Union Activists' Decline in UK Industrial Relations - Term Paper Example

The Role and Influence of Shop Stewards and Union Activists in Contemporary UK Industrial Relations Introduction The United Kingdom’s industrial relations historical evolution has been greatly shaped by the role and influences of the concept of shop steward and union activists. The industry had been shaped by the participation and the consequent significance of these people in the defence and advancement of worker’s rights and privileges in the workplace. As the industry evolved and the economy expanded, the framework of employer-employee relations have been dictated by the outcome of collective bargaining between the management and the workers. The Oxford pocket dictionary defines shop steward as “a person elected by workers, for example in a factory, to represent them in dealings with management”. The West’s Encyclopaedia of American law looks at them as “A labour union official elected to represent members in a plant or particular department. The shop stewards duties include collection of dues, recruitment of new members, and initial negotiations for settlement of grievances”. On the other hand, Echoing C. Wright Mills, Richard Hyman, quoted by Geary and Roche (2002, p 3-4) state that “trade unionism is the institutionalised form through which workers can exercise control over employment conditions and the work situation; or the means by which control is wielded, not by but for and on behalf of them; or, because of this differentiation, a source of control over them in the interests of officials or external parties (Geary and Roche, 2002, p 3-4). In the present time, the argument leans towards the significance of the roles of union as well as their degree of influence despite the difference in factors during their successes a century ago and the scenario at present. Especially in the last decades, the events that shaped UK’s industrial relations greatly affected the unions’ foothold and subsequent influence. The loosing stake of the unions in the industry wide relationship format has been believed to be due to the interplay of many factors that affected the organizations through the different changes that took shape. The question now at present is whether these transformations essentially lead to the complete demise of the concept of unions, shop stewards and union activists? Are the changes in the global economy and the business climate further push unions to extinction only to be replaced by new concepts such as EI or employee involvement and workplace participation? Will HRM be the answer to shop stewards or will there be resurgence in union activism? Historical background The early part of UK’s economic history saw the potentials to capture the global market especially with its strong foothold in the industrial revolution. Consequently, together with the market’s expansion, the labour force also grew along with it. As the framework and guidelines being set up to adapt to the rapid growth, unions sprouted in defence of the workforce. The 19th century saw the evolution of the unions as they either work alongside or laboured to argue with the management, the industries and even the government towards protection of the rights of the workers. These growth and development still continued to the 20th century, with or without the world wars that rocked the entire world (Davis, n.d.). However, the post world war world presented a different scenario for trade unions. If the previous decades almost stacked up on the different laws and agreements towards the benefits of the workers which were in part due to the pressure exerted by the rapid growth of union membership, the decades that followed saw the rise and fall of the worker’s union concept. There were plenty of factors attributed to the tumultuous years. Some were political in nature while others where economic in origin. Both the local and the world market had a lasting impact on the industries and consequently on the workers. The rising new theories and paradigms on employee-employer relationship also threatened the core existence of the unions. Then the recent technological advancement introduced many new innovations in the industries in general and workplaces in particular. These technological breakthroughs further pushed the causes of unions rendering them weak and embattled against the opposing factors (Davis, n.d.). However, the massive blow to unions happened in the last two or three decades. Despite the resistance of union workers by staging massive strikes, all their efforts worked to their detriment. The different strikes that occurred in the eighties decade almost resulted in one negative blow to the unions – the dismissal of the workers who went on strike (Lyddon, n.d). Yet despite all these defeats which provided the aura of pessimism among the organizations, the union concept shifted and made adjustments on its own. It settled within the workplace instead. But this change in union presence had a downside. The workplace union became the dominant model and district organisation ceased to have the same importance that it had exercised even in the 1970s. This was further exacerbated by the exposure of many workplaces when several employers associations withdrew from industry-level agreements during the 1980s and 1990s and when wages councils were abolished (1994). All these factors accentuated the tendency for many shop stewards to see their workplace in isolation from others. Faced with the same threats - such as similar attacks on working conditions, or the impact of global markets on firms location policies - groups of workers increasingly battle on their own and find it difficult to counter their employers arguments (Lyddon, n.d) Still, it is supposed that the entry of the twenty first century, almost two centuries after the start of the industrial revolution and a century after the major breakthroughs on the union concept in workplaces, unions still play a major role in workplaces. Their set up in fighting for the working class is evident as they struggle to advance the self respect as well as the living standards of this segment of the society (Lyddon, n.d). Previous Set up During the rise of the unions at the turn of the century (Davis, n.d.) and even its recent peak in 1979 (Metcalf, 1993, p2), their role and influence could not be discounted. During the late 19th century and early 20th century, the union had fought for many privileges and benefits that were accorded to the workers which were enjoyed even by the employees in present times including the 8-hour per day work hours (Davis, n.d.). Much of this could be properly attributed to the increase in membership in unions. As they always say there is strength in numbers, the management had no option but to negotiate with the trade unions regarding working conditions, wage payments and other benefits. In a labour intensive workplace, the management could not neglect the role of the workers in their entire operations. This has contributed much to the power that unions had during that time to collect what they bargain for. In more recent times, shop stewards role have been in behalf of the workers especially on conflicting issues with the management and some grievances. Metcalf reported in Transformation of British Industrial Relations that in a survey conducted in 1970s, the contentment of the managers relies on the shop stewards ability to delineate a ceasefire between the opposing parties. Yet after two decades, much has changed and the power seemed to have shifted to the management prerogative. They have ceased to entertain bargaining rituals and put a plug on the power of the steward system (Metcalf, 1993, p 6). Because of the many factors that assaulted the industrial relations in U.K., even the role of the shop steward had been drastically transformed and their influences over many organizational and even industry wide decisions have started to wane. This has been due partly on the reduction of the collective bargaining power of the union. The “decentralisation of collective bargaining” means that collective bargaining is increasingly moving from the macro-level (industry-wide multi-employer bargaining) towards the micro level (enterprise or workplace-bargaining)”(Wergin, 2002, p 1-2). To think that in 1970’s, the recommendation of the Bullock Commission even called for tighter control and stronger power of trade unions in organizations. Some of these included: Trade union representation on the boards of directors in companies with more than 2,000 workers; An equal number of seats on the board for worker and shareholder representatives with these two groups jointly appointing an independent and smaller third group; After a confirming ballot, these should be appointed solely through trade union channels; A reform of company law obliging directors to act in the best interests of employees as well as shareholders; Creation of an Industrial Democracy Commission to advise on new legislation and issue codes of practice (Prior, 2005, p 5) Transformation Many researches look into the presence or even absence of unions in today’s industrial relations. There is no agreement on the present state of the British industrial relations after all the difficulties it experienced and the ensuing changes as the direct result of the journey that it went through especially in the last few decades. UK attributed the decline in union membership with the policies of Margaret Thatcher. Although by and large, it really came from complex factors which include “macroeconomic variables; labour force composition; and policies of the state, employers and unions themselves”. (Metcalf, 1993, p 4) However, many look into the reality of the precarious perch that workplace union are exploring. The recent years had been characterized by major changes in political and economic scenario of industrialized countries such as UK as influenced by an increasing competition in the global market. This called for employer demanding more flexibility which further eroded the collective bargaining of many economies. (Geary and Roche, 2002, p 7) With the changes that ensued, the power has shifted to the management although they could not be really quantified. Dunn as cited by Logan “shows how management has frequently de-incorporated itself from previous pluralist practices involving joint regulation with unions. This de-incorporation is associated with greater decentralization, a spread of human resource management practices and changes to the substantive clauses in collective bargaining (Logan, 2008, p 1). The decline in union membership and the subsequent lost of control of union representatives to the management could be attributed to many factors and varied challenges that the unions had to weather. It includes “globalization, neo-liberalism, economic restructuring, and employers’ anti-union offensive” (Logan, 2008, p 1) and the effect comprise of significant cross-national differences in levels of union density and collective bargaining coverage (Logan, 2008, p 1). Another problem that is being faced by unions is their derecognition in smaller and/or new workplaces. (Metcalf, 1993) Negative Impact The erosion of the collective bargaining power together with the decrease of union membership negatively affected the social and economic situation of workers in America. “Income inequality, economic insecurity, and annual working hours have all increased in recent decades, while basic entitlements at work trail far behind those found in other OECD nations” (Logan, 2008, p 30). What’s more, the Americans are also forced to log in more work hours that their counterparts in Japan and in Western Europe. They do not also provide for paid leaves although they have more unpaid leaves compared with others. “Countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Finland, France, and Belgium, which has high levels of collective bargaining coverage, provides generous entitlements to paid family leave” (Logan, 2008, p 30). It is even warned that if union density and the collective bargaining power trends are not reversed, it will lead to worse income inequalities and less and less entitlements for workers (Logan, 2008, p 31). It is then compared with the state of trade union in Western Europe. “Stronger union movements and social democratic governments have adopted the causes of shorter hours, paid family and vacation leave, universal health care, and state pension provision, while high levels of collective bargaining coverage have kept down income inequality (Logan, 2008, p 30). Role of HRM It has been accepted that indeed the decentralization of the collective bargaining power of unions is really a reality. However, the next point of arguments is the role of Human Resource Management or HRM in the unfolding of this event. There had been reports that HRM is becoming prevalent but the results showed that there is no demarcation line for its impact on workplaces with union and those that are without. Yet, it is still believed that “encouragement of human resource management among employees in unionised workplaces has further undermined the traditional collective approach to industrial relations (Metcalf, 1993, p 5). In some industries, they have started to utilize what they termed as workplace-level joint consultation committees in lieu of the collective industrial relations. However, there are also evidences that suggest that these too are rapidly declining. On the other hand, some are trying their hand at individual practices which has been believed to be an element of HRM. Proof to it, many workplaces now are employing the concept of team briefings (Metcalf, 1993, p 8). Future directions With the decline of collective bargaining power and the lack of proper take off and acceptance of joint consultation committees, a representation gap ensued. The previous role shop stewards and union activists would have been to close the gap but the decrease in their power and influence brought by the decline of the union in UK caused it to be like an open wound. In order to bridge the gap which if not properly done could be the cause of some negative repercussions as evidenced by the US scenario, there had been other initiatives that were put into place. One of these is the new paradigm of social partnership. This concept calls for the proper dialogue of employer and employees towards a compromised agreement. It also put forward the concept of employee involvement or EI. EI’s are designed to motivate employees and expects commitment towards the organizational objectives. Yet, “most EI has been limited to information sharing or localized problem solving, without granting workers much say about high-level decision making (Ackers et al, 2003, p5). There had been debates also whether this partnership is promoting the influence of the union or a management ploy to totally weaken the unions and absorb them in (Geary and Roche, 2002, p 5). In order to keep up with the times and extend the role and influence of shop stewards as well as promote the power of the union, Munro and Rainbird (2000, p 224) cited the model put forward by Heery(1996) and Heery and Kelly (1994). In this model, they enumerated the things that the union needs in order to reorganize itself and maintain the influence that it once had especially with the collective bargaining tool. New unionism has required changes in internal management structures and the use of management techniques such as market research to establish members needs. In terms of union governance, the new unionism is seen as involving a shift towards centralized structures as opposed to the encouragement of local activism which was the model of the 1970s. Alongside this, there has been a shift away from a confrontational style of industrial relations towards more co-operative forms, which partly represents a recruitment strategy towards non-traditional members, namely women and professionals, but also a strategy towards broadening the bargaining agenda and reducing the costs of disputes. Summary and conclusion In summary, we have acknowledged the decline of union density in UK especially in the last three decades. The danger of this is the subsequent decline of the collective bargaining power of the workers. As seen in the example of the situation in the USA, the ensuing negative impact could be worse, not just for the workers but overall in the aspect of income inequality. In UK, much has been achieved with regard to the defend of rights and privileges of the workers due largely to the active participation of union and of shop stewards. Yet, this is being threatened alongside the dangers that unions are facing now. Demands in the global market and local political climate constrict the breathing space of unions. Further, new concepts such as HRM could in the long run totally eradicate the role of shop stewards in today’s industries. Bibliography Ackers, P., Machington, M., Wilkinson A. & Dundon, T. 2003. Partnership and voice, with or without trade unions: changing UK’s managment approcahes to organizational participation. Business School Research Series, June 2003, pp 1-38. Calveley, M., Healy, G., Shelley, S., Stirling, J. & Wray, D. Union learning representatives – a force for renewal or ‘partnership’? Working paper. University of Hertfordshire Business School Davis, M. TUC History Online. London Metropolitan University. http://www.unionhistory.info/timeline/1880_1914.php. [Accessed 23 February 2010] Fishman, N. TUC History Online. London Metropolitan University. http://www.unionhistory.info/timeline/1945_1960_2.php. [Accessed 23 February 2010] Geary, J. & Roche, W. 2002. Workplace partnership and the theory of the displaced activist. Working paper. European University Institute, Florence. Harrington, J. 2001. Sister’s organising – the future for trade unions? Paper presented to the Critical Management Conference, Future of Work Stream, University of Manchester, July 11 –13, 2001 Haynes, P. 2001. Partnership as union strategy: a preliminary evaluation. Employee Relations 23 (2), pp. 164-187. Logan, J. 2008. Unions facing hard times: the global crisis in union collective bargaining London School of Economics and Political Science. http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/upload/logan.pdf. [Accessed 23 February 2010] Lyddon, D. TUC History Online. London Metropolitan University. http://www.unionhistory.info/timeline/1960_2000.php. [Accessed 23 February 2010] Peat, B. Union renewal; lessons from the UK gas industry. Manchester Metropolitan University. http://www.crimt.org/2eSite_renouveau/Samedi_PDF/Peat.pdf. [Accessed 23 February 2010] Metcalf, D. 1993. Transformation of British industrial relations? Institutions, conduct and outcomes 1980-1990. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/20981/1/Transformation_of_ British_Industrial_Relations_Institutions,_Conduct_and_Outcomes_1980-1990.pdf. [Accessed 23 February 2010] Munro, A. & Rainbird, H. 2000. The new unionism and the new bargaining agenda. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38(2), pp. 223-240. Prior, M. 2005. Workers control in the years of lead. http://www.hegemonics.co.uk/docs/Workers-control-1970s.pdf. [Accessed 23 February 2010] "shop steward." The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English. 2009. Encyclopedia.com. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-shopsteward.html. [Accessed 23 February 2010]. "Shop Steward." Wests Encyclopedia of American Law. 2005. Encyclopedia.com. http://www.encyclopedia.com. [Accessed 23 February 2010] Wergin, N. 2002. The decentralisation of collective bargainingand its consequences for trade unions an anglo-german comparison. Research Project in Comparative Industrial Relations, Presented at EPIC’s second Advanced Research Workshop, European University Institute, Florence, May 18-22, 2002. http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/EPIC/documents/ C2W2Wergin.pdf. [Accessed 23 February 2010]. Read More