To What Extent Has Globalisation Changed the Nature of Work - Essay Example

To what extent has globalisation changed the nature of work? Introduction The new economy has been attributed to practices of government in Western societies, with the reaction to economic globalisation leading to the emergence of heightened competition in numerous segments of the economy. These transformations have certain implications for the nature of work. Hence, Perrons argued that “in general, the new economy is characterised by globalisation and the increasing use of communication and information technologies, but also deregulation, polarisation and feminisation of employment and new, more flexible patterns and hours of work” (as cited in Fagan & Munck, 2009: 261). One of the main sectors where the new economy has been witnessed and experienced is in the workplace. This essay discusses how globalisation has changed the nature of work. Globalisation and Work Technological developments, which are driven by globalisation, have resulted in large-scale changes in the nature of the labour market or paid employment. Changes may involve greater part-time, casual, or flexible work, as well as adjustment in the level of risk or modifications in labour requirement amplifying the need for highly skilled workers (Berberoglu, 2002: 187-8). The nature of such transformations, and the degree to which they are pervasive all over the economy, are debated. Some scholars view globalisation as a catalyst of major transformations in the nature of work. A quite controversial perspective was introduced in the book The End of Work by Jeremy Rifkin (Berberoglu, 2002: 188). He claimed that the use of technologies across all segments of the economy, as motivated by the intensifying process of globalisation, was ever more disrupting and dislocating manual, human labour. In the past, as segments that had encountered new technologies reduced labour, the excess wage earners had been absorbed by some segments like retail, which had enlarged. However, the introduction of computers had depressing implications, Rifkin claimed (Ahier & Esland, 2013: 16): Now, for the first time, human labour is being systematically eliminated from the production process. Within less than a century, “mass” work in the market sector is likely to be phased out in virtually all of the industrialised nations of the world. A new generation of sophisticated information and communication technologies is being hurried into a wide variety of work situations. Intelligent machines are replacing human beings in countless tasks, forcing millions of blue and white collar workers into unemployment lines, or worse still, breadlines. But Rifkin also explained that there was an elite group of workers who were immune to this upsurge of computerised lay-offs: these elite workers could carry out jobs requiring mental facilities that could not be mechanised by computers and hence would stay in ‘knowledge employment’ (Ahier & Esland, 2013: 16). It has been quite difficult for scholars to measure or determine the real, concrete changes in the nature of work as brought about by globalisation. A common image of paid work in the old economy can be depicted as follows (Wajcman, 2005: 10): workers served big companies that perform various jobs in the same unit. They have stable and permanent work agreements, with workers employed by only one employer or organisation for the most part, even at times throughout their profession or vocation. Promotion is fairly regular, with increases in compensation based on loyalty and duration and extent of service instead of merit. This system facilitated the growth of a career record, involving comparatively low-level entry and stable movement to higher levels. On the contrary, the new economy built by globalisation forms a diversified career. Instead of working for a sole employer, the employee serves several employers, usually carrying out specific, small tasks. They have fragmented and temporary contracts, with incentives and recognition awarded for current or short-term performance and updated expertise instead of continuing work performance (Chaykowski & Giles, 1998: 5). The absence of the permanent employer implies adaptability and a certain level of self-sufficiency and autonomy over the location and duration of work. However, it also puts the trouble of risk on workers, without the assistance that traditional employment relies on (Wajcman, 2005: 68). A major issue in the literature on the nature of work in a globalised economy is uncertainty or risk. The major thinker on work and risk was Ulrich Beck, who claims that risk is ever more an aspect of the globalised economy (Fagan & Munck, 2009: 263). In the modern economy, risk is created through the breaking up of employment as permanent work contract for one company is supplanted by diversified types of work organisations. Job uncertainty was formerly counteracted by the welfare state or the capacity to advance sidewards in the company. The globalised economy, with the focus on devolution of network organisation and production, takes the worker away from such limitations (Ahier & Esland, 2013: 49). This has been intensified in several countries by the outsourcing of service organisations from the state segment to private companies, which are thought to fulfil the job more economically. This trend takes employees out of highly stable government employment and puts their jobs in private firms, with the greatest risk of joblessness and the poorest conditions highest for already poorly paid workers (Fagan & Munch, 2009: 264). The new organisational structures related to the new economy favour adaptability or flexibility by means of new networked production, with companies wanting to outsource, instead of sustaining permanent employment contracts. This process of making employment relations flexible moves the focus on risk, with several scholars claiming that “if flexibility is the language of the firm, perhaps risk is more appropriately the language of the workforce” (Fagan & Munck, 2009: 264). Thereby, it is believed that the transition to networked or diversified employment has pulled out workers from the certainty and stability of major companies, where risk is distributed in the organisation; consequently, the workers become personally in charge for handling the problem of risk (Berberoglu, 2002: 83). Although the transition towards a more consolidated, interconnected, and interdependent global economy, the rise of a globalised marketplace where companies are in a cutthroat competition is evident. As Frenkel and Peetz (1998) emphasise, globalisation of the marketplace promotes competitiveness both at the domestic and organisational stage. At the domestic state, governments across the globe are pressured to globalise their economies to meet the needs and demands of foreign investors and multinational corporations (MNCs). Economic liberalisation produces competitiveness for national companies. With heightened competition companies are exerting efforts to satisfy global competitive criteria on profits, productivity, and price—and such has repercussions for the nature of work (Frenkel & Peetz, 1998: 293). To deal with the challenges of competition, companies are likely to use techniques intended to enhance both work and firm success, especially in terms of quality, efficiency, and productivity. Within the perspective of Frenkel and Peetz (1998), such techniques created by the globalisation of economies promote management streamlining and more attention to competing more successfully. Thus, companies focus more on quality improvement and cost cutback while simultaneously eliminating or limiting job security or employment stability. At another stage, greater competitiveness results in an intensification of one-dimensional management in the organisation, where union petitions for job security, collective bargaining, and recognition are usually taken for granted (Cooper, 2000: 584). Due to the demands of global competition, companies tend to prefer employing workers on temporary contracts instead of long-term work contracts. In numerous countries across the globe, an increasing number of workers are currently employed in an environment where stable and permanent employment agreements are being displaced by ‘unconventional’, riskier, and less stable types of employment (Ahier & Esland, 2013: 94). Confronted with the pressures of globalisation, management consistently look for better statistical, operational, and wage resilience. Hence, the competitive demands related to the globalisation of economies cause changes in labour requirement, workforce structure, and the employees’ inter-temporal placement (Wajcman, 2005: 71). Basically, as the notion of a stable, permanent employment fades, we witness a rise in part-time jobs and temporary contracts. A particular outcome of this phenomenon is the undermining or loss of the psychological contract between workers and employers in terms of judicious long-term employment for proficient work performance (Debra & Smith, 2003: 9). Cooper (2000) refers to a study of employment conditions in several European nations to prove that employees’ job security weakened substantially from the 1980s to the 1990s. Here are the exact numbers (Debra & Smith, 2003: 9): The UK, from 70 per cent to 48 per cent; Germany, from 83 per cent to 55 per cent; France, 64 per cent to 50 per cent; Netherlands, from 73 per cent to 61 per cent; Belgium, from 60 per cent to 54 per cent; and Italy from 62 per cent to 57 per cent. Similarly, in numerous countries in Africa, especially in the sub-Saharan region, economic privatisation and reform in reaction to the demands of economic globalisation have led to higher rates of unemployment and redundancies. For example, in Ghana, ever since the launching of the privatisation project in the 1980s, hundreds of state-run businesses have been acquisitioned and have turned into privately run enterprises (Debra & Smith, 2003: 9). This has led to large-scale lay-offs as roughly 100,000 employees in the public sector lost their jobs before the privatisation programme and in certain instances public organisation which was judged to be unfeasible, unpractical, or not open to privatisation were discharged (Debra & Smith, 2003: 9-10). Moreover, globalisation is speeding up the movement of global migration of employees and causing ‘brain drains’ or skill scarcities in numerous countries across the globe. In developed nations innovations in information technology (IT) have brought about serious skill scarcities and some countries have reacted by loosening regulations on immigration and work licence requirements on foreign employees (Betcherman & Chaykowski, 1996: 22). It is widely recognised that numerous European and North American firms have been employing IT personnel from India. Likewise, the skills scarcities confronting IT businesses worldwide have pushed Western firms to subcontract IT tasks to Indian firms (Debra & Smith, 2003: 10). In the United Kingdom, it was lately proclaimed that the government is loosening its limits on work licenses to draw in qualified workers with relevant competencies to deal with skills scarcities in sectors like IT. This sudden change in mind comes from the resolve of the government to guarantee that the UK rules in the Internet and e-commerce and can vie for limited labour in the international marketplace (Fagan & Munck, 2009: 121). European nations like Sweden and Germany are also loosening their work license requirements to draw in highly qualified IT workers worldwide. Private and public organisations in the UK have employed teaching, IT, and nursing staffs from numerous developing nations such as the Philippines, Ghana, and South Africa (Fagan & Munck, 2009: 121). The recruiting of workers worldwide produces a diversified labour force. As argued by Lewis and colleagues (2001), this raises issues for managers in tackling greater cultural differences in the workplace, and, as globalisation intensifies, even speeds up, the enhancement of capabilities in handling or managing workers from different cultures will increasingly become a major concern for managers in highly developed countries. In addition, it is currently widely recognised that economic globalisation has a tremendous effect on industrial relations processes (Lewis et al., 2001: 118). Chaykowski and Giles (1998) argue that there is proof of loss of old practices of bargaining and in organisational standards and, furthermore, numerous nations are witnessing a weakening in collective bargaining and unionism. The evolving character of international workforce has also raised new opportunities and problems for international relations. Betcherman and Chaykowski (1996) observe that modifications in the nature of work and the relaxing of the traditional spatial relations of employees to workplaces are basically transforming the long-established notion of the workplace. It is believed that this creates problems to unions in terms of employee organisation and management. As argued by Chaykowski and Giles (1998), technological innovations and developments in a globalised period have altered the practices of production, enabled the movement of products and/or services, and offered a justification for new types of economic processes or operations. In addition, the growth of the information economy has led to the transition from manufacturing to service enterprises with major repercussions for employees, management, unions, and employment as a whole (Ahier & Esland, 2013: 82). This transition has led to the deterioration in union membership in numerous nations across the globe, and in some countries the process of privatisation has removed a large number of unionised works and thus brought about deterioration in union membership (Debra & Smith, 2003: 11). The weakening of mass production has paved the way for new production structures distinguished by flatter hierarchical structures, greater focus on recruiting more highly skilled employees, reduced labour-rigorous workplaces, better resilience or adaptability in work organisation, and smaller production scales (Debra & Smith, 2003: 11-12). As briefly argued by Chaykowski and Giles (1998), globalisation of economies is weakening the long-established image of the workplace insomuch as the actual place of employment and production is involved. Numerous scholars believe that globalisation facilitated by technological developments has promoted the spatial revolution of work and production. As a result, economic operations and production locations are currently more scattered worldwide and new operations emerge in formerly undeveloped locations as production facilities are more conveniently and quickly transferred. Companies pursue competitive advantage through choosing physical locations that are legalised by favourable labour regulations, lower tax rates, and more cost-effective labour costs (Wajcman, 2005: 60). This development has been further facilitated by the introduction of the e-economy as firms are now rummaging the world for the optimal services and materials at the cheapest cost. Hence numerous companies now focus their operations and assets on core competencies and contract out major and minor tasks (Berberoglu, 2002: 91). It is believed that these activities lead to greater income disparity, job intensification, redundancies, and resulting fears and uncertainty for unskilled and skilled employees. Conclusions Globalisation is a bane and a boon for employment relations and work in general. The technological advances that it facilitates bring about massive changes in the workplace. Computerisation or increased automation of work has been cutting down demands for manual labour, but increasing demands for ‘knowledge workers’. Because of this, the gap between high-paid and low-paid workers further widens. Other effects of globalisation on the nature of work are the increase in temporary contracts, increased immigration of workers, greater outsourcing, and weaker unionism. References Ahier, J & Esland, G (2013) Education, Training and the Future of Work 1: Social, Political and Economic Contexts of Policy Development. London: Routledge. Berberoglu, B (2002) Labour and Capital in the Age of Globalisation: The Labour Process and the Changing Nature of Work in the Global Economy. UK: Rowman & Littlefield. Betcherman, G & Chaykowski, R (1996) “The Changing Workplace: Challenges for Public Policy”, Human Resources Development Canada, Research Paper R-96-13E, Ottawa: HRDC. Chaykowski, R & Giles, A (1998) “Globalisation, Work and Industrial Relations”, Industrial Relations, 53(1), 3-12. Cooper, R (2000) “Organise, Organise, Organise! ACTU Congress 2000”, Journal of Industrial Relations, 42(4), 582-94. Debrah, Y & Smith, I (2003) Globalisation, Employment and the Workplace: Diverse Impacts. London: Routledge. Fagan, G & Munck, R (2009) Globalisation and Security: Social and cultural aspects. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Frenkel, S & Peetz, D (1998) “Globalisation and Industrial Relations in East Asia: A Three Country Comparison”, Industrial Relations, 37(3), 282-310. Lewis, D, French, E, & Phetmany, T (2001) “Cross-Cultural Diversity, Leadership and Workplace Relations in Australia”, in Y.A. Debrah and L.G. Smith, (eds) Work and Employment in a Globalised Era: An Asia Pacific Focus, London: Frank Cass, pp. 105-24. Wajcman, J (2005) The Politics of Working Life. Oxford, UK: OUP. Read More