1) Demystifying the globalization: according to the author, globalization in general, and service sector-oriented economy is not a sudden phenomenon, but it is a continuation of earlier structural change happening from the world war onwards. The prominence of the service sector, which is considered as the defining character of globalization actually started with the war economy and post-war consequence as tertiary jobs, mostly women oriented, at the expense of both agriculture and industrial sectors. So she argues that there is nothing new about the exploitations and gimmicks happening in the name of globalization, but on the other hand, it is the flexible accumulation of capital by restructuring and reorganizing industrial relations and labour.
2) Feminization of labour: the author argues a similar concept to substantiate her argument, she does not consider globalization as an emancipation project, but she believes that it is the newest efficient way to exploit the cheap labour for footloose jobs shifted to the third world from the first world. For example, it is a widely accepted fact that women were too able to come out of their homemaker role and participate in wage-based economy because of globalization and boom of service sector along with it. But on the other hand, it made the wage cheaper and threatened the job security of men who were pleading for permanent jobs and better pay. The women were used as cheap labour with much patience and discipline in contract basis with less wage.
3) Mechanization and globalization: one of the biggest change happened along with globalization in the 1990s were the introductions of mechanizations in every small enterprise. Till then automation and mechanization were costly and it was implemented only at bigger industries such as engineering, steel, petrochemicals etc. due to globalization and end of license raj, Indian small scale industries also rescheduled number of workers, productivity and working hours and status of workers. Mechanization and automation in this small industry, where most of India's unorganized working class worked, made a reserve army of unemployed workers and worker's temporary status in the jobs.
"Sociologist Rick Fantasia argues that the bureaucratic routines imposed by Taft- Hartley for unions to provide member services channel conflict so that solidarity emerges only when workers must rely upon on such cohesion as a means to oppose employers outside these formal bureaucratic channels. Combs-Schilling’s (1980) research with United Auto Workers (UAW) reinforces this view. Fantasia argues that in extra procensual events, to use Bohannan’s (1958) term, solidarity emerges; but under normal working conditions, there is no space for it. Durrenberger’s (2002) study of Chicago stewards affirms this finding. Thus everyday routine action reflects less interest in unions and organizing than polls indicate (Bronfenbrenner et al. 1998)"
Servicing and organizing: one of the key reasons behind the decline of unionization and its decline in organizing is related to the issue of underdeveloped class consciousness, which will only be formulated in the context of the process of 'organizing". The anti-union notions limited the trade unions and labour unions, into such a state that unions were redirected only to do servicing part of unionisation, which doesn't give many opportunities for collective feeling and consciousness. The people who are part of unions itself are forced to believe it as an autocratic organisation, which is based on rational choice rather than the emotions urged to defend human rights.
Failure of unions: we can't blame only those hostile groups of unionisation for the decline of the collective power of American trade unions. The responsibility to act on such a vulnerable situation was lost among most situations. The authors accuse most of these organisations waited till apocalypse to happen and take action. The unions were a failure in recognizing structural changes happening along with globalization, privatization and offshoring
Way of organizing: the author argues about different schools of understanding about unionism and organising based on their differences in working style. he talks about political ecology of labour, collective action theory, social movement theory etc. all of them try to understand the different ways of organizing among American working class in this fluid economy under neoliberal conditions.
1)The relation between call centre work and social status: the author argues that in the early 2000s, working in a call centre or BPO or any IT-enabled services is considered as upward mobility to achieve a higher service status, especially among urban youth. in a traditional society like India, where patronisation is an important aspect of social life , the author argues that in the post-call centre economy , parents of middle class and upper class distinguished themselves from their counterparts at poorest sections of society by providing amenities and taking care of the expenses of their 'children' even after they complete their under graduation. They were ashamed to allow their children to earn their own bread because of the social stigma attached to part time work and labour itself. But after the success of call centre economy, this view point had changed. So there is a revolutionary change in the attitude towards employment at least than the ' labour itself.
2) Technology and middle class: the colonial legacy and post-colonial developmental policies nurtured an abstract class of Indians who were diverse in region, religion and caste and had different interests. It has been confusing idea because of the range of people involved in it. The coming of dot com boom, internet networking and IT-enabled flexible economy redefined the Indian middle class. Even though it was still an abstract group, an identity along with its own politics formed in the context of technological innovations and preference for certain jobs. According to author. The key question she is “interested in the ways in which the call centre industry convinced a largely middle class audience about the desirability of this kind of work."
3) Flexibility: what makes the author to quote widely from the works of Marxist geographer like David Harvey is all about the importance of the time and space in the era of late capitalism. According to the author, time is the new currency by which capitalism is running and flexibility is the defining ideology of late capitalism. The technology are aspired to be products of flexibility. It makes things easier and enables to move beyond the factors of time and space. But the author tries to understand the dialectics of space at global and local interaction. According to mathangi Krishnamurthy, flexibility is the key which defined the call centre economy and which is rearranging the social order of Indian urban space and its populace.
1) Social consequences of the technology: one of the major criticism levelled against the social constructivist is they conveniently removed their priority to study the consequences of technology, which the earlier scholars like Marx, Heidegger and others have done. The top priority of SCOT scholars was unpacking the black box and describing it rather than understanding the value orientation that technology caused. Because of this, according to Winner, this group of scholars are unaware of the fact that technology itself is political and it leads to power structure and hierarchy.
2) Technology/ science relationship: Langdon winner argues that the very root of the conceptual mistake done by the social constructivist is related to their conception of technology is equal to science or there are no boundaries. This leads them to argue that the sociology of science and its premises can be used for a better understanding of technology and technological change. For example, winner says “As they go about opening the Black box, the historians and sociologists in this school of thought follow methodological guidelines established during the past two decades within the sociology of science, in particular, an approach that studies the sociology of scientific knowledge (Collins, 1983) ".
3) Irrelevant social groups: the major defect of social constructivism, according to Winner, is their misunderstanding of social groups involved and not involved in a technological phenomenon. They have labelled them as 'relevant social group'. The author argues this as a narrowness in both theoretical and analytical understandings. The dominant narratives are rewritten through this representational understanding, but what about those who are outside of this pale. Does he argue that you can make a dichotomy of cyclists and anti-cyclists, but what about who is out of its imagination? Are we going to reduce and generalise them as anti-cyclist? And still, is the cyclist the referral and central point of debate? The winner argues that this kind of beurocratic and pluralistic approach still lead us to issues we deal in understanding the technology.
1) Neglect of social structure: The author argues that there is a careless approach in understanding the social structure or defining it by the SCOT Scholars. He argues it is beyond the narrative of mere description or identification of relevant social groups, but other important players such as outsiders (and insiders) should be thoroughly 'located' in both cultural and historical context.
2) Short comes of interpretative flexibility: he argues that both pinch and Bijker had taken this idea as taken for granted. According to him it solely did not help us to understand the situations or social determination of technology. According to Russell “An explanation of technological change must show not only what social groups think about an artefact, but also what they are able to do about it". So neither its social objectives nor imagination alone helps to understand technology.
3) The "power" of technology - by referring to the tenets of 'labour process theory author argues that technology is inherently defined and used by dominant groups. Neither a worker nor citizen may have the opportunity to participate in its designing, nor are they benefited from it. Sometimes it will be affecting them badly.