GLOBALIZATION AND THE JOINT REGULATION OF WORKPLACE CHANGE

The suggestion that globalization has altered the balance of power bet ween unions and management has become commonplace. Faced with increasi ng capital mobility, downsizing, outsourcing and pressures for workpla ce change, it is argued that unions at the local level have little cho ice but to accept workplace changes initiated by the employer. This we akening of union power, it is suggested, is attributable to two factor s: the imperative of competition, which is driving contractual concess ions and more flexible working practices; and the greater leverage ava ilable to multinational firms vis-a-vis local unions. It is not obviou s, however, that the power of a local union is inversely proportional to its degree of exposure to the international economy. The capacity o f the local union to influence workplace change is not simply the resu lt of globalization. First, employers may include or exclude the union in the process of workplace change. Secondly, the real distribution o f power within multinational firms is often complex, with local manage rs having considerable discretion over the process of change. Finally, the mobility of capital within multinational firms is limited by both capital intensity and the degree of integration of production operati ons (for example, just-in-time production techniques). In other words, the impact of globalization on the capacity of the local union to neg otiate workplace change is much more complex than the initial hypothes is suggests. This research attempts to identify the conditions under w hich local unions can affect the course of workplace change. To do so, we draw on a detailed survey of local union presidents conducted in c ollaboration with one of the major union confederations in Quebec. Thi s article examines a sub-sample of 210 local unions operating in 210 e stablishments in the Quebec manufacturing sector. On the basis of owne rship and percentage of production destined for export, these were cat egorized according to their degree of exposure to the international ec onomy. We first establish that there is indeed more workplace change t aking place in the establishments with international exposure. III par ticular, there is more pressure on employment (downsizing, use of cont ractual and part-time labour) and more changes in work organization (c hanges in job content, teamwork, quality programs). We then identify t he characteristics of workplaces where unions play a greater role in t he regulation of workplace change. Our focus is on establishments wher e there has been a change in job content, the introduction of teams, t he introduction of a quality program or technological change in the th ree years preceding our survey. Local unions were assigned to one of t hree categories: a strong capacity to regulate workplace. change (at l east half of the workplace changes resulted in a formal agreement); a medium capacity (either an agreement on one of several changes or the existence of a joint committee on workplace change); or a weak capacit y (neither agreements nor a joint committee on workplace change). What are the characteristics of workplaces where the union demonstrates a stronger capacity to negotiate change? The nature of change (teamwork) , cooperative management behaviour, a larger size of the focal union, a more sophisticated local union organization (the presence of shop st ewards and a greater degree of membership solidarity), the integration of the local union into larger union structures and a proactive union position on work reorganization are all factors associated with a str onger union capacity to negotiate workplace change. This suggests that , when faced with local union strength, an employer wishing to effect workplace change (especially the introduction of teams) cannot easily exclude the local union from the process. Conversely, the introduction of quality programs, more conflictual management behaviour and weak l ocal union resources (isolated from the larger union, less sophisticat ed local organization and the absence of an autonomous position on wor k reorganization) are all associated with a weak local union capacity to influence change. In such circumstances, the employer is more likel y to proceed unilaterally. Does the degree of union involvement in wor kplace change vary according to the degree of exposure to the internat ional economy? As was argued at the outset, globalization does not ove rdetermine the social relations of production in the workplace. Rather , it is necessary to scrutinize the way in which it impacts on the soc ial dynamics of production. In the establishments with both a high and a low exposure to the international economy, agreement on workplace c hange is more likely when teams are being introduced, when management behaviour is more cooperative and where the local union exhibits a sop histicated degree of organization. However, whereas in the establishme nts with a lower degree of exposure to the international economy union size is an important factor, size is not a determinant of local union capacity to regulate workplace change in establishments with a higher degree of exposure to the international economy. Rather, locals union s able to regulate change in such establishments are also characterize d by less isolation from the larger union and a more proactive positio n on workplace change. What then does globalization mean for local uni on capacity to negotiate workplace change? Our results suggest that un ions faced with a higher degree of exposure to the international econo my must be able to mobilize greater resources in order to influence th e course of workplace change. Not only must they draw on a sophisticat ed local organization which allows the union to communicate with its m embers and be assured of their support a condition which also applies to the negotiation of change in establishments with less exposure to t he international economy - but they must be able to draw on the techni cal and ideological expertise of the larger union and the solidarities that the larger union represents, and they must also be able to artic ulate an autonomous or proactive position on work organization.