Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Acta Sociologica
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by van den Berg, A.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, M. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Manufacturing Change: A Two-Country, Three- Industry Comparison

Axel van den Berg

McGill University and Concordia University, Montréal, Canada

Anthony C. Masi

McGill University and Concordia University, Montréal, Canada

Joseph Smucker

McGill University and Concordia University, Montréal, Canada

Michael R. Smith

McGill University and Concordia University, Montréal, Canada

There are three broad explanations for why workers adapt, or fail to adapt, to technological change in the workplace. The adversarial perspective holds that employment security produces resistant workers, and conversely that insecurity assures efficiency in adapting a workforce to technological and organizational changes. Institutionalists argue the opposite, emphasizing that secure workers have little to fear from change. Finally, a neo-corporatist variant sees managers and powerful trade-union leaders as capable of successfully negotiating industrial changes, independently of rank and file preferences. In this paper we explore these explanations via interview data collected from managers and trade unionists (or labour representatives) from Canada and Sweden. Our focus is on three industries - pulp and paper, steel and telecommunications equipment. Analyses deal with specific questions associated with the introduction of new equipment and technology, attempts to introduce organizational restructuring, and experiences with layoffs. We further examine respondents' comments on obstacles encountered during the change process, including the reactions, conflicts and grievances of the rank and file workers at their plants, mills and factories. On the whole, the results of our interviews with respondents at seventy-three plants in our three-industry two-country comparison seem to contradict the strict adversarial theory. While our data provide some evidence in favour of the institutionalist perspective, the neo-corporatist arguments found the most support. Swedish trade union leaders were viewed by managers, and viewed themselves, as more positively disposed to change than either their Canadian counterparts or workers in either country

Acta Sociologica, Vol. 43, No. 2, 139-156 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/000169930004300204


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?