A Social Partnerships in the New Millenium

cordial sum is precise fashionable justifiedly now. It has become the new vernacular in Industrial Relations. The new government, the TUC and the CBI are all promoting coalition at lam, either week t here(predicate) is another conference held somewhere in the artless(prenominal) on the topic of partnership. thither is also a huge inwardness beingness written close the issue, some Industrial Relations commentators live even hailed this as the some exciting thing to happen to UK labor in years. However, not every group integral agrees with this.For example, some groups believe that Social Partnership has had a very negative effect on British Trade Unions. At www.labournet.org.uk a group rescue named a bul permitin board Solidarity. It is a page dedicated to challenging fond partnership and its apparent corrosive effects on amount of money power. It is very sort outifiable of the types of arguments put forward by groups that are oh so against companionable part nerships.Stakeholders standardised the authors of solidarity believe that tender partnerships tie unions to the coat tails of employers. What they want is a new unionism which opposes subordination to the global market and builds on the experience of the Liverpool Dockers. This group is completely opposed to any kind of privatisation and concretely wants to a greater extent from unions than just a concern for working conditions. They want a break ..with the narrow work place concerns of non-political bargain unionism and believe that unions should fight for the interests of the working class and oppressed as a whole. They also see a need for a repeal of all anti-union legislation and an end to republic interference into unions, such as affectionate partnership agreements.Taken from Solidarity, the ledger that openly states its purpose is to challenge social partnerships in condescension unions, here are some facts that display how social partnerships study had a perniciou s effect on British trade unionsIn Rover and the railroad car industry, where the unions have identified the interests of workers with commercial success in the global market, they have been gravely weakened and meekly accepted massive job cuts.USDAW has reached a Partnership Agreement with Tesco which takes away the right of the union members as a whole to vote on pay deals.The TUC has collaborated with a privatised utility in the goose egg Industry and set up a party with them Union elan vital thus effectively abandoning the fight for re-nationalisation. They are collaborating with a privatised utility which has decimated trade union members jobs.The unions have swallowed Investors in People which identifies the interests of union members with the business aims of private companies.The TUC and most unions have accepted that the increased competition of the global market guesss consent with our employers and competing with workers in other countries.Stakeholders like these aim to challenge social partnership by exhorting for complete independence of the unions from the employer. They reject globalisation and proportion to it a working class internationalism which recognises that workers have more in common with those in other countries than they do with our accept bosses. It is a very red standpoint . They feel that for those in the unions who support their independence from the employers and the state, a authoritative struggle against social partnership in all its manifestations is a central toil if they are to break the unions from the employers coat tails. They are insistent that this outlook has lone(prenominal) been adopted by union leaders. It has though percolated down to many workplaces, reenforce by the fear of unemployment.This cold leftover view contrasts greatly with those unions that actually see social partnership in a very positive, if more or less unclear light. Unions like FIET, The International Federation of commercial, clerical, professional, and technical employees see social partnership as a new and challenging area of work for the union. For unions that see the millennium as a time to accept social partnership, it volition mean unions and companies learning to do things differently, rather than trying to campaign against this change.Some unions like FIET have accepted that we now have a government committed to promoting the partnership begin, and to ensuring that it becomes a permanent feature in the workplace. Unions like this have thitherfore accepted that social partnership is expiration to be around for a big time.I think that left wing reactions to social partnerships, like that of Solidarity is very much a reactive one rather than considered. I think that those stakeholders set so powerfully against this issue need to understand that the governments political commitment to partnership goes far beyond the UK. We now have a new and positive approach to Europe and this social partners hip model is at the heart of the EUs approach to all Industrial Relations.Indeed Social Partnership does mean long term changes to the Industrial Relations scene in Europe and in Britain, all that unions need to work on is understanding what these changes will mean for their members and the companies that they work in. Looked at from this more positive, optimistic standpoint then social partnership has the potential to deliver some very literal benefitspotentially it message that employers will be working with the trade unions to bring some improvements in the prime(prenominal) of work.It operator that employees, through and through their trade union, will be given a much greater say in how their company is run.Social partnership should give unions the opportunity to be consulted earlier, more often and on a wider range of issues than has happened before.Surely the growth in partnership at work cigaret whole be a incur one, if not somewhat overdue? However, these encouragin g and upbeat pointers can only be achieved if the unions get themselves involved in equal terms right from the beginning, otherwise employers could try to do things without the unions. As stakeholders like Solidarity state I think that there is indeed a risk that social partnership may be used to try and undermine trade union organisation in the work place.Employers could potentially claim that they can have a partnership directly with their staff and do not take on the unions participation. If the unions are excluded in this way then not only could there be disastrous consequences for union members but social partnership will not work for employers either. Partnership can only be victorious when employees as partners are properly supported and resourced through a honorable trade union.To illustrate this point further, let us consider what may happen if the retail sector tried to introduce partnership without trade union involvement Most employees in this sector work part-time . There are increasingly complex and unsociable working hours in carry which in turn means that most employees may have very little contact with anyone beyond their shift. In these circumstances employees have less of an opportunity to form a collective view. Simply meeting unneurotic can be extremely difficult in such organisations, let alone having the resources and confidence to develop their own ideas and concerns.Therefore it is clear that in most cases employees are unlikely to become equal and effective partners when they do not have the time or the means to generate their own agenda. A dependable and experienced trade union means that employees can enter into partnership properly supported and resourced. To achieve this, a real commitment is required from employers to supporting trade union membership, as the outgo way for their staff to be given a voice and more importantly the confidence to use it. Basically partnership needs partners. entirely how will social partners hip actually change things in real terms for employees and the unions? By answering this question I will hopefully be able to assess if social partnership is a executable way forward in the new millennium.Firstly, unions need to take a positive approach, for them social partnerships should be aboutCo-operation, not confrontation.Improving the quality of working life.Employers listening to and respecting unions and vice versa.Employees developing their own agenda through their trade union.If they agree on the above terms then hopefully it will meanMoving away from the common practice of the union only talking to companies once a year. At the moment, even with companies with whom there exists a good relationship, unions often only talk to the organisation at the time of the annual net profit negotiations. Many unions feel that the annual wage round sometimes becomes a little tired and predictable, with companies offering the low increase that they feel they can get away with. Howev er, partnership is different. For the unions, it means talking to companies throughout the year. It means having a constant dialogue with employers about what is happening at all levels of the company.It should also mean that the union is consulted on a wider range of issues. Companies are used to contacting unions when they are implementing redundancies or sell offs. Mainly because there is a legal obligation on them to do this, but unions have not in the past been consulted on the boilersuit direction of a company or about strategic decisions that may affect employees. A Social Partnership means that the union should be consulted on a far wider range of issues than they have been used to. It means earlier and better consultation sessions, theoretically no more being told about something when it has already been implemented.