Participation at Work: The History of Economic and Industrial Democracy

5th European Labour History Network Conference. Participation at Work: The History of Economic and Industrial Democracy

Organisatoren
Working Group "Economic and Industrial Democracy"
Veranstaltungsort
Uppsala University
PLZ
753 10
Ort
Uppsala
Land
Sweden
Fand statt
In Präsenz
Vom - Bis
11.06.2024 - 12.06.2024
Von
Sophia Friedel, Institute for Social Movements, Bochum; Philipp Reick, Technische Universität Berlin

This report summarises the events of the Working Group "Economic and Industrial Democracy" of the 5th European Labour History Network (ELHN) Conference from 11-13 June 2024 at Uppsala University in Sweden, exploring the rich yet neglected history of democratic participation in economic and industrial decision-making.

The first panel discussed theories and historical concepts of industrial democracy. MATTHIAS EBBERTZ (Frankfurt am Main) started the panel off with a talk on “Participation at Work: A History of Economic and Industrial Democracy.” Exploring how the lived experience of works councils impacted the normativity of labor regulation in Weimar Republic Germany, Ebbertz stressed the importance of non-state actors in setting norms and regulations. Looking at what works councils did, workplaces are best understood as bargaining places where normative frameworks are constantly renegotiated. In a sense, works councils thus were examples of lived industrial democracy. Ebbertz thus presented an alternative to the historical research so far too one-sidedly focused on law-making as the central agent determining Germany’s labor relations. In “Toward a political theory of (non)capitalist obligations: Examinations of economic democracy in social movements journals in the UK 1883-1926,” SEBASTIAN SVENBERG (University) presented an analysis of three popular social movement journals in turn-of-the-century Britain. These journals argued that industrial work required a degree of obedience and subjugation that could only be justified when workers have a say in the making of the obligations that bind them. Against this backdrop, these groups, including guild socialists, worker cooperatives, and women’s cooperatives, formulated demands for industrial citizenship as a precondition for freedom in society. These rights ranged from participation in decision-making on the shopfloor to the democratic choice of superiors. Finally, PHILIPP URBAN (Bochum), presented “The Conceptual History of a Program of Economic Democracy.” Urban focuses on three concept-altering periods: the Weimar Republic, the 1950s/1960s, and the 1980s. While in Weimar the understanding was very much influenced by Fritz Napthali’s notion of economic democracy, (which focused on democratizing industry through a combination of democratic socialization and the promotion of large trade-union-owned businesses), in the postwar years, the meaning shifted increasingly toward the latter—so much so that by the late 1960s, Gemeinwirtschaft mostly meant trade-union-owned businesses and public enterprises. Against the backdrop of dramatic failures of public business activities in the 1970s and 1980s, Gemeinwirtschaft virtually faded from public consciousness, only to reemerge in the past couple of years around social movements pushing for the re-commoning and the re-collectivization of once privatized infrastructure and services.

The second session left the realm of concepts and theories and entered the more concrete arena of “Democracy on the Shopfloor.” RICHARD A. BACHMANN (Michigan) presented “The Intricacies of an Experiment in Workplace Democracy: Six Americans in a Swedish Plant, 1974.” Bachmann traced back the visit of a group of Ford workers to an auto factory in Sweden. Increasingly common at the time, such visits were meant to let workers reflect on their own workplace experiences amidst growing dissatisfaction with what was widely perceived as alienating work realities. Trade unionists as well as employers saw recent changes in workplace relations in Scandinavian, and in particular Swedish, industrial enterprises as a promising example to study how to overcome the negative impact of assembly line work. In the end, however, the experience of these six workers contributed to the demystification of Sweden’s supposedly more participatory work relations. The following speaker, LUKAS ROSENBERG (Göttingen), spoke about “‘Negotiation of Issues between Masters and Men’: Workers’ Representation on the Great Indian Peninsula Railway in the 1920s.” Having outlined the historical evolution of railway unionization in British-controlled India, Rosenberg argued that there emerged a conflictual relationship between Indian trade unions and railway staff councils representing workers in the respective railway corporations. Conflicts emerged not only over representation but also over the fact that at least some of the railway staff councils were in fact appointed by management. This shows that staff councils were set up in direct opposition to the train unions, and that they served to pacify labor and promote cooperation in the company rather than represent workers’ grievances and demands. ALESSANDRO BRIZZI (Florence) and BRUNO SETTIS (Bologna) presented “An Alternative Power? The Struggles for Democratization of Social Policy and Surveillance at Fiat in the Afterwar Period.” Brizzi began by arguing that although the Fiat company received much attention in socio-historical research, the company’s welfare and surveillance functions have not. Drawing on corporate governance ideas that went back as far as the beginning of Fascism, Fiat introduced a wealth of social and welfare measures—although these measures were now recast as social policy measures that, following pressure by Italy’s Communists, also included a degree of worker representation. Regarding surveillance, Settis showed that, unlike other Western auto factories, Fiat factories featured private surveillance guards unrelated to the labor process itself. Often recruited from former Fascist squads, these guards were a harsh approach toward enforcing labor discipline. During the early post-war years, however, they underwent a democratization process, which contributed to the rise of a rather complicated and conflictual labor relationship at Fiat, which knew both worker participation and tight control.

The third panel started with AURÉLIE ANDRY (Évry) presenting a joint paper “Yugoslav Self-Management and the British workers’ control movement, 1960s-1980s”. Central was the question of the influence of the Yugoslav self-management model on the British workers control movement, focusing on the role of the IWC with the aim to tackle the circulation of the Yugoslav self-management in the UK. Transferring those ideas into the British posed to be difficult, not least due to critics on relations to Tito’s regime and the liberalization of the Yugoslav economy after 1965. The IWC influenced the tripartite debate on industrial democracy during the 1970s, showing in the 1973 TUC Report on Industrial Democracy which proposed to reform Company Law, giving significantly more power to the workers. However, Yugoslavia’s phase of dismay after Titos death combined with Thatcherism resulted in a progressive loss of the appeal of Yugoslav self-management in the United Kingdom (UK). JAN A. BUREK (Warsaw/London), asked: “Who are the masters of the factory? The Polish Communists’ Debate over the Idea and Practice of Self-Management, 1945–1947”. After WWII, works councils became central not only within companies but also in organizing community life. Initially recognized in 1944, they entered power-sharing arrangements with local authorities and directors, often adapting to pre-existing networks. Council power gradually declined due to state suppression of the workers' democratic movement under a democratic socialist framework. The Polish Workers' Party supported economic socialization via works committees, while the Union of Polish Patriots opposed socialization and nationalization. Overall, Communists lacked significant power to transform industrial relations. By March 1947, state attacks on workers' and unions' independence started the full-scale Sovietization, challenging the councils' and unions' prerogatives. Despite various proposals for worker participation, state power increasingly overshadowed workers' autonomy. Burek summarizes that nonetheless, the idea that workers were the true masters of the factory persisted, reflecting a key aspect of the Communist movement's ideology. Third was MEGHA SHARMA (Delhi) with “Democratizing Labor Relations: Experiments in Post-Independence India”. Between 1947 and 1950, the Indian economy focused on massive transformations to boost production, requiring an organized labor force. During this period, tripartite Labor Conferences discussed schemes for improving labor relations, resulting in the Industrial Disputes Act, which established tribunals and labor courts to resolve conflicts between labor and capital, introducing new forms of control and intervention in workers' lives. Workers were seen as key to the country’s destiny, advocating for their rights to foster industrial peace and reduce conflict. Democracy and economic planning were championed together. A 1978 workers' education scheme aimed to create a semi-autonomous body with joint worker-management participation, promoting stricter regulation of workers' time and activities through voluntary cooperation. Programmatic experiments like the western-inspired attempt of Ford included workers’ education as key. Trained workers were expected to educate others, but large gaps between government expectations and outcomes were revealed. Educated workers often questioned management, leading to new investigations and building workers' identities. Ultimately, workers' dignity was recognized, transforming industrial relations and making workers legally conscious of their situation. RADKA ŠUSTROVÁ (Vienna) spoke about “Rights and Democratic Vibes: Workplace Justice in Czechoslovakia and Austria, 1930s–1980s” and how workers in post-war Czechoslovakia and Austria actively exercised their rights and democratic instruments to negotiate social justice without revolutionary tendencies. Social justice was deemed more fulfilling in a democracy than under state socialism. Both national and state socialism, as egalitarian participatory authoritarianisms, influenced workers' aspirations to participate. Despite Czechoslovakia's post-war shift to authoritarianism, workers' rights remained central. Austria's social partnership brought it closer to Czechoslovakia, with both countries emphasizing strong worker engagement and social justice. The language of rights persisted, with labor courts playing a key role. After WWII, works councils in both countries gained independence and asserted their claims under economic and industrial democracy. Czechoslovakia focused on socialist labor relations, while Austria emphasized labor rights and social partnership. Social justice efforts were consistent, driven by workers in lower positions, structured by class and gender. Czechoslovakia shifted from individual to collective rights, while Austria leaned towards a language of legality.

SOPHIA FRIEDEL (Bochum) initiated the fourth panel asking “Industrial Democracy in Western Europe: Fantasy, Fiction, or Fact?” combining conceptual considerations with practical democratic labour approaches. Hugh Clegg asserted the presence of industrial democracy in Western nations, akin to political democracy, a view widely criticized. Central to this criticism was the degree of employee participation in company decisions, as various post-WWII models, like worker-owned cooperatives and board representation, emerged with varying worker impact. Despite these efforts, authoritarian corporate structures persisted, prompting unions and transnational institutions to act. The 1970s saw labor law reforms and commissions investigating industrial democracy in Western Europe. The EU’s Draft Fifth Company Law Directive, using German co-determination as a benchmark, heightened tensions. While radical unions opposed it, countries with board representation supported it. The late 20th-century rise of neoliberalism challenged these democratic efforts, eroding industrial relations. However, adopting democratic structures from other countries and binding European regulations has gradually democratized national industrial relations, fostering more equitable conditions. THOMAS JESSEN ADAMS (Alabama) spoke about “Social Compulsion, Workplace Democracy, and Political Economy in the U.S.: Notes for Critical-Historical Synthesis”, advocating for greater investigation of these factors in Labour history according to Elizabeth Andersons work, who defined several institutions, for example the workplace in the modern US as private, dictatorial or totalitarian / authoritarian governments. People are at the mercy of labor dynamics, forced to either comply or emigrate to secure a livelihood. Adams critiques U.S. labor analysis for focusing on dual transformation and the shift from industrial democracy to neoliberalism, overlooking slave and household labor. The term "workplace governance" provides a more nuanced analysis beyond the "freedom versus slavery" dichotomy. Key factors include workplace authority and the enforcement of participatory rights. Understanding labor relations requires recognizing power dynamics in the workplace. Integrating overlooked labor contributions and offering new heuristics challenges traditional labor studies and informs modern labor relations. Re-examining historical narratives and introducing workplace governance offers fresh perspectives on enhancing workers' rights and promoting workplace democracy in the U.S.. MARINA KABAT (Buenos Aires) closed with “Argentine taken factories movement: A retrospective balance in the Latin American context”, a movement gaining significant support from the public. Workers initially took control of production but hesitated to form cooperatives to avoid losing social benefits. Later, legal pressures forced the establishment of cooperatives, which had to compete in the capitalist market. During economic crises, surviving cooperatives adapted by hiring workers or recruiting new members. The 2008 crisis strained cooperatives, but state support enabled their survival, and new cooperatives emerged as private companies closed. The COVID-19 pandemic challenged many cooperatives, struggling to meet financial obligations. Kabat highlights their resilience through crises and their fight to operate in a fluctuating market against a right-wing populist government, which has pushed cooperatives into the provinces by cutting financial aid.

Debates about the democratization of the economy are resurging in academic research and the public sphere. Amid rising populism and declining support for democracy, scholars argue that improving democratic participation in industry boosts productivity, economic growth, and democratic values. While extensive dialogues on economic and industrial democracy exist, historical responses to democratic participation remain fragmented. Papers from the 5th ELHN Conference contribute by illuminating historical aspects of economic and industrial democracy. It is clear that workplaces are still contested terrains, marked by power relations and challenges from technological progress and decentralized conditions, necessitating flexible yet mandatory democratic institutions.

Confernece overview:

Theories and Historical Concepts

MATTHIAS EBBERTZ (Frankfurt am Main): Participation at Work: A History of Economic and Industrial Democracy

SEBASTIAN SVENBERG (Gothenburg): A theory of accumulated decision-making power informed by historical organization for democracy in the UK

PHILIPP URBAN (Bochum): The Conceptual History of a Program of Economic Democracy

Democracy on the Shopfloor

RICHARD BACHMANN (Michigan): The Intricacies of an Experiment in Workplace Democracy: Six Americans in a Swedish Plant 1974

LUKAS ROSENBERG (Göttingen): Negotiation of Issues between Masters and Men. Staff Councils on South Asian Railways in the First Halt of the 20th Century

BRUNO SETTIS (Bologna) / ALESSANDRO BRIZZI (Florence): An Alternative Power? The Struggles for Democratization of Social Policy and Surveillance at Fiat in the Afterwar Period

Industrial Democracy in National Economies

AURÉLIE ANDRY (Évry) / VLADIMIR UNKOVSKI-KORICA (Glasgow): Yugoslav self-management and the British workers’ control movement 1960s-1980s

JAN BUREK (Warsaw/London): Who are the masers of the factory? The Polish Communists’ Debate over the Idea and Practice of Self-Management, 1945-1947

MEGHA SHARMA (Dehli): Democratizing Labour Relations: Experiments in Post-Independence India

RADKA ŠUSTROVÁ (Vienna): Rights and Democratic Vibes: Workplace Justice in Czechoslovakia and Austria, 1930s-1980s

Lessons from the Past and Challenges for the Future

SOPHIA FRIEDEL (Bochum): Industrial Democracy in Western Europe: Fantasy, Fiction or Fact?

THOMAS JESSEN ADAMS (Alabama): Social Compulsion, Workplace Democracy, and Political Economy in the U.S.: Notes for Critical-Historical Synthesis

MARINA KABAT (Buenos Aires): Argentine taken factories movement: A retrospective balance in the Latin American context

Redaktion
Veröffentlicht am
Beiträger
Klassifikation
Weitere Informationen
Land Veranstaltung
Sprache(n) der Konferenz
Englisch
Sprache des Berichts