Community Unionism

The Shifting Power of Labor-Community Coalitions: Identifying Common Elements of Powerful Coalitions in Australia and the USA

This paper will be published in the journal Working USA, and is jointly authored by David Reynolds and Amanda Tattersall.

Abstract

This paper presents and explores a theoretical framework of common features across labor-community coalitions. While researchers in both the U.S. and Australia have written about labor-community coalitions, most of this work has focused on profiling “best practices” rather than building a framework for understanding coalition such work in general. This paper argues that all coalitions are defined by four common elements: the nature of common concern, the structure of organizational relationships, organizational capacity and commitment, and the scale of coalition activity. It then uses these elements to identify four different ideal types of coalitions, varying from ad hoc coalitions, to simple coalitions, to mutual interest coalitions to deep coalitions. The paper illustrates the usefulness of this framework by using it to examine sample coalition experiences in the U.S. and Australia. The Australian case displays variation in coalition type within a single ongoing campaign around public education. By contrast, eight sample U.S. living wage efforts demonstrate variation in coalition type among different campaigns.

Click here to download a copy of the Paper

An exerpt from the paper:

A key issue for contemporary political activism is how labor unions and community organizations can work together effectively in coalition. Coalitions are a strategy increasingly used by unions and community organizations to enhance their power and campaign success. While there is a significant body of literature on coalitions, it often describes ‘best coalition practice ‘rather than identifying the core analytical elements that shape coalition effectiveness. This paper seeks to contribute to an analytical framework of coalitions, making suggestions about how real existing coalition practice can be improved by identifying generalizable features of powerful coalitions. We present a framework of coalitions that identifies four key elements of effective coalition practice, and then apply this framework to two case studies of different coalitions –the Public Education Campaign in Australia and Living Wage coalitions in the United States. Our aim is to demonstrate that there are several key similar elements to coalition operation and success. The case studies have been selected to highlight how coalitions can powerfully engage union members both on issues of wages and work conditions (such as in the US case study) as well as on broader social concerns (such as in the Australian case study), exploring how the issue base of coalitions can vary and still produce powerful bases for union coalition practice.

Labor-Community Coalitions: an introduction
In the early 1990s there was a renewal of interest in the possibilities of labor-community coalitions (Brecher and Costello 1990a; Banks 1992). The need to rebuild union power and union density included a concern for working in coalition with community organisations. In the USA, the formation of the Jobs with Justice network, the Union Cities program at the AFL-CIO, living wages campaigns and the Justice for Janitors campaigns revived interest in how coalitions could create union power (Banks 1990; Ness and Eimer 2001; Reynolds and Kern 2002; Reynolds 2004). Today, the idea that unions should working with community organisations is a prominent element of union renewal strategies.
Yet, too often in both union practice and academic literature labor-community coalitions are seen as a homogenous panacea for union power or campaign success. Coalitions are seen as a tactic, one element of a comprehensive campaign. While coalitions are not the only strategy for building union power or renewal, this paper argues that the form, agenda and power that unions can gain from coalitions is highly variable, and must be categorized and measured. Indeed, the form and capacity of coalitions vary significantly, from fleeting ad hoc solidarity support to long-term sustainable relationships (Tattersall 2005). Yet the current literature on labor-community coalitions has tended to document best practice as a guide for effective coalition action. Descriptive best practice case studies have usefully given credence to the important role that coalitions can play as part of union strategies, yet, they tend to not identify the factors that created success (Byrd and Rhee 2004; Frank and Wong 2004; Luce and Nelson 2004). This paper seeks to identify some common repeatable elements of successful coalitions, rather than merely documenting an example of a coalition for others to copy. In doing so, it aims to identify elements of coalitions occur across all coalition practice, rather than simply in so-called ‘best practice’.

Four Factors of Coalition Practice
We identify four elements that vary coalition effectiveness, including the form of common concern and purpose at the heart of a coalition, the structure of a coalition, the degree of organizational buy-in, and the context of the coalition’s activity. We then pull together these factors to present a map of varying coalition forms, ranging from simple ad-hoc coalitions to more complex and powerful deep coalitions.

Common Concern
At the heart of labor-community coalitions is a bond of common concern between different organizations; yet the degree of mutuality of common interest in coalitions varies considerably. Common concern refers both to the alignment of organizational interests that define the purpose of the coalition, and the social frame that the coalition uses to communicate its strategy to the broader public (Tattersall forthcoming b).
At one extreme, unions and community organizations frequently come together on an ad hoc basis where the issue at the heart of the campaign is one-side’s agenda (Tattersall 2005). These are the most common forms of engagement, and include requests for speakers at rallies or participation in an information picket. The interest connection to these ad hoc coalitions is often uneven; focused on the party requesting support. A lack of interest in coalition activity minimizes the desire for supportive organisations to participate in these ad hoc coalitions. Phrases such as ‘rent a collar’ are commonly used by the religious community and capture a resentment that comes from being asked to speak at ad hoc events without being involved more deeply in campaign strategy, or having their interests reflected in campaign demands (interview, community organisation, Chicago, 2005).
When the common interest between union and community organizations is shared, the commitment to acting in coalition is strengthened (Brecher and Costello 1990b). When an organisation’s own interests are also in interest of the coalition, participation increases as coalition strategies directly contribute to organizational goals. Consequently, coalitions increase their level of inter-organizational participation when they operate with concerns that are in the mutual self-interest of participants (Childs 1990; Altemose and McCarty 2001; Frege, Heery et al. 2004; Tattersall 2005; Tattersall 2006a). In addition, the more direct and tangible their organizational interest, the deeper their likely engagement. Thus a union may give financial support or speak at a rally on an issue such as peace, which ignites its altruistic concerns for justice or general concern for corporate globalization. By contrast, a union organizing health care workers is more likely to directly engage and activate its members in a campaign to increase funding for the health care sector because the outcomes of the campaign will directly affect union members (Tattersall 2006a). The degree of organizational commitment to an issue increases the ability of a coalition to activate its members and its relationships, increasing the strength of the coalition overall.
Aside from organizational interest, common concern also refers to the social frame that a coalition uses to communicate its message. Thus common interest can be effective not only when it operates in the mutual self-interest of participating organisations, but when it is framed as a social vision for working people as a whole (Snow and Benford 1992; Reynolds 2004; Lakoff 2005). This broader community frame not only engages organization members, but assists the campaign to become a direct concern of the general public. Direct organizational interest does not disappear so much as it becomes embedded in a larger social agenda. For instance, a campaign for better pay for health care workers extends into a campaign about better hospitals – where conditions such as staff-patient ratios, quality and price of medicine and quality of treatment are also connected to pay. The campaign becomes a holistic campaign for health care in which workers concerns are embedded.
The strategic intentions of a coalition are a critical measure of sustainability; whether a coalition has been formed for a short term tactical event or a long term power building structure. The distinction between an ad hoc immediate concern and a social vision for working people points to this, where coalitions formed around a larger definition of concern can lead to ongoing cooperation around multiple campaigns. For example, cooperation between local ACORN chapters and central labor councils has been in evident in many living wage campaigns. The immediate interest uniting the two organizations is the goal of passing a living wage law. Whether the two continue to cooperate after a campaign is over depends on the interest in and availability of other issues around which to cooperate. Yet in a much smaller number of cases (such as in San Jose or Little Rock) ACORN and a central labor council have united around a broader mutual goal of building power as organizations. The two organizations may cooperate on specific campaigns, however both during and between campaigns a relationship continues in which the partners work to build each other’s capacity. In San Jose, for example, this ongoing cooperation has taken the form of a joint door-knocking organizing team that recruits new ACORN members as well as pro-labor voters and possible organizing contacts.

The Structure of the Coalition
Coalitions are also defined by the structure of their organizational relationships. At one extreme labor unions and community organizations can interrelate without establishing a formal decision making structure; the relationships can be based on requests rather than joint meetings (Tattersall 2005). In these cases campaign strategy and decision making remains the property of the initiating organizations, limiting broad organizational engagement (Frege, Heery et al. 2004).
Beyond ad hoc engagement, a variety of structural forms can exist, ranging from simple coalitions to deep coalitions. A key variable in coalition structure is the extent to which the participating organizations are able to share influence over campaign tactics and strategy. When a coalition is dominated by a single partner, or when it is organized quickly in reaction to an event, decision making is more likely to be hasty and share less ownership between the organizations (Tufts 1998). Indeed, when informal planning outside the coalition dominates the strategic direction of the campaign, the coalition is reduced to a formal space for reporting on decisions rather than making them. When organizations are not given control over campaign strategy they are likely to have less commitment to taking action.
Coalitions are more likely to be long term and have broad organizational support if campaign strategy is brokered among the organizations and coalition decision making is shared (Banks 1992; Tufts 1998). Organizational interconnection is enhanced if there are open spaces for decision making and if there are informal ties that help bridge across cultural differences between the organizations (Rose 2000; Obach 2004). An effective coalition structure builds organizational trust and accountability. This might mean that the coalition builds a closed structure, where organizations are hand picked as partners, rather than having organizations join as ‘come one come all’ (Tattersall 2006a; Tattersall 2006b) For example the Chicago Living Wage Coalition supporting the big box living wage ordinance was widely endorsed, but to participate in the steering committee organisations were hand picked depending on their ability to make a concrete commitment to the coalition’s capacity. Organizations may be chosen because of common cultures, common organizing methods or a common commitment to objectives.
In addition, coalitions might build sustainable structures where the logistics of joint work can be undertaken by an independent coalition office with staff rather than draining the time and being influenced by resource rich organizational partners (Nissen 2000; Tattersall 2005). For example, since its founding in 1988 as a multi-issue, multi-constituency coalition of roughly 30 groups, the Minnesota Alliance for Progressive Action has sponsored a series of key public policy campaigns and is maintained by a permanent coalition office and staff (Petersen 2004).
Finally, a coalition may be more sustainable and able to accommodate conflict and cultural differences between organisations if there are bridge builders involved in coalition practice. Bridge builders are individuals with social movement and union experience, who can translate cultural differences and support formal strategic planning and informal relationship building (Rose 2000; Obach 2004)

Organizational Capacity and Commitment
A key component of both structure and common interest is the need to enhance union and community organization commitment to campaigning. Organizational buy-in and the extent to which participant organizations mobilize for coalition objectives provides another measure of coalition effectiveness.
The spectrum of organizational buy-in is well-understood in the language of coalition practice. At one extreme, organizers often talk about ‘paper coalitions’ or ‘astroturf coalitions’ where organizations sign on to a letterhead or press release, but the relationships do not go deep. A deeper form of engagement is colloquially described as ‘grass tops coalitions’ where organizational engagement is focused in organization staff, but not members. The seniority of the participants in coalition meetings is often a mark of organizational buy in, the more senior the decision makers, the greater the authority invested in the coalition and the faster the decision making process (Nissen 2004; Tattersall 2006a). An even deeper form of engagement is ‘grassroots’ coalition organizing, where leaders and members are directly engaged in public roles at coalition events, decision making and planning. This operates at its deepest level when organizational members are engaged in coalition broker organisations, locally based coalition organisations which enable union and community organisation members to control campaign planning and strategy (Tattersall forthcoming e). A good example is the Ontario Health Coalition, which has a central provincial coalition and thirty-five local health coalitions which together coordinate health campaigns (Tattersall 2006b).
However, in most coalition practice there is often weak organizational buy-in because coalitions tend to limit in-depth participation and decision making to staff and leadership rather than members (Clawson 2003). Coalition campaigns often relegate union and community organization members to the role of ‘rent-a-crowd’ rather than providing them with space for meaningful participation. This may be mitigated when community organizations or unions closely tie internal decision making processes and buy-in to coalition practice, or where centralized state or city-based coalitions create local broker organisations.
Coalitions that achieve successful organizational buy-in require significant union buy-in. As Nissen notes, out of all coalition partners, unions usually have the largest number of resources at their disposal; they usually have the largest number of members and the largest base of independent funds (Nissen 2003; Nissen 2004). Signs of deepening union commitment include sending senior staff and officials as decision makers to coalition meetings, freeing up funds to allocate to the campaign, activating external union political and organizational relationships to enfranchise the coalition’s agenda and being willing to activate member involvement in coalition events.

The Scale and Opportunities of Coalition activity
Coalitions can also be distinguished by the scale or scales at which they operate. Scale is a term used by labor geographers to understand how power is constituted by place and space (Massey 1984; Herod 1997; Fagan 2000). Power is conditioned by the scale at which it operates, for instance industries, corporations and politics operates at multiple scales and can be influenced at different scales. Industries and firms that rely on local consumer populations, or locally scaled production – such as cleaning, mining, human service work and the pubic sector – may be ‘fixed’ to certain places of consumer demand or producer services (Herod 1997; Walsh 2000; Ellem 2003). In contrast to the perceived mobility of capital, capital fixes and political representation provide spaces of influence for coalitions and social movements. Where capital or political representatives are tied to places, through industry or political representation, organizing coalition and union support in those places enhances the power of unions and the capacity for social change (Tattersall forthcoming e).
At a basic form, coalitions can operate at any scale – the local to the global. Yet, when working to influence government or employers, it may increase the power of a coalition to operate at multiple scales. Locally scaled coalitions can increase influence over ‘fixed’ industries or political leaders, such as the broker organisations in Ontario that are based around regional hospitals and in swing ridings (congressional districts) (Tattersall 2006b). Multi-scaled coalitions, that can act locally, nationally and globally, can also allow coalitions to exercise influence against powerful international firms while also building local public support for coalition outcomes (Banks and Russo 1999; Juravich and Bronfenbrenner 2003; Tattersall forthcoming a). For instance, the SEIU’s Driving up Standards campaign seeks to build international union and coalition support for union demands in the UK as well as support from parents to lobby US school boards (Tattersall forthcoming a).
Moreover, as Wills notes, coalition effectiveness is enhanced when the relationships it brings together are proximate and participatory, and therefore local (Martin, Sunley et al. 1993; Wills 2002). Locally based coalitions are able to harness community ties, because it is at the local level where people work, live and can directly participate in decisions and action. Coalitions that seek to mobilize and coordinate organizations or individuals with a history of acting together, or in a common place are more likely to sustain longer term activity (Jonas 1998).
The pioneering corporate accountability campaign in Minnesota illustrates the utility of multiple scales. On the surface, the Minnesota Alliance for Progressive Action organized a state-level campaign to pass increasingly effective legislation reforming how businesses received tax breaks and other public financial support. Although the state sets the legal framework for such subsidies the actual decision to grant aid occurs at the local level. Thus, the campaign proved effective because it not simply changed the state rules, but also supported local coalitions in several parts of the state that organized to ensure that stronger standards become actual reality at the local level. Without effective local scale, the state reforms could have become dust-filled abstract rules in the legal code.
Additionally, coalitions are able to enhance their influence if their social movement activity is integrated with available political opportunities. Social movement theorists argue that where social movements are more able to have political success, then they are more able to be sustained (Tarrow 1994). Thus, where there are election cycles, divisions between the ruling political parties or legislative timetables that can be exploited by coalitions, coalitions are more likely to successfully achieve political outcomes (Tarrow 1994; Reynolds 2004; Tattersall forthcoming e).

Four Types of Coalitions
The above discussion points to four forces that influence coalition types. Common concern, the structure of the relationship, organizational commitment and the scale and opportunity of the coalition relationship are key elements that vary to produce different types of coalitions. Indeed, we suggest that they simultaneously define all coalitions as well as operating as the key forces that produce coalition variation over time. Thus coalitions shift in their internal resources and external capacity to the extent that issues are held in single or mutual interest, that structure is tight and trustworthy or fleeting, that organizational commitment is superficial or significant and if coalitions can operate at multiple scales and can harness political opportunities.
Thus, not only do the above elements work to describe key aspects of coalitions broadly, but they can also be combined to produce a four part typology of labor-community coalition practice (see figure 1). This is a categorization of different ideal types of coalition forms.