Does Organising or Partnership Offer a Path to Trade Union Revival.

By
Stoik Musah.
LBS,United Kingdom.





Labour movement revival studies is such a critical contemporary subject that, the understanding of its context will seek first, to broaden our frame of reference with the causes of union decline, and then- reflect on the circumstances given rise to these causal factors. The learning process derive from this reflective exercise will help to provide understanding on the rationale behind the strategies for union renewal debates. This essay therefore sought to obtain knowledge on the path to trade union revival within the broader framework of the organising and partnership model approach.

Studies on this subject reveals that from the 1980s through the 1990s changes in the UK domestic market exposure to globalisation, competition and multinational companies drive for continuous innovative work practice has frustrated the capacity for trade unions to either raise pay or block changes in staffing levels and working practices using collective bargaining (Heery 2002). This form of unionism based on bargaining is becoming unsustainable as organisation employ the use of HRM practice as team briefings, team working, quality circles and profit sharing schemes to promote greater levels of commitment among workers in the organisation. In consequence, rendering trade union activities less effective among employees (Kochan and Lansbury 1997).

Similarly, another factor that can contribute to the decline in unionisation (workers representation) activities is the extent and scope of legal support required for workplace union participation. The argument here is that, there is a relationship between the extent statutory provisions supplemented by legislation, supports unionisation purpose, for employees in the workplace. For example in the UK the neo-liberal policies of the conservative government was bent on weakening trade union influence in the work place and to create circumstances within which management could re assert authority among employees (Waddington 2003).In the same way the labour constitutional reform of the 1990 which was accompanied by a parallel initiative to diversify sources of funding to the union also contributed to the weakening of the scope of unionisation mobilization in the UK, as a result of the influence exerted through this mechanism, the union has failed to secure any major changes in the UK government industrial policy(Bach 2002; Waddington 2003). This was the main point of conflict between the unions and the party in Tony Blairs second term. The aftermath of this conflict of interest was the questioning of the source of financing the labour party, the eventual expulsion of the rail, marine and transport union for supporting non union labour candidates, the withdrawal of the fire brigade union and the success in union election of anti-Blair candidate to name just a few (Bach 2002).

Furthermore the works of Hoffman (1993) suggest that the difference in the rate of unionisation between men and women arising from segregation of employment, has accounted for a shift in trade union membership growth –considering the position women occupy as the mass of UK working class population. This often discourages women commitment to union activities. Similarly the decline in the rate of unionisation among younger workers tend to be much higher than among workers above 46years of age (IRS 1994).For this reason Hoffman (1997) argues that younger workers are more individualized as a result of the social changes in the 1980s and 1990s, with the consequences that they are less susceptible to the collectivism that underpins trade unionism. Furthermore, to strengthen his position Hoffman (1997) emphasis that the formalities in trade union practice, do sometimes inhibit younger people interest in its cause. These young people tend to be more attuned to the greater informality which they are used to, like those concerned with anti-racism, animal right and environment. They prefer to give much of their commitments to these issues. In addition, other contributory factor to this trend is the relative decline of trade union membership among migrant workers and workers from ethnic minorities (Waddington 2000). Above all the sectorial difference in the rate of unionisation in the UK organised private sector is also a major area of concern for union decline. In general terms, the decline in the entire UK manufacturing employment has resulted in a large scale trade union membership loss (Waddington 2000).

For the most part, these analysed causal factors have resulted in union organisation becoming less effective in the workplace and in the broader society at large. The dominating effect of this trend is that union membership has become less attractive to potential members. For this reason the extent of the decline in membership, alongside the relative absence of union representatives in the workplace has raised the profile of issues, debates and organised labour effort to identify comprehensive proactive strategies that can both broaden the perspective and reverse this decline in union activities. The most significant strategies in today’s revitalization literature are reforms of union structures, coalition-building, international solidarity, and organizing and labour management partnership (Hickey 2003; Terry 2000; Kelly 2003). Our focus therefore is not on the first three- of which there have been somuch in depth studies till date, but on the last two (Organising and Partnership), which is central to current debate on present and future directions for unions in general (Heery 2002).

The principles of the organising model entails change in union interests, such that commitment of resources to recruitment becomes the primary objective of the union over servicing of existing members (Heery 2002).This extension of unionism (Union representation) to non traditional employment groups involves stimulating activism among their own workers which allow for freedom to resolve various unions problems with or without external representation. (Heery 2002). This approach to unionism denotes a set of organising techniques that can be deployed by trained organisers in dedicated organised campaigns. Heery (2002) posit that this techniques includes(i) mapping of targeted workforce to identify potential members and activist(ii)the use of representative organising committee to draw workers into the campaign(iii)reliance on action to render the union a visible focus for work identification(iii)person to person recruitment(iv)the use of advert or the media to pressure resistant employers. Overall the concept behind the model strategy is centred on the rationale that- the strength of the union is best sustained by effective workplace organisation.

On the other hand the Partnership Model is related to an approach to employment relation that involves mutual gain relationship between management and unions. The model emphasis that there are employers who find it both ethically responsible and economically effective to share with trade union issues on strategic matters of organisational change(Miquel Martins and Stuart 2002). In the context of the trade union interest, partnership is perceived to represent an opportunity for trade union to advance their historical concern to ensure that the right of workers in terms of the working environment i.e health safety, training, and non work related matters are enhanced by the employer. This emerge from a general desire to extend the political and social position of workers at work by having them enter into a new relation with management, the one based on a legitimate and independent voice (not managerial driven involvement) that allows risks to be shared, and common approaches to challenges be developed (Miquel Martins and Stuart 2002).

From the foregoing, the political idealogical starting point for both model seek possible answers to how trade union can redefine themselves and change in the present and in the future, adopting to the new working environment. The organising model has as its core principle the questioning of managerial legitimacy and emphasises the self organisation of workers in opposition to management as its principal organising dynamic (Kelly1996;Gall 2001; Heery 2002).This involves an attempt to organize workers through a bottom up organizing, and relying on collective strength to secure recognition(Herery 2002).This attempt to organise in the workplace often extends to offering valuable service to workers to support training in their fields, career development and job search. This is done through systematic planning using specialist techniques. From a critical perspective, within the aforementioned framework on the techniques to organizing, some critics and advocates of the model argue that it’s important to look beyond the aforementioned techniques, but on strategic issues as impact of these organising processes on the unions internal structures and forms of leadership. These Critics posit that full time union officers accustomed to serving existing members may well feel threatened by such strategic shifts in their routine functions (Frege and Kelly 2003; Heery 2002).Similarly rank and file union members will have to – in some cases - be convinced of the need to redirect scarce resources away from servicing the existing membership towards organising non union members.

In this regard, Carter (2000) observation on restructuring existing practice of unions may be the key to understanding the willingness to revert this trend. Carter (2000) argues from his observation that a consciously determined change in any complex organisation is difficult to achieve- this is because these policies are suppose to confront new circumstances, mediated by complex internal process. When such internal constraints are combined with the external obstacles to organising, as noted above, it is not surprising that the scope and nature of the possible organising model vary considerably (Carter 2000). While others argued that such situations had potentially profound implications for the nature of the relationship between union members, activist and officials. For instance Moris and Fosh (2002) question the effect on the union structures and the rationale behind the service strategy of organising. They argue that the treatment of individual union members as fee paying customers of service, diminish the traditional role of the union activist in the capacity of the union being democratic. Others strengthen this stance that exchanging benefit for membership contributions would lead to the relative exclusion of the representative functions within the union(Stirling 2005).In contrast Kelly and Heery(1994) who highlighted extensively; the concept of service for recruitment- in their works, reiterated that this service function is strategically aimed at encouraging workplace representation and expansion in the short run. In the event a general consensus exists that such approaches did not prove particularly effective in terms of recruiting new members (Carter2000; Stirling 2005; Waddington and Whitson 1997) nor it seems, were they any better at retaining existing membership (Richards 2006).

Instead several authors have argued for the continued prominence of collective reason for joining unions. Stirling (2005) points a strong evidence that new members join for collective reason related to support when facing problems at work, while Waddington and Whitson (1997) concluded that the individualisation of aspects of the employment relationship(i.e service for recruitment) do not necessarily mean the abandonment of support for a collective agenda. In any case, and in a valuable critical position William (1997) cast doubt on the value and validity of the notion of individualisation amongst contemporary workers in general, arguing that the view of workers becoming less solidaristic does not discourage the historical aspiration of trade unionism in general. To Williams (1997) the strategy of treating individual members as fee paying customers is not so much evidence of less solidarity for union cause or individualism as much –compared to the extent to which employers seek to resist unions to expand organising recruitment techniques to new potential non traditional employment groups (Williams 1997). Overall the practice of services by workers is prevalent where union organisation is relatively strong. Besides information reorientation mechanism can be devised by union leaders to educated members about the existence and impact of these external pressures on union revival change process(Flecher and Hurd 2001).

Turning to the manifestation of the labour management cooperation or partnership model as a strategic response to union revitalization. Much of the debate on its basic proposition has thus being seen as central to UK new labour government approach to labour policy and modernisation of UK employment relation (Martinez Lucio and Stuart 2000). In this context, state institutions as the Department of Trade and Industries- Partnership Fund, has provided subtle support and knowledge resources to locate new management-union relations within the paradigm of a broader set of interests, such as those of the individual, those of the employer and customer as well as those of the State. By applying this mechanism of partnership the state not only act as a third party and major guarantor of partnership, but as a facilitator of network and learning processes relevant to it (Rainbird 2004). Within the UK industrial relations policies and the ongoing difficulties management face in responding to the effect of environmental changes, alongside the likely impact of a potentially more labour friendly political environment. Authors as Arkers and Payne (1998) argued that management could not proceed to progress change without bringing unions on board in terms of decision making. Partnership thus afforded the union movement a clear opportunity for increase social and economic influence. In effect unions can deepen their institutional role at various levels at the workplace-such as strategic areas as training and quality management, alongside issues on the wider society at large (Arkers and Payne 1998).

However like many process of convergence that emerges from divergent positions and interests the partnership model is open to coexistence of opposing ideologies and political reinterpretations and uses (Martinez Lucio and Stuart 2004). Moreover much of the model debates has tended to focus on the extent to which partnership diminishes union representative capacity or the extent to which it enhances it. Within this broad paradigm, the critical considerations for most of the arguments includes the model commitment to business success and the sharing of this success, employment security, employment voice, opportunities for training and development, and flexibility (Guest and Pecci 1998 cited in Martinez lucios and Stuart 2002).These considerations, it is argued that successful partnership requires a set of reciprocal commitments and obligations between the organisation and the people working in it. These principles and commitments thus influences the institutional configuration(Thomas and Wallis 1998).Yet others question the content of the model principle ability to reshape management union relationships, raising criticism on the unmanaged political risk unions face adopting the model .For example Claydon(1998) argued the justification of the result of labour management partnership relationship when comparing and contrasting partnership and non partnership firm- the former do not appear to exhibit significant difference in terms of job security and profitability. In addition Taylor and Ramsey (1998) raise doubt that partnership based arrangements may draw trade unions into management strategy of enhancing work intensification. For example in the process of engaging in partnership, trade union may end up legitimating workplace change programmes that trade off employment security with greater work intensification. Put differently and to re-emphasise this position – a critical analysis on effective practice of partnership agreement on the part of trade union with management may lead unions to downgrade their activist resistant strategies, which can lead to a long term weakening of union structures (Geary and Roche 2003). Furthermore the content of the partnership model policies reveals more of a strategic human resource management driven work place strategy, and not simply a union oriented one (Stuart and Martinez Lucio 2000). Similarly from the management perspective Oxenbridge and Brown (2004) noted that managers expressed frustration with the lengthy negotiation and balloting process among union members the model practice entail. A related challenge was the tension that arise when key union representative loose the trust of their members as a result of their relationship with management. For example key union representative can become suspicious by union members on their stance from exposure to strategic information with management (Oxenbridge and Brown 2004).

Overall within these divergent positions of political interest from the two model there are areas unions position on workplace representation are compatible to management interest on various themes, and mutual problem solving- precisely where organising model idealogical roots share common interest with labour management partnership. For example labour management partnership agreement developing often in the aftermath of a strike in which the unions agree to support the company in return for the companys acceptance of the union (Hurd, Milkwan. etal 2003). Similarly this mutual agreement can also occur in the cause of union drive to extend workplace representation in non traditional sector were membership rate are low, unions ability to reach out to these employees in this sector maybe limited when they are unable to establish bargaining rights with employers in that sector (Bryson and Gomez 2005). To reverse this situation the available option open to unions will be negotiating terms of partnership with employers if they are to make substantial membership gains in the long run from that sector.

For this reason a thorough examination of the academic literature to the study of union revitalization cannot help but reveal the political reinterpretations of many views and experiments going on with both approaches- which suggest that a one path solution is far from being clear. The majority of the studies in this essay have focused on how trade union can reinvent themselves within the critical considerations embedded in the two model approaches. The essay discussed the factors resulting in union decline, tracing the circumstances that gave rise to these factors. Its framework embraces an indepth explanation and critical analysis of the two models. It introduced critics and advocates that seek to diminish or enhance the strong points of each model .Overall it highlights conditions and areas of compatibility of both model. Consequently there is no one size fit all paths to union revitalization. Whether to choose the path of partnership, that of organising or a third way will vary depending on the nature of the workforce being represented and the industry characteristics. Whatever the circumstances union revitalization may need to be embedded in an ideology that define union purpose in broad and ambitious terms, so that unions can position themselves as more than a narrow interest group. To some extent the organising model may satisfy this requirement, however history has it that the accomplishment of deeply held political ideologies tend to be the outcome of investing in complex sets of network resources, organisation and collaborative strategies, which partnership model entails. Whatever the circumstance unions should comprehend that any new path must be that which shows results.










REFERENCES

Arkers.P and Payne.J(1998) British Trade Unions and Social Partnership: Rhetoric,Reality and Strategy. International Journal of Human Resource Management,9(3),pp529-549.

Bryson.A and Gomez.R (2005) Why Have Workers Stopped Joining Unions? The Rise in Never Membership in Britain. British Journal of Industrial Relation, Vol43,pp67-97.

Bach.S.(2002) Public Sector Employment Relations Reform Under Labour: Muddling through or Modernization?, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol40(2)pp319-339.

Claydon.T (1998) Problematising Partnership: The Prospects for a Cooperative Bargaining Agenda, In: Sparrow.P and Marchington.M (eds) Human Resource Management: The New Agenda, Financial Times Pitman Publishers,London.

Carter.B (2000) Adoption of the Organising Model in British Trade Unions: Some Evidence From Manufacturing Science and Finance(MSF). Work,Employment and Society,Vol14 (1),pp117-136.

Frege Carola.M and Kelly.J (2003) Union Revitalization Strategies in Comparative Perspective. European Journal of Industrial Relations,Vol9(1),pp7-24.

Fletcher .H and Hurd.R (2001) Overcoming Obstacles to Transformation: Challenges on the Way of a New Unionism. In: Waddington.J,Hurd.R etal (eds) How Does Restructuring Contribute to Union Revitalization.ILR Press,NewYork.pp 118-135.

Geary. J and Roche.W (2003) Workplace Partnership and the Theory of the Displaced Activist. Industrial Relations Journal,Vol34(1),pp32-51.

Heery.E, Kelly.J etal (2003) Union Revitalization in Britain. European Journal of Industrial Relations,Vol9(1),pp79-97.

Hurd.R, Milkman.R, etal (2003) Reviving the American Labour Movement: Institutions and Mobilization. European Journal of Industrial Relation.Vol9(1),pp99-117.

Heery.E (2002) Partnership Versus Organising: Alternative Future for British Trade Unionism. Industrial Relations Journal,Vol33(1),pp20-35.

Hamann.K and Kelly.J(2004) Unions as Political Actors. In: FregeCarola.M and Kelly.J (eds) Varieties of Unionism: Strategies for Union Revitalization in a Globalizing Economy. Oxford University Press,Oxford.

Hoffman.J (1997) Globalization: Risk and Opportunities for Labour Policy in Europe .European Trade Union Institute, Brussel.

Hickey .R (2003) Collective Bargaining Ruptures : Conflict and Control in an Oil Refinery. Cornell University Masters Thesis,NewYork.

Heery.E (2002) Partnership Versus Organising : Alternative Futures for British Trade Unionism. Industrial Relation Journal,Vol33(1),pp20-35.

IRSa (1994) European Works Councils- the Action Begins, European Industrial Relations Review,250,November.

Kelly.J and Heery.E (1994) Working For the Union: British Trade Union Officers, Cambridge University Press.Cambridge.

Kochan .T and Lansbury.R (1997) Lean Production and Changing Employment Relations in the International Auto Industry. Economic Industrial Democracy,Vol18,567-579.

Morris.H and Fosh.P (2000) Measuring Trade Union Democracy : The Case of the UK Civil and Public Services Association. British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol 38,(1) ,pp95-114.

Martinez Lucio.M and Stuart .M (2002) Testing Times: Remaking Employment Relations Through Partnership in Britain. Employment Relation .Routledge,London.

Oxenbridge.S and Brown.W (2004) Achieving a New Equilibrium? The Stability of Cooperative Employer – Union Relationships. Industrial Relations Journal, Vol35 (5),pp389-402.

Richards.A (2006) Does Union Democracy Affect Organising Strategies? Some Evidence From Britain. In: Paper Presentation at Conference on Union Democracy. Harry Bridges Centre for Labour Studies, University of Washington , 25 february 2006.

Rainbird.H (2004) Assessing Partnership Approaches to Lifelong Learning : A New and Modern Role For Trade Unions ? In: Stuart.M and Martinez Lucio .M (eds) Partnership and Modernisation in Employment Relations .Routledge.London.

Stirling.J(2005) There is a New World Somewhere: The Rediscovering of Trade Unionism. Capital and Class, Vol (87),pp43-63.

Terry.M (2000) UNISON and the Quality of Public Service Provision: Any Lessons From the Rest of Europe? In: Heery.E, Kelly.J, etal (eds) Union Revitalization in Britain . European Journal of Industrial Relations,Vol9(1),pp79-97.

Taylor.P and Ramsay.H (1998) Union Partnership and HRM: Sleeping With The Enemy? An International Journal of Employment Studies,Vol6(2).pp115-43.

Williams .S (1997) The Nature of Some Recent Trade Union Modernization Policies in the UK. British Journal of Industrial , Vol35,(4),495-514.

Waddington.J and Whitson.C (1997) Why do People Join Union in a Period of Membership Decline? British Journal of Industrial Relation, Vol35,(4),pp515-546.

Waddington.J. 92003) Heightening Tension in Relations Between Trade Unions and the Labour Government in 2002, British Journal of Industrial Relation,Vol41,(2),335-58.
Waddington.J.and Hoffman .R (2000) Trade Unions in Europe : Facing Challenges and Searching For Solutions. ETUI,Brussels.



Stoik Musah Writes from LBS,EastMidland, United Kingdom.Email Stoik_joy@yahoo.com