Tag Archives: Unions

Do unions make us unhappy? Probably not.

By Professor Andy Charlwood,
Centre for Employment Relations Innovation and Change,

strike-1488148_1920

It is a well-established research finding that union members in a number of countries, including Britain, the USA and France, tend to be more dissatisfied with their jobs than non-members. The American economists who originally observed this phenomenon thought that it was because unions induce their members to complain about aspects of the employment relationship and this union-induced complaining reduces job satisfaction.

If this is true it suggests a problem because employers collectively spend hundreds of millions of pounds a year on surveys and initiatives to try to manage the satisfaction of their workers. They do this because job satisfaction tends to be associated with more engaged and productive workers. If unions cause job dissatisfaction perhaps they undermine these considerable investments?

The theory that unions cause job dissatisfaction has been challenged by two alternative explanations. First, that perhaps working conditions tend to be worse in the union sector and it is this difference in working conditions that explains lower job satisfaction. Second, it has also been suggested that perhaps workers who are temperamentally more inclined towards job dissatisfaction because of their values and priorities are also more likely to join unions.

I first became interested in this question twenty years ago when working for the TUC. I presented the finding that union members have lower job satisfaction to a group of union reps. Some thought this was a bad thing because unions should make work better for their members. Others were pleased because they thought that dissatisfied members were more willing to take action against employers to try to improve working conditions. What wasn’t clear to any of us then was whether or not unions were actually causing job dissatisfaction.

Since then, a number of articles have been published that show that union members are more dissatisfied even after we account for the fact that they might be temperamentally inclined towards job dissatisfaction, but it has proved difficult to convincingly address the issue of whether unions cause dissatisfaction or not.

To study the question of causality, we need to be able to observe an event that we might expect to cause a change in job satisfaction, we can then study whether this event makes union members more dissatisfied than their non-union counterparts. If it does, we can reasonably infer that it is unions that cause the additional dissatisfaction.

My paper, written with CERIC colleagues Danat Valizade and Ioulia Bessa and recently published by the British Journal of Industrial Relations is the first study of the relationship between unions and job dissatisfaction to examine the causal nature of the relationship in this way. We looked at what happened to the job satisfaction of union members and their non-union counterparts in the wake of changes to public sector pensions in the UK, which resulted in public sector workers have to pay more for smaller pensions. We found that this change and the associated industrial dispute did appear to reduce job satisfaction of those affected but there was no difference in the size of the change in job satisfaction between union members and non-members. Therefore there was no evidence that union opposition to the changes made union members more dissatisfied with their jobs than their non-union co-workers.

In the light of this finding we conclude that unions probably don’t cause job dissatisfaction among their members. We think it more likely that union members tend to be more dissatisfied because they experience more changes at work that cause job dissatisfaction.

For me, conducting this study increased my job satisfaction because I have been thinking about whether unions cause job dissatisfaction or not for over twenty years. It feels good to have an answer. Some trade unionists will welcome the findings because they are uncomfortable with the idea that union membership might make their members unhappy at work. As one Irish trade union official Tweeted in response when I shared the article on Twitter “Are we the baddies? Spoiler: No”. However I suspect some union activists may be disappointed, because for them a successful union campaign gets members dissatisfied so that they are fired up to take industrial action. If unions aren’t making their members dissatisfied perhaps they will not be able to accumulate the industrial muscle to bring about change. This divergence of opinion speaks to a wider point. Just because unions did not cause job dissatisfaction in the UK pensions dispute of 2011 does not mean that they never cause job dissatisfaction. More research drawing on our approach is needed to investigate the effects of unions on job satisfaction in other contexts.

Brexit and worker’s rights: should workers and trade unions be concerned?

DSC_4741

Dr Liz Oliver

Brexit creates uncertainty for important employment rights. Very many of the employment rights that have come to be expected as part of an employment relationship in the UK derive from EU law. Should the UK no longer be obliged to maintain these as part of its obligations under whatever relationship it has to the EU, then their future becomes much less certain. Could, on the other hand, Brexit create an opportunity for employment rights? An opportunity to re-think the way that employment law and other forms of regulation (such as collective bargaining) work together in a way that suits the economy in UK and responds to the national and global challenges that workers face? The answer to that question very much depends on the opportunity for an open and informed democratic debate. Whilst the Government is making assurances about protecting the workers’ rights, the mechanism by which it is doing this – ‘a Great Repeal Bill’ – potentially contains a back door through which such provisions could be readily amended or repealed without the full scrutiny of Parliament. Unfortunately therefore both workers and trade unions are right to be concerned.

What is at stake?

The impact of EU law on employment in the UK reaches far and wide, encompassing equality legislation; pregnancy; maternity and parental leave; paid holiday; employee rights in the context of insolvency; collective consultation in the context of redundancy to name but a few areas. Others have mapped this in great detail.

The impact of Brexit on this body of workers’ rights depends on two main contingencies;

  • the nature of the future relationship with the EU and
  • the political climate with regard to employment regulation at national level

It seems unlikely that the UK’s future relationship with the EU will entail obligations in the area of employment and other social law but much remains to be seen. As details of the Prime Minister’s negotiating strategy emerge in particular the intention to leave the single market and customs union and not to contemplate existing models such as ‘the Norway option’ which would entail continued membership of the European Economic Area. It becomes clearer that the overriding goal is for the UK’s future relationship with the EU to entail minimal to non-existent obligations. Nevertheless much remains to be seen. The Prime Minister’s speech and the subsequent white paper set out her unilateral intentions ahead of the negotiation with the other Member States of the EU. As such, it is aspirational and projects an intention for Theresa May to have her cake and eat it too. Any concessions around key objectives such as the “greatest possible access” to the single market and “tariff-free trade with Europe and cross-border trade there to be as frictionless as possible” will come with considerable strings attached.

In terms of the political climate with regard to employment regulation, the picture here is mixed. The current Government has not taken the overtly deregulatory stance of the Coalition Government or previous Conservative Government and the Prime Minister and her government have made assurances about protecting workers rights. Nevertheless concrete legal steps to ensure that current standards are maintained are lacking. Of particular significance is the distribution of power between the Executive (Government) and Parliament in decision making in the area of employment law. This important matter will shape extent to which matters of employment law will be opened up to democratic debate.

To what extent will worker’s rights be protected and maintained through the Brexit process and beyond?

The EU law that is relevant to employment takes different forms and takes effect at national level in different ways. Whilst some employment law derived from the EU can be found in Acts of Parliament (primary law) other provisions have been transposed using secondary legislation based on the European Communities Act 1972 and others still take effect automatically because they are directly applicable (The European Communities Act 1972 allows such provisions to have effect without further enactment).

Brexit poses two types of issues 1) technical issues about the form and function of different provisions and 2) issues of substance about what role employment law should take within the UK.  As the discussion below will show. The two issues interrelate.

Following the referendum result some called for a repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 (in order to ‘undo’ EU law), but it was clear that that position would be unworkable. The Prime Minister has instead announced a bridging mechanism in the form of a ‘Great Repeal Bill’ which will repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and transpose existing EU law into national law. The Government’s white paper on the UK’s exit from the EU contains assurances about worker’s rights:

“The Great Repeal Bill will maintain the protections and standards that benefit workers. Moreover, this Government has committed not only to safeguard the rights of workers set out in European legislation, but to enhance them”

On the one hand this looks like a sensible idea. It maintains legal certainly and potentially opens up a space to review what provisions to keep and whether or how to change or remove them. But an important question is who gets to make these decisions. Will it be Parliament or will it be the Government?

Constitutional lawyers have identified the proposed use of enabling provisions within Great Repeal Bill as a stumbling block to achieving enhanced Parliamentary sovereignty. The Department for Exiting the European Union’s announcement states “The Repeal Bill will include powers for ministers to make some changes by secondary legislation, giving the Government the flexibility to take account of the negotiations with the EU as they proceed.” Such enabling provisions may give ministers the power to amend or repeal former EU law based on the Great Repeal Act using ‘light touch’ secondary legislation. Of particular concern are so called ‘Henry VIII’ clauses which would allow for the repeal of primary law without further Parliamentary scrutiny, these could open up employment law that is already enacted by Acts of Parliament to amendment or repeal. It raises concerns that the ‘back door’ is left open for the Government to make significant changes to employment law without full debate or scrutiny. The scope and exercise of such powers will delineate the potential for Parliamentary (democratic) debate about what employment standards are expected by workers and employers within the UK.

The size and shape of the ‘back door’ is yet to be seen but talking about assurances that the Government has given on worker’s rights one legal expert notes

“There’s a definite “fox in charge of the henhouse” vibe here – quite literally so, if we remind ourselves of cabinet minister Liam Fox’s attitude to EU employment regulation”.

Workers and trade unions are right to be concerned and to seek legal mechanisms to guarantee employment rights.

Attempts to assure worker’s rights

Labour MP Melanie Onn introduced a private members Bill ‘The Workers’ Rights (Maintenance of EU Standards) Bill’ as an attempt to ensure that the current legal regime remains in place, however this was ‘talked out’ of Parliament on Friday (13th January).

Several amendments to the ‘Article 50 Bill’ (European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2016-17) seeking to protect employment law were tabled. These took different forms, some sought to ensure  that the Prime Minister have regard to the public interest in existing social rights and others sought to ensure that current provisions are maintained and that Parliament has full scrutiny of any proposed changes to primary and secondary law. None of these amendments have held.

My view

Whilst some have argued that the removal of key employment protections that derive from EU law would be ‘politically unthinkable’ others argue that it would be ‘naïve’ to assume that any of the rights derived from EU law would be immune from repeal. It is my view is that a government with a deregulatory agenda can make important changes to employment law that are far reaching yet subtle, even where whole-sale deregulation would be politically unworkable (see previous blog post). The use of Henry VIII clauses within the proposed ‘Great Repeal Act’ could facilitate far-reaching changes without commensurate democratic debate. Employment law is complicated stuff, nothing short of a full and open democratic debate can support its appropriate reform. The Brexit domain is a million miles from this.

No shortcuts, organising for power

 

jane-mcalevey
Jane McAlevey

No shortcuts, organising for power
By Jane Holgate

On Tuesday 14 February 2017, Valentine’s Day, there was a large gathering at Congress House in London––the home of the UK’s Trade Union Congress. Over 150 people had forsaken candlelit dinners, wine and roses, instead choosing to attend a talk by Dr Jane McAlevey, whose new book, ‘No Shortcuts, organising for power in the new Gilded Age’, was being launched in the UK.  Professor Jane Holgate, from the Centre for Employment Relations, Innovation and Change, whose research work is around trade unions and organising strategies, was one of the organisers of this event. The room was filled with young (and old) trade unionists, community organisers, and people just interested in hearing what needs to be done to organise our communities to challenge the unequal power in society that has left many people either without jobs, or in low wage work that barely pays a living wage.

Dr McAlevey, a long-standing organiser in unions, and wider civil society, has recently completed a PhD on what is wrong with much of the ‘organising’ that is taking place today in many organisations­­––and particularly in unions. In conversation with the regional secretary of the South and Eastern TUC, who was hosting the event in conjunction with the charity Hope not Hate, she explained the crux of her argument­­––there is too great a focus on mobilising rather than organising: ‘most unions and social-change groups will say they’re organizing. I’m arguing that most are not—which is part of why we’re losing. The core difference to me is: what’s the role of the workers in the actual effort? Are the workers central to their own liberation? Are they central to the strategy to win a change in their workplace and in their communities? Or are they one teeny piece of a really complicated puzzle in which the workers’ voice and opinions are actually not decisive?’

The process of mobilizing tends to avoid involving rank and file workers, or the wider community––instead, she argues, that it tends to rely on pulling out the same already committed activists to protest, and thus is doing little to build a movement from the bottom up: ‘mobilizing is an activist-driven approach. Activists are the already converted who are not full-time professionals, or it could be full-time professionals in the movement—either one—but it’s people who are already with us. They already agree that Wall Street’s a problem; they already think that climate [change] is a problem; they already think that racism is a problem. They’re already standing with Black Lives Matter.’

Instead what is needed is deep organizing where people are expanding the base, where workers are central in organizing around their own issues that really matter to them, and where they are able to bring people along, either from their workplace, or their lived communities. What is also missing, she explained, is a proper understanding of power and how to challenge this. Dr McAlevey repeated said during the evening conversation that ‘life is a structure test’ by which she meant that there is a need to continually undertake power structure analysis when organizing to understand your opponent’s power and to assess the power there is within the communities in which you are organizing.  Only then, are you able to challenge that power and win concessions.

The problem with many trade unions campaigns today, she argued, is that they are top-down, where workers, if they come in at all, are pulled in at the end: ‘They are used as symbolic actors. They’re the face of the campaign. They’re trotted out to make testimony at the legislature about their bad boss, but they’re not actually central to the strategy. That’s the fundamental difference. The agency for change in the organizing model rests with ordinary people.’

The conversation with Dr McAlevey lasted two hours, but the evening of Valentine’s day wasn’t entirely without some reference to love. At the close, the audience was given paper hearts where they were asked to reflect on how they might organize differently reflecting on what they had heard. These hearts were put in sealed envelopes with the writer’s name and address and will be sent via post in a month’s time as a reminder of what they committed to this Valentine’s day.

‘No Shortcuts. Organising for Power in the new Gilded Age ‘can be bought from the publisher at Oxford University Press:

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/no-shortcuts-9780190624712?cc=gb&lang=en&