Advertisement

Industry 4.0: Robotics and Contradictions

  • Sabine Pfeiffer
Chapter
Part of the Dynamics of Virtual Work book series (DVW)

Abstract

Pfeiffer argues that the Industry 4.0 debate, as a result of developments in robotics, regards human labour as replaceable, especially in the areas of production and assembly, which are often held to consist largely of routine tasks. The author nonetheless shows how current labour market predictions concerning the replaceability of human labour are inadequate. On the basis of qualitative studies, she outlines the crucial significance of non-routine activity in highly automated environments. These qualitative findings are then used to create the labour capacity index (LC), which is then applied to a quantitative dataset of 20,000 German employees. The analysis highlights the importance of non-routine work even within highly automated and robotics-dependent areas of mechanical and automotive engineering and typical occupations today. The empirical data supports the theoretical contention that the contradiction between the use value and exchange value of labour cannot be resolved through increasing digitisation.

References

  1. Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2017). Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aneesh, T. (2016). Technologically coded authority: The post-industrial decline in bureaucratic hierarchies. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  3. Autor, D. H. (2015). Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Autor, D. H., Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2003). The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1279–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer, H. G., Böhle, F., Munz, C., Pfeiffer, S., & Woicke, P. (2006). Hightech-Gespür: Erfahrungsgeleitetes Arbeiten und Lernen in hoch technisierten Arbeitsbereichen. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
  6. Bessen, J. (2015). Toil and technology. Finance & Development, 52(1), 16–19.Google Scholar
  7. Böhle, F. (1994). Relevance of experience-based work in modern processes. AI & Society. Journal of Human Centered Systems and Machine Intelligence, 8(3), 207–215.Google Scholar
  8. Böhle, F. (2013). “Subjectifying action” as a specific mode of working with customers. In W. Dunkel & F. Kleemann (Eds.), Customers at work—New perspectives on interactive service work (pp. 149–174). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Böhle, F., & Milkau, B. (1988). Computerised manufacturing and empirical knowledge. AI & SOCIETY, 2, 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Böhle, F., Heidling, E., & Schoper, Y. (2016). A new orientation to deal with uncertainty in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 34, 1384–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, N. S. (2015). From pink slips to pink slime: Transforming media labor in a digital age. The Communication Review, 18(2), 98–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins, R. (2013). The end of middle class work: No more escapes. In I. Wallerstein, R. Collins, G. Derlugian, & C. Calhoun (Eds.), Does capitalism have a future? (pp. 37–70). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dolata, U. (2017). Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft. In Market concentration—Competition—innovation strategies. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  14. Dreyfus, H. L. (1992). What computers still can’t do. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fernández-Macías, E., & Hurley, J. (2014). Drivers of recent job polarisation and upgrading in Europe: Eurofound Jobs Monitor 2014. Luxembourg: Eurofound.Google Scholar
  16. Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frick, W. (2015). When your boss wears metal pants. Insights from the frontier of human-robot research. Harvard Business Review, 96, 84–89.Google Scholar
  18. Fuchs, C. (2013). Capitalism or information society? The fundamental question of the present structure of society. European Journal of Social Theory, 16(4), 413–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gorle, P., & Clive, A. (2013). Positive impact of industrial robots on employment. London: Metra Martech, International Federation for Robotics.Google Scholar
  20. Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. (2016). Digitization of industrial work: Development paths and prospects. Journal for Labour Market Research, 49(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harvey, D. (2014). Seventeen contradictions and the end of capitalism. London: Profile. http://libro.eb20.net/Reader/rdr.aspx?b=1641562
  22. Hatton, E. (2017). Mechanisms of invisibility: Rethinking the concept of invisible work. Work, Employment & Society, 31(2), 336–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holzer, H. (2015). Job market polarization and U.S. worker skills: A tale of two middles. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, Economic Studies at Brookings.Google Scholar
  24. IFR. (2016). World robotics. Industrial robots 2015. Frankfurt/M./New York: International Federation for Robotics.Google Scholar
  25. Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W., & Helbig, J. (2013). Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0 (Final report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group). Frankfurt/M.: Plattform 4.0.Google Scholar
  26. Kaivo-oja, J., & Roth, S. (2015). The technological future of work and robotics. Genève: Inderscience.Google Scholar
  27. Kehoe, B., Patil, S., Abeel, P., & Goldberg, K. (2015). A survey of research on cloud robotics and automation. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 12, 398–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kluge, A., & Negt, O. (2014). Elements of a political economy of labor power. October, 149(Summer), 9–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levitt, S. D., List, J. A., & Syverson, C. (2012). Toward an understanding of learning by doing: Evidence from an automobile assembly plant. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McGovern. (2014). Contradictions at work: A critical review. Sociology, 48(1), 20–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pew. (2016). America’s shrinking middle class: A close look at changes within metropolitan areas. Washington DC: Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
  32. Pfeiffer, S. (2014). Digital labour and the use-value of human work. On the importance of labouring capacity for understanding digital capitalism. tripleC. Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 12(2), 599–619.Google Scholar
  33. Pfeiffer, S. (2016). Robots, Industry 4.0 and humans, or why assembly work is more than routine work. Societies, 6. Special Issue Robots and the Work Environment, 2, 16. http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/6/2/16
  34. Pfeiffer, S. (2017). The vision of ‘Industrie 4.0’ in the making—A case of future told, tamed, and traded. NanoEthics, 11(1), 107–121. http://rdcu.be/oN8l CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pfeiffer, S., & Suphan, A. (2015). The labouring capacity index: Living labouring capacity and experience as resources on the road to Industry 4.0. Stuttgart: University of Hohenheim, Chair of Sociology.Google Scholar
  36. Pfeiffer, S., Schütt, P., & Wühr, D. (2010). Innovation, market, networks—Interdependencies, synergies and contradictions in technical innovation processes. In T. Chavdarova, P. Slavova, & S. Stoeva (Eds.), Markets as networks (pp. 165–180). Sofia: St. Kliment University.Google Scholar
  37. Polanyi, M. (1983). The tacit dimension. Gloucester: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
  38. Rohrbach-Schmidt, D., & Hall, A. (2013). BIBB/BAuA employment survey 2012. Bonn: BIBB. https://doi.org/10.7803/501.12.1.1.30

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabine Pfeiffer
    • 1
  1. 1.Nuremberg Campus of Technology (NCT)Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-NürnbergNürnbergGermany

Personalised recommendations