The factors and developments analysed above constitute a major challenge to the trade union movement. It is important to assess the significance of this challenge. Two wrong lessons have been drawn from the experience of the last filteen years. One mistake that has been made is to say that the crisis of trade unions is irreversible. The view has been put forward that technological change and global competition mean that job insecurity and economic crisis will become permanent. It is argued that the new management techniques are progressively eroding collective values and traditions, and that unions cannot reverse the increasing identification of workers with their employers. In such circumstances it appears impossible effectively to challenge the anti-union laws. We strongly reject this view. Over the last hundred years unions have more than once faced economic crisis and hostility from the state. This was most notable, in Britain, in the 1920s and 1930s in the aftermath of the General Strike and through the Depression. The composition of the workforce has changed continually and unions have been able to respond to this and to recruit and grow: in the 1880s with the 'new unionism' on the docks, in the gas trades and among the engincers and miners; in the 1930s in the new industries such as the cat industry; and in the 1960s and 1970s among white-collar workers. Many of these workers appeared at first to be hard to organise, with weak union traditions. The unions can renew themselves again. The view that the NMTs have decisively altered the attitudes of workers towards collective action overstates the effectiveness of these techniques. There have been new management techniques before. There has not been a great deal of rescarch done on their impact as yet, but what does emerge is that they are treated by workers with considerable skepticism. For example, Phil Garrahan and Paul Stewart (Nissan Inigma Mansel 1992), in their study of the impact of NMTs in two car companies, found about 50% of workers responding in each company to be negative about the techniques and less than 107. to be positive. It should be acknowledged, however, that many workers, while opposing the techniques, also feel powerless in terms of being able to affect the way they are introduced and the way they
operaic.
However, an equally dangerous mistake is to underestimate the seriousness of the challenge facing the unions. There is a view that the NMTs and the action of the state represent nothing really new. They are just one example of continuing employer and government hostility towards working-class activity, According to this view, the crisis of trade unionism can be overcome simply by redoubling efforts in ways that have worked in the past: principally by supporting more energetically those workers who do take action. There is an important element of truth in this view. There are key strands of continuity between, for example, the NMTs and previous employer strategies. But this approach neglects what is new in the current situation, and the scope and diversity of the techniques non available, for which there is no historical precedent.
An important new element in the current position of unions is the issue of the increasing fragmentation and isolation of the workforce. This is occurring at several levels. Most generally we have seen the decline of national collective agreements. In the early to mid-1970s over one half of all full-time employees were directly affected by a national agreement. In the late 1970s the proportion fell below 50%c. Between 1985 and 1990 there was a sharp decline, from 477e to 347. Some of the main collective agreements ended in this period are shown below.
Table 3: Collective agreements dissolved.
Negotiating Body Employees covered Bankıng 200,000 35,000+ Bus and coach industry Cinema Exhibitors Association/BETA 13,000 Cotton textile industry 12,000 12,000 Independent TV 16,000 Scottish banking industry 110,000 Multiple food trade Corn trade 10,000 National newspapers 15,000 600,000 Engineering and shipbuilding 75,000+ Electricity supply industry 40,000 British Steel Water industry 50,000 Meat trade, slaughterhouses and related operations 10,000 Total 1.2 million plus Source: Department of Employment Gazette September 1996.
However, the decline of formal national agreements is only one aspect of this fragmentation. It is reinforced by the way in which the NMTs and developments like contracting out and outsourcing divide up the workforce within a single company. This is linked with the operation of the anti-union laws and has fed through into those laws. So, the fact that the law excludes action in support of other workers, even in the same company, unless the union concerned is directly in dispute with management, has encouraged the decentralisation of bargaining to separate units. Among companies which have devolved bargaining to subsidiaries are Cadbury, Coats Viyella, Courtaulds, Eagle Star, Legal and General, Lucas, Massey-Ferguson, Metal Box, Philips, Pilkington, Prudential, Racal, Royal Insurance, STC and United Biscuits. In the case of Pilkington the previous company-wide agreement was replaced by no fewer than 59 bargaining units. In Philips facility time was denied for company-wide meetings of union representatives. In some cases separate companies have been set up even in previously integrated factories: for example three at Cadbury Bourneville and four at British Cellophane (Courtaulds) in Bridgewater. Following the threat of a boycott of the Dundee component factory planned by Ford, which would have been outside of national union agreements and would have operated a singleunion deal with the AEU, the government changed the law to protect 'greenfield' sites from such action. As capital becomes more and more integrated on an international scale, labour is becoming progressively more isolated and divided. Such divisions are not restricted to private sector manufacturing. They are replicated in the privatised utilities, in transport and in the public sector. Examples are the separate companies in water and electricity; the break-up of British Rail into regional companies; the fragmentation of employment within the NHS into a multiplicity of trusts. In each case co-ordination of national action becomes a matter of the simultaneous organising of ballots across a wide range of companies. In education, the break-up of the Greater London Council (GLC), the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) and the metropolitan authorities has had a further fragmenting effect, leading, for example to the end of the previously very active Inner London Teachers Association (ILTA). This fragmentation, and the associated increasingly coherent and conscious planning of the employers, is what is new in the current situation and what underlines the depth of the challenge facing the unions. However, it also reflects a real vulnerability on the part of the employers. To take just one example, the increasing use of 'just-in-time' methods of production, where stocks are kept low to reduce costs, means that companies are very easily affected by strikes. The March 1996 strike at two General Motors brake-parts plants in Dayton, Ohio, quickly involved the shutting down of most GM North American assembly plants and the laying off of 165,000 workers. North American production was
cut by 75% and the company lost about $750 million. The demands of the strike, for new investment and additional jobs in the brake factories, were partially realised. There are real opportunities for trade unions to overcome isolation, and the efforts of the employers are in large part a recognition of this. However, the key point is that the isolation will not be overcome spontaneously. While rank and file activity remains a crucial starting point, given the level of fragmentation that exists, it cannot be carried through successfully without being generalised. Such generalisation depends on the character of the union leadership.
Britain is unusual in having a single trade union federation, the TUC. There has also been a series of union mergers which has significantly reduced the number of unions in existence, although almost all of these have been as a result of membership decline and financial crisis. As a general principle we should strive for the maximum unity of the working class and therefore support mergers in principle, but as usual the devil is in the detail. A merger we can support must result in a union that is more useful to its members and democratic in its functioning than were the previous separate entities. Different sections of members in a single union must have the ability to organise effectively for their own industry or profession.