‘Them and Us’ … to Just ‘Us’

Abstract

Many historical factors account for the differences in terms and conditions of employment of manual and non-manual workers. In the mid-nineteenth century, education for the children of the poor was almost non-existent and the manual worker was invariably illiterate, for his life style simply did not require him to read or write. On the other hand, since mediaeval times, the church and, subsequently, the business community did need to employ an educated minority. Their tasks were to copy manuscripts, undertake correspondence, keep accounts etc. and thus almost by definition there grew a close relationship, often an identity, between the master and his clerk. The clerk knew as much, if not more, about the business than the master.

Throughout this book the terms ‘single status’ and ‘common terms and conditions of employment’ are interchanged. While academic distinctions may be made between the various phrases no distinction is made in these pages. However, in my view the term ‘single status’ is a misnomer. It is simply not possible for everyone to have the same status in an organisation — the plant manager has a different status to the supervisor or to the line worker simply because of the positions held. Nothing will change that, for status is a state of mind — your perception of your position in relation to another. What we can do however is to eliminate many of the differences in the way we treat people and end up with the same or similar employment packages. Thus the term ‘common terms and conditions of employment’ is more accurate. It is, however, cumbersome and will not always be used.