Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction:
What future for industrial relations?
Susan HAYTER*
Abstract.In her introductory paper, the coordinator of this Special Issue puts
the selection of subsequent contributions into context. Traditional industrial relations institutions, born of labour laws premise of unbalanced power relations
between the worker and the employer, are being undermined by unprecedented
global changes in patterns of work and forms of employment. This trend, compounded by the emergence of alternative forms of worker representation, poses a
major challenge not only to conventional tradeunionism but also to policy and to
industrial relations scholarship. This Special Issue is intended as a contribution to
the ensuing, ongoing debate about the direction of future change.
processes on wages (and their distribution), working time arrangements, turnover and other labour outcomes, as well as on the performance of enterprises
and the economy.1 While at times criticized for its weak theoretical underpinnings (Kaufman, 2004), contemporary industrial relations scholarship continues to make theoretical contributions to this and related fields on new
social movements (Kelly, 1998), varieties of capitalism (Hall and Soskice, 2001)
and institutional change (Thelen, 2009).
Industrial relations is premised on the understanding that enterprises
and workers have different and even conflicting goals and interests. Labour
disputes, strikes, public protests and other forms of collective action are the
clearest manifestations of this conflict, but high labour turnover and absenteeism, low morale and general inefficiency can be symptomatic too. Industrial relations provides an analytical framework with which to make sense of
this domain of contestation. As a policy-oriented field of study it also engages
scholarship with debates in workplaces, in communities and at the policy
level on effective strategies for improving the conditions of working people.
Significant changes have occurred in the world of work, calling into question the effectiveness of the industrial relations toolkit of institutional fixes.
Inequality and insecurity are the most significant labour problems of our
era. According to the ILOs (2015) estimates, 201 million workers were unemployed in 2014. Rapid advances in technology have changed the way in
which work is organized. Working arrangements are more diverse than in the
past. Zero-hour contracts, one of the newer contractual forms in which the
employer decides at will on the number of hours to be worked, place workers
in positions of extreme insecurity with no minimum pay guarantees.2 Trade
unions a critical subject for industrial relations have seen their membership and influence wane in many parts of the world. Shifts towards shareholder- or market-oriented corporate governance and the emergence of global
production networks have further weakened the bargaining power of labour.
Meanwhile, in many developing countries, most work continues to be carried
out in the informal economy, outside of the purview of formal industrial relations institutions.
The challenge is to make sense of this changing landscape and what it
means for the actors and institutions aspiring to deliver decent wages and
working conditions. Firmly rooted in a tradition of critical social science and
with its rich multidisciplinary approach, industrial relations is at a distinct advantage when it comes to studying these changes and their implications for
actors, institutions and outcomes (Clarke et al., 2011). It is in this context that
we ask: What future for industrial relations? Are its institutions outmoded?
Merely a relic of a golden age to be written up in a history project? Have new
1
For an example of the richness and broad reach of current industrial relations scholarship,
see Blyton et al. (2008).
2
For examples, see http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/04/zero-hourscontracts-teaching-job-insecurity [accessed 19 February 2015].
Together, these papers are intended to serve as a reflection of developments in work and employment relations, providing insights that are at times
uncomfortable but nevertheless illuminate some of the possibilities for institutional renewal.
References
Blyton, Paul; Bacon, Nicolas; Fiorito, Jack; Heery, Edmund (eds). 2008. The SAGE
Handbook of Industrial Relations. London, Sage.
Clarke, Linda; Donnelly, Eddy; Hyman, Richard; Kelly, John; McKay, Sonia; Moore, Sian.
2011. Whats the point of industrial relations?, in The International Journal of
Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 239253.
Commons, John R. (ed.). 1905. Trade unionism and labor problems. Boston, MA, Ginn
and Company.
Hall, Peter A.; Soskice, David (eds). 2001. Varieties of capitalism: The institutional
foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
ILO. 2015. World Employment and Social Outlook Trends 2015. Geneva.
Kaufman, Bruce E. 2004. The global evolution of industrial relations: Events, ideas and the
IIRA. Geneva, ILO.
. 2003. John R. Commons and the Wisconsin School on industrial relations strategy
and policy, in Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 57, No. 1 (Oct.), pp. 330.
Kelly, John. 1998. Rethinking industrial relations: Mobilization, collectivism and long waves.
London, Routledge.
Thelen, Kathleen. 2009. Institutional change in advanced political economies, in British
Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 471498.
Webb, Sydney; Webb, Beatrice. 1897. Industrial democracy. London, Longmans, Green and
Co.