ISRN: LIU-IEI-FIL-G—09/00445--SE

1

Abstract
Title Stakeholder Management Through and Understanding of Union Perspective Keywords Labor unions, stakeholder mapping, stakeholder management, IBM, France, USA Background and The problem that was initially discovered during data collection problem was that companies are generally uncomfortable discussing discussion unions. The question that eventually presented itself is what gives labor unions means to influence a company? Also, we provide some definitions to key concepts, and a brief history of IBM, the American IBM labor union “Alliance@IBM”, and the French IBM labor unions. Purpose To provide companies with a better understanding of labor union’s perspective. This insight can allow for more effective stakeholder mapping and management of unions. Research -How can unions be stakeholder mapped? Questions -What is the factor (or factors) that gives unions the ability to influence the company? -What strategies will unions pursue to increase their influence? Methodology This study is not only based on literature regarding unions, but also on interviews that helped us gain union perspective. Therefore, both primary and secondary sources are used, in a mostly qualitative sense. Theories We used mostly normative theory pertaining to stakeholder mapping and management. Case study and First, we define the objectives of French unions and American additional unions. Next, the relationship between unions and IBM is interviews presented. Finally, IBM union’s current status, issues, and means of action are presented. Conclusion After pairing the data with the theoretical framework, several conclusions are drawn. These conclusions include an analysis of company objectives vs. union objectives, how unions obtain influence, and how this information can be applied in real world examples.

2

Acknowledgements

We would first like to express our gratitude to our tutor, Dr. Emeric Solymossy, as well as Peter Gustavsson and Gunilla Söderberg. Between the three of them, we 5 always received the guidance we required and more. Professor Richard McAndrew was an invaluable source of inspiration for the thesis topic, as a teacher and as friend. We would also like to thank Becky Boling for her contacts provided. The time granted to us by our interviewees is very much appreciated. Lee Conrad, 10 Jeff Lacher, Rick White, Marcus Courtney, Jean-Claude Arfélix, and Frank Setruk all contributed invaluably with personal interviews, and we hope this thesis is a product they are happy to be associated with. We appreciate the time and effort put in by our reviewers, who pushed us to deliver the best paper possible. 15 We would finally like to thank our family and friends, who provided the emotional support we all know is necessary for a project of this magnitude. Pleasant readings.

20 Vincent M. Anter and Marie Marnay

3

Note to the Reader
In order to avoid word confusion, a system was established for the context of this paper. Any time the word “union” is stated, the word “labor” is implied. For instance, “French unions” and “French IBM unions” will be used instead of “French 5 labor unions” and “French IBM labor unions”. The latter is incredibly wordy. In addition, America/n will always refer to the United States of America, not the landmass that includes North and South America.

4

Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. 3 Note to the Reader .................................................................................................................... 4 5 I. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 7
1. Background .................................................................................................................................. 8 Who is a stakeholder? ..................................................................................................................................8 What is a union?..............................................................................................................................................8 What is Stakeholder Management? ........................................................................................................9 What is Stakeholder Mapping? .................................................................................................................9 IBM .......................................................................................................................................................................9 The CWA and Alliance@IBM .................................................................................................................. 10 French IBM Unions ..................................................................................................................................... 12 2. Problem Discussion ................................................................................................................ 14 3. Purpose Statement and Research Questions................................................................. 14 4. Relevance ................................................................................................................................... 14 1. 2. 3. 4. Point of Departure .................................................................................................................. 16 Philosophical Perspective .................................................................................................... 16 Choice of Method ..................................................................................................................... 16 Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 17 Primary data.................................................................................................................................................. 17 Interviewees Table ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Secondary data ............................................................................................................................................. 19 5. Ethical Considerations........................................................................................................... 19 6. Delimitations ............................................................................................................................ 19 7. Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 20

10

15

II. Methodology ................................................................................................................... 16 20

25

III. Theoretical Framework............................................................................................. 21 30
1. 2. 3. What is a Stakeholder? .......................................................................................................... 21 Degrees of Influence ............................................................................................................... 21 Attributes ................................................................................................................................... 22 Legitimacy ...................................................................................................................................................... 22 Urgency ........................................................................................................................................................... 24 Power ............................................................................................................................................................... 25 Influence Strategies .................................................................................................................................... 26 4. Mitchell’s Mapping .................................................................................................................. 28 5. Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 29

35

IV. 40

1. 2. 3. 4.

Unions’ Objectives ................................................................................................................... 32 Nature of the Relationship Between Unions and IBM ................................................ 34 Unions’ Status and Structure ............................................................................................... 38 Unions’ Issues ........................................................................................................................... 40 IT and White-collar Membership.......................................................................................................... 40 Alliance@IBM: Organizing Issues......................................................................................................... 42

Empirical Data: A Case Study at IBM ..................................................................... 32

5

French Unions’ Challenges: An Historical Foundation ................................................................ 44 Unions’ Means of Action ........................................................................................................................... 46

V. 5

10

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Conflicting Objectives ............................................................................................................ 52 Influence ..................................................................................................................................... 53 Urgency ....................................................................................................................................... 53 Legitimacy .................................................................................................................................. 54 Power ........................................................................................................................................... 55 Application................................................................................................................................. 57 Alliance@IBM ............................................................................................................................................... 57 French IBM Unions ..................................................................................................................................... 59 7. Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 60

Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 52

Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................... 62 15 Works Cited ............................................................................................................................. 64

6

I. Introduction
Stakeholder management is tricky, its definition ambiguous. It is a moderate paradox of balancing ones own needs with the conflicting needs of those who affect your survival. It is the attempt to achieve positive relationships 5 with those whose expectations of you may differ from your requirement of them. Unions are everywhere. Whether you are in Germany, where there is strong

unionism based on a principle of co-decision; in Japan, facing thousands of unions joined together into federations and federations of federations; or in Sweden, where there is a union membership rate of over 80% of the working population, unions 10 have found cause to justify their exist in almost every developed country. However, in countries such as France and American, union numbers are on the decline. Since the 1970/1980’s, French unions have lost about 2/3 of their members and today less than 8% of the active population is unionized, which makes France the European country with the lowest rate of union membership1. America 15 faces the same situation, with union membership dropping from 20.1% in 1983 to 12.4% in 2008.2 But while the status, strength, industry, country, goals, structure, organizing, etc., of all unions differ, there is at least one commonality between them: they are all 20 stakeholders of the company. Consequently, as diverse as they are, unions can be managed as stakeholders. Like any company, IBM must mange its stakeholders, and that includes its unions. With the decline of French and American labor unions and the rise of computer science, a study of French IBM unions and the American IBM union seemed ripe for 25 discussion.

1 2

Dares, 2004 USDL, 2009 7

This thesis is intended to provide companies with a better understanding of labor union’s perspective. This insight can allow for more effective stakeholder mapping and management of unions.

1. Background
5 It is first necessary to have an understanding of the terms and organizations this thesis will refer to. This includes stakeholder, stakeholder management, stakeholder mapping, IBM, the French IBM unions, and the American IBM union. Who is a stakeholder? While the definition of a stakeholder varies, a stakeholder will be defined in the 10 context of this thesis by the Freeman definition: “A stakeholder in an organization is any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organizations objectives.”3 What is a union? The simplest way to define a union is to start at a dictionary definition; “an 15 organized association of workers, often in a trade or profession, formed to protect their further rights and interests.”4 That being stated, does said organization need to be formal? Within the context of this paper, the answer is yes. Three employees complaining at the water cooler about longer lunch breaks does not constitute a union. While these three men are stakeholders, are united, and share a particular 20 interest, they are not organized or “formed to protect their further rights and interests”. They would need a formal institution to achieve this. The question to ask is where does this group lie as far as company management is concerned? Is the company going address the needs of these three water cooler renegades? Probably not. This paper is more concerned with organizations that companies must actively 25 “manage”. Therefore, this paper will define unions as “a ‘formal’ organized association of workers, often in a trade or profession, formed to protect their further rights and interests”.
3 4

Freeman, 1984 “Labor Union”, 2005 8

What is Stakeholder Management? We know that stakeholder management is the management of stakeholders, and stakeholders have been defined. But what is management? The definitions of management are as numerous as the definitions of stakeholder, but as defined by a 5 standard dictionary, management is “the process of dealing with or controlling things or people.”5 A business dictionary defines management as the “organization and coordination of the activities of an enterprise in accordance with certain policies and in achievement of clearly defined objectives.”6 The latter is much clearer, but in the context of union relations, “clearly defined objectives” are difficult 10 to achieve. What are the objectives a company hopes to achieve in its management of unions? This thesis sets out to provide companies with a framework for understanding union objectives, which in turn will clarify company objectives. What is Stakeholder Mapping? Stakeholder mapping is a tool that allows for more effective stakeholder 15 management. It is a systematic way of identifying and classifying stakeholders. This is usually done in the form of a graphical depiction. IBM International Business Machines Corporation, or IBM, is an international computer technology corporation. IBM operates in more than 170 countries and according to 20 2008 measurements, has over 390,000 employees7. In 2008, IBM's revenue was over $103.6 billion, and net income over 12.3 billion.8 IBM is one of the oldest computer technology companies still in existence, as it is over 100 years old. It's significant contributions to computer technology are in both the fields of hardware and software, and the company also offers other services, such as consulting. IBM's 25 mission statement reads as:

“Management”, 2005 “Management”, Def. 1 7 IBM, 2008 8 IBM, 2008
5 6

9

"At IBM, we strive to lead in the invention, development and manufacture of the industry's most advanced information technologies, including computer systems, software, storage systems and microelectronics." We translate these advanced technologies into value for our customers 5 through our professional solutions, services and consulting businesses worldwide." IBM is dedicated to the following three "values":   10  Dedication to every client’s success. Innovation that matters – for our company and for the world. Trust and personal responsibility in all relationships.

The CWA and Alliance@IBM The CWA, an acronym for the Communications Workers of America, is a national United States union. It is affiliated with the AFL-CIO. CWA represents over 700,000 people, most of which work in the IT industry.9 Professions encompassed within 15 CWA include both the public and private sectors, in industries such as telecommunications (the origin of CWA, AT&T), TV (NBC and ABC), journalism (New York Times and Wall Street Journal), electronics and manufacturing (General Electric), and various others (US airways).10 The CWA’s mission statement reads as follows:11 20    Improve the standard of living for our current and future members; Organize new workers into the union to bring the benefits of collective bargaining to the unorganized; Reaffirm our commitment to universal service so that all Americans have equal access to the information highway;

CWA, 2009 CWA, 2009 11 CWA, 2009
9 10

10

Educate our members to vote in their own best interests and to build community coalitions at the national and local levels to support workers' rights.

The CWA was founded in June 1947 by succeeding a very loose federation of 5 telephone unions12, but it was the divestment of the Bell system in 1984 and beyond that shaped the CWA that exists today. The CWA triangle is the cornerstone of CWA logic. The sides of the triangle are organizing, community/political action, and representation, and each factor is dependent on the other two (see below).

13

10

Alliance@IBM is local union of CWA, specifically CWA local 1701, headquartered in Endicott, NY. It is the union for IBM employees, but it is important to note that IBM as a company is not unionized. Therefore, IBM does not recognize Alliance@IBM, and Alliance@IBM has no collective bargaining rights. So while Alliance@IBM is a labor union in the sense that it is a group of workers banding together to achieve

15

common objectives, it must go through the official process dictated by the NLRB before it can achieve full union status and benefits. Nevertheless, it will be referred to as a union within the context of this paper. Regardless of title, Alliance@IBM remains the workhorse of the IBM unionization effort. Formed in 1999 after a pension dispute from the pre-Alliance organization

20

IBM Workers United the organization has grown to encompass 360 due paying

12 13

Katz, 2003 CWA, 2009 11

members and approximately 5600 subscribers and supporters.14 Alliance@IBM’s mission statement is as follows: “Our mission is to make our voice heard with IBM management, shareholders, government and the media. While our ultimate goal is 5 collective bargaining rights with IBM, we will build our union now and challenge IBM on the many issues facing employees from off-shoring and job security to working conditions and company policy.”15 French IBM Unions The French union landscape is composed of numerous unions grouped into several 10 larger confederations. The government has recognized five union confederations that it considers as representatives and to which it gives the right to negotiate and to reach collective agreements in all industries16. Those unions are the Confédération Générale du Travail17 (CGT), the Confédération Française des Travailleurs Chrétiens18 (CFTC), Force Ouvrière19 (FO), the Confédération Française 15 Démocratique du Travail20 (CFDT) and the Confédération Générale des Cadres21 (CGC). Unions are currently allowed in France under the Waldeck-Rousseau law22. The right to join a union and the right to defend one’s rights and interests via unionism was reaffirmed in the 1946 Constitution’s preamble: “Every man can defend his 20 rights and interests through labor unionism and join the union of its choice23”.

Conrad, 2009 Alliance@IBM, 2009 16 Charoux and Jeaneau, 2008 17 General Labor Confederation, founded in 1895. 18 French Confederation of Christian Workers, founded in 1919 19 Workers’ Force, founded in 1948 20 French Democratic Labor Confederation, founded in1964 21 Executives’ General Confederation, founded in 1944 22 Waldeck-Rousseau Law. 23 French Const. Preamble
14 15

12

French unions are organized on three levels: corporative unions that group workers from the same trade; unions’ federations, that group unions by industry, and confederations of unions, that groups together several federations. The corporations regroup workers from the same trade. They are organized in federations, according 5 to the industry. Those federations are part of a larger organization: the confederations. Each of the five “representative” unions can decide to create a union section in the company, no matter how many employees there are. The five major unions are present at IBM. The CGC has the majority at IBM, with 30% of the unionized workers belonging to this union. It is followed by the CFDT (17%), the 10 CGT (14%), the FO (8%) and the CFTC (6%)24. Knowledge of the historical background of French unions is important to understanding the characteristics of today’s unions. In 1906, the oldest French union, the CGT, adopted the Charte d’Amiens (Charter of Amiens), which is considered the theoretical reference of unionism in France. The Charter assigns 15 unionism a dual objective: the defense of immediate and daily claims and the fight for a global transformation of society, independent from political parties and the state25. It was based on Marx’s theory of class struggle, summarized in these words: “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of the world, Unite! 26”. Later adopted by the majority of unions, it explains 20 the logic they follow today. French unions are currently facing a strong decline in membership. Since the 19701980’s crisis, unions have lost about 2/3 of their members and today less than 8% of the active population is unionized. This makes France the European country with the lowest rate of union membership. In the public sector, this rate is about 15%, 25 while the private sector only reaches a 5% unionism rate27.

Setruk, 2009 Griffuelhes and Pouget,1906. 26 Marx, 1848. 27 Chertier, 2006
24 25

13

2. Problem Discussion
Our data collection began as attempt to gain an understanding of both sides of the union/company conflict issue in the context of comparing French unions and American unions. However, as data collection ensued, IBM was reluctant to engage 5 us. This was our first indication that there might be a problem. If IBM were comfortable in their dialogue with unions, they would probably be willing to discuss the topic with us. Consequently, our research continued down the path of a union perspective. Taking a union perspective does not mean that we are solely aiming to assist unions, 10 nor does our intent to increase companies understanding of union perspective aim to solely assist companies. Rather, it is to assist both ends in overcoming their conflicting objectives to achieve their mutual objective: company success. Unions need companies to succeed as much as companies want to succeed.

3. Purpose Statement and Research Questions
15 Our purpose is to provide companies with a better understanding of labor union’s perspective. This insight can allow for more effective stakeholder mapping and management of unions. Our research questions are as follows:   20  How can unions be stakeholder mapped? What is the factor (or factors) that gives unions the ability to influence the company? What strategies will unions pursue to increase their influence?

4. Relevance
Companies can benefit from the understanding of stakeholder management in regards to unions. By more adequately mapping unions, companies can address 25 how and why unions move within the stakeholder map. How to deal with unions once they move or prevent them from moving is outside the scope of this paper. But

14

by understanding the means in which unions achieve influence, companies have a starting point for the management of unions.

15

II. Methodology
1. Point of Departure
Our interest in this area was prompted by our participation in the Atlantis study abroad program. Both of us have had or will have the opportunity to visit each 5 other’s respective countries, France and America. Since our relationship began, there has been constant dialogue comparing the two. During our time together in France, there was a French union strike. Through this experience, one of us was able to see the peculiarities of a French union strike compared to an American union strike. Thus, our thesis was born. 10

2. Philosophical Perspective
Our theoretical framework is in relation to stakeholder analysis. This includes both stakeholder management and mapping. Stakeholder analysis was selected because companies can benefit from the understanding of stakeholder relations, and within a company, unions are stakeholders. With this common thread, (that is, all unions are

15

stakeholders regardless of physical distance), stakeholder analysis proved the most effective way to increase the understanding of how to manage two relatively noncomparable entities (French and American unions).

3. Choice of Method
We were aware of the existence of a problem but didn’t have a clear understanding 20 of its definition. Therefore we decided to study the patterns that would emerge from our data collection, and use the existent literature to understand the meanings and potential applications of our findings. We realized we were not only interested in taking a picture that would give a general view of the situation, but also wanted to give the camera to the different 25 unions and analyze the similarities appearing on the subsequent prints.

16

4. Data Collection
Primary data The professionals we selected for our interviews are experienced union workers, who hold a managerial positions in their organization, and therefore have the 5 authority required to provide us with receivable data concerning the perspective of unions. Moreover, their scope of competence was not restricted to IBM, since they are related to organizations acting on a larger level, which allows us to extend the validity of our findings to a broader scope than IBM. Due to geographical distance, all our interviews were conducted over Skype or via e10 mail questionnaire. When the interviewees requested it, we sent the list of our questions a few days in advance in order to allow them to research the data required. The information was collected in the form of semi-structured interviews. This allowed for the interviews to remain organic and flexible based upon the interviewee, while still keeping the conversation on track. 15 We started the interviews with a short presentation of the subject and scope of our thesis, in order to avoid obtaining irrelevant data. However, we didn’t want to influence their answers by suggesting a pattern, so we asked them general open-ended questions. Question examples include:  20  What would you say your largest challenge is currently? What are the biggest differences between French unions and American unions?

17

Interviewees Table Here is a classification of our 5 interviewees, with the description of the organization they belong to and their position within the organization. 5

Name
Frank Setruk

Organization
CGC-IBM France (Confédération Générale des Cadres) French union IBM section CGT-IBM France (Confédération Générale du Travail) French union IBM section Alliance@IBM CWA (Communication Workers of

Position
Union manager

Jean-Claude Arfélix Lee Conrad

Union manager

National Coordinator

Jeff Lacher

America) American communications and media union UNI (Union Network International) Global services and skills worldwide unions

CWA district 4 organizing coordinator

Marcus Courtney

Telecommunications Department Manager Treasurer, Organizer,

Rick White

Alliance@IBM

Web Maintenance and Health & Safety Representative

18

Secondary data Our secondary data comes from various books and Internet sources. When using Internet, we wanted to make sure of the validity of the data collected, and therefore 5 used mainly governmental publications, as well as unions and IBM’s official websites. This data helped us define the background of unions and the origins of the differences between French and American unions.

5. Ethical Considerations
Our interviewees were incredibly receptive and open to discussion. Because we 10 were exploring the existence of a problem and the nature of what that problem might be, our interview questions were non-threatening. Our questions did not assume there was fault on either side. Rather, they looked to identify a conflict. This was important, because union representatives were willing to engage us in dialogue where they felt comfortable to express their concerns. 15 It was imperative that we were honest with all interviewees in regards to our thesis topic and use of their interviews. It is important to note that the French interviewees were interviewed in French, and the interview was then translated. We also asked for consent (via e-mail) from all our interviewees to use the data they provided in our thesis. We obtained this consent. In addition, upon completion, 20 every interviewee will be provided with a copy of our final work.

6. Delimitations
There were several viable options that could have provided framework for analysis. While aspects of organizational theory are employed to an extent, it was found that organizational theory was not sufficient for the bulk of our analysis. Because French 25 and American unions are so structurally different, we could not compare using organizational theory, only contrast. And while many differences between French and American unions stem from cultural differences, providing an understanding of culture does not assist in the management of unions as well as stakeholder management does. In addition, our research is conducted in the context of private 19

unions, not public. While some principles of our findings may apply, we are not at liberty to defend that, as public unions are outside the scope of this paper.

7. Analysis
Our initial data collection allowed us to find patterns within the mindset of union 5 representatives. After patterns of union thinking were established and further supported by secondary sources, origins of conflict were identified. Our choice of theory allowed for the data to be categorized in three ways: data that relates to union power, data that relates to union urgency, and data that relates to union legitimacy. With this information, we were able to begin the process of solving the 10 problem.

20

III. Theoretical Framework
If our purpose is our compass, our theoretical framework is our map. The theory that we present here is necessary for the development of the data collected. As stated, stakeholder management and mapping is the theory that will be utilized. 5 While stakeholder theory is extensive, we feel we have chosen several articles that will provide a sufficient base of knowledge for the analysis of our data.

1. What is a Stakeholder?
As previously stated, “A stakeholder in an organization is any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organizations objectives.”28 10 Mitchell, Agle, and Wood, further define stakeholders, stating that all stakeholders hold at least one of the attributes power, legitimacy, and urgency.29 This does not mean that anyone who holds one of these attributes is a stakeholder. It must be thought of with the same logic as ‘a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square’. Any party can buy a gun and have a degree power, but it is not until this 15 party is placed within the context of an organization that it is a stakeholder. These three attributes of power, urgency, and legitimacy will be defined and expanded upon, and will be the basis of our empirical analysis. Definitions of stakeholders seem infinite. Stakeholders have many dimensions, and it is difficult to capture all of them in only a few sentences. While an elaborate 20 discussion could be conducted on the definition debate, this thesis will use a combination of the two previously stated definitions to define stakeholders.

2. Degrees of Influence
While legitimacy, urgency, and power are all different, they are all interrelated. Power is affected by legitimacy and urgency, and power effects legitimacy and

28 29

Freeman, 1984 Mitchell, Agle, and Wood, 1997 21

urgency, etc. However, the following paragraphs will explain these attributes in an individual sense, in order to define their individual relation to influence. Power will be later defined as the “ability to influence”. But what is influence? In the context of Freeman’s definition, it is the “affect or is affected” section. Mitchell, 5 Agle, and Wood use the term “salience” as “the degree to which managers give priority to competing stakeholder claims.”30 A stakeholder is “salient” to a company because the company can influence the stakeholder or the stakeholder can influence the company. But influence is not a light switch. There are degrees of influence. Therefore, in the 10 context of this thesis, influence is the degree to which a stakeholder can affect the achievement of the organizations objectives.

3. Attributes
Legitimacy Legitimacy is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “accordant with law or 15 with established legal forms and requirements” or “conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards.”31 Even if legitimacy is intertwined with the notion of power, they have to be considered separately, as the popular assumption that legitimate stakeholders are necessarily powerful and vice versa is incorrect. 20 Understanding the importance of legitimacy is crucial when studying stakeholder influence. According to Davis, “in the long run, those who do not use power in a manner which society considers responsible will tend to lose it32”, underlying the importance of legitimacy in the organization. Suchman defines legitimacy as “a generalized perception or assumption that the 25 actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate with some socially Mitchell, Agle, and Wood, 1997; 878 “ Legitimate," def. 3a;4 32 Davis, 1973
30 31

22

constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and definitions.”33 This definition will also be the definition of legitimacy within the context of this thesis. A legitimate organization is perceived as more worthy, predictable, meaningful and trustworthy, which eventually increases its potential for influence: “It enhances both 5 the stability and the comprehensibility of organizational activities”. This legitimate power is defined by Weber as authority.34 Suchman goes further in his definition, as he classifies legitimacy in 3 types: cognitive, moral and pragmatic. 10 Cognitive legitimacy is related to the societal context of the organization. This type of legitimacy perception operates at the subconscious level, therefore it is difficult for the organization to influence it directly and manipulate its perception. A second type of legitimacy is pragmatic legitimacy. According to Suchman, it is the result of the calculation of self-interested individuals, based on the potential benefits the organization could bring them. In other words, pragmatic legitimacy is based on 15 the perception of the usefulness of an organization. Therefore, it is important for the organization to convince its audience of the usefulness of its actions. This often involves direct exchanges between the organization and its audience. It might also involve a larger public, due to potential political, social and economic interdependencies. 20 Finally, there is moral legitimacy, which consists of conscious moral judgments: “Moral legitimacy reflects a positive normative evaluation of the organization and its activities”. It is a socially constructed perception of legitimacy, based on the reasons given to justify certain actions, considered as “the right thing to do”, and supposed to provide social welfare. The consequences of the organizations actions are evaluated, 25 as well as the procedures used to achieve those results, the structure of the organization and the charisma of its leaders. Instead of manipulating and persuading, the organization must gain moral legitimacy by convincing with
33 34

Suchman, 1995 Weber, 1947 23

reasonable arguments.35

Suchman believes that the threshold of legitimacy

required depends on the organization’s will to gain active or passive support: “If an organization simply wants a particular audience to leave it alone, the threshold of legitimacy may be quite low.” 5 Urgency To understand the stakeholders’ behavior, one must understand the concept of urgency. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines urgent as “calling for immediate attention”36. However, Mitchell, Agle and Wood develop this definition and add that urgency exists only when two conditions are met: “when a relationship or claim is of 10 a time-sensitive nature and when that relationship or claim is important or critical to the stakeholder”37. Criticality refers to the importance the stakeholder gives to his claims, and time sensitivity refers to the degree to which he believes the organization should be reactive and attend to these claims. The degree of criticality of a claim depends on 15 the four following attributes: ownership (the stakeholder possesses a certain amount of the company’s assets), sentiment (the value given to the relationship with the company, regardless of performances), expectation (the anticipation on the future benefits the stakeholder will obtain during his relationship with the company) and exposure (the importance given to what is at risk in the relationship 20 with the company).38 Contrary to power and legitimacy, urgency does little to “increase” the influence a stakeholder might have on the organization. However, it enhances the stakeholder’s quest for influence. It is the catalyst for action.

Suchman, 1995 "Urgent," def. 1a 37 Mitchell, Agle, and Wood, 1997 38 Mitchell, Agle, and Wood, 1997; 867-868
35 36

24

Power According to Mitchell, Agle, and Wood, power is defined as follows: “…a party to a relationship has power, to the extent it has or can gain access to coercive, utilitarian, or normative means, to impose its will in the relationship.”39 It is also noted that it 5 can be acquired and lost. The terms coercive, utilitarian, and normative come from Etzioni. Coercive power is based on physical recourses that utilize force, violence, or restraint. 40 Examples include guns, locks, and any means that affect the body. Utilitarian power is based on material or financial resources.41 Money is an obvious candidate for utilitarian 10 power, but this also includes human resources. Normative power refers to power that is based on symbolic resources.42 This type of power is largely intangible, such as love, or prestige and “title”. Frooman states that power stems from a firm’s “dependence” on resources that give “actors leverage over a firm.”43 Resources are defined as “essentially anything an 15 actor perceives as valuable”, and dependence is defined as “a state in which one actor relies on the actions of another to achieve particular outcomes.”44 Frooman also states that attributes applied to stakeholders must actually be applied to the relationship between actors, not just the actor. Finally, Frooman states “who is dependent on whom and how much-determines who has power.”45 20 Mitchell, Agle and Wood’s definition, Etzioni’s three types of power, and Frooman’s theory of resource dependence lead to the definition of power within the context of this thesis: “the ability to influence.”

Mitchell, Agle, and Wood, 1997; 865 Etzioni, 1964 41 Etzioni, 1964 42 Etzioni, 1964 43 Frooman, 1999; 195 44 Frooman, 1999; 195 45 Frooman, 1999; 196
39 40

25

Frooman’s article “Stakeholder Influence Strategies” implies that power is the most important of the three attributes presented by Mitchell, Agle, and Wood because “…in those cases where interests diverge and the firm is unwilling to change its behavior to accommodate a stakeholder, power is likely to decide the outcome.”46 5 Frooman’s theory of how stakeholders pursue influence is presented below. Influence Strategies47 Frooman’s article is important because it takes a stakeholder perspective, just as this thesis does. There are four types of influence strategies, based on dependence, that derive from the combination of two types of resource control and two types of 10 influence pathways. They are indirect/withholding, indirect/usage, direct/withholding, and direct/usage (see below) .48

As stated, dependence is “a state in which one actor relies on the actions of another to achieve particular outcomes.”49 To expand, the more a firm is required to 15 respond to a stakeholder for survival, the more a firm is dependent on a stakeholder. The more a stakeholder relies on the welfare of the firm for its own survival, the more a stakeholder is dependent on the firm.

Frooman, 1999; 195 Frooman, 1999 48 Frooman, 1999; 200 49 Frooman, 1999; 195
46 47

26

There are two types of resource strategies, withholding and usage (remember that a resource is anything an actor sees as valuable). Withholding is when a stakeholder withholds its resource, while usage is when a stakeholder continues to provide the resource it controls with conditions attached. Both of these involve the stakeholder 5 using a resource for leverage. There are two types of influence pathways, direct and indirect. Direct is when a stakeholder itself uses resources for leverage, while indirect is when the stakeholder works through an ally to use resources for leverage. By defining levels of interdependence, stakeholders can be plotted on the chart and 10 it can be determined how they will seek the ability to influence (power).

27

4. Mitchell’s Mapping50

Above is a depiction of Mitchell, Agle, and Wood’s stakeholder typology. Mitchell, 5 Agle, and Wood defend that depending upon the combination of the three attributes a stakeholder possesses; they can be classified under one of eight labels, each of which must be managed differently. The 7 types of stakeholders will be briefly described below. Latent stakeholders possess only one trait. The dormant stakeholder has only 10 power and has little association with the firm. A firm should remain aware of a dormant stakeholder, but there is no reason to take action. A discretionary stakeholder has just legitimacy and a firm may engage it if it chooses. A demanding stakeholder has just urgency, and deserves no more than a passing glace by the firm.

50

Mitchell, Agle, Wood, 1997; 874 28

Expectant stakeholders possess 2 traits. Dominant stakeholders possess power and legitimacy. They will be given much of a firm’s attention. Dependent stakeholders have both legitimacy and urgency, but are dependent on another stakeholder for power, such as the firm or media or government. Dangerous stakeholders have 5 power and urgency, and firms must identify them but not acknowledge them, lest the firm provides them legitimacy. Finally, the definitive stakeholders possess all three traits. Firms must give these stakeholders priority.

5. Analysis
10 While the Mitchell, Agle, and Wood’s model will provide the primary means for our data analysis, we aim to expand it to fit our thesis. There will be an emphasis on power for the following reason, which will be elaborated later: Union’s objective is to increase influence, and power is the ability to influence. 15 That being said, we would like to expand Mitchell, Agle, and Wood’s model based on the following principles: As stated earlier, all three attributes are interrelated. This is supported by Mitchell, Agle, and Wood; “Power gains authority through legitimacy, and it gains exercise through urgency;”51 and again… “…like the power attribute, legitimacy’s 20 contribution to the stakeholder salience depends upon interaction with the other two attributes: power and urgency.”52 If all attributes are inter-related, all attributes can affect power. Consequently, all three attributes affect the ability to influence. This relationship is not necessarily direct; it can also be inverse (e.g., power can be increased through legitimate or illegitimate means, or stated another 25 way, legitimacy can decrease and power increase). Regardless, all three attributes, viewed as a collective whole, have an impact on the degree to which a stakeholder
51 52

Mitchell, Agle, and Wood, 1997; 869 Mitchell, Agle, and Wood, 1997; 870 29

can affect the achievement of an organizations objectives, or influence. Therefore, in the context of this thesis, the center of Mitchell, Agle, and Wood’s model will be referred to as “influence”. Frooman critiques that even though Mitchell, Agle, and Wood state “Stakeholder 5 attributes are variable, not a steady state,”53 their stakeholder typology does not imply that, especially in regards to power: “In this article I consider the resource dimension of a relationship and the power that stems from it, viewing power, then, as an attribute of the relationship between the actors-not of the actors themselves. This differs 10 from previous accounts of power in the stakeholder literature (e.g., Freeman, 1984; Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997).”54 Consequently, in the context of this thesis, the three attributes will be viewed not as absolutes, but as variable degrees. This implies that the stakeholder map could look like either of the following:

15 Notice that there is greater area in the very center, or greater “influence”, in the first example than the second.

53 54

Mitchell, Agle, and Wood, 1997; 868 Frooman, 1999; 192 30

Finally, we deepen the three attributes presented by Mitchell, Agle, and Wood to include Suchman, Frooman, and others as follows:

5

31

IV. Empirical Data: A Case Study at IBM
1. Unions’ Objectives
When conducting our interviews, we wanted to have the union’s insight on their objectives as a common voice for employee objectives. Therefore, the data 5 presented contains the perspectives of the unions only. In IBM-USA, Alliance@IBM remains the workhorse of the IBM unionization effort. One of their main objectives is to fulfill the special needs of IT workers, which differ from the needs of traditional, blue-collar workers. CIO magazine states that the most common concerns for IT workers are not unemployment or salary, but 10 “training, establishing standards for software development, protecting their benefits, forced overtime and the H1-B visa.”55 The H1-B visa allows for skilled foreign workers to obtain jobs, usually at the expense of domestic employees (when implemented in the IT industry), and less expense to the employer. It seems the IT sector of business has become the fine arts department of high school: the first to 15 area to be squeezed when times are tough. overworked: “Sixty-hour work weeks with no overtime or comp time, a BlackBerry hitched to your belt 24/7, mandates from managers who have no clue what 20 you actually do – all for a job that could be outsourced tomorrow. Is it finally time for technology workers to form a union and demand better working conditions?”56 Many are convinced that this lack of understanding is the core of IT workers frustrations. 25 John Miano, cofounder of The Programmers’ Guild, claims that employers waste resources through actions that stem from ignorance, such as According to Dan Tynan of InfoWorld.com, IT departments all too often find themselves understaffed and

55 56

Levinson, 2001; 2 Tynan, 2008; 1 32

putting employees in noisy cubicles rather than providing closed offices; offices that would cost much less than the loss of productivity cubicles create. In addition, training is often the first cut made to IT sectors, but up-to-date training is essential in a rapidly changing industry such as IT. Alliance@IBM if fighting to defend IT 5 workers needs such as these. Since the pension spurred origins of “Alliance”, issues have expanded to include wage cuts, job cuts, long working hours, unfair firing, and cutbacks. And recently, Alliance@IBM has been dealing more and more with employee job security. It may seem as though layoffs would be inevitable due to the downturn in the economy, but IBM’s profits were up 12% as of fourth quarter 2008 10 and the company has been described as a “shining star in the technology sector amid the recession.”57 But Lee Conrad argues that IBM has still resorted to secret job cuts and off-shoring; “Our focus has changed recently with a renewed emphasis on IBM’s secret job cuts and off-shoring of US jobs […] We alert the media to IBM’s job cuts 15 when we start getting information from employees. We have become the only source for information on IBM job cuts because IBM is remaining silent.”58 The Alliance has responded by sending e-mail alerts and questioning IBM’s request for aid from the Obama administration. And while employees are fearful that 20 unionization may accelerate or increase chances of job loss, Lee Conrad hopes himself and his officers will lead by example, as most are current IBM employees and still retain employment.59 According to Jeff Lacher, the set of demands of high tech workers often split between what temporary workers want, what “permanent” workers want and the

Taft, 2009 Conrad, 2009 59 Conrad, 2009
57 58

33

state of the economy. Today, job security is the most important concern for both groups, followed by benefits (pension and health care) and flexibility and wages.60 In France, the situation is different, especially because unions work at different levels. Their global objectives at IBM are not much different from the ones they 5 defend at the industry level, or even on a national one. On January 5th 2009, French unions published a list of common propositions and claims, which describe the direction they expect French unionism to take. Their five major objectives are the following:  10     15 “Prioritize employment in a context of economical crisis. Improve purchasing power, decrease inequalities. Concentrate economic revitalization toward employment and purchasing power. Preserve and improve collective guaranties. Regulate international financial field.”61

However, Marcus Courtney considers unions’ objectives more or less the same everywhere, and states that they “basically consist of increasing the freedom to bargain collectively, increasing the freedom to organize, and improving the political climate to achieve those62

2. Nature of the Relationship Between Unions and IBM
20 As we conducted our research, we were interested in understanding the unions’ point of view on the situation. Therefore, the company policy described in this section reflects only the unions’ perception of IBM’s actions and behavior. Both French and American IBM unions have different perspectives how their respective objectives compare to IBM objectives. However, while it may differ slightly in 25 France and America, both acknowledge the change in IBM’s culture.

Lacher, 2009 La Déclaration, 2009 62 Courtney, 2009
60 61

34

Linda Guyer, Alliance@IBM organizer and author of “www.allianceibm.org: RealWorld Experiences of Online Organizing”, vouches for the strong corporate culture that IBM seems to have lost: “For well over 80 years, management philosophy has been to provide top5 notch benefits and job security, and to treat workers with great respect. Much of this philosophy originated with the founders of the company, who admired the ideals of Walther Reuther (founder of the United Auto Workers). Employees placed their trust and loyalty in the company for many years, and many have found it difficult to truly believe that management is 10 now comprised of cut-throat businessmen who see people as expensive resources.”63 This change in the perception of IBM values and concerns also appears in France. According to Frank Setruk, IBM deserves its reputation of a paternalistic company. This “may be linked to the negative image they have of unions, which leads to the 15 fact that IBM position often consists in saying that the management is here to take the right decisions, they don’t need the unions to know what they have to do.64” Jean-Claude Arfélix also mentioned that “IBM is reputed for its anti-unions policy, in France but also in other countries like Japan and America. Often no respect of labor law, or doing just the minimum they need to remain legal65.” 20 Frank Setruk declares that IBM values slowly took less importance, and were replaced by more economically driven choices. Concern for people is less and less a primary value for IBM, who used to raise those principles as moral guidelines for the company. “You have to find a middle ground, common sense. Find a balance between 25 ethics and company policy, company values. And a company like IBM is supposed to defend them. It is not the case anymore but when I was hired, Guyer, 2001 Setruk, 2009 65 Arfélix, 2009
63 64

35

what I liked a lot was the existence of IBM principles. There were 5 of them, and the first one was: respect of the person. This is gone, we don’t mention it anymore. It’s sad because it was something that meant a lot and of which I was proud. Today it’s more the respect of the shareholders, even duties we 5 have toward the shareholders, the notion of sacrifice. And I don’t agree with this. […] Short term profit seeking is not compatible with long term development of social agreements. 66” This change in company values tends to reinforce unions’ will to implement reforms that would protect workers, especially in those times of crisis. However, they both 10 find it difficult to engage a dialogue with the company. The problem that Alliance@IBM faces, and that partly explains their difficulty to communicate with IBM, is a lack of recognition. As stated by Jeff Lacher, Alliance@IBM has no formal contact with the company. The company, under the law, doesn’t have to meet with them, acknowledge them, and recognize their 15 existence. So they do their best to pretend Alliance@IBM doesn’t exist67. Lee Conrad confirms this information, and underlines that this absence of recognition has a strong impact on their level of bargaining power: “We do not have collective bargaining rights or recognition by IBM, we engage IBM through our issues in the media. IBM has decided not to engage us except in rare occasions. We have met 20 some senior IBM officials informally.68” However, he also believes this is not only due to the lack of representation of Alliance@IBM. According to him, ”many of the issues Alliance@IBM faces here in the US are faced by IBM unions worldwide. IBM does not like unions and tries to limit their influence everywhere.” 25 When asked about the reasons for these communication issues, Jeff Lacher told us that companies could easily improve relations with unions by ceasing to view their Setruk, 2009 Lacher, 2009 68 Conrad 2009
66 67

36

employees as the enemy and acknowledging that the union is their employees. In other words, companies often make the same mistake the public makes, which is a mistake sometimes even union members make, and that is that the union is something other than the workers69. This tendency to ignore unions and consider 5 them as a threat rather than an asset is in contradiction with the statement that companies often make, which is that their employees are at the base of their business, and therefore one of their main assets. “If companies truly viewed their employees as a vital part of the business' success, they would deal with the employees' elected representatives with 10 the same respect as they would any other business partner. Perhaps we deserve much more respect, without us, the company does not function at all.70” This lack of dialogue and mutual comprehension is what Dominique-Jean Chertier refers to as the Tower of Babel, in his report to the prime minister for a 15 modernization of French social dialogue71. Despite permanent communication, the absence of common language between the actors combined with an accumulation of instances of dialogue, kept actors away from achieving their objectives. An illustration of this problem was given to us by Frank Setruk. He says that it is difficult for unions to reach IBM’s executives, because the human resources 20 department acts as a “filter”, preventing union members from talking to company executives. He says that recently, the profile of human resources managers recruited by IBM, who are the main interlocutors of the unions in the company, are mostly lawyers. “The image I have is the one of two countries such as Israel and Palestine, in peace

Lacher, 2009 Lacher, 2009 71 Chertier, 2006.
69 70

37

negotiation, where one would send its Trade secretary and the other would respond by sending its Department of Defense secretary. 72” For him however, the solution of the problem is not about unions, but people: “We have to talk about men and women; it is easier, because this is linked to 5 human nature. A reasonable number of people are very interested in themselves and their own interest. I won’t surprise you by saying they are also present in unions. Managers like them because they are easier to manage, to control. Is it the majority? No. But they highly contribute to the negative image of unions and union organizers.73” 10

3. Unions’ Status and Structure
In France, as well as in America, unions are recognized under the law. However, differences exist in the criteria of existence and recognition of unions. As previously stated, unions are finally currently allowed in France by under the Waldeck-Rousseau law74, which still presents some restrictions (such as the

15

prohibition of unions in the publi and protected by the constitution. Moreover, labor law is extremely important, and unions contribute to a large extent to its development, but unions’ organization itself is not highly regulated. Two singularitiesy lieslie in French Labor Law: contrary to civil law, sources are not articulated in function of hierarchy but content. In other words, the most favorable

20

position for the employee applies. A second unique characteristic is the extension of collective agreements to all French workers concerned by with the agreement, not only the union members75. Collective bargaining takes place at three levels: national, sector, and company (which corresponds to the three levels of the organization of labor unions). Only the
72 Setruk, 73 Setruk,

2009 2009 74 Waldeck Rousseau Law. 75 Charoux and Jeaneau, 2008 38

five representative confederations of unions76 can conclude a collective agreement. They are organized as follows: At their head, the general secretary, elected by the labor union authorities, leads the union. At the national level, some deliberative assemblies are in charge of defining the main orientations of the union and of 5 assisting the general secretary. Local federations work at the regional level. The union section, present in the companies, constitutes the base of the unions. They group the employees who are members of the union within the company. Each of the five “representative” labor unions can decide to create a union section in the company, no matter how many employees there are.77 10 American Labor Unions are democratic organizations (officers selected by election) and exist on the local, national, and federal level, in a hierarchical fashion. In addition, some American unions are part of international unions, such as the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), which has over 145 million members in over 150 countries.78 15 Local unions usually handle grass root relations with union members, as well as daily operations within the union. Most local unions are part of a national union, which is a group of local unions. National unions are usually organized by industry. National unions handle a great deal collective bargaining, and wield significant political influence. Their other 20 duties include guiding local unions. Some examples of national unions are the Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC), the American Postal Workers Union (APWU), the Writers Guild of America, East Inc. (WGAE) and the Communications Workers of America (CWA).79 As of 2008, the industry with the highest union membership was local government workers (i.e. teachers, police officers, fire fighters) at 42.2%.80

CGT, CFDT, CGC, FO, CFTC Charoux and Jeaneau, 2008 78 Gibson, 2008 79 AFL-CIO, 2009 80 United States Department of Labor, 2009;1
76 77

39

Sales and related occupations had the lowest rates in 2008, at 3.3% 81. National unions then can join federations, which are groups of national unions. Federations have the greatest lobbying power, but do not handle collective bargaining. The largest federation in the United States at this time is AFL-CIO 5 (American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organization) with 56 member unions and over 11 million members.82 In the summer of 2005, the AFLCIO lost approximately 35% of their membership when several member unions defected and formed Change to Win (CTW), which is now the second largest federation in the United States.83 10 The union American organizing process can be divided into five steps84. First, contact is established, either by an employee to a union, or by a union to an employee. Second, the union confirms interest by pursuing authorization cards signed by employees. When 30% of employees have turned in authorization cards, the union can establish contact with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), 15 which is the governing body behind American labor unions, and petition for a union election. The third step requires the employer to provide the NLBR with the names and addresses of union eligible employees, who then forward the list to the union. The fourth step involves the union and the employer “campaigning” for 30-60 days to solicit votes in the election. Finally, a secret ballot election is a held, and if 20 majority is obtained, the union is established.

4. Unions’ Issues
IT and White-collar Membership As mentioned before, unions in France and America are facing a strong decline of membership. With the decline of the manufacturing industry, the traditional “blue

United States Department of Labor, 2009;2 AFL-CIO, 2009 83 Gibson, 2008 84 Gibson, 2008
81 82

40

collar” unionism lost strength as the “white collar” section among the working population was growing. In America, while IT organizing has recently emerged to the forefront of media attention, IT union membership has only increased .6% in the last two years.85 5 While this growth is slightly higher than average (.3%), in the same time period union membership in natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations increased .8% and union membership in production, transportation, and material moving occupations increased .9%86. Jeff Lacher sees the recent media frenzy regarding IT membership as simply an overdue recognition of process that began at 10 the advent of IT: “…every time a technology changes, there’s organizing in that among the workers…IT workers started organizing as soon as they had jobs. It’s just that they didn’t get to the point of actually major successes of organizing collective bargaining agreements because by the time IT came into existence, 15 the labor laws in the US became so ineffective and so easily violated, that its practically impossible to organize at all…”87 So while organization has become the largest challenge for CWA unions, the reasons seem to stem not from industry related problems, but the environment in which IT unions operate. 20 problem. Finally, American unions have to face the fact that many IT workers see themselves in a position that is not traditional of union representation. Most IT workers are white collar, many with bachelor degrees and up. Organizer Tom Steed of the Communications Workers of America's Poughkeepsie office said: ''What I find at 25 IBM is that people, basically, they're hyper individuals. ... They don't understand Alliance@IBM is an example of a union that faces that very

85 USDL, 86

2009 USDL, 2009 87 Lacher, 2009 41

what unions are. They say, here I am with my master's degree and I'm not suitable for a union.88'' Lee Conrad, in an interview with InfoWorld, agrees, stating that "Even though IT workers are considered a different type of animal, they're still impacted by the same 5 things that hit the manufacturing industries 10 or 15 years ago – pay cuts, downsizing, and loss of benefits."89 Jeff Lacher also concurs, stating that the manufacturing sector of IBM does not view themselves any differently than the software engineers, and all need to understand that they are part of the same organization90. American white-collar unionism is not developed, partly because 10 people don’t understand the interest they might have by joining a union. On the contrary, the rate of white-collar membership is increasing in France. Once again, this is due to the history of the unions. Their tradition of conflict and opposition is not present in the relatively new CGC, a white-collar union. They tend to emphasize dialogue, and the importance of negotiation, which according to Frank 15 Setruk, is one of the main reasons why their membership rate is increasing. “We have a regular increase of the number of our members, partly because we are a more moderate union, with logics of negotiation and establishment of agreements, rather than of contestation. More and more people are looking for this kind of approach, rather than a more radical action.” 20 With the development of the CGC and white collar unionism, moderate unions hope to find a way to improve the dialogue with French companies, and especially IBM, and stop the dual opposition that characterizes French social dialogue. 91 Alliance@IBM: Organizing Issues In America, there are several factors that make organizing within IBM difficult. The 25 first is that since IBM is so large, employees are spread all across the nation. In Steed, 2009 Tynan, 2008; 2 90 Lacher, 2009 91 Setruk, 2009
88 89

42

addition, 40% of IBM employees are mobile or work from home.92 Jeff Lacher of the CWA claims that organizing is much more effective in a face-to-face context, and when members are scattered across the country, it makes joint activities and organizing campaigns difficult. Picketing and protesting to gain union awareness is 5 near impossible when gathering employees in one place requires immense time and resources. “Union members don’t have the resources to fly around the country and meet with everybody who has a question about the union, so a lot of their organizing is done online or over the phone or through the website through 10 email and over the phone. Most people who actually join the union do it on the website. Which then turns into a difficult thing because the strength of our union comes from the activism of the members, if they’re scattered around the country, it’s very difficult to conduct joint activities.93” In order to combat this, Alliance@IBM has adopted online organizing. Employees 15 join Alliance through a secure form on the website, which then acts as a two-way communication vehicle between the Alliance and IBM employees. It is important that the Alliance not only provide information to IBM employees, but that IBM employees input into the website regarding workplace issues and strategies. Chat rooms also give employees a space to virtually commune and express common 20 interests. Not only does the website work as an organizing tool, it also acts as a recruiting and media tool, with news and links from and for the press, and information for current members, eligible employees, retirees, and organizers.94 In addition to online sign-ups, the web provides a perfect venue for large petitions or documents that require co-sponsors that would take weeks to accomplish via snail25 mail and impossible to do in person. Finally, the anonymity the Internet provides helps to bring fearful employees out of their shells.

Conrad, 2009 Lacher, 2009 94 Guyer, 2001
92 93

43

However, traditional organizing means are still utilized. When IBM initiated a pension controversy in 1999, IBM employees began wearing CWA t-shirts at work.95 Flyers are handed out at specific IBM worksites, and rallies and picket lines are held at stockholder meetings and other select IBM events.96 However, Lee Conrad claims 5 that at this point it is still easiest to reach employees via the website and email. Next is the physiological factor of unionization. While employees have always been hesitant to join unions, whether from fear of challenging their employer, fear of job loss, or pure anti-union sentiment, the current economic market has increased union insecurity. Lee Conrad states: 10 “We have to help IBM employees get over their fear of joining an organization that actively challenges their employer. It is a psychological dilemma. There are also many employees who are anti-union and will never join the Alliance”97 Jeff Lacher acknowledges that with the current job market so precarious and 15 current union legislation so thick, new industries face unprecedented organizing challenges. This is especially true for the relatively young unionization effort within IBM. French Unions’ Challenges: An Historical Foundation Frank Setruk recognizes that the situation in France is a paradox, “where there is a 20 lower membership rate than in other European countries, but still better results”, and gives two reasons for this: history and ideology. In France, the decline of membership can be largely linked to the normative concept behind the unions. People do not see the benefits they could receive by joining a union since the collective agreements apply to all French workers98:

Wolf, 2004 Conrad, 2009 97 Conrad, 2009 98 Chertier, 2006
95 96

44

“In France, country of the Human Rights, union conquest have been made in a very “generous” way, since everything unions negotiated, they decided to extend it to the entire working population immediately. For example, social security doesn’t benefit only union members, but the all society. If it wasn’t 5 the case, frankly, France would be 100% unionized!” The second reason that justifies low union membership rates is that unionism originates from the Marxist ideology, with a revolutionary vocation. “That is why we have a strong ideology and often a negative opinion of a unionism extremely politicized. That is something that has a negative impact on unionism in general. 99” 10 Marcus Courtney underlines this French paradox, stating that France has a large bargaining, with “roughly 65-70% of workers covered under bargaining, but only maybe 5% membership.100” One of the biggest problems French unions face while bargaining is not so much membership alone, but lack of coordination and cohesion between the several 15 unions. Because each of them wants to appear the most effective union for their workers, they tend to engage in unrealistic demands when negotiating with the company. This observation is made in most of French companies. And IBM doesn’t depart from the rule, according to Frank Setruk: “When we negotiate salaries raise, it is not common to ask less than the 20 colleague. So when everyone exposes its claims, we usually end up with unrealistic ones. I would like us to be able to ask reasonable and realistic raises but it is rarely the case. Because by “principle”, you have to ask a lot to get the employees mobilization, show them you are fighting for them, because of this Marxist history.101” 25 At the international level, Marcus Courtney believes that this lack of membership is even more an issue today, due to the globalization of companies: Setruk, 2009 Courtney, 2009 101 Setruk, 2009
99 100

45

“The question is that as globalization marches on, companies are no longer just French companies, they’re multinational companies, and how will the current unionization model be able to sustain itself of low membership, high coverage, when the corporations will want to attack that at some point. And 5 will they have enough political power and leverage and membership to systematically stop the undermining of rights. I would argue they won’t.102” He considers that in many ways, global corporations are empowered, like the WTO, through almost supra national state structures: “I mean the WTO is kind of its own little body that regulates and empowers investment rights within national 10 structures within these companies. They have enormous amounts of power; they have enormous amounts of leverage, over national governments and national unions.” In comparison, unions’ bargaining power is very low. Unions’ Means of Action In America, if IBM were unionized, unions’ actions would occur through collective 15 bargaining, conducted between IBM employees and IBM, supervised by the CWA. However, because IBM is not currently unionized, measures other than collective bargaining must be taken by the Alliance in order to make progress. Alliance has little or no communication directly with IBM, formal or informal; says Lee Conrad, as we mentioned previously. But while IBM does not respond to the periodic 20 Alliance e-mails formally, Lee Conrad contests that changes are noticeable: “We on occasion send IBM letters or email in regards a specific issue. IBM does not respond but we “see” the response. IBM reacted during our campaign around pay cuts and our pay cut petition by sending high level executives around the country to halt the outrage among employees.”103 25 Consequently, the most effective tool at the Alliance’s disposal is simply pressure. Most of Alliance@IBM’s clout comes from their contact with the media. The pension crisis of 1999 was solved by “creating such a fuss in the media and by getting the
102 103

Courtney, 2009 Conrad, 2009 46

senate to hold a hearing”104 says Jeff Lacher. “We alert the media to IBM’s job cuts when we start getting information from employees. We have become the only source for information on IBM job cuts because IBM is remaining silent 105”, adds Lee Conrad. 5 The Alliance also uses legislature and political supporters to accomplish their goals. From time to time, lawsuits have been used to defend employee’s rights. As far as political action, Bernie Sanders, a Vermont Senator, has an IBM plant in his state, and supports the Alliance, as well as Maurice Hinchey, a house representative from New York whose district includes Endicott. Grassroots protesting is conducted, 10 from picket lines, to leaflet and flyer distribution. “As I said, there is no direct contact with the company, so anything we try to get the company to do is done through the media, through the legislature, through just pressure, outside, to try to change the companies’ behavior, and its works, from time to time, and we have major success106”. 15 Jeff Lacher recognizes the lack of bargaining power of unions, especially in the IT industry: “IT workers started organizing as soon as they had jobs. It just that they didn’t get to the point of actually major successes of organizing collective bargaining agreements because by the time IT came into existence, the labor 20 laws in the US became so ineffective and so easily violated, that its practically impossible to organize at all, under CB in the US. So certainly for new industries it’s no easier.107” French unions adopt a similar approach, compensating for their lack of institutional power by drawing media and public attention on the issues they face. However,

Lacher, 2009 Conrad, 2009 106 Lacher, 2009 107 Lacher, 2009
104 105

47

their methods differ a lot in practice. French unions have a strong tendency to use strikes as a mean of pressure. “From now on, when there is a strike, no one notice108”. This sentence, pronounced by the French president during his political party council in 2006, and describing 5 the situation in France, created a “polemic”109. However, this caricatured opinion is somehow a reflection of the situation in France, and its differences with America. French labor unions are famous for their spectacular displays of action when they defend workers’ interest. Strikes and protests are culturally accepted in France, mainly due to the cultural heritage of unions, based on the ideology of class struggle 10 and therefore strong conflicts between workers and employees. But it is important to understand what the legal definition of a strike is, and why they have become a common place in France. The right to strike has been a constitutional right in France since 1946110. A strike is a collective interruption of work by the employees, in order to defend a professional 15 claim. According to the French law, three combined criteria characterize a strike: An interruption of labor, no matter for how long (to execute a defective task on purpose is not considered a strike); a collective interruption of labor (however, the final court of appeal has admitted that a strike can be conducted by a single employee of the company) and that this interruption must be motivated by professional claims 20 (non-political). During a strike, the employment contract of strikers is interrupted (they do not receive a remuneration), but not broken, unless the employee commits a major act of professional misconduct. 111

108 Sarkozy, 109

2006 Guiral, 2006 110 French Constitution 111 Charoux and Jeaneau, 40. 2008 48

According to Frank Setruk, French IBM unions try to use strikes at strategic periods, such as during the yearly negotiations between unions and company executives for example112, because: “Companies have an obligation to negotiate, but not the one to reach an 5 agreement. So, all the employers have to do is set up a meeting, hear the unions claims. In the best of the scenario unions have a meeting and try to come to a common claim. And now I’ll tell you how it works at IBM France. They come back and tell us: here is what we are ready to offer. And at IBM, for the past 20 years, they never had a written proposal to submit to the 10 unions’ approval.” To pressure the organization at such a key moment for the unions would be a good way to make sure the company takes into consideration workers’ claims. However, they tend to face a lack of support from the employees. “Since employees benefit from everything unions negotiate, they don’t agree 15 at all to go on strike during wage negotiations for example. Especially because they tell themselves: since my raise will be decided by my boss, my interest is to be a model employee. When we propose, we reach 3% of workers on strike. The management wants to tell us: “Hold on, people don’t listen to you, why should I?” And people who went on strike might be the 20 next victims of official or unofficial restructuration plans”.113 He also says that people are surprised that “workers are on strike all the time in France, but there are just no agreements to stop them.” It is interesting to understand how the current economic situation has affected the unions. All our interviewees acknowledge the impact of the crisis on unions’ work, 25 mainly because the general public now pays more attention to the social aspect of business, and is aware of the potential consequences of an economy focused on
112 113

Setruk, 2009 Setruk, 2009 49

financial profits only. “I think that the crisis brings us more to the forefront, the unions have been focusing on this and it’s kind of an untold story. The unions are ahead of the curve on globalization and understanding globalization114”, states Marcus Courtney. 5 Unions start to understand the importance of globalization and unite in larger international groups of unions, such as UNI, which is principally focused in negotiating global framework agreements to try and guarantee international right for these multinational companies located anywhere around the world. “That’s in a lot of ways, discussing the whole issue of the economic crisis, which is basically this 10 rise of the super unregulated multinational corporations that can wreak havoc and destroy economies”, says Marcus Courtney.115 He believes this as really forced the credibility of UNI, and justifies why unions are necessary: “The big thing is why a worker needs a union, well you can look around today.” The UNI is constantly working to improve international unions’ cooperation. 15 However, the fact that workers are spread out all over the world make it highly difficult to act globally. In order to combat this problem, and using the same concept of “on-line” organizing as Alliance@IBM, UNI started to develop “virtual actions”, using the world's leading 3D virtual world environment, Second Life. They were able to do that because IBM owns several “islands” in Second Life: 20 ”Visionary corporations from around the globe, such as Michelin, IBM, and Xerox, have all established and grown significant presences in Second Life. They are working in Second Life in a wide variety of ways--from holding meetings, conducting training, to building product prototypes or simulating business situations in a safe learning environment.116” 25 UNI realized that the advantages that Second life brings to IBM can also apply to its unions: Courtney, 2009 Courtney, 2009 116 Second Life
114 115

50

”UNI plans to use Second Life™ to create a community for affiliates, which will let trade unionists from around the world meet and work together on shared issues. The project also aims to use the medium to present union campaigns to a new audience, and enable a new generation of online activists 5 to have more input into union activities.117” Their actions consist of virtual strikes and protests that unite avatars of IBM employees from all over the world. UNI co-organized the first Virtual “strike” in history on September 27th, 2007 against IBM, because of a management issue in Italy. With 2000 participants of the ”real world” joining the virtual action, the ”real 10 life” dispute ended positively for the unions, with the resignation of IBM’s Italian general manager and the obtaining of a new contract. An important reason for the success of the operation is certainly the media coverage obtained by the unions: the news story went all around the world, and showed the incredible potential of web-based tools for the unions. It also gained an important 15 recognition from the French government, and won the French Senate award of “the most innovative and exemplar initiatives of the Web118”.

117 118

UNI, 2008 UNI 51

V. Analysis
1. Conflicting Objectives
French unions and American unions are incredibly different. Structure, collective bargaining, attitude, and organization tactics differ between the two. As this thesis 5 attempted to analyze French and American unions, the study turned into a contrast rather than a “compare and contrast”. However, after analyzing the data, a link between the French and American unions was found; most similarities between French and American unions lie in the sole fact that union objectives usually differ from company objectives. 10 from company objectives. While the ultimate goal for both companies and unions is company success, the opinion of how to achieve this varies, which is where unions and companies usually find their disagreements. Our interviewees feel that IBM’s pursuit of short-term 15 profits undermines employee welfare. They also feel that companies do not view unions as vital to company success. In addition, IBM’s values include “trust and personal responsibility in all relationships.” However, according to our data, there is a growing concern among unions that IBM has forgotten the ideals that have lead it this far. It seems clear that unions feel their objectives differ from company 20 objectives. Frooman stated about the importance of power: “…in those cases where interests diverge and the firm is unwilling to change its behavior to accommodate a stakeholder, power is likely to decide the outcome.”119 25 It seems an obvious statement that unions and companies can have conflicting objectives, but it is less obvious what happens when they do. According to Frooman, the entity with greater ability to influence is likely to achieve its objectives. Therefore we can say that union’s main objective is to increase influence.
119

That is, French union objectives may differ from

American union objectives, but French and American union objectives usually differ

Frooman, 1999; 195 52

2. Influence
Remember our definition of influence: the degree to which a stakeholder can affect the achievement of the organizations objectives. Through the analysis of Mitchell, Agle, and Wood, we determined that the center their Venn diagram equates to 5 influence. Therefore we can conclude the following: A group of employees who want to influence a company effectively need to have a certain degree of power, legitimacy and urgency. This statement requires elaboration. Five employees are angry over a labor dispute, so they buy guns. 10 The fact that they are employees gives them a degree of legitimacy, they are urgent because of the dispute, and they have power from the guns. They technically retain all three attributes. But the chance of them effectively resolving their dispute is very small. The company is most likely not going to have the achievement of its objectives affected for very long. 15 But lets say these employees still retain urgency, but instead of buying guns, band together with other employees to increase legitimacy and power. Now the employees have a greater chance of affecting the achievement of the organizations objectives, or greater influence. This analysis aims to understand how unions gain the degree of power, urgency, and legitimacy necessary to effectively influence a company.

3. Urgency
20 After analyzing the data, the following statement was concluded: The situation faced by unions may be more or less urgent. This seems obvious. But depending on how urgent a union is, a union is more likely to pursue influence. We found urgency to be the catalyst for action; the reason unions seek an increase in power, and consequently legitimacy. 25 In 1999, when Alliance@IBM was formed, an urgent situation, the change in pension plans, gave them enough urgency to organize and seek authority through the media and government. When all the IBM unions united for their international “Second

53

Life” strike, they were presented a situation that called for immediate attention (Italian wage increase rejection). They then united internationally to gain more power and legitimacy (authority). It is probably a safe prediction, at least according to Marcus Courtney, that unions will find a way to use the current economic crisis as 5 a tool to promote an increase in authority as well. Unions always have urgency in some sense or another. The simple fact the union exists means that there is enough urgency to justify its existence. That base of urgency is what leads unions to legitimize themselves in the first place. Jeff Lacher stated that there is organizing at the advent of every new industry, it simply starts 10 small. As stated, this analysis is all about degrees. The more urgent a situation is to a union, the more they will pursue influence.

4. Legitimacy
After analyzing the data, the following statement was concluded: By unionizing, employees gain legitimacy, which increases as membership 15 increases. Refer back to our definition of a union: “a ‘formal’ organized association of workers, often in a trade or profession, formed to protect their further rights and interests.” Now Suchman’s definition of legitimacy: “a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate with some socially 20 constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and definitions.”120 By establishing a union under the law (socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions), employees achieve formal status. This is further enforced through increased membership, because increased membership implies that there is “a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, 25 proper, or appropriate.”

120

Suchman, 1995 54

Legal status falls under cognitive legitimacy. It is taken for granted that a union is protected under the law. In fact, our data confirmed that unions are indeed protected under the law, which intrinsically gives them some form of legitimacy. Membership relates to pragmatic legitimacy, which is“…based on the perception of 5 the usefulness of an organization.” Theory proposed by Tetrick et al. supports that union instrumentality, which “reflects the members’ cognitive assessments of the costs and benefits associated with union representation”121, is the factor that unions must focus on first when attempting to achieve union participation. When potential members view a union as “instrumental” to their success, they are more likely to 10 join, and legitimacy is increased. It is an elaborate bandwagon effect; everyone else is joining this organization, so this organization must be legitimate. Moral legitimacy is more contextual, based upon an assessment of the claims and actions unions make. In this instance, unions must make “reasonable arguments.” This is where French unions encounter difficulties. There are so many unions 15 competing for employee membership that they will often make unreasonable requests to attempt to prove their commitment, or instrumentality, to members. However, by doing this, they actually decrease their legitimacy in the eyes of the company. According to Suchman, long-term influence is the key to effective legitimacy. 20 Therefore, the more legitimate a union is, the more likely it is to influence the organization on the long term.

5. Power
After analyzing the data, the following statement was concluded: In order to increase power, unions are likely to follow different influence 25 strategies based upon their perception of interdependence.

121

Tetrick, 2007; 820 55

Of the three types of power (coercive, utilitarian, and normative), unions seem to rely most on utilitarian power. While unions and their members have the capability of coercive power, coercive power tends to decrease legitimacy, as using violence and force is usually restricted under social norms (law). Normative power is also 5 not a viable option for unions, as it is difficult for unions to gain “sympathy” or influence via love or symbolic significance. Therefore, it can be concluded that unions primarily pursue utilitarian power, which is the power that is based on material or financial resources. Frooman’s theory is based upon resource dependence, which states that power 10 stems from a firm’s “dependence” on resources that give “actors leverage over a firm.”122 This is consistent with the notion of unions pursuing utilitarian power, or power based upon resources. From this point, unions can be analyzed based upon resource dependence. The degree to which a union feels the company is dependent upon its resources will 15 determine whether a union pursues a direct or indirect strategy. If a union perceives that a company is dependent upon the resources the union retains, unions will pursue a direct strategy. And if a union perceives that a company is not dependent upon the resources the union retains, unions will pursue an indirect strategy. 20 Union’s main resource, that is, what companies see as valuable, is employees. If a union feels they have enough employees that they can “use” or “withhold”, they will pursue a direct strategy. This does not necessarily equate simply to membership. Members must also be willing to endorse and support the union, which Frooman defines as making the threat “credible.” The degree to which a union feels it is dependent upon a company’s resources will 25 determine whether a union pursues a usage or withholding strategy. If a union perceives their welfare is highly tied to the welfare of the company, it will pursue a usage strategy, and if the union perceives that its welfare is less tied to the company, it will pursue a withholding strategy.
122

Frooman, 1999; 195 56

By understanding what means a union will pursue in order to increase its ability to influence, companies can increase their understanding in matters involving union relations.

6. Application
5 All of our findings can be applied to our research within IBM unions. Alliance@IBM As a company, how would one map Alliance@IBM based upon Alliance@IBM’s perception of itself? We argue the map would look something like this:

10

Alliance@IBM perceives itself as quite urgent. All Alliance interviewees feel their concerns are time sensitive and important. Alliance@IBM is working incredibly hard to increase membership and awareness. All officers interviewed shared the opinion that union representation is necessary for IBM employees, whether they are aware of it or not.

15

However, Alliance@IBM faces minimum levels of cognitive and pragmatic legitimacy. While their right to exist is protected under the law, cognitive legitimacy remains low because American unions face difficult labor laws, and because their 57

lack of majority does not allow for them to obtain collective barging rights. In addition, Alliance@IBM is aware that at this point in time their usefulness is still limited, which means they have low pragmatic legitimacy. Alliance@IBM does feel they retain a high level of moral legitimacy, as interviewees felt that their claims are 5 morally sound and their procedures just. attention, rather than active. Currently, Alliance@IBM uses an indirect/usage power strategy. Alliance@IBM does not control enough resources for IBM to be dependent on them. Simple 10 numbers show that Alliance@IBM has 360 members while IBM has 390,000 employees. In addition, Alliance@IBM is highly dependent on IBM for its welfare. This means that Alliance@IBM faces a “firm power” situation and is likely to use an indirect/usage strategy. This is demonstrated in their actions. In order to resolve the 1999 pension dispute, IBM went to the media and to their supporters in the 15 government to help rally for their cause, instead of confronting IBM themselves. They then used the media and government resources to put pressure on IBM. The resource the government, its representatives, and the media possess is positive press-coverage (remember, a resource is anything an actor values). This allowed Alliance@IBM to still provide their resources and resources of their partner 20 stakeholders, but only with conditions attached (this is a usage strategy). However, this overall low level of legitimacy allows IBM to give Alliance@IBM what Suchman refers to as passive

58

French IBM Unions The same mapping can be applied to French IBM unions, in order for managers to gain an insight into unions’ demands, anticipate their reactions and improve their relations.

5 Just like Alliance@IBM, the degree of urgency of French IBM unions’ claims is dependent on the situation. However, at this point in time, based on the context of our interviews, French IBM unions do not seem incredibly urgent. While the French unions are mildly urgent simply because they are established, there are currently no 10 major disputes, and the incentive to increase power and legitimacy is not very high. French unions benefit from a high cognitive legitimacy, as they are institutionalized and their existence is protected by the highest legal text in France, which is the Constitution. Moreover, since they function on a national level, and not company-bycompany as they do in America, they are socially recognized. This is due in part to 15 their historical presence in French economic life. This means the main source of their legitimacy comes from cognitive legitimacy. Their pragmatic legitimacy is relatively high as well. They perceive themselves as useful to both workers and general public, because the collective agreements apply to all workers. The level of 59

outputs for non-union members is much superior to their inputs. A weakness of French IBM unions would be their lack of moral legitimacy. Because of their tradition of contestation and connections with the hard-left wing ideology, their claims may be perceived as highly confrontational, which reduces moral legitimacy. 5 French IBM unions have many laws that protect them from dependence on a company. The law clearly defends a “unionism of direct action”, which further encourages direct action. However, French IBM unions only hold a small percentage of employees. 10 Contrary to the public sector, private companies’ unions have relatively low support from workers when they initiate a strike. Therefore, even if they can act directly, they need external stakeholders’ support to gain enough power to influence the company. French IBM unions generally use a combination of direct, indirect and withholding strategy. The launch of a strike or a protest is the easiest way to gain the media attention, and gain the external support they need.

7. Analysis
15 What does this mean for IBM? First, it must be noted that the information contained within this thesis is to assist companies in increasing their understanding of how to manage unions, not instruct companies how to manage unions. Second, it must be noted that the map is constantly changing, therefore must be constantly reevaluated. 20 That being said, several predictions can be made regarding Alliance@IBM’s future. As stated, we see urgency as the catalyst for the pursuit of power and legitimacy. Therefore, we see Alliance@IBM attempting to achieve power and legitimacy quite intensely due to their high level of urgency. However, since legitimacy is so closely tied to power, and legitimacy is more in control of unions, we feel Alliance@IBM will 25 attempt to achieve greater legitimacy first. They will most likely do this by attempting to increase pragmatic legitimacy through increased membership and the attainment of member goals, and increasing cognitive legitimacy by working towards majority and supporting legislation that gives unions more rights. If Alliance@IBM becomes less dependent on IBM, Alliance@IBM might pursue 60

different strategies of influence such as indirect/withholding. Only if Alliance@IBM gains enough members (resources) to have IBM become dependent on them will Alliance@IBM be able to move to a direct strategy. Similar predictions can be made regarding French IBM unions. The most significant 5 observation is that currently, French IBM unions retain a relatively low level of urgency. IBM may want to attempt to avoid giving French IBM unions a reason to become urgent. A reason may present itself externally, but IBM cannot control that factor from their end. 10 Additionally, French IBM unions see themselves as confrontational, and the data supports this. Therefore, French IBM unions may see that they can increase their legitimacy through increasing the legitimacy of their claims and actions. Finally, French union mindset and law stems back to Marxist ideology, and French unions may look to encourage that further by increasing their resources and moving closer to a pure direct/withholding, or stakeholder power, influence strategy. 15

61

Conclusions and Recommendations
This thesis set out to provide companies with a better understanding of labor union’s perspective, which would allow for more effective stakeholder mapping and management of unions. Consequently, companies increased understanding should 5 assist both companies and unions in overcoming their conflicting objectives to achieve their mutual objective of company success. Our findings expanded upon Mitchell, Agle, and Wood’s typology of stakeholders to include several other stakeholder theories, including Frooman’s and Suchman’s. Our data then concluded that while French and American IBM unions may have 10 different objectives, both French and American IBM labor union objectives conflicted with company objectives. Our remaining data, in combination with our theoretical framework, lead to four statements: A group of employees who want to influence a company effectively need to have a certain degree of power, legitimacy and urgency. 15 The situation faced by unions may be more or less urgent. By unionizing, employees gain legitimacy, which increases as membership increases. In order to increase power, unions are likely to follow different influence strategies based upon their perception of interdependence. 20 Finally, our statements were applied to French and American IBM unions, and it was demonstrated how companies might use this information to more effectively stakeholder map and manage. For further research, the significance of urgency could be further explored. It seems that urgency is a very important factor in regards to unions specifically, as much of 25 their support and validation is derived from conflict. In addition, while public sector unions could be analyzed as stakeholders in a similar manner as the unions 62

presented in this thesis, public sector unions differ highly and thus would lead to an interesting but altered discussion. Also, an analysis of how companies can manage unions could prove useful. Finally, this report was done from a union perspective. In the same fashion that companies may benefit from understanding a union’s 5 perspective, unions may benefit from understanding the company perspective.

63

Works Cited
AFL-CIO. www.aflcio.org - America’s Union Movement. 2009. 27 Apr. 2009 <http://www.aflcio.org/>. Alliance@IBM. “Alliance@IBM Communications Workers of America: The official national 5 site for the IBM Employees’ Union CWA Local 1701, AFL-CIO.” Alliance@IBM CWA Local 1701. 9 Apr. 2009. 14 Apr. 2009 <http://www.endicottalliance.org/index.html>. Arfélix, Jean-Claude. Telephone (Skype) interview. 3 May 2009. Charoux, Françoise, and Yvonne Jeaneau. La Legislation du Travail. N.p.: Nathan, 2008. Chertier, Dominique Jean. “Pour une Modernization du dialogue Social, Rapport au Premier 10 Ministre.” La Documentation Française. 2006. French Government. 4 May 2009 <http://lesrapports.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/BRP/064000351/0000.pdf>. Conrad, Lee. E-mail interview. 28 Apr. 2009. Courtney, Marcus. Telephone (Skype) interview. 14 May 2009. CWA. Communication Workers of America. AFL-CIO, CLC. 14 May 2009 <http://www.cwa15 union.org/>. Dares. “Premières Informations, Premières Synthèses.” 2004. 28 May 2009 <http://jp.malrieu.free.fr/SES702/IMG/pdf/syndicalisation_DARES_.pdf>. Davis, K. “The Case for and Against Business Assumption of Social Responsibility.” Academy of Management Journal (1973): 312-322. 20 Etzioni, A. Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964. Freeman, R E. Strategic Management, a Stakeholder Approach. N.p.: n.p., 1984. French Government. “Constitution of 1946.” http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr. 28 Apr. 2009 <http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/la-

64

constitution/la-constitution-du-4-octobre-1958/preambule-de-la-constitution-du-27octobre-1946.5077.html>. - - -. Ministère du Travail. 29 May 2009 <http://www.travail-solidarite.gouv.fr>. - - -. “Waldeck-Rousseau Law.” Legifrance. 29 May 2009 <http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr>. 5 Frooman, Jeff. “Stakeholder Influence Strategies.” Academy of management Review 24.2 (1999): 191-205. Gibson, Cathy Lee. PHR Exam Prep: Professional in Human Resources, Second Edition. Que Publishing, 2008. Safari Tech Books Online. ProQuest. DePaul University. 30 Mar. 2009 <http://proquest.umi.com/login>. 10 Guiral, Antoine. “Sarkozy décrète la grève invisible et nargue les syndicats.” Libération 7 July 2006. www.liberation.fr. 14 May 2009 <http://www.liberation.fr/france/010184946sarkozy-decrete-la-greve-invisible-et-nargue-les-syndicats>. Guyer, Linda. “Real-World Experiences of Online Organizing .” Alliance at IBM Paper presented at the TUC, May 2001. 11 May 2001. The London School of Economics 15 Centre for Economic Performance (CEP), with the Harvard University Trade Union Program, and the British Trade Union Congress (TUC). 16 May 2009 <http://www.endicottalliance.org/docs/TUC/AllianceIBM_paper.htm>. IBM. IBM 2008 Annual Report. 28 May 2009 <http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2008/>. Katz, Harry C., Rosemary Batt, and Jeffrey H. Keffe. “The Revitalization of the CWA: 20 Integrating Collective Bargaining, Political Action, and Organizing.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 56.4 (2003): 573-589. “Labor Union.” Oxford University Press: The New Oxford American Dictionary. 2nd ed. 2005. Lacher, Jeff. Telephone (Skype) interview. 28 Apr. 2009.

65

“La Déclaration Commune du Front Syndical du 5 Janvier.” Challenges 19 Feb. 2009. www.challenges.fr. 16 May 2009 <http://www.challenges.fr/actualites/ politique_economique/20090217.CHA1169/ la_declaration_commune_du_front_syndical_du_5_janvier.html>. 5 “Legitimate.” Def. 3a;4. www.merriam-webster.com. 24 May 2009 <http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/legitimate>. Levinson, Meridith. “IT Workers of the World: Are They Uniting?” CIO Magazine 1 May 2001: 134+. LexisNexis Academic. LexisNexis. DePaul University Library. 7 Apr. 2009 <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe>. 10 “Management.” Def. 1. BusinessDictionary.com. 28 May 2009 <http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/management.html>. “Management.” Oxford University Press: The New Oxford American Dictionary. 2nd ed. 2005. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. Manifesto of the Communist party. N.p., 1848. Mitchell, Ronald K., Bradley R. Agle, and Donna J. Wood. “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder 15 Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts.” Academy of Management Review 22.4 (1997): 853-896. Pouget, and Griffuelhes. “Charte d’Amiens.” Oct. 1906. Sarkozy, Nicolas. Speech. UMP council. Paris. 5 July 2006. Setruk, Frank. Telephone (Skype) interview. 5 May 2009. 20 Suchman, Mark C. “Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches.” Academy of Management Review 20.3 (1995): 571-610. EBSCO. Linköping University Lib, Linköping, Sweden. 21 May 2009 <http://www.bibl.liu.se/english/default-e.asp>. Taft, Darryl K. “Report: IBM Set to Cut Thousands of Jobs in Western Europe .” eWeek.com 13

66

Apr. 2009. eWeek.com. 14 Apr. 2009 <http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastructure/ Report-IBM-Set-to-Cut-Thousands-of-Jobs-in-Western-Europe-514770/>. Tetrick, Lois E., et al. “A Model of Union Participation: The Impact of Perceived Union Support, Union Instrumentality, and Union Loyalty.” Journal of Applied Psychology 92.3 (2007): 5 820-828. Tynan, Dan. “Should IT form a union?” Adventures in IT 4 Sept. 2008. InfoWorld. 9 Apr. 2009 <http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/should-it-form-union-100>. United States Department of Labor. “News: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Union Members in 2008).” Union Membership (Annual). 2009. 14 Apr. 2009 <http://stats.bls.gov/ 10 news.release/pdf/union2.pdf>. “Urgent.” Def. 1a. www.merriam-webster.com. 27 May 2009 <http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/urgent>. Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: n.p., 1947. White, Rick. E-mail interview. 1 May 2009. 15

67

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful