Conflict and Cooperation at Work

Perspectives

The functionalist ideal of consensus and cooperation

Functionalist sociologists, such as Talcott Parsons, Kingsley Davies and Wilbert E Moore, claim that workers and management have shared interests. Parsons, for example, claims that “the whole occupational sphere is dominated by a single fundamental goal. That of 'success'.“ This is said to create a value consensus. Conflict damages the interests of both parties. According to V.L. Allen, as a result, “it must be possible to envisage a completely strike-free economy as a permanent state.“

Marxist perspectives

Marxists argue that workers and employers have fundamentally differing interests because of the bourgeois exploitation of labour. According to Craig Littler and Graeme Salaman employers seek to maximise profits by extending control and consequently deskilling labour as much as possible. However, management must cooperate with labour to an extent, since workers need to be sufficiently motivated to be productive.

According to Michael Burawoy (1979) employers have been able to manufacture consent and disguise the exploitation in the workplace. Aspects of this are (1) scape-goating low wages and job losses on economic conditions rather than management; (2) regulation by the state means that management is prevented from excessive control, and protected from creating conflict; (3) management allowing the workforce to “make out“ � meaning that rules are not too severely enforced, so workers become more cooperative.

Richard Hyman argues that the period of Thatcher government in Britain was one in which there was coercive pacification of the workforce, through changes to the trades union law and the threat of increasing unemployment.

P.K. Edwards and Hugh Scullion in a study of seven factories in Britain (published 1982) claim that the degree of conflict in a firm depends on the type of managerial control techniques used. Management can achieve control either through coercion or through consent, or a combination of both. The potential for conflict is always present, and some managers are more successful than others in preventing this potential from being actualised.

Pluralism

According to pluralists there are differences of interests between workers and management, so conflict is always latent. On the other hand, there are shared interests as well — for example, workers want job security so this moderates their demands for higher wages. Thus conflict in work can be resolved through negotiation. Pluralists argue that power in society is distributed between different groups. The effect of trades unions is to integrate workers into capitalist society, and institutionalise conflict between workers and management, thus increasing stability.

Ralf Dahrendorf is a pluralist who claims there is a trend towards industrial democracy. The process by which unions have come to be recognised over the C20th has led towards industrial democracy. With this the existence of negotiating bodies contains conflict and provides a framework for its resolution. The arbitration process acts as a further mechanism for resolving conflict. He notes that in some European countries workers are appointed to the board of directors. There is a trend towards joint regulation of industry by both workers and employers.

Trades unions

Marx thought that trades unions could weaken the development of a revolutionary consciousness, since they could become preoccupied with local and immediate struggles and lose sight of the overall 'goal' of overthrowing capitalism. However, he also thought that trades unions could become “organized agencies for superseding the very system of wage labour and capital rule“, and could lead to the formation of class solidarity at a national level.

Lenin was critical of trades unions, arguing that they led to the development of trade union consciousness that would work against the awareness of the common interests of the working class as a whole. Modern Marxists tend to share Lenin's pessimism, and Hyman claims that “management still commands; workers are still obliged to obey.“

Trade unions fight to protect their right to free collective bargaining. V.L. Allen claims that this works against the interest of workers, since their economic interests can only be furthered by a redistribution of wealth. This would be imposed by the state, and in that process trades unions would lose their right to free collective bargaining. He claims that the right to negotiate higher wages is an illusory benefit to employed workers, since their increased wages are eroded by inflation. Hyman claims that unions have failed to improve the economic position of workers: “throughout this century the share of wages and salaries in the national income has barely deviated from the figure of 60%. Trade unions have not succeeded in winning for their members any part of the percentage of production accruing to profits; they have merely held on to the same relative share of a growing economy.“ Unions, by accepting limited aims, such as changes in money wage rates, contribute to the domination of the bourgeoisie.

The American sociologist, Seymour Lipset, claims that trades unions “serve to integrate their members in the larger body politic and give them a basis for loyalty to the system.“ This was particularly the case in the 1970s when central Government in Britain consulted with the TUC. This has been called by some sociologists the era of corporatism. During 1974-9 the government and the TUC formed a Social Contract in which moderation in wage demands was exchanged for the TUC being able to influence government policy. However, this attempt at corporatism failed, and the 'Winter of Discontent' (1978-9) was followed by the election victory of Margaret Thatcher, after which government made no attempt at corporatism.

Lane and Roberts argue that strikes are a normal aspect of industrial activity, claiming “the nature of work, the terms of the employer-employee relationship, the integration of the trade unions into the power structure, all make strikes inevitable.“ This reflects a pluralist interpretation of trade unions.

Types of Industrial Conflict

Conflict can occur between managers and workers, and between different groups of workers, such as skilled and semi-skilled workers. Conflict behaviour can be expressed in different ways — strikes, sit-ins, working to rule, overtime bans, absenteeism, leaving the job and laziness. Conflict in work is relatively commonplace, though not universal.

Strikes

According to Hyman a strike is characterised by (1) being an actual stoppage of work; (2) being a temporary stoppage of work; (3) being a collective act; (4) being the action of employees; (5) being almost always a calculated rather than spontaneous act.

Official strikes have the backing of the union; unofficial strikes, also called wildcat strikes, do not. Strikes are usually effective in “speeding negotiations towards an acceptable conclusion“.

From the 1950s to the 1980s Britain was portrayed as a strike prone country. However, Hyman argues that the statistics must be questioned. Firstly, they are based on reports supplied by employers; secondly, different countries define a strike in different ways — for example, in Britain a strike is defined as the loss of 100 or more working days, but in Japan there is no minimum on the number of days lost before an action is called a strike. A single large strike can also distort the statistics; the 1984 miners' strike accounted for 22.4 million working days lost, being 83% of the total for that year. By whatever method is used to record strikes the 1980s showed a reduction in striking.

British strike statistics — annual averages

STRIKESTATISTICS

Source: Department of Education Employment Gazette, September 1994

According to Hyman, from 1945 to 1952 there was the “post-war peace“, with relatively few strikes. From 1953 to 1959 there was a “return of the strike“. 1960 to 1968 there was the shop-floor revolt, with an increasing number of small-scale strikes throughout industry. From 1969 to 1973 there was the “formal challenge“ in which there were large-scale disputes. There was the attempt at the “Social Contract“ from 1974 to 1976. From 1977 to 1979 there was a “revival of struggle“, after which, with the advent of the Thatcher government there was the era of “coercive pacification“.

Hyman regards the policies of the Thatcher government as a multi-pronged offensive against trades unions. Some of the changes to the trade unions laws include:

1		1980 Employment Act making secondary picketing illegal.
2		1982 Employment Act defining a trades dispute as one “wholly or mainly about terms and conditions of employment“. Unions conducting an unlawful strike could have their funds sequestered.
3		1984 Trade Union Act making secret ballots before industrial action necessary.
4		1990 Employment Act requiring that actions involving more than one employer required separate ballots for each employer involved. The closed shop was made illegal.

This legislation made strike action more difficult for unions.

The Thatcher government also attacked unions by removing the legal protections for employees. Fair wages clauses in government contracts were removed. The government also reduced the level of consultation between them and trades unions. The TUC was provoked into withdrawing from the National Economic Development Council in 1982. The government also attacked public sector employees by means of budgetary controls on local authorities.

In the short term there was an increase in serious disputes with the miners' strike of 1984/5 as the peak, but thereafter the number of strikes decreased as unions were weakened.

In criticism of Hyman's views of the Thatcher government it can be pointed out that there has been a decline of strike activity in nearly all Western countries. Gint has also pointed out that during 1979-91 wages for British workers were greater than the rate of inflation, thus indicating that unions were not weakened at this time.

John Goldthorpe has introduced the concepts of union inclusion and exclusion. By union inclusion is meant the attempt to allow unions to participate in decision making; and union exclusion is the opposite. Smith and Morton claim that the 1980s and 1990s have seen a trend towards union exclusion. They note that union membership fell from 13.2 million in 1979 to 10.04 million in 1990. Employers have also tended to use the tactic of derecognition of unions. Other means of excluding employees include performance related pay, collective agreements (such as no-strike agreements), individual contracts, the use of subcontracting, the splitting of firms into smaller units; the replacement of full-time workers with workers on fixed-term contracts.

However, they comment that the success of these tactics depends also on the union response, and “the result of union exclusion policies cannot be predetermined.“

Strikes and community integration

Some industries are more strike-prone than others — for example, in Britain between 1966 to 1970 the most significantly affected industries (in order) were the dock industry, the car industry, shipbuilding and coal mining. The coal mining and motor vehicle industries remain more likely to experience strikes than other industries.

According to Clark Kerr and Abraham Siegel the proneness of some industries to strike action depends on community integration — that is, strikes tend to occur in those occupational communities which are relatively isolated from society as a whole and in which a community “consciousness of kind“ develops based on a sense of shared grievances. However, a study by Stephen Hill of London dockers found little evidence of community integration; in fact, the dockers seemed like the affluent workers studied by Goldthorpe and Lockwood.

Strikes and technology

Some sociologists claim that strikes are determined by the role of technology. For example, following Blauner, assembly line technology produces high levels of alienation, leading to conflict. However, the statistics indicate that there are differences of strike levels within the same industry, so technology alone cannot be the sole determining factor. The research conducted by Daniel and Millward for the Department of Employment did not support the idea of a connection between strike action and technology.

Strikes and negotiating procedures

A.M. Ross and P.T. Harman's study of strike levels in fifteen countries between 1900 and 1956 showed that strikes are less likely to occur where there are established procedures for conflict resolution. The Devlin Report supported this conclusion. However, this view is contradicted by the research of Daniel and Millward, who claim that the existence of agreed procedures makes strike action more likely. They found strikes more likely in industries with high proportions of manual workers, and that share ownership schemes make strikes among manual workers less likely.

Disputes over wages and redundancies

Disputes of wages are the main cause of strike action; but from 1992 onwards disputes over redundancies have become more significant.

Whilst wages and redundancies are the main causes of strikes, any strike reflects a power struggle and may indicate discontent with the management. Thus, it is claimed by some that every industrial action is fundamentally a dispute about authority and control. Huw Beynon illustrates this view with his analysis of the Ford strike of 1969. In this case the pay package and conditions offered to workers was acceptable, but workers were being asked to accept a “good behaviour clause“ and to give twenty-one days notice of official strike action, among other things. The strike was about acceptance of these conditions.

Industrial sabotage

Tyler and Walton define industrial sabotage as “that rule-breaking which takes the form of conscious action or inaction directed towards the mutilation or destruction of the work environment...“

Sabotage can be motivated by (1) frustration — spontaneous actions of violence directed against machinery or the work environment which are indications of the powerlessness the workers involved feel; (2) attempts to ease the work process — where workers try to make the job easier by what is effectively an act of sabotage — this action is said to be typical of industries where workers is paid by the hour and wages are dependent on output; (3) attempts to assert control, that is, acts of sabotage that are designed to challenge authority, for example, when acts of sabotage follow unsuccessful strike action. Such action tends to occur in those industries where there is a tradition of militancy, where people generally agree on whom to blame for their grievances, and where protest has no official channel.

The social organization of industrial conflict

P.K. Edwards and Hugh Scullion claim that a broad understanding of industrial conflict must be developed. Companies with low levels of one type of conflict may have higher levels of another. Thus, they note other forms in which conflict is expressed such as labour turnover and absenteeism. They note that each type of industry/company is characterized by a different type of expression of conflict. In two clothing companies they studied labour turnover and absenteeism were used to express dissatisfaction. In another company, a large metal factory, the workers had a lot of control and conflict occurred when managers sought to reassert control, when workers effectively used short strikes to get management to back down.

Some companies, in their opinion, use a method of sophisticated control in which managers consult with workers, whilst nonetheless closely monitoring them. Methods of sophisticated control can be effective in creating a workforce that is reluctant to take action against management.