**3. Labour metamorphoses: Fordism and its decline**

As an activity conceived of by man, based on the production of material goods, the provision of services or on the exercise of functions with a view to obtaining results that have social utility and economic value (Freire, 1998: 27), work naturally involves different types of meanings associated with different types of relations: with nature, with production (of goods and merchandise for consumption), with services (provision of services between people), with the idea of transaction (exchange of material goods), with the notion of creation (work is invention and discovery), with spaces/institutions (organisations), etc. On the other hand, labour can also be distinguished from work. For Guy Standing, whilst labour "is about maximizing efficiency and competitiveness" and some of its characteristics are stress, burnout and the loss of control over time, "work captures the activities of necessity, surviving and reproducing, *and* personal development". From this perspective, "in performing work a person has agency, a sense of self-determination" (Standing, 2009: 7).

The transformations of the world of work throughout the 20th Century, particularly in Europe, evidence a process of profound social change that calls into question the centrality of labour, and has brought about a new political lexicon: globalization, decentralization, flexibilization (Antunes, 1997; Costa, 2008). In the wake of the Second World War, the dominant model of labour relations, especially in the north of Europe, was based on trade unions and strong and centralised employers' associations that coordinated their performance capacity with that of the governments. The triumph of this model is inseparable from the role of the state because it meant changing from a competitive and purely commercial labour relation to a legally regulated model, giving rise to the idea that: "the guarantee of employment and the notion of employment – the indefinite contract – and social protection led to the so-called social citizenship in post-war Western Europe" (Oliveira and Carvalho, 2010: 27; Costa, 2008: 23-38). In this "golden age", trade union movement acquired notable recognition and became an integral part of the national processes for the promotion of well-being, and, in truth, saw its status move from that of "movement" to one of social "partner". In addition, norms of labour citizenship were defined in the place of work, and governments developed macroeconomic policies that were favourable to full employment (Ross and Martin, 1999a:7). Fordism was confirmed, therefore, as a dominant wage relation model, based on three levels: firstly, as a general principle of work organisation (or *industrial paradigm*), it was an extension of Taylorism through mechanisation and mass consumption; secondly, as a macroeconomic structure (or *regime of accumulation*), it implied that the productivity profits resulting from its organisational principles benefited from the growth of investment financed by the profits, and the growth of the purchasing power of the wage-earning workers; thirdly, as a *form of regulation*, Fordism implied long-term contracting of the wage relation, with strict limitations in relation to dismissals, as well as a programme of growth in salaries indexed to inflation and productivity (Lipietz, 1992; 1996). To these three aspects, Bob Jessop adds a fourth that sees Fordism as a pattern of institutional integration and social cohesion, and considers "the consumption of standardized mass commodities in nuclear family households and the provision of standardized collective goods and services by the bureaucratic state " (Jessop, 1994: 254).

With the oil crisis in the 1970s there began a gradual decline in working conditions and an increase in unemployment that steadily worsened the state fiscal crises. At the same time the

Labour Relations and Social Movements in the 21st Century 261

is not an alternative to the civilization of work, even though its forms are turning out to be increasingly unstable and multifaceted. It is undeniable that salaried work has become the stage of negative individualism, of precariousness and has been losing consistency, stability and even dignity as it is mentioned by the Decent Work Agenda and other ILO programs (Rodgers *et al.,* 2009). But as many engaged academics have pointed out, work remains at the centre of social conflicts and present day political struggles. It is necessary, therefore, to rediscover and reinforce its role as the glue of society, that is to say, as a decisive space in the defence of social cohesion and the exercise of citizenship, revitalising the mechanisms of dialogue and consensus by way of a new social contract that consolidates democracy

The trends of productive restructuring, the reorganisation of labour relations and metabolism which have been taking place in our societies, as well as their cycles and fluctuations between crises and social dumping, on the one hand, and euphoric consumerism and growth on the other, can be understood as situations that are innate to the very structure of modern capitalism. The logic of accumulation and the regulation mechanisms of the economic system have, in spite of everything, demonstrated a huge inventive capacity in resorting to diverse ways of mediation that as a general rule are able to ensure their reproduction, despite the suffering that this may involve for the dispossessed classes. As Ricardo Antunes has noted, "there has been a decrease in the traditional working class. But, simultaneously, a significant *subproletarization* of work has been carried out, resulting from diverse forms of part-time, precarious, informal, subcontracted work, etc. There has taken place, therefore, a significant *heterogenization*, *complexification* and

Thus, not only did the potential of work not disappear but its central importance was reinforced. This is the perspective we subscribe. Besides production and development, labour relations remains a decisive space for identity construction, a field for the affirmation of qualifications, a source from which rights and citizenship spring. When workers weep at the doors of factories which have closed down it is not only because they have lost their source of income. It is because their very human dignity has been deeply wounded. In other words, labour still is a vital dimension of sociability that connects the individual to nature and society. For this reason we should assert that the withdrawal of conditions for security and stability in labour relations can only result in wearing out the "social fabric" (that is, the structuring process of the hole society) with all the risks that this involves, whether for

We already know the devastating results of "wild capitalism" in the 19th Century whose process of commercial exploitation has meant the transmutation of the market economy to a market society with labour being stripped of its human character and dignity. And in 20th

 In the terms of this contract: i) the work should be democratically shared (the strengthening of *labour standards* is crucial in this respect); ii) its polymorphism should be recognised (a minimum level of inclusion is necessary for atypical forms of work); iii) and trade union movement should be reinvented (whether intervening at different scales and not only at the local/national level, or promoting any

(Robert Castel, 1998; Santos, 1998)5.

*fragmentation* of work" (Antunes, 1999:209).

economic activity or the lives of people.

 5

global alternative)

**4. Precariousness and the challenges of collective action** 

role of the state, public policies and trade unions were called into question. In the United Kingdom, for example, the government of Margaret Thatcher adopted policies centred on flexibility and deregulation that came together with restrictive legislation on trade union influence. Between 1980 and 1993, the introduction of eight laws aimed at regulating trade union activity (Waddington, 1995: 31 ss.), had the immediate effect of validating the market and the individual and the isolation of the worker in any social context (Beynon, 1999: 274- 275). Simultaneously, the decline of Fordism paved the way for new frameworks and began what would become the most profound reorganisation of labour market since the post-war era: decentralised production, greater specialisation, technological innovation, flexibilization, semi-autonomous teams (Toyotism), new qualifications, multiplication of contractual forms, sub-contracting, models of *lean production*, new techniques of production management (*just-in-time*), *total quality management*, reengineering, externalization and *outsourcing*, teamwork, etc. **(**Hyman, 1994 and 2004; Amin, 1994; Womack, Jones and Roos, 1990; Costa, 2008).

Such trends created further impacts produced by the transformation of global capitalism, among these, the action of multinationals, which change national economies and complicate trade union action; the increase of structural unemployment, a catalyst for processes of social exclusion; the relocation of productive processes and the predominance of financial markets over the productive markets; an increasing fragmentation of labour markets, which maintain sections of downtrodden workforce below the poverty line; the development of a mass culture dominated by a consumerist ideology and by using credit for consumption. (Santos, 1995b; 2006). It was evident throughout the first decade of the 21st Century that the new forms of labour relations meant an increase in precariousness, whether in Portugal or in Europe: receipts for the self-employed (or better, false receipts)2, short term contracts, temporary work, part-time work, illegal work in the informal economy3, etc., are just a few types among a wider range of new forms of labour relations (Antunes, 2006; Aubenas, 2010) in the 21st Century. It is not surprising, therefore, that throughout the last decade, opposing theses have been identified in relation to the position/centrality of labour in society.4

These trends are a long way from confirming the *end of work* or, in other words, the fragmentation of the wage society into "non-class of non-workers" (André Gorz), although one can recognise the lesser importance of labour to the definition and restructuring of individual identity and its difficulty in locating social bonds (Claus Offe; Jeremy Rifkin; Ulrich Beck; Dominique Méda). Job becomes a benefit that is increasingly scarce, but this has not reduced the significance of work and has only served to highlight its role as a factor that bestows dignity and human rights. Even considering the virtuality of the information society (Manuel Castells), the aforementioned fragmentation and volatility of the processes and forms of work and the "post-industrial" character of Western societies, it is worth noting, in line with institutions such as ILO, that "labour is not a commodity" and that there

<sup>2</sup> For an analysis of this phenomenon - which in Portugal amounts to 900,000 people - cf. AAVV (2009).

<sup>3</sup> It is estimated that in Portugal the informal economy represents about a ¼ of the Portuguese GNP. As Dornelas *et al.* (2011: 16) indicate, the amount of work which is not declared illustrates, above all, motivations that are more economic than social and affect even further the different categories the further these are found to be from typical and protected employment. Furthermore, it is part (16%) of non-paid work carried out in the formal sector of the formal economy.

<sup>4</sup> For a more developed analysis of these theses, cf. Toni (2003).

role of the state, public policies and trade unions were called into question. In the United Kingdom, for example, the government of Margaret Thatcher adopted policies centred on flexibility and deregulation that came together with restrictive legislation on trade union influence. Between 1980 and 1993, the introduction of eight laws aimed at regulating trade union activity (Waddington, 1995: 31 ss.), had the immediate effect of validating the market and the individual and the isolation of the worker in any social context (Beynon, 1999: 274- 275). Simultaneously, the decline of Fordism paved the way for new frameworks and began what would become the most profound reorganisation of labour market since the post-war era: decentralised production, greater specialisation, technological innovation, flexibilization, semi-autonomous teams (Toyotism), new qualifications, multiplication of contractual forms, sub-contracting, models of *lean production*, new techniques of production management (*just-in-time*), *total quality management*, reengineering, externalization and *outsourcing*, teamwork, etc. **(**Hyman, 1994 and 2004; Amin, 1994; Womack, Jones and Roos,

Such trends created further impacts produced by the transformation of global capitalism, among these, the action of multinationals, which change national economies and complicate trade union action; the increase of structural unemployment, a catalyst for processes of social exclusion; the relocation of productive processes and the predominance of financial markets over the productive markets; an increasing fragmentation of labour markets, which maintain sections of downtrodden workforce below the poverty line; the development of a mass culture dominated by a consumerist ideology and by using credit for consumption. (Santos, 1995b; 2006). It was evident throughout the first decade of the 21st Century that the new forms of labour relations meant an increase in precariousness, whether in Portugal or in Europe: receipts for the self-employed (or better, false receipts)2, short term contracts, temporary work, part-time work, illegal work in the informal economy3, etc., are just a few types among a wider range of new forms of labour relations (Antunes, 2006; Aubenas, 2010) in the 21st Century. It is not surprising, therefore, that throughout the last decade, opposing

theses have been identified in relation to the position/centrality of labour in society.4

These trends are a long way from confirming the *end of work* or, in other words, the fragmentation of the wage society into "non-class of non-workers" (André Gorz), although one can recognise the lesser importance of labour to the definition and restructuring of individual identity and its difficulty in locating social bonds (Claus Offe; Jeremy Rifkin; Ulrich Beck; Dominique Méda). Job becomes a benefit that is increasingly scarce, but this has not reduced the significance of work and has only served to highlight its role as a factor that bestows dignity and human rights. Even considering the virtuality of the information society (Manuel Castells), the aforementioned fragmentation and volatility of the processes and forms of work and the "post-industrial" character of Western societies, it is worth noting, in line with institutions such as ILO, that "labour is not a commodity" and that there

2 For an analysis of this phenomenon - which in Portugal amounts to 900,000 people - cf. AAVV (2009). 3 It is estimated that in Portugal the informal economy represents about a ¼ of the Portuguese GNP. As Dornelas *et al.* (2011: 16) indicate, the amount of work which is not declared illustrates, above all, motivations that are more economic than social and affect even further the different categories the further these are found to be from typical and protected employment. Furthermore, it is part (16%) of

non-paid work carried out in the formal sector of the formal economy. 4 For a more developed analysis of these theses, cf. Toni (2003).

1990; Costa, 2008).

is not an alternative to the civilization of work, even though its forms are turning out to be increasingly unstable and multifaceted. It is undeniable that salaried work has become the stage of negative individualism, of precariousness and has been losing consistency, stability and even dignity as it is mentioned by the Decent Work Agenda and other ILO programs (Rodgers *et al.,* 2009). But as many engaged academics have pointed out, work remains at the centre of social conflicts and present day political struggles. It is necessary, therefore, to rediscover and reinforce its role as the glue of society, that is to say, as a decisive space in the defence of social cohesion and the exercise of citizenship, revitalising the mechanisms of dialogue and consensus by way of a new social contract that consolidates democracy (Robert Castel, 1998; Santos, 1998)5.
