Mapping worker collectivism

Discussions relating to trade union decline since 1979 have been well rehearsed in the literature. An underlying theme in much of this dialogue is the supposedly corresponding decline of workplace collectivism due to a rise in individualism (Bacon and Storey, 1996; Bassett and Cave, 1993). Others have suggested that there has been a decline in the collective identity of the working class per se due to a rise in consumerism and affluence (Lash and Urry, 1987; Phelps Brown, 1990). However, a major criticism of such assertions is that the notion of collectivism is based upon simplistic dichotomies and stereotyped understandings (Martinez Lucio and Stewart, 1997). A central problem appears to be that the subject of ‘collectivism’ itself is lacking in conceptual and empirical rigour (Kelly, 1998; Metochi, 2002), and to date, any attempts to address this lacuna have been tentatively offered. Of those who have recently attempted to define ‘workplace collectivism’ (for example, Black et al. 1999; Metochi, 2002), Stephenson and Stewart’s (2001) intervention is possibly most valuable, for they argue that the current debates surrounding ‘collectivism’ use indicators overly associated with the idea of conflict and resistance. They claim that much of the debate does not adequately engage with the problem of collectivism in its various forms, and offer three typologies of collectivism related to work. The purpose of this research note is to provide a contribution to these recent studies through presenting empirical evidence of different forms of collectivism from a wider study of the Tyneside Maritime Construction Industry (TMCI) and to encourage debate on the nature of workplace collectivism.