25 Years of Change in British Employment Relations John Forth - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

25 Years of Change in British Employment Relations

John Forth (NIESR) John Forth (NIESR) Brussels 19th March 2009

Overview

• What are the main trends in collective employee

representation in Britain since 1980?

• Has the declining preference for unionism bred more

extensive systems of non-union employee representation?

• Do trade unions still have an impact on working conditions

in Britain?

Workplace Employment Relations Survey

• Nationally representative survey mapping employment

relations in around 2,500 workplaces across Britain

• Conducted in 1980, 1984, 1990, 1998 and 2004
• Data collected from:
• Data collected from:

– Senior manager responsible for personnel issues – Most senior union and non-union representatives (where present) – Random sample of 25 employees (1998 and 2004 only)

• Includes workplaces with 25+ employees in the private and

public sectors (10+ employees in 1998; 5+ in 2004)

• Representative of around 70% of all employment in Britain

Workplace Employment Relations Survey

• Recruitment and training
• Information provision and employee consultation
• Employee representation
• Payment systems and pay determination
• Grievance, disciplinary and dispute procedures
• Grievance, disciplinary and dispute procedures
• Equal opportunities, work-life balance
• Workplace flexibility
• Workplace performance
• Wages and effort
• Employee attitudes to work

Unionisation in Britain

• Voluntarist system of workplace union representation and

collective bargaining

– 1999 Statutory Union Recognition Procedure intended as last resort and rarely invoked

• Reduction in union involvement in workplace regulation over

past two decades past two decades

– Union membership density and coverage of collective bargaining have both halved since mid-1980s

• Unions involved in workplace regulation typically where

traditions remain strong among employees or market conditions remain benign

Union organisation

50 60 70 80 90 100 50 60 70 80 90 100

Membership density Bargaining coverage

10 20 30 40 50 1980 1984 1990 1998 2004 Private manufacturing Private services Public sector 10 20 30 40 50 1980 1984 1990 1998 2004 Private manufacturing Private services Public sector

Base: employees in workplaces with 25+ employees Source: WERS

Union organisation

50 60 70 80 90 cent Unions recognised 10 20 30 40 50 1980 1984 1990 1998 2004 Per cent Any stewards (where recognition) Members per steward (where any stewards)

Base: workplaces with 25+ employees Source: Forth and Charlwood (2009) using WERS

Numbers of shop stewards

200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 50,000 100,000 150,000 1980 1984 1990 1998 2004 Private manufacturing Private services Public sector

Base: shop stewards of recognised trade unions in workplaces with 25+ employees Source: Forth and Charlwood (2009) using WERS

Changing activities

• f shop stewards
• Only small decline in provision of administrative support

(office, telephone)

• Stability in % of workplaces that deduct union subscriptions
• Stability in incidence of full-time lay reps 1980-1990, and

small increase 1998-2004 small increase 1998-2004 But ...

• Fall in number of issues subject to negotiation
• Growth of 'hollow shell' unionism
• Less involvement in collective disputes
• Greater role for individual casework

Base: shop stewards of recognised trade unions in workplaces with 25+ employees Source: Forth and Charlwood (2009) using WERS

Workers’ perceptions

• f shop stewards
• In 1998/2004:

– fewer than three-fifths of union members thought that the union(s) at their workplace were taken seriously by management – fewer than half thought unions made a difference to what – fewer than half thought unions made a difference to what it was like to work there

• But on-site shop stewards positively affect workers'

perceptions of union effectiveness

Base: union members in workplaces with 10+ employees Source: Forth and Charlwood (2009) using WERS

Non-union representation

• Evidence patchy, but clearly no substantial expansion since

1980

– individual non-union reps in 10% of workplaces in 1980 rising to 14% in 2004 – Workplace consultative committees in 34% of workplaces in 1980, falling to 24% in 2004 falling to 24% in 2004

• However, the decline of union representation means that,

among all workplaces with 5+ employees, the incidence of union and non-union representation is now similar

Base: workplaces with 25+ employees Source: Forth and Charlwood (2009) using WERS

Unions and working conditions

• Have union effects diminished?
• What do we mean by the ‘union effect’?

– Aggregate effect vs local effect

• Which forms of unionisation remain?

– Strong vs weak?

• Which aspects of working conditions?

– Wages – Job security – Management-employee relations

Wages

• Wage premium from union bargaining identified in 1980,

1984 and 1990 (workplace data)

• General premium absent in 1998 and 2004 (employee data)
• But still a premium attached to ‘strong’ unionism
• Secular trend or indicative of counter-cyclical wage premium?

Wages

12 14 16 18 20

Figure 1b: Movements in the union wage premium in Britain, 1985-2001

2 4 6 8 10 12

BSAS GB unemp

Base: all employees Source: Blanchflower and Bryson (2002) using the British Social Attitudes Survey

Job security

• WERS financial performance: how would you rate this

workplace compared to its competitors?

• Unions negatively associated with financial performance in

1980s

• By 1990, relationship highly contingent (on market conditions,
• By 1990, relationship highly contingent (on market conditions,

union strength etc)

• By 1998, most studies finding no effect (although possibly

understated due to unions focusing on high-profit firms)

• WERS annual employment growth: union recognition

associated with lower employment growth in studies from 1980s and 1990s (the ‘one constant’)

• But effects for later periods appear weaker with consistent

specification

Base: all workplaces with 25+ employees Source: Blanchflower and Bryson (2009) using WERS

Management-employee relations

1980 1984 1990 1998 2004 All workplaces Strike action 11 15 11 1 3 Non-strike action 11 13 5 1 3 Private manufacturing Strike action 19 9 4 * Non-strike action 16 12 7 1 2 Non-strike action 16 12 7 1 2 Private services Strike action 3 5 2 1 1 Non-strike action 3 3 2 * 2 Public sector Strike action 15 31 31 3 9 Non-strike action 19 24 8 2 7 Base: all establishments with 25 or more employees WERS series

Base: all workplaces with 25+ employees Source: Dix, Forth and Sisson (2009) using WERS

Expressions of conflict, by ‘voice’

Any industrial action Any grievances ET claims Voluntary resignations Relations between managers and employees % of workplaces % of workplaces Claims per 1,000 employe es Resignations per 100 employees % of employees rating ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ Union voice 9 45 1.3 9.0 17 Union voice

• nly

9 45 1.3 9.0 17 Union and non-union voice 7 44 2.1 8.8 19 Non-union voice only 1 40 2.7 17.2 11 No voice * 31 2.9 18.3 11 All work- places 2 38 2.4 13.8 15

Base: all workplaces with 5+ employees Source: Dix, Forth and Sisson (2009) using WERS

Management-employee relations

• WERS ordinal scale: how would you rate the relationship

between management and employees generally at this workplace?

1980 1984 1990 1998 2004 All 2.49 2.38 2.26 2.30 2.31

• Union negative effects absent after 1990
• But time trend not statistically significant

Union 2.46 2.31 2.16 2.31 2.22 Non-union 2.53 2.46 2.32 2.29 2.34 Raw gap

• .556

(4.63)**

• .815

(6.32)**

• .525

(4.39)**

• .233

(2.06)**

• .585

(4.58)** Regression- adjusted gap

• .398

(2.70)**

• .582

(3.87)**

• .271

(1.87)*

• .005

(0.04)

• .157

(1.05)

Base: all workplaces with 25+ employees Source: Blanchflower and Bryson (2009) using WERS

Other aspects of job quality

WERS shows ...

• Fall - and subsequent rise - of H&S representation 1980-2004
• Negative impact of unions on rates of workplace injury
• Small increase in task discretion (autonomy) 1998-2004
• And small increase in employee satisfaction with degree of

influence

• Small increase in work intensity 1998-2004
• But small increase in employee satisfaction with sense of

achievement

Base: all employees in workplaces with 10+ employees Sources: Seth Litwin (2000), Green and Whitfield (2009) using WERS

In summary ...

• Substantial decline in prevalence of trade union

representation

• Institutional continuity, but increasing weakness where unions

remain present

• Non-union reps have not filled this representation gap
• Non-union reps have not filled this representation gap
• Union effects on job quality are therefore weakening in

aggregate

• Evidence suggests that they are also weakening locally at the

level of the workplace

References

Chapters from Brown W et al (eds) (2009) The Evolution of the Modern Workplace, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

– Forth J and Charlwood A : “Employee representation” – Dix G, Forth J and Sisson K: “Conflict at work: the changing pattern of disputes” – Bryson A and Blanchflower D: “Trade union decline and the economics of – Bryson A and Blanchflower D: “Trade union decline and the economics of the workplace” – Green F and Whitfield K: “Employees’ experience of work”

Other references:

– Bryson A and Blanchflower D (2002) “Changes over time in union relative wage effects in the UK and US revisited”, NBER Working Paper 9395. – Seth Litwin A (2000) “Trade unions and industrial injury in Great Britain”, CEP Discussion Paper No. 468.

Further information

• Workplace Employment Relations Survey 2004

Survey documentation and background information at: www.wers2004.info

• Brown W, Bryson A, Forth J and Whitfield K (2009) The Evolution of the
• Brown W, Bryson A, Forth J and Whitfield K (2009) The Evolution of the

Modern Workplace, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Further details : http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521514569