 |
home |
UNISON West Midlands
| This essay on the role of trade unions in partnership agreements has been submitted by Ian Marrey, Branch Secretary of UNISON Dudley Primary Care Branch. Comments and feedback would be welcomed. Please contact Ian by e-mail. Partnership - Should Trade Unions be Involved?In a labour market that is in a constant state of change, failure to allow employees to believe in the necessity of change will inevitably cause difficulties for the organisation. Obstacles to change are often the attitudes, values and beliefs of those employees who are being asked to alter working practices that they have held for a long time. Their resistance will ensure that the process will not be smooth and may end up causing greater long-term problems for the organisation. When the government advocates partnership, it is encouraging employers to involve its workforce in the process of change. Too much ‘top-down’ management causes unrest and mistrust among the workforce who do not necessarily share or understand their organisation’s vision. Encouraging a ‘bottom-up’ approach to managing change allows employees to share ownership of organisational change and be accountable for their decisions. It is argued that partnerships are a mechanism for allowing this to happen. According to the DTI website, “partnership is about developing better employment relationships at all levels, helping to build trust in the workplace, the sharing of information and working together to solve business problems.” Partnerships have existed for many years although they may not always have been known as such. Since coming into power, the Labour Government has been a forceful advocate of partnerships although many of the examples of close working relationships we now know as partnerships have merely been ‘re-branded’ as such. Flynn (2002) writes “Partnership became an important keyword and was applied to a variety of collaborative arrangements….the renaming included changing the name of the Private Finance Initiative to Public-Private Partnership.” Flynn says this “solved the problems identified in the competitive tendering process: the costs involved in frequent re-tendering.” I would argue that this move to re-brand existing collaborations and working arrangements as ‘partnerships’ was also an attempt to create a different perception of them as many had been subject to constant public criticism – in the case of PFI the fact that private companies were profiting from the public sector. The term Private-Public Partnership could be interpreted as an attempt to show that there was an equal relationship between the partners. It is no wonder then, that many trade union activists view partnerships with some cynicism. Why Partnerships? Wilkinson (2003, p24) outlines how the “importance of unity of purpose and values” and “Total Quality Management” has begun to replace the traditional ‘pluralistic’ form of industrial relations – where it is accepted that both sides may have different aims and objectives. Wilkinson quotes Konzelmann Smith (1996) who believes that this could change the role of trade unions to one of “co-ordinating the strategic process and facilitating the achievements of managerial objectives.” Bradley et al (2000, p149-150) also observed “The elaboration of techniques associated with the unitarist philosophy of HRM – in which it is assumed that employees and managers share common goals…and that relationships between them are harmonious.” These assumptions, outlined above, form the basis of what Bradley describes as ‘the Labour Government’s rhetoric about the importance of partnership in the workplace and the need to replace conflict at work with common aims and values.” The conflict between the pluralistic and facilitative role of a trade union would seem to be a significant difficulty that needs to be overcome before establishing partnerships in many workplaces. There will always be a conflict of interests between those who employ and those who are employed, indeed many negotiations at their most basic consist of the employee wanting much and the employer offering little. In addition, there is always an unequal balance of power in favour of employers. These would seem to be difficult obstacles to overcome in order to establish a fair, honest and equal partnership. The Conditions for Partnerships. There should be two essential requirements for trade unions when considering a partnership agreement with employers. Firstly, is their sufficient trust between management and employees to allow the partnership to flourish? And secondly, are there mutual aims and objectives that can be satisfied by entering into a partnership? Burchell et al (1999, p22) in their study on job insecurity and work intensification found that 44% of employees “held the view that management could be trusted ‘only a little’ or ‘not at all’.” Such unsatisfactory figures would not be an ideal platform to look at developing widespread partnership agreements in a workplace. Lorenz (2003 p68-69) discussing inter-organisational trust describes a process in Lyon, France, where “client firms and their subcontractors built up trust,” by applying what Lorenz refers to as the “step-by-step rule…….making small commitments to each other and then progressively increase their commitments depending on the quality of the exchange.” Trade Unions would be well advised to adopt a similar approach and there are examples within UNISON of this occurring. In UNISON’s Guide to Partnership Agreements (2001) in a document relating to Health and Safety, UNISON advise; “Partnership is not about abandoning our principles or about pretending we all have the same interests. In fact, to be successful, a partnership agreement must recognise that employers and employees often have very different interests. However, in some areas our interests overlap. Where that happens we can and should work together.” Here, UNISON is suggesting to its members that the union should be involved in a partnership where it can benefit their members, in this instance around Health and Safety. It is clear that UNISON have recognised that there are benefits to partnership working, while at the same time recognise that it is not the utopian working relationship its most ardent supporters advocate. Trade unions can use the model outlined by UNISON to consider partnership agreements where interests overlap. This is further emphasised by the TUC (2000) and their six partnership principles. • Commitment to building a better working environment
alongside a better business environment; There will be occasions when the aims of the organisation are in obvious opposition to those of the union – as in the campaign against Private Finance Initiatives. In these cases, unions must weigh up the pros and cons of entering into or being involved in any form of partnership working. It may be prudent for the union to participate and oppose – as is the case with UNISON’s ‘twin-track’ approach to PFI. In this instance, the union works within the framework to achieve the best possible outcomes for its members while also working in opposition. There still remains a place for ‘pluralistic’ form of industrial relations. It is said that partnerships increase the strength and importance of unions in the workplace however David Yeandle of the Engineering Employers Federation addressing the unions 21 conference in 2001 said “employers would emphasise a partnership with employees but not necessarily with trade unions.” If this was the case, rather than strengthening the hand of trade unions, employees may feel that they do not need the union and ultimately the trade union influence would dwindle at a local level as staff take advantage of the place at the negotiating table previously reserved for the unions. To address Yeandle’s concerns, unions must also look at their own organisation and capabilities. A poorly organised union branch will not benefit from a partnership. A strong, vibrant and organised trade union may be able to use their strengths to organise employees and will also be able to work towards fostering trust between employees and their management. This view is supported by Bryson (2002) who noted “..where unions are viewed as ineffective, trust in management is lower than in comparable non-unionised workplaces.” He goes on to say “Employee trust in management is the foundation of social partnership. Unions can play a valuable role in fostering this trust, but they can only do so where they are performing well, and where they have the support of management". Where more than one union operates in a workplace, each organisation should maintain a separate identity distinct from the partnership. The risks of being seen as ‘in the pockets of managers’ may weaken the unions’ ability to organise and any failure by management will also reflect badly on the unions. In my workplace, we are looking to use the staff-side organisation as a means of creating partnerships rather than individual unions. There are also problems with this, as there exists ‘power’ differentials between the various staff-side organisations – these are to do with size of membership and historical participation in representing members. While there does exist a partnership arrangement between 13 different unions, only 3 are active in the process and the largest can dominate the rest. Before entering into any partnership with employers, trade unions should carefully examine the current negotiating mechanisms and decide whether a partnership agreement (that would involve non-union members) has any additional benefits. It may be that the present imperfect system suits the trade union and not the management and as such it would be unwise to change. In any partnership agreement, trade unions should insist on being involved at every level of the organisation. Any exclusion only highlights a need by the employer to consider change without the involvement of the workforce and reinforces the unequal balance of power. Both sides should always maintain the option to withdraw from the partnership if it becomes clear that the other is not operating within the spirit of the agreement and mechanisms (notice periods, conciliation services etc.) should be put in place to ensure that this can happen. Identifying Trust and Mutual Aims and Objectives. Earlier, I stated that there are two essential agreements for a successful partnership; mutual aims and objectives and trust. The Partnership Institute (2002) confirm this; “Partnerships require good faith and trust. This high road demands high-trust industrial relations, with high levels of participation in decision-making by employees and their representatives, committed to a mutual gains agenda.” Workplaces where there has been very little evidence of trust between employee and management are unlikely to move easily into partnership arrangements. Firmly held attitudes on all sides will need time to adjust before and honest relationship can be formed. Unions may need to take steps to establish the levels of trust between management and staff through activities such as attitude surveys or simply engaging regularly with its members. If it is felt that there is benefits to be gained through partnership working, Lorenz’s step-by-step approach to developing trust would seem to be the ideal model to adopt. Burchell at al (1999, p22) found that many people who felt insecure with their present employer did so because of change or the potential for change within the workplace. A recently completed survey of health workers by UNISON Dudley Primary Care Branch (2002) using the TUC Stress MOT reflects this. Respondents who had indicated that they were experienced harm due to the effects of workplace stress were asked to rate their levels of stress on a scale of 1 - 5, 1 being no or little stress, 5 being high or harmful stress. The following results represent the percentage of people who rated a score of 3 or above in the category on change; 63% - uncertainty about their future This selection of results from our own organisation would suggest that we need to be cautious about entering into partnership agreements with our employers as these results would indicate a lack of trust between employee and management. It may also indicate that there are actions we need to take as a trade union. The issue of mutual aims and objectives may be a more difficult matter to address in a period of ever increasing change for many organisations. It may be that having established the trust required to enter into partnership agreements; unions then have to take each issue on its merits. There are examples of initiatives where the aims and objectives of employer and unions are broadly similar, for example the in the NHS; Improving Working Lives complements the unions Work/Life Balance agenda and life-long learning is an objective of both parties. In these instances, trade unions can seek to work within a partnership framework. There are other areas, often referred to as ‘modernisation’ where it may be that unions are unable to work in partnership as the aims and objectives of the employer are not necessarily held by the employer – as indicated by the two surveys above. Conclusion. It would seem that before a union can recommend a partnership to its members it first has to establish the level of trust between employer and employee. This would be the prime condition for any partnership agreement and unions would need to see if there were any symptoms of a lack of trust. Secondly, any partnership must have some over-lapping mutual benefits. This excludes unions from entering into generalised partnership agreements but may encourage them to examine the pros of issue-specific partnerships where real benefits can be achieved from the enabling mechanisms of joint working. If a union believes that the benefits of partnership are greater than the relationship they currently enjoy, it may be a worthwhile pursuit. However, any such agreement must be entered into in the knowledge that it will never be equal. As an anonymous worker once said “how can you have partnership with management that can sack you?”
Bryson, Alex (Policy Studies Institute). The foundation of ‘partnership’. Burchell, Brendan; Day, Diana; Hudson, Maria; Ladipo, David; Mankelow, Roy; Nolan, Jane P.; Reed, Hannah; Wichert, Ines C & Wilkinson, Frank. 1999. Job insecurity and work intensification. York: Joseph Roundtree Foundation. Flynn, Norman. 2002. Public Sector Management. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Konzelmann Smith, S. 1996. Co-operative corporate level strategies. Cited in Wilkinson, Frank. 2003 page 24. Lorenz, Edward. 2003. Chapter 4: Inter-organisational trust, boundary spanners and communities of practice. In B. Burchell, S. Deakin, J. Michie & J. Rubery, editors, Systems of production: Markets, organisations and performance. London: Routledge. Trades Union Congress. 2000. Partnerships for prevention: Revitalising Health and Safety in the workplace. London: TUC Publications. TUC Partnership Institute. 2002. The Low Road: (Briefing Document) UNISON. 2000. Challenging the Private Finance Initiative. London: UNISON Communications Unit UNISON. 2001. Working together on Health and Safety: A UNISON guide to partnership agreements. London: UNISON Communications Unit UNISON Dudley Primary Care Branch. 2002. TUC Stress MOT – People Survey Wilkinson, Frank. 2003. Chapter 2: Productive systems and the structuring role of economic and social theories. In B. Burchell, S. Deakin, J. Michie & J. Rubery, editors, Systems of production: Markets, organisations and performance. London: Routledge. Yeadle, David. 2001. Partnership: Buy in or sell out, |