There is clear evidence that trade unions have declined in membership and influence. Between 1979 and 1990, British Trade unions fell in membership by 26%. (Department of Employment, 1993) The government and some employers have had policies of union exclusion since the early 1980s (Smith and Morton, 1993) Ackers et al (1996) point out that union membership has tumbled from over a half to around a third of the population. This decline suggests that there is union weakness.
Gallie (1996) identify the main reason for the trade union changes as structural factors. The main determinants of whether or not people were members of unions were a) the extent to which employers accepted and were prepared to facilitate Trade Union organisation and b) whether or not people were in the public sector. Explanations for why people had left trade unions were largely due to becoming unemployed or withdrawn from the labour market, partly due to moving to an establishment with no union to join and also a very small proportion of people being disenchanted with trade unionism. This evidence comes from a work attitudes/histories survey. With structural changes being the main influence, the resulting difficulty of recruitment and retention of membership is made more difficult. Three main structural changes are highlighted by Gallie (1996). Firstly there has been a shift away from manual occupations, which was an area where trade union membership was high. Secondly small establishments are discovering the benefit of trade unions and larger establishments appear to be less in favour of trade unionism than previously. Thirdly, employment decline has tended to be in areas with the strongest historical traditions of trade union support, while expansion has been in areas where trade unions are historically weaker. These structural changes are likely to be long-term, because these changes are unlikely to reverse. As a result this suggest that Trade Union membership and power will continue to be weak for at least the near future. “There is little prospect….that current union practice will ameliorate the deep crisis of British trade unionism.” (Howell, 1998)
Evidence shows that in several firms Manager’s have moved towards individual employer bargaining. This involves communicating directly with employees rather than through trade union or formal works council. Payment systems moved towards merit pay – overall increase in payments-by-results (PBR), profit sharing schemes and employee share ownership plans (ESOPs). (Metcalf, 1994) This greater financial participation of employees increases employee participation and involvement. HRM Literature sights that management has placed a greater emphasis on commitment of employees through greater participation and involvement, (Sisson, 1993). Metcalf, (1994) gives the example of team briefings, “now regularly used by nearly half of all workplaces”. Regular newsletters increased from 34% to 41% and surveys and ballots from 12% to 17%. (Sisson, 1993). Also line managers are now spending more time on personnel matters, “senior line managers in particular can no longer afford to allow specialist personnel or industrial relations managers simply to maintain a ‘system’ for its own sake. The key decision in industrial relations must have regard to the business strategy and must be taken by line managers.” (Sisson & Marginson, 1995) Increasing numbers of Managers have evidently been assuming responsibility for their own industrial relations, rather than relying on trade unions to do this. (Sisson, 1993)
One criticism of Human Resource Management (HRM), is that it is unlikely to act in favour of employees as well as the actions of trade unions. This is because firms have incentive to increase their own benefits at the expense of their employees. In addition it is naïve for British managements to think they can do without trade unions in the short-run, they need to develop managers that can cope with individualism. One suggestion for HRM improvement is, “What is still needed for a transformation [to HRM] is a change of gear by management – greater emphasis on co-operation and more investment in physical and human capital.” (Metcalf, 1994) HRM is not yet a perfect ‘silver bullet’. There are problems of integrating the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ elements of HRM. Also there is a lack of continuity in the literature. (Edwards,1995) “Managements attempts to by-pass unions by involving employees directly have met limited success in terms of enhanced worker commitment, creating ‘dualistic’ union and non-union structures in large ‘mainstream’ organisations like Ford or Royal Mail’ (Storey and Sisson, 1994) This is evidence that HRM, i.e management’s attempts to direct the employees is weak too, like Trade Unions.
We have determined that both management and Trade Unions have weaknesses. Now we need to determine whether this weakness is the cause of social partnerships. Advocators of this argument would say that social partnerships would not need to exist if management and/or trade unions did the job required to run employment relations.
Increasing numbers of companies are developing partnership agreements. (Monks, 1998). Many companies are discovering the potential of the ‘security-for-flexibility’ bargain. (Monks 1998) This suggests that there is increasing awareness of the need for improvement on the situation of trade unions and management. Monks (1998) believes that “the strongest foundation a company can have for success is to put its trust in the development of a working partnership with its employees”. Claydon (1998) notes that “employers and trade unions must recognise the importance of management-worker co-operation as a condition for business survival and success”. Ackers et al (1996) appear to be in support of this, giving the reasons of job loss, punitive legislation and management derecognition as explanations for the decline of trade union membership. However Black and Ackers (1994) have identified that “As yet, the new British social partnership has but a shadowy and modish presence.” It is important to notice that this was a comment made 4 years prior to Monks’.
However the social partnership agreement in itself is not perfect. Monks identifies obstacles in the way of the successful execution of social partnerships. Legislation is a problem of short-termism. Companies are often obliged to make shareholders interests the focus, which results in companies having short-term financial goals. “Partnership in theory and in practice cannot remove the fact that in the end the boss is the one with the hire and fire power, and the relationship between the individual employee and the employer can never really be one of true equality.” (Claydon, 1998) Culture and attitudes can also pose restrictions. “On the basis of the experience of the first half of the 1990s there are strong grounds for remaining sceptical about the likelihood of union-management partnerships developing as a major new force in British industrial relations” (Claydon, 1998) Also managers may be discouraged from entering partnerships due to the perceived high costs and low benefits of its execution. Kelly (1996) argues that “It is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve a partnership with a party who would prefer that you didn’t exist.” However Kelly offers no alternative.
There is evidence to show that partnerships cannot exist without Trade Unions. Trade Unions are often needed to change attitudes to those resistant to the change towards social partnerships.
There is also evidence to suggest that partnerships are the cause of trade union weakness. Partnerships “will render unions less rather than more able to defend and advance workers’ interests. (Kelly, 1996)
It could be argued that as both Trade Unions and Managements have recognised the weakness, and they themselves are seen to be moving towards Partnership, then this is an improvement in both Union and Management’s weaknesses. In other words I am suggesting that the existence of social partnerships is a sign of improvement.
In conclusion Yes the current systems of Trade Unions and Management have weaknesses. If they were perfect then it is unlikely for someone to feel the need to create an alternative system, i.e. social partnership to replace them. There is need for a new method. However it is noted that social partnerships cannot occur in the long-run without trade unions. Also partnership agreements could be a cause of union weakness. The weaknesses may have been a trigger but existent of social partnerships makes both stronger.
Word Count: 1,810
Bibliography:
-
Ackers, P. and Payne, J. 1998: “British Trade Unions and Social Partnership” International Journal of Human Resource Management 9:3, pp529-550
-
Claydon, T. 1998: “Problematising Partnership” in Sparrow, P. and Marchington, M. Human Resource Management – The New Agenda
-
Coupar, W. and Stevens, B. (1998) ‘Towards a new model of industrial relations partnership: beyond the HRM versus industrial relations arguments. In Sparrow, P. and Marchington (eds.) Human Resource Management: The New Agenda London: Pitman.
-
Cully, M. et al. 1999: Britain at Work (read chapters 5 and 7)
-
Gallie, D. Penn, R. and Rose, M. 1996: Trade Unionism in Recession, Oxford: OUP (chapters 4 and 5)
-
Guest, D. (2001) Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management, in Storey, J. (ed) Human Resource Management: A Critical Text London; Thomson
-
Howell, Chris. 1998: “Unforgiven: British Trade Unions in Crisis” in Andrew Martin and George Ross (eds.) The Brave New World of European Labor: European Trade Unions at the Millennium New York: Berghahn, pp.26-74
- Kelly, J. (1996) Union Militancy and social partnership, in Ackers, P., Smith, C. and Smith,
-
Monks, J. (1998) Trade Unions, Enterprise and the Future. In Sparrow, P. and Marchington, M. (eds) Human Resource Management: The New Adgenda, London: Pitman
