Classical and Dynamic Theories of Industrial Relations
Classical Theory of Industrial Relations System
Analysis of John T. Dunlop
John T. Dunlop, in his 1958 work “Industrial Relations System,” aimed to develop a general theory of industrial relations within industrialized societies. His goal was to provide an analytical tool for interpreting and understanding industrial relations, enabling comparisons between different countries’ systems. Dunlop identified the following key components:
Agents of the System
- Associations of Employers
- Workers’ Organizations
- Government Agencies
Workers’ organizations can be formal, such as unions recognized by the state, or informal groups formed to address specific demands. Government organizations often play a planning and interventionist role in industrial relations, though their influence can vary depending on the political context.
System Context
The context in which these actors operate significantly influences industrial relations. Dunlop categorized the context into several classifications:
- Technological Context: The specific industry or sector (e.g., agriculture, manufacturing, services) influences actors’ behavior.
- Commercial and Financial Context: Factors like market competition, demand levels, and funding sources (e.g., employer associations, labor cooperatives) shape industrial relations.
- Context of Social Power: The role of public authorities, pressure groups, and public opinion, particularly within democratic or authoritarian systems, is crucial.
Common Ideology
For an industrial relations system to function effectively, actors must share a minimum level of common ideology, even if they hold differing individual beliefs. While unions might initially advocate for the overthrow of capitalism, they may later focus on improving working conditions, demonstrating a shared ideological ground with employers.
Dunlop believed that this common ideology helps determine points of understanding and acceptable behaviors that allow both the productive system and industrial relations to function.
Network of Rules
The actors within the system establish a framework of rules to govern their relationships. These rules, which can be substantive, unilateral, or bilateral, regulate work relations and even determine how representatives are chosen from among the actors.
Dunlop’s theory emphasized the importance of rules, which drew criticism for prioritizing norms over worker welfare. However, he also acknowledged the need to consider the dynamic social context and its impact on the actors and the system as a whole.
Theory of the Labor Movement
In 1928, Selig Perlman presented a contrasting perspective, emphasizing the dynamic nature of industrial relations. He identified three key forces:
- The staying power of capitalism
- The degree of influence of intellectuals
- The maturity of the labor movement
Ideologies within the System
Each force, according to Perlman, possessed its own ideology:
- Employers: Driven by profit and economic liberalism.
- Workers: Characterized by economic pessimism.
- Intellectuals: Focused on the abstract nature of work.
Perlman argued that the labor movement historically transitioned from revolutionary to reformist stages, shifting from radical overthrow to seeking social and economic improvements.
Parallels with Lenin
Perlman’s theory shared similarities with Lenin’s views on the relationship between intellectuals and the labor movement. Both recognized the role of intellectuals in shaping worker consciousness. However, Lenin believed intellectuals could instill revolutionary consciousness, while Perlman saw them as influencing the movement’s direction without dictating its ultimate goals.
References
- Dunlop, John T. (1914 -) “Industrial Relations System.” Barcelona: Península, 1978.
- Perlman, Selig. (1888-1959) “Theory of the Labour Movement.” Edit. Aguilar, Madrid, 1962