Occupational Pride Research Articles

The impact on musculoskeletal disorders of changing physical and psychosocial work environment conditions in the automobile industry

In the car-body-sealing department at an automobile assembly plant in Sweden, a reorganisation of work from lineout to line production was performed. The aim of the present investigation was to study the influence of changes in physical and psychosocial conditions on musculoskeletal disorders. Working conditions were studied on two occasions, before and after the change. Physical workload regarding strenuous postures and movements was assessed by questionnaires, direct measurements recordings and by computer based observations registrations, and the psychosocial conditions by questionnaires and group discussions. The musculoskeletal disorders of the workers were studied by reports from the occupational health care centre and by self-reported musculoskeletal symptoms. A decrease in the time spent in strenuous positions was found, but the work cycle time decreased considerably and the worker felt ‘robotised’. There was a marked decrease in the perception of opportunities to influence the work, as well as the stimulation at work. The amount of musculoskeletal disorders increased for the study group, but not for a reference group from the same plant. A possible explanation for the increase in musculoskeletal disorders was the increase in perceived physical exertion and the decrease in occupational pride. Relevance to industry This paper illustrates the importance of paying attention to psychosocial issues in order to avoid musculoskeletal disorders after an intervention mainly aimed at physical workstation design.

“Who’s in Charge”? A Report from the “Dark Side”

Exhibit Review “WHO’S IN CHARGE?”A REPORT FROM THE “DARK SIDE” BRIAN GREENBERG In his memoirs, John Brophy, a leader in the formation of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, described his father, a miner in the 1890s, as “a good workman,” a man who had “a pride in his calling.”1 Some seventy years later, the popular chronicler of our times Studs Terkel heard a spot welder refer to himselfas “a machine,” a bank teller and a hotel clerk both characterize themselves as “caged,” and a steelworker call himself “a mule.”2 Why had people’s feelings about their work life changed so dramatically? The thoughtful and thoughtprovoking Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service (SITES) exhibit “Who’s in Charge? Workers and Managers in the United States” examines the key transformations that have made the workplace a battleground for control. I saw this exhibit at the American Labor Museum, headquartered in the Botto Elouse, Haledon, NewJersey. The Botto House was a meeting place used by Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Upton Sinclair, and other supporters of the 1913 Industrial Workers of the World-led strike of Paterson silk workers, and it offered an especially congenial setting for contemplating the often combative relationship between managers and workers. The exhibit consists of Plexiglas cases that contain original and reproduced photographs and documents, as well as small artifacts (see fig. 1). Quotes from contemporary sources are incorporated, along with brief captions that explain the exhibit’s subthemes. This is an unusual exhibit about technology in that its focus is not on things, but is instead “historical, theoretical,” as one curator pointed out3. Taking off from the commonsense assumption that Americans tend to equate techno­ logical advance with progress, the exhibit’s curators strove to show Dr. Greenberg is Jules Plangere, Jr., Chair in American Social History at Monmouth College. He is working on a book on the political economy of industrialization. 'David Brody, Workers in Industrial America: Essays on the Twentieth Century Struggle, 2d ed. (New York, 1993), p. 3. ’Studs Terkel, Working (New York, 1972), p. xiv. ’Steven Lubar, telephone conversation, July 20, 1993.© 1994 by the Society for the History of Technology. All rights reserved. 0040-165X/94/3503-0006S01.00 575 576 Brian Greenberg Fig. 1.—A “Who’s in Charge?” exhibit case, covering labor-management struggles over control of the workplace. (Photo by Nanci Edwards.) visitors that, on the contrary, the relation of technology to work is more complicated. This objective is admirably realized. The tour starts by posing the exhibit’s emblematic question, “Whose Shop Is This? Struggling for Control.” This first section reviews familiar “Who’ s in Charge?”A Report from, the “Dark Side” 577 themes related to the shift from craft to industrial labor. Denoting the occupational pride of early producers is an 1841 parade banner used by construction tradesmen in Portland, Maine, that asserts “Our Labor & Skill are Indispensable for the Advancement of Civilization.” This sentiment is surrounded by saws, hammers, and other tools of the trade. After examining both how manufacturers tried to impose greater authority and discipline within the workplace and the workers’ militant response, the first part of this section concludes by using cigar making as a case study. This was a wise choice. Deskilling and the hiring of cheap labor, usually women, were critical factors in automating the cigar industry. By focusing on this industry, the curators could also touch on gender in relation to changes in the production process. The other cases in this section examine the centrality of Taylorism to the articulation of an American system of labor-management relations. As an example of how managers tried to seize control over the production process based on Taylorist principles, the case “The ‘One Best Way’ ” offers a clipboard on which a stopwatch is displayed along with a form minutely detailing the division of labor employed in the art and science of shoveling. Subsequent cases illuminate other facets of the new systems of control and the consequent rise of professional manag­ ers. This section ends with a case on the development of “scientific” welfare programs for employees, whose main purposes are shown mostly to have served corporate interests. The curators’ emphasis on Taylorism is...