Union Management Relations
I. Introduction
The objective of this paper is to build further on our understanding of union effects by examining what unions do to managerial practice in the workplace. Unions can be an instrument of social change but even when they play a larger role in society, their core activity remains focused at the workplace. Their principal engagement is with management though their actions may extend to lobbying, politics, and the community at both local and international levels. Therefore, in any consideration of the question, what do unions do to the workplace, it is important to examine the impact of unions on management in general and on human resource management (HRM), in particular. The main focus for Freeman and Medoff, in their 1984 book, What Do Unions Do,
(hereafter F-M) was not on this question but rather on union effects on outcomes such as productivity. Their findings have been influential in advancing our knowledge of union impact on organizational outcomes. They offer a number of explanations for their finding of a positive union effect on productivity. Apart from lower quit rates, three other possible explanations are suggested: seniority-based rewards, better job production standards (and better management accountability in general), and more employer-employee communications (pp. 14-15). The latter two of these explanations concern managerial practice but were not directly investigated in the study. This paper fills a gap in research by examining empirical support (or lack thereof) accumulated since the early
1980s, for some of these and other explanations for a positive union effect on management practice at the workplace level.
2
Citing a landmark study by Slichter, Healy and Livernash (1960) (hereafter, SHL), F-M argue that unions can improve efficiency by “putting pressure on management to tighten jobproduction standards and accountability in order to preserve profits in the face of higher wages”
(p.15). The SHL study put the issue of union impact on
The objective of this paper is to build further on our understanding of union effects by examining what unions do to managerial practice in the workplace. Unions can be an instrument of social change but even when they play a larger role in society, their core activity remains focused at the workplace. Their principal engagement is with management though their actions may extend to lobbying, politics, and the community at both local and international levels. Therefore, in any consideration of the question, what do unions do to the workplace, it is important to examine the impact of unions on management in general and on human resource management (HRM), in particular. The main focus for Freeman and Medoff, in their 1984 book, What Do Unions Do,
(hereafter F-M) was not on this question but rather on union effects on outcomes such as productivity. Their findings have been influential in advancing our knowledge of union impact on organizational outcomes. They offer a number of explanations for their finding of a positive union effect on productivity. Apart from lower quit rates, three other possible explanations are suggested: seniority-based rewards, better job production standards (and better management accountability in general), and more employer-employee communications (pp. 14-15). The latter two of these explanations concern managerial practice but were not directly investigated in the study. This paper fills a gap in research by examining empirical support (or lack thereof) accumulated since the early
1980s, for some of these and other explanations for a positive union effect on management practice at the workplace level.
2
Citing a landmark study by Slichter, Healy and Livernash (1960) (hereafter, SHL), F-M argue that unions can improve efficiency by “putting pressure on management to tighten jobproduction standards and accountability in order to preserve profits in the face of higher wages”
(p.15). The SHL study put the issue of union impact on
References: Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 2001. Arulampalam, Wiji and Alison L. Booth. “Training and Labor Market Flexibility: Is there a tradeoff?” British Journal of Industrial Relations 36 (December 1998): 521-36. 55 (July 2002): 573-94. Beaumont, Phillip B. and Richard I D Harris. "Good Industrial Relations, Joint Problem Solving, and HRM." Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations 51 (Spring 1996): 391-402. Benson, John. “Employee Voice in Union and Non-union Australian Workplaces.” British Journal of Industrial Relations 38 (September 2000): 453-59. and policy. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharp, 2000, pp. 457-62. Bratsberg, Bernt and Jr. James F. Ragan. "Changes in the Union Wage Premium by Industry." Industrial & Labor Relations Review 56 (October 2002): 65-83. Callus, Ron. Industrial relations at work: the Australian workplace industrial relations survey. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1991. employee representation: history, contemporary practice, and policy. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharp, 2000, pp Flood, Patrick C. and Bill Toner. “Large Non-Union Companies: How Do They Avoid a Catch 22?” British Journal of Industrial Relations 33 (January 1997): 257-77. Freeman, Richard B. and James L. Medoff. “The Two Faces of Unionism.” Public Interest 57 (Fall 1979): 69- 93. ___________ and James L. Medoff. What do unions do? New York: Basic Books, 1984. Goll, Irene. “Environment, Corporate Ideology, and Employee Involvement Programs”, Industrial Relations 30 (Winter 1991): 138-149. practice, and policy. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharp, 2000, pp. 410-52. Gramm, Cynthia L. and John F. Schnell. “The Use of Flexible Staffing Arrangements in Core Production Jobs.” Industrial & Labor Relations 54 (January 2001): 245-59. Sharp, 2000, pp. 463-68. Heyes, Jason and Mark Stuart. “Bargaining for Skills: Trade Unions and Training at the Workplace.” British Journal of Industrial Relations 36 (September 1998): 459-67. Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1986. Ichniowski, Casey, John T. Delaney and David Lewin. "The New Resource Management in US Workplaces: Is It Really New and Is It Only Nonunion?" Relations Industrielles 44 (Winter 1989): 97-119. Survival in the Automotive Parts Industry.” Journal of Labor Research. 8 (Fall 1987): 332-50. Kaufman, Bruce E. “The Employee Participation/Representation Gap: An Assessment and Proposed Solution.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Labor and Employment Law 3 (Spring 2001): 491- ___________. “High-Level Employee Involvement at Delta Air Lines.” Human Resource Management. 42 (Spring 2003): 175-90. Kim, Dong-One. “Factors Influencing Organizational Performance in Gainsharing Programs.” Industrial Relations 35 (April 1996): 227-44. ___________. “Determinants of the Survival of Gainsharing Programs.” Industrial & Labor Relations Review 53 (October 1999): 21-42 Koch, Marianne J. and Greg Hundley. “The Effects of Unionism on Recruitment and Selection Methods.” Industrial Relations 36 (July 1997): 349-70. ___________ and Paul Osterman. Mutual Gains Enterprise. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1994. International Perspective. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, pp. 30-43.