Concentrating Power

As systems enable fewer people to deliver the same or better. As businesses look to save costs, mainly by reducing head count. Business (and government) become dependant on fewer and fewer people to run their operation.

In the 70's when typing pools disappeared as a result of computers and the ability for people to type their own letters and email previously paper memos. This didn't consolidate the power but dispersed it away from the typing pool. Deskilling it to some extent, as experienced typists applied knowledge of layout, punctuation and grammar. Early "word processing" had spell checking of sorts and now most do on the fly spell checking and grammar as well as offering suggestions on layout. 

So new, more efficient, systems don't always concentrate power, but others do. The ones that do are those that help deliver the product or service to the customer. Warehouse systems that used to employ a small army of people but now use an automatic robotic system. These requires little human intervention on day to day basis. These have concentrated the power from unskilled workers into skilled workers that build, operate and maintain them. 

Even in account departments where invoices arrive, are checked and paid automatically with humans simply auditing the system and dealing with exceptions, this concentration of power happens.

So if this smaller more powerful work force decides it wants more, what would be the employer's response? Until these systems become universal there are enough other skilled people out there to undermine any pressure that may have been exerted.

Undermining employees individual or collective efforts to get more (whether fair or unfair) has recently been the modus operandi of many employers especially skill levels are low.

However, reducing head count concentrates power into fewer people, but also desikills and reduces the labour pool able to do that job. At first the pool is large and those left in employment are thankful for a job and fearful of their security in any future cull so are compliant and undemanding, but will that be the case going forward? Should business build a contingency? Even if a contingency is developed it needs to be robust as the ability for a smaller group organise and become a collective is easier, so even a contingency may be undermined.

As business's goal is to improve margin and grow regardless of their employees needs there will always be a desire to reduce costs. The quickest and easiest way is to shed employees. Taken to its ultimate where the CEO presses a button on Monday morning and the factory churns out the product or service, without anyone else's involvement. The business is in charge of its destiny, without any employee dependency.

A company like this is just dependant on its suppliers and customers. There is no ability to cut cost other than reinvesting in the technology that allows the automation. Likely an expensive and risky decision.

What has happened is that power has been concentrated from employees into suppliers. There maybe some ability to undermine suppliers with other suppliers where the technology is relatively similar. But that would imply that the competition to the businesses products or services was similar too. And if there is some significant proprietary technology (patented). Then the business would be held to ransom to get a competitive advantage.

If every business runs the same, employing no one, then how do the customers/consumers get the money to buy these products?