British Trade Unions Today - Assignment Example

127146 Trade Unions had been an integral and important part of British workers’ life. Since the days of their formation, they have wielded enormous amount of influence and authority not only over the member workers and their managements, but also in the party politics and Government policies. “A TRADE UNION…is a continuous association of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining or improving the conditions of their working lives,” (Webb and Webb 1921b:1) from Ackers et al (1996, p.1). Trade Unions, in Britain as well as in other countries, are known for their collective bargaining power, industrial action and providing benefit to their members throughout their history. Unions, over the years, had attained legal status and can represent their members in any Court of Law. They organise a particular section of skilled or unskilled workers and with them as members of the Union, the office bearers become the legal representatives of such workers and union by attaining the power of representing them in all matters of employment and thus, in most of the countries they attain the status of an important legal entity. They negotiate collectively on behalf of their members over pay, working hours, wages, terms and conditions, cleanliness, perks, benefits, pensions, etc. If bargaining fails, Unions can undertake industrial action and strike and can cause immense harm to a well-running business and in major cases, to the economy of the entire country. Since the late 1970s there had been a rapid decline in unionisation in UK. This failure had been attributed to the inability of unions to organise new establishments in the same lines as they did twenty years ago, though it is not as simple as that. “The sharpest falls in unionization occurred in private manufacturing establishments set up post-1980, with significant falls also occurring, but from a lower initial level, in private sector services” http://158.143.49.27/~machin/pdf/bjir2000.pdf There had been overwhelming arguments that the age of establishments has a lot to do with the decline of unions. Younger organisations pitted against the older ones, have shown totally different trends of conducting business, recruiting people, retaining them, or even retrenching them, to which unions are not fast enough to adjust themselves. “Finally, there is some evidence that age of workplace, rather than age of worker, is the critical age based factor as the negative association with unionization is found for all age groups in workplaces set up post-1980” ibid. Unions of yore had different sets of principles and ways of working. They were mainly centralised with highly centred authority wielded by the Union Leaders, who could sway the entire massive group of workers by a word or deed. In recent years, this trend has received a set back, with more and more vociferous demands by workers for a democratic set up. “Since the 1960s a democratic ethos has developed within the trade union movement… Whilst…leaderships may be formally in control, their power is constrained and checked on a number of issues (Hodgson 1981: 135)”, in Webb (1992, p.83). Lately, there had been extensive arguments about the possible reasons for decline of Trade Unions in Britain. As a matter of fact, it is a universal trend, which came before the globalisation started and Britain had only been part of it. Her participation in the decline could not be stemmed and we have to agree that the influence and strength of trade unions have definitely suffered a major set back, with managements having an upper hand in every situation. “In the economic arena, unions face more confident managements, implementing politics of restructuring often without explicit reference to Unions. No longer are trade union leaderships party to the formulation of policy and programmes which take into account the specific concerns and interests of their memberships,” Fairbrother (2000, p.10). The trend started with a steady decline in trade union membership. In last three decades and to put it mildly, it had been tremendous. “By 1997, union membership had fallen from a high point in 1979 of 13,200,000 to 7,117,000,” Fairbrother (p.10). There are a number of reasons for this downfall of once exalted Trade Unions. Unionism has moved away from manufacturing region now. It has failed in engaging collective activity effectively, without permanent harm to workers. There were instances of workers being targeted even after decades for their active participation in collective activities, and under those circumstances, unions have remained helpless, or uncaring, in coming to the aid of thus affected worker, and this attitude has led to considerable disillusionment amongst workers. There were many occasions when, to some extent, industrial actions like strikes had been disliked over the years. Some union leaders had created suspicion amongst members, by indulging in questionable activities. There also had been a shift in the balance of power between the employers and trade unions. Government legislations had changed and tilted this balance. Policies regarding incomes, investments, working pattern, social benefits have come into existence with better perspectives without leaving much scope for bargaining or complaining. In addition to all the above, management patterns in industries and manufacturing units are undergoing an unprecedented change everywhere as part of the global trend. “It was also a period when a general pattern of managerial restructuring and recomposition of managerial hierarchies increased the emphasis on devolved bargaining arrangements,” Fairbrother (p.11). There is an argument that unions still remain very important and relevant. But definitely they have lost their earlier sheen and authority. There are other reasons too. Management have moved into informal work places, branching out, outsourcing, and many bases and have introduced non-core workforces. No doubt that trade unions since 1980s are going through a traumatic period and have tried hard to rebuild themselves, but not with enormous success. “Trade union density as a proportion of the employed workforce has dropped sharply since 1979, from an historic high watermark of 55 per cent to around 31 per cent; by 1993. Total trade union membership in Britain has fallen by more than a quarter from 13.3 million in 1979 to 9.0 million in 1993, a net decline of around a third,” Taylor (1994, p.29). There had been continuous arguments about worker’s individual rights and not the rights of trade unions as a whole. Individualism has steeped into the lives of westerners and has monopolised every area of it and the work place has not remained untouched either. Instead of categorising workers as vast groups, companies have started giving attention to the needs of individual worker and this has made the trade unions fail to a large extent. There are very few places where one worker agrees with another. Every worker, who has individualistic demands of his own, suitable to his atmosphere and circumstances, contradicts every principle or demand of other workers. “The demand for new legal rights for trade unions represents a significant departure from their traditional commitment to voluntarism and the system of legal immunities that has provided the framework for their activities in the past,” Taylor (p.207). British trade unions were never known for much of regimental looks or functioning. The ‘humanity standing as one man’ kind of attitude and monolithic functioning is the backbone of all communist trade unions and had never been one of British unions’ assets. They were always known for their rather rambling and confused way of working. “While the structure of British trade unionism is bound to remain for a long time untidy, illogical and sometimes, confusing and lending itself to inefficiency, the general line of advance seems reasonably clear,” Collins (1950, p.117). In spite of it, unions had produced better results before 1960s and from that decade onwards, there had been slow decline initially only to be followed by steep decline later. There were other arguments that unions had not been careful to plan for the future when the going was good. They thought that the future is sailing from strength to strength, and obviously it did not happen that way. “In some ways the unions have been the victims of their own success. When they became too powerful and seemingly threatened the state fabric, society demanded that their powers be curtailed,” Aldcroft (2000), p.180). After 1960, there had been fundamental changes in the structure and character of trade unions, and the same applies to the environment in which they operate. Change in the internal government, in decision-making process, system of management or national systems of governments have changed the labour atmosphere of the country. Methods of choosing the leaders have undergone dramatic change. Direction of change has always been not helpful. De facto systems of government have created a non-bargaining kind of atmosphere. Change in job territory, natural growth of vacancies and areas of business have created unprecedented agents of change, both internal and external. The external factors have affected membership growth, while internal factors have created unfriendly atmosphere for union expansion. With various areas of change, policy change, success in the recruiting field, more education, unions and their roles have become irrelevant. People from EU countries and outsiders, sometimes far more qualified than British citizens have taken over most of the fields and for them British unions do not hold any great attraction. Other factors are not conducive to growth and basic composition did not get radically altered resulting in non-merger membership growth. “Within existing territories, however, the proportional composition of membership by sex, white-collar, occupational and industrial divisions were sometimes altered quite significantly by ‘natural’ membership growth,” Undy et al (1981, p.156). Most of the recent mergers in industrial and organisational sectors had been defensive mergers, with hardly any role for the unions. Membership and the influence of other unions combined with inter union differences and rivalries had not been helpful for the healthy growth of unions. Stagnation in industry and unions has corroded the traditional atmosphere. Political actions, industrial actions, external constraints on the choice of strategy, articulation of membership discontent and the response of the leadership, decentralization of collective bargaining have also been other factors resulting in undermining potential growth and strength. Growth of large-scale enterprises, especially in the public sectors, was highly significant to unions. But the global trend in recent decades has seen a fall in public sector economy. Economic changes have created changes in life style and outlook of individual workers. Present structure of industrial organisations, repeated reorganisations of enterprises and services, as against the conventional structures of public sectors has left collective bargaining in turmoil. “The ostensible redistribution between capital and labour is largely side-stepped by administered prices and an inflationary process. In addition, the state reaches out, however incoherently, to try to relate bargaining, inflation and the utlisation of capital and labour within some kind of growth strategy”, Hughes (1973, pp. 20-21). Various factors detailed above have created a doubtful role for unions. The very objective of trade unions is oscillating today. As society is undergoing a steady change recently, with the international trends changing, globalisation pervading in all sectors of society, it is not surprising that unions, part of the society, are affected seriously. “The future of unionism is inseparable from the future of organised society,” Edelstein (1975, p. 339). Unionism has changed along with the dramatic change in gender composition of union membership. Actual role of the real worker has become insignificant and the role of white-collar worker has come into prominence. There had been a real shift here recently. “The balance is shifting from manufacturing unionism to white collar and service unionism,” Fairbrother (p.11). Covert opposition to unions has resulted in sly undermining of its authority. People who had patiently waited for their time, who had disliked the unquestionable authority of unions, had been more and more coherent recently. Managements too have created a more meaningful atmosphere for workers, undermining the unions directly and indirectly both. Governments and managements have not forgotten that some unions, drunk by their strength, had opposed policies that were good and needed. “In many cases unions have simply opposed policies which they deem to be against their members’ interests or primarily motivated by anti-unionism,” Ackers (p. 49). Some of the unions had simply waited for the management to fail hoping that their time will come again. Failed managements have come up with bitterness for unions. Today most of the Unions negotiate the issues in traditional manner and are offering traditional solutions to new set of problems, not keeping with time, keeping themselves overly dependent upon collective bargaining procedures that are clearly outdated. Depending on collectivism without giving a thought to individualistic tendencies has made some of the unions unpopular. They have also failed in creating a meaningful relationship between unions and management, in the same way, how they have failed for a coherent understanding between unions and their members. “Recent management practice does not represent a substantial basis on which to establish a social partnership between workers and managers at the workplace,” Ackers, (p.174). Trade unions definitely are faced with uncertain future today. Union leadership was politically divided from the late 1960s onwards between Labour Party and Trotskyist factions. After the Second World War, the union suffered from its relatively centralized and authoritarian leaderships. Weakening financial problems to debilitated the unions in recent years. Somehow unions adapted a way of adjusting themselves to the patterns created by Governments. This yielded good results in the beginning, though became harmful to their very existence later. “Thus, within sectors, there was a tendency for unions to organize in broadly similar ways, despite different formal arrangements and the varied politics espoused by leadership groupings,” Fairbrother (2000, p.62). At the same time, it is not totally correct in writing them off the working scene of the country. They remain still relevant and supportive. Their presence is very much appreciated and essential. It is not possible for any industry to discuss matters according to whims of fancies of each employee. So, naturally the employers and managements would like to have the presence of trade unions to discuss, contemplate, argue and agree or oppose their policies. For management, it is easier to discuss matters of employee well-being with the unions, however weak they could be. But is it necessary to have them in the scene at all? Yes, it is. Trade unions only need some time to fully legitimise themselves and adapt to new situations. There is an absolute necessity to change the outlook, modernise it and suit it to the changed circumstances. Unions have metamorphosised themselves many times in the past and it will not be a problem for them to do so in the present for the future. With new leaderships, new policies, newly energised outlooks, trade unions should come out vigorously once again. “Today they should draw comfort both from their past and from the current opportunities that are opening up for them. Britain’s trade unions remain adaptable and pragmatic enough to shape the agenda and grow once more into the next century,” Taylor (p.233). BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Aldcroft, Derek H. and Michael J. Oliver (2000), Ashgate, Aldershot. 2. Ackers, Peter, Chris Smith and Paul Smith (1996), The New Workplace and Trade Unionsm, Routledge, London. 3. Collins, Henry (1950), Trade Unions Today, Frederick Muller Ltd., London. 4. Campbell, Alan, Nina Fishman, John McIlroy (1999), British Trade Unions and Industrial Politics, Vol. 1, Ashgate, Aldershot. 5. Coates, Ken and Topham, Tony (1986), Trade Unions and Politics, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. 6. Edelstein, J. David and Warner, Malcolm (1975), Comparative Union Democracy, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London. 7. Fairbrother, Peter (2000), Trade Unions at The Crossroads, Mansell, London. 8. Gallie, Duncan, Roger Penn and Michael Rose (1996), Trade Unionism in Recession, Oxford University Press. 9. Hughes, John and Pollins, Harold (1973), Trade Unions in Great Britain, David & Charges: Newton Abbot. 10. Taylor, Robert (1994), The Future of the Trade Unions, Andre Deutsch, London. 11. Undy, R, V. Ellis, W.E.J. McCarthy and A.M. Halmos, (1981), Change in Trade Unions, Hutchinson, London. 12. Webb, Paul (1992), Trade Unions and the British Electorate, Dartmouth Aldershot. 13. ONLINE RESOURCES: 1. http://158.143.49.27/~machin/pdf/bjir2000.pdf 2. Read More