INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY: A POST‐BULLOCK SHOPFLOOR VIEW
| Published date | 01 July 1984 |
| Author | Charles Hanson,Paul Rathkey |
| Date | 01 July 1984 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1984.tb00159.x |
INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY
:
A POST-BULLOCKSHOPFLOOR
VIEW
CHARLES HANSON
*
AND
PAUL
RATHKEY
'
IT
is over six years since the Bullock Report (Bullock, 1977) recommended an
extension of industrial democracy for major employers within the private sector
of
British industry. Today industrial democracy is not widely canvassed as a panacea for
Britain's economic ills. Nevertheless,
if
the controversy is now more muted, industrial
democracy still survives as a major political and economic issue. It forms an important
elemeht of tht programmes
of
all the main opposition parties at Westminster.
The Liberal Party, who can lay claim to being its most consistent political
supporters, place emphasis
on
participation, co-operatives and co-ownership. The
Labour Party puts more stress on public ownership, agreed development plans
(planning agreements) and
joint
control: a set of initiatives which place great weight
on the role of the trade unions (TUCILabour Party, 1982). The Social Democratic
Party has argued the case for a legal framework to establish works councils
in
large,
private companies and lay the foundations for comprehensive participation
agreements (SDP, 1982). The Conservative Government, although less vocal
in
its
support of employee participation, has
in
its 1982 Employment Act obliged the
directors of all public companies with more than
250
employees to report annually on
measures taken to introduce, maintain
or
develop industrial democracy in their firms.
At the European Commission initiatives concerning worker participation (Guertsen
proposals) and disclosure of information (Vredeling proposals) are still struggling for
approval, although a variation of the latter could well gain the assent of the European
Parliament after being rebuffed first time around.
Given the continued interest
in
the subject,
it
is important to know what type
of
participation,
if
any, is desired by those who would be directly affected by legislative
proposals. The study on which this article is based, focussed
on
two sets of proposals
-
those of the Bullock Report and subsequent Government recommendations (White
Paper, 1978).
However, the size of the plants and companies examined would mean that they
would all be affected by the more recent proposals from the SDP, TUC/Labour Party
and the E.E.C. The study sought to extend the knowledge gained by previous surveys
(particularly Heller
ef
al.,
1979; Hespe and Wall, 1976; Marchington, 1980; Ramsay.
1976; and Wall and Lischeron, 1977) and to discover what shopfloor workers, the
guinea pigs, thought of the experiment proposed by the Bullock Committee. But
before considering the results of the study, it is necessary to describe briefly the
methodology of the research and to say something about labour relations in the four
companies which participated
in
the survey.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The survey was planned in the context of the post-Bullock debate. It was decided
that a substantial sample of opinion should be obtained from four different working
*
Lecturer in Economics, University
of
Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
t
Head
of
Research,
Jim Conway Memorial
Foundation.
Stockton-on-Tees,
154
To continue reading
Request your trial