Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Worker directors the penalty for deadlock

Worker directors the penalty for deadlock Editorial comment Worker directors: the penalty for deadlock The idea of shopfloor participation in management decision-making ceases to be one of those topics which arouses vague talk but little positive action. With the Prime Minister leading the call—and with company law legislation expected to be introduced in the next parliamentary session—it is likely that both unions and employers will be under some pressure to reach an agreement on the participation issue. As things stand at the moment, such a prospect appears distinctly remote. But undue procrastination and haggling could well result in a penalty for both sides. To find the reason, the focus should fall not on Westminster but Brussels. The most recent pronouncement comes from the CBI which supports the setting up of plant and works councils. But it continues to oppose the European Com­ mission idea of a supervisory board containing worker representatives. This board would, in practice, have more vested authority than the managing board, which would be primarily responsible for the daily running of the company. Predictably, the employers' body is not in the least bit willing to sanction a proposal which would effectively usurp the main board responsibilities as they stand at the moment. Equally predictable is the TUC's attitude. It supports in principle the idea of supervisory boards, but emphasizes that worker appointments to this board must be made through trade union machinery at company level. It adds that the first duty of these representatives would be towards fellow trade unionists rather than to shareholders. Like the CBI—only from the other side of the industrial relations fence—the TU C is not keen to have its authority jeopardized by the introduction of worker councils whose members don't necessarily belong to a union. Finally, there is the view of the Institute of Directors. It is a little less conciliatory than the CBI and poles apart from TUC thinking. The Institute is firmly against supervisory boards, is 'not in favour of direct worker participation at board level', but would not rule out works councils. That there should be these respective reactions is hardly surprising and it would seem, therefore, that both management and unions are set for a protracted session of talks before a mutually acceptable system can be agreed upon. But according to our Company briefing article on page five of this issue, both sides could well find any bargaining rug pulled from under their feet by a pre-emptive move from Brussels. As the article explains, because of the voting system between member states, Britain is going to have a hard task imposing her influence and views before the 'fifth directive'—dealing with worker participation—is adopted. That assumption rests on the belief that Britain will be able to put across a common view in the first place. It will be that much more difficult if the attitudes of UK management and unions are seen to be split. At best then, it is vital that this issue is settled as soon as possible in the hope that British influence in the Brussels negotiations can still be wielded. Otherwise, industry could well be faced with having a system thrust upon it which is to the satisfaction of neither side. END http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Industrial Management Emerald Publishing

Worker directors the penalty for deadlock

Industrial Management , Volume 73 (6): 1 – Jun 1, 1973
Download PDF
1 page

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/worker-directors-the-penalty-for-deadlock-e59rnOG8hx

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
0007-6929
DOI
10.1108/eb056317
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Editorial comment Worker directors: the penalty for deadlock The idea of shopfloor participation in management decision-making ceases to be one of those topics which arouses vague talk but little positive action. With the Prime Minister leading the call—and with company law legislation expected to be introduced in the next parliamentary session—it is likely that both unions and employers will be under some pressure to reach an agreement on the participation issue. As things stand at the moment, such a prospect appears distinctly remote. But undue procrastination and haggling could well result in a penalty for both sides. To find the reason, the focus should fall not on Westminster but Brussels. The most recent pronouncement comes from the CBI which supports the setting up of plant and works councils. But it continues to oppose the European Com­ mission idea of a supervisory board containing worker representatives. This board would, in practice, have more vested authority than the managing board, which would be primarily responsible for the daily running of the company. Predictably, the employers' body is not in the least bit willing to sanction a proposal which would effectively usurp the main board responsibilities as they stand at the moment. Equally predictable is the TUC's attitude. It supports in principle the idea of supervisory boards, but emphasizes that worker appointments to this board must be made through trade union machinery at company level. It adds that the first duty of these representatives would be towards fellow trade unionists rather than to shareholders. Like the CBI—only from the other side of the industrial relations fence—the TU C is not keen to have its authority jeopardized by the introduction of worker councils whose members don't necessarily belong to a union. Finally, there is the view of the Institute of Directors. It is a little less conciliatory than the CBI and poles apart from TUC thinking. The Institute is firmly against supervisory boards, is 'not in favour of direct worker participation at board level', but would not rule out works councils. That there should be these respective reactions is hardly surprising and it would seem, therefore, that both management and unions are set for a protracted session of talks before a mutually acceptable system can be agreed upon. But according to our Company briefing article on page five of this issue, both sides could well find any bargaining rug pulled from under their feet by a pre-emptive move from Brussels. As the article explains, because of the voting system between member states, Britain is going to have a hard task imposing her influence and views before the 'fifth directive'—dealing with worker participation—is adopted. That assumption rests on the belief that Britain will be able to put across a common view in the first place. It will be that much more difficult if the attitudes of UK management and unions are seen to be split. At best then, it is vital that this issue is settled as soon as possible in the hope that British influence in the Brussels negotiations can still be wielded. Otherwise, industry could well be faced with having a system thrust upon it which is to the satisfaction of neither side. END

Journal

Industrial Management – Emerald Publishing

Published: Jun 1, 1973

There are no references for this article.