Division of labor

THE DIVISION OF LABOR

What I understand from the division of labor is that it is such a privatization of cooperative works, bounded by tasks, in order to develop productivity. It became more and more complex with increase of capitalism, liberalism and complexity of industrialization and with Taylorism it reached a scientific based management level.

According to the resources that I have researched, the very first comment can be told is that the manufacturing division of labor was the earliest innovative principle of the capitalist mode of production, and in one form or another it has remained the fundamental principle of industrial organization. In capitalist industry the division of labor is not same as the phenomenon of the distribution of tasks, crafts, or specialties of production all over society, no societies before capitalism systematically subdivided the work of each productive specialty into limited operations. This form of the division of the labor becomes generalized only with capitalism.

In order to make clear this distinction we can give Herskovits’ description of the division of labor in primitive societies:

“Only rarely is any division of labor within an industry (or as it might be termed, subdivision of labor) encountered among nonliterate folk. Such intra-industrial specialization would be encountered only in the production of such larger capital goods as houses, canoes, or fish-weirs. Even here, it is the rule in such cultures that an arrangement of this sort is temporary; moreover, each worker devoting himself to a part of a specific task is most often competent to perform other phases of the work besides that on which he may at the moment be engaged. Thus in groups where the primary division of labor is along sex lines, every man or woman not only will know how to do all those things that men or women habitually do among them, but must be able to do them efficiently. As we move to societies of somewhat greater economic complexity, we find that certain men may spend a larger proportion of their time than others doing wood-carving or iron –working, or certain women making pots or weaving cloth; but all the members of the groups will have some competence in the techniques controlled by those of a given sex. In still other nonliterate societies certain men and women specialize not only in one technique, but in a certain type of product, as, for instance, where one woman will devote her time to the production of pots for everyday use and another make pottery exclusively for religious rites. It must again be stressed that, except under the most unusual circumstances, we do not find the kind of organization where one woman characteristically specializes in gathering the clay, another in fashioning it, and a third in firing the pots; or, where one man devotes himself to getting wood, a second to roughly blocking out the proportions of a stool or figure, and a third to finishing it”

This is a good definition of division of labor into crafts which can be found in the book “LABOR AND MONOPOLY CAPITAL” originally. He says while men or women may habitually be connected with the making of certain products, they do not divide up the separate operations involved in the making of each product.

This form of division of labor is called social division of labor which depends on sex roles and is a characteristic of all known societies because of inheritance of human being. On the other hand, the other form of division of labor “manufacturing division of labor” stands against the social division of labor in general. This is the breakdown of the process of making of the product into variety or manifold operations done by different workers. The social division of labor divides society among occupations, but the detailed or manufacturing division of labor destroys occupations. In capitalism, the social division of labor is enforced chaotically and anarchically by the market, while the manufacturing division of labor is imposed by planning and control. Moreover, the division of labor in production begins with the analysis of the labor process, the separation of the work of production into its constituent elements. But this is not what brings into being the detailed worker. Such an analysis is characteristic in every labor process organized by workers to suit their own needs.

And lastly advantages and disadvantages:

Advantages

1. More efficient in terms of time.
2. Reduces the time needed for training because the task is simplified.
3. Increases productivity because training time is reduced and the worker is productive in a short amount of time.
4. Concentration on one repetitive task makes workers more skilled at performing that task.
5. Little time is spent moving between tasks so overall time wasted is reduced.
6. The overall quality of the product will increasingly bring welfare gains to the consumer

Disadvantages

1. Lack of motivation: the quality of labour decreases while absenteeism may rise.
2. Growing dependency: a break in production may cause problems to the entire process.
3. Loss of flexibility: workers have limited knowledge while not many jobs opportunities are available.
4. Higher start-up costs: high initial costs necessary to buy the specialist machinery lead to a higher break-even point.

References:

http://www.jstor.org/view/00335533/di976340/97p0073d/0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labor

Labor and monopoly capital(book from metu library)