Introduction

Since the foundation of trade unions in the late 18 th century, they have

served constantly to further fair treatment of its member in their employee

organizations. It tends to achieve this by either collective bargaining, or industrial

action, or lobbying activities. In recent times, many trade unions have faced an

increased number of female membership as a result of feminist movements and

the working women concept gaining momentum. Moreover, increased global labor

mobility has resulted in trade unions that represent different demographics, and

also increased minority membership in trade unions. As trade unions tend to

sustain and better the work conditions of their members (Kaufman 2004),

increased female and minority membership implies that trade unions would now

advance equality and promote diversity. However, it is known that trade unions

have traditionally emphasized a white male bias. In consideration of the

aforementioned issues, an enquiry is necessitated on the role that unions might

play in advancing equality and promoting diversity in the workplace.

In order to achieve this, the paper would separately look at the impact of

trade unions on advancing equality in the workplace, and acceptance of trade

unions towards concepts of diversity. The discussion with respect to equality

would specifically emphasize on Heery (2006), and with respect to diversity would

consider Green et al (2005). Besides these two articles, the paper would also take

into consideration an extensive literature review on the topics of trade union

impact on equality and trade union acceptance of diversity. Findings from the
article review and literature review would be assessed to conclude separately the

extent of unions role in advancing equality and promoting diversity.

Trade Unions and Equality

When trade unions indulge in soliciting equal opportunities and equal

treatment within the workplace, it is known as equality bargaining. Most of the

study on the impact of trade union on equality at workplace has followed this term

of equality bargaining. A recent comprehensive study of equality bargaining is

found in Heery (2006). Heery utilizes a dataset of a survey conducted in 2002 of

nearly 538 trade union officers involved in collective bargaining. Heerys research

only takes into consideration significantly large unions of more than 100,000

members. The data from the officers is analyzed for four issues; the incidence of

equality bargaining (EB) and its success, the location of equality bargaining (by

industry, by union structure, by union membership trend, by contract type and

gender), the characteristics of bargaining officers, and the pressure (possibly

opportunities) on bargaining officers. With respect to incidence, it was found that

nearly three-fourths of the officers surveyed had attempted bargaining of an EB

issue with a minimum 70% success rate. Issues with zero costs to businesses had

a high success rate. Conversely, issues that would result in increased costs for

businesses such as extension of benefits and bonuses to women workers - were

the ones that were least rose by bargaining officers. According to Heery (2006),

this implied that bargaining officers had the tendency to raise only those issues
that were likely to be accepted by organizations. If this implication is considered, it

means that the role of trade union was then of initiating equality policies. However,

it was not an essential initiator. Any pressure group beside trade unions could

have also initiated this as it seems as Heery (2006) makes it seem as if the

organization had to be simply informed of the equal pay issue for it to be

implemented.

Secondly, Heery (2006) found that there were also differences on the

prevalence of EB with respect to the industry that the bargainer represented, the

nature of members job, the nature of union membership over the last four years,

and the bargaining structure of the union. Specifically, it was realized that EB was

prevalent in public administration, personnel services, managers and supervisors.

This is quite expected as governmental policies in recent year make these

industries more open to negotiations. Interestingly, manufacturing had

considerably high EB prevalence. Moreover, it was found that industries with the

least score were construction, wholesale and retail, craftworkers and

salesworkers. Construction was a predominantly male industry, and as such this

find was expected. The finding in wholesale and retail was more astonishing. The

more interesting implication was, however, that declining unions did not change

their agendas to accommodate greater EB. It was also found that single-employer

trade unions did not specifically indulge in EB as much as multi-employer unions

which indulged highly in EB. The research also showed that unions with high

female membership did not rate specifically high on advocating EB. This rejected a
common conjecture that increased female membership resulted in trade union

being more focused on equality issues.

Thirdly, it was found that different officer characteristics resulted in different

EB commitment. For instance, interestingly, recently appointed officers and

younger officers were actually less likely to pursue EB in the collective bargaining

agendas. Moreover, it was found that university educated officers, equal pay

trained officers, and officers possessing internal or external advice to equality

issues were more likely to pursue more EB issues than other officers. In a similar

vein, Heery (2006) lastly found that commitment to EB and EB initiatives were

most affected by external influences, and minimally by internal influences. A more

pro-equality attitude by government policy, state agencies, employers, employers

bodies or campaigning bodies was likely to result in high number of EB initiatives

being pursued by the union. On the other hand, specialist committees were the

ones most likely to encourage and cause high EB initiatives being pursued from

within the trade union. If we consider the information on external influences, it

would be quickly realized that by far external influences were the ones most likely

to cause equality initiatives to be raised by unions than any internal influence.

Heery (2006) observes that this is because external influence created a greater

opportunity and environment for initiatives to be pursued. Within this context, trade

unions are portrayed as organizations that would work towards equality if given the

environment and opportunity to do so.

Looking at Heery (2006)s findings, the trade unions role in advancing

equality is one of being a facilitator than a leader. Trade unions are most likely to
pursue EB if an external occurrence makes it easy for them to do so. As such, the

role of trade unions that Heery (2006) dictates in advancing equality is merely one

of acting as the governments enforcing body. They only barely advocate notions

of EB otherwise. However, this is quite questionable behavior coming from

organizations that have historically been ones to push forward changes in

workplace policies and respective governmental laws rather than wait for it. If only

Heery (2006)s study is considered, the role of trade unions in advancing equality

is rather a reactive and minor role, albeit a necessary role so that businesses do

not get lax with implementing policy changes.

Trade Unions and Diversity

In order to realize the differing perspectives of trade union about the notions

of diversity, it might be appropriate to consider the case of Green et al (2005).

Green et al (2005) looks at the views of British and Danish trade union bargainers

and activists on the notion of diversity management. The results found are quite

interesting. Green et al (2005) finds that support or opposition to the concept of

diversity depends on a variety of factor. Firstly, it depends on what concept of

diversity is being talked about. If the notion of diversity as a mere descriptor of the

workplace is being talked about, unions do realize the importance of realizing

diversity as a descriptor in workplaces today. However, if the notion of diversity

as a policy approach or as a theoretical approach is talked about, the support or

rejection of diversity falls upon factors such as national equality and discrimination
contexts. In UK, the policy approach is outright reproached. The reasons for this

are highlighted as; the emphasis on the individual rather than social groups, the

business case rather than moral and social justice, the threat of marginalizing the

union and the neglect of the realities of discrimination. This stands in stark

contrast to how Danish unions approach the diversity policy approach. Most

activists interviewed by Green et al. (2005) are highly accommodating of diversity

management concepts. They witness this is a positive policy approach. This has

its bias in the industrial relations within Denmark. In UK, industrial relations are

adversarial and dictated by law. On the other hand, in Denmark the industrial

relations are largely dependent upon the notion of cooperation and discussion. To

this extent, Denmark introduced an anti-discrimination legislation only 16 years

ago, compared to 36 years ago in UK. Moreover, individuals in Denmark feel as if

they are in a post-gender inequality era and most gender equality issues have

been addressed in Denmark. However, the country does not possess any legal

body to actually monitor if issues have been resolved. It should be noted that in

Denmark most of the ethnic minorities are Muslim and this tends to bring about a

negative tone to the treatment of minorities in Denmark. Indeed, this is reflected in

the laissez-faire manner in which the activists in Denmark responded to

addressing racial discrimination at the workplace.

The notion of Green et al (2005) that support or opposition to diversity

management by trade unions depends on the regional context is quite true,

however, the case of Denmark is quite inappropriate. It should be noted that it is

mentioned in the article that Denmark feels that they have largely addressed the
issue of gender discrimination. Moreover, it is addressed that there are cultural

issues that impeded racial discrimination to be addressed through positive action

or sameness approaches. This might be supported by the fact that the other race

that is prevalent in Denmark belongs to Muslim ethnicity which although not

discriminated against are not favored in the Danish region. As such, if we look at

Danish trade unions, they do not specifically possess an agenda that might

actively be sought out by equality or diversity policy approaches. That is, as they

disregard the gender issue and the race issue, they do not have any greater issue

left that might be addressed with respect to diversity management. Hence, the

consideration of Denmark severely restricts the comparison, and a country with

more equal consideration of gender, race and minority issues must be considered

for trade unions role in promoting diversity management to be properly

understood.

A more appropriate study might be found in Kirton and Greene (2006). In

once again visiting the UK context, Kirton and Greene find that their several

reasons for which opposition to diversity might exist at a theoretical level.

Essentially three factors are highlighted; underpinning economic rationale for

diversity, the focus on the individual and the positioning of diversity as a top-

down, managerial activity. These factors have been already slightly discussed in

Green et al. (2005), Green and Kirton (2004) and Wrench (2005). Herein, it should

be noted that these issues are essential to understanding why trade unions will

always be reluctant to induce notions of diversity management. It should be

realized that the economic rationale for diversity management is the business
case. Diversity management advocates that by identifying differences amongst

individuals at the workplace, they can be appropriated work respectively according

to their different advantages and this would allow for greater productivity and

efficiency at workplace. It should be noted however that this case means that

several social groups might be forever left disadvantaged in certain workplaces.

For instance, if it is considered that Africans are better at athletic sports, than

according to diversity management it might get to a point that all sports team might

only possess Africans in them. However, this would be disadvantageous to an

English or Indian who would like to take part in athletic sports. The issue that

arises is that trade unions operate on the social justice principle. They are not

concerned with profits to the business but that the social groups that the trade

union is in charge of are provided social equality or at least significant rights.

Hence, it should be noted the very economic rationale that promotes diversity

management goes against the economic rational of trade unions.

Besides this, it should also be noted that diversity initiatives are appointed

at the managerial level and then implemented downwards in a top-to-bottom

approach. However, trade unions tend to operate in an altogether different

manner. Trade unions are generally representative of its members intents, and

they tend to represent what their members require. Most trade unions have been

historically made up of people from the lower classes which represented people

belonging to the bottom hierarchy in the business (Daniels & Mcllroy, 2008). It

should be noted that as such trade unions represented a bottom-to-top approach

through collective bargaining. If trade unions are to accept the notion of diversity
management, they are to accept that employees are to accept managerial orders

and hence this would make it theoretically more difficult for them to argue for

employees in a diversity context. In a similar context, another difference should be

highlighted as the focus of diversity management on the individual, and the focus

of trade unions on social groups. Taking into consideration these factors, it should

be realized that trade unions could never go about accepting diversity as a policy

and theoretical approach and hence never promote it.

Conclusion

From the analysis of the essential readings and other literature on the

subject, the role of trade unions can be identified with respect to equality and

diversity. The least role that unions possess with respect to advancing equality is

that of ensuring that it happens. Despite the fact that unions depend on too many

external occurrences and facilitators to indulge in EB initiatives, equality at the

workplace in UK is achieved partly because of their efforts. Hence, with respect to

advancing equality, unions play a small but pivotal role in the UK context. The

same cannot be however said of the role of unions in promoting diversity.

Diversity, in the UK context, is abhorred by unions and outright rejected. It is

considered that policy-based approaches on diversity would emphasize too much

on the difference criteria that the equality that has been achieved so far would

have been for naught. However, it should be noted that this reproach of diversity

amongst trade unions is not universal and Danish unions are quite accepting of
diversity approaches. Further literature review points that there is a lack of data,

and most studies point that unions in most developed nations so far have not been

promoters of diversity in any manner.

References

Daniels, G., & McIlroy, J. (2008). Trade Unions in a Neoliberal World: British

Trade Unions Under New Labour. London: Routledge.

Green, A., Kirton, G., & Wrench, J. (2005). Trade Union Perspectives on

Diversity Management: A Comparison of the UK and Denmark. European

Journal of Industrial Relations. 11 (2), 179-196.

Greene, A., & Kirton, G. (2004). Views from Another Stakeholder: Trade Union

Perspective on the Rhetoric of Managing Diversity. Warwick Papers in

Industrial Relations, Working Paper 74-2004.

Heery, E. (2006). Equality Bargaining: Where, Who, Why? Gender Work and

Organization, 13(6), 522-542.

Kaufman, B.E. (2004). The Global Evolution of Industrial Relations: Events,

Ideas and the Lira. Geneva: International Labour Office.

Kirton, G., & Greene, A. (2006). The Discourse of Diversity in Unionised

Contexts: Views from Trade Union Equality Officers. Personnel Review, 35(4),

431-448.

Wrench, J. (2005). Diversity Management Can Be Bad for You. Race and

Class, 46(3), 7384.