ABSTRACT
Contemporary sociologists studying people and work have largely rejected functionalist organization theory and have begun grappling with the theoretical and methodological problems involved in forging a dialectical image of the modem workplace. Dialectical organization theorists study deep patterns emerging and dissolving that comprise the interplay between forms of administrative control and worker resistance. They reject characterizations of laborers as highly tractable and totally manipulated in favor of images of constant and continuing conflict at the point of production and throughout the broader economic, social, political, and cultural domains.
The thesis of this chapter is that the central reality of organizational life is people in conflict. However, overt and dramatic forms of labor resistance (such as contract and wildcat strikes, picketing, political protests, etc.) that have commanded the attention of journalists, newscasters, labor historians, and organizational conflict scholars are merely a fraction of this reality. More subtle forms of resistance (such as restriction of output and rule violations), and particularly, more subterranean forms of resistance (such as theft and sabotage) must be represented before theoretical models of work organizations will capture the essence of power and conflict dynamics.
In part because of the increasingly compelling evidence about forms of protest in working-class culture, in part because of the frequency with which the term surfaces in the non-scholarly press and in conversations with managers and workers, and in part because it seems 56a necessary step toward advancing dialectical analysis of organizations, this study emphasizes the concept of sabotage at work. The concept is elaborated and its pivotal significance to sociological theorizing about organizations is demonstrated in three sections. First, three major episodes in labor history remembered best for threatened and real acts of sabotage are reviewed (rise of the Luddites in Regency England, insurgency of the Wobblies in the United Slates during the early 1900s, and rebellion of the Lordstown, Ohio autoworkers in the early 1970s). Second, existing research is reviewed, summarized, and critiqued. Contemporary episodes of sabotage and their causes and consequences are identified. Third, current perspectives in labor history, labor process theory, and political anthropology are joined to develop a view of sabotage in the modem workplace that reveals both its material weight in labor-capital power struggles and its meaning as a political label—a symbolic product constructed through negotiations by class-interested parties.
At several points in this chapter, argument and evidence are presented to support the notion that sabotage at work is usually a rational act, not inherently biased against machines or technological innovations, with powerful consequences favoring labor. Historical studies and reports of empirical research challenge the mythical image of the “mad saboteur” who, overwhelmed by the trials and tribulations of everyday organizational life, explodes in a self-indulgent moment of destruction. When workers sabotage, they express deep emotions but their actions are usually described as social, conspiratorial, and restrained, and are designed to make no headlines for the anonymous artisans. They act consistent with their class interests, even when unaware (cf. Thompson 1978; Scott 1985), in effect denying surplus value to capital. They operate on a thin line between the crushing reprisal of exposure and the torment of inaction. Risks are assumed because other forms of protest are expensive, intermittently effective, and delayed in their consequences. Thus, sabotage is usually a rational choice, but is not without its regrets.
“Pan Am Corporation and the union representing 4,500 of its ground employees remained deadlocked Monday after their talks broke up, and some travel agents reported customers have shunned Pan Am flights. The talks, in which management was seeking S35 million in concessions from the Teamsters, collapsed Sunday afternoon. The union’s strike deadline passed at 12:01 a.m. Sunday. Teamster leaders vowed “guerrilla war” against the financially troubled airline but stopped short of calling a strike. Tactics threatened by the union included sending baggage and cargo to wrong airports and canceling reservations … ‘We can strike (Pan Am) anytime we want,’ said William Genoese, director of the Teamster’s airline division. ‘We’re going to pick our strategic time.’ In the meantime, Genoese said: ‘… there’s guerrilla war at all the airports’ …” (Associated Press Wire Report, New York, February 23, 1988).
“A spokesman for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union today denied accusations that U.F.C. members had placed razor blades in the product. Hormel Corporation issued a statement contending that workers striking its Austin, Minnesota plant sabotaged …” (As reported by Dan Rather, CBS Evening News, February 3, 1986).
“Union Carbide Corporation’s senior executives have taken the position that sabotage may have been the cause of the poison-gas disaster in Bhopal, India that killed more than 2,000 persons … Union Carbide’s sabotage theory is based on the assumption that there would have to have been between 120 and 240 gallons of water inside a storage tank of liquid methyl isocyanate … at its pesticide plant in Bhopal to produce the kind of chemical reaction that sent nearly 40 tons of deadly poisonous gas into the surrounding communities … The only way such a large amount of water could have gotten into the sealed tank, … is for someone to have intentionally put it there” (Los Angeles Times, December 4, 1985).
“Before, the boss would say my way or the highway. We’d try to get back. I used a razor to pop vinyl tops like a cantaloupe. Or to cut wiring somewhere hard to get at. It was sabotage, pure and simple” (U.S. News and World Report, July 16, 1984).
