Shane: > Workers call it [sabotage] "work to rule." < me: > That's backward. Work to rule is not sabotage; it's obeying a voluntarily > agreed-upon contract...
Shane: > A contract's rules are union-enforced via grievance and, if necessary, > strike. Work-to-rule involves the *bosses* bureaucratic rules which, in > practice, have to be applied very flexibly (if they can even be applied at > all). That is why workers can, by applying them literally, effectively > sabotage the bosses operations.< Outside of craft work, labor contracts involve the union accepting management's control over the production process (and usually add extra rules). That means that the union contract acknowledges the bosses' bureaucratic rules and the union pledges its members to obey them. Of course, Shane is right to point out that in practice, the bosses' bureaucratic rules are usually broken -- by management itself -- so the rules are "applied very flexibly." He also is right that by interfering with this flexibility (by applying the rules literally) it interferes with the bosses' drive to maximize profits (or what management calls "efficiency"). My point was that bosses may think of work-to-rule as "sabotage." It may actually _be_ sabotage in the view of an objective observer (since it hurts production). But It is totally consistent with the contract, which management signed. Workers thus shouldn't think of it as sabotage. It's living up to the contract. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
