We see steady development in technology in the evolving world, and businesses seek every opportunity to maximise their efficiency. Automation and incorporation of machinery in the production process has dramatically improved business productivity and has also cut costs dramatically in the long run. However, we can debate the extent to which it is beneficial to society. When we are replacing manual labour with automation, it may benefit the company, but what about the individual lives and livelihoods at stake?
While the initial process of installing and re-training the workforce to adapt to new technology may be expensive and time-consuming, the benefits seem to greatly outweigh the costs – in terms of both production costs as well as production productivity. Automation is when machinery replaces the work done by manual labour to handle different processes in production.
Replacing manual labour can optimise production costs in reducing the time and effort required and lowering other expenses involved in the process. In practice, it eases the company’s production process. With lower wages, a company is free to re-invest in improving the quality of products. Machines, obviously, don’t need leaves or sick days, which helps a company boost their efficiency. Besides, the consistency and speed of machines far surpass the work done by manual labour. On the other hand, is it fair for a corporation to value its own profits above the well-being of its employees?
Besides their high installation and maintenance costs, it also risks injury and damage to products and machine operators. Machines cannot entirely replace manual labour as technicians will still be required to operate and maintain them. A large layoff of employees can also taint one’s public image and reputation since it may lead people to believe that all the company thinks about is profit with no regard for other people. Machinery requires much larger space than manual labour, so there is a risk of increasing rents and office/factory space required; it also hurts the mobility of a firm.
Machinery requires specialised labour to attend to them, so new-age workers must train in upcoming fields like computer science to ensure they don’t fall prey to structural unemployment and their skill set does not become obsolete. Earlier, manufacturing jobs didn’t require a degree or higher-order skill; physical ability and task management were enough, but machinery will make jobs inaccessible for those who cannot afford a vital education at good universities.
A company must run a cost-benefit analysis before automating its production process. It is vital to comprehend the consequences and impacts of their decision before committing to one method. Both outcomes need to be analysed thoroughly; will the profits offset the costs of installation, replacing labour, and image manipulation or scandal (such as protests) in the corporate scenario? The ideal response to this scenario is to strike a balance between these two production methods. Managing labour and machinery may be challenging, but a company must realise that a computer program can’t run all aspects of production. Human supervision is essential in ensuring that there are no malfunctions, and should there be an error, then ensuring that it is rectified. Instead of terminating their employment, a company can instead invest in re-training labour to operate machines. Not only will they be willing to work at a lower rate than other skilled technicians (since the company itself trains them), but it will also boost morale and foster a stronger sense of community and loyalty in them, which are essential for a healthy, smooth-functioning workspace. If we can strike the right chord and attain a perfect equilibrium, then automation is a tool that can – and already has in some ways – truly revolutionise industry.
