Trade Unions and the Economy: 1870–2000 by Derek H. Aldcroft Michael J. Oliver

Author:Derek H. Aldcroft, Michael J. Oliver [Derek H. Aldcroft, Michael J. Oliver]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: History, General
ISBN: 9781351878364
Google: -zArDwAAQBAJ
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Published: 2017-07-05T04:57:31+00:00

It is difficult to assess the full range and impact of restrictive practices since they varied so widely among industries both in type and intensity. They were more prevalent in manufacturing industry, construction and public utilities than in private-sector services, and they tended to be more common in older industries and in large plants (Willman 1986, 247). The general consensus seems to be that they did have a negative impact on Britain’s productivity performance (see Caves 1980; Ulman 1968; Ball and Skeoch 1981). American commentators, especially the surveys under the auspices of the Brookings Institution, were highly critical of the damaging influence of Britain’s industrial relations and restrictive work practices, as were some of the official reports in this country, for example on the car industry (Ulman 1968; Caves 1980; Central Policy Review Staff 1975). Similarly, Pratten (1976b), in his study of productivity differentials among international plants, found that behavioural factors as opposed to economic forces had a significant influence on productivity differentials between Britain and other countries. Behavioural factors were defined as including strikes, restrictive practices, differences in manning and efficiency. He estimated that in the early 1970s labour relations accounted for some 50 per cent of the shortfall in manufacturing productivity relative to that of Germany, 30 per cent in the case of France and 25 per cent or less relative to the United States and Canada. Over one-fifth of the companies examined experienced restrictive practices in the UK which they did not encounter in America (Pratten 1976b, 61–2, 83–105). The studies were based on the questionnaire method and the estimates must be regarded as very approximate since, as the author recognised, the causes of productivity differentials are both numerous and complex such that there ‘can be no single solution to matching the performance of manufacturing industry in other countries’ (Pratten 1976a, 1976b; for a critique see Nichols 1986).

While such studies seem to indicate that labour problems were more than a minor factor in contributing to Britain’s poor economic performance, there have been some critical rejoinders to the methods of earlier studies and their findings (Nichols 1986, 47–50; Coates 1994, 112–14). Some of the later work is less emphatic about the deficiencies of unions and several studies have stressed their positive role (Nolan and Marginson 1990; Metcalf 1989, 1990, 1993; Wadhwani 1990). Labour problems were said to be only one among many causes of international productivity differences (Smith, Hitchens and Davies 1982). Davies and Caves (1987, 83, 95), in their study of Britain’s productivity gap, using data for the period 1967–8 to 1977, were unclear as to the precise impact of labour relations on economic performance. However, they did suggest that union intensity and antagonistic labour relations had a perverse effect on productivity levels and productivity growth, while at the same time noting that efficiency tended to increase with managerial intensity, a conclusion in line with Batstone’s view that poor labour relations and low productivity may be more a consequence of managerial failure (Batstone 1986, 41).

This is not quite the end of the story, wearisome though it may now seem to the reader.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.