Community Unionism

Solidarity Whenever? A framework for understanding when unions are likely to join long-term union-community coalitions

Presented at the ACREW Conference in Prato, July 2007

Abstract
Union renewal and union collaboration with the community is widely considered necessary. Consequently the different opportunities and choices that create the structure and agency for unions to renew is an important but under-theorised area of scholarship. This paper develops a framework using the term community and the dialectic of opportunity and choice to explore likely factors for long-term union coalitions with community organisations, then explores this framework by a comparison of union engagement in long-term coalitions in Australia and Canada. The paper finds that the dialectic of opportunities and choices is critical, and in particular emphasises the role of pre-existing union identities and decentralised union structures, the existence of crisis and opportunity, the importance of common interest and the different roles that union leaders or union factions, organisers and delegates can play in pushing for change. The paper finds that different passages for community unionism are possible, and they can be both internal to the union and come from coalitions. It also finds that the different passages for community unionism directly affect the kinds and depth of union engagement that results.

Download Solidarity Whenever by clicking here

There is a hope that union renewal is possible. Terms such as social movement unionism, community unionism and organising unionism try to envisage what a renewed union movement would look like. Yet indicators of when a shift to renewal is likely are uncertain, and are often a secondary focus of renewal scholarship. Some suggest that union-community coalitions (labour-community coalitions) are one example of renewal (Frege, Heery et al. 2004; Reynolds 2004; Turner forthcoming). Long-term coalitions between unions and community organisations, or community unionism, are said to be an important source of power and renewal for unions who are suffering from a crisis of density, lack of political influence or needing to build a broader social agenda (Tattersall 2005).

This paper focuses on the question of coalitions and union collaboration with the community and considers first the meaning of the term community, and then the opportunities and choices that make collaboration more likely to occur in an individual union. The paper seeks to establish then test some possible indicators for likely union collaboration with community that are explored in two comparative case studies of unions shifting to engage with long term coalitions – the NSW Teachers Federation’s collaboration with the Public Education Alliance in Sydney Australia and the Canadian Union of Public Employees collaboration with the Ontario Health Coalition in Canada.


1. What is Community?
Terms such as union-community coalition and community unionism have a contested and uncertain meaning, in part due to the ambiguity of the term ‘community.’ The amorphous definition of the term community makes it difficult to assess what collaboration with the community looks like. However, while the term community is loosely deployed across union renewal literature, there are some consistent themes (Tattersall forthcoming). Most commonly, the term community is used as a surrogate for the phrase community organisation, for example in the term union-community coalition (Brecher and Costello 1990a; Tufts 1998). Secondly community is used to describe a group of people who have common interests or identities, such as a community of women or environmentalists (Cranford and Ladd 2003; Fine 2005). Thirdly, community is used to mean place, as in a defined geographic area such as a local neighbourhood community (Ellem 2003). These three discrete definitions can be seen as complementary and supplementary, defining the attributes of community and providing a concrete anchor for exploring terms such as union-community coalitions and community unionism (Tattersall forthcoming).

Figure 1: The threefold dimensions of community



Thus, union collaboration with the community, or what I term community unionism, can include one of three different practices (Tattersall forthcoming). It can include working with community organisations. It can include acting with a broad common ‘community’ or class interest or acting with people with a specific identity. Or, community unionism can include acting with a place-specific strategy where unions seek to work across a specific geographic area, using local support to enhance union influence and power. This paper explores one of these practices in detail – union collaboration with community organisations, asking under what circumstances is long term collaboration likely to develop.


2. When are unions likely to collaborate with ‘the community’?
Union strategies rarely develop evenly across national or international union movements; rather many internal union and environmental factors affect when the strategies unfold. Community unionism, and coalition practice in particular, has an uneven development, revealing variation within nations and between them. Yet this variation has received only limited attention, making it difficult to explain why for instance, community unionism appears more prevalent in the United States compared to the United Kingdom, or in the service industry rather than traditional blue-collar industries.

This paper presents and explores a framework for examining when long term community unionism is likely to develop in an individual union, by adapting two analytical devises. Firstly, I borrow from a recent approach of Turner that categorises the pressures that generate union change as arising from both the opportunities that surround unions and the choices internal to unions (Turner forthcoming). Secondly, I structure this approach using the three-fold definition of community. Thus I argue that there are three different community-based factors that create environmental opportunities and influence internal union choices that make union collaboration with the community more likely. When unions possess these ‘community’ attributes, I argue that community unionism is more likely to develop. Furthermore, I argue that the concept of opportunity highlights structural features that contribute towards a breadth of community unionism practice, in either places or industries, while the concept of choices highlights how internal union elements, agents or structures affect the depth of community unionism practice and engagement within a union.

2. a Opportunities
A union’s environmental and organisational context shapes the kind of strategies that it is likely to develop. The term opportunity structure, adapted from social movement theory, stresses the importance of structural and environmental factors in social movement emergence (McAdam, Tarrow et al. 2001; Turner forthcoming). In the coalitions literature, there are three important ‘opportunities’ that are identified and I structure these using the three definitions of community. Firstly there are opportunities in the political, economic and social environment, secondly a union’s relational opportunities, and thirdly opportunities arising from a union’s pre-existing identity.

Commonly, the external environmental context and shifting alignments of the political and economic environment is said to spur opportunities for changes in union strategy, including community unionism (Hyman 2001)[62]. A decline in legal regulatory support for unions is cited, where traditional arbitration or court-like procedures for dispute settlement become less supportive of unions, such as in the United States where comprehensive campaigning has sought to replace traditional National Labour Relations Board routes for unionisation (Savage 1998). The demise of traditional political routes for power create similar crises and opportunities for shifts towards collaboration, particularly with the rise of ‘new labour’ policies that distance social democratic parties from unions, reducing a traditional route for political influence in countries such as Australia, the United States (Wills 2002; Fine 2003; Wills 2003). It is argued that the decline of these traditional sources of union state ‘relational’ power may encourage unions to experiment and engage in collaboration as an alternative source of power.

The economic context, including collapsing union density or industrial location may particularly influence the likelihood of coalition practice. Crises such as contracting out, attacks on the public sector, privatisation or manufacturing plant closures, or opportunities for rebuilding a strong regional economy, have been met by coalitions because of the joint effect of economic policies on workers and surrounding communities (Craypo and Nissen 1993; Johnston 1994; Nissen 1995; Reynolds 2002; Greer, Byrd et al. forthcoming; Tattersall forthcoming). The direct crisis of declining union density may also influence coalition practices, seen particularly in the United States (Banks 1992; Bronfenbrenner, Freidman et al. 1998). Labour geographers have argued that industries with a spatial fix, such as some primary industries such as mining or certain human service work such as cleaning, may provide distinct opportunities for collaboration with community because this work is embedded in fixed local communities (Walsh 2000; Ellem 2003; Ellem 2005). Similarly, where work itself is decentralised in communities rather than workplaces, such as with house-bound homecare work or some front line public sector work which is located in local communities, there also may be opportunities for collaboration with other place-based organisations (Savage 1998).

Consequently, the external economic and political crisis posed by neoliberalism may in part explain why there is increasing discussion of coalitions in the last 15 years. While coalitions are certainly not new, speculation of their centrality to strategies for rebuilding union power has become more robust, more recently (Frege, Heery et al. 2004). The historical unevenness of coalition practice, and particularly current experimentation in places like the United States and Australia, may be in part shaped by this harsh economic and political context.

A union’s organisational relationships, both within the union movement and within civil society may also create opportunities for collaboration with the community. Peak councils or other unions may create an environment that supports collaboration. Ellem and Shields argue that peak councils can play a role as an agent of mobilisation, creating a culture of alliances which may in turn support individual unions engaging in alliances (Ellem and Shields 2004). Similarly, central labour councils have been held out as an agent for change in the US system, with programs such as Union Cities that employ community collaboration as a key strategy (Ness and Eimer 2001; Byrd and Rhee 2004; Luce and Nelson 2004; Reynolds 2004). Relationships with other unions may also support collaboration, through national union policies or a unions sharing strategies and learning tactics bilaterally (Garner 1989; Obach 2004). Similarly, community collaboration also requires available community allies (Tarrow 1994). Johnson argues that allies are prevalent in the public sector, where consumer groups share common interests with workers (Johnston 1994; Carpenter 2000). Community organisations vary between nations, with US organisations having a strong history of Alinksy-style community organising, yet the prevalence of Government funding or foundation funding, may limit or at least shape potential partnerships with unions. Alongside community organisations, the emergence of tightly-knit identity based networks, particularly amongst immigrant workers, may also provide opportunities for community collaboration, where ethnic identity can supplement and support the development of union identity (Clawson 2003; Fine 2003; Turner forthcoming).

Finally, pre-existing union identities may also create opportunities for collaboration. In particular, a union will be more likely to collaborate if they have an ideological or attitudinal commitment to collaboration or if a union has had past experiences with collaboration. Unions with a history of militancy, ideological radicalism or broad interest representation beyond wages and conditions may be more likely to engage in future collaboration (Hyman 1994; Robinson 2000). Whether this is political commitment to a united front, a commitment to issues beyond wages or conditions or a social justice outlook, alignment with community may be easier because a broad interest (class) perspective makes it easier to cultivate common interest (Waterman 1998; Bramble 2001; von Holdt 2002). Similarly, if union collaboration is a familiar tactic – part of a union’s ‘repertoire of contention’ – then it is more likely to be used as a strategy in the future (Tarrow 1994; Frege, Heery et al. 2004).

2. b Choices
However the development of union practice is not simply a force of nature; a union must also exercise a choice in determining whether it commits to coalition practice given the surrounding opportunities (Kochan, Katz et al. 1986; Pocock 1998; Hyman 2001; Turner forthcoming). Union choice is variable, and union strategy literature highlights the diversity of actors that can shift union strategies. This section explores these variable influences, and also considers how the kind of actors that influence union choice may shape the depth of collaboration. This issue is further explored in the comparative case studies in the second section.

Specific union actors are held out as key for causing the development of community collaboration. Leadership support most often argued to be critical for organisational change, and leadership support for collaboration practice is said to make it more likely to occur (Nissen 2000; Voss and Sherman 2000; Cooper 2001; Frege, Heery et al. 2004; Crosby 2005). Leaders can at one level support collaboration, or at a deeper level choose to directly participate in coalition decision making (Nissen 2003). In contrast, some scholars argue that ‘bottom up’ pressures are primary, presenting an idealistic picture of rank and file democratic pressure as key for promoting sustained collaboration (Moody 1997). In addition, Rose identifies an important layer of ‘bridging building’ officials that support collaboration (Rose 2000). Bridge builders have experience in the union movement and social movements which they use to facilitate collaborative relations by translating cultural and class barriers and internally influence a union to change its strategy by bringing to the union movement social movement tactics (Rose 2000; Voss and Sherman 2000). Separate to bridge builders, Cooper argues that union officials play a key role in supporting the adoption of new union strategies and countering internal resistance, and Kelly stresses the role of workplace leaders as agents who support new strategies (Kelly 1998; Cooper 2002).

A common criticism of this literature is that it identifies a particular agent as primary; that somehow leaders, the rank and file or bridge builders are the most important for achieving shifts to collaboration (Carter and Cooper 2002). As Hyman emphasises, unions contain a complex set of relations, decision making bodies and political forces that all influence the development of strategy (Hyman 1975; Hyman 1989). In the case studies I explore this question of agency, and rather than simply considering which union agent ‘causes’ the shift to collaboration, I consider how the alignment of particular types of actors affects and shapes the quality, and in particular the depth of community unionism, or long term union-community coalitions. I do this because while joining a coalition may be an act of collaboration, not all coalitions or union engagement in coalitions are the same (Tattersall 2005). In the two case studies I explore the passage of supporters and union engagement in the coalition that changes over time to try and understand how deep union collaboration develops.


There are three additional factors that shape whether a union is likely to choose community unionism: the common interests and or identity of the existing and potential union workforce, the type of coalition the union is working with and the organisational scale of the union.

The identity or common interest elements of community affect the likelihood and depth of community unionism, and the ability of the union to develop a broader class consciousness from collaborative experiences. Many scholars argue that membership diversity, and in particular a non-traditional workforce (with women or immigrants, for instance) can generate both a commitment to a broader range of issues and a depth of engagement in those issues (Needleman 1998; Nissen 2001; Clawson 2003). Member engagement is also affected by the type of issue selected for collaboration, and the ability for a burgeoning political awareness and solidarity to be connected to that issue. Thus the connection between issue and direct interest is relevant; a teacher is likely to connect to a campaign on public education because there is a direct connection between working conditions and education funding (Johnston 1994; Tattersall 2005; Tattersall forthcoming). Union education may enhance political awareness and breadth of concern, cultivating a political concern beyond issues of wages and conditions, creating a basis of solidarity beyond individual concern where personal interests are more broadly connected to industry, region or class (Freire 1972; Spencer 1994). This may also be impacted by the relative homogeneity or heterogeneity of the union itself, with unions which have a more homogenous membership having a greater ability to cultivate deep common concern than general or highly heterogeneous unions (Delaney, Jarley et al. 1996; Turner forthcoming).

The type of coalition may also affect whether it can act as a change agent, and deeply sustain and engage union participation. Union coalitions with separate, independent coordinators may have greater sustainability as they have autonomous resources that can act above vested organisational interest and assist in the creation of compromise and a sustained campaign agenda (Lipsig-Mumme 2003; Reynolds 2004; Tattersall 2005). The relative independence and separation of a coalition from a union may enable it to in turn influence the union, possibly generating change and a depth of engagement.

The organisational scale and decentralisation of decision making and leadership within a union may also vary the depth of member engagement in collaboration. At the scale of a union office, effective collaboration requires resources and dedicated staff, which also may require that larger resource rich unions are more able to afford collaborative practice (Tattersall forthcoming). The decentralisation of organisational scale and workplace leadership however, are also critical for depth of member engagement. Political consciousness and class consciousness are developed not only through vision, but through personal relationships (Thompson 1963; Wills 1998). This makes the local – local participation, decision making and leadership – critically important in order for union collaboration to reach deeply into a union (Kelly 1998). The extent to which unions have rank and file decision making structures, space for delegates or stewards to make decisions, and whether they are involved in the collaboration or the issue at the heart of collaboration will affect the depth of coalition engagement. Thus internal union decentralisation, and coalition decentralisation (and the existence of broker, locally scaled coalition organisations) are important elements that affect the depth of union engagement in coalitions (Tattersall 2006).