Trade Unions

Trade unions have a troubled and violent history, and often a poor reception in the mass media. They came into existence before Karl Marx popularised socialism. He was quite ambivalent about them, and saw them as too concerned with local issues. Later Lenin accused them of developing only a 'trade union consciousness'. This meant that they were only concerned with employer disputes, often over wages; and did not see that the capitalist state had to be attacked. Later still, Trotsky saw the unions as too bureaucratic, too close to employers; and ultimately as betraying the interests of their own members. From the mass media comes the message that trade unions are a destructive force, disrupting production and making the "innocent" consumer pay. Withdrawal of labour, or strikes, were often seen as silly strikes; that is they were without a serious purpose; or worse furthering the greed of their members.

Until 1979 there were about 13 million members. Now there are less than 7 million. However historically 13 million was a high figure, and 7 million is nearer to previous years. For the members of these organisations getting their pay increased from a low paying employer may make them see the trade union in a more favourable light than the mass media or Karl Marx did. Further 7 million is still a significant part of an adult population of about 26 million in Britain. Despite their poor treatment by the recent Conservative governments they have not gone away.

However, the response of the Conservative government in the 1980's to the unions did more than halve their numbers. There was a concerted attempt to undermine unions; especially the National Union of Mineworkers. A major strike by miners in 1984 was largely defeated and mines began to close. A period of about 20 years, sometimes called a period of deindustrialisation began in Britain. Unemployment rose. Firms had to respond to this highly politicised environment. The theory of Flexible Specialisation was seen as a response, which could provide a more successful future. The agents of this change were management consultants, ideas from Japan, and human resource managers. This rich stew brought a whole new language with it. Box One below gives a good summary, and provides a reality check too.

Box One:

Sisson’s Model of rhetoric and reality in Human Resource Management.

RHETORIC REALITY

Customer first Market forces supreme

Total quality Management Doing more with less

Lean production Mean production

Flexibility Management can do what it wants

Core and periphery Reducing the organisation’s commitments

Devolution/Delayering Reducing the number of Middle managers

Down sizing/Right sizing Redundancy

New working patterns Part time instead of full time jobs

Empowerment Making some one else take the Risk and the responsibility

Training and development Manipulation

Employability No employment security

Recognising contribution Undermining trade union and collective

of the individual bargaining.

Source:

Legge. K. (1995) Human Resource Management. Macmillan Business. Page 314.

Currently the unions are under more subtle pressures. Firstly the changes in technology seen in previous readings have produced a need for more commitment to the firm. This is because any small disruption to production causes major disruption under the Just in Time system. If anything goes wrong you are expected to jump in and help and keep your own job going too! Any intervention from trade unions asking for more money for more work, or raising questions about safety, would slow production to unacceptable levels. Secondly many firms have replaced old personnel departments with human resource departments. Here one's contribution to the firm over the year is measured in a variety of ways, often not known or fully understood. Then one's pay is related to one's performance. This produces a situation where people doing the same, or similar, work receive different pay. This has produced a more individualistic culture, which goes against the more traditional collectivistic culture of unions. Nonetheless unions have continued to negotiate on behalf of their members. Halving the size of membership of the unions may well have reduced their power. However no trade union has ceased to exist. Against that, there has been a continuing set of mergers of unions; so the unions that now exist have a much larger membership than 20 years ago. The style of negotiation has been called 'defensive opposition'. This ranges from traditional national or collective bargaining to accepting the need to negotiate at the level of the individual. This style is obviously contentious. It can be seen as playing for time; waiting for management to fail. It has been seen as taking on the new language and values of entrepreneurial culture. It even comes close to Trotsky's view of unions as traitors to the working class. Box Two below lists a variety of possible styles of negotiation.

Box Two:

Trade union Context Trade Union

interpretation. Conditions Response

1. Employer Employer willing Question free

commitment to to co-operate collective

HRM of real benefit bargaining

2. Individualism Weak unions Restructure to

cannot be resisted individual members

3. Need to accept Trust managers, Realign company

some of the HRM invited to and union

agenda participate collectivism

4. HRM has some Union backed by Unions control

benefits members participation

5. IIRM has some Managers invite Strategic

benefits union participation engagement with HRM

6. HRM has some benefits Unions backed by Promote individual

members but don't concepts

trust managers

7. Individual issues Cannot prevent Deal with

are collective ones individualisation individual

8. HRM is essentially Strong union Negotiate in a

no different from past traditional manner

management strategies

9. HRM is a potential Strong union Control threat

10. HRM could Effective union Restructure to

weaken and deter

outflank union

11. Collective Unions strong Defend the

solutions are collective

preferred solution

12.HRM is detrimental Weak unions Wait for managers

but will fail anyway to fail

13.HRM is anti union Unions strong/ Defensive

and anti-employee company stable opposition

Source:

Ackers P. et al. (1996) The new Workplace & Trade Unionism. Routledge . Page 48.

These changes can be seen as a part of the encouragement of an entrepreneurial culture both between firms, and within them! One works harder, and is rewarded for it. The old trade union practice of getting the same pay for the same work, is now being undermined. More importantly each worker is being encouraged to see it as their own individual responsibility to be more productive, to ensure that they are being continually trained in new technology, to acquire skills that will be acceptable to their existing employer, and possible future employers. One should insure oneself against the possibility of redundancy, and against ill health, and so on. Unions have attempted to regain their attractiveness to employees within this working culture. The idea that individual problems are also collective problems is one line taken. Basically this involves tackling the problem at the level of the individual in the first place. This immediately shows that the union can get a good, or acceptable, solution which both parties accept. This raises the profile of the union within the firm; both with management, and with employees. Secondly, the union will attempt to demonstrate that this problem, and it's solution, can be institutionalised within the firm. So procedures can be set up to avoid this problem in the future. This raises the profile even further; always assuming the employer can be persuaded of the need for another procedure. This may be seen as one more layer of 'red tape'. However, unions have claimed some success with this tactic, as box three below illustrates.

Box Three:

Currently individual contract negotiation is likely to be one-sided where the employer presents . . . an individual contract and asks for it to be signed and returned as an acceptance of the employment terms and conditions contained within it . . . the opportunities for bargaining around them by individuals are not very strong. Unions can assist individuals by setting up computer systems which can advise on standard forms of contract clauses and potentially the total contract value implications of choosing particular terms and dropping others. Unions may also need to try and negotiate with employers about the forms of such contracts even in cases of senior managers.

Source:

Ackers P. et al. (1996) The New Workplace & Trade Unionism. Routledge. Pages 57-58.

Thinking Questions:

1 How attractive do you think the above offer would be to a small company?

2 How attractive to a larger company, with over 500 employees?

3 From an employee's point of view, changing which contractual terms would be attractive.

4 From an employer's point of view, which changes would be attractive?

This assertion of individualism is opposed to the spirit of collective action for collective advantage, which is a traditional trade union value. The issue is how widespread are these values? Do they extend even to existing trade union members? Some recent studies throw doubt on the extent of the spread of entrepreneurial values. Other explanations are that one had no alternative but to set up a small business with one's redundancy money, as one could not get another job in the locality. The growth of small businesses in recent years may have as much to do with survival as with entrepreneurial values. Even the acceptance of human resource management methods may have to do with survival in a period, now passed, of high unemployment. There was a growth of new firms without a trade union presence. Within these firms there was a variety of responses to the lack of a trade union. One common feature was to do with the size of the firm. Smaller firms made some employees feel that they did not need a union as they were in regular contact with their managers. Another common feature was the age of the new employees. Many were sufficiently young not to have had any experience of a trade union in their place of work. However, some did have this experience, and so there was no agreement about trade unionism. Box four is a good example of all this.

Box Four:

Workers in a non-unionised company:

The computer industry is so competitive that if you don’t like it you can go out and get five job offers if you are any good at all. So, I mean, my personal opinion is that we’re better off without any unions.

The company has always challenged me and is a fun company with a very open management style. I have never considered the need for trade unions.

In the highly mobile industry of computing jobs the value of unions is limited as most people vote with their feet. However, I agree in principle with the trade union movement. (Former Union Member).

Source:

Mc Loughlin I. & Gourlay S. (1994) Enterprise Without Unions. Open University Press. Pp. 115.

The above box two is one of the few studies of this very important contemporary issue for the very survival of trade unions. However, it would be wrong to leave this topic with such a pessimistic conclusion. There remain powerful reasons for the continuing existence of trade unions. One is that, for employers, it is much easier to deal with the problems of a large work force through a few representatives, than with mass meeting, or deal with people individually. Secondly as trade unions merge, and become fewer in number, there may be less trade union rivalry, poaching of members etc.. Thirdly, when conflicts do occur there is a pre-existing set of arrangements and structures to deal with them. Fourthly, when wages and conditions are agreed, the trade union will make sure that these agreements are kept by the membership. The management should not have to face further demands within the year. An attempt to measure the attractiveness of trade unions to employers is given in box five below. Perhaps the disapproval rate is the most revealing.

Box Five:

Policy Towards Trade Union Membership

All Private Sector Public Sector

Encourages 28 12 47

Accepts 44 39 49

Disapproves 5 8 1

No Policy 23 40 2

Other 1 1 1

Number 935 660 275

Source:

Gallie D. et al. (1996) Trade Unionism In Recession. Page: 34.

A more aggressive version of the tactic in box three, is where union negotiators attempt to demonstrate to senior managers that some of their behaviour to their employees is not consistent with agreements which they have already signed. This is a classic move for a union. it is legalistic. It attempts to show where 'sharp practice' has occurred. In the short term this often succeeds. In the longer term, there are many possible outcomes. One is that a new agreement, more acceptable to senior management is set up; and they old one torn up. Another possible outcome is that the initial success can generate new members for the union. These new members may include some who felt that the union was too pro management in the past; but that this has now changed. This new more aggressive relationship requires an economy which is expanding; where managers can see a future of increasing profits with which to pay higher wages, or give better conditions. On the other hand, where the future is very uncertain, or bleak; then employers may react even more aggressively. Box six below is an example of this style.

Box Six:

I’m just taking the language of HRM and playing it back. It requires a different attitude to management. The good thing about HRM is that it gives us a handful of high cards to play. We can say, 'OK, we recall the HR Director’s last speech, and we intend to play it back to you. That bit means job security, that bit means training..... Let us use some of the attractive ideas of HRM. But let us also run them fully through and expose any inconsistencies between the underlying principles and the actual practice.

Source

Ackers P. et al. op cit. Page 55.

Thinking Questions:

1 Could this replaying of HRM language appear as merely game playing, or cynical?

2 How successful is the tactic of using HRM language to get job security?

3 How successful is the tactic in getting more training?

Firms with no trade unions, or an agreement to recognise only one trade union which is very acquiescent to management, may find that as their young new workers become older and more experienced, that conflict may emerge. The resulting disruption to production and profits may be great. However, this requires that new members join unions in increasing numbers; in order to redress the loss of members that started in 1979. Currently, there is some evidence on increasing membership, with education as an attractive element in it. This may appear attractive to both employers and employees. The British Trade union Congress is designing a new "Academy" for all members of all unions with strong government support. This is scheduled to start in 2007.