Union recognition
In Britain, workers get seen to be less likely to be members of a union than they were two decades ago, as only fewer employees have been seen to recognize the trade unions for the pay bargaining. On the other hand, the decline of the large-scale manufacturing plants has been considered the main reason for reducing the trade union membership. Many assumptions have been made about how the decline of large-scale manufacturing is the principal reason for reducing union membership. This can be somehow true because, in most cases, the employer recognition of trade union does not play the role of depending partly on what the industries tend to produce. If the workers continue wanting union representation, the unions should also colonize some occupations and new workplaces. Despite the union recognition being based on the employees, the employers on the other side may get forced to enter recognition in cases where the workers need it and possess some of the bargaining
powers.
When looking at the decline in union recognition, the remaining two-thirds are not considered because of the structural changes. Instead, after 1980, the firms had a less likeliness of recognizing the unions than the firms that gave some employment to the same number of people in the region, not forgetting in the same industry as this was in 1980. This has been consistent, especially to the studies that suggest how the unionization decline has been because employers turn their backs to trade unions as the same employers prefer to remain non-union (Blanchflower and Bryson, 2008).
On the other hand, many assumptions have been made that the decline of the trade unions has been accompanied by a similar decrease that shows the effect that the remaining trade unions have on the firm and the workers (Ebbinghaus and Visser, 1999). When looking at this from a national perspective, the case is that the decline in the trade unions’ presence depends on how there is an effect, especially on fewer workplaces. This statement is not straightforward, especially on the impact that the unions can have on the workplaces that remain unionized (Bryson, Forth, and Kirby, 2005).
In most cases, trade unions’ effect depends on the bargaining ability on behalf of the union members and acting as the voice of representativeness of the workers and the management (Bryson, 2004). Determining if the unions can do the same depends on the type of union that survived the unionization decline if it’s the weak union, the vital union, or a mixture of the two unions. The fragile and robust union’s effects have also depended on the firm’s preparedness and its ability to resist the union’s demands or accommodate the union’s needs.
The conventional wisdom that the employers have suggests how the union gets seen to be undesirable. Although, limited evidence has been found on how the unions have adverse effects, especially on the firms in recent years. Notably, the evidence on how the unions negatively impact employment growth is little, including industrial relation and financial performance (Metcalf, 2002). The above may be due to strong unions that have rage disrupting power on the business operations that have disappeared, as there is no evidence for this. There is no enough evidence showing how the association between unionization and the closure of the workplace in the 1990s is evident in cases where the unions were considered weaker (Bryson, Forth, and Kirby, 2005).
Alternatively, there is a high possibility for the unions to choose to co-operate with the employers. In this case, the unionized workplace has been seen to have a more remarkable improvement, especially in the financial performance compared to the non-unionized workplaces, as they are also seen as equal. This may happen because the unions appear to have fewer impacts on the members’ wages in the early 1980. Overall, the trade unions have been seen to have a smaller effect in today’s world compared to 1980 (Freeman, 1980). Establishing if it is permanent or temporary is the problem that is being faced. There can be an expectation of having some small trade union effect in cases where there are right economic conditions, as the employers on the other side get seen to be profitable and in a good position of resisting the union’s demands at such times. On the other hand, the unions have historically made their presence felt in recessions, as the unionized labor has also proved how its more able, especially in holding onto the gains made in the boom years (Fantasia and Voss, 2004).
Conclusively, the explanation that I find most convincing is that of the decline of the large-scale manufacturing plant. Due to the reduction, then the large-scale commodity production requires a considerable investment in machinery and plant. When looking at the large-scale production, it can get carried in a large and expanding market size, and its decline has also led to a decrease in trade unions.
Blanchflower, D.G. and Bryson, A., 2008. Union decline in Britain. Available at SSRN 1136241.
Bryson, A., 2004. Managerial responsiveness to union and non-union worker voice in Britain. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 43(1), pp.213-241.
Bryson, A., Forth, J. and Kirby, S., 2005. High‐involvement management practices, trade union representation and workplace performance in Britain. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 52(3), pp.451-491.
Ebbinghaus, B. and Visser, J., 1999. When institutions matter: Union growth and decline in Western Europe, 1950–1995. European Sociological Review, 15(2), pp.135-158.
Fantasia, R. and Voss, K., 2004. Hard work: Remaking the American labor movement. Univ of California Press.
Freeman, R.B., 1980. Unionism and the Dispersion of Wages. ILR Review, 34(1), pp.3-23.
Metcalf, D., 2002. Unions and productivity, financial performance and investment: international evidence (No. 539). Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science.