The Potential of Labour−Management Partnership: A Longitudinal Case Analysis

Abstract

Issues of labour−management cooperation have long attracted the attention of management researchers, practitioners and policymakers. In Britain, the most recent wave of interest has been under the rubric of labour−management partnership, normally concerning the development of cooperative relations between unions and employers. A recurring theme is that cooperative relations can be difficult to develop and sustain, especially in liberal market economies. This paper advances the debate by examining the dynamics of labour−management partnership within the context of a British financial services organization over a 25‐year period. Drawing upon empirical case study data collected between 1990 and 2014, we assess the dynamics of the relationship between a building society and the recognized staff union. We confirm the possibility of sustaining collaborative relationships associated with a mutual gains agenda within a liberal market economy as well as the fragility of such arrangements. While we acknowledge that sustaining cooperative regimes can be difficult, we also caution against the tendency towards institutional determinism and underplaying of agency in many of the partnership critiques. Given the lack of a credible alternative, we conclude that labour−management partnership remains an important public policy goal and should not be dismissed as a chimera.

The Many Meanings of Co‐Operation in the Employment Relationship and Their Implications

“…The assumptions underpinning these two perspectives are different, although the boundary between them may be less easy to establish in practice. For example, in 'non-union partnerships' many of the roles of employee representatives, the issues discussed and the structures and processes of consultation can look similar to those in union partnerships (Johnstone et al 2010). Another example of porous borders in practice comes from Pyman et al (2006) who found that many unionized workplaces with well-established collective bargaining arrangements also had individualized, non-union forms of voice and participation.…”

Partnering against Insecurity? A Comparison of Markets, Institutions and Worker Risk in Canadian and Swedish Retail

“…In this setting, critical researchers condemn partnerships as a fool's game as neoliberal regimes of capital accumulation provide employers with no justification for honouring agreements with their unions (Dobbins and Dundon 2017;MacDonald 2014;Thompson 2003). However, even the 'mutual gains' literature, which stresses that cooperative labour relations can provide companies with an edge by improving efficiencies and product quality, increasingly recognizes that deepened cooperation is made arduous by the spread of low-cost HR models, a power imbalance in favour of employers and high paced technological change and deregulation (Guest and Peccei 2001;Johnstone and Wilkinson 2018;Kochan et al 2009;Valizade et al 2016).…”

Regulation of work and employment: advances, tensions and future directions in research in international and comparative HRM

“…It could be argued that modern employers now recognise the value of 'good' people management, and employees now have alternative means of having a say, rendering trade unions superfluous or even unattractive (Grenier, 1988). Of course, critical and pluralist researchers of work and employment would reject such unitarist views given the 'structured antagonism' (Edwards, 1986) which means some conflicts of interest are inevitable and must be addressed (Johnstone, 2015;Johnstone & Wilkinson, 2017).…”