Nasima tightened the last row of stitches on the collar of a shirt that would travel across oceans—perhaps to a boutique in Paris or a mall in Chicago. She had worked eleven hours already. Her back ached, but she couldn’t afford to stop. Her daughter needed medicine back home in the village. Yesterday, they had all seen cracks spidering along the concrete pillars of the factory. Today, a manager barked at them: “Work or lose your pay.” Minutes later, the floor beneath her shook. Screams. Dust. Darkness. Nasima clawed her way out of rubble, but hundreds never did. “They’ll wear our clothes,” she whispered once, “but they’ll never know what it cost.” One of the most striking examples of modern labour exploitation occurred during the Rana Plaza building collapse in Dhaka, Bangladesh, in 2013. Over 1,100 garment workers lost their lives while producing clothes for major global brands. Nasima, a 23-year-old survivor, had reported cracks in the factory walls the day before the collapse. Yet, fearing wage cuts, she and hundreds of others were forced back into the building. "We made clothes for people who will never know our names," she said. Her story illustrates a grim reality: global supply chains often rely on cheap, invisible labour, where profit is prioritised over safety, and the human cost remains unseen.
In "The Sociology of Work: Continuity and Change in Paid and Unpaid Work" (2020, SAGE Publications Ltd.), Stephen Edgell and Edward Granter outline the main features of work in industrial capitalist societies, which distinguish them from earlier forms of work in pre-industrial and feudal societies. In industrial capitalist societies, most people earn a living by selling their labour power for wages. This is a defining feature of capitalism: instead of working for subsistence or as part of a household economy, individuals work for employers who own the means of production. People must work to survive, and this work is usually regulated through formal employment contracts.
A core feature is that workers do not own the tools, machines, or facilities they use. The means of production are owned by capitalists or corporations. As a result, workers are dependent on selling their labour to gain access to income and resources, creating a structural inequality between capital and labour.
Industrial capitalism encourages a high degree of specialisation, where work is divided into small, repetitive tasks. This increases efficiency and productivity but often reduces the range of skills required from individual workers. This process is described through Taylorism and Fordism, models that emphasise standardisation and mechanisation of work.
In the development of industrial capitalist societies, two influential approaches to organising work—Taylorism and Fordism—have left a lasting mark on how labour is structured and experienced. Taylorism, or scientific management, introduced by Frederick Winslow Taylor, emphasised the breakdown of tasks into small, measurable units, separating the planning of work from its execution. Managers were tasked with designing the most efficient methods, while workers simply carried them out under strict supervision. This increased productivity but also reduced worker autonomy and intensified feelings of alienation. Building on Taylorist principles, Fordism, named after automobile manufacturer Henry Ford, implemented the moving assembly line to achieve mass production. It aimed not only for efficiency but also for mass consumption, offering relatively high wages so that workers could afford the very goods they produced. While Fordism brought economic stability and growth, it also transformed work into a repetitive and mechanical routine. Together, these systems exemplify the core dynamics of modern industrial labour: efficient, standardised, and highly controlled, often at the expense of worker agency and satisfaction.
Work in industrial capitalist societies is typically regulated by the clock. Unlike pre-industrial work, which followed natural rhythms or seasonal patterns, industrial work is bound by strict schedules. Workers must arrive at a specific time, take breaks at designated hours, and meet productivity targets, contributing to a highly disciplined labour force.
Compared to earlier societies where work might be organised through kinship or community ties, industrial capitalist work is characterised by formal, contractual, and impersonal relationships. Employers and employees interact within bureaucratic systems, and the workplace becomes more hierarchical and rule-based.
Edgell, drawing from Karl Marx, explains that many workers experience alienation in capitalist societies. They may feel disconnected from the product of their labour, the labour process itself, their fellow workers, and even from their sense of purpose. Work becomes something done for a wage, not for fulfilment or creative expression.
Despite alienation, work remains central to people’s identities and social status in capitalist societies. What people do for a living often defines how they see themselves and how they are perceived by others. This social meaning of work gives it more than just economic importance—it becomes a source of pride, purpose, or stigma.
A worker, often referred to as a labourer, is an individual who sells physical or mental effort in exchange for wages. Unlike civil servants or professionals, workers typically operate in industrial, agricultural, or service sectors. The term is generally associated with the working class, whose efforts are fundamental to production activities.
Edgell andGranter make clear sociological distinctions between work, worker, and labour. Work is defined broadly as purposeful human activity involving physical or mental effort that is directed toward the production of goods or services. According to Edgell and Granter, work includes not only paid employment but also unpaid forms of work, such as domestic labour, voluntary work, and subsistence farming. They emphasise that sociology must take all these forms into account to understand the full range of human activity and social organisation. The authors also point out that work has economic, social, and personal significance—it is not merely a means to earn money but also a source of identity, structure, and social interaction.
A worker is someone who engages in work, particularly in a social and economic context where that effort contributes to the production of value. In industrial and post-industrial societies, workers are most often associated with employment—that is, labour sold in exchange for wages or salaries. However, Edgell and Granter also acknowledge that not all workers are paid, such as unpaid caregivers or volunteers, whose contributions are often undervalued or overlooked in traditional economic models (frameworks such as Classical economics (Adam Smith, David Ricardo) that view labour as a key factor of production, but primarily in terms of wage labour within markets; Neoclassical economics that focuses on individual choices, utility maximisation, and marginal productivity. Labour is treated as one input in the production function (along with capital and land))..
Thus, a worker can be defined not only by the act of working but also by their social position in relation to the labour process, such as their degree of autonomy, their working conditions, and their relationship with employers or clients. Labour is typically understood as the capacity to work—the human effort (physical and/or mental) that is sold in the labour market. In a capitalist system, as the authors explain, drawing from Marxist traditions, labour becomes a commodity: it is bought and sold, and its value is determined by market forces and social relations.
The concept of labour is closely tied to economic production and is often discussed in macro-level terms such as labour markets, labour power, or labour supply.
Edgell and Granter also distinguish between: Productive labour (which generates goods or economic value); Reproductive labour (such as child-rearing or housework, which sustains the workforce); and Emotional labour (work that involves managing emotions, such as in customer service roles).
In summary, work is the broadest concept that encompasses all kinds of effortful activity, workers are the individuals who perform that activity, and labour is the human effort that is often evaluated in economic terms. Understanding these distinctions helps to challenge traditional economic models, which tend to focus narrowly on paid employment while overlooking the social value of unpaid and informal work.
Stephen Edgell and Edward Granter explain how work has historically transformed across different periods, particularly through major social, technological, and economic shifts. In pre-industrial societies, work was largely agricultural and domestic. Most labour was unpaid and took place within the household or local community. The division of labour was simple, with family units acting as the main site of production and subsistence. Work and life were closely integrated, and the concept of "employment" in the modern sense did not exist. Instead, people worked to meet immediate needs rather than to accumulate wealth or pursue careers. The Industrial Revolution marked a major transformation in the history of work. With the advent of factories and mechanised production, work moved out of the home and into specialised, centralised workplaces. This era saw the rise of wage labour, where people exchanged time and effort for monetary compensation. Work became more regimented, repetitive, and hierarchical. The division between work and leisure became clearer, and time discipline (being "on the clock") became a defining feature of industrial life. Edgell and Granter emphasise that this period also introduced major social class divisions, especially between owners (capitalists) and workers (the proletariat), as theorised by Karl Marx. Workers often faced long hours, poor conditions, and little control over their labour, prompting early labour movements and struggles for workers’ rights.
In the 20th century, especially during the early to mid-century, work underwent another transformation under the model of Fordism—named after Henry Ford. This involved mass production, standardised tasks, and bureaucratic management structures. Jobs became more secure and often included benefits, especially in the West. Edgell and Granter point out that this period marked the "golden age" of employment for some: full-time, stable, and male-dominated jobs were considered the norm. However, this model also reinforced gender roles, with women often relegated to unpaid domestic work or part-time, lower-paid jobs.
From the 1970s onward, societies began transitioning to post-industrial economies, characterised by the growth of the service sector, information technology, and more flexible labour markets. This shift is often referred to as Post-Fordism. In this new landscape, work became more fragmented and less secure. The rise of part-time jobs, temporary contracts, self-employment, and gig work marked a departure from the traditional long-term, full-time employment model. Edgell and Granter highlight that while some workers experienced greater autonomy and creativity, many faced job insecurity, intensified workloads, and blurred boundaries between work and home—especially with the rise of digital technologies.
Edgell and Granter also stress the importance of unpaid work, especially domestic labour and caregiving—traditionally carried out by women. They argue that despite changes in the paid labour market, gendered expectations about unpaid work have shown strong continuity. This dimension is essential for understanding the full scope of labour in society.
Edgell and Granter’s historical analysis shows that work is not static; it evolves with broader social, economic, and technological trends. From subsistence agriculture to gig economies, the meaning, structure, and experience of work have continually transformed—yet some inequalities, especially around gender and class, persist.
In their work, Stephen Edgell and Edward Granter explore the relationship between work, skill, and the labour process as a central theme in understanding how labour is structured, valued, and controlled in society. Their discussion covers both classical and contemporary theories, emphasising how the organisation of work affects workers' autonomy, satisfaction, and power.
Edgell and Granter define skill as a combination of knowledge, experience, and competence required to perform specific tasks. However, they emphasise that skill is not just a technical concept—it is also a socially constructed category. What counts as “skilled” labour is often shaped by economic, cultural, and political interests. For example, certain types of manual work may be undervalued and labelled as “unskilled,” even if they require significant practical intelligence and bodily knowledge. The authors point out that the classification of labour into “skilled” and “unskilled” is often used by employers and institutions to justify wage differentials, training access, and job status.
In the SAGE Handbook of the Sociology of Work and Employment, edited by Stephen Edgell, Heidi Gottfried, and Edward Granter (2016, SAGE Publications Ltd.), Barry Eidlin contributes a chapter titled "Class and Work", where he explores the intricate relationship between class structures and labour dynamics. Eidlin emphasises that class is not solely determined by economic factors but emerges from the complex interplay between work and home life. He argues that workplace experiences—such as job roles, income levels, and working conditions—extend into domestic spheres, influencing lifestyles, child-rearing practices, educational opportunities, and consumption patterns. These shared experiences and adaptations contribute to the formation and perpetuation of distinct social classes.
Eidlin also discusses the spatial dimensions of class, noting that socioeconomic segregation often leads to class-based residential patterns. For instance, the working class, engaged in direct economic production and service roles, tends to reside in "lower-class" neighbourhoods. In contrast, the professional-managerial class (PMC), which oversees and manages the labour of the working class, often inhabits more affluent areas.
Furthermore, Eidlin critiques traditional economic models that primarily focus on paid employment, highlighting the importance of recognising unpaid labour and the broader social relations that define class structures. He advocates for a more nuanced understanding of class that encompasses both economic positions and the social and cultural dimensions of work and life.
Understanding the concept of labour cannot be separated from the broader social structures in which it is embedded. As Barry Eidlin explains in The SAGE Handbook of the Sociology of Work and Employment, class is not just a matter of income or occupation, but is deeply rooted in the lived experiences that stem from people’s positions within the labour system. Eidlin argues that the nature of one’s work—whether manual, service-based, managerial, or professional—shapes not only workplace routines but also patterns of domestic life, education, and even residential choices. These shared experiences produce distinct class formations over time.
For instance, those engaged in manual or service labour often live in neighbourhoodsrecognising with fewer resources and different educational expectations compared to members of the professional-managerial class. This spatial and social division reinforces the inequalities generated by the labor market itself. Consequently, labour must be seen not just as economic activity, but as a powerful force that produces and reproduces class relations in society. By recognizing this, we move beyond traditional economic models and begin to appreciate how labour contributes to the shaping of social identity, cultural values, and long-term socioeconomic stratification.
In Chapter 33 of the book, titled "Critiques of Work", David Frayne explores the historical and philosophical foundations of critical perspectives on work. He traces the evolution of these critiques from early thinkers like Karl Marx and utopian socialists to contemporary theorists, including those from the Frankfurt School and proponents of post-work ideologies. Frayne emphasises that, despite their diverse origins and approaches, these critiques share a common goal: envisioning an emancipatory transformation of society by challenging the prevailing norms and structures of work.
In modern industrialised societies, labor is often treated as an economic necessity and labour a moral imperative. Work is framed as the primary means through which individuals earn their living, establish social status, and achieve personal fulfilment. However, as David Frayne outlines in his chapter “Critiques of Work,” this deeply embedded belief system has not gone unchallenged.
Frayne traces a lineage of critical thought that stretches from Karl Marx’s theory of alienation—where workers become estranged from the products of their labour—to more contemporary critiques that question the overvaluation of work in capitalist societies. These critiques argue that while work can offer structure and purpose, it also imposes discipline, limits individual autonomy, and reinforces social hierarchies. The promise that hard work leads to happiness or success is increasingly questioned, especially in light of job insecurity, burnout, and the erosion of work-life balance.
Furthermore, Frayne points to emerging post-work ideologies that envision a society where human value is not tied to productivity. These ideas gain traction in the context of rising automation, climate concerns, and the growing recognition of unpaid labour (such as caregiving and domestic work). In short, critical theories of labour invite us to reimagine a society where work is no longer the defining feature of human worth.
This perspective is essential when discussing labour in today’s economic and cultural environment. It opens the door to policy debates about universal basic income, shorter workweeks, and the social value of rest and creativity. In doing so, Frayne’s critique does not simply reject work but calls for its reinvention—toward more humane, inclusive, and sustainable forms of livelihood.
