Uddevalla-Humanized manufacturing

[Bill Cochrane]

G'dday 
A small point that drifts into my consciousness from my days from writing
interminable reports/seminars etc on 'new' manufacturing technology.
You write
>There's no question that efficiency rises when workers are no longer appendages
>to machines.  Volvo, for instance, put up a factory in Uddevalla, Sweden based
> around "neo-craft" principles, in which teams of eight-to-ten workers
> simultaneously built four cars by hand.  This method quickly surpassed the
> efficiency of standard assembly plants (though it failed to outperform "lean
> production" plants.)  All the experiments Pruijt studied were cancelled by
> capitalists and managers fearful of the loss of workplace control.  Clearly,
> this is not something that need concern an economic commons.  Since the few
> experiments we've seen in Europe have never been carried very far, the gains
> in efficiency are potentially much greater than anyone realizes,
> particularly if we were to create production machinery which *enhanced*
> human skill rather than replacing it.  As Braverman notes in *Labor and
> Monopoly Capital*, throughout this century engineers have intentionally
> designed machinery that extends labor power not by augmenting skill but by
> mechanizing production.  We have no idea what kind of a workplace could be
> created with a skill-centered approach to technological development.
In my recollection Uddevalla's productivity compared favourably with other
European car manufacturing plants but far less so than with transplants (ie
Japanese owned/joint ventures established in Europe) or Japanese or even US
plants in their home countries. This might have been overcome with time as
Uddevalla was barely out of its shakedown period when shut down (see also
the Kalmar plants experience) but my feeling is that this is doubtful. While
I stand to be corrected on this my recollection is that production was
relocated from Uddevalla to a more traditional style taylorist/fordist plant
in Ghent, Belgium. While middle management certainly resented the loss of
prerogative and career potential I think that the failure of Uddevalla
resulted from, in part, increased capital mobility but primarily from
changed labour market conditions. Essentially I would argue that the
Uddevalla plant was designed to make manufacturing employment more
attractive to a workers (Swedish workers having become increasingly
disdainful of what they perceived as dirty dangerous and degrading work) and
to broaden the potential labour force by adopting technologies and policies
that both enabled older workers to be employed and non traditional groups
such as women. Once Swedish labour market conditions changed, higher
unemployment etc demand for manufacturing jobs rose destroying the initial
rational for 'humanised' manufacturing, c.f with the changes made at Kalmar.
For those interested perhaps the definitive description of the Uddevalla
approach is  the work of Christian, Berggren, particularly  "Alternatives to
lean production : work organization in the Swedish auto industry" or  for a
collection of views  "Enriching production : perspectives on Volvo's
Uddevalla plant as an alternative to lean production / edited by Åke
Sandberg.  
My impression is that two roads to high productivity exist,
If given the chance to be developed fully humanised manufacturing practices
would probably lead to levels of productivity growth comparable to current
best practice however this would require considerable time and expense to
capitalists and won't occure  unless no effective alternatives exist for the
capitalist. Equally effective and somewhat less costly is to terrorise
workers - destroy welfare systems, high unemployment, smash unions, - into
being compliant and productive. A happy worker maybe a productive worker but
so is a scared one.
Bill C