Control and resistance in labour process: A field research in the banking sector

Human have been producing from the past to the present in order to survive, and have provided change by either consuming what they produce or by bartering or selling excess production. Thus, they have been able to meet their different needs. The important point here is that the production has not been interrupted and it has always continued to develop in social life. Then, with the invention of the steam machine, there were enormous changes in terms of production and consumption; A new stance has been brought to this system. In this adventure that started with the invention of the steam machine, the control of the production tools started to be gathered in the hands of a single person. While capital's possession of the means of production allows it to have decision-making processes regarding the production process; at the same time, it has given the authority to give orders to the people it employs. Capital has tried to expand this area of managerial sovereignty in order to control labor and most importantly, to continuously increase its accumulation. For this, it needed some different tools from time to time. It is seen that the capital, faced with the possibility of a rebellion / resistance, especially when it realizes the power that labor has over production, turns towards such means more in order to control labor. After all, the continuity of the system depends on the control of the labor force. In addition, it is seen that these tools have been shaped as a result of the developments that occurred in the historical process. On the one hand, technical and technological developments have been effective on the tools used in controlling labor, on the other hand, the continuous increase in capital accumulation has expanded the field of domination, prompting capital to seek different pursuits. Technological methods that initially provided control over the body of labor with the assembly line, day by day and as new developments emerged, brought different methods suitable for the structure of production. However, the idea of controlling workers only with technical or technological means was deemed insufficient, on the grounds that capital could not respond to its goals. Therefore, capital has turned to search for different control mechanisms. This does not mean that technically or technologically applied supervision has completely been abandoned. Even today, it is seen that the control applied in the technological sense continues its intensive effect. But capital uses them as aids to control. Over time, one of the managerial methods applied in the control of labor has been bureaucratic control. The area of production, which expands with the increase in capital accumulation, has also shaped the structure of labor. The bureaucracy mechanism became the main player, as the dominance of the capital over the entire production area became more difficult compared to the production area that emerged in the early years of the industrial revolution. With the aforementioned bureaucracy mechanism, a pressure was put on the employees and the supervision and control function was to be maintained. On the other hand, the transformation of production from manual work to mental work in the following periods led to the desire of capital to dominate and control this area. In addition, the inadequacy of the repressive attitude in controlling the labor process and the role of oppression in the resistance of labor disturbed the capital and caused it to different searches. Therefore, the consent mechanism has been included in the control. The new control mechanism applied at this point has been ideological control. In ideological control, the consent of labor is at the forefront. Pressure has been successfully hidden in the tools used in ideological control. In conclusion, the control of the labor process has continued from the past to the present; however, the control mechanism has been directed in line with the current conditions and developments. However, we can clearly say that it is not possible to consider the above-mentioned forms of control separately or to limit them to a single category in the production process. Just as today's large capitalists operate in the most institutional way and employ high-skilled workers in plazas with the highest technology, they can also employ blue-collar workers at lower levels within the same enterprise, they can easily apply different forms of control on their employees. The capital can apply different types of control to different employees in the same workplace, as well as the same types of control. In such a structure, there is no totally despotic or totally hegemonic control of capital over labor. As a matter of fact, inspection types are carried out in a certain combination within the production process. Today, there are many control tools that provide advantages for capital to achieve its goals. Developments, especially in the managerial area, offer considerable convenience to the capital in terms of control. The consent mechanisms that we mentioned in the majority of the study vary considerably in relation to the diversification of control tools. The forms of control that manifest themselves in management models both manage to hide themselves skillfully and facilitate the implementation of hegemonic control in the labor process. These tools, which are mentioned down to the finest detail in the thesis we have prepared, have been developed to include technological and bureaucratic control, and offer a wide range of opportunities to capital at the point of control and control. Therefore, while technology still maintains its technical dominance over the employee, the movement area of the employees is easily limited with the help of rules and procedures within the bureaucratic structure of the workplace. In this context, we can say that; while the apparent function of the applications in the workplace in a managerial sense is a business strategy, their purpose is to be used as a control tool within the company. Thus, the control apparently transferred to labor provides a relative range of action and this area can be easily controlled by the management. As it has been emphasized before, the main purpose here is to conceal the control skillfully, and therefore the capital achieves its main purpose successfully. While dealing with the control practices, which constitute the main subject of our study, not mentioning the struggle and resistance practices would prevent the subject from being understood completely, practices of resistance were also included in the research. Where there is control, it is quite natural to have struggle and resistance. When the facts of control and struggle are examined in the historical process, it is seen that these two opposite poles developed together. In this context, it has been a matter of curiosity how the approach of labor to resistance practices differs with the changing management philosophy. Therefore, we have decided to include resistance forms as well as control practices within the scope of the study. Our research has been expanded within this scope; planning has been directed in this direction. On the one hand, capital that manages to hide its control practices within its management philosophy and moves with the consent of labor in this process… On the other hand, the labor class that has left its power to the capital with its will, but partially indiscriminately, or is obliged due to market conditions ... In the fourth and last chapter of our thesis, a qualitative study was conducted with middle-level white-collar employees in the general directorates of private banks operating in Istanbul in order to determine the reflection. Interesting instruments of control were found in interviews with people who consider themselves as skilled employees and strive to reach the rank of managers; moreover, it has been determined that the aforesaid forms of control are carried out with the consent of the employees. Again, based on the data obtained, we can say that the right of people to speak about working conditions is an illusion. Capital actually takes full control of the labor itself by partially transferring the control and control of the work to the employees.