Reasons for the Decline in Union Membership and Density in the 21st Century - Research Paper Example

Trade Unions "Recent attempts VBY trade unions to adopt; organizing’ initiatives are proving insufficient to restore trade union membership and influence'.” In the labour movement there is an expression: "Organize of Die'. Judging from recent numbers released by LBY, a new emphasis on organizing is desperately required. The number of unionized workers has been falling since a few years, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the overall workforce. Unions provide, above all, a ~collective voice'. In the public perception, this is usually associated primarily with pay negotiation. However, collective voice is important not only (indeed, perhaps not mainly) in the field of pay negotiations, but with regard to bargaining over terms and conditions of employment and representation and consultation over a wide range of other issues. This paper would explore the proposition that one of the largely ignored reasons for the decline in union membership and density in the 21st Century is the displacement of union roles by government statutes. Over the past decade, unions have used their political clout to advocate legislation and establish regulatory agencies that supersede entirely or greatly circumscribe the scope of collective bargaining on many issues of significance to employees. When deciding whether or not to form or join a union, workers balance the costs of doing so, such as union dues, against the expected benefits, such as better working conditions and pensions. While the costs of joining unions are seemingly unaffected by most labor legislation, the potential benefits of doing so decline. Because they are already buying labor protection and mandated fringe benefits with tax dollars, workers have less incentive to join unions. The political success of unions in the past has surely played some role in undermining their future prospects, as in the case of VBY union. It is no secret that labour unions have been declining in membership and influence for many years. The number of unionized workers in the Europe was only 16.7 million in 1990, which is approximately 16 percent of the workforce. This is less than one-half the percent unionized in the mid 1950s. Some managers view the decline of unions with glee. To them unions are non-productive, combative adversaries interfering with the harmonious and efficient operation of the company. Some of them have adopted the idea that this is pay-back time for the punishment management suffered in the sixties and early seventies when rising wages, automatic cost of living adjustments, ever-increasing benefits, strikes, and Byzantine work rule arrangements seemingly were the rule. Headlines have for years heralded the lean and mean approach of reorganizing corporations where loyalty to and from workers is a thing of the past.( Badiigannavar and Kelly,525,2005) This seems to be a return to the days of "Theory X" management when managers assumed that average people are reluctant workers who dislike their jobs, must be threatened with punishment to perform it, and seek security above all else. Is this the correct approach for management to adopt in face of the declining power of unions? Or, is this a short-sighted, vindictive approach guaranteed to backfire on these managers and theft companies? Transportation and public utilities is the only service-producing sector that has traditionally exhibited union strength. In more recent decades union membership has also grown among government employees, but other service sectors only average about seven percent unionization. It is particularly meaningful that the figures project declines in mining and manufacturing from 1988 to 2000, and only government is anticipated to have sizeable growth among industries with union strength. In light of some recent highly publicized state budget deficits and cutbacks, even that projection may be overly optimistic. On the whole, the poorly-organized service division is expected to create almost one-half of the new jobs in that time frame. It is not surprising, then, that unions have expressed a sense of urgency to revitalize their ranks, mostly with younger workers from the service sector. At a time when one-half the workforce is under 35, the average union member is over 50. Today's younger workers (including airport staff) seem to be particularly vulnerable to threats to their job security, possibly due to the fact that the unemployment rate for younger workers has been considerably higher than that of older workers in recent years. This insecurity is compounded by the incessant waves of change and restructuring in the late 1980s and early 1990s. While acknowledging the benefits of reduced costs and increased flexibility for the employer, Belous notes many negatives for the contingent worker. For example: increased economic insecurity because of a loss of fringe benefits (such as health insurance and pension); lower pay than the core workers for similar jobs; increased levels of unemployment; less training since the employer does not have the expectation of a continuing relationship; and greater difficulty in obtaining affirmative action goals. There is the social institution theory that holds that, for some individuals, labour unions represent an important natural institution; the same way many people view religion. This organization is seen as having a basic tenet, but not one necessarily shared by employers - the concept of seniority. Workers who feel "religiously" about unions are apt to stick with the union concept through good and bad times, unlike economically motivated workers under the economic welfare theory. (Blyton and Turnbull, 140, 2004) Obviously, many factors influence union organizing success or failure. An economy in recession makes workers more fearful of possible job loss. Some workers may view this as the wrong time to bring in a union. To the extent that the economy recovers and demand for labour increases, union chances for organization will improve. However, the threat of foreign competition and the movement of U.S. capital to low wage, relaxed regulatory countries reduce the likelihood of tight labour markets and further weaken unionization prospects. Cobble thinks that a return to "occupational (or craft) unionism" might be the union answer to organizing young service workers. (Cobble, 419, 2002) One distinguishing characteristic of occupational unionism is the "hiring hall" where job seekers went, registered, and were dispatched to jobs providing they met with the approval of the VBY union dispatcher and were in good standing with the VBY union. In addition, Cobble stresses the need for the union hiring hall to provide more productive workers than could otherwise be employed. This was to be accomplished by peer control over occupational standards and performance which could lead to increased unionization.( Heery,100,2005) Why do workers unionize? The reason most often cited in Europe is premised on the economic theory, so-called "bread and butter" unionization -- to improve wages, hours and working conditions. Do union workers receive higher wages and benefits? Studies show that there is a union advantage, especially in benefits. (K.E. Anderson al et. 27, 2003) A Monthly Labour Review study reported a 10 to 30 percent premium for union workers. If unions are to reverse negative membership trends, they must be more innovative in both organizing and contract negotiations. While a recessed economy is generally a negative for unionization, the 1990-1991 recession has resulted in the lay-off of many white collar and professional service workers who formerly considered themselves impervious to such an act. Disillusionment with management has been further inflamed when huge salary increases have been reported for the same corporate executives who described the layoffs as an economic necessity. Some workers, who once considered unions an institution of the past, now feel a need for representation. A glimpse of the future of private sector unions may be gleaned from examining the past. Union densities have declined for nearly half a century, and structural and demographic changes, global competition, and various other factors have caused much of this decline. However, as recognized by early union leaders, legislative successes that diminish the role of collective bargaining naturally contribute to a diminished role for unions in the workplace and union decline must inevitably follow. (Heery,23, 2003) Nature, it's said, abhors a vacuum, and Badiigannavar asserted that when social institutions fail to satisfy a perceived need, new institutions spontaneously arise. Common sense suggests that if these perceived needs decline in importance, the institutions formed to satisfy them should likewise decline. The organized labour movement began so that workers could use collective bargaining to strengthen their negotiating power on important labour issues. Over time, however, unions have used their clout to pass laws and establish regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over the workplace that supersedes the need for collective bargaining. We do not argue that workers of the 21st century can receive no benefits from unions. Rather, our goal is to show that many of the issues viewed as significant factors to workers joining unions in the 19th and early 20th centuries are now addressed by hundreds of local, state, or state laws and regulations. As a result, unions are necessarily less important to employees today relative to workers a century ago. Not only can the substitution hypothesis help explain past union decline, it may also be of use in projecting the future role of unions. As state and federal government programs and regulations become more expansive, unions will, other factors held constant, take on smaller roles. To the extent that these programs are dismantled or become dysfunctional, such as with the recent welfare reform initiative and the prospective failure of Social Security, unions may, other factors held constant, take on larger roles. Conclusion In view of the preceding discussion, why should top management consider labour/management relations a high priority issue? Several trends suggest that the best days for management were in the recent past. While management has been ahead recently in its longstanding ideological war with labour unions, companies also have been confronting the twin ogres of governmental regulation and foreign competition. The Reagan years were kind to business with regard to regulation, but the same cannot be said about the recent years of "free trade." It is logical to assume that foreign competition holds more terror for top brass than the nascent "union and regulation problems." Unions are once again on the move. Their political clout and their willingness to resort to modern political techniques suggest that the unions should not be counted out. Nothing succeeds like success. As unions succeed, more people may turn to them. If unions are successful in obtaining additional favourable legislation, union numbers may rebound. Companies fighting the battle of foreign competition may already have allowed themselves to have been outmanoeuvred on the regulation front, and should concern themselves with covering their flanks from the coming labour assault. "Theory X" management styles push people toward unions. One study shows that a belief that a union will prevent unfairness by setting up a grievance procedure and seniority system is the primary issue in union campaigns, more important than wage and benefit issues.(Fossum, 145, 2004) Therefore, it appears evident that employers should work to improve labour/management relations in order to avoid the appearance of unfairness and arbitrariness associated with "Theory X" management techniques since these issues push workers into the arms of unions. Since unions are becoming more sophisticated in their organizing and negotiating techniques, it behoves management to eschew the primitive, discredited "Theory X" management style lest they be chronicled on the evening news or "Sixty Minutes." From an ethical perspective, seeking good labour/management relations is the "right" way to conduct business. Finally, it is axiomatic that good businesses promote good labour/management relations. Thus, companies and organizations who treat their people with trust, respect and dignity would not be the subject of a union campaign based upon the slogan, "We Win Respect." Thus, the discussion above proves that recent attempts by VBY trade unions to adopt organising initiatives have been proving insufficient to restore trade union membership and influence. References Badiigannavar V & Kelly (2005) why are some union organising campaigns more successful than others? British Journal of Industrial Relations 43 515-535 Blyton P and Turnbull P (2004) Ch5, Unions & their Members, pp. 130-169. Dynamics of ER D.S. Cobble, "Organizing the Postindustrial Work Force: Lessons from the History of Waitress Unionism," Industrial and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 44, No. 3, April 2002, pp. 419, 420. Heery E. (2003) Trade Unions and Industrial Relations in Ackers P. and Wilkinsin A. (Ed). Understanding Work and Employment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heery, E. (2005) Sources of Change in Trade Unions, Work, Employment & Society, 19 91-106 J. A. Fossum, Labour Relations, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 2004, p. 145 K.E. Anderson, P.M. Doyle and A.E. Schwenk, "Measuring Union-Nonunion Earnings Differences," Monthly Labour Review, June 2003, p. 27. Bibliography L. J. Gitman and C. McDaniel, The World of Business, European Publishing Co., Madrid, Spain 2002, pp. 294-5. R.S. Belous, "How Human Resource Systems Adjust to the Shift Toward Contingent Workers," Monthly Labour Review, March, 2001, p. 8. Valerie A. Personick, "Industry Output and Employment; A Slower Trend for the Nineties," Monthly Labour Review, November, 2003, p. 26. Read More