> I think "work to rule" can be used in a non-union
> workplace by people who have the self-conscious
> desire to implement it . . . a [possible] stepping
> stone towards the organization of a class conscious
> union:
> * * * There is often a tacit understanding,
> even by manage[ment] . . ., that [strict adherence
> to workplace rules often is inefficient] . . . to meet
> production quotas on time. * * * [I]f each of
> these rules and regulations were followed to the
> letter . . . . [c]onfusion would result . . . . And best
> of all, the workers can't get in trouble with the
> tactick because they are, after all, "just following
> the rules."
Noting the above ".au" email address, it might also be noted that in (but: throughout) the U.S., at least, there are (among others) two basic infirmities with approach.
The first is that, to be effective, all the affected workers need to be very well organized, including very loyal to one another; but if/when this occurs, there would almost never would be any good reason not to affiliate with or to form a union and to seek law-recognized collective bargaining status as, meanwhile, the argument summarized above begs the basic question, Have the affected workers effectively organized?
Second (and all the more so absent a realistic "Yes" answer to question immediately above), it is open to the private sector employer in the U.S. to respond to the worker(s), who otherwise presumably in the scenario posited above would be "employees at will" and thus (by definition), lawfully dischargeable summarily "at [the employer's] will" (even if that "will" is perversely arbitrary), thus answer with a, "You're fired!!" response; and so, in sum, the "Best of all, etc." presumption above is (at best) a fantasy (unless, in this respect, too, the workers, as a group, have made themselves more or less indispensible by . . . guess what? . . . [HINT: having ORGANIZED] . . . .).