Advertisement

Labor Democracy in Digitalizing Industries: Emancipating or “Sandboxing” Participation in Discourses on Technology and New Forms of Work?

  • Yannick KalffEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Democratic participation is a good example to illuminate the complex reality of digitalization in contemporary industries. Digitalization offers new ways to strengthen democratic processes in organizations. However, the concepts of democratic participation differ in concept, scope, and political entitlement. Hegemonic discourses shape their implementation according to powerful interests. This contribution analyzes the consultation process “Work 4.0” of the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs that discusses the effects of digitalization and Industrie 4.0. It shows that participation and co-determination are sandboxed in their emancipatory scope and are vehicles to sustain flexibility and agility in production and on markets. This contradicts democratic participation in an emancipatory sense and installs a deterministic reading of technology and its effects on labor processes and organizational participation.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Elena Arnold, who aided in the preparation of this contribution, and the editors for their comments, which improved my paper and argument.

References

  1. Acatech. (2013). Recommendations for Implementing the Strategic Initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0: Securing the Future of German Manufacturing Industry. Munich. Retrieved from http://www.acatech.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Baumstruktur_nach_Website/Acatech/root/de/Material_fuer_Sonderseiten/Industrie_4.0/Final_report__Industrie_4.0_accessible.pdf.
  2. Ackers, P. (2016). Experiments in Industrial Democracy: An Historical Assessment of the Leicestershire Boot and Shoe Co-operative Co-partnership Movement. Labor History, 57(4), 526–548.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0023656X.2016.1239876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angermüller, J., Maingueneau, D., & Wodak, R. (2014). The Discourse Studies Reader: An Introduction. In J. Angermüller, D. Maingueneau, & R. Wodak (Eds.), The Discourse Studies Reader: Main Currents in Theory and Analysis (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  4. Ansart, P. (1967). Sociologie de Proudhon. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  5. Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 408–437.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2393374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauman, Z., Bigo, D., Esteves, P., Guild, E., Jabri, V., Lyon, D., … Walker, R. (2014). After Snowden: Rethinking the Impact of Surveillance. International Political Sociology, 8(2), 121–144.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12048.
  7. Benders, J., Huijgen, F., & Pekruhl, U. (2002). What Do We Know About the Incidence of Group Work (if Anything)? Personnel Review, 31(3), 371–385.  https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480210422769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blum, C., & Zuber, C. I. (2016). Liquid Democracy: Potentials, Problems, and Perspectives. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 24(2), 162–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyd, R., & Holton, R. J. (2018). Technology, Innovation, Employment and Power: Does Robotics and Artificial Intelligence Really Mean Social Transformation? Journal of Sociology, 54(3), 331–345.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783317726591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  11. Buhr, D. (2015). Social Innovation Policy for Industry 4.0. Bonn. Retrieved from https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/wiso/11479.pdf.
  12. Butollo, F., Jürgens, U., & Krzywdzinski, M. (2018). From Lean Production to Industrie 4.0: More Autonomy for Employees? (Discussion Paper No. SP III 2018-303). Berlin. Retrieved from https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2018/iii18-303.pdf.
  13. Carnall, C. A. (1982). Semi-Autonomous Work Groups and the Social Structure of the Organization. Journal of Management Studies, 19(3), 277–294.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1982.tb00109.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dörre, K. (2002). Kampf um Beteiligung: Arbeit, Partizipation und industrielle Beziehungen im flexiblen Kapitalismus. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. Dörre, K. (2015). Digitalisierung—neue Prosperität oder Vertiefung gesellschaftlicher Spaltungen? In H. Hirsch-Kreinsen, P. Ittermann, & J. Niehaus (Eds.), Digitalisierung industrieller Arbeit: Die Vision Industrie 4.0 und ihre sozialen Herausforderungen (pp. 269–284). Baden-Baden: Edition Sigma.Google Scholar
  16. Eller, E. (2016). Von formalisierter Mitbestimmung zu Chancen neuer Partizipation. In Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (Ed.), Wie wir arbeiten (wollen) (Werkheft No. 02, pp. 100–101). Berlin. Retrieved from http://www.arbeitenviernull.de/fileadmin/Downloads/BMAS_Werkheft-2.pdf.
  17. Ellerman, D. P. (1990). A Democratic Worker-Owned Firm: A New Model for the East and West. Boston, London, Sydney, and Wellington: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  18. Ellerman, D. P. (1999). The Democratic Firm: An Argument Based on Ordinary Jurisprudence. Journal of Business Ethics, 21(2/3), 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ellerman, D. P. (2016). Rethinking Common Versus Private Property. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 75(2), 319–345.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ellerman, D. P. (2017). On the Labor Theory of Property: Is the Problem Distribution or Predistribution? Challenge, 60(2), 171–188.  https://doi.org/10.1080/05775132.2017.1279906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Elliott, C. S., & Long, G. (2016). Manufacturing Rate Busters: Computer Control and Social Relations in the Labour Process. Work, Employment & Society, 30(1), 135–151.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017014564601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fairclough, N. (2008). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  23. Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. (2015). Green Paper Work 4.0: Re-imagining Work. Berlin. Retrieved from Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs Website http://www.bmas.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/PDF-Publikationen/arbeiten-4-0-green-paper.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2.
  24. Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. (2017). White Paper Work 4.0: Re-imagining Work. Berlin. Retrieved from Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs Website http://www.bmas.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/PDF-Publikationen/a883-white-paper.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3.
  25. Fuchs, C. (2018). Industry 4.0: The Digital German Ideology. Triple C Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 16(1), 280–289.Google Scholar
  26. Gorz, A. (1999). Reclaiming Work: Beyond the Wage-Based Society. Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gospel, H. (2011). Employee Representation and the Sustainable Company. In S. Vitols & N. Kluge (Eds.), The Sustainable Company: A New Approach to Corporate Governance (pp. 59–74). Brussels: European Trade Union Institute.Google Scholar
  28. Hahnel, R., & Wright, E. O. (2016). Alternatives to Capitalism: Proposals for a Democratic Economy. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  29. Hand, M., & Sandywell, B. (2002). E-topia as Cosmopolis or Citadel: On the Democratizing and De-democratizing Logics of the Internet, or, Toward a Critique of the New Technological Fetishism. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(1–2), 197–225.Google Scholar
  30. Hans Böckler Foundation. (2015). Arbeiten 4.0 – Diskurs und Praxis in Betriebsvereinbarungen (Diskurs und Praxis in Betriebsvereinbarungen No. 14). Düsseldorf. Retrieved from http://www.arbeitenviernull.de/fileadmin/Futurale/Statements/PDFs/Hans-Boeckler-Stiftung.pdf.
  31. Hans Böckler Foundation. (2016). Mitbestimmung. In Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (Ed.), Wie wir arbeiten (wollen) (Werkheft No. 02, pp. 123–124). Berlin. Retrieved from http://www.arbeitenviernull.de/fileadmin/Downloads/BMAS_Werkheft-2.pdf.
  32. Heller, F. A. (1998). Organizational Participation: Myth and Reality. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hofmann, J. (2016). Schaffen neue Arbeitsformen neue Beziehungsformen? In Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (Ed.), Wie wir arbeiten (wollen) (Werkheft No. 02, pp. 62–67). Berlin. Retrieved from http://www.arbeitenviernull.de/fileadmin/Downloads/BMAS_Werkheft-2.pdf.
  34. IndustriAll. (2015). Digitalisation for Equality, Participation and Cooperation in Industry: More and Better Industrial Jobs in the Digital Age (No. 66/2015). Brussels. Retrieved from http://www.industriall-europe.eu/committees/IP/PolPaper/PositionPaper_2015-02_DigitalisationOfIndustry_EN.pdf.
  35. Jacobs, J. C., Kagermann, H., & Spath, D. (Eds.). (2017). Acatech Discussion. The Future of Work in the Digital Transformation: Agility, Lifelong Learning and the Role of Employers and Works Councils in Changing Times. Munich: Herbert Utz Verlag. Retrieved from http://www.acatech.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Baumstruktur_nach_Website/Acatech/root/de/Publikationen/acatech_diskutiert/acatech_DISKUSSION_HR-Kreis_engl_01.pdf.
  36. Jossa, B. (2012). A System of Self-Managed Firms as a New Perspective on Marxism. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(4), 821–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jossa, B. (2015). Historical Materialism and Democratic Firm Management. Review of Political Economy, 27(4), 645–665.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2015.1072314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jossa, B. (2017). On the Advantages of a System of Labour-Managed Firms. Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, 5(1), 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.5947/jeod.2016.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kalleberg, A. L., Nesheim, T., & Olsen, K. M. (2009). Is Participation Good or Bad for Workers? Effects of Autonomy, Consultation and Teamwork on Stress Among Workers in Norway. Acta Sociologica, 52(2), 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kerr, J. L. (2004). The Limits of Organizational Democracy. Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 81–97.Google Scholar
  41. Kühl, S. (2001). Über das erfolgreiche Scheitern von Gruppenarbeitsprojekten: Rezentralisierung und Rehierarchisierung in Vorreiterunternehmen der Dezentralisierung. Zeitschrift Für Soziologie, 30(3), 199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2014). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (2nd ed.). London and New York: Verso (Original work published 1985).Google Scholar
  43. Lazzarato, M. (2014). Signs and Machines: Capitalism and the Production of Subjectivity. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
  44. Marchington, M., & Wilkinson, A. (2005). Direct Participation and Involvement. In S. Bach (Ed.), Managing Human Resources: Personnel Management in Transition (4th ed., pp. 398–423). Malden and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  45. Marttila, T. (2015). Post-Foundational Discourse Analysis: From Political Difference to Empirical Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  46. Mason, P. (2015). Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future. London: Lane.Google Scholar
  47. Meyer, U. (2019). The Emergence of an Envisioned Future: Sensemaking in the Case of “Industrie 4.0” in Germany. Futures. Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.03.001.
  48. Moldaschl, M., & Weber, W. G. (1998). The “Three Waves” of Industrial Group Work: Historical Reflections on Current Research on Group Work. Human Relations, 51(3), 347–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Müller-Jentsch, W. (2016). Formation, Development and Current State of Industrial Democracy in Germany. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 22(1), 45–62.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1024258915619294.
  50. Pearson, C. A. L. (1992). Autonomous Workgroups: An Evaluation at an Industrial Site. Human Relations, 45(9), 905–936.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679204500903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pfeiffer, S. (2017a). Industrie 4.0 in the Making—Discourse Patterns and the Rise of Digital Despotism. In K. Briken, S. Chillas, M. Krzywdzinski, & A. Marks (Eds.), The New Digital Workplace: How New Technologies Revolutionise Work (pp. 21–41). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  52. Pfeiffer, S. (2017b). The Vision of “Industrie 4.0” in the Making—A Case of Future Told, Tamed, and Traded. Nanoethics, 11(1), 107–121.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0280-3.
  53. Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2011). Discourse Analysis: Investigating Processes of Social Construction. Thousand Oaks, London, and New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Procter, S., & Mueller, F. (2000). Teamworking: Strategy, Structure, Systems and Culture. In S. Procter & F. Mueller (Eds.), Teamworking (pp. 3–24). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  55. Ross, N. (1964). The Democratic Firm. London: Fabian Society.Google Scholar
  56. Sattelberger, T. (2015). Abhängiger oder souveräner Unternehmensbürger – der Mensch in der Aera der Digitalisierung. In T. Sattelberger, I. Welpe, & A. Boes (Eds.), Das demokratische Unternehmen: Neue Arbeits- und Führungskulturen im Zeitalter digitaler Wirtschaft (pp. 33–53). Freiburg and Munich: Haufe.Google Scholar
  57. Sattelberger, T., & Wagner, S. (2015). Zur Einführung – ein Gespräch mit Thomas Sattelberger. In T. Sattelberger, I. Welpe, & A. Boes (Eds.), Das demokratische Unternehmen: Neue Arbeits- und Führungskulturen im Zeitalter digitaler Wirtschaft (pp. 11–18). Freiburg and Munich: Haufe.Google Scholar
  58. Sauer, T., Elsen, S., & Garzillo, C. (2016). Cities in Transition: Social Innovation for Europe’s Urban Sustainability. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Schaupp, S. (2017). Vergessene Horizonte: Der kybernetische Kapitalismus und seine Alternativen. In P. Buckermann, A. Koppenburger, & S. Schaupp (Eds.), Kybernetik, Kapitalismus, Revolutionen: Emanzipatorische Perspektiven im technologischen Wandel (pp. 51–73). Münster: Unrast-Verlag.Google Scholar
  60. Schoemann, K. (2018). Digital Technology to Support the Trade Union Movement. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 6(1), 67–82.  https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2018.61005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schwartz, J. (2012). Where Did Mill Go Wrong? Why the Capital-Managed Firm Rather Than the Labor-Managed Enterprise Is the Predominant Organizational Form in Market Economies. Ohio State Law Journal, 73(2), 219–285.Google Scholar
  62. Sewell, G. (2009). The Labor Process, Surveillance, and the Person in the Sight of the Organization. In S. R. Clegg & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Behavior: Volume 2: Macro Approaches (pp. 267–286). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, and Washington: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Srnicek, N., & Williams, A. (2015). Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  64. Stohl, C., & Cheney, G. (2001). Participatory Processes/Paradoxical Practices: Communication and the Dilemmas of Organizational Democracy. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(3), 349–407.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318901143001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. The Lavaca Collective (Ed.). (2007). Sin patrón: Stories from Argentina’s Worker-Run Factories. Chicago: Haymarket Books.Google Scholar
  66. Townshend, J. (2004). Laclau and Mouffe’s Hegemonic Project: The Story so Far. Political Studies, 52(2), 269–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ver.di. (2015). ver.di-Stellungnahme zum Grünbuch “Arbeiten 4.0.”. Berlin. Retrieved from ver.di website: https://www.arbeitenviernull.de/fileadmin/Futurale/Statements/PDFs/Verdi.pdf.
  68. Webb, T., & Cheney, G. (2014). Worker-Owned-and-Governed Co-operatives and the Wider Co-operative Movement: Challenges and Opportunities Within and Beyond the Global Economic Crisis. In M. Parker, G. Cheney, V. Fournier, & C. Land (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Alternative Organization (pp. 64–88). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OsnabrückOsnabrückGermany

Personalised recommendations