Why are the division of labour and the factory so controversial - Essay Example

? THE CONTROVERSY OF DIVISION OF LABOUR By 23rd, February, The use of division of labour in factories and work places has been a controversial issue since the historical times. While some managers have considered this an effective way of increasing the productivity in their factories, different scholars have disputed division of labour, citing its negative effects it has on the workers involved. Division of labour is an approach used in completion of tasks. This normally involves the breaking down of a complex task, into many simpler tasks, which are then handled by different workers. These workers work on the parts of the task, which they are specialized in; as these are the tasks, they are assigned. According to Sabel (1982), division of labour has both positive and negative influences on workers and factories. These effects are both social and economic in nature. The controversy surrounding division of labour in factories has however, been a historical issue. In this paper, I will focus on the works of different scholars, including Adam Smith, Frederick Taylor, Karl Marx, among many others, whose contributions to the concept of division of labour contributes to the controversial debate on the issue. I will compare and contrast their approaches used to address division of labour in factories, and its effects. Adam Smith first used the term division of labour, in his work, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. He defined division of labor as the process in industries, where the process of manufacturing is divided into simpler and specific operations that are assigned to particular workers to handle. Smith supported the process of division of labour, citing that this process is capable of more productivity in a factory, compared to those factories that do not employ division of labour in their operations. He also attributes division of labour to the increase of judgment and skill level in workers (Smith 1976). Although Adam Smith was not responsible for coining the term division of labour, or the first to address the concept, his ideas and thinking on the effects of division of labour had an impact on the other thinkers that came after him, including Karl Marx (Hill 2004). Different thinkers show different perceptions toward division of labour, which are both positive and negative. Adam Smith was positive about division of labour, but did not focus on the long-term effects of division of labour (Hill 2004). The contribution of Adam Smith to the effects of division of labour remains important today. He focused on the analysis of the benefits of this process, based on its approach of job specialization. Smith argued that division of labour was beneficiary to both factories and workers, as it boosted independence of workers (Hill 2004). Smith considered specialization detrimental to workers. Although this serves to reduce the quantity of work, Smith identified other negative effects of specialization. First, he argued that when a worker is restricted to only particular aspects of a job, this also restricts their natural inventiveness. Additionally, this impairs the worker’s physical capabilities (Smith 1976). This also limits their use of physical strength in performing different duties, since they are physically programmed to perform only specific duties. Smith also notes that, this turns workers into automated machines, as like machines; they only have one line of duty to perform. Smith did not however, recommend any solutions. He believed that specialization was a natural process, which cannot be avoided by humans, but which humans can adapt to (Smith 1976: Hill 2004). Smith (1976) considered division of labour as responsible for propagating social inequality and exploitation of workers. When masters are in disputes with their workers, the workers are the losers. However, Smith believed that in specialization, workers had the opportunity to be their own bosses, therefore, also had the chance to leave work in the factories, and go establish their own factories. This was however, impractical. On the positive, Smith argued that division of labour benefited commercialism, which provides freedom to all people in the society, including the factory workers (Hill 2004). Therefore, Smith believed that anything that enriches a country is of benefit to the poor also. Therefore, since division of labour benefits a country’s commercialism, Smith considered it to be of essence in a country, despite the negative effects it has on workers (Lavezzi 2001). From his arguments, it is therefore, eminent that Smith disregards the negative impact of division of labour on individual workers, and views this as an inconvenience of the process, of which the benefits of the process outweighs them. Karl Marx considered the production process of capitalism to be the root of troubles in society. This was beneficial to the rich, and exploitative to the poor, who were also the workers. According to Marx, production in a civilized society ought to occur in a group of individuals, working in a collective manner and exchanging ideas in a mutual manner (Marx 1976). The production process should connect workers and help build relations within themselves. However, Marx considered the production process in the capitalistic system as dehumanizing and exploitative to the worker. This mainly led to alienation of the workers in society (Marx 1976: Cox 1998). Marx notes that division of labour turned workers into machine-like objects. This is a view that Marx shares with Smith. Additionally, the working conditions of factory workers during Marx’s era were pathetic (Ricoy 2001). Karl Marx was against division of labour in factories mainly because it did not allow for cooperation among the workers. This way, workers could not work as a group. Instead, workers had to work individually. Marx thought that cooperation in the production process could result in higher productivity. Similarly, Marx agrees that if a complicated task is apportioned into different operations, and these assigned to individual workers, this also increases productivity. Marx therefore, agrees that a positive factor of division of labour is that it increases productivity (Marx 1976). This is the same factor on which Marx bases to criticize division of labour in factories. According to him, the capitalists knew this fact about division of labour and were mainly after making huge profits in their factories, regardless of the working conditions of their workers. According to Karl Marx therefore, division of labour was immoral. This is because the capitalists used this to increase productivity in their factories, while misusing their workers. Despite workers engaging in division of labour, their wages were still low, with long working hours, and poor work environment, yet the factory owners benefited from these desperate situations of factory workers (Marx 1976). Marx and Smith’s views on division of labour exhibit considerable similarities, but overall, while Smith supports division of labour due to its capability of high productivity, Marx is objected to division of labour due to moral reasons. Frederick Taylor (1856-1917) in his book, “The Principles of Scientific Management,” addressed division of labour, and its importance in a factory. Just like Adam Smith, he exalts division of labour, claiming that this increases efficiency in the work place, as well as making maximum use of the skills of workers. However, these theorists’ ideas are obsolete today (Caldari 2007). Taylor believed that once part of a task is allocated to a worker, the worker must be informed beforehand. “The work of every workman is fully planned out by the management at least one day in advance, and each man receives in most cases complete written instructions, describing in detail the task which he is to accomplish, as well as the means to be used in doing the work” (Taylor 1919, p. 72). According to Taylor (1919), division of labour led to efficiency in a factory. He also argued that the processes of ensuring efficiency in production could be determined by analyzing the relationship between a task, and the individual worker. For instance, for more productivity, workers could use bigger shovels, so that they carry more sand (Taylor 1919). Taylor highly regarded supervision of the production process in the factory. He emphasized the need for managers to have written rules and procedures for different jobs, which workers should adhere to (Taylor 1919). Only through this could a manager be assured of efficiency in the production process. Additionally, Taylor identified the importance of motivation for workers, however, just like the workers’ wages, rewards and incentives are to be attached to a worker’s work output (Caldari 2007). Finally, Taylor argued that for a worker to be efficient in the work they are assigned, they should have the right skills to perform the role, in addition to being trained by their managers (Taylor 1919). Generally, Taylor considered three most important elements in division of labour and production process. These include management and control, highly specialized jobs, and payment basing on work output (piecework). Scientific management was successful during Taylor’s era, and was adopted by most factories (Taylor 1919). However, soon its weaknesses had a toll on factories, leading to this approach to be ditched. Most critics of scientific management have argued that job specialization leads to monotony of work. This in turn lowers the morale of workers. In addition, this approach limits workers’ skills, as they did not work on diverse jobs. This therefore, constrained workers’ intellectual capabilities (Caldari 2007). This approach by Taylor views human beings like machines and does not consider the different needs of workers. Instead, the workers are regarded as people with financial needs, which they seek to fulfill. This is why they are paid basing on their work output, and motivation and incentives too based on their work output. Although money is important, Taylor has used it to show that this can motivate workers, make them be satisfied with their jobs, and increase productivity at the work place. This has however, been proven to be wrong, and does not apply in today’s work place wholly. Therefore, although Taylor’s ideas of division of labour in his principles of management have the capability of increasing productivity, these do not put workers into consideration, but benefits the factory owners only (Caldari 2007). Paul Mason addressed the various changes that the working class has undergone due to globalization (Mason 2008). By using case examples, he shows how workers in different eras adapted to their work environments. These included revolts by workers, such as those in the silk industry in Lyon, France, to demand better working conditions. Most recently, workers in Argentina have taken over their work places to avoid being laid-off (Mason 2008). A similar case is with global bodies, such as, IMF and World Bank, which according to Stiglitz (2002), have succeeded in exploiting the countries they serve. These lack transparency and accountability. However, Stiglitz (2002) gives an example of China, which refused IMF funds, and South Korea, which resisted the conditions of IMF. These countries, especially China, are showing great economic capabilities. Braverman (1974) blames the 20th Century worker for degrading their jobs. Modern workers have sold their labour powers to their managers, and given the capitalist total control and responsibility over the labour process. This is unlike the past, where workers would fight for their rights, even though they were over-exploited (Braverman 1974). This challenges the modern worker to rise up, and have a voice in the labour process, to avoid the growth of capitalism, which is detrimental to society. Pollard (1965) notes that the labour process today has changed. This includes management of industries, as today; managers are more knowledgeable about management system. Perrow (2002), on the other hand argues that today, capitalism has risen, due to the formation of bigger capitalistic corporations. He traces this from the historic factory workers, where modern management roots. Perrow blames factory owners for exploiting their workers, while they enriched themselves. Perrow is against division of labour, mainly because it is exploitative to workers. In conclusion, division of labour is a practice that dates back to factories in historical times. By dividing a task into various operations, this ensured efficiency in the production. This is not a bad thing; however, this process remains controversial. This controversy emanates from the motives of factory owners in utilizing this process. Some scholars believe division of labour nurtures capitalism, because this increases productivity in companies, at the expense of the workers. If this process had been conducted fairly, there would not have been much controversy attached to it. However, one disadvantage that persists is how this process limits the capabilities of workers. Nonetheless, division of labour remains controversial today, even as capitalism continues to rise in society. Works Cited Braverman, H 1974, Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century, Monthly Review Press, New Jersey. Caldari, K 2007, “Alfred Marshall’s Critical Analysis of Scienti?c Management,” Euro. J. History of Economic Thought 14:1 55 – 78 March 2007. Viewed 23 February 2013 Read More