Jobs, global capital, research and development in Australia,By Ian MacFarlaneThe following paper has been developed out of discussions relating to questions daling with jobs and responses to global capital as well as recent publicity regarding the low levels of technological research and development in Australia. "Most technological discoveries have an equal capacity for the enhancement or degradation of the quality of life, depending on how they are used." The above quote from Barry Jones (1984; 231) Sleepers Awake! is the basis of what Jones calls his 'Seventh Law', a 'law' Jones amply illustrates with numerous examples of the contrasting effects of technological change on the quality of life. Examples given that relate to the general community include:
...and relating to the workplace:
The fact that new technology has an inherent capacity to effect undesirable consequences is axiomatic, the question that is of importance and invited by his 'seventh law' is the issue of control. In dealing with this question, Jones places his greatest emphasis on local rather than global perspectives. Part of the solution offered by Jones is that "every nation and every individual ought to assert the right to be adequately informed about what is going on, to be able to make an appropriate choice" (Jones, 1984; 235). He proposes that the use of technology can be controlled effectively by the limited monitoring that takes place in Scandanavia, requiring consultation between industry and trade unions "before labour-displacing technology is introduced". This stipulation of consultation would be more convincing if its parameters included 'whether labour-displacing technology is introduced", or by replacing the requirement for consultation with a requirement for agreement. Although recognising the danger of industry relocating elsewhere should controls become too irksome, Jones underestimates the capacity of industry to do so, a capacity which after all has been greatly enhanced by modern technology. He argues that relocation is more of a danger to Australia "because of our position as a junior partner in the English speaking world" (Jones, 1984; 234) and not likely in countries such as Sweden and Norway because of historical, national and political reasons. However, his faith in the 'patriotism' of Swedish capital proved to be ill-founded when in 1993 the Economist reported "Swedish manufacturing firms raised their output 16% in Sweden while at the same time raising their output 180% in the rest of the world" (Thurow, 1996; 38). Further, the local monitoring of technology applications has limited impact when dealing with the drift of industrial pollution originating from the old Soviet Union bloc or saving the 10,000 Norwegian lakes that are now devoid of trout owing to acid rain from Britain. Jones advances a number of proposals designed to control, monitor and modify the impact of technology, proposals premised on a confidence in the power of the State and Community to effectively adopt them. There appears to be an assumption here, that technology arrives as an independent and neutral phenomenon able to be restrained and controlled by domestic "political, economic and social forces". Surely technology's nature, purpose, production or non-production, mode and timing of introduction is determined by the owners of the science that produces the technology (those who finance the research and development). Braverman (1974;156) says "Science is the last - and after labor the most important - social property to be turned into an adjunct of capital. The story of its conversion from the province of amateurs, 'philosophers', tinkerers, and seekers after knowledge to its present highly organised and lavishly financed state is largely the story of its incorporation into the capialist firm and subsidiary organisations." Paul Kennedy (1993;47) notes that as a consequence of this development, the "main creators and controllers of technology have increasingly become large, multinational corporations with more glogal reach than global responsibility". Also the issue of control is made more problematic as the research and development carried out by multinational corporations tends to be done at home base (87% in the USA in 1991) whilst the resulting technology is employed elsewhere (Thurow, 1996; 135). Hence the low levels of R&D expenditure in Australia. The inability of the State to control and regulate the activities of increasingly mobile corporations is not limited to Australia. The United States itself has failed dismally in controlling its own traditional home based companies. The extent of the problem is illustrated by the following extract of testimony to a US Congressional Committee in 1990: "tens of thousands of American workers have lost their jobs and tens of thousands more have seen employment opprtunities vanish, as US companies transferred production to Mexico to take advantage of the poverty of Mexican workers and the absence of any effective regulations on corporate behavior" (George, 1992;26). Many of these companies relocated to the "Maquiladora Zone" just over the Mexican border where nearly 1,800 factories have now been built (mostly North American) employing nearly half a million workers. In one instance in 1990, in a 48 hour shift at the La Reynosa Zenith television plant, workers earned US$26.16 - just under 55 cents per hour. It is obvious that the threat of relocation when delivered to a US trade union official with the temerity to question the impact of new technology, would not be viewed as a hollow one. US government attempts to impose environmental controls on industry are also undermined as debt-ridden Mexico has had to waive environmental considerations to attract business. The US Embassy in Mexico estimates it would cost US$9 billion to clean up the border environment (George,1992:26). Ironically, much of the pollution produced in this border region travels back across the border as "Toxins emitted into the air blow into California each night" and the discharge of untreated sewage from Tijuana into the Pacific Ocean intermittently leads to the closure of Californian beaches (George,1992;27). It is interesting in this context, to consider Burroway's criticism of Braverman's model of the conflictual relationship between management and workforce: "In the context of introducing new technology then, it is unrealistic to assume that the only response of labour will be to resist management intentions. Indeed, labour may in many circumstances endorse and sanction management plans" (McLoughlin & Clark,1994;47). The reality of "endorsement and sanctioning of management plans" usually involves negotiating the best redundancy package possible for those that are leaving and minimising collateral damage for those that remain. The massive and ongoing unemployment and underemployment statistics in the advanced industrialised world are a partial testament to labour's impotence. From 1973 to 1994 not one new job was created in all of Western Europe (Thurow,1996;1) whilst the United States Department of Labor reports major corporate downsizings rising from 300,000 in 1990, 550,000 in 1991, with 600,000 estimated for 1995. In Australia in one ten year period, manufacturing jobs that stood at 1.4 million persons in 1973, declined by 248,600 jobs by 1983 (Castles, Kalantzis, Cope & Morissey, 1995;27-29). It is clear that when technology arrives through the factory gate, neither the workers nor management are confronted with the disinterested force implied by the Contingency approach "devoid of its own social and poltiical context" (Wilkinson 1983 quoted by McLoughlin & Clark,1994;40). It has been produced and acquired for the purpose that its owners (Capital) designed it, and the role of managers is to implement its intended function. Organised labour rarely has the opportunity for dialogue with those that ultimately decide their fate, local management normally delegated for negotiations are simply the messengers. The management role is highlighted by McLoughlin & Clark (1994;46) when citing criticisms directed at Braverman for ignoring "the functional division of labour within management between departments which are explicitly concerned with labour control (ie personnel and industrial relations) and those corporate functions (for example, marketing finance, research and development) which are not" and "Characteristically, labour management issues do not figure prominently in the formulation of business strategies". In the case of the latter proposition, one could ask why not? After all, labour is a commodity to be utilised like any other, or as Marx simply put it, "The capitalist buys labour-power in order to use it" (Marx,1965;177). The use of this commodity is organised by its purchasers (employers intent on expanding their capital) and "it is the special and permanent interest of these purchasers to cheapen this commodity" (Braverman,1974;140-141). Such an important process would hardly be left in the hands of the personnel department. The reduction in the price of labour is usually achieved by both the reduction and deskilling of the workforce, and increased utilisation as extended shifts (sometimes double) and overtime often coincide with the inroduction of new technology. Deskilling typically allows for a greater use of casual and temporary labour and in the use of outside contractors in times of peak demand. This process also reduces job skills to the point that the jobs themselves disappear often under the guise of multi-skilling. Lower level management often get caught up in the deskilling process themselves as foremen become 'hands-on' and supervisors take on the role of managers (this is usually achieved by dismissing the managers - middle management are well represented among the current jobless). Mandel (1974;142) comments "Industry based on machinery does not merely transform a section of the producers into wretched unemployed. It devalues manual work in general and changes many skilled workers into unskilled or semi-skilled workers". Of the forces enumerated by Jones (1984;231) as being able to influence the use (or abuse) of technology, those that appear to have some real capacity are the consumers exercising their power of choice, and autonomous community groups. One recent success story of community action is that of the campaign against the Wesley Vale Pulp Mill in Tasmania in 1989. Much of the opposition was based on the proposed technology, that of the polluting process of chlorine bleaching. So successful was the campaign that it contributed to the downfall fo the government of the day, and the abandonment of the mill (Robson,1991;583-584). However the final outocme did not involve forcing a company to modify its technology of choice, but rather to relocate its operation elsewhere (where the technology was not a problem). This sort of victory is fine for a community of farmers, fishermen and people who are quite happy not to have a polluting factory in their backyard, but it is hardly the sort of solution or outcome available to a shop steward on the factory floor. The important question of control of technology raised by Jones is really a question of control over the owners of the science that produces the technology. In order to effectively deal with the problems that arise from that technolgy, one must have a global perspective as the influence of the nation state, let alone that of individuals, is clearly in decline. This trend can be illustrated by the erosion of State Power as the impact of the integration of new technology and international finance takes hold. The financial liberalisation brought about by the US decision to abandon the Gold Standard in the 1970s has resulted in Foreign Currency transactions increasingly being made purely for speculative purposes. Electronic transfers between the more than 200,000 monitors now part of the global communications system continues 24 hours a day, from one major exchange to another, as one shuts down another opens (Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, London, Frankfurt, Zurich, New York etc) creating a single market. Daily, some one trillion dollars flows around the world, more than 90% of this not being related to trade or capital investment (Kennedy,1993;51). This clearly undermines the integrity of the nation state as the central organising unit of domestic and external affairs. No nation can now afford to be insensitive to the reactions of the international market to domestic political decisions, whether they be increases to social welfare funded by raising taxes, or in legislating in areas sensitive to business ie environmental legislation, Aboriginal land rights etc. With technology increasingly being developed for, and by unaccountable global corporations operating in a global market place, little respect is shown or given to national borders in case of drifting pollution or national sensibilities as ersatz global culture beams down from satellites. The regulation for which Jones argues, can only be effectively applied at the international level. Unfortunately the development of either the apparatus or the will to do so are long overdue. As Hobsbawm (1994;584) warned when concluding his Age of Extremes, "The forces generated by the techno-scientific economy are now great enough to destroy the environment, that is to say, the material foundations of human life, the structures of human societies themselves, including even some of the social foundations of the capitalist economy". In conclusion, while the calls from Barry Jones and others that there be greater expenditure on research and development should be applauded, there is little prospect that this on its own would lead to any real benefits for the Australian community. In the present environment, the fruits of research would simply be handed over to private enterprise - it is of little consequence if it be an Australian company, as it should be clear by now tha there are no patriotic corporations. However, there is a strong case to investigate the setting up of government corporations along the lines of the old AWA (Amalgamated Wireless Australia) in the 1920s. This would ensure that technological advances be exploited to the benefit of the Australian community at large, rather than the usual case of technology being used to exploit people for the benefit of corporate profits. Additional benefits from the development of government corporations are obvious: the strengthening of the economy of the nation state to provide some insulation from the activities of the global economy, increased tax revenue, enhanced labour conditions, expertise and training and the reintroduction of some social security - in the real sense. Burnie, February 2001 Bibliography
|