Addendum Lecture Chapter 1 - Introduction PDF

Chapter 1: Introduction to Industrial Relations (Labour Relations) Overview The purpose of this course it to offer a very brief introduction to the field of industrial relations (IR) or, as some prefer to call it: labour relations. The significance of work in most Canadians' lives is considered. D...

Chapter 1: Introduction to Industrial Relations (Labour Relations) Overview The purpose of this course it to offer a very brief introduction to the field of industrial relations (IR) or, as some prefer to call it: labour relations. The significance of work in most Canadians' lives is considered. Due to IR’s interdisciplinary nature there are various definitions for the term. Next consideration must be given to some of the best-known theories of industrial relations, including the systems framework and the strategic choice framework. I) The Significance of Work Work is important for a variety of reasons, including both psychic and economic ones. Most of us spend a large share of our waking hours at work; to a large extent our adult identity is shaped by the work we do and the jobs we hold. We meet many of our friends at work, and a good many of us actually meet our life partners there. Work's economic importance is equally important. Most of us derive virtually all of our income from work-related earnings, and work is essential to produce goods and services, like food, housing, and telephone service, on which we all depend. The world of work has been changing quite dramatically. Until quite recently, most jobs in Canada were full-time and full-year, and many people stayed with one employer, or at most a handful of them, throughout their entire working lives. Over the past two decades, the incidence of "atypical" forms of employment has increased dramatically. The increase in part-time work has been particularly dramatic. Other forms of "atypical" employment which have been increasing include casual and contractual work, self-employment, and work performed at home rather than on the employer's premises. As well, most people enjoy far less job security than did their parents and grandparents. Few young people entering today's work world can realistically expect to stay with one employer, or even one occupation, throughout their entire careers. The Canadian work force has been changing equally rapidly. Once predominantly male and almost all white, it now includes nearly 50% women as well as people from many different ethnic and religious backgrounds. It also includes people with varying types and degrees of physical and mental disability. Taken together, these developments pose major challenges for managers, for individual workers, for the unions that seek to represent their interests, and for public policy-makers responsible for regulating working conditions. For example, managers find it hard to generate loyalty and commitment from workers when few of those workers have any assurance that they will still be on the payroll at year's end. Similarly, government officials regulating workplace health and safety find it difficult to monitor working conditions in work done in employees' homes using their own equipment. II) What is Industrial Relations/Labour Relations? IR draws on many fields in analyzing a single phenomenon such as the different rates of union membership in Canada and the U.S. Among the fields IR draws on in analyzing this phenomenon are economics, law (especially labour law), political science, history, psychology, and sociology. Other IR issues may require knowledge of business management, music, folklore, literature, or even ergonomics. How, given IR's complexity and interdisciplinary nature, should we define IR? One possible starting point would be, "the relations between unions and management." Such a definition isn't all bad. Union-management relations are at the core of IR, but it's important to note that such a definition leaves out a lot. Among other things, it leaves out government's important role, as regulator of the IR system. It also fails to take into account non-unionized workers, who make up about two-thirds of the Canadian labour force. Finally, it doesn't consider the extent to which the IR system affects the lives of all Canadians—even those who, like children or retired people, are not themselves employed. For these reasons, it might be sensible to adopt a definition similar to that put forward by Thomas Kochan, who sees IR as addressing all aspects of the employment relationship. IR is by no means the only discipline which deals with the world of work. Other relevant disciplines include organizational behaviour (OB), human resource management (HRM), sociology, labour economics, and labour studies, to name just a few. Where IR differs from other fields is in its concern for balancing the interests of management and workers, as well as in its interdisciplinary approach. While OB and HRM courses tend to take a pro-management approach, and labour studies a pro-labour and often pro-union approach, IR courses seek to make students aware of the needs and interests of both workers and management. Similarly, while labour economics courses focus on work's economic aspects, and sociology courses focus on its behavioural and psychic aspects, IR courses treat the different aspects of work as interrelated. III) Theories of Industrial Relations Dunlop's systems theory For many years, John Dunlop's systems theory was by far the most important industrial relations theory. Despite many criticisms, it has remained important to this day. Dunlop says that an IR system comprises: a) certain actors (managers, workers and their representatives, and government or specialized private agencies which regulate relations between managers and workers), b) certain contexts (economic, technical, and power or political ones), c) a body or web of rules governing the actors' workplace behaviour, and d) a common ideology binding the system together. The workers may or may not be unionized. It is their job to do the work, following instructions given to them by management, whose job it is to provide such instructions. Government's primary interest is as a peacekeeper and rule maker, though within the public sector it wears a second hat as employer. Changes in any of the three contexts are likely to produce shifts in the balance of power between managers and workers, and each has its greatest impact on a particular subset of the rules. For instance, the market context affects pay and benefit levels. The web of rules includes substantive rules regarding system outcomes such as pay, benefits, hours of work, and workplace safety, and procedural rules on such matters as collective bargaining, grievance procedures, and procedures for strikes and lockouts. For the most part, procedural rules are contained in labour relations legislation, while substantive ones are contained in employment standards legislation applicable to most workers. The two sets of rules are largely distinct, though there are a number of areas of overlap between them. As for what is meant by a "common ideology," this has led to a fair amount of confusion over the years. While it would probably be fair to say that most employers and workers share a common preference for democratic government rather than Communism or fascism, this doesn't go far toward explaining to what extent workplace conflict might be restrained or modified as a result of the "common ideology." Criticisms of the systems theory The notion of a "common ideology" has long been criticized as being of little practical guidance. In addition, the systems framework has been criticized for failing to provide a theoretical core which can generate testable research hypotheses, for minimizing the importance of environmental inputs beyond Dunlop's three contexts, for underplaying the importance of conflict, and for assuming that IR systems possess a greater degree of stability than they actually do. Craig's modification of the systems framework allows for a much broader range of inputs than Dunlop's, but has been criticized for paying inadequate attention to the role of management and (like Dunlop's original theory), for underplaying the importance of workplace conflict. The strategic choice framework The strategic choice framework (SCF) arose out of concerns by Thomas Kochan and his associates that existing IR theories (like the systems framework) paid insufficient attention to the role of management and placed too much emphasis on collective bargaining and not enough on events taking place at other levels of the organization. A key element of the SCF is its insistence on linking firms' IR and HR strategies to their global strategies and workplace or shop-floor level strategies. Kochan et al are also unwilling to assume that conflict can be contained or worked out through the normal activities of collective bargaining, or that management will necessarily even be prepared to sit down and negotiate with unions. Within the SCF, the extent of conflict is now something to be measured empirically rather than taken for granted. Particularly in the event that management refuses to have anything to do with unions, this conflict may be far more severe than most of the types envisaged in the systems framework. IV) Perspectives on IR The existence of five different perspectives among IR academics is yet another reason to question Dunlop's notion of a shared ideology. Even within the same union or management organization, different individuals may hold widely divergent views on key issues. The five perspectives whose key features are discussed below address such things as: 1. the importance individuals attach to unions, 2. their major research focus, 3. the extent to which they believe conflict is inherent in the IR system, and 4. their location on the political spectrum (right to left). The following five perspectives will be useful when it comes to considering someone's position on such things as labour law or collective agreements. The neoclassical perspective is really more of a pure economics perspective than an IR one. It emphasizes the study of markets, especially labour markets, and tends to use large statistical data bases for research purposes. Neoclassicists are on the right of the political spectrum and have little use for unions or the government agencies that regulate them. They tend not to concern themselves with questions related to conflict since they believe all such questions can be resolved through the operation of market forces. The managerial perspective is closely related to OB. Managerialists' main concern is the motivation of workers, both individually and in small groups; unlike neo-classicists, they seek to motivate through positive incentives rather than through fear. Politically they are right of centre but not far right; unlike neo- classicists, they do believe government has a positive if limited role to play in regulating the economy and IR system. On the question of unions, they're ambivalent—willing to cooperate if the union is but generally somewhat skeptical, and unwilling to work with adversarial unions. A major research tool is the employee survey. Much of their research deals with issues such as what management techniques and organizational structures will reduce an individual's propensity to engage in industrial conflict. On the question of conflict, managerialists believe that while managers' and workers' interests may diverge in the short run, in the longer run they will converge, assuming management uses appropriate progressive HR policies to link the company's interests to individual workers' needs. The institutional (sometimes called orthodox pluralist) perspective is the one taken by most mainline IR academics. This perspective arises out of the recognition that in competitive market places, individual workers are unable to resist the demands of powerful employers. Unions and collective bargaining are therefore needed to balance what would otherwise be an uneven playing field. Instititutionalists generally have a strong interest in real-world IR institutions (unions, management organizations, and government agencies regulating the IR system) and in public labour policy issues. Much of their research tends to be of a practical nature, and they tend to rely more heavily on interviews and case studies than do neo-classicists. While their political views are not monolithic, most are not too far from the centre of the political spectrum. As for workplace conflict, institutionalists certainly recognize that it exists. At the same time, they believe that much if not all of it can usually be dissipated through collective bargaining and other activities carried out within the IR system. Members of the reformist school perspective think that labour law and collective bargaining could work, but that as things stand, the odds are weighted too heavily in favour of employers, and the rich and powerful in general. While supportive of unions in principle, they believe that in practice, unions often can't be of much help to workers, particularly in small organizations or peripheral sectors of the economy. Accordingly, they seek major economic redistribution, such as changes in the tax system and improved social programs, as well as pay and employment equity and other employment law reforms designed to correct what many of them view as widespread structural and political inequality. Left of centre politically, they combine a theoretical critique of work-related issues with a practical interest in such subjects as discrimination, worker safety, and layoffs and plant closures. Unlike members of the four perspectives already discussed, members of the radical or political economy perspective believe that widespread inequality is an integral part of capitalist society and cannot be overcome under existing economic and political arrangements. In the past, most members of this school were of a Marxist or quasi-Marxist bent and had relatively little use for unions, regarding them as at best a Band-Aid solution, at worst a distraction from what should be the working class' primary mission: to overthrow capitalist society, whether by political means, a general strike, or some combination of the two. More recently, those taking a political economy perspective have moderated their views somewhat. While still on the left politically and still in agreement with traditional Marxists as to the centrality of power issues, few now call for the violent overthrow of capitalist society. Instead, most are more concerned with working for employee ownership and management of businesses or with getting unions to reach out to the communities in which their members live. Interestingly enough, like the neo-classicists (and unlike most institutionalists), members of this perspective have tended to operate from a strongly theoretical base, though in recent years they have tended to show more interest in practical workplace problems.