‘Zones of contention’ in industrial relations: Framing pluralism as praxis

Abstract

This article addresses debates in contemporary industrial relations about practical application of pluralism. We compare the potential efficacy of ‘radical-pluralism’ and ‘neo-pluralism’. Data comes from analysis of employment relationships in two unionised public transport sector organisations, in the comparative country contexts of the UK and Republic of Ireland. It is argued that radical-pluralist framing of the employment relationship is better equipped than neo-pluralism to provide deeper and contextually sensitive understandings of the realities of unequal employment relationships. Desired (pluralist) democratic values differ from real world application of joint regulation (praxis). This raises implications regarding constraints on state regulation and public policy goals institutionalising pluralism as fluid and uneven praxis.

Pluralisms? Social philosophy, social science and public policy in employment relations and human resource management

“…(2) Dobbins et al. (2021) advocate radical pluralism as a more powerful IR ‘praxis’ than neo-pluralism.…”

“…I have criticised earlier versions for an unduly pessimistic ‘iron cage’ social science approach to employment relations, with little or no positive public policy application (Ackers, 2014b; see Edwards, 2014). In their view, neo-pluralism neglects ‘more basic patterns of power and inequality’ (Dobbins et al., 2021), and accommodates too easily the needs of neo-liberal capitalism, verging on unitarism in its zeal for co-operation and mutuality. By contrast, their paired, comparative bus and rail case studies are presented as demonstrating a radical pluralist ‘structural antagonism’ in practice, with the complex dynamic of conflict and co-operation.…”

“…Their version of radical pluralism seems heavily reliant on a structural Marxist critique of ‘Capitalism [which] has system effects’ (Dobbins et al., 2021). Thus, we have a familiar litany of concepts like ‘surplus value’, ‘exploitation’, ‘commodification’ and ‘capital accumulation’, while after Edwards (2003), the ‘employment relationship’ is straightforwardly between ‘capital’ and ‘labour’ (see Clegg’s earlier criticism, 1975: 315).…”

“…Dobbins et al.’s (2021) transport case study has all these complexities hiding in the wings. Let me focus on the UK RailCo case.…”

Old frames and new lenses: Frames of reference revisited

“…Cullinane and Dundon (2014) identified a key limitation in the academic analysis of the unitarist frame. They argued that while unitarism has been often cited as the guiding ideology of management (and that they themselves have been guilty of such generalisation; Dundon and Gollan, 2007), there is little evidence on which to base this assertion. Cullinane and Dundon (2014: 2574) note that ‘Few studies have had empirical access to union-resistant employers, with analysis of unitarism, as a consequence, based on conjecture and inference of a presumed intent’.…”