The latest buzz word in industrial relations is "consultative committee". DAVE MIZON examines the issues.
The concept of consultative committees is nothing new — they were used in the USA in the late '40s in an attempt to coopt workers and stem a tide of militancy. But with recent rounds of restructuring and enterprise bargaining, they have taken on a whole new meaning.
The philosophy underpinning restructuring and enterprise bargaining is that the traditional divide between boss and worker was destructive and based on incorrect notions of class antagonisms.
The kindest criticism of militant unionism is that it is an "outmoded" form of operation suited only to periods of boom. The new philosophy for unionism is that workers and management have common interests.
The centrepiece of most enterprise bargaining is the implementation of consultative committees. These committees are usually embellished with words like "empowerment" and "pro-active". However, the truth of the matter is that consultative committees sap the vigour of union structures, rather than adding to the strength of shop floor structures.
This is done by discouraging independent action by the union because it might lead to conflict with management, an "outmoded form" of operation. The constant rounds of discussion mean that at best a compromise may be reached. There are no votes taken in a consultative committee even if workers have a majority of representatives.
While shop floor structures orient to these talk shops, management is doing what it has always done, managing. It is busy setting in place policy and preparing the agenda of the consultative committee. While the union will have input into the agenda, controversial matters will be referred to a subcommittee or another consultative committee that deals with such questions. In this way, shop floor structures become fractured and their operation is removed from the membership.
A common tactic is for management to create a conflict which will be dutifully handed over to the committee for its consideration. The worst that can happen is compromise — a partial victory for management. Or the problem is managed by the workers, which means that working conditions tend to become flexible and negotiable.
On another plane, consultative committees attempt to reverse the relationship of shop floor representatives to the membership. Classically, the membership discusses and votes on policy and directs its representatives to take this decision to management.
In the case of consultative committees, the opposite can be true. The assembled shop floor representatives, having discussed a matter with management, usually related to increased productivity, come to a consensus (no direct votes here) and are given the job of informing their members of the agreed changes.
Another common tactic used by managements is confusing consultative with direction. In this case management simply tells the assembled representatives of the change and this suffices for consultation. There is no debate, but you have been told.
For consultative committees to be really empowering and pro-active, company policy would have to be devised where the majority of employees are found: on the shop floor. Representatives on the consultative committee might discuss the best way for the policy to be implemented and their decisions reviewed by the membership.
This approach would certainly avoid conflict. Yet I get the feeling that if this were the case, consultative committees would fall out of favour with the bosses. The reality is that these committees are about subverting the traditions of direct democracy characteristic of shop floor structures and replacing them with involvement in implementation of policy already decided upon. They seek to turn worker representatives into action arms of management and leave workers no option but to passively accept directives.