i s true, based on t h e

a c c u r a t e assessment t h a t , a s o l d e r workers, t h e s e were p e r s o n a l l y q u i t e

happy t o leave behind a l i f e t i m e o f g r i n d i n g t o i l a t BOC and r e c e i v e what

were by a l l accounts s u b s t a n t i a l payoffs. A t t h e same time t h e f a c t rem-

ained t h a t t h e redundancies had n o t been fought, and t h i s , a s well a s e f -

f e c t i v e l y allowing t h e u l t i m a t e rundown of t h e branch, had p u t t h e conve-

n o r and stewards i n t o a p o s i t i o n where they were going t o have t o summon

up r e s i s t a n c e from a very low base. There was no reason why t h e convenor

should have much c r e d i b i l i t y i n t h e m a t t e r of f i g h t i n g redundancies or

indeed i n t a k i n g a very s t r o n g s t a n d o v e r any i s s u e a g a i n s t management,

an image which was r e i n f o r c e d by some of t h e weaknesses i n h i s own p a s t

behaviour and t h e union o r g a n i s a t i o n i n t h e p l a n t g e n e r a l l y , t o be looked

a t i n more d e t a i l below.

Thus, while i t was indeed by now u r g e n t l y n e c e s s a r y t o f i g h t redundancies

"job by job" given t h a t whatever s l a c k t h e r e had been i n t h e workforce

was decidedly used up, t h e l i k e l i h o o d of e f f e c t i v e a c t i o n seemed low,

and was f u r t h e r lowered by t h e two o t h e r f a c t o r s t h e convenor had ment-

ioned; t h e workers' s t r o n g adherence t o overtime, a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d above,

and t k e s t r u c t u r a l " n e c e s s i t i e s " t h a t d i c t a t e d e v e n t s such a s t h e t r a n s -

f e r t o Thame.

There was, of c o u r s e , no o b j e c t i v e reason why t h e workers should have

had t o s a c r i f i c e t h e i r overtime, or a t l e a s t t h e e a r n i n g s a c c r u i n g from

i t , i n o r d e r t o g e t fellow-workers o f f t h e dole, b u t t h e r e was a s t r o n g

acceptance amongst many o f even t h e " g u i l t y " workers t h a t i t was t h e i r

greed i n working overtime t h a t was c r e a t i n g unemployment. Perhaps unsur-

p r i s i n g l y , t h e convenor was unable t o provide, or even c o n s i d e r looking

f o r , any s t r a t e g y t h a t could go beyond t h e s a c r i f i c e o f one or o t h e r

group of workers.

On t h e r e s t r u c t u r i n g of t h e company, s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e t r a n s f e r o f l i q u i d
 -285-
gas d i s t r i b u t i o n t o Thame, while i t was t r u e t h a t , a s Paul M from d i s -

p e n s e r s had s a i d , "it made sense" t o c e n t r a l i s e o p e r a t i o n s t h e r e given

t h e e x i s t i n g production and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f l i q u i d gases a t Thame ( n o t

t o mention t h e cheaper r a t e s p r e v a i l i n g t h e r e ) a t t h e same time t h e rem-

o r s e l e s s n e s s of t h e d e c i s i o n , with i t s t r a i l of redundancies ( a f u r t h e r

16 being announced towards t h e end of t h e r e s e a r c h p e r i o d ) expressed

o n l y too f o r c i b l y t h e way in whioh t h e s e workers, trapped by t h e move-

ments of a v a s t conglomerate l i k e BOC, seemed in a very r e a l sense power-

l e s s t o i n f l u e n c e t h e i r f a t e . I t was as though a t BOC Wembley t h e t r a d i t -

i o n a l workplace o r g a n i s a t i o n a l t a c t i c s which had worked f o r t h e p a s t

twenty or t h i r t y y e a r s were now e n t e r i n g t h e i r f i n a l phase, w h i l e a t

Landis & Gyr new groups o f workers were t a k i n g up and t r y i n g o u t t h e s e

t a c t i c s . The s t r u g g l e a t Lendis & Gyr was in some ways J u s t beginning;

a t Wembley i t appeared t o be ending. However, t h e p i c t u r e was n o t i n a l l

ways p e s s i m i s t i c .

b ) New Stewards and Old T r i c k s - Weaknesses in Workplace O r g a n i s a t i o n

One of t h e major problems f a c i n g c u r r e n t workplace o r g a n i s a t i o n a t t h e

branch was t h a t t h e waves of redundancy had c a r r i e d o f f with them n o t

o n l y t h e "old men" i n g e n e r a l but a l s o t h e o l d , i n o t h e r words experienced,

shop stewards ( s e e T e r r y 1984 for a r e f e r e n c e t o t h i s development in in-

d u s t r y g e n e r a l l y ) . The convenor himself had only h e l d o f f i c e f o r t h e l a s t

two o r t h r e e y e a r s , and was g e n e r a l l y regarded a s i n f e r i o r t o h i s prede-

cessor: so much so t h a t a steward from a n o t h e r branch had r e c e n t l y been

e l e c t e d a s Chair o f t h e Southern Region shop stewards' committee, a pos-

i t i o n t r a d i t i o n a l l y h e l d by t h e convenor a t Wembley. The most r e c e n t ex-

ample of t h e convenor's ahortcomings had been t h e d i s p u t e among t h e s i t e

s e r v i c e s workers, i n which t h e convenor had been absent from t h e s i t e a t

t h e c r u c i a l time and had f a i l e d t 6 yse h i s i n f l u e n c e t o persuade manage-

ment t o maintain s t a t u s quo or g r a n t t h e s i t e s e r v i c e s workers compen-

s a t i o n for t h e i r l o s t earnings.

The new and l e s s experienced stewards were i n general, according t o Alan

 -206-

and o t h e r workers from d i s p e n s e r s , an easy prey f o r managerial w i l e s

which involved buying t h e stewards d r i n k s a f t e r meetings and o t h e r w i s e

exposing them t o t h e f u l l f o r c e of managerial ideology:

"The l a c k of a f u l l - t i m e convenor, f o r example, i s company policy...

Other management ways of undermining shop steward o r g a n i s a t i o n - like

a f t e r meetings they'd a l l go o f f t o t h e pub - not n e c e s s a r i l y doing d e a l s ,

b u t workers t h i n k t h e r e ' l l be d e a l s , so cynicism grows. Also they t r y t o

b u i l d up company l o y a l t y , e s p e c i a l l y w i t h t h e stewards, they t a k e them

o f f t o a country house, show them t h e c h a r t s and so on - even among t h e

most m i l i t a n t stewards you g e t t h e argument t h a t t h e r e a r e exceptions,

you have t o p r o t e c t customer x" (Alan).

Such managerial " t r i c k s " , however, could be e f f e c t i v e l a r g e l y because

t h e r e was no longer any v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t g r a s s r o o t s o r g a n i s a t i o n on s i t e ,

or indeed much l e f t of t h e combine s t r u c t u r e which a t one time had backed

up shop stewards i n t h e company a s a whole:

"In 1 9 7 7 , when we had t h a t s t r i k e , we had a combine throughout t h e com-

pany, b u t t h a t was broken up by t h e n a t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s . I n 1980-1, t h e r e

was a t h r e a t t o t h e Corby a i t e . . t h e combine was going t o meet b u t t h e

n a t i o n a l o f f i c i a l s stopped i t - t h e combine h a s n ' t met since"(A1an).

T h i s lack of a s t r o n g o u t s i d e o r g a n i s a t i o n was r e f l e c t e d i n t h e branch

i n a f a l l i n g - o f f of t h e once important t r a d e union branch and s i t e meet-

i n g s which had t a k e n p l a c e a t Wembley. T h i s e r o s i o n of g r a s s r o o t s parti-

c i p a t i o n i n uaion a f f a i r s was blamed by Alan f o r management's i n c r e a s e d

a b i l i t y t o spread rumours a n d s p l i t t h e workforce:

"Tou c a n ' t c a l l s i t e meetings - we're always r e a c t i n g to management, we

d o n ' t have a policy. We're n o t r e a l l y weak h e r e , b u t we're n o t w e l l org-

anised...klanagement d e l i b e r a t e l y s t a r t whispering campaigns, f o r example

site services - there's n o t a l o t of d i f f e r e n c e between groups b u t man-

agement d e l i b e r a t e l y s p r e a d s t h e myth t h a t some groups g e t more - they

i s o l a t e d t h e s i t e s e r v i c e s workers, they obscured t h e r e a l i s s u e - when
 - 207-
overtime has gone, t h e group h a s always been conpensated f o r one p a r

- they broke t h i s , broke procedure - they d i d the same t o t h e f i t t e r s

t h e week before" (Alan).

The "union" on s i t e was a l s o seen as having been r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e

condoning and spread o f overtime, with its consequences f o r d e s t a f f i n g

and redundancy:

/Why so much overtime?/"Because of t h e union, I think...At t h e moment

t h e y do encourage overtime. Aanagement isn' t w o r r i e d , i t means they don't

have t o employ someone e l s e . The union should be doing i t t h e o t h e r way

round, g e t t i n g more people working...All overtime on t h e s i t e should

have been stopped u n t i l everyone's s o r t e d out t h e i r jobs" ( P a u l M, d i s -

pens e r s ) .
B u t t h e f a c t was t h a t on a day-to-day b a s i s t h e stewards were both forced

into, and accepted, t h e i r "other" r o l e of defending t h e i r own and t h e i r

members' s t a n d a r d s of l i v i n g by maintaining a n d where p o s s i b l e i n c r e a s i n g

l e v e l s of overtime. It was t h i s c o n t r a r y p r e s s u r e which was behind one of

t h e most s e r i o u s s e c t i o n a l weaknesses on t h e s i t e , t h e j e a l o u s guarding

by s p e c i f i c groups of workers of t h e i r o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r overtime.

c ) Workplace S e c t i o n a l i s m a t Wembley

As Paul M went on t o say:

"Dominic"(the f o r k l i f t t r u c k d r i v e r shop steward) "said you a i n ' t coming

down h e r e and s t o p p i n g our overtime."

The p l i g h t of t h e d i s p e n s e r s , s i x vacancies i n s e a r c h of a p o s t elsewhere

on t h e s i t e , n e a t l y i l l u s t r a t e d t h e c o n f l i c t i n g s e t s of worker i n t e r e s t s

which coalesced round t h e i s s u e of overtime. Rather t h a n welcoming t h e

e x t r a manpower brought by t h e d i s p e n s e r s as r e p r e s e n t i n g a l i g h t e n i n g of

t h e i r load, workgroups i n t h e Central F i l l i n g Area adopted a "dog-in-the-

manger"-ish a t t i t u d e t o any p o s s i b l e s l a c k e n i n g in t h e t i g h t s t a f f i n g p r o -

v i s i o n s which might threaten t h e i r o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r "coverage". This a t -

t i t u d e , in f a c t , had been r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e workers' o r i g i n a l reluctance

 - 188 -
t o l e a v e t h e o l d docks and a c c e p t i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o t h e Central F i l l i n g

Area.

Mick, t h e CFA shop steward, summed up some of t h e s e responses:

"When you've got a group of men you've g o t l i t t l e b e n e f i t s , so when they

want t o change yon l o s e a l l them, s t a r t from s c r a t c h . " (Uhat sort of ben-

e f i t s ? ) "You d o n ' t want t o l o s e overtime, t h i n g s l i k e that...I d o n ' t reck-

on any change b e n e f i t s workers - i t might be e a s i e r , but t h e r e ' s less mon-

ey i n your pocket. Having an e a s i e r j o b d o e s n ' t pay t h e b i l l s . ' ' On t h e is-

sue of t h e d i s p e n s e r s , he went on: "The C e n t r a l F i l l i n g Area d o e s n ' t want

more, because of overtime and coverage. The d i s p e n s e r s went o u t o f t h e

C e n t r a l F i l l i n g Area, t h e r e were j o b s vacant h e r e and they wouldn't t a k e

them, now they want t o come back - we went o u t o f t h e g a t e t o g e t what

we've g o t " ( r e f e r r i n g t o t h e three-week s t r i k e i n t h e f i l l i n g a r e a 18

months before)."Ue've done a l l our n e g o t i a t i n g , w e d o n ' t want more."

A common a s p e c t o f workplace s e c t i o n a l i s m , a s we saw a t Landis 6 Gyr, i s

t o blame another group of workers f o r some a s p e c t o f support t h a t h a s n o t

been forthcoming in t h e p a s t . In f a c t t h e d i s p e n s e r s had had l i t t l e choice

b u t t o "go out" of t h e C e n t r a l F i l l i n g Area i n t h e general r e s t r u c t u r i n g

of t h e workforce t h a t was t a k i n g p l a c e a t t h i s time. B u t t h e stewards i n

t h e a r e a showed l i t t l e sympathy f o r , indeed d i s p l a y e d p o s i t i v e h o s t i l i t y

towards, t h e d i s p e n s e r s i n t h e i r c u r r e n t p l i g h t .

Another f a c t o r which exacerbated s e c t i o n a l i s m i n t h e p l a n t was t h e i n s t -

i t u t i o n a l i s e d racism which had e x i s t e d f o r a s long as anyone could remem-

ber. P u t a t i t s b l u n t e s t , I r i s h workers worked i n t h e Central F i l l i n g

Area, English workers were d r i v e r s , and West I n d i a n workers were found

i n t h e v e h i c l e maintenance a r e a . Although t h i s l a t t e r grouping presumably

d i d not d a t e back t o t h e founding of t h e p l a n t , t h e prevalence of I r i s h -

men i n C e n t r a l F i l l i n g c e r t a i n l y went back t o t h e time when t h i s work was

predominantly t h e "humping" around of heavy metal b o t t l e s . As t h e convenor

p u t it: "At one time t h e v a s t m a j o r i t y of people were I r i s h , because t h e

 -289-

work was so hard...people came from hr;lding s i t e s on t o here."

The r a c i a l d i v i s i o n s e x i s t i n g in t h e workforce d i d n o t so much d i s p l a y

themselves i n open h o s t i l i t y a s u n d e r l i n e t h e perceived c o n f l i c t s of

i n t e r e s t between d i f f e r e n t groups of workers i n t h e p l a n t . I n p a r t i c u l a r ,

perhaps, t h e c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n s of English and I r i s h workers were very

d i f f e r e n t , t h e d r i v e r s s e e i n g themselves a s somewhat cunning o p e r a t o r s

while t h e f i l l i n g workers were t o some e x t e n t s t i l l regarded a s b r a i n l e s s

labourers.

I n c o n t r a s t t o t h i s , however, i t was d i f f i c u l t n o t t o sometimes t a k e an

o p t i m i s t i c view of t h e e f f e c t s of working t o g e t h e r on d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s ,

when w i t n e s s i n g t h e f r e q u e n t u p r o a r i o u s o u t b r e a k s of t e a s i n g and laugh-

t e r which would t a k e p l a c e in t h e canteen between t h e black garage workers

and t h e female I r i s h canteen a s s i s t a n t s .

d ) S t i l l Some S p i r i t L e f t - Continued R e s i s t i c e a t Wembley

On t h e " o p t i m i s t i c " s i d e a l s o (depending on one's p o i n t of view) was the

f a c t t h a t , while workplace o r g a n i s a t i o n a t Wembley was by no means t h e

f o r c e t h a t i t had been, o v e r t r e s i s t a n c e was s t i l l common amongst workers

in t h e sense t h a t spontaneous walkouts were a f a r more common f e a t u r e of

management/worker i n t e r a c t i o n than they had been, f o r example, a t Landis

& Gyr. While both Alan and t h e convenor mourned t h e p a s s i n g o f t h e s o l i d

s t r i k e a t Wembley. both gave examples of very r e c e n t stoppages:

(Alan) "When you had a s t r i k e before, you J u s t walked o f f , no p i c k e t , no

a s k i n g f o r support - now you need s i t e meetings. The l a s t one - three

d r i v e r s wanted t o t a k e voluntary redundancy, went f o r o t h e r Jobs, then

were t o l d they c o u l d n ' t have t h e i r redundancy money. So t h e o t h e r groups

stopped."

(Convenor) " I t ' s more of a r e a c t i o n than an a c t i o n s i t u a t i o n now - you

could g e t t h e s i t e t o r e a c t a t t h e d r o p o f a h a t - you could g e t s t r i k e s ,

i t was a doddle, b u t n o t now. The i s s u e s ? Mostly o v e r wages. J u s t now

we're in t h a t s i t u a t i o n again. You d i s s i p a t e your energy. We had a small

 -290-

s t r i k e on Friday - t h e s i t e s e r v i c e s management s a i d they c o u l d n ' t

work weekend* any more. I f t h i s e s c a l a t e s , w e could have a two-week

s t r i k e , t h e n we'd d i s s i p a t e our e n e r g i e s f o r any longer s t r i k e over

pay."

I t was a s i f , d e s p i t e the.weakness and n o n - p a r t i c i p a t o r y n a t u r e of

workplace o r g a n i s a t i o n , and t h e powerful f o r c e s which workers were up

a g a i n s t , they continued t o r e a c t i n t h e same way t h a t had served them

f o r so many years. An i n s t a n c e of r e s i s t a n c e which would have been a

major event a t Landis 6 Gyr was an almost c a s u a l , everyday occurrence

a t Wembley. Currently, such sporadic r e s i s t a n c e gave no h i n t of t h e dev-

elopment of any p o s i t i v e long-term s t r a t e g y f o r t h e workers a t t h e p l a n t ,

and indeed seemed r a t h e r t o r e i n f o r c e t h e i r powerlessness in i t s sec-

t i o n a l n a t u r e , but a t t h e same t i m e t h e r e were r a n k - a n d - f i l e murmurings,

in t h e i r own way r o o t e d in t h e m i l i t a n t t r a d i t i o n s in t h e p a s t , which

seemed t o i n d i c a t e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a more e f f e c t i v e involvement by

workers i n the s t r u g g l e s which l a y ahead,

CONCLUSIONS

I n looking a t t h e r e s p o n s e s of t h e workforce a t both Uembley and l a n d i s

6 Gyr our main concern has been whether or n o t t h e y bear o u t our c e n t r a l

t h e o r e t i c a l hypothesis a b o u t t h e economistic n a t u r e both of r e s i s t a n c e

and consent by workers, and t h e c e n t r a l i t y of e x p l o i t a t i o n in workers'

experience of t h e labour process. As a t Landis 6 Gyr, t h e responses o f

workers a t Uembley can be taken a s l a r g e l y s u p p o r t i n g t h i s hypothesis.

.
Far from seeking i n c r e a s e d c o n t r o l over t h e i r work, t h e s e workers a c t i v e -

ly, or perhaps i t v s h o u l d be s a i d p a s s i v e l y , r e s i s t e d such a d d i t i o n a l d i s -

c r e t i o n , s e e i n g t h e i r work c e n t r a l l y in terms of making a l i v i n g .

As we have seen, t h e main d r i v i n g f o r c e behind worker response and

r e s i s t a n c e a t Wembley was t h e i s s u e of overtime, which both provided a

shoring-up of b a s i c s u b s i s t e n c e and a l s o v i t i a t e d any e f f e c t i v e s t r u g g l e

t o hold on t o j o b s . I t was only now t h a t t h i s s t r u g g l e was becoming

u r g e n t , and t h e d e j e c t e d f a c e s of t h e s i t e s e r v i c e s workers on hearing

t h e announcement of s i r t e e n more redundancies spoke only too c l e a r l y of

t h e r e a l i s a t i o n t h a t s t r u g g l e might now be too l a t e .

The workers' e x c l u s i v e concern with immediate "economistic" i s s u e s , i n

o t h e r words w i t h t h e i r s t a n d a r d s of l i v i n g , had indeed l e d them i n t o

something of an impasse i n which s e c t i o n a l i s m and t h e lack o f any long-

term s t r a t e g y would now a l l o w management, a s one o f t h e c e n t r a l f i l l i n g

workers p u t it, t o "pick u s o f f one by one". But what had got them i n t o

t h i s p o s i t i o n was p r e c i s e l y t h e d i r e c t and s h o r t - t e r m economism which i n

i t s e l f h a s gone l a r g e l y unrecognised i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e . Although t h e r e

was some a d h e r m c e t o managerial ideology among t h e workforce and t h e i r

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , i t was n o t t h i s which had weakened them but t h e d a i l y

s t r u g g l e t o keep up an a c c e p t a b l e standard of l i v i n g a g a i n s t what were

by now overwhelming odds - odds n o t of a d r i v e f o r managerial domination

for i t s own sake but of t h e h a r s h r e a l i t i e s o f t h e r e s t r u c t u r i n g of a

m u l t i n a t i o n a l conglomerate.

In o u r t h e o r e t i c a l c r i t i q u e of t h e labour p r o c e s s d e b a t e "control" t h e s i s ,

w e sought t o d i s t i n g u i s h t h e s e p a r a t e s t r a n d s which e n t e r e d i n t o t h e as-

sumption t h a t "control" i s what workers seek a t work. These f e l l i n t o

t h r e e main a r e a s : r e s i s t a n c e t o t h e t r a n s l a t i o n of labour power i n t o lab-

o u r , t h e c e n t r a l i t y of worker c r e a t i v i t y , and r e s i s t a n c e t o managerial

domination, which is a g a i n seen as aimed a t c o n t r o l p e r se.

On any of t h e s e c r i t e r i a , t h e workers both of BOC and of l a n d i s & Gyr f a i l

t o conform t o t h e "control" t h e s i s . I n both cases, t h e workers displayed

a s t o i c a l " w i l l i n g n e s s t o work" which was s t r u c t u r e d by t h e understanding

o f t h e p r o v i s i o n of t h e i r l a b o u r a s p a r t of a b a r g a i n so fundamental t o

t h e i r e x i s t e n c e a s sellers of l a b o u r power t h a t i t s o v e r a l l r a t i o n a l e

went unquestioned. True, a s t h e Branch Manager p o i n t e d o u t , h i s employees

f a i l e d t o t a k e t o t a l r c s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e outcome of t h e i r j o b s ; b u t

t h i s r e f w s a l was not based on any e x p l i c i t r e s i s t a n c e t o t h e s u r r e n d e r i n g

of labour t o an e x p r o p r i a t i n g employer, b u t simply on t h e assessment

t h a t any s u r v e i l l a n c e of work beyond a c e r t a i n p o i n t was not what they

were paid f o r .

On worker knowledge, workers were indeed c y n i c a l l y aware b o t h t h a t they

knew more about t h e j o b than management and a l s o t h a t management was n o t

i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e i r knowledge, indeed j e a l o u s l y guarded t h e i r own "expert-

ise". B u t t h i s r e c o g n i t i o n was n o t accompanied by any i n t e n s e resentment,

nor was i t a t any time a c a t a l y s t f o r o v e r t r e s i s t a n c e a g a i n s t management.

Rather, such r e a l i t i e s were accepted w i t h a c a s u a l r e s i g n a t i o n , an a i r of

"What e l s e can you expect". Although workers were well aware t h a t in some

a r e a s "we run t h i s place", any d e s i r e t o t a k e i t over was f a r from being

on t h e agenda.

F i n a l l y , a s w e saw in d i s c u s s i o n s with management, even among t h e m o s t

combative o f shop stewards and t h e workgroups c o n s t i t u t i n g most of an i r -

r i t a n t t o management, what was a t i s s u e was n o t any s t r u g g l e f o r "power"

o r "control" b u t simply what t h e managers defined a s "personal gain" i e ,

on t h e whole, money. When d r i v e r s i n s i s t e d on e x t r a o v e r t i m e f o r being

k e p t w a i t i n g by t h e garage, what they were looking f o r was overtime, n o t

a chance t o s c o r e a g a i n s t management or t h e foreman. As we saw, t h e Wem-

b l e y workforce's former f o r t r e s s - l i k e p o s i t i o n was based more on t h e s t r a t -

e g i c s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e branch f o r t h e region, and t h e o v e r a l l l e v e l s of

p r o f i t a b i l i t y involved i n t r a n s p o r t i n g gas, than on any c o h e r e n t plan f o r

overwhelming management with worker power. The lack o f any such plan was,

of course, p a r t l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e p o s i t i o n t h e Wembley workers now

found themselves in. B u t i t remains important t o r e c o g n i s e t h a t workers

a c t e d i n t h e p a s t , and s t i l l a c t , because of immediate economic p r e s s u r e s

and n o t a s p a r t of any p o l i t i c a l s t r u g g l e f o r "control".

What we appear t o be l e f t w i t h , then, i s a bleak and f r u i t l e s s economism.

B u t i t i s economism, and i t is important t o recognise i t f o r what i t i s .

Once we do so, i t may be p o s s i b l e t o acknowledge and p i c k o u t t h e p o l i t -

 - 293-
i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s and p o t e n t i a l of such e x i s t i n g responses by workers,

a s w a s attempted i n Chapters 4 and 5 of t h i s t h e s i s . B u t while labour

p r o c e s s writers continue t o assume t h a t workers e r e i n t e r e s t e d i n

t h i n g s they a r e n o t i n f a c t i n t e r e s t e d i n , t h e s t r u g g l e s of workers

l i k e t h o s e a t Landis 6 Gyr and BOC Wembley w i l l remain unrecognised, or

a t l e a s t misunderstood.
 CWMER EIGHT

Conclusions

The arguments w i t h i n t h i s t h e s i s have f a l l e n i n t o t h r e e main

groups: a c r i t i q u e of e x i s t i n g l a k u r process t h e o r y , p a r t i c u l a r l y

t h e c o n c e p t of "control"; t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a n a l t e r n a t i v e

a n a l y s i s of t h e s p e c i f i c a l l y c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r process, c e n t r e d on

t h e r e l a t i o n of e x p l o i t a t i o n ; and a t h e o r y of r e s i s t a n c e and

c o n s c i o u s n e s s w i t h i n t h e l a b o u r process i n which these economic

categories are emphasised.

T h e o r e t i c a l Arguments

I n t h i s c o n c l u d i n g chapter w e shall review t h e arqments i n t u r n ,

c o n t i n u i n g w i t h a n attempt t o summarise them i n terms of t h e c e n t r a l

t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t s c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n t h e t h e s i s . h'e shall then

assess t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n of the empirical data p r e s e n t e d w i t h i n t h e

t h e s i s t o t h e t h e o r e t i c a l hypotheses. F i n a l l y , w e attempt to look t o

t h e f u t u r e i n t e n s of b o t h the "objective" and " s u b j e c t i v e " developments

w i t h i n t h e l a b o u r process which have been examined i n t h e t h e s i s a s a

whole.

( i ) C r i t i q u e of t h e C r i t i q u e s

I n our i n t r o d u c t o r y chapter w e s a w t h a t t h e "labour p r o c e s s debate"

of t h e l a s t decade or 50 has c o n s i s t e d mostly of criticisms of

Bravesman (1974). Braveman is l a u d e d for h a v i n g p l a c e d t h e c o n c e p t

of " t h e l a b o u r process" back on t h e agenda of e x p l o r a t i o n s of Work,

and i n this s e n s e i t i s i m p l i c i t t h a t a Marxist approach to t h e s t u d y

of work i s seen as b o t h welcome a n d i n n o v a t o r y . A t t h e same time,

&ever, fundamental criticisms of Bravemm's a p p r o a c h a r e made

which, w e have argued i n o u r own c r i t i q u e of these p o s t - B r a v e m n

arguments, i n t h e i r c o n t e n t a n d i m p l i c a t i o n s appear to c a n c e l o u t

much of t h e Wandsn" to which t h e i r a u t h o r s profess to ascribe.

 295-

I n itself the simultaneous embracing of and criticism of h r x

is, of course, no crime; i n fact i t can be s a i d to have been the

lifeblood of the d e v e l o p e n t of Elarxisn and a l l other fonns of

critical social theory. In this case, hcwever, w h a t w e have arwed

throughout the thesis fo be a c r u c i a l "absence11 in c u r r e n t labour

process theory i s the f a i l u r e . w h e t h e r d e l i b e r a t e or otherwise, t o

apply major, p a r t i c u l a r l y economic, categories of Elarxist theory to

tbe a n a l y s i s of t h e s t r u c t u r e and management of work a t t h e p o i n t of

production.

An h p o r t a n t and i n many ways valid reason for t h i s , as acknmledged

i n Chapter (kre, is the postwar reaction amongst Marxists a g a i n s t

~*cconanic
determinism", itself a response both to Stalinism and the

r e j e c t i o n of revolutionary ideas by a comparatively affluent Western

working class, w h i c h has coalesced i n the movement kKvn as Western

Mzxism''. A c r i t i q u e of many of the ideas represented by t h i s m v e m n t ,

which are seen as leading away fmm the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of c e n t r a l

amtradictims of c a p i t a l i s t class r e l a t i o n s , i s offered i n Chapters

One and Five. Fbr our purposes, the importance of these ideas i s that

they are arwed to have c e n t r a l l y influenced c u r r e n t theories of the

labour process and thus to have had a parallel influence within this

area i n concentrating a n a l y s i s alwst exclusively on the superstructural

- political and ideological - aspects of capitalist production r e l a t i o n s .

m i s concern w i t h the superstructural i s echoed, w e have arwed, w i t h i n
c r i t i q u e s of Bravenmn by a corresponding emphasis on the subjective

i n the analysis of worker response w h i c h is shown i n m y of its

expressions to echo thc -erns of an earlier "industrial S o j a o p y " .

The continued awphasis on the subjective experience of work (reminiscent

of such themes as "job satisfaction". Worker m ~ t i v a t i o n 'and
~ ~

m a u n e r i t e vorsion of "alienation"), the repr~rchof Brave- for

 -2%-

paying i n s u f f i c i e n t heed to the character of social r d a t i o n s h i p s a t

work, and the unquestioncd p r i o r i t i s a t i o n of the q u a l i t a t i v e w n t e n t

of work, a l l echo themes CQmwn w i t h i n t r a d i t i o n a l i n d u s t r i a l sociology.

Most of the major themes w i t h i n t h e labour process debate so far can,

then, w e have argued, be r e l a t e d t o one or o t h e r of these theoretical

currents. The pervasive focussing within t h e debate on i s s u e s of

h i n a t i o n and SubordiMtiOn i n managment-worker relations, for

e-ple, reflects the general concern within Western hBrxisa with

superstructural i s s u e s , w h i l e analyses of w o r k e r response i n terms

of hegemonic mnsensus (such as those of Burawoy (1979, 1985) and

Lazonick (1983) are a more sophisticated extension of the same

theoretical perspective. The equally w i d e l p s h a r e d assumption

that what i s primarily a t stake w i t h i n the labour process are i s s u e s

relatcd t o the q u a l i t a t i v e content of work and workers' response to

such i s s u e s raises the question of p r e c i s e l y i n w h a t respect t h e

debate has gone beyond i n d u s t r i a l sociology. p a r t i c u l a r l y given the

ooncern of sow r e c e n t writers with constructing typologies of work,

and the increasing trend towards contingency theory.

Tht i s s u e s w h i c h the contanporary labour pmcess debate has raisrd,

around both of these trro thcontical a x s , a n neither unimportant nor

i r r e l e v a n t . What is lacking - and this thesis has been a n attmpt to

redress that lack - i s any clear attempt to locate such i s s u e s w i t h i n
the frammmrk of the system within w h i c h they are i n fact located -
that is, the capitalist mode of production. Such a location would

m u i r e a further a p l o a t i o n of the inpacts of that mode of production

on the labour process i t s e l f ; and t h i s , w i t h our discussion of,

for example, the i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n and abstraction of l a b u r on one hand,

and the centring of worker response on a reward-effort d s , w e have

attempted to do. The o\nrwhelming anphsis within labour process

theory so far, however. has been on a content-related view of w o r k

 -297-

which e f f e c t i v e l y disregards the economic Context, i n terms of the

overriding pressure for valorisation. within w h i c h t h a t work takes

place. As such i t has been criticised as expressing a profoundly

ahistorical view of the labour process which i s perhaps m o s t c l e a r l y

represented in the use of t h e term %ontrolft.

The theme of "control", as w e s a w (Chapter Z ) , w h i l e widely used by

labour process theorists, has been defined and specified by very few

of than (though Cressey and MacInnes and Storey, f o r example, see

the need for such a d e f i n i t i o n ) . A t the same time, the concept

appears to represent a c r u c i a l aspect, the nervecentre almost, of post-

Braverman perspectives on the labour process. In our second chapter

w e set out to chart the dimensions of this concept as used by a range

of labour process w r i t e r s . Its use was broken dmm i n t o three major

areas: the t r a n s l a t i o n of labour power i n t o labour, t h e nature of

social r e l a t i a n s h i p s within the labour process, and the c r e a t i v i w of

labour.

Each of these groups of a r w n t s , w h i l e i n their own terms inaccurate,

we have maintained, i n r e f l e c t i n g the real of

M~UFS managerial strategy

and worker response, more importantly raise fundamenw questions as

to our perspectives on and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e c a p i t a l i s t labour

process. u l t i m a t e l y a l l three strands of the %mtrol*~

approach reflect

a concretely pmduction- oriented view of t h e labour p r o a s s (pmduction

of use- rather than a x d u n ~ ~ l u which

e ) iQlores the histnriUl

context i n which t h a t production takcs place.

The view that labour has to be coerced o u t of labour-per once

purchased, for atample, suggzsts first of all t h a t the use-value of

labour-pavor continues to reside with t h e worker, i n terms of the

worker's freedaa to create useful o b j e c t s (as in a "natural" labour

p-ss i n which labour simply i n t e r a c t s with the -s of p d u c t i m ,

which are i t s objects). Within capitalism, &ever, the

 -293-

use-value of labour-power is the creation of surplus value - that

i s w h a t labour i s for. As such, labour takes p l a c e w i t h i n a s t r u c t u r e

shaped by t h e objective of v a l o r i s a t i o n i n which, as I.8rx indicates

p a r t i c u l a r l y with his concept of the real subordination of labour, the

r e l a t i o n s h i p between the labourer and the means of production i s

c r u c i a l l y reversed so t h a t the labourer becomes t h e instrument of t h e

means of production rather than t h e other way round.

In everyday terms t h i s means, as w e have argued throughout the thesis,

t h a t most workers have l i t t l e choice but to work up to certain levels

of i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n ef labour. W h a t is more, as w e have also a r w e d

throughout. worker resistancc i s concentrated not a t the point of

t r a n s i t i o n from labour paver to labour but p r e c i s e l y a t the point a t

w h i c h such levels of i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n are c o n t e s t e d . In o t h e r words,

r e s i s t a n c e is not to the alieMtiOII of labour, b u t to i t s i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n

beyond the contested point; a point itself defined p a r t l y i n terms of

what i t i s possible for workers to do and pare by w h a t they regard

as involved in the sale of their labour p e r as a comod~

'ty.

This second point, the s t a t u s of labour powor as a ' t y , has

increasingly ken q u e s t i d by recent writers a s part of the overall

p r i o r i t i s a t i o n of ideological and political factors i n the a n a l y s i s

of t h e labxu p-ss. As we argue i n chapters 2 and 3, th sale of

' t y i s i n fact central to tre w hole relationship,
labour pomr as a ~~RWCII

itself the f~fomdaticm'*of the a p i t a l i s t mode of production, of the

c r e a t i o n of surplus value; and it is thc role ef subsistence (the price

of labour ptwer) i n rehktion to defining t h i s surplus t h a t workers

i m p l i c i t l y rccoQlise i n t h i r conception of 'Working for a living".

Relationships which have been viewed by labour process writers i n t h e

wake of Braveman as revolving primarily round the exercise of

domination and subordimtion i n the creation of use-values can thus

be seen from an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t perspective once the p r i o r i t y of

exchange-value c r e a t i o n under capitalism is brought i n t o the picture.

Relations of domination and subordination ( a s w e l l a s t h e creationof

use-values) exist, after a l l , i n class Society, and this is

one reason why w e have called the post-Braverman perspective on the

l a b o u r process 'fahistorical".

Another reason i s encapsulated i n the q h a s i s of writers such as

for example Cressey and EgcInnes, w h o s e work i s discussed a t length

i n Chapter 2, on the creative p o t e n t i a l of labour. This i n t r i n s i c

c r e a t i v i t y i s s a i d to pose a c e n t r a l contradiction (one cited also

by Storey and a s s e n t e d t o by L i t t l e r and Salaman) between capitalist

p a t t e r n s of "efficiency'l such as hierarchies and d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of

function, and the c r e a t i v e i n i t i a t i v e s w h i c h are both possible and i n

fact e s s e n t i a l for workers to a m t n h t e to the labour process.

W i t h i n t h i s argument "efficiency" i n the orpanisation of work and

production t a s been i d e n t i f i e d w i t h "control" i n the repressive

political sense, a r e l a t i a n which is held s o l e l y to emerge fmm the

overall political r e l a t i o n s of -nation and subordination which

c h a r a c t e r i s e capitalism. A s w e have argued in Uapter 2, this make5

tbe foxms of f k o n t r o l " cited by Cressey and h@cInnesinexpliwble

i n their mvn r i g h t , apart fmp as instruments for thc rcprcssion of

the worwOra per se-

In Contrast, within t h i s t h e s i s w e have tried ta d r a w a t t e n t i o n ta a

s p e c i f i c a l l y capitalist d p of ffefficimcy'f in which r-ts of the

o r m n i s a t i o n and intansifiiortion of labour like d e t a i l e d t a s k

different.ht.ien may arguably be "Flloglcal" i n principle but rake perfect

 -.300

sense i n r e l a t i o n to the economic o b j e c t i v e s of capitalisan. tiere,

despite the contritrution which q u a l i t a t i v e w o r k e r knowledge could

and should make to t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n of production, t h e emphasis i s

on speed, o u t p u t , i n t e r c h a n g e a b i l i t y , s t a n d a r d i s a t i o n . Work i s

atomised and abstract r a t h e r than r i c h i n complex, integra*& and

variable c o n t e n t ; t h e criteria of e f f i c i e n t production under

c a p i t a l i s m are q u a n t i t a t i v e , n o t q u a l i t a t i v e .

I n p u t t i n g this argument we have reversed David Gordon's dictum, also

discussed i n Chapter 2, that e f f i c i e n c y under c a p i t a l i s m is a s s e s s e d

i n t h e q u a l i t a t i v e terns of haw e f f e c t i v e l y production processes

themselves reproduce c a p i t a l i s t r e l a t i o n s of production. I n c o n t r a s t

w e have t r i e d to emphasise the overwhelming p r e s s u r e s emanating from

w i t h i n c a p i t a l i s t r e l a t i o n s of production themselves i n o r d a i n i n g

the measurement, timing, i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n and a b s t r a c t i o n of l a b o u r

w h i c h together make up the dimensions of w h a t these writers have

called "control".

What w e have criticised as t h e a h i s t o r i c i s m of an approach which

f o c u s s e s on aspects of production r e l a t i o n s not specific to capitalism

also raises a more fundamental p o i n t about the role of c o n t r a d i c t i o n .

Briefly, w h i l e this p o i n t w i l l be discussed i n more d e t a i l below, i t can

be said that the concern w i t h the productive, q u a l i t a t i v e c o n t e n t of w o r k

reflects a location of c o n t r a d i c t i o n o u t s i d e -se m n t r a d i c t i o n s which

are i n t e r n a l to capitalisan. I n other w o r d s , rather than systauatic contrad-

i c t i o n s , contradictions between systems ( t h a t of capitalist, i d e n t i f i e d

i n a primarily political sense, and some system i n v o l v i n g a "natural"

l a b o u r p-ss which avoids the political c o n s t r a i n t s of c a p i t a l i s m ) are

being looked a t . And this i n i t s t u r n a d d s any c e n t r a l e x a d n a t i o n of how

the c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n t e r n a l to capitalim i n fact undermine and surface

w i t h i n t h a t system. T h i s p o i n t w i l l , as w e have said, be explored i n

 -331-

more d e t a i l after w e have reviewed the arguments w i t h i n this t h e s i s

on t h e nature of i n t e r n a l ecoIlomic contradictions w i t h i n capital.ism

and t h e i r expression i n a r m s of worker response to the labour process.

(ii)Valorisation and S x p l o i t a t i o n

In o u r second set of arguments w e have s o u g h t , i n c o n t r a s t to the

predominance of itcontrol" arguments within the labour pIocess debate,

t o advance a theory of the s p e c i f i c a l l y c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r process.

As w e have argued above, theories of " m n t r o l " have tended to leave

a s i d e the question of hwi the impact of economic processes such as

v a l o r i s a t i o n affects t h e labour process; and indeed any s t r u c t u r a l

a n a l y s i s , i n s o f a r a s i t i s recognised, i s criticised f o r ignoring the

complexities of social r e l a t i o n s h i p s with i n the labour process. L i t t l e r

and Salaman, for example, criticise Braverman fran the point of view

that Throughout Bravernun's' a n a l y s i s there runs a h i g h l y necham'stic,

d e t e r m i n i s t i c strain w h e r e b y relationships, once established as

necessary, are regarded as s a t i s f a c t o r i l y understood and explained.

Braveman i s not interested...in questions of hov these t h e o r e t i c a l l y

required relationships are a c t u a l l y organised and structured i n

practice" ( L i t t l e r and Salaman. 1982. 251). Later i n t h e 8ame paper

these a u t b r s s p e c i f i c a l l y disallav any notion of e capitalist labour

process.

mt w h a t we are i n t e r e s t e d i n , and have tried to tackle i n this

-
thesis, i s the question of bau these Y h e o r e t i c a l l y required relationships"

a c t u a l l y influence and condition hov r e l a t i o n s h i p s a t uork are "orpadsed

and s t r u c t u r e d i n practice". An e s s e n t i a l task thus becomes the

reversal of the r e l a t i o n s h i p i n which c a p i t a l i s t r e l a t i o n s of

production a n seen as important, insofar as they are specified a t a l l ,

p r h r i l y as c o n s t i t u t i n g a framework of political pressures of

dopination and subordination, t o o n e i n which the i n t r i n s i c workings

of capitalism as a system of production are seenzas c e n t r a l t o that

system's foundation, i t s labour process.

I t i s f o r this reason that i n our third chapter w e turn& to t h e

e x p s i t i o n of some c e n t r a l p r i n c i p l e s of Flatxist ecanomics, a source

which, as w e pointed o u t , has been markedly neglected i n mst merit

w r i t i n g s on t h e labour process. Were i t s i n p l y for the purpose of

textual exegesis this exercise would be, q u i t e l i t e r a l l y , academic.

m r , the a n a l y s i s of the c a p i t a l i s t labour process contained

not only i n Chapter 7 of Capital but also i n the pore recently-

t r a n s l a t e d Resultate ("discovered" i n the year of the publication of

Labour and Monopol y Qpital) p r e s e n t s crucial i n s i g h t s w h i c h a t the

very least should not be i q o r e d by those Who have aligned themselves

with the tern tflabmr processtt.

Chief among these i s the l o c a t i o n of valorisation, expansion of value,

as t h e overriding objective of the capitalist d e of production, and

the impact of t h i s objective i n terms of a reversal of t h e mlationship

between the means of pro&ction and the labourer. W e have a l r e a d y

r e f e r r e d t o t h i s reversal i n discussing t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between

labour and labour pmwer; i t s significance, or a t least t h e a q i f i c a n c e

of i t s r e c o g l i t i o n , lies i n a chanped perspective in which the

dimensions of the labour process can be seen as s t r u c t u r e d by the drive

f o r v a l o r i s a t i o n rather than being continually Wecrooited", as i t w e r e ,

i n an ongoing process of reworking the relationship between "mn" and

'kature" anew. The s t r u c t u r e s of C a p i t a l i s m - p a r t i c u l a r l y i n their

physical fom under the real subordination of labour - can be seen
as providing an e x i s t i n g context i n t o which a l l the s h i f t i n g and

changing r e l a t i o n s of tcclmologY, work organisation, and maMgPwnt-

worker relations must f i t , or in terms of w h i c h they are defined.

 -333-

We have a l r e a d y p o i n t e d o u t that this c r u c i a l shift i n perspective

i s one on which our w h o l e thesis i s prernissed. I n Chapter 3 we set

o u t f i r s t of a l l to provide a more d e t a i l e d accountof t h e economic

theory on v a l o r i s a t i o n involved i n t h i s argument, and t h e n went on

to clcplore i t s implicationsin terns of a twofold a n a l y s i s centred on

the key r e l a t i o n s h i p of e x p l o i t a t i o n ; the a n a l y s i s emphasised onthe

one hand the dimensions of the labour process associated w i t h thr

extraction of surplus value, and on the other those r e l a t e d to the

d e t e d n a t i o n and contestation of slbsistencc. A c e n t r a l argument

of the thesis w a s t h a t these two aspects frequently meet anti are

integrated a t t h e heart of the labour process i n the effort/reward

nexus.

'Ilre i s s u e of the impact of t h e v a l o r i s a t i o n objective on managerial

organisation of the labour process, then, w a s taken up i n terns of the

phase of real subordination of l a b u r on which capitalism e n t e r s when its

methods of production becane adequate to the requirements of this c e n t r a l

objective; i n other words, when the d e w l o p e n t o f machinery, etc., enables

c a p i t a l i s t s to extract relative rather than absolute surplus value from

therorkforcc. This i s s u e i s itself approached i n terns of the overriding

need of capitalists to reduce s o c i + l l y necessary labour time i n order to

cupete. reduction of the time necessary to produce a given 'tY

a d the mrresponding a b i l i t y to extract a r e l a t i v e l y greater.-t of

surplus vrlue fmm w o r k e r s within the aame amount of time generates an

i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of labour which w e s a w as a c e n t r a l f e a t u r e of workers'

experience of the capitalist labour pmcess - again, one i n which i n these

t e r n s appears to have ken neglected by current labour process theorists.
In c o n t r a s t , w e have attempted to sha* h m this i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n under

the real subordination of labour has achieved still more concentrated

expression i n the techniques of s c i e n t i f i c managenen t , Of w h i c h Marx

a t the t h e of w r i t i n g his Resultate and developing the concept of

real subordination of labour (which itself, as w e argued, has been

Widely misinterpreted by labour process theorists i n terns of political

r e l a t i o n s of domination and subordination) could not have been a w a r e .

S c i e n t i f i c management, too, with its d i s s e c t i o n , a t a n i s a t i o n and timed

measurement of work p a t t e r n s , could be seen to give rise to an increasing

r e a l i s a t i o n within production itself of the p r i n c i p l e of abstract labour

which Marx s a w as c h a r a c t e r i s i n g cowodl

' t y production. Same support for

t h i s arguably "idealistlf p o s i t i o n was obtained fraa writers such as

Kay, Brave- and Gleicher, and Paul W i l l i s i n his important book

Learning to Labour adds an i n t e r e s t i n g footnote:

'We saw...that, to a l l i n t e n t s and purposes, 'the lads' do not

b a s i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e between particular concrete types of work

which they regard as being open to them...There i s near indifference

to the particular work f i n a l l y chosen Y) long as i t falls within c e r t a i n

limits defined, not t e c h n i c a l l y , but s o c i a l l y and culturally...I want

to suggest here that this perspective...can be understood i n t h e l i g h t

of a real penetration of the role of labour i n the modern s t r u c t u r e

of capitalist pro&ction...The inner logic of capitalism is that a l l

concrete forms of labour are standardised i n that t h e y all umtain
the p o t e n t i a l for the e x p l o i t a t i o n of a b s t r a c t labour" (Willis, 1978,

133). This leads +n to a discussion of the abstraction Qf l a b o u r

w i t h i n pmQlction itself in.which W i l l i s notes that "The whole

t h r u s t of modern techniques of organisation and methods such as t i m e

and motionstudy is, in one important sense, to narmw the ~ . p

between concrete and abstract labour" (136). Further strands of

 -%-

W i l l i s ' argument a s t o the non-differentiation of labour are discussed

i n Chapter 4.

The location of this frrealffa b s t r a c t i o n of labour a t the h e a r t of

the manufacturing labour process is a key proposition w i t h i n our

thesis. I n making the p o i n t w e are attempting to shw that '%ylorist"

p r i n c i p l e s of wrk organisation, r a t h e r than representing primarily

attempts to repress thewrkforce, are i n fact a n expression of the

ongoing logic of c a p i t a l i s t developnent and thus t r u l y , as haverman

p u t s it, "the explicit verbalisation of t h e c a p i t a l i s t mode of

production*' (Braverman, 1974, 86). This p o i n t is made also i n Chapter

1.

What this i n terms of the d a i l y experience of the labour process

for the workforce i s that forms of the technical developwent and

organisation of prodrction structure their work in such a way that

-
i t s form, geared towards the maximisation of surplus value, becomes

more important thanits &tent. I t i b as thaugh work takes place w i t h i n

a skeletal construct of interchangeable and t i p h l y measured prototypes

each themselves r e c o n s t i t u t e d from the atomised elements of labour

charted i n work measurement. The impact of such a b s t r a c t i o n and

quantification of labour, itself shaped by the incessant drive for

valorisation on the part of c a p i t a l i s t mnagePnnt, i s that for workers

too the m n i n g cf their work lies i n its q u a n t t i c a t i o n i n toms

of t h e linked variables of effort and reward.

In looking a t the ways i n which the overall objective of Mlorisaltion

structures the managerial Organisation of the labour process. then,

w e have emphasised as key aspects the i n t e n d f i c a t i o n and a b s t r a c t i o n

of labour and a t t c n p t d tobring o u t the relation of both of these

to the developnent of s c i e n t i f i c management. he nature of the

experience of such a b s t r a c t i o n and i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n f o r thewrkforce

is examined more c l o s e l y i n Chapter 4, which i s a survey of published

eolpirical accounts of work. Here the i s s u e of the l e v e l s of

i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of work a t w h i c h workers resist i s charted more

s p e c i f i c a l l y i n terms of the managerial o b j e c t i v e s of machine-like

a p p l i c a t i o n , consistency and p r e d i c t a b i l i t y on the part of the workforce.

I n concluding our argument e n exploitation as the c e n t r a l relationsljip

i n t h e capitalist labour process, hauever, we went on to look a t i t s

s u b s i s t e n c e r e l a t e d aspects.

l h i s section began w i t h a defence of the labour theory of value on

the g m d s of the unique c a p a c i t y of labour to produce surplus, and

went on to shau hav this surplus i s e s s e n t i a l l y susbsistence- r e a l t e d

- determined i n terms of t h e m l a t i o n of paid to unpaid labour time.

As such, w e armed, subsistence i s dontinually contested within

c a p i t a l i n a , and the forms this contestation takerrange fran the

cheapening of labour power through d e g k i l l i n g (though t h i s i s not

d e s k i l l i n g ' s primary purpose) to direct a t m p t s t o reduce the value

of labour power w h i c h ccmnonly, w e argued, take place w i t h i n the labour

pzvcess itself.

I n p u t t i n g the p o i n t of v i e w that subsistence i s s u e s are materialised

within the labour p r e c e s s as arch, our argument ( a s we adarauledge)

g w s solwwhat beyond Ma=, who makes c l e r t h a t the determination of

subsistence belongs to the sphere of c i r c u l a t i o n and the market. I t

seems t o us, hauever. t o be an e s s e n t i a l aspect of r e l a t i o n s within

the a p i t a l i s t labour process t h a t i s s u e s of effort and reward are

d a i l y fought out as part of the very s t r u c t u r e of work. N o t only,

as w e argued, is s u b d s t a r c e used as a n 5 n c e n t i v e " byyaanagemmt i n

order to extract more effort o u t of the workforce, but also, as w e s a w

in Chapter 4, ismes ef tted labour and worker reward are frequently

interlocked i n such a r a y that t h e h l e Wasuroment and organisation

 -337-

of work i s linked to a given l e v e l of subsistence. When the o u t p u t

of t h e wrkers i n t h e factories studied by Fullert and Westwood fell

belm a c e r t a i n l e v e l , the "ratchet" of theizpay slipped,too, to an

inferior grade. In addition w e saw c l e a r l y i n e u r cam case s t u d i e s hckv

'perforname", i n t h e f i r s t example. and the overtime/manning nexus.

i n t h e seoond, linked i n w i t h subsistence i n t h e o r m i s a t i o n of the

labour process. Given that, f i r s t l y , the determination of s u b s i s t e n c e

is t h u s s t r u c t u r e d i n t o the organisation of t h e labour process in these

and many other i n s t a n c e s , and secondly t h a t workers themselves echo

mmagement i n seeing their work in q u a n t i t a t i v e and value-oriented

terms, i t fellws that these tendencies, w h i c h are an e q r e s s i o n of t h e

dimensions of capitalist r e l a t i o n s of production, hemselves reflect

the c o n t r a d i c t i o n s i n h e r e n t in those r e l a t i o n s . And indeed the corollary

of our argument on exploitation i s that w o r k e r response and resistance

c e n t r e on the emergence of the c e n t r a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n between s u b s i s t e n c e

and suzplus value, paid and unpaid labour, a t tbe heart of the l a b o u r

process itself. Our next set of argrrments deals w i t h t h e relations

between this e o n t r a d i c t i o n , or group of c o n t r a d i c t i o n s , and the nature

of w o r k i n g c l a s s consciourness and struggle.

iii) Acquiescence and R e s i s t a n c e i n t h e Capitalist Labour Process

W e have d l i b e r a t e l y included the theme of acquiescence" i n introducing

t h i s f i n a l set of ar-ts, because i n c o n s i d e r i n g the nature of rrorker

response to the labour process the question of w h a t workers do m)t resist

is seen as equally important w i t h w h a t they do. This i s p a r t l y , a s w i t h

previous arguments, inorder to repudiate w h a t seem to us some mistaken

assumptions about the M ~ U Iand

- ~ content of worker resistance, b u t also

i n fact to focus t h e d i s c u s s i o n on the v e r y question of worker

r e s i s t a n c e is m.I t seems to us that i n throwing the fact of

rarker resistance, as i t were, i n t o the W e t h of an o b s t i n a t e Bravenaanian

 -308-

structuralism, w r i t e r s on t h e labour process have i n effect ignored

the need to explore the dimensions of such r e s i s t a n c e and have in many

ways taken f o r granted that i t revolves around t h e i s s u e s w i t h which

they have been preoccupied, i e the content of work and its associated

political and social relationships.

In focussing on the question of t h e actual i s s u e s involved i n w o r k e r

r e s i s t a n c e and acquiescence, then, w e undertook f i r s t of a l l , i n

Chapter 4. an empiridaa survey of published case s t u d i e s (our own being

preLented i n Chapters 6 and 7 ) i n order both to i d e n t i f y these i s s u e s

and to explore the n a t u r e of workers' everyday experience of the

labur process i n r e l a t i o n t o them.

Chr o v e r a l l finding, w h i c h accorded with the theoretical hypotheses

advanced earlier i n the thesis, w a s t h a t the content of worker response

(and indeed managerial objectives) i n r e l a t i o n to the labour p m e s s

was overwhelmingly econcmistic; and t h a t , w h i l e it might seem a

contradiction i n t e n a s , this applied also to the rationale of uorker

acquiescence. Approaching the material v i a a c r i t i q u e of the use by

labour process w r i t e r s of Goodrich's concept of a " f r o n t i e r of Control",

we shated that those areas of W.scipline and mnagement" which according

to Goodrich himself w e r e seen m t t p n l y by management tut by most workers

as be@ the %orderline" of their m concerns, w e r e not i n fact the

i s s u e s primarily contested by workers.

That workers and management a r e e n , by both %ides**,

as having

separate spheres of i n t e r e s t (or, i n Haworth and Ramie's phrase,

differing "universes*') i s a r q e c i i n more detail i n the following

chapter when we consider workers' frpraglpatic acceptance" of the e m d c

s t r u c t u r e i n w h i c h they f i n d thsmselves. Maanwhile our i n i t i a l survey

of the findings of mr
d s and s c u l l i o n ' s detailed series of case

studies i n 'Ihe Social Organisation of I n d u s t r i a l ODnflict established

 -307-

the primacy of an effort/reward nexus for workers' struggles which the

examinationof f u r t h e r case s t u i d e s would subsequently confirm. Perhaps

more fundamentally, t h e ewmples provided by Edwards and Scullion also

indicated further c o n t r a d i c t i o n s l y i n g a t the mots of such struggles:

f i r s t of a l l the i n c e s s a n t e f f o r t of management to shift the balance

of the effort-reward r e l a t i o n s h i p i n the d i r e c t i o n of g r e a t e r productc

i v i t y , even w h e r e this disturbed a r e l a t i v e l y "stable" p a t t e r n of

i n d u s t r i a l relations and was thus counterproductive (a phenomemm s e e n

c l e a r l y i n our own first case study); and secondly the undermining of

workers' ( p a r t i c u l a r l y shop stewards') cum acceptance of t h e legitimacy

of managerial noms of production by a c t i o n i n defence of their own

ixmnediate i n t e r e s t s - a syndrome referred to by t3wards and Scullion

as %on-directed conflict". Both these s i g n i f i c a n t l y contradictory

p a t t e r n s of managerial aml worker response w e r e discussed i n more

detail i n Chapter 5 .

The a n p i r i c a l material which f o l l a r e d our amsideration of timuads

and s c u l l i o n , which was derived mainly from three case s t u d i e s of

women f a c t o r y workers(a1though "male" material f m Working for %rd

and Nichols and Beynon's Living With Capitalism is also used) was

examined under the headings of workers' experience of t h e i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n

and abstraction of labour, f o l l w e d by the the-mne y n e w s and m p l e s

of overt resistance by workers. I t was found that, i n correspondence

w i t h our theoretical a r g m e n t , s u b s t a n t i a l amounts of the case study

material Qalt w i t h the c e n t r a l i t y of the incessant pressure for

output on rrorkers' experience of the labour process, and that i t is t h i s

dimension of effort, rather than the substantive w n t e n t of their work,

w h i c h constructrd its meaning for the uorkers concerned. However,

porhaps t h e key finding consisted i n the riarous interlocking of

mrk measurment and production t a r p e t s with the levels of reward

received by workers, m i s m e discussed i n &?ail above. In the

 -310-

Same way, n o m s of production w e r e c o n t i n u a l l y raised so that the

objective of mrudmisdng surplus value was furthered by a simultaneous

i n c r e a s e i n productivity and decrease i n reuani.

The effort/reward nexus, then, was defined as c e n t r a l to workers'

experience of the l a b o u r process, underlined by their precarious

r e l a t i o n s h i p to subsistence itself; and, f i n a l l y , the same immanent

conflict between effort and reward was s e e n as giving rise to those

instances of o v e r t resistance, such as "downers" and strikes, w h i c h

are recounted in the case studies. Ultimately, if Overt conflict

occurred, i t was seen to be over olch % o t t o P l i n e * ' i s s u e s a s pay

awards, r a t e - c u t t i n g under the bonus system, productivity d e a l s -

issues around w h i c h workers had no choice but to resist if they w e r e

to maintain their e k i s t i n g standards of l i v i n g or even, i n the case

of our cwn f i r s t case study, t h e i r jobs. The resistance may not always

have beensuccessful, hut it w a s one into which w o r k e r s w e r e prowlled

by t h e very s t a t u s of their w o r k as the use-value of a s a l e a b l e caumodi t Y *

And, a s w e argued i n the next chapter, i t i s precisely the necessity
of this r e s i s t a n c e urd i t s mots i n the subsistence-related aspects

of q l o i t a t i o n that lends it a political p o t e n t i a l and resonance

not apparent, be- a first glance, i n b conception of "control"-

related resistance propounded by w r i t e r s on the labour process.

that me sought to define

I t was this 'politicill s i d e of e c 0 d s ~ P

i n our next chapter. ?he pufpose of the cbpter, expandin9 on a theme

a g a i n c e n t r a l to t h e thesis as a whole, w a s to 90 beyond the p o s i t i o n .

implied within the labour process debate that worker struggles are to

be taken s e r i o u s l y only insofar a s they w e overtly v p o l i t i c a l l t and

to shcw tktt s t r u g g l e s w h i c h are i n r e a l i t y economistic i n fact have

a fundamental politicrl meaning. W e ret about this task in two ways:

f i r s t l y via an a r m n t as to the e s s e n t i a l l y dynanic --re of

worker struggles and their r e l a t i o n to class consciousness, and secondly

 -311 -
through l o c a t i n g , i n c o n t r a s t to the Western Marxist emphasis on hegemony

and s i m i l a r s u p e r s t r u c t u r a l c o n s t r a i n t s , the c r u c i a l undermininq role of

c o n t r a d i c t i o n s a t t h e base and t h e i r expression i n w r k e r s ' struggles.

The f i r s t argument w a s approached through a critical a n a l y s i s of the

g e n e r a l l y negative view of " e c o n o m i y D t ~ espoused by political and industrial

t h e a r i s t s f r m Lenin Xn What Is To Be Done? t o Goldthorpe and Lockwood i n

t h e i r study of "affluent workers". Both approaches w e r e related to what

was criticised as the static and'mechanisti c model of ifclassconsciousness"

contained in the three- or four-part typologies p u t forward by authors

such as Mann and Giddens; here c e r t a i n ideological preconditions such as

%lass'identity'', "class opposition" and the fullygfledged conception

of an "alternative order" are seen as being n e c d s a r y before workers

can be accounted f u l l y class-conscious.

Such tabulations w e r e criticised a s overlooking the fact t h a t developments

i n class consciousness are engendered by and w i t h i n struggle; and also

t h a t such s t r u d e is an Meven, unpredictable, explosive prmess i n

which apparently irredeemably "parochial1' perspectives on the part of

workers may suddenly expand i n t o a much wider challenge to industrial

or political &nation. To recognise t h i s i s to locate a f u r t h e ?

i m p l i c a t i o n of c r i t i q u e s of %conaninn" stemming frun such alternative

models of fully-fledged class consciousness; t h a t no p o s s i b i l i t y appears

thereby to exist for everyday worker s t r u g g l e s t o break through the

"charmed circle" of r u l i n g c l a s s ideology. It was this assumption that .

we sought to challenge i n the final psrt of t h i s chapter, which dealt

w i t h the "undexminings" i n h e r e n t i n the contradictions of capitalism.

=sed on the postulation of a f'gapte i n consciousness w h e r e m y theorists

have envisaged a positive acceptance of the d a d n a n t ideology, this

a r g u w n t was extended to ikuss on the key concept of "prapoatic

acceptance", the phrase used by Kichael mnn to describe workers'

a t t i t u d e s to overall social i n e q u a l i t i e s , i n i t s a n a l y s i s of the

n a t u r e of w o r k i n p c l a s s consciousness and response. -use in this

perspective workers are n e i t h e r wholly entrapped by or r e j e c t i n g

of r u l i n g c l a s s ideology, b u t l a r g e l y , i n their (ym lives, indifferent

to i t , a space i s created i n t o which the material p r e s s u r e s endemic

w i t h i n those lives can f i n d their e x p r e s s i o n i n acts of resistance.

I n t h i s sense w e have argued that r u l i n g c l a s s ideology and h e p m o n i c

forces, w h i l e c l e a r l y crucial to t h e o p e r a t i o n of a class s o c i e t y , exist

at a different fran the everyday e x p e r i e n c e of c o n t r a d i c t i o n s

w i t h i n c a p i t a l i s m , such as exploitation, w h i c h i n fact c o n t i n u a l l y

undermine. i n their sporadic s u r f a c i n g , j u s t these s u p e r s t r u c t u r a l

elements. C r i t i q u e s of classical b ~ r x i s msuch as those stemning from

A l t h u s s e r a p p e a r . t o r e v e r s e this p o i n t i n their i n s i s t e n c e that

\dse-superstructure. theory i n v o l v e s a c r u d e model of the emnanic base

deterreinin2 the s u p e r s t r u c t u r e . In fact another meaning can he found

for a t h e o r y w h i c h m a i n t a i n s t h e ongoing s i g n i f i c a n c e of the e w n a n i c

r e l a t i o n s i n s o c i e t y through s h a r i n g that these r e l a t i o n s are both

d e f i n i t i o n a l to that s o d e t y ' s mode of production and ar also themselves

e s s e n t i a l l y m n t r a d i c t o r y . I n this way the c o n t i n u i n g "relevance" of

the economic base can be a c k n a r l e d g d t h r o u g h the understanding of haw

the c o n t r a d i c t i o n s of s u r p l u s v a l u e production, most obviously w i t h i n

the l a b o u r process, a c t u a l l y p r e v e n t the untrammelled maintenance of

r u l i n g - c l a r s hegemony-

F i n a l l y , i n seeking theoretical support for a more dialectical alternative

to t h e e s s e n t i a l l y pessimistic models both of "class consciousness"

and hegemonic damination, w e turned t o G r a m s c i . Through c i t i n g G r a m s c i ' s

i n s i g h t s i n t o the %onflicting mnsciousness~~

of the %mmi n the mass"

w e a t t e n p t d both to provide another p o i n t e r to the political s i g n i f i c a n c e

of workers' tpractical a c t i v i t y " md also to go on from this to develop

a concept of lpraxisl* i n which worker o r g a n i s a t i o n and experience are

 -313-

seen a s having, a t least p o t e n t i a l l y , a cumulative effect i n building

a "storehouse" of working-class consciousness. W e concluded this

section w i t h a brief discussion of the much-neglected topic of reformism

and w h a t are again seen as i t s c o n t r a d i c t o r y tendencies and implications.

Empirical "Evidence"

In t h e foregoing w e have attempted t o p r e s e n t the main t h e o r e t i c a l

hypothesis and innovations of this thesis, which can be suimed up as

the argument that e x p l o i t a t i o n rather than "control" is the c e n t r a l

r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e capitalist labour process and that the

c o n t r a d i c t i o n s i n this r e l a t i o n s h i p express themselves i n l'econOllListic"

forms of worker response. W O empirical case s t u d i e s were undertaken

for t h e thesis through which w e hoped t o w l o r e how these hypotheses

might relate t o t h e "real world" of labour and capital. W e shall ncnv

briefly stmimarise-the material gained from these s t u d i e s and attenpt

to assess their confirmation or otherwise of the theoretical arguments.

A s w e s a w i n Chapters 6 and 7 . t h e s t r u c t u r e of and relations

within the labour process of both s t u d i e s revolved around the kind of

labour time/money nexus explored i n the theoretical part of the thesis.

In t h e case of the f i r s t plant, LaneJis & Gyr, the c e n t r a l i s s u e was

t h a t of *perfomaxe"; i n the semnd, Boc Weabley, a contradictory

relationship between manaperial and wrker objectives on overtime and

manning.

Both studies addressed the same basic range of issues; for the

workforce, the immediate impact and meaning of the labour process, levels

of effort, reward and the relationship between them, w i l l i n g n e s s to

work, worker kKvledge and f i n a l l y attitudes tauards resistance; for

management, the nature of managerial objectives, and obstades seen

as posed by the workforce tothese, strategies i n relation to the

o r g a n i s a t i m of the labour process and d e a l i n g w i t h worker resistance,

 -314 -
and f i n a l l y the approach to the whole i s s u e of "control". In the

second case s t u d y this i s s u e was probed rather more deeply i n terms

of t h e a r m n t that wen if management d i d n o t on We surface regard

the i s s u e of k o n t r o l " as important (as has been the case a t wdis &

Gyr) n e v e r t h e l e s s "control" approaches could be regarded as r e l e v a n t

t o t h e t a c k l i n g of worker r e s i s t a n c e . The sequence of e v e n t s f r o m

managerial o b j e c t i v e s , worker response, obstacles to managerial

o b j e c t i v e s and methods of d e a l i n g w i t h those obstacles w a s therefore

gone through w i t h t h e ECC management.

mle both studies w e r e rich i n material, there was l i t t l e i n

either to lead us to s e r i o u s l y q u e s t i o n o u r theoretical p r o p o s i t i o n s ,

and w e would maintain that t h i s w a s - n o t a q u e s t i o n of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .

The predominance of econcanic issues and a t t i t u d e s w a s overwhelming

i n b o t h the p l a n t s v i s i t e d ; i n fact i t would have appared i r r e l e v a n t

or f a n c i f u l to suggest t h a t wrkers w e r e p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h

the q u a l i t a t i v e c o n t e n t of their jobs or management w i t h the political

s u b o r d i n a t i o n of the mrkforce - both counter-propositions which w e

sought to test.

I t was true t h a t , a t Landis b Gyr i n p a r t i c u l a r , such a t t i t u d e s

w e r e e v i d e n t first of a l l i n workers' somewhat embittered attitude

tauards the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of producing good q u a l i t y work and secondly

i n t h e more hectoring, aggressive approach of management as mmpared to

that of BDC. &ita t the same t i m e both sets of attitudes w e r e subordinated

 -315-

t o the f a r more s a l i e n t p i m r i t y of simply g e t t i n g t h e work o u t - in

the workers' case for fear of job loss and bonus r e d u c t i o n , i n managementls

i n o r d e r to conform to the overwhelming "cost" imperatives far more

c e n t r a l to their d a i l y l i v e s than thoeof %ontrol".

Indeed, t h e case of Landis 6 Gyr could be said t o almost "over mnfirntl

our thesis i n its i n t e g r a l connection between performance targets and

p r o f i t a b i l i t y . Boc Wembley. without such immediate competitive pressures,

could a g a i n be said to bear o u t our a m e n t s fmm a much l w e r basis

of pro b a b i l i t y i n that despite the extremely s e c u r e p o s i t i o n of t h e

canpany as a w h o l e , the r u t h l e s s efforts c u r r e n t l y being made to keep

dwm costs by reducing the workforce were the prrdominant feature

i n f l u e n i n g both managerial and worker experience of t h e labour process.

The c o n t r a d i c t o r y aspects of managerial perspectives as representing

the priorities of capitalisn, a theme which has r e c u r r e d through the

thesis as a w h o l e , w e r e central featu'res of both s t u d i e s . I n both cases,

managers' overwhelmingly q u a n t i t a t i v e d e f i n i t i o n s of and objectives within

t h e labour process c o n t r a s t e d and conflicted w i t h the less measurable

realities both of workers' c a p a c i t y and their ultimate resistance. As

w e have mentioned earlier b o t h i n these c o n c l u s i o n s and i n chapter 4,

the u l t i m a t e c a p i t a l i s t o b j e c t i v e of having workers perform with the

c o n s i s t e n c y and p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of machines i s c o n t i n u a l l y confounded

b o t h by the d i f f e r e n t levles of energy a v a i l a b l e to workers during the

day and also by the u n p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of t h e material world i n terns of

machine breakdams, traffic jams etc - an u n p r e d i c t a b i l i t y which,

p a r a d o x i c a l l y , could be managed if management were able to abandon

the e x c l u s i v e l y q u a n t i t a t i v e approach to t h e o r q n i e i o n of work.

-ever, as w e argued i n our theoretical a n a l y s i s , they are unable t o

do this p r e c i s e l y because of the r e l e n t l e s s p r e s s u r e s of cost a d competition,

and this i n a b i l i t y to, as i t w e r e , s t o p and c o n s i d e r was w e l l attested

 -31 6 -

t o i n both the s t u d i e s i n terms of management's d e n i a l or evasion

of t h e empirical evidence o f t e n l i t e r a l l y before their eyes of workers1

i n a b i l i t y to m e e t some production targets.

This paradoxical d e n i a l of " r e a l i t y " i n t h e i n t e r e s t s of meeting

urgent ( b u t thereby only p a r t l y attainable) p r o d r c t i o n goals w a s

echoed i n the managerial a t t i t u d e to worker resistance. Thus i n t h e

Landis & Gyr case t h e knowledge that, f i r s t of a l l , large sections

of workers had not accepted the recent "performance" agreenents and,

secondly, that t h e impact of these agreements w a s c l e a r l y a g a i n s t t h e

i n t e r e s t s of these and other groups, was suppressed through the

nonchalant assumption that occasional "firefighting" would i n e v i t a b l y

be necessary to deal w i t h the r e s u l t a n t conflict. Among the more

s o p h i s t i c a t e d management of Boc, w h i l e the workers' ,case was i m p l i c i t l y

acknwledged on the one hand a d a n approach of campromise and

~komnunioation"favoured formally, managers referred to worker,

r e s i s t a n c e i n t e c h n i c a l terms and were unable to accept, beyond'

the p o i n t a t w h i c h i t became more than an irritant. that such resistance

could be " l o g i d " . Indeed, w h i l e on the one hand overtime w a s used as

an indispensable i n c e n t i v e i n order to maintain production, i t s

manipulation by the workforce a s a means of enhancing subsistence w a s

defined by the Branch m g e r as centred on a "mystique" counterposed

to the q u a n t i a t i v e logic i n w l v e d i n uorlc measurePent. A t the same

t i m e , it w a s clear i n both s t u d i e s t h a t such q u a n t i t a t i v e objectives

far o u t w e i g h e d any political a m s i d e r a t i o n s of "control" in sanagers'

minds.

0-1the issue of worker resistance, the situations a t Landis & Gyr

and Wembley 5X r e s p e c t i v e l y could be said to bear aut the "positive**

and %egative" implications of our thesis on econaaism and its

implications. In both cases there was l i t t l e doubt t h a t the

 -317-

and content of r e s i s t a n c e was overwhelmingly econanistic - workers

' p r a p a t i c a l l y accepted", for example, t h e need t o work for the

employer, an acceptance itself ewmistic i n i t s i m p l i c i t acknouledgement

of the commodity s t a t u s of labour, but a l s o demonstrating t h a t w r k e r

resistance would not focus around the e s s e n t i a l l y political i s s u e of

w h a t would ultimately be a challenge to c a p i t a l i s t r e l a t i o n s of production.

Rather, i n both cases i t w a s i s s u e s much "closer to home7f - job s e c u r i t y

and t h e effort/reward r e l a t i o n s h i p -which eventually spurred workers

i n t o o v e r t resistance, an act, whatever the myths surrounding i n d u s t r i a l

r e l a t i o n s , that i s seldom undertaken l i g h t l y .

The economistic n a t u r e of this spur had, hauever, for t h e two groups

of employees, different dimensions and implications. mr t h e Landis &

Gyr workers, a s w e s a w , i t propelled a previously inexperienced s e c t i o n

of workers i n t o a hard-fought rttike which w a s the longest i n the

canpanyls history and, w h i l e only p a r t i a l l y successful, undoubtedly

put t h e campany to some s t r a i n and e%pense. The nature of t h i s r e s i s t a n c e

was d e a r l y %xplosive" - l i t e r a l l y the day after saying that they s a w

any a c t i o n as p o i n t l e s s , the workers had left t h e i r machines. A

previously passive and f a t a l i s t i c workforce was thus wept i n t o r e s i s t k e

and s o l i d a r i t y through a p u r e l y econaoic pressure.

mr the Bot: workers, on the other hand, sporadic and. i n t h e past,

successful t5ndustrial action" was a far more rrrmaonplace aspect of

their experience. The traditional readiness to take action, c o n s i s t e n t l y

aIound economic issues, continued even i n the c u r r e n t recession to be a

s t r e n g t h of themrkforce, but a t the same time the very m b a t i v i t y on

subsistence-related i s s u e s involved i n t h i s t r a d i t i o n a l of r e s i s t a n c e

conveyed a parallel tradition of sectionalism w h i c h s e r i o u s l y weakened

the p o s s i b i l i t y of any e f f e c t i v e resistance to aanaQment's long-tern

s t r a t e g y a t the plant. 'Lhe economic pressures which pushed workers i n t o

r e s i s t a n c e , t h e n , w e r e the same which, f o r "personal p i n ) ' , as the

 -318-

management p u t i t , l e d tbem i n t o the k i n d of jealous w a r d i n g

of overtime which left each workgroup to fend for itself. A t the

same t i m e , j u s t a s the defeat a t M s & Gyr must be seen as having

the probable outcome of renewed p a s s i v i t y and defeatism (although a t

the close of research there w e r e s i g n s of renewed i n d i g n a t i o n a t

management tactics) there was no reason to assume that the s e r i o u s

problem on job s e c u r i t y and o v e r t i m e reduction TKW f a c i n g the workforce

a t BDc would not push them i n t o a n enforced u n i t y .

(Xlr rn case s t u d i e s , then, much like the published s t u d i e s reviewed

i n Chapter 4 (indeed, w i t h still greater c l a r i t y in sorpe instances)

appear to confirm the o v e r a l l theoretical conclusions reached i n t h e

thesis as a w h o l e ; t h a t both managerial o b j e c t i v e s i n t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n

of the labour process and worker experience of andresponse t o t h a t

process revolve around a nexus of s u r p l u s v a l u e and e x p l o i t a t i o n . (Xlr

i n t e r e s t , i n q l o r i n g t h i s empirical material, has been i n both

s t r u c t u r e and response; and t h i s dual approach i s taken up i n the

first of WO theoretical sunnnaries of overall themes i n the thesis.

O v e r a l l Themes

( i ) S u b j e c t i v i t y and o b j e c t i v i t y

I t has been argued t h a t i n a t t e m p t i n g to correct w h a t has been seen

as the %echanisticffframework of Brave-, w r i t e r s i n the labour

process debate have p e r s i s t e n t l y igrored t h e actual a n t e n t of lrorker

response i n f a w u r of an e l u s i v e dynamic of "control" i n Which the

basic struggle to defend standards of l i v i n g r a r e l y g a i n s r e c c q t i t i o n

i n i t s am terns. It i s the worker's personal or psydrological response

to the experience of w r k itself, the impact of production on t h e

i n d i v i d u a l i n terns of "autonaoy", 11oPpression", etc t h a t are taken as

the central f o c u s of debate rather than more humdnrm i s s u e s of pay or

job s e c u r i t y .
 -319-

VI c o n t r a s t t h e p r e s e n t thesis has attempted to redress t h e balance

between i n d i v i d u a l experience and o b j e c t i v e s t r u c t u r e through

r e i n t e g r a t i n g the a c t u a l i t y of workers' e c o n a m i s t i c s t r u g g l e s i n t o

the theoretical c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e labour process. T h i s task has been

pursued through the groups of arguments a l r e a d y reviewed i n these

conclusions: a c r i t i q u e of t h e "controlll thesis, the a t t e m p t to

establish an a l t e r n a t i v e theory of t h e s p e c i f i c a l l y c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r

process, and an "economisticf' t h e o r y of worker r e s i s t a n c e and

acquiescence. The purpose of t h e s e arguments, t h e n , w h i l e t h e y have

attempted t o locate a specific ecormmic framework for worker response

i n the prodtrction r e l a t i o n s o f . c a p i t a l i s m , has not been to deny

the r e l e v a n c e of the s u b j e c t i v e b u t rather to reassert the c e n t r a l

role of o b j e c t i v e economic factors i n shaping worker response. In

this s e n s e i t r e p r e s e n t s a b r i n g i n g toget h e r of subjective and

o b j e c t i v e within the framework of the material realities of capitalism.

Thus the e x i s t e n c e of f e e l i n g s of " a l i e n a t i o n " and resentment by

workers a t their personal d e g r a d a t i o n has been adcnowledged i n f u l l

w i t h i n t h e thesis (cf chapters 2 and 4 i n particular). A t the same time

such responses have been drawn i n t o an a n a l y s i s which locates thm a s

u n d e r l y i n g and f u e l l i n g more o v e r t forms of resistance without themselves

b e i n g seen a s an -licit p r i o r i t y for struggle among workers. The

consideration of worker response i s t h u s carried beyond the p u r e l y

"humanistic" to i t s actual e r p r e s s i o n as a p h e n a m a a l i s a t i o n of

capitalist production r e l a t i o n s . In this way i t has been p o s s i b l e to

indicate a dynamic (cf chapter 4b) between u n d e r l y i n g themes of resentment

and h o s t i l i t y and the p r o p u l s i o n of o f t e n p r e v i o u s l y p a s s i v e workers i n t o

r e s i 3 t a n c e a p i n s t t h e i n v a s i o n s of capitalism.

TU f u l l y articulate the M ~ U of
T ~worker r e s p o n s e r e q u i r e s both a

k i t i o n of and a t t o n t i o n to e x i s t i n g struggles and also an a n a l y s i s

of the objective s t r u c t u r e w i t h i n which Ksubjective" response can be

adequately understood. The description which Braverman provided i n

Labour and Monopoly Capital of changes i n capitalist production over

the past hundred years w a s a n attempt t o d e l i n e a t e t h a t s t r u c t u r e ;

indeed, Braverman himself s a w this work a s a 'precondition" f o r the

task of understanding w o r k i n w l a s s wnsciousness. AS he p u t s i t i n

"Two Comments", a reply made s h o r t l y before his death to some of the

criticisms t h a t had already been forthcoming of Labour and Monopoly

Capital :

"...the v a l u e of any a n a l y s i s of the composition and s o c i a l trends

within the working population can only l i e i n p r e c i s e l y hau w e l l i t

helps us to a n w e r questions about class consciousness...It w a s my

i n t e r e s t i n that very questionof class w n s u o u s n e s s , i n fact, which

l e d t o my taking up. the e n t i r e study i n the first place. When1 did

so, however, I a r e a d y had t h e f i m conviction that l i t t l e purpose

w u l d be served by a direct attack on the subject. s i n c e i t did m t

appear to m e i n any condition to y i e l d t o such an attack. T\uo major

preconditions seemed to me to be lacking. The first has t o do w i t h

t h e l a c k of e concrete p i m r e of the working class, w h a t i t i s made

up of, the trends of in-, s k i l l , exploitation, 'alienation' and so

f o r t h among workers...etc. I thought t h a t my efforts might best be

directed tauard helping to f i l l t h i s wp" ( B T a v p n s ~ , 1976, 122).

-
I n effect Brawrman's book provides u s w i t h a p i c t u r e of how the

c o n s t r a i n t s bearing on the tanployer and managerial s i d e of the

capital/labour r e l a t i o n i n terns of the requirements of p r o f i t a b i l i t y

have forced c e r t a i n forms of work organisation characterised by

d e s k i l l i n g and the separation of mental and manual labour to emerge.

While equally concerned with the effects of the o b j e c t i v e of a x p l u s

value extraction on the labour process, t h i s thesis has sou&t a l s o

to d r a w o u t the implications of the "otherside" of this c e n t r a l

objective, namely exploitation and i t s impact On t h e experience and

 -321 -
response of the wrkforce i n terms both of t h e i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of

l a b o u r and the s t r u g g l e f o r s u b s i s t e n c e .

Both these approaches have attempted to understand capitalism on i t s

dun terms, t o get to g r i p s w i t h i t s i n t e r n a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n s , r a t h e r

than l o c a t i n g m n t r a d i c t i o n s between t h e c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r process

itself and s o m e t h e o r e t i c a l l y more ' h a t u r a l " or " r a t i o n a l " labour

process. The same p o i n t can be a p p l i e d to mrker response. The

realms of the s u b j e c t i v e and o b j e c t i v e w i t h i n capitalism can be

brought together by a c k n w l e d g i n g the r e l e v a n c e of workers' oun

conceptual framework of capitalism as t h e system w i t h i n which t h e y

operate and which i s the o n l y one they knw. I n this sense the barxist

notion of "fetishism" can be taken on for b o t h capitalists and workers,

not as a n i l l u k i o n which can somewhw be exposed to reveal the

a b s u r d i t y of the w h o l e , b u t as a system of relations which a c t u a l l y

shapes both managerial s t r a t e g y and worker response.

(ii)C o n t r a d i c t i o n s

This adaKnuledgwent of the dimensions of the e x i s t i n g system and its

e s s e n t i a l l y fetishised r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s c e n t r a l to our second o v e r a l l

theme, w h i c h i s mncerned w i t h c o n t r a d i c t i o n . -re w e have attempted

to emphasise WO p o i n t s : f i r s t l y the systemic and secondly the undezmining

character of c o n t r a d i c t i o n s w i t h i n the c a p i t a l i s t mode of production and

l a b o u r process.

I n the first aspect of t h i s arplment we have been concerned, and have

arqed that other writers on the labour process ought also to be

ooncerned, w i t h the contradictions i n t r i n s i c t o capitalism i n our

analysis of the c a p i t a l i s t l a b o u r process. I t w a s suggested earlier

that t h e preoccupation of many writers on the labour process w i t h t h e

c o n t r a d i c t i o n between capitalist "illogicalities" i n t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n

of work and the q u a l i t a t i v e r e q u i r a r e n t s of a n ahistorial labour

 -322-

process indicates a mistaken l o c a t i o n of c o n t r a d i c t i o n s between

r a t h e r than w i t h i n systems which i s inadequate for understanding

the dimensions of the capitalist labour process. I t may now be

f u r t h e r suggested t h a t this evasion of an overall conceptual framework

i n terns of the l o o a t i o n of labour process issues w i t h i n the specific

framework of capitalism may be responsible for many of the ventures

by labour process theorists i n t o the wider reaches of contingency

theory, etc., which have been criticised as taking us n o t far beyond

a w n v e n t i o n a l industrial sociology.

A p a r t f r a o this perhaps insular p o i n t , two more fundamental misazrehens-

i o n s can be i d e n t i f i e d i n the particular location of c o n t r a d i c t i o n s

referred t o above. The first i s the implication that capitalism can

somehcru work i n a way that i s n o t indicated by c a p i t a l i s t r e l a t i o n s of

production. But, as w e have argued, the reality i s that capitalist

production imposes such " i l l o g i c a l i t i e s " as heirarchical production,

separation of conception and execution. etc., p r e c i s e l y because this i s -

the l o g i c of c a p i t a l i s t r e l a t i o n s of production. Such organisation i s

not engendered by an irrational drive for power b u t by the requirement

of p r o f i t a b i l i t y which c o n s t i t u t e s these r e l a t i o n s .

The sewnd misapprehension relates to the p e r s i s t e n t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n

of work itself, i n the q u a l i t a t i v e sense, as the site both of

w n t r a d i c t i m s and the dynamic of worker response. I n fact we have seen

t h t neither workers nor management are p r i m a r i l y concerned to c o n t e s t

the t e r r a i n of work organisation as such. Father the object of w n t e s t

i s the fetishised form of relations to which capitalism g i v e s rise

-work as value, both for the capitalist i n the form of surplus value

and for the worker as the wage.

 -323-

In t h i s way i t i s not the "exposure" of the f e t i s h w h i c h is placed

on the agenda of c o n f l i c t between labow and c a p i t a l , but t h e working

o u t of t h e contradictions within these fetishised r e l a t i o n s themselves.

When, f o r example, Qrol Ahnson i n her paper on Vhe Problem of

Reformism and Mxx's Theory of Fetishismii q u e r i e s Marx's f a i l u r e to

i n t e g r a t e his a n a l y s i s of fetishism into an overall theory of reformism,

what i s absent is the recognition t h a t these fetishised r e l a t i o n s h i p s

a c t u a l l y construct capitalism i t s e l f . To focus on their exposure as a

strategy for overthrowing the system invokes a purely i d e a l i s t

perspective, a toothless weapon i n c o n t r a s t to which mrx, whether

d e l i b e r a t e l y o r not, emphasispraxis, the gravth of opposition i n

the context of a s t r u w e which itself is engendered by e a m a n i c

contradictions.

If w e accept t h i s p o i n t , c e n t r a l to our own thesis, that i t i s the

underlying c o n t r a d i c t i o n s w i t h i n capitalism itself which s t r u c t u r e

the organisation of and response t o the labour process, then c e r t a i n

implications follrm as to the nature of resistance and conflict. The

first of these is that conflict will not c e n t r e round, as has

frequently been suggested, the r e l a t i o n s of production in t h a s e l w s .

Ihe p o s i t i o n of the worker i n c a p i t a l i s t society i s t h a t of a seller

of labour paver, a position stepped into i n M already e d s t i n g

and l a r g e l y lnrquestioned s t r u c t u r e rather than one requiring conscious

%eproduction". These the r e l a t i o n s of production w h i c h construct

the world t h t workers find themselves in.

Y e t , secnndly, the contradictory nature of these r e l a t i o n s mean that

t h i s a n n o t be a passive %ccupancy". J u s t as t h e whole rationale of

production f o r s u r p l u s value within capitalism imposes specific

 -324-

requirements on the Owners and managers of c a p i t a l , so the same

s t r u c t u r e involves workers i n a process of sale of labour parer and

creation of surplus value the terms of which are c o n t i n u a l l y c o n t e s t e d .

% w h o l e mode of production under capitalism i s based on a contradiction,

that between surplus and subsistence. As Juch there is i n a sense m

Deed to evoke explicit p o l i t i c a l conflict a t the l e v e l of opposition

to the e x i s t i n g r e l a t i o n s of production; comict arises fran those

r e l a t i o n s of production themselves and expresser itself i n terns of

an i n t r i n s i c antagonkn a t t h e heart of t h e c a p i t a l i s t labour process.

W e have argued throughout that the invocation of economic base i n

r e l a t i o n to superstructure need not imply a sterile r e l a t i o n of

determinism; rather that the recognition of t h e contradictions within

that base are c r u c i a l for t h e understanding of the a c t u a l nature of

worker response to the labour process and also f o r t h e a b i l i t y to

move beytmd c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s and typologies t o the awareness t h a t

worker zpsistance i s a dynamic, f l u i d , explosive process, triggered

almost c e r t a i n l y by t h e m a t e r i a l pressures imposed on workers but

a p a b l e of reaching beyond t h i s to embrace a c r i t i q u e of t h e r e l a t i o n s

of production Which impose such pressures. What w e have axwed i s that

it i s the i n t r i n i s i c c o n t r a d i c t i o n s of capitalism as experienced d a i l y

within the labour process w h i c h t r i g g e r such a process. rather than

any fully-fledged awareness of or concern about capitalist r e l a t i o n s

of production on t h e part of vorkers w h o s e means of l i f e are t i e d up

with thii system. he conception of worker response and resistance as

thus s t r u c t u r e d and propelled by a shared experience of the impact of

capitalist contradictions provides US with a conceptual basis not only

for assessing workers' c u r r e n t i n d u s t r i a l struggles but also for

analysing saae of the emergent tendencies both i n production and i n

class s t r u c t u r e and a m d o u s n e s s . It i s to these tendencies that w e

turn i n our concluding section.

 -325-

4 ) Bad Futures and Good

Despite some of the more optimistic arguments within our own thesis

as to t h e political p o t e n t i a l of econanistic workers' struggles, the

prognosis for the f u t u r e of therorking class seems i n B r i t a i n a t least

to be one of mitigated g l o o m . The old s t r u c t u r e s whereby the o r g a n i d

vmrking class has s u s t a i n e d i t s o r g a n i s a t i o n and s t r e n g t h i n t h e post-war

period appear p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h w a k e of the miners' strike to be f i n a l l y

breaking down. The rapid spread of casual and sub-contractedmrk i n the

%la& economy", typified i n the large-scale re-emergence of the "lump"

in the building i n d u s t r y , brings the destruction of orwised tmde

unionism and other workers' defences which i n the past have ensured an

acceptable level of working conditions i n i t s t r a i n . W h a t i s more, tre

development of the new technology "sunrise i n d u s t r i e s " a t t h e opposite

end of this spectrum of technological d e c l i n e appears to pranote e x a c t l y

equivalent tendencies i n the elimination of trade unionism. One-union,

-strike or *pendulum" agreements v i t i a t e w h a t gestures tcwards trade

union organisation remain, w h i l e the "leading edge" o r g a n i s a t i o n s i n the

f i e l d of new.technology such as science parks lead the anti-union tide

W i t h their ideology of "clean work, d i r t y unions" (Cohen and Egssey, 1984).

What 6 u r a w y has termed the ''new despotic production politics of the

contemporary period" appears to have found a n echo i n the leadership

of the labour movement itself i n the concept of 'hew realism" which has

been described as a logical extension of those tendencies of cmpromise

and acumcdatian a l r e a d y present i n traditional reformism. What i s morel

as Michael Terry (1984) points out and OUT am case s M y a t Boc

-firmed, the brutal fact of widespread redundancies has itself

effectively wakened o r g a n i s a t i o n a t plant level through the removal

"t a stroke" of large s e c t i o n s of more experienced shop stewards.

 -326-

SO w h e r e are the grnunds f o r optimism? Some c a n be found i n the

hcwledge that a l l this has happened before - the organised mrking

class has a t a n earlier stage i n Britain been defeated, torn apart

by i t s am sectionalism and t i m i d i t y , and s u b j e c t e d t o repressive

r u l i n g class l e g i s l a t i o n and ideological manipulation. True, the

re-creation of e f f e c t i v e w o r k i n g c l a s s organisation from the nadir

took p l a c e i n the context of a post-war "affluence" w h i c h i s IXW

l i t t l e more than a b i t t e r memory. But i n d u s t r i a l production w i t h i n

capitalism still continues, and w i t h it the grounds f o r resistance.

As production breaks new ground, both n a t i o n a l l y i n the growth of

mic-lectronics and i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y i n terms of the relocation and

r e s t r u c t u r i n g of c a p i t a l , new s e c t i o n s are c o n t i n u a l l y brought i n t o

the confrontation with the system.

The d e v e l o p m t of micro-electronics itself seems to p r c d s e a

vpost-industrial'*, worker-less future. Y e t "chips" L t i l l have to be

made, and those w h o make them may not always su&t as docilely to

Japanese-style management as is suggested i n i b r example Michael

W g u i r e ' s a m u n t of a Northern I r i s h telecnrmunications plant.

Egguire emphasises the strategy mf r e c r u i t i n g young workers a s part

of an o v e r a l l attempt to create l i f e l o n g l o y a l t y to t h e fim. tbwever,

recent s t r u g g l e s i n e l e c t r o n i c s f i n n s i n Scotland suggest t k t equally

young workers are h i t t i n g back i n dmand.~

'ng their rights to j o i n and

organise in a union.

A s i g n i f i c a n t addition to this i s the i n c r e a s e in the number of

-
women involved i n production w i t h the growth i n s m a l l - d e , labour-

intensive, "dextrous" forms of work. While c u r r e n t l y this has gone

along with an increased tendency tawanis part-time, low-paid,

unorganised p a t t e r n s of employment, the exposure of large numbers of

comparatively inexperienced wrkers to t h e r i g o u r s of exploitation

and ultra-intensive production i s capable of pmducing, as was shown

 -32 7 -
by the w o m e n a t Landis b Gyr, a %adclashl* more sustained and

determined t h a n t h a t of older, more tired sections.

Tu =me extent, havever, t h e employment of women and youth i n l a b o u r -

intensive, "super+xploited" sectors of production must be seen as

a retrograde step a g a i n s t the o v e r a l l tendency of c a p i t a l i s t

development i n the d i r e c t i o n of t h e w h o l e s a l e camputerisation,

and thus automation, both of productionitself and of the s c i e n t i f i c

and infonuation-related processes which surround it. In this s e n s e

the developnent of c a p i t a l i s t production c a n be seen as i n l o g i c a l

accord w i t h t h e tendencies which w e have outlined i n this thesis,

m r d s the total q u a n t i f i c a t i o n and a b s t r a c t i o n of productive

a c t i v i t y . A t present such developnents are distorted and, i n h!drx's

phrase, "fettered" by the contradictions w e have outlined i n e x i s t i n g

relations of production. In t h e f u t u r e i t h e y have t h e p o t e n t i a l , t h o u g h

perhaps only within a system free from such contradictions, of freeing

the workforce from the drudgery and oppression so eloquently chronicled

by writers on the labour process.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abercrombie, Hill 6 Turner The Dominant Ideology Thesis George Allen

6 Unwin 1984

Althusser, L. For Marx Penguin 1964

Baldamus, W. Efficiency and Effort:An Analysis of Industrial Administration

Tavistock 1961

Batstone, Boraston & Frenkel Shop Stewards in ActionzThe Organisation of

Workplace Conflict and Accomodation Blackwell
1977
Beynon, H. Working For Ford Penguin 1973

Blackburn R. "The Unequal Society" in The Incompatibles ed Blackburn 6

Cockburn Penguin 1967

Blauner R. Alienation and Freedom University of Chicago Press 1964

Braverman H. Labour and Monopoly Capita1:The Degradation of Work in the

Twentieth Century Monthly Review Press 1974

"Tw? Comments" Monthly Review Vol 28 1976

Brighton Labour Process Group "The Capitalist Labour Process" Capital

and Class 1 Spring 1977

Brown & Terry "The Future of Collective Bargaining" New Society March 1978

Bulmer M. (ea) Working Class Images of Society FXP 1975

Burawoy H. "Towards a Marxist Theory of the Labour Process:Braverman and

Beyond" Politics and Society 1978

Manufacturing Consent:Changes in the Labour Process under

Monopoly Capitalism Chicago Press 1979

The Politics of Production Versa 1985

Carchedi G. On the Economic Identification of Social Classes RKp 1977

Cavendish R. Women On The Line RKF' 1982

Cohen S. & Massey D. "Clean Work, Dirty Unians:Labour Process and Ideology
i n Science Parks" Conference of Socialist Economists
paper July 1984

&hen G.A. "The Labour Theory of Value and the Concept of Exploitation" in
Steedman ed. 1981
Bibliography contd 2

C o l l e t t i L. From Rousseau t o Lenin NLB 1972

Coombs R. "Labour and Monopoly C a p i t a l " NLR 107 1978

Cressey P. & MacInnes J. "Voting For F o r d : I n d u s t r i a l Democracy and t h e

Control o f Labour" C a p i t a l and Class 11 1980

"The Modern Enterprise, Shop Floor O r g a n i s a t i o n

and t h e S t r u c t u r e of Control" I n t e r n a t i o n a l Year-
book o f O r g a n i s a t i o n S t u d i e s ed Dunkerley &
Salaman 1977

C u t l e r , Hindess, Hirst & Hussein Marx's C a p i t a l and Capitalism Today

AKP 1977
Davis H. Beyond Class Images Croon H e l m 1978

Dragstedt A (ed) Va1ue:Studies by Karl Marx New Park P u b l i c a t i o n s 1976

Edwards R. "The S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s of Production a t t h e Point of Production"

Insurgent Sociologist Vol 6 1978
Contested Terrain:The Transformation o f t h e Workplace i n t h e
Twentieth Century Heinemann 1979

Edwards & S c u l l i o n The S o c i a l O r g a n i s a t i o n of I n d u s t r i a l C o n f l i c t Blackwell

198 2

Edvardes M. Back From The Brink P a n 1983

Elger T. " V a l o r i s a t i o n and Deskil1ing:A C r i t i q u e of Braverman" C a p i t a l and

-
C I a s s 7. 1979

Friedman A. "Responsible Autonomy Versus D i r e c t C o n t r o l over t h e Labour

Process" C a p i t e l and Class 1 1977

"Worker Resistance and Marxian Analysis o f t h e Labour Process"

paper t o N u f f i e l d conference 1978

"Managerial S t r a t e g i e s , A c t i v i t i e s , Techniques and Technology:

Towards a Complex Theory of t h e Labour Process" paper t o
AatonfUmist conference on t h e Labour P r o c e s s Spring 1985

Giddens A. The Class S t r u c t u r e o f t h e Advanced S o c i e t i e s Hutchinson 1973

C i n t i s H. 6 Bovles S. " S t r u c t u r e and P r a c t i c e i n t h e Labour Theory of

Value" Review of Radical P o l i t i c a l Economics 1981

Clmicher D. "A H i s t o r i c a l Approach t o t h e Question of Abstract Labour"

C a p i t a l and C l a s s 21 1983
Bibliography contd 3

Goodrich C. The F r o n t i e r o f C o n t r o l P l u t o Press 1975

Gordon D. " C a p i t a l i s t E f f i c i e n c y and S o c i a l i s t Efficiency" Monthly Review

Vol 28 1976

Gramsci A. P r i s o n Notebooks Lawrence 6 Wishart 1971

Hall S . "The Great Moving Right Show" in Hall 6 Jacques(eds) The P o l i t i c s

o f Thatcherism Lawrence 6 Wishart 1983

Haworth 6 Ramsie "Workers o f t h e world Untied:" paper t o Aston/Umist

conference on t h e Labour Process Spring 1905

H i l l S. Competition and Control a t Work Heinemann 1981

H i m e l w e i t 6 Mohun "Real A b s t r a c t i o n s and Anaomalous Assumptions" i n

Steedman 'ed., Verso 1981

Hobsbam E. The Forward March o f Labour Halted Verso 1981

Hodgson G. " E x p l o i t a t i o n and Rnbodied Labour Time" CSE B u l l e t i n March 1976

Capitalism, Value and E x p l o i t a t i o n Martin Robertson 1982

Hyman R. "Managerial S t r e t e g i e s i n I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s and t h e Control o f

Labour" paper f o r Seminar on t h e Theory o f t h e Firm, Finland, 1984

Johnson C. "The Problem of Reformism and Marx's Theory of Fetishism" New

L e f t Review 119 1980

Johnson A. "Three Problematics o f a Theory o f Working Class Culture" i n

Working C l a s s C u l t u r e , S t u d i e s in H i s t o r y and Theory ed. Clarke,
C r i c h t e r and Johnson, Centre f o r Contemporary C u l t u r a l Studies
1979

Kay G. "A Note on A b s t r a c t Labour" CSE B u l l e t i n March 1976

"Why Labour is t h e S t a r t i n g P o i n t of C a p i t a l " i n Elson (ed) Value: -

The R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of Labour in Capitalism CSE Books 1980

Lazonick W. "Class R e l a t i o n s a a d t h e C a p i t a l i s t Pnterprise:a Critical hss-

essment of t h e Foundations of Marxist Economic Theory" paper
p r e s e n t e d a t Conference on Marxism:The Next Two Decades, Univ-
e r s i t y of Manitoba, Winnipeg, April 1983

Lenin V.I. C o l l e c t e d Works Lawrence 6 Wishart 1960 6 1962

 BiblionraDht contd 4

L i t t l e r & Salaman "Bravermania and Beyond:Recent T h e o r i e s of t h e Labour

Process" Sociology May 1982

MacInnes J. "The Labour Process Debate and t h e Commodity S t a t u s of Labour:

Some Problems" paper presented t o t h e Aston/Umist Conference
on t h e Labour Process, Spring 1984

Mann M. Consciousness and Action Among t h e Western Working C l a s s Macmillan

1973

Manwaring 6 Wood "The Ghost in t h e Hachine:Tacit S k i l l s in t h e Labour Pro-

cess" Bay Area C o l l e c t i v e S o c i a l i s t Review 1984

M a n K. S e l e c t e d Works Martin Lawrence 1933

T h e o r i e s of Surplus Value London 1969

Grundrisse Penguin 1973

C a p i t a l Volume 1 Penguin 1976

Meikens-Wood E. "Marxism without C l a s s Struggle?" S o c i a l i s t Register 1983

Monds J. "Workers' Control and t h e Historians:A New Economism" hew Left

Review 97 1976

Moorhouse H.F. " A t t i t u d e s t o Class and Class R e l a t i o n s h i p s in B r i t a i n "

Sociology 1976

Newby H. The D e f e r e n t i a l Worker Penguin 1977

Nichols & Beynon Living With Capitalism RKP 1977

Noble D. "Social Choice in Machine Design:The Case o f Automatically Con-

t r o l l e d Machine Tools" i n Zimbalist ( e d ) 1979

Olin Wright E. "The Value Controversy and S o c i a l Research" in Steedman ( e d )

198 1

Palmer B. "Class,Conceptioa and W f l i c t i T h e Thrust f o r E f f i c i e n c y , Manager-

i a l V i e w s of Labour, and t h e Working Class Rebellion" iteview of
Redical P o l i t i c a l Economics, Vol 7, 1975

P O l l e r t A. Girls,Wives,Factory Lives Macmillan 1981

Roemer J. "New D i r e c t i o n s i n t h e Marxian Theory of E x p l o i t a t i o n and Class"

P o l i t i c s and S o c i e t y 3 1982
Bibliography con t d 5

Salaman G. C l a s s and t h e Corporation Fontana 1981

S t a r k D. "Class S t r u g g l e and t h e Transformation of t h e Labour Process:a Rel-

a t i o n a l Approach" Theory and S o c i e t y 1980

Steedman I. ( e a ) The Value Controversy Verso 1981

Storey J. Managerial P r e r o g a t i v e and t h e Q u e s t i o n of Control KP 1983

T a y l o r P.S. "Labour Time, Work Eieasurement and t h e Commensuration of

Labour" C a p i t a l and Class 9 1979

Thompson P. The Nature of Work Hacmillan 1 9 8 3

Westwood S. All Day h r e r y Day Pluto Press 1984

Willis P. Learning t o Labour Saxon Hbuse 1978

Z i m b a l i s t A. (ea) Case S t u d i e s on t h e Labour P r o c e s s Monthly Review P r e s s

1979