Trade Unions and Economy - Essay Example

131574 Today, from many quarters, we come to know that pluralism is a very out d and never-to-come-again part of industrial relations. It will never shine again the way it did a few decades ago. Pluralism is acceptance of diversity, democracy, many voices, and views; it is against totalitarianism, monism and dualism. It is having multiple numbers of vocal viewpoints, ethics, cultures, religions, political diverse views, many social and economical perspectives. Pluralism in Industrial relations leads to the question of what exactly is meant by industrial relations. S.R. de Silva, in his article 'Elements of Sound Industrial System', published in International Labour Organisation, ACT/EMP, says "A sound industrial relations system is one in which relationships between management and employees (and their representatives) on the one hand, and between them and the State on the other, are more harmonious and cooperative than conflictual and creates an environment conducive to economic efficiency and the motivation, productivity and development of the employee and generates employee loyalty and mutual trust.1" Industrial relations were not static, but altered with social, economical and political changes and went through many phases. The first one came under the guise of Communism, initiated by Karl Marx, practised by communist countries and it focussed on totalitarianism, not pluralism. After many decades of absolute success in all communist countries, it spread to other democratic and capitalistic countries, in the form of unions, who could negotiate on behalf of workers, depending on the circumstantial influences. In his paper 'The Changing Focus of Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management, presented at ILO Workshop on employers' Organisations, in April 1997, Sriyan de Silva says "Industrial relations in countries, sub-regions and regions, have been influenced by a variety of circumstances and actors such as political philosophies, economic imperatives, the role of the State in determining the direction of economic and social development, the influence of unions and the business community, as well as the legacies of colonial governments2." In non-communist countries, it slowly evolved into pluralism, worker's democracy, according to the prevailing ideologies of the land, as totalitarianism could not survive in free societies. With the collapse of Communism in USSR, totalitarianism anyway came to an end and unions lost their ultimate power. Even in erstwhile communist countries, unions now are practising more of pluralism today, because capitalist countries have won the ideological war, and these countries are trying to walk towards democracy and freedom. Unions, in their heydays, were not always easy to deal with and all their demands could not be termed as fair and logical. They were more feared than respected. They forced the government intervention on many occasions. "They had the potential to do serious damage to industry and the economy if the need arose, one reason why the government could not remain aloof from industrial relations, especially later in the period," Aldcroft and Oliver (2000, p.9). One of the greatest achievements in industries in the last four decades is the introduction of Human Resource Development, which, to some extent, obliterated pluralism by overtaking the union role. S.R. de Silva, in his paper 'Elements of a Sound Industrial Relations System' published in International Labour Publications, reiterates, "The present trend in labour relations and human resource management is to place greater emphasis on employee involvement, harmonious employer - employee relations and mechanisms, and on practices which promote them. One of the important consequences of globalization and intense competition has been the pressure on firms to be flexible3." After ruling for almost three decades, pluralism and industrial democracy, with the advancement of globalisation and multi national companies, have become quite irrelevant today and this was predicted by many social scientists. Bernhard Ebbinghaus and Jelle Visser, in their article 'When Institutions Matter: Union Growth and Decline in Western Europe, 1950 - 1995' (published in European Sociological Review, Vol. 15, No.2, June 1999, pp.135-158) argue that "In the post war period, social scientists predicted a bleak future for western unions due to the growth of non industrial employment and the unions' inability to recruit members outside their past strongholds - the male blue collar industrial working class." 4 Today the focus of industrial relations and human resource management is shifting towards workplace relationship based on the individual needs of workers. Inequalities and injustices masked under totalitarianism and pluralism have to be erased now and more attention has been paid recently to organisational psychology and behaviour and to employment relations within organisations. This is one main reason for the downfall of pluralism. The second reason is due to advancing technology deleting traditional jobs and creating more technologically oriented jobs. Information technology has changed the structure and composition of industrial relations. Technology is creating flatter organisations with lesser command and supervision, and more cooperation, information sharing and communication. Once again, Syrian de Sylva, in his paper 'The Changing Focus of Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management' is of the opinion that "Further information technology, the limits of which are not known in terms of its potential to effect change, is exerting a tremendous impact on the structure of organizations, the nature and location of work and the way it is organized. In societies of the future information and knowledge will be - as in fact they already are - crucial to competitiveness5." Today's workforce has more education and unprecedented skills. It is not the conventional workforce any more. With computer education, workers are divided into part time, at home, flexi time workers, with additional freelancing and temporary workers and this labour force is increasing more than the full time workers. Today, a large number of workers are working for an organisation, but not in the organisation. And this trend has discouraged both democratic and communist tendencies in industrial relations. Dismantling pluralism seems to be happening in every field of industrial sector. Talking about newly established Greenfield companies in Ireland, Patrick Gunnigle et al in their paper 'Dismantling Pluralism' argue that pluralism is on its last legs even though political situation is congenial. "Thus, despite a national industrial relations system which appears overtly pluralist in nature, we find that a confluence of economic pressures, social change and political exigencies in the Ireland of the late 1980s and early 1990s created a context in which unitarist values could be translated into practice in Greenfield sites to an extent which was not possible in previous decades6." Sarosh Kuruvilla, does not agree with the above. In his case studies of four Asian countries, argues that industrial relations are going through 'Controlled Pluralism'7. David Coats, in his article 'Speaking Up' (here he compares labour rights with human rights) argues differently by saying that pluralism with an acceptance of conflict is healthy in industrial relations, even though it is failing in UK. ""Pluralism" - the view that conflict is inherent in the employment contract - is the best frame of reference for understanding the argument that labour rights are human rights. But pluralism was seen to have failed in the UK in the 1970s and Employers turned away from this approach8." There is no doubt that in UK, and other European countries, union density has decreased and the decline came very fast even before one could see it approaching. There could be many reasons, multinationals and globalisation being the most major ones. Corporate restructuring with 'change' as the only factor, downsizing regular and full time employees, altering relationships between employees and employer, ever-altering demographics of the workplace, completely changed unions and their clout have all contributed to this situation. With the globalisation, international perspective on economic, political, historical, legal, sociological, and psychological fields has changed, altering positions of unions, labour force, business and industrial relations. "A great deal of the membership loss suffered by the unions can be accounted for in terms of the collapse of traditional industrial sectors in the 1980s. The rapid change in economic structure confronted the unions with greatly increased organizational difficulties relating to the expansion of new industrial sectors and smaller-sized establishments," Gallie et al (1996. p.25). Being a union member is not a social norm any more and does not attract attention. Unions in UK have been through a steady decline from 1970 onwards and till now, have not shown much trend of an upward swing. There was a time when quite pronounced militancy was shown by trade unions forcing many compromises on the part of managements; but such authority has dwindled now. Contrary to the above, in 2000, Sarah Dickens, Business correspondent of BBC, on 8th September 2000, reports a slight change and new hope for unions. "The trade unions have experienced a precipitous decline in membership in the last two decades, but in the last year that appears to have been reversed9." Unions too have proclaimed that they are again becoming players of strength to reckon with though, this victory was not a long lasting one while steady decline trend persisted, resulting in many unprecedented moves and mergers. "The big manufacturing unions, faced with a decline in their membership, have also been considering mergers, with the likelihood that the four big industrial unions - the AEEU, GMB, T&G, and MSF - may become just two in the next few years.10" Now the age of mass production is over and the argument is that unions, though important once when they were needed, do not have a job any more. There are legal restrictions on unions, some pronounced, some hidden in the garb of other restrictions and rules. Workers, whose demands are fulfilled through some other rules and acts of companies, are not keen on jeopardising their relationship with the employers any more. Across whole of Europe, trade unions have lost their earlier importance, when they not only made the fortunes and lives of workers, but also were part of the ruling government and many leaders like Wallesa had gained political importance through flourishing unions. Union shrinkage has been going on in every country, especially after the trend of globalisation had set in. Nothing hit unions and pluralism like globalisation and flattening of business world. Still some questions remain to be answered. Is it healthy to lose all bargaining power What if it affects workers' future in the long run in some obscure way Today the beginning flush of globalisation is spreading in the industrial and business world; but for how long it will last One day the employers might take the present situation as the weakness of workers, and try to exploit them. In today's industrial relations, no doubt, every attention is focussed on individuality of the worker, and worker is not treated as part of pluralism. Worker is given a place and identity of his own, but definitely not as part of workers' democracy. Workers, as a singe force, do not have much voice in modern times, but each worker has his own voice. From the individual worker's point of view, this might be a beneficial trend, as even his family matters, psychological needs, workplace environment, his dealings with other workers, his behaviour or lack of it, are all given minute attention and to some extent, worker is pampered today, which never happened before. This also brings into focus the long lasting relevance of pluralism and union activities during many changes in the economic and industrial sector and this should speak volumes in favour of pluralism. The fact remains that unions, despite all assumptions, are not totally going to be wiped out, according to various researches. "Despite the predominance of partnership discourse in contemporary British industrial relations, our research provides evidence of the durability of an independent workplace unionism still able to defend the separate interests of its members," Danford et al (2003, p.42). After being lulled into inactivity and slumber, workers might wake up one day to realise that in the name of individual attention, many of their rights and bargaining power had been taken away. As workers have lost the organisational skill of unions, or voicing their opinion under the same umbrella, they might find themselves helpless at one point. From this point of view, unions cannot go totally out of relevance. So, decline of labour cannot be a great trend, after all. It has its own pitfalls and frightening dark corners, resulting in individual worker's blind journey, not knowing how it will end up in future, and worker might find himself alone on this road. Real fact remains that compared to the consumer, worker is the loser. In every country, collective bargaining and industrial action have come down to minimum. Even in present and erstwhile communist countries, union activities have had unprecedented setback. The decision and distribution of wages do not rely on unions alone today. Every industrial decision is connected with many circumstantial perspectives like global trend, requirements of multinational companies, part time and temporary staff, 'distant' workers, who are semi-devoted to their company because they might be working for many companies simultaneously and might not be worried much about the particular company's pay policy, as they get paid adequately etc. In Western Europe, the same trend had been noticed especially after the fall of USSR. Trend of people joining the unions even in these days of union decline though has surprised many social scientists, has its own reasons. Waddington and Whiftson, in their paper 'Why do people join unions in a period of membership decline' (British Journal of Industrial Relations) cite many reasons like, people discovering a 'new individualism' where pluralism is not abhorred, different and new policy directions of unions, advanced recruitment culture being introduced by unions, etc. Security that is still offered by unions could be attractive too. Blyton and Turnbull agree with Hyman that pluralism is 'far from being a homogeneous body of analysis and prescription; but the central tenets of the 'dominant influence of British industrial relations enquiry'. Pluralism being part of industry and society both, negotiated order is necessary as part of pluralism. "In other words, conflict is accepted as both inevitable and legitimate within any organisation, but the dominant preoccupation of pluralists is with establishing structures and procedures within which those legitimate within which those legitimate conflicts of interest can be contained and prevented from damaging the interests of all," Blyton and Turnbull (2004, p.31). In the modern day society, consumers are given such unquestionable importance that the voice of workers is slightly incoherent. Blyton and Turnbull (p.42) agree with this argument while saying: "The consumer is a source of authority in contemporary society. Some commentators go so far as to suggest that people now define themselves by what they consume rather than what they produce, such that a 'consumer discourse' kin the workplace can provide management with an important source of legitimacy for their actions." When this kind of high importance is accorded to consumer, workers have naturally lost their importance. Economic changes of 1980s increased the difficulties of unions to a very large extent and led to their decline. As a result, only a few unions survived, merging with one another, but whatever has survived, they have a broader coverage. Workers are realising this fact and this knowledge will be the uplifting of union activities again. "'People are our most important asset'. Say many large companies; politicians and commentators stress the role of skilled and committed workforce in Britain's competitiveness," Paul Edwards (1995, p.3): We have seen that eventually, institutions of collective bargaining were challenged by various, landmark developments. It happened mainly because collective bargaining did not connect with the key issues any more, not because collective bargaining has changed, but because key issues have altered beyond recognition. Empirical and analytical studies of collective bargaining have recognised its inability in relating to the evolving issues. Today's labour contracts are termed as indeterminate, resulting in high commercial gratification, low self esteem, and doubtful on legal rights. This may not always be true; but generally speaking some of it definitely exists. Balance between cooperation and conflict has altered, workplace relations are governed by broader and all-enveloping policies resulting in an upheaval of change in connection with the fundamental nature of employment relationship, which Edwards (1986)11 called 'structured antagonism' between worker and employer on an individualistic level unconnected to pluralism. In UK, this happened in spite of the labour government lending a helpful hand to pluralistic industrial relations keeping up with the tradition as stated by Hyman12: "Traditionally, all main parties to industrial relations assumed that conflict between employers and workers was inevitable from time to time, but could best be contained by allowing the two sides to reach their own settlements rather than attempting to impose peace from outside." Every political party in UK and in other countries too, face these issues and conflicts in their own way. "When a party is returned to Government, its capacity to manage the transition intimately affects the degree to which its policies secure the consent and cooperation of powerful groups," Moran (1977, p.76). So, Government policies result in union upheavals and the present policies are not conducive with pluralism. "But, equally important, the future of the unions is likely to depend upon the policies of government with respect of unemployment, the public sector, and the encouragement of collective bargaining. It is the future, then in which political and organizational factors will play the decisive role," Gallie et al (1996, p.32). With or without government policy intervention, public sector still remains slightly apart from the ongoing trend about pluralism, collective bargaining and industrial relations. Still it is considered to be beneficial to stick to pluralism because public sector has a niche of its own, where it can influence policy makers and their decisions. "Moreover, it is also suggested that because of political control by either national or local government, trade unions have the potential to influence politicians through personal links and lobbying in ways which do not exist in the private sector," Goodman (1984, p.163). So decentralisation of collective bargaining cannot be useful in every industrial region. De-recognition of bargaining agents is taking place, as significance of industrial relations in many firms has diminished over the years. But some of the unions have tried to create new agendas for negotiation with new strategy for manpower and have managed to remain partners in industrial relations. "This approach rejects the idea of a backlash of union power and argues for a measured strategy of seeing partnership and improving the quality of union p[participation in bargaining and consultation: for example, through the TUC (1995) concept of minimum standards agreements including access to training and education," Kessler and Bayliss (1998, p.215). At the same time, totally ruling out the collective bargaining in future industrial sector may not be right, even though many commentators believe that it has reached its end. "Others take the view that collective bargaining will continue to be a central and influential aspect of British industrial relations, albeit not as healthy as during the 1970s. Certainly the decline in union membership during the 1980s appears to have levelled out and number of unions have recently announced increased in membership for the first time this decade," Industrial Relations in Britain, Services Guide (p.11). Pluralism in the immediate future will not return to industrial sector, as can be seen. But it cannot be ruled out that pluralism will find a way to return, by making many compromises. "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. Amalgamation where possible; federation where amalgamation would be premature;" Collins (1950, p.119). For some more time, it is highly unlikely that a great future is awaiting pluralism, as trends do not point that way. Pluralism is definitely on the decline, has lost its importance and workers are not keen on union activities. It is difficult to say for how long this trend will continue. Right now, there is no place for pluralism in industrial activities. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Aldcroft, Derek H. and Oliver, Michael J. (2000), Trade Unions and Economy: 1870 - 2000, Ashgate, Aldershot. 2. Blyton, Paul and Turnbull, Peter (2004), The Dynamics of Employee Relations, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire. 3. Collins, Henry (1950), Trade Unions Today, Frederick Muller Ltd., London. 4. Danford, Andy, Mike Richardson and Martin Upchurch (2003), New Unions, New Workplaces, Routledge, London. 5. Edwards, Paul (1995), ed., Industrial Relations, Blackwell Publishers Limited, Oxford. 6. Goodman, John (1984). Employment Relations in Industrial Society, Philip Allan, Oxford. 7. Gallie, Duncan, Roger Penn and Michael Rose (1996), Trade Unionism in Recession, Oxford University Press. 8. Hyman, Richard (1975), Industrial Relations, The Macmillan Press Ltd., London. 9. Industrial Relations Handbook, Ministry of Labour and National Service, Her Majesty's Stationery office, London, 1959. 10. Industrial Relations in Britain: an Industrial Relations Services Guide (1988), Redwood Burn Ltd., Trowbridge. 11. Kessler, Sid and Bayliss, Fred (1998), Contemporary British Industrial Relations, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire. 12. Moran, Michael (1977), The Politics of Industrial Relations, The Macmillan Press Limited, London. 13. Taylor, Robert (1994), The Future of the Trade Unions, Andre Deutsch Limited, London. ONLINE SOURCES: 1. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/actemp/papers/1998/srseleme.htm#cc 2. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/actemp/papers/1998/srseleme.htm 3. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/actemp/papers/1998/srsirhrm.htm#C1 4. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/actemp/papers/1998/srsirhrm.htm#C1 5. http://www.bola.biz/unions/pluralistic.html 6. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServletFilename=/published/emeraldfulltextarticle/pdf/0140300301.pdf 7. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgiarticle=1005&context=cbpubs#search=%22REDUCTION%20OF%20PLURALISM%20IN%20%20INDUSTRIAL%20RELATIONS%22 8. http://www.theworkfoundation.com/Assets/PDFs/Speaking_Up.pdf#search=%22DECLINE%20OF%20PLURALISM%20IN%20%20INDUSTRIAL%20RELATIONS%22 9. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/911501.stm 10. http://www.jstor.org/view/02667215/ap020045/02a00010/2frame=noframe&userID=82d10629@gla.ac.uk/01cc99334100501e8d336&dpi=3&config=jstor Read More