BAIN'S THEORY OF WHITE‐COLLAR UNION GROWTH: A CONCEPTUAL CRITIQUE
| Published date | 01 November 1977 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1977.tb01137.x |
| Author | Roy J. Adams |
| Date | 01 November 1977 |
British Journal
of
Industrial Relations
Vol.
XV
No.
3
BAIN’S THEORY
OF
WHITE-COLLAR UNION GROWTH:
A CONCEPTUAL CRITIQUE
ROY
J.
ADAMS”
PRIOR
to
1970
our
understanding
of
white-collar union growth was rudimentary. A
long
list of potentially important factors had been identified but their interaction and relative
strength had not been carefully explored.
In
1970,
George Bain published his
The
Growth
of
White-collar Unionism.’
On
the basis
of
an extensive review of research
published in several countries, combined with new empirical data pertaining to British
manufacturing industry, Bain argued that white-collar union growth could be ad-
equately explained by reference to three key factors: employment concentration, union
recognition and government action. In another publication he argued that these were
three factors ‘which research and experience in several countries indicate are of over-
whelming importance’.*
In
short, he presented a very parsimonious theory which he at
least implied to have universal validity.
Attempts at theory construction in industrial relations are to be applauded. We have
far too few
of
them. However, every theory to be useful must be internally consistent
and congruent with empirical reality. In other publications
I
have reported my efforts at
testing my interpretation
of
Bain’s the~ry.~ Here,
I
shall attempt to explicate several of
the theory’s internal problems.
In
the concluding chapter
of
his book
The Growth
of
White Collar Unionism
Bain
stated that,
No
significant relationship was found between the growth of aggregate white-collar unionism
and any of the following factors: (a) such socio-demographic characteristics of white-collar
workers as their sex, socialorigins, age, and status;
(b)
such aspectsof their economic position as
earnings, other terms and conditions
of
employment, and employment security; (c) such aspects
of
their work situation as the opportunities for promotion, the extent of mechanisation and
automation, and the degree of proximity
to
unorganised manual workers; and (d) such aspects
of
trade unions as their public image, recruitment policies and structures.*
He went on to say that, ‘While the evidence regarding some of these factors was not
sufficiently reliable to permit them to be discounted completely, it was satisfactory
enough to reveal that at most they have been
of
negligible importan~e’.~
He also stated that, ‘the findings
of
this study are by no means entirely negative. It also
found that the growth
of
aggregate white-collar unionism was significantly related to the
following factors: employment concentration, union recognition and government
action’.8
He then summarised ‘the relationship between these key independent variables and
between them and the dependent variable’ in a ‘two-equation descriptive model’:’
where
D
=
the density
of
white-collar unionism
C
=
the degree
of
employment concentration
R
=
the degree to which employers are prepared to recognise unions representing
G
=
the extent
of
government action which promotes union recognition.
white-collar employees
*
Assistant
Professor
of Industrial Relations, McMaster University, Ontario.
3
17
To continue reading
Request your trial