Non-union employee representation in North America: diversity, controversy and uncertain future1

Abstract

The diverse conceptual perspectives and practical experiences with non-union employee representation (NER) in the USA and Canada are reviewed. We first propose a six-dimensional descriptive schema to categorise observed NER practices. Dimensions of diversity include (i) form; (ii) function; (iii) subjects; (iv) representational modes; (v) extent of power; (vi) degree of permanence. We then turn to the NER controversy, which is a tangled skein consisting of many different threads of values and prescriptions. To unbundle the controversy, we develop four 'faces' of NER-(i) evolutionary voice; (ii) unity of interest; (iii) union avoidance; and (iv) complementary voice-so that future research can more consciously test the validity of competing perspectives with hard data. Generalising about NER is problematic because of these many dimensions of diversity, and because NER is viewed through different ideological and conceptual lenses. We conclude that NER's future trajectory is uncertain due to conflicting trends but in the short run is most likely to remain a modest-sized phenomenon.

Non-union employee representation, union avoidance and the managerial agenda

“…Yet as Taras and Kaufman (2006) have argued, for such arrangements to endure, even if only for the short-run, they need to be embedded within a higher set of functionalities than simply an ethic of 'keeping the union out'. In light of these debates, the article asked, how effective are NERs in undermining employee support for trade union recognition in the context of a union organizing campaign and can an NER, founded in such a context, 'transform' into a 'positivesum' body?…”

“…This line has argued that while union-avoidance may trigger such bodies, employers may come to later imbue them with other functionalities which, potentially at least, may serve positive functions for workers (Taras and Kaufman, 2006;Dundon and Gollan, 2007;Butler, 2009a;2009b). In addition, managerial strategies towards NERs can often be about delivering an effective employee voice that affords employees the opportunity to develop their knowledge and skills and enabling them to contribute to decisions normally reserved for management (Gollan, 2006;Haynes et al, 2005).…”

“…A component of this argument is an awareness that NERs, imbued with the singular logic of combating union organizing drives, will prove potentially self-defeating when not aligned to wider HR policies and practices (Pun et al 2001;Taras and Kaufman, 2006). Indeed this resonates with the advice of 'management consultants' specialising in union avoidance assistance to firm, wherein, they will warn clients to avoid short-termist cosmetic exercises in favour of more robust long-term attempts at creating 7 workplace harmony so as to avoid unions in the future (c.f.…”

Employee Voice Scale: Is There a Need of Reconsideration of Dimensions?

“…For the decline of unionization in organizations, two major reasons are widely documented in literature [41,45,46]. First reason is internal problem faced by members of union.…”

Institutions, unionization and voice: The relative impact of context and actors on firm level practice

“…In non-union and weak union environments informal interchanges may assume a particular importance. However, what sets formal non-union voice mechanisms apart is that they only involve employees within the enterprise, with little or no external involvement or resources from unions, whilst they operate on company resources (Gollan, 2009: 213;Taras and Kaufman, 2006). Whilst recognizing the importance of informal interactions, this article concentrates on involvement and participation through formalised processes and procedures.…”