PAGE 1
p1/teat/internatl SeptUINr 26, 1986 leviaed Draft THE IITDHATIONAL COIITEXT OF LABOI-MAIIACEMDT RELATIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOi WOUPLACE MONITOIINC 8.teven Deutsch Prepared for the U.S. Con1re11, Office of Technology Aa1essment, Commuaication1 and Information Technolo1i Pro1ram Thia docunt was prepared by an outside contractor as an input to an ongoing OTA aaaes1Mnt. It does not necessarily reflect the analytical findings of OTA, the Advisory Panel, or the Technology Assessment Board.
PAGE 2
-~ C ( \ ,.__/ IHTB.ODUCTIOH AHD FINDINGS Becau1e the American economy is 10 tied in to the global economic structure, increa1in1 attention has been given to approaches in other induatrial nation, in their efforts to Mintain a competitive edge and best adapt microelectronic technology. This has involved governmental policies and actions and the wide range of labor-management relations. This chapter aplores some of the international developments and notes contrasts with che United States, and some potential lessons with regard to managing the new technology and systems of labor relations and issues relevant to workplace monitoring. & nwaber of findings come from this review: 1. The American labor relations system and labor law model differs importantly from many other industrial nations. The higher rates of wiioniutions, existence of labor parties, and tradition of governmental involvement in the labor-management arena distinguishes most other indu1trial democracies from the U.S. 2. A more developed tripartite aovernment-labor-management approach to induatrial policy, economic development and growth has been developed in t of our competitor induatrial nation,. This approach has no real equivalent in this country, but we note increasing calls for some efforts in this direction. 3. A tradition of worker participation, including ployee involvement in applyin1 nev technolo1y in factories and office,, is more developed in other industrial countries. However, there i~ well-established international co-.micationa 1y1ta acro11 ~ 1gement and union circles vb.ich ba1 shared quality of working life and participative management uperience1. There i1 evidence of a 1ub1tantial growth of this philo1ophy in the American labor-management relations community and a new Federal government initiative in the U.S. Department of Labor. 4. Since collective bar1aining covers only one-fifth of the American work force, other initiatives have been explored by advocates and policyaakers, including the use of occupational safety and health laws and a1encie1, somewhat parallel to the work environment laws in oter nations which have addressed job stress, work organization and technology concerna. Concern over health effects, stress related worker compensation claims, are among the driving forces for reform here. Thus far, only modest changes in federal legislation and standards, such as l
PAGE 3
the OSHA hazard co111111UDication standard, have been seen; more activity 1e ... focuaed at the state and local level tied to VDT worker protection ) and the like. European developments have been a significant s.timulus for so of thi1 effort. 5. I11ue of privacy and rights of employees are treated in some other inclutrial nations in a broader socio-political contest with proactive le1ilative initiative, pr0111Ul1ated. Tne pattern in this country is more toward takin1 a reactive 1tance, and addre1ain1 alleged abuses after the fact throuah collective bar1ainin1 and other remedies focused on the vorkplace. The American pattern is likely to continue, although there ba been a noteable increase in the concerns over privacy and employee rights expressed by unions, citizen action groups, and policymakers. 6. ~e force of law, tradition of labor-management relations, and the currmt economic and political milieu have 1haped the American approach to aealing with th new technology at the workplace, including electronic monitarin1. It is a model which is different in important ways from the more centralized, regulatory, legislated model of employer-employee relations in many other industrial nations. While voluntary and reco11111ended styles of participative management and other approaches towards dealing with microelectronic technology developed abroad may have growing influence in the United States, there will continue to be a distinctly different approach taken in this county in the foreseeable future. IIASOIS FOR IHTEUATIONAL PDSPECTIVES The past decades have altered the global economy such that it is essential to understand the American economy ud the world of work within an international perspective. This is the case for many reasons. First, US baaed multinational corporations have invested a substantial portion of their capital and production facilities outside the country; they are indeed mltinational or global fin11 albeit American owned. Second, US firms are involvec:1 in a large number of joint ventures with foreign firma and aovernaents, both abroad and within the United States. Third, foreign firms have incruaingly invested and developed production facilities within this country--froa auto to electronics. And, fourth, this international competitive environment has increased the sensitivity of American managers, eaployees, and unions to varied approaches in such areas as labor relations, oraanizational structure, managerial style, and technology at the workplace. .J
PAGE 4
-..\ This increased awareness has been facilitated by the considerable movement of managers across national boundaries and the coaunications and visitations involvin1 employee and union delegations as well. (' Tbe internationalization of the American economy has resulted in a gre.t deal of information flow between the United States and other industrial and developing nations. In particular, it has led to reciprocal influences between the industrial nations of the world. For example, U.S. managers study workplace experiments in Western Europe; Japanese managers try to apply their approaches in U.S. production facilities; and U.S. unions meet with their counterparts employed by US multinational firms, such as in the case of autoworkers in Ford Motor Company facilities world wide. The technology of production in factory and office settings is transnational and this interchangeability also has furthered interest in international experiences. There are considerable variations among the industrial nations in terms of their labor-manaaement systems, approaches to dealing with technological change, the role of government in the economy, as well as the strength and economic and political role of unions. In the 19501 and 19601, many European nations experienced labor shortages and relied upon "guest workers" from other les1 developed nations; in the U.S., that has never been the case. Many of the social dynamics of the 19601, however, were comon across national boundaries and cultural differences. The wave of interest in participatory democracy affected all industrial nations, and the factors which save rise of work reform concerns in the U.S., were comon in most nations in the West. Electronic monitoring is but one facet of the microelectronic technology capability. The potential is transnational and the issues raised are also international. Equally important, the application and policy outcomes are (,... -... 1 1 variable. This chapter is designed to explore some of these international \ __ ,,,,.,
PAGE 5
BEST ~ooy AVAi' ppr E L, i tH 1... i, u !-.... 454 influences and experiences as they apply in the American work setting. AMlllICAII LABOR-MAHAGEMDT RELATIONS UP TO THE MODED DA A longer treatment of the history of work and labor-management relatons bas been given in this report (Chapter 3). What might be most directly pointed out is that severat threads have unfolded in this century, some of which have continued and some have been partially replaced. The Scientific Macagement approach developed by F.W. Taylor was built upon some basic ~-a1swaption1 about industrial production and efficiency tied to the division of labor, scientifically measured job tasks, and economic incentives for workers. Some tendencies in this vein continue into the present time. However, beginning in the 1930s and developed in the 1940s and beyond, there -rged the Human Relations approach fostered by E. Mayo and colleagues at Harvard Busin.ess School. This philosophy emphasized the social aspects. of wo,dr. and the i~portance of social support from fellow workers in helping to determine worker productivity. Variations on this theme continue to the present. The Human Relations approach did not replace Scientific Management, and by the 19501, the i11ue of power and real differences between managerial and ployee interests were more accepted in many managerial theories. The challenge was to atteapt to integrate work ~zation goals-harmony, productivity, profits-ith tho1e of the employees. the evolution of dominant unagerial philo1ophie1 did not occur in a vacuua. lather, they reflect the shifts in the work force, the 1rowth of unions, and the 1ignificance of the collective bargaining mechanism which protected workers and established contractual conditions of employment. The field of industrial psycholoay and sociology saw considerable growth during the Second World War with studies of group morale, productivity, and worker )
PAGE 6
relationships. Such studies made it clear that real differences or conflicts exist and that efforts to alter morale, job satisfaction, and productivity would need to acknowledge these. "Cow sociology" was the phrase derisively used to denote those managerial approaches which sought to gloss over '!lllployee concerns and attempt to make workers contented without addressing their real interests. the social climate of the nation began to change in the late 1950s with :he be1innings of protest by Black Americans against the institution of racial segre1ation. From the Hollywood image and popular books such as The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit, the nation was challenged by scenes -of federal troops enforcing school desegregation in Little Rock and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. organizin1 a boycott of Jim Crow buses in Montgomery. By the 1960s, a wide ran1e of social movements had organized on the issues of empowering people to c~-. make decisions affecting-their lives and cries for "Black Power," "Student Power," "Coaaunity Power" were heard. Bot 1urprisin1ly, the issue of involvement in the workplace, where we spend one-half of our waking hours, was articulated as well. While there were so differences between the United States and European countries in terms of social issues of the times, the 19601 saw very similar movements for change by student,, environmentalists, women, and collllllUllity activists. The European milieu fostered more experiments related to work and the economy and the results of these became publicized in the United States in the late 1-9601 and early 19701. The c:han1e which have been outlined earlier in this report [Chpt. 3) influenced the shifts in mana1erial philosophy and labor relations. The occupational structure in the post-World War era revealed a marked growth in 0 the services with a decline in manufacturing, and a substantial growth in 5
PAGE 7
r public sector employment. The proportion of women workers increased and the sectors of the labor force which were organized shifted to include more government workers, white collar and professional workers, as well as more WOMn and racial minorities. Hew approaches to union organizing wa-~e developed which 1trasaed issues of work environment and employee influence. Federal and s~ate le1i1lation increased with amendments to the Rational Labor Relations Act, relevant sections of the Civil Rights Act, and other laws. The Americaa labor relations framework is based upon a system of voluntary unionization and free collective bargaining which stands in contrast co nations with le1ialated approaches to decision-making at the job.1 This approach di1tin1uishe1 the US industrial relations system from some other industrial nations. Yet, there is a role played by government in terms of wa1e, health, nondiscrimination and other form, of protection. The government baa a system of arbitratin1 cases, hearing cases in courts of law, and well utilized Mdiation and conciliation services. Thus the labor relations system which evolved from World War Two throu1b the 1960 was to a considerable atent tri-partite, yet distinguishable from systems developed in other nations. By the end of the 19601, the chan1in1 occupational structure, new tec:lmolo17, and 1lobal economic shift po1ed new challen1e1 for the American KODOIIJ and mana1ement. There was 1rovin1 intereat in international develop1111ta and expriments in employee involvement that were bing undertaken in Europe. Thi period marked the entry into a new pha1e of labor relatioa1 with a markedly changing global economic climate. 1. The distinction is examined in Steven Deutsch, "Voluntaristic vs. Constitutional Approaches to Worker Participation," Comparative Labor !:!!, Vol. 2 (Summer, 1977). ) J
PAGE 8
IHT!UATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS IH LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS FROM nlE 1960s The broad efforts around the world to push for various forms of participatory democracy in the 19601 took many forms. In some c ~texts the -di1cu11ions were joined with older movement for change, such as the Fabian socialist tradition in the British trade union movement. Regardless of the particular form, by the 19701 the issue of participation at the workplace, or induatrial democracy, was a major feature of discussion and implementation in the industrial relations systems throughout the West. There were a number of sources for this phenomenon. First, there was the influence of self-management theory and practice, notably in the model of Yu1oslavian self-managin1 socialism. Second, there were the models of co detarmination, such as in Uest Germany, which had their genesis in the 1930s c---_, ucl nre altered in the 19501 designed to have functioning delegate works councils to facilitate workers influence in decision-making. In the 1970s and 19801, a major "humanization of work" pro1ram was developed in the FRC, administered by the occupational health and safety ministry. Third, there emeried a new tradition of applied research in the 1960s based particularly at the Tavistock Institute in England and the Work Research Institute in Norway, pha1izin1 ployee participation and democratization at work. There were a series of mana1ement initiated interventions and planned changes to give employee influence at the workplace which were systematically studied. Attention wa1 aiven to the psycho-social factors of work, e.g., job 1ati1faction, morale of workers, and the quality of social relations; other research focused on such performance factors as productivity and efficiency. The Industrial Democracy Progranme in Norway was a pioneer in this field and --~ (__) influenced industrial practitioners and researchers in many countries, 7
PAGE 9
45'K including the United States. By the early 1970s, the interest in job redesign, human engineering, work reform, or whatever term was in vogue, w.as world-wide. The first international conferences on participati,ve management and qu.tity of working life were held in 1971 and 1972. The e2,pariMnt1 undertaken in Europe were of coa1iderable interest to American indusierial mana1ers, employee representatives, practitioners, and industrial researchers. The key issue seemed to be that increasing employee i.nvolvement spoke both to the re1tle11ness and militancy manifest by workers in the 1960s and to managerial desires to have improved quality of work.in1 life and effective work organizations.2 In some countries there was a clear philosophy of extending more power to workers as part of the overall program of democracy envisioned by the government. This is clearly the case in Sweden where the Social Democratic Party bas a lon1-term program to establish political democracy, social demcracy, and finally economic democracy through incremental legislative reforma. When, in the late 19601, the Swedish labor movement turned to issues of greater worker participation both at the workplace and in the economy, the Social Democratic Party tranalated these demands into legislature 1oal1. In sequence during the 19701, the following laws have been passed: Act on Ellployee Representation on Boards; Security of Employment Act; Pr0110tion of !aployment Act; Act on the Statua of Shop Stewards; Worker hotection or Safety Act; Act on Employee Participation in Deciaion-Making (MBL); Work Environment Act; 2. The mood of the period and developments in Europe are reviewed in Solomon Barkin (ed.), Worker Militanc and Its Conse uences 1965-1975: New Directions in Western Industrial Relations Praeger, 1975. J
PAGE 10
and in the early 1980s, Wa1e-earner funds. 3 A similar series of reforms were implemented in Norway allowing worker representation on corporate boards and other means of paricipation.4 The i11ue of "management prerogatives" and what conatitutes appropriate employee involvement has naturally been raised in Europe as in the United States. The 1970s saw a substantial expansion of the agenda for European unions and they have bargained over the introduction of new technology, work and job desian, production systems, organizational planning, and company investments. Thele1i1lative arena continues to be significant in those countries with such traditions, including Scandinavia with its history of relatively cooperative labor relations, Germany, and Holland. In England, Australia, and Canada, the adversarial labor relations model is closer to the United States, and therefore, they continue to rely upon collectively negotiated agreements between employers and the workforce rather than legislative solutions. It is important to note the considerable variations across national boundaries in the size and strength of the labor movement: from 90 percent of the workforce in Sweden, to 50 percent in England, and 20 percent in the U.S. In addition to legislating co-determination, which was done in Sweden and apanded in Germany in the late 19701, some ~ountries have passed work enviromNDt laws which mandate employee involvement in planning and designing 3. Sandra Albrecht and Steven Deutsch, "The Challenge of Economic 4. Democracy: The Case of Sweden," Economic and Industrial Democracy Vol. 4 (Aupst, 1983) PP 287-316. Bjorn Gustavsen and Gerry Hunniu1, New Patterns of Work Reform: The Case of Sweden (Oslo University Press, 1981).
PAGE 11
work and technolo1ical changes in the workplace. There is an explicit section on technoloay in the Norwegian Work Environment Act o: 1977; to wit, Section 12: C:.eral requireaenta. Technoloay, oraanization o~ the work, working hours and wage systems shall be set up so that the employees are not ,xpo1ed to undesirable physical or .Mntal strain and so 'that their pos1ibilities of displayina caution and observina safety measures are not impaired. Conditions shall be arranged so that employees are afforded reasonable opportunity for professional and personal development through their work. Arra111eM11t of work. The individual employee's opportunity for self determination and professional responaibility shall be taken into consideration when planning and arran1in1 the work. Efforts shall be made to avoid undiversified, repetitive work and work that is governed by machine or conveyor belt in such a manner that the employees themselves are prevented from varying the speed of the work. Otherwise efforts shall be made.to arranae the work so as to provide possibilities fo~ variation and for contact with others, for connection between individual job a1aignaent1, and for employees to keep them1elves informed about production requirements and results. Control ad plamain1 ayt-. The employees and their elected union representatives shall be kept informed about the systems employed for plannina and effecting the work, and about planned chanaes in such systems. They shall be given the training necessary to enable them to learn these system, and they 1hall take part in planning them. The Rorwegian and Swedish Work Environment Acts of 1977 and 1978, re1pectively, build upon demon1trable evidence that machine-paced, monotonous vork, done in social isolation and involving shift work, leads to unhealthy outcomes in both emotional and physical terma. 5 ?here i1 a clear relation1hip 1hown in research and revealed in some 5. Bjorn Gustavsen and Gerry Hunaius, New Patterns of Work Reform: The Case of llorway (Oslo: Oslo University Press, 1981); Bertil Cardell and Bjorn Gu1tav1en, "Work Environment Research and Social Change: Current Developments in Scandinavia," Journal of Occupational Behavior, Vol. 1 (January, 1980). I (0
PAGE 12
c.. national le1islation which connects technological change, job stress, and efforts to improve the work environment.6 For example, the head of the World Health Organization Stress Lab includes democratization at the workplace among his list of proposed measures to combat job stresa.7 A considerable body of research baa 1u11e1ted that electronic office work is stressful and that ergonomic and administrative or organizational factors are critical to accomplish stress reduction.8 The German Humanization of Work Program, federally funded and implemented, is within the occupational safety and health ministry. In short, research revealed the benefits of employee involvement including reduced accidents and injuries, reduced stress and other ill effects from work, and thus the expansion of worker participation was encouraged and mandated by governmental job safety and health laws. Over the past decade, there baa been some interest in this approach by other nations as well. The 19701 saw a rash of industrial experiments to reform the workplace and involve workers. The Swedish Employers' Federation claimed that 500 such innovations had been evaluated durin1 the 1970s and supported s~ch industrial democracy efforts.9 Similar arguments emerged throughout the 1970s in both 6. This perspective is offerd in Steven Deutsch, "Extending Workplace Democracy: Struggles to Come in Job Safety and Health", Labor Studies Journal Vol. 6 (Sprin1, 1981) pp. 124-132. 7. Lennart Lavi, Preventing Work Stress (Readin1, MA: Addition-Wesley, 1981). 8. U.S. Con1resa, Office of Technology Assessment, Automation of America's Offices (Washinaton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office) OTA-CIT 287, December 1985), Chapter S 9. Swedish Employers' Federation, Job Reform in Sweden: Conclusions from 500 Shop Floor Projects (Stockholm: SAF, 1975); see also Stefan Aguren and Jan Edaren, Mew Factories: Job Desi n Throu h Factor Plannin in Sweden (Stockholm: Swedish Employers Federation, 1980. ti
PAGE 13
the international management literature and union publications.10 During the decade of the 1970s, a large number of international conferences were held, and by 1981, there were thousands of participants at the international quality of vorki.n1 life conference in Toronto, indicatin. the growth of this interest and the magnitude of application. Althou1h some European political tradition endorsed worker self management as part of a larger program for the social transformation of society, the interest in industrial democracy came mostly as a nonid~ological, hi1hly pragmatic development. The ar1ument was that hei1htened employee interest and involvement in work increased efficiency and productivity, and hence, produced effective healthy work organizations. Furthermore, it was argued that such employee involvement would contribute to improved quality of production and decreased accidents and ill effects at w-,rk. Thus, worker participation was championed by both sides of the bar1aining table and supported by government; it was seen as a forward-laoking movement to create better work organization,, mo~e competitive enterprises, and a more fulfilling work life and labor relations climate for all. leedless to say, this perspective is the ideal and the position of coaaitted advocates. But they were prominent in the management and labor cOIBWlity and influenced American managers working within Europe, traveling abroad and Meting their colleagues at conferences and reading the vastly apaadin1 reports in the literature. The impact on the US vaa significant, particularly given the developments within thia country at the same time. The dramatic application of microtecbnoloay acros economic sectors took place 10. C. Asplund, ledesi nin Jobs: Western Euro ean European Trade Union Inst\tute, 1981. erien5.!! (Brussels: ) (~
PAGE 14
in all induatrial nations. Whether in North America, Australia, Japan, or Western Europe, factories and offices were being automated on a new scale and the late 19701 saw a major push to adopt the new technology. The worldwide economic crisis in the subsequent years ~fected all industrial nations, and in many countries, conmissions were appointed to explore the implications of microelectronics for labor relations, education, and the economy. Some, such as the Canadian Task Force on Microelectronics and Employment, recoaaended joint labor-management coamittees to address such issues as trainin1, productivity improvements, and layoffs. The patterns of labor relations vary cotsiderably among the industrial nations of the West. In general, however, the interest in technological change at work has been greater in recent years in Europe than in the United States. Many European unions have been more aggressive than those in the U.S. c, over issues of advance notifications of technological change in the workplace, joint participation in workplace desian and the introduction of new technology, protection of jobs and programs for relocation, retraining, and other means of cushioning the effects of job loss. This areater support for participative approaches has fostared more joint efforts to address technology questions. There is agreement in some quarters about the benefits of tecbnolo1y to remove monotonous jobs and nurture semi-autonomous work groups with greater worker influence. For uample: in 1982, "Aareement of Efficiency and Participation" was aiped by the Swedish employers' federation (SAF) and the blue-collar (LO) and white-collar (PTIC) union federations. It recognized the need for efficiency and productivity if Swedish enterprise was to be more competitive in the international markets; it also detailed some of the means of implementing .,,.-, ( __ ) technological change to achieve these goals. The paragraph dealing with I~
PAGE 15
technical development states: It 1. c:.neral direction. The part1es are agreed that day-to-day as well a more far-reachin1 technical mc:-demization offers many opportunitie1 that must be taken to enable the company to survive, achieve 1ucce11 and therefore also afepard jobs and ployment. Capital expenditure makes it possible ~o improve productivity as well as crutin1 opportunities to introduce new production systell8, utilize IIOdern technology, develop the uperti1e and skills of ployees, and thereby increa1e the competitiveness of the company. It 2. Stiaulatin1 work. In the evac of technical change, a sound job content shall be the goal, together with opportunities for the employees to increase their skills and accept responsibility for their work. The knowledge of the employees should be stimulated together with their ability to cooperate with and have contact with their colleagues. It 3. Major c:ban1es. When technical chan1e that involves major cban1es for the employees is bein1 planned, the trade union organizations shall participate. Such participation shall take place in accordance with the provisions in (sections 7 and 8). The employer shall describe the considerations underlying the new technology, and the technical, financial/economic, work environmental, and employment consequences that can be foreseen and possibly make propo1als for appointing project groups. It 4. Trainin1 infonaation. It is important that the aployees are aiven opportunities for further development of their vocational expertise and 1kill1. The company shall make available as early as pocsible trainina for the new jobs that technical cban1e will involve. Such training shall be provided at the expense of the company and on unchanged pay and employment conditions. The point is that all have a stake in the development and application of new technoloay and that labor supports such investment a1 long as human coniderations are vell considered and ployee1 involved.11 Thia approach to applying tecbnolo1y at work i1 built into the broader Svecli1h aoral/le1al syst Ju1t as Sweden bas the hiihe1t per capita robots in production, tbat nation may lead the world in the number of computer data based per1onal re1i1trie1. With a population of only 8.4 million, it is 11. For an analysis of this issue see Steven Deut1ch, "International bperiences With Technological Chan1e," Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 109 (March 1986) 35-40. J
PAGE 16
estiMted that there are perhaps 70,000 registries and that each Swede is included in between SO and 300 registers of personal computerized infol"IIAtion. Within Sweden, there is an a11umption of good intent and that the computerized data fields will not b-abuaed or violate privacy. However, thi1 belief bas also been backed by law in the early 1970s' legialation which created a Data Inspection Board to control access and use of such files. levertheleas, Swedish public opinion reveals that while the citizenry is better served a~ a result of theae data registries, the Swedish people have aoM concern about protection of privacy.12 The key ~indin1 here is that in some other industrial nations the issues of privacy of the citizenry and ri1hts of employees at work are treated within the broad social-political framework of the country rather than in the labor management sphere. In Sweden, there was a move to legislate control of data 0, registries as the proliferation of computerized personnel data bases became apparent. It was typical within that social-political syst to address the i1aue in term of potential abuses and not wait for proble11 cases to accrue before actin1. This anticipatory problem-solvina (or pro-active vs. reactive stance) varies acro11 national boundaries. The concerns over citizen privacy and the spectre of "big brotherism" is international and legislative protection baa been sought in moat countrie1. The concerns over workplace monitorin1 are also widespread and have been nurtured by intemational labor federations; and, law1 and labor ne1otiation1 which have addressed remedies to the pi-obl have been given considerable publicity and international 12. Gert Per11on, "Computerized Personal Registers and the Proteetion of Privacy," Buman Environment in Sweden, Ho. 26, June 1986 (Swedish Information Service, HY). For a broader overview see Information /--.... Technology in Sweden (The Swedish Board for Technical Development, (,_,_j) Stockholm 1985). 15
PAGE 17
di11ination. We lliaht upect that just as t~ere bas been an extensive interchange of aperiace1 and perspectives on labor-mana1ement relations and employee participation or industrial duaocrac proar across the Atlantic so, too, we aipt anticipate more sharing of viewpoints and practices on electronic nitorin1 of citiaena and workers and workplace, in the i .... diate future. UCDT DEVELOPMDTS IH TB! UHITED STATES ARD LESSONS FROM ABROAD The upheavals and changes of the 19601 in the United States formed a broader societal contest for the climate of labor-management relations. Evidence in the early 19701 demonstrated a high level of concern over worker di11atisfaction, absenteeism, low morale, or what journalists called "bluecollar blues." Wildcat strikes and other signs of work disputes were manifest ud a ra1h of studies and media accounts attempted to understand the problems of worker discontent in this country. Finally, the then-secretary of Health ancl Buman Services appointed a Work in America Coanis1ion to explore the problem and offer recomaendations. The resulting publication was a major watershed in this country and helped to put work reform on the agenda in the labor and industrial relations colllllUDity.13 This study outlined many aperiments in the U.S. and abroad in democratizing work or1anizations, iacreasin1 employee participation, and redesigning work. Some of the movements for change in the 19601, includin1 civil ri1hts and en~ro1111e11tal or1anization1, had d coalitions with labor or1anization1. Le1i1lation was pa11ed a, a result of the political clite -the Civil lipts Act of 1964, the Occupationl Safety and Health Act of 1970 as well as 13. BEW, Work in America (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1973). J l (t
PAGE 18
.C others. The mood of the country was sympathetic to government re1ulation to protect the environment, to protect people from discrimination, and to protect vorkers on the job. Still, the labor relations system remained a voluntary one based upon free collective ba 1ainin1. Thus, the impetus for work reform c:aae primarily fr the practitioners mana1er and unions, not from 1over11MDt. A wide ran1e of uperints and pro1ram for refona were developed in the 19701 and it wa clear that increased employee involvement on the job was a demand or expectation by more workers and a growing a component of 1oocl manaaerial philosophy.14 The 1970 also witnessed a 1reat many chan1 in the country and the development of microelectronics and the application of new technology at work was amon1 the more dramatic. White males now comprise a minority of the Allerican labor force and this trend will continue. A shrinking minority work in manufacturin1 joba.15 The world-wide economic upheavals, perhaps marked by the 1973 ener1y crisis, bas bad profound immediate and long-range consequences for the American economy. Technoloay ha helped to shape 10 these shifts, and will continue to play a critical role in our changing economy.16 Juat a1 the American labor-management co11111UDity ha been quite aware of 14. Thia i1 revi-d in Steven Deut1ch and Sandra Albrecht, "Worker Participation in the United Statea: Efforts to Democratize Industry and the Economy," Labour and Society, Vol. 8 (JulrSeptember 1983) pp. 243269. 15. See U.S. Con1resa, Office of Teclmoloay As1es1nt, Technology and Structural Unem lo nt: lelo in Dis laced Adults, OTA-ITE 250 Wa1h1n1ton, D.c.: u.s. Government Pr1ntin1 Office, February 1986), Chapter 8; Ronald!. Kutscher and Valerie A. Personick, "Deindu1trialization and the Shift to Services," Monthly Labor Review (June 1986) pp. 3-13. (-~\ \ __) 16. See Bu1ines1 Week, "Hi1h Tech to the Rescue," (June 16, 1986). I]
PAGE 19
work refona and uperints in employee involvement and job restructuring abroad, so, too baa there been considerable awareness of foreign treatment of tecbnolo17 and its application to the workplace. Technology has been a factor in mavin1 inve1tment1 and clos,g production facilities, both here and abroad. In llal_ly countries, there are legislated undates which restrict the mailateral right of -,layers to close a plant, including requirements for job retraining, and advance notification to ployees. The problem of plant clo1ing1 ba1 been a major issue in the U.S. for the past few years and the labor-management colllllWlity bas esplored variou1 remedies both within the collective bargaining framework and outside including legislation at the national and state leve1.17 The U.S. government has a number of bilateral and multilateral agreements to 1hare information on occupational health data and research, information pertaining to job health standards, and the like. There is a broader work enviroamant framework in Europe which tends to include psycho-social factors, hUIIUl factors and ergonomics, and other dimen1ions to a greater degree than is true in the United States. However, the occupational health and safety perspective, in Japan and much of Europe have become more and more common in this country. Many publications have launched the ergonomic achiev~nts in En1land, Japan and Scandinavia; other articles and books have emphasized the lorw1ian Work Environment Lav and the u1e of data stewards to deal with new teclmolo17.18 Many union and mana1t11NDt dele1ations have viait~d other 17. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Plant Closing: Advance lotic and Rapid Response Special Report, OTA-ITE-321 (Washington, D.c.1 U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1986). 18. Bjorn Gu1tav1en and Gerry Hunniu1, lew Patterns of Work Reform: The Case of Morvay (Oslo: Oslo University Preas, 1981). ) J ,~
PAGE 20
indu1trial nation, to study their approaches to work environment, their cooperative and joint approach to work environment and worker trainina.19 The coaunit7 of 1cientist1 and health professional ha1 tended to be transnational, but it i1 th case that U.S. mana1ement, labor, and allied partie1 bave been much influenced by develo,-nts abroad. The cballen1e1 po1ed for the American econo111 in recent years have not beu waique. But as many analysts have observed, our international coapetitor1 have developed industrial policies which are aenuinely tripartite and involve 1overnment, manaaeMnt, and labor in concerted action. Moves in this direction have been sipificant in the U.S., but representatives of labor and unaa-nt, a1 well a public policy makers, have ar1ued that we need to learn lessons from the more successful foreian competitors. 2 Countries which have fever natural resources, such a1 Japan, or countries which have similar (-.. _:. ba1ic iadu1triea (steel, auto, wood product1), such Sweden, have exploited .... C ) I new teclmoloay in a major way and have articulated cooperative laboraana1e11e11t policies with major governmental coordination. This di1cu11ion vill surely continue in the near future as the United States attempts to cope with it1 lost domiaance in the world economy, 1011 of foreip markets, trade deficits and the like. Thia report ba1 demon1trated that electronic monitoring at the workplace 11111t be seen in a broader context. It i1 one component of the total laborllllDaleMDt climate, a1 well part of the culture vith its values and ideolo1ie1. This i1 true in all nation,. The 11aa1ive amount of data kept on 19. Thi i1 reviewed in Steven Deut1ch, Work Environment Reform and Indu1trial Democracy," Work and Occupation, Vol. 8 (May, 1981) 180-194. 20. Bu1ine1a Week, "The Hollow Corporation," (March 3, 1986); Robert Lund and Jobn Han1ea, Kee in America At Work: Strate ie1 for Em lo in the New Teclmolo1ie1 Hew York: John Wiley & Sons, 1986.
PAGE 21
it...,{.) Sdisb citizens ha not beco a major ia1ue becau1e tbe potential for abuse \ ha not been realized. rhe adoption of laws restricting data registries and controllin1 citizen monitorin1 are reflective of the sentiments in each country. In similar fas~ton, where the quality of labor-management relations ia positive, and where mployeea are consulted and actively involved in deciaion-kin1 at work, there are likely to be few abu1e1 of monitoring. In fact, the capability of electronic monitoring might be explored jointly by aaployee1 and manager and the results also used jointly to elicit problem1olvin1 around concerns over productivity, quality of production, (workers~ attitudes) or even matter of security. In short, the issue is moat often perceived as a problem where the level of trust is low and the technology is used unilaterally by management without consultation and participation by the workforce. If there is a clear lesson for American managers here, it is that electronic monitoring should be perceived like any other form of supervisory function. International experiences indicate that participative styles of u.nagement are likely to build confideace and trust on the part of the workforce and that the technology can be used in such a way as to increase both worker involvement and quality of work life as well productivity. lden and lorway have a history of cooperative labor-management relation, and over the pat two decade, have led in prop-a of employee involv..ant and active participation. Thia haa included participation in shop floor deciion-..kin1, decision about work environment, or1anizational structure, iapl-ntation of technolo1y, and investMnt Along with such daocratic teadencies at work, these nations have shown high levels of econoaic 1rowth, hi1h standards of living, very low levels of unemployment, adoption of advanced microelectronic technology, and sensitivity to issues of privacy and protection.of worker right,. While one cannot u1e any nation a _J I
PAGE 22
blueprint, there are some clear su11estion1 here which miaht be applicable for the United States. A labor force and union movement that is consulted over tec:Jmolo1y i11ue1 and the use of microelectronics, includin1 workplace aonitorin1, 10Mth0,g which will benefit workers a1 well a1 mana1ers, is likely to be en1a1ed, productive, and c0111itted to quality of production and economic succe11. Many practitioners in industry believe these are noticeable le11ons from abroad and are worthy of application in this country. The flavor of this approach is nicely captured in a description of the Swedish.Work Environment Fund Development Prograllllle: 0a of the pro1raaaes' objectives is to ensure that new technolo1y is introduced in a manner which will improve the environment, develop and upand work content, and promote the creation of more 1timulatin1 occupations and rewardin1 work assignments, thereby enablin1 the technolo1y to be u1ed in the widest sense -in the moat positive manner po11ible. Only by adapting technical innovations designed to meet human requirements can the competitiveness of Swedish indu1try and the 21 efficiency of public administrative bodies be given a real boo1t. Yet, a1 has already been noted, there are important difference, between the United State and Sweden in terma of the 1trength of union,, the history of labor-..na1ement relations, the role of the labor party (Social Democratic Party) and the 1overnment, labor law and the like. The American le1al system i1 rather unique, albeit the emphasis ha shifted in recent years with the decline of anion1, new pro1raaa1 of worker participation, a 1hiftin1 role of 1overnment and philosophy in the court and IILIB.22 More important, there is a set of traditional attitude which constitutes a barrier for the adoption of nn approaches. 21. Svedi1h Work Environment Fund, The Develo nt Pro r ... e: New Tecbnolo17, Working Life, Mana1ement Stockholm: ASP, n.d. p. 4. 22. See Benjin Aaron, "Labor Law Research in North America," in Sten Edlund (ed.), Labor Law Research in Twelve Countries (Stockholm: Swedish Center for Working Life, 1986).
PAGE 23
Oar le1acy of adversarial unioa/manana-nt relationahip1, which is rooted in part! in the failure of nineteenth and early twentieth century 11&Da1er to ae concerned about the nature of work being created through tecbnolo1ical cban1e, thus 1erve1 aa a sub1tantial barrier to the introduction of new technolo1ie1 in the current era. This leaves the U.S. at a distinct competitive disadvantaa with respect to other countriea (no 1bly Japan) vboae labor/mana1ement relationships at this point are aore cooperative than thoae in the U.S. One can only wonder hov the implementation of c011puter-baaed technology will fare if we do no better in accountin1 for hUIUD factor in f!ipin1 and implementing that technolo11 than ve have done in the paat. It is abundantly clear that American multi-national firms function well in the different cultural and l11al environments abroad. American manage~s have adapted and learned the correct approach for working in Sweden, Ja:an and MDJ other indu1trial nations who are our competitors. While no overnight chanaea should be expected in the way in which American mana1ers operate at ho, there are growing signs that the challenges in international trade and foreip competition art drivin1 forces towards an altered po1ture of laborMDaleMDt relations. The AIDerican management coammity has learned from its owr1ua esperiences and ba1 ~oted the 1ucce1aful approach in other indu1trial 1ocieties. Thia 1u11eata a continuin1 trend in many qua~ters toward le1sened adversarial and more cooperative labor-manaaement relations alld 10.. important innovation, in employee involvemant tied to introducing new t,1clmolo11 at the workplace. The nwaber of firma which have adopted such appro~ch ia conaiderable; more iaportantl1, they repre1ent very large proportion, of the workforce ia their repective induatrie; e.g., auto, teleca auaicationa, 'aeroapace. !he federal 1ovel"llllellt i1 actin1 in partner1bip in 10M of these duvora, at leaat in ao far as philoaopbical 1upport and 10 catalytic actirity is concerned. "The Department of Labor has taken a strong position 23. Lmacl and Banaen, op.cit., pp. 145-146. ,J
PAGE 24
Y73 in support of labor-management cooperation as an important prerequisite to America's return to preeminence in the world marketplace.1124 Futhermore, some of the participative managent initiatives have been taken within aovermaental ag.-"tcies at both the federal, state and local level. The lessons froa abroad are only 1u1ge1tive and do not constitute a blueprint, but they have already had some significant influence and are likely to be a continuing stimulus for government, management and labor initiatives and cooperative approaches to managing new technoloay in America's offices and factorias. 24. Stephen Scblo11ber1 and Steven Fetter, U.S. Labor and the Future of Labor-Management Cooperation, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor-Management Relations and Cooperative Programs, 1986) P 2. (continued)
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E4U02TWT2_IPEZUF INGEST_TIME 2017-06-05T17:07:35Z PACKAGE AA00055682_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
|