(i) Worker and Social Progress: -
The progress of the industrial workers is a part of the general social progress. Hence the movements for social progress were accompanied by movements for an improvement in the conditions of industrial workers. It was accepted as a general principle that the work of social emancipation would remain incomplete if nothing is done to improve the conditions of industrial workers. For this reason, social workers turned their attention in this direction. They drew the attention of industrialists towards the bad conditions of the workers and insisted that they should be given human rights and their conditions changed so that the workers could improve their standards of living. Exploitation of workers was violently objected to and decried. Great stress was laid on providing social security to the workers. Political parties also began to pay attention to the amelioration of the lot of workers. In this manner, the progressive nations linked the improvement of the industrial workers with the movements for general progress. This humanistic attitude is spreading rapidly in industry in all developing nations.
(ii) Labour Welfare: -
Labour welfare is an important element in social welfare. Labour welfare includes the improvement in the social, economic and psychological conditions of the worker. In most large industries labour welfare officers are appointed to look after the workers and to help solve any disputes that may arise between them and the employers. The modern state is a welfare state the object of which is to enhance the welfare of the citizens in every sphere. The worker is an important part of the population and the government which does not undertake measures for labour welfare cannot hope to achieve its ideal of social welfare. From time to time, the Governments of different countries have enacted laws to secure the rights of workers in various industries. Although some of industrialists avoid the clutches of the law by various means, the pressure exerted by the trade unions and media is steadily changing the situation.
(iii) Industrial Management: -
Efforts are being made to raise industrial management to the level of a science. The suggestions of Taylor have been particularly valuable in this respect. Scientific industrial management implies the establishment of a management under which all the elements of production are most efficiently employed, thus eliminating the exploitation of any one element and the exhaustive use of any other. In a scientific industrial management system a humanistic approach is adopted to deal with the workers and efforts are made to provide them with more facilities. The advanced countries are continuously making rapid strides in this direction.
Thus, both industrial sociology and industrial psychology are applied social sciences engaged in study and research in the field of human relations in industry and the areas connected with it. But they undoubtedly study common material but from different view-points. While industrial sociology employs sociological attitude, the view-point of industrial psychology is psychological. Even the scope of the two is not identical. The scope of industrial sociology is wider than that of industrial psychology.
Q.5. What do you mean by Labour Process Theory.
Ans. Labor process theory: -
One branch of industrial sociology is Labor process theory (LPT). In 1974, Harry Braverman wrote Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century, which provided a critical analysis of scientific management. This book analyzed capitalist productive relations from a Marxist perspective. Following Marx, Braverman argued that work within capitalist organizations was exploitative and alienating, and therefore workers had to be coerced into servitude. For Braverman the pursuit of capitalist interests over time ultimately leads to deskilling and reutilization of the worker. The Taylorist work design that is the ultimate embodiment of this tendency.
Braverman demonstrated several mechanisms of control in both the factory blue collar and clerical white collar labor force.
Braverman’s key contribution is his “deskilling” thesis. Braverman argued that capitalist owners and managers were incessantly driven to deskill the labor force to lower production costs and ensure higher productivity. Deskilled labour is cheap and above all easy to control due to the workers lack of direct engagement in the production process. In turn work becomes intellectually or emotionally unfulfilling; the lack of capitalist reliance on human skill reduces the need of employers to reward workers in anything but a minimal economic way.
Braverman’s contribution to the sociology of work and industry (i.e., industrial sociology) has been important and his theories of the labor process continue to inform teaching and research. Braverman’s thesis has however been contested, notably by Andrew Freidman in his work “Industry and Labour” (1977). In it, Freidman suggests that while the direct control of labour is beneficial for the capitalist under certain circumstances, a degree of ‘responsible autonomy’ can be granted to unionised or ‘core’ workers, in order to harness their skill under controlled conditions. Also, Richard Edwards showed in 1979 that although hierarchy in organizations has remained constant, additional forms of control (such as technical control via email monitoring, call monitoring; bureaucratic control via procedures for leave, sickness etc.) has been added to gain the interests of the capitalist class versus the workers.
