Human Resource Management in the 21st Century

Dr Kevin Morrell Says:

I think that the work of Alan Fox should be remembered in response to this important question. Karen Legge paraphrases some of this…

“…managers holding a ‘unitary’ frame of reference emphasise that management and employees hold common interests (for example, the survival and growth of the organization) and that, given this unity, conflict is aberrant (dysfunctional, transitory and caused by ‘troublemakers’). Given the emphasis on unity and the backgrounding of conflict, power is not an issue. Instead, ideas about authority and leadership underwrite the unilateral exercise of a managerial prerogative directed at guiding the organization towards the achievement of common goals.”

Legge K. (1995: 33) HRM: Rhetorics and Realities, Macmillan, London.

So, my interpretation of that is that there will always be a divide between the owners of capital, and labour. Hence we need Unions, whatever century we reside in…

November 11th, 2007 at 5:13 pm

Jean Says:

Robert:
I see labor unions reinventing themselves and representing new levels of employees who are seeking representation. Entry level managers, faculty, and allied health care professionals are all looking to create a better working environment and seeking a collective voice to be heard by their administration.
Organizations have not been “good listeners” and proactive about the people management and as a result employees at this level feel they have no voice.
It will be interesting to see the evolution.

November 13th, 2007 at 10:51 am

Jon Meyers Says:

I agree with Jean. There are many organizations who haven’t developed a culture of open communication and listening. Interestingly enough, I am an HRM for ten Wal-Mart stores in San Diego, traditionally a large union community. I see more and more dissatisfaction with the return members are getting from their unions, many of whom seek employment with our company because of our open culture. The decline in membership tells me that the unions just aren’t focusing on the issues they need to impact. Unlike the labor movement of the early 20th century, government regulatory agencies seem to have taken over the role the union used to play in businesses. I believe they must look at the industries that need them and invest their efforts in areas where they can benefit a business, not hurt it.

November 16th, 2007 at 10:23 pm

jeff chafe Says:

Unions today should take a more active role in assisting management with accountability. Workshops on collaboration for solutions to potential problems and issues can be beneficial to all. Unions need to seek credibility and improved performance throughout their members. They should preach quality within and not just protection for the mass.
In business there are 3 things you give to; give to your customer, give to your employee, and give to your stockholder. This approach will guide American business to a better life for all. Unions need to embrace this philosophy and work for the betterment of all parties. After all, if you think about it, a person can be a customer of a product which he is an employee of the manufacture while also being a stockholder of the enterprise.
Would it not make sense to assist management in the development of their employees rather than take the adversarial approach? Maybe Unions should offer members their own training programs for the positions they represent.

Just one mans opinion.
Jeff Chafe

November 19th, 2007 at 7:12 am

James N. Mullins Says:

Labor Relations has been my speciality for many years (since 1977 to be exact)even though, as HR Manager at two Chrysler LLC plants, I am responsible for much more. Since beginning my PhD journey at Capella this particular discussion has been central to my thinking and a driving point for my dissertation topic, although the question has not yet been satisfactorily developed.

That is a long preamble to just a brief thought on this vital issue (at least in my mind0;the development of labor unions began with apprenticeable skilled trades in Europe, but only gained wide recognition during the age of manufacturing.

That age seems to have passed, at least in the U.S. and manufacturing has moved around the world to locations where capital can still control labor. Today we have a service economy where work is more individual and increasingly virtual. This does not lend itself well to the organization of employees into strong (or even weak) labor unions.

Accordingly, it is my belief that because of the nature of work itself, and because of globalization, labor unions will have to change their very nature to continue to exist (i.e. social responsibility), or they must move to where manufacturing is and still requires their oversight. The U.S. labor movement today is much less about meeting the needs of its constiuency and more about fulfilling its own political agenda.

Thanks,
Jim

November 20th, 2007 at 4:07 am

Rebecca Says:

I currently work in a unionized organization in Labor Relations. I see a much needed change in the Union’s role. The mind set is still that of old school where we are figuratively ‘tying employees to lines and paying them pennies’. With the economy expanding to such a global level progressive changes need to occur within the organizaiton to remain competitive. The Union in many cases limits or eliminates the ability to do this. I think that Unions will be around for a long time, but they need to change their thought process and willingness to modify old practices in an effort to maintain jobs and work.

November 20th, 2007 at 10:03 am

Robert Says:

Thank you for your posts Dr. Morrell and Dr. Gordon. I think you both make very good points. I think Jean is correct that labor unions will reinvent themselves. I also believe that unions must change to maintain relevance but their inherent relevance will never disappear.

November 22nd, 2007 at 11:31 pm

Isaac Dixon Says:

Labor unions will continue to exist since there are sectors of the global and national economy where worker protection remains an elusive goal. Some unions (SEIU for example) have also discovered that issues such as immigration, healthcare access and the growing wage disparity between those they represent and executives have new meaning to an entire generation of new employees.

The greatest threat to union survival however may be their own inability to retain trust after organization. Many union stewards are poorly trained and several union officials have been indicted on corrpution charges. In a recent case in Oregon, SEIU was sued for overtime pay by one of its own local officials.

November 27th, 2007 at 9:16 pm

Andrea Says:

If a company allows an employee to have a voice that is heard and listened to, then why the need to pay a 3rd party to be their voice? Whilst, I concur in some situations, a Union can be a positive, as a whole, I fail to see where the Union is the necessity it once was. I feel that if employees seek a 3rd party to be their voice, then we as employers are failing.

November 29th, 2007 at 6:14 am

Robert Says:

I want to thank Jon, Jeff, Rebecca, Issac, Andrea and Jim Mullins for contributing to this blog. For some reason, these posts were not showing up when I logged in. Anyway, I had the pleasure of meeting Jim Mullins at a Capella colloquium (Chicago?) a while back and I expect that his scholarship will be a significant contribution to this ongoing debate.

December 1st, 2007 at 10:55 am

Gale Archibald Says:

I agree with Jim when he says that “Today we have a service economy where work is more individual and increasingly virtual” These are but two of the many challenges facing labor and trade unions in the 21st century.

In relation to the Caribbean context (where I reside) the increase in knowledge workers challenges the growth or importance of trade unions. Traditionally, labor unions represented “laborers” on sugar plantations, stevedores at the ports.

Today, these types of occupations are giving way to bankers, lawyers, accountants, and other like occupations. Labor relations representation has evolved to staff associations. For this reason and also because these knowledge workers are of the view that the labor union institution does not have the requisite competence to represent them.

Additionally, new entrants to the labor market do not question the role of unions and believe they can handle their “labor” issues on their own.

While the concept of social partnership still remains germane to the existence of unions, I believe, that the answer for the Caribbean context lies in the establishment of national and regional HRM association. This is even more relevant to the current context of economic integration and free movement of labor.

Organizations in the Caribbean are guilty of personnel administration as opposed to Human resource management…although some have departments and job titles of that name. However, those who are charged with managing the organization’s most important assets - the employees, need a boost, need support and guidance. Seldom are they qualified as HR Professionals. Pursuing a degree in HR is not as sexy as law, IT, medicine, engineering.

I am convinced that labor unions and HR associations can exist as complementary social partners. As Dr Kevin Morrell rightly says “we need Unions, whatever century we reside in…”… The implication is for more hybrid HR professionals - Legal HR, IT HR, Labor HR and so on…

Gale

December 12th, 2007 at 1:14 pm

Gale Archibald Says:

Typo….

Fourth paragraph should read “Additionally, new entrants to the labor market question the role of unions and believe they can handle their “labor” issues on their own.

December 12th, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Jean Says:

Do you see a shift in politics impacting union activities?

December 16th, 2007 at 6:57 pm

Robert Says:

I think Gale makes a great point about “hybrid HR professionals-Legal HR, IT HR, Labor HR”. This not only helps to serve specialized needs but to increase the relevance of the HR professional to the overall business vision.

December 18th, 2007 at 9:18 am

Espi Criscuolo Says:

In some ways, the traditional union has gone the way of the Buick. That is, the Buick was the car that my father drove, but it is not relevant to me today. For many years I worked for a, now defunct, mass discount retailer. All of the floor associates were members of the food and commercial workers union. During my tenure, I presided over thousands of union grievances. The majority of the grievances originated from the pool of employees who were earning little more than minimum wage, originated from the “troubled” employees who violated a policy, i.e. stealing, lateness and other infractions. The less than one percent of these employees had an actual grievance that was worthy of anyone’s time and attention.

In order to maintain the relevance for unions within the mindset of the younger generations, the unions must be able to articulate the idea of “what is in it for me”. Until the message is clear, today’s workers will not believe that a third party can do more for them than they can do for themselves.

Espi

December 18th, 2007 at 9:36 am

Susan M Grady Says:

Are there many more facets to this discussion? Will unionisation grow in some industries, such as healthcare as it declines in others? As a greater devision between the upper and lower paid workers continues to build, along with a decrease of the offer of some type of employer paid/sponsered health care coverage, wage earners are going to seek remedies. The cost of food, gas, etc. affecting low income workers is a constant topic for discussion at church gatherings, convenience stores, PTG meetings and other community gatherings. The number of food banks continue to grow while the amount of food available for distribution continues to decline. The same is true for ‘Clinics for the Working Poor’. Will this continuing change in the economy provide an entrance for unions? One might argue that individuals at the lower end of the economic scale will not be able to afford to pay union dues but unions, in turn, in order to secure membership might accept lower dues.

Walmart has made some recent changes to its healthcare offerings as a result of SEIU pressure. Although the union did not benefit directly from dues, it did benefit from goodwill generated. Perhaps unions will undergo a transformation into a more socially responsible entity and develop another means of financial support.
Susan

January 3rd, 2008 at 10:47 am

Arun Roy Says:

What a fantastic and insightful debate. I Really appreciate it. There are few points mentioned above which give us a food for future thought also. I as an HR expert completely agree with Mr. Morrell when he says that as long as there will be existance of proletariat class and the bourgeoisie (the owners of the capital), the strong role of Unions will be prevalent there. Secondly Mr. Jim is also very right when he says that with the proceed of wheel of economy from manufacturing to service, there arise lots of differences as service economy demands more manual labor. A wonderful discussion.

April 24th, 2008 at 9:47 pm