Gender at Work

Ann Game, Rosemary Pringle

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000257229
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Multicultural Education

Three themes are drawn together in this book: gender and sexuality, the organisation of work, and the impact of technological change. Their inter-relationship is explored in six area studies: manufacturing, banking, retailing, computing, nursing and housework. Gender at Work presents an account of how each area has changed since the Second World War; sets out ways in which the notion of what constitutes 'proper' work for men and women changes with new work processes; and analyses the prospects for, and limits of, sexual 'equality' in the workplace.Based on the first-hand observations of workers, reflecting on their work experience, this book allows workers to speak for themselves: they reveal the centrality of gender to the way capitalism is organised.'A notable contribution, both to feminist and labour studies in Australia and further afield. Every woman, whether at home or in the paid workforce, should read this book. It will help her assess exactly what she is - and should be - worth to the community, and how she can help to ensure her true evaluation.' - Newcastle Herald 'A very readable book which makes a major theoretical and descriptive contribution to the analysis of gender in Australian Society.' - Journal of Industrial Relations 'A convincing demonstration of the central place of gender in the work relationships between men and women. The insights it provides, into the underlying causes of the sex division of tasks and the way in which new jobs in any individual setting quickly become sex-typed, are important for any manager of a mixed workplace.' - Practising Manager

1
Masculinity and machines

Automation in manufacturing industry

Sir-The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, Mr Viner, has called on employers and developers to train more people in Australia to avoid skilled labour shortages in the 1980s (’The Advertiser’ 2/12/80).

I am employed in the whitegoods industry and am a qualified spray painter, having had three years on-the-job experience in NZ and ten in the industrial field here in Australia.

Recently I spent nine months at the Croydon School of Further Education learning more about industrial painting, including electrostatic coating, powder coating etc. and three months on-the-job training on the Ransburg system.

Where I work the shop is now closing (because of a paint process being introduced by the steel manufacturers), and as far as I am concerned, it appears I will be transferred to unskilled labour, in which case all this training has just been a waste of time.

How many people will become unemployed after their training because of automation? I shall ask Mr Viner this question in the late 1980s. Bob Kramer, Dulwich. Letters to the Editor: The Advertiser (Adelaide).

Probably one day a robot will take over.

Today they need me, tomorrow they might not.

Machinery seems to be taking over.

The new computerised instrumentation is replacing us.

They are closing down too much of this plant and forcing people to leave.

I think this factory is going to close down soon.

Nobody is permanent today.

THESE comments come from workers in the whitegoods industry. It is one of the industries in Australia which has so far survived the restructuring that is taking place in the manufacturing sector. This chapter is about the terms of survival, the costs to the workforce in terms of loss of jobs and skills, and the gender implications of these costs.

In the new international division of production there is little room for an independent viable manufacturing base in Australia. In this division, Australia is being designated as a provider of energy, foodstuffs, and industrial raw materials; the US and Japan as sources of capital; and the Asian countries as providers of cheap labour and commodities. The effects of the present recession have been exacerbated by weaknesses in the structure of Australian manufacturing which developed in the postwar boom. Manufacturing was largely geared towards import substitution by means of high levels of protection. This enabled a large number of companies to operate on a small scale, often with out-of-date technology. Unable to compete, many of these firms have now gone out of business. Others, both foreign-owned and Australian, are locating their production facilities elsewhere, particularly in SE Asia. Those industries and firms which remain are rationalising their operations in an attempt to boost productivity and become more competitive. The most visible effect of this has been the massive loss of jobs in all manufacturing industries, whether through closing of plants or the introduction of capital-intensive equipment. For example, in the period 1974–79, 26,000 jobs disappeared in the clothing and footwear industries and 32,000 in the household appliances and electrical equipment industries (Department of Employment and Youth Affairs, 1979).

We chose the whitegoods industry for a case study from the manufacturing sector. Whitegoods falls in the middle of the spectrum of manufacturing industries: both foreign and local capital are involved; it has been neither capital nor labour intensive; and has not been either a ‘male’ or ‘female’ industry. While there is a wide range of jobs and skills in the industry, something like 70 per cent of the workforce are classified as semi-skilled and unskilled (Industries Assistance Commission, 1978: 10). The composition of the workforce is mixed. The large numbers of semi-skilled and unskilled jobs created with mass production were filled by migrant men and women and Australian women. Migrant workers made up 70 per cent of production workers in 1978 (Department of Industry and Commerce, 1978: 16) and in 1974 women were estimated to make up 60 per cent of the workforce in production areas (Department of Labour and Immigration, 1975: 9). The ‘mix’ of jobs and workers makes the whitegoods industry a particularly good case study for an analysis of the relationship between changes in the labour process and the assignment of tasks to particular sections of the workforce.

The structure of the whitegoods industry

In 1946 only 13 per cent of Australian homes had a refrigerator and a mere two per cent had a washing machine (Australian Women’s Weekly, 1960: 12–24). By the 1970s these commodities had become almost universal, while a big proportion of households owned freezers and clothes dryers and a new market had opened for dishwashers and room air conditioners. The demand for new stoves more than kept pace with these items throughout the period.

The whitegoods industry mushroomed in the years immediately after World War II, in the context of the general expansion of manufacturing. It played an integral part in creating the appearance of prosperity and mobility associated with the expansion of consumption patterns, producing some of those products that were advertised as being essential to every Australian home. A large number of companies turned to whitegoods production with high tariff walls and the expectation of unlimited market growth. By 1953, no less than 35 firms were involved in making four leading products--refrigerators, freezers, washing machines and stoves (Department of Industry and Commerce, 1978: 3). Most manufacturers produced a complete range of products. Several companies set up whitegoods production via links with big US companies thus taking advantage of American technology and marketing. These are the companies that have survived into the 1970s.

By the late 1950s demand had slackened and, in the credit squeeze of 1960–61, about twenty companies left the industry or were taken over. In the late 1960s there was an upsurge in replacements as the purchases of the 1950s wore out, and there was a new demand for small refrigerators (especially with the motel boom), automatic washing machines, dryers and room air conditioners. But there was little further reduction in the number of companies.

The conditions of the seventies pushed the industry more quickly to rationalisation. With other industries, it has been the subject of numerous Tariff Board and IAC investigations. In 1973 the Federal government cut tariffs by 25 per cent across the board. Early in 1974, acting on a Tariff Board report, it began to introduce further tariff reductions in whitegoods to induce reorganisation on more economic lines. These events coincided with the onset of the recession in mid-1974 and an immediate drop in demand. The industry was hard hit by this and sackings followed.

There was a further IAC report on whitegoods in 1978 which the government quickly accepted. This confirmed the need for restructuring to reduce the number of producers and to allow those remaining to achieve production volumes and methods similar to major overseas manufacturers. This would enable them to take advantage of economies of scale and introduce more sophisticated technology. The government gave notice that tariff rates would be reduced over a six year period, thus giving the industry two years longer than the IAC had recommended. Both the IAC and the government evaded the question of the effects on employment.

In March 1979 a sharemarket battle took place between the major whitegoods companies in direct response to the government’s decision. In less than three weeks three major ownership changes occurred. Email took over Kelvinator; Simpson Pope took over Malleys; and Rank (a subsidiary of the British firm) and AGE (a subsidiary of US General Electric) formed two joint companies under the dominance of Rank. This meant the emergence of three major groups. The other two companies whose future in Australia is still uncertain are Philips (Dutch) and Hoover (UK). The two leaders, Simpson Pope and Email, have made agreements on product specialisation, and both are proceeding with rationalisation and technological innovation in order to increase productivity and profitability.

The sexual division of labour in mass production plants

The concept of skill was traditionally bound up with craft mastery. An overall knowledge of products and processes was combined with the manual dexterity required to actually carry on a specific branch of production. With mechanisation and mass production we have seen the decline of the all-round skilled tradesman and the development of a fragmented labour process. Tradesmen’s skills were incorporated into the new machines, or concentrated into particular tasks. As work was simplified, there was a considerable growth in jobs for process workers and semi-skilled machine operators. Production was organised around a few specialist skilled jobs on the one hand, and a large number of semi-skilled and unskilled ones on the other. This involved a double-sided process of ‘hyperskilling’ and ‘deskilling’. As mental labour was separated from manual labour, and control from execution, the concept of ‘skill’ was narrowed from an overall understanding of the production process to a highly specialised knowledge of a particular area. At the same time the majority of workers were treated as having no skills, or at most, limited skills.

Work in a typical whitegoods mass production plant is divided into three main areas:

1. Highly skilled areas not involved directly in production, but in the making and servicing of equipment, such as maintenance, tool room, electrical work.
2. Fabrication areas where components are made and processed. These areas are mixed in terms of level of skill.
3. Assembly and sub-assembly, which is predominantly ‘unskilled’ work.

Some of these areas are clearly segregated along sex lines, others are mixed. In both cases a sexual division of labour operates, although in the latter it is less immediately obvious. It is based on a series of polarities which are broadly equated with masculinity and femininity. The most obvious distinction is between skilled and unskilled work. The other main ones are: heavy/light, dangerous/less dangerous, dirty/clean, interesting/boring, mobile/immobile. The first of each of these pairs is held to be appropriate for men, or men are assumed to be better at it. The second is seen as appropriately ‘female’. In the second case, nature is much more frequently invoked: women, ‘by nature’ are good at boring, fiddly and sedentary work. ‘Men’s work’ does not seem to require the same rationalisation: presumably they have more power to say what they will and will not do. Thus, to this list we could add a further series of categories around congenial/uncongenial. Men may do the dirtier and more dangerous jobs but they are also able to exercise more control over their working conditions, over problems associated with heat, light, fresh air or draughts.

These polarities operate across the manufacturing sector as a whole. They not only define jobs within an industry or factory but across industries. Industries such as iron and steel are defined as ‘male’ because they are heavy or dangerous; others, like electronics, are defined as ‘female’ because they involve light, repetitive work. In industries which are predominantly male, for example, sugar refining (skilled, mobile and heavy work), women are concentrated in labour intensive assembly areas of packaging (repetitive, immobile, light). We turn now to look at these polarities in whitegoods in more detail.

Skilled/unskilled

Skilled work takes place in the first two areas referred to above. Toolmakers, fitters, die setters and electricians work in the making and servicing of tools and machinery. In the production areas too there are a number of jobs that require tradesmen’s skills. First class machinists, first class sheetmetal workers and first class welders do precision work. They are involved in the setting up of machinery and following blueprints and plans. Together these workers constitute a hyper-skilled elite in relation to the rest of the workforce. Skilled work is done exclusively by males who are predominantly Anglo-Saxon and Northern European. The subdivision and fragmentation of metalwork meant an increase in semi-skilled jobs, involving the operation and sometimes setting up of machines. Some women are to be found in the ranks of the ‘second’ and ‘third’ class machinists. However, most are concentrated in unskilled process and assembly line jobs. Within these latter areas there is a further sex-typing of jobs. We must note here that what is defined as a ‘skill’ is heavily ideological and already biased towards men. Women’s skills, especially if acquired informally, go unacknowledged.

Heavy/light

This is a well established distinction that is used quite consciously as a way of dividing jobs. It is formalised in the sense that there is legislation limiting the weights that can be lifted by women. Although the rationale of such legislation is to ‘protect’ women it is fairly clear that it in fact serves other purposes as well. In all-female industries such as clothing and textiles, women lift weights over the legal limit-in this case it suits management. In industries with both men and women the distinction operates to preserve men’s jobs. In whitegoods it provides the rationale for a sexual division of labour in the areas where both men and women work, namely production and assembly. In fabrication and components areas men work on the heavier components--in the case of washing machines, hobs and base plates. In press shops, men work on large presses, women on small ones. Men do all the lifting of components and products. In one factory, though the majority of workers on a motor assembly line are women, men actually lift the compressors off at the end. In the same factory in the sealed units area, women put parts in, assemble heat exchanges and copper piping. We were told that this is ‘light work that men won’t do’. A very telling statement which implies that the distinction has less to do with the physical capabilities of women than with men’s sense of what kind of work is appropriate for them.

Dangerous/less dangerous, dirty/clean

These operate in much the same way. Large presses are seen as more dangerous and dirty than small ones; foundries are both dirty and dangerous and pickling is a cleaning process that involves working with dangerous acids. This is therefore ‘men’s work’. Again the rationale is in terms of women’s nature, in this case with specific reference to biology, the danger to reproductive capacities. It is, nonetheless, an arbitrary distinction: women in whitegoods factories are subjected to dangerous and unhealthy working conditions along with the other employees. And some of them do work in areas regarded as the most dirty and/or dangerous. Enamel shops, because of the heat and dust, are traditionally seen as a male area but in one factory were operated entirely by migrants--women as well as men. The sexual division of labour intersects with a division by ethnicity. Often ‘migrant social networks’ are used to recruit people for jobs that Australians are reluctant to do. In this way, some women become ‘honorary men’ without the workplace advantages which accrue to being a man. Similarly core-blowing machines, both dangerous and physically difficult to use, were operated entirely by migrant women. It would seem that the health of migrant women is given the lowest priority. Management, following the logic of profitability and control, ‘simply’ draws on sexual and ethnic divisions (combined in the idea that migrant women are not ‘real women but workhorses). They are able to do this because workers themselves accept these divisions as inevitable, part of their lived reality. Some groups (men, Australians) have a clear short-term interest in preserving these divisions. This is obvious in the case of some of the tradesmen, who do not bother to conceal their contempt for production workers as almost subhuman, and who are for the most part concerned only with their own working conditions and pay differentials.

Interesting/boring

This relates to the broad distinction between skilled and unskilled work but also operates within mixed areas, production and assembly. Women do all the boring, repetitive work. Even on assembly lines where all work is basically this, distinctions are drawn-women do the most boring work. It is seen to be in women’s nature to be able to tolerate boring, repetitive work; it is something they will put up with but men won’t. Management will go so far as to claim that women prefer this type of work, partly because of the social interaction that they supposedly have with other women and partly because it requires little thought or effort. ‘Women don’t seem to have the same problem with boredom that men do.’ More to the point, we were told that a vacuum cleaner assembly line was made up entirely of migrant women because ‘it is too boring for men’. Yet in that same factory men worked on the washing machine line doing very similar work. The differences, then, can be very slight. But they are important to workers on the job and they serve to reassure men of their superiority, by distinguishing their work from ‘women’s work’. The distinction rests not on the inherent quality of the work but almost entirely on the meaning given to it in particular contexts.

Mobile/immobile

Unlike the earlier distinctions, this one is not used explicitly but it has a powerful, if hidden, effect in reproducing gender differences. The dichotomy can be understood in terms both of movement in the actual job and movement around the factory allowed by the job. All women’s jobs are immobile with the exception of cleaning on the assembly line (clearly not a male job!). The die setters, maintenance workers and the forklift drivers are men, and their work involves movement around the factory. Occasionally a company will employ a women as a forklift driver to show that they don’t discriminat...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 Masculinity and machines: automation in manufacturing industry
• 2 Kentucky-fried money: the banks
• 3 Working at a discount: retailing
• 4 Roaming around computer-land: sex-typing in a new industry
• 5 Sex and power in hospitals: the division of labour in the ‘health’ industry
• 6 The labour process of consumption: housework
• A new feminist politics
• Bibliography
• Index