Importance of Class in The Explanation of Industrial Conflict

How Important Is Class In The Explanation Of

Industrial Conflict?

Importance of Class in The Explanation of Industrial Conflict

Abstract
Industrial conflict is a term which refers to all articulation of dissatisfaction within the
employment. Industrial conflicts are becoming inevitable day by day. One of the main causes
for industrial conflicts is the tension between the classes. The tension or acrimony exists in
the industries due to the emulating socioeconomic interests of different classes. This thesis
studies the importance of class in explaining the Industrial conflicts. The study shows that
the conflicts between the classes and their contradictory interests catalysts the industrial
conflicts. The conflict can be direct or formal and indirect or informal. The direct conflict can
be aimed at destroying the labor unions directed by lock out whereas it can be indirect with
slowing down the rate of production, fulminating the low wages of workers, unfair labor
practices etc. The study also proved that the non-uniform distribution of the economic power
also leads to the conflicts in the industry.
Keywords
Industrial conflict, socioeconomic classes, class conflicts, labour union, capital, capitalism,
capitalist society.

Importance of Class in The Explanation of Industrial Conflict

Introduction
The study of conflict in a foster industrial society is steered by the theory of social class and
class conflicts. Classes are considered as social groups which emerge from the leverage
constitution of peremptorily amalgamated associations and are always in conflict. According
R.Dubins summarisation of class or social conflicts: it is harmful rather destructive towards
the social stability and it marks the breakdown of social control which again imbalances the
social harmony. However, the pragmatic existence of the conflict cannot be ruled out by the
question of stability. The truth is class conflicts cannot be wished out of actuality. It is a harsh
reality which should be dealt by social theorists while framing their models for social
behaviour. There is a huge difference between the formulation and implementation of a
theory. To understand the industrial conflicts fully the class conflict must be considered
under the light of capitalism. The beginning of this analysis lies in the Marxian terms which
are justified by Marx himself as the sphere of production, the relations of productions or
property relations. As one can see all these expressions are simple references to the
industrial endeavours and communal tie-ups. According to Karl Marx industry is the heart of
the class struggle. But further studies showed that an industrial endeavour is a peremptorily
amalgamated association. Industrial enterprise being an autocratic harmonized conglomerate
has two major groups in it which can be designated as Capitalists and labours. Both
capitalists and labours are bound by some dormant interests which being incongruous places
them in conflicting positions. As an industrial organisation gain stability the conditions
gingerly emanate and both capitalists and labours i.e., both employers and employees form
associations or certain organisations such as employers association or labour union to defend
their own interests. And the Industrial conflict enters a new phase of Strikes, lockouts etc.
The nature and cause of conflict discussed so far is in the orb of the industry. It is typical of
the capitalist society that not only power and communal status but also industrial and political

Importance of Class in The Explanation of Industrial Conflict

conflicts are superimposed on one another. As industry forms the dominating order of the
society so its sovereignty and conflicts extends to the whole society. The capitals form
bourgeoisie and the labours form proletariat two strictly separate groups. This was the
scenario of industrial conflict in Capitalist era or Marxian era. Marx described the classes as
conflict groups under the conditions such as absence of motility, overlapping of power,
property and status quo, superimposition of industrial and political conflicts and absence of
effective regulation of conflict. After the Marxian era the scenario has changed, the factors
have changed and the intensity of conflict has lessened. Although it would be too nave to say
that the class society does not exist in the present days but it can be said the extremity of the
conflict has become extinct and it has given birth to new pattern of conflicts. In the postcapitalist different conglomerates are present whose interests contradict with each other so in
a way it can be said that it has classes also. Thus, concept and theories of class are still
applicable to the industrial conflicts. In capitalist as well as post capitalist society the
industries are autocratic conglomerates. So wherever there are industries, there are power
issues, dormant interests, different groups and classes. While dealing with formal consortium
of the endeavour a distinction is usually made between the functional aspect of division of
labour and a scalar aspect of super and subordination. Both are functionally essential and
complementary characteristics of an industrial endeavour.
Since industrial organisations have a sovereign structure then it must be an autocratic
harmonized association and within it must be two conflicting pseudo groups or classes united
and having some dormant interests. These conflicting interests lead to the phenomena like
strike and thus it can be concluded that the differential distribution of power is the source of
all problem. This question may appear unnecessarily abstract at a time at which everybody
knows that the conflict of interests between employers and workers manifests itself in the
form of disputes over wages and conditions of work. Yet it is questionable whether the

Importance of Class in The Explanation of Industrial Conflict

substantive interest in higher wages or higher profits defines the substance of the latent
interests of industrial classes sufficiently clearly. According to Drucker, the wage rate is the
traditional symbol for the real conflict rather than the issue itself. The basic problem is a
conflict between the enterprise's view of wage as cost, and the employee's view of wage as
income. The real issue is not an economic one, but one over the nature and function of wage.
Thus, it is clear that a conflict is always concerned with a distribution of power. An exertion
of power is necessary in order to retain a share in the determination of future relations, as
well as for the acquisition or retention of other benefits which may be the immediate reasons
for the conflict. So it can be said that the immediate and necessary goal of any conflict is
complete or partial victory. The dormant interests of pseudo-groups can be formulated in
terms common interests in continuing operations of an industrial organisation, their substance
can be described as the maintenance or change of the status quo by conservation or
modification of existing relations of authority.
In conflicts between trade unions and employers, a spat is oft put forward by the employers
which have been acknowledged by sociological brochure also. Employers like to assert that
they represent the interests of the total enterprise whereas the unions stand for their own
hideous needs. It might appear that there is no convincing refutation of this argument.
However, in the light of the theory of industrial conflict it becomes apparent what the basis of
this argument is and why is it a perceptibly false fact which has a considerable significance
for class analysis

Importance of Class in The Explanation of Industrial Conflict

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

What are Social Classes?
The Social class or simply class is a sociological concept based on the theories of social
stratification in which people are segregated into communal groups that are hierarchic. Class
is an essential term in sociology and it has different meanings in various contexts. In some
ways it is similar to socioeconomic class as it is defined as people having same social,
monetary and literary status. However, social class is different from socioeconomic class as
the former one describes ones stable social status and the latter describes ones present
economic and communal condition and is changeable with time. According to Karl Marx,
class is defined by ones relation of production.
Social Etymology of Class
The term class has originated from the Latin word classis. The concept of class has always
been harmful to human beings and their social status as it has always shown bizarre frenzies.
The Roman census introduced the word classis to differentiate the population into various tax
groups. Their classification showed the possibility of distinction on the basis of appraisal: the
assidui were at one end of the classification, who had 100,000as and proletarii, were at the
other end whose only "property" was their numerous progenyproles and who were
outdone only by the lumpenproletariat of the capite censi, those counted by their heads. In
modern times sociologists used the term with different connotations. The term was initially
used in the eighteenth century by Ferguson and Millar to simply distinguish the social strata
in terms of wealth or rank. In this perspective the word can be found all over European
literature in the late eighteenth century. In the next century the perspective towards the term
changed a bit and took a definite form. The works of Adam Smith had already been
established the theory of poor or labouring class and the works of Ricardo and Ure, Saint-

Importance of Class in The Explanation of Industrial Conflict

Simon and Fourier and the works of the connoisseurs Eagles and Marx established the idea of
class of capitalist or rich beside the labouring class. The concept of class was first used in
modern social science. Thus the concept of class in modern social science is, if not the result
of a definite historical situation, oriented toward and linked with such a situation.
Marxs Theory of Conflict
Karl Marx, the extraordinary German philosopher, theorist and political revolutionary, is
given the credit of formulating or developing several theories and theses which emphasize
conflict on the social levels. Marxs conflict is a materialist interpretation of history,
rationalistic method of analysis (rationalistic materialism), a critical stance in order to step
out of social arrangements and revolutionary programs of political background or reform at
least.
Marx began his assumption that economic organization, especially the ownership of property.
In other words, the most important determination of social life is the work people are doing,
typically focusing on those which result in provision of the basic necessities of life, namely
food, clothing and shelter. Marx thought it to be socially organized and the technology used
in production have created an impact on every other aspect in the people who belong to the
society. He claims firmly that everything of value in society is direct results of human labour.
The capitalist society according to Marx is private property. This arrangement leads to two
opposed classes, first to name is the owners of capital (the bourgeoisie) and the workers (the
proletariat). The proletariats only possession is their very own labour time and they aim to
sell to the capitalists. Owners always tend to make extra profits by paying workers less, much
less than their work is worth, thus exploiting them. Herein lays the core of industrial conflict.
Similarly, according to Solomon:
a. Class conflict is the source of organizational change.

Importance of Class in The Explanation of Industrial Conflict

b. Class conflict arises primarily from the dissimilar in the distribution of and access to
economic power in the organization.
c. Conflict in whatever firm is merely an expression underlying economic conflict within the
organizations.
The Marxist analysis assumed organizational change to be highly universal within societies
and that class conflict is the catalytic source of such change. The conflict that takes place in
industrial relations between employer and employee is seen as a permanent power feature of
capitalism which merely reflects the predominant power base of the bourgeois and class
relations. The Marxist perceives political and class conflict as synonymous.
Theoretical Framework
1. The approach of this study has to be understood in terms of two distinguished premises
to name, one formal, one substantivewhich, although they are of a meta-theoretical or in a
more refined way methodological nature, provide the necessary frame of reference of its
elements.
2. The heuristic purpose of the approach proposed in the present study is the explanation of
structure changes in terms of group conflict. This purpose is therefore neither purely
descriptive nor related to problems of integration and coherence in or of society.
3. In order to do justice to this heuristic purpose it is necessary to visualize society that
includes the coercion theory of social structure, which is change and conflict have to be
assumed as ubiquitous, all elements of social structure have to be related to instability and
change plus unity and coherence is resulting from coercion besides being constraint.
4. Within this frame of reference, the theory of social classes and class conflict involves a
number of concepts to be defined.

Importance of Class in The Explanation of Industrial Conflict

5. Authority is the probability that a command with a given specific content that have to be
obeyed by a given group of persons.
6. By domination shall be understood the possession of authority, i.e., the right to issue
authoritative commands.
7. By subjection shall be understood the exclusion from authority, i.e., the duty to obey
authoritative commands.
8. An association shall be called imperatively coordinated association insofar as its members
are, by virtue of a prevailing order, subject to authority relations.
9. Orientations of behaviour which are inherent in social positions without necessarily being
conscious to their incumbents (role expectations), and which oppose two aggregates of
positions in any imperatively coordinated association, shall be called latent interests.
10. Quasi-group shall mean any collectivity of individuals share Conflict Groups, Group
Conflicts, and Social Changing positions with almost identical latent interests not being
organized themselves as such.
11. Manifest interests shall mean the specific orientations of behaviour which are articulate
and very conscious to individuals, and which oppose collectivises of individuals in any
imperatively coordinated association.
12. Interest group shall mean any organized collectivity of individuals sharing manifest
interests.
13. By social class people understand such organized or totally unorganized collectivises of
individuals as share latent interests arising from and related to the authority of structure of
imperatively associations that are coordinated. By truly following the definitions of latent and
manifest interests that social classes are always conflict groups.

Importance of Class in The Explanation of Industrial Conflict

14. Any antagonistic relationship between organized collectivises of individuals that can be
explained in terms of patterns of social structure (and is not sociologically random) shall be
called group conflict.
15. Class conflict shall mean any group conflict that arises from and is related to the authority
structure of imperatively coordinated associations.
16. Any deviation of the values (normative structure) or institutions (factual structure) of a
unit of social analysis at a given point of time {T -\- n} from those of a preceding point of
time {T} which is to be called structure change, insofar as it involves the incumbents of
positions of domination.
17. By radicalness of structure change shall be understood the significance of consequences
and ramifications of structure change.
18. By suddenness of structure change shall be understood the extent to which incumbents of
positions of domination are replaced.
19. The formation of conflict groups of the class type follows a pattern that can be described
in terms of a model involving the following partly analytical, partly hypothetical steps:
20. In any imperatively coordinated association, only two, aggregates of positions may be
distinguished, i.e., positions of domination and positions of subjection.
21. Each of these aggregates is characterized by common latent interests, J the collectivises of
individuals corresponding to them constitute pseudo-groups.
22. Latent interests are articulated into manifest interests and quasi-groups become the
recruiting fields of organized interest groups of the class type.
23. Articulation of manifest interests and organization of interest groups can be prevented by
the intervention of empirically variable conditions of organization.

Importance of Class in The Explanation of Industrial Conflict

24. Among the conditions of organization, technical conditions (personnel, charter), political
conditions (freedom of coalition), and social conditions or (communication, patterned
recruitment) can be distinguished. To these, certain non-structural psychological conditions
(internalization of role interests) may be added.
25. The course of group conflict of the class type also follows a pattern that can be described
in terms of a model involving both analytical and hypothetical elements.
26. Once the formation of conflict groups of the class type is complete, they stand, within
given associations, in a relation of group conflict (class conflict).
27. The intensity of class conflict varies on a scale (from o to I) according to the operation of
certain factors.
28. The intensity of class conflict decreases to the extent that the conditions of class
organization are present.
29. The intensity of class conflict decreases to the extent that class conflicts in many or less
different associations are absolutely dissociated (and not superimposed)
30. The intensity of class conflict decreases if different group conflicts in the same society are
dissociated (and not superimposed).
31. The intensity of class conflict decreases to large extent if the distribution of authority and
the distribution of rewards beside the facilities in an association are dissociated (and not
superimposed).
32. The intensity of class conflict will decrease to the extent when classes are open (and not
closed).
33. The violence of class conflict varies on a scale (from o to I) according to the operation of
certain factors.

Importance of Class in The Explanation of Industrial Conflict

34. The violence of class conflict decreases to an extent that the conditions of class
organization are present.
35. The violence of class conflict decreases if absolute deprivation of rewards plus facilities
on the part of a subjected class gives way to relative deprivation.
36. The violence of class conflict decreases if class conflict is effectively regulated.
37. Group conflict of the class type effects structure changes in the associations in which it
occurs.
38. The radicalness of structure change co-varies with the intensity of class conflict.
39. The suddenness of structure change co-varies with the violence of class conflict.

Importance of Class in The Explanation of Industrial Conflict

Conclusion
Thus, we can conclude that the class conflict is the main cause of conflict in an industrial
organisation. The authority structure of the enterprise generates the two quasi-groups of
management and labour, along with their latent interests from these are recruited the interest
groups of employers' associations and trade unions, being endowed with their specific
manifest interests. For over many decades, now, the disputes between trade unions and
employers' associations have presented the well-known picture of industrial conflict.

Importance of Class in The Explanation of Industrial Conflict

References
Grint, K. and Nixon, D. (2015) Class, Industrial Conflict and the Labour Process, The
Sociology of Work

3rd edition, Cambridge & Malden, MA: Polity Press; pp. 128-160

(Textbook), Cambridge & Malden, MA: Polity Press; pp. 128-160 (Textbook).
Dahrendorf Ralf, Class and Class Conflict in Society, Eighth Revised (English) Edition,
Stanford University Press, Stanford California pp. 241-279 (Textbook).
Dabscheck, B., Niland, J. (1981) Theories of the Labour Movement Industrial Relations in
Australia Sydeny: Allen & Unwin; pp. 83-102.
Anderson, B., (1997) Servants and Slaves: Europes Domestic Slaves Race &Class 39(1):
37-49
Taylor, J. (1993) Industry Segregation among Employed Aborigines and Torres Strait
Islanders ANZJS 29(1):3-20
Hochschild, AR (1983) Between the Toe and the Heel: Jobs and Emotion Labor The
Managed Heart: Commercialization of the Human Feeling Berkeley: Uni of California Press;
pp. 137-161