Drawing on case study data, this article analyzes contrasting workplace union responses to organizational restructuring in the United Kingdom's aerospace industry. It critically evaluates two distinct union strategies that resonate with contemporary debates governing the future role of trade unions in the British workplace. The first response is based on “partnership” with management while the second reflects traditional “oppositionalism” via the assertive defense of rank-and-file member interests. The article highlights inherent weaknesses in partnership strategies arising from problems of management intention and union incorporation. By contrast, while militant opposition was more successful in constraining the exercise of managerial prerogatives, the traditions of “sectionalism” (or “localism”) in plant-based union organizing meant that this strategy was limited to securing a partial and transient defense of jobs and labor standards.
Ackroyd, Stephen, and Stephen Procter .1998. British manufacturing organization and workplace industrial relations: Some attributes of the new flexible firm . British Journal of Industrial Relations36 (2): 163-183.
2.
Almeida, Beth. 2001. Good jobs flying away? The U.S. jet engine industry. In Corporate governance and sustainable prosperity, edited by William Lazonick and Mary O'Sullivan. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
3.
Appelbaum, Eileen, Thomas Bailey, Peter Berg, and Arne L. Kalleberg .2000. Manufacturing advantage: Why high performance work systems pay off. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
4.
Bélanger, Jacques, Anthony Giles, and Gregor Murray.2002. Towards a new production model: Potentialities, tensions and contradictions. In Work and employment relations in the high-performance workplace, edited by Gregor Murray, Jacques Bélanger, Anthony Giles, and Paul-André Lapointe.London and New York : Continuum.
5.
Bélanger, Paul, Paul-André Lapointe, and Benoît Lévesque.2002. Workplace innovation and the role of institutions. In Work and employment relations in the high-performance workplace , edited by Gregor Murray, Jacques Bélanger , Anthony Giles, and Paul-André Lapointe.London and New York: Continuum.
6.
Beynon, Huw.1984. Working for Ford. 2nd ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
7.
Danford, Andy, Mike Richardson, Paul Stewart, Stephanie Tailby, and Martin Upchurch .2005. Partnership and the high performance workplace: Work and employment relations in the aerospace industry . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan .
8.
Danford, Andy, Mike Richardson, and Martin Upchurch.2003. New unions, new workplaces: A study of union resilience in the restructured workplace. London: Routledge.
9.
Department of Trade and Industry.2002. High performance workplaces: The role of employee involvement in the modern economy. Discussion paper. London: DTI.
10.
———. 2003. High performance workplaces: Informing and consulting employees. Consultation document, London: DTI.
11.
Frost, Ann.2001. Reconceptualising local union responses to workplace restructuring in North America. British Journal of Industrial Relations39 (4): 539-564.
12.
Godard, John.2004. A critical assessment of the high-performance paradigm . British Journal of Industrial Relations42 (2): 349-378.
13.
Greene, Anne-marie, John Black, and Peter Ackers.2000. The union makes us strong? A study of the dynamics of workplace union leadership at two UK manufacturing plants. British Journal of Industrial Relations38 (1): 75-93.
14.
Heery, Edmund.2002. Partnership versus organizing: Alternative futures for British trade unionism. Industrial Relations Journal33 (1): 20-35.
15.
House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee.2005. The UK aerospace industry: Fifteenth report of Session 2004-05. London: Stationery Office Ltd.
16.
Kelly, John.1996. Union militancy and social partnership. In The new workplace and trade unionism, edited by Peter Ackers, Chris Smith, and Paul Smith.London: Routledge.
17.
Kelly, J.2004. Social partnership agreements in Britain: Labor cooperation and compliance. Industrial Relations43 (1): 267-292.
18.
Kochan, Thomas, and Paul Osterman.1994. The mutual gains enterprise. Boston : Harvard Business School Press.
19.
Milkman, Ruth.1997. Farewell to the factory: Autoworkers in the late twentieth century. Berkeley: University of California Press.
20.
Osterman, Paul, Thomas Kochan, Richard M. Locke, and Michael J. Piore .2001. Working in America: A blueprint for the new labor market. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
21.
Prencipe, Andrea.1997. Technological competencies and product's evolutionary dynamics: A case study from the aero-engine industry. ResearchPolicy25:1261-1276.
22.
Sbac.2003. UK Aerospace Facts and Figures 2003. London: The Society of British Aerospace Companies.
23.
———. 2006. The UK Aerospace Industry Survey 2006. London: The Society of British Aerospace Companies .
24.
Smith, Chris.1987. Technical workers: Class, labor, and trade unionism. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Taylor Phil, and Harvie Ramsay . 1998. Unions, partnership and HRM: Sleeping with the enemy? International Journal of Employment Studies6 (2): 115-143.
25.
Terry, Michael.2003. Can “partnership” reverse the decline of British trade unions?Work, Employment and Society17 (3): 459-472.
