í Assignments

Taylor’s “The Principles of Scientific Management” begins to explore the methods used in creating an industry of workers that are used to build efficiency in the workforce. Taylor’s argument states that the nation’s industry has been inefficient due to the lack of management and growth of the worker. He expresses that a worker’s daily acts when not properly managed wastes the materials (and production) that create a strong industry. He believes that “systemic management” alleviates the lack of efficient industries and builds a strong workforce. In other words, this style of management should result in employer’s maximizing profitability and employee’s increasing their prosperity in all aspects, not just in monies.

Taylor mentions that the difficulties in achieving these goals for both employer and employee is the perception that each side does not believe that they can mutually attain their perspective goals. “Scientific Management” addresses this conflict and argues that both sides are actually one in the same. The main idea of scientific management is that the employer cannot see true success unless the employee prospers through the rewards of his labor, and vice versa. Both employer and employee through scientific management can prosper if they choose to mutually agree to benefit from each other. It is only then when both agree that you will see the highest grade of efficiency in labor and product.

Taylor mentions that one of the problems with achieving maximum efficiency in the workplace is defined in the term “Underworking” or “soldering”. He defines “soldiering” as minimum work effort produced or the smallest amount of effort in work by employee or employer which causes the lack of production. He attributes this to be common in the workforce due to three causes. One, if a man is able to be highly productive in his work, that he would eliminate others from obtaining work. Two, Bad management. And three, using the “rule of thumb” to maximize work effort. The combination of both “soldiering” and its’ three causes are what Taylor argues why maximum efficiency cannot be achieved. The elimination of “soldiering” and its’ causes according to Taylor should double production from both employer and employee. It is only until when it is eliminated that the theory of scientific management can be successful and both worker and employer can achieve mutual gains in the workforce.

I believe that the mutual agreement of both worker and employer sounds great and beneficial. In theory, it does sound perfect but I do not think that it would be able to co-exist in a capitalistic society. As long as the threat of competition exists and the gain of capital is the primary function of either the worker or the employer, the two forces cannot coexist. In the case of the market in this country, the top 1% would have to be willing to sacrifice its’ profits in order to balance the equation in Taylor’s theory. I hate to be the pessimist, but it sounds like a wonderful dream that cannot be turned into a reality during our life time.

In this article “The Principles of Scientific Management,1911” Frederick w. Taylor describes the how “soldiering” directly affects workers lives, their wages and how they prosper. The causes and conditions, which he divided into three areas in (p.5) The first one he called the “fallacy” stage which consisted in trading man with machines and that would result in many men out jobs. The second stage The “defective” in which the manager would have to “soldier” it’s workers in order to protect their interest. And the third the “inefficient” stage and the most universal were the workers performs slow work and waste a lot of effort and time in.

In the fallacy stage Taylor mentions that no matter if we increased productive capacity or invent a new machine to increase production this would make the product less expensive because work that was formally done by hands was more costly to make. As a result of machines instead of people doing the labor, the product would be more accessible to the people and would become cheaper to make.

In (p.7) Taylor believed that the caused of soldering was because many workers have the natural instinct to not work as hard as they have to. This tendency increases when men of similar background start working in similar conditions and with the same pay day. All because men start believing that they shouldn’t work had if other workers doing the same work are not working hard and are getting the same pay as they are. In (p.8) Taylor explains a little more on how systematic soldering works he mentions is done by men with an intentional goal to keep their employers ignorant of how much faster the work can be done.

Taylor’s response was that implementing the rule of thumb instead of science as a rule was the way to do things more efficiently. In (p.10) Taylor describes how the worker and management should more have equal responsibilities and the management should also help in guiding the worker with the scientific laws. He believed that the method of rule of thumb eliminates the need of soldering and it increases the need for men in the work force instead of throwing men out of work and eliminating the fallacy stage. Taylor also believed that workers that are not under the watchful eye of management are more productive and happier at their jobs. Because they are under less stressful conditions.

In Frederick Taylor’s work on “The Principles of Scientific Management,” he argues that workers could work harder and produce more for their company but because of the payment they receive they make less.  He discussed a term called “soldering” in the U.S, in England it is called “hanging it out” and in Scotland it’s called “ca canae” which is under working or deliberately working slow and safe, putting out less and avoiding doing a day’s work of work.  This proves that it exists in work places around the world and is a problem that he believes is universal and can be found in large establishments.

He stated three reasons for why workers do not produce at maximum capacity. His first reason states that a misconception workers are tossed together in the same environment could lead to a lot of men out of jobs.  Second The system and machines make workers work slower because they are trying to protect themselves and third the rule of thumb method to teach the new workers to perform the task.

Taylor believe that the scientific method would fix the problem of underworking and lower cost of production both home and overseas markets and would even the playing field with the competitors. The rule of thumb method workers is being trained by other workers so there’s a lot of other way of getting the task done. He believes that management should be more hands on and train their employees’ one definite way of doing the job efficiently thus producing more, less time being wasted which will result in more profit and higher wages, elimination of poverty and lower the cost of production. It would also have a better effect on their workers that would allow them to work at the best of their abilities, doubling speed that will eventually double production.

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 The Principles of Scientific Management Taylor investigates the process of creating an industry of workers that are essentially used to build efficiency in the workforce. He argues that it is the fault of the nation’s inability to efficiently unitize and manage the growth of the worker. This will result in waste, the waste of materials, production and labor power all of which are needed to create a solid industry. Taylor believes in the possibilities of the “Systemic Management” and how it will get rid of the lack of efficiency within industries while building a solid structure for a better off work place. This style of management will maximize profits and productivity among workers.

Taylor is faced with this realization of differences. He for sees this conflict among employee and their employer while trying to wrap their mind around this new method “Systemic Management”. The point of views of these individuals’ offers troubles— that no one believes they can mutually achieve their perspective goals. This addresses the conflict Taylor argues that both sides are the same. In theory, this defeats the sole purpose of the scientist management, which is represented by teamwork to increase a mutual efficiency in work labor and production. Through this method both the employer and employee can prosper if they work together.

A portion of Taylor’s reasoning for this underlining conflict stems from refocusing on training the employee oppose to this idealized “right man” and the relevance of developing first class men. Three goals were originally directed towards engineers and managers.

1. The whole country in suffering loss through daily acts of inefficiency.
2. The cure of inefficiency is systematic management oppose to this long lasting search for the “right man”.
3. Most effective management is one that is able to balance properly defined laws and principles as a base of workmanship.

He argues that the fundamental principles of the scientific management rules are universal and can be applied throughout all kinds of work. If done properly, both employee and employer can achieve mutual rewards in their work.

Ideally, I feel the possibilities of this method present a win-win scenario for everyone. On paper, it sounds great! However, I find difficult to apply this method in our present society. Capital threatens business and forces the business owner into strong competitive mind set, in order to survive and prosper. The competitive aspect alone would interfere with Taylor’s “Systemic Management”; Realistically this is unobtainable.

I think that work under capitalism, the worker is alienated this is what Karl Marx says. What my understanding is from all three articles is that human beings are separated from their own nature. We are denied from our own nature, we are separated from what makes us human and that is work.  In the Charlie Chaplin video clip, technology forces humans around machines. In order for us to keep going we must engage in this type of work to exceed our own needs. In the video, Chaplin went on a “lunch break” and was immediately sent back to work. I see the worker in a way like a commodity. The worker is paid to give his or herself their energy, The more production that happens the less value the worker has. In capitalism the product of labor is not in the worker, because the worker has no control over the labor. Which It leads us to the Frederick Taylor’s article on “The Principles of Scientific Management,  He wants us to know that in order for a worker to work efficiently he has, the worker has to be involved with his owners to make good business and wages for the workers. In the quote he presents as “himself a quitter in sport”, he believes that workers should be able to perform any task with the right support. The worker should not feel a sense of failure because its about the work. People should feel a sense of manager to worker relationship to improve their contribution to work. The worker shouldn’t feel like he is “soldiering” himself if it is for the satisfaction of work. In a way I reminds me of Marx, where he says, the worker, “only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself”, so you know you are working but its not for you. Finally, In the” Tracking sensors, invade the workplace” article, This was a hard article to grasp. I felt like this experiment was strange because these people were being tracked on everything they were doing. I understand that the concept of this was to see how workers interact with each other and work in offices but; Sometimes for me, it is hard to interact with people because I am a shy person. So I feel like in a way this could be forcing people to shut down, because their movements are being recorded. If you think of it in a different matter, it is probably a good thing to see how people process information and show leadership skills, which are beneficial to high corporate companies, But in my opinion It was a tad bit strange.

Toniann German

Assignment #4

SOC

In Karl Marx “Wage labour and capital” he opens by defining what are wages and how these wages connect to labor. Marx discusses that wages are particular amounts of money that one receives from capitalist for the amount of work they do or the amount of time they spend doing work.  He states we have allowed our labor to be bought from capitalist by placing a price tag on ourselves, therefore it appears that we sell our labor for money. However, this is not the case, in actuality what is being sold “to the capitalist for money is their labour-power” Marx explains that for wage workers labour power is a commodity that they sell in order to stay alive.

When Marx discusses the weaver he explains that the weaver is getting paid because of the amount of time it has taken to make the cloth. However, in order for the weaver to create this cloth the capitalist had to offer the commodities necessary in order to create the cloth such as the yarn and loom. However, the weaver now gets paid for his work but not from the profit that was made from the selling of the cloth. The profit made from the creation of the weaver’s cloth goes strictly to the capitalist. However now the weaver can take his earnings to buy commodities necessary for survival such as shelter and food. Therefor the weaver’s work is seen more as a trade.

What I took away from this reading is that unless you love your work, your work will be seen as a sacrifice you make in your life not actually apart of your life. I also feel that he was saying that we don’t get paid what we should, we are not getting paid for what we are creating or producing or how much money we are making our bosses. We are being payed wages based off of time and what the capitalist deem as appropriate.

Toniann German

Assignment #3

Soc

In Harry Bravemans “The making of the working class” he discusses how the working class is divided because the workers are divided in their work. He expresses that just because a person works it does not make them apart of the working class. Braveman gives examples of the farmer and the contractor to explain that these people would not be seen as working class rather than the people who are hired to work under them. Although business owners, farmers or contractors may do similar work as their employees it is there level of authority that is separating them from the working class, because these people work for themselves they are not considered working class.

Braveman separates the working class by productive vs nonproductive workers, Braveman states that productive vs nonproductive does not mean manual labor vs non manual labor. rather productive workers produce something useful. He gives the example of clerks who do things that contribute to the production of a product although they may not necessary be in direct contact with the product.  Unproductive workers on the other hand are described in Bravemans reading as the banks, insurance, investments, and real estate industries just to name a few. Unproductive labor is that which is unnecessary in the production of goods. Here I believe he is describing productive vs nonproductive as todays white collar worker’s vs blue collar workers. Another way to view productive vs unproductive is that which benefits society or government and that which does not bring profit or benefit society as a whole.

When looking at these terms I believe That Braveman is stating that although there are productive workers and unproductive workers both are seen as belonging to the working class because they are working under someone. I believe that people are moving into the direction of unproductive work because the productive work is starting to be taken over by the rise of technology.

Due Sunday, October 2nd, by midnight. Word count: 400 words. Please make sure everything is in your own words. If you paraphrase (which I encourage you to do) make sure to include the proper citation.

In Frederick Taylor’s work on “The Principles of Scientific Management,” he (1911:4) argues that it is a general quality of the working man that “instead of using every effort to turn out the largest possible amount of work, in a majority of the cases this man deliberately
plans to do as little as he safely can to turn out far less work than he is well able to do, in many instances to do not more than one-third to one-half of a proper day’s work. And in fact if he were to do his best to turn out his largest possible day’s work, he would be abused by his fellow workers for so doing, even more than if he had proved himself a ‘quitter’ in sport.”  In your own words, describe Taylor’s response to this problem, of obtaining the maximum output of men and machines.

In Karl Marx’s “Wage Labour and Capital”, Marx was able to breakdown his theory by using examples of specific types of laborurs, he was able to characterize the capitalistic labor power system. The commodities, labor hours and wages were explained well with his use of a weaver. The capatisitic give the labor tools to produce a product to be sold as a commodity. The laborer does not get a percentage of the products, but gets a small amount of earnings from the employee before they even sell the commodity.

Even if the capitalist sells the commodity, they will be earning far more than what wage was paid out to the weaver. Also, if the capitals does not sell and earn profit, they have still been successful because they have the power of labor by having the weaver doing work for them. So whether the capitalist are losing money, they still have power in strengthen capitalism.

The weaver then does not view that he is under the control of a capitalist. The weaver instead believes that he is exchanging his expertise or skill for a wage or earning. The weaver sees this as a means to live. Sees this as a small sacrifice and focus more on the life they live after work is over. Enjoy life and resting. Marx uses the example of a silk worm in comparison to the laborer. A laborur continues to work to earn a wage and live would be like a worm continuing to spin silk to livelonger.

Marx is able to explain that as a capitalist, the best security is to use the money they already have from other commodities, and invest a small portion of this in order to earn or gain more labor power. The actual product that is produced is not always a commodity, but the laborur is the actual product or labor power. The laborur does not belong to the capitalist, yet he belongs to where he is now categorized in the separate working or labor class. He becomes a member of that classification.

It takes a small amount of what that 1% already has to continue to develop the spirit of capitalism. To continue the methods by any means in order to grow labor power. As long as the methods continue, the spirit of capitalism will continue to be strengthened. We work to produce products but are also contributing to the purchasing of commodities and in return makes capitalist so profitable. Wages are nothing within this whole system of increasing the control of labor power.