The list was missed. Welcome back. But already a challenging question.
Sally has asked us to post our thoughts on what will be the single most
important issue related to the future of work during 1998-1999 -- and our
ideas on how that issue should be addressed. Well, here I go.
1998 is only a few months away. I don't think that 1998-1999 will be that
different from 1997. So, what we might look at is what some of the issues
are right now, and then ask ourselves whether they will get better or worse
in a years time. We have a number of rather desolate facts to work with:
real average wages and real average family incomes have declined since
approximately 1980; unemployment, at least in Canada, has remained high, and
is a particularly problem among the young; technological displacement and
downsizing continue; and the international economy has become much more open
and competitive.
Internationally, enormous shifts in economic power have already taken place
and may be accelerating. Those who control capital have gained ground,
while other stakeholders would appear to have lost it. Industrial and
technological capital has become extremely mobile, and no production job
anywhere is safe if it is seen as overpriced. International monetary
speculation is in a position to batter governments into submission if their
fiscal and monetary policies are out of line with economic realities.
Currency speculation is no longer a somewhat shady by-product of emerging
international economy, it is now seen as having the role of a morally
defensible punitive force which brings politicians into line when they err.
The Globe and Mail quotes Michel Camdessus, managing director of the IMF
telling emerging markets: "What you must do is compete for excellence in the
management of your economies so you don't attract the attention of
speculators." Be good, or the cops will come!
On the domestic scene in countries such as Canada, social capital which was
built up painstakingly over the years is deteriorating. The media are
replete with articles on off-loadings and downsizings in the government
sector, closures and frustrations in the health system, prospective strikes
in education, the inability of the authorities to cope with crime and
violence, and of increasingly punitive actions toward "welfare cheats".
And what is most ironic in all of this is that economies such as the Canada,
the US and the UK are supposedly booming, even though it is a little hard to
tell just what "booming" means anymore. What, precisely, is booming? Are
real, long-term jobs being created? Or, if employment is growing, is it via
a whole bunch of dead-end McJobs which will be here today but not tomorrow?
Is industrial and social capital and the quality of life being improved? Or
is it a paper boom reflecting little more than the speculative rise in the
value of financial instruments?
So, where is the worker in all of this? What must not be overlooked is that
there is no such thing as an average or typical worker. There are many
different kinds of workers at many different levels of the economy. And the
economic system as a whole is moving in the direction of leanness and
meanness. "Leanness" means cutting out the fat. "Meanness" means getting
more out of the human resources that are retained.
So, where is the fat? Not too long ago, I accessed some Canadian data on
the rate at which various types of jobs have grown. I found that the
"management/professional" category grew far more rapidly than any other
between 1981 and 1994. Most others scarcely grew at all, and some even
declined. The management/professional category grew from approximately
one-quarter of the labour force in 1981 to about one-third in 1994. Though
the reasons for employing more managers and professionals may have been
legitimate when it was being done, I would suggest that it is now perceived
by lean-minded management as a build-up of fat. This fat is currently being
eliminated in public service and corporate cutbacks, but it is not only the
people who are downsized who will suffer. Those who remain will need to
"take up the slack" by working harder and longer hours. They will do more
with less. I recently returned to an old work place in the Canadian public
service as a consultant. I was amazed at the hours managers and
professionals were putting in.
The only other category of jobs that grew more rapidly than the growth of
employment as a whole was services, though it grew much less rapidly than
managerial/professional jobs. Jobs in services, and particularly those in
the variety of social services being provided by governments, are
experiencing cut-backs.
Jobs were actually lost in "primary occupations" and "processing, machining
and fabricating", categories which traditionally absorbed young people who
chose not to continue their educations. These categories were strongly
unionized. Their decline has witnessed a decline of industrial and trades
unions, which have historically been a major force in promoting social
well-being.
What we have now, and are likely to have even more of in 1998-1999, is a
fragmented labour force in which each individual must face his or her
insecurities and fight his or her battles alone. Much of the solidarity and
humanity that defined labour a few decades ago has gone out of the window.
The very concept of labour as a social class or category has little
remaining meaning. We have all been driven into little corners. It is now
every man for himself. It is now getting that crucial extra skill that
ensures we are more employable than the next guy. It is now getting our
kids into the best schools so that they stand out above their peers. A
T-shirt I saw on a recent ferry ride in British Columbia said it all: "The
guy who comes second is the first loser."
Solutions? Some people have proposed mass actions such as consumer boycotts
via the Internet. I see nothing wrong with this, but would ask how many
people in India, or Russia or in the favelas of Sao Paulo are on the
Internet? Read Greider ("One World, Ready or Not) and recognize that these
people are direct competitors for many of our jobs. Perhaps they would work
in solidarity with workers in the advanced world if they realized what was
going on, but this is unlikely. They are happy when capital moves to them.
Even though it pays them far less than it pays us, it provides them with a
better living.
It is both fortunate and unfortunate that history consists of great shifts.
There are shifts which work both for human betterment and against it. The
current shift is against it. But this does not mean that things won't turn
around. The most important point made by Greider in "One World" is that the
capacity of the present industrial system to produce far exceeds the world's
capacity to consume. This is not a new point, but Greider makes it
forcefully, providing a plethora of examples. The point raises a puzzle.
If we can produce so much, how is it that much of the world's people are
malnourished, in poor health, poorly housed, poorly educated, and in general
very poor? Well ... perhaps we are producing the wrong things. Perhaps
instead of producing fancier cars, condos and electronic gadgetry, our
capital should be used to produce better housing, health, education and a
cleaner environment for all of the world's people. But that may be for the
next great historic shift to determine. We are still too busy trying to
figure out what's hit us.
Ed Weick
