Examination of the extent to which the employment relationship is becoming more individualistic

Resumen o Introducción

Trade union membership has been steadily declining since 1979. According to the Trade
Union Membership Statistics (BIS, 2013), a growth of around 59,000 to 6.5 million trade
union members in year 2012 was recorded. Nevertheless, in the year 2011, for the first time
since the 1940s, trade union membership has decreased below six million. Accompanied by
this development, is the rising trend of individualism in the relationship between employers
and employees. The workforce these days is characterised by diverse individual interests,
higher expectations concerning the extent of determination in the employment relationship
and accordingly strives for direct say over employment agreements.
However, there is some disagreement about the balance of individualism or collectivism in
the employment relationship among industrial relations academics and practitioners (Legge,
1989, Purcell & Gray, 1986). For this reason it is worthwhile to scrutinise this aspect in more
detail. The objective of this essay is to critically examine the extent to which the employment
relationship is becoming more individualistic. First of all, to set the scene for the following
analysis the key terms ‘individualism’ as well as ‘collectivism’ will be defined and the main
perspectives associated with them will be presented. After that, focusing on individualistic
and collectivistic aspects, the historical development of the altering nature of the British
employment relationship will be outlined. Finally, based on these findings, a conclusion will
be drawn.
To begin with, the notion of individualism, according to Purcell and Gray (1986:213), is
marked by “[employers’] policies based on belief in the value of the individual and his or her
right to advancement and fulfilment at work”. The concept of collectivism is whereas defined
as “the recognition by management of the collective interests of groups of employees in the
decision making process” (Purcell & Gray, 1986:213). [...]