Heft36 1 - SFB 580 - Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFERENCES LITERATUR IN THE UKRAINE
dimension referring to actors’ behaviours.
Both independent and ex-official unions find
themselves at the intersection of these three
dimensions of post-socialist transformation.
Whereas actors have not grown up to the
roles the new IR framework prescribes, they
continue to structure their interactions outside
the formal framework. In their formative
processes, they combine the results of learning
with experiences accumulated in the past. The
learning of managers and unions is facilitated
by the integration of the IR into the broader
processes of globalization. Approaching actors
from such a dynamic perspective (as formative
processes offer) means to understand the
scope and advance of choices they make. The
complexity of changes on different dimensions
of union formation (identity, agenda, structure,
resources, relationships and conflicts management)
defines union positioning in relation to
IR. A trade union is likely to commit to the
democratic model of unionism (on all dimensions)
depending on its positioning within
the current formal and informal settings and
arenas, union origin and evolution, and the
degree of insertion into the international trade
union movement.
Certainly, union positioning within the IR
arenas is not a sole determinant of the final
shape of IR, as unions are embedded in the
interactions with employers meaning that
local IR patterns reflect the process
of interactions of both actors. For
Seite page 220
example, where employers remain authoritarian-paternalistic
(as in many
state and privatized enterprises), they
will be likely to remain aggressive to independent
unions, but will pursue cooperative
relationships with the subordinate unions.
As ownership and enterprise strategies diversify,
so do managerial approaches to IR.
The structuring of economic elites across
FSU follows intra-entrepreneurial cleavages
between old-style (administrators of former
state enterprises) and new (newly emerging
entrepreneurs) (Kabalina und Komarovsky
1997). Respectively, traditional, Soviet-type IR
patterns are most likely to be insulated within
enterprises managed by old elites and leaving
union structure intact. Change is rather unlikely
here, as the inflows of new human capital
remain low (Barberis, Boycko, Shleifer und
Tsukanova 1996). This “conservatism” has been
paralleled by informalization and individualization
of work relations, often accompanied
by the strengthening of the authoritarian style
of management. Here management is increasingly
hostile to trade unions “in anything
other than their former role as accessories to
management” (Pollert 1999: 214). In such a
view, IR segmentation embraces the insulation
of traditional IR in some segments and their
individualization in the others.
If managerial agency 6 is linked to the business
system structuring, then the segmentsrelated
IR dynamics can be better explained.
It becomes clear that one or another business
system segment is more conducive to certain
managerial styles than the other and is able to
explain outcomes in IR related to the assertiveness
of trade unions. The differences within
unions’ and managers’ approaches to IR impact
the shape of IR and, for trade unions, the form
of unionism they want to institutionalize.