The Rise of Collective Bargaining

According to Brody (1993), the collective agreement signed between unions and employers meant that the unions were no longer pushing for activism, but rather they were running the unions as a business. The unions were mostly concerned with ensuring that employees had job security and they worked hard to quell any disturbances that might arise. With employees working as expected and employers willing to pay the employees as agreed, there was a need for the unions to honor their contractual agreements. The contracts removed the unions from management and offered the company managers leeway to run the business as deemed fit. Unions opted to have collective bargaining agreements that in the long run meant that the unions were powerless and the power of workers no longer rested with the unions (Aidt & Tzannatos, 2002). Adopting collective bargaining agreements meant that unions had to adhere to their end of the bargain and the employers also had to hold on to their end. However, any time the union required something they could seek an amendment and this resulted in the employers also seeking to gain more power. With the continuous trading and changing of the agreement, the employees' rights and powers were stifled, and the unions were no longer fighting for social justice.

Initially, it had seemed like the best way to handle employee relations was to have collective bargaining agreements and the unions had seen it as having endless possibilities. However, this was not true. Management preferred the collective bargaining because it ensured that any struggle was handled within a bargaining context. Therefore, unions could not call for strikes or industrial actions that could hurt the business operations. There were rules that each party had to follow when there were grievances or when there were issues that needed addressing. Labor unions had to follow the rules if they were to honor their end of the contract. According to Weber's theory of bureaucracy, there was organized human activity and processes. In order to maintain order and maximize efficiency labor unions could not disrupt the factory operations, and they had to quell any shop floor activism that was taking place. According to Weber, there should be formal rules and regulations in order to ensure uniformity and to regulate the employees' actions. Managers had to rely heavily on the rules to ensure that employees adhere to what is expected of them and there is no conflict.

Self-activity was eliminated as unions were now bargaining for all employees and there was no possibility for them to represent the needs of a section of employees. Collective bargaining meant that unions could not represent a section of employees, but rather the needs of all employees...
...

Therefore, there was impersonality as Weber stated. All the rules applied to all employees and there was no preference based on the section where an employee worked. There was no way for the employees to push their own agenda and the unions did not have the negotiating power to represent the grievances of particular employees. The employers were quite happy with the arrangement because it ensured that they could increase productivity and have fewer labor issues to deal with on a day to day basis. It is noted that the primary sign of bureaucratic authority is a contractual rule that all must obey because on one is above the other. The decision by the unions and management to live by the same rules was only because they both wanted to contain the shop floor activity. Containment meant that the union could not encourage any activism from its members because they would be going against the agreement and the management had to ensure that it treats all employees equally and honors the agreed labor terms. The agreement also assured that unions could manage the decisions made by supervisors and ensure that its union members are not mistreated or mismanaged in any way. On the other hand, management wanted the assurance that it could manage its employees and ensure they can curtail their irrational decisions.

Piven and Cloward Argument on Protests

Protests do not just take place there has to be a cause and a reason that would lead to protests taking place. People would not be willing to take mass action if their systems are working as expected, and the protests are not afterthoughts. For a successful protest, there is a need for planning and planning only comes about after there have been numerous calls for change. Protests usually take place as a last resort, and they will continue until there is an agreed course of action that is suitable for both parties. Any time an institution is deemed to be illegitimate in that it is not performing as expected or as it should be performing then the people who have a stake in the institution can try to defy the institution. By defying the institution, the people are showing their disapproval of the way it has been conducting its affairs, and they are demanding for a change. There is a need for the group to unite and stand as a group in order to successfully defy the organization and demand for changes to take place. For example, when workers feel they are not being treated well by their employer they can unite and plan a protest in the form of a strike. Clearly one can see that there are patterns in protests and they are shaped by institutions around protestors (Chambers, 1978). This is true since there is no way a person who has no stake in an institution can arrange a protest for…