Work after globalization and the new organizational realities

From a review by Peter Hall-Jones who calls this: the greatest book ever about work (in all its forms) “If you’re ever going to read a book about work, make it this one.”

* Book. By Guy Standing. “Work After Globalization: Building Occupational Citizenship”

Peter Hall-Jones introduces the author:

“Dr Guy Standing is Professor of Economic Security at the University of Bath in the UK. He has also served time as a senior official at the International Labour Organisation, where he worked from 1975 to 2006. During that time he was director of labour market policies, co-ordinator of labour market research, and director of the Central and Eastern European departments, following the collapse of the Berlin wall. He also directed the Socio-Economic Security Programme. In 1998-99, he was in the “transition team” set up by the ILO’s new Director-General to help restructure the organisation. He has a PhD in economics from the University of Cambridge and MA in labour economics and industrial relations from the University of Illinois.”

After a long historical background explaining the end of labourism (fixed jobs) and its replacement by precarity, he continues the summary of the book thus:

“7] We are left to inhabit a world in which even our happiness and unhappiness are commodified. “The fetish of happiness has been extended through a market in unreality. … The final sphere is the commodification of the wounded mind.” (p.221-2) People have become competitors, and have politically disengaged. Debt is systemic, injustice is applied unjustly, and social surveillance has been extended to frightening levels. “The defining malaise of the global market society is encapsulated in the word stress”. Study after study, case after case… this is evidence-based work, not angry polemic. One of the highlights of this book, for me, was Standing’s discussion of the decline of altruism, the shift from career to careerism, the rise of unpaid labour, and the gradual breach between the precariat and the traditional parties of the left.

8] But Standing is no merchant of doom. This book offers a way forward. “It must involve a reconstruction of work, escaping from a preoccupation with labour… and a reconstruction of the ideas of career and occupation.” Somehow (shame on us!) we allowed the right — Hayek and the neoliberals — to lay claim to the word ‘freedom’. By this, they meant: “coercion in favour of building a market society.” (p.242) There are much more progressive forms of freedom than this, Standing argues. One of these is the Google model, which he calls: ‘corporate paternalism’. Then there is workplace democracy. But both of these are freedom along labourist lines. A deeper social model would centre around ‘occupational citizenship’. This liberates our identity, our personal development, and can be applied to all of the various kinds of work (such as care work, etc). This means making a shift from labour rights to work rights. With globalization, we have reached an age which offers a promising future for associations based around occupation, coupled with ‘informal networks of practitioners and communities of colleagues’. “In sum, occupational citizenship will require a combination of international associations, national associations and informal networks.” (p.276)

As a unionist, this is where I found Standing’s book especially interesting. He speaks of ‘collaborative bargaining’, a form which develops around (and within) occupational networks and associations. In short, what would happen if (say) a public services union were to support a core group of members in setting up a network for (say) social workers? The tools of Web 2.0 make this simple and cheap. They could easily run it themselves. What would these social workers discuss, whom would they want to discuss it with, and what would they see as beyond their sphere of interest? One thing is for sure; you can bet they would go a long way beyond the traditional parameters of collective bargaining.

Labour analysts in the past have noted that the associational form seems to work well for unions. But collaborative bargaining could also work internally, between workers themselves (eg setting standards, providing mutual support, monitoring the application of resources, etc), and between one occupation and another (eg doctors and nurses). His experience at the ILO gives Standing a wealth of experience to draw on here, and what emerges is a compelling alternative social programme. The way we deliver the rights and duties of citizenship should be based around work, in the larger sense — not employment, ideology, competition or profit.

9] From here Standing goes on to discuss the democratisation of economics itself. Freedom of association is vital, in fact necessary. But we also have to get beyond the idea of democracy, if all we mean by it is an occasional process of voting. Rather, it should be about people having a real voice, and being able to use that voice to deliberate properly. “The failure of progressives was that… all the protests were against events, rather than for a vision.” (p.286) By way of showing how such a vision might develop, on the basis of occupational voice, he gives the following example:

“…left to themselves as individuals, fishers compete against each other and deplete fish stocks, since short term profits dictate what they do. …Collaborative bargaining would tend towards the preservation and reproduction of fish stocks and would promote professional standards that would act to constrain individualistic competition.” (p.279)

It is a useful example, because it shows us how this new social democratic agenda might deal with climate change. Producers know that the environment cannot be separated from economics. Only a society ruled by an imposed regime of market competition could produce such a warped and lethal delusion.

10] In looking at how ‘non-standard’ workers might develop a voice in society, Standing discusses the examples of the Self-Employed Women’s Association in India and the Freelancers’ Union in the United States. “The best option would be to draw the precariat into self-chosen occupational associations.” (p.292)

To what extent would these be linked into existing unions? I guess that is up to us to decide. But as he points out (and in my experience he’s right), traditionalist unions and employers may have a bit of trouble with this shift. “…labourism is resistant to legitimising non-standard work.” (p.293) At this point, if I were a table thumpin’ man, I’d have to let rip. Globally speaking, what we have regarded as ‘the standard model’ never did apply to the majority. Far less so since the employers’ drive for flexibility began in earnest the 1970s. Less still with the precipitous rise of the precariat during this century. And even less in future, as the economic crisis morphs into a jobs crisis. Globally speaking, the standard model is the exception, not the rule. (thump!) Deal with it.

11] Standing is more polished in his articulation, but I get the sense he feels the same way. He does not waste time with qualifiers when he says: “Insecurity is the defining feature of globalization”. (p.293)

At this point he starts to draw all the threads of his argument together. I won’t try to summarise this, because without the logical argument it would just come across as a series of disembodied policy recommendations. This is the stuff that the left will want to engage around (and you can bet there’ll be some straw men immolated in the process!). Suffice it to say that Standing reckons we must move beyond the old model, which made “the performance of labour the locus for social rights”. Instead, we need to start building a more inclusive model based around occupation. This would revive society and economics in such a way that “…achieving a healthy balance of work, labour, leisure and play (will) …put the market in its proper place…” (p.323).”

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.