Are unions a positive or negative factor in organizational communications? Do
strong unions make people management more challenging for managers? Do strong
unions promote organizational and business performance – are these the same
thing? Are answers to these questions’ dependent upon or independent of country?
Under article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), all persons
have the right to establish or join a trade union (Riemer et al 2013). Their existence
aims to protect employees’ interests for example, through negotiating better wages,
healthcare, maternity leave and many more. Consequently, these organizations are
made up of employees which closely work with human resources management
(HRM) to implement such changes however, whether these parties aim to compete,
replace, or collaborate with each other has long been debated. There are different
structures of unions, all working towards enhancing employee voice also affected by
organizational and institutional variables, whereby employees can indirectly or
directly express their thoughts to their employers.
This movement has redefined employee-managerial relationships, where such
communication can lead to innovation within a firm through the sharing of ideas as
well as, protects the interests of employees through individual bargaining power.
Although vast literature emphasizes the employees’ ability to defend their interests,
there is scarce research to show how non-confrontational communication amongst
employees and managers can affect an organization for example, workers engaging
in decision-making (Wilkinson, Sun, and Mowbray 2020).
The extent of the impact a union has on organizational aspects such as,
communication, corporate and organizational performance as well as, people
management, heavily relies on the unions’ power resources (Wilkinson, Sun, and
Mowbray 2020). The power held by a union is influenced by different factors but
most importantly political constraints and union membership rates, which are often
higher in developed economies. Union goals can be achieved through a promotive or
prohibitive voice (Wilkinson, Sun, and Mowbray 2020).
But despite the key role unions have played in developing the terms and conditions
for employees, it is believed that these organizations are now less influential than in
the past (Hernaus, Pavlovic and Klindzic 2019). Worker-management committees
and non-union employee representation (NER) are alternative methods to deal with
employee concerns.
1. Unions and organizational communication
There are different sources of communication within an organization, each with a
restricted choice of communication channels i.e., boards and newsletters commonly
used by trade unions (Cesaria 2000). Although higher management and supervisors
(check more ex) also oversee internal organizational communication. Technological
advancements have facilitated and fastened communication, creating several
communication channels like digital platforms, emails, websites, etc. which as a
, result, internal communication is less likely to be manipulated due to increased social
interaction amongst stakeholders (Cesaria 2000). Nonetheless, the effects of unclear
organizational voice mechanisms (Wilkinson, Sun, and Mowbray 2020) have also
been judged, as these can disturb effective communication.
Unions can also advocate and ensure the implementation of additional HRM policies
that are often not put into practice by organizations to develop employees' careers,
like advertising job vacancies internally before looking for external candidates
through internal communication (Hugh Cook, Robert MacKenzie & Christopher
Forde, 2020). Refining HRM through other practices like appraisal feedback can
enhance employees’ learning and encourage improved business performance as
well as, organizational performance (Pattnaik and Sahoo 2018). Communication is
vital within this process and the unions’ presence can ensure that employee voices
are heard through efficient HRM.
Despite of the several platforms employees can use to communicate because of
technological advancements, many managers fear the possible adverse effects that
employee voice can have on reputation. Consequently, such organizations may
restrict employee communication to different extents, in a bid to avoid negative
branding as seen at Amazon, where criticisms rose following their restriction on
employees’ use of large emails, that are monitored by top-level managers acting as
moderators (Sonnemaker 2021).
Another desired result of these practices is to prevent activists from forming unions
which can later challenge employees’ work terms and conditions, whilst holding the
firm accountable for their actions. In this case, HRM exercises coercive practices
like sanctions and performance reviews to impede non-reputation-supporting
behaviour from its employees (Wæraas and Dahle 2020).
Conversely, employee voice is magnified during a crisis and can publicly challenge
criticisms through social media platforms as seen in Volkswagen's #WirsindVW (We
are Volkswagen) movement, where such actions indirectly form part of crisis
communication (Opitz, Chaudhri and Wang 2018), although this topic remains under-
researched. Therefore, collaboration amongst employees along management and
unions, overall improves the industrial relations landscape within organizations
(Newman et al. 2018).
However, there are also concerns on whether unions themselves could be at risk of
competing interests, if they act in complicity with management (Hugh Cook, Robert
MacKenzie & Christopher Forde, 2020). There is evidence of this conduct can be
found in the form of personnel handbooks requiring employees to “stay silent about
everything they get to know through their work” during and after their employment
contract, as observed in Norway (Wæraas and Dahle 2020). These findings
emphasize the importance of researching union-management relationships, to
understand the different factors at play.
2. Do Unions make people management (HRM) more challenging :
