Case Summary 3: Survery on Trade Union Cadres in Non State Enterprises

Survey and interviews with primary level union officials in the private sector

Case Summary

ESRC/Case Study/B/2

Outline

• Survey conducted among trade union cadres attending a course on trade union work at X college in D city.
• 2000 questionnaires distributed in class but only 60 responses. Hope to have 100 by the end of the course.
• Questionnaires followed up with in-depth interviews
• Majority of respondents – and participants of the course – were from small and medium size enterprises – under 1,000 employees. Only one respondent was from a large enterprise of over 5000 workers.

General Points

• 48 follow up interviews conducted – 46 of the interviewees held managerial positions at their place of work. All stated that the day job was more important to them i.e. union work was not seen as a priority.

• All reported that their union work was entirely dependent on management approval. The union’s annual budget was generally approved by the managing director of the enterprise.
• Six of interviewees were elected officials but only four could give any details of the process. Two of them said the elections ‘took place before’ they had taken up the post.
• None of the respondents had taken part in a wage consultation process.
• All stated that they depended on their position as managers when dealing with a problem passed on to them by union members. 67% of union members had approached senior management with problems of members.
• All but one of the interviewees maintained that they worked in partnership with management and stated that there was no divergence of interests between management and workers.
• All said their stated views on the role of the union and the interests of the workers were based on the ‘national situation’. Bad behaviour by bosses and owners such as wage arrears was not a trade union problem but a problem of implementation of labour law that was primarily the responsibility of the MOLSS and is governed by the overall ‘national situation’ (guo qing).

Wage Consultation

• Not possible as the boss would not accept it. Any collective action or pressure to force the boss into negotiations would constitute a “threat to the boss” Strikes would lead to government intervention and leaders would be in serious trouble. The MOLSS prioritised a return to production and the workers lacked unity

Disputes

• Complex attitude to disputes rooted in their perception of the ‘national situation’. Most of the interviewees recognised their legally defined representative role in a dispute i.e. to represent the members in negotiations with management. However, the majority took the more neutral course of simply passing on demands to senior management
• With regard to disputes initiated by workers themselves, none were prepared to get actively involved. Any form of collective bargaining to solve a dispute was regarded as very difficult and taking the initiative to establish a mediation committee with management was regarded as very challenging

Relationship with workers

• 63% said that their members would not come to them to get a dispute solved, 37% said that some workers would
• Workers active involvement in the union is very low.
• Respondents have a poor view of their members – lack unity, low quality, poorly educated etc.

Relationship with Management

• Respondents claim that their union work is entirely dependent on management. This is due to: 1) Union fees are paid by the enterprise. If the union works against the interests of the enterprise, management are unlikely to continue to pay the dues. 2) Union officials are generally managers themselves. 60 per cent of the questionnaire respondents were managers – and 46 out of 48 interviewees were managers.

Initial Comments from RT

Interviewees generally blamed the union system in C for the union’s poor performance. 1)Union represents all workers not just union members. This reduces incentive for workers to actively support their union. 2) Union fees are paid “anyway” unless the union acts against the interests of the enterprise. i.e. there is no incentive for the union and its officials to respond more positively to their members. 3) No union rep had ever been subject to call back, although there is legal provision for this. 4) There are far more reasons for workers not to engage in collective action – and thus pressure the union – than there are for them to do so.