COMPANY LEVEL
5.2.8 THE FUTURE PROSPECTS OF WORKER PARTICIPATION
to entail is not necessarily what the workers perceive worker participation to be. For instance, members of management more often than not want worker participation to be confined to the shop floor. Workers would prefer a kind of worker participation that is all embracing.
On the question of the concept's objective, it has also been shown that the strategic objective of worker participation on the part of the workers is not necessarily the same as management's strategic objective of the concept.
On their part, workers and their trade unions are more interested in worker participation in so far as it carries with it possibilities of opening up spaces for digging deep into the territory historically regarded as management prerogative. They are more concerned with the empowerment aspect of worker participation. Employees feel that their involvement in the decision making process of the company ought to increase and deepen their control not only of the production process on the shop floor but, also of other strategic decision making areas.
On the other hand, management is more interested in the kind of worker participation, confined primarily on the shop floor and which seeks to instill a high sense of motivation and morale, thereby increasing workers' productive capacity and efficiency. This kind of worker participation contributes very little in terms of worker empowerment. Rather it seeks to inculcate and further reinforces a sense of worker compliance and submissive collaboration in the management of business.
An argument may be advanced here that in this way worker participation is deployed, not
only for the further control by management of the production process, but also for the reinforcement of submissive coUaboration on the part of the workers.
These two areas of difficulty in dealing with the concept of worker participation at the company under scrutiny, have manifested themselves more visibly in the post 1994 era in various levels of management-worker interaction. The most visible areas in which the contradictory deployment of the concept of worker participation manifested itself, perhaps requiring mentioning for the purposes of this exercise are the re-organization of the shop floor and the implementation of self managed work groups, redesigning of the process of production, restructuring of the management structure and the management of the safety programme.
These and other issue have demonstrated beyon'd doubt that whilst interaction between management and workers in the post 1994 era has made a significant shift in terms of embracing dialogue as opposed to adversarial interaction, this shift does not necessarily signify blind coUaboration.
In the midst of this contradictory yet collaborative relationship between the trade union and workers on the one hand and management on the other, there is now a realization by both parties that their continued survival, in the short term at least, is dependent on their mutual co-operation and collaboration.
For management to ensure that the business continues to exist, at worst or, to regain its profitability at best, the centrality of the co-operation of the workers is undoubtedly the key. Workers on their part, are consciously aware that their continued employment and
company. Further analysis of the post 1994 activities in the company under consideration clearly point to the fact that worker participation in its supreme and most meaningful form remains unattainable at least in the short term. There may be various reasons why the attainment of a workable form of worker participation at least in the short term is remote.
Two issues require mentioning for the purposes of this study. The first one relates to the contradictory interests and the historical relations between management and workers. The truth of the matter is that despite the realization by both forces that their survival, at least in the short term, is dependent on co-operation and collaboration, their class and long term interests remain contradictory. As Summers cited in Rycroft (1989: 5) in his observation correctly points out:
"Conflict of interest between management and workers is an inevitable ingredient of the workplace - conflict between those who pay and those who are being paid; between those who give orders and those who are expected to obey; between those who make decisions and those who must live by them. This conflict between managers and the managed exists in every system whether capitalist or communist, as the strikes in the Gdansk shipyards and the Polish coal mines bear stark witness."
The major difficulty confronting these forces is how best to link and integrate their short- term necessity of co-operation and collaboration with their contradictory long term- interests. As a consequence of the conflicting interests and the radical win-all mentality characterizing the historical interaction between these forces, the display of power has always been the most logical way of resolving differences.
Because of this history, interaction between management and workers at the company
under investigation remain grounded on distrust and is greatly informed by the radical, winner-takes-all mentality of the past. It is clear, based on this observation, that both parties in grappling with the challenges and opportunities of the present, remain trapped in conceptual strategies of the past.
Nevertheless, the prospect of worker participation remains alive. Despite the fact that relations between these two forces is contradictory and is likely to remain so in the foreseeable future, this does not discount the viability of worker participation as a strategy which can be successfully implemented not only to improve the company's productive capacity and efficiency but also to enhance the empowerment of the employees.
However, what remains important is a serious and honest recognition and acceptance by both parties, at least in the short term, of the mutuality of their relationship and the independence of each party's existence. It is also important to indicate that for the prospect of worker participation to remain alive, both parties must accept that worker participation, will never at least in the foreseeable future, serve the interests of one party at the expense of the other party's interests. In evaluating the future intentions of labour and capital regarding the implementation of worker participation, one is tempted to argue that indeed both parties are aware of their responsibilities and obligations if they are to survive under current conditions.
On the part of the employees, successful deployment of worker participation as an
effective weapon in advancing workers' struggle for meaningful participation and control of the production process is dependent on their capacity to develop conceptual and
strategic clarity in terms of their long-term interests and objectives. This argument brings this discussion to the second issue, i.e. the unity and collective strength of the workers.
This study has been able to show that there is a great deal of animosity existing amongst workers resulting from their belonging to two different trade unions. The existence of this situation represents a major constraint in any endeavour by the workers to attain
meaningful and decisive form of participation.
For workers to be able to advance a coherent project of worker participation which is meaningful and carry with it possibilities of success, they must have a strong power base.
With the workers strong power base comes hope that workers endeavours to counteract the enormous power managers have by virtue of being in management positions will be enhanced. However, as the situation stands at the moment in which the two trade unions are in opposition to each other more than they are in opposition to management creates a weak power base for employees. This situation augurs not very well for the workers, since their positive intervention in the management of the business is heavily dependent on their strong coherence, meaningful opposition and independent identity as an interest group with common and clearly identifiable interests.
Analysis of the relations at this company, particularly in the post 1994 era reveals that the two trade unions, at best, are not able to swallow their pride and work together in the interest of improving the workers' lot, or at worst, lack the capacity to transcend their petty sectional interests for the benefit of the workers as a whole. Until the trade unions and their members are able to realize the destructive impact their animosity have on their potential to utilize worker participation as a powerful tool, at least during this transitional
phase of their relationship with management, the concept is likely, if not bound to fail.
This failure, particularly on the part of the workers, has in the long term the potential to adversely affect their future in the sense that indications seem to suggest that their continued employment with the company will be informed by their ability to influence and give direction to the future of the company. This, it is argued here, is only attainable through a careful analysis by workers of their strengths and weaknesses and their ability to act jointly and collectively as a labour component.
On the part of management, it is not an under-estimation to argue that their ability to ensure the speedy adaptability of the business to the extreme pressures imposed upon the business by various factors, among which, is global competition, will be influenced by their unconditional commitment to the involvement and participation of workers in the management of the business. This commitment must be based on the recognition of the independence of the trade union and the fact that the interests of the workers are not necessarily the same as those of management.
Based on this understanding, it is clear that the temptation to co-opt workers into the structures designed to serve and advance the interests of management at the expense of the workers' interests is bound to render any participatory measures meaningless and counter-productive. Failure to take cognizance of this reality is bound to cost the company dearly in future.
It must be indicated though that despite this serious weakness on the part of the workers, the prospect of worker participation in the future remains promising. This observation is based on the realization by the labour component that any coherent articulation of their
position is dependent on their solidarity and acting in unison. However, in pursuance of such unity the trade unions appear not prepared to respect each other's' independence and work together. Rather the strategy continues to be that competition.
This strategy appears to be paying off for the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA). Current developments indicate that the National Union of
Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) is rapidly gaining membership at the expense of the South African Workers Trade Union (SAWTU). Latest figures show that the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) has just regained their majority status.
This development clearly shows that ordinary workers are aware of the devastating impact their belonging to two trade unions which do not want to work together, has, on their ability to challenge management on important issues.
On the basis of the above analysis it is clear that both management and employees are mutually dependent on each other at least in the foreseeable future. The initiatives currently in the pipeline and those that are in the early stages of their implementation seem to suggest that the prospect of worker participation is great. What remains unclear though is the extent to which these initiatives will contribute to the empowerment of the workers.
Despite this uncertainty, what remains important though, is the fact that these initiatives have presented rare possibilities the entire history of the company has never been able to for the workers to take probably a first but vital step towards a broader and meaningful participation in the management of the business.
CHAPTER SIX:
OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONIn concluding this dissertation on worker participation, it is probably worth pointing out the observations made from this case study. Some of the observations made are general and others are more specific in character. It is possible that observations that are general in character may be applicable to other cases other than the one under investigation, whereas specific observations are assumed to apply, in particular, to the company under investigation and very difficult to generalize to other cases. From the observations made will follow concluding remarks. Hopefully, these will begin to provide some answers to the question of whether worker participation is a mechanism for pushing back the frontiers of control on the shop floor, opening up space for workers' control of the production process, or a means of inculcating a culture of submissive worker
collaboration, thereby further increasing management control of the production process.