INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS PERSPECTIVES
UNITARY THEORY
Workplace “has one source of authority and one source of loyalty” (Fox 1996: p. 3)
-
Dunlop (1958) argues that in a unitary theory, work organizations are
integrated institutions with workers and management working in harmony.
-
Thus no conflict thesis is a dubious integration. It thrives on assumptions that
all workers identify not only with the aims of the enterprise but also with the
operating methods (Seifert 1992).
-
It is a theory that provides shelter to management. To the management, the
assumption of single authority in the workplace enables them (management)
supremacy, to be seen as being legitimate. The organized or unorganized
conflict generated by the workers is seen as lacking legitimacy. The facts of
these views are integrated in both the historical, legal, ideological and
economic arguments about the right to manage.
-
In this regard, workers are treated as a primary responsibility of the
management. The assumption of instructions and orders flowing from the top,
while a loyal workforce just obey (Fox 1974) are the basis for the managerial
unilateral job regulations.
-
Emphasis in individuals who enter into a “free” contract of employment is a
key characteristic of unitarism. The same can be said for Trade Unions in
organizations.
-
TUs are views as outsiders intruding in disruptive consequences into an
otherwise naturally close, smooth and unified workplace.
1
-
The assumption is that, the TU is concerned with agitation that promotes bad
feeling. As a result, the union is seen as raising unreal grievances, that are a
figment of imagination leading to confusion and fiction as a consequence, this
impinges on management which otherwise is assumed to hold and save the
interests of everyone, more so the workers.
-
(IBID) In any case when differences occur, communication becomes a victim,
as assumptions suggest that things can get better when in the finality, the
message “reaches home”. The HRM debate blends well with this theory as the
author contains that it (HRM) is the restoration of the ‘right to manage’, which
is always sought in a subtle way. This is evidenced by the advancement of
notion like ‘teams’ but at the same time individual performance rewards being
provided. This reflects a classical that inherent contradiction in HRM,
between individualism and teamwork. (Legge 1989) By implication, workers
cannot question the authority of management. It is a strong “propaganda” that
purports the non existence of “two sides” the “them and us”.
To proponents of Unitarism, this is an ideal “distribution” one sided though, of power
within the workplace, a worker is treated like a cost to be minimized, the worker is also
treated like a machine which could be used while productive and scrapped when nonfunctioning.
PLURALIST
-
Built around the notions of concessions and compromise between competing
groups, pluralists argued that Industrial Relations are a more complicated
matter, requiring the art of balancing. For the pluralists, apologists, the
workplace is seen as a coalition of individuals and groups. These have “their
own aspirations and perceptions which they naturally see as valued and which
e.g. seek to express in action”. Ross as quoted by Fox 1974: 260)
2
-
The argument goes that from organization of competing interests will develop
a stable “negotiated order” since negotiation is a deliberate process attempting
to reach a jointly acceptable settlement (Walton & Mckasse : 1965).
-
After all, the Webbs had noted that it was not as naively could be imagined by
old fashioned capitalist in demanding the right to manage in his own way
(1902 P822). To this end, Fox reckons that the best chance for management to
control lies in their being ready to share that control in the group they are
seeking to manage.
-
The pluralists argue that the search for immediate improvements led workers
into farming unions (Flanders 1968).
-
TUs are therefore organized institutions that enable conflict resolution
between management and workers through collective bargaining (Fox 1974)
since with this theory collective bargaining is the bedrock exposing collective
values and norms. Collective bargaining, Flanders notes, “is a method of
settling the terms and conditions of employment of employees”.
-
In precise terms, it is joined job regulation, hence the need for institutions that
operate on an urgent principal setting. Management representing the employer
meets, negotiate under a give and take environment and reach agreements
with TU representing the workers. Contrary to submissions that CB offers an
employer with a cheaper means of dealing wit a militant workforce. Hocks
was emphatic and instead emphasized the importance of CB within the
context of control, that “CB is not an instrument of peace primarily, it is a step
in the process of control (1921 P278).
-
Workers by coming together, thus, develop a mechanism by which a union
may share managerial authority in the workplace. In accepting TU legitimacy,
pluralist view them (as legitimate challenges to managerial rule acceptance by
3
workers). In a way, therefore unions are institutions of conflict resolution for
as long as the freedom of association is exercised within the parameters of
law.
-
Pluralists are clear that TUs are just another manifestation, characteristic of
the basic values of competitive pressure groups, tenets of Western model of
democracy (Fox 1974).
-
Clark Ken notes that this can only be possible when there is relief in a
philosophy of “mutual survival” (1951 P12).
-
In line with this argument Bake had earlier defined this as the recognition by
both parties of the mutual dependence upon each other “agreeing to respect
the survival needs of the other” (1946 P41). This way both parties would seem
to adjust their differences using methods that create opportunities for the other
than destroying. From this premise, TU therefore seek to reform and not to
transform and abolish the wage labour system.
-
Flanders (1968) highlighted it as the bargaining with the society. It is for this
reason that valid criticism stems from the Marxist perspective, by questioning
the motivation by management to concert to the watering down of its
competence. If it is not that the pluralist theory as a managerial theory too,
only confirms and further entrenches the subordinate employment
relationship, where workers are exploited. Those who hold unitarist view,
subject pluralism to criticism on the basis that pluralism enable workers to
encroach into the realm of management prerogative. Accepting such criticism
however vindicates and illuminates the strength of pluralism, since it enables
workers to place limits and constraints on management control.
4
MARXIST
-
While the Marxist theory is a generic theory of society and social changes, it
nevertheless remains a powerful framework of social enquiry into the power
relationships in a capitalist society. The starting point in this theory is that Capitalists
are motivated by the generation of surplus profits with which to finance further
accumulation of profit, and the source of profit is an exploited workforce which is
less paid of which it is the one which produces. The security and efficiency in this
case, is not an item of the agenda of capitalists.
-
It follows then that workers resistance threatens the accumulation of capital.
One could as “whether workers who provide services are said to be exploited,
if they are, (of which they are) in what form do their resistance threatens
capital accumulation? Despite appearing to be a complex scenario, the fact
that workers in public services also sell their labour power, subjects them to
exploitation. The same skewed exchange as that obtained in the private sector
takes place. After all, these services are the lubricants that oil up the
accumulation of capital.
-
The vulnerability of workers as individuals leads them to forming collective
combinations and structures in order to protect their own class interests.
-
Unlike what is obtained in both the Unitarist and Pluralist theories and
Marxist Theory provides a powerful interpretation of reality. Reality that
workplace conflict is not a coincidence, it is only a reflection of the class
structure and struggle in society.
-
The emergency of collective bargaining to regulate the inevitable social
conflicts at work enables temporary gains for the workers. The gains however
are more compensation for individual weakness. The gains do not alter the
economic structure, neither are they an expansion of individual strength, they
“actually” delay and perpetuate exploitation. According to Hyman (1971) this
5
accommodation of inherent contradictions in a capitalist society only confirms
the strength of capital.
-
Within this theory, trade unions are viewed as the inevitable consequence or
the capital exploitation of wage labour, challenging the property relations.
They challenge all the prerogatives, which goes with the ownership of the
means of production, not simply the exercise of control over labour processes
industry (Allen 1971:40). However in questioning the delivery capacity of
trade unions, the Marxist argument suggests that workers stand trapped by the
ineffectual reform agenda of trade unions. In this way, workers stand to loose
the initiative for the original revolutional impetus of seeking the crushing of
the capitalist mode.
-
Pluralists suggest the state as being neutral but from the Marxist point, the
state is a tool for the ruling class. It facilitates the accumulation of capital
(Hyman 1975) Milband (1973) as an employer; state is sandwitched in this
complex web of dynamics as it plays the exploitation of workers in the
society. So the establishment of National Health Services in 1948 has been a
fundamental development as argued by Seifert (1992) that the health delivery
system become embroided in the fundamental principle of equality and social
ownership. This point could not be expanded despite the temptation, as the
author had to battle with keeping to framework of this study. However, a
partial return to the role of the state has been made later in dealing with the
developments after the 1979 conservative party election with in so far as
management control is concerned.
-
By implication what is argued as good for the economy appear to suggest of
workers interest as being “selfish and not good for the economy” (Hyman
1975:45). Accepting this argument can be as good as getting into one’s
enemy. Not only is it followed an argument, but it is absurd and an insult to
workers.
6
-
Government is by no means an island, if anything is a satellite of capitalist
influence (in a capitalist society). The industrial relations platena in the public
service therefore is one difficult one, given that at a high notch, the working
class and the ruling class are in constant fights over the control and influence
of the state as an institution.
-
This section has pulled together elements on first
1) Unitarism, emphasizing on unilateral job regulation with the notion of
managements right to manage.
2) Second, pluralism with a focus on joint job regulation between the trade unions
and management.
3) Marxist frame, driven by the power relationship in the frontier of control concept
reflecting balance of power in the workplace. This provides a modest and limited
launch pad into management control paper.
7