Who Are Workers? (2)

Sometimes, joining the labour movement isn't a grand, planned decision, but a sudden immersion. Marianna Costa, who started working in a dye house in 1932, shared her experience of the 1933 textile workers' strike. She initially didn't understand what was happening when she heard chanting outside her work window. She recalled, "There was chanting outside of our work windows, and a big group of people...The line kept getting bigger and bigger...By the time they got to our plant, half the street was just a crowd of people. And they'd say, 'Come on out. Join us. We're going to strike. The president said we can. We're tired of this.'" Confused but unwilling to be left alone, Marianna joined the striking workers. She didn't fully comprehend what a union was at first, only that it was "an organisation that will fight for us to get better protection." This personal account captures the organic, almost spontaneous way workers could be drawn into collective action, driven by a shared sense of grievance and the magnetic pull of solidarity. Her story illustrates how individual awakenings contribute to broader movements, eventually leading to victories like the establishment of a minimum wage and the eight-hour day.

Why is there a minimum wage?

The idea of a minimum wage emerged during the late 19th and early 20th centuries as part of a broader movement to address the harsh conditions faced by workers during the Industrial Revolution. At that time, rapid industrialisation led to a surplus of labour, and many employers took advantage of workers—particularly women and children—by paying extremely low wages that were insufficient to support basic living needs. As a result, poverty persisted even among those who worked full time.

The first country in the world to apply a minimum wage law was New Zealand. This is well-documented in multiple historical and economic sources, including in Minimum Wages by David Neumark and William Wascher and A Living Wage: American Workers and the Making of Consumer Society by Lawrence B. Glickman (1997, University Press).

Glickman confirms that New Zealand's pioneering minimum wage policy influenced similar movements in other parts of the world, including Australia and later the United Kingdom and the United States. He explains that New Zealand's approach was progressive for its time, focusing not just on labour relations but on the broader idea of ensuring workers could maintain a decent standard of living.

In Minimum Wages (2008, MIT Press), economists David Neumark and William Wascher provide a detailed historical account of the minimum wage in the United States, tracing its origins, legislative developments, and economic implications. The authors state that New Zealand was the first country to enact a national minimum wage law, which was introduced in 1894 as part of its Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The law aimed to resolve labour disputes through arbitration and included wage-setting mechanisms to ensure fair compensation. The goal was to protect workers from exploitation and promote industrial peace.

According to Neumark and Wascher, the concept of a minimum wage in the U.S. emerged during the Progressive Era, a period marked by social activism and political reform aimed at addressing the adverse effects of industrialisation. Early minimum wage laws were enacted at the state level, primarily focusing on women and children, who were often subjected to exploitative labour conditions and substandard wages. However, these state laws faced legal challenges and were frequently struck down by the courts.

The federal minimum wage was firmly established with the passage of the Fair Labour Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938. This landmark legislation set a national minimum wage of 25 cents per hour, aiming to eliminate labour conditions detrimental to workers' health and well-being. The FLSA also introduced regulations on maximum working hours and child labour, laying the foundation for modern labour standards in the U.S.

Over the years, the federal minimum wage has been adjusted numerous times to account for inflation and changing economic conditions. Neumark and Wascher analyse these adjustments and their impacts on employment, particularly among low-skilled workers. They argue that while the minimum wage aims to improve earnings for low-income workers, it can also lead to reduced employment opportunities for the very groups it intends to help, due to increased labour costs for employers.

The authors' comprehensive review of empirical studies suggests that minimum wage increases often result in job losses for less-skilled workers and may not effectively alleviate poverty. They contend that alternative policies, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), might be more effective in supporting low-income families without the unintended consequence of reducing employment opportunities.

Neumark and Wascher also analyse the effects of minimum wage policies on employment, drawing from over two decades of empirical research. Their findings suggest that increases in the minimum wage tend to reduce employment opportunities, particularly for low-skilled and younger workers. They conclude that the majority of credible studies indicate that raising the minimum wage leads to a reduction in employment among low-wage workers. This effect is especially pronounced for teenagers and young adults, who are more likely to be employed in minimum wage jobs.

Their analysis estimates that a 10% increase in the minimum wage could result in a 1–2% decrease in employment among teenagers and a 1.5–2% decrease among young adults. The negative employment effects are more substantial among the least-skilled groups, as these workers are more likely to be employed at or near the minimum wage and have fewer alternative employment opportunities.

The authors find little convincing evidence that minimum wage increases have positive effects on employment. Studies suggesting positive impacts often focus on narrow industries or specific contexts and do not reflect broader labour market trends. Given the potential for job losses among vulnerable populations, Neumark and Wascher argue that minimum wage policies may not be the most effective tool for reducing poverty. They suggest that alternative measures, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), might better support low-income workers without the unintended consequence of reducing employment opportunities.

According to Neumark and Wascher, the effects of minimum wages on the distribution of incomes are mixed and often limited, particularly in terms of reducing poverty or significantly improving income equality. They find that while minimum wage increases may slightly compress wage distributions at the very bottom (by raising wages for some low-paid workers), the overall impact on income inequality is modest. This is because minimum wage policies do not typically affect the broader middle or upper parts of the income distribution. One of their key findings is that a large share of minimum wage workers are not actually in poor households. Many are teenagers or second earners in middle-income families. As a result, raising the minimum wage may increase the earnings of individuals who are not poor, diluting its effectiveness as an anti-poverty tool.

The authors argue that minimum wage increases are not well-targeted to poor families. Empirical studies reviewed in the work show that minimum wage hikes have little to no measurable effect on reducing the poverty rate. This is partly because low-income households may face job losses or reductions in hours worked due to higher labor costs, which can offset the wage gains.

If higher minimum wages lead to job losses or fewer job opportunities for low-skilled workers, particularly those in poor families, the policy can unintentionally worsen the income situation for some of the very people it’s meant to help. Thus, the authors caution that minimum wage laws might have regressive effects in certain cases. They advocate for targeted income-support policies like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as more effective tools for improving the incomes of low-wage workers and reducing poverty. These programs are directly tied to family income and are better suited to help those truly in need.

Why is there an eight-hour day?

The eight-hour workday has its roots in the labor movements of the 19th century, particularly during the height of the Industrial Revolution, when many workers were forced to work long hours—often 10 to 16 hours a day—in dangerous and exhausting conditions. Workers began to organize and protest, demanding shorter hours with the slogan: “Eight hours for work, eight hours for rest, and eight hours for what we will.”

The first country in the world to implement the eight-hour workday by national legislation was Uruguay in 1915. However, Australia (specifically the state of Victoria) was among the first places in the world to implement the eight-hour workday through labour action and agreements, dating back to 1856. These early efforts significantly influenced global labour movements.

In Labor’s Time: Shorter Hours, the UAW, and the Struggle for American Unionism (2004, Temple University Press), Jonathan Cutler explains how the idea of the eight-hour workday originated with labour movements in the 19th century and spread internationally. He credits Australian stonemasons in Melbourne in 1856 as early pioneers who successfully campaigned for and achieved an eight-hour workday. Although this was not legislated at a national level, it became a model for later efforts in other countries.

One of the earliest and most significant events advocating for an eight-hour workday was the Haymarket Affair in Chicago in 1886. Workers across the United States went on strike on May 1, 1886, to demand an eight-hour day. During a protest on May 4 in Chicago’s Haymarket Square, a bomb was thrown at police, leading to violence and a harsh crackdown on labour organisers. Despite the tragic outcome, the event became a pivotal moment in labour history and helped solidify the demand for shorter workdays.

The eight-hour day became more widespread in the early 20th century, and major strides were made when Henry Ford implemented it in his factories in 1914—reducing hours and doubling pay to improve worker productivity and morale. Finally, in the United States, the eight-hour day was codified by the Fair Labour Standards Act of 1938, which not only set a minimum wage but also established the standard 40-hour workweek.

The goal of the eight-hour day was to protect workers’ health, allow time for family and personal development, and ensure that labour did not consume a person’s entire life.

In Eight Hours: The Workers and the Eight-Hour Workday and the Shorter Workday, Its Philosophy (2021, Legare Street Press), Samuel Gompers, a prominent labor leader and founder of the American Federation of Labor, discusses the international labour movement’s efforts to secure an eight-hour day, especially in the United States. He acknowledges that Uruguay became the first country to adopt a national eight-hour workday law in 1915, while workers in other countries had achieved it through strikes, collective bargaining, or regional legislation before that.

According to Gompers, the philosophy and rationale behind the push for an eight-hour workday are rooted in justice, human dignity, and social progress. Gompers, a pioneering American labour leader, argued that reducing working hours was essential not only for economic fairness but also for improving the moral and intellectual condition of the working class.

Gompers believed that labourers were not mere tools for production, but human beings deserving of time for rest, family, and personal growth. He wrote that "man was not created to toil incessantly," and that shortening the workday would help restore workers’ dignity and humanity.

The eight-hour day was framed as essential for workers to develop themselves morally and socially. Gompers emphasised that leisure time was necessary for education, civic engagement, and cultural participation. In his view, a society that denied workers time for personal development was unjust and unsustainable. Although some critics feared economic loss, Gompers argued that shorter hours would lead to greater productivity, fewer workplace accidents, and healthier workers. Furthermore, it would redistribute work more fairly among the unemployed or underemployed, thereby addressing both poverty and job scarcity.

Gompers linked the eight-hour day to the strengthening of democratic institutions. He believed that when workers had time to engage in public life and self-education, they would become more informed, active citizens capable of contributing to and protecting democracy. The long hours of the industrial era, often exceeding 12–14 hours a day, were seen as a form of exploitation. Gompers viewed the eight-hour demand as a line drawn against unregulated capitalism, insisting that economic systems should serve human needs, not the other way around.

The concepts of "labour" and "workers" are foundational to understanding human societies, economies, and historical development. Examining them through the lenses of definition, history, and economic relevance reveals their multifaceted nature and profound impact.

Historically, the composition of the workforce has varied significantly across cultures and time periods. In pre-industrial societies, labour was often tied to agriculture and artisanal crafts, with family units frequently functioning as economic units. The Industrial Revolution dramatically reshaped who constituted the workforce, drawing large numbers of men, women, and children into factories and mines. Initially, the workforce in many industrialised nations was predominantly male, with women and children often subjected to harsh conditions and lower pay. Over the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, there have been significant shifts, including a dramatic increase in female participation in the formal labour force globally, though disparities in pay and representation persist. The concept of "worker" has also expanded to more explicitly include a vast array of professions, from industrial labourers to service sector employees and knowledge workers.

The term "knowledge worker" was first coined by management consultant and author Peter Ferdinand Drucker in his 1959 book, "Landmarks of Tomorrow: A Report on the New 'Post-Modern' World (1957, Harper & Brothers)." He defined them as high-level workers who apply theoretical and analytical knowledge, typically acquired through formal training and education, to develop new products, services, and solutions.

In an increasingly complex and information-driven world, a specific category of professionals known as "knowledge workers" has become central to economic progress and organisational success. These are individuals whose primary capital is their knowledge, and their main task is to "think for a living."

Unlike manual labourers who rely on physical skills or information workers who primarily process and apply existing information, knowledge workers are tasked with generating new knowledge, innovating, solving complex problems, and driving strategy. Their work is characterised by its intellectual nature, requiring critical thinking, creativity, and often a high degree of autonomy.

Unlike manual labourers who rely on physical skills or information workers who primarily process and apply existing information, knowledge workers are tasked with generating new knowledge, innovating, solving complex problems, and driving strategy. Their work is characterised by its intellectual nature, requiring critical thinking, creativity, and often a high degree of autonomy.

Examples of knowledge workers span a wide array of fields and include professionals such as Information and communication technology (ICT) professionals, physicians and pharmacists, architects and engineers, scientists and researchers, design thinkers, public accountants and lawyers, librarians and archivists, editors and academics.

Peter Drucker's introduction of the "knowledge worker" concept was prescient. He foresaw a fundamental shift in the nature of work, moving away from an economy dominated by manual, blue-collar jobs towards one where the intellectual capabilities and knowledge of employees would be the most valuable assets. Drucker predicted that by the 21st century, the productivity of knowledge workers would be the paramount concern for organisations. This shift was seen as an evolution of the "white-collar worker," a term that emerged in the 1920s to describe office-based employees distinct from industrial labourers. As economies advanced and technology evolved, particularly with the rise of information technology, the role and importance of those who work with their minds rather than their hands became increasingly evident.

Knowledge workers possess a distinct set of characteristics and skills that enable them to thrive in their roles. They typically have advanced or specialised knowledge in their respective fields, often backed by formal education, certifications, and significant experience. Crucially, they are committed to continuously updating and expanding this knowledge base. Their work revolves around handling, analysing, interpreting, and creating information. They use data to inform decisions, devise strategies, and generate new insights.

A hallmark of knowledge workers is their ability to think critically and analytically to solve complex problems, coupled with the creativity to innovate and develop novel solutions.

Knowledge workers often operate with a significant degree of independence. They are responsible for managing their own time, setting priorities, and making decisions related to their tasks. They heavily rely on various forms of technology, including software tools, databases, and communication platforms, to access, process, and disseminate information effectively.

The ability to articulate complex ideas clearly, collaborate effectively with diverse teams, and share knowledge is essential. Given the rapid pace of technological and informational change, a commitment to lifelong learning and the ability to adapt to evolving work environments are crucial.

They are adept at identifying issues, analyzing their components, and developing effective and often innovative solutions. Knowledge workers typically exhibit a desire to learn, grow, and embrace new challenges and opportunities for development.

The rise of the knowledge worker signifies a broader transition towards a "knowledge economy," where knowledge itself is the primary driver of economic growth, innovation, and competitiveness. The contributions of knowledge workers are vital for both individual organisations and the economy as a whole. By generating new ideas, developing new products and services, and improving processes, knowledge workers are at the forefront of innovation, helping organisations stay ahead in a competitive landscape. Their expertise and analytical capabilities provide the foundation for sound strategic planning and effective operational decisions within companies.

Leveraging their specialised skills and technological tools, knowledge workers can streamline workflows, optimise processes, and boost overall organisational performance.

They are key contributors to an organisation's intellectual capital, playing a crucial role in creating, sharing, and managing the knowledge base that underpins its operations and growth.

On a macro level, a skilled and productive cohort of knowledge workers is essential for national economic development, resilience, and the ability to compete globally. The increasing prominence of knowledge workers is reshaping how work is organised, managed, and valued, leading to more flexible work arrangements and a greater emphasis on continuous skill development.

However, the increasing importance of knowledge workers also brings challenges. Concerns exist about equitable access to the education and skills required for these roles, potentially leading to a widening gap between highly skilled knowledge workers and other segments of the workforce. Managing and motivating knowledge workers, fostering environments that nurture their creativity and productivity, and effectively harnessing their intellectual output remain key considerations for organisations in the 21st century.

Debates continue regarding the full recognition and valuation of unpaid care work, predominantly performed by women, as a form of labour. David R. Roediger's "The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class (2007, Verso)" explores how racial identity has shaped the definition and experience of the working class in the United States.

[Part 3]

[Part 1]

Bahasa

Who Are Workers? (1)

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.

[Part 2]

Bahasa