British Trade Unions’ Decline (1979)


Introduction


            This paper discusses the background and reasons why the membership of British Trade Unions experienced decline and difficulties particularly during 1979.  It was during this time when the Conservative government, led by Thatcher, that membership of British unions eventually decline.  Statistically, the union membership has declined over 20 percent within the same year (, 1989).   (1989) view the government’s strongly unfavorable treatment of unions as a powerful force.  However, he argues that economic and structural changes such as the growth of temporary and part-time workers and the decline of the manufacturing sector are likely to have more lasting adverse effects.  Nevertheless, unions were adapting various strategies in trying to counteract the decline of their membership including innovative organizing methods and expanded services for members.  Despite the fact that British unions made a lot of actions for the government’s continuous recognition of their cause, the period of 1979 marked the start of a bitter times for the unions accounting to several causes and explanations. 


 


Crisis in Trade Union


            Before 1979 (i.e. 1968 to 1979), the membership of British trade unions grew by almost a third reaching its height of membership at 1972 to 1979.  However, with the onset of the new government, the engine of growth has gone into a complete turn around in 1979.  The total gains in membership from 1968 to 1979 have all vanished that can be accounted to 43 percent in 1985. 


            The fall in membership cause to exceed the fall in employment over the whole period largely because of the continuing contraction of manufacturing and other industries in which unions have traditionally been strongest.  Rising employment after 1983 has mainly been in the service sector, where unions have greater organizational problems so that total membership and density continued to fall at much the same rate.


Factors of Membership’s Decline


Since the return of the Conservatives to government in 1979, British industrial relations have been pushed, pulled, and reshaped by a combination of external and internal influences. Some see the process of change and adaptation now under way as irreversible, particularly since the re-election of the Conservative Party to government in the summer of 1987. They point in particular to the dramatic decline in trade union membership associated with a battery of powerful, negative influences, such as the persistence of high levels of unemployment and major changes in the composition of the labor force. Others question the significance of the decline in membership, however, citing the relative stability of day-to-day industrial relations and trade union influence at the level of the workplace. 


The Government’s Theoretical Stand


The Thatcher administration had rolled the wheel of the trade union’s fate.  As trade unions increasingly became perceived as powerful labor market monopolies that generated inflation and reduced efficiency, the simple reliance on monetary targets to control wage settlements was abandoned. 


Even though the British government views industrial relation as an essential factor for an economic recovery, it has also accused trade unions to have been using their power in ways which unfavorably affected labour costs, productivity and jobs ( &  1990).  The government back up this allegations with some reasonable evidences.  (1) Trade unions tended to push up the earnings of people they represented associated with the view that excessive pay increases.  (2) There is a tendency for trade unions to reduce employment.  It was disputed that workers who are displaced from the union sector will tend to put downward pressure on wages in the non-union sector. 


As a result, non-union wages may compare adversely with unemployment benefits and unions will have ended up increasing unemployment.  The government has thus seen its industrial relation legislation as, in part, an attempt to curb the power of unions to push up wages. On this view, legislative success would have affect reducing the so-called ‘non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment’ (NAIRU), and will consequently assist in the battle against inflation.  Additionally, during 1980-1984, managements who recognized and negotiated with trade unions claimed that they were less likely to experience job gains and were more likely to suffer job losses than managements who did not. 


            There were also unacceptable characteristics of trade union that have also caused its membership to fall.  First, it has been found that the use of strikes interrupts production, distracts managers, and damages the country’s economic reputation.  The government, therefore, necessitates the reduction of union’s capacity to deploy sanctions.  Second, there was a belief that the union’s character is greatly influenced by the manner of their internal government, specifically, it is implied that unions will better serve the national economic interest if their leadership are more directly accountable to their members. 


 


The 1980s’ Legislation


            There has been a constant stream of legislation.  The Employment Act 1980 and the Employment Act 1982 dealt with various aspects of collective action and trade unions’ civil liability to fines.  The Trade Union Act 1984 was mainly concerned with the use of ballots in union decision-making.  The Employment Act 1988 was primarily aimed at increasing the rights of individual members against their trade unions.  The Employment Act 1989 inter alia made it more difficult for shop stewards to organize multi-plant bargaining.  The prospective Employment Bill 1989 concentrates on the control of unofficial strikers, a ban on all secondary action and pre-entry closed shops.  The Wages Act 1986 stands apart, being mainly aimed at reducing the scope of wages council’s statutory minimum wage rates.


            Moreover, there were two issues concerning industrial happening which have become repeated political nuisance.  The first is the closed shop, an arrangement under which it is understood that union membership is a necessary condition for retaining a job. Originally, closed shops were important for union solidarity, especially where union strength relied upon the control of the supply or qualifications of labour.  However, its nature has changed which made the employers as the ones who play the role in maintaining them.  Correspondingly, the 1980 and 1982 Acts attempted to regulate the enforcement of post-entry closed shops and the 1988 Act made all action to enforce a closed shop illegal.  The 1989 Bill promises to ban the fairly small proportion of ‘pre-entry’ closed shops where union membership is a prior condition of employment ( and , 1984).  The second politically conspicuous issue is picketing, the attempt to consolidate strike action by the act of trade union representatives publicizing their cause outside the workplace in question. In 1984, picketing occurred in some form approximately by 15 percent of strikes.  But it has been a small minority of ‘mass’ picketing episodes with accompanying civil disorders that have prompted new laws.


            Of much greater significance has been the change in the circumstances in which unions involved in industrial action are liable to be sued for damages. Under British law the qualified ‘immunity’ from such action is the equivalent of a right to strike in other countries.  The 1980 and 1982 Acts removed such immunities when action is taken against employers who are secondary to the dispute, or when the action is for political objectives, or when the dispute is between employees.  The 1982 Act narrowed unions’ immunities to very specific torts and the 1984 Act tied them to particular balloting requirements.  The result is that substantial damages can now be awarded against unions in a variety of tort actions and failure to pay that will result in sequestration of assets.  This has substantially increased both the opportunity and the incentive for strike-hit employers to obtain court injunctions against unions to require their members to desist.  The 1989 Employment Bill promises to make unions responsible even for unofficial action if they have not expressly repudiated it. 


 


Conclusion


            Looking at the comprising factors and reasons that clearly explain the decline of British trade union membership, we can therefore bring this to an important and general idea.  The changes on British industrial relations since 1979 are to be found on three coordinating aspects:  the economy, employment, and government intervention.  These three aspects have complex relationships among them since changes in employment are partly determined by economic change, and government intervention both influences and is influenced by developments in the economy and employment. 


            What has being portrayed in the above statement is the intervention of the government which counts the very reason for the decline of membership of British trade unions.  The actions taken by the government towards trade unions have been of enormous effect to the industrial relation. 


It would also be important to take into consideration the reasons and justifications for every action that the government have taken.  The legislations and government’s standpoint opposing trade unions were just a reaction to the setbacks perceived by the government.  After all, it has been the concern for economic development and reforms that binds the British trade unions and the government together for a common purpose.  It is just hurting to know the fact that trade union has given way for the government’s way in managing the country. 


 


References


 


  


 



 


 


 


 



Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com


0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Top