Work Place Democracy and Quality of Work Life: Problems and ProspectsQ

7/29/2019 Work Place Democracy and Quality of Work Life: Problems and ProspectsQ

1/8

88

Work Place Democracy and

Quality of Work Life:Problems and Prospects

By HY KORNBLUH

Hy Kornbluh is director of the Labor Studies Center, Institute ofLabor and Industrial

Relations, and teaches at the University ofMichigan. He is director of a research project,"Employee Participation in Conservation: The U. S. and Japan Experience " and has studied

the Swedish Industrial DemocracyAct of 1977 on a Swedish Information Service grant.Guest editor of a special issue of the Labor Studies Journal, "Unions, Labor Education, andWorkers Participation," he also chairs the Task Force on Workers Participation of the

University and College Labor EducationAssociation.

ABSTRACT: The concept of increasing the participation of workers indecisions affecting their work lives is appearing more often on the labor-

management agenda. The reasons for management interest include theneed for (1) increasing productivity and quality; (2) increasing the qualityof work life for the new worker, who is more educated, with a good work

ethic but alienated and unmotivated under current management practice;and (3) meeting foreign competition. Problems may arise for firmsinvolved in forms of participation such as quality circles and quality ofwork life programs, when management aims of a streamlined work force

and control of worker innovations clash with the workers expectations ofwork place democracy inherent in such programs.Adilemma is posed forunions when the new forms of

participationundermine the

union,or

maintain or create so-called union-free environments. Many unions arenow playing a more active role in these programs. More aggressiveapproaches to bargaining on work environment and other issues reflectmovement by some unions to a more proactive philosophy of the unionsrole in participation-enhancing strategies.


2/8

89

T HEidea of increasing workers par-

JL ticipation directly in decisions

affectinghow their work is done and the

quality oftheirwork life is appearing onthe labor-management agenda in formsthat present new challenges to unions in

organized industries and perhaps even

greater challenges in many unorganizedwork places. This thrust has been gener-ated by a complex set of economic,

demographic, and technological circum-

stances, changing worker expectations,and worker and employer motivations.

Although this may be only a passing fadin many enterprises-many participa-tion plans are what Pateman has called

&dquo;pseudo participation&dquo; and many thusfold very early-the phenomenon hasthe potential of having a longer lastingrole in an increasing number of union-ized work places. The future of these

developments will depend on the em-ployers willingness to modify signifi-cantly traditional control and decision-

making patterns and, where the union is

strong, on labors assumption of a neu-tral or active role in the arrangements.As part of a recent case-study research

team, I looked at employee involvement

groups among the production workers,

particularlythose

groups undertakingenergy conservation projects in a largeMidwest manufacturing plant. One ofthe coordinators of the program in that

establishment suggested that we studysimilar white-collar teams they had

formed there. One of these teams had

indeed carried through an imaginative,

high-savingsconservation

project.How-

ever, after a close look we found that the

greater concern of some teams, which

were trained in participative problem

solving, was to develop work-simplifica-tion projects for the blue-collar work

force. Such projects are a sophisticated,

contemporary Tayloristic approach to

designing work. Ironically, quality ofwork life (QWL)-type programs in manyindustries are designed to offset if notthe practice then the effects of work

rationalization that result in atomized,

repetitive, boring jobs designed to min-imize worker discretion as much as

possible.This situation highlights some of the

currents and crosscurrents surroundingthe relatively new kid on the labor-

management relations block who is beingintroduced under various names and

forms, such as quality of work life, qual-ity circles (QC), employee involvement

programs, worker participation, parti-cipative management, work reform,work redesign, and so forth.

In addition to this trend, some unions

are also attempting to expand workerinfluence in new areas of collective bar-

gaining. Whichever way they may relateto these developments, unions are facedwith certain choices, dilemmas, and chal-

lenges to traditional organizing appeals,

1. Carole Pateman, Participation and Demo-cratic Theory (Cambridge: Oxford UniversityPress, 1970).

2. See P. S.Goodman, "Quality

ofWork

Projects in the 1980s," in Proceedings of the

Thirty-thirdAnnual Meeting of the IndustrialRelations ResearchAssociation (Madison, WI:

IRRA, 1981), pp. 489-91; he found that a large

percentage of quality circle programs did not last

beyond five years.

3. Quality circles and quality of work life

groups are volunteer groups of usually 7-12 em-

ployees who identify and work on solutions to

problems in the way their work is done. QWLstend to have a more

open agendathan

QCs.A

more advanced form of participation is involvedin autonomous or semi-autonomous work groups

that take responsibility for many aspects of thework station traditionally reserved for supervi-sion, often including designing the work, pay, and

hiring and teaching new employees.


3/8

90

leadership styles, and labor-manage-ment philosophy. For employers, short-term gains from these programs mayalso present long-term dilemmas.

WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY

There is substantial expansion in par-ticipative programs, covering a range ofindustries and taking a variety of forms.

Although no systematic study of the

breadth and depth of what is happeninghas been conducted, some limited data

exist, and there is a strong indication

that interest in these developments and

further experimentation will continue.A recent study in early 1982 by theNew York Stock Exchange surveyed a

representative sample of 49,000 U.S.

corporations employing 41 million em-

ployeesin units with more than 100

employees. The results indicate a greatacceleration of interest in QWL-relatedactivities in the last two years, particu-larly in manufacturing. They includethese findings:

1. Three out of four companies with

QCs have had them for less than two

years. Fifty-eight percent of manufac-

turing firms with human resource pro-grams have QCs, compared to 27 per-cent in nonmanufacturing. The largerthe manufacturing company, the morelikely it is to have a QC program. Three

out of four companies with 10,000 ormore employees have QCs.

2. When asked whether participativemanagement is a &dquo;fad destined to disap-pear&dquo; or &dquo;a promising new approach,&dquo;

83 percent of all corporations said it wasthe latter.4

4

To be sure, the percentage of workers

involved in participative programs inthese

corporationsis far below a major-

ity. Nevertheless, the figures present an

impressive display of expanding interestand involvement by increasing numbersof workers and managers in such pro-

grams.

The Ford Motor Company may notbe representative of other large-scalecorporations, yet it is worth listing someof its developments in participative deci-

sion making.As of the middle of 1983,65 of Fords 90 U.S. plants were in the

program, with a total of more than

11,000 employees involved in voluntaryproblem-solving groups or more exten-sive decision-making roles. The presi-dent of Ford has gotten squarely behindthese efforts.As a result of their last

contract negotiations, a UnitedAuto-

mobile Workers-Ford joint decision-making structure for developing retrain-

ing and education programs for laid-offworkers and those still on the payroll isnow functioning. In addition, a con-

tract-mandated, formal joint consulta-

tion structure for the union to share

information at various levels of the

company through what the contract

calls &dquo;mutualgrowth

forums&dquo; is

begin-ning to function in some locations. Onedivision of Ford is systematically at-

tempting very intensive training in par-ticipative management in groups thatmake a vertical slice through the div-isions managerial hierarchy.

General Motors and the UnitedAuto-

mobile Workers have a parallel joint

retraining program. There is also an

extensive QWL effort that predates thestart of the Ford program, but that has

lagged behind Ford in the momentum ofmore recent expansion. The Communi-cation Workers ofAmerica has had an

4. People and Productivity:AChallenge to

CorporateAmerica (New York: New York Stock

Exchange, 1982), pp. 26, 27, 50.


4/8

91

agreement on an industry-wide QWLprogram. In the 1982 contract, the union

bargained for prior notice of and con-sultation on new technology.

More intensive participative struc-tures that go beyond the normal QWLare also developing. Basil Whiting, a

long-time observer in this field, has indi-cated that, until recently, semi-autono-

mous, autonomous, and self-managingwork groups have been relatively rare in

this country. But, he says,

in as many as two or three dozen new plantdesigns in this nation, there are startlinglyflat organizational structures and work

groups without apparent supervision exceptwhat they provide to themselves. Membersare cross-trained and rotate among clusters

of tasks. They hire, fire, and discipline them-

selves. They are often paid according to thenumber of jobs they know as judged by their

peers, and share in what appear to be quitehigh profit levels for their kind of facility.They also engage in the kinds of planningand coordinating usually done by top-linemanagers in normal plants.

Workers participation in work-placedecision making is also linked to therecent intensification ofthe phenomenonof worker ownership in two ways:

1.A number of the worker take-overs, although motivated primarily byjob preservation, have redesigned the

work-place decision-making structureto include high levels of worker-owner

participation in decision making on the

job-site and plant levels. Through prob-lem-solving groups, workers considerand make recommendations on a broad-

er

rangeof decisional areas than the

usual QWL or QC programs. There are

also a significant number of worker-elected representatives on the board ofdirectors. Recent examples of this kind

of enterprise include the General Motors

Hyatt-Clark plant in New Jersey and theRath Packing Company in Iowa.

2. Most worker-owned plants are em-

ployee stock ownership plans (ESOPs),which have no participative decision-

making features and are started by tra-

ditional managers for the tax breaks and

employee financial participation as a

source of ready capital.Although em-ployees start out with no voting rights,the law prescribes that such rights be-come operative after a number of yearsin many ESOPs. Thus there may emergein the future a number of enterpriseswhere employees may pool their votingrights to establish more participativecontrol, particularly if the enterprises

described above provide attactive mod-els for their workers.

MANAGEMENT INTERESTS

AND DILEMMAS

Why are many managers interested in

QWL and QC schemes or work restruc-

turing programs, such as autonomouswork

groups?Many managers have seen participa-tive programs as a vehicle for (1) dealingwith worker alienation in an over-edu-

cated work force that, it is claimed, fre-

quently results in absenteeism, drug abuse,low morale, and other expressions ofworker dissatisfaction; and (2) increas-

ing productivity through enhanced jobsatisfaction and through harnessing the

skills and ideas of those responsible fordoing the work.

Acohort of managers are aware that

&dquo;the new workers&dquo;-the younger, better-

educated workers-are very much more

5. Basil J. Whiting, "QWL:All or Nothing atAll

...

?" (Discussion draft, Michigan Quality ofWork Life Council, Troy, MI, 1983).


5/8

92

resistant to authoritarianism and seek

more challenge and meaning in workthan the last generation of workers. In

addition, Yankelovich and Immerwahrhave suggested that the shift toward ser-vice and information industries has also

meant a shift in job structure, with a

greater proportion of high-discretionjob holders, those who have a great dealof say over their own performance. Theyclaim that many of these workers, who

could easily be motivated to increase the

quality and quantity of their input, cur-rently have low motivation under exist-

ing management practices that are hold-overs from managerial styles developedin the early part of the century.~

6

The earlier concern for dealing withworker alienation has been surpassedmore recently by an overarching con-cern by managers-and many union

leaders and members-with meeting thethreat of foreign competition in many ofthe basic industries in this country.

Many U.S. managers and some union

leaders have been attracted to emulatingthe role of the quality circle movementin establishing Japans enviable produc-tion record.

Anumber of analysts have suggestedthat managers

lookingto the work

placeof the future identify the need for work-

ers who are adaptable and who areskilled in working in problem-solvingteams that understand the new technol-

ogy of their work places. Hirschhornhas given an excellent analysis of theneed for workers who are trained to ana-

lyze the whole system through group

problem solving, instead of being famil-

iar with only the narrow mechanics of

their own operation in one specific partof the system.

In all, there is something of a contest

going on in the U. S. management worldas to whether some significant change in

relationships between managers and em-

ployees is going to take place. On theone hand, there is the authoritarian,bureaucratic, centralized control ap-proach that includes continuing to viewthe work world primarily through Tay-

loristic work-simplification practices. Itemphasizes larger short-term gains thansome participative programs may beable to produce, even though well-con-structed QW L programs often appear tomake early impressive gains in absentee-ism, reduction of grievances, increasesin quality, and reduction in scrap. These

management practices are inclined to-

ward shaking up or shaking out theunion in the current period of union

vulnerability through concession bargain-ing and/ or abetting decertification elec-tions. Thus a 1980 study showed the

anomaly of U.S. multinational execu-

tives in Western Europe who adaptedwell to mandated worker participationthere, but who opposed such programsin the United States as un-American.8

In contention is a developing man-

agement perspective and style that is

change-oriented; more open; willing to

adopt and adapt to more participative

6. Daniel Yankelovich and John Immerwahr,

Putting the Work Ethic to Work (New York: Pub-

licAgenda Foundation, 1983), pp. 5, 6.

7. Larry Hirschhorn, "The Soul of a New

Worker," Working Papers, pp. 42-47 (Jan.-Feb.

1982); for his more elaborate analysis of the futureworld of work and its implications, see "The Post-Industrial Labor Process," New Political Science,

no. 7, pp. 11-31, (Fall 1981).8. Tom De Vos, U.S. Multinationals and

Worker Participation in Management: TheAmer-ican Experience in the European Community

(Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 1981).


6/8

93

management methods while being lessfearful of shared decision making. It is

more empathic to the workers desire formore meaningful, challenging work and

understanding of the need for a more

adaptive, flexible work force in the

emerging world of work. This perspec-tive employs these approaches to main-tain or enhance profitability and com-

petitiveness.This management weltanschauung

may be reinforced as ( 1 ) the shift con-

tinues to industries requiring more flex-ible, problem-solving workers who atthe same time form a greater cohort of

high-discretionjob holders; (2) the 1960s

generation moves into position as thebackbone of the work force; and (3) the

replacement of old production units and

expansion in the newer, developing in-dustries present the opportunity to de-

signnew

work facilitieswith more inten-

sive participation opportunities.The participative approach is not

without its problems, however, for man-

agers may face a dilemma brought on bythe dynamics of meaningful participa-tion. It is best described by Derber and

Schwartz, whose analysis is undergirdedby empirical research from a number ofsources.9

They suggestthat this new

approach resolves

some of the strains engendered by conven-

tional structures, but in its very solution sets

into motion other forces producing a newfundamental strain.... [These] projects gen-erate increased worker competencies, expec-tations, and desires for job challenge, auton-

omy, and in our interpretation self-gov-ernance. These, in the long run, are incon-

sistent with the institutional boundaries of

authority in the new system.... Put most

simply, the relative autonomy in the labor

process required to reduce worker alienation

and increase worker integration also &dquo;em-powers&dquo; workers psychologically to seekwide autonomy in the workplace, therebyplacing strains on the existing boundaries of

authority.

Thus the solution to current work-designproblems may well engendernew expec-tations on the part of the workers in-

volved.

UNION INVOLVEMENT

AND DILEMMAS

Unions have to start with the premisethat well-designed and well-executed

participation programs have a strongappeal for their members or potentialmembers. It was put quite simply, but

forcefully, by a long-time UnitedAuto-

mobile Workers member who volun-teered for one of the early meetings ofher departmental problem-solvinggroup: &dquo;Ive been working here for 28

years and this is the first time anyone,union or management, asked me what I

think. &dquo;

The trends toward worker participa-tion present the labor movement with a

situation that may have many opportun-ities for unions and their members on

the one hand and some basic threats and

dilemmas on the other, as this issue is

played out in the internal union politicalprocess and, currently, in a recessionaryand increasingly antiunion external en-vironment. They raise a number ofissues: what role the unions should playunder what circumstances; what strate-

gies to follow if this is to be a vehicle for

advancing work-place democracy; andwhether to accept this as a purely labor-

management cooperation phenomenon

9. Charles Derber and William Schwartz,"Toward a Theory of Worker Participation,"Sociological Inquiry, 53(1):61-76 (Winter 1983).


7/8

94

or one that also has implications for the

scope and philosophy of union bargain-ing.

Many union leaders have concludedor reaffirmed their belief that manage-ment has not really accepted unionismin the United States. They bolster their

claims by citing current intensified em-

ployer efforts to create or to maintainso-called union-free environments. They

point to the roles played by many man-

agement consultants who sell an anti-

union package that includes using parti-cipative management approaches withthe work force as a means of enhancing

workers loyalties to management ratherthan to unions.

A second kind of dilemma occurs at

the local level. What should be done

when a QC or QWL program is intro-

duced with or without an invitation to

the union to participate?Will

this pro-gram be designed to undermine the

union if the union is neutral or is too

weak to oppose the plan effectively?Will it be used to enhance straight pro-

ductivity or product quality? Should it

be used as an important process to keepthe local plant competitive with other

companies in and out of the United

States? What about competition withother plants in the same company, and

thus in the same union, where the com-

pany has decided, or is threatening, to

close one or more plants producing thesame product?

With members jobs threatened by

foreign competition, many unions have

decided that they can be party to arrange-ments for increasing quality and pro-

ductivity as long as the effort is notdesigned to reduce jobs for their mem-

bers. In practice, this is difficult to do, as

many participative efforts are being insti-

tuted at the same time as recession-

based layoffs are taking place. In all,

some union leaders, satisfied that theycan keep the QWL effort from under-

mining their union and its collective

bargaining function, are actively enter-

ing participative arrangements in orderto have the program serve their overall

interests as well as managements.Within the context of viewing the

expansion of work-place democracy as ameans of enlarging the direct or indirectcontrol workers have over the decisions

that affect their lives, other develop-ments are important for understandingthe future of expanding participation inthis country. More unions are develop-ing a concept of the work environmentand the need to gain more control over it

through collective bargaining and otherlabor-initiated approaches. Drawing onthe Norwegian experience with work-

place democracy policy, Steven Deutsch

suggests that health and safety, includ-ing stress and the problems raised bynew technology, is an area for enlargingwork-place decision making, since work-ers feel strongly that these problemsaffect them directly. This suggests thatunions should strive for meaningful par-

ticipation in the decisions related tothese issues.o

Some unions. are now

assuminga

proactive approach to issues such as

health, safety, and technological changerather than a reactive approach-thetraditional union stance of dealing withthe consequences, rather than the pre-

vention, of certain work-place-relatedproblems. In the field of technologicalchange, for example, the Communica-tion Workers ofAmerica have nego-

tiated the right to be notified of andconsulted on new technological deci-

10. Steven Deutsch, "Extending WorkplaceDemocracy: Struggles to Come in Job Safety andHealth," Labor Studies Journal, 6(1):124-32 (1981).


8/8

95

sions. Recently, the InternationalAsso-ciation of Machinists (IAM) local at

Eastern Airlines

foughthard to win

negotiated joint decision making ontheir pension fund investment policy.The EasternAirlines negotiation is partof a strategy by a number of unions to

participate in decisions about how thebillions of dollars of members pensionfunds-currently invested by nonunion

decision makers and, ironically, some-times in antiunion enterprises-are in-

vested in the future. It is not outside the

realm of possibility that the collective

bargaining process might be used todetermine that such funds foster enter-

prises that are managed by those dedi-cated to designing economically viableand truly democratic work places.

The same IAM local, involved with

other EasternAirlines unions in conces-

sion bargaining, recently negotiated aquid pro quo of involvement in impor-tant traditional management decision-

making areas and structures, includingparticipation in restructuring the com-

pany, worker involvement in designing

new facilities, and union-controlled seats

on the companys board of directors.

Thus change is taking place in union

philosophy and involvement relating todecision making at the job-site and cor-

porate levels. Though contrary to tradi-tional union philosophy, some unionleaders-fueled by the recent recession,the rash of plant closings, and the fail-ure of U.S. management in interna-

tional competition-are beginning tofeel, as expressed by noted labor analystB. J. Widick, that &dquo;management is tooimportant to be left to managers.&dquo;&dquo;Viewing the future of work-place partic-ipation programs, Douglas Fraser, the

recently retired United AutomobileWorkers president and member of the

Chrysler Corporation board of direc-tors, was optimistic about their expan-sion. He said, &dquo;Theres no turning

back.&dquo;2

11. Speech delivered at Wayne State Univer-

sity, Nov. 1983.12. Speech delivered at the University of Mich-

igan, 5 Dec. 1983.

Documents

Work Place Democracy and Quality of Work Life: Problems and ProspectsQ