Scientific Management In The Canadian Workplace
As the gradual tread of time propagates more modernity in society and the traditional workplace, the labour market finds itself overhauling itself to keep up. Canadian society is no exception. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the manifestation of modern ideas and ideologies remodeled what was viewed as the traditional Canadian workplace. This modernity promulgated the “progressiveness” of the mechanization of labour. The best exemplar of modernity’s impact on the traditional workplace is in Frederick Winslow Taylor’s modern theories of scientific management, or “Taylorism”. The main objective of scientific management was to maximize efficiency in both work and society as a whole utilizing rationality and scientific empiricism. This necessitated increasing the division of labour and mechanizing the workplace so that workers’ tasks could become as manageable as possible. Whereas managers embraced Taylorism in looking to eliminate waste and maximize efficiency, this did not come without its pitfalls. Workers strongly resisted Taylorism as work became more exploitative and monotonous, and they fought to retain bodily autonomy in a workplace that continually attempted to automate them. While the implantation of Taylorism was an unstoppable force, resistance from Canadian workers exercising their agency through solidarity was an important moment in Canadian labour history, gaining crucial concessions for Canadian workers during the early 20th century. This essay will highlight the impact of the widespread imposition of scientific management in the Canadian workplace, how workers resisted Taylorism through unionist and radical political movements, and Taylorism’s lasting effects on today’s workplace.
One of the first successful implantations of Taylor’s principles of scientific management was in Henry Ford’s car factory. A key argument in Taylorism was for managers to deconstruct work processes into small steps, codifying the processes so that workers would constantly operate their tasks in an identical way. Essentially, under scientific management workers are treated and utilized similar to that of a machine; forced to consistently perform a simple, uniform task. Ford thrived under this method of work, pioneering mass production in the form of division of labour, standardization and assembly lines. Ford’s success propelled the implantation of the principles of Taylorism in other sectors, profoundly impacting management of the workplace during that era and then onwards. Taylorism spread quickly in Canadian industries, most notoriously being implanted by Henry L. Gantt during the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Grant and Taylor himself both openly preached the benefits of scientific management; writing articles in Canadian industrial journals, and holding lectures on the merits of Taylorism.
This inspired a ripple of other Canadian industrialists to embrace scientific management during the early 20th century, especially within manufacturing industries such as steel. In order to even further control the work process and the pace at which it was performed, Taylor also advocated enforcing a strict hierarchy in the workplace where workers would be forced to obey their superiors. This disempowerment of workers and degradation of work greatly differed with the craft work of the 19th century, in which workers had a much greater deal of autonomy and work required expert technical and scientific knowledge as well as skill. Taylorism essentially allowed for management to remove the technical skills and knowledge from workers by making work as simple and monotonous as possible, giving management a monopoly on scientific knowledge in the workplace. This was evident in the implementations of Taylorism in Toronto’s Lumen Bearing Company and Hamilton’s B. Greening Wire Company. Managers in both companies were given complete control of the shop floor and work processes, aiming to make detailed plans for the work process and eliminate waste. This did not sit well with the skilled workers who had been stripped of the autonomy they had previously earned in the 19th century. As a result, the deeply imbedded belief of Canadian workers that control over the shop floor was their right, led to a quick resistance to these new managerial techniques.
Further, Taylorism was not only meant to be implemented within the workplace, but to all aspects of human society according to Taylor himself. “The fundamental principles of scientific management are applicable to all kinds of human activities, from our simplest individual acts, to the work of our great corporations.” Industrialists and governments alike embraced this belief, as companies desired to have even more influence over the work process through influencing the private lives of their workers with strict monitoring. This could be seen during the 1920s and 1930s, during which Kingston General Hospital administrators used scientific management techniques to create what they deemed as the “perfect” nurse. Strict routines for the nurses in training were set in place including regulations on sleep, diet, exercise, and sexual activity. Nurses who defied these regulations were subject to a variation of harsh punishments, and even expulsion in extreme cases. Essentially, the concept of scientific management led to discourse on the reformation of the human body into a perfectly efficient machine that could be obtained via proper regulation. Taylor’s vigorous advocacy for strict regulation of workers’ morality and mechanization of the human body heavily deteriorated worker and management relationships, contributing to the workers’ resistance against Taylorism.
The resistance against scientific management was mainly credited to the loss of worker skill, creativity, and autonomy. Workers largely resisted against the widespread implementation of scientific management through unionism. Construction and other outdoor labour industries in British Columbia were heavily impacted by new management techniques influenced by Taylorism during the 1910s. Unsurprisingly, the growth of unionism at this time was also substantial. Similarly, skilled workers in Vancouver; such as boilermakers, machinists, and moulders, who felt threatened by the degradation of work that Taylorism advocated ultimately organized three large waves of strikes in 1918 to 1919. Furthermore, vigorous opposition to Taylorism in both Hamilton and Toronto also led to waves of union led strikes throughout the first two decades of the 20th century. Evidently, Canadian unions vehemently opposed scientific management techniques, citing aforementioned techniques disturbingly propagated the mechanization of the human body, disempowerment of workers, and degradation of work. The success of unionism during this period was mixed. While some were initially able to halt the implementation of scientific management in certain industries, many eventually submitted to the “modern” management techniques as its widespread implementation seemed inevitable. Workers viewed unions as a way to make workplaces more equitable through collective solidarity and resolution. Indeed, unions did just that throughout the 1930s and 1940s, allowing for workers to obtain the right to collectively for wages and benefits. However, this came at the cost of further conceding control of work processes to management. As such, resistance through unionism despite its mixed success to still had its bona fides as a crucial movement in Canadian labour history, acquiring important concessions in exchange for worker autonomy and securing crucial rights still relevant to this day.
Loss of worker autonomy, although an important element in contributing to the resistance of Taylorism, complaints against the speeding of the overwork process and in turn, overwork, were even more prominent. It could be assumed that such grievances were more common due to the fact that overwork applied to both skilled and unskilled workers. Regardless, such remonstrance against the overwork that Taylorism promoted still holds salience today. O’Connell argued against the constant speeding of the work process inherent with scientific management, lamenting its many detriments. This included that the constant speeding of work would undoubtedly lead to a greater worker strain, both mentally and physically. This concept of worker strain as a result of scientific management is relevant to the modern concept of “job strain” illustrated by Psychologist Robert Karasek. Karasek explained “job strain” as when work is characterized by low levels of control over how work is done and a high demand of production. Additionally, O’Connell claimed that the increased strain on workers ultimately damaged worker health; shortening lifespans, and leading to the development of alcohol and drug habits. Both O’Connell and Karasek point towards the production process, or in relevance to this case the “work process”, as the main origin of job strain.
With the rise of technological advancement in workplaces, especially that of manufacturing, Taylorism’s concept of simplified “deskilled” and sped up pace of work is ever so relevant. As such, both O’Connell and Karasek’s concepts of job and worker strain are also salient. The question of what workers can do to combat this is still up in the air. O’Connell proposed that workers should be given more breaks and leisure time as the work process sped up. Similar to the beliefs of workers in the early 1900s, he also advocated for joining unions as the most optimal way for workers to obtain adequate rest time. Perhaps O’Connell was correct in his beliefs, or perhaps his critics who pointed to radical changes made to the economic system as the most optimal solution to the problems left by the implementation of Taylorism. Workers in Canada similarly embraced radical political ideologies that went against Taylorism and more generally, capitalism itself. The Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) emerged as a legitimate political force as a result, becoming substantially popular during the 1940s, and winning more seats in Federal elections. It could be said this inspired the adoption and implementation of more social policies which greatly benefitted all Canadian workers by William Lyon Mackenzie King’s Liberals. CCP’s legacy of pushing for social programs and labour rights would be upheld by its later successor the New Democratic Party throughout the 20th century.
Regardless, historical resistance against Taylorism throughout Canadian labour history illustrates the importance of collective solidarity and action in response to oppression. When faced with the reality of the unstoppable loss of control over the work process, union solidarity still managed to acquire better wages and benefits. When Taylorism inspired methods led to job strain, workers joined radical political groups and eventually changed the Canadian political landscape. As the gradual tread of time propagates more modernity in society and the traditional workplace, the future of workers will likely possess new forms of exploitation in the workplace relating back to Taylorism’s concepts of scientific management. It is yet to be seen the full extent of Taylorism’s effect on modern workplaces. So, in defense of worker autonomy, health, and value of skilled worker, the history of worker resistance through unionist and radical political movements is as relevant as ever, and should be taken note of in the case history likely repeats itself.
