This presents a particular challenge for employment
relations because traditional scholarship has emphasized material interests
rather than identity needs, and traditional institutions (especially labor
unions) have been organized around materialistic class interests rather than (non-class) identities. That is, workers are portrayed simply as workers, not women, Latinxs,
and the like.
Or at least that’s how the traditional perspective is now
painted. In my view, this simplification of the past is more accurate for
industrial relations scholarship than practice.
That is, scholarship has seen workers as generic in theory,
but in practice it's a different story: real workers and institutions have been anything but blind to identity
issues. Indeed, it would have been better if they were. Go back 100+ years and many AFL craft unions were discriminatory and
openly hostile toward anyone except white men. The Pullman Company trained
African American workers for skilled positions to keep the skilled labor force divided by racial tension. Worker solidarity across occupations
was also weakened through racial and gender segregation—on Pullman cars, for
example, conductors were always white and porters were always black; men
cleaned the exterior of the railroad cars, women the interior. So when
appreciating the importance of identity in today’s worker centers—as just one example—we should not overlook the importance of racial identity in the
struggles and victories of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters all the way
back in the 1920s led by A. Philip Randolph and others (this is captured by the
movie “10,000 Black Men Named George”).
This is not to deny that identity has become both more
central and more complex in contemporary society—and therefore in contemporary
employment relations practice. So continuing to deepen the theorizing and
evidence around identity issues in employment relations is needed. But I think
this will be most productive if we see this as building on past practice, and
even on past scholarship, rather than as something that is seen as a break from the past.
OK, I will admit that I have self-interested reasons for
believing this. In particular, in a recent blog post I (selfishly) argued
that my trilogy of efficiency, equity, and voice continues to be a powerful way
to capture the key objectives of the employment relationship. Some might see
these as more materialistic and as ignoring identity issues. Indeed, in my own
presentation of efficiency, equity, and voice I have not explicitly recognized
identity concerns. But I assert that the framework of efficiency, equity, and
voice is flexible enough to include shifting conceptualizations of these
interests.
Moreover, while identity is different from interests, I think the
way that identity concerns are realized and satisfied in the employment
relationship is through (a) being treated in desired ways consistent with one’s
identity demands, and (b) being able to express yourself in ways consistent
with your desired identity. The first of these falls under the category of equity,
the second under the category of voice. Put differently, in the context of the employment relations, violations of individuals' and groups' identity needs by discriminating against certain groups and by repressing expressions of that identity are violations of equity and voice in the employment relationship.
Indeed, both equity and voice as key
objectives of the employment relationship stem from the essential qualities of
being human, which, in turn, means that workers as humans are entitled to dignity and self-determination.
Identity is an essential part of dignity and self-determination, and hence of equity and voice. So even in this era dominated by
identity politics and identity theorizing, the key goals of the employment
relationship remain efficiency, equity, and voice. In the future, I will try to do a better job of explicitly noting the identity aspects of equity and voice.
So let’s continue to seek ways to deepen our understandings
of identity within employment relations theorizing and practice. But personally
I think it’s most productive to do so in ways that build on rather than reject
where we’ve come from. And that preserves my own desired sense of identity…
No comments:
Post a Comment