Blocked and New Frontiers for Trade Unions: Contesting ‘the Meaning of Work’ in the Creative and Caring Sectors
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12251 |
| Date | 01 December 2017 |
| Published date | 01 December 2017 |
British Journal of Industrial Relations doi: 10.1111/bjir.12251
55:4 December 2017 0007–1080 pp. 859–878
Blocked and New Frontiers for Trade
Unions: Contesting ‘the Meaning of
Work’ in the Creative and Caring Sectors
Charles Umney and Genevieve Coderre-LaPalme
Abstract
Many jobs featuretensions between workers’ own motivations, and the objectives
imposed on them by managementor economic imperatives. We call these tensions
‘meaning of work conflicts’. Weask whether trade unions can intervene in them,
or whether they are simplytoo subjective to be a credible campaigning focus. We
examine two professionalgroups in Britain and France, musicians and healthcare
sta. Among musicians, workers tend to negotiate meaning of work conflicts
themselves, seeing little rolefor unions in this process. This engenders legitimacy
problems that unions have had to find ways around. By contrast, in the hospitals
sector, there is more scope for unions to campaign over the meaning of work,
thus potentially increasing legitimacy among sta and the public. The dierence
is explained by the morediuse and fragmented nature of employer structures in
music, and the more chaotic set of motivations found among music workers.
1. Introduction
This article considers how trade unions can address ‘meaning of work
conflicts’; situations where the ‘sense of purpose’ (Locke and Taylor
1991) workers assign to their jobs conflicts with imperatives imposed by
management or economic circumstance. While seemingly remote from more
quantifiable industrial relations concerns, meaning of work conflicts can
profoundly aect unions. In some cases, workers’ own objectives may
legitimize quiescence over working conditions, diminishing union legitimacy.
In others, meaning of work conflicts could provide new legitimacy, if unions
can intervene constructively in them.
The ‘meaning of work’ often figures in organizational behaviour or
management literature. Managers are advised to help employees find
Charles Umney is at the University of Leeds. Genevieve Coderre-LaPalmeis at the University of
Greenwich.
C
2017 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.
860 British Journal of Industrial Relations
‘meaning’ in their jobs, reducing cynicism and promoting ‘engagement’
(Cartwright and Homes 2006). The concept has a more instrumental relative
— ‘intrinsic motivation’ — where workers’ own values and motivations
become variables to be measured and manipulated through management
(e.g. Delfgaauw and Dur 2007). However, this does not justify trade union
researchers neglecting the topic. The individual’s capacity to exercise agency
over how and why they direct their capacity to work is a defining human
characteristic, and conflicts between this capacity and management control
havebeen a fertile ground for study.The meaning of work is contested terrain,
and these conflicts are highly relevant to unions.
There is little prior literature examining trade union responses to meaning
of work conflicts, and so this study takes an exploratory approach. It
considers two professional groups — healthcare workers and musicians
— who encounter very dierent labour processes and industrial relations
contexts. However, in both cases, meaning of work conflicts aect the
relationship between workers, employers and unions. This article examines
the problems these conflicts cause unions and how they might address them.
Among musicians, workers’ intrinsic motivations presented severe challenges
to unions, forcing them to reorient towards more direct engagement with
employers. In hospitals, there was much more scope for unions to intervene
in meaning of work conflicts, and the potential for enhanced legitimacy.
These dierences reflect the structural characteristics of the twosectors, rather
than national contextual dierences. The porosity of labour markets and the
transient nature of employment relationships are key factors which prevent
unions engaging in meaning of work conflicts.
This article proceeds by critically reviewing the concepts of ‘the meaning
of work’ and of intrinsic motivation, presenting them as a site of tension
between employers and employees in which the union’s role is ambivalent.
There follows a discussion of methods and the two empirical sections. Then,
a final section will consider what structural factors enable unions to contest
the meaning of work, along with future research questions and priorities. We
argue that there is a need to better understand the way in which workers’
qualitative attitudes towards the meaning of work interact with their views
on trade unionism. While centralizing meaning of work conflicts may help
unions claim greater legitimacy and catalyse mobilizations, this is dependent
on particular material conditions related to the structure of the labour market
and the nature of employers.
2. Meaning of work conflicts
‘The meaning of work’ has occupied researchers in organizationalb ehaviour,
sociology and management literatures (see Rosso et al. 2010, for a review).
Such sources emphasize the dehumanizing implications of viewing work
purely as a source of material remuneration, stressing work as a creative
endeavour which counters social isolation (Gill 1999), and generates ‘a
C
2017 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial