White-Collar Unionization: A Conceptual Framework

Abstract

AN INCREASING INTEREST in white-collar unions has accompanied their rapid growth in recent years. However, there appears to be an underlying confusion in all discussions of the subject, with two contradictory views as to the nature of white-collar unions being held alternately, or even concurrently. In the first place, they are generally regarded as being a special type of union, distinct from those of manual workers (hence the special term 'white-collar unions'). Secondly, it is assumed that they are like other unions, so that membership of a union means the same regardless of whether it is manual or white-collar. In this article we propose to examine the nature of white-collar unionism in an attempt to show how this confusion has arisen, and how it may be explained. The article is based primarily on two independent researches in this field, one among bank clerks and the other among scientists and engineers.' Perhaps the clearest way of illustrating this confusion is to present the two contrasting viewpoints. The first, which owes much to Marxist theory, is forcefully expounded by Klingender.2 For him clerical trade unions are working class organizations just like those of manual workers. Their faults, low membership and ill-advised policies, are a result of a lack of class consciousness among clerks, and are destined to be remedied as true consciousness develops. Few writers have followed Klingender very closely, but fewer still, if any, have consistently rejected his position, by claiming that white-collar unions are quite different from those of manual workers. To be sure the view that white-collar unions are different is widely held, but with a variety of limitations. While Goldstein3 argues firmly that unions of salaried professionals are 'significantly different', these are only a small part of white-collar unionism. Strauss,4 writing under the heading 'White Collar Unions are Different', emphasizes a viewpoint shared by many.5 At the same time, in common with these other writers, he also observes similarities, although there seems to be no general agreement between