1. Did manual workers want industrial welfare? Canteens, latrines and masculinity on British building sites 1918-1970
- Author
-
Hayes, Nick
- Subjects
Labor unions -- History -- United States -- United Kingdom ,Construction industry -- Labor relations -- Compensation and benefits -- History ,Work environment -- Social aspects ,Sex role in the work environment -- Social aspects ,Welfare -- History -- Social aspects ,Sex role -- Social aspects ,Labor relations -- History -- Social aspects ,Masculinity -- Social aspects ,Construction workers -- Compensation and benefits ,History ,Sociology and social work ,Labor relations ,Social aspects ,Compensation and benefits - Abstract
Whether or not manual workers actually valued industrial welfarism has been largely subsumed within the debate over its productive or coercive function. Yet many workers seemingly placed little importance on such benefits, either when demanded by unions or provided by employers. This rebuttal should not be read only in terms of the primacy of money wages within a hierarchy of demands. Taking construction as an example of a male dominated industry, it is argued that key aspects of welfarism ran counter to masculine constructs of workplace culture. Improved physical amenities devalued such defining attributes of worker identity as self-sufficiency and toughness; even cash benefits like paid holidays were misappropriated by a significant minority who preferred more traditional manly pleasures. Yet the value placed on 'conditions of work' issues also reflected broader structural changes within the industry: notably issues of workplace control. Only in such contexts can attitudes to welfare be understood. It was n ever simply a question of want or dislike., Twentieth century employer welfarism--that 'ragbag' of fringe remunerations and non-money wages (1)--has, by and large, been judged pejoratively: damned for being a 'sugared pill' sufficiently appealing to steal away workers' [...]
- Published
- 2002