THE PRESS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1977. Worker participation

Press, 29 November 1977, Page 20

THE PRESS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1977. Worker participation

tome enthusiasts for worker participation in industry see it as a panacea for New Zealand’s industrial woes. Giving the employees of a company a greater say in how it is run or a share of its profits could, it has been suggested, prevent disputes between management and labour and promote a surge of productivity. A sensibly more cautious note about worker participation has been sounded in a booklet published recently by the Employers’ Federation. In the booklet, the federation suggests proceeding slowly and pragmatically. Allowing worker participation to become established gradually as specific schemes applicable to specific situations are worked out is sensible partly because the initial reaction of many, on both sides of the industrial fence, to worker participation is often hostile. If schemes for worker participation are to succeed and make a significant difference to industrial relations and industrial productivity in New Zealand they must enjoy near-universal support and must not be imposed in any industry or individual company until both sides can see advantage in them. Shareholders, directors and managers will, judging by the introduction to the federation’s booklet, resist the establishment of councils or committees with wide responsibilities and real powers or the appointment or election of worker directors if these steps appear to deprive owners or managers of the power to direct their enterprises or take crucial company decisions on their own. Trade unions, for their part, are known to fear that such developments could deny them their exclusive right to represent the interests of the workers and to fear that by rushing into some worker participation schemes the employees could be signing away advan-

tages in return for illusory benefits. But the gradual opening up of new channels of communication between workers and employers could well reduce industrial antagonism and disruption and benefit individual companies by giving managers the benefit of the knowledge and experience of workers from the shop or factory floor in running the business. Similarly modest expectations would be wise of the other major form of worker participation—giving workers a share of the company profits. The Employers’ Federation believes there is little evidence to suggest that the increased monetary incentives which profit-sharing schemes offer result in greater productivity or the loss of less time through stoppages or absenteeism. This may be a somewhat premature judgment. Company staff share purchase schemes established under a 1974 amendment to the Income Tax Act, for example, have hardly been in operation long enough for their effect on productivity to be noticed. On the waterfront, profit-sharing schemes of a sort do appear to have had a salutary effect on productivity. The one area in which there is already general agreement is that laws should not be passed obliging companies to introduce worker participation schemes of one form or another. The Labour Party plans to make worker participation a major feature of its 1978 manifesto, but some Labour leaders have already said that they favour encouraging such schemes to grow up from the grass roots, by enabling legislation like the 1974 amendment to the Tax Act, rather than requiring companies to introduce worker participation schemes by law. On this point at least, the employers and the political wing of the labour movement appear to be in full accord.