Naturally the expressed objectives and the specific forms and
functions of these workers’ councils vary from country to country.
But generally it can be said that these are the post-war devices for
industrial relations and profit maximisation. To use the ‘successful
experience of the Swedish ones, they are meant ‘to provide a
framework within which constructive help can be given from all
sides in improving the economic position of the firm . . . (and not)
an instrument in bargaining about the distribution of the
product’.!®
" The philosophical basis of ‘workers’ participation’ has not been
very varied in the different countries of the West. Generally, there
are four propositions which are advanced to underpin this
policy. "’

First it is said that workers’ participation is essential to redress
the balance of divergent interests in the existing social order. This,
naturally, assumes the divergence and perhaps contradictoriness of
interests in society but takes the view that reformist methods can
reconcile these divergent and/ or contradictory interests. Second, it
is said at times that workers’' participation is an expression of
human rights. Here emphasis is placed on the moral dignity of
human labour and there is ethical objection to its being treated as
a mere instrument. Proponents of this assertion view the worker
not as a member of a particular class with interests to defend but
primarily as an individual with a moral nature. Hence the Con-
stitution of the International Labour Organisation bravely an-
nounces that ‘Labour is not a commodity’.'®

Third, some say that men are happy in work if they have some
insight into what is going on, otherwise they become victims of
‘alienation’. The purpose here, therefore, is to serve man’s
psychological needs — these must be met either for their own sake
or because failure to meet them will reduce the workers’
willingness to work — thus reducing profits. Finally, others would
say more directly that workers’ participation is essential for ef-
ficiency. Workers do have ideas, management cannot ensure ef-
ficiency without having adequate knowledge of conditions readily
perceived by the workers, and of course consultation should in-
crease willingness to contribute and produce more.

Subjectively, therefore, there are several explanations to the
practice of ‘workers’ participation’. Needless to say, they are very
appealing. But then one cannot judge the historical significance of

 

191