DUALITY IN THE ROLE OF UNIONS AND UNIONISTS: THE CASE OF NORWAY
| Published date | 01 November 1979 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1979.tb00961.x |
| Date | 01 November 1979 |
| Author | Olav Korsnes |
DUALITY IN THE ROLE
OF
UNIONS AND UNIONISTS: THE
CASE
OF
NORWAY
OLAV
KORSNESt
INTRODUCTION
During the last few years the political role
of
the trade union movements
in
western
capitalist societies has come to the fore. This is particularly due to the attempts to
introduce, in various forms, a combination of collective bargaining and national incomes
policy
in
which the trade unions play a vital role. In this article I shall focus on this
development in Norway. The Norwegian case is of particular interest for at least
two
reasons. First, the combination
of
collective bargaining and incomes policy takes
on
a
particular form in Norway, representing a merger rather than a mere combination
of
the
two. Secondly, this merger seems to have been widely accepted by the trade unions and
their members as a necessary, preliminary undertaking to cope with the present serious
economic problems
of
the country.
The article has two major objectives. In discussing the historical development of new
institutional forms of regulation of industrial conflicts within the Norwegian context,
I
shall try to develop a theoretical approach to explain the trade union movement’s role in
this development. Secondly, relating to this discussion, I shall focus on the role
of
trade
unionists and try to offer some theoretical insights in order to better understand and
explain the relationship between the role
of
trade unionists and the functions of their
organisations.
1.
THE DUALITY
OF
TRADE UNIONISM-THE
ROLE
OF
TRADE UNIONISTS
Trade unions represent aggregates
of
employees in various industries in various
localities. They represent them as sellers
of
their labour power in the labour power
market. Trade unionists are, however, not only sellers
of
their labour power, but also
producers and national citizens. These are but a few
of
the additional roles
of
trade
unionists, but in this context very important ones.
There are
no
social ‘laws’ ensuring that the interests deriving from the various roles
coincide in any simple manner. There is also no social law ensuring that the interests
of
organisations, as trade unions representing employees, will necessarily coincide with the
interests of employees in their roles as producers
or
national citizens. Contradictions
or
ambivalences in the employees’ perceptions
of
their situation are sociologically signifi-
cant as expressions
of
contradictions and ambivalences in the employees’ position in
complex social and material structures. This does not mean, however, that the one can
be explained with reference to the other in any straightforward manner. Attempts to do
so
only lead to the fallacies of individualism
or
structuralism.
TO
avoid these fallacies
the sociological task in the context of this article has two important restrictions. First, in
discussing the nature and role
of
trade unions there is no systematic attempt to explain
these as creations
of
conscious human actions. This general weakness of abstract
thinking is also reflected in the analysis
of
the role of trade unionists. Secondly, in
discussing the perceptions
of
trade unionists as reflected in their individual attitudes, no
systematic attempt is made to explain these as individual phenomena basic to individual
social actions. The exposition thus has no pretensions to any complete explanation
of
social change as this would require more thorough explanations
of
how and why human
actions are patterned into social structures and how and why human beings react to and
t
Lecturer, Department
of
Sociology, University
of
Bergen.
362
To continue reading
Request your trial