The Unemployment Menace - Coursework Example

Modern Culture Introduction Globalization and growth in technology are the key contributing factors to the growth of the new economy; an economy where employees have no rights or obligations. A survey by Sennett (1999, p. 149) reveals that the rate of employment has continued to decline in America in the recent past. Organizations have discovered a better and efficient way of getting things done-through computers. This has had heavy implications on the modern economy as well as on the particular employees. The resulting injuries penetrate far beyond the economic and societal levels. Sennet (1999, p. 146) describes the flexible capitalism as more personal rather than general. The modern economy has resulted into a new form of capitalism in which the business organization only cares about the strategic direction to take. Sennet (1999, p.145-146) describes such organizations as having powers to let go. The new capitalism is a sociological danger to the employees of the different companies of the world. It has not only made modern work illegible and modern employees ‘precarious workers’ but also resulted into flexibility that has destroyed the societal foundations of the different communities of the world. The modern economy therefore has everything to do with the troubles and difficulties faced by the different employees in the different work places today. The American workers have to therefore match the computers in terms of efficiency, speed, accuracy and even productivity or else they will all be laid off in future. Sennett (1999, p. 74-75) argues that the introduction of computers and computer integrated systems in the different machines has highly simplified and reduced the tasks of the employees. The workers no longer toil to get things done; everything gets done by just ‘a press of a button’ (Broekens, 2009, p. 94-103). As much as it is an advantage to the employees, it is a great problem. Employees have found a way of evading the hard tasks (Sennett, 1999, p. 72). They eventually end up staying for quite a long time without performing certain tasks and slowly by slowly their skills deplete. What happens when the machines break down or experience malfunctions? Sennett (1999, 72-73) articulates a similar scenario when the dough-kneading machine broke down in the bakery firm. The production activities came to a stand-still since the workers hundred percent depended on the machine make dough. The workers never even possessed the simple engineering skills of repairing the machine (Sennett, 1999, p. 73). Redundancy and reorganization of the staff members has proved to be a major aspect of the organizational change in most organizations of the world today (Armstrongstassen, 1993a, p. 334-343). Over the past ten years, companies have embarked on simultaneous downsizing strategies as a result of the continued integration of computers in core industrial and organizational processes and tasks. Since the 1980s, nearly all of the Fortune 100 American companies have engaged in downsizing strategies. According to Bresnahan (1999, p. 339-376), computers have proved to be the best substitute to humans for a number jobs. Key organizational tasks ranging from accounting tasks to bookkeeping tasks in the different organizations are run by the computers today. Charles et.al (2013, p. 7-10) declares that the rise in the level of joblessness in the today’s economy can highly be linked to increase in computer-controlled equipment in most industries what has further decreased the manufacturing employment as a result of decline in the number of the routine jobs (Jaimovich and Siu, 2013, p. 10-15). In a different perspective, Sennett in his argument suggests that the modern economy has ‘corroded’ the character of the different people of the world. He argues his case based on the flexibility of the employees, they come and go. There is no consistency in the places of work. When Sennett returned to the bakery firm, he was amazed by how things had changed (Sennett, 1999, p. 67). The bakery was under new management, the dependency on machinery had heavily gone up as compared to his first visit to the firm. Everyone working in the firm was new and from a diversified origin; a sign of a ‘flexible firm’. Flexible firms are always ready to offload their strategies, work force, customers and even their products. This enhances the way of doing business and further makes the firm able to venture into a more lucrative market (Volberda, 1996, p. 359-374). According to DeMeyer et.al (1989, p. 135-144), flexibility of a firm further enhances its ability to compete in the new markets. In this context, Sennett (1999, p. 68) suggested that flexibility of firms is the main source of what he referred to as the ‘corrosion’ of character of the different employees. A shift from one operation to another, production of one commodity to another and the continued lay-off and hiring of new workers has further contributed to the lack of attachment to places, persons or even companies (Sennett, 1999, p. 69-70). The ability of the human beings to make and maintain attachments adequately defines the real character of a person (Amdur and Epstein-Pliouchtch, 2009, p. 147-161). Hence breaking an attachment established by a person adequately corrodes and demolishes the characters of people (Sennett, 1999, p. 70-80). Erosion of character leaves the individual persons mixed up not even sure of who they are and uncertain of his or her behaviors (Adams et.al, 2001, p. 8-24). It further breaks the foundations of the different societies (Goldberg, 2000, p. 56). Nevertheless, the modern companies will continue to advance technologically and further enhance efficiency, speed, accuracy and even rationality (Ritzer, 1983, p. 100-107). In the food industry for example, serving, packaging and food production is today designed to move quickly and cheaply hence ensuring that the food processing firms and restaurant have adequate economies of scale. Standardization of the procedures and accuracy in the production processes have further grown to be amongst major industrial concerns. In fact, it is a source of competitive advantage to many companies of the world (Ritzer, 2004, p. 97). Computers and machine integrated systems have higher levels of accuracy and speed compared to the human beings. Also, human beings get tired easily and can never work for very long hours without resting. Sennett (1999, p. 119-123) argue that the continued application of machines in day to day operations in modern companies is a major contributing factor to human becoming ‘disposable’. Human workers are no longer that important to the modern companies. Slowly by slowly machines are filling in human places especially in the production firms. The human workers do no longer have places to practice and apply skills that they possess. Sooner or later they will be permanently laid off (Kuno et.al, 2003, p. 26-34). In today’s capitalism, no one is sure of where he or she stands “the new capitalism is dominated by uncertainty about where one stands” (Anton and Musschenga, 2001, p. 159). As Sennet (1999, p. 146) hints “...the indifference which radiates out of flexible capitalism is more personal because the system itself is less starkly etched, less legible in form.” In the old capitalism, social class played a significant role in retaining consciousness. It is not the same with the new capitalism; ‘flexible’ capitalism. The flexibility mechanism has by far casted the occupational identity adrift (Anton and Musschenga, 2001, p. 159). The short economic constraints experienced in the ‘flexible’ capitalism have destroyed the basis for socialization. No reliable bonds are established in the different work places. This has weakened the ability to establish loyalty and trust between the different employers and the employees (Sennett, 1999, p. 24). It has further resulted in fragmentation of the time as a factor. Identity formation therefore has become a problem in fact “the self we are does not possess itself; it happens” (Anton and Musschenga, 2001, p. 159; Gadamer, 1967, p. 78). The character of persons faces fierce challenges in the modern capitalism. It has contributed to the feeling of individuals being not important to others hence they keeps on asking themselves, ‘who needs me?’ The last quarter of the century has witnessed tremendous changes in modern capitalism. Back in the 1960s profit evaluation in companies was done after three years; today the evaluation is done every three months (Sennett, 1999, p. 127). The changing times have highly affected work. During the old days, ‘careers’ meant quite a lot to the individual persons. It was well-mapped and well-laid down. On the other hand, ‘a job’ was everything to a person. It was more of a life ticket that could enable on to move from one place to another. Today, things are different as Sennett (1999, p. 140-143) observes that the work is no longer defined by the career but the job itself. In today’s labor market it is expected that a university graduate will change jobs for at least ten to twelve times in his working career. It is further expected that he or she will alter his or her skills for at least three times before getting a permanent job. At a later stage in life, such person no longer even rely on the skills learnt in school they rely on other skills they acquire in the aging process. Today, job changes in the market do not follow a ‘fixed’ process but rather an erratic process. Hornbeck (2012, p. 1477-1507) attribute this occurrence to the changing business environments. The modern work and the flexible work places have become illegible. Most modern organizations have adopted a ‘chameleon’ character hence it is hard for the employees to forecast what will happen in future. It is also hard for the employees to forecast what might happen if they changed from one job to another. Firms and major corporations of the world have reduced commitment to their employees. Most employments today are based on contractual basis. For the people who develop loyalty to such companies, they feel betrayed, depressed and confused (Connelly and Gallagher, 2004, p. 959-983). Sennet (1999, p. 145) further suggest that the chameleon character of most companies has resulted from the fact that modern companies are faced by the challenges of capricious customers, unpredictable competitors in the market and even very impatient investors. They are therefore forced to keep on reshuffling their structures and strategies, developing new skills and dropping the old products. There is no room to standing still and breathe. Sennet (1999, p. 121-124) further brings to light the aspect of precarious work in the modern economy. He declares that the workers have been turned into ‘precarious workers’. Today, workers are never assured of their job position in the modern companies. The employees do not even get chances of forming trade unions-organizations that fight for the rights of the workers in their places of employment (Berggren, 1993, p. 163-188). According to the different scholars and economists of the world, precarious working environments have had negative impacts on the productivity of the employees (Mayhew and Johnstone, 1999, p. 15-20). It has highly resulted into job discrimination and violence cases in the places of work since there are no adequate trade organizations to fight for the rights of the workers. Precarious workers are less committed to the organization since they find it hard to establish attachments with or in their places of work (Kalleberg, 2009, p. 1-22). This undermines the spirit of teamwork in the organization and further promotes individualism. Conclusion The unemployment menace has been a common problem in the West and in the European countries. The different governments have adequately worked towards limiting the growth of the unemployment in these nations. However, very little seems to be changing in the modern economy. It is like stumbling on a similar problem over and over again. Only adequate regulatory measures in relation to the nature of the current capitalism can solve this prevailing social menace. Bibliography Adams, P, Hoelsche, R., S. & Till, K.2001. Place in context, rethinking humanist geographies, in: PAdams,S Hoelscher & KTill (Eds) Textures of Place, Exploring Humanist Geographies, pp. 8–24 Anton, Van Harskamp and Musschenga, Albert. 2001. The Many faces of Individualism. Leuven [u.a.]: Peeter. Amdur, L & Epstein-Pliouchtch, M. 2009. Architects’ Places, Users’ Places: Place Meanings at the New Central Bus Station, Tel Aviv. Journal of Urban Design14(2),147–161. Armstrongstassen, M. 1993a. Survivors reactions to a workforce reduction – A comparison of blue-collar workers and their supervisors Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol.10 (4) pp. 334-343. Berggren, C. 1993. ‘Lean Production – the End of History?’, Work, Employment and Society, 7(2):163-88. Bresnahan, T.F., Brynjolfsson, E. and Hitt, L.M. 2002. Information technology, workplace organization, and the demand for skilled labor: Firm-level evidence. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 117, no. 1, pp. 339–376. Broekens, J., Heerink, M. and Rosendal, H. 2009. Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Geron technology, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 94–103. Charles, K.K., Hurst, E. and Notowidigdo, M.J. 2013. Manufacturing decline, housing booms, and non-employment. Tech. Rep.,NBER Working Paper No.18949, National Bureau of Economic Research Connelly, C.E., & Gallagher, D.G. 2004. Emerging trends in short time work research. Journal of Management, 30, 959-983. De Meyer, A., Nakane, J., Miller, J. G. and Ferdows, K. 1989. "Flexibility: the next competitive battle the manufacturing futures survey”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 10 No 2, pp. 135-144. Gadamer, H. G. 1967. Philospphie Hermeneutik. Kleine Schriften, Bd. I, Tubingen: Mohr. Goldberg, S. 2000. Attachment and Development. London: Arnold. Hornbeck, Richard. 2012. “The Enduring Impact of the American Dustbowl: Short- and Long- Run Adjustments to Environmental Catastrophe,” American Economic Review, 102, 1477-1507. Jaimovich, N. and Siu, H.E.2012. The trend is the cycle: Job polarization and jobless recoveries. Tech. Rep.,NBER Working Paper No. 18334, National Bureau of Economic Research. Kuno, Y., Shimada, N. and Shirai, Y. 2003. “Look where you’re going: a robotic wheelchair based on the integration of human and environmental observations”, IEEE Robotics and Automation, 10(1), pp 26-34. Kalleberg, Arne, L. 2009. Precarious Work, Insecure Workers: Employment Relations in Transition. American Sociological Review, Vol. 74 no. 1, 1-22. Mayhew, C. and Johnstone, R.1999, Young Casual Workers in Fast Food Employment, National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, AGPS, Canberra. Ritzer, G. 2004. The McDonaldization of Society (revised New Century ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Ritzer, George. 1983. Vision of the Society: The bureaucratic Society. Journal of American Culture,V.6,No.1,pp.100–107. Sennett, R. 1999. The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. Volberda, H. W. 1996. "Toward the Flexible Form: How to Remain Vital in Hypercompetitive Environments", Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences, Vol 7 No 4, pp. 359-374. Read More