Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century

273 Pages·1980·5.118 MB·English

by  Richards Edwards

Contested Terrain

CONTESTED
TERRAIN
The Transformation of
the Workplace in the
Twentieth Century
RICHARD EDWARDS
Basic Books, Inc., Publishers
NEW YORK
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Edwards, Richard C
Contested terrain.
Bibliography: p. 244
Includes index.
1. Labor and laboring classes-United States.
2. Industrial organization-United States.
3. Industrial sociology-Case studies. I. Title.
HD6957.U6E35 301.5'5 78-19942
ISBN: 0-465-01412-7 (cloth)
ISBN: 0-465-01413-5 (paper)
Copyright © 1979 by Basic Books, Inc.
Printed in the United States of America
DESIGNED BY VINCENT TORRE
109876543
CONTENTS
PREFACE vii
CHAPTER 1
Three Faces from the Hidden Abode 3
CHAPTER 2
The Personal Touch: Competitive Capitalism and the
Simple Forms of Control 23
CHAPTER 3
Running Full: The Breakdown of Competition 37
CHAPTER 4
Until the Battle Is Fairly Won: The Crisis of Control
in the Firm 48
CHAPTER 5
Seeing the World: Corporations in Monopoly Capitalism 72
CHAPTER 6
Experiments, Beginnings, and Failures 90
CHAPTER 7
Technical Control: An All-Around Adjustor
and Equalizer 111
CHAPTER 8
Bureaucratic Control: Policy No. 1.1 130
VI CONTENTS
CHAPTER 9
Labor Redivided, Part I: Segmented Labor Markets 163
CHAPTER 10
Labor Redivided, Part II: The Fractions of the
Working Class 184
CHAPTER 11
Capitalism or Democracy? The Contradictions of
Modern Control 200
APPENDIX 217
• NOTES 225
BIBLIOGRAPHY 244
INDEX 253
PREFACE
THE WORKPLACE TODAY is a vastly changed place from the shops and
offices of seventy-five or a hundred years ago. Then nearly all employees
worked for small firms, while today large numbers toil for the giant
corporations. Here especially we see the results of the twentieth-century
transformation of work. Where once foremen ruled with unconstrained
power, there now stands the impersonality (and seeming invincibility) of the
organization. Where once workers had few rights and no protections, there
now exists a whole set of claims from job bidding rights to grievance appeals
to the possibility of a career within the firm. Where once the distinction
between workers and bosses was sharp and clear there now are the blurred
lines of a more stratified and less class-conscious workforce.
Yet one feature endures: the workplace remains hierarchical, ruled from
the top down. Why does this authoritarian rule exist? What forces have
changed the form of hierarchy at work? What prevents producers-the
workers-from managing the workplace themselves? And how has the
changing organization of work shaped the working class as a whole? These
are the questions that I investigate in this book.
These are not new questions, but they deserve reexamination because the
conventional answers to them are so unsatisfactory. If you asked most social
scientists why work is run by bosses and managers and not by the workers,
they would likely tell you that such organization is "necessary" or "inevita
ble" or perhaps "efficient." Some proclaim, for example, that the hierarchical
organization of work is a necessary corollary of modern production technol
ogy. Others assert that while hierarchy may not be necessary, it is efficient,
making possible more profits for the employer, higher wages for the workers,
and greater production for society than alternate arrangements can provide.
Even the critics of capitalism, although their work has opened new avenues of
investigation that have benefited my work, have not provided satisfactory
answers. Some have implicitly accepted the efficiency theory, arguing-and
bemoaning-the "fact" that the more modern and allegedly degraded ways
of organizing work are more efficient. Other critics have rejected the
efficiency argument, seeing instead a desire or a "need" on the part of
employers to control workers.
PREFACE
VIII
All of these explanations beg serious questions. If hierarchy is technologi
cally required, what accounts for technology's inflexibility in this regard?
(This is particularly surprising since, as social and economic circumstances
have changed, technology has seemed to be quite flexible in other respects,
especially after sufficient time has elapsed to permit the development of new
technologies.) If hierarchy is efficient, why has the experimental evidence
indicated that self-management contains great potential for raising productiv
ity? (This potential has already attracted much employer interest, though
tapping the potential for profit has not been easy.) If some capitalists desire
control, why do not other, more single-mindedly-profit-maximizing capital
ists drive them out of business?
The explanation I advance is straightforward: hierarchy at work exists
and persists because it is profitable. Employers are able to increase their
profits when they have greater control over the labor process. However, this
profitability does not in general result from greater efficiency (as that term is
usually understood), and it certainly cannot be easily identified with the
greater good of society. Moreover, while hierarchy is consistent with today's
technology, that consistency must be understood as arising as much from the
shaping of technology to provide greater control for employers as from an
"imperative" operating in the other direction. Finally, employers understand
ably do desire control, but such control is instrumental, a means toward
achieving greater profits. Thus, to understand the reason for workplace
hierarchy and to comprehend the twentieth-century transformation of the
labor process we need to focus on the profit system-that is, on capitalism.
Of course hierarchy has changed as well as persisted, and in searching
for what has caused this transformation I have come to realize that the
primary catalyst for change is the continuing contention of classes, the
struggle of capitalists, workers, and others to protect and advance their
interests. And since the strength or weakness, the success or failure, of any
class has depended upon its (changing) position within society, we must
investigate the larger dynamics of capitalism. In what follows, then, I pay
considerable attention to the rise of the large corporation, the transition from
predominately competitive to shared-monopoly industries, the growth of
unions, and other features of capitalist development seemingly far removed
from changes within the workplace itself. Yet these are important elements of
the context that determines the possibilities for and constraints on workplace
struggles.
This approach emphasizes the social relations of the workplace (rather
than, for example, the change from craft-based to mass-production technol
ogy) for, I would argue, what is revolutionary about the modern corporation
PREFACE IX
is its ability to restructure the social organization of the labor process. It is
only within the context of class relations that the roles of technology and
efficiency can be interpreted.
The method I have chosen to use in arguing my thesis is historical. I
attempt to trace the various changes in workplace organization that have
occurred and to assess the reasons for them. In this endeavor I draw
repeatedly on the history and operations of a "panel" of large companies:
American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T), International Business Ma
chines (IBM), Ford Motors, General Electric (GE), Polaroid, Pabst Brewing,
Pullman, United States Steel, and International Harvester. The approach
taken is not one of case studies per se, but rather repeated appeal to these
companies for examples, illustrations, and evidence. My intention is to use
these corporations to show how over time the processes of conflict and control
have transformed the way work is organized.
I have benefited enormously from the criticism, ideas, and support of
several of my friends. Many of the ideas have been developed collectively
with Michael Reich. Samuel Bowles has been unendingly generous with his
time and help since I began working on this topic several years ago. Joint
work with Michael Reich and David Gordon has provided still another source
of ideas and refinements. (While I suppose I must accept final responsibility
for any mistakes in what follows, these friends have pored over enough of my
drafts that they cannot escape completely blameless.) Joseph Bowring under
took several research tasks at little or no pay, and his diligence and
intelligence have greatly helped the book. Ann Bookman unselfishly let me
use material from her excellent thesis. Albert Hirschman made it possible for
me to spend a year at Princeton, during which much of this book was written.
Herbert Gintis, Michael Piore, Martin Kessler, Stephen Marglin, Charles
Kindleberger, and many of my graduate students and faculty colleagues have
read the manuscript and made useful criticisms of it. For all of this help, I am
grateful.