Is Marxism Still Valid in Industrial Relations Theory?




Anam Ullah


Correspondence:
Asm Anam Ullah
Doctoral Scholar and Academic
Macquarie University, Australia
Email: russell_adib@yahoo.com.au

Abstract

All too often, scholars are posed with questions as to whether Marxism has any relationships with modern industrial relations theory. Many say yes, many say no. However, there is a crucial debate in the public domain about industrial relations theory and many try to portray it from different analytical tools. This short article will mediate on this issue whether Marxism is still valid in the current industrial relations theory.

Key words: Marxism, Industrial Relations Theory and Trade unions.




Introduction

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways but the real task is to alter it". Karl Marx

The industrial relations (IRs) or employment relation (ERs) theorists have not thus far reached a certain agreement to declare that this is the ultimate theory of industrial relations. Last couple of centuries there have been many academic and great scholars who saw industrial relations in a different perspective. They also tried to find the best theory of industrial relations, but thus far, it is most likely to see that there is not any universal theory of industrial relations that any potential industrial relations student can adopt. However, there is a significant amount of research growing and offering different methods of IR and ER and we can take scholars' guideline while studying industrial relation and employment relations.

As an approach of Marxism in industrial relations, a neo-Marxists interpretation of the industrial relations or labour process is crucial and it often conflicts with the contemporary scholars. There is strong debate whether Marxism is considered as an industrial relations theory. This short article, despite its own limitations, the extent to which will arrest some scholarly written debates on these issues. Thus, theoretically this qualitative analysis will discuss by developing a theoretical framework of the industrial relations theory first, and then incorporate the scholar's point whether Marxism is still valid in industrial relations theory.

The Core Ideas of Industrial Relations
The term "Industrial Relations" (IR) has come to be established into common use in Britain and America during the 1920s. Initially, to some extent, some started using IR theory incorporating with Personal Management (PM) and, since the 1980s, Human Resource Management (HRM). But, interestingly, these three have common traits in the practical field which is based on one single concept (management of people) and therefore, academic inquiries are essential in this field (see Edwards, 2009).

Again, to avoid confusion and academic debate, on some facets, scholars also use "term" Employment Relations (ER) instead of IR. Nevertheless, some scholars try to isolate IR and ER from a different perspective. In saying this, again, when I went through the scholarly written articles I strongly found notions of IR and ER theories and I tried to understand their basic and fundamental differences from an analytical observations.

Interestingly, IR, the extent to which it covers relationships between managers and employees is always determined by the economic activity. This relationship perhaps reveals a mutual understanding between managers and employees where economic benefits are the main agenda of both parties. But, scholars thus far have identified that IR theory excludes domestic and also the self-employed who work on their own account and therefore they are also accountable to maintain their own labour standards which shows the system of self-regulation or self-accountability.

Moreover, this concept originated partly from the International Labour Organization (ILO) and its European stakeholders where Civil law is more prominent than the Common law. Again, according to Edward (2009), the point is, however, when self-employed professionals deal with customers, the extent to which, it makes it extensively difficult to say whether such relationship determine the concept of "industrial relations", but again, for understanding, potential IR students can consider this as a part of industrial relations when there is a contractual agreement between a self-employed firm and its employees (see Edward, 2009, Eberhard, 2007; Kaufman, 2004).

Alternatively, scholars tried to portray the term "ER" from a different facet. In saying this, when potential IR or ER students try to isolate this both from each other, to some extent, ER theory itself focuses on: all forms of economic activity in which certainly all employees work under a certain authoritative role which emerges from the employers and therefore employees receive wages in return for their labour - this model represents a substantive issue of IR system where the procedural rule deals with conflicts between employer and employee (see Edward, 2009; Quinlan, 2004).

Again, by the nature of the world of work, scholars identified that the great majority of the population in modern times, of course, are employees rather than employers. Some scholars define IR theory as less effective rather than studying all forms of the employment relationship. But, the debate still grows and many say this is not to some extent a sufficient support that contemporary observers are trying to establish in which the IR theory is not valid anymore, rather scholars say it is indeed very hard to justify the concept and implications of IR in the current industrial studies by grasping the narrow concept from the economics or sociology of work (see Eberhard, 2007; Kaufman, 2004; Abbot, 2006).

However, whether I use the term 'employment relations" instead of "industrial relations", these both work on labour regulation and scholars say regulation comes from various sources (see Eberhard, 2007). But there is one common characteristic found in scholarly written articles: employment relations and industrial relations deal with employer and employee and either individually or collectively for procedural rules or substantive rules as these are all directly engaged in the workplace (see Ross, 2008; Kaufman, 2010; Chidi & Okpala, 2012).

Kaufman (2010) saw industrial relations as the process of rulemaking for the workplace Dunlop (1958) identified the actors of employment or industrial relations. Other scholars contributed in labour regulation such as Flanders (1965); social regulation of production by Cox (1971); Edwards (2005) saw the employment relationship as structured antagonism. Social regulation of market forces was described by Hyman (1995).

According to Bain and Clegg (1974) cited in Chidi and Okpala (2012), "a traditional approach to employment and industrial relations has been to regard it as the study of the rules governing employment, and the ways in which the rules are changed, interpreted and administered".

Again, Dunlop 1958; Edward (2009); Freeman (2007); Eberhard (2007); Kaufman (2004); Gunningham (2008); Jentsch (2004); Johnstone (2008); Flenders (1965); Quinlan (2004); Poole (2013); Kittel (1967); identified three major parties in the IR or ER system which are (a) state (b) employer and (c) trade union. In modern time, there are some crucial changes in IR or ER theories. The following model represents the best employment relations.


Figure 1: The employment relationship hired from Edwards, P. (Ed.). (2009). Industrial relations: theory and practice.

The above model represents the most common structure of employment relations which was invented by Dunlop in 1958. However, the contemporary IR thinkers are offering different models of IR and ER than the traditional concept or models. However, to some extent, the major parties are identified in labour regulation by almost every scholar, which I have already mentioned about the three parties in the past. Some outsourcing and external regulation can be taken into consideration in order to analyse the IR and ER system in the different contexts, but as Dunlop identified major three actors in his (1958) IR theory, to some extent this is still valid, but other concepts are simultaneously considered by the international academics and scholars in this area.

According to Abbot (2006, p. 187):

"Work is fundamental to the human condition. It determines what we do for much of our waking lives and it preoccupies much of what we think about. It allows us to engage with other people and it helps us to define our sense of identity. It provides us with access to the material necessities of life, as well as to the advantages and achievements of civilisation. Its allocation, organisation, management and reward are therefore of no small importance. How these are undertaken in gainful employment tells us much about the views and values we hold as a society. What levels of unemployment are deemed tolerable, what manner of work is undertaken and how disputes between the two sides of industry are resolved, for example, are all matters about which we have opinions and which are often shaped by the prevailing cultural boundaries, economic circumstances and political understandings we hold towards our engagement with work".

Indeed, for the purpose of this discussion above, the nature of work has tremendously changed during the last one hundred years or so. The technological changes made the work of the world more challenging. People are now working in different ambiences and employment relations studies are now facing more challenges to develop an appropriate theory of ER or IR.

However, a large number of growing research is suggesting and focusing on the issue of industrial conflict and meditating on this issue to solve all the unresolved issues, but, to some extent, there are also substantial amounts of scholarly written articles which have caused confusion about the current and past IR and ER theories. In these processes, many scholars portrayed the IR and ER theory from different analytical lenses, however, it is identified that the industrial relations theory has done so with less uniformity and till now scholars are introducing different ideas of IR and ER theories according to the context ("budgetary/market, technological characteristics of the work place and work community and the locus and distribution of power in the larger society") (see Chidi and Okpala 2012; Bray et al., 2014).

So, grounded situation is playing a big role over the creation of IR and ER theories. As a potential IR and ER researcher, I found, the extent to which, developing countries are suffering from various issues in labour or Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) mainly. Western or European countries have different labour issues in all aspects. So, labour issues in Common law countries and Civil law countries have a different situation. However, Socialist state also has a completely different philosophy in regards to control labour problems than the Common or Civil law states (Sisson & Marginson, 2001). In addition, industrial relations has different approaches.

Nevertheless, again, whether it is the Common law, Civil law or a Socialist law, one thing can be understood from a deeper perspective that labour is the most crucial part of their economy, so the state needs to learn how to develop a better labour institutions, thus, labour issues can be identified easily and these problems can solved by giving an equal effort both from academic and professional levels (see Vogel, 2006; Guzman & Meyer, 2010).

However, as many academic scholars have pointed out that there are distinct approaches in the employment relationship and these approaches are identified from different analytical tools and different intellectually written documents. As I mentioned the employment relation studies are bringing so many paradoxes and it is not an easy way to find which approach is being appropriate in which context. But, to some extent, as a potential researcher, it is my obligation to reveal how each of these approaches is related to the context. But to be very specific in this article, as I already mentioned that my analyses will be based on a specific issue which is (Marxism or Radicalism) and whether there is any connection with the current industrial relation studies or theories, thus my next analyses will be focusing on this particular issue rather than discussing the other approaches more elaborately in this article.

The following figure represents the most common approaches to the employment relationship.


Figure 2: alternative approaches adopted from Bray et al., (2014, p. 15)

Marxist Theory
According to Chidi and Okpala (2012); Abbot (2006); Kaufman (2004, 2010), Marxism, however, unambiguously appeared, more or less, to establish a general theory of society and social change with colossal implications for the analysis of industrial relations within the capitalist societies which does not or to some extent has not any affinities with the industrial relations theory. Interesting indeed! In saying so, again, scholars like Kaufman (2004) revealed something very significant for potential industrial relations students; point is, however, neither the notion of labour relations nor the term of industrial relations, belongs to the vocabulary of Karl Marx (see Kaufman, 2004).

As debate grows on, more theoretically offered an idea of such debate by Ogunbameru (2004) cited in Chidi and Okpala (2012), point, however, to some extent, the application of Marxian theory as it partly relates to industrial relations today derives from later Marxist scholars rather than directly from the composition of Karl Marx himself (see Chidi and Okpala, 2012).

Again, Kaufman (2010) pointed out that more or less during the 1870 -1920 the industrial relations term to some extent was originated within a limited number of works as a response to the worldwide "Labour Problems" (or "Social Question") because industrial development and industrial society emerged at that time. Research identifies that there was a conflict between capitalism and socialism and these both had revolution at that time. Also, labour reform project met many obstacles and objections during that period. The world was divided into the ideas of orthodox classical and neoclassical economics.

According to Kaufman (2010, p. 76):
"The body of theory, largely imported from Britain but secondarily from France, was widely accepted, hence establishing it as "orthodox." The most widely accepted lesson of orthodox economics at this time was the principle of free trade; second on the list was Say's Law - the contention that a free-market system automatically returns to an equilibrium position of full employment. Free trade applied first and foremost to international exchange of goods between countries, but the principle was extended with only negligible qualification to domestic and factor markets, including, most importantly, labour markets".

Chidi and Okpala (2012) cited in Hyman (1975, p. 12) where he defines "industrial relations as the study of the processes of control over work relations and among these processes, those involving collective worker organisation and action are of particular concern".

Hayman known as an orthodox Marxist has given a strong notion of industrial relations theory - and put it this way - Hayman asserted that this is Dunlop and Flanders, who of them are the giant industrial relations theorist thus far, but again, some scholars conceptualized the issue of industrial relations theory which has specially come from Dunlop (1958) and was limited to some extent, especially finding the actors and actor's role within the labour or employment regulation process. Hayman's main point, in saying this, put it this way again, it is almost impossible to come up with a complete industrial relations theory at a time rather it develops through an on-going process and maintenance and stability in performance in industrial regulation is a must (Chidi & Okpala, 2012; Hayman, 1975; Kaufman, 2004; Jentsch, 2004).

Again, Abbot (2006, p. 194) pointed out that:
"A Marxist frame of reference may seem redundant in view of the break-up of the Soviet Union, the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the decline of 'radical' thinking in the West. There are, however, a number of studies from this school of thought that remain influential. This is because they are based on vastly different assumptions about the nature and cause of workplace conflict, and second, because they act as valid critiques of the previous two frames of reference and their associated theories. Those arguing from a radical perspective draw principally from the work of Karl Marx (1950, 1967, 1978), who argued that capitalist societies were characterised by perpetual class struggle. This struggle is caused by inequalities in the distribution of wealth and the skewed ownership of the means of production. Wealth and property ownership, he observed, were highly concentrated in the hands of a small number of bourgeoisie (or capitalists), whilst the vast mass of the proletariat (or workers) lived in poverty and had nothing to sell but their labour".

In saying this, once again, I need to point Hayman's analyses in this issue, he asserted similarly as contemporary scholars saw the Marxist theory and blended into different shapes.

Chidi & Okpala (2012, p, 273) cited in Hayman (1975) in which he asserted that:
"The Marxist perspectives typify workplace relations as a reflection of the incidence of societal inequalities and the inevitable expression of this at the work place. To sum it up, Hyman further states that industrial relations is all about power, interests and conflict and that the economic, technological and political dynamics of the broader society inevitably shape the character of relations among industrial relations actors which he described as the political economy of industrial relations. Conflict is viewed as a disorder precursor to change and to resolve conflict means to change the imbalance and inequalities in society in terms of power and wealth. Trade unions are viewed as employee response to capitalism".

Then, again, as a potential researcher, to some extent, I cannot ignore saying what other scholars identified analogously, put this way, Marx's theory connected with how people relate to the most fundamental resource of all us, it means, again, through his observation, labour was treated as power of their own labour. The whole, in fact, between 1844 and 1883, a period of democratic nationalism, trade unionism and revolution was his main theme of writing. The labour is fundamental to Marx's theories. Basically, Marx , for the first time arrested a significant point in his theory, put this way - he argued that it is simply human nature to transform nature, and he calls this process of transformation "labour" and the capacity to transform nature, 'labour power.'

However, to scholars like Kaufman (2004), the point is, he asserted that Marx's core institutions the extent to which it is fundamentally focusing on industrial relations-free labour markets and the factory system-where Kaufman found that the major components of Marx's analysis of industrial capitalism, and he was a keen observer, thus he addressed on labour issues extensively and mainly in trade unionism. But, many scholars say - his main focus was on classifying the distinct gaps between labour and capital. Scholars also pointed out that, he, to some extent, albeit his ideology was based on trade unionism, however, he could not show how trade unions can be a fruitful organization in terms of obtaining the ultimate success through the collective process in terms of wage discriminations and other labour issues.

But, however, the way he saw, it is not the actual nature of trade unions at present that we see around the world where trade unions in many Western and European countries are developed as an institution. Contrarily, in many developing countries, trade union has not yet been treated as a supportive force of changing the labour or OHS conditions as they have little collective bargaining scope and in some countries like Cambodia, China, Bangladesh and so on, where, to some extent, trade union leaders are brutally killed and tortured (see, Kaufman, 2004, 2010; Chidi & Okpala, 2012; Hayman, 1975; Abbot, 2006; Flanders, 1965; Brown et al, 2013; Marston, 2007; Munck, 2010: Islam & McPhail, 2011).

In saying this, many say, his main focus on trade unions show radicalism rather showing how they can collectively raise their concern about the exploitation. As we see now in many countries like the U.K, Australia, where the labour party represents the trade union and trade union has been treated as one of the crucial actors in the industrial relations system which is absent in the Marxist theory (see Kaufman, 2004; Balnave et al., 2009).

Concluding remarks
But in the case of Marxism it is especially incredible to realize that a few (only a few now), still believe that its promised golden age will yet arrive as capitalism drastically grasped the global market. Yet Marxism had the perfect opportunity to demonstrate its promised wonder and glory in the Soviet and Chinese experiments in which state-wide Marxist support was imposed and deviating opinions banned. What were the fruits of those experiments; this makes another debate which is inevitable.

Whatsoever, industrial relations system and market system have tremendously changed during the last one hundred years or so, thus many believe, Marx's theory has not yet demised indeed as we still see huge exploitations around the world especially where global capital drastically took control over the labour market. Developing nations are suffering from inadequate resources, thus, those developing nations compromising with the capitalist by offering abundant cheap labour like Cambodia's and Bangladeshi's garment industry where millions of poor and rural migrated workers are working with very low wages. Technological changes are the major concern for the labour at this moment as capitalists are investing in this field. So, to some extent, whether it is directly related to the Marx's theory of industrial relations, however, his labour theory still shows huge potential for further research in this area.

Finally, as I said, it is indeed almost impossible to bring all the analyses in this article as this area is quite enormous. However, for a potential researcher, it would be wise to consider in order to understand Marx's theory, whether it has any connection with the modern form of industrial relations theory by analysing further from his the political economy of industrial relations, labour process analysis, and the French regulation school. However, thus far, there very little support has been identified in scholarly written articles where Marxism has been considered as an industrial relations theory.

References
Abbott, K. (2006). A review of employment relations theories and their application. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 1(2006), 187-199.
Balnave, N., Brown, J., Maconachie, G., & Stone, R. (2009). Employment relations in Australia, 2nd edn, John Wiley & Sons, Australia Ltd.
Bray, M., Waring, P., Cooper, R., & MacNeil, J. (2014). Employment relations: theory and practice, 3rd addition, McGraw-Hill, Sydney.
Brown, D., Dehejia, R., & Robertson, R. (2013). Regulations, Monitoring, and Working Conditions: Evidence from Better Factories Cambodia and Better Work Vietnam. Working paper, Tufts University. http://users. nber. org/~ rdehejia/papers/Brown _Dehejia_Robertson_RDW. pdf.
Chidi, C. O., & Okpala, O. P. (2012). Theoretical Approaches to Employment and Industrial Relations: A Comparison of Subsisting Orthodoxies. INTECH Open Access Publisher.
Cox, R. (1971). "Approaches to the Futurology of Industrial Relations." Bulletin of the
Institute of Labour Studies, Vol. 8, N0. 8, pp. 139-64.
Dunlop, J.T. (1958). Industrial Relations Systems. New York: Holt (title now owned by Cengage Learning)
Eberhard, A. (2007). Infrastructure Regulation in Developing Countries: an exploration of hybrid and transitional models, Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility, Working paper 4.
Edwards, P. (Ed.). (2009). Industrial relations: theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Flanders, A. (1965). Industrial Relations: What is Wrong with the System? An Essay on Its Theory and Future. London: Farber & Farber.
Freeman, R. B. (2007). Labor market institutions around the world (No. w13242). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Gunningham, N. (2008). Occupational health and safety, worker participation and the mining industry in a changing world of work. Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 29(3), 336-361.
Guzman, A., & Meyer, T. L. (2010). Explaining soft law. Berkeley Program in Law & Economics.
Hyman, R. (1995). "Industrial Relations in Theory and Practice." European Journal of
Industrial Relations, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 17-46.
Hyman, R. (1975). Industrial Relations: A Marxist Introduction. London: Macmillan.
Islam, M.A., McPhail, K. (2011). Regulating for corporate human rights abuses: the emergence of corporate reporting on the ILO's human rights standards within the global garment manufacturing and retail industry. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,No. 22, pp. 790-810.
Jentsch, W. M., (2004). Theoritical approach to industrial relations, in Kaufman, B. E., (eds), "Theoretical perspectives on work and the employment relationship", Cornell University Press.
Johnstone, R. (2008). 'Harmonising Occupational Health and Safety Regulation in Australia: The First Review of the National OHS Review'.
Kaufman, B. E. (2010). The theoretical foundation of industrial relations and its implications for labor economics and human resource management.Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 64(1), 74-108.
Marston, A. (2007). Labour monitoring in Cambodia's Garment Industry: Lesson for Africa. Realizing Rights - The Ethical Globalization Initiative.
Marx, K. (1956). Capital. Volume 1, Chapter 10. Progress Publishers, Moscow, USSR.
Munck, R.P. (2010) "Globalization and the labour movement: challenges and responses," Global Labour Journal: Vol. 1: Iss. 2, p. 218-232.
Ogunbameru, A. O. (2004). Organisational Dynamics. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd,
Quinlan, M. (2004). Regulatory responses to OHS problems posed by direct-hire temporary workers in Australia. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety Australia and New Zealand, Vol. 20(3), 241-254.
Rose, E.D. (2008). Employment Relations. (3rd ed).London: Pearson Education Ltd.
Sisson, K., & Marginson, P. (2001). " Soft Regulation": Travesty of the Real Thing Or New Dimension?. ESRC" One Europe or Several?" Programme, Sussex European Institute, University of Sussex.
Vogel, D. (2006). The private regulation of global corporate conduct. Center for Responsible Business.