Industrielle relationer i krise



Abstract

Changing industrial relations – practical and academic implications

Crises or no crises – that’s the question in the practical and academic field of Industrial Relations

Carsten Strøby Jensen, Department of Sociology, University of Copenhagen.

Industrial relations have changed dramatically during the last twenty to thirty years. This is the case both in respect to industrial relations as a practical field or area in modern society, and in respect to industrial relations as a theoretical and intellectual field.

As a practical field changes in industrial relations has mostly been related to the erosion of traditional industrial relations institutions and actors in a broad number of industrialized countries. As a theoretical and intellectual field changes has been related to the development of new types of intellectual disciplines like HRM that have challenged the way industrial relation theory conceptualized the relation between employer and employee.

The changes in the theory and practice of industrial relations have often been conceptualized as a situation of crises. Industrial relations as an intellectual and theoretical discipline have been very much driven by developments in the practical areas of industrial relations. New developments in the practical area of industrial relations have often led to new areas of interest in the academic industrial relations field. The erosion of institutionalized industrial relations in some countries and sectors has made some scholars fear a similar erosion of the industrial relations as an academic field.

In this paper we will try to identify how the changes – or crises – in the practical field of industrial relations has been interpreted and conceptualized in academic field of industrial relations. How has the academic IR-environment explained and identified the changes in the industrial relations systems? And how has this influenced the IR-theoretical agenda and the way industrial relations are understood in the academic field.

Crises or no crises – that’s the question in the practical and academic field of Industrial Relations

Carsten Strøby Jensen, Department of Sociology, University of Copenhagen.

1. Introduction

Industrial relations have changed dramatically during the last twenty to thirty years. This is the case both in respect to industrial relations as a practical field or area in modern society, and in respect to industrial relations as a theoretical and intellectual field.

As a practical field changes in industrial relations has mostly been related to the erosion of traditional industrial relations institutions and actors in a broad number of industrialized countries. As a theoretical and intellectual field changes has been related to the development of new types of intellectual disciplines like HRM that have challenged the way industrial relation theory conceptualized the relation between employer and employees (Edwards 2003, 2005).

The changes in the theory and practice of industrial relations have often been conceptualized as a situation of crises. Industrial relations as an intellectual and theoretical discipline have been very much driven by developments in the practical areas of industrial relations. New developments in the practical area of industrial relations have often led to new areas of interest in the academic industrial relations field. The erosion of institutionalized industrial relations in some countries and sectors has made some scholars fear a similar erosion of the industrial relations as an academic field.

In this paper we will try to identify how the changes – or crises – in the practical field of industrial relations has been interpreted and conceptualized in academic field of industrial relations. How has the academic IR-environment explained and identified the changes in the industrial relations systems? And how has this influenced the IR-theoretical agenda and the way industrial relations are understood in the academic field.

2. The crises of industrial relations – the erosion of collective institutions and actors

According to Hyman the study of Industrial Relations focuses on, “…the rules which govern the employment relationship, the institutions involved in this process and the power dynamics among the main agents of regulation…” (Hyman 2007: 29) and the researchers have especially been interested in the forms of regulation dominated by collective actors and institutions, “Their (auth: the researchers) central concern has typically been the collective and institutional regulation … of work and employment.” (Hyman 2007: 30).

The erosion of the collective and institutionalized forms of regulation is at the center of the crises or change in the IR-field. It relates to the very familiar observations of diminishing levels of unionization among workers, falling levels of collective bargaining coverage, reduced access to high political levels and authorities among labor market parties and other similar trends indicating disorganization, deregulation and deinstitutionalization of industrial relations (Edwards 2003).

The deinstitutionalization of the IR-field has been explained and conceptualized by IR-scholars in many different ways. In the coming section we will try to identify the dominating ways of explaining the erosion and crises of the traditional IR-systems.

Overall it is possible to identify a number of dominating types of academic discourses explaining the changes (or the crises) in the IR-field.

One type of discourse is influenced what we will call the critical IR-theory tradition with is focus on power and power relations between employers and employees. The other type of discourse seems more to be influences or inspired by functionalist ways of explaining changes in society and in the field of industrial relations (without necessarily being founded on a functionalistic theoretical basis).

3. Critical discourses about the erosion of industrial relations

If we look upon the first perspective (critical theory inspired positions) the crises and changes in the industrial relations systems are generally explained by reference to changes in the overall balance in access to different types of power resources among employees and employers. Employers and companies have developed and implemented a strategy toward organized labour that more or less explicitly tries to deinstitutionalize and deregulate the employment relationship. This has led to more market based and less institution based forms of regulation of the relation between employer and employees. The fundamental point in this position is that employers – all other things being equal – will prefer decentralized, non regulated and individualized forms of employment relations. Employers have – exactly because they are employers – an organizational and resource based advantage compared to the single employee. Individual bargaining between a company and a single employee favor the employer in the bargaining situation due to the fact that employers generally have better access to different types of resources.

The changing balances of power between employers and employees are usually explained with reference to a number of different situations.

Firstly changing political environments is often used to explain shifts in the balance of power. This type of explanation is for example used in connection with the developments in the British and American (US) systems of industrial relations since the late 1970’ies. Thatcher and Regan changed the political balances during the 1980’ies in advantage of the employers. Neoliberal ideas penetrated the political systems in a number of Western countries and led to a negative political attitude toward trade unions and institutionalized employment relations. Employers and employers association used the new political environment and support, to put pressure on trade unions and organized labour in order to get rid of or at least loosen the implications of collective agreements and bargaining[1].

A second type argument used to explain changes in the balance of power between employers and employees relates to changes in the economic environment. Economic internationalization and globalization - it is often argued - tends to favor companies and employers vis a vis employees. In a globalized world companies have the ability to move to areas where working conditions and labour expenses are much lower than in countries with developed and organized industrial relations systems. Labour on the other hand has only limited access to the same kind of mobility and is more geographically bounded. All in all it is argued that globalization tends to increase the overall bargaining power of the employers and decrease the bargaining power of the employees. Threats and talks about possible outsourcing of production facilities etc. are used by employers to strengthen their bargaining position in order make employees and trade unions accept less organized industrial relations systems.

A third type of observation in this critical oriented academic discourse relates to arguments about more fundamental changes in the productions structure (or in the mode of production). Regulation theory oriented scholars – but also others - argue, that the fundamental structures in the capitalist mode of production changed in the 1970ies implying a shift in production regime from Fordism to post-Fordism. And they argue that the two different types of productions regimes corresponds to different types of industrial relations systems. Organized industrial relations correspond to the Fordist regime, while disorganized industrial relations correspond to the Post-Fordist mode of production.

4. Functionalist discourses about the erosion of industrial relations

A second type of academic discourse explaining the changes in the industrial relations field focuses more on what could be called underlying changes in late-modern society related to a number of different factors. Scholars working within this discourse argue in what could be called a more functionalistic way (without being theoretically embedded in functionalism), when they explain tendencies of disorganization and deregulation of the practical field of industrial relations. In this discourse arguments about fundamental changes in the employment relation are some times put forward in order to explain the diminishing influence of the collective actors in the IR-regulation.

It is argued that the post-industrial society and the post-industrial labour market (especially the parts dominated by a highly educated labour force) demand other types of regulatory mechanisms than those dominating in the classical industrial society. Employee-employer relations are changing and becoming more individualized as a result of the development of more complex and differentiated work processes.

A first type of explanation to the changes in the industrial relations systems deals with what could be called overall changes in the class structure in the industrialized (or post-industrialized society). Some scholars argue that we can observe changes in the overall class structure in industrialized societies which influences e.g. trade unions ability to recruit new members. The traditional industrial working class, which could be seen as the core basis for recruitment in the trade union movement, is reduced both relatively and in absolute numbers due to changes in the composition of the occupational structure. More employees are employed in the service sector and less in the industrial sector. This has – as is well documented (Ebbinghaus & Visser 2000) – implicated falling level of unionization among workers in a number of European countries. Workers employed in the service sector are less unionized than workers employed in the industrial sector.

Another factor relating to changes in the class structure in the late modern societies that has lead to more disorganized industrial relations has to do with changes in the overall importance of classes in the society. Some argue that classes are no longer as important as they used to be, when we try to explain values, ideology or life perspectives among people in late modern society. Ulrich Bech talks about individualization in what he calls the second modernity (Bech 1992, 2000) and argue that the structuring influences of classes for developing common values in a society has diminished. Pakulski & Waters argue that economic position in a society no longer determines values and political views. The classes are death and new types categories relating to subjects like ethnicity, gender, style, taste etc. are becoming the structuring determinants in the society. Pakulski and Waters ague that the formation of norms, values and ideologies are disconnected from the economic sphere (Pakulski & Waters 1996). The cultural sphere has established itself as a more or less autonomous area in the society. Observations like these are by some observers used to explain disorganizing tendencies in the IR-field.

A second type of explanation in the more functional oriented discourse about disorganized industrial relations relates to observations about changes in the work processes and to changes in the management attitudes toward labour. Some scholars argue for example, that the use of new types of technology has changed the relationship between management and employees. In contrast to the classical manufacturing industries with its assembly line production and its fragmentation of the work process, the use of new types of technology imply a less fragmented use of labour. The need for a qualified workforce increases when new technologies are used, in contrast to what was foreseen by Bravermann and others. As Daniel Bell observed in his ‘Coming of the Post-Industrial Society’ (1973), pre-industrial society was dominated by a human-nature relation, industrial society is/was dominated by a human-machine relation and post-industrial societies is dominated by a human-human relation. The fact the dominating working relations are structured round human-human relations changes not only the object work process (from machines to humans), but also the relation between management and employees.

Employers and management have changed – would some scholars argue – their fundamental attitude toward employees due to e.g. increased international competition and their need for a committed workforce. This is the basic argument in parts of the HRM literature. Employer-employee relations are – it is sometimes argued - more and more characterized by mutual commitment and common interests in developing competitive work processes in the interests of both parties. The death classes are partly replaced by the company as a community. Traditional systems of industrial relations with its focus on collective actors and conflicts of interests between management and labour are in this new reality becoming more and more obsolete. There is no need for a system of industrial relation in a society characterized by these new types of employer-employee relations. And even if we can observe employments relations dominated by tayloristic forms of management we must expect them to play - in the long run - only a marginal role at the labour market. This is even a trend supported by the developments in the international division of labour and the outsourcing of manufacturing production to e.g. China.

A third type of argument of this more functionalistic type relates to the history of the industrial relations systems in the 1970’ies. The crises of the industrial relations systems have developed dramatically in the periods after the 70’ies. It is e.g. from the 1980’ies and onwards that we have seen tendencies toward deregulation or at least decentralization of the collective bargaining structure in a number of Western countries. One way of explaining this tendency is with reference to the economic problems of the 1970’ies. One could argue that the industrial relations systems were capable of producing or establishing solutions to central conflict (in society and on the labour market) during the 1950’ies and 1960’ies. Organized industrial relations seemed to be an adequate answer to the challenged of the post-war period, at least in a number of countries. In the 1970’ies, however, the organized system of industrial relations was not in the same way capable of establishing compromises that was an adequate answer to the Oil crises and the economic crises of the late 1970’ies. At least in some countries – UK and Denmark can be seen as examples – decentralization of the industrial relations was seen as a possible answer to the fact that centralized forms of collective bargaining did not lead to solutions on the labour market, but to major conflicts between trade unions and employers associations.

Compared to the critical discourse about the erosion of industrial relations the more functionalist oriented discourse will argue that it is not due to changes in balance of the political or economic power that we can observe changes in or erosion of the classical industrial relations systems. It is all in all due to the lack of functionality or ability to produce solutions that the systems erode.

One might even argue that the power balance between employers and employees move in a direction benefitting the employees. Individuals increases their market value (or market changes to use a Weberian expression) because of employers increased need for a committed and qualified workforce. To this type of argument a critical oriented discourse on the other hand would argue, that although one might be able to argue that some employees might have increased their market based value due to changed demands on the labour market, other parts of the labour force would experience a worsening of the labour market status due to the disorganization of the industrial relations.

Csj: Forandringer i klassestruktur, forandringer i familiestruktur, forandringer i forholdet mellem produktion og konsumtion.

5. How to answer the crises and erosion of industrial relations

If some of the above observations about trends in the practical and academic discussions about explaining and conceptualizing the erosion of industrial relations are correct, then we can also ask: What is the answer to this crises or erosion in both the practical and academic field?

In the academic circles the crises both in the practical and the scholarly field has been observed by a number of different authors. Bruce Kaufman wrote in an introduction to a book on the theme of theoretical perspective on industrial relations (Kaufman 2004) the following about his motivation for the book: “The second motivation came from the long-term decline in the academic fortunes of industrial relations and my desire to reverse this trend. As numerous people in the field have observed, industrial relations in this country (auth: in US) – and to some substantial degree in many other countries of the world – has the last two decades suffered a significant loss of intellectual energy and scholarly participation.” (Kaufman 2004: vii).

Kaufman (and others) has argued that industrial relations need to be ‘employment relations’ in order to conceptualize new trends in the industrial relations field. This has especially been an argument put forward in an American context. The erosion of industrial relations has been especially dramatic in both academic and practical industrial relations in US[2]. One way to deal with this situation – especially in the academic field - is according to Kaufman to rename the field and make it more comparable with a postindustrial labour market. The concept of employment relations is therefore preferable to the concept of industrial relations as it makes the field more eatable to a broader academic audience.

Intensified corporation between HRM and Industrial relations researchers are argued by some. Acers and Wilkinson argue in such a way (2003) observing how many ‘former’ IR-researcher have turned their interest more directly into the HRM field (including researcher like Sisson, Poole, Purcell (Ackers & Wilkinson 2003: 16)).

They also argue more generally that HRM and industrial relations research have many common interests. “In this way, we see HRM as overlapping with IR but with different emphasis in term of the topic field … Disciplinary wall are low, such that many academics working in either IR or HRM lectures will publish both in IR and HRM journals.” (Ackers & Wilkinson 2003: 17-18).

Colling & Terry (2010) argue – partly in line with Kaufman – that the students of industrial relations generally have been too focused on the collective institutions in the employments relationship. Industrial relations researchers have – for a long period - almost entirely focused on understanding the part of the employment relationship which related to different types of collective bargaining structures and institutions. The consequence has been that those part of the employment relationship that has been constituted via more individualised (or non-collectivised) contracts has not been subject for interests among IR-researchers. Non unionised parts of the labour market have not had the same kind of attention as the unionised parts of the labour market. Similar focus has not been on the aspects of the employments relationship that deals with the more direct employer-employee relationship. “Our argument so far has acknowledged the need for industrial relations analysis to move beyond the concerns that dominated the subject for half a century and to rediscover a more expansive and inclusive approach to employment relations.” (Colling & Terry 2010: 16).

Other theoretical and practical answers to the crises have also been put forward. Some have argued that the observed erosion of the practical field of industrial relations does not need to have a permanent character. And argue in opposition to the point of views put forward by some of the above mentioned positions.

Kelly (1998) argue for example that the ups and downs of the industrial relations interdependent with the long waves in the economy. The fact that we nowadays can observe decrease in the level of unionization and in the level of collective bargaining coverage does not imply that the same situation will continue to exist in the future. Industrial relations have changed in the past and will also continue to do so in the future it is argued by Kelly. As Kelly writes in the introduction to his ‘Rethinking industrial relations’: “Contrary to postmodernist claims that the classical labour movement is in a terminal decline, long wave theory suggests that it is more likely to be on the threshold of resurgence.” (Kelly 1998: 1). Trade unions and collective bargaining are according to Kelly still today and in the future adequate forms of organizations through which workers could organize in order to get the interests represented.

Hyman argue – partly in line with Kelly – that the practical field of classical industrial relations has not come to final stage, and that especially the American and UK development is not representative for the development in other parts of Europe. This is the case although some erosion of IR-systems can be observed in most countries.

Hyman argue: “All European countries … have seen an erosion of union membership alongside challenges to the institutional arrangements of employment protection and labour market regulation which had seemed firmly embedded over many decades. Yet few countries have seen a ’transformation’ of industrial relations comparable to experience in Britain or the USA (leaving aside the very special case of central and eastern Europe): collective regulation remains robust. Rather than conceding the end of collectivism and abdicating to the employer all possibility of regulation, the central question in current European debate is how to re-institutionalise the employment relationship at societal level… (Hyman 2007: 35). Re-institutionalization of the practical field of industrial relations is the answer according to Hyman.

For Hyman this re-institutionalization is twofold. Firstly it is related to the practical field of industrial relations. New types of institutions regulating the IR-field can be observed especially in Europe and in relation to the European Union. Social Europe has been put on the agenda in connection with the development of the European integration (single market and similar) and questions about regulating and institutionalizing the employer-employee relationship is on the political agenda in EU. Industrial relations have also become a European subject and are debated in relations to – also European – trends toward increased market based forms of regulation (neo-liberalism). And even though Hyman generally seems skeptical about the outcome of the European Union he also argue that the European Union might be able to provide the workers and employees with some kind of organized system of industrial relations in a situation where companies and capital are getting more and more globalized.

Secondly re-institutionalization for Hyman relates to the academic practices of IR- researchers. As Hyman once stated paraphrasing Marx 11th thesis on Feuerbach: ”Scholars have so far interpreted the world of industrial relations in different ways; the point is to re-invent it.” (Hyman 2001a: 293).

IR-scholars should contribute to the reinvention and re-institutionalization of the practical field of industrial relations. What this means in the academic practice is however not so easy identifiable, but it properly don’t mean that the study of industrial relation should be transformed to the study of employment relations.

6. Conclusion

Practical industrial relations have during the last twenty to thirty years gone through a period of transformation and erosion. Deinstitutionalization and deregulation has characterized labour market developments in a number of countries. This development has not surprisingly also influence the industrial relations research field. Industrial relations researchers have also talked about crises in the academic field of industrial relations and industrial relations researchers have felt an increasing competition from other areas of social science (Edwards 2003).

As presented in the foregoing sections it is possible to identify two types of answers to the crises in the practical and academic field of industrial relations.

The first answer is to move the analytical and theoretical core from industrial relations to employment relations or even to HRM. Employment relations are no longer understandable through the use of concepts focusing on collective actors like trade unions or employers associations. Industrial relations research should be integrated in the HRM disciplines where it can contribute by giving HRM a more pluralistic and less unilateral perspective on the relations between management and employees.

The second answer is to stress the continued importance of the traditional IR-systems with its collective actors. Crisis in practical industrial relations are more or less seen as a consequence of shifts in political agendas and power balances between employers and employees. And scholars in the academic field of industrial relations should in that situation not abandon the classical study of industrial relation, but instead help to re-institutionalize it (both in practice and theory).

A third position could be to combine the two perspectives and argue that each perspective is relevant and adequate under its own specific conditions. It might be useful to ‘walk on two legs’. Some points could be put forward in order to argue for the relevance of both perspectives.

Firstly if we look upon the employment structure in the most advanced industrial (or post-industrial) countries the number of white collar employees has generally increased on the expense of blue collar employees the last thirty years. This development has increased the need for a more individualistic and employment relations oriented conceptualization of the relation between employers and employees. White collar employees are traditionally less committed to trade unions and collective forms of bargaining than blue collar employees. This empirical development has to be reflected in the conceptualization of the relation between employer and employee. Correspondingly part of the traditional blue collar worker labour market has developed in a way that makes it more ‘white collar like’ in its organizational structure. The use of team work and other ‘new’ forms of work organization has changed the traditional hierarchical structure at company level. This also points in the direction of a need for employment relations oriented studies of the employer-employee relation.

Secondly we can however – as a parallel tendency – also observe that more traditional and hierarchical structured employment relations (still) play an important role on the labour markets even in the most advanced post-industrial societies and sectors. And that traditional form of industrial relations institutions is presents in most advanced post-industrialised economies. Industrial relations systems in its classical form are still the answer to the employment relations in a number of countries, especially in Europe.

A third observation implying a need for more classical industrial relations analysis relates to the more polarized labour market that can be observed in some of the advanced post-industrial societies. Part of the labour markets that used to be embedded in institutional structures dominated by collective industrial relations actors have been deregulated due to e.g. globalization or internationalization (e.g. increased migration in Europe in the building sector). The lack of more traditional industrial relations institutions in these parts of the labour market are not there because they are not needed. They are not there, due to processes of marginalization or due to changes in the power balances between employers and employees. More traditional industrial relations analysis is needed to understand the processes of marginalization. Correspondingly globalization and trends in the international division of labour point in the direction that industrial relations analysis in its traditional form will have a relevant future in studying the formation (or development) of systems of industrial relations in countries like Brazil, India and China.

Conclusive the point put forward here is, that some parts of the labour market (or some part of a company) could usefully be conceptualized in an employment relations perspective, while other part of the labour market (or other parts of a company) more usefully could be conceptualized using industrial relations theory. There is a need for both industrial relations and employment relations in the future of the academic and practical field of ‘industrial relations’.

References:

Ackers & Wilkinson (2003): “Introduction: The British Industrial Relations Tradition – Formation, Breakdown, and Salvage”, pp. 1-31 in Ackers & Wilkinson (eds.): “Understanding Work & Employment – Industrial relations in Transition”, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Bacon, N. (2003). ‘Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations’. In Ackers & Wilkinson (eds.). Understanding Work and Employment: Industrial Relations in Transition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 71-88.

Bech, U. (1992): Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage

Bech, U. (2000): The Brave New World of Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bell, D. (1973): “The Coming of Post-Industrial Society”

Blyton, P. & Turnbull (2004): “The Dynamics of Employee Relations”, Palgrave

Colling, T. & Terry, M. (2010): “Work, The Employment Relationship and the field of Industrial relations”, pp. 3-25 in Colling & Terry (eds.) (2010): Industrial Relations – Theory and Practice” 3.edition, Wiley, West Sussex.

Edwards, P. (2003): “The Future of Industrial relations” pp. 337-358 in Ackers & Wilkinson (eds.): “Understanding Work & Employment – Industrial relations in Transition”, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Edwards, P. (2005): “The challenging but promising future of industrial relations: developing theory and method in context-sensitive research”, Industrial Relations Journal, 36:4, 264-282.

Furåker, B. (2009): “Arbetssamhällets reträtt? - Samtidsdiagnoser på villovägar” i Arbetsmarknad & Arbetsliv, årg 15, nr 3, hösten 2009, pp.11 - 26

Hyman, R. (2007): “An Anglo-European Perspective on Industrial Relations Research”, Arbetsmarknad och arbetsliv, vol 13, nr. 3-4, pp. 29-41.

Hyman, R. (2001): The Europeanisation – or erosion – of industrial relations? »Industrial relations journal«, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 280-293.

Kaufman, B. (2004): “Preface” pp. vii-x in Kaufman (ed.) Theoretical Perspectives on Work and the Employment Relationship, IIRA.

Kaufman, B. (2008): “The Study of Labour, Employment, and Work Life: Central Features and Core Principle”, Arbetsmarknad och arbetsliv, vol 13, nr. 3-4, pp. 11-28.

Kelly, J. (1998): Rethinking Industrial relations – Mobilizations, Collectivism and long waves”, Routhledge.

Leisink. P., Steijn, B. & Veersma, U. (eds) (2007): ”Industrial Relations in the New Europe – Enlargement, Integration and Reform”, Edwar Elgar, Cheltenham UK

Pakulski, J. & Waters, M. (1996): The Death of Class, London, Sage.

-----------------------

[1] Neo-liberalism is often used in IR-literature to ‘explain’ trends toward disorganization and deregulation. Very seldom efforts are however made to explain why neo-liberal political thoughts were able to gain such a big impact in Britain, US and other places.

[2] A personal observation about the status of the field of industrial relations in US was made at the ASA (American Sociological Association) congress in Boston in 2008 where I participated. The congress theme was about the future of work. A special session focusing on industrial relations and sociology was organized and held as part of the congress. The audience at this session (that actually was quite informative) counted four persons (including me). More than 5.000 sociologists participated in the conference.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download