ABSTRACT
In the second half of the 1960s a clear consensus formed among politicians, the media and industrial relations' academics that faced with the deterioration in Britain's economic performance ‘something’ had to be done about what was regarded as the ‘chaotic state’ (Donovan, 1968: 120) of workplace industrial relations and the industrial ‘behaviour’ (Hawkins, 1971: 198) of some groups of workers. There was a widespread image of shop-stewards as the omnipotent rulers of the factory floor: calling their members out on strike and causing the loss of millions of pounds of production on the slightest pretext. Management was alleged to be powerless against these industrial Titans, who used this power to maintain archaic work practices and manning levels and provide their members with an ‘easy’ life. From the vantage-point of the 1980s such an image is difficult to sustain - every day newspapers carry reports of shop-stewards failing to persuade their members to resist ‘managerial encroachment’ and in some instances - such as Leyland -the continued existence of shop-steward organisation itself seems threatened. This paper aims to investigate the nature of shop-floor unionism - its extent and the range of issues it deals with -and the context in which it operates - particularly the structure of the large-scale enterprises in which large numbers of trade unionists are employed. It is contended that the structure of the enterprise obviates the power of shop-floor unionism and represents a major challenge to any control aspirations of trade unions. By developing the concept of a structure of control it aims to provide a way of analysing the issue of control in the context of the large modern capitalist enterprise.
