What is New Unionism?

New unionism is about organizing, internationalism and workplace democracy. Bringing these together requires creativity. Taken together, this is the practice of New Unionism.

The approach can trace its roots back more than 100 years. First came the historical 'New Unionism' movement which began in the mid-1880s. Craft-based structures gave way to industrial unions, and a new generation of leaders argued that unions should become more democratic, visionary and open. In the wave of strikes and campaigns that followed the movement we know today was born (see below).

This first period came to an end with World War One. Following the war, the movement's openness and creativity was submerged in the battle of ideologies which lasted most of the remaining century.

The end of World War Two saw a new social consensus emerge, with many countries coming to see unions as social partners in the reconstruction process. However, a second wave of new unionism began when this consensus started to unravel. Unions realised they must get back to organizing in order to establish a genuine, democratic voice, rather than treating members as mere customers. This trend continued as socialist countries started joining the mainstream of globalisation. Union bureaucracies were no longer propped up; ideologies were no longer sponsored. This time the phenomenon was international.

One wave of 'new unionism' radicalised Brazilian unions in the 70s and 80s, bringing a union leader—"Lula" da Silva—to power. As had happened a century earlier, a wider and more inclusive agenda had rejuvenated unions from the ground up.

Then there was the 'new unionism' trend in the US in the late 1980s, as some unions started pushing for deeper engagement in the planning and governance of the workplace. Some of the key figures of that period are members of this network.

More recently we saw the 'new unionism' project in the UK—a creative combination of organizing and partnership approaches—a conscious attempt to bring together the best of the north American and European models. This vital experiment turned theory into practice and back again (details). Again, some of the key players are members of this network.

Each of these experiences, and others from around the world (eg South Africa, Ireland, New Zealand) have helped workers organise as consumers and community citizens, as well as producers. While the old school of 'business unionism' restricts itself to negotiating wages and conditions, New Unionism actively seeks to discover, articulate and realise members' aspirations. This approach does not recognise any boundary between work and life (as in 'work-life balance'); work is a part of life, and everyday expectations of democracy should not be put on hold from 9-to-5.

This means listening. It means shifting union HQ down into the workplace. It means engaging around whatever issues members choose, irrespective of traditional 'management prerogatives'. It means challenging the master-servant relationship at work. It means linking up with colleagues across company supply chains, within social movements, and beyond national borders.

This network was formed in 2007 to try and keep up.

The Network

In trying to bring some of these strands together we have identified five key principles (see above right). We are building our network around these, rather than policies and positions, because this allows members to choose their own way forward.

Until recently the debate about global unionism has been decidedly old school.  Senior unionists passed international resolutions; labor academics crossed swords behind user-pays portals; new structures were bolted onto old ones. Very little of this ever filtered back to working people, and when it did it deeply obscured behind layers of jargon and acronyms.  Those with the most at stake—working people—have had no direct route into the discussion.

We want to change that.

As the labour market, unions, and business go global, we are trying to bring as much of the whole process as possible into the daylight. Many of our union officials work in this area. Others keep it real in academia. If you think you can help, anywhere in between, you'd be most welcome to join us»

Old New Unionism

There have been two periods in labor history known as "New Unionism", and it would seem they are closely linked.

In 1888 women at the Bryant & May match factory in London began what might well be the most significant strike in history*: and their success ushered in a new era of expansion in union membership, social ambition and influence. A year later came the London dockers' strike, and within twelve months membership of the UK's Trade Union Congress had increased from 670,000 to 1,593,000.

Although created later, this poster from the U.S. IWW (aka "the Wobblies") captures the spirit and goals of that first movement wonderfully.

It was a period in which unions went beyond simply reacting to imposed agendas and started developing their own social goals. Labor historian R.A. Leeson described the shift in these words:

"Two conflicting views of the trade-union movement strove for ascendancy in the nineteenth century: one the defensive-restrictive gild-craft tradition passed down through journeymen's clubs and friendly societies,... the other the aggressive-expansionist drive to unite all 'labouring men and women' for a 'different order of things'..."

Speaking in 1892, W.G. Spence, made the following comments on "The Ethics of New Unionism":

"In the old days labor looked askance at the employer and felt a hatred for him. New Unionism is today looking beyond the employer and fixing its hatred upon the system, which is bad not alone for the worker, but for the employer - which forces the employer to act unjustly even if (they do) not wish to do so."

He continued:

"...there was spreading amongst unionists this idea... that they could not affect the improvement they desired by dealing only with the mere question of hours and wages. And so comes what has been termed the "new unionism" - a unionism wide and broad in its aim, and one which will certainly be far-reaching in its effects... We are aiming now at securing an improvement by social and political reforms - and by that means alone a revolution will undoubtedly be effected in time. When I use the word revolution do not misunderstand me - I mean a quiet one. It will be a change from one condition to another."

Revolution? So where does this fit in with early communism, and Marx and Lenin and so forth?

Because of its deeper social agenda, New Unionism was described at the time as "labor socialism", or "evolutionary socialism". Karl Marx was a champion of the New Unionists:

"The old Unions preserve the traditions of the time when they were founded, and look upon the wages system as a once-for-all established, final fact, which they at best can modify in the interest of their members. The new Unions were founded at a time when the faith in the eternity of the wages system was severely shaken... And thus we see now these new Unions taking the lead of the working-class movement generally, and more and more taking in tow the rich and proud, old Unions. ...glad and proud I am to have lived to see it."

However World War One interrupted New Unionism's evolution. When it was over, leaving many of the traditional power relations shattered, three contending ideologies (soviet, anti-communist and Christian social-democrat) began vying to control the movement.

The Great Split
In 1920 there was a huge split in the labour movement. At the Second Congress of the Comintern, V.I. Lenin proposed “Twenty One Conditions” which must be met in order for communists and socialists to work together (more). In effect, the communists demanded allegiance to the Soviet order. Those who agreed pledged themselves to struggle against any force which was working to reform capitalism.

The same year saw a secondary split as well, with the formation of  the "International Federation of Christian Trade Unions" - designed to provide an alternative to the anti-religious trade unions in Europe at the time.

World War Two papered over these divisions for a while, but as soon as it was over the primary dispute - often described in terms of "reform vs revolution" - resurfaced. Within a few years the Cold War had set the split in concrete, and Russian and US-dominated forces were battling in every imaginable way to control the direction of unionism. It was a fracas in which the workers' voice was generally drowned out.

The effects of 1920 lasted beyond the end of the century. In fact it might be argued that vestiges of the era's top-down ideologically-based controls are still evident in some unions today.

However the splits are becoming increasingly irrelevant as the Cold War recedes. In 2006 the original Christian federation (changed and renamed) joined together with the originally anti-communist federation to establish a new international body called the ITUC. The remaining international group, the WFTU (which had pushed the soviet line) has lost more than half of its membership, and is struggling to find a new way forward.

With the effects of these three ideologies subsiding, the drive for social change is again emerging from below. New Unionism is again finding its expression within organised labour, which faces a whole new set of problems: environmental catastrophe, institutionalised conflicts, globalised economics and an increasingly borderless labor market.

We have set up this network to show that the second wave of New Unionism, like its 19th century predecessor, is democratic, rather than bureaucratic, and takes lessons from creative practice (including mistakes!) rather than from ideology. The people involved are those closest to the issues: trade unionists, workers and those labor academics who are engaged in practical research. You'll find some of them listed here»

So where to now? The movement is still defining itself, as the various strands inform each other. The end of ideology and the democratisation of unions and workplaces undoubtedly constitutes a revolution. However it won't take 14 days this time: developing visions and following them are different things. As Hal Draper has put it: "Only by fighting for democratic power do (workers) educate themselves up to the level of being able to wield that power."

• organizing»
• workplace democracy»
• internationalism»
• creativity»

1. Organizing
The union movement has long debated "servicing versus organizing". According to the servicing model, union representatives are staunch, necessary folk who appear in the workplace whenever they were called, and deal with disputes in such a way that others are convinced that they, too, should join. They also offer cheap rates on insurance, tyres, travel and accommodation.

According to the organizing model, the union itself exists primarily in the workplace... in the largest sense possible. It lives and breathes at work, in the form of the members themselves, including their elected representatives. The union exists primarily to support them in this, and to deliver the skills and tools members need.

In most unions—in theory at least—the argument for the organizing model won hands down. Then all of a sudden nothing happened. This led many unions in the 80s and 90s to examine their priorities. Bureaucratism started to lose ground. Scholarly policy documents? Optional retirement schemes? There is much good work in these areas, but how come we still haven't worked out how to effectively organize seasonal, contract and/or temporary workers? How can everything change so that it contributes to building influence for working people?

In the late 1990s the results of these experiments started to speak for themselves. Unions who had shifted their resources into organizing, and got past the internal resistance, were either growing or had at least arrested the decline. This pattern has continued for six or seven years now. More recently still there has been a subtle shift. Organizing, yes. But organizing for what?

2. Workplace Democracy
During roughly the same period some unions had begun discussing models of economic democracy and workplace reform. Some became involved in developing new structures for "social dialogue", although often these didn't reach very far into workplace life. More and more, unions were urged by their members to broaden their agenda - to engage with employers and governments on a wider range of issues, such as workplace culture, organisational reform and industrial restructuring. Some unions saw this as collaboration (in the negative sense of the word). The word "partnership" was at the centre of endless, fruitless arguments. While this debate went on, studies continued to show that working people strongly desire an independent, collective voice in the workplace.

This coincided with changes in production which required management to engage the intelligence (not just the time and the muscle) of their workforce. Should unions step aside from this? Or should they actively engage in the role? Difficult questions regarding the aspirations and goals of unionism were raised. For working people the answer continued to be straightforward: we want influence. Studies showed that this does not mean "sweetheart deals",  nor finely worded consultation clauses. In fact partnership agreements and boardroom invitations meant nothing unless they helped develop workplace democracy. The unions who saw this, and acted upon it, started to buzz. In pressing for workplace democracy they were issuing a fundamental challenge to the master- servant relationship. In such unions workplace reps have become actively involved in setting agendas, rather than just responding to them. Members' involvement has also become more creative. Union membership figures reflect this. Workplace democracy is something worth organizing for.
  

3. Creative thinking
It is the creative combination of organizing and workplace democracy which leads us in the direction of new unionism. This is the Work in Progress to which our newsletter refers. However, in reasserting themselves as a creative social force, unions face some major obstacles. The influence of the 1920s split and the Cold War still linger*, with the development of unionism (particularly in developing countries) still sometimes manipulated by external forces. Many of the movement's divisions are the product of conflicts which have long since ended, but rifts do not mend so easily.

Some countries also face problems caused by hostile legislation and government repression. How creative can a unionist be in a country like Colombia, where even the most basic organizing can get a unionist murdered? Despite all this, unionism's difficulties can be generalised, and creative thinking can be applied in almost any context.

   

Too much emphasis on engagement alone (as in the quadrant A above) does not lead to Workplace Democracy. Generally, it leads to the union becoming co-opted. Words like "cosying up" and "selling out " are bandied about sourly by members. Deals appear from behind closed doors. Conditions are eroded; members feel alienated from their union, and often betrayed.

Too much emphasis on organizing alone (as in C above) produces a shallow, angry unionism, where members do little more than react to the employer's agenda. The union feels that its role is to maintain aggression levels, and internal communications  centre around tales of employer abuses and tricks.

Too little of both (ie B above) is the worst position of all. Members wonder why they bothered to join up, as the union never does anything. New staff don't join, and management won't listen to the union reps. Why should they?

And D?  These are the stories we want to tell you about. Elections for workplace reps (delegate/shop steward) are being actively contested. Workers are developing skills and swapping tasks in line with their abilities. Workplace culture is becoming a matter for negotiation. Health and safety officers look out for bullying, stress and or depression, as well as slippery floors. The employer understands that workers have an independent agenda, but (willingly or not) has learned to accept this. Ideas are being sought out and heard by both sides, and the union is seen as a major player in the life of the workplace. Membership is on the rise. Things are headed in the direction of workplace democracy.

4. Internationalism
How can unions transcend their national borders? The world's workforce is being globalised, along with finance and trade. What use is shop floor militancy if it drives production offshore? If we get a good pay rise here, do we give a competitive advantage to companies there which pay their workers less? Why do so many people see unions as irrelevant in all this? Whatever happened to the mass branch meeting? And how on earth can wage levels be maintained when the world's workforce has just been swelled by the joint populations of China, Russia, and India... ?

Some unions are engaging globally in an attempt to deal with these issues. A new world federation of unions was formed in 2006. The world's first multinational union is in development. Social networking tools are allowing workers to launch campaigns across borders. Needs-driven "global alliances" are coming together and doing tremendously effective work around selected projects. Unions are negotiating international agreements, ethical guidelines, and/or global codes of conduct.

Some of this corresponds with the principles set out above, but what about the workers? How many of them are aware that they are part of the "ITUC" - an organisation which represents 166 million workers in more than 150 countries? Such organisations need and deserve our support, but how?

Let's try and answer these questions openly and collectively! That, in a nutshell, is what new unionism is about. And that, in a nutshell, is why we hope you will join us.  

 

 

Feedback

Share your own thoughts regarding the ideas on this page. Just click "Comment " below. We reserve the right to delete responses that are rude or silly (unless they're also really funny).