Pérez GL

Language: Spanish
References: 25
Page: 91-97
PDF size: 334.21 Kb.

ABSTRACT

This paper is about the main theses and hypotheses of the book Labor and Monopoly Capital by Harry Braverman, published in 1974. The central objective is to observe, through the light of the current labor process debate, its contributions and theoretical and epistemological limitations. It has also the purpose to see how these limitations and contributions help or diffi cult the understanding of the relationship between work and health.

REFERENCES

1. Braverman H. Trabajo y capital monopolista. La degradación del trabajo en el siglo XX. México, Nuestro Tiempo; 1977.

2. Smith V. “El legado de Braverman. La tradición del proceso de trabajo veinte años más tarde”. Sociología del trabajo, invierno 1995/1996;26:5.

3. Burawoy M. “A Classic of its time”. Contemp Sociol, 1996;3(25):296-99.

4. Burawoy M. Manufacturing consent. Changes in the labour process under monopoly capitalism. London, Mac Millan; 1979.

5. Thompson P. The Nature of Work. London, MacMillan; 1983.

6. Edwards R. Contested Terrain: the transformation of the work in the twentieth century. London, Heinemann; 1979.

7. Friedman A. “Responsible Autonomy, Versus Direct Control Over Labour Process”. Capital and Class, 1977, 1.

8. Friedman A. Industry and labour: Class struggle at work and Monopoly capitalism. Londres, MacMillan; 1977.

9. Meiksins P. “Labor and monopoly capital for the 1990s: A review and critique of the labor process debate”. Monthly review, 1994.

10. Palmer B. “Before Braverman: Harry Frankel and the American workers’ movement, 1999”. Monthly Review, Jan. Available at: www.fi ndarticles. com/cf_0/m1132/8_50/53972890/print.jhtml

11. Yates M. “Braverman and the class struggle” Monthly Review, 1999, Jan. Available at:www.fi ndarticles.com/cf_0/m1132/8_50/53972886/print.jhtml

12. John Bellamy. “A classic of our time: Labor and Monopoly Capital after a quarter-century”. Mon Rev, 1999;8(50):12-18.

13. Greenbaum J. “On twenty-fi ve years with Braverman’s Labor and Monopoly Capital (or, how did control and coordination of labor get into the software so quickly?)”. Mon Rev, 1999;8(50):28-32.

14. Neffa J C. ¿Qué son las condiciones y medio ambiente de trabajo (CYMAT)? Buenos Aires, Argentina, Humanitas; 1987, 49-57 y 137-155 Págs.

15. Laurell A C. y Noriega M. La salud en la fábrica. Estudio sobre la industria siderúrgica en México. México, Ediciones Era; 1989.

16. Landsbergis P.A., J. Cahill and P. Schnall. “New systems of work organization: impacts on job characteristics and health”. International Congress on Occupational Health. Stockholm, Sweden. September 17, 1996. Available at: www.workhealth.org/whatsnew/lpnewsys.html.

17. Karasek R. “Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign”. Adm Sci Q, 1979;(24):285-307.

18. Job Stress Network. “Lean production and stress. A Dialogue between Dr. Paul Adler and Dr. Paul Landsbergis on”. January 1997. Available at: www.workhealth.org/whatsnew/lpdialog.html.

19. Shumpeter A. Teoría del desenvolvimiento económico. México, FCE.;1960.

20. Mandel E. El capitalismo tardío. México, Era; 1980.

21. apud De la Garza E. Reestructuración productiva y respuesta sindical en México. México, UNAM/IIE, 1993, 16-20 págs.

22. Kusterer K. Know-How on the Job: The Important Working Knowledge of “Unskilled workers”. Boulder, Westview Press, 1978.

23. Elger T. Braverman. Capital Accumulation and Deskilling. In: Wood S. Ed. The degradation of Work. London, Hutchinson; 1982. 23-55 Págs.

24. Wood S. “The Japanization of Fordism”. Economic and Industrial Relations, 14, 1993.

25. Edwards R. Industrial Relations. London, Blackwell, 1995.