13
SOLOMON B. LEVINE” The White-Collar, Blue-Collar Alliance in Japan WHITE-COLLAR unionization has been an integral part of Japanese labor organization since the “rebirth” of the union movement almost twenty years ago. A third or more of total union membership, now approaching ten million, has been white-collar from the beginning. The large majority of these unionists either belong to the same unions as blue- collar workers or are members of unions afiiliated with industrial or national labor federations which include both sorts of workers. Despite the tradi- tional status gulf between white- and blue-collar workers, the “alliance” has been a viable one and has significantly shaped the leadership, ideology, structure, and activities of organized labor in postwar Japan. This article describes the position of the white-collar worker in Japan’s early industrial period, the major changes in the composition of the white- collar labor force over the course of industrialization, and the role of white-collar workers in the organization of postwar unions. It concludes with a general appraisal of the effects of organized white-collar workers on the labor movement’s organizational unity, power distribution, mili- tancy, and attitudes toward political and economic issues. Because the focus is primarily on the alliance, space permits only casual treatment of partic- ular aspects of Japan’s white-collar and professional unions, such as specific bargaining objectives, internal affairs, and tactics and strategy. Early Industrialization Japan’s rapid transformation from feudal agrarianism to an industrial society took place in the half century following 1870.l As early as the turn of the century, Japan had begun to take a place among the *Professor of Labor and Industrial Relations and Director, Center for Asian Studies, 1 See William W. Lockwood, Economic Development of Japan, Growth and Structural University of Illinois. Change, 1868-1 938 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954). 103

The White-Collar, Blue-Collar Alliance in Japan

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: The White-Collar, Blue-Collar Alliance in Japan

S O L O M O N B. L E V I N E ”

The White-Col lar , B lue -Col lar Alliance in J a p a n

WHITE-COLLAR unionization has been an integral part of Japanese labor organization since the “rebirth” of the union movement almost twenty years ago. A third or more of total union membership, now approaching ten million, has been white-collar from the beginning. The large majority of these unionists either belong to the same unions as blue- collar workers or are members of unions afiiliated with industrial or national labor federations which include both sorts of workers. Despite the tradi- tional status gulf between white- and blue-collar workers, the “alliance” has been a viable one and has significantly shaped the leadership, ideology, structure, and activities of organized labor in postwar Japan.

This article describes the position of the white-collar worker in Japan’s early industrial period, the major changes in the composition of the white- collar labor force over the course of industrialization, and the role of white-collar workers in the organization of postwar unions. It concludes with a general appraisal of the effects of organized white-collar workers on the labor movement’s organizational unity, power distribution, mili- tancy, and attitudes toward political and economic issues. Because the focus is primarily on the alliance, space permits only casual treatment of partic- ular aspects of Japan’s white-collar and professional unions, such as specific bargaining objectives, internal affairs, and tactics and strategy.

Early Industrialization Japan’s rapid transformation from feudal agrarianism to an

industrial society took place in the half century following 1870.l As early as the turn of the century, Japan had begun to take a place among the

*Professor of Labor and Industrial Relations and Director, Center for Asian Studies,

1 See William W. Lockwood, Economic Development of Japan, Growth and Structural University of Illinois.

Change, 1868-1 938 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954).

103

Page 2: The White-Collar, Blue-Collar Alliance in Japan

104 / SOLOMON B . LEVINE

major powers of the world. Relatively little social upheaval accompanied Japan’s “forced-march industrialization, however. Economic development proceeded with a continual and gradual blending of both traditional and modern elements of cultural forms, social structures, and political institu- tions, A broad-based popular consensus seemed to support the transition, and there were few demands for democratic participation. It took the devastating defeat of World War I1 and the drastic social, economic, and political reforms imposed by the Allied Occupation to achieve the latter.

It is clear that Japan’s industrialization did not depend on creating an “open” society.* The process required the establishment of wholly new economic enterprises which entailed complex, large-scale organization, steady introduction of advanced technology, and considerable social mobil- ity, but these were managed with a fairly rigidly defined status system which compartmentalized the work force into distinct functional groups.

While the new Meiji government abolished the traditional feudal classes, a new set of social statuses emerged which clearly marked off superiors and subordinates within an industrial structure. In part this result was a legacy of feudalism and the religious ethic that had taken root over centuries. Rigid divisions in the society were also perpetuated by the imposition of industrialization upon an existing agricultural base that remained essen- tially intact in the form of several million small farms mainly operated by extended families and the emergence of a dualistic economy in which small-scale family enterprise proliferated alongside relatively few large- scale modem undertakings.

White-collar Status It is not surprising that white-collar and professional groups

early attained high-status positions. The need for intellectual skills to plan, develop, and supervise new technology and complicated organization was immediately recognized. A first task for Meiji Japan was to structure a white-collar labor force committed to industrialization; this called for the rapid accumulation of administrators, engineers, technicians, medical per- sonnel, teachers, clerks, and the like. From the beginning, major resources were devoted to white-collar education and training, both at home and abroad, with considerable reliance upon direct instruction from foreign experts and advisers.’

2 For an analysis of the beginnings of the modern Japanese economy, see Thomas C. Smith, Political Change and lndustrlal Development in lapm: Gwemment Enterprise, 1868-1880 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1956).

3 Hisashi Kawada, “Industrialization and Educational Investment in the Meiji Era,” Edu- cational Inwstment in the Pacific Community (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1963), pp. 39-54.

Page 3: The White-Collar, Blue-Collar Alliance in Japan

Symposium: Japan / 105

Recruitment and selection of this new elite were concentrated mainly on high-status groups of the pre-Meiji period-samurai, merchant houses, feudal clan administrations, and wealthy farm families. To assure the com- petence of the white-collar cadres, Japan’s educational strategy provided a wide base of universal primary schooling upon which were erected narrow channels for specific secondary and higher education. While universal pri- mary education was intended to equip the population at large with the elementary skills necessary for economic change, it was also aimed at grading popular education on a systematic basis beyond this point, as evi- denced by the relatively delayed growth of the secondary school ~ystem.~ The latter was reserved largely for the elite selected to enter the white- collar positions in the upper echelons of the new economic and government organizations. An aspirant had to face stiff examinations, present flawless recommendations, and at times depend on connections. White-collar groups, thus, were sharply separated from the working population at large, and, it should be noted, the separation took place at an early age. Few who failed to scale the educational ladder at the beginning could later ascend to the white-collar hierarchy from a manual status.

The Patron-Client Relationship In addition to the education factor, another important de-

marcation between white- and blue-collar employees arose from the pattern of organization that typified Japanese enterprises. Traditional agrarian society imparted to the new industrial institutions a heritage of “patron- client” relationships in which close and intimate bonds were established between a superior and his immediate subordinates within and outside the workplace.6 In fact, nationalistic ideology quickly seized upon this Japanese ‘‘fandialism” to reinforce the commitment of the population to industrializa- tion. It stressed steadfast and exclusive identification of employees with their employer. What this meant in actuality was that Japanese organiza- tions typically were made up of networks of tightly knit, patron-client enti- ties, each with its master workman and his retainer-like entourage. This organizational system permeated the large modern enterprise as well as the small; and, while it was cumbersome for decision-making and adminis- tration, it capitalized on developing commitment to work and subservience in the organization.

Of al l the groups that participated in the industrializing process, the 4 See R. P. Dore, “Education in Japan’s Growth,” Padfic Afluh, XXVII (Spring, 1964),

6 A treatment of these relationships in Japan is found in John W. Bennett and Iwao Ishino, 86-79.

Paternultsm in the lupunese Economy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1963).

Page 4: The White-Collar, Blue-Collar Alliance in Japan

106 / SOLOMON B. LEVINE

white-collar employees most fully exemplified the behavior produced by the patron-client system. Once attached to a patron, there was little likeli- hood a white-collar worker would move from one enterprise to another, or even from one group to another within an enterprise. In turn, the perma- nent status and commitment of the white-collar worker was rewarded by lifetime tenure, income progression based on length of service, and a welter of paternalistic benefits. It took decades for blue-collar workers to achieve such terms of employment.

The patron-client arrangement also placed the white-collar employee in, or close to, key decision-making positions. Top managers came to depend on their white-collar underlings not only for mastery of technical detail but also for planning, developing, and supervising operations-all crucial tasks in an era when Japan was trying to catch up quickly with Western indus- trialized nations. The system enhanced status and reinforced identification with top leadership. There was little development of line-staff divisions, and even at present the concept is alien to most Japanese enterprise.

As the result of the highly personalized attachment of the white-collar worker to his superior, there was usually little awareness of occupational separateness. While a master of detail, he did not typically conceive of himself as a specialist, but rather as engaged in diverse and diffuse activities for his enterprise. Also, although not involved in direct supervision at the workplace, he performed some of the functions of a foreman.

The white-collar employee in Japan early became the “organization man” par excellence (aptly, the Japanese word is “company He was “enterprise conscious”-a phenomenon that was probably as true for the company-employed physician as it was for the office clerk. He was not likely to feel that he was a member either of the working class or the slowly developing middle class. This enterprise consciousness was to become an important theme in the postwar labor movement and to a large extent accounts for the present-day alliance of white- and blue-collar workers.

Evolution of the White-collar Labor Force In the early decades of Japan’s industrialization, white-collar

employment remained relatively small in relation to the whole industrial labor force. Until the thirties, the white-collar component probably had grown to little more than a tenth of the rionagricultural sector.

A dramatic shift set in following the Manchurian Incident of 1931 and the subsequent turn to militarism. Heavy industry began to expand at a

6 See Exra F. Vogel, Japan’s New Middle Class (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963).

Page 5: The White-Collar, Blue-Collar Alliance in Japan

Symposium: Japan / 107

rapid rate. Production in steel, machinery, shipbuilding, chemicals, and so forth leaped ahead; government agencies proliferated. By the end of World War 11, the number of white-collar workers was twice what it had been in 1931, while in the same 15-year span manual workers had increased 50 per cent.7 In 1944 every fourth member of the industrial work force was in the white-collar category. This ratio was accounted for not only by industrial expansion but also by management rationalization, rapid tech- nological change, increasingly complex organization, sprawling urban de- velopment, and the extension of government controls. Gradual growth of secondary and higher education and the widespread use of training-within- industry programs ‘furnished the personnel needed for white-collar and pro- f essional work.

Although the Japanese economy was virtually pulverized by the war (national income per capita dropped almost 50 per cent), it had become equipped with a substantial layer of white-collar and intellectual skills which were to prove of critical importance in reconstruction. The oppor- tunity came in 1949 when Allied Occupation policy was altered to allow Japan to develop into an industrial ally in the Cold War. Within five years, previous levels of economic achievement had been restored, and the Japa- nese economy went on to an unprecedented expansion which we are still witnessing. Today probably a third of the nonagricultural labor force is white collar, and for the labor force as a whole the figure is almost a fifth. (After 1960, it should be noted, agricultural employment, which for almost four decades had hovered about 15 million, began a precipitous decline.) The largest growth has been among engineers, technicians, and clerks, but there have also been sizeable expansions of medical workers, school teachers, and industrial managers. Clerical employees, as would be expected, have come to comprise the single largest category, probably accounting for at least a third of the total white-collar work force.

The employment picture changed greatly during the war and white- collar work lost much of its distinctiveness. Government wartime policy froze blue- and white-collar workers together in their enterprises and nar- rowed pay differentials. Comprehensive “patriotic labor associations” helped reduce blue- and white-collar status differences. Organizational complexity alone had begun to differentiate many white-collar employees, at least at the lower levels of the hierarchy, from their management patrons.

The process continued after the war. Educational attainment was stead- ily eroded as a mark of status, especially when the Occupation-sponsored

7 Fujibayashi Keizo, editor, Nihon R6d6 Und6 Shiry6, X (Tokyo: Chuo Koron Shuppan Jigyosha, 1959), 78-79.

Page 6: The White-Collar, Blue-Collar Alliance in Japan

108 / SOLOMON B. LEVINE

reforms opened secondary schooling to the entire school-age population and greatly increased the number and enrollments of universities and colleges. Female workers entered white-collar ranks in increasing numbers. More- over, from the thirties to the present, more and more blue-collar workers have been achieving lifetime employment commitments, wages based on length of service, and company-provided welfare.

The Advent of Unionism Unionism came abruptly onto the Japanese scene.' The call

for labor organization issued by the Allied Occupation raised a spectacular response from both white- and blue-collar workers. While the intention was to create an independent labor movement as a check on the possible re- surgence of militarism and oligarchical controls, the call appeared to offer workers the chance for security in a period of economic chaos.

Within a year after the surrender, more than five million workers had become union members. By 1949 union membership was 6.5 million, half of all the workers considered organizable. The number of members declined to less than six million in the following two years (chiefly as the result of reversals in Occupation and government labor policy, increased employer resistance, union reorganizations, and economic retrenchment), but growth continued once the recovery of the Japanese economy was well under way. Since that time, two to three hundred thousand additional members have been added each year, although membership has not kept pace with the expansion of the industrial labor force (from 1950 to 1961 the ratio organ- ized dropped steadily to about 34 per cent, but by 1964 it had climbed back to 36 per cent).@

The rapid response of white-collar employees to unionism was in part the result of the concentration of unions mainly in the large-scale public and private enterprises. Here white-collar workers were gathered in great numbers-in manufacturing and commercial firms, utilities, mining opera- tions, and the civil service (including public schools). The small establish- ments that abounded in manufacturing, farming, fishing, wholesale and retail trades, and construction were relatively untouched. Big-industry unionism predominated.

Furthermore, the structure of most unions readily accommodated white- collar workers. As many as 90 per cent of the unions were formed on the basis of an enterprise. The basic union unit typically was the plant or work- ~

sFor an anal sis of unions in Japan since World War 11, see m l n d d Relations in

9Jupun Labor BuUetin (Japan Institute of Labor, TokyorNew Seria, IV (March, 1965), Postwaz Japan (Uriana: University of Illinois Press, 1958), es

5-8.

ially ciaps. 3 and 4.

Page 7: The White-Collar, Blue-Collar Alliance in Japan

Symposium: Japan / 109

shop and, in the case of a multiplant company, sometimes extended across several industries to encompass an entire firm. There were few craft, re- gional, industrial, or general unions.

The enterprise base fitted the needs of both manual and nonmanual employees in the immediate postwar period. All shared the distress of drastically falling incomes and uncertainty about the very continuation of their enterprises. Much of the top leadership of business had been purged by Occupation edict; the great zaibatsu complexes were to be broken up; the operations of many enterprises were disrupted or paralyzed, This widespread insecurity drew white- and blue-collar workers together within their enterprises. The organization of single, all-embracing unions was facili- tated by the effective systems of communication that had resulted from long- established and tight-knit patron-client relationships. In most cases, all workers, whatever their work status, joined the local unit. Membership, in fact, often reached into the echelons of management, since in the typical Japanese scheme of organization the line between management and em- ployees was a hazy one (later, in 1947, the trade union law was revised in an attempt to draw clear lines between management and workers eligible to become union members).

Combined unions of white- and blue-collar members account for 60 per cent of the thousands of enterprise unions. At least 40 per cent of all white-collar unionists are members of these combined unions, and approxi- mately 20 per cent of all members of combined unions are white collar. Only in a few cases have white-collar workers within an enterprise with both blue- and white-collar employees developed separate organizations. More typically, the white-collar group forms a subdivision or branch of an enterprise union. Only in rare cases have white-collar employees broken away from an established enterprise union and set up an exclusive white- collar organization.

Sixty per cent of organized white-collar workers belong to unions which are essentially nonmanualist. This is primarily a structural matter, however. The unions concerned are in “pure” white-collar industries and enterprises, such as the national and local civil services, communications, education, banking and financial institutions, medical, and other nonmanual profes- sions. These unions, too, are typically based on the enterprise (or in case of government, the ministry or agency) and tend to be all-inclusive in membership.

The alliance of white- and blue-collar unionists has been further cemented through industrial and national labor federations. Enterprise unions are banded together for the most part along industrial lines, and many in turn

Page 8: The White-Collar, Blue-Collar Alliance in Japan

110 / SOLOMON B. LEVINE

are federated either directly or through the industrial organizations with national labor centers. Rival industrial unions and centers exist; however, the divisions are not along occupational lines, but rather are the result of ideological and political and, in some cases, personal differences.

Since 1954, after a series of reorganizations, four major centers, Sohya, E m e i , Shinsanbetsu, and Churitsuroren, have come into existence, although a number of national unions and enterprise unions have remained outside their folds. Each has a sizable white-collar component in either combined or pure white-collar enterprise unions. S~hy6, the dominant center with almost half the total union membership, embraces most of the public sector, including postal workers, telephone and telegraph employees, and public school teachers. Organized bank employees, 150,000 members, and life insurance workers, 165,000 members, have chosen to remain outside in their own independent federations. Unaffiliated groups account for no more than 20 per cent of all organized white-collar workers, however. There has been no serious attempt to form an exclusively white-collar national center.

Important gaps still remain, of course, in the unionization of white-collar groups, particularly in the wholesale and retail trades, in finance, insurance, and real estate, and among certain local government groups. But this is not a peculiarly white-collar problem. Where blue-collar workers are organ- ized, white-collar workers are also likely to be organized. Where blue-collar workers are not, neither are the white-collar. Should the Japanese labor movement succeed in extending its present organization, particularly on the enterprise basis, both groups would probably be gathered up.

White-collar Influence on the Labor Movement For two decades white-collar workers have played a highly

influential role in Japan's labor movement. Without them, it is dubious whether the movement would have been at all viable on any significant scale. White-collar personnel were instrumental in many cases in establish- ing the new unions, and, with the growth of the white-collar labor force, their role has not diminished. This is in sharp contrast to the prewar situa- tion, when the union movement was almost exclusively manual and tended to follow craft and industrial, rather than enterprise, lines of organization."

White-collar unionism can be traced back to the end of World War I, but it comprised only a small fraction (perhaps 2 per cent) of total trade union membership, which at its prewar height in 1936 attracted hardly

10 One of the best available treatments in English of prewar industrial relations in Japan is found in Mikio Sumiya, Social Impact of Industrialization in Japan (Tokyo: Japanese National Commission for Unesco, 1963).

Page 9: The White-Collar, Blue-Collar Alliance in Japan

Symposium: Japan / 111

more than 5 per cent of Japan’s wage and salary earners. The few white- collar unions tended to be exclusive, were mainly mutual benefit groups, and were treated with considerable suspicion by their blue-collar brethren. Halfhearted attempts were made to bring them into the various federa- tions that existed in the twenties and thirties, but principally for the purpose of serving the ideological rivalries which plagued the labor movement.” The one important result, however, was that from these white-collar unions there emerged articulate and radical leaders who, although suppressed and often jailed by the government, later became some of the chief organizers in the immediate postwar period. Among them were journalists, teachers, and professionals, most with advanced education, who had long been active in the prewar protest movements of the left. Released from jails and urged on by the Occupation, they provided the leadership which attracted other white-collar employees and intellectuals to unionism.

White-collar leadership also became prominent as the result of the in- ternal conditions of the major enterprises. As earlier noted, it was the white-collar employees who knew most intimately the detail of enterprise operations, and in fact, if not by authority, had major responsibility for developing from below many of the decisions formally made by top man- agement. In these crucially important positions, the white-collar employees could readily take command of their enterprises, so to speak, when the dire uncertainties of the immediate postwar period beset Japanese industry. However, the actions they took were essentially in behalf of their own particular enterprise “families,” now legitimized in the form of labor unions.

Union o5cers usually retained their jobs in the enterprise, and so white- collar workers who were elected to union office proceeded to cany out collective bargaining, conduct political campaigns, and administer union as well as company affairs. Often both white- and blue-collar members held union posts, or rotated them from one group to the other. A survey in 1951 indicated that about half of all union officeholders at that time were from white-collar backgrounds, and it is suspected that this ratio has declined little over the years.

The patron-client arrangements have also meant that in most organiza- tions blue-collar workers have tended to look to white-collar personnel for leadership. This attachment has had notable results for blue-collar union members in terms of providing both psychological and economic security. For example, the alliance equips the union with the most knowledgeable, educated, and articulate elements in the enterprise and thus serves to break

11See Noda Masaho, Nihon No S u r d Man (Tokyo: Aoki Shoten, 1957); and Nishioka Takao, Nihon N o RGdG Kumiai Soshiki (Tokyo: Japan Institute of Labor, 1960).

Page 10: The White-Collar, Blue-Collar Alliance in Japan

112 / SOLOMON B . LEVINE

down barriers in dealing with management. It also helps to assure blue- collar members of lifetime employment commitments in the firm (and con- comitant wage increases and benefits), similar to those which white-collar employees gained in the earlier periods of industrialization. In turn, sup- port from the blue-collar workers tends to strengthen the identification of the white-collar workers with the enterprise and thus fortify the security and status that historically arose from their “enterprise consciousness.” Unlike the situations in advanced western nations, in Japan there was little feeling of middle-class independence to stand in the way of this develop- ment or to create a gulf between the blue- and White-collar groups. The joining of enterprise unions by white-collar employees has been a means to preserve their relative status position within the organization, and, as a result, they have often been among the most active members.

The alliance of white- and blue-collar workers has lent the enterprise union certain special continuing characteristics. These are to be found in the nature of the wage system, issues raised in collective bargaining, mem- bership jurisdiction of the unions, and labor involvement in political and ideological movements. Each of these areas reflects white-collar influence.

Wages. Wage rate differentials within most enterprises in Japan are largely the product of the white-collar status system which became institu- tionalized in the earlier decades of industrialization. Basically, the wage rate, usually computed on a monthly or daiIy basis, is geared to two factors: level of education on entering the organization and length of service in the organization. It presumes career-long employment in the firm. Although egalitarianism swept the Japanese labor movement in the immediate post- war years and brought a sharp compression of wage scales, once recovery of the Japanese economy was under way, the education and seniority wage structure reappeared in full force. Now, however, the structure applies to all permanent workers, blue and white collar, and for the former repre- sents a major achievement.

Attempts by management in recent years to base wages on productive contribution and job classification have so far had limited success. The combined unions see the abandonment of the education and length-of- service wage base as an attack on their organizational unity. Paradoxically, the differentiating wage system serves as a means of ordering relationships among the various groups in the union and strengthening “enterprise con- sciousness.” And because of the solidarity the system encourages at the basic union level, it is also regarded as a means for assuring loyalty to the national industrial federations and labor centers. Although young skilled

Page 11: The White-Collar, Blue-Collar Alliance in Japan

Symposium: Japan / 113

workers exhibit considerable dissatisfaction with the system, anythmg but a gradual change would have serious disruptive consequences for the labor movement.

Collective bargaining. Enterprise unions have therefore concerned them- selves with a relatively narrow range of collective bargaining issues, con- fined to the enterprise level. Much attention is devoted to wage and benefit increases either through the so-called “base up” system or annual or semi- annual bonuses, both of which affect the enterprise union members as a single group. There is apt to be little effort spent on individual or subgroup grievances through the formal collective bargaining and contract adminis- tration machinery,

Because issues are peculiar to the enterprise, the enterprise unions have usually jealously guarded their major role in negotiating directly with man- agement. Little authority is passed to the federations, so that the principal activities of the latter are mainly political action and coordination of the “base up” drives in the annual “Spring Struggle.”

lurkdiction. Perhaps the most critical issue in bargaining relationships is the preservation of the enterprise union’s membership jurisdiction. This issue is sigmficant from the point of view of permanent attachment to the enterprise rather than management resistance to union organization. When the new unions were formed, a primary economic motivation was to secure or r e a f f i lifetime career commitments for aJl workers who were considered regular members of the organization. As a result, the enterprise union tended to limit its membership exclusively to workers who fell in the category of permanent employee. In most cases, these unions have shown little interest in admitting temporary or casual employees. They often permit consider- able leeway to management to vary the size of the work force by the employment of such groups and rarely object to management’s resorting to subcontracting as a means for countering inflexible commitments to per- manent workers.

To assure further the permanent identification of union members with the enterprise, most contracts provide for the union shop and an automatic checkoff; the severest labor disputes in Japan have resulted from manage- ment attempts to tamper with these provisions in labor agreements. The union shop is crucial to white-collar as well as blue-collar employees, since both groups have been threatened steadily by rationalization, automation, and shifts in economic activity.

The central concern with permanent employment within the enterprise

Page 12: The White-Collar, Blue-Collar Alliance in Japan

114 / SOLOMON B. LEVINE

accounts both for the lack of centralization of Japan’s labor movement and its inability to organize rapidly in new areas. And it is why enterprise unions have kept fairly firm control over their own collective bargaining.

Politicd influence. The Japanese trade union movement has also been influenced by the social reform and democratization drives which became full-blown in the immediate postwar period. Unions were the basic build- ing blocks for the new liberal and radical political parties which arose to oppose reaction and conservatism. As mentioned, white-collar elements provided much of the leadership for these ideological and political groups and today they head major federations and centers. One result is that the political sympathies of the white-collar unions lie strongly with the socialist groups and parties which stand as the chief opposition to the Conservative Government.” This tendency is reinforced at the local level by the entry of new white-collar employees who have participated in radical student movements at the universities.

Enterprise unions often become hotbeds of ideological rivalry, abetted by the competition of rival national labor centers. In some important cases, unions have split, creating the so-called “first” and “second” union situa- tions in an enterprise. Characteristically, however, these are not break- aways of occupational groups, such as the white-collar workers, but are results of attempts to seize control of the entire union membership.

Government workers’ unions, notably the public school teachers, are particularly aggressive in the political sphere. Partly this is due to curbs placed on their rights to organize, bargain, and strike which were enacted during the period 1947-1952. Partly it reflects the fact that these unions negotiate directly with the central government or its agencies, and there- fore their demands tend to become national issues in the Cabinet and Diet. Partly it is attributable to firm employment tenure. The militancy of the government workers’ unions often influences private industry unions, and it is through the government unions that the major labor center, S6hy6, conducts most of its political and economic campaigns.

Conclusion The alliance of white- and blue-collar workers has proved a

mixed blessing in terms of labor movement solidarity. Enterprise unionism, especially the combined type, tends to preserve the compartmentalization

12 For an analysis of white-collar ‘‘class” and political identification, see “Special Traits of White-collar Workers in Large Urban Areas,” Journal of Sodal and Pol4tlcal Ideas in Japan, I (August, 1963), 78-78.

Page 13: The White-Collar, Blue-Collar Alliance in Japan

Symposium: Japan / 115

of Japanese society which was inherited from the preindustrial era. Even though they may be counted on at times for concentrated support of politi- cal, ideological, or economic issues, enterprise unions are prone to be inward-looking and tend to alternate between quiescence and militance.13 No doubt, the presence of a significant white-collar element in labor union membership has contributed to this pattern. In the postwar period Japan finally gained a widespread union movement, based significantly on an alliance of white- and blue-collar workers, but it is characterized by rivalry, division, and an inability to make a radical change in the traditional status- based social system. At the same time, however, the movement has pro- vided a long-delayed organizational means for transition toward industrial democracy, albeit in fits and starts.

13 See Bernard Karsh and Solomon B. Levine, “Present Dilemmas of the Japanese Labor Movement,” Labor Law J o u d , XI11 (July, 1962), 541545.