IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Have British Workers Lost their Voice, or Have they Gained a New One?


  • Alex Bryson



Over the last two decades, there has been a major switch in British workplaces away from union voice and representative worker voice more generally, towards direct, non-union forms of voice. This paper assesses the implications of this switch for the effectiveness of worker voice, as measured by employee perceptions of managerial responsiveness. In general, perceptions of management are no better among employees with voice than they are among employees with no voice. However, intensive use of direct communication methods improves perceptions of management. Direct voice is particularly effective in a union setting.

Suggested Citation

  • Alex Bryson, 2000. "Have British Workers Lost their Voice, or Have they Gained a New One?," PSI Research Discussion Series 2, Policy Studies Institute, UK.
  • Handle: RePEc:psi:resdis:2

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Willman, Paul & Bryson, Alex & Gomez, Rafael, 2003. "Why do voice regimes differ?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 20017, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Bryson, Alex, 2001. "Union effects on managerial and employee perceptions of employee relations in Britain," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 4957, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Alex Bryson, 2001. "Union Effects on Workplace Governance 1983 -1998," PSI Research Discussion Series 8, Policy Studies Institute, UK.
    4. Metcalf, David, 2001. "British unions: dissolution or resurgence revisited," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 20124, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Rebecca Riley & Hilary Metcalf & John Forth, 2013. "The business case for equal opportunities," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 216-239, May.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:psi:resdis:2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Rob Lyons). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.