A civilized society is often divided into classes where each has its specific and unique characteristics. As a result, there are layers of civil masses, and the conditions for existence are not always equal.
One of the most important aspects of any society is the working class, and the way labor is viewed and qualified by a part of the population. A concept of labor aristocracy has been in existence for some time and has led to much speculation about unions, social equality, and labor laws.
Labor aristocracy has several connections to people’s lives and their opinions. One perspective comes from a Marxist point of view and links to communism. The core of the concept is based on opportunism and how people can prosper in the labor movement to the maximum.
Since the 19th century, society has been very demanding of people in their workplace (Smith, 1999). Of course, political and economic forces are greatly involved in the labor monopoly. “Aristocracy” in not an accidental word used in the concept, as only the select few who have resources and opportunities can succeed in proportions unreachable by the majority of a population (Compa, 2003).
It is a fact that the society and the general population of a country are the moving force in the workplace. Even though the wages stay the same, so there is no clear incentive to stay at work longer, individuals still contribute extra hours to their jobs. This can be attributed to the society and the demanding way of life by people who take up higher positions.
Labor is characterized by a very fast paced environment where industrialization has created many opportunities and avenues for people to work (Docherty, 2012).
There are a large number of professions that exist, and so, people can choose any type of activity they like. This, in turn, leads to the replacement of leisure time by working hours. But an interesting fact emerges, as the greater population spends all the time working, while those in charge use the workforce and their positions to own advantage, creating a class of “aristocracy” and workplace owners.
The personal goals of a person play another significant role. Psychologically, a person can be greatly focused on their job. It is a place where they can practice and display their skills, gaining respect for themselves and from others. The industrialization has been instrumental in the labor movement and opportunities that were gained by individuals.
The separation between classes became even more obvious, and there have been numerous personal and social factors that are involved. A privileged position is the society enables a person to make connections with influential businessmen and get to know the industry, limiting others (Kautsky, 2001).
Australia and the rise of the labor aristocracy in the 19th century is not an exception. The development has led to the rise of those who had the most influence and were able to control large portions of the market, industry, economy, and the general society. Those who had more skill and better education were able to dominate among social masses and secure a place in the “aristocracy” division (Budd, 2009).
In reality, the separation comes from the specific qualities of each kind of working force. At the beginning of the 19th century, Australian labor was characterized by unions and people who had taken a privileged position. Unions were a significant part of the “aristocracy,” as people with greater skill were unified, as compared to those people who were not considered as “valuable” in their talents (Silver, 2003).
The division between working people lies in the fact that unskilled workers are dependent on their numbers and the industry that supports their existence. In comparison to skilled workers, organization and strength of a union are lesser, whereas the “labor aristocracy” possesses conservative views, making it stronger, more direct, and radical.
Historically, the Australian workforce was not part of the social movement, as those with enormous profits and networks were the dominating factor. The trade unions that were emerging were based on the aristocracy and positions of those who controlled the industry, as well as smaller businesses (Macintyre, 2009).
This sort of environment has led to conditions that were being observed in other parts of the world. Even though Australia was one of England’s colonies, the living conditions for the majority of people were not characterized by many advantages (Rau, 2002).
The select few were in power, and only those with higher wages and resources could own a house and lead a decent living. It has been noted that the difference in salaries varied so greatly that there was no middle class, only those who spent almost all their time working and people, who have been living off the work of others (Ashenfelter, 2010).
In Australia, trade unions were developing at an increasing rate, which based itself on the cooperation within the “labor aristocracy.” Mass movements of socialism were greatly connected with an almost military behavior of the major population, which was the working class.
This means that people had little opportunity to break away from the established order and take place amongst those with all the privileges. The people wanted to base society and labor on socialism, which was gaining little support of the elite. The strikes of people outraged with conditions were a clear indication that something had to be done. As these conditions are relatively recent, Australia and other countries are still in the process of bettering the working conditions and division between classes (Dyrenfurth, 2011).
It is a fact that labor aristocracy and the conditions that were created as a result, had a great influence on society. It is obvious that people must use their skills to advance the world around them and help those with fewer opportunities and the ability to have a better life. History has shown that division between classes cannot progress the conditions of the population, so a balance must be found, which will enable everyone to cooperate and mutually benefit.
Reference List
Ashenfelter, O 2010, Handbook of Labor Economics, Elsevier, San Diego, CA.
Budd, J 2009, Labor Relations: Striking a Balance 3rd edition, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY.
Compa, L 2003, Human Rights, Labor Rights, and International Trade, University of Pennsylvania Press, Phillapelphia, PA.
Docherty, J 2012, Historical Dictionary of Organized Labor, Scarecrow Press. Lanham, MA.
Dyrenfurth, N 2011, A Little History of the Australian Labor Party, UNSW Press, Sydney, NSW.
Kautsky, J 2001, Social Democracy and the Aristocracy, Transaction Publishers, Piscataway, NJ.
Macintyre, S 2009, A Concise History of Australia, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Rau, D 2002, Australia. Black Rabbit Books, London, UK.
Silver, B 2003, Forces of Labor: Workers’ Movements and Globalization Since 1870, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Smith, A 1999, Nationalism, Labour and Ethnicity 1870-1939, Manchester University Press, New York, NY.