Introduction

This special issue on the contribution of Richard Hyman to the study of the employment relationship within capitalist society represents both a celebration and critical reassessment of his work, which over the last forty years has focused upon a series of key areas and concerns for readers of Capital & Class. Indeed, it is arguable that such work has made the biggest single contribution in the post-war period to a Marxist and radical analysis of industrial relations in general, and to trade unionism specifically, as well as to the theoretical and analytical underpinnings of a radical perspective on industrial relations and trade unionism per se. Thus, in a recent issue of the British Journal of Industrial Relations that was partially themed on Richard’s contribution, Frege, Kelly and McGovern (2011: 210) acknowledged, ‘his early writings, which injected a stream of radical analysis into the subject of industrial relations, led to him being widely recognized as the unofficial founder of the Marxist perspective on industrial relations [with r]eviews of different theoretical approaches … invariably tak[ing] Hyman’s work as the starting point when describing the Marxist perspective’. They (2011: 210) further commented, ‘While there were earlier Marxist scholars who wrote on trade unions and industrial relations [such as Vic Allen and Robin Blackburn] none have been as prolific or as persistent in developing a Marxist position on these issues’. But more than that, Richard became one of the most prominent figures in British and comparative European employment relations research and writing, indicating that the strength of his work and its intellectual underpinnings gained a credibility and authority with those who were not of any Marxist or radical predisposition, or were even unsympathetic. One indication of this has been his contribution of over a hundred chapters to edited volumes and that fact that a considerable proportion of his work has been translated into other languages.

Richard retired from academia while at the London School of Economics in 2009, after having spent all but nine years of his career, which began in 1967, at the University of Warwick. This juncture provides an apposite point at which to carry out this celebration and critical reassessment, and it is also appropriate that the pages of Capital & Class should be its location, given that some of his important pieces of work were published in the journal in 1979, 1981 and 1987. The specific genesis of this special issue is that in the summer of 2009, a two-day symposium, organised by the British Journal of Industrial Relations (BJIR), was held in honour of Richard’s contribution to the field of industrial relations. Many different papers were submitted for consideration, and at the symposium a selection of twenty-five papers was presented. Yet of these, just four were subsequently published in the BJIR, ¹ only one of which concerned what radical and Marxist writers would regard as an area of study in which Richard made a key contribution, and most of the authors could not be said to have been drawn from those sympathetic to or sharing Richard’s intellectual and political perspectives.

By contrast, in this special issue of Capital & Class, four (revised versions) of other papers that were presented at the BJIR symposium, along with three additional ones that have been specifically solicited for the occasion, are presented. We believe that the seven articles that follow have much more directly engaged in a celebratory but also critical reappraisal of Richard’s work and ideas. We are particularly pleased that Richard himself accepted our invitation to comment on and add a postscript to this collection, because the advance of ideas and analysis in terms of their intellectual purchase and application can only stand to benefit from such debate and discussion. Since any special issue is necessarily selective in terms of the resources and space on which it is able to draw, we do not claim that the following articles provide a comprehensive analysis and coverage of all the areas in which Richard made a significant contribution to Marxist and radical thought. However, we believe that many of the key areas have been covered. Thus strikes and conflict at work, the politics and political economy of industrial relations, union governance and internal union relations, the Europeanisation of industrial relations, union revitalisation, international labour unionism, and the theorisation of industrial relations are covered. We believe the focus upon these areas to be of much importance because in them, Richard not only challenged the conservative consensus and its underlying but unspoken social values, but also, in demonstrating the centrality of antagonistic class relations between labour and capital, he also put forward an alternative and radical mode and outcome of analysis. Most importantly, he demonstrated the value of challenging the way social values and ideologies are used in industrial relations to legitimise social inequality, while at the same time theorising the political economy of work and employment and both their immediate and wider social relations.

Some criticism has been made of the centrality of the analysis of class and class conflict in Richard’s earlier work. For example, even Frege, Kelly and McGovern (2011: 216) argued, in their aforementioned introductory essay, ‘conflict is an important feature of the employment relationship, but it is not always the result of class struggle’, and doubted that ‘conflict is endemic [and, thus, inevitable] within capitalism’. Without making a mechanical and reductionist argument, we would venture that capitalism, whatever its particular epoch or variety, is not just the critical foundation upon which conflict occurs, but the critical arena in which it occurs and where struggles between classes are such important motors of history that they necessarily shape, influence and colour other seemingly non-related conflicts. Thus struggles between workers or other exploited and oppressed groups over the distribution of resources and rewards can justifiably be viewed as having their genesis in the ideology, structures and processes of capitalism. Necessarily, this means defending the ‘earlier’ Hyman, not because of some article of faith but because his writings then spoke about generic concerns in a timeless way, as well as being very pertinent about the period in which he developed them.

Of course, it is well acknowledged that for the ‘later’ Hyman, Marxism has not been quite so central to his thinking and writing. According to Frege, Kelly and McGovern (2011:220), ‘Although a Marxist analysis remains indispensable for Hyman for a true understanding of industrial relations … he now emphasizes that a classic[al] Marxist approach is not sufficient [to] understanding advanced capitalist societies’. No doubt this could be seen, in part at least, as reflecting a necessary response to some of the challenges facing ‘classical’ Marxism, and indeed Marxism per se, in developing both rigorous analytical tools and analysis as well as the willingness and ability to learn constructively and usefully from sources beyond the Marxist (however broadly defined) fraternity. There is also the sense that Richard, perhaps not unnaturally, has made some accommodation to the more hostile neoliberal and globalised environment in which the inherent limitations and weaknesses of labour movements and trade unions have become even more apparent. Yet self-reflection and self-critique are essential traits of a living Marxist and radical tradition that is capable of intellectual development and relevance, whilst also simultaneously maintaining its central tenets and purpose. Richard has fared better in this regard than many others of his generation, and any shortcomings that may have developed in no way detract from the significance of his overall contribution.