Public sector employment relations after the crisis: A comparative case study analysis of UK local authorities

Abstract

Through a comparative case study analysis of the restructuring practices of six large UK local authorities, this article finds that although macro-level fiscal pressures are a trigger for cutbacks clear differences can be found between local level restructuring 'bundles'. These differences are explained by the local power dynamics between politicians, trade unions and management. A radical marketization approach of outsourcing and hostility towards the trade unions at one Conservativecontrolled council is contrasted to a political partnership approach at two Labour councils which delivered a living wage and minimised job losses and outsourcing. Two 'hybrid' models of incremental marketisation and pragmatic partnership saw the remaining councils trying to balance cost minimisation and stable employment relations by making more incremental changes. However, the cumulative effect of repeated cutbacks could yet prove to be transformative for the public sector.

Remunicipalisation, Mutating Neoliberalism, and the Conjuncture

“…Indeed, austerity-driven cutbacks to local government since the financial crisis in many countries will have exacerbated these managerialist trends, although there is some research suggesting a more varied picture where trade unions, local citizens, and public employees can in some settings continue to prosecute different social and collectivist values in local government (e.g. Johnson et al 2019). There are also important continuing obstacles faced by proponents of remunicipalisation, not least dominant neoliberal ideological discourses among supranational organisations like the World Bank, IMF, and EU, allied to powerful opposition from multinational corporations, often hostile national governments, and the considerable legal hurdles to be surmounted.…”

Towards an Understanding of the Dynamics of Work and Employment Relations during Austerity

“…There was increase in appetite for the private sector to undertake some of the public sector venture so as to free up capital for government to undertake other core functions. As a result, this neoliberisation approach resulted in marketisation of employment relations in the public sector which led to increased commercialisation leading to labour casualisation and erosion of working conditions (Dobbins & Dundon, 2016;Holborow, 2012;Johnson, Rubery, & Grimshaw, 2019;Mercille & Murphy, 2017;Scott & Williams, 2014).…”

‘We just get a bit set in our ways’: renewing democracy and solidarity in UK trade unions

“…Although centralised collective bargaining remains in place, the institutions of bargaining have become increasingly ‘perforated’ over time, setting only minimum standards and broad procedural rules, thereby allowing for diverging standards at a local level (Grimshaw et al, 2017). While a key driver of change in UK local government is the national political and economic context, research shows that specific local responses depend on the dynamic interplay between local political agendas, local trade union capacities and local managerial strategies for reform (Johnson et al, 2019). Trade union strength and capacity to resist and shape reforms are therefore important elements in understanding the outcomes for employees in UK local government.…”

“…At the start of the research in December 2015, the local government that is the empirical site for this study was planning to outsource over 90 per cent of directly employed staff – an unprecedented move in UK local government at this point. Local government leaders adopted a radical marketisation approach, with the aim of reducing costs and increasing efficiency by fragmenting and outsourcing services, holding down pay and conditions, and introducing greater flexibility in staffing systems (Johnson et al, 2019). Public sector unions in the UK have remained relatively resilient after decades of considerable change, but they are increasingly vulnerable to such neoliberal approaches and, from a position of weakness, have taken a defensive stance as ‘responsible co-designers of austerity’ (Bohle, 2011).…”