Human resource management practices in trade unions: Implications for strategy

Abstract

This paper examines administrative/clerical work organization in trade unions. It argues that this work is currently based on outdated human resource practices and assumptions and that it is undervalued leading to dissatisfaction among clerical workers and inequality and ineffectiveness in unions. The paper further argues that the current organization of administrative work is not consistent with unions' use of mobilizing, organizing and network strategies and that unions must find ways to maximize the full potential of their human resources in order to increase their effectiveness.Trade unions in advanced, Anglo-Saxon, industrialized economies have been experiencing a decline in union membership (Carter and Cooper 2002;Milkman and Voss 2004;Peetz 2006). This has partly been attributed to external, structural factors such as the demise of specific industries where unions traditionally held a strong-hold (Freeman 1995;Griffin and Svensen 1996) and the deregulation of union-protective industrial relations systems (Boxall and Haynes 1997;Peetz 2006). Union decline has also been explained by the actions and behaviors of trade unions themselves, such as an overreliance on institutional supports like 'arbitration' (Boxall and Haynes 1997;Gahan 1996) and the 'closed shop' (Fox, Howard, and Pittard 1995;Hyman 1975); and sexist, xenophobic and other exclusionary practices that preclude the full participation of women (Franzway 2000;McBride 2001;Munro 2001), people from nonEnglish speaking backgrounds (NESB) (Nicolaou 1991) and young people (Costa 1997;Mitchell 1999). It is also argued that unions have more control over their own practices than they do over their environment and, over the past two decades, the union revitalization literature has focused on strategies that address union practices and behaviors (Heery and Fosh 1990;Strauss, Gallagher, and

Framework for the Study of Employee Commitment

“…Hence, Figure 1 provides a framework of constructs as the first independent variable (IV1), namely; HRM practices that cause exchange relationship between employees and organisations leading to the dependent variable (DV) employee commitment. The HRM practices identified as the independent variables are namely recruitment, selection, job design, participation, performance appraisal, training, promotion and rewards (Burchielli, 2008), job security (Vlachos, 2009) and grievances handling (Zulkiflee, Faizal, Shakizah & Durrishah, 2010). On its part, the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) propounds that highexchange relationships characterise high-level of trust, liking, and respect (employer-employee relationships) and involve expectations of mutual exchange.…”

On leaving the nunnery: management in trade unions

“…The bureaucratic dimension they characterise as “administrative rationality” Undy et al (1996, p. 245) define as referring to “procedures” designed to achieve specified objectives in the most effective manner. In other words, the administration of unions is, as they understand it, process‐driven; Similarly, Burchielli (2008, p. 59) says administration is made up of “technical tasks, including information handling and processing, the maintenance of union membership systems […] and financial work”. This is a quite different concept from “management” as it is understood by writers such as Hales (1999) (discussed later), where individual managerial responsibility, shaped by the social systems in which managers are located, is the key feature of the concept.…”

“…One union manager, having worked with academics at Cranfield School of Management in 2000 to produce a strategic marketing plan for her union, was summarily disabused, by her General Secretary and Executive, of the idea that such managerialist notions had any place in a trade union environment. Even one of the latest studies (Burchielli, 2008, p. 58) remarks that while the role and workload of organisers (in unions in Australia) has changed, “‘administrative’ roles have been largely ignored”.…”

How do trade unions manage themselves? A study of Australian unions’ administrative practices

“…These studies focused only on financial management and changing hiring practices, rather than on other administrative and management practices. Burchielli (2008) conducted qualitative studies of how four unions organised their administrative work. She found a distinction between administrative work and organising/industrial work; however, the former is usually seen as less important than the latter, which is characterised as 'real' union work.…”