If one had to come up with a shorthand for the values of the
field of employment relations, a strong contender would be “industrial
democracy.” For starters, employment relations scholars seek to understand the
rules of the workplace. Organizations are therefore seen as industrial
governments that can be autocratic, technocratic, or democratic. The employment
relations ideals of fairness and self-determination are best served by the
democratic form of industrial government (“industrial democracy”) in which
unilateral, unchecked managerial authority is replaced by orderly rules,
participatory rule-making, checks and balances, and due process in dispute
resolution. That (non-Marxist/critical) employment relations scholars see the
employment relationship as analogous to a pluralist political society in which
multiple parties (e.g., employers and employees) have legitimate but sometimes
conflicting interests reinforces the preference for decision-making and dispute
resolution processes that respect a diversity of rights and interests.
The main vehicle for delivering
industrial democracy has typically been labor unions because imperfectly competitive labor markets
and capitalist legal systems favor employers over individual employees. Labor
unions that are legally and financially independent of management are the
needed counterweight to managerial power, and are therefore necessary for
giving employee voice legitimacy through the negotiation and enforcement of
collective bargaining agreements. Consistent with this thinking, labor unions
have a long history of promoting collective power as a way to bring democracy to
the workplace, and to strengthen political democracy by creating independent
and responsible rather than subordinate and repressed citizen-workers.
We’ve already seen what happens to employment relations and
labor unions when the “industrial” part of industrial democracy disappears. That
is, the decline of manufacturing and traditional blue collar occupations have paralleled the steady decline in private sector U.S. union density. Though the
relationship isn’t necessarily causal, it’s hard to deny that labor unions have
struggled as the nature of the economy and the workforce have shifted, and probably
not coincidentally, the size of the field of employment relations has simultaneously
declined.
But clearly there should be an important space for
post-industrial worker voice as well as for employment relations scholarship.
Unions are experimenting with different representation strategies, new
institutions (especially worker centers) are emerging to give non-traditional
workers a voice, and employment relations scholarship is broadening beyond a
traditional focus on labor unions.
But perhaps a new challenge looms…the decline of support for
democracy. In “The Democratic Disconnect” (Journal
of Democracy, July 2016), Roberto Foa and Yascha Mounk report disturbing
trends from individual responses to the World Values Survey. For example, 26
percent of U.S. millennials characterize choosing leaders in free elections as
unimportant and 24 percent indicate that democracy a bad way to run a country. These
percentages are significantly higher than those reported by older generations.
Similarly, 72 percent of Americans born before World War II say that it’s
essential to live in a democracy, but among millennials that percentage plummets
to 30 percent.
I incorporated these statistics into a presentation I made
earlier this month entitled “Two More Problems Facing the Field of Employment
Relations, and the Need for Inclusion” at the annual conference of the Labor
and Employment Relations Association (LERA). To be honest, I did this primarily
to be provocative, and maybe we shouldn’t place much weight on attitudinal
surveys. But other indicators keep popping up. In "Why Republicans (and Trump) May Still Win Big in 2020 —Despite 'Everything'," Grover Norquist outlines how the Wisconsin strategy to eviscerate public sector unions (via Act 10) provides a desired model "for Republican political dominance" because "if Act 10 is enacted in a dozen more states, the modern Democratic Party will cease to be a competitive power in American politics" (Ozy, May 28, 2017). In other words, Norquist is championing a blueprint for one-party politics. Other examples consistent with a decline in support for democracy include trends toward greater restrictions on free speech ("Under Attack," The Economist, June 4, 2016) and toward increased support for dictatorships ("America’s Foreign Policy: Embrace Thugs, Dictators and Strongmen," The Economist, June 3, 2017).
The industrial change was a compositional one, not one in
fundamental values. But if support for democracy is truly declining, this could
be much more damaging for industrial democracy and for the field of
employment relations. The tendency to defer to strong leaders in the name of
efficiency and expediency is even stronger in business than in government. If
democracy isn’t robustly supported in the political arena, it will presumably
be even harder to generate support in the workplace. If achieving post-industrial workplace democracy has been a challenge, imagine the challenge of post-industrial post-democracy.
So what's to be done? I don’t think there are any easy answers. We need to monitor these democracy-related trends, and if they are real, they need to be reversed. The industrial democracy values of employment relations continue to need champions. Whether post-industrial or not, the values and value of industrial democracy need to be explicitly recognized, not taken for granted.
No comments:
Post a Comment