BOOK REVIEWS
| Date | 01 July 1983 |
| Published date | 01 July 1983 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1983.tb00135.x |
BOOK
REVIEWS
Trade
Unions:
The Logic
of
Collective Action
by Colin Crouch. Fontana,
1982,
251
pp.,
f2.50.
THIS
is the most interesting book on the theory
of
trade unions to be published since
Flanders’ study
of
1970.
Rejecting both radical and marxist schools
of
sociology as
failing to provide a satisfactory explanation of trade unionism and collective action.
Crouch sets out persuasively an alternative theory based upon rational choice. Crouch
is able to show that rational choice is a more effective method of analysis than the
radical and marxist theories which rely primarily on class and social consciousness as
the dynamic
of
individual and collective action in the field of industrial relations. It
offers a coherent explanation of the dynamics of union growth, collective bargaining
and the pressures that link unions, employers and governments.
A
significant
advantage
of
Crouch’s rational choice theory of industrial relations is that it provides a
tool
of
an analysis which integrates sociology with economics. The rational choice
theory is not, however, without defects which are rather glossed over by Crouch. First
what may be a rational choice for a particular group
of
employees or employers may
not be a rational choice
if
all employees
or
employers follow the same course; and
second it assumes a degree of knowledge and freedom to act which may not be
present.
As
economists have found it is only possible to achieve analytical rigour in the
use of rational choice theory
if
the assumptions are tightly specified. Unfortunately
solutions to problems extremely narrowly defined in Crouch’s diagrams may be
logically satisfying, but they may have only relative significance to the issues as they
are perceived by the actors in a given situation.
Crouch accepts that conflict has a central role in industrial relations but he fails to
make clear how it is related to co-operation. His exposure
of
the contradictions in the
marxist analysis of conflict is effective, but the thrust
of
his argument on the
institutionalisation
of
conflict is not entirely free from ambiguity. Whilst it is clearly
evident that conflict is endemic to all social groups and constitutes a dynamic force
in
social relations, it cannot be an end
in
itself. Conflict is always a means
of
overcoming
obstacles to achieving the goals of the actors in the industrial relations system, but
paradoxically these goals cannot be attained without the production of goods and
services, which conflict may make impossible, and which in fact can only be achieved
by co-operation. Industrial relations illustrate the fundamental importance of both
conflict and co-operation and their interdependence.
No
strike, unless it is a
permanent refusal to work, can go on forever, it must eventually be brought to an end
by agreement to continue to work (to co-operate) for the time being, on mutually
acceptable terms. The agreement will not last indefinitely, because the conditions on
which it was predicated will change, new conflicts will arise which-will have to be
resolved by new agreements to co-operate. The analysis
of
industrial relations may be
equally validly approached from either the role
of
conflict or co-operation, but it must
encompass both. To recognise that co-operation is the primary objective
of
industrial
relations is not to suggest that conflict is not
of
fundamental importance, but that it
must be regulated by legal and voluntary procedures that enable employers and unions
to pursue their legitimate interests at the least cost and most advantage to both sides
and to the general public.
The
problem
of
reconciling the ‘differences
of
interest between employers and
unions is made difficult by the fact that employers are under more immediate pressures
from other interests such as suppliers, customers, shareholders and the state, than
trade unions. Crouch circles around, but does not vigorously pursue, the problem
which powerful and militant trade unions pose in both pluralist and corporatist
276
To continue reading
Request your trial