an exploration of the ideolody of Hyman
a result, bring different perspectives to the negotiating table. The argument of increased individualism can be transposed onto a ‘national’ versus ‘global’ scenario. Countries are increasingly nationalistic. This is best illustrated by a recent survey of Chrysler’s US workforce. While 52% were willing to support fellow citizens in an industrial dispute, only 13% would do so in the event of a strike in the UK. Therefore it would thus appear that the individualistic culture has developed into an ‘Us versus Them’ battle. This makes one wonder, whether Crouch (1992) was in fact correct when he stated that, “while unions may have a long-term future, do union movements?”
(ii) Market Coercion
The second of three underlying causes, which Hyman attributes to the crisis of the “Mechanical Solidarity” model, is the impact on trade unions, of the evolving business model in which modern employers operate. As Hyman defines it, “Market Coercion” is a term used to describe the problems such trade unions face, arising from industry deregulation, intensified market competition and company restructuring.
Historically, trade unions came to prominence in post-war Europe to help safeguard workers’ goals of relative job security and full employment in the context of increased product demand and government sponsored constraints on domestic competition. In the last decade, globalisation has brought about arduous restructuring of national economies and resulted in intensified market competition. Europe has seen the practical outcome of this in the form of decentralisation of capital and increased foreign direct investment between E.U. States. The combined benefits of these factors are facilitating the transformation of Europe’s most efficient and competitive firms into formidable Multi-National Companies (MNCs). Unfortunately, trade unions practicing mechanical solidarity encounter much difficulty in adjusting to this type of corporate animal. This is because they are more accustomed to resisting the demands of American MNCs – within which the most common dispute surrounds their reluctance to adhere to the regulatory framework of national industrial relations structures. Worryingly, European MNCs present a more direct affront to the collective bargaining objectives of trade unions by increasingly abandoning their obligations to work with unions to forge social partnership agreements such as “Sustaining Progress”, Ireland’s new tripartite pay agreement recently concluded by Irish Employers, Unions and the Government. To combat these challenges, Hyman argues that new types of cross-cultural trade unions are needed.
Every independent country has traditionally had the means to regulate their own national economy. The outcome of this was that each labour market effectively operated as a closed system. However, the impact of globalisation, and the implementation of the “common market” meant that many employers have become increasingly sceptical of any trade union goal inconsistent with the firm’s objective of international competitiveness.
Market coercion also includes the process of internal firm restructuring to prepare companies for the highly competitive globalised economy. The old company model where trade unions flourished involved bureaucracy, centralised decision making, and standardisation of employee tasks – all of which fostered worker solidarity. Out of this process of restructuring, a new model coined the [next page]