Las Vegas Sun Article please click on the link to view the article
This
week the readings introduced several concepts and theories related to the
development of management. I used
sections of a newspaper article to help illustrate similarities and differences
between the concepts set forth by Frederick W. Taylor, Henri Fayol, and Max
Weber. The article in the Las Vegas Sun by
Tovin Lapan (2012, September 2) includes interviews with a number of union
workers in Las Vegas. Through their
testimony the workers in the article show a unique perspective of the role of unions
in the midst of the city’s downturn economy.
Several decades later the concepts of management by the three
aforementioned scholars are still applicable to methods in today’s
workforce.
“I’m
very frustrated with the union. They do many good things, but when I go to the
office in the mornings to see if there are jobs, they seem disorganized and I
never get work, but others do.”
This
quote by Pedro Lizaola, who has been a union worker since 1988 according to the
article, shows his frustration with the system.
Nevertheless Lizaola still believes the union is a group worth investing
in, by indicating that they in fact “do many good things.” In contrast, Frederick Taylor, who was at the
forefront of the concept of “scientific management,” failed to see the value in
unions. While most unions are created in
order to establish equal treatment amongst employees, Taylor indicated this
concept failed to promote individuals to work to the best of their
ability. For Taylor, this prevented union
members from fulfilling their personal ambitions (Wren & Bedeian, 2009, p.
128). Taylor was a proponent of
identifying the highest performance standards for workers in order to determine
wages; therefore employees who work harder and faster, would also receive a
higher pay.
Lizaola
also points out in his quote that the unions “seem disorganized.” In reference to our readings, the concept of
Organizing was one of the elements of management introduced by Henri
Fayol. For Fayol, organizing meant
providing a firm with everything it needed to achieve its objectives (Wren
& Bedeian, 2009, p. 223). Thus
according to Lizaola this is a practice the union lacks and it creates
dissatisfaction for workers.
Later
in the article Derrick Stowell, another union worker, shares his sentiments
about the current employment situation for unions. It is near the end of the article that he
states:
“Unions were needed back in the day to combat exploitation, and they
are still needed today.”
This testimony
speaks directly to a section of our reading about Taylor’s methods. Labor leaders characterized Taylor’s
piece-rate pay plan as a return to “sweat shop” exploitation (Wren &
Bedeian, 2009, p. 141). The exploitation
that Stowell speaks of in the article is the same tactic that was criticized in
Taylor’s the task management approach.
Unfortunately in the current economy it is likely that nonunion workers
will work for less pay, leaving union workers with an even smaller pool of job opportunities
to choose from.
Another
piece of information gathered from Lapan’s article is that a number of unions
have decreased their membership, some even by half. Given that union workers are protected by the
same laws and follow the same guidelines, many of them have left work for less
than the prevailing wage. This concept
of equality in the workplace resonates with the concept of bureaucracy
introduced by Max Weber. Bureaucracy,
with its emphasis on legal authority, was intended to put an end to the
exploitation of employees and to ensure equal opportunity and treatment for all
(Wren & Bedeian, 2009, p. 230). Weber
regarded the bureaucratic method as the most effective management system that
had been developed at the time. However the
facts in Lapan’s article show that bureaucracy was not a method that worked for
many union workers who decided to part ways with their groups and seek other
employment options.
In summary, Lapan's article illustrates a few examples of how the management theories of Frederick Taylor, Henri Fayol, and Max Weber are still applicable to the way organizations conduct business today.
I really enjoyed the way you structured your response. It highlights specific points from the readings and incorporates them with modern examples. Reading your response helped me remember items I had read in the articles. It really helped to put things in perspective for me so that I could remember key points in the articles.
ReplyDeleteI believe the unions greatly help workers in all aspects of their jobs. My mom is very pro-union so I grew up surrounded by their ideals. However, I can understand how they can be disorganized. There are just so many employees who each need different things from the union and it can be a bit overwhelming at times. Perhaps, Taylor could have incorporated his ideas with the concept of unions and they would have had better structure. I suppose we'll never know.
Great job on your response! I enjoyed it.
I enjoyed your post Allison because the bleak employment picture as well as the unions battling with non-union properties (see: Stations) is a big story here.
ReplyDeleteWorkers are frustrated with their unions because they can't secure jobs, but unions can't snap their fingers and make jobs appear. From the readings, I found Taylor to have a condescending attitude toward workers. He found them to be dim but as long as they could be matched to the best job, then that's how the company would move forward. Taylor's theory also relied on managers who be above reproach and some might find that to be a bit unrealistic. Hence, union protection.
Unions here might have more in agreement with Fayol and Weber. Fayol was more flexible and put an emphasis on managerial training for all employees. Like you wrote, Weber saw bureaucracy as a way of preventing the exploitation of workers. I did like your post, very relevant.
Allison, timely article for the readings! You make the connections clearly. Now, what do you think? Is bureacracy (and that would include things like OSHA standards, overtime rules, etc) enough to protect workers? Or, do we need unions to protect workers from exploitation? Are there other forms of exploitation that are of concern to workers unaddressed through legal buraucracy? Does Union leadership exploit their members for personal gain?
ReplyDeleteHi Dr. Shipley,
ReplyDeleteI apologize for the delayed response on this.
For many years, I think having unions has been a good way to enforce fair practice for employees, but in the economic climate of today I don't know how effective they are. Many employees have relied on unions to help them seek better pay, but this is very difficult now. My mother works for a casino here in Las Vegas and is a union member (Teamsters). She was told by her employer that she basically will remain in the same pay scale indefinitely. I am not entirely sure what the union is doing about this, but I do not see many unions here in town confronting the casino conglomerates about this type of situation. I would not say my mother is exploited in her current position at all, but it is discouraging to know there is little incentive for better working conditions. I also would not say unions exploit members for their personal gain, but it is likely that their methods to keep their membership numbers up are changing.