Organising precarious workers: Can a public campaign overcome weak grassroots mobilisation at workplace level?

Abstract

This article examines union efforts to recruit and mobilise precarious workers in a hostile environment. Formidable obstacles confront organisers’ attempts to mobilise workers to engage in collective action at workplace level in the Irish hotel sector. After an initial grassroots organising campaign, the Services Industrial Professional and Technical Union (SIPTU) adopted a public campaign as an alternative strategy to secure improvements in pay and working conditions in the sector. Our findings indicate that the union’s inability to create a sense of collective identity among workers or establish strong support for union organisation at workplace level was due to a combination of external economic factors and challenges at this level. In the absence of such support, the impact of a public union campaign is less widely felt by employers. We evaluate the extent to which this type of campaign can substitute for weak grassroots mobilisation and provide a sustainable basis for union presence in the sector.

Keywords

Employment regulation non-standard employment union organising worker mobilisation

Density decline continues to be the most significant challenge facing the union movement internationally. It has been argued that unions are based on the assumption of ‘standard employment’ and that the increased prevalence of precarious work represents a global challenge that effectively undermines recruitment of new members (Burgess et al., 2013). However, this is teleological reasoning since unions from their inception have struggled to improve labour conditions and establish ‘standard employment’ contracts (secure, fairly rewarded work for a single direct employer) as the norm for workers. Historically, unions have always adapted to changing terrain, and as organisations are embedded within the social relations of production and service, which influences how they organise at workplace level (Fairbrother, 2000: 13). Unions have developed new organising techniques to meet the challenge of precarious work resulting in campaigns such as Justice for Janitors (JfJ) (Erickson et al., 2002) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Homecare Workers campaign (Delp and Quan, 2002). Common features of both campaigns were a centralised leadership, industry-specific strategy and tactics, a critical mass of class conscious workers and most notably the presence of strong grassroots mobilisation. While there have been some notable successes in organising precarious workers through aligning with political and community groups, organising in sectors such as the hotel industry presents significant challenges. As the campaign to organise London hotels showed, ‘neither workplace-based nor community unionism models alone’ were a sufficient response to the challenge of organising a highly stratified and temporary workforce (Alberti, 2014: 17). In this article, we examine Ireland’s largest union, SIPTU’s (Services Industrial Professional, Technical Union) attempt to recruit and organise hotel workers, improve employment conditions and increase employer recognition using a combination of workplace tactics and a wider publicity campaign. The effort is worthy of examination as little research exists on organising in Ireland. More importantly, the research presents a new approach to organising in a sector where various tactics have failed to succeed internationally. The context of this campaign has been extremely challenging, with the collapse of social partnership, declining membership, withdrawal of employers from a Joint Labour Council (JLC) process and the inherent challenges of organising a precarious and individualised workforce. Adopting mobilisation theory as a framework, we present evidence of why the campaign to mobilise workers at workplace level was largely unsuccessful. The article moves on to explain how the union refocused its organising activities on a public campaign espousing a business case rationale for union recognition in the sector. This study contributes to the literature on organising and mobilisation by examining the extent to which this type of public campaign can substitute for the weakness of grassroots mobilisation at workplace level.

Industrial relations context

Irish industrial relations was dominated by a system of national social partnership from 1987 until its collapse amid the global financial crisis in 2008. Undoubtedly, under partnership Irish unions fared better politically than their counterparts in the UK, where a neoliberal policy agenda threatened to decimate the movement. However, union density levels declined steadily, as did union influence at workplace level (D’Art and Turner, 2004). While it is claimed that union leaders enjoyed considerable influence over government policy on economic and social issues, this influence never extended to securing statutory rights to union recognition (Donaghey and Teague, 2007).

In the aftermath of partnership, a combination of employer hostility and weak institutional supports for union recognition contributed to a density level of just 29.6% (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2013). While membership rates remained constant in the public sector, private sector density was estimated to be as low as 6% in the service sector (Central Statistics Office (CSO), 2010). Contributing to this decline has been the failure of union recruitment to keep pace with unprecedented rates of employment growth between 1996 and 2007, resulting in limited union presence in many economic sectors (Dobbins, 2010). In an attempt to stem the tide of falling density, SIPTU established a National Organising Unit in 2004 intended to prioritise resources for organising (Donaghey and Teague, 2007: 25–26). SIPTU accounts for approximately 34% of all union members in Ireland, two-thirds of which are in the private sector. As part of the emphasis on organising, SIPTU restructured from a general branch to an organising structure based around industrial sectors and divisions, each tasked with supporting union officials at workplace level. US unions have taken a greater ‘identity-conscious approach’ in their organising methods than has been the case in the UK (Holgate, 2005: 476). Similarly, SIPTU adopted a ‘like recruits like’ approach to organising, appointing young, female and immigrant organisers who would identify with a diverse workforce.

Union recognition in Ireland

In Ireland, the process for establishing union recognition ultimately depends on whether or not an employer agrees to recognise and bargain with a trade union representing all or a proportion of its workforce (Turner et al., 2013). While Article 40.6.1(iii) of the Irish Constitution confers the right of citizens to join unions, this does not extend to the right of representation as employers cannot be compelled to negotiate with unions. Employers’ refusal to implement Labour Court recommendations in favour of recognition is part of a trend of increasing resistance towards unions (Murphy and Turner, 2013).

The absence of any form of statutory union recognition is relatively unique among the western democracies. For example, statutory mechanisms outlining the specific conditions under which trade unions are recognised by the employer for the purposes of collective bargaining operate in the USA, Canada and the UK (Gall, 2012). A Scandinavian approach to union recognition involves automatic statutory recognition of the employee’s right to collective representation by trade unions for collective bargaining purposes (Fahlbeck, 1995). In Australia, the Fair Work Act 2009 provides a bargaining framework, albeit a weakened one compared to the previous forms of compulsory conciliation and arbitration, that provides unions with some leverage to ensure employers engage in collective bargaining (Cooper and Ellem, 2011). Even with these supports for union recognition, unions in the main still operate in a relatively hostile employer climate. In the absence of effective institutional support, unions in Ireland operate in an exceptionally difficult environment of employer reluctance and often open hostility, particularly in sectors characterised by atypical employment patterns, low pay and transient workforces.

Employment, wage setting mechanisms and unionisation in the hotel sector

The Irish hotel sector employs approximately 54,000 people (Irish Hotels Federation (IHF), 2014). In the hotel sector, 33% of employees are employed part-time, 13% on a seasonal basis, 56% of employees are females and as many as 45% of workers are immigrants (Farrelly, 2012). After a decade of rapid growth, Irish hotel occupancy levels declined to a 15-year low in 2008 (Farrelly, 2012). In the same year, SIPTU established a dedicated Hotels Division within the Strategic Organising Unit, staffed with organisers who had previously worked in hospitality (female and immigrant organisers) and whose knowledge of the industry made them well placed to understand workers’ needs.

Union presence is weak in the Irish hotel sector. Just 8.9% of workers were unionised in 2008 and only 14% of hotels are estimated to engage in bargaining or recognise unions (National Centre for Partnership & Performance (NCPP)/Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), 2009). Traditionally, a statutory JLC operated in the sector setting wages (above national minimum) and conditions, enforced through Employment Regulation Orders (EROs) (Turner and O’Sullivan, 2013). Hoteliers strongly opposed the JLC with the IHF, arguing that this left hotels vulnerable to upward pressures on labour costs and impacted business viability (Prendergast, 2013). Unions, on the other hand, argued that the system protects vulnerable workers (Farrelly, 2012). In 2011, the High Court ruled the JLC system unconstitutional and called for reform (Prendergast, 2013). After a lengthy review the JLC was reinstated in 2014, albeit with restricted powers. It continues to be opposed by the IHF who have initiated High Court proceedings challenging its reinstatement.

Wills (2005) describes the UK hotel industry as emblematic of the challenges facing unions, for example, convincing workers of the value of union membership, servicing members' needs across small, dispersed workplaces and overcoming employer hostility to union recognition. The prevalence of non-standard employment in the sector makes it difficult to recruit and retain members as many establishments are simply too small to mount a viable organising campaign (Knox, 2006, 2009). Labour segmentation is evident with large variations in skill requirements between ‘front’ and ‘back-of-house’ positions, and when coupled with complex working hours and high labour turnover it is difficult to forge a strong sense of collective identity in the workplace. Sub-contracting and the use of agency labour further undermine the formation of a collective identity, as staff can have a number of different employers. These factors restrict unions’ ability to organise in any industry, but are particularly prevalent in the hospitality sector.

Mobilisation, justice and collective action

In order to understand the campaign, we draw on the insights of mobilisation theory and the formation of a collective identity. Mobilisation theory provides a robust and systematic tool for understanding organising campaigns as it emphasises the context, such as the institutional and structural conditions of the labour market, the process of organising worker collectives and the opportunities favourable to action (Badigannavar and Kelly, 2005; Johnson and Jarley, 2004). Aside from the context, the theory attempts to explain why and in what way individuals and groups mobilise (acquire collective control over the resources needed for action) and join social movements such as unions (Tilly, 1978: 7). Kelly (1998) argues that in order to mobilise workers successfully as part of an organising drive, a number of conditions must be present. These conditions can be translated into a number of stages that the group must progress through. First, workers must acquire a sense of injustice with some issue, be it procedural or substantive in nature (McAdam, 1988). Second, workers must attribute blame for their dissatisfaction to some identifiable significant other, usually the employer or management. Third, workers must have a sense of efficacy, that is, a belief that acting collectively will rectify their grievances. The presence of employer hostility and aggressive counter-mobilisation tactics serve to weaken that sense of efficacy. A shared commitment to action can redress the impact of employer hostility as workers harness a sense of solidarity. This sense of solidarity is largely achieved through the creation of a collective identity and is a vital aspect of a successful mobilisation process. Although a sense of injustice, attribution and efficacy are necessary prerequisites and triggers to mobilisation, it is the perception of shared interests and a common purpose that acts as a basis for action. Holgate (2005) has previously highlighted the role of culture and identity in union campaigns. Collective identification implies ‘a psychological merging’ between self and group such that individuals view their own characteristics and needs as similar to other members of the group (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004: 828). Though existing social relationships between workers ease this process, it is possible for strong collective identities to exist in the absence of personal relationships (Brewer and Gardner, 1996). Once workers identify themselves as a group with distinct needs in comparison to another group, a sense of in-group (workers) and out-group (management) or ‘them and us’ develops (Badigannavar and Kelly, 2005: 527). Simon and Klandermans (2001: 322) argue that social groups are often involved in power struggles as they attempt to establish, change or defend the status quo, and that these struggles can be understood as political group activity. Politics in this sense refers to issues of control over people, resources and rewards. Thus, the identities and solidarities forged are essentially political in nature where group members ‘intentionally engage, as a mindful and self-conscious collective’ in a power struggle with the awareness that it is embedded in a wider more inclusive societal context (Simon and Klandermans, 2001: 323). Research indicates that a politicised collective identity is a powerful motivator for participation, engagement and collective action (Stürmer and Simon, 2004).

Organising campaigns

Organising campaigns comprise a set of tactics that trade unions use to mobilise workers in a particular firm or industry sector. From a union perspective, organising is premised on the belief that a union’s basic strength resides in its ability to unite workers (MacPartlin, 2008: 83). Early research on the organising phenomenon focused on the extent to which various strategies could be employed to secure victory (the right of a union to engage with an employer to bargain collectively for workers), often involving stronger use of political lobbying and greater alignment with wider social bodies (Bronfenbrenner and Juravich, 1998). At a macro level, Gall and Fiorito (2011: 234) argue that organising results in the US and Britain have been ‘disappointing to say the least’ and have merely ‘managed the decline’ in both absolute membership and density. However, without the emphasis on organising, the potential decline in union density could have been far greater. Heery (2002) argues that organising should centre on worker empowerment as well as recruitment and recognition. More recently, debate has turned to whether binary measures of success, such as membership and recognition in individual campaigns, reflect the true picture of organising outcomes. A central task for organisers is to establish the conditions under which sustainable outcomes can be secured (Simms, 2014). Outcomes such as strong workplace structures capable of empowering employees to solve their own problems locally provide a basis for sustained union renewal. Simms (2014) refers to the importance of developing cohesion among workers, influencing management to reinforce the legitimacy of union representation and, if necessary, the ability to take industrial action as central to the development of union power.

Studies of both effective and ineffective organising campaigns feature widely in the industrial relations literature (Badigannavar and Kelly, 2005; Murphy and Turner, 2013). Notable too are examples of organising attempts in the hotel sector (Alberti, 2014; Bergene et al., 2014). Wills’ (2005) examination of an unsuccessful organising attempt in the Dorchester Hotel concluded that a larger geographical, sectoral approach framed around social justice issues may achieve greater organising success (see also Alberti, 2014).

The crucial evolution of an organising campaign occurs when the injustices of workers are transformed into motivating forces by leaders and activists. Leaders and activists work on the ground to mobilise the grassroots through forging a sense of collective identity and solidarity among workers. Alternatively, a public campaign of organising focuses on increasing public awareness of the conditions of workers in a particular industry and potentially reaches out to all workers in that sector. An increase in public support can increase workers’ sense of efficacy that the union can improve working conditions. Public campaigns can strengthen workers' resolve and politicise workers around wider issues beyond the workplace. In this article, we draw on mobilisation theory to address why a well-planned and protracted organising campaign conducted at both workplace and public levels remained relatively ineffective at increasing membership and gaining employer recognition.

Method

The research presented here is based on semi-structured interviews conducted with a range of actors in the organising process. The research on the initial workplace organising efforts is based on interviews conducted with the national level and sector organisers in 2009 (six in total). A further round of follow-up interviews was conducted in 2010. The national-level (lead organiser) interviews explored the union’s strategy for organising the sector in terms of identifying possible targets for organising and mapping. In contrast, the interviews with the sector organisers focused on the tactics used on the ground to communicate with workers and build support for organising and incorporated the core facets of mobilisation theory. Through snowball sampling and a mix of personal contacts, four hotel worker activists were subsequently interviewed. Each of these workers had been employed in a range of hotels and had varying experiences of workers' attempts to organise, or seek to form some kind of internal representation group. These activists provided an internal perspective on employer actions and worker sentiment towards unionisation. To understand the characteristics of the public campaign, the researchers also conducted interviews with two organisers in another Irish union who had experience of operating campaigns grounded in social responsibility and ethical consumerism. In 2011, interviews were conducted with an employer representative of one of the hotel groups who signed up to the Fair Hotels campaign. Finally, another round of interviews was conducted with the divisional organiser for hospitality in 2014 in the wake of significant industrial relations reform in the sector. The findings were analysed using thematic analysis (a systematic method of analysing qualitative data in case study research by categorising themes through a process of coding). The interviews were coded with a view to identifying aspects of mobilisation theory central to the campaign: a sense of injustice, attribution and a sense of efficacy in union joining. In addition to the interviews, data were obtained from a range of secondary sources, including annual reports from the National Employment Rights Authority on workplace inspections and submissions made by both the unions and the hotel representative body relating to reforms of the JLC system. We also utilised the Fair Hotels website for updates on the campaign’s progress and the Twitter account to gauge the level of engagement with the campaign. Supplementary to the qualitative data, we analysed data from the Quarterly National Household Survey (QNHS) to investigate changes in pay and non-standard work in the hotel sector over the course of the organising activity.¹

Findings

Identifying injustice and attribution of blame among hotel workers

Our analysis of QNHS data in Table 1 reveals that relative to other sectors, wages among hotel workers fell significantly (8.6%) between 2009 and 2013. Non-standard forms of employment were also far higher than in other sectors of the economy. In 2008, the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA, 2013) detected breaches of employment law in 78% of the hotels inspected. Non-compliance related to insufficient records with regard to contracts, pay and underpayment of the statutory minimum pay rates.

Table 1.

Atypical employment patterns and average earnings by economic sector, 2009–2013.

	Proportion of employees engaged in the following work patterns					Average annual earnings
	Part-time work (%)	Evening work (%)	Saturday work (%)	Sunday work (%)	Service with current employer	Average annual earnings (€)	Change 2009–2013 (%)
Hotels/restaurants	45	41	65	51	4.8	16,128	−8.6
Retail trade	38	14	45	21	7.3	27,252	+4.9
Transport	14	17	28	18	10.9	38,342	+0.3
Construction	20	3	12	2	8.0	36,230	−7.2
Financial services	15	7	10	5	7.5	51,306	+4.1
Production/industry	9	15	18	10	9.5	42,644	+2.0
Health	33	18	29	23	9.1	35,763	−9.7
Public administration	11	15	22	19	16.8	48,283	−6.4
Education	22	3	5	3	10.6	42,554	−7.9

Source: CSO, QNHS 2013 (Q4) for patterns of work, and the CSO Earnings and Labour Costs Annual Data 2013 for average earnings.

Following successful campaigns in somewhat similar sectors such as security and contract cleaning, SIPTU began targeting hotels in areas with a high concentration of hotels and previously organised establishments. Interviews with the organisers also revealed issues around health and safety, overtime and hours of work as well as more interactional forms of injustice such as incidents of bullying and harassment. Unfair treatment in the workplace was cited as a common occurrence within certain divisions: ‘In some hotels it’s [payment] per room rate, if someone gets an easier room they can clean more rooms and get more pay. It’s common to give relatives an easier job’ (Sector organiser). Job security was also identified as critical. Hotel workers are commonly employed on short-term contracts. Such contracts figured as a significant issue for migrant and young workers: ‘Foreign nationals (most of them) wouldn’t know if they have to get a contract of employment, and it’s up to us [the union] to educate them about the contract’ (Lead organiser). Before 2007, workers in Ireland enjoyed a buoyant labour market; however, after the financial crisis, labour mobility was severely curtailed. Working conditions in hotels worsened further, but workers were likely silenced by fear of unemployment: ‘Workers were afraid to talk about problems because they were constantly told the hotel sector is not performing well’ (Lead organiser).

Issues of transience and diversity among hotel workers

The problem of labour turnover was a major challenge for organisers. Workers change jobs so regularly that maintaining relationships between staff is difficult and organisers find it difficult to maintain contact with new workers on a regular basis. The organiser noted that this rapid churning of the workforce prevented the emergence of a sense of community: ‘They look at each other like strangers. They have shifts that are part-time, casual, just function workers and they bring in outside companies for functions’ (Sector organiser). Aside from being a logistical problem for the union in organising terms, high turnover also contributes to a lack of collective identity among the work group as there is a constant cycle of socialisation for new entrants and the absence of a steady cohort.

Difficulties organising the hotel industry are intensified by the diversity of issues and people employed (Wills, 2005). The inability to create a shared collective identity among workers in individual establishments represented perhaps the most difficult aspect for organisers to overcome in this campaign. Some nationalities are more vulnerable than others with regard to employer treatment since they have limited security in Ireland due to their job permit and non-EU citizenship status. Given the high number of immigrant workers employed in the sector, the union made efforts to accommodate the translation of union materials and official documents for workers. The union encouraged immigrant workers to take an active role in the campaign through gathering signatures for petitions or raising collective grievances.

Forging a collective identity and solidarity

A consequence of the diverse and transient nature of hotel work is to weaken the development of any sense of community and solidarity among hotel workers. Solidarity arises when workers have a strong sense of identity, attachment and allegiance with their fellow workers. The most basic level of solidarity is the real community at the workplace which Bild et al. (1997) label the ‘workers' collective’. At this level of solidarity, workers refer to themselves as ‘we’ in relation to the ‘others’. Often the ‘we’ and ‘others’ represent workers and management, where workers create an informal and spontaneous shield of solidarity against the continuous demands of the company (Bild et al., 1997).

Creating a sense of collective solidarity is a fundamental challenge to mobilising workers. One organiser outlined the relationships between different divisions: ‘People speak mostly only with each other’s department, the accommodation staff don’t speak to the kitchen which is totally different to the bar’. Clear divisions exist within hotels, with some employees viewing themselves as distinct groups, creating a far more complex version of the traditional ‘them and us’ between management and workers. Finding common ground among workers appeared to be a problem for organisers: ‘In the kitchen they have issues with tips but the accommodation department have issues with fairness for everybody. To find one issue which unites everybody is hard to do’ (Activist). A fundamental difficulty in organising a workforce with such diverse issues is the degree to which differentiation among the group imparts a greater level of power to the employer. In essence, the employer can adopt a ‘divide and conquer’ style of management by pitching improvements in conditions for one group of workers as a direct cost to another. In the absence of an in-group–out-group scenario, the job of organising is more complex as organisers try to unite various groups under a common issue.

The emergence of leaders or lay activists within the workplace who can foster a sense of collective identity is considered critical to successful organising (Metochi, 2002). This proved exceptionally challenging in the hotel sector. In situations where the organisers could identify leaders, retaining their involvement was difficult. High levels of staff turnover meant potential activists often moved on to other jobs or viewed the retention of a job, no matter how meagre, as preferable to unemployment should they be victimised for union involvement. As one activist observed: ‘What is more valuable for me? Achieve my rights or actually have my job’.

Many hotels opposed the distribution of union material in their establishments and would quickly remove such material away from customers’ view. ‘Management get rid of that straightaway so the public don’t see it’ (Sector organiser). Organisers used alternative methods of dissemination such as leaflet drops outside normal working hours: ‘We waited for people at 6am in the morning when they are coming to work out in the car park’. The extent of employer hostility often meant that employees were too intimidated to engage with the organisers. Some employers threatened to outsource particular divisions which acted to deter employee engagement with the union. To avoid the intimidating workplace arena, the union arranged external information events on employment rights. These events, however, appeared to produce relatively low levels of interest among hotel workers. ‘We used to produce a hotel industry leaflet. We translated it into Polish and Russian and gave it to citizen’s information centres and we got one call only’ (Lead organiser).

An assessment of organising efforts

These findings illustrate the difficulties of attempting to mobilise at workplace level in hotels. While identifying issues of injustice and attributing blame for these injustices to the employer was not difficult, other core facets of the mobilisation process failed to occur, such as the development of a collective identity and the emergence of local leaders. Organising efforts took place at a time of financial crisis, with exceptionally high unemployment and weak demand in the tourism sector. Employer hostility and the threat effect against unionisation of job loss and victimisation acted to reduce the appeal of union membership. Factors such as the precarious nature of work permits meant that convincing immigrant workers of the efficacy of union membership was extremely difficult. The union also needed to respond to calls from unionised hotels to actively target non-union hotels. Consequently, in 2010 SIPTU adopted an alternative approach to reinvigorate its organising efforts under the ‘Fair Hotels’ campaign.

An organising tactic frequently cited in the literature is to increase public awareness of unions' organising efforts by linking campaigns to issues of social justice. The ‘Fair Hotels’ campaign based on the principle that hotels engaging in fair work practices should be supported by consumers began in 2010. Reflecting on the coalition building techniques demonstrated in comprehensive campaigns such as that of ‘Justice for Janitors’, the union sought the support of nongovernmental organisations, civic society organisations, lobby groups and migrant rights campaigners. Initially, 32 organisations supported the campaign. A central purpose of the campaign was to provide an ethical choice for consumers via the Fair Hotels website. Hotels are heavily reliant on web-based bookings, and the potential support for ‘fair hotels’ from the general union membership provided a strong business case for participating hotel owners. Unions themselves wield strong purchasing power in the hotel market for functions and conferences, adding to the incentive for hotels to support the campaign. From our analysis of the campaign materials, we found that over 50 hotels with collective bargaining agreements signed up to the campaign initially. Hotels were deemed to be ‘fair’ based on criteria related to staff treatment, wage rates, voice mechanisms, health and safety, and job quality. Through the Fair Hotels campaign, SIPTU attempted to undermine non-union hotels by stigmatising poor employers and routing business to unionised hotels.

Since the campaign began, SIPTU has secured recognition agreements with a further 10 hotels and extended collective bargaining coverage to an additional thousand workers (European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions (EFFAT), 2013). Moreover, our analysis of results in the NERA annual reports showed that the previously very low rates of compliance with employment legislation have improved from 22% in 2008 to 53% in 2013. Improved economic circumstances may also account for higher levels of compliance along with greater resources for NERA inspections. Nevertheless, the union can point to these positive changes in the sector as campaign successes.

Discussion

Despite the relatively low level of grassroots mobilisation, SIPTU can claim to have secured a foothold in the hotel sector by aligning more closely with unionised employers. However, the absence of robust union grassroots structures at the workplace level, such as active shop stewards and infill recruitment, is likely to constrain the aim of increasing union membership in the sector. While this campaign demonstrates an alternative approach towards securing bargaining, recognition and ‘protocol agreements’ as they are referred to in the campaign, the link with membership recruitment and activism is tenuous. According to Bergene et al. (2014: 133), inspiration can be drawn from SIPTU’s campaign ‘as an example of union innovation that exploits associational power as well as the growing trend of ethical consumerism’. However, the extent to which this represents a sustainable model for organising precarious workers in this industry is open to question. On the surface, the outcomes from the campaign appear relatively successful, allowing the union greater leverage in the industry, increasing consumer awareness and providing mechanisms through which to establish and build recognition and bargaining agreements. Ultimately, though, the approach is top-down (driven by employer–union engagement rather than worker-led action) and does not address a central problem of establishing a stable active membership in the hotel sector. Indeed, our analysis using a mobilisation framework reveals the lack of collective identity as a key obstacle to organising. Thus far, the campaign has relied largely upon purchasing power and consumer sentiment rather than worker activism to achieve its aims. Aside from one incident of industrial action in Dublin (2011), no industrial activity or protests have occurred. This contrasts starkly with the demonstrations and displays of activism exhibited in SIPTU’s recent care worker campaign, which resulted in substantial improvements for the workers concerned and exemplified the ability of a union to mobilise workers towards active demonstration (Murphy and Turner, 2014).

One of the central facets of this campaign is the advocacy of the business case between unions and employers. Yet it can be argued that this provides fragile grounds on which to form an alliance; if unionised hotels were to suffer financially compared to non-unionised establishments, the rationale would be questioned. While the Fair Hotels campaign claimed a membership of over 50 employers in 2014, it seems that relations between unions and employers more generally in the sector remain strained. The effectiveness of the campaign must be assessed against the inability of SIPTU to convince hoteliers to engage with the reformed JLC system. While employers in cleaning and security sectors negotiated new agreements, hoteliers have maintained staunch opposition. It is notable that those sectors had an active membership base capable of mounting a formidable public campaign (Whitston, 2014). According to the divisional organiser, not even the minority employers participating in the Fair Hotels campaign have publicly voiced support for the JLC system. For the union, the rationale for the JLC is clear; wages in this sector have fallen more steeply than in comparable areas in spite of union efforts (8.6 percent decline in five years; see Table 1). The refusal of employers to engage with the statutory JLC serves to highlight further employer power and does little to enhance the perceptions of union for workers.

In 2012, the Irish government decreased tax on hospitality services to incentivise consumer spending and reduced employer’s social protection contributions for employees on low earnings. These measures resulted in increased consumer spending and overall employment increases, particularly in part-time jobs. However, this government initiative could have ostensibly incentivised a reduction of working hours (the sector has the highest levels of non-standard employment in the economy; see Table 1). Furthermore, noncompliance in pay-rates from 2013 captures only instances where employers have flouted basic minimum wage rates, not the previously higher JLC rate. This calls into question whether conditions have improved or actually worsened further. Recently, the union has sought a reversal of tax incentives in the hospitality industry, claiming that the benefits have not been passed on to workers. Arguably then, a contradiction exists within a campaign that advocates partnering with hoteliers in making a business case whilst actively seeking changes at national level, which employers clearly oppose.

Conclusion

With the end of social partnership in 2008, Irish unions were left with little choice but to focus more heavily on organising to address density, particularly in the private sector. A reliance on workplace union structures and membership activism to achieve change was arguably something that unions were unprepared for after three decades of partnership. While active workplace trade unionism predicated on rank and file activism has been espoused by some unions as a path to revitalisation, this has not always been the case (Heery and Kelly, 1994). Voss (2010) argues that rather than being largely a bottom-up process, union revitalisation has in practice contained a strong element of centralism and coordination. SIPTU’s attempt to organise the hotel sector reflects both of these approaches, with an initial drive to mobilise hotel workers followed by a second stage of engagement with the wider public. Contextual factors such as a harsh economic climate and employer hostility provided difficult conditions for mobilising and organising workers. While many workers in the hotel sector experienced a sense of injustice and attributed this injustice to employers, the campaign was unable to achieve a sufficient sense of collective identity, let alone a politicised collective identity or a belief in the efficacy of collective action among a sufficient mass of workers.

Amid an increasingly difficult economic environment, the union recognised the difficulties of grassroots organising and in turn developed the Fair Hotels campaign, which clearly shared many characteristics of partnership at a workplace level. This is a model with which Irish unions were comfortable, though in this case one which crucially lacked both state support (after the withdrawal of the JLC in 2011) and strong collective organisation.

In an industry where organising and recognition is particularly difficult, it may be argued that the Fair Hotels campaign represented the most pragmatic, sustainable and effective method to win improved pay and working conditions. Yet on these fundamental measures, the hotel sector appears to have fared quite poorly. While average Irish weekly earnings have fallen by 4.6% since 2008, the fall was greater in the hospitality sector where wages fell by 7.7% (Tafte, 2014). As an example of a business case for unionisation, this campaign clearly has merit, as hoteliers aligning with unions can benefit from an ethical consumer-driven market and an improved employment relations climate. Yet the Fair Hotels campaign has so far failed to win over the majority of employers in the hospitality sector. Even the large unionised employers with local-level collective bargaining agreements have refused to engage with the JLC system. Returning to the discussion of sustainable organising outcomes and top-down or bottom-up organising, while there is merit in this public campaign in terms of building links with employers, by and large it lacked worker cohesion and the ability to reinforce the legitimacy of union representation and compel employers to engage.

The withdrawal and subsequent employer refusal to engage with the JLC dealt a negative blow to this campaign. Kaine and Rawling’s (2010) study of the Australian Transport Workers Union shows the strategic importance of an organising approach that can capitalise on the implementation of better regulation by using it to support organising efforts. Better regulation, they argue, is not necessarily an end in itself but feeds into a strategy for building union capacity by using pre-existing state regulation. For example, in 2015, Unite in New Zealand successfully achieved a ban on zero-hours contracts in the fast-food sector (Treen, 2015), demonstrating to workers the efficacy of union action. In Ireland, the Mandate union successfully organised a demonstration of 3000 people against the prevalence of low-hour contracts in retail and a one-day strike of 5000 retail workers. This illustrates the importance of having a clear salient issue to mobilise around. However, SIPTU’s attempt to restore the JLC regulatory structure in the hotel industry failed to galvanise worker support or any visible demonstrative worker action on the ground to overturn employer opposition. It appears that the grassroots mobilisation failed to establish the required level of worker activism necessary to capitalise on the Fair Hotels campaign and embed the union in the hotel sector.

McAlevey (2012: 317) argues that for unions to be a powerful force, they must adopt organising approaches that prioritise their direct relationship with workers. In contrast, others argue that unions need to find new ways of building solidarity outside of the ‘strong ties’ of the workplace (Heckscher and McCarthy, 2014: 632). Yet SIPTU’s attempt to build a sense of solidarity with consumers and hotel owners through a public campaign did not – from the evidence of this article – substitute for worker solidarity traditionally found in strongly unionised workplaces. Organising precarious workers has always presented challenges for unions, as is the case in the hotel sector. The strategic approach taken by SIPTU of first mobilising workers at workplace level and second waging a public campaign in the entire sector has much to commend it. However, the lessons for trade unions based on our analysis of the campaign are that unless mobilisation achieves sufficient traction in the workplace, the achievements of a public type campaign are likely to be relatively negligible. Indeed, a strategy of commencing an organising campaign with a strong public campaign prior to mobilisation at the workplace level may well prove a more effective approach.

Our examination of the components of mobilisation theory presented in this campaign indicates the absence of any developed sense of collective identity at workplace level. By launching the public campaign in conjunction with workplace organising, the union may have in part been able to overcome this obstacle to mobilisation by fostering a sense of workers' identity not just at workplace level but across the sector more generally. Essentially, the grassroots and Fair Hotels campaigns failed to forge a sense of community, collective identity and solidarity among hotel workers to any appreciable extent. The initial grassroots campaign failed to develop a sense of collective and politicised identity and solidarity sufficient to overcome employer reluctance and hostility to a union presence. This failure served to expose the weakness of the union’s position and the strength of the employer to exclude the union from the workplace. A crucial aim of a public campaign in an organising context is to raise the consciousness of workers through making workplace issues visible to the public, creating a sense of injustice among workers and an entitlement to better treatment, developing a sense of collective identity and solidarity with fellow workers and fostering membership of a trade union as the most effective way to deal with workplace issues.

Grassroots mobilisation and public campaigns essentially represent tactical options in organising. While grassroots mobilisation attempts to develop a sense of collective identity and solidarity at workplace level, a public campaign operates at a more general level geared towards creating a more fertile environment for worker mobilisation. It is unlikely that public campaigns alone can encourage the formation of a collective identity, mobilise workers or compel employers to recognise unions at workplace level. Organising campaigns such as that of JfJ and SEIU Homecare Workers have successfully combined grassroots mobilisation with a public campaign. However, the Fair Hotels campaign, we argue, has been ineffective in this regard as it neither created a more fertile environment for worker organising, nor resulted in a strong sense of collective identity. From the evidence presented in this study, we contend that reliance on a public campaign approach to organising will not overcome the absence of grassroots mobilisation and solidarity at workplace level.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

We wish to thank the reviewers for their helpful suggestions on an earlier draft.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This research was partially funded by the Industrial Relations Research Trust.

Note

Biographical notes

Caroline Murphy is a Postdoctoral Researcher in the Department of Personnel and Employment Relations, Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick. Her doctoral thesis (2012) focused on union organising practices and outcomes. Her current areas of research interest are precarious employment practices and gender equality in the labour market.

Thomas Turner is an Associate Professor at the Department of Personnel and Employment Relations, Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick. His main areas of research include trade union organising and activism, the impact of HRM on earnings and inequality in the workplace and the integration and impact of immigrants in the labour market.

References

Alberti

(2014) Moving beyond the dichotomy of workplace and community unionism: The challenges of organising migrant workers in London’s hotels. Economic and Industrial Democracy. DOI: 10.1177/0143831X14534907.

Badigannavar

Kelly

(2005) Why are some union organizing campaigns more successful than others? British Journal of Industrial Relations 43: 515–535.

Bergene

Jordhus-Lier

Underthun

(2014) Organizing capacities and union priorities in the hotel sector in Oslo, Dublin, and Toronto. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies 4(3): 119–136.

Bild

Madsen

Jorgensen

(1997) Wage-earner solidarity – Moribund or changing? In: D’Art

Turner

(eds) Collectivism and Individualism: Trends and Prospects., Dublin: Oak Tree Press.

Brewer

Gardner

(1996) Who is this ‘We’? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71(1): 83–93.

Bronfenbrenner

Juravich

(1998) It takes more than house calls: Organizing to win with a comprehensive union-building strategy. In: Bronfenbrenner

Friedman

Hurd

(eds) Organizing to Win: New Research on Union Strategies, Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, pp. 19–36.

Burgess

Connell

Winterton

(2013) Vulnerable workers, precarious work and the role of trade unions and HRM. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 24(22): 4083–4093.

Central Statistics Office (CSO) (2010) Quarterly National Household Survey data. Available at: http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/labourmarket/2009/qnhsunionmembership_q22009.pdf (accessed 12 October 2014).

Cooper

Ellem

(2011) Less than zero: Union recognition and bargaining rights in Australia 1996–2007. Labor History 52(1): 49–69.

10.

D’Art D and Turner T (2004) The experience of union officials with recognition and partnership at work in the Irish private sector (No. 02/04). Working Paper Research Series: Paper.

11.

Delp

Quan

(2002) Homecare worker organizing in California: An analysis of a successful strategy. Labor Studies Journal 27(1): 1–23.

12.

Dobbins

(2010) Trade Union Strategies to Recruit New Groups of Workers – Ireland, Eurofound, Dublin: Industrial Relations News Publishing.

13.

Donaghey

Teague

(2007) The mixed fortunes of Irish unions: Living with the paradoxes of social partnership. Journal of Labor Research 28(1): 19–41.

14.

Erickson

Fisk

Milkman

(2002) Justice for janitors in Los Angeles: Lessons from three rounds of negotiations. British Journal of Industrial Relations 40(3): 543–567.

15.

European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions (EFFAT) (2013) Ireland: Labelling in the hotels sector – towards a fair hotels standard. Available at: http://www.precarious-work.eu/en/what-did-trade-unions-do/ireland-labelling-hotels-sector-%E2%80%93-towards-fair-hotels-standard (accessed 15 December 2015).

16.

Fahlbeck

(1995) Past, present and future role of the employment contract in labour relations in Sweden. In: Betten

(ed.) The Employment Contract in Transforming Labour Relations, London: Kluwer Law International.

17.

Fairbrother

(2000) British trade unions facing the future. Capital & Class 24(2): 11–42.

18.

Farrelly R (2012) Employment and Industrial Relations in the Hotels and Restaurants, Eurofound, Dublin. Available at: http://eurofound.europa.eu/observatories/eurwork/comparative-information/national-contributions/ireland/employment-and-industrial-relations-in-the-hotels-and-restaurants (accessed 18 November 2014).

19.

Gall

(2012) Union recognition in Britain: The end of legally induced voluntarism? Industrial Law Journal 41(4): 407–438.

20.

Gall

Fiorito

(2011) The backward march of labour halted? Or, what is to be done with ‘union organising’? The cases of Britain and the USA. Capital & Class 35(2): 233–251.

21.

Heckscher

McCarthy

(2014) Transient solidarities: Commitment and collective action in post-industrial societies. British Journal of Industrial Relations 52: 627–657.

22.

Heery

(2002) Partnership versus organising: Alternative futures for British trade unionism. Industrial Relations Journal 33: 20–35.

23.

Heery E and Kelly J (1994) Professional, participative and managerial unionism: An interpretation of change in trade unions. Work, Employment & Society 8(1): 1–22.

24.

Holgate

(2005) Organizing migrant workers: A case study of working conditions and unionization in a London sandwich factory. Work, Employment & Society 19(3): 463–480.

25.

Irish Hotels Federation (2014) http://www.ihf.ie/content/new-president-irish-hotels-federation-elected (accessed 17 December 2015).

26.

Johnson N B and Jarley P (2004) Justice and union participation: An extension and test of mobilization theory. British Journal of Industrial Relations 42(3): 543–562.

27.

Kaine

Rawling

(2010) ‘Comprehensive campaigning’ in the NSW transport industry: Bridging the divide between regulation and union organizing. Journal of Industrial Relations 52(2): 183–200.

28.

Kelly

(1998) Rethinking Industrial Relations: Mobilization, Collectivism, and Long Waves, New York: Routledge.

29.

Knox

(2006) The differential effects of regulatory reform: Evidence from the Australian luxury hotel industry. Journal of Industrial Relations 48(4): 453–474.

30.

Knox

(2009) Better the devil you know? An analysis of employers' bargaining preferences in the Australian hotel industry. Journal of Industrial Relations 51(1): 25–44.

31.

MacPartlin

(2008) The organising union. In: Hastings

(ed.) ‘The State of the Unions’: The Challenges Facing Organised Labour in Ireland, Dublin: Liffey Press, pp. 83–104.

32.

McAdam

(1988) Micromobilization contexts and recruitment to activism. International Social Movement Research 1(1): 125–154.

33.

McAlevey

(2012) Raising Expectations (and Raising Hell): My Decade Fighting for the Labor Movement, NY: Verso Books.

34.

Metochi

(2002) The influence of leadership and member attitudes in understanding the nature of union participation. British Journal of Industrial Relations 40(1): 87–111.

35.

Murphy

Turner

(2013) Workplace activists in union organising campaigns: A critical resource? In: Turner

D'Art

O'Sullivan

(eds) Are Trade Unions Still Relevant? Trade Union Recognition 100 Years On, Dublin: Orpen Press, pp. 303–329.

36.

Murphy

Turner

(2014) Organising non-standard workers: Union recruitment in the Irish care sector. Industrial Relations Journal 45(5): 373–388.

37.

National Centre for Partnership & Performance (NCPP)/Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) (2009) The National Workplace Surveys 2009, Vol. 2, Employees. Available at: https://www.esri.ie/pubs/BKMNEXT169.pdf (accessed 17 December 2015).

38.

National Employment Rights Authority (NERA) (2013) Review of 2013. Available at: http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Publications_Forms/NERA_Review_2013.pdf (accessed 12 October 2014).

39.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2013) Statistics on Union Density. Available at: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=UN_DEN (accessed 12 October 2014).

40.

Prendergast A (2013) Hotel JLCs attacked and defended amidst review. Industrial Relations News, 10 March.

41.

Simms

(2014) Accounting for greenfield union organizing outcomes. British Journal of Industrial Relations 53(3): 397–422.

42.

Simon

Klandermans

(2001) Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist 56: 319–331.

43.

Stürmer

Simon

(2004) The role of collective identification in social movement participation: A panel study in the context of the German gay movement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30(3): 263–277.

44.

Tafte M (2014) What 5 cents on a big mac would mean for hospitality workers. Unite’s Notes on the Front. Available at: http://notesonthefront.typepad.com/politicaleconomy/2014/05/what-5-cents-on-a-big-mac-would-mean-for-hospitlaity-workers.html (accessed 30 October 2014).

45.

Tilly

(1978) From Mobilization to Revolution, New York: McGraw-Hill.

46.

Treen M (2015) How Unite took on the fast food companies over zero hours contracts and won. Available at: http://www.unite.org.nz/how_unite_took_on_the_fast_food_companies_over_zero_hour_contracts_and_won (accessed 19 June 2015).

47.

Turner

O'Sullivan

(2013) Economic crisis and the restructuring of wage setting mechanisms for vulnerable workers in Ireland. The Economic and Social Review 44: 197–219.

48.

Turner

D'Art

O'Sullivan

(2013) Still a struggle? Union recognition 100 years on. In: Turner

D'Art

O'Sullivan

(eds) Are Trade Unions Still Relevant? Trade Union Recognition 100 Years On, Dublin: Orpen Press, pp. 183–208.

49.

Van Knippenberg

De Cremer

(2004) Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly 15(6): 825–856.

50.

Voss

(2010) Democratic dilemmas: Union democracy and union renewal. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 16(3): 369–382.

51.

Whitston

(2014) The reform of Joint Labour Committees – The re-commodification of labour? Industrial Relations Journal 45: 409–423.

52.

Wills

(2004) Campaigning for low paid workers: The East London Communities Organisation (TELCO) living wage campaign. In: Brown

Healy

Heery

Taylor

(eds) The Future of Worker Representation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 262–282.

53.

Wills

(2005) The geography of union organising in low-paid service industries in the UK: Lessons from the T&G's campaign to unionise the Dorchester hotel, London. Antipode 37: 139–159.