Richard Hyman

Strategy or Structure? Capital, Labour and Control

The literature on and for management makes increasing use of notions of strategy. Is such an approach compatible with analyses of capitalism as structurally determined? The first part of the paper argues that contradictions within capitalist enterprise both create openings for strategic choice, and entail that no strategy will prove successful. The second part examines, in the context of six distinct managerial functions, the extent to which the control of labour can be regarded as a dominant management strategy.

The future of employee representation

This article examines the future of employee interest representation in Britain against the broader European background. An attempt is made to define the character of interest representation in terms of the concepts of autonomy, legitimacy and efficacy. The core section of the article discusses recent and current developments with a focus on five themes: the level, structure, process, agenda and outcome of representation. A brief conclusion considers alternative scenarios and policy issues for employee representation. Underlying the whole discussion is the question: What future for (British) trade unions? No more than an imprecise and ambiguous answer can be suggested.

Trade Unions and the Politics of the European Social Model

There is a consensus among European trade unions that economic integration should be complemented by a strong ‘social dimension’. What is far less clearly agreed is what ‘social Europe’ means, and how it should be defended against the challenges inherent in a neoliberal approach to economic integration, the dominant logic of ‘competitiveness’ and the pressures for ‘modernization’ of social welfare. Unions’ ability to resist these challenges is weakened by their integration into an elitist system of EU governance in which mobilization and contention are inhibited. The article concludes that a new mode of trade union action is required if the ‘social model’ is to be sustained.

Trade Union Research and Cross-National Comparison

This article is concerned with problems of comparative research and analysis in industrial relations, and in particular with cross-national comparison of trade unions. Comparison is of both practical and theoretical importance, but is fraught with difficulties, in part because of the paradox involved in attempting to generalize concerning national instances which are in so many respects unique. The author considers three different approaches to analysis, in terms respectively of institutions, functions and issues. In conclusion, the article emphasizes the iterative nature of research and analysis and insists that even if the goal of satisfactory cross-national comparison may be unattainable, its pursuit is both necessary and valuable.

The Politics of Workplace Trade Unionism: Recent Tendencies and Some Problems for Theory

The aim of this chapter1 is above all to stimulate discussion: firstly about the nature and significance of the changes which have occurred in British trade unionism (particularly at shop-floor level) since the 1960s; secondly about the implications of these changes for the analyses of union democracy and union leadership which are popular on the left.2 Much of the argument is tentative or exploratory; constructive criticism will be very welcome.

Shifting dynamics in international trade unionism: Agitation, organisation, bureaucracy, diplomacy

This article compares and contrasts international trade unionism in its formative stages with patterns today. It identifies a continuing tension between an ‘agitator’ model (internationalism from below) and a bureaucratic model (internationalism from above). With the construction of an architecture of international institutions, notably the International Labour Organisation, another variant emerged: the labour diplomat. It is argued that none of these models on its own is adequate: the future of effective internationalism requires a synthesis of these often contradictory elements.

Why industrial relations

I have chosen to begin with a dangerous question. ‘Why indeed?’ is the predictable response. Teaching and research in industrial relations are widely viewed with disfavour or suspicion. For some of our learned colleagues the subject is not properly academic: an amorphous and eclectic mishmash, without adequate disciplinary foundation. To many practitioners we are too academic; often we are also accused of bias, managers seeing us as pro-union, trade unionists as pro-management. Those who endorse the philosophies of the current government tend to despise industrial relations, as an expression of the system of sectional interest representation and compromise which they denounce as a major cause of Britain’s economic problems. Even among industrial relations academics themselves one can detect considerable doubt and uncertainty as to the nature and status of our subject in a changing world of work.1

Trade unions, politics and parties: is a new configuration possible?

Trade unions are not merely economic (or ‘industrial relations’) actors: they are necessarily protagonists in the political arena. Regulating the labour market is a question of power resources. Yet if unions are inescapably both economic and political actors, the relationship between the two roles is complex and contradictory, and the priority assigned to each varies across countries and over time. Four factors seem of particular importance in explaining these distinctive patterns: ideology, opportunity structures, organizational capacity and contextual challenges. We explore these issues with reference to ten west European countries, and end by pointing to some of the ideational and practical reasons why unions must explicitly redefine their political identities. Les syndicats ne sont pas uniquement des acteurs économiques (ou « des relations professionnelles »). Ils sont nécessairement des protagonistes de l’arène politique. La réglementation du marché du travail est une question de ressources de pouvoir. Pourtant, si les syndicats sont inévitablement à la fois des acteurs économiques et politiques, la relation entre ces deux rôles est complexe et contradictoire et la priorité accordée à chacun varie d’un pays à l’autre et avec le temps. Quatre facteurs semblent être particulièrement importants pour expliquer ces différences: l’idéologie, les structures d’opportunités, la capacité organisationnelle et les défis contextuels. Les auteurs examinent ces questions en faisant référence à dix pays d’Europe de l’Ouest et concluent en soulignant certaines raisons conceptuelles et pratiques pour lesquelles les syndicats devraient redéfinir de manière explicite leur identité politique. Gewerkschaften sind nicht nur wirtschaftliche Akteure (oder Akteure der Arbeitsbeziehungen), sondern spielen zwangsläufig auch in der politischen Arena eine wichtige Rolle. Die Regulierung des Arbeitsmarktes ist eine Frage der Machtressourcen. Gewerkschaften sind zwar unweigerlich sowohl wirtschaftliche als auch politische Akteure, aber die Beziehung zwischen diesen beiden Rollen ist komplex und widersprüchlich, und die Priorität, die ihnen eingeräumt wird, ist je nach Land unterschiedlich und verändert sich im Lauf der Zeit. Für diese unterschiedlichen Muster scheinen vier Faktoren ausschlaggebend zu sein: ideologische Faktoren, Möglichkeitsstrukturen (opportunity structures), die Fähigkeit zur Mitgliedergewinnung und kontextbezogene Herausforderungen. Der Beitrag untersucht diese Aspekte in zehn westeuropäischen Ländern und verweist abschließend auf einige ideelle und praktische Gründe, weshalb Gewerkschaften ihre politische Identität unbedingt neu definieren müssen.

Embedded Collectivism? Workplace Representation in France and Germany

In most countries of western Europe it makes little sense to speak of non-union employee representation, as this is understood in the Anglo-American world, for the principle of collective representation independent of the employer is strongly institutionalised. In this article we examine experience in two countries. In Germany, works councils with a wide repertoire of rights typically work in close partnership with trade unions. The system has experienced strains in recent years, and a growing proportion of mainly smaller workplaces are covered neither by councils nor by collective agreements; but there is virtually no evidence of alternative ‘voice’ mechanisms, and systems of direct participation are normally introduced by negotiation with councils. In France, works committees have fewer powers, and a divided trade union movement has been less successful than its German counterpart in ‘embedding’ the legally mandated institutions, at least in the private sector. Despite some common trends in both countries, national distinctiveness remains very apparent. There is growing scope for managerial strategic choice, but this is still institutionally bounded. Much more generally, countries displaying characteristics of a ‘European social model’ can be expected to sustain a close articulation between union and ‘non-union’ channels of representation.

Industrial Relations in Europe: Theory and Practice

Industrial relations as a distinctive field of study has been principally a feature of the English-speaking countries. In most of continental Europe, aspects of employment and its regulation have normally been studied as subsidiary themes within the various social-science disciplines. In the past decade, radical changes in the practice of industrial relations in Britain and the United States have led some to question the continued viability of the subject. Yet paradoxically, in continental Europe there has been a vigorous growth of interest in developing an integrated, interdisciplinary approach to the topic. The author welcomes this trend and calls for the construction of a genuinely European field of industrial relations.