"İŞ, GÜÇ" ENDÜSTRİ İLİŞKİLERİ VE İNSAN KAYNAKLARI DERGİSİ"IS, GUC" INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND HUMAN RESOURCES JOURNAL

Makalenin on-line kopyasına erişmek için:h�p://www.isgucdergi.org/?p=makale&id=404&cilt=11&sayi=6&yil=2009

To reach the on-line copy of article:h�p://www.isguc.org/?p=article&id=404&vol=11&num=6&year=2009

Makale İçin İletişim/Correspondence to: Yazarların e-posta adresleri verilmiştir. Writers e-mail was given for contact.

From Trade Unions as Major Labour Organisations to Human Resources Departments:

What are the Factors behind this Transition?

Sibel KALAYCIOĞLUDoç. Dr., Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Sosyoloji Bölümü

ksibel@metu.edu.tr

Kezban ÇELİKDr., Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Sosyal Politika Programı

celikkezban@hotmail.com

Helga RITTERSBERGER-TILIÇ

Doç. Dr., Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Sosyoloji Bölümühelgat@metu.edu.tr

Ekim/October 2009, Cilt/Vol: 11, Sayı/Num: 6, Page: 25-37ISSN: 1303-2860, DOI: 10.4026/1303-2860.2009.0130.x

Yayın Kurulu / Publishing CommitteeDr.Zerrin Fırat (Uludağ University) Doç.Dr.Aşkın Keser (Kocaeli University) Prof.Dr.Ahmet Selamoğlu (Kocaeli University) Yrd.Doç.Dr.Ahmet Sevimli (Uludağ University) Yrd.Doç.Dr.Abdulkadir Şenkal (Kocaeli University) Yrd.Doç.Dr.Gözde Yılmaz (Kocaeli University) Dr.Memet Zencirkıran (Uludağ University)

Uluslararası Danışma Kurulu / International Advisory BoardProf.Dr.Ronald Burke (York University-Kanada) Assoc.Prof.Dr.Glenn Dawes (James Cook University-Avustralya) Prof.Dr.Jan Dul (Erasmus University-Hollanda) Prof.Dr.Alev Efendioğlu (University of San Francisco-ABD) Prof.Dr.Adrian Furnham (University College London-İngiltere) Prof.Dr.Alan Geare (University of Otago- Yeni Zellanda) Prof.Dr. Ricky Griffin (TAMU-Texas A&M University-ABD) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Diana Lipinskiene (Kaunos University-Litvanya) Prof.Dr.George Manning (Northern Kentucky University-ABD) Prof. Dr. William (L.) Murray (University of San Francisco-ABD) Prof.Dr.Mustafa Özbilgin (University of East Anglia-UK) Assoc. Prof. Owen Stanley (James Cook University-Avustralya) Prof.Dr.Işık Urla Zeytinoğlu (McMaster University-Kanada)

Danışma Kurulu / National Advisory BoardProf.Dr.Yusuf Alper (Uludağ University) Prof.Dr.Veysel Bozkurt (Uludağ University) Prof.Dr.Toker Dereli (Işık University) Prof.Dr.Nihat Erdoğmuş (Kocaeli University) Prof.Dr.Ahmet Makal (Ankara University) Prof.Dr.Ahmet Selamoğlu (Kocaeli University) Prof.Dr.Nadir Suğur (Anadolu University) Prof.Dr.Nursel Telman (Maltepe University) Prof.Dr.Cavide Uyargil (İstanbul University) Prof.Dr.Engin Yıldırım (Sakarya University) Doç.Dr.Arzu Wasti (Sabancı University)

Editör/Editor-in-ChiefAşkın Keser (Kocaeli University)

Editör Yardımcıları/Co-EditorsK.Ahmet Sevimli (Uludağ University)Gözde Yılmaz (Kocaeli University)

Uygulama/DesignYusuf Budak (Kocaeli Universtiy)

Dergide yayınlanan yazılardaki görüşler ve bu konudaki sorumluluk yazarlarına aittir.Yayınlanan eserlerde yer alan tüm içerik kaynak gösterilmeden kullanılamaz.

All the opinions written in articles are under responsibilities of the outhors.None of the contents published can’t be used without being cited.

© 2000- 2009 “İşGüç” Endüstri İlişkileri ve İnsan Kaynakları Dergisi“İşGüç” Industrial Relations and Human Resources Journal

Ekim/October 2009, Cilt/Vol: 11, Sayı/Num: 6ISSN: 1303-2860, DOI: 10.4026/1303-2860.2009.0130.x

Ekim/October 2009 - Cilt/Vol: 11 - Sayı/Num: 06Sayfa/Page: 25-37, DOI: 10.4026/1303-2860.2009.0130.x

From Trade Unions as Major Labour Organisations to HumanResources Departments: What are the Factors behind this

Transition?

Abstract:

The aim of this study is to understand the reasons for the changes occurring in labour organisations and work-manship in Turkey through a study based on workers’ experiences. The study is based on field research that wasconducted during 2004 and 2005 with workers from the electronics and textile sectors in Ankara, Bursa and Is-tanbul. These sectors were chosen especially for the fact that they have existed in Turkey since before the 1980s andhave had significant impacts on the industrialisation and transformation of the three cities. Forty workers who areeither still working or are retired from both large and small scale enterprises were interviewed in-depth.

Global and national changes in the labour market and new economic policies after the 1980s have affected workers’organisational capacity in Turkey. In this study, three important responses are determined as an explanation forthese changes: i) growing impotence of trade unions as institutions, ii) emergence of human resource managementand departments, and iii) increase of small and informal workplaces which have neither trade unions nor humanresources departments. Workers’ experiences and perceptions and the factors behind their views are discussed inthe paper.

Keywords: Trade Unions, Labour market , Labour organisations

Sibel KALAYCIOĞLUDoç. Dr., Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Sosyoloji Bölümü

Kezban ÇELİKDr., Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Sosyal Politika Programı

Helga RITTERSBERGER-TILIÇ

Doç. Dr., Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Sosyoloji Bölümü

"İŞ, GÜÇ" Endüstri İlişkileri ve İnsan Kaynakları Dergisi"IS, GUC" Industrial Relations and Human Resources Journal

Introduction

“An organisation pursuing HRM will al-most always prefer a non-union path, emp-hasising individual rather than collectivearrangements” (Guest, 1989:48).

“…according to me, the trade union is oldinstitution and belongs to the primitivepast” (woman, 40 years old, universitygraduate, employed at a five-star hotel).

The decline of trade unionism has been a vi-sible trend in many countries in recent years(Verma et al., 2002) and the subject of a largebody of research. Major factors used to exp-lain union decline have included structuralchanges in the economy, changes in workerattitudes or values, government provision ofbenefits once obtained largely from unions,internal union problems, and union supp-ression and union substitution by employers(Fiorito & Maranto, 1987; Lipset & Kateha-novski, 2001; Crouch, 2000). All of these phe-nomena have probably played at least somerole in union decline, although there is oftensubstantial disagreement about their relativeimportance (Fiorito, 2001:335).

Crouch (2000) discuss the problems and ad-vantages of trade unions in the twenty-firstcentury in his paper, “The Snakes and Lad-ders of Twenty-First-Century Trade Unio-nism”. According to him, trade unions in thetwenty-first century seem to carry moreproblems than advantages. The problemscan be summarized as follows: i) the declineof trade unionism’s core membership reser-ves, ii) the collapse of Keynesian demandmanagement, iii) the shift of most industrialrelations activity to the enterprise level, andiv) the collapse of the standard employmentmodel. The industrial working class, rates ofpublic service employment and governmentcommitment to maintaining full employ-ment have all been decreasing. With thesechanges, standard employment, with whichunionism has always been linked, has beendeclining. In the current global economicand political context, no state or regional

grouping of states has the ability or the poli-tical will to set in motion the macroeconomicchanges that would create universal full em-ployment under regulated conditions (Gal-lin, 2001:536).

The deregulation of the labour market is alsoa strategy for eliminating the trade unionmovement. Subcontracting is a well-travel-led road to evading legal responsibilities andobligations. The fragmentation and disper-sion of the labour force; its constant destabi-lisation by the introduction of newcomponents such as women, youth and mig-rants of different origins into sectors withouttrade union tradition; the pressure for maxi-mum profits together with management in-timidation: all of these are obstacles to tradeunion organisation (Gallin, 2001:535). Thedecline of trade union density in most in-dustrialised countries in the 1980s and 1990sis due less to transfers of production and re-locations to the South and to the East thanhas often been assumed, although suchtransfers have, of course, played a significantpart in the changes. More important havebeen the deconstruction of the formal sectorand the deregulation of the labour market inthe heartland of industrial trade unionism(Gallin, 2001:535). For example, Japan andthe US have lost half of their trade unionmembers over a period of 40 years; NewZealand and Portugal have lost half of theirtrade union members in only 10 years; andIsrael has lost three-quarters of its tradeunion membership in the same 10 years.

Coinciding with the decline in trade unio-nism, there has been an increase in the useof human relations practices and new formsof work organisation. These are often subsu-med under labels such as “high-involve-ment”, “high-commitment” and“high-performance management”, or simply“human resource management” or “HRM”(Machin & Wood, 2005:201). Guest notesthat building worker commitment to the em-ployer (“organizational commitment”) is atthe very core of HRM. “It is assumed that aworker who is committed to the organiza-

28 Ekim/October 2009 - Cilt/Vol: 11 - Sayı/Num: 06"İŞ, GÜÇ" Endüstri İlişkileri ve İnsan Kaynakları Dergisi"IS, GUC" Industrial Relations and Human Resources Journal

tion is unlikely to become involved in in-dustrial relations or any type of collective ac-tivity” (Guest, 1995: 112-13).

Guest and Conway (1999) present a broadlyfocused, large-sample study of workers inUK organisations. The HR practices theyexamine include training and development,formal appraisal, job enrichment/enlarge-ment, internal promotions, learning oppor-tunities, bonus or merit pay and employeeinvolvement programs. They find that wor-kers in “high-HRM” organisations reporthigher job satisfaction, higher organisationalcommitment and better worker-manage-ment relations than those in firms that haveadopted fewer positive HR practices. Also,workers in “high-HRM” organisations wit-hout unions are no more likely to express in-tentions to leave their jobs than workersrepresented by unions, but workers in “low-HRM” firms without unions report dramati-cally higher intentions of leaving. In theirpaper, Machin and Wood have consideredone of the key hypotheses of modern indus-trial relations, namely that unionism hasbeen replaced by alternative non-unionforms of voice and communication throughthe adoption of HRM practices. At the endof their analysis they reach the conclusionthat, “Overall, one can only conclude thatHRM substitution does not seem to be a veryimportant factor in explaining trade uniondecline in Britain” (Machin & Wood,2005:214).

“Whether motivated by ideology or fad, byeconomic necessity or by a desire to keepunions out, companies are increasingly ex-perimenting with what have becomeknown as human resource policies whichare designed to increase employee motiva-tion and job commitment. . . Taken toget-her, these new company human resourcepolicies, plus new legal regulations ... havegiven many workers most of the benefitsand protections commonly provided byunionization . . . their net impact has beento make union organizing more difficult”(Strauss, 1984: 4-5).

The argument is that unions may become re-dundant in the eyes of workers (and emplo-yers) because of “the effects that positiveemployer practices … have in reducing thecauses of unionism, i.e., worker dissatisfac-tion” (Fiorito 2001:335; italics in original).The increased adoption of HRM practiceshas been presented, particularly in the pres-criptive management literature, as providingthe basis for a new win-win relationship bet-ween workers and managers. It is arguedthat such practices offer management theprospect of improved performance whileimproving workers’ job satisfaction, secu-rity, and perhaps pay and benefits (Machin& Wood 2005:202).

According to Guest, HRM could not existalongside high levels of unionisation. Mo-reover, the importance of organising infor-mal sector workers is not recognised equallyin all sections of the trade union movement.It is still a widely accepted assumption thatthe informal sector is a transitory phenome-non and that it will be absorbed by the for-mal sector in time, without the need foraction by trade unions or the state. The ex-perience of the last two decades, however,shows that this assumption of gradual for-malisation is unrealistic and only fostersdangerous complacency (Gallin, 2001:531).The informal sector is an integral part of glo-bal production and marketing chains. Whatis particular to the informal sector is the ab-sence of rights and social protection for theworkers involved in it (Gallin, 2001:535).

When we look at the Turkey, the effects ofthe changes described above can be seenafter the 1980s. Until the 1980s, Turkey’s eco-nomy was identified with a type of capitalaccumulation known as import-substitutionindustrialisation. Its basic characteristicswere protectionism, state involvement, andregulated markets. Towards the end of the1970s, crises emerged both in the economicand political realms in Turkey. The end ofthe 1970s was a difficult time, not only forTurkey but also for other countries, due toglobalisation and technological changes. Asdiscussed earlier, this led to changes in the

29From Trade Unions as Major Labour Organisations to Human Resources Departments: What are the Factors behind this Tranition?

"İŞ, GÜÇ" Endüstri İlişkileri ve İnsan Kaynakları Dergisi"IS, GUC" Industrial Relations and Human Resources Journal Ekim/October 2009 - Cilt/Vol: 11 - Sayı/Num: 0630

mode of production and then in society as awhole, shifting from the production societyto the service society. Thus, both nationaland global crises led to the radical changesof the 1980s, which shifted the trajectory ofTurkish economic policies from import subs-titution to export-oriented growth. Therewas a widespread restructuring of economicpolicy, and neo-liberalism became the neworder of this period. This new order broughtincreasing foreign trade, interest rate libera-lisation, deregulation, privatisation, decrea-ses in state expenditures on social servicesand a liberal foreign exchange regime ins-tead of the state interventionism of the pre-vious period (Balkan & Savran, 2002). ‘Freemarket economy’, ‘opening to the outside’and ‘removing bureaucratic barriers’ becamethe popular notions in Turkey in the 1980s. Itwas claimed that market forces had theirown adjusting capacities and this replacedthe idea of a state providing welfare and jus-tice to the people. Instead of a state conside-ring the distribution of income, a free marketthat brings productivity and efficiency waspromoted. A powerful bureaucracy was notseen as the precondition of development; itwas rather an obstacle for the operation ofthe free market (Öncü & Gökçe, 1991).

Parallel to this shift, some deregulation andprivatisation efforts began. It was believedthat lower wages would not, by themselves,fully ensure lower costs of production; tomake production sustainable, it was also ne-cessary to place some control on the rightsof unionisation and collective bargaining.Such restriction could be managed rather ea-sily under the military regime. Trade unionactivities were suspended while collectivebargaining was replaced by compulsory ar-bitration. The new Constitution of 1982 in-troduced new arrangements relating toindustrial relations and put some limitationson the exercise of right to strike, which arestill disputed today. In addition to the La-bour Act (No 1475) of 1971, the Unions Law(No 2821) and the Law on Collective Bargai-ning Agreement, Strike, and Lockout (No2822) were enacted in 1983 within this at-mosphere. Furthermore, the firm stand of

governments to maintain the ‘stability pac-kage’ led to a steadily falling trend in realwages in the period between 1980 and 1988(Cihangir, 1996:145).

At present, Turkey is in a historical processof transformation in which employmentshifts from agriculture to industry and ser-vices still continue. Linked to this process,the country has experienced increasingunemployment in the last two decades. Lea-ving aside marginal drops in the early 1980sand 1990s, the rate of unemployment in Tur-key was on a continuous rise throughout theplanned period. Specific factors contributingto this situation can be listed as rapid popu-lation growth, poor arrangements regardinglabour markets, weakness of vocational trai-ning, high rates of urbanisation observableas early as the 1950s, obstacles to investmentthat could have generated employment andlow levels of productivity and economicgrowth. The working age population is in-creasing more rapidly than natural popula-tion growth due to a demographictransformation process which first began inthe 1950s and continued through the 1980s,despite some significant regional variations.In addition to this demographic factor, thestructure of land proprietorship explains theexistence of a large but unproductive agri-cultural employment base. The structure do-minant in the Turkish rural sector is that ofsmall proprietorship. Since this structure isnot conducive to economies of scale and fullmechanisation, labour productivity could in-crease only marginally and wage labour re-mained extremely limited. State protectionand agricultural subsidies also played theirrole in keeping the decrease in the percen-tage of rural population at slow rates. Recentwithdrawal of the state from its traditionalrole as a ‘sponge’ absorbing surplus labourin the labour market leads to further shrin-kage in government employment and there-fore aggravates the problem ofunemployment.

Roughly speaking, Turkey’s labour marketis characterised by low employment rates,reflecting a large rate of non-participation,relatively high unemployment and declining

labour force participation rates (WB 2006:61). The relatively young and dynamic po-pulation of Turkey is quite large, around 70million and still growing. Another importantTurkish labour market characteristic is rela-ted to the informal sector. While the em-ployment share of agriculture is around35%, which is significant, its contribution tothe GNP is around 12%. This means thatproductivity is very low in Turkish agricul-ture. This low productivity and the nation’slarge population constitute the main reasonsfor the size of the informal sector (Bulutay &Taştı, 2004). Numerous studies attempt toestimate the size of the informal sector inTurkey. Since there is neither a common de-finition for ‘informal sector’ nor a commonapproach for measuring it, there are sizeabledifferences among the estimates. Studiesconducted in the early 1990s suggest that thesize of the informal economy was in therange of 7-23% of the GDP. Recent studiesseem to indicate that the informal sector hasexpanded. For example, a study by the IMFconducted in 2003 estimates the size of theinformal (or unrecorded) economy to be bet-ween 25 and 33% of the GDP (EC, 2006:17).The public sector (including state adminis-tration and public economic enterprises) hasbeen an important source of employment ge-neration, but its role in the labour market hasgradually diminished over time. As a resultof substantial labour adjustment and theprocess of privatisation of state economic en-terprises, the public sector employed around2.5 million persons overall in 2004, or ro-ughly 12% of Turkey’s total employment.

Method of the Study

The study is based on field research conduc-ted in 2004 and 2005 in Ankara, Bursa andIstanbul, where the electronics and textilesectors developed before the 1980s and sig-nificantly influenced the industrialisationand transformation of these cities. Fortyworkers who are either still working or haveretired from both large and small scale en-terprises were interviewed in-depth. Equalnumbers of men and women were includedin the sample and the oral history technique

was applied during the interviews.

Findings and Discussion

The processes of the 1980s, as mentionedabove, led to changes in the understandingof workers’ organisation and related struc-tures. These processes include: i) the gradualincrease in the impotence of trade unions asinstitutions, ii) the emergence of human re-source management and departments andiii) the increase of small and informalworkplaces which have neither trade unionsnor human resources departments. Thesedevelopments were supported by many fac-tors related to the everyday work experien-ces of employees. In fact, emerging needs ofnew work conditions made the age, sex andmarital status of workers significant variab-les in lowering the need for trade unions.Also, increasing levels of education andskills and the changing levels of the socialand cultural capital of the workers are addi-tional supporting factors in the developmentof HRD at the expense of unions. After the1980s, an increasing number of modern en-terprises established human resources de-partments with a new management style.These departments gave workers the im-pression that the interests of employers andemployees in the workplace were the sameand that the well-being of the workplace wasequally gainful for both parties.

The first development refers to the changesin the perceptions of the functions of tradeunions among the workers themselves.Trade unions have gradually become an im-potent institution in relation to the real ex-periences of workers and their perceptionsabout unions’ functions. A basic explanationlies with the 1980 military intervention andsuspension of union rights, which was con-sidered a turning point for workers and theunionisation movement in Turkey. The oldworkers have real experience with this eventand its consequences; the young workers, onthe other hand, have transmitted memoriesabout that experience.

The trade union is losing ground withinunionised labour. Some factors can be high-

From Trade Unions as Major Labour Organisations to Human Resources Departments: What are the Factors behind this Tranition? 31

"İŞ, GÜÇ" Endüstri İlişkileri ve İnsan Kaynakları Dergisi"IS, GUC" Industrial Relations and Human Resources Journal Ekim/October 2009 - Cilt/Vol: 11 - Sayı/Num: 0632

lighted for this decrease: the political climateof the country has changed, the informaleconomy expanded and unemployment hasincreased.

“Now, I think that trade unions do notwork anymore. I think the September 12coup in 1980 was what killed the tradeunion in Turkey. After that time, the tradeunion couldn’t orient itself to the labourand workers’ demands. Today, is it pos-sible for trade unions to be alive again? Ido not think so. If Turkey’s membership isaccepted by the European Union, then uni-ons will have a chance to be a worker’s ins-titution. However, when I am looking atthe labour market and its employment, Ithink there is no chance” (man, 52 yearsold, university graduate, retired accoun-ting manager from the private sector).

“…today there is a system in which theworker works so hard, then earns moremoney. But the trade union prevents thispossibility. The trade union says ‘give thesame set amount of money to everyone’. Ifyou give the same money to everyone, thenthere is no chance to create competition forperformance. This is especially true forblue collar workers. Blue collars workersthink as if ‘no matter what happens, I getthis money’. If one of them wants to earnmore money, then they don’t have a chancefor this. Actually, I think the trade unioncould not be updated itself. The tradeunion is following the same conflict whichwas current in the 1970s. That conflict isbased on employer-employee polarisation. Iadmit that at that time, the trade uniongained important achievements. But todaya lot has changed. Now employer and em-ployee are not enemies, but the two partiescomplete each other now” (woman, 50years old, university graduate, retired en-gineer from the automotive sector).

The experiences of workers with unemploy-ment, whether working in the formal or in-formal sectors, in public or private sectors,have also had a significant impact on theworkers’ perception of trade unions. Thedecreasing share of industrial production,

which had once made unionisation possibleby bringing many regular workers into largeworkplaces, also created more difficulties inunionisation. Workers in the newly expan-ding service sector experienced heterogene-ity in terms of wage, education and skilllevels as well as different and more flexiblework contracts, which led to more indivi-dualisation. Hence, service workers’ interestin unionisation decreased, and instead ofcollective action, individualisation of con-flicts in industrial relations started to becomemore widespread.

“…there is no job. No one could be unio-nized. Who would do that? Wages are low,the boss knows this reality. Life is reallyhard and we could not manage with thiswage. We could not get our wages for twomonths. The boss says, ‘Next month I willgive it to you’. But we could not quit ourjob, because we know that finding a newjob is very difficult. How can we orga-nize?” (man, 48 years old, primary schoolgraduate, employed in the private sector).

“…to be unified, it is so strange for us. Doyou know why? People are working butearn very little money. And everyday somepeople lose their jobs. It doesn’t matterwhether you are unionized or not. The em-ployer gives compensation and fires theworker” (man, 32 years old, vocationalschool graduate, employed in sea trans-portation).

The second development was the gradualemergence of human resources departmentsin large scale workplaces. After the 1980s, anincreasing number of modern enterprises es-tablished human resources departmentswith a new management style. These de-partments gave workers the impression thatthe interests of employers and employees inthe workplace were the same and that thewell-being of the workplace was equally ga-inful for both parties. When this policy is re-latively successful, a majority of workersthink that there is no longer a need for tradeunions to represent or defend their interests.Increasingly deferential and privatised wor-ker perspectives dominate the experiences of

new workers, bringing an instrumental un-derstanding of the functions of and reasonsfor the existence of unions.

Human resources departments are more ef-fective in large scale workplaces and can bean alternative to the trade union, makingunions seem to be an unnecessary institutionin the eyes of workers. If the workplace isinstitutionalised and large scale, the workersare happy with their wages and the workp-lace has a human resource department, thenworkers believe that a trade union is not anecessary institution in their workplace. If aworkplace was established after the 1980sand then became larger over time, it does nothave the trade union tradition and the wor-kers in such workplaces do not have experi-ences of the meaning of being unionmembers. Under these conditions, workersmake comparisons with other workplaces inthe labour market. A majority of thoseworkplaces are small scale, with poor workconditions. Employees there face long wor-king hours, low wages and difficult conditi-ons. After such a comparison, the large scaleworkplaces clearly appear to be more suc-cessful from the workers’ perspective. Thisway of thinking has been encouraged aslong as the employees receive their salariesregularly; have transportation facilities andsocial security, including health and retire-ment rights; and even enjoy some social ac-tivities organized for workers, such aspicnics and concerts. This all leads the wor-kers, with an instrumental viewpoint, to be-lieve that the trade union is no longer anessential organisation of labour. Thus, such adevelopment is also effective in reducing themotivation for unionisation, allowing HRDto replace the perceived functions of unions.

“I think if the employer values their wor-ker, there is no necessity for trade unions.For example, in my workplace, we have atea hour in the morning, we eat our bagel.Our lunch is perfect. We have some socialactivities organized by the workplace; wehave tennis, basketball, volleyball and fo-otball courts. It means we have manykinds of social activities. Besides, our

workplace is organizing some cultural ac-tivities such as concerts, conferences, andother things. We have private health insu-rance; we and the employer are paying to-gether for health insurance. We are reallycomfortable, actually. Because of this, wenever feel the lack of the trade union in ourworkplace. We are working and earningour wages. Sometimes I look around atother workplaces, and there are really poorworkplaces in which people are workingbut they could not get their wages. Some-times they are working additional hours,but again, they could not get extra moneyfor their additional hours. If we work ad-ditional hours, our firm gives us our extramoney. For example, I have a brother andhe is working as a security officer; he lea-ves home at 9AM and goes home at 11PM.And he earns only minimum wage and henever earn extra money for overtimehours. If we work one hour extra, we re-ceive overtime pay” (woman, 36 years old,high school graduate, employed in the pri-vate sector).

For people who are working in the servicesector, having entered the labour marketafter 1990, if they have a high level of self-confidence, then their interest in trade uni-ons is found to be low. Moreover, if a personhas had a long education, then his or her be-lief in the value of trade unions is also low.

“I think the trade union is good as an idea,like any other ideas. It is good because thetrade union defends and protects the wor-kers’ rights. But the trade union is similarto a forbidden casino. What I want to sayis that if you forbid the casino in one placethen people go to other places where the ca-sino is not forbidden. Today employers rea-lise that service quality is very importantin the service sector and with this aim inmind it is important for employees to feelhappy. If employees give service with a badattitude, the sustainability of the businessis not possible. For example, if you servethe best coffee, but with a bad manner,then the customer will never come again.Thus employee’s happiness is a very im-

From Trade Unions as Major Labour Organisations to Human Resources Departments: What are the Factors behind this Tranition? 33

"İŞ, GÜÇ" Endüstri İlişkileri ve İnsan Kaynakları Dergisi"IS, GUC" Industrial Relations and Human Resources Journal Ekim/October 2009 - Cilt/Vol: 11 - Sayı/Num: 0634

portant issue and employers know thisfact. If employees are happy with their job,then their service quality improves. If em-ployees only think about when they can goto home, what their family will eat thisevening, how they can pay the rent and soon, then they could not provide quality ser-vice. If they feel and think like this, thenthey will leave, and therefore employersknow this reality and they try to do muchbetter to keep employees happy. Underthese conditions the trade union is not ne-cessary, because employers know the sec-ret of success, which is based on employee’ssatisfaction” (woman, 40 years old, em-ployed as a white collar worker in a five-star hotel).

The third development is the huge increaseof small and informal workplaces whichhave neither trade unions nor human reso-urces departments. These workplaces aremicro- or small-sized firms created withinthe informal economy, and the sustainabilityof such workplaces is very limited. Workersfind their jobs via informal channels andthey accept poor or difficult work conditi-ons, a lack of job contracts and social secu-rity, and the possibility of being fired at anytime and for any reason. These workers havelimited education and skills and are mostlywomen. Newly migrated, unskilled or se-miskilled labourers can often find employ-ment opportunities in these workplaces andtheir expectations of the work are very low.With the heavy pressures felt in the labourmarket due to increased unemployment, alarge informal economy and widespreadprecarious employment, these kinds ofworkplaces are the only options for many di-sadvantaged workers who have neither or-ganisational capacity nor the intention to beorganised through a trade union.

In terms of employer-employee relations,there are significant and obvious differencesbetween relatively well-paid skilled emplo-yees working in established workplaces andlow-paid unskilled, uninsured workers. Thesecond category of workers is very silent, be-lieving that if they deserve something, theiremployer will realise it and give their rights

to them. They believe that the employerknows best, even where workers’ needs areconcerned.

“If an employer respects the rights of hisemployees, then there is no need for thetrade union in the workplace. If you allowthe rights of the worker, the trade unionbecomes useless. If you do not give therights of workers, then someone emerges tosearch for his or her rights. The history ofthe trade union started for this reason, ac-tually. First, you have to give the rights ofworkers, and then you wait for your wor-kers to work at full capacity. I am thinkinglike this: one worker sells his labour powerto you and he works 8 hours for you a day.If someone sells his labour power then hehas to work to deserve his wages. Withinthese hours, workers have to work, but youhave to pay for his labour power. If bothparties obey this rule then there is no needfor the trade union anymore” (man, 68years old, primary school graduate, retiredstate employee).

Under these conditions, a consciousness oftrade unions is absent. Moreover, the mea-ning of work is very limited and an instru-mental meaning of work, only wages,develops. Employees think that it would beimmoral and ungrateful to organize underthe union umbrella, because the employerspay their wages, giving them their dailybread, in a sense. ‘If someone gives youbread and work’, the workers believe thatthey should remain docile. Any kind ofstruggle against the employer is not accep-ted and not found to be ethical by these wor-kers.

“Here [in the workplace] everybody knowseach other very well. We are relatives, fri-ends…we know the boss, as well. What doyou do, to whom, how? It is not acceptable.The boss gives us work. He gives usmoney. He does not persecute us. Whatyou want... Do you want to revolt againstthe boss? This is not good, because he givesus work and money, so it is not suitable forus to turn against him” (man, 52 yearsold, illiterate, employed as a night watch-

From Trade Unions as Major Labour Organisations to Human Resources Departments: What are the Factors behind this Tranition? 35

man).

There is no trade union in small workplaces,but even if employees there have a consci-ousness about trade unions, this can be dis-couraged. Even if employees have relativeswho are members of a trade union, the em-ployee’s enthusiasm for unions can be dis-solved.

“One day the employer said that there wasnot enough work for us and thus he woulddismiss some of us. Then he declared thatmy brother was dismissed. I understoodwhy he dismissed my brother, because mybrother was interested in the trade union.But he said that he dismissed me, as well.I could not understand why he dismissedme and I asked him: ‘Why are you dismis-sing me?’ He said that actually he wasvery happy with my work and he knew Iwas not interested in trade unions, but intime maybe my mind would be mixed upbecause of my brother. In time I might getused to my brother’s thinking, he added”(man, 45 years old, employed at a smallworkplace).

With a lack of trade union consciousness,workers’ demands and forms of struggle be-come more traditional and conservative.Employees in small workplaces in the infor-mal labour market know that they work wit-hout social insurance, facing long hours andpoor workplace conditions. Because of thework shortages in the labour market, theyhave to accept those conditions. The tradeunion is nothing to those workers; the tradeunion is only a heard-of institution but itdoes not touch their lives.

”...no, no, we never did revolt, never ... theboss has given us money, and he gives usmeals, as well. At first he said that he couldnot offer social insurance to us. He said hewill give us only money. I need money. Wecame to this city one year ago, I didn’tknow anything, I did not know where Iwent. I am an illiterate woman, and there-fore I accepted this work” (woman, 50years old, illiterate, employed at a smalltextile industry).

”I do not know what the trade union is.Sometimes people are talking about thetrade union. People who are living in ci-ties know something about it. When theywant extra payment, social insurance andsome other needs, they organise themsel-ves under the trade union. But I do notknow. At this age, I could not find any jobwhich gives social security; actually, Icould not do anything else with this edu-cation” (woman, 50 years old, employed ata small textile industry).

In small workplaces, the boss can reacheddirectly by workers; face to face relations-hips between employee and employers arecommon. This kind of relationship creates adifferent employer-employee interaction;employees feel that the boss is like a father,a protector and a helpful person.

Conclusion

The first conclusion of this study would bethat the trade union can learn some strate-gies and tactics from HRM: unions are expe-rimenting with and implementing neworganising philosophies, strategies and tac-tics. They are dramatically increasing the re-sources devoted to organising, at leastaccording to union leaders’ pronounce-ments. Furthermore, unions learn and adapt,although many would say that the unionscorecard on this is not impressive to date.But just as employers have learned over timeto use the legal system to their advantage,unions can learn how to counter possible‘union-proofing’ advantages of HR practicesor in other ways regain the initiative. Fioritoet al. (1987) suggest, and Guest (1995) deve-lops more fully, some pro-HRM strategiesfor unions. In essence, they suggest that uni-ons should accept that workers value manypositive HR practices, and thus should focustheir efforts on becoming advocates for suchpractices.

The second conclusion would be that thetrade union should give more attention tothe informal sector and try to find any pos-sibility for unionisation there: Gallin argues(2001:532) that organising workers in infor-

mal employment needs to be a priority of thetrade union movement at both national andinternational levels, because: i) informal em-ployment is here to stay; ii) it is growing,while the formal sector is declining in termsof organisational potential; iii) these twotrends are linked and are irreversible in theshort and medium terms; and iv) conse-quently, the stabilisation of formal sector or-ganisations and the building of trade unionstrength internationally depend on the or-ganisation of the informal sector.

The expanded informal sector, limited state-public works, unemployment and poorwork conditions are the main reasons forthese developments. However, the primaryfactor behind these changes is related to theparadigmatic shift from industry to the ser-vice sector. Global and national changes areaffecting the structure of the labour marketradically and small workplaces are trying toremain alive in Turkey. Global and nationalcompetitions lead to informality and withthese changes atypical employment, or workconditions radically different from standardemployment, increase in the informal sector.Under these conditions, the standard orga-nisational tool, the trade union, has lost itsground.

References

Balkan, N. and Savran, S. (ed) 2002. The Po-litics of Permanent Crisis: Class, Ideo-logy and State in Turkey, New York:Nova Science Publishers Inc.

Bulutay, T. and Taştı, E. 2004. Informal Sec-tor in the Turkish Labour Market, Dis-cussion Paper 2004/22, TurkishEconomic Association.

Cihangir, A. 1996. 1980 Yılı Sonrası Türki-ye'de İstihdam ve Yapısal Emek Piya-sası Politikalari (Employment andStructural Labour Market Policies inTurkey After 1980), Sabahattin Zaim'eArmağan, İstanbul.

Fiorito, Jack. 2001. “Human Resource Mana-gement Practices and Worker Desiresfor Union Representation.” Journal ofLabor Research, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Spring),pp. 335–54.

Gallin, Dan. 2001. “Propositions on TradeUnions and Informal Employment inTimes of Globalisation,” Editorial Boardof Antipode, pp. 531-549.

Guest, David and Neil Conway. 1999. “Pee-ring into the Black Hole: The Downsideof the New Employment Relations inthe UK.” British Journal of IndustrialRelations 37, pp. 367-89.

Guest, David E. 1989. “Human ResourceManagement: Its Implications for In-dustrial Relations and Trade Unions.”In John Storey, ed., New Perspectiveson Human Resource Management.London: Routledge, pp. 41–55.

Hasse, Raimund and Håkon Leiulfsrud.2002. “From disorganized capitalism totransnational fine turning?: recenttrends in wage development, industrialrelations, and ‘work’ as a sociologicalcategory.” British Journal of SociologyVol. No. 53 Issue No. 1, pp. 107–126

36 Ekim/October 2009 - Cilt/Vol: 11 - Sayı/Num: 06"İŞ, GÜÇ" Endüstri İlişkileri ve İnsan Kaynakları Dergisi"IS, GUC" Industrial Relations and Human Resources Journal

Machin, Stephen, and Stephen Wood. 2005.Human Resource Management as aSubstitute for Trade Unions in BritishWorkplaces, Industrial and Labour Re-lations Review, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 201-220.

Öncü, A. and Gökçe, D. 1991. “Macro-Poli-tics of Deregulation and Micro-Politicsof Banks” in Strong State and EconomicInterest Groups: The Post-1980 Experi-ence, ed. by Metin Heper, New York,pp.99-117.

Strauss, George. 1984. “Industrial Relations:Time of Change.” Industrial Relations23, pp. 1-15.

Verma, Anil, Thomas A. Kochan, and Step-hen J. Wood. 2002. “Union Decline andProspects for Revival: Editors’ Intro-duction.” British Journal of IndustrialRelations, Vol. 40, No. 3 (September),pp. 373–84.

World Bank. 2006. Turkey Labour MarketStudy, Report No. 33254-TR (PovertyReduction and Economic ManagementUnit, Europe and Central Asia), Was-hington DC: 14 April 2006.

37From Trade Unions as Major Labour Organisations to Human Resources Departments: What are the Factors behind this Tranition?