After the Second World War, unionism in the Japanese auto industry was

Question

After the Second World War, unionism in the Japanese auto industry was company-based, with separate unions in each auto company. Most company unions played no independent role in bargaining shop-floor issues or pressing autoworkers' grievances. In a 1981 survey, for example, fewer than 1 percent of workers said they sought union assistance for work-related problems, while 43 percent said they turned to management instead. There was little to distinguish the two in any case: most union officers were foremen or middle-level managers, and the union's role was primarily one of passive support for company goals. Conflict occasionally disrupted this cooperative relationship—one company union's opposition to the productivity campaigns of the early 1980s has been cited as such a case. In 1986, however, a caucus led by the Foreman's Association forced the union's leadership out of office and returned the union's policy to one of passive cooperation. In the United States, the potential for such company unionism grew after 1979, but it had difficulty taking hold in the auto industry, where a single union represented workers from all companies, particularly since federal law prohibited foremen from joining or leading industrial unions.

The Japanese model was often invoked as one in which authority decentralized to the shop floor empowered production workers to make key decisions. What these claims failed to recognize was that the actual delegation of authority was to the foreman, not the workers. The foreman exercised discretion over job assignments, training, transfers, and promotions; worker initiative was limited to suggestions that fine-tuned a management-controlled production process. Rather than being proactive, Japanese workers were forced to be reactive, the range of their responsibilities being far wider than their span of control. For example, the founder of one production system, Taichi Ohno, routinely gave department managers only 90 percent of the resources needed for production. As soon as workers could meet production goals without working overtime, 10 percent of remaining resources would be removed. Because the "OH! NO!" system continually pushed the production process to the verge of breakdown in an effort to find the minimum resource requirement, critics described it as "management by stress."  
 1 
 1. The passage is primarily concerned with

(A) contrasting the role of unions in the Japanese auto industry with the role of unions in the United
States auto industry after the Second World War
(B) describing unionism and the situation of workers in the Japanese auto industry after the Second World War
(C) providing examples of grievances of Japanese auto workers against the auto industry after the Second World War
(D) correcting a misconception about the role of the foreman in the Japanese auto industry's union system after the Second World War
(E) reasserting the traditional view of the company's role in Japanese auto workers' unions after the Second World War

2 
 2. According to the passage, a foreman in a United States auto company differed from a foreman in a Japanese auto company in that the foreman in the United States would

(A) not have been a member of an auto workers' union
(B) have been unlikely to support the goals of company management
(C) have been able to control production processes to a large extent
(D) have experienced greater stress
(E) have experienced less conflict with workers

3 
 3. The author of the passage mentions the "OH! NO!" system primarily in order to

(A) indicate a way in which the United States industry has become more like the Japanese auto industry
(B) challenge a particular misconception about worker empowerment in the Japanese auto industry 
(C) illustrate the kinds of problem-solving techniques encouraged by company unions in Japan
(D) suggest an effective way of minimizing production costs in auto manufacturing
(E) provide an example of the responsibilities assumed by a foreman in the Japanese auto industry

4 
 4. It can be inferred that the author of the passage sees which of the following as the primary advantage to companies in implementing the "OH! NO!" system?

(A) It permitted the foreman to take initiative.
(B) It minimized the effort required to produce automobiles.
(C) It ensured that production costs would be as low as possible.
(D) It allowed the foreman to control the production process.
(E) It required considerable worker empowerment to achieve managers' goals.

JarvisR · Accepted Answer

Time taken 12 mins.
1. The passage is primarily concerned with
B. describing unionism and the situation of workers in the Japanese auto industry after the Second World War
Para 1 and Para 2 discuss primarily abt the unionism and the situation of workers.Although it introduces America in 1st Para, its primary focus stays on the workers in the Japanese auto industry.

2. According to the passage, a foreman in a United States auto company differed from a foreman in a Japanese auto company in that the foreman in the United States would
A. not have been a member of an auto workers' union
"In the United States, the potential for such company unionism grew after 1979, but it had difficulty taking hold in the auto industry, where a single union represented workers from all companies, particularly since federal law prohibited foremen from joining or leading industrial unions."

3. The author of the passage mentions the "OH! NO!" system primarily in order to
B. challenge a particular misconception about worker empowerment in the Japanese auto industry
"The Japanese model was often invoked as one in which authority decentralized to the shop floor empowered production workers to make key decisions. What these claims failed to recognize blah blah.
 For example, the founder of one production system, Taichi Ohno, blah blah"

4. It can be inferred that the author of the passage sees which of the following as the primary advantage to companies in implementing the "OH! NO!" system?
C. It ensured that production costs would be as low as possible.
"Taichi Ohno, routinely gave department managers only 90 percent of the resources needed for production. As soon as workers could meet production goals without working overtime, 10 percent of remaining resources would be removed".

GMATNinja · Answer

The "OH! NO!" system is not one that the production workers at Taichi Ohno proactively chose to adopt; rather it is one that the workers are forced to react to because the founder forced it upon them.

Let's break down the second paragraph: "The Japanese model was often invoked as one in which authority decentralized to the shop floor empowered production workers to make key decisions". However, "actual delegation of authority was to the foreman, not the workers." In other words, the Japanese model was often seen as one in which authority was delegated to production workers on the shop floor. The author believes this view was a misconception because, in reality, authority was delegated to the foreman and not to the workers on the shop floor. Thus, the foreman would have significant authority (job assignments, training, transfers, etc), while the authority (i.e. "initiative") of the production workers was limited to fine-tuning processes largely beyond their control. So the production workers could not take initiative and be proactive; rather, they could only react to the processes dictated by management.

Even though the Japanese model was seen as one that empowered production workers to make key decisions, in reality, production workers under the Japanese model had little control, if any, over key decisions. The "OH! NO!" system is cited as evidence in support of the author's view, which is that the Japanese model did NOT in fact empower production workers to make key decisions. Choice (B) fits with this analysis.

As for choice (C), the "OH! NO!" system does not "illustrate the kinds of problem-solving techniques encouraged by company unions in Japan". We have no idea if other companies in Japan utilized the "OH! NO!" system or similar techniques. All we know is that the system is an example of a production system that did not delegate significant authority to workers and that forced workers to be reactive rather than proactive.

I hope this helps!

sriharsha63 · Answer

In question 3 , i have opted for option C. 
In the passage, it says that rather than being proactive the Japanese workers are being reactive and then the passage cites the Oh no! example. From this i understood that Japanese people adopt this mechanism to "react" to the circumstances rather than estimating the resources (count) before hand (thus refraining from being proactive). Can you please help me understand where i went wrong in this question.

anmol28 · Answer

could you please explain question-4. No where in question the cost is mentioned. I think ans should be B?

GMATNinja · Answer

With the "OH! NO!" system, department managers are given "only 90 percent of the resources needed for production". Workers are then pushed until they meet production goals without overtime. At that point, resources are cut again, and the cycle is repeated. This system most likely involves CONSIDERABLE effort on the part of the workers and the department managers, so (B) should be eliminated. However, this approach would minimize the COSTS of production, since resources (and, thus, costs) are cut whenever production goals are met without overtime. (C) is the best option.

DogGoesWoof · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja

For the 4th Question, the passage states : "Because the "OH! NO!" system continually pushed the production process to the verge of breakdown in an effort to find the minimum resource requirement”

From this I understand that the production process was always made to work on minimum resources/ requirement i.e. the minimum effort required to continue production. Hence I chose option B - but B also mentions “automobiles” and the OH!NO! statement in the passage doesn’t mention automobiles specifically. Is this why B is wrong? I didn’t consider C because I believed 'OH! NO!’ brought down resource requirement and not production costs.

GMATNinja · Answer

The key to distinguishing between these two choices is the meaning of these words: Resource , especially in a business management context, commonly means money to be spent. Cost commonly means an amount of money to be spent. Effort is not a synonym for money, cost, or resources. It most commonly refers to work being put in by people. When describing the "OH! NO!" system in paragraph 2, the author describes how Ohno continuously denied managers "the resources needed for production," all "in an effort to find the minimum resource requirement." Since the system's objective is to minimize the resources required for production, we infer that the primary advantage to companies is the same: production at the lowest possible level of resources. Under the "OH! NO!" system, a.k.a. "management by stress," the resources provided to department managers repeatedly shrank, until the production process was at the verge of breakdown. The author even tells us that the range of responsibilities given to Japanese workers was "far wider than their span of control." Under such a system, we can infer that workers would be expending more effort in order to make up for their minimized level of resources. This is why Choice (B) is wrong. It doesn't match the picture of a high-stress, low-resource environment presented by the author. Choice (C) doesn't use the phrase "production resources." However, since we know that "resource" acts as a synonym for "money," the two phrases are basically interchangeable in this context. We keep (C) because the "OH! NO!" system was designed to find the minimum resource requirement for production (i.e. the lowest production cost). And man, this question makes me want to crack awful Dad jokes. Bad example: I hope this explanation makes you go "OH! YEAH!" Ugh, that was awful. Can I give myself negative kudos?

kunal1295 · Answer

In 1986, however, a caucus led by the Foreman's Association forced the union's leadership out of office and returned the union's policy to one of passive cooperation.
I could not comprehend this sentence.What does the author mean by " out of office? ", " returned "!
Though none of the questions were asked from this very part, I still want to know the meaning!

GMATNinja · Answer

To be forced "out of office" means to be forced to give up a leadership position. In this case, "a caucus led by the Foreman's Association forced the union's leadership out of office" -- so, a group led by the Foreman's Association forced the people in leadership positions in the union to leave their roles.

Then, this group "returned the union's policy to one of passive cooperation." When the  old  union leadership (the ones forced to give up their positions) were in charge, they pursued more aggressive policies against the company's productivity campaigns. The group that replaced them (the caucus led by the Foreman's Association) went back to cooperating with the company, rather than opposing it. This cooperation was pretty typical of unions in the auto industry starting after WWII.

I hope that helps!

mSKR · Answer

After the Second World War,  unionism  in the Japanese auto industry was company-based, with separate unions in each auto company. Most company  unions  played no independent role in bargaining shop-floor issues or pressing autoworkers' grievances. In a 1981 survey, for example, fewer than 1 percent of workers said they sought union assistance for work-related problems, while 43 percent said they turned to management instead.  There was little to distinguish the two in any case: most union officers were foremen or middle-level managers, and the union's role was primarily one of passive support for company goals.  Conflict occasionally disrupted this cooperative relationship—one company union's opposition to the productivity campaigns of the early 1980s has been cited as such a case. In 1986, however, a caucus led by the  Foreman's Association  forced the union's leadership out of office and returned the union's policy to one of passive cooperation. In the United States, the potential for such company unionism grew after 1979, but it had difficulty taking hold in the auto industry, where a single union represented workers from all companies, particularly since federal law prohibited foremen from joining or leading industrial unions.

The Japanese model was often invoked as one in which authority decentralized to the shop floor empowered production workers to make key decisions.  What these claims failed to recognize was that the actual delegation of authority was to the foreman, not the workers . The  foreman  exercised discretion over job assignments, training, transfers, and promotions; worker initiative was limited to suggestions that fine-tuned a management-controlled production process. Rather than being proactive , Japanese workers  were forced to be reactive, the range of their responsibilities being far wider than their span of control. For example, the founder of one production system, Taichi Ohno, routinely gave department managers only 90 percent of the resources needed for production. As soon as workers could meet production goals without working overtime, 10 percent of remaining resources would be removed. Because the "OH! NO!" system continually pushed the production process to the verge of breakdown in an effort to find the minimum resource requirement, critics described it as "management by stress."

Hi  GMATNinja   bm2201   Sajjad1994   souvik101990   CrackVerbalGMAT   EducationAisle   ChiranjeevSingh   ottocento

Could you please give your opinion why not D but B.
D seems such a good option, The passage mentions twists about their role, their main role in union after 2nd world war, played a key role for unions and companies and in 2nd para , authorize workers .
I was inclined to choose D because of the twist , that becme something like primary as they are part of unions and related with workers.
Sometimes , the primary purpose is found to based on even 1 statement that has switch in the end

Please share your opinion.
Thanks!

GMATNinja · Answer

Question 1 
 
Be careful about matching words that are found in the passage with words that are found in the answer choices. It’s easy to think that because a certain term appears in the passage, it should also appear in the correct answer choice. But that’s not always the case. Rather than focusing on particular words or phrases in each paragraph, let’s consider the purpose of each paragraph as a whole.

Paragraph 1: The author describes the structure of auto unions in Japan following World War II. 
 Paragraph 2: The author explains workers’ participation in and influence (or lack thereof) over unions post-WWII.

Question 1 asks that we identify the author’s primary purpose in the passage. With that in mind, here’s (D):

The author does correct a misconception about the role of the foreman in the second paragraph, but is that the author’s primary purpose throughout the passage? No. The author merely brings up the role of the foreman to further his/her point that workers were not empowered by the Japanese union model. In other words, the role of the foreman is brought up to support the author’s point about workers, but the role of the foreman is not the author’s primary purpose. Eliminate (D).

And here’s (B):

As we identified earlier, the first paragraph of the passage describes unionism in the Japanese auto industry post-WWII. The second paragraph goes on to discuss how workers were not empowered through this system because the foreman often exercised key authority. This is exactly what is described by (B), so it is the best answer choice.

I hope that helps!

kartickdey · Answer

The second paragraph appeared to me to be applicable to every industry. I thought that the author is not discussing only about auto industry in the second paragraph but rather he is speaking in a general sense as the auto industry has not been mentioned anywhere in the second paragraph. That might be my misunderstanding. I eliminated B and choose D because in option B, auto industry is specifically mentioned and that is why the scope of option B appeared to me narrow.

After the Second World War, unionism in the Japanese auto industry was

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

After the Second World War, unionism in the Japanese auto industry was

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards