> management prefers a pliant, docile, easily controlled workforce
I am trying to understand why, and what the incentive is. If the overall cost balloons up, what is it about a docile workforce that is so lucrative to these companies? Ability to pay lower wages? Not having to search for replacement employees every now and then?
Who said a docile workforce is lucrative for the companies? There are many reasons they may not be. However, in most cases, "the company" doesn't make these decisions - managers do. And plenty of managers prefer a docile workforce whether or not it's good for the bottom line.
>what is it about a docile workforce that is so lucrative to these companies
It is not just about the money. It is about the power, too.
It is peculiar naivete unique to our dominant school of economics to think that the bottom line is at the heart of every decision made by C level executives.
It's not necessarily lucrative at all. Many managers confuse personal power with collective profit, and are crafting their departments to be lord over a fiefdom rather than to contribute maximally to the business.
People are not rational market actors, especially not deep within organizations.
I am trying to understand why, and what the incentive is. If the overall cost balloons up, what is it about a docile workforce that is so lucrative to these companies? Ability to pay lower wages? Not having to search for replacement employees every now and then?