İstihdam İlişkilerinin Taşeronlaşmış Formları ve "Aracı" Aktörleri: İnşaat Sektöründe Ustabaşılar

İstihdam koşullarının ve ilişkilerinin esnek ve güvencesiz yapısının, taşeronluk stratejisi ile birleşmesi şirketlere, serbest piyasa koşullarında rekabet güçlerini koruma imkânı yaratırken, işgücü açısından günden güne artan bir biçimde kuralsız, geçici ve istikrarsız çalışma koşullarını gündeme getirmektedir. İşgücünü kendi içinde parçalayan, bireyselleştiren ve yalnız kılan bir strateji olarak taşeronluk, aynı zamanda çalışma koşullarının sermaye açısından daha fazla yönetilebilir olmasını ifade etmektedir. Bu çalışmada, işgücü piyasasında, özellikle inşaat sektöründe ustabaşı olarak tanımlanan aracı kişilerin konumuna yoğunlaşarak, istihdam ilişkilerinin hangi stratejilerle giderek istikrarsız, belirsiz ve geçici kılındığının tartışması yapılmaktadır. Sermayenin, küresel ölçekteki kendini sürekli üretme çabasının işgücü üzerindeki etkileri ele alınırken, söz konusu çabaların, aracı aktörleri nasıl yarattığı ve aracı aktörler vasıtasıyla işgücünün nasıl kâr ve verimlilik aracına dönüştürüldüğün analizi yapılmaktadır. Aynı zamanda aracı aktörlerin, istihdam ilişkilerinde yeni tahakküm biçimlerini ve güç ilişkilerini belirgin kılan işlevi irdelenmektedir. Çalışma, ustabaşılarla yapılan "derinlemesine görüşme tekniği" ile sağlanan veriler üzerinden tartışılmaktadır

Subcontracted Forms and "Intermediary" Agents of Employment Relationships: Foremen in the Construction Sector

Integration of flexible and precarious structure of employment conditions and relations with subcontracting strategies enables companies to conserve their competitive power in one sense; it also introduces the conditions, which are increasingly irregulated, temporal and destabilized, with regards to the labour power. On the other hand subcontracting, as a strategy of fragmenting, individualizing and isolating labour power in itself means that working conditions have been becoming more manageable in terms of capital. In this study, focusing on the positions of intermediary persons, defined as foremen in the labour market, especially in the construction sector, the strategies with which employment relationships become increasingly unsteady, indefinite and temporal are discussed. On the one hand, depending on the efforts of capital to reproduce itself on a global scale, the effects of capital on labour power are considered on the other, how these efforts produce the intermediary agents and through them how the labour power is instrumentilized as a tool of profit and productivity are analyzed. And the fabrication of the intermediary agents, which make the new forms of domination in employment relationships visible, is studied. The study is discussed through data gathered from in-depth interviews with subcontractors

PDF

___

Bobek A., Krings,T., Moriarty, E., Wickham J., Salamonska, J. (2008). Migrant Workers and the Construction Sector in Ireland, Trinity Immigration Initiative, https://www.tcd.ie/immigration/css/downloads/ConReport03.09.08.pdf (erişim: 25.11:2015)
Burawoy, M. (1985). The Politics of Production: Factory Regimes Under Capitalism and Socialism, London, Verso.
Chiang, Y. (2009). Subcontracting and its ramifications: A survey of the building industry in Hong Kong, International Journal of Project Management, 27, 80- 88.
Çınar, S. (2014). Taşeron Çalışma İlişkilerinde İnşaat İşçileri, Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 17 (2), 37-70
Clarke, L. ve Herrmann, G. (2004). Cost vs. production: Disparities in social housing construction in Britain and Germany, Construction Management and Economics, 22 (5), 521-532.
Costantino, N., Pietroforte R. ve Hamill P., (2001). Subcontracting in commercial and residential construction: an empirical investigation, Construction Management and Economics, 19 (4), 439-447.
Eccles, R. G. (1981). Bureaucratic versus Craft Administration: The Relationship of Market Structure to the Construction Firm, Administrative Science Quarterly, 26 (3), 449-469.
Frade, C., Darmon, I., & Laparra, M. (2004). Precarious employment in Europe: A comparative study of labour market related risk in flexible economies. Esope Project, European Commission, ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/citizens/docs/kina21250ens_final_esope.pdf, (erişim: 03.02.2016) Fellini I.,
Ferro A. ve Fullin G. (2007). Recruitment processes and labour mobility: The construction industry in Europe, Work, Employment & Society 277-298.
Giesecke, J. ve Groß M. (2004). External Labour Market Flexibility and Social Inequality: Temporary employment in Germany and the UK, European Societies, 6 (3), 347-382.
Gray, A. (2004). Unsocial Europe: Social Protection or Flexploitation?, London, Pluto Press.
Greenhalgh, L. ve Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job Insecurity: Toward Conceptual Clarity, The Academy of Management Review, 9 (3), 438-448.
Harvey, D. (2007). Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,610(1), 22-44.
Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neo-liberalism, Oxford University Press. Hudson, M. (2005). Flexibility and the reorganisation of work, Job Insecurity and Work Intensification (içinde), Brendan Burchell, David Ladipo ve Frank Wilkinson (ed.), London: Taylor and Francis. 39-61.
ILO (2001). The construction industry in the twenty-first century: It's image, employment prospects and skill requirements, Geneva International Labour Office, http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/gb/docs/gb283/pdf/tmcitr.pdf (erişim:10 Aralık 2015)
Kenny B. ve Bezuidenhout A. (1999). Contracting, complexity and control: An overview of the changing nature of subcontracting in the South African mining industry, The Journal of The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 99(4),185-192.
Korpi, T. ve Levin, H. (2001). Precarious Footing: Temporary Employment as a Stepping Stone out of Unemployment in Sweden, Work Employment and Society, 15 (1), 127-148.
Leiva, S., (2000). Part-time work in Chile Is it precarious employment?, Reflections from a gender perspective,ECLAC.
Manu P., Ankrah N., Proverbs D., Suresh S. (2013). Mitigating the health and safety influence of subcontracting in construction: The approach of main contractors, International Journal of Project Management, 31, 1017-1026.
Sözen, Z. ve Küçük, M. Ali. (1999). Secondary subcontracting in the Turkish construction industry, Construction Management and Economics 215-220.
Öz, Ö. (2001) ''Sources of Competitive Advantage of Turkish Construction Companies in International Markets", Construction Management and Economics, 19 (2).
Theodore, N. (2003). Political Economies of Day Labour: Regulation and Restructuring of Chicago's Contingent Labour Markets, Urban Studies, 40 (9), 1811-1828.
Ulukan, U. (2014). Avrupa İstihdam Stratejisinin Peri Masalı: Güvenceli Esneklik, http://disk.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/DiSKAR_07.pdf (Erişim: 05.11.2015)
Wells, J. (2007). Informality in the construction sector in developing countries, Construction Management and Economics, 25 (1), 87-93.
Wichert, I. (2005). Job insecurity and work intensification, The effects on health and well-being, Job Insecurity and Work Intensification (içinde), Brendan Burchell, David Ladipo ve Frank Wilkinson (ed.), London: Taylor and Francis, 92-111
Wilthagen,T. ve Tros, F. (2004). The Concept of flexicurity: A new approach to regulating employment and labour markets, European Review of Labour and Research, 10:(2), 166-187.