fMaggie has 15 post(s)

In his article, “The Principles of Scientific Management, 1911”, Frederick Taylor discusses a concept he calls “soldiering” or “underworking”, referring to the ways in which some workers will purposefully work more slowly and less efficiently than they are truly able, in order to lessen their output of work (Taylor, p.4).  Taylor argues that if workers would end this behavior, they could double their production, thus benefitting themselves as well as the companies that they work for (Taylor, p.5).

Since this seems to be an obvious change to make, Taylor hypothesizes three causes as to why workers would still chose to soldier, instead of choosing to increase their output to increase their wages. First, Taylor points out the common theory that increasing output will lead to more people being out of work (Taylor, p.5).  Many people feel that if jobs are able to be done so efficiently, less people will be needed to perform the jobs, leading to higher unemployment rates.  Second, ignorance of management as to how long it should take to perform certain tasks, allows workers to soldier (Taylor, p.7).  Finally, most companies use rule-of-thumb methods to teach new employees how to perform their tasks, not considering new and possibly more efficient methods of working.

Taylor seems to believe that substituting rule-of-thumb methods with scientific methods is the only way to fix this problem of soldiering. He realizes that workers are trained by the other employees that they work with, so there are many different methods of working, with one usually being superior to the others (Taylor, p.9).  This superior method can only be discovered by a strict scientific analysis of each method (Taylor, p.9).

Previously, workers commonly had the burden of figuring out the best way to do their jobs without much help from management, which means they were most likely not using scientific methods (Taylor, p.10). Taylor believes that this could be remedied by sharing more of this burden with management.  Management should be doing more work, especially preparing things in order to make the workers’ jobs easier (Taylor, p.10).  Also, since it is the duty of management to develop a scientific method of working for their employees, they should help their staff use the method as well as take more responsibility for the outcomes of their staff’s work (Taylor, p.10).

Taylor further asserts that under this new type of management, output of products will increase (Taylor, p.10). In addition, higher wages and closer supervision of management will result in less soldiering, as will the eventual realization that increasing output will pave the way for more jobs (Taylor, p.10).

In his example of the weaver, Marx showcases how a capitalist buys the labor-power of a weaver, the loom, and the yarn used to make cloth. All three are used to make a product and therefore all three are equal commodities.  The weaver, then, does not get a share of the price of the product, but gets paid for his labor-power by wages (Marx, p.2).  His labor-power is what he owns and can sell to a capitalist for wages in order to live (Marx, p.2).

Once the idea of labor-power is established, Marx then goes on to state that putting labor-power into action, or working, is how one’s life activities are expressed (Marx, p.2). Working, or labor-activity, must be sold to a capitalist in order for a worker to maintain his existence.  When one works, as a weaver for example, his product is not what he produces for himself.  A weaver looms yarn and produces cloth, which is the product.  The cloth will be turned into another item, a dress, a blanket, etc. (Marx, p.3).  But the weaver does not keep the cloth, nor the finished product of the dress or blanket.  He only gets to keep the wages paid by the capitalist who hired him (Marx, p.2).

Since the worker only gets to keep the wages the capitalist pays him to produce that certain commodity, there is this personal distance between the worker and the commodity they produce, and worker may feel alienated from it. The worker may begin to put less effort into the commodity, compromising its quality.  The worker could also not be concerned with their efficiency in making the commodity, especially if they are getting paid hourly wages.  Not only could this alienation of the worker from the commodity cause the one’s work ethic to decline, it could also cause his happiness to decline.  If he is only going to work to produce a commodity that he has no real connection with or ownership of, this may cause lack of pride and feeling of purpose.  The worker could begin to feel as though he is living just to work so he can survive and not enjoy the time he spends here.  Since the worker needs the wages paid to him by capitalists, it may become clear to him that he belongs to the entire capitalist class, causing even greater alienation and insecurity in his life (Marx, p.3).

Harry Braverman’s Theory of the Evolution of the Working Class

In The Making of the U.S. Working Class, Harry Braverman begins by discussing what the term ‘working class’ means and who it entails.  He explains that the difference between those who are a part of the ‘working class’ and those who are not, does not lie in doing different activities or work.  Rather, the difference lies in the social relations between them (Braverman, p.15).

Members of the ‘working class’ are hired to perform tasks by employers and may also use the employers’ tools to perform these tasks. Now, the employer may also be working and doing the exact type of work that the ‘working class’ that they hire are doing, but the difference lies in the relation they share (Braverman, p.15).  The employer is not part of the ‘working class’ because they are not hired but work for themselves and get to keep the profit that is made and own the tools that are used to produce the product.  A seamstress who owns a dress shop may hire people to help her make dresses.  These hired people would be considered ‘working class’ but the seamstress would not because she owns the shop and all of the materials in it.

Braverman goes on to discuss ways in which the shifts in occupations over time can be organized, and he singles out the shift from productive occupations to unproductive ones (Braverman, p.27). He first describes the type of work that is considered productive, which entails any work that assists in the necessary production of useful things or services (Braverman, pps.27-28).  Braverman adds that a productive worker does not have to be in direct contact with the product itself (Braverman, p.27).  An example of a productive worker is an office clerk who does accounting for a business that produces medical supplies.  The office clerk’s job is necessary to the business even though they do not actually work with the medical supplies.

Braverman then describes the work that is considered unproductive, meaning work that is superfluous to the production of goods (Braverman, p.30). He lists many industries including banking, insurance, advertising, and marketing and one clear example of unproductive work that he provides is the useless ornamentation on cars (Braverman, pps.30-31).

Considering these terms, working class and productive and unproductive labor, it seems as though Braverman is stating that members of the working class can do both productive and unproductive work. Additionally, capitalism has played a role in dividing the working class from those who are not part of it, as well as been the primary factor in the evolution of unproductive labor.

I am currently working as a Senior Case Manager for a non-profit organization called Safe Horizon, which serves crime victims across New York City. My office specifically works with survivors of domestic violence and I really love working there and what I do.

As I shared in class, my grandparents and parents all worked at ‘blue collar’ jobs, as have many other family members.  The fact that all of my grandparents and parents did not go to college, really pushed them to encourage me to do so.  They felt that a higher education could lead to a better paying job and I would not have to struggle financially as they did sometimes.  They also had good work ethics and were very responsible.  They did not complain about their jobs or having to go to work.  I believe that all of this was passed down to me and how I approach the idea of working and my goals for the future.

In Part 2 of the Introduction of The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber states that modern capitalism has risen out of people being so consumed with making money just for the sake of making it and not to buy things they need to live (Weber, p.xi).  In the sense of people who work in fields that are known to pay well just for the sake of making a lot of money, I certainly do not share that work ethic.  The field I am in, social services, does not often pay very well and is not easy to do unless you really love it and want to help people.

Weber goes on to analyze the origins of capitalism and asses how capitalism related to Protestantism and Catholicism in “Religious Affiliation and Social Stratification”. Weber argued that the religions people followed were based on an individual’s economic status and that wealthier people were more inclined to follow Protestantism and to be supporters of capitalist ideals (Weber, p.4).  Weber further posits that the types of education people chose were those favored by their families and their communities and it was typical for Catholics to learn manual labor and to not prepare to be businessmen, unlike their Protestant counterparts, resulting in Catholics working in lower-paying industries and being less inclined to support capitalism (Weber, p.6).  I do agree with Weber that most people fall into practicing the religion they are born into, which is also usually what is popular in the communities in which they live.  If one’s religion dictates the type of education and job one will have, it can then be said that religion determines economic standing and therefore one’s views on capitalism and even their work ethic.  I agree with this to an extent.  I feel that many people who come from wealthier upbringings who do not  have to work as hard, if at all, to earn money, may have a less stronger work ethic than people who do not come from money and who have to work hard to earn the money that they do get, may have stronger work ethics.  Of course, this is not the case for everyone.

I do see this in my personal experience and work ethic.  I do not come from a wealthy family and have had to work since I was 15.  I was taught to work hard and do well to help ensure my employment and reputation and the money that I earn is needed.  I have also been taught that when one does earn beyond their means, giving it to less fortunate people is the right thing to do.

Hello everyone,

My name is Maggie and this is my second semester at CWE. I have so far taken all of my other classes at the uptown campus but have had to start taking classes downtown due to my work schedule changing.  I really enjoyed being downtown last semester-the classes are smaller and the students are closer to my age and seem a little more serious and excited about their education.  I wish I had known this earlier so I could have taken all of my classes at CWE!  But I am graduating in the winter so this will be my last semester…yay!

I had two reasons for being interested in this class. I took Professor Bullock’s class last semester and I really liked how it was set up.  Like this semester, we were assigned readings from different books and articles.  I feel that allows students to not just read one textbook by one author, but gives different points of views and insights of different authors, and allows us to read things we may normally not.  I also just thought that learning about the forces behind why people may choose the work that they do would be really interesting, especially in a place and time where there are certain professions that are known ‘money-makers’ but that may not necessarily require as much skill and effort as those which are not as lucrative.

I am majoring in sociology and minoring in psychology. I am very interested in the way people think and behave and feel that learning about people on an individual level as well as looking at them in groups on a more macro level gives the best picture of why we do what we do.  To continue my education, I would like to go to Hunter’s School of Social Work.  I finally reached my goal of working with the population I wanted to-survivors of domestic violence.  I would like to further my knowledge in counseling people by studying social work.

It was nice meeting you all last Wednesday and I am looking forward to everyone’s presentations and more class discussions!

Maggie Wiesner