Industrial Disputes and Work Stoppages in the Commonwealth Caribbean: An Empirical Analysis

• Author: Andrew Downes and Lawrence Nurse
• Pages: 253-284

253

CHALLENGE OF WORKPLACE GOVERNANCE

Industrial Disputes and Work

Stoppages in the Commonwealth

Caribbean: An Empiricial Analysis

Over the past several years, there has been a decline in the use of overt

conflict forms by workers and their trade unions in the Commonwealth

Caribbean. This investigation is a preliminary exploration of those factors

that account for the incidence of industrial disputes and work stoppages (i.e.,

strikes) in the region. Through statistical analysis of the data on industrial

disputes and strikes for Barbados, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago over

the period 1960-1997, this chapter attempts to shed light on a much talked

about phenomenon in Caribbean industrial relations, but one that has hardly

been subjected to any rigorous statistical analysis. Indeed, to the best of our

knowledge, very little comparative work of the kind being undertaken here

has been done for the region.

Strikes and other forms of industrial conflict have attracted and engaged

the attention of academics, labour-management practitioners and governments

for a long time. Interest in this subject stems partially from the fact that

employee challenge and resistance at the workplace point to the existence of

critical problems surrounding the organisation and management of the labour

process. It also stems from the real and presumed negative effects that strikes

and other conflict forms have on industry and the economy as a whole. It is

for this reason that strikes are sometimes discussed as a problem, as unnecessary,

or as a misuse of industrial power, especially if they persist for too long, occur

in certain sectors and/or inconvenience certain elements in society.

If strikes and other forms of job action are understood only as a problem,

then this excludes the possibility of developing an alternative formulation

that leads to a better understanding of such action. Strikes and disputes do

create problems for management and may inconvenience the public. They

also have a certain social and industrial utility, and a “political” significance

not ordinarily attributed to them in traditional debate. We do not ignore

concerns about the effects of strikes. To discuss them from that standpoint

 

254 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

only is to deny them their legitimacy in a democratic society, and to deny

workers an important means of expressing voice.

Strikes and other forms of job action represent attempts by workers to

voice issues that they believe affect their security, welfare and social economy.

In a fundamental sense, strikes and other expressions of industrial conflict

imply a refusal on the part of labour to be incorporated into management

and production systems on terms dictated by management. According to

Hyman (1989: 156-57), strikes

Are often successful in obliging management to take account of the

expectations and aspirations of their employees. Strikes are ... a challenge to

the autonomy of managerial control ... the means by which labour refuses

to behave merely as a commodity … Accordingly, those who perceive a

threat to their control have good reason to attempt to impose their definitions

of reality on society. And in this they achieve considerable success.

Academic discourse on strikes and disputes that is geared towards

enhancing our understanding of these phenomena and developed within this

alternative conceptual orientation, tends to avoid mechanistic and knee-jerk

comments about workers' job action. It also constrains a focus on the

interconnections across the practice of management and the organisation of

workplace relations, the nature, rhythm and dynamics of production systems

and the role of the state. Such discourse allows us to situate strikes as an

expression of the conflicts of interest that exist between labour and capital,

and as a reflection of the peculiar social relations of production that exist

especially in organisations where the pursuit of efficiency, viability, expansion

and accumulation are prime drivers of the practice of management.

In the next section, we provide a select review of the literature addressing

strikes and other forms of job action. Section three provides an empirical

analysis of industrial disputes and work stoppages in Barbados, Jamaica, and

Trinidad and Tobago. This analysis takes two forms. First, we offer an

analytical history of strike/work stoppage trends in the Caribbean against the

background of the disputes that have occurred in those countries. Secondly,

we provide an econometric analysis of the macroeconomic factors that have

been identified in the literature as some of the important determinants of

disputes and strikes. The next section of the paper assesses the findings within

the context of the development of industrial relations in the Caribbean, and

allows us to draw certain conclusions about industrial disputes and work

stoppages in the region. Finally, we discuss some of the important implications

of this preliminary investigation for further research on this phenomenon in

the Caribbean.

255

CHALLENGE OF WORKPLACE GOVERNANCE

%'(

To the best of our knowledge, no empirical cross-national studies of

industrial disputes and work stoppages have been undertaken for the

Caribbean. Henry (1972) provides an early descriptive review of industrial

conflict in the region while recent studies by Moonilal (1998) and Smith

(1997) focus on a review of industrial disputes and work stoppages in Trinidad

and Tobago. Stone (1979) used simple correlation analysis to examine the

relationship between industrial conflict (i.e. strike proneness) and economic

growth, the level of social modernisation, union membership and the level of

decolonisation. His work indicates a positive association between industrial

conflict and the set of explanatory variables. Scholars with an interest in these

phenomena have, however, generated a number of theoretical and empirically

based insights about the experience of industrialised countries and, to a lesser

extent, other parts of the developing world. We produce, below, a select review

of this literature.

Kochan (1980) has made a number of theoretical statements about the

presumed relationship between economic factors and the incidence of strikes.

He argues, for example: "Economic forces play an important role in shaping

the result of collective bargaining and in determining strikes." He notes that

"aggregate monetary policy and aggregate fiscal policy affect the rate of

inflation, unemployment and economic growth" (p. 38). This, in turn,

influences the expectations of the parties to collective bargaining, and has "an

important impact on the short run bargaining power of workers and employers

and sets constraints on the range of discretion that unions and management

have at the bargaining table" (p. 39). Kochan notes further that:

The overall condition of the economy, and especially the rate of inflation,

shapes the expectations and goals of the parties… These pressures lead union

leaders to seek higher settlements at the bargaining table or to risk the threat

of a contract rejection (or a strike) if they do not adjust their expectations

and settlement targets upwards (p. 39).

He accordingly hypothesises that there is an inverse relationship between

trade union bargaining power over wages and salaries and the level of

unemployment.

A number of scholars have sought empirically to investigate the

circumstances under which labour disputes and strikes are likely to occur.

These studies show that strikes are related to aggregate economic factors.

Rejecting the bargaining theory approach to strikes that explain such outcomes

in terms of “faulty negotiation,” absence of adequate knowledge or the actions