amanda_cat (![[info]](http://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} amanda_cat) wrote,@ 2009-06-16 16:03:00 |
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Labour strategies (organizational theory)
In looking at management labour strategies, there was a thrust towards welfarism and paternalistic strategies in some British industries during the early decades of the century but it failed to become an important long-term strategy because of the opposition of labour, especially that of skilled workers and even of foremen. Not only did employer welfarism cut across any socialist impetus to state welfare benefits, it also was in conflict with the Samuel Smiles tradition of self-help which in practice meant a cocoon of co-op, building society, Friendly Society and adult education institute.
But apart from trade union hostility to welfare measures and company unionism, welfarism in Britain had a restricted coverage because of the small firm structure of engineering, coal and many other industries. Systematic welfare measures could be expensive, and the slow development of large corporations and monopoly capitalism in Britain limited such a strategy to a few firms in a strong monopoly position.
Customized resume writer service. Our professional CV writers are certified and can deliver a excellent resume for you! Resume within 36 hours!
Zeitlin also underlines the fragmented, small-firm nature of the British engineering industry which persisted through the First World War and the 1920s. Because of the slow rate of growth of product markets, except in armaments, employers' investment decisions were guided by short or medium-term profitability. Thus, despite the Engineering Employers' Federation victories in 1897/8 and 1922 disputes there was no wholesale transformation of the division of labour parallel to that in the United States and Germany. In particular, the impact of Taylorism and the American model of management was limited up to the 1920s. British engineering employers rejected a high-wage strategy which formed a central component of Taylorism, preferring to pursue a traditional policy of low wages and labour cheapening. This policy cut across any hopes of incorporating the engineering union leaders and, perhaps, of moving towards more paternalistic strategies.
In looking at management labour strategies, there was a thrust towards welfarism and paternalistic strategies in some British industries during the early decades of the century but it failed to become an important long-term strategy because of the opposition of labour, especially that of skilled workers and even of foremen. Not only did employer welfarism cut across any socialist impetus to state welfare benefits, it also was in conflict with the Samuel Smiles tradition of self-help which in practice meant a cocoon of co-op, building society, Friendly Society and adult education institute.
But apart from trade union hostility to welfare measures and company unionism, welfarism in Britain had a restricted coverage because of the small firm structure of engineering, coal and many other industries. Systematic welfare measures could be expensive, and the slow development of large corporations and monopoly capitalism in Britain limited such a strategy to a few firms in a strong monopoly position.
Customized resume writer service. Our professional CV writers are certified and can deliver a excellent resume for you! Resume within 36 hours!
Zeitlin also underlines the fragmented, small-firm nature of the British engineering industry which persisted through the First World War and the 1920s. Because of the slow rate of growth of product markets, except in armaments, employers' investment decisions were guided by short or medium-term profitability. Thus, despite the Engineering Employers' Federation victories in 1897/8 and 1922 disputes there was no wholesale transformation of the division of labour parallel to that in the United States and Germany. In particular, the impact of Taylorism and the American model of management was limited up to the 1920s. British engineering employers rejected a high-wage strategy which formed a central component of Taylorism, preferring to pursue a traditional policy of low wages and labour cheapening. This policy cut across any hopes of incorporating the engineering union leaders and, perhaps, of moving towards more paternalistic strategies.