Abstract
In the UK automobile and aerospace industries, the struggle over job control and rewards for labour expended in the production process was particularly intense in the period of steady economic growth, high and stable employment, and low inflation following the Second World War. This struggle reached its zenith during a phase of increasing output in the 1950s and early 1960s. By the late 1960s, however, as wages and unemployment began to rise and the rate of growth slowed there was a discernible shift in management industrial relations strategy and efforts by government to curb the authority and influence of shop stewards. Despite disparities both between and within these respective industries, particularly the higher skill levels required by the aerospace sector, common experiences of the transformation of labour conditions of work are noticeable. In mapping some key historical struggles of automobile and aerospace workers against management forms of authority and control, it should be possible to distinguish the critical dynamics prevalent in both industries. Knowledge of the trajectory of labour relations, and the pattern and character of conflict, is critical to understanding and accounting for continuity and change in the social relations of production.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See A. Rooney, ‘The Aircraft Industry’ in K. Coates (ed.), Can the Workers Run Industry? (The Institute for Workers’ Control, Speare Books: 1968); J. Lovering, ‘Military Expenditure and the Restructuring of Capitalism: The Military Industry in Britain’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 14 (1990), pp. 453–67.
Notably the government was not convinced that formalization of industrial relations as recommended by Donovan was enough. While Barbara Castle, Secretary of State at the Department of Employment and Productivity (after April 1968), was concerned about the increase in unofficial strikes she was not convinced that to formalize industrial relations procedures at company and plant level would resolve this problem. The Ford Motor Company for instance, had procedural agreements in place and eschewed piecework but was still far from strike free (R. Croucher, ‘The Coventry Toolroom Agreement, 1941–1972, Part 2: abolition’, Historical Studies in Industrial Relations 9:38 (Spring 2000), pp. 37–71).
T. Donnelly and D. Thoms, ‘Trade Unions, Management and the search for production in the Coventry Motor Car Industry’, Business History 31:2 (1989), pp. 98–113.
A. Flanders, ‘Measured Daywork and Collective Bargaining’, British Journal of Industrial Relations 11:3 (1973), p. 388.
S. Bowden, J. Foreman-Peck, and T. Richardson, ‘The Post-War Productivity Failure: Insights from Oxford (Cowley)’, Business History 43:3 (2001), p. 59.
R. Hyman and T. Elger, ‘Job Controls, the Employers’ Offensive and Alternative Strategies’, Capital & Class, 15 (Autumn 1981), p. 116.
B. Rudder, ‘The Inside Story at Toyota and BL’ Book Review, Labour Review 1:7 (August 1983), p. 45.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2011 Mike Richardson, Paul Stewart and Andy Danford
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Richardson, M., Stewart, P., Danford, A. (2011). Shop-Floor Bargaining and the Struggle for Job Control in the British Automobile and Aerospace Industries, 1950–82. In: Richardson, M., Nicholls, P. (eds) A Business and Labour History of Britain. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230337008_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230337008_9
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-32791-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-33700-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Business & Management CollectionBusiness and Management (R0)
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.