an exploration of the ideolody of Hyman
Individualism
The stereotype of ‘One Big Happy Family’ has never existed within the trade union movement. Without differences in the first place, there would be no need for trade unions at all. Yet the majority of trade unions around the world are now facing the increased threat of individualism.
This individualism has many features. Over the past two decades, we have seen an increase in wealth in most societies, and with it, the emergence of the ‘White-Collar Proletariat’. The manufacturing industry, which according to Piore and Sabel (1984) superseded the craft industry, has traditionally been the main supporter of trade unions. Yet, in the UK alone, since 1997, there have been more than 500,000 jobs lost in this sector. These ‘Blue-Collar Workers’, have been superceded by a more skilful and educated workforce of ‘Gold-Collar’ graduates. These individuals are proponents of natural justice and their logic seems to be that, if they have invested four years in going to university, they at least deserve to be adequately rewarded for their human capital.
The second reason cited by Hyman for the rise in individualism is the growth in atypical employment. The number of part-time hours performed by men in the workplace has doubled over the past ten years. The number of women with full-time jobs has increased three fold over the past twenty years. Unions have not changed their policies to accommodate these peripheral workers. Trade Unions have not only failed to change, they have failed to reinvent themselves.
The predominant reason listed by Hyman for the rise in individualism is what he terms ‘a socio-cultural shift’. He essentially means that the collective agenda has been usurped by individualistic ideals. He feels that the middle class is now fed up with the welfare state ideal. People now realise that while mechanical solidarity was an appropriate model for ‘hygiene factors’, such as remuneration and workplace conditions, Herzberg’s satisfiers (1968), such as achievement and responsibility, are no longer attainable targets through the former model of mechanical solidarity. For example in Australia the government now advocates the use of individual employment negotiations, and actually discourages collective bargaining, one of the principal ambits of trade unions. In some ways Ireland is an exception to the rule having had six national partnership agreements since 1987. Yet the idea of Ireland’s ‘collective culture’ must be qualified. The government have been the protagonist in these agreements. If it had been left to the trade unions and employers alone, a free for all would probably have prevailed. Furthermore, while the success of these agreements is undeniable, the actual number of employees who are members of trade unions, and thus subject to collective bargaining agreements is in decline. So while Ireland has, to some extent, survived the upsurge in individualism, it has nonetheless been affected by a global shift in ideologies.
Changes in the geographic origins of workers have also contributed to the growth in individualism. In the past workers were from one town, now they are from different backgrounds and areas and, as a [next page]