Globalisation Of The Trade Union Movement example essay topic

Introduction Hyman focuses on three interpretations of the title 'Imagined Solidarities'. Firstly, he believes that worker or trade union solidarity is an unattainable concept. Secondly, he states that solidarity is nothing more than an unrealizable utopian ideal. Thirdly, he believes the integration of diverse employee interests can only be achieved through post-Fordist creative and innovative means. Marx (1867) believed that workers were united by a common interest and that unions had a mission to voice this interest.

There are three foundations for this assumption. The first foundation was the idea that human emancipation required material force. Piore and Sabel (1984) describe Marx' view that the Government was an accomplice to the landlords' oppression of peasantry. For a whole class to have its interests addressed the entire society to which it belonged had to change. Secondly, Marx believed that those workers who did enjoy distinctive interests did so as relics of a pre capitalist society. Advancing capitalism was destroying traditional skills and homogenizing the proletariat.

Piore and Sabel disagree, arguing that craft production complemented mass production because the specialist machines used in mass production could not themselves be mass-produced. Thirdly, Marx felt that once the proletariat realised that it was in fact a 'class', it would unite and form a common identity. Trade unions developed to voice the common interests of this class. However, Hyman argues against Marxist theory. He believes that while solidarity implied the perception of commonalities of interest and purpose, it in no way abolishes awareness of individual circumstance. Instead he states that unions help shape workers own definitions of their individual and collective interest.

This is reflected even in early trade unions, which were guilds of individual craftsmen or an individual industry. Paradoxically, Hyman is in fact a Marxist because he pursues the idea that there is a place for union representation. However, the collective interests of one group often conflicts with that of another. Therefore there is both sectionalism and solidarity within the labour movement.

Hyman proposes that multi-occupational unionism requires the intervention of a political force or the group of workers has to realise that it is simply too small for its interests to be addressed alone. In an Irish context, James Larkin engineered this "politically driven class project" in the early 1900's with the establishment of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union. Mechanical Solidarity According to Touraine (1981), "movements such as unionism have a life history, infancy, youth, maturity, old age and death". Since the late 1980's there has been a so-called crisis of trade unionism.

But the real question is whether there been a death of trade unions? Hyman believes that it is not per se a crisis of trade unionism that we are facing, but rather a crisis of a particular model of trade unionism. We are now moving from an old model of mechanical solidarity to a new model of organic solidarity. Hyman outlines three main reasons for the death in mechanical solidarity: increased individualism, market coercion and the eclipse of egalitarianism. (i) Increased Individualism The stereotype of 'One Big Happy Family' has never existed within the trade union movement. Without differences in the first place, there would be no need for trade unions at all.

Yet the majority of trade unions around the world are now facing the increased threat of individualism. This individualism has many features. Over the past two decades, we have seen an increase in wealth in most societies, and with it, the emergence of the 'White-Collar Proletariat'. The manufacturing industry, which according to Piore and Sabel (1984) superseded the craft industry, has traditionally been the main supporter of trade unions. Yet, in the UK alone, since 1997, there have been more than 500,000 jobs lost in this sector.

These 'Blue-Collar Workers', have been superceded by a more skilful and educated workforce of 'Gold-Collar' graduates. These individuals are proponents of natural justice and their logic seems to be that, if they have invested four years in going to university, they at least deserve to be adequately rewarded for their human capital. The second reason cited by Hyman for the rise in individualism is the growth in atypical employment. The number of part-time hours performed by men in the workplace has doubled over the past ten years. The number of women with full-time jobs has increased three fold over the past twenty years. Unions have not changed their policies to accommodate these peripheral workers.

Trade Unions have not only failed to change, they have failed to reinvent themselves. The predominant reason listed by Hyman for the rise in individualism is what he terms 'a socio-cultural shift'. He essentially means that the collective agenda has been usurped by individualistic ideals. He feels that the middle class is now fed up with the welfare state ideal. People now realise that while mechanical solidarity was an appropriate model for 'hygiene factors', such as remuneration and workplace conditions, Herzberg's satisfiers (1968), such as achievement and responsibility, are no longer attainable targets through the former model of mechanical solidarity.

For example in Australia the government now advocates the use of individual employment negotiations, and actually discourages collective bargaining, one of the principal ambits of trade unions. In some ways Ireland is an exception to the rule having had six national partnership agreements since 1987. Yet the idea of Ireland's 'collective culture' must be qualified. The government have been the protagonist in these agreements. If it had been left to the trade unions and employers alone, a free for all would probably have prevailed. Furthermore, while the success of these agreements is undeniable, the actual number of employees who are members of trade unions, and thus subject to collective bargaining agreements is in decline.

So while Ireland has, to some extent, survived the upsurge in individualism, it has nonetheless been affected by a global shift in ideologies. Changes in the geographic origins of workers have also contributed to the growth in individualism. In the past workers were from one town, now they are from different backgrounds and areas and, as a result, bring different perspectives to the negotiating table. The argument of increased individualism can be transposed onto a 'national' versus 'global's cena rio.

Countries are increasingly nationalistic. This is best illustrated by a recent survey of Chrysler's US workforce. While 52% were willing to support fellow citizens in an industrial dispute, only 13% would do so in the event of a strike in the UK. Therefore it would thus appear that the individualistic culture has developed into an 'Us versus Them' battle.

This makes one wonder, whether Crouch (1992) was in fact correct when he stated that, "while unions may have a long-term future, do union movements?" (ii) Market Coercion The second of three underlying causes, which Hyman attributes to the crisis of the "Mechanical Solidarity" model, is the impact on trade unions, of the evolving business model in which modern employers operate. As Hyman defines it, "Market Coercion" is a term used to describe the problems such trade unions face, arising from industry deregulation, intensified market competition and company restructuring. Historically, trade unions came to prominence in post-war Europe to help safeguard workers' goals of relative job security and full employment in the context of increased product demand and government sponsored constraints on domestic competition. In the last decade, globalisation has brought about arduous restructuring of national economies and resulted in intensified market competition. Europe has seen the practical outcome of this in the form of decentralisation of capital and increased foreign direct investment between E.U. States. The combined benefits of these factors are facilitating the transformation of Europe's most efficient and competitive firms into formidable Multi-National Companies (MNCs).

Unfortunately, trade unions practicing mechanical solidarity encounter much difficulty in adjusting to this type of corporate animal. This is because they are more accustomed to resisting the demands of American MNCs - within which the most common dispute surrounds their reluctance to adhere to the regulatory framework of national industrial relations structures. Worryingly, European MNCs present a more direct affront to the collective bargaining objectives of trade unions by increasingly abandoning their obligations to work with unions to forge social partnership agreements such as "Sustaining Progress", Ireland's new tripartite pay agreement recently concluded by Irish Employers, Unions and the Government. To combat these challenges, Hyman argues that new types of cross-cultural trade unions are needed. Every independent country has traditionally had the means to regulate their own national economy. The outcome of this was that each labour market effectively operated as a closed system.

However, the impact of globalisation, and the implementation of the "common market" meant that many employers have become increasingly sceptical of any trade union goal inconsistent with the firm's objective of international competitiveness. Market coercion also includes the process of internal firm restructuring to prepare companies for the highly competitive globalised economy. The old company model where trade unions flourished involved bureaucracy, centralised decision making, and standardisation of employee tasks - all of which fostered worker solidarity. Out of this process of restructuring, a new model coined the "hollow company" by Sabel (1995), has generated increased competition between employees and challenged unions' ability to promote solidarity.

Its three distinguishing elements are: 1. The subcontracting and franchising out of functions, such as payroll, 2. The division of big companies into distinct subsidiaries, and critically, 3. The devolution of decision-making responsibility to individual employees. Traditionally, unions used solidarity as a weapon to collectively bargain for the protection of jobs. Currently, collectivized bodies of employees are often vulnerable en masse to huge job losses, due to the intense market competition to which their employer is exposed by the globalised economy.

Towns and cities throughout Ireland, and indeed Europe, bear witness to the vulnerability of both European and American MNCs' operations. This is evident in the recent closure of the Irish operations of European electrical appliance manufacturers, Krups in Limerick, and Square-D in Galway; the American computer manufacturer, Gateway in Dublin, and the 2001 collapse of the Swiss National Flag Carrier, Swissair. Unions engaged in plant level bargaining with MNCs operating outside Ireland's national pay agreement, face increased difficulty in harnessing employee solidarity. Hyman suggests these challenges are complicated further by mechanical solidarity. The three dominant challenges he identifies are: 1.

The pressure trade unions are under to surrender concessions, in the interests of company competitiveness - a practical example being the pressure Aer Lingus placed on trade unions, specifically the I.A.L.P.A., the pilots' union, to accept job cuts necessary for the implementation of the airline's survival plan in 2002, 2. The tendency of employers, in the absence of strong trade union leadership, to put their self-interests before their workers' interests and, 3. The tendency of unions to protect the most vocal and financially secure members of the union when job cuts are necessary to secure competitive restructuring of a company. ( ) The Eclipse of Egalitarianism The final reason cited by Hyman for the crisis of mechanical solidarity is the eclipse of egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is a commitment to social equality involving equal treatment for all.

Like the trade union movement itself, it has its origins in Marxism. It was established through a commitment to narrowing income differentials, a progressive tax policy, and universal social services. It was achieved through labour movements and socialist politics, which resulted in the establishment of the Keynesian Welfare State. Most welfare states largely succeeded in their goal of redistributing income throughout the work force. Hyman argues that this victory caused the eclipse of egalitarianism. He claims that the narrowing of income differentials created a consciousness of inequity, and that the subsequent revolt was inevitable.

White collar trade unions insisted differentials with manual labour be maintained, whilst higher skilled manual workers insisted on a tightening of differentials or escaped through reclassification of their class status to white collar. As a result, trade union membership plummeted in some countries and most workers' incomes increased. The three main dimensions of the eclipse were: 1. The revolt of the advantaged against particular manifestations of the egalitarian project such as progressive tax policies and narrowing income differentials.

2. The dwindling working class base, due to the creation of a new "lower middle class" and 3. The advent of neoliberalism. When globalisation became a major force in the nineties and Multi-Nationals decided to relocate away from high Keynesian tax regimes and large currency fluctuations to states with low corporation tax, egalitarianism rapidly declined. In Europe, after the Maastricht Treaty, it collapsed.

Hyman defines mechanical solidarity as the "classic form of interest definition and representation". The aggregation of interests involves establishing priorities among competing grievances and aspirations. Trade unions helped shape workers definitions of their collective and individual interests, and became responsible for the redistribution of gains and losses. Questions started to arise regarding whose interests counted for most and the decentralisation of employee interests by employment regulation. A crisis of employee loyalty to trade unions began and is still in full flow. Hyman proposed that "Organic Solidarity" provides the solution to this decline.

Organic Solidarity Having analysed the decline of mechanical solidarity, Hyman realised that if some form of solidarity is to survive, unions need to completely reinvent themselves. At the moment unions are focusing on the 'mass worker', that is the 'core' working class, and setting an agenda to cater for their needs. They neglect the most advantaged and the most disadvantaged. This policy worked quite well while the majority of the labour force were mass workers. However because of the increasing influence of globalisation and post-Fordism a huge restructuring of work has occurred, which has changed the organisational structure and the make up of the labour force. There has been a growth in the most and least advantaged workers and the number of mass workers has declined significantly.

This leaves unions facing a dilemma. They can either continue to represent a declining core and decline with that core or they can try and incorporate the needs of the periphery. Hyman believes that the latter option is the better. Like Heckscher (1988) and Durkheim (1933), Hyman believes that unions need to become increasingly organic in their membership. They need to attract a much more flexible, differentiated and interdependent membership.

However, in order to attract such a diverse membership they need to develop policies, which will accommodate their divergent and often conflicting needs. Developing policies that appeal to all members of a union has never been easy, hence the proliferation of trade unions, but under organic solidarity this task becomes even more difficult. Hyman proposes that unions can cater for such differing interests by focusing on three key issues: flexibility, security, and opportunity. Flexibility: In the area of flexibility, Hyman feels that unions should focus on the issue of time sovereignty, that is, ensuring workers have the correct balance between time spent at work, time spent at leisure activities and time spent domestically.

Unions must also realise that concepts such as teamwork, quality circles and performance related pay, introduced under the guise of 'empowerment', have all increased workers responsibility but reduced their power. As Jefferys (1966, p. 183) noted, unions need to introduce some 'bilateral' content into the unilaterally imposed management-led employment relationship. Hyman believes that unions can achieve that by trying to address the issues of time sovereignty and reduced power. He also feels that this policy would appeal to a wide range of workers with differing interests. Security: The increasing power of the market has led to a growth in worker insecurity. However tackling this issue could prove divisive because improving the security of insiders necessarily reduces the security of outsiders.

Hyman stated that if unions try to increase security by seeking improved entitlements to education and training, encouraging the provision of more effective education and training and trying to improve 'up skilled' workers' opportunities, then they should be able to promote greater security for workers in a non-divisive manner. Opportunity: The issue of opportunity relates to that of empowerment. The idea behind the empowerment of workers is that it reduces workers' ties to their existing job and existing employer. However the concept is merely an illusion if there is no realistic and preferable alternative available to the existing ties. If unions concentrate their efforts on ensuring that an alternative does exist, then they should be able to cater for the diverse interests of members. As Waddington and Whitson (1996 pp. 153-67) observed, unions should strive to create "a fair and equitable framework" within which individual aspects of the employment relationship can be negotiated.

We agree with Hyman that if unions are to survive they need to vastly expand their membership. However we are not convinced that the policies proposed by Hyman will achieve this aim. We believe that while these policies will attract the winners from globalisation and post-Fordism; the most disadvantaged, who are most in need of union protection, are still neglected both in unions' plant level policies and their national agendas. Workers on the minimum wage with little job security will not be tempted to join a union that, at plant level, only pursues issues such as time sovereignty and empowerment. On a national level, the only forum to address these workers' needs is within the scope of the partnership agreements. However unions merely pursue issues such as the protection of the lower paid, and tax reductions and improved social benefits for workers on the minimum wage, as a periphery to the main issue of securing wage increases for the mass worker.

Additionally trade unions seem increasingly un supportive of collective bargaining as shown by their reluctance to sign an agreement for a period longer than eighteen months. If this trend continues, unions' power to influence areas of importance to the most disadvantaged will be reduced. Representation at a national level of the most disadvantaged would effectively end if unions carry out their threat of withdrawing from this process. Conclusion The reinvention of trade unions sought by Hyman is not going to be an easy task.

There will be many problems faced in the expansion of membership and the search for globalisation of the movement. The initial problem that organisations must face is their existing beliefs. Beliefs tend to be strongly embedded within an institution. The transformation Hyman believes necessary will not be achieved unless a complete overhaul of existing trade union beliefs can be accomplished. Additional challenges to the globalisation of trade unions include the varying degrees of intelligence of trade union officials, and their ability to envisage the globalisation of the movement. Unions have traditionally undertaken differing policies so it will be necessary for them to consider if globalisation is a concept they wish to pursue.

Such a decision will be affected by the resources available to accomplish it and the level of trust that can be fostered between union members in different countries. Finally, European organisations have traditionally been restricted by their inability to be a powerful influence on trans-national capital and decision makers, or even to reflect the opinions of those they are said to in theory represent. Hyman believes the solution to these problems lies with the issue of trade union intelligence. This is created by the formation of a strategic alliance coupled with democratic activism. This will require vast enhancement of the scope for initiative and the mobilization of opinion from the heart of the movement. Strong support structures from centralised sources will be necessary and participation by the grass roots is vital.

The enhanced capacity and organic solidarity of organisations will demand high multi-directional discussion, communication and understanding. To be effective on an international level, trade unions must draw on experience at a national level to allow for progression towards a networked approach. One question continually addressed by Hyman is that of how global the trade union movement can really become. Castells (2000) argues that there has been a death of distance, but the problem with labour is that it is a vastly different resource than, for example, goods.

There are many additional problems to contend with, such as language barriers, mobility costs, cultural differences and probably the most potent of all in contemporary society, xenophobia. According to the Dutch philosopher Vos (1986), trade unions are increasingly being sidelined on the global stage. The Fordist-type exploitation of third world labour in countries such as Indonesia is an example of this. Within a European context we now have over eight hundred European Works Councils, but only a handful of these, for example Danone, actually have negotiating powers. Hyman states that globalisation of the trade union movement is becoming increasingly possible with developments in communications media. He cites the example of the Liverpool Dockers who used the Internet to globalise their cause and gain worldwide recognition.

However, despite this example, which we believe is limited to the facts of that particular case, we feel that the potential for trade unions to utilise emerging technologies such as the Internet, falls well short of Hyman's expectations. Online collective bargaining is very far away. The major cause of the delay in realising Hyman's dream is the difficulty trade unions face in building trust between different union members in different countries. Because of the influence of europeanization, globalisation and post-Fordism, workers in one country are essentially competing for projects with their counterparts in another country. Their success in this process will determine their incomes and job security.

This creates pressure for unions to engage in what Leibfried and Pierson (2000) termed "a race to the bottom". Unions will find it difficult to globalise in such a competitive world market in a way that will not ultimately damage the interests of their members. Despite the difficulties, we still believe that the union movement can globalise. Progress can be made, but it will be slow. We need bodies such as NAFTA and the EU to have a mandate on behalf of their peoples, because the prospect of conducting negotiations between almost 200 separate states 'battling for ideas' is not a viable option. The only real hope that the trade union movement has of global ising is if the majority of the workforce gets behind the idea.

They must believe that solidarity on a global scale is a realistic and achievable ideal, and not merely, as Hyman proposed, a utopian myth. Communication has a vital role to play in promoting this ideal. Future improvements in communications methods will speed up this process. According to Muller (1996), technology can only assist in the work of consciousness building and representation. If unions can embrace this change they will be able to transform themselves and build emancipatory potential for labour.

In the words of Richard Hyman, "Forward to the virtual trade union of the future".

Bibliography

Durkheim, E., (1933), "The Division of Labour in Society", London: Macmillan.
Originally published 1893 as De la Division du Travail Social.
Heckscher, C., (1988), "The New Unionism", New York: Basic Books.
Herzberg, F., (1968), "One More Time: How do You Motivate Employees?" , Harvard Business Review, Vol.
46, No. 1, pp. 53-62. Jefferys, S., (1996), "Strategic Choice for Unions in France and Britain", in P.
Leisink, J. Van Leemput and J. Vilrokx, (Eds), The Challenges to Trade Unions in Europe, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 171-85. Johnson, P., (1994), "Success While Others Fail", Ithaca, ILR Press.
Leibfried, S., and Pierson, P., (2000), "Social Policy: Left to Courts and Markets?" in H.
W. Wallace, (Eds), Policy Making in the European Union, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press. Leisink, P., (1993), "Is Innovation a Management Prerogative?" , Coventry: IRR U.
Leisink, P., (Ed), (1999), "Globalization and Labour Relations", Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Leisink, P., (Ed), (1996), "The Challenges to Trade Unions in Europe: Innovation or Adaption", Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Marx, K., (1867), "Capital", in The Collected Works of Karl Marx, London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1998.
Muller, W., (1996), "Per E-Mail", Mitbestimmung, 7+8/96, 6-7.
Piore, M. and Sable, C. (1984), "The Second Industrial Divide - Possibilities for Prosperity", USA: Basic Books, pp.
19-48. Sabel, C., (1995), "Meta-Corporations and Global Labour Markets", in W.
Litter and T. Charles (Eds), The New Division of Labour, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 57-94. Touraine, A., (1981), "The Voice and the Eye: An Analysis of Social Movements", Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sc. Vilroks, J., (1996), "Trade Unions in a Post-representative Society", in P.
Leisink, J Van Leemput and J. Vilroks, (Eds), The Challenges to Trade Unions in Europe, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 153-67. Vos, (1986), "Unions in Crisis and Beyond", R.
Edwards, P. Garonne and F. Tootling, Dover: Auburn House, pp 112-153. Waddington, J. and Whitson, C., (1996), "Collectivism in a Changing Context", in P.
Leisink, J. Van Leemput and J. Vilrokx, (Eds), The Challenges to Trade Unions in Europe, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 153-67. Waterman, P., (1998), "Globalization, Social Movements and the New International isms", London: Mansell.
web - "Where does Solidarity End?" , by Richard Hyman, Transit-Europaeische Revue, Tr@ns it-Virtuelle's Forum, Nr. 24/2002 - Available in German at: web web - "Gateway closure a major blow" by Ian Guider, The Irish Examiner, 9th August 2001 web - "Enterprise wins out after Krups closure" by Dearbhla Looby, The Limerick Leader, 15th December 2001 web - "Square-D to close in Ballina sloe - 385 jobs lost", Rad " io Tele f " is 'Eireann's On Business Web Site, 15th January 2003 web - "The collapse of Swissair", by Patrick Richter, World Socialist Web Site, 13th October 2001 web 03 PRL 004 IAL PA%20 Statement.
pdf - "Aer Lingus' Pilots Strike", Press Release from the Irish Airline Pilots' Association, 31st May 2002.