Fostering flexibility

DANIEL McCABE | When sociology professors Anthony Masi, Michael Smith and Axel van den Berg submit an article to a scholarly journal together, they probably don't sweat the peer review process that much. After all, if the sometimes quarrelsome trio can satisfy one another that their study is sound, getting a journal editor to give it the green light ought to be a breeze. During a joint interview, the three regularly trade friendly barbs with one another and are quick to raise questions about points that their fellow sociologists make. When it comes to the subject matter that unites them -- comparative research about labour markets and job flexibility in Canada and Sweden -- they don't always see eye to eye. "We have three very different perspectives about what we study," says Masi. "What we have in common is that we all trust empirical research. We realize that our initial assumptions aren't always right. We all make compromises." The three collaborate with Concordia University sociology professor Joseph Smucker and with colleagues in Sweden. Their work involves travelling to dozens of plants to interview workers and managers in three industries -- pulp and paper, steel and telecommunications equipment. They also administer questions through surveys conducted by Stats Can and its Swedish counterpart. What piqued their interest in the project initially was curiosity about which labour market was more adaptable to change -- Sweden's (where the powerful labour movement enjoys a relatively cosy relationship with management and government) or Canada's (where unions and bosses have a much more adversarial relationship). Workers in Sweden enjoy a large measure of employment security thanks to longstanding labour-friendly legislation. Does that sense of security result in less resistance to changes in the workplace, wondered the sociologists, or does the mix of sanctions and incentives that characterizes Canada's approach to labour relations produce a more flexible workforce? The answer, say the researchers, isn't straightforward. Pressed to put it in a nutshell, they reply that neither system has abundantly clear advantages over the other. And the two aren't easily interchangeable -- they've both been shaped over decades by unique historical and cultural circumstances. In Sweden, explains van den Berg, "the only assurance workers get, for the most part, is that they'll always have some type of employment. If you lose your job, there is a high probability that you'll find another one. It just won't necessarily be the job they're in right now." The political left and the union movement in Canada wouldn't trust that sort of promise all that much, he warrants. "Across the political spectrum, flexibility is seen as a good thing in Sweden," says van den Berg. "In Sweden, it's the unions who came up with the idea and sometimes pushed it onto management." Swedes view job flexibility as an opportunity to gain new skills, for instance. Canadians, hardened by decades of more brittle relations with their employers, are apt to be more suspicious of the concept. In Sweden, "the relationship between management and the unions is much less adversarial," says Smith. He adds, "Flexibility is there because the Swedish unions want it to be there. In Canada, unions on the whole are not terribly interested in encouraging flexibility. In fact, quite the contrary." "Highly specific job classifications tend to be a constant with Canadian unionists," says van den Berg. "The impulse is to regulate these as much as possible. As a consequence, there is less room to manoeuvre." The impulse among many Canadian unionists is to have it all down in writing, in great detail, so that management won't fleece you later. "In the Canadian steel industry, there are about 26 different levels of job classifications," points out Masi. "In Sweden, there are only five." Mind you, Canadian workers are more accommodating in some respects. "Canadians are willing to take a pay cut much more readily," notes Masi. Swedes are pretty firm that wage flexibility is one item that isn't up for discussion. Adds van den Berg, "Canadians are more flexible when it comes to matters of mobility." They're more willing to be transferred. Canadians are also more accepting of lay-offs. They don't live in a society that puts as high a premium on employment security as the Swedes. There is also a general acceptance among workers of the fairness of the principle of union-negotiated seniority. People with the fewest years on the job are the first to go. It's not a concept that Canadian managers always warm up to, says Smith. "The employees being laid off aren't always the ones they would like to see laid off." The team brings different strengths to the project. Smith is an expert on the pulp and paper industry, Masi is an authority on the steel industry, Smucker knows the telecommunications industry and van den Berg is familiar with Swedish labour and has extensive contacts in that country. Masi has just received a new grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to carry out related research in Italy. "It's almost impossible to be fired in Italy. Layoffs are virtually unheard of in the public sector." Masi speculates that this may have resulted in a great deal of rigidity among workers in some sectors -- they can't be fired, so they might believe they can get away with resisting changes to their job responsibilities. "There is an enormous underground market in Italy. The government knows this and adds 10% to the country's official GDP to take it into account. [The underground market] may simply be a way for employers to get the flexibility they want." If the work can't get done through official channels, money gets exchanged under the table. For his part, Smith has been expanding his studies to pulp and paper plants in the U.S. "The management there can be extremely hard-line," he says. "There have been occasions where they've threatened to replace an entire work force during a strike. They get substantial concessions [from their employees]." Mind you, much depends on timing. If workers are at a new plant or at a plant where they know management has spent a lot of money upgrading equipment, they realize they're in a better bargaining position. Management threats to close down the plant are much less menacing when workers know that their bosses have invested heavily in keeping the plant open. Van den Berg believes there may be opportunities to expand their research into other European countries. "Right now, there is an enormous amount of discussion in Europe about whether they can afford the social security system they've got or whether they should go the American way." Van den Berg is currently writing an article for a policy journal about the future of social democracy. "If the NDP ever wants to get anywhere it has to stay as far away from labour as it can. Canadian unions have always had this adversarial tradition. They've always been very obviously a so-called special interest." Smith smiles. After butting heads with van den Berg earlier, he's in agreement now. But Masi cocks an eyebrow. If labour unions are less combative in Sweden, it might be because they've already had a major say in forming public policy through their close relationship with that country's social democratic political party, posits Masi. The topic will likely spark more arguments amongst the trio, at least until the next set of empirical data arrives for them to pore through.