Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | R | Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations

What Workers Say: Employee Voice in the Anglo-American Workplace.

Article Excerpt
What Workers Say: Employee Voice in the Anglo-American Workplace, edited by Richard B. Freeman, Peter Boxall and Peter Haynes, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2007, 244 pp., ISBN 978-0-8014-7281-7.

When this book arrived I eagerly read a few of the key chapters. Many of the contributors are colleagues and friends that I know and respect so I welcomed an opportunity to praise their work. But this book, while reporting useful survey results on workers attitudes and conditions with regard to voice at work, has some serious problems of conception and execution.

The inspiration for What Workers Say is the Workers Representation and Participation Survey (WRPS) originally carried out by Richard Freeman and Joel Rogers and reported in What Workers Want (1999, updated in 2006). That survey was remarkable for its finding that nearly all American workers wanted some form of collective representation in the establishment of their conditions of work. Some 32% of nonunion workers wanted a union. Most of the rest wanted "an organization with more limited independence from management." Only 7% wanted "no organization."

Unfortunately, in my opinion, What Workers Say does not effectively move forward the agenda of revealing the general failure of society to provide working people with collective representation of the sort that they want and to which international human rights standards say they are entitled. Instead, although there is some discussion of (so-called) "nonunion forms of representation," What Workers Say focuses primarily on traditional union density and the unfulfilled demand for traditional union representation. Alternative voice mechanisms are discussed to an extent but, for the most part, are conceived of as employer-instituted competition for independent unions rather than as alternatives that employees might choose instead of conventional adversarial unionism. There is no clarity of awareness of the important distinction between independent local unionism and employer-dominated employee representation schemes. Into the nonunion conceptual basket goes everything from management briefing schemes to joint consultative committees to whatever the...

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!