Workplace Democracy

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS

SID: 1643409

Subject: Critically examine the possibilities for the realisation of democracy at work.

According to Cambridge Business English Dictionary, “workplace democracy is a situation in which everyone within a company in involved in its decision”. However, employee participation is different from workplace democracy. Democracy at work only exists when workers have some real control and influence on decision-making through strategic planning and goal-setting.

Based on relevant articles and the course’s documents available on Canvas, my ideas are going to be structured in three parts in order to treat the essay subject. Firstly, I am going to focus on the History of workplace democracy in order to make the connection between the historical and theoretical context and now-a-day’s situation. In the second part, I am going to point out impacts and outcomes of democracy at work and analyse how workplace democracy can and has already made a difference. Finally, I am going to explain to what extent the concept of workplace democracy can be incorporated successfully in our society. I will use this part to bring my critical analysis on the subject and develop my opinion through a critical eye.

1. Historical and theoretical view of workplace democracy.

1. Why democracy at work?

1. Possibilities of democracy at work.

1. Conclusion

1. Historical and theoretical view of workplace democracy.

Through a theoretical approach, the employment relation is supposed to be an exchange between equals. In other words, the employee carries out a task and the employer pays a wage for this task. As Marx described ironically the labour market as “a very Eden of the innate right of man”, the reality is often far below the theory. In order to try to reach this “very Eden”, the world of work has been changing a lot through the last century and knew a profound transformation.

For a very long time, the elite of the societies were closed to access. The best working conditions were refused for your gender, women did not have same the same rights, or even your race and origins. In these circumstances, most of workers were doomed to thankless jobs with bad working conditions and were not helped by any unions or politics considering their situation.

For instance, labour has had difficulties when it came to adapt strategically to this changing environment. Labour has long been seen as a victim of contemporary employers and their widespread neglect. At that time, as for North America for instance, several employers were violating the National Labour Act and remained unpunished by the Reagan government. Labour felt often politically isolated. Even if the nature of Labour work has changed during the World War II and knew a diversification of genders and a ground-breaking participation of excluded minorities, these jobs remained seen as inferior and insignificant on certain points. As for most of people, these jobs were inferior compensations, outcome of limited opportunities or irregular and involuntary jobs.

Nevertheless, workers’ situation improved through the decline of labour sector, the variety of forms of the budding service sector and public policymakers’ willingness to expand the meaning of social services and human capital investments. “The post-industrial transition”, drawn from Fred Block’s ideas, started to signify a relation between economic trends and social background.

Family relationships, childrearing patterns and education significantly shifted through these changes and sparked the American workers’ sensibilities and aspirations.

Through 1960’s, several factors as the civil right movement, values and social movements changed the people’s opinion on life, and specifically on work. As for Fred Block, work should be foundations of a “developmental adulthood”. Anyway, post-industrial transformation did not solve all of the issues as discrimination and job dislocation kept existing in the world of work.

The dynamic of capitalism always requires a surplus from the worker’s labour as the employer try to make the most of him, which often lead to unfreedom and inequality.

Workplace democracy has been of interest for quiet some time now. Direct public involvement and participation were already broached since ancient Greece and have been part of its democracy’s concept. As for workplace democracy specifically, a budding interest started in the 18th century even if it became increasingly popular in post-war discussion.

After the First World War (1914-1918), employers came with the idea that they could be more efficient and creative with democracy at work as workers would feel more involved in the firm’s activity through the participation in decision-making.

During the 20th century, different views of possibilities of democracy at work were discussed by emerging labour movements. How did they arrive here? Workers had to go through a long process of democratisation. This process was set in four steps. The two first steps regards universal right to vote and the shift of citizenship’s social dimension. This pursuit of rights and attention with trade unions and collective bargaining was logically going to deal with employees’ situation and working methods. Even if a citizen became free, generally speaking, he was still a slave at work. Industrial democracy was demanded as workers could already possess an efficient voice within firm’s decision-making. Once these employees found the way to get listened to, they dealt with the fourth and last step of democratisation: economic democratisation. The development of workers’ representation within decision-making got bigger and bigger despite sceptics. This post-war transition settled and laid the foundation of now-a-days democracy at work. Considerable advances in democratisation of the social sphere were brought in this period partly down to near-full employment from Keynesian demand management.

Nevertheless, the following years were not going to be as positive as we can think. Shifts made in earlier decades in industrial and economic democracy were undermines by capitalism expansion. An intensified global competition brought external requirements which forced firm based mechanisms to accommodate and slowly reduced co-determination influence in strategic decision-making. Employees entered in a phase of post-industrial democracy and needed workplace democracy to be reinvented.

Fortunately for workplace democracy’s defenders, the crisis in 2008 put systems’ deficiencies on the table and brought discussion about possibilities to improve. After this shock of crisis, some union policy-makers came with the idea of building a movement for better democratisation of the economy and to build stronger links between the different levels. 21st century dynamic did not seem to be ideal for democracy at work because of the “financialized monopoly capitalism”. The challenge was big and difficult for trade unions even if most of persons were wondering about the efficiency of the current economic system. This financial system seemed out of control and perplexed people. It created a popular despair and anger which fed this desire of renewing democratisation.

...