Introduction Since the foundation of trade unions in the late 18 th century, they have served constantly to further fair

treatment of its member in their employee organizations. It tends to achieve this by either collective bargaining, or industrial action, or lobbying activities. In recent times, many trade unions have faced an increased number of female membership as a result of feminist movements and the working women concept gaining momentum. Moreover, increased global labor mobility has resulted in trade unions that represent different demographics, and also increased minority membership in trade unions. As trade unions tend to sustain and better the work conditions of their members (Kaufman 2004), increased female and minority membership implies that trade unions would now advance equality and promote diversity. However, it is known that trade unions have traditionally emphasized a white male bias. In consideration of the aforementioned issues, an enquiry is necessitated on the role that unions might play in advancing equality and promoting diversity in the workplace. In order to achieve this, the paper would separately look at the impact of trade unions on advancing equality in the workplace, and acceptance of trade unions towards concepts of diversity. The discussion with respect to equality would specifically emphasize on Heery (2006), and with respect to diversity would consider Green et al (2005). Besides these two articles, the paper would also take into consideration an extensive literature review on the topics of trade union impact on equality and trade union acceptance of diversity. Findings from the

article review and literature review would be assessed to conclude separately the extent of unions role in advancing equality and promoting diversity.

Trade Unions and Equality When trade unions indulge in soliciting equal opportunities and equal treatment within the workplace, it is known as equality bargaining. Most of the study on the impact of trade union on equality at workplace has followed this term of equality bargaining. A recent comprehensive study of equality bargaining is found in Heery (2006). Heery utilizes a dataset of a survey conducted in 2002 of nearly 538 trade union officers involved in collective bargaining. Heerys research only takes into consideration significantly large unions of more than 100,000 members. The data from the officers is analyzed for four issues; the incidence of equality bargaining (EB) and its success, the location of equality bargaining (by industry, by union structure, by union membership trend, by contract type and gender), the characteristics of bargaining officers, and the pressure (possibly opportunities) on bargaining officers. With respect to incidence, it was found that nearly three-fourths of the officers surveyed had attempted bargaining of an EB issue with a minimum 70% success rate. Issues with zero costs to businesses had a high success rate. Conversely, issues that would result in increased costs for businesses such as extension of benefits and bonuses to women workers - were the ones that were least rose by bargaining officers. According to Heery (2006), this implied that bargaining officers had the tendency to raise only those issues

that were likely to be accepted by organizations. If this implication is considered, it means that the role of trade union was then of initiating equality policies. However, it was not an essential initiator. Any pressure group beside trade unions could have also initiated this as it seems as Heery (2006) makes it seem as if the organization had to be simply informed of the equal pay issue for it to be implemented. Secondly, Heery (2006) found that there were also differences on the prevalence of EB with respect to the industry that the bargainer represented, the nature of members job, the nature of union membership over the last four years, and the bargaining structure of the union. Specifically, it was realized that EB was prevalent in public administration, personnel services, managers and supervisors. This is quite expected as governmental policies in recent year make these industries more open to negotiations. Interestingly, manufacturing had

considerably high EB prevalence. Moreover, it was found that industries with the least score were construction, wholesale and retail, craftworkers and

salesworkers. Construction was a predominantly male industry, and as such this find was expected. The finding in wholesale and retail was more astonishing. The more interesting implication was, however, that declining unions did not change their agendas to accommodate greater EB. It was also found that single-employer trade unions did not specifically indulge in EB as much as multi-employer unions which indulged highly in EB. The research also showed that unions with high female membership did not rate specifically high on advocating EB. This rejected a

common conjecture that increased female membership resulted in trade union being more focused on equality issues. Thirdly, it was found that different officer characteristics resulted in different EB commitment. For instance, interestingly, recently appointed officers and younger officers were actually less likely to pursue EB in the collective bargaining agendas. Moreover, it was found that university educated officers, equal pay trained officers, and officers possessing internal or external advice to equality issues were more likely to pursue more EB issues than other officers. In a similar vein, Heery (2006) lastly found that commitment to EB and EB initiatives were most affected by external influences, and minimally by internal influences. A more pro-equality attitude by government policy, state agencies, employers, employers bodies or campaigning bodies was likely to result in high number of EB initiatives being pursued by the union. On the other hand, specialist committees were the ones most likely to encourage and cause high EB initiatives being pursued from within the trade union. If we consider the information on external influences, it would be quickly realized that by far external influences were the ones most likely to cause equality initiatives to be raised by unions than any internal influence. Heery (2006) observes that this is because external influence created a greater opportunity and environment for initiatives to be pursued. Within this context, trade unions are portrayed as organizations that would work towards equality if given the environment and opportunity to do so. Looking at Heery (2006)s findings, the trade unions role in advancing equality is one of being a facilitator than a leader. Trade unions are most likely to

pursue EB if an external occurrence makes it easy for them to do so. As such, the role of trade unions that Heery (2006) dictates in advancing equality is merely one of acting as the governments enforcing body. They only barely advocate noti ons of EB otherwise. However, this is quite questionable behavior coming from organizations that have historically been ones to push forward changes in workplace policies and respective governmental laws rather than wait for it. If only Heery (2006)s study is considered, the role of trade unions in advancing equality is rather a reactive and minor role, albeit a necessary role so that businesses do not get lax with implementing policy changes.

Trade Unions and Diversity In order to realize the differing perspectives of trade union about the notions of diversity, it might be appropriate to consider the case of Green et al (2005). Green et al (2005) looks at the views of British and Danish trade union bargainers and activists on the notion of diversity management. The results found are quite interesting. Green et al (2005) finds that support or opposition to the concept of diversity depends on a variety of factor. Firstly, it depends on what concept of diversity is being talked about. If the notion of diversity as a mere descriptor of the workplace is being talked about, unions do realize the importance of realizing diversity as a descriptor in workplaces today. However, if the notion of diversity as a policy approach or as a theoretical approach is ta lked about, the support or rejection of diversity falls upon factors such as national equality and discrimination

contexts. In UK, the policy approach is outright reproached. The reasons for this are highlighted as; the emphasis on the individual rather than social groups, the business case rather than moral and social justice, the threat of marginalizing the union and the neglect of the realities of discrimination . This stands in stark contrast to how Danish unions approach the diversity policy approach. Most activists interviewed by Green et al. (2005) are highly accommodating of diversity management concepts. They witness this is a positive policy approach. This has its bias in the industrial relations within Denmark. In UK, industrial relations are adversarial and dictated by law. On the other hand, in Denmark the industrial relations are largely dependent upon the notion of cooperation and discussion. To this extent, Denmark introduced an anti-discrimination legislation only 16 years ago, compared to 36 years ago in UK. Moreover, individuals in Denmark feel as if they are in a post-gender inequality era and most gender equality issues have been addressed in Denmark. However, the country does not possess any legal body to actually monitor if issues have been resolved. It should be noted that in Denmark most of the ethnic minorities are Muslim and this tends to bring about a negative tone to the treatment of minorities in Denmark. Indeed, this is reflected in the laissez-faire manner in which the activists in Denmark responded to addressing racial discrimination at the workplace. The notion of Green et al (2005) that support or opposition to diversity management by trade unions depends on the regional context is quite true, however, the case of Denmark is quite inappropriate. It should be noted that it is mentioned in the article that Denmark feels that they have largely addressed the

issue of gender discrimination. Moreover, it is addressed that there are cultural issues that impeded racial discrimination to be addressed through positive action or sameness approaches. This might be supported by the fact that the other race that is prevalent in Denmark belongs to Muslim ethnicity which although not discriminated against are not favored in the Danish region. As such, if we look at Danish trade unions, they do not specifically possess an agenda that might actively be sought out by equality or diversity policy approaches. That is, as they disregard the gender issue and the race issue, they do not have any greater issue left that might be addressed with respect to diversity management. Hence, the consideration of Denmark severely restricts the comparison, and a country with more equal consideration of gender, race and minority issues must be considered for trade unions role in promoting diversity management to be properly understood. A more appropriate study might be found in Kirton and Greene (2006). In once again visiting the UK context, Kirton and Greene find that their several reasons for which opposition to diversity might exist at a theoretical level. Essentially three factors are highlighted; underpinning economic rationale for diversity, the focus on the individual and the positioning of diversity as a topdown, managerial activity. These factors have been already slightly discussed in Green et al. (2005), Green and Kirton (2004) and Wrench (2005). Herein, it should be noted that these issues are essential to understanding why trade unions will always be reluctant to induce notions of diversity management. It should be realized that the economic rationale for diversity management is the business

case. Diversity management advocates that by identifying differences amongst individuals at the workplace, they can be appropriated work respectively according to their different advantages and this would allow for greater productivity and efficiency at workplace. It should be noted however that this case means that several social groups might be forever left disadvantaged in certain workplaces. For instance, if it is considered that Africans are better at athletic sports, than according to diversity management it might get to a point that all sports team might only possess Africans in them. However, this would be disadvantageous to an English or Indian who would like to take part in athletic sports. The issue that arises is that trade unions operate on the social justice principle. They are not concerned with profits to the business but that the social groups that the trade union is in charge of are provided social equality or at least significant rights. Hence, it should be noted the very economic rationale that promotes diversity management goes against the economic rational of trade unions. Besides this, it should also be noted that diversity initiatives are appointed at the managerial level and then implemented downwards in a top-to-bottom approach. However, trade unions tend to operate in an altogether different manner. Trade unions are generally representative of its members intents, and they tend to represent what their members require. Most trade unions have been historically made up of people from the lower classes which represented people belonging to the bottom hierarchy in the business (Daniels & Mcllroy, 2008). It should be noted that as such trade unions represented a bottom-to-top approach through collective bargaining. If trade unions are to accept the notion of diversity

management, they are to accept that employees are to accept managerial orders and hence this would make it theoretically more difficult for them to argue for employees in a diversity context. In a similar context, another difference should be highlighted as the focus of diversity management on the individual, and the focus of trade unions on social groups. Taking into consideration these factors, it should be realized that trade unions could never go about accepting diversity as a policy and theoretical approach and hence never promote it.

Conclusion From the analysis of the essential readings and other literature on the subject, the role of trade unions can be identified with respect to equality and diversity. The least role that unions possess with respect to advancing equality is that of ensuring that it happens. Despite the fact that unions depend on too many external occurrences and facilitators to indulge in EB initiatives, equality at the workplace in UK is achieved partly because of their efforts. Hence, with respect to advancing equality, unions play a small but pivotal role in the UK context. The same cannot be however said of the role of unions in promoting diversity. Diversity, in the UK context, is abhorred by unions and outright rejected. It is considered that policy-based approaches on diversity would emphasize too much on the difference criteria that the equality that has been achieved so far would have been for naught. However, it should be noted that this reproach of diversity amongst trade unions is not universal and Danish unions are quite accepting of

diversity approaches. Further literature review points that there is a lack of data, and most studies point that unions in most developed nations so far have not been promoters of diversity in any manner.

References Daniels, G., & McIlroy, J. (2008). Trade Unions in a Neoliberal World: British Trade Unions Under New Labour. London: Routledge. Green, A., Kirton, G., & Wrench, J. (2005). Trade Union Perspectives on Diversity Management: A Comparison of the UK and Denmark. European Journal of Industrial Relations. 11 (2), 179-196. Greene, A., & Kirton, G. (2004). Views from Another Stakeholder: Trade Union Perspective on the Rhetoric of Managing Diversity. Warwick Papers in Industrial Relations, Working Paper 74-2004. Heery, E. (2006). Equality Bargaining: Where, Who, Why? Gender Work and Organization, 13(6), 522-542. Kaufman, B.E. (2004). The Global Evolution of Industrial Relations: Events, Ideas and the Lira. Geneva: International Labour Office. Kirton, G., & Greene, A. (2006). The Discourse of Diversity in Unionised Contexts: Views from Trade Union Equality Officers. Personnel Review, 35(4), 431-448. Wrench, J. (2005). Diversity Management Can Be Bad for You. Race and Class, 46(3), 7384.