Summary Of Beverly Silver's Forces Of Labor
Beverly Silver’s Forces of Labor provides a candid explanation of historical labor strife movements that characterized the US and UK. She uses a database of the London Times and New York Times newspapers to profile the labor unrest in the two countries. By profiling every mention of labor unrest in the two papers, Silver gives a candid analysis of the dynamics of labor and capital in the twentieth century. In the first three chapters, Silver demonstrates the relationship between capital and labor; in that capital determines the profitability strategies that an entity will embrace, which when implemented results to resistance. Actions by employers to counter resistance consequently yield other forms of resistance. Resistance by workers follows two strategies; “Marxian” and “Polanyian.” Under the Marxian strategy, workers fight to earn a share of the company’s profit and also ensure that their workplaces are productive. On the other
…show more content…
hand, Polanyian strategy seeks to eliminate the treatment of workers as commodities whose livelihoods are threatened by market forces (Silver B. J., Polanyi's “Double Movement”: The Belle Époques of British and U.S. Hegemony Compared, 2003). The author demonstrates that the concept of shifting production to enjoy cheap labor was evident in the past as companies tried to avoid confrontation with its workers.
Silver refers to this strategy as “spatial fix:” and it seeks to relocate workers’ bargaining power by embracing new sites of production.
The books illustrated the spatial fix strategy using the labor unrest experienced in the American Auto-industry. At the time of the struggle, the car manufacturers were based in the Mid-Western areas whose workers’ unions were extremely weak. The auto industry manufacturers had an upper hand over their workers given the fact that resisting employees were easily displaced by unskilled and semiskilled workers who were eager to fill their positions. However, the use of semiskilled and unskilled workers in production resulted to a major weakness. The reliance on a single capital intensive machine to drive the assembly line implied that any stoppage that arose was bound to affect profits negatively. The American auto industry had no choice but to accept the conditions demanded by the militant minority of workers. The employers agreed to acknowledge unions and their role in highlighting the plight of
workers.
The companies, who were the employers, had to offer higher wages and allow workers control the decision-making processes on the factory floor. The deal implied that car manufacturers had to sacrifice some of their profits; hence, the need to find new production locations that would guarantee cheaper labor. The new areas identified were Europe and Japan. In the case Japan, there was an extended period of labor peace as new forms of organization that included lifetime employment of core workers were introduced. Smaller contractors who managed their labor requirements were heavily depended on to reduce the labor unrest exposure.
In Europe, however, the success rates witnessed in Japan were not replicated as labor confrontations were rife in the late sixties almost bringing production to a halt. As was the case in the US, workers’ wages were increased, and so was their control over the factory floor. With the new developments, capital migrated much quicker than in the case of US to South Africa, Brazil and South Korea. The same challenges that characterized earlier locations were witnessed in the new countries as society sought democracy. The car manufacturers were forced to shift operations to China and Northern Mexico. Finally, the auto industry shifted operations to the US, though production was heavily automated to avoid labor confrontations (Pringle, 2013).
The author explains that the process struggle between workers and employers has accelerated, especially given the fact that most companies did not enjoy the monopolistic powers to ‘buy’ workers as the American auto industry. Subcontracting and automation was also embraced by most companies to avoid labor revolts. Silver terms the response by capital as “organizational/technological fix.” This principle advocates for new production processes that significantly reduce the role of employees in determining a company’s profit. The author identifies two weaknesses of embracing Just-in-Time (JIT) complex in the company. First, they fail to incorporate core workers, and second: the JIT complex interferes with the delivery process (Silver, 2003).
The next section of the book compares the textile industry with auto industry experience. The textile industry was a boom in the 19th century especially after the Agrarian Revolution. However, the textile dominance was cut short by a wave of labor unrest that led to decline of profits consequently shifting interest to a new auto industry. The textile industry had experienced similar challenges as the auto industry, and hence, companies migrated. Textile companies were eventually unable to shift to other locations as virtually all new locations became sites of unrest. The textile and auto industry had some significant differences. Lack of centrality in the textile industry was the main one. A single mill was not very important to the production process; and hence, the workers bargaining power was reduced. The second major difference arose from the fact that the textile industry migrated to a wider variety of countries. Therefore, workers in the industry had to form alliances with other workers to push their interests. In what Silver refers to as associational power, textile workers were able to form alliances with other working class movements to demand higher wages.
The book identifies the principle of product fix. The author attempts to identify the industries that will become leaders in the 21st century. In the discussion, the semiconductor industry, education, personal service, and producer services are identified as the possible leaders of the 21st century. The discussion also highlights the potential of each industry identified. In the final chapter, another strategy of capital is identified. The financial fix which refers to withdrawal of money from production to financial channels has been extensively discussed. The financial fix is informed by the recent dynamics in global economies that saw the rise of capitalism (Silver B. , 2014). The book identifies three contradictory theories that achieve three objectives including distracting workers, suppressing their struggle with calls for national unity, and that wars are a platform for other struggles and revolutions.
References
Pringle, T. (2013). Reflections on Labor in China: From a Moment to a Movement. South Atlantic Quarterly, 191-203.
Silver, B. (2014). Geopolitical Turmoil and the Fate of the Labor Movement in the 21st Century: 10 Years after Forces of Labor. Facing an Unequal World:Challenges for Global Sociology (p. n.a). Yokohama: ISA.
Silver, B. J. (2003). Forces of Labor: Workers' Movements and Globalization Since 1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silver, B. J. (2003). Polanyi's “Double Movement”: The Belle Époques of British and U.S. Hegemony Compared. Politics & Society, 325-355.
hand, Polanyian strategy seeks to eliminate the treatment of workers as commodities whose livelihoods are threatened by market forces (Silver B. J., Polanyi's “Double Movement”: The Belle Époques of British and U.S. Hegemony Compared, 2003). The author demonstrates that the concept of shifting production to enjoy cheap labor was evident in the past as companies tried to avoid confrontation with its workers.
Silver refers to this strategy as “spatial fix:” and it seeks to relocate workers’ bargaining power by embracing new sites of production.
The books illustrated the spatial fix strategy using the labor unrest experienced in the American Auto-industry. At the time of the struggle, the car manufacturers were based in the Mid-Western areas whose workers’ unions were extremely weak. The auto industry manufacturers had an upper hand over their workers given the fact that resisting employees were easily displaced by unskilled and semiskilled workers who were eager to fill their positions. However, the use of semiskilled and unskilled workers in production resulted to a major weakness. The reliance on a single capital intensive machine to drive the assembly line implied that any stoppage that arose was bound to affect profits negatively. The American auto industry had no choice but to accept the conditions demanded by the militant minority of workers. The employers agreed to acknowledge unions and their role in highlighting the plight of
workers.
The companies, who were the employers, had to offer higher wages and allow workers control the decision-making processes on the factory floor. The deal implied that car manufacturers had to sacrifice some of their profits; hence, the need to find new production locations that would guarantee cheaper labor. The new areas identified were Europe and Japan. In the case Japan, there was an extended period of labor peace as new forms of organization that included lifetime employment of core workers were introduced. Smaller contractors who managed their labor requirements were heavily depended on to reduce the labor unrest exposure.
In Europe, however, the success rates witnessed in Japan were not replicated as labor confrontations were rife in the late sixties almost bringing production to a halt. As was the case in the US, workers’ wages were increased, and so was their control over the factory floor. With the new developments, capital migrated much quicker than in the case of US to South Africa, Brazil and South Korea. The same challenges that characterized earlier locations were witnessed in the new countries as society sought democracy. The car manufacturers were forced to shift operations to China and Northern Mexico. Finally, the auto industry shifted operations to the US, though production was heavily automated to avoid labor confrontations (Pringle, 2013).
The author explains that the process struggle between workers and employers has accelerated, especially given the fact that most companies did not enjoy the monopolistic powers to ‘buy’ workers as the American auto industry. Subcontracting and automation was also embraced by most companies to avoid labor revolts. Silver terms the response by capital as “organizational/technological fix.” This principle advocates for new production processes that significantly reduce the role of employees in determining a company’s profit. The author identifies two weaknesses of embracing Just-in-Time (JIT) complex in the company. First, they fail to incorporate core workers, and second: the JIT complex interferes with the delivery process (Silver, 2003).
The next section of the book compares the textile industry with auto industry experience. The textile industry was a boom in the 19th century especially after the Agrarian Revolution. However, the textile dominance was cut short by a wave of labor unrest that led to decline of profits consequently shifting interest to a new auto industry. The textile industry had experienced similar challenges as the auto industry, and hence, companies migrated. Textile companies were eventually unable to shift to other locations as virtually all new locations became sites of unrest. The textile and auto industry had some significant differences. Lack of centrality in the textile industry was the main one. A single mill was not very important to the production process; and hence, the workers bargaining power was reduced. The second major difference arose from the fact that the textile industry migrated to a wider variety of countries. Therefore, workers in the industry had to form alliances with other workers to push their interests. In what Silver refers to as associational power, textile workers were able to form alliances with other working class movements to demand higher wages.
The book identifies the principle of product fix. The author attempts to identify the industries that will become leaders in the 21st century. In the discussion, the semiconductor industry, education, personal service, and producer services are identified as the possible leaders of the 21st century. The discussion also highlights the potential of each industry identified. In the final chapter, another strategy of capital is identified. The financial fix which refers to withdrawal of money from production to financial channels has been extensively discussed. The financial fix is informed by the recent dynamics in global economies that saw the rise of capitalism (Silver B. , 2014). The book identifies three contradictory theories that achieve three objectives including distracting workers, suppressing their struggle with calls for national unity, and that wars are a platform for other struggles and revolutions.
References
Pringle, T. (2013). Reflections on Labor in China: From a Moment to a Movement. South Atlantic Quarterly, 191-203.
Silver, B. (2014). Geopolitical Turmoil and the Fate of the Labor Movement in the 21st Century: 10 Years after Forces of Labor. Facing an Unequal World:Challenges for Global Sociology (p. n.a). Yokohama: ISA.
Silver, B. J. (2003). Forces of Labor: Workers' Movements and Globalization Since 1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silver, B. J. (2003). Polanyi's “Double Movement”: The Belle Époques of British and U.S. Hegemony Compared. Politics & Society, 325-355.