Did mass-production automation trigger a decline in shop-floor militancy in the post-World War II period? Was it responsible for deskilling and atomizing once militant occupation groups? Drawing on a rich array of archival and interview evidence, this article addresses these questions by tracing the impact of automation on the most militant work groups in the American automobile industry. These were the work groups who performed stamping, body-building, and trim operations. The findings suggest that mass-production automation failed both to atomize and to deskill these militant occupational groups. An alternative explanation for post-World War II declines in shop-floor militancy is proposed in the conclusion.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abernathy, W.
(1978). The productivity dilemma: Roadblock to innovation in the automobile industry. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
2.
American Machinist. (1947, August 28). Spot welding mass produces body panels. Pp. 90-91.
3.
Arthur Hughes Collection
, Box 12, File 8. (1956, August 13). UAW-Chrysler department meeting with L. L. Colbert, 13 August 1956. Detroit: Walter P. Reuther Archives of Labor History and Urban Affairs.
4.
Arthur Hughes Collection
, Box 15, File 9. (1960). UAW-Chrysler negotiations, 1960. Detroit: Walter P. Reuther Archives of Labor History and Urban Affairs.
5.
Automotive Industries. (1956, April 1). Automated press lines in Ford's Cleveland stamping plant. P. 60.
6.
Automotive Industries. (1957, September 15). Automated door assembly line at Fisher body plant. P. 46.
7.
Automotive Industries. (1959, December 1). Assembling the Dart. P. 48.
8.
Braverman, H.
(1974). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in twentieth century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
9.
Burawoy, M.
(1979). Manufacturing consent: Changes in the labor process under monopoly capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
Burawoy, M.
(1983). Between the labor process and the state: The changing face of factory regimes under advanced capitalism. American Sociological Review, 48, 587-605.
11.
Business Week. (1957, August 10). It doesn't always pay to put all your chips on automation. Pp. 58-60.
12.
Cornfield, D.
(Ed.). (1987). Workers, managers, and technological change: Emerging patterns of labor relations. New York: Plenum.
13.
Faunce, W.
(1958a). Automation in the automobile industry: Some consequences for in-plant social structure. American Sociological Review, 23, 401-414.
14.
Faunce, W.
(1958b). Automation and the automobile worker. Social Problems, 6, 68-78.
15.
Finlay, W.
(1988). Work on the waterfront: Worker power and technological change in a West Coast port. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
16.
Ford Facts. (1956, October 15). Frame and cold heading: Confusion on frame line. P. 3.
17.
Ford Facts. (1957, September 21). Ford negotiations on frame plant problems: Stellato leads union team. P. 1.
18.
Ford Facts. (1960, July 2). Seattle health and safety problems. P. 1.
19.
Fountain, C.
(1949). Union guy. New York: Viking.
20.
Gartman, D.
(1986). Auto slavery: The labor process in the American automobile industry, 1897-1950. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
21.
Iron Age. (1958a, May 22). GM heads for annual retooling. P. 424.
22.
Iron Age. (1958b, June 5). Automation isn't always best. P. 94.
23.
Iron Age. (1960, November 10). Moving chasses replace shuttles in automated framing line. Pp. 196-197.
24.
Lichtenstein, N.
(1980). Auto worker militancy and the structure of factory life, 1937-1955. Journal of American History, 67, 335-353.
25.
Lippert, J.
(1977). Fleetwood wildcat: Anatomy of a wildcat strike. Radical America, 11, 7-38.
26.
Lippert, J.
(1978). Shopfloor politics at Fleetwood. Radical America, 12, 53-70.
27.
Machinery. (1951, February). Cost-cutting methods of producing “Henry J.” car bodies. Pp. 167-173.
28.
Machinery. (1957a, December). Chrysler automates stamping plant. Pp. 188-193.
29.
Machinery. (1957b, December). Welding the Lincoln uniframe body. Pp. 162-165.
30.
Machinery. (1959, December). Welding of stub frames for Chrysler unibody. Pp. 144-152.
31.
Modern Plastics. (1952, December). Molding eliminates sewing. Pp. 105-108.
32.
Perrone, L.
(1984). Positional power, strikes, and wages. American Sociological Review, 49, 412-421.
33.
Sayles, L.
(1958). Behavior of industrial work groups: Prediction and control. New York: Wiley.
34.
Sexton, P. C.
(1976). A feminist union perspective. In B. J. Widick (Ed.), Auto work and its discontents (pp. 18-33). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
35.
Walker, C.
, & Guest, R. (1979). The man on the assembly line. New York: Arno.
36.
Wall Street Journal. (1946, November 19). First post-war walkout at Ford's Lincoln plant settled in a few hours. P. 2.
37.
Wallace, M.
, Griffin, L., & Rubin, B. (1989). The positional power of American labor, 1963-1977. American Sociological Review, 54, 197-214.
38.
Walsh, J.
(1989). Technological change and the division of labor: The case of retail meatcutters. Work and Occupations, 16, 165-183.
Welding Journal. (1949, May). Welding applications in automotive construction. Pp. 430-432.
41.
White, L.
(1971). The automobile industry since 1945. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
42.
Zetka, J. (1989). The hegemonic foundation of U.S. automobile industry development: A history of market and shop-floor regulation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.
43.
Zetka, J.
(1991). Automated technologies, institutional environments, and skilled labor processes: Toward an institutional theory of automation outcomes. Sociological Quarterly, 32, 557-574.
44.
Zetka, J.
(1992). Work organization and wildcat strikes in the U.S. automobile industry, 1946 to 1963. American Sociological Review, 57, 214-226.
45.
Zimbalist, A.
(Ed.). (1979). Case studies on the labor process. New York: Monthly Review Press.
