Using Manpower Released Due to Technical Progress

V. Iagodkin, Problem of Using Manpower Released Due to Technical Progress. 1965

 

Co-author I. Maslova

Original Source: Voprosy ekonomiki, No. 6 (1965).

This article is presented for purposes of discussion.

Technical progress is the main lever for the further development of the socialist economy. Moreover, by securing a rise in labor productivity, it leads to the release of manpower. The intensity and forms of this process vary with branches and enterprises. However, the fact of its existence cannot be denied. It is confirmed, in particular, by the absolute reduction of the number of persons employed in a number of branches of the national economy. For instance, in the 1958-1962 period, the number of workers and employees decreased by 94,400 in the coal industry, by 112,700 in timber cutting, and by 46,400 in the peat industry. There has been a decrease in the number of workers and employees in the cotton- cleaning, hemp-jute, and linen industries, in some branches of the food industry, etc. However, a direct connection cannot always be revealed between the reduction of employment in various branches of the national economy and technical progress. This process can also be due to the technical improvement of production in interconnected sectors of the national economy, or to a change in the pattern of output of various products. For example, the absolute reduction of the number employed in the coal and peat industries cannot be accounted for by technical progress in these. branches alone. This is conditioned in considerable measure by a progressive change in the structure of the fuel balance, in which the share of oil and gas has increased. The chemicalization of the national economy exerts a similar influence on employment in some old, labor-consuming branches of production. This applies, in particular, to the cotton, hemp-jute, and linen industries.

It should also be pointed out that the index of the absolute reduction of the number of persons employed in different branches of production does not fully reflect the extent to which manpower has been released as a result of technological progress. However, since there are serious shortcomings in the tabulation of personnel released and we do not as yet have precise data on the actual amount of manpower released, this index can be used if one remembers that in some branches of the national economy and in individual enterprises the process is concealed and does not manifest itself in the absolute reduction of personnel. Moreover, it is sometimes accompanied by a simultaneous increase in the total number of personnel employed. Unfortunately, some scientific and practical workers do not take this into account, and this naturally leads to an understatement of the actual scale and intensity of the objective process of the release of manpower as a result of progress in technology, as well as to an underestimation of the importance of studying this problem. Many defects in investigations of the problem stem from the fact that we lack a single methodological approach to the study of the process of the release of manpower; the initial premises of the analysis have not been elucidated, there has been no clear-cut definition and description of the primary sector of manpower release, the indices and units for tabulating this process have not been elaborated, the very concept of the “release of manpower” has not been specified, there is no clarity in the classification of factors involved in the release of personnel, etc. Meanwhile, communist construction will soon require a thorough scientific elaboration of all these problems.

The acceleration of technological progress mapped out by the party will intensify the release of manpower in the years immediately ahead. If one considers that during the next five-year period the youth born after the war will reach the age of employment., it becomes clear how important it is to study the problem of employing the manpower released as a result of technical progress.

Release of manpower, as a mass process, is the law-governed result of technological progress at the stage of large-scale machine industry. The latter conditions the replacement of human power by natural forces and empirical methods, by the conscious application of natural science, and it intensifies the mobility of personnel. The possibility of releasing manpower is connected with a significant acceleration of the growth of labor productivity at the stage of machine production. The machine, which Marx called “the most powerful means for increasing the productivity of labor,” turns into a “mighty substitute for labor and workers.” (1) The process of manpower release occurs throughout the long historical period during which machine production is established and undergoes development. Technical progress conditions the growth of the organic structure of production, which is expressed in the fact that the ever growing mass of means of production is set in motion with less manpower.

What is the economic essence of the process of the release of manpower?

This process is one of the forms in which the law of saving work time is manifested. It reflects a direct saving of outlays of work time, obtained immediately or ultimately as a result of technical progress, and manifests itself in a decline in the number of persons employed in different sections of production. While the material and technical basis for the release of manpower is the same under capitalism and socialism, the character and forms of the manifestation of this process differ radically. The release of manpower is always linked with the vital interests of social groups and classes.

Under capitalism the process of manpower release assumes the form of relative overpopulation, which serves as a specific lever of capitalist accumulation. The formation of surplus manpower on the scale of the society as a whole, the “liberation” of production from that part of the workers which is relatively excessive as regards the average requirements of capital for itself-growth – these phenomena are inherent in capitalism. The employment of machinery by the capitalist inevitably leads to the formation and growth of the army of unemployed. According to official 1963 data, there were about 6 million fully unemployed persons in the USA, Britain, France, Italy, the Federal Republic of Germany, and Japan. Calculations of British economists show that if complete automation of production is achieved, at least 60% of the workers in the entire capitalist world will have no work in 20 years.

The socialist economic system has done away with unemployment forever. The release of manpower here means that the society’s need for it has declined or vanished only at individual enterprises, or in individual branches or sectors of production. This makes it necessary to use this labor power at a new place, in other sections of the economy, to satisfy the constantly growing requirements of society.

Under socialism the release of manpower means, above all, the reduction or liquidation of irrational expenditures of social labor. In addition, under socialism new machinery is used, as the CPSU Program notes, “to radically improve and ease the Soviet people’s working conditions, to reduce the workday, improve living conditions, eliminate heavy physical work and, subsequently, all unskilled labor.

Over the years of Soviet government, some kinds of heavy physical work have been fully eliminated. For instance, such trades as manual driller, manual hewer, manual breaker, car operator, hauler, drawer, etc., in the coal industry, and roller, charger, tilter, hammerer, and many others in the metallurgical industry, have completely disappeared. The number of workers engaged in heavy physical work in transport, construction, etc., has also markedly declined. According to the national census of 1959, there was an absolute reduction of the number of workers in some trades from 1939 to 1959. Mechanization of a number of operations in industry, agriculture, construction, transport, etc., has made it possible to reduce the total number of hewers and breakers by 10%, of smiths by 20%, of riveters and boilermakers by 20%, of woodcutters and sawyers by 20%, of navvies by 40%, etc. In this decade (1961-1970) all kinds of heavy physical labor will vanish in our country. In this sense the release of manpower represents one of the forms by which society is liberated from a number of outmoded trades. The elimination of occupations requiring heavy physical labor is accompanied by the appearance of new trades that require skilled labor. For instance, the number of coalcutter drivers and mining combine drivers in the coal industry, of rolling-mill drivers and operators, electric and gas welders in metallurgy, of complex mechanized line adjusters and operators, and machine operators for equipment with programmed control in the machine -building industry, etc., is rapidly growing.

Mechanization of heavy unskilled work, which is the least economical form of expenditure of social labor, will allow hundreds of thousands of people to shift to more efficient labor that will give each toiler more moral and material satisfaction. That is why the release of workers engaged in heavy work that involves little or no skill from different sections of social production is a progressive process that is tied in with the solution of social and economic problems of communist construction and promotes a rise in the productivity of social labor.

The release of manpower as a result of technical progress is an actual phenomenon of our economic life and practice. Study of this phenomenon and penetration of its essence depend on correct methodological principles, which should be followed in investigating this process.

In the first place, the question of selecting the primary section for the release of manpower from the totality of sections from which personnel can be released is a matter of special importance.

Under the term “release of manpower,” our economics literature understands a reduction in the number of employees in individual sections of social production. A “section” of social production is understood to be any link in the system’ of organization of social production: a branch, enterprise, shop, or work place. The fact that manpower can be released from diverse sections of production does not change the essence of the release process itself. However, to obtain a correct estimate of the actual scope and intensity of the release of manpower and to describe different forms of its manifestation, it is important to single out the primary section from among the production sections from which workers can be released. Apparently the individual work place can be considered as a primary section, since it is the primary link in the established organization of the production process at an enterprise. The total number of workers released from individual work places within a production section will indicate the actual scope of the process. As for the release of manpower beyond the limits of any section of social production, this serves as an index of the release of only a part of the personnel actually released; it is an index of those who, for one reason or another, could not be used in the given section. For example, of the 15,500 people released from enterprises of the former Cheliabinsk Economic Council in 1961, only 3,000 left these enterprises. Released manpower may not leave the enterprise altogether, but this does not signify the absence of the process of manpower release within a given section of production. A demarcation between the concepts “manpower release within an enterprise or branch” and “the release of manpower from an enterprise or branch” is of great practical importance for studying the quantitative aspect of the process.

Another problem in the methodology for studying the release of manpower is the choice of the initial object of analysis.

Only the enterprise can be taken as the initial object for analyzing the process of the release of manpower and its utilization, irrespective of the object of investigation (an industry, economic region, etc.). The enterprise is the basic production link of industry; the release of manpower begins within the enterprise, and that is where the problem of securing its employment is originally solved. It is precisely here that the dependence of the release process on the rate, depth, and complexity of technical progress manifests itself. Besides, it is easier to study the concrete quantitative and qualitative aspects of this process at the enterprise, since only here is it feasible to reveal the actual scale of released manpower, its professional and skill composition, sex and age structure, and to separate the release of manpower from other forms of its displacement.

Without disclosure of the actual amount of manpower released, without all-round consideration of the possibilities of drawing it into production directly at enterprises, one cannot determine the actual intensity of this process within the limits of larger sections of social production, such as an entire branch, or the number of released workers who leave a given section.

Classification of the factors involved in the release of manpower is of great importance in investigating this process for the planning and tabulating of its actual scope.

The first group of factors are national economic ones. They include: continuous improvement of the equipment of industrial enterprises, a planned change in the branch pattern of industrial production, improvement in its specialization and organization, and improvement in the distribution of industry. Consideration of these factors is significant for long-term planning of manpower movement.

The second group of factors includes those operating within the framework of an enterprise. They can be subdivided into factors connected with a rise in labor productivity and a decrease in the volume of output and a change in its assortment. These factors, in turn, can be subdivided into material -technical and organizational ones. The mechanization and automation of production, the introduction of advanced technological processes, and the modernization of equipment should be regarded as fundamental material -technical factors; their influence on the release of manpower can easily be detected and they are subject to direct tabulation. The combination of trades, the extension of maintenance zones, the simplification of the structure of production management, etc., are organizational factors. Calculation of all these factors is important for current planning of manpower movement.

Unfortunately, we still cannot fix the total number of people released in individual industries, with account taken of all factors involved. However, we have such data for some economic regions and factors. For example, in 1962 alone, 7,225 people were released as a result of the introduction of new technology and equipment in various industries of the Moscow City Economic Council. In 1963, 8,007 persons were released in the Moscow City Economic Council as a whole. In the first half of 1963, 900 workers were released in the Verkhne-Volzhsk Economic Region as a result of mechanization oflabor-consuming processes in auxiliary sections of production. In 1963, 2,220 workers were released as a consequence of the introduction of new technology at the-enterprises of the Sredne-Uralsk EconomicCouncil. Moreover, in the first six months of 1963, 3,000 workers were released as a result of the mechanization of labor at auxiliary sections.

These and other facts show that the process of manpower release takes place not only where there is an absolute reduction of the number employed, but in the most diverse industries and economic regions. Determination of the actual scale and intensity of this process is important for a timely elaboration of measures that will ensure the rational employment of released manpower.

“In contrast to capitalism,” the Program of the CPSU points out, “the planned socialist system of economy combines accelerated technical progress with full employment of the entire able-bodied population.” This refers also to the use of released manpower.

Under the conditions of socialism the relationship between a rise in labor productivity and an increase in the number of the employed is of a different character than under capitalism. Under socialism, a systematic rise in labor productivity on the basis of progress in technology brings about a considerable increase in the means of production, which are used for a more complete satisfaction of the ever-growing requirements of the members of society. As a result, the number of persons employed in the national economy increases. The rise in the number of persons employed in the national economy of the USSR is characterized by the following data (in millions of persons).

1930: 78.8; 1959: 99.1; 1962:104.5; 1964: 107.0

Full employment of the able-bodied population and its increase are ensured primarily by a continuous, crisis-free growth of socialist production. Hundreds of new enterprises are commissioned in the USSR each year. In 1959-1964 alone, over 5,000 large-scale state industrial enterprises were built; they required hundreds of thousands of workers, engineers, technicians, and office employees. Along with this, a reduction in the working day on the basis of a rise in labor productivity serves as an objective factor determining the necessity of an increase in the number of employed.

Expansion of the nonproductive sphere is an important prerequisite for full employment. All-round satisfaction of the ever-growing requirements of the working people necessitates the further development of education, culture, public health services, and other nonproductive branches. This means a need for more manpower in the given branches. The personnel in public health, education, culture and the other nonproductive branches will increase almost threefold by 1980, as compared with an overall increase in employment of 40%.

The growth of employment in the USSR is inseparably connected with a rise in the incomes of the population. Increased employment by itself results in the growth of the population’s incomes. In addition, a rise in employment leads to the accelerated development of social production and, on this basis, to a rise in the living standard, since the higher the living standard, the greater is the demand of the population for consumer goods. This, in turn, is a powerful stimulus for the expansion of production, and the development of production opens up new possibilities for raising the level of employment.

Consequently, the problem of employment exists under socialism too, but it acquires a fundamentally new content that reflects one of the most important regularities of communist construction – the universal and obligatory participation of the entire able-bodied population in social production. The essence of full employment under socialism amounts to ensuring the rational use of all able-bodied persons, that is, the fullest use of the working time of those already employed in social production, the maximum involvement in social labor of those able-bodied persons who are engaged in housework and personal subsidiary farming, the achievement of a rational structure for the distribution of labor resources (by branches and economic regions of the country), and their planned redistribution and retraining inconformity with the interests of the national economy.

The use of released manpower is a complicated and many-sided process. In the narrow sense of the word, the use of released manpower means nothing else but its consumption at a new place. However, the latter presupposes its redistribution and retraining. Therefore, in the broad sense of the word, the use of manpower released as a result of technical progress involves not only its consumption, but also its redistribution and retraining.

Study of the composition of manpower released due to technological progress provides us with an opportunity to formulate some more general conclusions concerning its structure. First, in 19601962, industrial -production personnel comprised the overwhelming part of the manpower released from the industrial enterprises surveyed; second, production workers made up the bulk of this personnel; third, basic production workers constituted 60 to 70% of the workers released, and auxiliary workers – only 30 to 40%.

The high relative weight of basic workers among released personnel cannot be regarded as a positive phenomenon. Such a structure of released personnel shows that adequate attention is not yet being given to the overall nature of technological progress, to the mechanization of auxiliary workers’ labor. Obviously, the share of auxiliary workers in the structure of released personnel will increase in the near future.

The release of auxiliary workers, who are mainly engaged in labor that is not very productive, will contribute to a rise in the productivity of social labor. In addition, it represents the most efficient form of saving expenditures of living labor. As is well known, the release of one auxiliary worker costs society 4.5 times less than the release of one basic worker (we do not speak here of such categories of auxiliary workers as instrument- makers and repairers, who are engaged in skilled labor).

Not so long ago the reassignment, within the factory, of released personnel was the most typical method of finding employment for them. However, some changes have occurred in recent years. Some corrections should be made in the view, prevalent in the late fifties, to the effect that industrial enterprises fully absorb all released personnel and that the process of redistribution of released manpower within and between branches is not typical for industry as a whole. The data show that in 1960-1962 up to 20% of the released personnel at one-third of all the enterprises surveyed left their enterprises. As the processes of release of manpower and its absorption due to the expansion of given enterprises do not coincide in time, quantity and professional composition, redistribution of manpower between enterprises, industries and areas is becoming ever more typical. The further intensive development of the national economy makes it all the more urgent to solve the problem of the branch and territorial redistribution of released manpower. In this connection, a leveling of the living standard in different regions of the country assumes special significance.

The directions of manpower redistribution in each concrete case depend on many circumstances, and primarily on the specific features, intensity, and prospects of the economic development of individual cities and economic regions. At present, in large, rapidly developing industrial centers, such as Moscow, Leningrad, Sverdlovsk and some others, the redistribution of released personnel among enterprises (of the same or different branches) takes place both in an organized (transfer to other enterprises) and unorganized form. It is more difficult to ensure employment for released personnel in small and medium-size towns, which are not developing because of excessive concentration of industry, in regional (republic) centers and large cities, and also in old industrial regions. The same problem will arise in the future for enterprises and construction sites that are situated in long- established big industrial centers with a population in excess of 500,000, where, due to a high level of production concentration, large-scale industrial construction is not expedient.

The rational use of released manpower depends, to a considerable extent, on a correct and even distribution of capital investments, on a rational distribution of new construction projects within each economic region with due account of manpower resources. Some economic regions now have an uneven distribution of capital investments. For instance, in 1962, two cities of the Cheliabinsk Region – Cheliabinsk and Magnitogorsk – received 68.1% of all capital investments, while the other 24 of the region received only 31.9%. As a result, the small and medium-size towns are developing at substantially lower rates and they are unable to ensure full employment of their released personnel. A more even distribution of capital investments will help to solve this problem. The Program of the CPSU points out that in the transition to communism, “well-arranged small and medium-size towns will be increasingly developed, and this will permit better and healthier living conditions.”

In this respect the experience of the Leningrad Region is of interest. Considerable funds have been allocated to develop the industry and communal economy of such towns as Luga, Tikhvin, Gatchina, Mga, and several others. The development of small towns in the region will be carried out not only by reconstructing old factories and building new ones within the economic council, -but also by creating new enterprises under the regional administration for local industry. This will undoubtedly guarantee employment of the personnel released in these towns.

The acceleration of technological progress during the period of full-scale communist construction will bring an increase in the scope and intensity of the manpower release in all industries. In connection with changes in the territorial distribution of industry, the scale of redistribution of released workers between different towns and regions of the country will become immeasurably greater. Therefore, the branch and territorial redistribution of released personnel will become an essential factor in securing their rational employment.

The branch and territorial redistribution of released manpower requires a higher level of scientific planning and centralized regulation of the movement of released manpower both within individual enterprises and between enterprises of one or different economic regions. Current and long-term planning of the number and occupational-skill composition of released personnel, and the elaboration of measures for the planned redistribution and retraining of personnel, constitute the main prerequisite for a rational use of released manpower. In this connection it is expedient to set up a single system of agencies to deal with the problems involved in redistributing and retraining released manpower. Since the use of released personnel is inseparably linked with their redistribution and retraining, it is necessary to achieve greater coordination in the work of the economic councils, in the organization of vocational -technical training, and in the resettling and organized recruitment of personnel.

It should be noted that the above problems can – not be successfully solved separately from the general problems of training, distributing, and utilizing labor resources. Therefore, it is necessary to unite the efforts of different organizations – the State Committee for Vocational and Technical Training under the State Planning Committee of the USSR, the committees on vocational and technical training and the chief administrations for resettlement and organized recruitment under the councils of ministers of the union republics – and on that basis to set up a single union-republic agency, subordinating to it a sufficiently ramified network of corresponding agencies in the republics, regions, territories, autonomous republics, and the localities. Along with the problems involved in the training, distribution, and use of labor resources, these organs would be able to engage in a systematic study of the use of personnel released as a result of technical progress, and the elaboration of proposals for improving the forms and methods of their redistribution, as well as the procedure for retraining and transfer to other enterprises and organizations, to other regions of the country. They would be able to reveal the demand of enterprises and construction sites for manpower, to inform working people about it, and to secure the organized redistribution and placement of released personnel both within and between economic regions and republics.

Source: Murray Yanowitch, ed., Contemporary Soviet Economics; a collection of readings from Soviet sources (White Plains: International Arts and Sciences Press, 1969), Vol. II, pp. 32-39.

Comments are closed.