ABSTRACT

This chapter considers the factors associated with members’ commitment to, and participation in, their unions, with the latter conceptualized broadly to encompass formal and informal activities. Key findings from the research literature are highlighted and the policy implications for unions discussed. A notable finding is that instrumentality does not fully explain why members commit to and participate in unions, with pro-union attitudes and ideological motivations also significant. Research findings suggest that unions need to go beyond narrow instrumentalism and should instead pursue a broader social justice agenda, perhaps, encompassing notions such as “community unionism”. Findings also suggest that this should be associated with a local union leadership style that emphasizes member participation and aims to build members’ sense of shared mission and self-worth as a union member. Finally, the chapter reviews future research needs, focusing on how researchers can help inform more effective union strategy.

Keywords: Union commitment; union participation; union effectiveness; challenges for unions

INTRODUCTION

Unions in the UK, the US and elsewhere have been in crisis in terms of absolute and relative membership levels and in economic and political influence. “Union renewal” has been an ongoing project for some time, linked to an attempt to focus more strongly on union organizing, rather than simply servicing existing members (e.g. Heery et al. 2000). A key concern is with the extent to which unions can wield the necessary resources to maintain their existing organization as well as to organize new sectors, especially given the limited numbers of employed union officials and their dependence upon lay activists to shoulder much of the burden of member servicing and recruitment (Gall & Fiorito 2012b). Although some have suggested that member activism is not necessarily the key to union renewal in every situation, with central leadership strategy and the role of full-time officer involvement more significant in some campaigns, member activism emerges as a key factor in many cases (Hickey, Kuruvilla & Lakhani 2010). Furthermore, in recent years, lay activism itself has been in decline as members are more reluctant to take on active roles (Gall & Fiorito 2012b).

ABSTRACT

Union identity is a highly contested and multiplex terrain. Union leaders aim at shaping a union's official, projected identity, but union identity is also shaped by actual union actions in the everyday efforts of numerous actors besides union officials. Taking stock of extant literature, we tease out relevant analytical dimensions along which union identity can be studied and compared. We highlight how certain macro-institutional, meso-organizational, and micro-quotidian forces affect the characteristics of these dimensions. We then analyse union identity and its appeal to different populations. Finally, we propose a comprehensive and original analytical scheme for union identity that incorporates the analysed elements. We indicate some challenges for the debate on union identity and appeal and trace strategies to overcome them.

Keywords: Union identity; union appeal; analytical framework; challenges for unions

INTRODUCTION

“Who are we?” and “What do we stand for?” These fundamental questions define the identity of a union (Albert & Whetten 1985). Answers reflect a union's core values and goals; that is, its “essence” (Hodder & Edwards 2015) or “very nature” (Hyman 2001: 1), and distinguish a union from other organizations and other unions (see, e.g. Ravasi & Schultz 2006). Self-referential meanings that constitute union identity are used to project union organizational patterns of actions (see Gioia et al. 2013) and to define union appeal among members to motivate their commitment, participation and activism to achieve union goals (Gall & Fiorito 2012). Moreover, union identity can appeal to a wider range of potential supporters, such as non-member workers and even non-workers, thus giving unions access to a wider constituency whose resources can contribute to a greater impact (e.g. Marino 2012; Scott & Lane 2000).

A better understanding of union identity and appeal may yield deeper insights into specific unions, as well as the union movement as a whole today (Smale 2020). Unions have traditionally been understood as wielding a “sword of justice” in the promotion of labour rights (Flanders 1975). However, there is more heterogeneity in union identity than this common understanding suggests.

ABSTRACT

This chapter will explore the performance of social democratic parties in Sweden, the UK and Australia during the period of prosperity that followed the Second World War, highlighting their general approach to social and economic policy and their specific relationship to unions. The parties were closely linked to their national union movements and placed an emphasis upon protecting and improving workers’ living standards. While the Swedish labour movement made major gains with SAP, the relationship between unions and their respective labour parties in Australia and the UK were tense by the end of the 1970s as they tried to deal with the economic and social fallout from the end of the postwar economic boom. There was a growing recognition, particularly in the UK and Sweden, of need for worker voice at the enterprise level.

Keywords: social democratic parties; union ascendancy; union influence

INTRODUCTION

This chapter will explore the performance of social democratic parties during the period of prosperity that followed the Second World War. It commences with a review of the concept of social democracy and provides an overview of the electoral fortunes and policy initiatives of social democratic parties in Sweden, the UK and Australia, with a particular focus on their relationship with unions. The Swedish Social Democratic Party (SAP) dominated politics in Sweden during the postwar period, while the UK's Labour Party (UKLP) held power from 1945– 51, 1964– 70 and 1974– 79. Australia had only relatively short periods of national Australian Labor Party (ALP) governments, 1945– 49 and 1972– 75, with state ALP governments being at the forefront of industrial and social reforms.

While the Swedish labour movement made major gains with the SAP, the relationship between unions and their respective labour parties in Australia and the UK were frayed by the end of the 1970s as they tried to deal with the economic and social fallout from the end of the postwar economic boom. Unions in the UK then faced the neoliberalism of Thatcherism, while the ALP adopted more neoliberal economic policies to restore their credentials as economic managers in the wake of the apparent economic mismanagement of the Whitlam government.

ABSTRACT

The idea that unions are bureaucratic organizations is an old one. However, there is no consensus on what bureaucracy is, why unions are so often bureaucratic, what the interests of full-time officials are and whether the union officialdom is inevitably a conservative influence within unions. This chapter provides an overview of efforts to answer these questions and attempts to advance thinking about the union officialdom. It considers the ideas of both academic writers and political thinkers committed to working-class movements. It begins by considering why workers create, maintain and join formal organizations and what generates bureaucracy in them. It then examines efforts to explain what bureaucracy is and why workers’ organizations are so often bureaucratic, before turning to the much-debated question of whether the interests of full-time union officials are different from those of the workers they represent and whether the officialdom is always a conservative force within unions.

Keywords: Union organization; union democracy; union bureaucracy; challenges for unions

INTRODUCTION

Union activists and academic analysts of unions have long thought about unions as bureaucratic organizations. However, there is no consensus on what exactly bureaucracy is, why unions are so often bureaucratic, what the interests of full-time union officials – as the personnel of the bureaucracy – are and whether the union officialdom is inevitably a conservative influence within unions. This chapter provides an overview of efforts to answer these questions and seeks to advance thinking about the union officialdom. It considers answers proposed by both a range of academic writers and by political thinkers committed to working-class movements. It begins by considering why workers create, maintain and join formal organizations and where bureaucracy arises from in these circumstances. It then examines efforts to explain what bureaucracy is and why workers’ organizations are so often bureaucratic before turning to the much-debated question of whether the interests of full-time union officials are different from those of the workers they represent and whether the officialdom is always a conservative force within unions.

FORMALITY AND ORGANIZATION

Bureaucracy is a feature of formal organizations (Beetham 1987). While workers have long created and sustained unions and other formal organizations of one kind or another, it is worth pausing to examine why this is the case before considering the phenomenon of bureaucracy itself. Clarity about why workers create, maintain and join formal organizations is helpful for the study of bureaucracy.

ABSTRACT

The rise of the platform economy has been hailed as a new phase of capitalist development, based upon the principles of freedom, flexibility, collaboration, community, egalitarianism and sharing. However, the realities of work in this hyper-flexible environment generate important concerns about the quality of work and its impact upon platform workers, posing important questions regarding their regulation and the role unions can have in this environment. In employment terms, platform work remains largely an uncharted and unregulated territory, which is further accentuated by the resistance of platforms to be regarded as something other than a neutral space that facilitates transactions between two independent economic agents. This chapter examines the challenges unions face to respond to the changing organizational terrain of capitalism.

Keywords: Platform capitalism; platform workers; cyber-work; labour organizing

INTRODUCTION “The future is already here – it's just not very evenly distributed.”

William Gibson, National Public Radio interview, 1999

Platform-mediated work may be a recent phenomenon, but it certainly is not a novel one. Using intermediaries to find a job is a practice as old as capitalism. Yet platforms are different from traditional, high-street employment agencies, in that their role as an intermediary party is much more liquid (Bauman 2000) than the latter; contrary to an employment agency, where roles, identities and expectations are clearly defined where the agency receives a commission to match employers and employees in the labour market, within a platform environment these roles and identities become somewhat blurred. This is not only due to the ambivalent way “work” is conceptualized by the participants in the platform, where in most cases platform workers are defined as “self-employed”, but primarily because of the social dynamics that characterize the platform environment and that resemble those of a market rather than of an employment agency.

In that sense, the seller and the purchaser of labour power appear to enter the platform as independent and free agents, who treat the platform as a “neutral” digital ground to conclude their transactions (see also Chapter 7). Freedom and independence, in this case, resemble the Hayekian vision of the free market and, in most cases, this is indeed so: platform-mediated work is subjected to minimum – if any – regulation by the state, which is usually confined to the tax department.

ABSTRACT

Labour unions are institutions that develop to defend or advance the collective interests of groups of workers. When examining labour unions and movements over a longer historical scope, the terrain upon which they operate has been subjected to constant and far-reaching change. This chapter seeks to understand the current terrain in the UK by placing labour unions within their historical context. Drawing upon a critical account of the existing literature, it addresses the debates on union decline and renewal, different organizing models, and factors that shape the environment in which labour unions operate. This involves situating labour unions within a more expansive understanding of the terrain – both being changed by external factors and the ways in which labour unions and their allies have sought to change these. It also differentiates between the key present terrains for unions in the UK, summarizing the key differences and factors involved.

Keywords: External and environmental terrains; challenges for unions

INTRODUCTION

Labour unions are institutions that have been developed to defend or advance the collective interests of groups of workers. The origins of labour unions involve collective organizing and negotiation in opposition to employers, often within a hostile environment. At their roots then is a “unionateness” that Blackburn (1967: 19) outlines, which involves:

However, as labour unions develop and grow, they can become subjected to different pressures and interests, including the development of a layer of bureaucracy (see Chapter 15), institutionalization within bargaining procedures, amalgamation into larger formations, political engagement, regulation, and so on.

The current conjuncture for labour unions in the UK is one of longer-term secular decline, including membership limited within certain sectors of the economy and society (particularly the public sector), an ageing membership profile, a reliance upon a “service” unionism model, close links with a declining political party and operating in an increasingly hostile context – both in terms of employment relations and the relationship with the state and state regulation.