Japanese Protest or Strike a unique Win-Win approach

 

In India, any form of strike or protest is well known to everyone. Pressurise govt. or management to meet their demands. We never bother about its cost or value we have to pay for. We have shut down a few industries. we have seen buses on fire, breaking windows, slashing tires, defacing signs, damaging public property (benches, playgrounds), arson, all involving the intentional destruction or defacement of another's public or private property. It's an unlawful act that ranges from minor annoyances to significant destruction, incurring cleanup and repair costs. breaking park benches or damaging playground equipment.In a nutshell, property destruction. It is a normal routine for us in any form of strike or protest, traffic blockage. Train and other public utility services to stall or paralyse, causing inconvenience to common people. But there are rare examples that are different in their approach to strike or protest, that as Japan.

In Japan, there's a unique approach to strikes called "production control" or "work-to-rule", where instead of stopping work, employees continue to work strictly according to the rules and regulations, often leading to increased productivity. This approach is used to pressure management to meet their demands. Is it true?

Yes, it was that in post-war Japan, there was a distinctive labour tactic known as “production control” (and related “work-to-rule,rule-bound work (by the book) work). But there are some important clarifications:

The original “production control” refers to a quite specific historical tactic: workers taking over the workplace (occupying it), running production themselves, excluding management.

 The “work-to-rule means where employees follow every regulation strictly to slow or disrupt operations is related but legally and practically distinct. Japan has seen such tactics in mid-20th-century labour disputes in the chaotic post-war period of union activities. Such tactics were far more common then. where instead of stopping work, employees continue to work strictly according to the rules and regulations, often leading to increased productivity. This approach is often used to pressure management to meet their demands without resorting to traditional strikes.

Yomiuri Shimbun (newspaper) — first recorded “production control” (October 1945)

One of the first instances of “production control” occurred at Yomiuri. As workers were legally prohibited from striking (stoppage of printing work) under the post-war occupation rules, the union instead locked out management and did the newspaper work without instructions from anyone.  handling everything from production to distribution.

The goal was to press demands (e.g., higher wages)  yet continue the business to avoid public backlash from a full shutdown.

Post-war broader wave of “production control” (1945–1950)

Immediately after WWII, many companies faced financial difficulties, uncertain supply lines, inflation, and potential shutdowns. Unions — newly empowered under occupation reforms — sometimes responded not by stopping work but by taking over operations themselves, to keep the enterprise running and preserve jobs.

It wasn’t a mass-scale constant tactic, but in that immediate post-war environment, there were around 133 disputes using production control in the first year, affecting “slightly more than 100,000 workers.”

“Work-to-rule” by railway unions  National Railway Workers' Union (NRU) and related unions in the 1960s–70s

According to historical accounts, during the 1960s and 1970s  especially as labour-management relations deteriorated and union influence weakened  some unions including NRU and National Railway Motive Power Union (NRMU) resorted to “work-to-rule” tactics: employees would adhere strictly to every safety regulation, timetable procedure, and so on  in a way that made railway operations extremely slow, causing widespread disruption.

On the commuter Takasaki Line, a journey which normally took about 37 minutes between Ageo (a suburb) and Ueno (central Tokyo) could stretch to around 3 hours under such work-to-rule conditions.

Decline of “production control” tactic after legal and judicial pushback. Because production control involved seizure and running of company property by workers, essentially denying management rights, this tactic eventually faced legal condemnation.

The post-war high point faded as labour relations stabilized, laws and union regulations matured, and union membership gradually declined.

Now, You Don’t find many recent or modern instances. Because this has been broadly treated as illegal or at least not legally defensible, it infringes on the employer’s property and management rights.

Over time, labour-management relations in Japan moved toward more institutionalized negotiation, collective bargaining, enterprise-unionism, and fewer confrontational tactics. The overall unionization rate has fallen to well below 20 % today.

As a result, large-scale organised work-to-rule that seriously disrupts production seems less common today, and data suggests that strikes and labour disputes (when they happen) are usually short, limited in scope, and often resolved quickly without major disruptions.

So this idea is valid. The narrative that production control leads to “increased productivity” is partially true, at least in some historical cases. For example, early instances of “production control” reportedly resulted in businesses continuing to run, often profitably, even when management threatened shutdown.

But, calling that a broadly applicable “pressure tactic” we see often in modern Japan is misleading. By now, such tactics are rare, legally risky, and have largely been replaced by conventional collective bargaining and negotiations. There are laws for Collective Action in Japanese Labor Law: The Boundary between Legal Protection, the Role of Labor Unions and Employee Representatives.

There was another approach also often used to pressure management to meet their demands without resorting to traditional strikes.

“UruSaku Hataraku”, which roughly means to "work loudly" or "make noise while working". This is a form of protest where workers deliberately work more efficiently or produce more to highlight their capabilities and put pressure on management.

These approaches were rooted in Japanese labour culture, emphasizing harmony and avoiding confrontation.

Toyota Motor Corporation (2006): During a dispute over pay and benefits, some Toyota workers in Japan resorted to working overtime without pay, exceeding their normal production quotas. This unusual approach drew attention to their grievances and put pressure on management.

Japan Railways (1991): In a unique protest, JR employees wore armbands and worked strictly according to the rules, following every safety procedure and protocol. This led to significant delays and disruptions, highlighting the importance of their roles.

Canon Inc. (2006): Workers at Canon's camera plant in Japan used a form of "silent protest", where they worked in complete silence, without the usual chatter and communication. This unusual behaviour drew attention to their concerns about working conditions.

           Do we ever see such an attitude in the Indian context? We don’t know who conceived this idea to destroy our own factory, organisation, society, state, or our own country’s property to fulfil our demands. Are we not doing a disservice to the people whose money is involved in the form of taxes? We are not harming those we think; we are wasting our money, labour, and time. Though it is created for our own well-being. When will we introspect on the cost of our ignorance or irresponsible behaviour?