IMPROVING THE STRUCTURE OF THE WORKFORCE

AT AN INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISE

ON THE BASIS OF IMPROVING FORMS

OF DIVISION AND COOPERATION OF LABOR

K. N. CHIGORYAEV

As a result of surveys of multi-machine workers and workers combining occupations, it has been established that, first, this is the most highly skilled part of the working class; second, the wages of this category of workers, owing to the receipt of additional payments for combination, are higher than those of others; third, among them a considerable number take an active part in rationalization and inventive work; and, fourth, their labor is more creative and varied. In practice, this part of the workers is not subject to turnover. Therefore, work to improve the forms of division and cooperation of labor—combining occupations, specialties, and labor functions, organizing multi-machine servicing, and introducing effective forms of collective work—contributes significantly to improving the structure of the workforce at the enterprise, to the rational use of equipment, and to the optimal placement of labor.

These forms of division and cooperation of labor contribute to a significant degree to versatility, to broadening the production profile, and to the worker’s better adaptability under conditions of changing technology.

In modern production there is both manual labor (heavy physical labor, work on setting up and repairing machines and equipment) and mechanized labor, as well as labor involved in controlling automatic machines and automated installations; therefore, work to improve and apply all forms of division and cooperation of labor is determined both by the requirements of new technology and by organizational and technical measures.

It is the most important means of studying and applying methods for loading workers, is included as a component part in plans for the scientific organization of labor at an industrial enterprise, and is aimed at the all-round improvement of the utilization of production capacities and labor power in order to produce the maximum output with minimum expenditures of living and embodied labor. The realization of this task is considerably accelerated by the transition of enterprises to a new system of planning and economic incentives, with the introduction at enterprises of full cost accounting in all production subdivisions.

The methodological basis that makes it possible to outline concrete ways and variants for carrying out this work is the study of the structure of labor functions according to the criterion of labor mechanization, the identification of

the observation time in the working-time fund and determining the degree of workload of workers during the working day¹. The main source for obtaining these data is a photograph of the working day or a group photograph using the sampling method of observation (for a large group of workers). The photograph is carried out in accordance with the structure of the elements of time expenditures, reflecting the nature of the workers’ labor functions. At the same time, it is proposed to conduct conversations with workers, foremen, and shop managers, and to distribute questionnaires in which questions would be posed about the desire to combine trades, to be a multi-machine operator, to work in an integrated brigade or according to an “end-to-end” schedule, about the degree of satisfaction with pay for combining jobs, etc.

The most important form of division and cooperation of labor at an industrial enterprise is the combination of trades, specialties, and labor functions in the proper sense². Workers’ tendencies to broaden their production profile in the process of labor activity and the training of broadly profiled workers become regular phenomena, conditioned by the operation of the law of the all-round mobility of workers.

In turn, the most important social condition—the striving for many-sidedness—is supplemented by an economic requirement: the need to ensure the full workload of workers during the labor shift and to overcome the shortcomings of a fragmented division of labor.

The existing procedure for dividing and assigning functions in the production process does not fully meet these requirements. Thus, for example, surveys conducted at a number of machine-building plants of the Middle Urals—Uralmashzavod, Uralelectrotyazhmash, Khimmash, Turbomotornyi, and Instrumentalnyi—established that the employment of setup workers averages 73% of the shift time fund, while that of inspectors, tool distributors, sling operators, loaders, and auxiliary workers is about 62.5%³.

Therefore, the combination of trades, specialties, and labor functions is economically justified under the following conditions: 1) in the event of downtime arising from the nonsynchronous work of adjacent functional groups of workers (machine operator and setup worker, machine operator and repair fitter, etc.); 2) when workers are not fully employed in their own trade and the amount of work to be combined is insufficient for a full workload of an individual worker; 3) when greater maneuverability of workers is necessary (replacing those who have not reported for work, transfer to another job because of an incomplete workload in the given specialty or equipment breakdown); 4) when productivity decreases as a result of fatigue in uniform, monotonous work.

The combination of trades has become widespread in entire branches of industry: timber, coal, and certain advanced

enterprises: the Moscow First GPZ, the Nizhny Tagil Metallurgical Combine, and others. However, at machine-building enterprises the share of workers combining trades is very low and does not encompass workers in main production. Thus, at Uralmashzavod and Uralelektrotyazhmash the share of workers combining trades and functions, relative to the total number of industrial-production workers, is about 0.3%.⁴

Since the nature of combination itself depends on the level of mechanization—manual, mechanized, or automated—the selection of specific variants for combining trades and functions is carried out accordingly, taking into account the organizational and technical connection, territorial proximity, and common purpose of workplaces at the enterprise. In some cases any trades may be combined if there is an acute need to load workers more fully. But when a worker can combine not the whole job, but only part of it, it is advisable to combine only individual functions.⁵

In the interests of ensuring continuity of the production process, among a large group of workers—fitters (assemblers, bench fitters, repairmen, toolmakers), electricians, and others—the combination of trades and labor functions has been organized; more than one-third of these workers possess related trades such as slinger, driller, gas welder, and electric welder. For a numerous category of auxiliary workers, it is desirable to combine mechanized-labor trades and individual accounting and control functions. For example, loaders may be assigned to drive motor and electric carts; the work of an inspector may be combined with that of a tester; and tool distributors may be assigned to issue and explain drawings.

In the practice of combining trades, one should take into account not only expediency, but also the skills and capacities of the workers themselves to perform, within one shift, all the work connected with combination. It is important that, when combining functions, trades, and specialties, the basic principle be observed: the consistent formation of a worker of socialist production whose qualifications, cultural and technical level, and production profile correspond not only to the requirements of the given technology used in production, but also to the subsequent stage of its development.⁶

Despite the fact that the combination of functions, trades, and specialties is economically effective, not enough attention is yet being paid to training in second and related trades. Its share in the general system of skill upgrading is about 10–15%. In order to achieve significant success in this matter, it is necessary at our enterprises to organize special training for workers so that they may master related and second trades. The combination of trades

⁴ At 24 machine-building enterprises in Siberia, the share of workers combining trades, specialties, labor functions is 3.9%. Moreover, at enterprises with mass-type production their share is 3.8%; at serial-production enterprises, 2.9%; and at individual- and small-batch-production plants, 5.8%. (See: Questions of the Scientific Organization of Labor at an Industrial Enterprise, Mysl, Moscow, 1965, p. 92.)

⁵ All the variety of combined functions may be reduced to four large groups:

1) functions involving direct action upon the object of labor (within a group);
2) functions involving direct action upon the object of labor together with servicing functions;
3) servicing functions (within a group);
4) servicing functions together with functions involving direct action upon the object of labor. (See: Questions of the Scientific Organization of Labor at an Industrial Enterprise, Mysl, Moscow, 1965, p. 93.)

⁶ G. A. Prudensky, Time and Labor. Mysl, Moscow, 1965, p. 186.

is a means of upgrading qualifications and forming a broad profile; therefore, training in second and related occupations must be ensured both by the entire system of training and skill upgrading and within the labor process itself. It is important that the worker himself, or with the help of his comrades, be able to master a second or related occupation, since the accumulation of additional knowledge and skills in the process of labor itself is quite effective. Here it should also be borne in mind that this upgrading of qualifications as a result of combined labor creates high moral authority for the worker at the enterprise.

More significant successes in the matter of combining occupations could be achieved with a higher material interest on the part of workers who combine occupations⁴. Then better conditions would be created for combining moral and material incentives to labor when occupations are combined, and also for explaining its benefits both for the workers themselves and for the enterprise, and consequently for the national economy as a whole.

Successful work in this direction will significantly improve the state of the scientific organization of labor at an industrial enterprise. One of the most important forms of improving the division and cooperation of labor at an industrial enterprise is the organization of multi-machine tending. It is more acceptable for machine operators working on large machine-tool equipment.

A generalization and analysis of photographs of the working day of 1,680 machine operators, mainly employed on large machine-tool equipment characterized by a high degree of automatism (vertical-lathe operators, boring-machine operators, gear-cutting-machine operators, grinders, planing-machine operators, milling-machine operators, etc.), working at four of the largest machine-building plants of the Middle Urals—Uralélektrotyazhmash, Uralmashzavod, Uralkhimmashzavod, and Turbomotorny—show that the share of machine-automatic time is high and on average amounts to about 70% or even more, as in the cited group of machine operators.

Table

Structure of the working time of vertical-lathe operators
(average for 412 persons)⁵

Proceeding from the actual workload of workers, specific technological conditions, and a survey of the opinions of the workers themselves, it is advisable to recommend to machine operators work on other equipment (of the same and different names), taking into account their production qualification, length of service, possession of another machine-tool occupation, the degree of repeatability of manual and machine-manual operations, the type of production—one-off, serial, mass—and the wishes of the worker himself. Quite acceptable for

for machine operators is participation in the work of comprehensively specialized brigades operating according to a through schedule, in which the labor load can be made denser by performing auxiliary, repair, and adjustment work.

Under conditions of comprehensive mechanization and automation of production, the necessary coordination and consistency of labor actions is achieved through the development of brigade-based cooperation of labor, where mutual substitution and mutual assistance on the basis of combining professions, specialties, and labor functions find wide application.

At present, three main directions can be identified in the development of brigades that meet the requirements of labor organization in accordance with the modern level of equipment, technology, and organization of production: the transition from specialized brigades to comprehensive ones; from work by specialized and comprehensive brigades to daily (“through”) brigades; and from individual work to daily (“through”) specialized brigades⁶.

The division and cooperation of labor undergo the most substantial changes in comprehensive brigades, in which workers perform a set of technologically diverse tasks connected with the production of a single product or a particular part of it. Coordination in work and improved utilization of working time are achieved because each worker in the brigade performs functions not in one, but in a number of related professions and specialties. The skill level of the workers may vary.

The existence of comprehensive brigades is possible given a number of technical and organizational prerequisites: the introduction into production of combined machines, mechanisms, and apparatuses that require an entire team of workers for their servicing (a coal combine, a blast furnace, a rolling mill, etc.); flow-line and conveyor production; frequent changes in the range of output; and the organization of object-closed sections.

Comprehensive brigades make it possible to use equipment better; narrow professionalism among workers is replaced by specialization in the set of tasks performed. They create conditions for broadening workers’ horizons, raising qualifications, developing mutual assistance and collectivism in work, and also a common interest in the results of labor, and they ensure a significant growth in its productivity.

The most effective form of brigade (intra-brigade) organization is their work according to a through schedule. The advantage of “through” brigades over shift brigades lies in the fact that, owing to the principle of handing work over while in progress and between shifts, eliminating deficiencies of previous shifts, and eliminating attempts to achieve the best results of one shift at the expense of others, rhythm in work over the course of the day and the achievement of high economic efficiency in labor are ensured. Thus, for example, in planing operations before the transition to work by the through method, each machine operator worked according to an individual job order and process sheet. Work on medium and large machines was performed without transferring it to another shift. The imperfection of the organization was manifested mainly in the fact that a considerable amount of time was spent preparing tools and fixtures; because of waiting for cranes, equipment stood idle. Organization by the through method made it possible sharply to reduce equipment downtime, since machine operators now hand over the work without stopping it.

When staffing daily brigades, it is necessary to select the composition of workers according to their level of qualification and, what is more important, to foster—

…cultivate in everyone an equal attitude toward labor. Mutual control and collective responsibility for the fulfillment of the production assignment in brigades improve product quality. In addition, this corresponds to the economic interests of workers, providing them with stable wages under the new conditions of planning and economic incentives, and expands opportunities for receiving bonuses.

At an industrial enterprise, work on studying possibilities and improving forms of the division and cooperation of labor, as well as planning training in second and related occupations, should be carried out by employees of the labor and wages department and by technologists jointly with employees of the production-and-technical training department, with broad involvement of the workers themselves through surveys, questionnaires, and their own participation in the development and implementation of measures for the organization of labor⁷. The labor and wages department should carry out the appropriate calculations of the economic effectiveness of training in second and related occupations, as well as of combining them, determine its profitability for the enterprise, and take part in drawing up the corresponding plans and programs. In addition, measures to improve forms of the division and cooperation of labor should be included in shop and plant plans of organizational and technical measures.

The combining of occupations, specialties, and labor functions, the development of multi-machine servicing, and the organization of collective forms of work promote growth in labor productivity, savings in living labor, and lead to the release of workers. Overcoming the shortage of personnel in certain occupations is positive both in itself and because it makes it difficult for workers to transfer thoughtlessly from one enterprise to another. In this situation, the worker values the job and feels a greater responsibility to the collective of the enterprise.

The combining of occupations is the most important measure for saving labor power carried out within the framework of the so-called Shchekino experience. The scope of combining occupations is determined by how effectively the fulfillment of planned assignments with a smaller number of workers is stimulated. In the report to the XXIV Congress of the Party, L. I. Brezhnev said: “Intensive, highly productive labor must be encouraged and rewarded more highly. It is advisable, as the experience of the Shchekino Chemical Combine suggests, to give enterprises broader opportunities to stimulate those workers who make the greatest contribution to the development of production, combine occupations, and manage and carefully handle public wealth in a businesslike way.”⁸

The importance of the Shchekino experience lies in the fact that, for a number of years, an enterprise is assigned a planned wage fund and is given the right to use the savings in it, obtained as a result of reducing the number of personnel, for supplements to tariff rates and salaries for combining occupations, expanding the service area, etc. This made it possible to uncover large reserves.

1. See: G. A. Prudenskii, Time and Labor. “Mysl,” Moscow, 1965, p. 183; NOT—Organization of Production—Economic Progress. “Sotsialisticheskii trud,” 1967, No. 4, pp. 61–64; P. F. Petrochenko, “Some Questions of NOT in Contemporary Conditions.” Izvestiya of the Siberian Branch of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, “Nauka,” Novosibirsk, 1966, No. 9, social sciences series, issue 3, p. 5, etc. ↩

2. Other forms of division and cooperation of labor—participation in integrated and “end-to-end” brigades, multi-machine servicing—are also based on the combination of trades and labor functions. ↩

3. At machine-building plants of Siberia, the employment of inspectors averages 62.2%, tool distributors 71%, the workload of setup workers ranges from 66.6 to 93%, storekeepers, loaders, auxiliary workers, and sling operators from 63.6 to 85.8%. When loaders and auxiliary workers have downtime, unoccupied time at the Rotary Electric Excavator plant ranges from 14.9 to 30.8% (see: L. Zutina, A. Kolobin, E. Maslov, “Division and Cooperation of Labor at an Enterprise.” Sotsialisticheskii trud, 1967, No. 2, p. 99). ↩

4. At present, workers are paid extra for combining occupations in a differentiated manner, depending on the complexity, nature, and volume of the work performed in another occupation, in an amount of up to 30% of the tariff rate (salary) of the replaced worker. ↩

5. Calculated as a percentage of working time, excluding downtime and preparatory-final time. ↩

6. T. Z. Zagirna, A. Kolobov, G. Maslov, “Division and Cooperation of Labor at Enterprises,” Sotsialisticheskii trud, 1967, No. 2, p. 96. ↩

7. At some enterprises in Latvia, surveys were conducted whose purpose was to determine workers’ attitudes toward the work performed, desirable changes in the content and conditions of labor, and also to involve workers in developing measures to improve the organization of labor. (See: A. Veinberts, “Scientific Organization of Labor and Combining Occupations,” Sotsialisticheskii trud, 1964, No. 10, p. 45). ↩

8. Materials of the XXIV Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Moscow, Politizdat, 1971, p. 70. ↩