Industrial Discipline, the Control of Attendance, and the Subordination of Labour: Towards an Integrated Analysis

Abstract

The operation of discipline in the workplace has received little attention in sociology; the control of attendance has attracted even less. Yet they have taken on a growing significance in many firms, and help to throw light on more general issues of new forms of the control of labour. Material from two case studies is used to show why firms are changing their policies and to explore the effect on workplace relations. Disciplinary regimes have been tightened and, although the direct impact on workers has been limited, the symbolic effects of closer managerial attention to individual workers' behaviour are considerable.

Class, Control, and Relational Indignity

“…Robert Blauner (1964) argued that alienation-as measured by levels of powerlessness, meaninglessness, isolation from production goals, and self-estrangement-varies with the organization of work. Building on this approach, and integrating it with Marxist-oriented being paid to their behavior and the threat of sanctions for noncompliance (P. K. Edwards & Whitston, 1989;Tenbrunsel & Messick, 1999). Rules serve many functions, enabling or disabling workers depending on their use (Adler & Borys, 1996).…”

From ‘Sitting by Nellie’ to the Classroom Factory? The Restructuring of Skills, Recruitment and Training in a South Wales Motor Components Plant*

“…Sayer (1986) also points out that firms developing JIT methods are less likely to recruit female as well as older workers (also see Edwards and Whitson, 1989: 6) than JIC or fordist firms. As recruitment practices become more selective and the internal labour market develops, vacancies become less open to those in the external labour marketin particular, women and older workers.…”

Reframing workplace relations? Conflict resolution and mediation in a primary care trust

“…In such situations procedures may be reduced to exercises in legal compliance, affording workers little chance to resolve problems or challenge perceived unfairness (Pollert and Charlwood, 2009). In contrast, effective structures of employee representation may not only ensure that formal procedures are adhered to but also underpin informal resolution processes (Author A et al, 2011) Therefore, outcomes of individual disputes are subject to processes of negotiation and re-negotiation (Edwards and Whitston, 1989). In short, their operation (in both formal and informal spheres) is inexorably conditioned by what Edwards (2000) calls the politics of the management of labour.…”

“…Of course this may be the case, but it ignores the way in which formal procedure and informal processes often co-exist. Managers often handle individual disputes in diverse and multi-faceted ways (Edwards and Whitston, 1989) while the role played by trade union representatives goes beyond that of simply challenging managerial authority and may include elements of self-discipline as they seek informal resolutions on behalf of their members (Edwards, 1994;McCarthy, 1966;Batstone et al, 1977).…”