Headcounts and equal opportunity 261
REFERENCES
Abrams, D. and Hogg, M.A. 1988, ‘Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social identity and intergroup discrimination’, European Journal
of Social Psychology, 18, 317–34.
Abrams, D. and Hogg, M.A. 1999, Social Identity and Social Cognition, Oxford, UK and Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Beggan, J.K., Platow, M.J. and McClintock, C.G. 1991, ‘Social interdepend- ence’, in R.A. Baron, W.G. Graziano and C. Stangor eds, Social Psychology,
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 394–423. Blount, S. 1995, ‘When social outcomes aren’t fair: the ef ect of causal attribu-
tions on preferences’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
63, 131–44.
Bolton, G.E., Brandts, J. and Ockenfels, A. 2005, ‘Fair procedures: evidence
from games involving lotteries’, Economic Journal, 115, 1054–76.
Crosby, F.J., Iyer, A. and Sincharoen, S. 2006, ‘Understanding ai rmative
action’, Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 585–611.
Elster, J. 1989, Solomonic Judgements, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Elster, J. 1992, Local Justice, New York: Russell Sage. Garcia, S.M. and Ybarra, O. 2007, ‘People accounting: social category-based
choice’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 802–9.
Garcia, S.M. and Miller, D.T. 2007, ‘Social categories and group preference dis- putes: the aversion to winner-take-all solutions’, Group Processes and Intergroup
Relations, 10, 581–93.
Garcia, S.M., Tor, A., Bazerman, M.H. and Miller, D.T. 2005, ‘Proi t maximi- zation versus disadvantageous inequality: the impact of self-categorization’,
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18, 187–98.
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 2003. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 2003.
McGarty, C. 1999, Categorization in Social Psychology, London: Sage. Monin, B. and Miller, D.T. 2001, ‘Moral credentials and the expression of preju-
dice’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 33–43.
Turner, J.C., Brown, R.J. and Tajfel, H. 1979, ‘Social comparison and group
interest in ingroup favouritism’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 9,
187–204. Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D. and Wetherell, M.S. 1987,
Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-categorization Theory, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Zurif , G.E. 2004, ‘Is ai rmative action fair?’, American Psychologist, 59, 124–5.
PART V
Labour politics, trade unions, equality and diversity
265
20. Trade union perspectives on diversity management
Anne-marie Greene and Gill Kirton
INTRODUCTION
In the UK, the traditional ‘equal opportunities’ EO agenda has been eclipsed by the concept and language of diversity management DM.
While EO has at its centre the social justice case for equality, primarily based on gender and race but also on disability, sexual orientation and
age, at the centre of DM is the business case. The claim of DM is that organizations can derive economic gains from a diverse in the broadest
possible sense workforce. While critical literature on how UK organiza- tions understand and operationalize the concept of diversity is now begin-
ning to emerge Maxwell 2004; Foster and Harris 2005, there has been very little discussion about how trade unions have responded to the spread
of the diversity approach. We have aimed to open up this area of enquiry, arguing that it is important, particularly in the UK context, where there
is still a signii cant level of unionization especially in the public sector, to consider what the shift from EO to DM means for trade unions Greene et
al. 2005; Kirton and Greene 2006.
THE ROLE OF TRADE UNIONS IN ADVANCING THE EQUALITY AGENDA
First, it is necessary to step back and to consider the role that trade unions have traditionally played in promoting and advancing equality in UK
workplaces. It is well established that employers do not always take vol- untary action to improve their policies and practices and that ‘bottom-up’
pressure from non-management employees for equality is often necessary to trigger action beyond minimal legal compliance. Such action can be
and often is exerted through trade unions and can be just as important as the ‘top-down’ commitment of senior management Colling and Dickens
1998 that proponents of DM prefer to emphasize Kandola and Fullerton
266 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work
1998. Dickens et al. 1988: 65 highlighted this in their research into ‘equality bargaining’ in the 1980s, arguing that a ‘review of discriminatory
terms and practice is more likely to occur where there is some form of joint regulation than where issues are unilaterally determined by employers’.
In support of the ongoing importance of joint regulation, there is recent evidence of considerable levels of trade union action on equality in the UK
and other countries Colling and Dickens 2001; Greene and Kirton 2006. So, what does a shift towards diversity mean for the equality project and
the role that unions play? A key issue for us is the identii cation of three main features of DM seen as a potential threat to trade unions.
DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT AND THE THREAT TO TRADE UNIONS
First, as stated, the key analytical dif erentiation between EO and DM is that while the former rel ects a moral concern for social justice, the latter is
underpinned by the business case Kaler 2001; Noon and Ogbonna 2001. Naturally the DM approach appeals to management critics of traditional
EO, who have argued that the moral cause of equality has little purchase in the competitive world of business. Trade unions, on the other hand, as
champions of social justice, have been generally supportive of EO aims and have sometimes been at the forefront of equality campaigns, particu-
larly in the public sector. However, we argue that unions have cause to be sceptical about the business-driven DM approach. The proponents of DM
usually emphasize four main advantages to business: taking advantage of diversity in the labour market, maximizing employee potential, managing
across borders and cultures, creating business opportunities and enhanc- ing creativity Cornelius et al. 2001. Although there is evidence that
some organizations have constructed a business case for gender equality, critics of the business case argue that it is contingent, variable, selective
and partial and often harder to make for other forms of inequality. Thus the business case is regarded as an insecure foundation for advancing the
equality project Dickens 1994, 1999; Colling and Dickens 2001; Kaler, 2001 and therefore is rightly viewed by unions with suspicion, as our
research shows. Trade union oi cials in our research express concern that DM might be used as a smokescreen to divert attention from ‘dii cult
to tackle’ equality problems, particularly raceethnic issues. Further, we i nd that unions are disturbed by what Prasad and Mills 1997 see as
the implicit commodii cation of labour as an organizational resource that is evident within the business case for diversity. For example, one
senior trade union oi cial told us that she was concerned that the idea of
Trade union perspectives on diversity management 267
‘harnessing’ employees ‘like horses’ see Kandola and Fullerton’s 1998 dei nition of ‘Managing Diversity’ had unpleasant and exploitative con-
notations Kirton and Greene 2006. The second prominent and problematic feature of DM from a trade
union perspective is the emphasis on individual dif erence, rather than on social group-based dif erence as within EO. It has been argued that ‘there
is no room for group claims’ within the discourse of diversity Jones et al. 2000: 369, suggesting that approaches, such as positive action, that have
been used to redress historic group-based disadvantage, no longer have a place within policy. Although it is true to say that not all trade unions have
always supported positive action initiatives Kirton and Greene 2002, our research suggests that trade union equality oi cers, at least, would lament
their disappearance from the suite of equality initiatives. Further, a shift in focus to individual dif erence could lead to less emphasis on the stand-
ardized policies and procedures designed to minimize, if not eliminate discrimination for example, job evaluation, that trade unions have long
campaigned for and to greater dif usion of individualized human resource management HRM techniques for example, performance appraisal and
performance pay that trade unions tend to dislike. Our research shows that trade union oi cials are concerned that individualized techniques
have a strong tendency to reproduce or reconstruct forms of social group- based discrimination and disadvantage.
Although it goes without saying that everyone is dif erent from everyone else in an ini nite number of ways, if these myriad dif erences are all viewed
as equally salient for life chances, then it becomes dii cult for trade unions to develop any specii c campaigns and to propose any specii c programmes
of action. Our research found that trade unionists welcomed a broadening of the agenda beyond the narrow conception of dif erence that is, gender
and race commonly associated with EO, but at the same time that they feared a diluting of the agenda to the point where diversity policy making
could become a vacuous irrelevance and do nothing to make workplaces more inclusive Kirton and Greene 2006.
The third problem from a trade union perspective is that DM is posi- tioned as a top-down policy approach initiated by senior management and
implemented by middle managers Cornelius et al. 2000. This contrasts with EO within which there has traditionally been room for union involve-
ment at organization or workplace level. It is notable that most organiza- tions held up as exemplars of DM are predominantly non-union Kandola
and Fullerton, 1998; Lif , 1999, although many unionized organizations have certainly adopted the diversity discourse. Nevertheless, like its parent
concept, HRM Webb 1997; Kirton and Greene 2005, DM is essen- tially a unitarist approach which theoretically i ts best with non-union
268 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work
organizations Miller, 1996: 206, or at least with organizations where the union has been emasculated or simply fallen into dysfunction. Therefore,
mirroring the debate about the role of unions within HRM for example, Guest, 1987, one of the theoretical concerns about DM is that the tradi-
tional union role as advocates for employee rights might be marginalized. The new focus on the individual employee and the identii cation of diver-
sity as a top-down, managerial activity Kandola and Fullerton, 1998; Lif 1999; Maxwell 2004 potentially threatens union involvement. This is
especially salient and ironic in the present context when there is renewed legitimacy accorded to unions by the polity at national and European
levels and some evidence of a strengthening platform for collective bar- gaining Colling and Dickens, 2001. Moreover, the top-down focus and
the associated marginalization of the role of trade unions within DM has signii cant implications for stakeholder involvement. In the majority of
organizations in our study of diversity practitioners Kirton et al. 2007, interviewees commented that ‘leadership’ of diversity issues had to come
from all levels of the organization, including non-management employees. However despite this, in practice only a small number of organizations
had integrated multi-channel forms of communication and consulta- tion that genuinely seemed to be trying to engage employees proactively.
This is despite wider evidence of the positive ef ects of a joint regulatory approach Konrad et al. 2008.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
We draw three main conclusions from our research looking at trade union perspectives on DM. First, our research and analysis indicate a strong
degree of incompatibility between DM and trade union thinking on equal- ity and diversity. However, despite the claim of being a new way forward
Kandola and Fullerton 1998, it is clear that in the case of UK employers, many traditional EO issues including, for example, policies addressing
‘work–life balance’ and the ‘glass ceiling’ facing women, are contained within DM and sometimes organizations use the two labels interchange-
ably or have two parallel policies so that the traditional EO agenda does not entirely vanish Cornelius et al. 2001; Kirton 2002. Therefore, in prac-
tice, the extent to which DM now or in the future poses a threat to trade union action on equality is debatable. Indeed, it might be argued that in
a context of low, albeit stabilized, union membership, the unions have far more to worry about than the appearance of DM and that bolstering
membership is what will give the unions back their inl uence on the equal- ity agenda. Nevertheless, the emergence of DM in an era of trade union
Trade union perspectives on diversity management 269
decline is hardly a coincidence. While it is important not to overstate the role unions have traditionally played in promoting equality, in Dickens’s
1997 ideal model of EO practice, the role of trade unions is seen as a vital piece of the ‘jigsaw’ making up the campaign for equality in the work-
place. A joint regulatory approach to equality is arguably more concerned with the ‘sticky l oor’ than with the ‘glass ceiling’; that is, with the rights
and conditions of employees at lower levels of organizations. Any attempt to undermine this role has to be deleterious for equality. This takes us to
the second concluding point.
Unions clearly can be criticized for not having ‘their own house in order’. Their ‘mixed record’ Dickens et al. 1988: 65 on challenging dis-
crimination and inequalities and the fact that the bargaining agenda has not been as progressive as it might have Colling and Dickens, 2001 is
partly because the process of bargaining has been white male dominated. Another reason is that liberal ‘sameness’ models of equality Jewson and
Mason 1986 have shaped trade union thinking, meaning that unions have been preoccupied with achieving procedural rather than distribu-
tive justice. However, in the context of decline, UK unions have been compelled to confront the reality of workforce diversity and a discourse
of dif erence or diversity is now permeating the way they conceptualize the equality project. One concrete sign of a culture of greater inclusion
is the fact that women and black and minority ethnic people are now increasing their presence in the union oi cialdom Kirton and Greene
2002. Of course the supreme irony is that unions have begun to engage with workforce diversity at a time when their inl uence and ability to act at
workplace level is relatively weak and when it is clearly dii cult for them to reclaim DM in order to make it work towards equality for all. The unions
just have to hope that it is not a case of too little, too late.
Third, it is clear by now that the discussion of trade union perspectives on DM is situated within a changed employment relations context, where
unions have greater dii culty mobilizing support for collective action, arguably rendering them more dependent on maintaining a cooperative
relationship with management. Although for reasons discussed above, DM might theoretically pose a threat to trade union action on equality,
union oi cials in our research were prepared and, they felt, able to work critically with DM in order to pursue equality objectives on behalf of
their members. Our research therefore suggests that it is possible for trade unions to capture the diversity discourse and reformulate it in ways that
work towards social justice. In this sense, DM might be less of a threat to trade unions and more of an opportunity to refresh a waning employer
commitment to the traditional social justice case of EO. If to do this, it is necessary for unions to be more assertive in highlighting for employers
270 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work
the business case for diversity, our research indicates that they will be pre- pared to do so.
REFERENCES
Colling, T. and L. Dickens 1998, ‘Selling the case for gender equality: deregu-
lation and equality bargaining’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 363:
389–411. Colling, T. and L. Dickens 2001, ‘Gender equality and trade unions: a new basis
for mobilisation?’, in Noon and Ogbonna eds, pp. 136–55. Cornelius, N., L. Gooch and S. Todd 2000, ‘Managers leading diversity for busi-
ness excellence’, Journal of General Management, 253: 67–78.
Cornelius, N., L. Gooch and S. Todd 2001, ‘Managing dif erence fairly: an inte- grated “partnership” approach’, in Noon and Ogbonna eds, pp. 32–50.
Dickens, L. 1994, ‘Wasted resources? Equal opportunities in employment’, in K. Sissons ed., Personnel Management, Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 253–95.
Dickens, L. 1997, ‘Gender, race and employment equality in Britain: inad- equate strategies and the role of industrial relations actors’, Industrial Relations
Journal, 284: 282–9.
Dickens, L. 1999, ‘Beyond the business case: a three-pronged approach to equal-
ity action’, Human Resource Management Journal, 91: 9–19.
Dickens, L., B. Townley and D. Winchester 1988, Tackling Sex Discrimination through Collective Bargaining, Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission.
Foster, C. and L. Harris 2005, ‘Easy to say, dii cult to do: diversity management
in retail’, Human Resource Management Journal, 153: 4–17.
Greene, A.M. and G. Kirton 2006, ‘Trade unions and equality and diversity’, in A. Konrad, P. Prasad and J. Pringle eds, Handbook of Workplace Diversity,
London: Sage, pp. 489–510. Greene, A.M., G. Kirton and J. Wrench 2005, ‘Trade union perspectives on
diversity management: a comparison of the UK and Denmark’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 112: 179–96.
Guest, D. 1987, ‘Human resource management and industrial relations’, Journal
of Management Studies, 245: 503–21.
Jewson, N. and D. Mason 1986, ‘The theory and practice of equal opportunities
policies: liberal and radical approaches’, Sociological Review, 342: 307–34.
Jones, D., J. Pringle and D. Shepherd 2000, ‘“Managing diversity” meets
AotearoaNew Zealand’, Personnel Review, 293: 364–80.
Kaler, J. 2001, ‘Diversity, equality, morality’, in Noon and Ogbonna eds, pp. 51–64.
Kandola, R. and J. Fullerton 1998, Managing the Mosaic: Diversity in Action, London: Institute of Personnel and Development.
Kirton, G. 2002, ‘What is diversity?’, in S. Johnstone ed., Managing Diversity in the Workplace, London: LexisNexis, pp. 1–23.
Kirton, G. and A.M. Greene 2002, ‘The dynamics of positive action in UK trade unions: the case of women and black members’, Industrial Relations Journal,
332: 157–72.
Kirton, G. and A.M. Greene 2005, The Dynamics of Managing Diversity: A Critical Approach, Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Trade union perspectives on diversity management 271
Kirton, G. and A.M. Greene 2006, ‘The discourse of diversity in unionised
contexts: views from trade union equality oi cers’, Personnel Review, 354:
431–48. Kirton, G., A.M. Greene and D. Dean 2007, ‘British diversity professionals as
change agents: radicals, tempered radicals or liberal reformers?’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1811: 1979–94.
Konrad, A., J. Pringle and A.M. Greene 2008, ‘Implementing employment equity in gendered organizations for gendered lives’, in S. Clegg and C. Cooper eds,
The Sage Handbook of Organizational Behaviour. Volume II: Macro Approaches, London: Sage, pp. 287–308.
Lif , S. 1999, ‘Diversity and equal opportunities: room for a constructive com-
promise?’, Human Resource Management Journal, 91: 65–75.
Maxwell, G. 2004, ‘Minority report: taking the initiative in managing diversity in
BBC Scotland’, Employee Relations, 262: 182–202.
Miller, D. 1996, ‘Equality management: towards a materialist approach’, Gender,
Work and Organisation, 34: 202–14.
Noon, M. and E. Ogbonna eds 2001, Equality, Diversity and Disadvantage in Employment, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Prasad, P. and A. Mills 1997, ‘From showcase to shadow: understanding the dilemmas of managing workplace diversity’, in P. Prasad, A. Mills, M. Elmes
and A. Prasad eds, Managing the Organizational Melting Pot, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 3–30.
Webb, J. 1997, ‘The politics of equal opportunity’, Gender, Work and Organization,
43: 159–69.
272
21. Encounters between gender and labour politics: towards an
inclusive trade union democracy
Sue Ledwith
INTRODUCTION
How might a really inclusive gender and diversity democracy in trade unions be achieved, and what forms of feminist praxis theory into prac-
tice might be involved? This is an urgent question for women and diversity groups both inside
and outside trade unions, and for trade unions themselves. It is framed at what I call a key ‘long moment’ or window of opportunity, a point of
encounter between the hot topic of trade union renewal, and the demand for gender and diversity democracy in unions. Both have been extensively
theorised and argued. Here I ask what might such a model of feminist praxis look like? What are the key issues and social processes involved?
I draw on ideas from sources which focus on political praxis. In particu- lar I i nd Antonio Gramsci’s discussions of hegemony, the social processes
involved in the development of counter hegemony, and opportunities for revolution provide a compelling framework for action. Second, arguments
for a politics of dif erence and identity, and of social justice, for example by Carole Pateman, Nancy Fraser and Iris Marion Young, of er a framework
of rights of inclusion. The praxis then becomes how these connect, and so I draw on models which can help identify processes of consciousness
development and empowerment and the links to mobilisation, collective action and transformation.
AGAINST GENDER CLOSURE REGIMES AND TOWARDS STRATEGIES OF INCLUSION
Previously, my colleague Fiona Colgan and I Ledwith and Colgan 2002 set out a model of overlapping and interrelated gender regimes of closure
