Managerial and Professional Employees: Conceptualising Union Strategies and Structures
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1989.tb00210.x |
| Published date | 01 March 1989 |
| Author | Ed Snape,Greg Bamber |
| Date | 01 March 1989 |
British Journal
of
Industrial Relations
27:l
March
1989
0007-1080
$3.00
Ma
nag e ria
I
and Profess
io
na
I
Em
pl
oyees
:
Concept
u
a
I
isi
ng
U
n
io
n
Strategies and Structures
Ed
Snape* and Greg Bamber**
There was a growth
of
unionism among managerial and professional
employees in the
public-sector
in the post-war period (McCormick,
1960;
Arthurs,
1975).
By the
1970s,
managerial and professional unionism was
also developing in certain large
private-sector
corporations, and several
articles examined this growth (Bamber,
1976;
Gospel,
1978).
In the
1980s,
the economic and political climate has been less favourable to trade
unionism. What, then, has happened to managerial and professional
unionism?
Is
it an outdated relic; or will it be an enduring feature
of
British
industrial relations? In this article we address such questions. We contrast
recent developmentstwith those of the
1970s;
we emphasise the role
of
employer strategies and the reactions
of
unions. In analysing these
developments, we formulate a typology
of
union recruitment strategies, in
terms of whether they are open or closed along two dimensions: first,
occupational exclusiveness; and second, single or multi-employer. We
discuss the implications of this analysis, particularly with regard to union
structure and mergers.
We define managerial and professional employees as all those above the
level
of
first-line supervisor, but below senior executive level. We include
line managers and also professional employees of a comparable status. Our
definition thus includes professional engineers and scientists, personnel and
marketing specialists, and administrators. For convenience, we refer to this
whole occupational group as ‘managers’. We exclude first-line supervisors,
because in Britain these have generally been seen as a distinct occupational
group (Child and Partridge,
1982).
In the industrialised market economies, the number
of
managerial and
professional employees has increased throughout the twentieth century,
both in absolute terms and as a percentage
of
the occupied population
(Roomkin,
1989).
This trend reflects, first, a move towards more sophisti-
*Senior Lecturer in Economics, Teesside Polytechnic.
**Associate Professor, Graduate School of Management, University
of
Queensland.
94
British Journal
of
Industrial Relations
cated technologies, which tend to be associated with more professional
expertise and fewer unskilled operatives; and second, a sectoral shift
towards services and high-technology industries, which tend to employ
higher proportions of managers and professionals (Gershuny and Miles,
1983).
THE CHANGING POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC CONTEXT
A survey of managers in Britain conducted in 1980 found that some
25
per
cent were union members, with 9 per cent density in the private-sector, and
60
per cent in the public-sector (Poole
et al.,
1983). Union density amongst
the wider category of white-collar workers was about 44 per cent, compared
to 63 per cent among manual workers, and an overall average union density
of
54
per cent at the end
of
1979 (Bain and Price, 1983).
Several post-war trends favoured the growth
of
managers’ unionisation.
The growing concentration
of
employment led to increasing bureaucracy,
hierarchy and job specialisation in employing organisations, with a
standardisation
of
managers’ conditions of employment (Hickson and
Mallory, 1981). Unions generally found that the greater the employment
concentration, the easier
it
was to recruit and service members (Bain, 1970).
Conditions were particularly conducive to the unionisation
of
managers in
the 1970s, with a narrowing
of
pay differentials (IDS Top Pay Unit, 1984)
and rapid inflation, together with a favourable political and legislative
context. During 1976-80, there were statutory union recognition proced-
ures, and whilst only
a
small minority of successful recognition claims invoked
this procedure, the demonstration effect may have given it a wider impact
(Beaumont, 1985).
Thus, unionisation increased, and several unions developed which catered
exclusively for managers. Some large employers accepted managers’
unionism, but sought to mould it into what they saw as a more agreeable
form. For example, Rolls Royce, Unilever, Kodak and Courtaulds quietly
encouraged the development
of
in-house managers’ associations, in an
attempt to exclude external unions. In banking and insurance, many
managers joined staff associations, along with their subordinates.
By the 1980s, conditions were less favourable to the unions. Following the
return of a Conservative government in 1979, legislation was generally
unfavourable to union growth, and the statutory union recognition proced-
ures were discontinued. Inflation fell and pay differentials widened. Product
markets became more competitive and many companies were faced with a
takeover or bankruptcy. Some firms restructured; many placed more
emphasis on individual initiative and enterprise among their managers.
Some companies concentrated more on their core activities, contracting-out
certain specialist activities, and selling peripheral business interests. This
tended to undermine union strength, in that it fragmented employment into
smaller units. Unemployment increased, and whilst the resulting job
To continue reading
Request your trial