Mobilisation Theory in Understanding Trade Unions - Essay Example

?Mobilisation Theory in Understanding Trade Unions I. Introduction Trade union activities are important to be understood by society as well as by business managers. They are capable of changing society, making lives better for all, and advancing society’s standards of living. They have been instrumental in shortening the required working hours for all and eliminating child labour (Cahill 2007, p. 16; International Labour Organization 2010, p. xv). Gone were the days when workers have to work up to 18 hours per day and gone were the days when children have to work for the same number of hours in factories and slums of the emerging towns of the industrial revolution. The trade unions probably had a role in advancing equality between gender and equality among races. They have been mobilised to combat the onslaught of the HIV-AIDS in the working places and were important conduits to better health for employees and the proletariat. It can also be argued that trade unions are among the leading organizations in the fight against HIV-AIDS and all scourge of humanity (Trade Union Congress of the United Kingdom 2011). At the same time, however, trade unions are organizations that are relatively to radicalize in society. Marx, Engels, Trotsky, and other leaders of Marxism and several generations of the Communist and Socialist International have focused on the trade unions for their revolutionary work. The charisma of communist and socialist organisations has once threatened the industrial revolution in the late 18th and 19th centuries. The Marxist liberations movements strengthened by the trade unions have almost wiped out capitalism in the face of globe. Once upon a time, the Marxist liberation movements have covered much of Europe through Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and through the “people’s republics” of China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. It is important to understand the trade unions because trade unions can join hands with business and together they can advance society’s standards of living. At the same time, labour unions can also throw society into chaos if its legitimate demands are ignored and the movement goes astray in raising the living standards of employees and the proletariat. One of the theories with a good potential in understanding labour unions better is the mobilization theory. II. Mobilisation Theory: the Kelley and the Johnson-Jarley perspectives The emergence of mobilization theory is attributed to John Kelly. According to Johnson and Jarley, Kelly’s mobilisation theory moved industrial relations discourse “away from collective bargaining and its associated institutions and towards an examination of the processes that converts individual grievances into collective action” (2004, p. 543). Kelly’s work had emphasized that “injustice serves as the central organizing principle for mobilizing workers, and as such provides a potential powerful construct for understanding industrial relations processes” (Johnson and Jarley 2004, p. 543). The tone and content of the work of Johnson and Jarley (2004) supported Kelly’s perspective. In interpreting the trade union history of the United States, Johnson and Jarley pointed out the trade union rhetoric had centred their demands on “workplace dignity” and “social justice”. However, perhaps we should not forget that there was no other alternative then but to centre on the rhetoric because the industrial revolution was probably associated as well with growing inequality. In the United Kingdom, I believe it is well known that the industrious revolution has been associated with long working hours and enslavement of women and children in factory grounds as a few lived in luxury. Women and children have to work for long hours during the early phase of the industrial revolution as the factory owners were enriching themselves. The work of Johnson and Jarley (2004) was built on testing the argument that member participation in trade union work is a function of workplace injustice and justice perceptions. The Johnson and Jarley (2004) material focused on testing their proposition by “examining the determinants of member participation in a state-wide public-sector union that operates without statutory bargaining rights or voluntary employer recognition” (p. 544). They have interpreted their empirical results to mean that their proposition that trade union work is a function of workplace injustice and justice perception is supported by data. They have also interpreted their study results to emphasize that union leaders have the “ability to mobilize workers around workplace justice issues by promoting solidarity and generalized reciprocity through careful attention to social exchange relationships” (Johnson and Jarley 2004, p. 544). Johnson and Jarley (2004) promoted a critical tone on the “extant literature” that “has viewed job dissatisfaction and union instrumentality perceptions as the dominant precursors to union organizing, participation and industrial action” (p. 544). In contrast, they pointed out that Kelley identify injustice as the root of collective action, whether or not the injustice takes place in the union or non-union setting or is spontaneous or planned (Johnson and Jarley 2004, p. 544). Johnson and Jarley (2004, p. 544) elaborated that the injustice committed to which the labour union can respond can be micro or macro, or those that may involve only a single individual of management or supervisor or something widespread or those that can involve government. Some of the key propositions of Kelly’s mobilization theory as articulated by Johnson and Jarley (2004) are as follows. First, injustice is the root of collective action (p. 544). On this, Johnson and Jarley (2004, p. 544) pointed out that their study provides “modest” empirical support for the justice approach to union participation. In particular, they pointed out that “models employing measures of workplace injustice and union justice narrowly outperform models relying on measures of job dissatisfaction and union instrumentality perceptions” (p. 544). Second, the injustice or perception of injustice need not arise from employer’s action or inaction but it can also arise from the action or inaction of its agents, like its managers or supervisors (p. 544). Third, trade unionist can focus on justice issues for mobilization purposes by promoting solidarity and generalized reciprocity and by “careful attention to social exchange relationships” (p. 544). In other words, “leaders must convert individual injustice into collective action by promoting group cohesion and identify and legitimizing such action in the face of hostile criticism” (p. 545). Fourth, both micro and macro injustice has the potential to mobilize employees or workers for the trade union. Micro means it may affect only a small fraction of labour or that a supervisor or management and not necessarily the employer may be the one blameable for the injustice. Macro injustice can be an injustice attributable to an “agency responsible for causing the problem” (p. 544). The injustice may be “widespread, involving employers generally or the state, and concern such issues as the distribution of national income or workers’ organizing rights (p. 544). Fifth, most often, the “workers assign culpability for their work-related problems to their employer” (p. 544). Sixth, “violations of procedural and interactional justice seem especially prone to attributions of employer volitions” (p. 545). This means that the fight of the trade union does not involve economic rights alone but the fight can also cover political rights or issues of participation at the workplace. Seventh, employee commitment and participation on trade union affairs are dependent on “workers’ perception about the degree to which the union values their contributions and cares about their well being” (p. 646). Further, “union perceptions are functions of the degree to which workers believe the union applies fair rules and procedures in reaching decisions and treat members equitably in managing interpersonal relationships on a day-to-day basis” (p. 546). Eight, “perceived union support relates positively to both procedural and interactional justice perceptions, with the latter relationship being more substantial” (p. 546). Ninth, citing the work of one author, Johnson and Jarley argued that members participate in trade union activities when they value the union’s goals and when they believe that their participation can contribute to the organization’s success (p. 546). Tenth, the studies on the role of member “satisfaction with pay, promotions and supervision” on participation in trade union work are mixed: some studies found positive correlation but other studies found negative correlation (p. 547). It must be pointed out that the adjusted R-squared in the Johnson and Jarley empirical study is relative low at less than 0.30 or that less than 30% of the variation in the independent variable can explain the variation in the dependent variable. The regression models are in page 554 of Johnson and Jarley (2004). Thus, it is reasonable to take note that their work as per their own description provides only modest support for their propositions. I strongly doubt whether the Johnson and Jarley models captured the role or provided adequate controls for the role played by economic motivations to support trade union work. However, we need not focus on this point for now in order not to lose sight of the more important contribution of Johnson and Jarley (2004): the attention that the work gave on the role of factors other than wage or economic concession for member participation or motivation to participation in trade union activities. III. Value of Mobilisation Theory in Understanding Trade Union Activities The work of Kelley as well as that of Johnson and Jarley (2004) plays an important role in the trade union as well as industrial relations literature by discrediting the views that tend to see ONLY economic motivation or agenda in the trade union struggles. The works of the two sets of authors (Kelley and Johnson/Jarley) serve to highlight the role of injustice or perception of injustice in the mobilization efforts of the trade union movement. Their work serves to highlight the political dimension of the labour movement and its capability to perform a political role in society in addition to its role in the economic agenda of a nation. Yet, at the same time, the work of Kelley and Johnson and Jarley went to the other side of the extreme, as they have tended to argue that ONLY injustice and perception of injustice can mobilize a trade union. This is not the case because it is easy to see by just a quick browse over news reports that labour unions can respond to purely economic issues as well even if no justice or perception of justice issues are present. It is even easy to prove that many unions have focused on economic issues alone because the trade union literature is replete with examples in which the politicized trade unions have criticized “yellow” trade unions that concentrated only on economic issues. The politicized trade unions have even accused “yellow” trade unions to be in collaboration with employers or “capitalists”. In addition to “yellow trade unions”, another jargon used by the politicized trade union movement is known as “bread-and-butter unionism” to refer pejoratively to that brand of trade unionism that revolves on purely economic issues. Some of the politicized trade unions criticized bread-and-butter trade unionism because they argue that the movement must influence political institutions as well because it is through the political institutions that greater economic concessions can be derived from employers. Of course, there is also the more radical trade unions, especially the trade unions influenced by Marxist or socialist causes that see the task of building trade unions as part and parcel of the process of building as well as wresting political power from the hands of the “bourgeoisie”. IV. Usefulness of Mobilisation Theory for Business Managers The practical usefulness of the Kelly (1998) as well as the Johnson and Jarley (2004) perspectives on trade union activities is this: industrial peace specialists and business managers must see to it that there must be justice in the workplace or business establishment so that industrial peace can be maintained. This is true whether that “injustice” is a valid or an incorrect perception/assessment of the industrial or work relations in the workplace. Managers and industrial peace professionals must strive to see to it that there is company wide positive perception that workplace justice pervade in the company. More importantly, business managers and the industrial peace professionals must see to it that there is REAL JUSTICE in the workplace and not merely perception. This important to make the industrial peace SUSTAINABLE. This point implies that wages must be designed such that they are commensurate to employee contribution to company productivity or profit. The implication is however a lot more because justice can be interpreted to involve respect for the subordinate and respect among races or ethnic origin of employees and the work force. Workplace justice can also mean that there is respect between genders and that employee and employer-employee relations are governed by respect for each other---regardless of status, ethnic origin, and gender. Although the discussion of Kelly (1998) and Johnson and Jarley (2004) are useful, we must not forget that if we study the figures available in trade union membership from the government documentation, Trade Union Membership 2009, it is easy to conclude that trade union membership are highest in years when economic life has been most difficult (United Kingdom Department for Business Innovation and Skills, p. 3). Therefore, pay is also an important consideration for mobilization in the trade union. V. Conclusion and Postscripts Thus, this work offers a twist in how the labour movement and industrial relations may be interpreted. Indeed, Kelly’s work in mobilisation theory offers a good way of understanding trade union activities. However, I believe that the right way of interpreting labour history is that both bread and justice constitute as the core agenda for industrial relations. Viewed in this manner, the task of improving industrial relations will lie not only in exerting efforts to project an image of the employer as a just employer but also in both the employer’s and employees’ efforts to realize both justice and improving living standard, including wage standards, for labour. It is important to advance living standard not only for improving the well-being of workers but also for promoting work efficiency, retention, and competitiveness in a globalising business community. Wage continues to be important agenda for trade unions especially in developing country. Further, both business mangers and industrial peace professionals cannot ignore the issue of wage because even economists recognize its role in promoting both efficiency and motivating employees to work (Dornbusch et al. 2008, p. 131). Related to this, a work published by the International Labour Office based in Geneva pointed out that worldwide, a serious challenge being confronted by trade unions are dislocations caused by globalization (Schmidt 2007, p. xvii). References Cahill, R., 2007. On winning the 40-hour week. Journal of the Illawarra Branch of the Australian Society for the Study of Labour History, 7 (1), 16-25. Department for Business Innovation and Skills, 2010. Trade Union Membership 2009. United Kingdom Department of Business Innovation and Skills. Dornbusch, R., Fischer, S., and Startz, R., 2008. Macroeconomics. 8th Ed. McGraw-Hill. International Labour Organization, 2010. Accelerating action against child labour. Geneva: International Labour Office. Johnson, N. B. and Jarley, P., 2004. Justice and union participation: An extension and test of mobilization theory. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42 (3), 543-562. Kelley, J., 1998. Rethinking industrial relation: Mobilization, collectivism, and long waves. London: Routledge. Schmidt, V. (ed), 2007. Trade union responses to globalization. Geneva: International Labour Office. Trade Union Congress of the United Kingdom, 2011. TUC submission to the Department for International Development on the Consultation Documents on the UK Strategy on tackling AIDS in the developing world. Available in: http://www.tuc.org.uk/international/tuc-13600-f0.cfm [Accessed 8 April 2011]. Read More