To what extent does the post-fordist workplace mark a fundamental change in the modern forms of work and employment?

University Degree Business and Administrative studies

There is a great deal of debate concerning the extent to which fordist methods of production and economies have been replaced by a new post-fordist era. Within this debate, a large proportion of influence has been placed upon the degree and nature of change within the workplace environment. In order to understand the extent to which the post-fordist workplace marks a fundamental change in the modern forms of work and employment, it is necessary to appreciate both fordist and post-fordist work environments and evaluate and identify certain themes or notions of variation. When concerned with fordist to post-fordist workplace change, a variety of beliefs have been established. These beliefs range from the geographical relocation of work and production, to the changes in everyday working situations and their implications upon wider society. This is not to say however that these beliefs are held by all, as a multitude of criticism exists concerned with the extent of workplace changes and the implications this has upon the establishment of a post-fordist era.

Therefore, in order to understand post-fordist work and employment, it is first necessary to look at fordist methods of production and societal level implications drawn from these methods. Thus, the term Fordism derives from the revolutionary production systems implemented by Henry Ford in the early half of the twentieth Century that became in effect a cultural and societal institution. These systems comprised of the mass production of highly standardised goods from partially mechanised assembly lines manned by low to semi skilled workers. In return for the repetitive work incurred on the assembly line, Ford introduced a $5 day wage to certain groups, which ensured that the workers had the capacity and disposable income to purchase the variety of mass, standardised goods that were now being produced. Thus resulting in a process whereby Ford’s production methods were producing a system of both mass production and mass consumption. The introduction of assembly lines and replacement of labour by mechanisation throughout the production sector resulted in mass unemployment of Ford’s target consumers. This coupled with structural flaws within fordist methods of production and wider societal level implications, is generally heralded as leading to the demise of fordism and the transition to other societal developments, namely those of post-fordism or neo-fordism. This transition represents a qualitative shift away from the existing methods and implication of fordism, and the extent to which a transition has taken place can be identified when looking at the changes of work and employment. Therefore, the whole notion of the post-fordist shift rests on the idea that change has taken place, and to such an extent as to warrant it being labelled post-fordism. However, debate exists as to the nature and to what extent a shift has occurred, and to whether this transition is of enough magnitude to command and establish a new form of economic and societal relations.

One of the major qualitative shifts concerned with the fordism transition is that of overcoming rigidity. Fordism, it is claimed was severely hampered due to ‘problems with the rigidity of long term and large scale…mass production systems’ (Harvey, 1990: 142). In that rigid labour markets and stagnant production processes incapable of reacting to changing consumer trends were highlighted as one of the main criticisms of fordism. Post-fordism however, involves direct confrontation with these rigidities and emphasised maximising flexibility in all areas of work. The argument of flexibility in modern working day practices is a far-reaching one, and incorporates a great array of features concerned with work and employment. These features generally centre on two main themes, that of changes to production and labour processes. The emphasis on flexibility in production processes has involved the introduction of flexible manufacturing systems capable of producing both mass economies of scale and economies of scope. This differentiation and dual capacity of post-fordist work practices allows the business to cope with seasonal and consumer fluctuations, and is what Harvey (1990) argues to be the notion of ‘flexible accumulation’ rather than mass production and consumption. This implementation of lean production systems allows the business to operate in niche markets, producing a wide range consumer driven products without the need to rely on large amounts of backup stock (Marshall 1992). Therefore, the rigidities occurred and the ‘economies of scale sought under fordist mass production, have it seems, been countered by an increasing capacity to manufacture a variety of goods cheaply in small batches’ (Harvey 1990: 155).

However, Gabriel (1988) argues that not all changing production processes are representing typified post-fordist methods, as can be seen in the catering industry. This argues that in general, catering is becoming more industrialised, with mass production and deskilling of the workforce, leading to the notion of the post-fordist economic era being questioned.

This is a preview of the whole essay

One further area in which the transition from fordism to post-fordism that has affected production processes is that of the globalisation of production. With the introduction of new forms of technologies and communications, it allows for the decentralisation of production. Certain aspects of goods can be produced in peripheral locations either controlled from a centralised location or managed by trained, flexible technicians responsible for a multitude of operations (Allen 1996). This therefore allows companies to exploit cheaper labour or ICT specialisation in certain countries for example, and can be seen in respect of the large multinational corporations such as Microsoft, General Motors and the recent move of certain aspects of the telephone exchange system of British Telecom to India. This has great implications for the home nation workers however, who experience unemployment due to organisational relocation of businesses

Moving away from production, further flexibilities are sought through the manipulation of employed labour and labour markets, and the transition from fordism to post-fordism has been pivotal in the revolution of labour structures. The changing relations of labour structures also encompasses many other factors, and has implications and cause and effect upon each of them, therefore it can be seen as one of the largest areas of change and debate within the post-fordist workplace. The origins of change within the labour process can be seen to stem directly from the observed changes within the production process, and as Breathnatch (-) argues ‘the technological and organisational innovations associated with economic restructuring have been accompanied by profound changes in the nature of both work and workers’. Atkinson (1984) identified three influential variations of flexibility that apply directly to the changes of labour within the post-fordist workplace. These can be seen as functional, financial and numerical flexibility. Functional flexibility refers to the ability of the employee to carry out multiple tasks and possess an array of personal abilities in order to allow for this to happen. This functional flexibility has been repeatedly referred to as the up-skilling or re-skilling or workers, and is hailed as one of the functions of the post-fordist reform. According to Gallie et al (1996), analysis of national workplace surveys indicates that skill levels amongst workers did rise in the period of 1980 to 1990. However, Thompson (1993) argues that the requirement of workers to complete a range of tasks results in a lack of any real specialisation and does not induce any increase of workplace skills. This view is also echoed by Wood (1989) who argues that labour changes in the workplace are effectively variations along a fordist style theme, advocating the term neo-fordism rather than post-fordism. This can be exemplified by the view that although the growth of ICT in business and industry has replaced the mass assembly line and led to a view of post-fordism, the majority of low skill workers who are not able to maintain ICT systems are being replaced by this technology, leading to a post-fordist example of the assembly line unemployment seen under fordism (Allen 1996, Breathnatch -).

Financial flexibility refers to financial changes made in the workplace, to such things as performance related pay and a move away from a set payment rate to personal levels of pay with tailored salaries and bonuses. This provides the linking gap between functional and numerical forms of flexibility.

Numerical flexibility refers to the extend at which management can vary the size of a work force dependent on such things as the requirement of labour and the economic status of the market. Post-fordist organisations, it is argued, require the need of numerical flexibility due to the notion that businesses operate in uncertain markets and need to have the ability to react quickly to changing consumer demands (Ackroyd, 1988). Concerned with this notion is the view of the development of non-standard employment, which argues that post-fordist working regimes have introduced and emphasised the need for part-time, casual, temporary and portfolio workers. This emphasis on flexibility marks a fundamental change from the rigidities of fordism, as the requirements for flexibility within fordist production were neither sort after or engaged. Although hailed as liberating for the worker, the implementation of maximum flexibility in the workplace has resulted in substantial criticism. Pollert (1991) has argued that the term ‘flexibility’ is a too positive view of this change and should infact be labelled the ‘casualisation’ of labour. This also argues that so called flexible work is denying workers of any real job security and resulting in massive labour shifts and labour turnover. Further implications can also be seen from the view of the employer. Pollert argues that flexible work resulting in insecure workers is likely to lead to poorly motivated staff, and this notion is enhanced by the view that casual or temporary workers without any real stake in the business are not as likely to be committed members of the workforce. One further implication of the changing patterns of work is that of its effect on notions of class. Bauman (1998) argues that due to shifts in the work patterns and increased emphasis on flexibility workers no longer define class boundaries and status upon their occupation. This leads away from a society dissected by class to produce an identity based upon what they consume. Breathnatch (-) however argues that a process of social polarisation is occurring in post-fordist societies whereby two distinct classes are being produced, both with highly defined boundaries based upon occupation and income.

This flexibility of workers and the proposed decline in class in post-fordist society also encompasses other implications, and one of the most predominate areas of this is the notion of the decline of trade unionism. The Workplace Industrial Relations Survey (1990) indicated that workplace recognition of unions had fell from 64 percent in 1980 to 53 percent in 1990 (Millward et al 1992). This decline was associated with the transition from fordism to post-fordism and a variety of reasons have been put forward in explanation of this. Coates (1989) puts forward the view that due to the implementation of flexible workers, the predominant working class union members have been divided by the separation of core full time employees and peripheral temporary and casual labour. With temporary and part time workers numbers increasing, the fordist notion of the ‘workers united’ is becoming less dominant as peripheral workers are viewed as having a reduced concern over such items as union membership due to a decreased stake in the organisation. This view is furthered by the measured decline in the industries dominated by trade unions such as the primary and secondary sectors of work (Mortimer 2003). This in conjunction with the drastic rise in employment in the service sector, one in which union density is particularly low, and high unemployment in manufacturing and industry has been identified as aiding in the decline of trade unionism.

The decline in trade unions in the post-fordist workplace is possibly the predominant area incurring the least amount of debate as to its cause and existence, it is therefore due to this happening that change in the post-fordist workplace is occurring and to an extent at which the notions of fordism must be challenged by post-fordist reform.

The labour market of post-fordist societies has also gone through other apparent changes. This can be especially seen when concerned with the notion of the feminisation of the workplace and employment. According to Hakim (1993) in the period 1951 to 1996, economically active women between the ages of 15 - 59 had risen from 46 percent to 71 percent, while at the same time economically active men aged 15 – 64 had declined from 96 percent to 85 percent. This however, according to Naylor (1994) depends upon the type of work carried out and the amount of hours undertaken, as it is argued that the upsurge in numbers of women in work is due to a majority employed within part time work. This view of part-time labour is advocated by Elliot (1997) who argue that part-time work is the result of rational choice and decision to go into part time employment, while Crompton and Harris (1997) argue that this choice in unfortunately not rational and is subjected to the responsibilities of childcare for example. Regardless of this, part time work also aided employers’ active decisions into selecting flexible labour, and is thus cited as one of the reasons behind the increasing numbers in female employees (Crompton 1997). This view, in conjunction with the decline of manufacture and industry and the rise of service and tertiary sector employment also aided the notion of the feminisation of work. Beyond this, the traditional gender values of employment and society have also been under restructuring. The traditional view of the male ‘breadwinner’ is no longer such a commonly held theory, and gender stereotypical occupations have also evolved. There has been a shift towards the amalgamation of occupations in regards to gender, and with equal opportunities legislation the female acceptance of employment in traditionally male occupations has occurred. This can be seen in such occupations as the legal profession, where in the period 1946 – 1994, women entering as solicitors rose 30 percent (Elliot 1997). As with the end of trade unionism in the post-fordist workplace, the upsurge in female numbers in employment is one area of accepted change, the only debate to exist is that of the degree and quality of this change.

In conclusion, the extent to which the post-fordist workplace marks a fundamental change in the modern forms of work and employment does appear to be one of some substance. Although academics are reluctant to label any new link between production and consumption and the wider societal level implications derived from this as post-fordism, changes in work and employment have taken place to such a degree to warrant recognition. These changes, stemming from alterations and evolution to production and labour processes can be seen and although each change does exist to a varying degree, change has occurred. The move away from the rigidities of the fordist period to the emphasis upon flexibility in modern day business practices has had huge implications upon the workplace, and this can be seen in the way goods are produced and in the way the labour market has evolved to encompass a great range of factors not explored under the fordism label. It therefore seems reasonable to suppose that workplace changes have occurred in the transition from fordism to post-fordism, and are likely to continue to occur.

Word Count: 2176

References

Ackroyd, S., Gibson, B., Hughes, M., Whitaker, A. (1988) The Japanization of British industry. Industrial Relations Journal. 1.
Allen, J. (1996). ‘Post-industrialism/post-fordism’, In S. Hall, D. Held, & D. Hubert, & K. Thompson (eds.), Modernity: An introduction to modern societies. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Atkinson, J. (1984). Manpower Strategies for Flexible Organisations. Personnel Management, 16.
Bauman, Z. (1998). Work, Consumerism and the New Poor. Leeds: Open University Press.
Breathnatch, P. (-). Social polarisation in the post-fordist informational economy. [Online]. Department of Geography. National University of Ireland, Maynooth. Available from: . [Accessed 19/1/04].
Coates, D. (1989). The Crisis of Labour. London: Phillip Allan.
Crompton, R. (1997). Women and Work in Modern Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crompton, R., Harris, F. (1998). Explaining Women’s Employment Patterns: Orientation to Work Revisited. British Journal of Sociology. 49/1.
Elliot, J. (1997). What do Women Want? Women, Work and the Hakim Debate. Sociological Review. 6/4.
Gabriel, Y. (1988). Working lives in Catering. London: Routledge.
Gallie, D., Penn, R., Rose, M. (1996). Trade Unionism in Recession. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hakim, C. (1993). The Myth of Rising Female Employment. Work, Employment and Society. 7/1
Harvey, D. (1990). The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Marshall, M. (1992). Flexibility, Gender & the Nature of Work: An Assessment of post Fordism [Online]. Post-Fordism and the Nature of Work. Available from: . [Accessed 19/01/04].
Millward, N., Smart, D., Hawes, W. (1992). Workplace Industrial Relations in Transition: The ED/ERSC/PSI/ACAS surveys. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
Mortimer, J. (2003). The Decline in the Manufacturing Industry. [Online]. Socialist Campaign Group. Available from: http://www.poptel.org.uk/scgn/articles/0109/page2a.htm. [Accessed 19/1/04].
Naylor, K. (1994). Part time working in Great Britain – An Historical Analysis. Employment Gazette. 102/12.
Pollert, A. (1991). (Ed.) Farewell to Flexibility? Oxford: Blackwell.
Thompson, P. (1993). The Labour Process: Changing Theory, Changing Practice. Sociological Review, 3/2.
Wood, S. (1989) ‘The Transformation of Work’, in S. Wood (eds.), The Transformation of Work: Skill, Flexibility and the Labour Process. London: Unwin Hyman.