Search results

This article has been withdrawn as it was published elsewhere and accidentally duplicated. The original article can be seen here: 10.1108/13552529910288136. When citing the article, please cite: Raymond L. Hogler, (1999), “Changing forms of workplace representation: the United States Steel Corporation, 1933-1937”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 5 Iss: 6, pp. 349 - 361.

Since the National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act of 1935, American labor law has prohibited certain forms of workplace organization in nonunion firms. Congress routinely considers legislation to overturn that prohibition and allow employers more flexibility in creating workplace teams. Systems of employee representation were a prominent feature in American firms after World War I, and in the early 1930s, employers used them extensively as a union substitution technique. At United States Steel, ironically, employee representation provided the means for unionization of the firm. The company’s experience offers insight in the contemporary debate.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the development of employee representation systems in the USA from the Ludlow Massacre of 1914 up to the events in 2015 at the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The study begins with the strike at the Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation which led to the deaths of several women and children. In the aftermath of Ludlow, John D. Rockefeller, Jr, visited the mines in 1915 and persuaded workers that an internal employee representation plan would serve their interests better than an outside trade union. Rockefeller’s influence shaped American industrial relations until the passage of the National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act in 1935, when company unions were outlawed. The ongoing decline of unions and collective bargaining has prompted academic speculation that a return to internal workplace committees might lead to a rejuvenated labor movement in the USA.

The study uses both archival materials and secondary sources to construct a narrative of one important element of industrial relations. It explains Wagner’s ban on company unions as a component of his economic agenda. Company unions provided a voice for a firm’s workers, but Wagner believed they were powerless to redistribute corporate wealth. The decline of American unions is so profound that they no longer serve an economic role in our capitalist system, but workers’ voice in the workplace remains an important consideration.

The key finding of this paper is that employee representation plans are not merely an industrial relations anachronism but continue to be relevant to today’s workplace. The paper compares an influential representation plan developed in 1914 by John D. Rockefeller, Jr, to current schemes of representation and argues that labor law should be modified to permit modern versions of the older “company unions”.

Works councils play a crucial role in European labor relations, and they could do so in America if labor laws were modified to permit it. An exposition of the deep historical context of representation helps to legitimate the concept. Future research into specific cases, including an international perspective, would add to an understanding of the benefits and costs of representation.

The originality of this paper is its combination of a historical event and a contemporary case study that brings together a theme present in managerial history for over a century. By emphasizing the aims of Rockefeller, Jr. in 1914 and the objectives of the Volkswagen Company in 2014 in establishing a participatory workplace, we gain a long-term framework through which to evaluate a particular managerial technique. The paper also suggests ways to bring our labor laws into conformance with the idea of employee representation.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the importance of dispute systems for academic employees and to propose a procedure of voluntary binding arbitration, which would improve governance, promote organizational justice, and reduce litigation.

It is argued that the rationale for arbitration in the educational sphere is even more compelling than in the nonunion industrial workplace because higher education is premised on the concept of shared governance between faculty and administrators. Colleges and universities confront an environment of declining resources, escalating costs, and a consumerist view of education where relations between members of the educational community increasingly resemble market transactions rather than cooperative endeavors.

Given those trends, faculty would benefit from a system of conflict resolution that serves to safeguard professional standards, ensure organizational justice, and provide an effective workplace voice.

As a research agenda, future studies could examine these assumptions by empirically testing and evaluating the contribution and benefit of arbitration in higher education.

Binding arbitration offers a viable means of protecting the interests of faculty and institutions.

This paper offers a case for implementing organizational justice principles in higher education and will be of interest to those in that field.

In this viewpoint, the authors argue that the predominant method of analyzing conflict management focuses too heavily on the managerial interests in administrative efficiency and productivity rather than on the needs of individuals and organizations. The aim of this paper is to employ Weber's analysis of conflict systems, specifically the distinction between formal and substantive rationality, to support the authors’ view.

This is a viewpoint, where content is dependent on the author's opinion and interpretation.

Conflict management based on Weber's theories of formal and substantive rationality will benefit organizations and society by promoting a more positive perception of corporate behavior.

Future research could examine the relationship between organizational justice and the more global concepts of formality and rationality. Similarly, future research on justice may be expanded by through the notion and perception of legitimacy by members of the organization. How employees accept a system as fair and just has potential import for future justice research.

The combination of formal and substantive rationality offers a practical, and meaningful, way of dealing with conflict from a personal orientation as well as an organizational one. It orients conflict resolution toward people rather than productivity concerns. It further safeguards organizational interests by minimizing litigation, negative publicity, and other adverse effects of conflict.

Weber theorized that formal rationality requires organizations to develop clear, objective, and universal procedures in order to carry out administrative routines. Substantive rationality, in contrast, acknowledges that specific cases may demand particularized decision‐making focusing on individual cases. The paper draws on the procedural justice literature to show how these procedures can be implemented in a fair manner.

The purpose of this paper is to examine, empirically the relationship between organizational rationality, knowledge management (KM), risk management and successful implementation of donor-funded projects in Uganda.

Data were obtained from 195 project managers of donor-funded projects both managed within government systems and those outside government using a questionnaire. Zero-order correlation analysis and hierarchical regression analysis were employed to analyze the data.

The paper has two major findings: all the predictor variables are positively and significantly related to successful project implementation; and the relationship is strong enough to cause a 23 percent (R²) increase in the explanatory power in the presence of control variables.

The study focussed on selected donor-funded projects in Uganda and this limited the generalization of the findings. Moreover, there was also limited availability of local empirical literature with respect to implementation and performance of donor-funded projects.

The results suggest that organizations that embrace organizational rationality, risk management and KM succeed in project implementation.

There are many studies that investigate the practices adopted by organizations that implement donor-funded projects, however, this is the first study to the authors’ knowledge that examines the relationship between KM, rationality, risk management and successful implementation of donor-funded projects in Uganda.