PARTICIPATION: THE SHOP FLOOR VIEW
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1976.tb00046.x |
| Author | Harvie Ramsay |
| Date | 01 July 1976 |
| Published date | 01 July 1976 |
Brirish Journal
of
Industrial Relations
Vol.
XIV
No.
2
PARTICIPATION: THE SHOP
FLOOR
VIEW’
HARVIE RAMSAY*
Do
WORKERS WANT PARTICIPATION?
One near-universal assumption of those engaged in the industrial democracy
debate is that this
is
what workers want: more say, more involvement, more con-
trol over
and
understanding of the decisions which affect their lives. The policy
recommendations range from ‘democratic supervision’ or job enrichment through
profit-sharing, information disclosure and works councils, to employee directors
or radical extension of negotiating rights. Many others could be added to the list.*
These parallel as many different motivations for interest in such schemes,
although they could be approximately divided into those favoured by capital and
labour.
But do workers want to participate, and to have more control over decisions? If
so,
over what decisions, and why?
An
Opinion Research Centre Survey reported in
The Times
(January
1975)
is
relevant here. From a sample of
2,083
employees in firms of twenty
or
more
employees, the general conclusion is reached that:
There is no great revolutionary desire
by
workers
to
take over the
running
of
industry
themselves-anything but: what they do want
is
information.
Information about what
is
happening and
why.
A
bigger say
in
the day-to-day running
of
things and
in
how
their own
work
is
planned and organised.
Half the sample felt their employer failed to inform them adequately about what
was going on. More information from the top was the most frequently mentioned
of all factors when the respondents were asked to state their most important
hoped-for improvement. In contrast, more say on management finance and in-
vestment decisions, and the practice of workers obtaining seats
on
the board,
ranked highest among ‘least important’ factors, followed by improved welfare and
canteen arrangements.
Unfortunately, in the report many of the conclusions drawn from this survey
testify to the ease by which survey data is used to draw conclusions in isolation,
since meanings are imposed which starkly reflect the ideological assumptions
of
the writer(s). This is true both of the above-quoted passage and of the interpret-
ation of other results of the survey.
One of the trends which does emerge from the O.R.C. data fairly unequi-
vocally is an interest in participation
on
the job rather than at a more general
level, even though the latter level will usually involve the more important decisions
for the company. Much the same pattern, though with
a
slightly different slant, is
revealed by Holter’s study in NorwayS3 When she asked workers if they thought
employees
in general
were sufficiently involved in decisions regarding the com-
pany as a whole, no less than
78
per cent said ‘No’. However, when people were
asked if they
personally
would like to participate more, and given the opportunity
to choose either
or
both of ‘own work and working conditions’ and ‘company
matters in general’,
56
per cent opted for the former alone,
16
per cent for the
latter or both, while
22
per cent expressed no personal interest in more personal
participation (and
5
per cent gave ‘No answer etc.’).
Considering that most public interest has focused
on
company-level decision-
making as the area in which to expand participation, these findings are worthy of
*
Lecturer in Industrial Relations in the Department
of
Economics, University
of
Strathclyde.
128
To continue reading
Request your trial