Poles Apart?. Is there on alternative to resolving management and union differences?
| Pages | 17-20 |
| Published date | 01 February 1980 |
| Date | 01 February 1980 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb054946 |
| Author | Malcolm Leary |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Poles Apart?
Is there on alternative to resolving
management and union differences?
by Malcolm Leary
Senior Associate, Social Ecology Associates Ltd
Behind Industrial Relations
In a recent essay for the German news magazine Der
Spiegel, Rolph Dahrendorf, head of the London School
of Economics, as something of an "outsider" to the
British IR scene, stated:
"Britain already embodies a unique combination of
attitudes which give it the possibility of creating a
human post-industrial society in a time of social and
economic stress!"
The "combination of attitudes" which is written of
here does appear more clearly if we look behind exist-
ing industrial relations phenomena to those forces
which are really working into the industrial relations
scene and influencing fundamentally its mood and direc-
tion. The plethora of current and past statistics on
strikes, wage trends, manpower studies; the legion of
opinions on these trends; the multitude of interpretations
provided for each major utterance and inclination of the
main actors in the IR field—none of this helps us very
much in seeing that is really going. To do this we must
look at a much deeper level. This involves perhaps a
relaxation of the usual standards of careful research and
investigation, putting on one side for a moment the
world of current reality in order to take a more detached
(but caring) look at what is going on. Often the weight
of detail can hide more substantial truths.
I make no apologies for playing a few hunches, maybe
following a few faint trails in this way. If we follow such
a path in Industrial Relations some interesting points
emerge.
"Unionsandmanagement"
Much of my work and I would guess the task of many
readers of this journal is concerned with helping organ-
isations to take the next appropriate step in their de-
velopment. This involves dealing with the organisation
in its widest sense, encompassing all interest groups and
stakeholders. Often these days the major development
questions which organisations have to face are related
to "people problems", Industrial Relations, employee
relationships . . . many different focuses are used,
many labels attached, but it comes down to roughly the
same thing in the end. The overall health of the social
system of the organisation is what these days keeps the
key decision-makers awake at nights—on both sides of
the fence!
More specifically development work with an Industrial
Relations focus often comes down to improving rela-
tionships between those old "friends", the Darby and
Joan of the British Industrial scene:
"Unionsandmanagement"
Whether dealing with these groupings at a micro
plant level (e.g. shop stewards and supervisors) or at a
macro national level, trying to contribute to the task
of promoting the healthier relationships between the
groups, in deciding on the most appropriate strategy to
use,
I am often "left" with certain nagging, serious
doubts, one or two paradoxes and quite a few dilem-
mas in deciding what is going on and what might pos-
sibly be the route ahead. Just to illustrate this briefly,
the industrial relations world is riddled with conflcting
and dichotomous policies and philosophies. The TUC
vote for worksharing to reduce unemployment one min-
ute and press for more overtime at a local level the
next. The CBI promote greater democracy at the work-
place in one breath but call for the rights of the in-
dividual worker to be upheld through legislation al-
most at the same time. The two sides of industry have
been up to these tricks for so long that they have ceased
to be embarrased about their ambivalent positions.
They have stopped explaining too—even perhaps to
themselves. Perhaps they shouldn't apologise, even
though the innocent bystander, if there can be such a
person in a "taking sides" environment, is completely
confused and perplexed.
"Unions and management" are
the Derby and Joan of the
British Industrial scene
Here is the first of my hunches. Rather than explain-
ing away some of these inherent dilemmas, the "facing
both ways at once syndrome", or attempting to fudge the
issue through some sloppy compromise which really
touches no-one, we should spend our energies trying to
identify a little more clearly what is the nature of the
contradiction which works behind the pronouncements
and posturing. I can see the dialectic materialists already
leaping up to point out the traditional explanation of
such contradictions in capital/labour terms. I would
ask them to hold on a little longer. This analysis may
be sound but it does not get to the heart of the mat-
ter. To do this we really need to look at the more
qualitative elements operating beyond the classical labels
and slogans—to see the human element in all its rich-
ness and variety and complexity and confusion, at work
in Industrial Relations.
Archetypes of Unions and Management—"What they
would like to be"
I work with both unions and management and hope-
fully without sounding too patronising, I can say I find
much to admire in their philosophies and actions. Some
Employee Relations 2, 2 1980 17
To continue reading
Request your trial