Recently I have read a book by Gordon, Andrew: The Wages of Affluence: Labor and Management
in Postwar Japan. (Boston: Harvard
University Press, 2001). The following is my feeling on the book:
About the author: Andrew Gordon is a famous scholar
of modern Japanese history. He is Lee and Juliet Folger
Fund Professor of History at Harvard University and also the former
chair of the Department of History from 2004–2007. He was Director of the Edwin O.
Reischauer Institute of Japanese Studies between 1998 and 2004.
In 1981 Andrew Gordon completed his PhD in History and East Asian Languages at
Harvard University. After completing his graduate studies Gorden taught history
at Duke University and at Harvard
respectively. He is one of the leading experts on Japanese labor history. Recently
Gordon focuses his research in the history of the sewing machine, and the
making of the modern consumer in 20th century Japan. (Source: Wikipedia)
Brief
summary of the book:
Chapter
one touches on the evolution path of union movement in Japan after WWII, the
movement was rather violent during the late 1940’s and 50’s, but became more
peaceful starting from the late 1950’s. This transformation could be an obstacle
for the unions to achieve a legitimate democratic environment in the work
place, and eventually in the society at large.
Chapter two uses NKK, a steel
mill, to study the role of unions. Previously, the unions were merely an
advisory body with very limited power to participate in management, but this
situation changed after WWII. In NKK, union leaders imagined that they had the
mandate to revive the steel industry, and workers began to form unions in
pursuit of equality etc.
Chapter three talks about the
conflicting viewpoints between employees and employers on issues such as “labor-management
consultation”, “industrial democracy” and “quality control”. Meanwhile,
economic recovery in the 1950’s speeded up fundamental structural changes in
the society.
Chapter four shows management’s
attempts to weaken the power of the unions. Managers at NKK were successful in nurturing
dissident parties within the unions so as to eliminate the left-leaning
elements inside them. The corporate-centered society began focusing on the
issue of “hegemonic order” in place of “embattled ideology”.
Chapter five gives the reasons
for conflicts between managers and workers. Managers held the belief that the interests
of both the company and of workers would depend on increasing productivity, and
as such a rational job design and a merit-based wages system etc.were necessary.
However, the union activists disagreed and suspected that they would harm their
job security.
Chapter six talks about the strike happened in 1956-7.
By the fall of 1957, the steelworkers’ unions were poised for their strongest
industrial action ever. Managers were willing to take the risk of facing the
strike. In response to the strike, managers put aside their disagreement and
competition. Finally the strike failed. It was a turning point: the union abandoned
the strike as a weapon since then.
Chapter seven concludes that the year 1957 was the
last time for unions to make a serious attempt to force major steel companies
to compromise. The NKK union failed to maintain existing working conditions and
eliminate sacrifice. Now the unions would behave as partners of the management.
The co-operative attitude of workers was rested on a “coercive consensus”.
Chapter eight concludes that most of the managerial reforms
in Japan were inspired by American practice. Yet some management models were
the creation of the Japanese, such as job wages and merit-based pay. Mangers
took steps to better workers’ mobilization. Multiple work sites posting were gradually
replaced by single site career path. The dual-status ladder for blue-collar and
white-collar employees was combined into a single status hierarchy.
Chapter nine concludes that none of the outside
pressures: from small company unions strikes to environmental activist protests
etc. would constitute a threat to the corporate-center society. Helped by
government and laws that reinforced corporate hegemony, managers in Japan
sometimes used coercive powers in handling workers. The hegemony of the
enterprise was capable of withstanding a wide range of challenges.
Chapter ten concludes that the history had showed that
Japanese workplace could offer the possibility of an alternative scenario, one
in which working people could devise strategy to restrain corporate values
rather than to embrace them fully. In the postwar, gradually unions pulled back
from activism and become a close ally of the managers. While this had the
benefit of bringing economic gains, it would scarify workers’ own effort to
control their lives.
Thesis/Argument
of the book: the book
refutes the common predication in 1990s of the demise of Japanese mode of
organizing the work place. It also queries the respectful attitude paid to the
success of Japanese work place model, noting that the model was achieved more
by coercion than by consensus.
My
comments: the book is
strong at making use of a large amount of historical documents: books,
magazines, and pamphlets, from both English and Japanese sources. The book is
successful in giving evident to support its arguments. To pick NKK is a wise
choice to represent the situation in Japan in general.
