new unionism>>

There are those who believe unions exist simply to bargain for higher pay and protection against unfair treatment. In developed countries this model has been in steady decline since the 1950s (1). After all, it relies on fear and anger as drivers for union recruitment. As we will see below, there just isn’t enough of this going around to build a truly representative labour movement.

Let’s start by looking at the daily grind – at the workplace as it is, and the way workers feel about it day-to-day. In doing so we’ll concentrate on developed countries because (to put it simply) the game ain’t the same in the global south.

Workplace satisfaction

Linda Kelly, a Director at the UK-based Partnership Institute (2), once observed: "The average workplace is made up of about 20% of workers who are angry and alienated, 60% who are generally pretty content, and 20% who are on best behaviour. The challenge for unions is to reach further into the workplace than this first group, and to organize the second."

Studies suggest she is right. Below we have taken data from various sources to show how satisfied workers are with their jobs. Across 21 countries the average number who are either fairly or very satisfied with their work is no less than 83%.

Of course the exact proportion varies from workplace to workplace and sector to sector, as well as country to country (8). There are also notorious problems with the definition and measurement of job satisfaction (9). However the overarching message to unions could not be clearer: an organizing strategy centered around fear and anger will only resonate with a minority of potential members. The result is not just self-limiting membership, but also a skewed analysis of the contemporary workplace.

This is not to under-rate the real grievances many workers face, or to suggest that reactions should be more muted. Union organisers can produce shocking stories from daily experience which justify an anger-centred response. A democratic union must respond in the way its members expect. But do we seriously intend to make job dissatisfaction a precondition for union membership?

Some unionists even argue that if we do not find sufficient anger, we must foster it.

It is tempting to think this approach might lead us towards a reduced but sustainable model for unionism - a niche built around organizing the most unhappy section of the workforce. However evidence suggests this is not the case; union membership can run even lower than this core constituency of dissatisfied workers. This is the case with or without government interference. France, Japan and Spain are three examples:

Sadly, other evidence suggests that numbers might go still lower. Government intervention certainly makes a difference (eg 25% of US workers are not allowed to join a union). So does privatisation (union membership in the private sector in France is 6%, and in the USA it is 7%).

Unfortunately this is a vicious circle. Anti-union legislation helps employers who want to drive down membership numbers, and diminished membership reduces the political influence unions need to fight back.

A recruitment strategy based around anger inadvertently plays into the hands of the union-busters. It allows conservative governments to paint unions as a destructive force, and it allows HR managers to be seen promoting positive values (eg caring, trust etc) in the face of a perceived threat to the organisation. Strategic reward systems then allow HR to buy their way out of the union loop altogether (11).

Even more serious, in my opinion, is the division that anger-centred approach creates among workers. We hear it everywhere, in fact studies show that it has now become the dominant position: “I support unions, but I don’t need one myself”.

So how can unions organise workers, if not by building recruitment campaigns around grievances?

The answer, rather obviously, is to organise around what workers are FOR. Unions need to become proactive around members’ (and potential members’) aspirations. Part two of this article – due out next week -- will look at evidence from various countries about what these aspirations might be. In the meantime, your feedback and comments would be very welcome (see box, top right).

* Peter Hall-Jones is a union communications worker and is currently managing communications for the New Unionism Network. However this article represents his own views, rather those of the network or its members.

Notes

1 We have not used the term “business unionism” in this article because many of the unionists who use the fear/anger model would never describe their approach in this way. The expression as also been narrowly associated with the approach of certain US unions, even where unions in other countries use the same tactics. One often finds the approach of which we speak being promoted under the name “Anger-Hope-Action”, however we have avoided the use of this term as well, because there are advanced and useful variants of this approach which can reach a broad section of the workplace. See http://www.answers.com/topic/business-unionism.

2 The Partnership Institute was originally set up by the TUC – the national body of British unions – as part of the New Unionism project. Although still supported by the TUC, it is now an independent body. See www.partnership-institute.co.uk. This quote is from 2002.

3 EWCS refers to the European Foundation's European Working Conditions Survey published in 2000. See http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/docs/ewco/4EWCS/ef0698/chapter10.pdf.

4 ISSP refers to the International Social Survey Programme study, published in 1997. See http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/oswald/1997internationaljobsatisfaction.pdf

5 JWRPS refers to the Japanese Worker Representation and Participation Survey http://people.colgate.edu/tkato/tplsohashi.pdf

6 GSS refers to the General Social Survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center /University of Chicago. http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/pdf/070827.jobs.pdf

7 Most of this data comes from either 2000 (EWCS) or 1997 (ISSP). Whether job satisfaction has increased or declined since then is a matter for debate - different reports at national level point to contradictory conclusions. It cannot be stressed enough that measuring job satisfaction is not an exact science!

8 Studies suggest that workers in the least prestigious job categories (unskilled manual and service occupations) have the lowest level of satisfaction. Job satisfaction is also related to education levels and pay. However in no sector in any developed country could we find less than 50% of workers who are not either “very satisfied” or “fairly satisfied” with their jobs.

11 Nowhere is this strategy more effectively applied than at WalMart. “It is Wal-Mart's policy to develop and foster a good working relationship between Company managers and (staff)...We believe that if Company managers are sensitive to the needs and desires of their associates, there will be no necessity for them to seek union representation... …many employers are forced to close their operation as a result of a strike. Remember, associates do not vote for a union, they vote against management. …it is very important for you to treat your associates fairly, to make them feel appreciated and secure,and to make yourself accessible… Staying union free is a full-time commitment.” (extracted from "You and Your Labor Relations, What a Wal-Mart Supervisor Should Know About Labor Unions").
In other words if management are sensitive, or believe they are, then they are justified in denying staff the right to join a union. And if the staff believe otherwise? We find the answer later in the manual: “The secret of staying union free is the internal elimination of problems.” This is no less sinister than it sounds. WalMart regularly fires workers for promoting unionism, and closes outlets rather than allowing them to become unionised.