Integration of collective bargaining and formal worker participation processes: Boon or barrier to worker rights?

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1989

Integration of Collective Bargaining and Formal Worker Participation Processes: Boon or Barrier to Worker Rights?

Wil l iam M o o r e I and Robert C. Miljus 2

Many employers are extending workplace rights by allowing for more employee voice in decision making. Numerous unionized organizations have established formal worker participation processes to help achieve this end and to improve organizational performance. Based largely on theory, such processes are normally designed to operate independently from the bargaining process. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between participation and bargaining processes, and the effect o f this relationship on workplace satisfaction. A total o f 712 Midwest union officials were surveyed, and the results indicate that the processes tend to become integrated in the workplace. Further, union officials" workplace satisfaction was greater where formal worker participation is institutionalized within the bargaining process.

KEY WORDS: workers' rights; employees' voice; employees' voice and collective bargaining; workers' rights and collective bargaining; worker participation and collective bargaining.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

In recent years, many U.S. employers have been seeking alternative ways to revitalize their organizations and improve competitiveness. They are being pressured by intense domestic and global product and resource market competition, changing labor force demographics, and sweeping technological innovations in office and production systems.

One area receiving considerable attention is that of effective human resource management. Being examined are the rights of employees on the job and various means to increase employee input or voice on a variety of workplace issues. The so- called "psychological contract" with its implicit set of mutual work behaviors and responsibilities is being replaced by formally established, or institutionalized, joint problem-solving mechanisms. Chief among these are employee-management committees that focus on specific issues such as job evaluation and health and safety conditions; formal worker participation (WP) programs such as Quality of Worklife and

1College of Business & Public Administration, Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa 50311. 2Faculty of Management and Human Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210.

217

0892-7545/89/0900-0217506.00/0 �9 1989 Plenum Publishing Corporation

218 Moore and Miijos

Employee Involvement; and co-managed profit and gainsharing bonus programs such as Employee Stock Option Plans and the Scanlon Plan.

Numerous weel-publicized experiments have pointed out alternative ways to enhance employee job interests and voice (Bamber & Lansbury, 1987; Davis & Taylor, 1979; Rosow, 1986). In the U.S. are such examples as the General Foods Topeka pet food plant, General Motors Tarrytown assembly plant, and General Motors Saturn project. On an international scale are the sociotechnical studies by Einar Thorsrud in Norway and by Fred Emery and Eric Trist of the Tavistock Institute in London, the quality circles in Japan, and the Volvo and Saab-Scania plant redesign studies in Sweden. The general focus o f these experiments has been to facilitate joint employee-management consideration and resolution of complex issues. Included are redesign of job content, plant or office layout, and work pace; job retraining; ergo- nomic standards and environmental exposure limits; flexible work hours and benefits; and employee autonomy and protection against unilateral supervisory behavior and reprisals.

For some employees, unionization serves as a principal mechanism for protection against employer reprisals and to advance their job interests. In light of the major pressures referred to above, many union leaders and management have negotiated WP programs in an attempt to mutually address a broad array of workplace issues. However, to protect the integrity of traditional collective bargaining (CB) institutions, some experts maintain that WP and CB processes should be handled separately. The wisdom and feasibility of this position is examined in this study.

As noted above, the ultimate aim of these changes is to increase enterprise competitiveness by improving product quality, introducing needed product design, process- ing, and marketing innovations on a timely basis, and reducing costs (absenteeim, turnover, scrap/waste, nonproductive downtime). Critical to achieving this goal is the need to enhance and protect employee rights to continued employment opportunities as well as provide challenging and rewarding jobs.

P U R P O S E OF STUDY

The purpose of the exploratory field study reported in this paper is formal worker participation (WP) programs or processes in unionized workplaces. Local labor leaders-pres idents , stewards, committeepersons, business agents, and representatives- were surveyed.

The purposes of the survey were to obtain labor leaders' perceptions regarding (a) the extent to which conventional collective bargaining (CB) processes and WP overlap or are integrated in their respective workplaces, and (b) their levels of satisfaction with the current union-management relationship, their own regular job, their role as a union official, and the extent to which they feel the union is effectively serv- ing members by enhancing their rights and solving workplace problems.

C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF W O R K E R P A R T I C I P A T I O N P R O G R A M S

Generically WPs are somewhat similar in structure and objectives (Miljus, 1986). They are known under a variety of designations, e.g., quality of work life (QWL),

Bargaining and Worker Participation Processes 219

quality circles (QC), employee involvement (El), and labor-management participation teams (LMPT). Their usual objectives are to improve organizational competitiveness, enhance employee morale and sense of well-being, and diminish workplace tensions caused by job and income insecurity (Drexler & Lawler, 1977; Katz et al., 1983; Witte, 1980; Freund & Epstein, 1984; Gold, 1986). Based upon available information, Verma and McKersie (1987) conclude that some type of employee participation programs may be found in about 35% of all American enterprises.

WPS typically are structured to broaden the avenues of communication and solicit employee input (voice) on a variety of workplace issues. Included among the issues are productivity and quality improvement, cost reduction, job design and work- flow, work hours and scheduling, work team membership, and technological improvements. At times, financial incentives in the form of a Scanlon Plan, Improshare, Rucker, annual bonus, or profit sharing may be coupled with WP to spur and re- ward increased output. As evident in the automobile industry, the use of such incentives (especially profit sharing) may be .more prevalent when major contract concessions are negotiated.

There are also a number of other relevant workplace issues; e.g., safety, health and working conditions, job evaluation, training and apprenticeships, alcohol and drug abuse, and medical insurance cost containment. These potentially may be included in a WP program. Historically, however, they are more likely to come under the purview of specialized joint union-management committees. No doubt they can make a significant contribution to improving union-management relations. For the purposes of this study we treat such joint committees as an important but separate institution from WP.

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

In this study we assumed that union-management relationships may be classified on a continuum ranging from Traditional/Adversarial to Integrative/Coopera- tive. The former is characterized by formality in contract negotiations, administration, and grievance handling (Barbash, 1980; Kochan, 1980; Scobel, 1981). A distribu- tive, legalistic orientation prevails and the principal focus of attention frequently is upon the specific rights and prerogatives of the parties. The day-to-day relationship is arm's length in nature; management acts and the union reacts. To a large extent this is the countervailing model of labor relations advanced in the 1935 Wagner Act (Tomlins, 1985).

In contrast to the above, in Integrative/Cooperative relationships the parties are more likely to recognize and accept each other's legitimate needs. They are willing to expand or go beyond narrowly defined mandatory issues such as wages, hours, and working conditions. Experimentation with various cooperative and joint problem- solving efforts prevail. Included among these efforts are joint union-management committees, various financial gain-sharing programs, and WP programs, as noted above.

Jacoby (1982), Gold (1986), and Gershenfeld (1987) note that various cooperative efforts have reappeared periodically in the U.S., since the turn of the century. What may be somewhat different about current WPs is the attempt to involve a much larger proportion of workers (not just a few elected union leaders) in various problem-

220 Moore and Miljus

solving efforts. Moreover, WPs focus typically upon core organizational issues which directly impact the organization's ability to effectively compete. Sensitive data in- volving productivity, quality, and costs may be shared in WP. Historically, these data and related organizational processes have been viewed as the exclusive domain or prerogative of management.

Union Reservations Regarding WP

While WP efforts in unionized workplaces are typically introduced via the CB process, numerous unionists (Watts, 1984; International Association of Machinists, 1984) and some researchers (as described in Rosow & Zager, 1982; Jain, 1980; Cole, 1982; Siegel & Weinberg, 1982; Kochan et al., 1975) insist that WP and CB institutions should be handled or treated separately. WP structured mechanisms, issues that are covered, and implementation procedures are not to be intermingled with traditional CB issues and institutions such as the grievance procedure. The 1973 UAW-GM labor agreement, for example, clearly demarcated the role of WP and CB. Collec- tively negotiated contract language was to remain inviolate and the grievance procedure was to serve as the principal dispute-resolution institution.

Reasons for Resistance

Without a doubt suspicion and distrust have been prevalent within many unionized workplaces, even when the parties have agreed to experiment with WP. For their part, many managers have questioned the political motives of union leadership and their level of commitment to WP. They question whether union leaders will commu- nicate "hard economic realities" to the membership and press for needed change. Research has shown that many managers, especially at the supervisory level, resent the intrusion of WP efforts and have sought to undermine them (Kochan et al., 1984; Gold, 1986; Klein, 1984).

In turn, many union leaders have expressed reservations concerning management's credibility and motives with respect to WPs. On the one hand, they see management expounding on the need to create cooperative union-management efforts, while concurrently lobbying for antilabor legislation and employing union-busting consul- tants (Bognanno & Myhr, 1985; Kochan & Piore, 1985; Dyer et al., 1977).

Parker (1985) summarized additional reasons for union leadership resistance as the following: (a) the fear that employers may use WP as a means to gain more control over and effort from employees; (b) unions may lose touch with their membership and experience internal political turmoil; (c) workers and/or management may see WP as a substitute for, rather than as a supplement to, conventional CB institutions; (d) workers may question the need for a union if management is listen- ing to and willing to resolve problems through WP; and (e) union leadership may become too closely associated with or coopted by management through WP processes.

In light of these reservations, many union leaders have concluded that it would be politically suicidal to actively support WP efforts. This is the case especially when WP efforts are somehow associated with massive worker layoffs, significant modifi- cation of previous work rules, or dilution of hard-won compensation benefits. Hence,


the best defensive tactic is to either resist WP outright or keep it at a distance from accepted CB issues and institutions.

Is Cont inued Resistance Feasible?

Regardless of how well-intentioned the proponents of separation may be, is it practical to maintain this position over time? Admittedly many WPs have not func- tioned as intended and experienced an early demise (Goodman, 1980; Kochan et al., 1984). Yet numerous WPs have persisted over the years. In these WPs, the parties probably have acquired a greater level of comfort with WP and its problem-solving potential.

Rankin (1986) believes that the practice of separating the two processes is fun- damentally flawed. He states that "while the separation of QWL and contract negotiations and administration may have been politically and philosophically useful, it is best described as a convenient fiction" (p. 3). Schuster (1984) adds that the line of demarcation principle has probably been invoked partly to reduce the resistance of labor leaders towards becoming involved with such cooperative efforts.

Effectively integrating WP and CB processes may provide many benefits to the parties. Bluestone (1980) states that the introduction of WP may have "a salubrious effect upon the adversarial collective bargaining system" (p. 40). He notes that long- existing joint employee involvement efforts frequently have contributed to a more constructive CB relationship, a more satisfied work force, improved product quality, less labor turnover, and reductions in grievances and discipline cases.

Strauss (1980) points out that some WP processes are integrative mechanisms par excellence; they can have a constructive impact upon a number of traditional CB practices. Ferman and Klingel (1985) conclude that the introduction of cooperative endeavors represent a significant shift from traditional rules-centered organizations (or calculative rationality) to participative idea-centered organizations (or generative rationality).

Need for Relevant Research

While much has been written about the need to maintain a separation between WP and CB processes, it appears that very little, if any, research has systematically examined the feasibiIity of this position. From the perspective of the parties, has it contributed to or inhibited the development of sound union-management relations? How do the specific outcomes for employees, union leadership, and management compare in separated and integrated workplaces? And what are their respective experiences with the nature, structure, and functioning of WPs under the two conditions? Our research begins to focus on this issue and especially the reported level of satisfaction on the part of local labor leaders.

M E T H O D O L O G Y

This section presents the principal hypotheses and typology of union- management relationships investigated, the sample and method used to gather data, and the way in which satisfaction levels were measured.

222 M o o r e a n d M i l j u s

Hypotheses and Typology of Union-Management Relationships

The principal hypotheses examined in this study are based upon the previously described continuum of union-management relationships depicted in Fig. 1. It was hypothesized that reported levels of satisfaction by the local labor leaders would be lowest in those union-management relationships located on the left-hand side of the continuum, especially in Subgroups 1 and 2. Conversely, reported levels of satisfaction would be highest on the right-hand side, especially Subgroups 5 and 6, in which the parties utilize a number of cooperative mechanisms or processes (including WP) to address mutual workplace and personal concerns. It was also hypothesized, despite admonitions to the contrary, that reported levels of satisfaction would be highest in those union-management relationships in which WP and CB are integrated.

In order to identify and categorize the various union-management relationships on the above continuum, the survey respondents were instructed in the questionnaire to check (~') whether certain issues may be considered and specific problem-solving processes are utilized (yes, no) in their respective workplaces. A list of 44 issues and processes was derived from our personal contract negotiations experience, from teach- ing labor relations courses, and from the literature (especially Gold, 1986), and was confirmed in our interviews with labor leaders and other knowledgeable persons. In addition, the respondents were directed to check (yes, no) whether any of nine issues, which are often included under WP, are considered in their workplaces. Those who checked at least five or more issues "jointly" covered by WP and CB processes were classified as having integrated union-management relationships.

Based on their responses, the respondents were allocated to the following union- management relationships as shown on the continuum.

I. This subgroup includes local labor leaders in workplaces with the most traditional/adversarial relationship. The focus is primarily upon mandatory CB subjects or issues (wages, hours of work, seniority, job assignment, etc.), and only two or fewer procedures (e.g., grievances, a special joint commit- tee) are used to help resolve disputes. There are 91 respondents in this subgroup.

2. This subgroup includes narrow or traditional/adversarial relationships as described above. In addition, the parties have been experimenting with a formal WP process (e.g., QWL, QC, EI, LMPT) to address a limited number (two or less) of workplace issues, e.g., output, quality, work pace, job methods, production planning, subcontracting, new technology, hiring decisions, and performance evaluation. However, the parties are careful to separate WP deliberations from CB and grievance procedure processes. This subgroup consists of 39 respondents.

I 2 3 4 5 6 I I I I I I

T r a d i t i o n a l / A d v e r s a r i a l I n t e g r a t i v e / C o o p e r a t i v e

I < . . . . . . . . . . . . N a r r o w . . . . . . . . . . . . > I < . . . . . . . . . . . B r o a d . . . . . . . . . . . . . > I

F i g . 1. C o n t i n u u m o f u n i o n - m a n a g e m e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s .


3. Traditional/adversarial relationships as described above are included in this subgroup, but the parties are also experimenting with a formal WP process; they are willing to consider a broader range of issues (five or more), and whether or not these issues are considered under traditional CB or the WP process is not a major source of contention. Hence, we classified this relationship as "narrow," but with some integration of CB and WP processes. There are 98 respondents in this category.

4. Subgroups 4, 5, and 6 include union-management relationships in which at least three or more special issue joint committees are utilized in the workplace. The respondents were instructed to check (yes, no) the presence of such committees as safety and health, job evaluation, alcohol and drug abuse, blood donor, employee educational assistance, outplacement assistance, medical insurance cost containment, joint apprenticeship, new employee orientation, and employee recognition and rewards. Subgroup 4 includes 53 respondents. No WP processes are present in these union-management relationships.

5. This group includes 51 respondents with three or more special issue joint committees and a WP process. Similar to category 2 above, the range of issues covered in WP is somewhat limited and the parties emphasize a separation of CB and WP processes.

6. Lastly, Subgroup 6 represents the broadest union-management relationship in the study. It includes 358 respondents. They reported the presence of special issue committees (three or more), a WP process, and a wider range of workplace issues (five or more), and the issues are considered in both WP and CB processes.

In reality, a continuum of union-management relationships would be continu- ous rather than consist of a number of discrete groups as we have shown. We pur- posely used explicit conservative cutoffs (e.g., number of joint processes and issues covered) in order to differentiate the six subgroups. In doing so, 22 of our respondents are not included in any of the subgroups, either because of insufficient data to classify them or because they did not fit the criteria.

Satisfact ion Measurement

Generally the concept of satisfaction is viewed as reflecting an individual's complex set of beliefs, feelings, and expectations regarding the work role, workplace environment, and facets therein (Dunham & Smith, 1979; Smith et al., 1969). It is acknowledged that reported satisfaction levels may vary over time as personal and workplace factors change. In this study, following the lead of Hoppock (1935) and Locke (1983), a Likert-type scale was used to measure satisfaction with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.

In addition to an overall satisfaction variable, three other satisfaction dimen- sions were examined: four questions addressed the extent to which the union met employee needs (SATMEEN), five questions assessed the labor officials' perceptions of their own jobs as an employee (SATUNEMP), and six questions measured their


satisfaction with their role as a labor official (SATUNROL). The wording for each question was derived from the literature and the presurvey interviews with representatives from labor, management, and academia.

Along with noting their level of satisfaction, the respondents were instructed to rate their current union-management relationship. If a WP is present, they also rated the relationship before and immediately following the installation of WP. For these ratings, the descriptors were (1) Poor, numerous conflicts; (2) Fair, but there is often a lot of tension; (3) It varies: sometimes good/sometimes bad; (4) Good, both sides often cooperate; and (5) Excellent, very few problems.

Sample

The principal means of gathering data for this exploratory study was the use of a questionnaire. 3 It was prepared by the authors, pilot tested among local labor leaders in Columbus and Toledo, Ohio, and personally administered by the authors at several labor education workshops and 26 unionized workplaces. Access to these workplaces was arranged by interested local labor leaders. Limited personal instruc- tions and a cover letter were provided in order to solicit cooperation, assure con- fidentiality, briefly explain the study's purpose, and instruct the respondents to focus on their respective workplaces.

The workshops were sponsored by The Ohio State University Labor Education and Research Service during the period from July 1986 to February 1987. Those present were local union presidents, stewards, committeepersons, business agents, and the like. Their participation was voluntary.

Of the 955 questionnaires that were distributed, 712 were returned. Most of the respondents are employed in Ohio, but several work along the borders in Michi- gan and Pennsylvania. They represent 194 different local unions in 134 workplaces; hence, in a few cases 2 or 3 respondents are employed in the same workplace. They are affiliated with 35 national/international unions; e.g., automobile, rubber, steel, communications, electrical, utility, postal, and government service. They cover both private (N = 646 respondents) and public (N = 66) sector organizations.

Besides the questionnaire, 20 relatively unstructured face-to-face and telephone interviews were conducted during the problem formulation and questionnaire development stage. Six involved senior-level union officials (regional directors, international representatives) affiliated with the UAW, USW, and CWA unions. The other 14 were with knowledgeable persons (frequently cited in the literature) in government, management, and academia. The objectives were to explore the relevancy and in- terest in WP processes, share our questionnaire ideas, and solicit their suggestions. They strongly endorsed the study, offered some constructive suggestions, and acknowledged their support for any legitimate means to resolve workplace conflicts. Several union and management officials expressed the view that much distrust still prevails in workplaces where WP exists. It needs to be resolved before WP can become truly effective.

~A copy of the questionnaire is available from the authors upon request.


In addition to the above interviews, 19 face-to-face interviews were conducted with local labor officials (not included in the survey), usually at union meeting halls. The objectives were to review the questionnaire and solicit their opinions regarding WP and CB processes.

RESULTS

The study questionnaire revealed that the mean age of the local labor leaders (N = 712) was 41 years; 80% were males and 90% were white, with an average of 12.5 years of schooling. Their average years of organizational seniority was 17 years, and they have served as a local labor official for an average of 8 years. Seventy-seven percent (N = 546) reported the presence of a formal WP in the workplaces. On average, these have existed for about 4 years.

Reported Levels of Satisfaction

The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) F test results (Norusis, 1986) for comparison of various satisfaction means are shown in Table I. Significant differences in satisfaction means are evident among the six subgroups of local labor leaders, but not necessarily in the monotonic direction as hypothesized.

To supplement the ANOVA results, a Tukey or honestly significant difference (HSD) test also was performed to determine whether any pairs of means are significantly different from each other (Keppel, 1982). This test is especially appropriate for pairwise comparisons of unequal sample (subgroup) sizes.

On each of the four satisfaction constructs surveyed-overa l l satisfaction with the union-management relationship, union meeting employee needs, with own regular job as an employee, and role as an union o f f i c i a l - r epor t ed satisfaction levels are higher for Subgroup 6. In this group a WP is present and it is integrated within normal CB processes. In contrast, satisfaction levels are significantly lower when WP is present but handled as a stand-alone process (Subgroups 2 and 5).

In the absence of more extensive data based on direct personal interviews, ob- servation of group functioning, or organizational analysis, it is difficult to determine the precise impact of integrated WP and CB processes upon satisfaction levels. By definition, Subgroup 6 also includes workplaces in which a variety of joint committees are present to address such issues as safety and health, alcohol and drug abuse, and job evaluation. Hence, the reported high satisfaction levels may be attributable to the use of multiple problem-solving mechanisms (including WP) addressing a wide variety of mutual concerns over time. We are aware that the integration of WP, if it does take place, is more likely to occur only after the parties have gained positive experience with WP over a span of years. The high satisfaction level in this subgroup may also be associated with other determinants that we did not measure; e.g., favor- able job content, minimum job disruptions or layoffs, an open organizational cul- ture, strong leader support (on both sides).


Table I. ANOVA and Tukey Results: Reported Levels of Satisfaction

Level of Hypothesized Hypotheses satisfaction subgroups N Mean F contrasts a

Overall 7.465 b

Meeting employee needs

With regular job

Role as union official

One 91 3.408 Two 39 3.087 Three 98 3.409 (3-2) Four 53 3.343 Five 51 3.213 Six 358 3.539 (6-2; 6-5)

One 91 3.394 Two 39 3.058 Three 98 3.339 Four 53 3.420 Five 51 3.240 Six 358 3.570

7.244 b

4.326 b

(6-2; 6-5; 6-3)

One 90 3.173 Two 38 3.038 Three 97 3.271 Four 52 3.131 Five 50 3.372 Six 350 3.385 (6-1; 6-2)

7.528 b One 88 3.624 (1-2; l-5) Two 38 3.132 Three 97 3.562 (3-2; 3-5) Four 52 3.489 Five 50 3.109 Six 350 3.634 (6-2; 6-5)

~Denotes pairs of hypotheses significant at p < 0.05 via Tukey test. bp < 0.001.

Contrary to what was hypothesized, satisfaction levels as reported by the local labor leaders are also relatively higher in the subgroup classified as Tradit ional/ Adversarial (Subgroup 1). Here the focus is upon narrow mandatory issues; there is no WP process and very limited use is made of special joint committees. The reported level of satisfaction with their own regular job is low (3.173), but high for their role as a union official (3.624), overall satisfaction (3.408), and the union meeting employee needs (3.394).

These ratings on the part of Subgroup 1 labor leaders may be attributable to the greater clarity in their union leadership roles in the absence of multiple problem- solving processes. Furthermore, in such a Traditional/Adversarial environment, they may see a greater need to buffer employee members from management, and to take a more activist role in protecting or advancing member interests.

When a formal WP process is present, but kept separate from conventional CB processes, a noticeable drop-off in satisfaction levels occurs in three of the four satisfaction constructs examined. This is the case regardless of whether the presence of WP takes place in a Traditional/Adversarial situation (Subgroup 2) or in broader union-management relationships that have some experience with joint problem-solving committees (Subgroup 5).


Table H. Rating of Union-Management Relationships Relative to Worker Participation Processes Relationship ~ N Mean Deviation Error Range t PR > [ t[ b

Before 541 2.238 1.008 0.043 4 51.67 0.000 After 536 1.922 0.956 0.041 2 46.55 0.000 Currently 541 2.663 1.010 0.038 4 70.03 0.000 ~1, poor, numerous conflicts; 2, fair, but often a lot of tension; 3, varies, sometimes good, sometimes bad; 4, good, both sides often cooperate: 5, excellent, very few problems.

bThe probability of a greater absolute value of t under the hypothesis that the mean is zero.

This same difference in local labor leaders' attitudes is evident when they were asked to rate the union-management relationship before the introduction of WP, during its introduction, and currently (at the time of the survey). They were instructed to rate the relationship f rom (1) Poor , numerous conflicts to (5) Excellent, very few problems. The results are shown in Table II.

Respondents reported a decline in the union-management relationship immediately following the establishment of WP. This decrease is meaningful and critical to a possible WP and CB integration, as we will discuss later. However, and more importantly, at the t ime of the survey respondents indicated that the current relationship had improved.

DISCUSSION

As noted, numerous researchers and practitioners strongly advocate that formal WP and CB processes should be maintained as separate mechanisms at the work- piace. Despite this admonit ion, it appears that in fact the demarcation between the two processes is frequently blurred. Based upon the information provided by the open- ended interviews (N = 39) in this study and the survey of local labor leaders (N = 546 with WP programs and N = 166 without), a high degree of integration is in fact occurring in many workplaces. And, when effectively integrated, the greater is the reported satisfaction of the local labor leaders with (1) the overall union management relationship, (2) their role as worker representatives, and (3) their view of the unions as effectively meeting members ' needs and expectations.

The 19 unstructured interviews with local labor officials generally supported the questionnaire results. In general, their position is that it is extremely difficult, in reality, to separate CB and WP processes. Grievances that have festered over the years often are addressed in WP meetings. Conversely, issues such as work pace, job content, and cross-utilization of workers may frequently flow from WP-instituted changes. These become formal grievances if not effectively resolved through WP.

Our interpretation for the lower satisfaction levels in Subgroups 2 and 5 (see Table II) is that the local labor leader's role has been uncomfor tably altered. That is, a new or different problem-solving mechanism has been introduced in the workplace. Consequently, they may feel undermined or circumvented as union members interact directly with management regarding workplace issues and as additional employee spokespersons are selected to serve on WP committees. In the eyes of these local labor leaders, WP may be encroaching upon previously accepted CB practices. There may be some confusion regarding the appropriate problem-solving mechan-


ism to use (grievance procedures or WP) and the issues that may be addressed under each. Thus, their low or unfavorable responses toward WP (when separated) may be similar to the resistance shown by many first-line supervisors toward WP, as reported in the literature.

Based upon the literature and some of our informal interviews, certain conditions may be necessary to support the effective integration of the two processes. The integrity of traditional appeal mechanisms (grievance procedure and arbitration) needs to be preserved to help resolve disagreements. In addition, negotiated contract terms should not be altered by WP; employee participation is voluntary; WP issues that are considered ought to reflect the interests of workers as well as the organization; the program is jointly managed and controlled by co-equals, and is built on a foundation of trust.

As Cutcher-Gershenfeld, Kochan, and Verma (1987) have noted, stand-alone WP processes have low probability of being sustained over time in organizations. If institutionalized within the CB process, their likelihood of contributing specific employee and organizational benefits and improvements in the labor-management relationship is greater.

The definitive characteristic of WP institutionalization is its persistence over time without some form of direct and/or indirect immediate external control (Good- man, 1979). Selznick (1961) views institutionalization as key to removing participation processes from undue personality whims and differences. Respondents in Subgroup 6 on the union-management continuum mentioned earlier may be considered as being in organizations that have to some degree institutionalized WP. Such institutionalization is based on the premise that effective cooperative efforts can function within the scope of traditional bargaining processes, as opposed to establishing separate and parallel organizational structures (Levitan & Werneke, 1984).

In addition, institutionalization may afford the parties greater opportunity to examine and resolve a broader range of workplace issues, formalize the commitment to beneficial change, legitimate the role of the union in the relationship, and con- structively modify traditional roles and adversarial processes (Micallef & Moore, 1986). In an increasingly dynamic environment, institutionalized WP can play a vital role in transforming CB so as to more effectively cope with contemporary challenges and meet the needs of the parties.

Obviously caution is necessary in generalizing from the survey results. The sample is not random. Those who are selected to participate in university-sponsored workshops, for example, may represent unions that have more experience and awareness of WP processes. However, in the absence of more definitive data, there is no clear way to be totally certain of this assumption. Another weakness of the survey is that statements rated on the 1-5 satisfaction scale were positively worded (i.e., agreement = satisfaction).

CONCLUSIONS

Employees' workplace rights that extend from the so-called "psychological contract" may be addressed through a number of means by the employer. The nature and structure of the mechanisms to address employee concerns and provide employees


with a voice in workplace decision making no doubt vary across enterprises. In many unionized environments, formal worker participation (WP) processes have been designed and mutually agreed upon during the negotiation phase of collective bargaining (CB). Whether or not to separate WP and CB processes is a function of numerous critical factors, including the range and complexity of issues to be addressed under WP, the desires of the union members, and prior experiences and level of trust among the parties.

Research has shown an early demise for many formal WP programs (Good- man, 1980; Schuster, 1983; Gold, 1986; Rankin, 1986). Lack of program leadership, supervisory resistance, financial support, training for participants, adequate release time, major layoffs, and misunderstandings regarding program objectives are among the leading contributors to failure.

Conversely, many WP programs appear to be succeeding, especially when the necessary support, skills, and commitment are present. Additional research is needed, however, to further understand the workings of successful WP programs, e.g., the roles played by key union and management officials, how authority and prerogative issues are handled, and how potential entropy in WP is forestalled and on-going in- terest is maintained. Longitudinal case studies in which behavioral, performance, and archival data are systematical analyzed would appear to be most beneficial.

We conclude that integrating WP and CB processes should not be dismissed summarily as an unworkable proposition. Serious consideration needs to be given to further institutionalizing WP w i t h i n the scope and framework of CB institutions with their solid foundation of worker voice in decisions that affect their security and wellbeing. While concurring with this position, Bluestone (1984) cautions that "institutionalizing the (WP) process is a serious issue that requires as much or more attention than initiating the process" (p. 2).

R E F E R E N C E S

Bamber, G. J., & Lansbury (Eds.) (1987). International and Comparative Industrial Relations. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Barbash, J. (1980). The union as an evolving organization. In H. A. Juris and M. Roomkin (Eds.), The Shrinking Perimeter (pp. 73-77). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.

Bluestone, I. (1980). How quality-of-work projects work for United Auto Workers. Monthly Labor Review, 103, 39-41.

Bluestone, I. (1984). Quality of work life fulfill union objectives. In U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor-Management Relations and Cooperation Programs, Labor-Management Cooperation Per- speetivesfrom the Labor Movement (pp. 1-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Bognanno, M. F., & Myhr, M. E. (Eds.) (1985). The Road to Improved Cooperation Between Labor and Management. A Report to the United States Secretary o f Labor on the North Central Region- al Symposium on Labor-Management Cooperation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Cole, R. (1982). Some principles concerning union involvement in quality circles and other employee involvement programs. In A. Nickelhoff (Ed.), Extending Workplace Democracy: An Overview o f Participatory Decision-Making Plans for Unionists (pp. 38-43). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations.

Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. E., Kochan, T. A., & Verma, A. (1987). Recent Developments in Employee In- volvement Activities: A Matter of Erosion or Transformation. Paper presented at the Pacific Labor Policy Conference, Vancouver. Cited in Gershenfeld, W. J. (1987). Employee participation in firm decisions. In M. M. Kleiner et al. (Eds.), Human Resources and the Performance o f the Firm. Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association.

Davis, L. E., & Taylor, J. C. (Eds.) (1979). Design o f Jobs. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing Co.


Drexler, J. A., & Lawler, E. E. (1977). A union-management project to improve the quality of work life. Journal of Behavioral Science, 13, 378-387.

Dunham, R. B., & Smith, F. J. (1979). Organizational Surveys. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Dyer, L., Lipsky, D., & Kochan, T. (1977). Union attitudes towards management cooperation. Industrial Relations, 16, 163-172.

Ferman, L. A., & Klingel, S. (1985). On the shop floor: The implications of unions and employers seeking to foster employee involvement. Labor Law Journal, 36, 631-636.

Freund, W. C., & Epstein, E. (1984). People and Productivity. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin. Gold, C. (1986). Labor-Management Committees: Confrontation, Cooptation, or Cooperation? Key Is-

sues No. 29, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Gershenfeld, W. J. (1987). Employee participation in firm decisions. In M. M. Kleiner et al. (Eds.), Human

Resources and the Performance of the Firm. Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association. Goodman, P. S. (1979). Assessing Organizational Change. The Rushton Quality of Work Experiment.

New York: John Wiley & Sons. Goodman, P. S. (1980). Realities of improving the quality of work life: Quality of work life projects in

the 1980s. Labor Law Journal, 31, 487-494. Hoppock, R. (1935). Job Satisfaction. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers. International Association of Machinists (1984). Quality of work life programs: IAM research report. In

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor-Management Relations and Cooperative Programs, Labor-Management Cooperation: Perspectives from the Labor Movement, 16-22. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Jacoby, S. M. (1982). Union-management cooperation: An historical perspective. In E. G. Flamholtz fed.). Human Resource Productivity in the 1980s, 173-215. UCLA: Institute of Industrial Relations.

Jain, H. (1980). Worker Participation: Success and Problems, New York: Praeger Publishers. Katz, H. C., Kochan, T. A., & Gobeille, K. R. (1983). Industrial relations performance, economic per-

formance, and QWL programs: An interplant analysis. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 37, 3-16.

Keppel, G. (1982). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice-Hall. Klein, J. A. (1984). Why supervisors resist employee involvement. Harvard Business Review, 62, 87-95. Kochan, T. A. (1980). Collective Bargaining and Industrial Relations: From Theory to Policy and Prac-

tice. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin. Kochan, T. A., & Dyer, L. (1976). A model of organizational change in the context of union-management

relations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 12, 59-78. Kochan, T. A., Katz, H. C., & Mower, N. R. (1984). Worker Participation and American Unions: Threat

or Opportunity? Kalamazoo, MI: The W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Kochan, T. A., Lipsky, D., & Dyer, L. (1975). Collective bargaining and the quality of work: The views

of local union activists. In J. L. Stern & B. D. Dennis fEds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Meeting. Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association.

Kochan, T. A., & Piore, M. J. (1985). U.S. industrial relations in transition. In T. A. Kochan fEd.), Challenges and Choices Facing American Labor. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Levitan, S. A., & Werneke, D. (1984). Worker participation and productivity change. Monthly Labor Review, 107, 28-33.

Lewin, D. (1981). Collective bargaining and the quality of work life. OrganizationalDynamics, 10(2), 37-53. Locke, E. A. (1983). The nature and causes of job satisfaction, tn M. Dunnette fed.), Handbook of In-

dustrial and Organizational Psychology, 1297-1349. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Micallef, C. N., & Moore, W. M. (1986). Collective Bargaining and Worker Participation: Analyzing

the Theory of Separation of the Processes. (Ohio State Working Paper Series WPS 86-104), Colum- bus, OH: The Ohio State University.

Miljus, R. C. (1986). Key ingredients in cooperative initiatives. Personnel, 63, 69-73. Nadler, D. A., Hanlon, M., & Lawler, E. E. (1986). Factors influencing the success of labor-management

quality of work life projects. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 1, 53-67. Norusis, M. J. (1986). The SPSS Guide to Data Analysis. Chicago, IL: SPSS. Parker, M. (1985). Inside the Circle. Boston, MA: South End Press. Rankin, T. (1986). Integrating QWL and collective bargaining. QWL Focus, 4, 3-6. Rosow, J. M. (Ed.), (1986). Joint Labor-Management Programs in America. New York: Pergamon Press. Rosow, J. M., & Zager, R. (1982). Productivity Through Worklnnovations. New York: Pergamon Press. Schuster, M. (1983). Problems and opportunities in implementing cooperative union-management pro-

grams. In B. D. Dennis fEd.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth AnnualMeeting, 189-197. Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association.

Schuster, M. (1984). Union-Management Cooperation. Structure-Process-Impact. Kalamazoo, MI: The W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.


Scobel, D. N. (1981). Creative Worklife. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company. Selznick, P. (1961). Foundations of the theory of organization. In A. Etzioni (Ed.), Complex Organiza-

tions: A Sociological Reader, 18-32. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Siegel, I. H., & Weinberg, E. (1982). Labor-Management Cooperation: The American Experience. Kalama-

zoo, MI: The W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The Measurement o f Satisfaction in Work andRetire-

ment: A Strategy for the Study of Attitudes. Chicago, IL: Rand McNaUy and Company. Strauss, G. (1980). Quality of worklife and participation as bargaining issues. In H. A. Juris & M. Roomkin

(Eds.), The Shrinking Perimeter, 121-149. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company. Tomlins, C. L. (1985). The New Deal, collective bargaining, and the triumph of industrial pluralism. In-

dustrial and Labor Relations Review, 39, 19-34. Verma, A., & McKersie, R. B. (1987). Employee involvement: The implications of noninvolvement. In-

dustrial and Labor Relations Review, 40, 556-568. Watts, G. E. (1984). QWL and the union: An opportunity or a threat? In U.S. Department of Labor,

Bureau of Labor-Management Relations and Cooperative Programs (1984). Labor-Management Cooperation: Perspectives from the Labor Movement, 11 - 15. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Weinberg, E. (1983). Highlights o f the Literature: Labor-Management Cooperation for Productivity. New York: Pergamon Press.

Witte, J. F. (1980). Democracy, Authority, and Alienation in Work. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Documents

Integration of collective bargaining and formal worker participation processes: Boon or barrier to worker rights?