So what will I be talking about and how? How is important.
Firstly, I argue that the macro literature orders perceived events in a particular way to demonstrate that "globalisation" or "restructuring" is happening, and a particular vocabulary of concepts is constructed to show how and why it is happening. These "events", the writers argue, must be responded to in particular ways by governments and organisations in order to succeed in this new "competitive" and "global" environment. The emphasis here is on increasing competitiveness through introducing high-quality, lean production processes, and marketing strategies aimed at quick response to customer demand. .
Following this, I briefly examine how writers have perceived the Australian Government's response to these "events".
Thirdly, I show how writers on workplace change, even critical writers, largely accept that the "quality", "lean production" and "customer focus" categorisation of workplace changes. .
Thus, the analysis of the politics and power associated with workplace change is streamed according to prevailing neo-liberal or critical theories without ever questioning the nature of the concepts themselves. My argument is that through the use of these reified concepts for analysing workplace change much of what is important about the experience of being a worker in the late 1990's, about the experience of being human amongst other humans in industrial spaces, is difficult to access and leaves what I consider important questions unanswered. .
Different kinds of theories about work and the history behind these, too.
Marx.
Adam Smith.
neo-liberals.
These are important as a way of framing the way we see the world and what we believe should or should not happen.
Is what is happening good or bad?.
What is the role of trade unions?.
What degree of responsibility does an individual worker take for his or her own life?.
What is the role of the state in all this?.