An Assessment of the Need for Worker Representation in the 21st Century - Essay Example

?An Assessment of the Need for Worker Representation in the 21st Century This essay considers the area of worker representation and whether, because of changes in management practice that take account of the needs and views of staff, such representation is required in the 21st century. It begins by describing trade unions and providing a brief history of the reasons for their development and current status regarding membership. It moves on to give an overview of the current state of employee relations in the UK, from both the unitarist and pluralist perspectives, before considering whether workers need representation and, if so, what forms of representation are most effective for individual and collective issues. A consideration of the nature of the employee voice is followed by a conclusion of the main findings from the analysis. Trade Unions in the UK Trade unions evolved to protect the rights of workers to such things as a safe working environment, a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work and the recognition of workers as having rights in the workplace. Before their appearance, worker exploitation was normal, with the individuals who owned the factors of production simply viewing workers as resources to be used and discarded as they saw fit (Martin and Fellenz, 2010). The Labour movement grew from the unions, originally representing the rights of the workers against the Conservative party, who represented the owners of capital and production resources. Union rights were curtailed sharply in the 1980s (Marchington and Wilkinson, 2008) but union recognition was provided by a set procedure in 1999. Since then, union membership has fallen, possibly due to outsourcing of public services to the private sector and a fall in manufacturing capability (unions are more prevalent in the public sector than the private sector): 1980 1984 1990 1998 2004 Manufacturing 65 56 44 28 37 Private services 41 44 36 23 20 Private sector 94 99 87 87 88 All 64 66 53 42 39 Table 1: Workplaces with 25+ employees and union recognition (Source: Branchflower et al 2007 p.288) More interestingly, Kersley et al (2005 in Marchington and Wilkinson 2008 p.390) identify union presence within the workplace, by sector of ownership and management attitude toward union membership: Aggregate union density: No union members: Union density of 50% or more: Recognised unions: (% employees) (% workplaces) (% workplaces) (% workplaces) All workplaces 34 64 48 30 Sector of ownership: Private 22 77 8 16 Public 64 7 62 90 Management attitudes towards union membership: In favour 60 8 58 84 Neutral 22 76 9 17 Not in favour 5 93 1 4 Table 2: Union Presence, by Sector of Ownership and Management Attitudes (Source: Marchington and Wilkinson 2008 p.390) The importance of management attitudes is discussed later in this paper. Employee Relations The latest ideas to involve workers more in the workplace are employee engagement and employee involvement and participation (EIP). These follow changes from collective and multi-employer bargaining brought about by international competition and globalisation. Increasingly, although employees have various rights enshrined in law, employers are dictating terms and, in some cases, unilaterally attempting to change contracts of employment to the detriment of employees (Curtis 2010b). Heery (2009 p.334) discusses the representation gap, restating key themes of “union revitalisation, non-union representation and the effectiveness of public policy” as needing further research. Szell (2010 p.184) describes “the neo-liberal economic system” as having “declared war on the trade unions and workers’ participation” when considering the impact of the global financial crisis on the trade union movement and labour policies, specifically in the EU. This is even more important with the austerity drive being pursued by the current UK coalition government as, following the announcements of substantial budget cuts for the public sector, unions have advised that they intend striking to protect both their members’ jobs and public services (see Curtis and Mulholland 2010a and 2010b and Taylor 2010). Szell (2010) points out that organisations that involve workers in decision making perform much better than those who do not, yet employers are now seeking even more restrictions on union action (see Curtis 2010a). An indication of employers’ attitudes towards employees is provided by their approach to employee reward. The title of McCarthy et al’s (2010) article, “Can employee share-ownership improve employee attitudes and behaviour?” implies an employer need to control how employees think, feel and behave, and that they think such things can be “bought” with share ownership. McCarthy et al (2010 p.382) actually conclude that such an approach had a “limited impact” on employees; the things that would actually make a big difference to employee engagement were “a sense of ownership and control”, calling into question the attempt to align worker goals with organisational goals for the long term (something currently being proposed for executive remuneration packages). Perspectives on Human Resource Management The Unitarist View Marchington and Wilkinson (2008, p.387) defines the unitarist viewpoint as “a frame of reference [which] sees the organisation as a team (like a football team)with all employees striving towards a common goal”. In this approach, unions are not necessary because everyone is doing their best within the hierarchy, which is accepted without question, and follows their leader. There is no conflict, which is viewed as “pathological or abnormal, the result of misunderstanding and trouble-makers” (ibid). The Pluralist View Marchington and Wilkinson (2008, p.387) define pluralism as “comprising varied interest groups with common and divergent interests, with management’s job to balance these competing demands”. Within this view, unions are naturally present as they represent the interests of the workforce. Conflict is legitimate, “but must be channelled or managed through rules and procedures” (ibid, p.388). Implications for Worker Representation The view of management is key in this area, as how they view their role determines how much say, if any, workers have in the workplace. Most managers tend to view their roles as getting things done, tending to adopt the unitarist viewpoint, regardless of the stated policy of their organisation or any ongoing initiatives to improve employee engagement. Their opinion is that workers are working for the company and their objectives should be the same as those of the company (ibid). For a manager with a pluralist viewpoint, gaining the commitment of the workforce to anything that is likely to affect their roles within the organisation is sensible to avoid unnecessary conflict and the presence of a union allows them to achieve this (ibid). Much depends on the line manager within this area (Marchington and Cox 2007) as implementation of HR policies is increasingly devolved down the line to managers, who may or may not take HR seriously and, based on this, whether they implement policies designed to increase worker involvement (see table 2). Marchington and Cox (2007, p.187) identify “lack [of] the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation .... lack of skills ... shortage of time ... competing priorities ... may not believe in its principles” as reasons for such lack of support. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that, despite the rhetoric within annual reports or on websites, employee engagement is ignored in day-to-day management of staff. Worker Representation and the Employee Voice Hutton (2010) believes that the employment relations culture in 2010 resembles that of the 1970s and this causes many employees to take employers to employment tribunals to obtain justice. He highlights that “around a third of all people at work have experienced some form of unfair treatment in the past year”, the gender pay gap and low pay as evidence that there is a need for “a more effective collective worker voice in the workplace” (ibid, p.19). It would appear workers do need some form of representation. Hutton believes that individual rights are greater than collective ones, and because the UK relies on knowledge workers, a new workplace representation system is required. Employee Voice initiatives are taking place in the public sector, highlighting that direct approaches involving the individual were used, but for many the collective indirect approach still had value (Bennett, 2010). The results in Bennett’s research highlighted that there is a great deal more that could be done to involve individuals in real decision making, and collective approaches played a key role at a more senior/strategic level. Although such initiatives are brought about by EU legislation, the effect within the private sector is still unclear. Conclusion Employment relations are as difficult an area as ever, with workers still requiring protection within the working context, whether through legislation or union representation. Employers seem determined to exclude workers from decision making and regard them as simply resources, like fixtures and fittings, with no opinions, attitudes or voices of their own once they enter the workplace. Representation is still required, and will continue to be so until employers realise that employees’ full participation in organisational decision making improves the bottom line. One area that organisations might like to explore in this respect, is stakeholder theory. Although most organisations pay lip service to stakeholders other than shareholders, adopting such an approach would generate many positive benefits, including within the employee relations arena (Van Buren and Greenwood 2011). The key issue to be addressed is the power differential between employer and employed. Until this is resolved, employees will still be treated poorly and still require representation, both as individuals and collectively. Word Count: 1,545 words including tables References Bennett, T. (2010) ‘Employee Voice Initiatives in the Public Sector: Views from the Workplace’ International Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 23 No. 5 pp.444-455 Branchflower, D. G., Bryson, A. and Forth, J. (2007) ‘Workplace Industrial Relations in Britain, 1980-2004’ Industrial Relations Journal Vol. 38 No. 4 pp.285-302 Curtis, P. (2010a) ‘CBI Calls for Tougher Legislation on Right to Strike as Unions Prepare to Fight Cuts’ The Guardian 4 October available online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/oct/04/cbi-public-sector-strikes?INTCMP=SRCH [accessed 5th January 2011] Curtis, P. (2010b) ‘Civil servants win redundancy pay court challenge’ The Guardian 10 May available online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/10/civil-servants-redundancy-pay-court?INTCMP=SRCH [accessed 5th January 2011] Curtis, P. and Mulholland, H. (2010a) ‘Union Leaders Warn of Strikes to Oppose Cuts’ The Guardian 12 September available online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/12/union-strikes-industrial-action-cuts?INTCMP=SRCH [accessed 5th January 2011] Curtis, P. and Mulholland, H. (2010b) ‘Unions Threaten Mass Strikes Over Spending Cuts’ The Guardian 13 September available online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/13/tuc-conference-unions-strike-threat?INTCMP=SRCH [accessed 5th January 2011] Heery, E. (2009) ‘The Worker Representation Gap and the Future of Worker Representation’ Industrial Relations Journal Vol. 40 No. 4 pp.324-336 Hutton, W. (2010) ‘Worker Representation is a Mess’ Human Resources Magazine March p.19 Marchington, M. and Cox, A. (2007) ‘Employee Involvement and Participation; Structures, Processes and Outcomes’ in Storey, J. (ed.) Human Resource Management: A Critical Text (3rd edn.) Thomson Learning, London Marchington, M. and Wilkinson, A. (2008) Human Resource Management at Work: People Management and Development (4th edn.) London, CIPD Martin, J. and Fellenz, M. (2010) Organisational Behaviour and Management (4th edn.) Cengage Learning, Andover McCarthy, D., Reeves, E. and Turner, T. (2010) ‘Can Employee Share-Ownership Improve Employee Attitudes and Behaviour?’ Employee Relations Vol. 32 No. 4 pp.382-395 Szell, G. (2010) ‘Trade Union Movement and Labour Policies in the EU after the Global Financial Crisis’ The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations Vol. 46 No. 2 pp.183-193 Taylor, M. (2010) ‘Unions Warn of Massive Wave of Strikes’ The Guardian 19 December available online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/19/unions-warn-massive-wave-strikes?INTCMP=SRCH [accessed 5th January 2011] Van Buren (III), H. J. (2011) ‘Bringing Stakeholder Theory to Industrial Relations’ Employee Relations Vol. 33 No. 1 pp.5-21 Read More