The Ingredients in Productivity Agreements

  • R. B. McKersie
  • L. C. Hunter


In the discussions in Chapters 2 and 3 of the evolution and spread of productivity bargaining in the period 1960–70, some attention was given to the changing nature of agreements, but the main thrust was to understand the diffusion that occurred in such bargaining during the decade. In contrast, the present chapter focuses on the content of productivity agreements themselves. Before turning to this content analysis, we would like to comment on the importance of the economic and technological context and of the objectives held by the parties in shaping the ingredients of productivity agreements. Then we can analyse the various aspects of achievement and reward with which productivity bargaining has concerned itself.


Collective Bargaining Electricity Supply Wage Structure Work Measurement Skill Utilisation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Several studies have demonstrated the functional connection between type of technology (e.g. process versus assembly versus batch production) and the organisation of work. See J. Woodward, Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice (London: Oxford University Press, 1965)Google Scholar
  2. M. Fullan, ‘Industrial Technology and Worker Integration in the Organization’, American Sociological Review. XXXV (1970) 1028–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 2.
    See, for example, K. Jones and J. Golding, Productivity Bargaining, Fabian Research Series, 257 (London: Fabian Society, 1966) 7–21.Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    A. Fox and A. Flanders, ‘The Reform of Collective Bargaining: From Donovan to Durkheim’. British Journal of Industrial Relations. VII (1969) 173.Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    S. Paulden and B. Hawkins, Whatever Happened at Fairfields? (London: Gower Press, 1969) 121.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. N. Turner and P. R. Lawrence, Industrial Jobs and the Worker (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965) chapters 4 and 5.Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    Shipbuilding Inquiry Committee, 1965–1966, Report, Cmnd 2937 (London: H.M.S.O. 1966) 104.Google Scholar
  8. 11.
    For a good discussion of this issue and a general analysis of disputes over skill issues in shipbuilding, see G. Roberts, Demarcation Rules in Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing, Occasional Paper, University of Cambridge Department of Applied Economics (London: Cambridge University Press, 1967).Google Scholar
  9. 12.
    National Economic Development Office, Plant Bargaining (London: N.E.D.O., 1969) 4.Google Scholar
  10. 18.
    J. E. T. Eldridge, Industrial Disputes, Essays in the Sociology of Industrial Relations (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1968) 96.Google Scholar
  11. 17.
    H. A. Turner, G. Clack and G. Roberts, Labour Relations in the Motor Industry (London: Allen & Unwin, 1967) 84. Between 1952 and 1963 employment in the motor industry increased by 50 per cent while productivity rose over 100 per cent. See Turner et al. pp. 80–1.Google Scholar
  12. 18.
    Measured as follows: skilled craftsmen as a percentage of total employment. Ministry of Labour Gazette (January 1968).Google Scholar
  13. 20.
    E. G. Whybrew, Overtime Working in Britain, Royal Commission Research Paper No. 9 (London: H.M.S.O., 1968) 78.Google Scholar
  14. 22.
    H. Sallis, Overtime in Electricity Supply, B.J.I.R. Occasional Paper (London: London School of Economics, 1970).Google Scholar
  15. 32.
    S. H. Slichter, J. J. Healy, E. R. Livernash, The Impact of Collective Bargaining on Management (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1960) 534.Google Scholar
  16. 35.
    For a discussion of the abandonment of incentives in coal, see R. G. Searle-Barnes, Pay and Productivity Bargaining (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1969).Google Scholar
  17. 37.
    R. B. McKersie, C. F. Miller, W. E. Quarterman, ‘Some Indicators of Incentive Plan Preference’, Monthly Labor Review, LXXXVII (March 1964) 271–6.Google Scholar
  18. 38.
    See R. B. McKersie, Changing Methods of Wage Payment Systems, Royal Commission Research Paper No. 11 (London: H.M.S.O., 1968)Google Scholar
  19. W. E. J. McCarthy and S. R. Parker, Shop Stewards and Workshop Relations, Royal Commission Research Paper No. 10 (London: H.M.S.O., 1968)Google Scholar
  20. H. A. Clegg, The System of Industrial Relations in Great Britain (Oxford: Blackwell, 1970) 265 ffGoogle Scholar
  21. N.B.P.I. Report No. 65, Payment by Results Systems, Cmnd 3627 (London: H.M.S.O., 1968).Google Scholar
  22. 39.
    P. Higgs, ‘The Convenor’, in Work, ed. R. Fraser (London, 1969) II 113.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© R. B. McKersie and L. C. Hunter 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. B. McKersie
    • 1
  • L. C. Hunter
    • 2
  1. 1.New York State School of Industrial and Labor RelationsCornell UniversityUSA
  2. 2.University of GlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations