-
Richard Hyman:Marxism, TradeUnionism and ComparativeEmployment
Relationsbjir_845 209..230Carola Frege, John Kelly and Patrick
McGovern
Abstract
Richard Hyman has been a hugely influential figure in the field
of industrialrelations for the best part of four decades. At a time
when the future of the verysubject has been questioned, we
highlight three areas of Hymans work that webelieve provide fertile
territory for future research. The first concerns the impor-tance
of theory and the continuing need to broaden the subject of
industrialrelations so that it is treated as an area in which we
can examine wider questionsabout the political economy of waged
labour. The second area is the changingnature of employee
representation which, for much of Hymans career, wassynonymous with
the analysis of trade unions under capitalism. The third areais one
of the more striking recent successes within the subject, namely
the studyof comparative industrial relations. Each of these areas
reveals Hymans talentfor identifying and clarifying a set of issues
around the politics of work thatwill endure regardless of whether
the subject is known as industrial relations,employment relations
or human resource management.
I do not believe that anyone else of Richards generation can
claim, as he can, tohave transformed the way most of us actually
view the subject area . . . his workhas basically set the terms of
the theoretical debate in industrial relations over thepast three
decades. (George Bain, quoted in Terry 2009).
1. Introduction
Richard Hyman, as the quote from his former colleague George
Bainindicates, has exerted a remarkable influence on the subject of
industrialrelations ever since he started his academic career as a
Research Fellow at the
Carola Frege is at the Department of Management, London School
of Economics and PoliticalScience. John Kelly is at the Department
of Management, Birkbeck College, University ofLondon. Patrick
McGovern is at the Department of Sociology, London School of
Economicsand Political Science.
British Journal of Industrial Relations doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8543.2010.00845.x49:2 June 2011 00071080 pp.
209230
Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2011.
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd,9600 Garsington Road, Oxford
OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
-
University of Warwick in 1967. His early writings, which
injected a streamof radical analysis into the subject of industrial
relations, led to him beingwidely recognized as the unofficial
founder of the Marxist perspective onindustrial relations. Reviews
of different theoretical approaches, for instance,invariably take
Hymans work as the starting point when describing theMarxist
perspective (see e.g. Blyton and Turnbull 2004: 3334; Marsden1982:
24345; Mller-Jentsch 2004: 67). While there were earlier
Marxistscholars who wrote on trade unions and industrial relations
(e.g. Allen 1971;Blackburn and Cockburn 1967), none have been as
prolific or as persistent indeveloping a Marxist position on these
issues (see also Dabscheck 1989: 166;Poole 1984: 103; Strauss and
Feuille 1978: 272).
In more recent years, Richard Hyman has become a leading figure
in therapidly expanding field of comparative industrial relations.
Starting in theearly 1990s, he published two classic comparative
textbooks with AnthonyFerner (Ferner and Hyman 1992; Hyman 1994c),
as well as numerous articlesand a highly regarded study of European
trade unionism (Hyman 2001b).Though not widely recognized as an
institution builder, he was involvedin the creation of the
Industrial Relations in Europe Conference (IREC) in1992, and three
years later launched the European Journal of Industrial Rela-tions.
Hyman was, of course, also a key figure in the famous
IndustrialRelations Research Unit (IRRU) at the University of
Warwick, where in histypically understated manner, he played a
leading role in forging connec-tions with continental European
scholarship as the IRRU moved increas-ingly towards international
and comparative work. One of his initiatives,for instance, led to a
visiting professors scheme that attracted some of themost prominent
continental European scholars to Warwick (e.g. SabineErbes-Seguin,
Walther Mller-Jentsch, Silvana Sciarra, Wolfgang Streeckand
others).1
Finally, Hyman stands out among industrial relations scholars
for thesheer range of his interests as well as his extraordinarily
prolific output as awriter over a period of more than 40 years. By
the time he retired from theLondon School of Economics in September
2009, he had produced 13 books,109 book chapters, 57 journal
articles plus numerous pamphlets and reports.2
What is also remarkable is his range of interests, and, indeed,
his erudition.References and footnotes, for instance, might include
Walter Bagehot on theEnglish constitution, Ernest Gellner on civil
society and Antonio Gramsci onworkers councils in Italy (see e.g.
Hyman 2001b: 17790). Partly because ofthis characteristic, Hymans
writings provided intellectual sustenance, as wellas political
stimulation for those who came to industrial relations from
abackground in the social sciences and expected more from the
subject thaninstitutional description, discussions of government
policy and recommen-dations for good industrial relations.
While it is no easy task to summarize Hymans prolific output,
our readingof his work identifies at least five major themes:
exposing the conservativeassumptions of the pluralist theories that
dominated industrial relations formuch of the postwar period (Hyman
1975, 1978, 1989a); analyzing industrial
210 British Journal of Industrial Relations
Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2011.
-
relations as antagonistic class relations between labour and
capital (Hyman1975, 1980, 1989a); challenging the way social values
and ideologies are usedin industrial relations to legitimize social
inequality (Hyman 1974; Hymanand Brough 1975); explaining the
nature and politics of trade unions undercapitalism (Hyman 1971b,
1972, 1989a, 1997, 2001b); and finally, tryingto understand
cross-national differences in industrial relations (Ferner andHyman
1992; Hyman 1995, 2001b).
Rather than attempt to summarize this vast oeuvre, we
concentrate onthree areas where we believe his work has had an
agenda-setting quality.Significantly, the three areas, industrial
relations theory, trade unions andcross-national comparative
research, also happen to be those that he repeat-edly revisited
throughout his career. This focus allows us to map Hymansevolution
from being identified primarily as a Marxist theorist during
hisearly career to his more recent incarnation as one of Europes
leadingcomparative industrial relations scholars.
The great English mathematician and philosopher Alfred North
White-head once remarked that a science which hesitates to forget
its foundersis lost (Whitehead 1929: 108). While we would not wish
to claim that Hymanwas one of the founders of the subject of
industrial relations, we agree withNorth Whiteheads point about the
dangers of forgetting what earlier gen-erations of scholars have
contributed to the development of our science. Ata time when the
very existence of the field is the subject of debate
(Darlington2009), we strongly contest the implication that Richard
Hyman should beviewed as a dinosaur in a dying field. Rather, some
of Hymans concernsprovide a promising future for industrial
relations precisely because theyraise important and enduring
questions about the world of work. In thisrespect, our article is
intended as a contribution to the questions raised byEdwards in his
analysis of the challenges facing the future of the subject(Edwards
2005). To put it simply, our position is that we cannot afford
toleave some of the classic or fundamental questions behind as we
embrace thefuture.
2. The critique of empiricism and the radicalization of
industrialrelations theory
Hymans early work earned him a reputation as a radical firebrand
becausehe dared to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy of the Oxford
School in asubject which, according to one of his contemporaries,
was marked by . . . arelative lack of interest in theory
(especially that of a deductive kind) or indevelopments outside of
Britain, and a preoccupation with governmentalpolicy (Martin 1998:
84). Hyman himself observed that when viewed along-side the social
and political turbulence of the late 1960s and the
emergingenthusiasm for radicalism within the social sciences,
academic industrialrelations appeared to be caught in the time-warp
of the transatlanticconservatism of the 1950s (Hyman 1989a: ix). By
contrast, the young Hyman
Richard Hyman 211
Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2011.
-
was much influenced by his involvement in the International
Socialists (laterthe Socialist Workers Party), a small Trotskyist
political party that sought tocreate a revolutionary workers
movement through rank-and-file unionorganization and working class
militancy.3 Having also immersed himselfin sociology, partly
because he had been asked to teach industrial sociologyat Warwick
University, Hyman felt compelled to challenge the prevailingwisdom
in industrial relations by exposing the limits of empiricism, by
callingfor a broadening of the subject matter, and, crucially, by
offering a radicalalternative to the prevailing functionalist
theories of order and regulation.These arguments would have a major
influence on the subject both because oftheir cogency, and, also,
we suggest, because of their timing, as they coincidedwith a wave
of industrial and student unrest, and with the emergence of theNew
Left who sought to liberate Marxism from the straitjacket of
SovietCommunism.
Against Empiricism and Job Regulation
In the introduction to the seminal Industrial Relations: A
Marxist Introduc-tion (1975), Hyman noted that the industrial
relations literature provided avast amount of descriptive detail on
issues such as trade unions, employersorganizations and methods of
wage determination. For Hyman, the problemwith this complex pile of
facts was that it left students perplexed and unableto grasp
anything approaching an overview of the field (p. 2).
Furthermore,the empiricist preoccupation with facts and practical
problems was mis-placed because . . . theoretical assumptions are
not excluded, they are merelyhidden below the surface (p. 10).
If one of the problems with the Anglo-American industrial
relationsliterature was the over-riding concern with facts and
practical problems,then this tendency was compounded, not resolved,
by Dunlops influentialconcept of an industrial relations system. In
directing research towardsprocesses of rule making, job regulation
and collective bargaining, Dunlopdownplayed the sources and
consequences of industrial conflict in favour ofan analytical and
normative orientation towards social order. For Hyman,this meant
that the subject of industrial relations would always be
one-sidedand inadequate if it failed to treat instability and
stability as being equallysignificant system outcomes (Hyman 1975:
12). Consequently, Hymanargued that the subject should no longer be
defined as the study of jobregulation (following Flanders 1965:
10), but rather viewed more broadly asprocesses of control over
work relations (Hyman 1975: 12), or as the politi-cal economy of
waged labour because the phenomena of industrial relationscannot
adequately be understood simply in their own terms. (Hyman
1994c:171). Indeed, much of Hymans early work can be considered as
an explicitattempt to broaden the field of industrial relations by
treating it as an arenain which to apply ideas drawn from Marxism,
and, to a lesser extent, fromsociology. This desire to broaden the
horizons of industrial relations wouldbecome a familiar theme in
Hymans work, as he would subsequently venture
212 British Journal of Industrial Relations
Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2011.
-
into the study of wage bargaining, fairness and social
inequality (Hyman andBrough 1975), and, more recently, the study of
comparative industrial rela-tions (e.g. Ferner and Hyman 1992;
Hyman 2001b). In each case, he wouldargue that such issues would be
most fruitfully analysed through a Marxistperspective.
Applying Marxism
Hymans great achievement as a Marxist was to set out and
elaboratea coherent conceptual framework for a radical perspective
on industrialrelations. As he has repeatedly acknowledged (Hyman
1975: 4; 1989a: 125;2006b: 29), this was not an easy task, because
it meant applying ideas devisedas part of a highly abstract
analysis of 19th-century capitalism to one par-ticular sphere of
late 20th century capitalism, namely the market for labour.What is
striking when we read Hymans work some 30 years later is thathe
achieves his task by combining a relatively straightforward,
orthodoxreading of Marx with an extraordinary knowledge of
industrial relationsand a talent for applying Marxist concepts in
an original fashion. The latter,we will suggest, is particularly
evident in his application of the concept ofcontradiction.
For instance, the explicitly theoretical Industrial Relations: A
MarxistIntroduction (1975) offered an orthodox Marxist framework
built around theconcepts of totality, change, contradiction and
practice. By totality, Hymanfollowed the holistic Marxist method,
which insists that all social phenomenaare inter-related, and no
one area, such as the supposedly autonomousindustrial relations
system of Dunlops pluralist theory, could be analyzedin isolation.
Accordingly, he would consistently argue that it is
neitherpossible, nor desirable, to have a theory of industrial
relations because [I]itforms an area of study with no coherent
theoretical or disciplinary rationale,but deriving from a directly
practical concern with a range of problemsconfronting employers,
governments and their academic advisers in thepursuit of labour
stability (Hyman 1980: 37). Nonetheless, Hyman wouldargue for
Marxist theory in industrial relations, though this would take
theform of a political economy of waged labour, or a critical
political economythat would stand in marked contrast to traditional
industrial relationsempiricism (Hyman 1980, 1994c: 171).
In addition to the concern with totality, Hymans work has also
beencharacterized by a strong strain of social criticism, combined
with calls forthe emancipation of labour and the extension of
freedom and reason in theworld of work (Hyman 1989a: 17). Such
calls for practice (or praxis) were astandard feature of Marxist
literature generally, and were usually accompa-nied by the
acknowledgement that existing social and economic structureslimited
the opportunities for reformist interventions. It was also
conventionalfor Marxists to claim that such structures were often
unstable because capi-talism does not consist of stable and
harmonious economic processes andinstitutions. Rather, it is prone
to instability and to contradictions between
Richard Hyman 213
Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2011.
-
different parts of the economic system because the system itself
is foundedon the opposing interests of different social classes.
Accordingly, Hymansanalysis of industrial relations was based on
two key assumptions: The firstis that capitalist social relations
of production reflect and produce a struc-tured antagonism of
interests between capital and labour. The second is thatcapitalism
simultaneously organizes workers collectively (since the
capitalistlabour process is essentially collective in character),
and hence generatesthe material basis for effective resistance to
capital and the priorities of thecapitalist mode of production.
What is conventionally studied as industrialrelations may thus be
conceived as a fetishized presentation of the classstruggle and the
various forms in which it is (at least temporarily) con-strained,
fragmented and routinised (Hyman 1980: 42; 1989a: 125).
In a now-familiar Hyman manoeuvre, these two assumptions are
joined bythe notion of contradiction: capitalism creates conflict
between employersand workers while simultaneously providing the
latter with a basis for chal-lenging and changing capitalism. We
would argue that this dialectical imagi-nation, and, in particular,
the use of the concept of contradiction, is Hymansmost distinctive
contribution to the radical perspective. Of the four conceptsthat
were introduced in Industrial Relations, contradiction is the one
thatrecurs most frequently in Hymans subsequent work. Trade unions,
forinstance, are torn between accommodation and conflict; they
co-operate withemployers in order to improve the terms and
conditions of their memberswhile also challenging the excesses of
capitalism if not capitalism itself(Hyman 1971a, 1975, 1989a).
Other contradictions, such as those betweendemocracy and
bureaucracy, sectionalism and solidarity will be examined inthe
next section.
This use of the dialectical concept of contradiction is perhaps
best exem-plified in a rare foray into territory covered by those
working within labourprocess analysis (e.g. Smith and Thompson
1998). In one of his most influ-ential essays, Hyman reviewed the
ever-expanding managerial literature onbusiness strategy and asked
whether the concept of strategy was compatiblewith the idea that
capitalism is structurally determined. His conclusion wasthat the
existence of contradictions within the capitalist enterprise
wouldallow opportunities for strategic choice to emerge, but no one
strategy wouldprove entirely successful. To illustrate the point,
he made the celebratedargument that contradictions in the labour
process mean that . . . the func-tion of labour control involves
both the direction, surveillance and disciplineof subordinates
whose enthusiastic commitment to corporate objectivescannot be
taken for granted; and the mobilisation of the discretion,
initiativeand diligence which coercive supervision, far from
guaranteeing, is likely todestroy (Hyman 1987: 41). Within Labour
Process studies, this argumenthas had a significant influence on
the literature that followed in the 1990s (DuGay, 1996: 5152; Geary
1992; Noon and Blyton 2007: 250452). Curiously,Hyman played no
public part in the deskilling debate that was triggered
byBravermans Labor and Monopoly Capital, the book that revived
labourprocess studies in the UK and elsewhere (Braverman
1974).4
214 British Journal of Industrial Relations
Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2011.
-
In sum, Hymans early theoretical writing played a crucial role
in theradicalization of industrial relations as an academic subject
during the 1970sand 1980s (Wood 1976).5 It injected a much-needed
theoretical sophisticationinto a field that was dominated by
pragmatic policy-oriented empiricalresearch, with the result that
much of the writing was essentially institutionaldescription (Bain
and Clegg 1974; Kelly 1998; Martin 1998; Winchester 1983).Indeed,
one of the criticisms of the influential Oxford School was that
itfocused on the reform of institutional arrangements, such as
collective bar-gaining, at the expense of the social and economic
environment (Goldthorpe1974). By contrast, Hyman emphasized the
pre-institutional social roots ofindustrial relations in
explaining, among other things, strikes, wage determi-nation, union
organization and union identity. In doing so, he raised
theintellectual standing of industrial relations by using it as an
area in which toapply ideas from Marxism and sociology. Rather than
being merely anothersocial problem-oriented or applied subject,
Hyman showed how industrialrelations could be of interest to
Marxist and non-Marxist sociologists whowished to understand
collective action, industrial conflict, union democracy,fairness,
social inequality and the role of the state (see for instance
Edwardsand Wolkowitz 2002: 253). In this respect, it can be said
that Hyman focusedmuch of the research and debate in British
industrial relations and industrialsociology for the best part of
three decades. Indeed, his success in introducingMarxist ideas
means that even today, the materialist perspective on which itdraws
remains the established orthodoxy in British industrial relations
theory,at least according to one influential commentator (Ackers
2005: 539).
On Theory and Empirical Research
What is also noteworthy is that Hyman has consistently argued
for a Marxistperspective on industrial relations, including in
recent years when the enthu-siasm for Marxism, both in theory and
practice, has dissipated (Hyman 1980,1994c, 2006b). His influential
1994 article on Theory and industrial relationsreveals that this
was not simply a matter of unyielding socialist politics, butrather
it followed from a position that Hyman took on the nature of
theoryand its relationship to empirical evidence. According to
Hyman the fewindustrial relations scholars who are interested in
theoretical discussions haveeither adopted a hypothetico-deductive
approach to generate hypotheses orrelied on middle-range
theorizing. Thus, most industrial relations researchhas been
characterized by simple empirical generalizations or
middle-rangehypotheses (Hyman 1982b). The assumption is that,
ultimately, generaltheory can be constructed through the
accumulation of empirically verifiablepropositions. Hyman rejects
this approach because Even in the naturalsciences, theory
construction rests more on creative imagination than
thestep-by-step elevation of generalizations; the theorist is
architect not brick-layer (Hyman 1994c: 168).
Furthermore, there exist important theoretical propositions
which arerelevant for our field but might not, according to Hyman,
be available for
Richard Hyman 215
Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2011.
-
falsification or empirical proof simply because they are too
complex andcannot easily be quantified. One example is French
rgulation theories, whichargue that the decline of central
collective bargaining is due to the crisis ofFordist production
systems, which in turn is a major cause of the trade uniondecline
in advanced industrialized economies. As Hyman points out, it is
verydifficult to test the adequacy of such a theoretical argument
since the levelof abstraction involved in concepts such as Fordism
is such that their testcannot be reduced to a simple question
whether they fit the facts (Hyman1994c: 170). In fact, he asserts
that to discover some statistical associationbetween variables does
not entail either the development or testing of theory,and by
implication, he suggests that qualitative research focused on
processesand meanings would prove more illuminating (Hyman 1994c:
169). Societalphenomena must be analysed in terms of actually
existing structures andcausal mechanisms that are not necessarily
directly observable (and hencequantifiable) a conviction which is,
of course, a major challenge to theprinciples of empiricism and
quantification (Hyman 1994c: 171).6
3. Too much class conflict?
Hymans theoretical work is not beyond criticism. Although now
wellrehearsed, our first criticism concerns the privileged status
given to classconflict as an explanatory mechanism. Certainly,
conflict is an importantfeature of the employment relationship, but
it is not always the result of classstruggle. For instance, it was
not uncommon for industrial disputes in the1970s to revolve around
pay differentials with one group of workers insistingon being paid
a certain percentage more than another group of workerswho were
deemed to be lesser status. Hyman has argued that such disputeswere
really struggles between capital and labour (Hyman 1975: 1723).
Theproblem with this argument, as Crouch has shown, is the
assumption thatthe abolition of private property would somehow end
the division of labourand thereby eliminate intra-class disputes
over pay differentials (Crouch1982: 37). Moreover, the
preoccupation with social class means that otherkinds of social
divisions with the labour market, notably those based onethnicity
and gender, cannot easily be explained through a Marxist frame-work
(Parkin 1979). In this respect, it is interesting to note that
Hyman hasbegun to recognize that while Marx may be necessary, his
work is no longersufficient, especially when addressing such issues
(Hyman 2004: 26971,2006b: 52). This evolution in Hymans thinking is
particularly evident in hiswork on comparative industrial relations
which we discuss later.
A second problem with the radical perspective is the insistence
that conflictis endemic within capitalism. Writing in Strikes,
Hyman argued that indus-trial conflict was not irrational,
irresponsible or illegitimate, but ratherthe product of
irreconcilable contradictions within capitalism. Much of thebooks
theoretical focus is devoted to the powerful underlying causes (p.
87)or mainsprings of conflict. These include the persistence of
class-based
216 British Journal of Industrial Relations
Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2011.
-
inequalities, notably in income and wealth, insecurity of
employment, thelack of influence over decisions made at work and
the very fact that workersare sentient human beings whose capacity
for creativity and innovation arerarely fulfilled by prevailing
forms of work organization (Hyman 1984a:87106).
If conflict is inevitable, given the structured antagonism built
into thecapitalist employment relationship, then how can the
Marxist perspectiveaccount for the extraordinary decline in the
number of strikes over the past30 years? At the time when Hyman was
writing in the early 1970s, the Britishpublic had become accustomed
to consuming strikes with its cornflakes(Lane and Roberts 1971:
23233). By the late 1990s, however, the incidenceof strikes in
Britain had reached an all-time low (Waddington 2003: 225). Tobe
fair, Hyman acknowledges the collapse in strike activity in the
Afterwordto later editions of Strikes (e.g. Hyman 1984a: 179235),
and, indeed, exam-ines why this had occurred (see also Godard
2011). Furthermore, Hymancannot actually be accused of claiming
that strikes would continue to rise asa result of ever-escalating
class conflict. Instead, his analysis of this relation-ship is so
nuanced by reference to the general dynamics of capitalist
produc-tion, how these are mediated through patterns of relations
in particular worksituations, and, almost inevitably, by
contradictory social forces, thatHymans position is difficult to
pin down (Hyman 1984a: 182, 18586). This,indeed, has been an
occasional criticism of some of Hymans writing byscholars who
prefer to work with testable theoretical propositions (e.g.
Poole1984: 105; Wood 1976: 56).
A key issue in the analysis of strikes is the nature and role of
trade unions,not least because it could be argued that the decline
in strike activity may becaused in large part by the parallel
decline in trade unionism. Trade unionshave been the major focus of
Hymans career dating from his early researchin labour history
through to his most recent comparative work on Europeantrade unions
(Hyman 1971b, 2001b). It is also in the area of trade unionresearch
that Hymans evolution as a scholar has been most evident
because,like other Marxists, he was initially preoccupied by a
topic that is no longeron political or research agendas: the search
for revolutionary class conscious-ness among the working class (see
Elliott 2008).
4. The contradictions of British trade unionism
Hymans writings in the 1970s were suffused by an optimistic
appraisal ofthe political potential of trade union militancy to
generate heightened levelsof class consciousness. This is not to
say he was unaware of the weaknessesand limitations of British
trade unionism because he did, after all, writeperceptively and
critically about sectional divisions amongst the workforceand about
the pressures towards accommodation between labour andcapital. For
instance, in a widely cited essay from 1979, he noted thatworkplace
union organization was becoming increasingly centralized and
Richard Hyman 217
Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2011.
-
hierarchical, a process he depicted as the bureaucratisation of
the rank andfile (Hyman 1979). Although noting the workplace
research by his Warwickcolleague Eric Batstone on shop steward
organization, he was rather dis-missive of its lack of attention to
the rhythms of capitalist production,complaining about its idealist
problematic (Batstone et al. 1977; Hyman1979: 60). He was perhaps
even more critical of those Marxist organiza-tions, principally the
Communist Party and the International Socialists,which aspired to
play a leading role within the labour movement. His 1975essay on
the strategic errors of the early British Communist Party
waswritten at about the same time that he was withdrawing from the
Interna-tional Socialists as they succumbed to similar illusions of
power and influ-ence (Hinton and Hyman 1975). Labours election
defeat in 1979 at thehands of a Conservative party openly hostile
to trade unions inaugurated along period of decline in trade union
membership and militancy that wasperiodically reinforced by major
strike defeats, most notably the coal minersin 1985. The strike
waves of the 1970s were succeeded in the 1980s by whatShalev
ironically described as the resurgence of labour quiescence
(Shalev1992). Mass unemployment played a big part in curbing union
power, butso too did new legal restrictions on strike activity.
Legal measures that hadbeen successfully resisted by trade unions
in the late 1960s and early 1970s,such as mandatory pre-strike
ballots, were successfully enacted by govern-ments in the
1980s.
In response to these dramatic changes in the fortunes of the
trade unionmovement, Hymans work displayed both continuity and
change. Continuitywas most evident in his regular deployment of the
concept of contradictionas a key analytical tool (see above), and
three examples will illustrate theoverarching significance of this
theme. In a 1981 essay, he argued against theidea that job controls
over effort and staffing levels, often organized by shopstewards,
expressed an enduring if rudimentary anti-capitalist logic;
theycould just as readily express a narrow sectional consciousness
of craft orsmall group interests (Hyman and Elger 1981). In a 1982
essay on industrialconflict, he noted that the hierarchical
representative structures of the tradeunion movement played a
contradictory role, sometimes facilitating theexpression of
conflict but at other times hindering it (Hyman 1982a).
Hisappraisal of the 19841985 miners strike explored inter alia the
contradictionbetween coercion and consent in the widespread use of
mass flying picketssent across the country from the most militant
coalfields into areas wherestrike support was weak And in a more
general essay, also written in theaftermath of the strike, he
continued to insist on the value of analyzing thecontradictions
inherent in trade unionism, between bureaucracy and democ-racy,
compromise and struggle, class action and sectionalism (Hyman
1985).For Hyman, the analysis of trade unionism involved seeking
out opposingtendencies, charting their origins, development and
consequences and indi-cating their respective strengths.
Predictions were not possible within thismode of analysis if only
because the tensions between contradictory logics,of compromise and
struggle, for example, would ultimately be decided by
218 British Journal of Industrial Relations
Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2011.
-
human agents whose actions cannot be subjected to the
hypothetico-deductive methods of natural science (Voskeritsian
2010).
However, alongside the continuity marked by the notion of
contradiction,there are two important intellectual shifts that can
be detected in his 1980swritings. First, and in the domain of
theory, he began to construct a rathermore critical appraisal of
Marxism, and, second, he began to write far morecritically about
the contemporary trade union movement. According toHyman, the main
categories of Marxist theory were constructed at a highlevel of
abstraction, and intended to throw light on the capitalist mode
ofproduction as a whole, not to illuminate the relations between
unionsand employers or the internal structures of unions. Not
surprisingly, there-fore, many of the terms frequently used by
Marxists in the analysis ofindustrial relations were originated by
non-Marxist writers, includingterms such as trade union bureaucracy
(Michels) and business unionism(Hoxie and Perlman). Equally, there
were no methods of research that dif-ferentiated Marxist from
non-Marxist social science. It was in the questionsasked . . . and
what is regarded as problematic that Marxists could maketheir most
telling contributions to the field of industrial relations
(Hyman1980: 128).
One such contribution was Hymans increasingly critical appraisal
ofcontemporary British trade unionism, epitomized most clearly in
the starklytitled essay, The sickness of British trade unionism: is
there a cure? (Hyman1989b). In this and other publications of the
1980s, he re-appraised thespectacular membership growth of the
1970s, arguing that what unions hadoften created through the
compulsion of the closed shop were papermembers, workers with only
a weak attachment to the trade unionmovement. In the field of union
policy, he expressed scepticism about thewidespread union support
for free collective bargaining, a complex andcontradictory slogan
that expressed militant opposition to state interventionbut which
simultaneously reinforced a sectional and economistic outlookamong
workers. Indeed, the Conservative election victory in 1983 was
builtpartly on that partys success in appealing to the narrow
economic self-interest of manual workers who had traditionally
voted Labour. Hymansresponse to Labours worst election result since
1918 was to intensify hiscriticisms of both wings of the labour
movement, unions and party alike. Ina phrase used a number of times
throughout the 1980s he complained thatBritish socialism was modest
and banal in its long-term vision even whensuperficially radical in
its short-term programme. (Hyman 1989c: 23435).Moving from
analytical into prescriptive mode, and maintaining his stance
associal critic, he declared that the labour movement required a
vision of analternative order, a credible conception of humanistic
socialism if it wasto recover its vitality and challenge the
growing hegemony of neo-liberalideas (Hyman 1984b). In order to
construct and implement such a vision,unions would have to connect
with other social movements, a theme he firstbroached in the late
1980s, but one which anticipated the more recent interestin social
movement unionism by over a decade (e.g. Hyman 1989c).
Richard Hyman 219
Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2011.
-
5. The European labour movement and comparative industrial
relations
Structural changes, such as the crisis of the British labour
movement,the gradual opening up of the TUC to Europe and the
increasing European-ization of British employment regulations
during the 1990s as well as theincreasing power of global capital
forces were all associated with an intellec-tual shift in Hymans
work. During the 1990s he moved from a focus on theBritish labour
problem and trade union movement to a broader comparativeanalysis
of employment systems and labour movements across Europe.
Inparticular, he reached out to study the trade union movements in
France,Germany and Italy (Hyman is also fluent in the three
languages).
This move was accompanied by his renewed interest in the nature
ofindustrial relations research. As we discussed above Hymans
originalMarxist writings provided him with a strong conviction of
the necessity oftheoretical engagement in industrial relations
(Hyman 1994c), and one long-standing feature of his work has been
to challenge the dominant empiricismof employment research (see
also Marsden 1982). Although a Marxist analy-sis remains
indispensable for Hyman for a true understanding of
industrialrelations in particular, because it emphasizes the nature
of work itselfrather than the rules and regulations of work which
occupy most industrialrelations students he now emphasizes that a
classic Marxist approach isnot sufficient in understanding advanced
capitalist societies (Hyman 2004:26971; 2006b: 52). While his
Marxist approach identified capitalist produc-tion systems
generally as the root of many industrial relations problems,Hymans
evolution as a scholar led him to analyse different forms
andfunctions of capitalism and of trade unionism from a broader
economicand political perspective. Thus, his focus shifted towards
an appraisal of thevarieties of capitalism and the consequent
variety of employment regulationsand of labour movements within
Europe. Rather than assuming a universal-ist approach to class
conflict and class struggle, he began to explore thecontextual and
structural constraints and facilitators of labour movementsin
different countries. Moreover, Hyman returned to a theme in his
earlierwork by emphasizing the importance, as well as the diversity
of ideologicaldynamics, the role of social norms, ideas, beliefs
and language in shapingindustrial relations.7 Although much
contemporary industrial relationsresearch tends to ignore
ideational factors such as attitudes, values andideologies, Hyman
has been able to use his comparative work to identify animportant
and somewhat neglected area for further research. This markedan
increasing willingness on Hymans part to work with categories
beyondthose found in classic Marxist theory. Moreover, it could be
claimed that hisincreasing comparative perspective and his move
from a focus on the work-place to the state embodied the broader
institutionalist turn in the socialsciences during the 1980s and
1990s (e.g. Brinton and Nee 1998). However, hecombines this
recognition of the importance of the nation-state and employ-ment
institutions with an emphasis on their underlying identities, norms
andvalues.
220 British Journal of Industrial Relations
Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2011.
-
In sum, Hyman increasingly acknowledged that industrial
relations varycross-nationally, and that the varieties of
institutions in the labour market,including trade unions with their
differing identities and ideologies, need tobe taken into account
(Hyman 1994a: 272).
These insights led Hyman to emphasize a new research agenda
forindustrial relations. In essence, he reworked his early critique
of theDunlop-Flanders focus on job regulation and gave it a
comparative inflec-tion, arguing that Anglo-Saxon research had
become too preoccupied withthe study of job regulation and
collective bargaining arrangements to theexclusion of the state
(Kahn-Freund 1954; Kerr 1964; Kerr et al. 1960). Inpractice, this
meant that, for example, corporatist arrangements were studiedby
political scientists, and not by employment scholars in Britain or
the USA(contrary to continental Europe, where employment and work
were alwaysseen as subject and object of the broader political
economy (Frege 2007).Hymans proposal for industrial relations
research was to broaden or Euro-peanize its relevance by
interpreting industrial relations as a politicaleconomic set of
phenomena and thus re-emphasizing the sociological andpolitical
science interest in industrial relations (rather than a narrow
laboureconomic focus):
Industrial relations emerged historically as a field of study
with a primarily mesofocus (institutions at sectoral or company
level). Today it is evident that the issuesof industrial relations
are embedded in national and transnational structuraldynamics; and
that they are likewise conditioned by the complex evolution
ofprocedures and relations at the point of production. Analysis has
to link the macro,meso and micro dimensions of a changing world of
work and employment. Anintegrated perspective which encompasses
structures, actors and practices isessential. (Hyman 1995: 43).
Finally, what can help foster the study of the interrelations
betweenstructures, actors and practices in a subject area that is
notoriously under-theorized is the use of cross-national
comparisons, which force the observerto address critically what is
normally accepted as unproblematic within theindividual national
context (Hyman 1994b: 2). Thus, the process of com-parison unless
exclusively descriptive contributes to the developmentand
refinement of theory by provoking generalization and causal
explana-tion (Hyman 1994b: 2).
Comparative Industrial Relations Research and Europe
While Hyman was not the first to use comparative methods in the
field ofindustrial relations (Clegg 1976; Kahn-Freund 1954; Kerr et
al. 1960), hesurely contributed to making comparative methods
mainstream in British, ifnot European industrial relations
research. Hyman has also reflected on thenature of comparative
research itself. According to Hyman most work haseither focused on
industrial relations within a single context or as an
undif-ferentiated decontextualized field of study (Hyman 2001b: 1).
He supports
Richard Hyman 221
Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2011.
-
Adams (1983: 509, 526) observation that Industrial relations is
not aninternally self-consistent field of study. It is instead a
confederacy of compet-ing paradigms . . . when viewing the
empirical world members of differentschools [in industrial
relations] neither look at nor see precisely the samethings. Hyman
believes that part of this phenomenon can be explained bynational
and linguistic differences, which also shape the ways in which
indus-trial relations are understood and analysed. Consequently,
the popularity ofdifferent paradigms varies with time and place,
and different countries havedifferent disciplinary approaches and
theories of industrial or employmentrelations (e.g. French
rgulation theory has not become popular in Britain).National
intellectual traditions and academic structures have long
pathdependencies going back to medieval times, while patterns of
industrialrelations are shaped by pre-capitalist state traditions
by legitimating ideolo-gies associated with the construction of the
modern nation-state and bysubsequent class compromises (Hyman 2004:
273). These national patternsinfluence and are being influenced by
different forms of class compromise inthe labour market, as well as
by different strategies of employment actors andtheir underlying
rationales and discourses. They also shape the ways in
whichscholars conceptualize employment research and select research
topics, meth-odologies and theories (Frege 2007). Thus, Hyman
concludes that differentforms of capitalism, such as Anglo-Saxon
liberal market economies, com-pared with co-ordinated market
economies, will favour distinctive models ofconceptualizing social
relations. In conjunction with nationally specific theo-retical and
disciplinary traditions, they shape the way in which
industrialrelations are perceived and interpreted (Hyman 2004:
274).
A major difference Hyman highlights is the heuristic dichotomy
betweenAnglo-Saxon individualism and the collectivist
presuppositions of the Euro-pean social model, which he explores in
various articles (e.g. Hyman 2003,2006a, 2010). Hyman defines
Anglo-Saxon individualism in industrial rela-tions as an emphasis
on the freedom of contract, on voluntarism, a narrowfocus on
company or workplace relations, and a lack of concern with
thetensions and contradictions between market dynamics and larger
socialpolicy issues, such as social protection and citizenship. He
also claims thatAnglo-Saxon employment research is often
characterized by parochialismand ethnocentrism (Hyman 2004: 276).
In contrast, the European socialmodel treats markets as social
constructs, individuals as social beings, col-lective action as a
normal phenomenon, and takes it for granted that the stateis deeply
implicated in employment relationships (Hyman 2004: 279). Con-flict
is regarded as embedded in the employment relationship, but can
bemanaged by stable collective organizations, thus social
partners.
These significant variations make it essential to develop a
cross-nationalcomparative perspective for the study of industrial
relations (Hyman2001a). Most recently, Hyman highlighted the
existence of the differentidentities of trade unions in European
countries. The concept of trade unionidentity (which arguably
parallels recent work on corporate identities) iscrucial in that it
incorporates a notion of strategic choice. Hyman pointed
222 British Journal of Industrial Relations
Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2011.
-
to three major ideal types of European trade unions, each of
which reflectsa distinctive ideological orientation: market,
society and class.8 In the first,union are primarily seen as labour
market institutions engaged in collectivebargaining; in the second,
unions focus on improving workers conditionsand status in society
more generally and advance social justice and equality;in the third
type, they are schools of class conflict in the struggle
betweencapital and labour (Hyman 1994a, 1995, 2001b). Hyman then
broadlyassociates Britain with market-oriented unionism (being
located on the axisbetween market and class), Germany with civil
society unionism (beinglocated on the axis between society and
market), and Italy with a class-oriented unionism (being located on
the axis between class and society). Theeternal triangle provides
another example of Hymans longstanding empha-sis on contradictions
within the capitalist system. All unions inevitably facein three
directions. As associations of employees, they have a central
rolein regulating the wage labour relationship; as associations of
workers, theyembody a conception of collective interests and
identities which dividesworkers from employers. Yet unions also
exist and function within a soci-etal context that they may aspire
to change, but which also constrains theircurrent choices (Hyman
2001b: 4). Unions in different countries are facingdifferent forms
of dynamic interplays and stable balances between the
threeidentities. Thus, despite common convergence pressures in all
countries(such as the declining importance of traditional union
strongholds in manu-facturing), the weakening of the ties between
work and other social identi-ties, or less supportive political
conditions (Hyman 2001b: 169), there stillexist distinctive
features of the national labour movements. Moreover, evenwhen
facing similar pressures, unions still have strategic choices, and
theirresponses differ in part because of their different historic
identities and theirassociated path dependencies.
Furthermore, Hyman interprets unions current crisis as being
shaped inpart by the competing demands of the political economy and
the moraleconomy, those social norms and values which transcend a
pure marketlogic (Hyman 2001b: 13). The traditional axes of union
policy free collec-tive bargaining, the historic social compromise,
the social market economy have become unstable, and the agendas of
market, class and societalunionism have become more complex and
difficult to combine (Hyman2001b: 173). Trade unions seem condemned
to act as mediators of transna-tional economic forces, negotiating
the erosion of previous achievements inthe fields of social welfare
and employment regulation (Mahnkopf and Alt-vater 1995). This
brings Hyman to the idea of social Europe as a potentialmeans for
the survival and revival of the labour movements in Europe.However,
if the EU or nation-states continue to refrain from imposingsocial
controls over market forces and global capital flows, then the
futurefor European industrial relations as an interplay between
capital, labourand state and the future of European trade unions
remain bleak (Hyman1994b: 13; 2010: 747). Still, as a Marxist Hyman
perhaps hopes that acertain amount of strategic choice for labour
will remain simply because the
Richard Hyman 223
Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2011.
-
structural conditions imposed by the EU, as well as by the
increasinglypowerful capitalist actors will always be to a certain
degree contradictory.
Hymans particular concern is the lack of a moral economy at
Europeanlevel, which goes beyond the abstract concept of a European
social market(Hyman 2001b). A stronger civil society at European
level, where tradeunions would be a major driving force, could
initiate, in his mind, thecreation of a meaningful European moral
economy and stronger resistance tothe dehumanizing advance of
market forces in the European Union. Yet thecurrent weakness of a
realistic civil society at European level is for Hyman themain
obstacle to the creation of a genuine European system of
industrialrelations (Hyman 2001b: 175).
Finally, Hyman points to the continuing erosion of credible
ideologies andvalues within the European labour movements as a
reason to spell out visionsof a better future, which are needed to
build and maintain collective solidari-ties. This is a theme he
first began to broach in the early 1980s in the Britishcontext, but
which has now been broadened to embrace the European tradeunion
movement as a whole (Hyman 2001b: 173). To remain
significant,social actors capable of engaging in social and
political mobilization unionsneed new utopias that cannot solely be
confined to the national level (Hyman2001b: 173). They need to
include transnational solidarity at the Europeanlevel, as well as
allow co-ordinated diversity rather than traditional
organi-zational conformity (Heckscher 1988: 177). This approach
would requirestronger centralized structures, as well as stronger
grassroots participation(as exemplified in Barack Obamas 2008
presidential campaign), whichHyman refers to as the internal social
dialogue. His earlier, 1980s notion ofsocial movement unionism
finally became European.
6. Conclusions
Our primary aim in this article has been to review Richard
Hymans workwith a view to identifying areas where a more broadly
defined and retitledsubject of employment relations has a promising
future. The first point wewould make is that one of Hymans great
achievements was to use industrialrelations as an arena in which to
explore and refine both general socialtheory, in the form of
Marxism, as well as sociological theories of conflict,fairness, and
union democracy to name but a few. Although he did notparticipate
in debates about Marxism per se (analytical, structural, etc.),
hehas both maintained and developed his longstanding interest in
the indepen-dent role of social values in industrial relations, and
enriched this under-standing with the concept of organizational
identities. He has also continuedto deploy the Marxist idea of
contradictions within trade union organiza-tions, or to explore
what non-Marxist scholars might refer to as tensionsbetween rival
organizational logics.
Contemporary industrial relations scholars have continued to
show inter-est in theoretical developments pioneered in these and
related fields, such as
224 British Journal of Industrial Relations
Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2011.
-
theories of institutionalism (Thelen 2009), new social movements
(Kelly1998) and varieties of capitalism (Hall and Soskice 2001).
The benefit of suchtheorizing is that it provides the kinds of
intellectual problems and puzzlesand sets of ideas, that are needed
to refresh and sustain a subject area (seealso Edwards 2005: 277).
For a subject that has been heavily influenced bypolicy concerns
relying on purported social or policy problems such asstrikes or
inflation will not be sufficient to sustain an intellectual base
whenthese phenomena have disappeared (temporarily or otherwise). In
otherwords, we would do well to remind ourselves of Hymans desire
to broadenthe subject matter of industrial relations while moving
it away from policyconcerns with order and regulation.
Second, Hyman has mapped out and explored over many years an
intel-lectual agenda that is of continuing relevance and
importance. The issues ofsocial justice, class inequality and
effective employee voice are at least assalient today as they were
in the 1970s because of economic globalization, thegrowth of income
inequality and the decline of trade unionism. Differences inthe
distribution of job rewards, notably across the status divide
betweenmanual and non-manual workers, were a prominent feature of
the literaturein the 1970s (Hyman 1974). However, the topic more or
less disappearedfrom industrial relations and industrial sociology
in subsequent decades.Given that a recent national survey has found
that class-based forms ofinequality in job rewards actually
hardened with the arrival of the twenty-first century (McGovern et
al. 2007: 8095), it may be time for industrialrelations (and
industrial sociology) researchers to revisit the subject.
Although Hyman has not contributed directly to the debates about
eco-nomic performance or about the impact of HRM practices, his
radical anddistinctive intellectual stance continues to raise
important theoretical andempirical questions about the costs and
benefits of contemporary formsof employment. At a time when the
politics of work suffers from a near-pathological neglect in the
ever-expanding fields of organizational behaviourand HRM, Hymans
work asks a the simple but revealing question of newmanagement
practices: who benefits? Moreover, his belief in the capacity
oftrade unions to correct the imbalance of power in the employment
relation-ship stands as a critical point of reference in
contemporary debates aboutalternative forms of employee voice.
Finally, his firm and longstanding insistence on the need for
cross-nationalcomparative research is increasingly accepted as
conventional wisdomamong industrial relations scholars. Moreover,
at a time when quantitativeresearch has become increasingly
fashionable, Hyman has positioned himselfas an articulate and
influential proponent of qualitative research and of whatsome
researchers describe as contextualized comparisons. Allied to
thismethodological focus, he has also underlined the importance of
the Euro-pean dimension in contemporary industrial relations, not
least in his criticalappraisal of the different facets of the
European model. To conclude, webelieve that industrial relations
has a promising future if it learns somelessons from Richard Hymans
work. Rather than worrying whether the
Richard Hyman 225
Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2011.
-
decline in trade union membership and collective bargaining
marks the endof the subject, we should instead be much more
intellectually ambitious,much more willing to treat industrial or
employment relations as an arenain which to test claims of economic
and social transformation, and muchmore willing to do all of this
from a comparative perspective. Only by doingthis will we be able,
as Hyman would have it, to both know the causes ofthings and use
knowledge as an instrument for human emancipation (Hyman2009:
7).
Final version accepted on 14 June 2010.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Peter Ackers, Paul Edwards, John Godard
and EdHeery for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this
article. The usualdisclaimer applies.
Notes
1. Private communication with Professor Paul Edwards, University
of Warwick,September 2008.
2. At the time of writing, Hyman (2010) is undertaking a major
study of Europeantrade union responses to economic crisis with
Rebecca Gumbrell-McCormack(Hyman and Gumbrell-McCormack 2010).
3. Private communication with Richard Hyman, 1 May 2010. Hyman
left theInternational Socialists in the mid-1970s.
4. Hyman had read chapters of Bravermans book some time before
it was publishedwhile part of a Marxist discussion group at the
University of Warwick. Althoughhe considered the early debate
around Braverman to be very important, the annualLabour Process
conference did not start until 1983, by which point Hymanwas
examining the challenges that trade unions faced under Thatcherism.
Privatecommunication with Richard Hyman, 1 May 2010.
5. One of the ways Hyman challenged the prevailing orthodoxy was
through critiquesof other writers and approaches of which the most
notable was the debate onpluralism with Hugh Clegg. In a subject
that rarely has full-blown academicdebates, this debate stands as a
symbolic marker in the passing of the generationsas Hyman was, in
the formidable figure of Clegg, challenging someone who hadbeen his
former teacher and doctoral supervisor.
6. Hyman has occasionally expressed some disdain for empiricists
preoccupied withmeasurement and quantitative techniques. One of the
most striking examples canbe found in his withering critique of
Kochans (1980) Collective Bargaining andIndustrial Relations, where
he asserts that not everything which can be fed into aregression
analysis is for that reason alone of analytical importance
(Hyman1982b: 101).
7. Drawing on economic, sociological and psychological
perspectives on referencegroups, effort bargaining and the
negotiation of order, Social Values and Industrial
226 British Journal of Industrial Relations
Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2011.
-
Relations argued that norms of fairness are of critical
importance in fixing wagesand maintaining differentials within
organizational and occupational hierarchies(see also Hyman 1974;
Hyman and Brough 1975).
8. He originally started with slightly different types of union
identities: friendlysociety (focusing on services), company union
(productivity coalition), socialpartner (political exchange),
social movement (campaigning) (Hyman 1994a).
References
Ackers, P. (2005). Theorizing the employment relationships:
materialists and insti-tutionalists. British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 43: 53743.
Adams, R. J. (1983). Competing paradigms in industrial
relations. Relationsindustrielles/Industrial Relations, 38:
50831.
Allen, V. L. (1971). The Sociology of Industrial Relations:
Studies in Method. Harlow:Longman.
Bain, G. S. and Clegg, H. (1974). A strategy for industrial
relations research in GreatBritain. British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 12: 91113.
Batstone, E., Boraston, I. and Frenkel, S. (1977). Shop Stewards
in Action. Oxford:Blackwell.
Blackburn, R. and Cockburn, A. (1967). The Incompatibles: Trade
Union Militancyand the Consensus. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Blyton, P. and Turnbull, P. (2004). The Dynamics of Employee
Relations. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.
Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital: The
Degradation of Work in theTwentieth Century. New York: Monthly
Review Press.
Brinton, M. C. and Nee, V. (eds) (1998). The New
Institutionalism in Sociology.Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Clegg, H. (1976). Trade Unionism under Collective Bargaining.
Oxford: Blackwell.Crouch, C. (1982). Trade Unions: The Logic of
Collective Action. Glasgow: Fontana.Dabscheck, B. (1989). A survey
of theories of industrial relations. In J. Barbash
and K. Barbash (eds), Theories and Concepts in Industrial
Relations. Columbia:University of South Carolina Press, pp.
15583.
Darlington, R. (2009). Whats the Point of Industrial Relations?
In Defence of CriticalSocial Science. Manchester: British
Universities Industrial Relations Association.
Du Gay, P (1996). Consumption and Identity at Work. London and
Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.
Edwards, P. (2005). The challenging but promising future of
industrial relations:developing theory and method in
context-sensitive research. Industrial RelationsJournal, 36:
26482.
Edwards, P. K. and Wolkowitz, C. (2002). Great Britain. In D. B.
Cornfield and R.Hodson (eds), Worlds of Work: Building an
International Sociology of Work. NewYork: Kluwer Academic / Plenum
Publishers, pp. 25374.
Elliott, G. (2008). Ends in Sight:
Marx/Fukuyama/Hobsbawm/Anderson. London:Pluto Press, p. 157.
Ferner, A. and Hyman, R. (1992). Industrial Relations in the New
Europe. Oxford andCambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Flanders, A. (1965). Industrial Relations: What Is Wrong with
the System? London:Faber.
Richard Hyman 227
Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2011.
-
Frege, C. (2007). Employment Research and State Traditions: A
Comparative Histori-cal Analysis in the United States, Great
Britain and Germany. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Geary, J. (1992). Employment flexibility and human resource
management. Work,Employment and Society, 6: 25170.
Godard, J. (2011). What has happened to strikes? British Journal
of IndustrialRelations, this issue.
Goldthorpe, J. (1974). Industrial relations in Great Britain: a
critique of reformism.Politics and Society, 4: 41952.
Hall, P. A. and Soskice, D. W. (2001). Varieties of Capitalism:
The InstitutionalFoundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford and
New York: Oxford UniversityPress.
Heckscher, C. (1988). The New Unionism: Employee Involvement in
the ChangingCorporation. New York: Basic Books.
Hinton, J. and Hyman, R. (1975). Trade Unions and Revolution:
The Industrial Politicsof the Early British Communist Party.
London: Pluto Press.
Hyman, R. (1971a). Marxism and the Sociology of Trade Unionism.
London: PlutoPress.
(1971b). The Workers Union. Oxford: Clarendon. (1972). Strikes.
London: Fontana-Collins. (1974). Inequality, ideology and
industrial relations. British Journal of Indus-
trial Relations, 12: 17190. (1975). Industrial Relations: A
Marxist Introduction. Basingstoke: Macmillan. (1978). Pluralism,
procedural consensus and collective bargaining. British
Journal of Industrial Relations, 16: 1640. (1979). The politics
of workplace trade unionism: recent tendencies and some
problems for theory. Capital and Class, 8: 5467. (1980). Theory
in industrial relations: towards a materialist analysis. In P.
Boreham and G. Dow (eds), Work and Inequality. Melbourne:
Macmillan, pp.3859.
(1982a). Pressure, protest and struggle: some problems in the
concept andtheory of industrial conflict. In G. B. J. Bomers and R.
B. Peterson (eds), ConflictManagement and Industrial Relations.
Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff. Reprinted inHyman (1989a), pp.
96119.
(1982b). Symposium on Thomas Kochans (1980) Collective
Bargaining andIndustrial Relations. Industrial Relations, 21:
10014.
(1984a). Strikes. London: Fontana-Collins. (1984b). Wooing the
working class. In J. Curran (ed.), The Future of the Left.
Cambridge: Polity, pp. 909. (1985). Class struggle and the trade
union movement. In D. Coates, G.
Johnston and R. Bush (eds), A Socialist Anatomy of Britain.
Cambridge: Polity inAssociation with Blackwell, pp. 99123.
(1987). Strategy or structure? Capital, labour and control.
Work, Employmentand Society, 1: 2555.
(1989a). The Political Economy of Industrial Relations: Theory
and Practice in aCold Climate. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
(1989b). The sickness of British trade unionism: is there a
cure? In R. Hyman(ed.), The Political Economy of Industrial
Relations: Theory and Practice in A ColdClimate. Basingstoke:
Macmillan, pp. 16687.
(1989c). Strikes. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
228 British Journal of Industrial Relations
Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2011.
-
(1994a). Changing trade union identities and strategies. In R.
Hyman andA. Ferner (eds), New Frontiers in European Industrial
Relations. Oxford: Blackwell,pp. 10839.
(1994b). Introduction: economic restructuring, market liberalism
and the futureof national industrial relations systems. In R. Hyman
and A. Ferner (eds), NewFrontiers in European Industrial Relations.
Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 114.
(1994c). Theory and industrial relations. British Journal of
Industrial Relations,32: 16580.
(1995). Industrial relations in Europe: theory and practice.
European Journal ofIndustrial Relations, 1: 1746.
(1997). The future of employee representation. British Journal
of IndustrialRelations, 35: 30931.
(2001a). Trade union research and cross-national comparison.
EuropeanJournal of Industrial Relations, 7: 20332.
(2001b). Understanding European Trade Unionism: Between Market,
Class &Society. London: Sage.
(2003). Varieties of capitalism, national industrial relations
systems and tran-snational challenges. In A.-W. Harzing and J. Van
Ruysseveldt (eds), InternationalHuman ResourceManagement: An
Integrated Approach. London: Sage, pp. 41132.
(2004). Is industrial relations always ethnocentric? In B. E.
Kaufman (ed.),Theoretical Perspectives on Work and the Employment
Relationship. Champaign,IL: Industrial Relations Research
Association, pp. 26592.
(2006a). Flexible rigidities: a model for social Europe? In L.
E. Alonso and M.Martinez-Lucio (eds), Employment Relations in a
Changing Society: Assessing thePost-Fordist Paradigm. London:
Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 21522.
(2006b). Marxist thought and the analysis of work. In M.
Korczynski, R.Hodson and P. Edwards (eds), Social Theory at Work.
Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, pp. 2655.
(2009). La Lutte Continue. British Journal of Industrial
Relations Conferencein Honour of Richard Hyman. London School of
Economics & Political Science.
(2010). British industrial relations: the European dimension. In
T. Colling andM. Terry (eds), Industrial Relations: Theory and
Practice. Chichester: John Wiley,pp. 5480.
and Brough, I. (1975). Social Values and Industrial Relations: A
Study of Fairnessand Inequality. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
and Elger, T. (1981). Job controls, the employers offensive and
alternativestrategies. Capital and Class, 15: 11549.
and Gumbrell-McCormack, R. (2010). Trade unions, politics and
parties: is anew configuration possible?. Transfer, 16 (3):
31531.
Kahn-Freund, O. (1954). Legal framework. In A. Flanders and H.
Clegg (eds), TheSystem of Industrial Relations in Great Britain.
Oxford: Oxford University Press,pp. 42127.
Kelly, J. (1998). Rethinking Industrial Relations: Mobilization,
Collectivism and LongWaves. London: Routledge.
Kerr, C. (1964). Labor and Management in Industrial Society. New
York: AnchorBooks.
, Dunlop, J. T., Harbison, F. H. and Myers, C. A. (1960).
Industrialism andIndustrial Man. London: Heinemann.
Kochan, T. A. (1980). Collective Bargaining and Industrial
Relations: From Theory toPolicy and Practice. Homewood, IL: R. D.
Irwin.
Richard Hyman 229
Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2011.
-
Lane, T. and Roberts, K. (1971). Strike at Pilkingtons. London:
Fontana.McGovern, P., Hill, S., Mills, C. and White, M. (2007).
Market, Class, and Employ-
ment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Mahnkopf, B. and Altvater,
E. (1995). Trade unions as mediators of transnational
economic pressures? European Journal of Industrial Relations, 1:
10117.Marsden, R. (1982). Industrial relations: a critique of
empiricism. Sociology, 16:
23250.Martin, R. (1998). The British tradition of industrial
relations research: the contri-
bution of W.E.J. (Lord) McCarthy. British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 36:8397.
Mller-Jentsch, W. (2004). Theoretical approaches to industrial
relations. In B. E.Kaufman (ed.), Theoretical Perspectives on Work
and the Employment Relationship.Champaign, IL: Industrial Relations
Research Association, pp. 140.
Noon, M. and Blyton, P. (2007). The Realities of Work.
Basingstoke: Macmillan.Parkin, F. (1979). Marxism and Class Theory:
A Bourgeois Critique. London:
Tavistock Institute.Poole, M. (1984). Theories of Trade
Unionism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Shalev, M. (1992). The
resurgence of labour quiescence. In M. Regini (ed.), The
Future of Labour Movements. London: Sage, pp. 10232.Smith, C.
and Thompson, P. (1998). Re-evaluating the labour process
debate.
Economic and Industrial Democracy, 19: 55177.Strauss, G. and
Feuille, P. (1978). Industrial relations: a critical analysis.
Industrial
Relations, 17: 25977.Terry, M. (2009). Richard Hyman: The
Warwick Years. British Journal of Industrial
Relations Conference in Honour of Richard Hyman. London School
of Economics& Political Science.
Thelen, K. (2009). Institutional change in advanced political
economies. BritishJournal of Industrial Relations, 47: 47198.
Voskeritsian, H. (2010). Industrial Relations in Crisis? The New
Industrial RelationsTheory and the Field of Industrial Relations in
Britain. Employment Relations andOrganizational Behaviour. London:
London School of Economics & PoliticalScience.
Waddington, J. (2003). Trade union organization. In P. Edwards
(ed.), IndustrialRelations: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, pp. 21456.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The Aims of Education and Other Essays.
New York: FreePress.
Winchester, D. (1983). Industrial relations research in Britain.
British Journal ofIndustrial Relations, 21: 10014.
Wood, S. (1976). The radicalisation of industrial relations
theory. Personnel Review,5: 527.
230 British Journal of Industrial Relations
Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2011.