an exploration of the ideolody of Hyman
major cause of the delay in realising Hyman’s dream is the difficulty trade unions face in building trust between different union members in different countries. Because of the influence of europeanisation, globalisation and post-Fordism, workers in one country are essentially competing for projects with their counterparts in another country. Their success in this process will determine their incomes and job security. This creates pressure for unions to engage in what Leibfried and Pierson (2000) termed “a race to the bottom”. Unions will find it difficult to globalise in such a competitive world market in a way that will not ultimately damage the interests of their members.
Despite the difficulties, we still believe that the union movement can globalise. Progress can be made, but it will be slow. We need bodies such as NAFTA and the EU to have a mandate on behalf of their peoples, because the prospect of conducting negotiations between almost 200 separate states ‘battling for ideas’ is not a viable option. The only real hope that the trade union movement has of globalising is if the majority of the workforce gets behind the idea. They must believe that solidarity on a global scale is a realistic and achievable ideal, and not merely, as Hyman proposed, a utopian myth. Communication has a vital role to play in promoting this ideal. Future improvements in communications methods will speed up this process. According to Muller (1996), technology can only assist in the work of consciousness building and representation. If unions can embrace this change they will be able to transform themselves and build emancipatory potential for labour. In the words of Richard Hyman, “Forward to the virtual trade union of the future”.
References
Durkheim, E., (1933), “The Division of Labour in Society”, London: Macmillan. [Originally published 1893 as De la Division du Travail Social.]
Heckscher, C., (1988), “The New Unionism”, New York: Basic Books.
Herzberg, F., (1968), “One More Time: How do You Motivate Employees?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 53-62.
Jefferys, S., (1996), “Strategic Choice for Unions in France and Britain”, in P. Leisink, J. Van Leemput and J. Vilrokx, (Eds), The Challenges to Trade Unions in Europe, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 171-85.
Johnson, P., (1994), “Success While Others Fail”, Ithaca, ILR Press.
Leibfried, S., and Pierson, P., (2000), “Social Policy: Left to Courts and Markets?” in H. & W. Wallace, (Eds), Policy Making in the European Union, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press.
Leisink, P., (1993), “Is Innovation a Management Prerogative?”, Coventry: IRRU.
Leisink, P., (Ed), (1999), “Globalization and Labour Relations”, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Leisink, P., (Ed), (1996), “The Challenges to Trade Unions in Europe: Innovation or Adaption”, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Marx, K., (1867), “Capital”, in The Collected Works of Karl Marx, London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1998.
Muller, W., (1996), “Per E-Mail”, Mitbestimmung, 7+8/96, 6-7.
Piore, M. and Sable, C. (1984), “The Second Industrial Divide – Possibilities for Prosperity”, USA: Basic Books, pp. 19-48.
Sabel, C., (1995), “Meta-Corporations and Global Labour Markets”, in W. Littek and T. Charles (Eds), The New Division of Labour, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. [next page]