Only two of 32 new companies in a recent study recognised trade unions, according to the head of the department of personnel and employment relations at the University of Limerick, Dr Patrick Gunnigle. He said a study of 50 companies last year by Mr Fintan Hourihan found very low levels of union organisation, with unions recognised in only 12 of the 50 companies.
An "even starker picture" emerged when the 50 companies were divided into those which were expanding and those newlyestablished. "Of the 12 firms which recognised trade unions, 10 were expanding companies. Thus, only two (6 per cent) of the 32 new companies recognised trade unions," he said.
Dr Gunnigle was speaking in Galway on Friday at the "Workplace 2000" conference, organised jointly by the Department of Enterprise and Employment and the Irish Management Institute.
He said there was little evidence of a greater degree of employer-worker partnerships in Irish companies, despite a decade of "partnership" agreements between government and unions.
"It is also clear that we are witnessing a dramatic decline in trade union recognition and collective bargaining in many of the new growth industries."
Dr Gunnigle said changes in the way businesses are organised and structured could lead to the marginalisation of unions in the future. Despite widespread rhetoric to the contrary, "one cannot be optimistic about the development of strategic partnership arrangements (between unions and management)", he said.
"This is particularly the case in the private sector and especially in subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies. The public sector is somewhat different and here the prospects for strategic partnership are considerably better.
"There is, however, widespread evidence of employer initiatives to facilitate higher levels of employee involvement in operational decision making, particularly on issues such as work scheduling.
"These initiatives often form part of drives towards total quality management or world class manufacturing. Such initiatives are generally aimed at involving the individual worker and do not necessarily include trade unions."
The debate about partnership in the workplace raised some "old chestnuts" within the trade union movement, Dr Gunnigle continued.
"Some unions, particularly in the craft sector, have traditionally opposed centralised `partnership' agreements, while larger general unions and key public sector unions have supported them. It now appears that such union support is waning, particularly in areas of the public sector.
"This is happening some time after the Irish trade union movement has embraced the concept of enterprise partnerships. Indeed, successful partnerships are seen as a `bulwark' against the alarming growth of non-union approaches.
"If the union movement can point to high performing companies which adopt managementunion partnership approaches, then these can be held up as exemplars both to new companies and to the various agencies vested with responsibility for industrial development.
"Paradoxically, some of the most widely quoted examples of successful partnerships are in US-owned unionised companies such as Abbott, Analog and Bausch & Lomb.
"At the moment, there are a number of prominent cases which are posited as exemplars of industrial relations partnership. While this may indeed be true in some instances, these are most probably notable exceptions of partnership which mask a more general picture of adversarial and sometimes poor enterprise-level industrial relations."
Earlier, Dr Gunnigle referred to popular conceptions about the workplace of the future as one "comparatively small and characterised by teams of highlyskilled, knowledge workers, operating in a `lean' bureaucracyfree, high tech, flexible work environment.
"The reality is likely to be quite different . . . bureaucracy and control will continue. Low skilled work will continue to play a highly significant role in our economy. In many organisations work will be highly proceduralised and performance will be monitored and controlled in a highly systematic fashion using information technology."
He said that one "cannot be optimistic" about the prospects for future strategic partnerships between unions and managements.
"Managers have traditionally been extremely reluctant to share decision-making power and, particularly so, in relation to strategic decisions.
"A particular instance in Europe was the widespread employer opposition to the introduction of worker directors during the 1970s and 1980s. Other factors also mitigate against the uptake of strategic partnership.
"The growth of larger publicly quoted organisations is a case in point. Stock markets tend to favour `strong' executive control and the development of strategic partnerships may not be viewed positively.
"An issue with particular resonance in Ireland is the great difficulty likely to be encountered in developing strategic partnerships in foreign-owned companies. In the great majority of such firms strategic decisions are made at corporate level - at a significant remove from the Irish subsidiary.
"As such, it may be virtually impossible for an Irish trade union to develop a strategic partnership.
"The indigenous sector and particularly the public sector is somewhat different. Here we have seen the most significant developments. Trends in the ESB, Telecom Eireann and Aer Rianta indicate that many of the appropriate institutional arrangements are in place, such as board level worker representation and well developed subboard level structures to facilitate partnership.
"However, it is also clear that partnership in these organisations is at a very developmental stage and its prospects are dependent on how these organisations cope with imminent competitive challenges in their respective product markets.
"It is also dependent on the impact of privatisation and strategic alliances. Such developments would mitigate against the development of strategic partnership, particularly the issue of worker directors."