By Lord Caliban

Debate and disagreement has proven to be a common scenario within industrial relations, the relationship between management and labour. Over time a number of different perspectives have been born due to people's differing values and beliefs. The events that occur in the workplace can be attributed to distinctively different reasons depending on the ideology one chooses to adhere to. It has been taken upon by many parties to develop a perspective that can best describe the relationship that exists in our workplaces. But how exactly do these perspectives differ? Is there really that much of a difference? In a recent Toronto Globe and Mail article, "Big Mac meets the McUnion Kid", a clear conflict can be seen to exist between management and labour. Just how would loyalists of the neoclassical perspective and the managerial perspective analyze the situation that exists in this article. It is quite obvious that a large number of differences will be made apparent while also demonstrating the unique nature of both perspectives concerning labour laws and regulations.

Sarah Inglis, the young union organizer in "Big Mac meets the McUnion Kid" must have felt that the workers of McDonalds, including herself, were being exploited to the point that a union was needed to ensure that this would not continue. But were the employees actually being exploited? As a neoclassicist might state, their primary concern is with the maximization of economic efficiency. In order to make the most profit, one must attempt to set up a labour force that can be utilized with the least amount of resources. As is illustrated in the article, "dozens of teenagers were toiling away at not much more than Ontario's minimum wage of $6.25 an hour for under-18s, each one performing a drone-like task in an elaborate system whose details are deities" (Kidd 46). According to a neoclassicist, this situation is no more than a basis to what their ideology holds true.

But how would a managerialist analyze such a situation? The managerialists are primarily concerned with maximizing worker motivation and commitment within the employment relationship. Managerialists often adopt progressive human resources management practices which often help to boost the employee's sense of pride in their job. As can be seen, very little pride or self actualization could result from McJobs, "anemic career opportunities now afforded unskilled workers" (48). It is quite obvious that such a workplace in the mind of a managerialist is in desperate need of improvement.

It is clear that the managers of McDonalds and its employees have different interests or goals in regards to the jobs they are performing. The managers have set out to create an environment that maximizes efficiency through such methods as getting the most work out of an employee for the least amount of money.

The neoclassicists are aware of the differing interests, but they do believe that they are compatible. It is believed that over the long run a productive and fair working condition is created, while efficiency is maximized. As long as this process is not disturbed, efficiency will prevail. A neoclassicist would argue that the Orangeville's McDonalds state of equilibrium was disturbed with the possible introduction of a union. This intervention would only serve to upset the harmonious relationship that existed resulting in workers having, "their hours slashed, seemingly to make way for fresher recruits, and supervisors took to upbraiding their charges in ful view of customers" (48). If the situation was left at its initial state, each party would have continued to perform and complete its duties for the other. The neoclassicist would point out that the introduction of a union would do more harm than good for the union-seekers. With the eventual increase in wages, prices would rise and job security would soon be lost.

A managerialist will admit that labourers find themselves in a position where management can exert authority upon them which in turn creates conflict. Instead of letting this conflict act as a negative force on the industrial relation, managerialists believe that this situation can be avoided if the workers are treated in a fair and humane manner. As seen in McDonalds, the employees are performing drone-like tasks. Through a number of PHRM techniques, many of the harsh feelings that the employees feel towards their job can be eliminated. Job rotation and job ladders may prove to be useful in motivating a number of the workers.

But how would the managerialist deal with the introduction of a union at Orangeville's McDonalds? The union would eventually threaten the authority of the managers which would create a sense of uncertainty in the workplace. This can not be afforded because the desired productivity may not be attainable in such an environment. However, the managerialist's ideology does not cease here. What if a union was adopted? One can not continue to fight and risk a more disastrous affect on the workplace, but one must accept the union for what it is and attempt to work with it in a cooperative manner.

Concerning the outcome of the scenario in Orangeville, both perspectives would tend to agree that the introduction of the union would have negative effects. A number of these effects were starting to become prevalent and would have continued to worsen if the union had prevailed.

The organization drive that was underway in Orangeville may have been plagued by a number of actions that go against the established labour laws and regulations in Canada. If proper actions were taken and the laws obeyed, the Orangeville McDonalds union may have just been successful.

Upon applying for certification, it is know that a large number of union cards were signed by employees. The union was wanted in order to and satisfy the unfair treatment they were receiving from their employers and to protect their interests and values. But was the application that was submitted eligible for union consideration? It appears that the swing managers, people who performed managerial tasks, were included in the application. This blatantly defies the eligibility laws for unions. It clearly states that any individuals in a position of authority over other are ineligible for union application. This only helped to undermine the union-seekers in Orangeville.

Once eligibility was granted, it appears that certification should have soon followed. With 67 out of 102 union cards signed, a clear majority existed. As long as the eligibility of the majority was not under question (which it may have been due to the managers that were included), a certification instantly follows, in most jurisdictions.

A managerialist may say that the union was established in a fair manner, and accept its existence. Once the union is present, any laws or regulations concerning it should be obeyed in hopes of keeping relations with the employees in good standing.

At this point the neoclassicist would only believe that the union will do nothing more than upset the established, smooth running system that exists in the workplace. Manager's authority will soon be undermined bringing on a number of related problems.

During the organizational drive, a number of arguable unfair labour practices occurred at the hands of both the union-seekers and the employers.

First off, while workers are deciding whether or not to sign a union card, no types of coercion or intimidation should be present from neither the employer, nor the union-seekers. From the article it becomes clear that coercion was present during the organizational drive. From the employer's side, the McDonalds head office sent out its Human Resource team to see what was afoot. Both parties claim that it was merely a coincidence of the time they showed up, but taking their history into account it becomes difficult to believe. They had become known for sending out a "flying squad of experts to counter unionists at any outlet the very day word arrived of organizing activity" (50). These actions can clearly be classified as a coercive action.

On the side of the union-seekers, a coercive action could also be seen. Even though she denies it, Inglis was being accused of harassing employees, "into signing union cards or, in one instance, hinted at physical violence" (50). The accusations did not stop there. Others stories started to come out which included, "promised wage hikes or more hours, the likely firing of an unpopular manager, and a boozy victory party once the union got in" (50).

It appears as though management continued to practice unfair labour practices. Regular employees were getting their hours cut, making room for new employees who in turn were happy enough to get a job that they could care less of establishing a union. It is clearly stated that the employer can not attempt to change the composition of the election unit.

At no time did it appear that a remedy was being implemented to deal with these blatant violations of labour regulation. It this had taken place, the outcome could have been drastically altered.

From a neoclassicists point of view, all of this effort that was put into the organization of the union was pointless. By simply allowing the workplace to exist as it was, the market forces and the forces of supply and demand would ensure no power disadvantage was assumed by one of the parties. From the outcome that arose from the organizational drive, the neoclassicist would argue that what was predicted has come true. The union attempts did nothing more than upset the productive relationship that had existed between the workers and the employers. They would tend to believe that the union laws primarily help to establish unions which in turn upset the management's authoritative foothold on its workplace.

The managerialists would tend to agree that even the possible introduction of a union, and not even the actual acceptance of one, had negative affects in the labour-management relationship. At times the labourers and management appeared to be two opposing parties in a war. This constant battle could have no possible positive effects on he workplace. Concerning the labour laws, a managerialist would disagree with a number of management's defiance of the labour laws. Knowing that the union-seekers are aware of the laws, and seeing their mangers defy them could only cause harsh feelings. This would cause an unsettling environment in which motivation and commitment would fall drastically. A managerialist may argue that at this point, the union be accepted and enter into a cooperative relationship with its members.

As can be seen in the scenario in the Orangeville's McDonalds, a simple organizational drive for a union may be more complicated than it appears. Analysis can be directed from a number of different perspectives that vary from minimal to considerable amounts. Each ideology takes on a number of different assumptions that prove to be the driving force of their perspective. It may not be possible to determine which perspective best defines the relationship that exists in the workplace, but it is clear that each perspective has a number of ideas that help us to understand industrial relations. The organizational drive for a union helped us to understand the differences that exist among the existing perspectives while also illustrating their unique nature.

Works Cited

Kidd, Kenneth, "Big Mac meets the McUnion Kid", Report on Business Magazine, June 1994.