Why statutory union recognition is bad labour policy:the North American experience

Abstract

The proposed British legislation is modelled on that of the United States which has been a clear failure in its stated goal of encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining (Adams, 1993). It has instead perpetuated a culture of labour‐management animosity that many other nations have 113been able, to their benefit, to overcome (Adams, 1995c).

Policies on Union Representation in US Multinationals in the UK: Between Micro-Politics and Macro-Institutions

“…This opposition was embodied in the Taft-Hartley Act 1947, which weakened the legislative supports for collective labour (Montgomery 1979). The US model has always placed the burden of proof of representativeness on the unions (Adams 1999), and the certification process represented a high hurdle (Godard 2004). As a result, pluralism remained only weakly embedded in the minds of the corporate class.…”

Facing ‘fairness at work’: union perception of employer opposition and response to union recognition

“…An array of authors (Adams, 1999;Bronfenbrenner, 1997;Bronfenbrenner et al, 1998;Fiorito et al, 1987;Friedman et al, 1994;Kochan, 1986;Lawler, 1984;Lawler and West, 1985;Levitt, 1993;Ortega, 1999;Towers 1997Towers , 1999 have provided evidence of well-resourced and extensive employer anti-unionism in the US. Moreover many of these authors have also argued that the specific form and nature of the US recognition procedures encourages and facilitates anti-unionism and that this has played a significant part in the de-unionisation of the US workforce.…”

New Labour, New Unions, New Left

“…The statutory recognition procedure was weak at its inception and was further undermined by CBI lobbying. It was hedged round with unique features such as the requirement for a minimum 'yes' vote of 40 percent of the bargaining unit and the exclusion of small firms employing 5 million workers (Adams, 1999;Towers, 1999). Lawful strikers would be protected from dismissal only for the first eight weeks of a dispute.…”