Résumés
Abstract
The industrial relations (IR) field in Canada and the United States (US) emerged in the late 1910s-early 1920s and is thus on the cusp of its 100th anniversary. The impetus for the creation of the IR field was growing public alarm in both countries over the escalating level of conflict, violence, and class polarization in employer-employee relations. The two countries established federal-level government investigative committees, the Royal Commission on Industrial Relations (1919) in Canada and the Commission on Industrial Relations (1911-1915) in the US, to travel cross-country, gather evidence, and report their findings and overall evaluation.
To commemorate the IR field’s centenary, this paper conducts the same type of cross-national ER evaluation, but with modern methods. First, this exercise requires a formal evaluation instrument, like a physical exam worksheet. Adopted is a modified version of a balanced scorecard. Second, the scorecard’s framework and questions should be theoretically informed. The framework used is a modified version of the diagrammatic model of an IR system presented by Mackenzie King in Industry and Humanity (1918). The third step is to fill in the scorecard with data from individual workplaces, which are obtained for the US from a new nationally-representative survey of 2000+ workplaces, the State of Workplace Employment Relations Survey (SWERS). The fourth step is to aggregate all the diagnostic measures to obtain a summary numerical estimate for each of the companies of its state of ER performance and health.
Based on a 1-7 (7 = highest) scale, then converted to F to A grades, we find that the average ER grade given by managers is B+ and by employees C+. The company scores are graphed in a frequency distribution that visually represents, for the first time in the literature, the lowest-to-highest pattern of employment relations performance and health across the US.
Keywords:
- industrial relations (IR) theory,
- Mackenzie King,
- balanced scorecard,
- IR climate,
- IR systems
Résumé
Le champ des relations industrielles (RI) au Canada et aux États-Unis (É-U), qui a vu le jour à la fin des années 1910 et au début des années 1920, se trouve à l’aube de son centième anniversaire. L’impulsion pour la création du champ des RI a été donné par l’inquiétude publique grandissante dans les deux pays face à l’intensification du niveau de conflit, de la violence et de la polarisation des classes dans les relations entre employeurs et employés. Les deux pays ont alors mis en place des Commissions d’enquête gouvernementales fédérales, la Commission royale sur les relations industrielles (1919) au Canada et la Commission sur les relations industrielles (1911-1915) aux États-Unis, afin de parcourir le pays, rassembler des preuves, ainsi que rendre compte des résultats et donner leur évaluation globale.
Afin de commémorer le centenaire du champ des RI, nous avons effectué le même type d’évaluation à travers le pays, mais avec des méthodes modernes. Premièrement, cet exercice nécessite un instrument d’évaluation formel, telle une grille de calcul lors d’un examen de physique. Nous avons opté pour une version adaptée d’un système d’évaluation équilibré (Balanced Scorecard). Deuxièmement, le cadre conceptuel et les questions sous-jacentes à ce système devraient être théoriquement fondés. Le cadre utilisé est une version modifiée du modèle schématique d’un système de RI présenté par Mackenzie King dans Industry and Humanity (1918). Troisièmement, il faut compléter le système d’évaluation avec les données provenant de chaque milieu de travail, obtenues pour ce qui est de É-U à partir d’une nouvelle enquête représentative au niveau national et portant sur plus de 2000 milieux de travail, l’étude SWERS (State of Workplace Employment Relations Survey). Quatrièmement, il faut regrouper toutes les mesures de diagnostic afin d’obtenir une évaluation numérique sommaire, pour chacune des entreprises enquêtées, de son état de santé et de ses performances en matière de relation d’emploi.
Sur une échelle de 1 à 7 échelons (7 étant le niveau le plus élevé), que nous avons reconverti en une nouvelle échelle allant de F à A, nous constatons que la note moyenne en matière de relation d’emploi attribuée par les gestionnaires est B + et celle attribuée par les employés est C +. Les pointages des entreprises sont représentés graphiquement par une distribution de fréquences qui, pour la première fois dans la littérature, révèle la configuration des niveaux de performance et de santé de la relation d’emploi aux É-U, allant du plus faible au plus élevé.
Mots-clés:
- théorie des relations industrielles (RI),
- Mackenzie King,
- système d’évaluation équilibré,
- climat des RI,
- systèmes de RI
Resumen
El campo de las relaciones industriales (RI) en Canadá y Estados Unidos (EU) surgió hace cien años, entre fines de los años 1910 y comienzos de los años 1920. El impulso para la creación del campo de RI fue dado por la creciente alarma pública en ambos países respecto a la escalada de conflicto, violencia y polarización de clases en las relaciones laborales. Los dos países establecieron comités de investigación de nivel federal, la Royal Commission on Industrial Relations (1919) en Canadá y la Commission on Industrial Relations (1911-1915) en EU, para viajar à través del país, colectar datos, y formular un informe de los resultados y una evaluación global.
Para conmemorar el centenario del campo de RI, se realizó el mismo tipo de evaluación de las RE a través de todo el país, pero con métodos modernos. Primero, este ejercicio requería un instrumento formal de evaluación, como una hoja de cálculo en un examen físico. Se optó por una versión adaptada de la matriz de control equilibrado. Segundo, el marco conceptual y las cuestiones subyacentes a la matriz de control deberían ser tener un fundamento teórico. La matriz utilizada es una versión modificada del modelo esquemático de un sistema de RI presentado por MacKenzie King en Industry and Humanity (1918). Tercero, la matriz de control debe ser completada con datos provenientes de cada lugar de trabajo, obtenidas en EU a partir de una nueva encuesta representativa a nivel nacional y realizada en más de 2000 lugares de trabajo, el estudio SWERS (State of Workplace Employment Relations Survey). Cuarto, se trata de reagrupar todas las medidas de diagnóstico para obtener una evaluación numérica resumida, para cada empresa encuestada, de su estado de salud y de su rendimiento en materia de relaciones laborales.
Sobre una escala de 1 a 7 escalones (7 representaba el nivel más alto), que fue reconvertida en una nueva escala que va de F a A, se obtiene que la nota promedio en materia de relaciones laborales atribuida por los empleadores es B+ y aquella atribuida por los empleados es de C+. Los puntajes de las empresas son representados gráficamente por una distribución de frecuencias que, por la primera vez en la literatura, revela la configuración de niveles de rendimiento y de la salud de la relación de empleo en EU, yendo del más bajo al más alto.
Palabras claves:
- teoría de relaciones industriales (RI),
- Mackenzie King,
- matriz de control equilibrado,
- clima de relaciones industriales,
- sistemas de RI
Parties annexes
References
- Adams, Gerald (1966) Age of Industrial Violence 1910-1915. New York: Columbia University Press.
- Adams, Roy (1993) “All Aspects of People at Work: Unity and Division in the Study of Labour and Labour-Management.” In Roy Adams and Noah Meltz (eds.), Industrial Relations Theory: Its Nature, Scope, and Pedagogy. Metuchen, NJ: IMLR Press, 119-160.
- Australia Fair Work Commission (2015) AWRS First Findings Report. Melbourne: AFWC.
- Barbash, Jack (1984) The Elements of Industrial Relations. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
- Becker, Brian, Mark Huselid, and David Ulrich (2001) The HR Scorecard. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
- Bélanger, Jacques and Paul Edwards (2007) “The Conditions Promoting Compromise in the Workplace.” British Journal of Industrial Relations, 44 (1), 713-734.
- Blyton, Paul, Nick Bacon, Jack Fiorito, and Edmund Heery (2008) The Sage Handbook of Industrial Relations. London: Sage.
- Borjas, George (2016) Labour Economics, 7th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Brown, William, Alex Bryson, John Forth, and Keith Whitfield (2008) The Evolution of the Modern Workplace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Budd, John (2004) Employment with a Human Face. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
- Budd, John, Rafael Gomez, and Noah Meltz (2004) “Why a Balance is Best: The Pluralist Industrial Relations Paradigm of Balancing Competing Interests.” In Bruce Kaufman (ed.), Theoretical Perspectives on Work and the Employment Relationship. Champaign: IRRA, 195-227.
- Budd, John and James Scoville (2005) The Ethics of Human Resources and Industrial Relations. Champaign: LERA
- Bush, Michael (2108) A Great Place to Work for All. Oakland: Great Place to Work Institute.
- Commission on Industrial Relations, US (1916) Final Report and Testimony, Vol. 1. Washington: GPO.
- Commons, John (1921) Industrial Government. New York: Macmillan.
- Commons, John (1934) Institutional Economics Its Place in Political Economy. New York: Macmillan.
- Cooper, David, Mahmoud Ezzamel, and Sandy Qu (2017) “Popularizing a Management Accounting Idea: The Case of the Balanced Scorecard.” Contemporary Accounting Research, 34 (2), 991-1025.
- Dastmalchian, Ali (2008) “Industrial Relations Climate.” In Paul Blyton, Nicholas Bacon, Jack Fiorito, and Edmund Heery (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Industrial Relations. New York: Sage, 548-571.
- Domhoff, G. William and Michael Webber (2011) Class and Power in the New Deal. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
- Dunlop, John (1958) Industrial Relations Systems. New York: Holt.
- Edwards, Paul (1986) Conflict at Work. London: Blackwell.
- Edwards, Paul (2003) “The Employment Relationship and the Field of Industrial Relations.” In Paul Edwards (ed.), Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice, 2nd ed., London: Blackwell, 1-36.
- Edwards, Paul, Jacques Bélanger, and Martyn Wright (2002) “The Social Relations of Productivity: A Longitunidal and Comparative Study of Aluminum Smelters.“ Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations, 57 (2), 309-330.
- Fombrun, Charles, Noel Tichy, and Maryann Devanna (1984) Strategic Human Resource Management. New York: Wiley.
- Fox, Alan (1974) Beyond Contract: Work, Power, and Trust Relations. London: Faber & Faber.
- Gitelman, Howard (1988) Legacy of the Ludlow Massacre. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.
- Godard, John (2001) “New Dawn or Bad Moon Rising: Large-scale Government Administered Workplace Surveys and the Future of Canadian IR Research.” Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations, 56 (1), 3-33.
- Gollan, Paul, Bruce Kaufman, Daphne Taras, and Adrian Wilkinson (2015) Voice and Involvement at Work: Experience with Non-Union Representation. London: Routledge.
- Heery, Edmund (2016) Framing Work. London: Oxford University Press.
- Huselid, Mark, Brian Becker, and Richard Beatty (2005) The Workforce Scorecard. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
- Kaplan, Robert and David Norton (1992) “The Balanced Scorecard – Measures that Drive Performance.” Harvard Business Review, 70 (1), 71-79.
- Kaplan, Robert and David Norton (1996) The Balanced Scorecard. Cambridge: Harvard Business School.
- Kaplan, Robert and David Norton (2000) The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive Performance. Cambridge: Harvard Business School.
- Kaufman, Bruce (2003) “John R. Commons and the Wisconsin School on Industrial Relations Strategy and Policy.” Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 57 (1), 3-30.
- Kaufman, Bruce (2004) “Employment Relations and the Employment Relations System: A Guide to Theorizing.” In Bruce Kaufman (ed.), Theoretical Perspectives on Work and the Employment Relationship. Urbana-Champaign: IRRA, 41-75.
- Kaufman, Bruce (2014) “Explaining Breadth and Depth of Employee Voice across Firms: A Voice Factor Demand Model.” Journal of Labour Research, 35 (3), 296-319.
- Kaufman, Bruce (2017) “The Origins and Theoretical Foundation of Original Institutional Economics Reconsidered.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 39 (3), 293-322.
- Kaufman, Bruce and Michael Barry (2014) “ IR Theory Built on the Founders’ Principles with Empirical Applications to Australia.“ Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 67 (4), 1203-1234.
- Kaufman, Bruce, Richard Beaumont, and Roy Helfgott (2003) From Industrial Relations to Human Resources and Beyond: The Evolving Process of Employee Relations Management. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
- Kaufman, Bruce and Gregor Gall (2015) “Advancing Industrial Relations Theory: An Analytical Synthesis of British-American and Pluralist-Radical Ideas.” Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations, 70 (3), 407-431.
- Kealey, Gregory (1984) “1919: The Canadian Labour Revolt.” Labour/Le Travail, 13 (Spring), 11-44.
- Kelly, John (1998) Rethinking Industrial Relations. London: Routledge.
- King, William Lyon Mackenzie (1918/1973) Industry and Humanity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
- Kochan, Thomas, Harry Katz, and Robert McKersie (1986) The Transformation of American Industrial Relations. New York: Basic Books.
- Levine, Allan (2011) King: A Life Guided by the Hand of Destiny. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre.
- Lipset, Seymour and Noah Meltz (2004) The Paradox of American Unionism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
- Laio, Hui, David Lepak, Keiko Toya, and Ying Hong (2009) “Do They See Eye to Eye? Management and Employee Perspectives.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (2), 371-391.
- Lazear, Edward and Michael Gibbs (2009) Personnel Economics in Practice. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
- MacDowell, Laurel (2000) “Company Unionism in Canada.” In Bruce Kaufman and Daphne Taras (eds.), Nonunion Employee Representation: History, Policy, and Contemporary Practice. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 96-120.
- Marsden, David (1999) A Theory of Employment Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Marshall, Alfred (1890) Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan.
- Marx, Karl (1867/1906) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Vol. 1, 4th ed., New York: Random House.
- Meltz, Noah (1993) “Industrial Relations Systems as a Framework for Organizing Contributions to Industrial Relations Theory.” In Roy Adams and Noah Meltz (eds.), Industrial Relations Theory. Metuchen, NJ: IMLR Press, 161-182.
- Miller, Gary (1991) Managerial Dilemmas. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Paauwe, Jaap, David Guest, and Patrick Wright (2013) HRM and Performance: Achievements and Challenges. New York: Wiley.
- Rees, Jonathan (2010) Representation and Rebellion: The Rockefeller Plan at the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, 1914-1942. Boulder: University of Colorado Press.
- Royal Commission on Industrial Relations, Canada (1919) Report of Commission. Ottawa: Labour Dept.
- Simon, Herbert (1951) “A Formal Theory of the Employment Relationship.” Econometrica, 19 (3), 293-305.
- Smith, Adam (1759/1976) A Theory of Moral Sentiments. Oxford: Clarendon House.
- Taras, Daphne (2003) “ Voice in the North American Workplace: From Employee Representation to Employee Involvement.“ In Bruce Kaufman, Richard Beaumont, and Roy Heifgott (eds.), From Industrial Relations to Human Resource Management and Beyond: The Evolving Process of Employee Relations Management, Arnonk: M. E. Sharpe, p. 293-329.
- Tead, Ordway and Henry Metcalf (1920) Personnel Administration: Its Principles and Practice. New York: McGraw Hill.
- Thompson, Paul (2003) “Disconnected Capitalism: Or Why Employers Can’t Keep their Side of the Bargain.” Work, Employment and Society, 17 (2), 359-378.
- Thompson, Paul and Kristie Newsome (2004) “Labour Process Theory, Work, and the Employment Relation.” In Bruce Kaufman (ed.), Theoretical Perspectives on Work and the Employment Relationship. Madison: IRRA, 133-162.
- Valentine, Robert (1915) “Taking an Inventory of Management.” Factory, 14 (Feb.), 83-85 and 122-126.
- Veblen, Thorstein (1904) The Theory of Business Enterprise. New York: Scribner.
- Walker, Garrett and J. Randall MacDonald (2001) “Designing and Implementing a Balanced HR Scorecard.” Human Resource Management, 40 (4), 365-377.
- Wilkinson, Adrian, Geoffrey Wood, and Richard Deeg (2014) The Oxford Handbook of Employment Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Yoder, Dale, Herbert Heneman Jr., and Earl Cheit (1951) Triple Audit of Industrial Relations.Bulletin 11, Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota.
- Yoder, Dale and Paul Staudohar (1982) Personnel Management and Industrial Relations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
10.7202/006782ar