THE US LABOUR MOVEMENT now faces the biggest deological threat in have the employers so suc Vot since the 1930 cessfully challenged the role movement.
Then, employers such as les Schwab championed such 'constructive colaboration and the repre reality, meant that each plant were pitted against others, rather han united in a national union. But these attacks were dereated by the United Auto Workers union (UAW) in 1937 But workers in the USA have faced a new, similar threat with japanisation worker against worker. The ef"team concept' Conta no me oda too clear from experience in Japan.
A study by the sonyo union federation in 1986 showed that by then only 7% of workers would look to their union rep resentative to help with any probrem.
Easy prey
And the American unions ganise their members to fight ment began. Bureaucratised and centralised, the UAW and others were easy prey for employers hungry for increased profit margins.
By 1988 the 'team concept' had been introduced in Japanese plant in the USA, as well as large numbers of plants run by General Motors (Gl) Chrysler, Ford and others. The system had been accepted without a fight by the UAW ir the 1987 round of national Ihe apreements stressca a of key concepts. First, hat workers were to be interChangeable -sifications were dropped. Second, any idea of 'seniority' was either to be given less imcoreance 0T000 altogether. Third, each job and how should be carried out 400 08086 Fourin, worker would be uf improvement and compete with other departments. finally. numerous sibilities were to be transferred from the management to the workforce.
E ne system was supposed te systemwhere workers would have a asked what role collective decision making by their team Bureaucratised and centralised, the UAW was easy prey for employers hungry for increased profit olayed, workers at GM replied Well, the team leaders are ap hey share out the jobs and esponsibilitics Be precise definition of ob had two aims - that all wasted hat any chance in ternou Ito any worker slowing their pace. Any such change must be agreed by a supervIsor Thus the director of Mazda, when what room for existed, replied We make allowances for people who are left-handed'.
Absolute control
This inflexible system, where each job is precisely defined and is organised to require the amount of training possible, had one principal aim: absolute management control. only can 'troublesome' workers be rapidly moved, but also that reorganised.
When referees are interabout the qualifications of potential workers 'team' factories. Rather, they are questioned as to their attenfollow ordens; and theirattitude to management. There is no inqualifications; only to practice, so that the job can be done at maximum speed.
key concession the United Auto Workers was to agree to the use of sub-contractors, as long as workforce had a guaranteed job'. In principle, this sounded like a reasonable job security.
But the result in reality was the Workers Tevense WATE divided into two categories the regular workforce and the sub-contract worktorce. Ene latter, which grew in size, was generally non-unionised and had no protection and less entitlement the who finished with a lower level of unionisation and protection, had gained nothing in terms of control of the job. While their Japanising Thailand: Mitsubishi car workers the responsibility for judging able never went below 'team leader'.
Work to rule
This absolute control by supervisors and team leaders controlling working conditions disappeared. work to rule no longer existed since the rules were determined by the supervisor. And given the tension on which the system was based, any worker lowing down could be spotter mmediately As a manager of Toyota said 'the control of anomalies becomes easy. It is enough to introimprovements COncentrating on the line which is stopped and the workers who have stopped it!
Achilles heel
But the interconnection of the system and the tension on Happy Days at the Ford Factory Have you seen a Ford contract... lately? which it is based are also the achilles heel of the 'team' plants. hile they can mean greater management control if there is compliant union, they also make the system extremely vulnerable to collecave achon Individuals who refuse to carry out orders can be rapidly removed. But if a one wholesec tor stops, , they can quickly halt the whole factory.
Or if whole teams retise to obey the team leader, they can new one. Manufacturing had a mented Unions have com'Unions have more power than before • But the precondition is union orcanisation. This is why the companies implementing japanisation insist on 'sweetheart deals' with compliant unions or set up 'company unions'. And it is why the cornerstone of the labour move ments response must be to strengthen union organisation in different companies. PARTS FOSTER! SKIP ЦАи?
DANZIGE No. 9 Oct. 12, 1991
Culture