25 Years of Change in British Employment Relations John Forth (NIESR) John Forth (NIESR) Brussels 19 th March 2009
Overview • What are the main trends in collective employee representation in Britain since 1980? • Has the declining preference for unionism bred more extensive systems of non-union employee representation? • Do trade unions still have an impact on working conditions in Britain?
Workplace Employment Relations Survey • Nationally representative survey mapping employment relations in around 2,500 workplaces across Britain • Conducted in 1980, 1984, 1990, 1998 and 2004 • • Data collected from: Data collected from: Senior manager responsible for personnel issues – – Most senior union and non-union representatives (where present) – Random sample of 25 employees (1998 and 2004 only) • Includes workplaces with 25+ employees in the private and public sectors (10+ employees in 1998; 5+ in 2004) • Representative of around 70% of all employment in Britain
Workplace Employment Relations Survey • Recruitment and training • Information provision and employee consultation • Employee representation • Payment systems and pay determination • Grievance, disciplinary and dispute procedures • Grievance, disciplinary and dispute procedures • Equal opportunities, work-life balance • Workplace flexibility • Workplace performance • Wages and effort • Employee attitudes to work
Unionisation in Britain • Voluntarist system of workplace union representation and collective bargaining – 1999 Statutory Union Recognition Procedure intended as last resort and rarely invoked • Reduction in union involvement in workplace regulation over past two decades past two decades – Union membership density and coverage of collective bargaining have both halved since mid-1980s • Unions involved in workplace regulation typically where traditions remain strong among employees or market conditions remain benign
Union organisation Membership density Bargaining coverage 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 1980 1984 1990 1998 2004 1980 1984 1990 1998 2004 Private manufacturing Private manufacturing Private services Private services Public sector Public sector Base: employees in workplaces with 25+ employees Source: WERS
Union organisation 90 80 70 60 Unions recognised 50 50 cent Per cent Any stewards (where 40 recognition) Members per steward (where 30 any stewards) 20 10 0 1980 1984 1990 1998 2004 Base: workplaces with 25+ employees Source: Forth and Charlwood (2009) using WERS
Numbers of shop stewards 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1980 1984 1990 1998 2004 Private manufacturing Private services Public sector Base: shop stewards of recognised trade unions in workplaces with 25+ employees Source: Forth and Charlwood (2009) using WERS
Changing activities of shop stewards • Only small decline in provision of administrative support (office, telephone) • Stability in % of workplaces that deduct union subscriptions • Stability in incidence of full-time lay reps 1980-1990, and small increase 1998-2004 small increase 1998-2004 But ... • Fall in number of issues subject to negotiation • Growth of 'hollow shell' unionism • Less involvement in collective disputes • Greater role for individual casework Base: shop stewards of recognised trade unions in workplaces with 25+ employees Source: Forth and Charlwood (2009) using WERS
Workers’ perceptions of shop stewards • In 1998/2004: – fewer than three-fifths of union members thought that the union(s) at their workplace were taken seriously by management – fewer than half thought unions made a difference to what – fewer than half thought unions made a difference to what it was like to work there • But on-site shop stewards positively affect workers' perceptions of union effectiveness Base: union members in workplaces with 10+ employees Source: Forth and Charlwood (2009) using WERS
Non-union representation • Evidence patchy, but clearly no substantial expansion since 1980 – individual non-union reps in 10% of workplaces in 1980 rising to 14% in 2004 – Workplace consultative committees in 34% of workplaces in 1980, falling to 24% in 2004 falling to 24% in 2004 • However, the decline of union representation means that, among all workplaces with 5+ employees, the incidence of union and non-union representation is now similar Base: workplaces with 25+ employees Source: Forth and Charlwood (2009) using WERS
Unions and working conditions • Have union effects diminished? • What do we mean by the ‘union effect’? – Aggregate effect vs local effect • Which forms of unionisation remain? – Strong vs weak? • Which aspects of working conditions? – Wages – Job security – Management-employee relations
Wages • Wage premium from union bargaining identified in 1980, 1984 and 1990 (workplace data) • General premium absent in 1998 and 2004 (employee data) • But still a premium attached to ‘strong’ unionism • Secular trend or indicative of counter-cyclical wage premium?
Wages Figure 1b: Movements in the union wage premium in Britain, 1985-2001 20 18 16 14 12 12 10 8 6 4 2 BSAS GB unemp Base: all employees Source: Blanchflower and Bryson (2002) using the British Social Attitudes Survey
Job security • WERS financial performance: how would you rate this workplace compared to its competitors? • Unions negatively associated with financial performance in 1980s • By 1990, relationship highly contingent (on market conditions, • By 1990, relationship highly contingent (on market conditions, union strength etc) • By 1998, most studies finding no effect (although possibly understated due to unions focusing on high-profit firms) • WERS annual employment growth: union recognition associated with lower employment growth in studies from 1980s and 1990s (the ‘one constant’) • But effects for later periods appear weaker with consistent specification Base: all workplaces with 25+ employees Source: Blanchflower and Bryson (2009) using WERS
Management-employee relations 1980 1984 1990 1998 2004 All workplaces Strike action 11 15 11 1 3 Non-strike action 11 13 5 1 3 Private manufacturing Strike action 19 9 4 0 * Non-strike action Non-strike action 16 16 12 12 7 7 1 1 2 2 Private services Strike action 3 5 2 1 1 Non-strike action 3 3 2 * 2 Public sector Strike action 15 31 31 3 9 Non-strike action 19 24 8 2 7 Base: all establishments with 25 or more employees WERS series Base: all workplaces with 25+ employees Source: Dix, Forth and Sisson (2009) using WERS
Expressions of conflict, by ‘voice’ Any Any ET claims Voluntary Relations industrial grievances resignations between action managers and employees % of % of Claims Resignations % of employees workplaces workplaces per per 100 rating ‘poor’ or 1,000 employees ‘very poor’ employe es Union voice Union voice 9 9 45 45 1.3 1.3 9.0 9.0 17 17 only Union and 7 44 2.1 8.8 19 non-union voice Non-union 1 40 2.7 17.2 11 voice only No voice * 31 2.9 18.3 11 All work- 2 38 2.4 13.8 15 places Base: all workplaces with 5+ employees Source: Dix, Forth and Sisson (2009) using WERS
Management-employee relations • WERS ordinal scale: how would you rate the relationship between management and employees generally at this workplace? 1980 1984 1990 1998 2004 All 2.49 2.38 2.26 2.30 2.31 Union 2.46 2.31 2.16 2.31 2.22 Non-union 2.53 2.46 2.32 2.29 2.34 Raw gap -.556 -.815 -.525 -.233 -.585 (4.63)** (6.32)** (4.39)** (2.06)** (4.58)** Regression- -.398 -.582 -.271 -.005 -.157 adjusted (2.70)** (3.87)** (1.87)* (0.04) (1.05) gap • Union negative effects absent after 1990 • But time trend not statistically significant Base: all workplaces with 25+ employees Source: Blanchflower and Bryson (2009) using WERS
Other aspects of job quality WERS shows ... • Fall - and subsequent rise - of H&S representation 1980-2004 • Negative impact of unions on rates of workplace injury • Small increase in task discretion (autonomy) 1998-2004 • And small increase in employee satisfaction with degree of influence • Small increase in work intensity 1998-2004 • But small increase in employee satisfaction with sense of achievement Base: all employees in workplaces with 10+ employees Sources: Seth Litwin (2000), Green and Whitfield (2009) using WERS
In summary ... • Substantial decline in prevalence of trade union representation • Institutional continuity, but increasing weakness where unions remain present • Non-union reps have not filled this representation gap • Non-union reps have not filled this representation gap • Union effects on job quality are therefore weakening in aggregate • Evidence suggests that they are also weakening locally at the level of the workplace
Recommend
More recommend
