Abstract
Throughout most of Europe, trade union membership is in decline, despite a vast range of initiatives intended to reverse this decline. This article explores why members retain their union membership, through surveys conducted in 14 union organizations in 12 countries. It highlights the importance of workplace representation for the provision of support to members. The article also assesses how the reasons that underpin membership retention might be incorporated into union organizing and renewal strategies.
Throughout much of Europe, trade union membership and density have declined since the 1980s. While the extent of this decline has varied between nations, no trade union movement has implemented a successful strategy to restore the levels of the late 1970s, leading some to question the relevance of trade unionism for the 21st century, the future role of trade unionism and the embeddedness of unions in globalized capitalism (Boeri et al., 2001; Crouch, 1986; Hyman, 2004). Two interrelated literatures have offered explanations of the decline in unionization and analyses of trade union renewal or revitalization strategies. This article adopts a third approach, identifying on a comparative basis why trade unionists retain membership during a period of membership decline, identifying the reasons that underpin membership and assessing their implications for renewal strategies.
Explanations of membership decline have examined the impact of the business cycle (Bain and Elsheikh, 1976; Schnabel, 2003, 2013) and the changing composition of the labour force (Farber and Western, 2001; Western, 1997). Variants of these approaches have highlighted the impact of changing relations between unions and political parties (Bean and Holden, 1992; Thelen, 1991), the individual characteristics of workers (Blanchflower, 2007; Schnabel and Wagner, 2007) and the impact of the Ghent system (Western, 1997). Advocates of these approaches argue that they explain a substantial proportion of the decline in unionization since the 1970s. Three criticisms are levelled at such studies. First, regression analyses fail to explain differences in national rates of membership decline and the increasing divergence of national density rates (Ebbinghaus and Visser, 1999). Second, they do not address variations in union strategy, how membership is organized and what appeal unions have for members and potential members in current circumstances (D’Art and Turner, 2008). Third, unionism for most union members is not an issue of national economic indicators or politics, but is a function of workplace circumstances (Hancké, 1993).
By contrast, the literature on renewal puts union strategy and the characteristics of potential members at the centre of the debate, addressing the merits and limitations of options such as servicing, partnership, organizing and community unionism, particularly within liberal market economies (Frege and Kelly, 2004; Heery, 2002). There is often a focus on groups of workers that are under-represented within unions, their specific requirements and their potential contribution to trade unions. In particular, young, temporary, migrant, women, part-time and, in some countries, white-collar workers are assessed as target groups (Cregan and Johnston, 1990; Llorente Sánchez, 2007). In contrast to the econometric modelling that is the mainstay of the literature on membership decline, discussion of union renewal relies more on case studies (Kloosterboer, 2007; Nissen, 2002; Turner and Cornfield, 2007). The evidence shows that the options for renewal are not mutually exclusive analytically or strategically (de Turberville, 2007; Heery, 2002), do not necessarily result in increases in membership or new forms of union governance appropriate to changed circumstances (Voss and Sherman, 2000) and that there are differences between stated policy intentions and day-to-day practice in many unions (Heery and Simms, 2008).
Yet one question has been downplayed or omitted from both literatures: why do people retain their trade union membership in times of membership decline? Throughout Europe, unionists and non-unionists alike perceive a need for unions (D’Art and Turner, 2008). Analyses of the motives for union membership, however, tend to be national rather than comparative and often focus on how people initially joined unions rather than why they remain members. Dutch and British studies have cited improved terms and conditions of employment and avoiding or resolving problems at work (Klandermans, 1986; van de Vall, 1970: 125–137; Waddington and Whitston, 1997), while research in the United States cites influence on workplace issues (Freeman and Rogers, 1999: 40–43). Danish workers joined unions primarily to gain access to the unemployment insurance funds operated by trade unions, but ensuring that that their interests are protected was the second most important reason (Jørgensen et al., 1992). Young workers in Britain mentioned that they were union members because other workers at their place of work were in the union (Cregan and Johnston, 1990), a position replicated among young Dutch workers (Klandermans, 1984). Membership retention is also associated with the quality of member services (Booth and Chatterji, 1995), which led many European trade unions to make available to members a range of financial services as an ‘incentive’ to membership retention.
The national focus of these studies, and differences in the wording used in questionnaires or interviews, preclude direct international comparisons. Without these, the relative effect of different national institutions, such as the Ghent system, on membership decisions cannot be assessed. This article therefore draws on comparable survey evidence from 12 countries, and shows that the reasons that underpin membership retention do not differ markedly between countries. Although there are differences in emphasis between unionists of different nationalities, between men and women and among different age groups, representation at the workplace is central to member retention throughout Europe. To illustrate these points the article comprises two substantive sections: the first outlines the methods and sample composition of the survey while the second identifies why unionists retain their membership.
Methods and sample composition
Questionnaire-based surveys were undertaken in 14 union organizations in 12 countries between 2005 and 2010: the negotiation of access and time management issues precluded simultaneous distribution across all participating unions. A questionnaire was designed by the author to investigate a range of topics and was sustained throughout the research, with changes made only to accommodate institutional variations (for example, between dual and single-channel systems of workplace representation or differences in the range of benefits available to members). The questionnaire was translated by industrial relations specialists into the language of each country. In addition to extensive checks for meaning in the translations, the questionnaires were also piloted to ensure that potential respondents understood what was being asked and whether they had the information at their disposal to answer the questions.
The distribution comprised a sample, based on the unions’ membership records; the numbers distributed within each organization differed for reasons of cost, membership size and the quality of union membership records. Within several organizations, particular sections of the membership were selected as target groups by representatives of the unions and the author, on the basis that these members were targets of a recruitment or organizing initiative; were considered ‘difficult’ to organize; and, where possible, were employed in private sector services to ensure some similarity in the national samples. As a consequence of this approach, no claim is made that the results are necessarily representative of the entire unions that participated. Unemployed and retired members were excluded from the survey. Table 1 provides details of each distribution and a sketch of the participating organizations.
Sample and survey distribution.
With the exception of four unions, the questionnaires were posted to members at the address held by the union. Completed questionnaires were returned either directly to the author or to the union head office, where they were boxed while still in the return envelopes and sent to the author. The first exception was CC.OO (Comisiones Obreras), where the questionnaire was distributed electronically to members of four of the affiliates that had submitted their e-mail addresses. There is no doubt that this procedure resulted in a skewing of the sample of returns towards younger members: median age of CC.OO respondents was between 37 and 38 years whereas that for all participating unions was between 43 and 44 years. The second exception involved BBDSz (Bankok, Biztosítók Dolgozóinak Szakszervezete), KASz (Kereskedelmi Alkalmazottak Szakszervete) and Solidarność, none of which hold membership records. In consequence, the questionnaires were distributed by students to members at their place of work, collected by the students and then returned to the author via the head office of the union. The implications are twofold. First, the questionnaire returns tended to be drawn from large workplaces in large cities. Second, the sample cannot be regarded as representative regarding individual or workplace characteristics. To establish the priorities of members from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) was considered sufficient justification to proceed on this basis.
Two further introductory remarks concern trade union mergers and the participation of union confederations. Since the survey three unions have merged with the result that they no longer exist as independent organizations: RBF (Restaurations Branchens Forbund) merged in 2006 with 3F; SIF (Svenska Industritjänstemannaförbundet) merged in 2008 with Handelstjänstemannaförbundet to form Unionen; and TU (Toimihenkilöunioni) merged to form Ammattiliitto Pro in 2011. In each of these cases the confederal affiliation remained the same. In addition, both CC.OO and Solidarność are union confederations. In CC.OO, four federations participated in the survey, each of which organized in one of the segments of the economy listed in Table 1. Solidarność comprises about 8300 company trade unions, 37 regional unions and 16 industrial unions that represent workers throughout the Polish economy; the survey was distributed in the sectors mentioned in Table 1.
Why do you stay in the union?
Respondents were asked to rank their reasons for staying in the union from a closed list. Responses are presented successively for all respondents, for men and women and by age groups; the sex and age data are presented to explore whether women and young workers have different requirements of unions and thus remain in membership for different reasons. The findings show consistency across countries in the rank order of the reasons for membership retention, with differences in emphasis between men and women and between different age groups. Support at the workplace is central to membership retention.
All respondents
Table 2 shows the results for all and for women members in each trade union, based on the issues ranked first and second by each respondent. In addition to the reasons listed for staying in the union, six others were included in the questionnaires: union lobbying, most people at work being members, income insurance (SIF only), union training courses, financial services and ‘other’. The proportion of members that cited these is not included here for reasons of space and tabular clarity. 1 In only two unions, UILCA (Credito Esattorie e Assicurazioni-UIL) and KASz, did more than 7 percent of respondents indicate that ‘another reason’ was among the two principal reasons for staying in the union, suggesting that the closed list included the primary reasons for the vast majority of members. 2
The two principal reasons for staying in the union (%).
Table 2 shows that, with a single exception, ‘support if I have a problem at work’ (‘hereafter’, ‘support’) heads the ranking. In every union more than 55 percent of members cited ‘support’ as one of the two principal reasons for staying in the union, and in three unions more than 70 percent did so. The uniformity of these results suggests that if variation in industrial relations institutions, economic segment of employment or occupation influences membership retention these are at most second-level influences. ‘Support’ heads the ranking, for example, irrespective of whether single- or dual-channel systems of workplace representation apply, or whether the works council is strong (Germany and Austria) or relatively weak (the Netherlands). It is acknowledged, however, that the provision of support to union members at their place of work varies in practice between single and dual systems, requiring different approaches by unions.
Four points arise. First, these results confirm the continued viability of ‘mutual insurance’ as a trade union method (Webb and Webb, 1897: 152–172). Second, they are consistent with those on union leaving: UK research suggests that between 25 and 35 percent of leavers do so because of inadequate workplace support offered to members (Waddington, 2006), while in the Netherlands and Spain inadequate support at the workplace accounts for 40 and 35 percent of leavers, respectively (Jódar et al., 2009: 15; Visser, 2002). Third, the responses also indicate that the manner in which support is made available is crucial for membership retention; well-developed union organization in single-channel systems or union workplace influence on works councils in dual systems underpins membership retention and promotes aggregate membership levels (Hancké, 1993). Fourth, the quality of support available to members within both single and dual systems of representation is likely to vary: only 58 percent of members in single channel systems reported the presence of a shop steward at their place of work and 67 percent of members in dual systems reported the presence of a works councillor. 3
The single exception is the Finnish TU where ‘access to the union’s unemployment insurance scheme’ (hereafter, access to unemployment insurance) heads the ranking. In Denmark and Sweden, the other two countries in the survey where variants of the Ghent system operate, ‘access to unemployment insurance’ appears at position two. The high position of ‘access to unemployment insurance’ in the three Ghent system countries confirms the impact of ‘selective incentives’ arising from variations in systems of unionization and industrial relations (Olson, 1965). That ‘access to unemployment insurance’ does not appear consistently first in the ranking in Ghent system countries contrasts with earlier research (Jørgensen et al., 1992). There are two possible explanations. First, unemployment was lower when the current surveys were conducted than in the early 1990s, making unemployment insurance less salient (LO, 2005). Second, the relationship between ‘access to unemployment insurance’ and trade union membership has become looser and less transparent in recent years, as a result of the establishment of insurance funds independent of trade unions and reductions in the levels of benefits (Kjellberg, 2006; Lind, 2009). While the research reported here does not allow assessment of the relative weight attributable to these explanations, it is noteworthy that the ‘income insurance’ scheme offered exclusively to members by SIF is designed to protect the level of benefits relative to wages. This scheme was cited by 9 percent of members as one of their two principal reasons for staying in the union. While this proportion is not high compared to that for ‘support’ and ‘access to unemployment insurance’, it reflects the influence of an attempt to modify the operation of the Ghent system in trade union terms on a basis exclusive to union members, and compensates for changes in government policy on benefit provision that have limited the level of benefit increases (Kjellberg, 2006). 4
There is more marked variation in the rank order of the reasons for membership retention between ‘to improve my pay and conditions (hereafter pay), ‘I believe in trade unions and want to take part’ (hereafter belief), and ‘industrial and membership benefits’ (hereafter benefits). Members of four unions (SIF, UILCA, KASz and Solidarność) rank ‘belief’ above ‘pay’, whereas members of three unions (TU, NITO [Norges Ingeniør og Teknologorganisasjon] and BBDSz) assign greater importance to ‘benefits’ than to ‘belief’ and members of one union (KASz) rank ‘benefits’ higher than ‘pay’.
That ‘pay’ appears second in the ranking for the majority of the unions is consistent with econometric explanations of changes in membership levels, which demonstrate that nominal or real wages are influential in membership change (Bain and Elshiekh, 1976; Schnabel, 2013). Like ‘support’, the high ranking of ‘pay’ confirms members’ adherence to a long-standing trade union agenda based on fair and equal treatment at the workplace and improvements in terms and conditions of employment (Perlman, 1928 [1979]). Tests showed that the rank order of ‘pay’ did not change with variations in members’ pay level. The high ranking of ‘pay’ confirms that maintaining high rates of coverage of collective bargaining is central to membership retention (Scheuer, 2011). The contraction in bargaining coverage since the 1980s, particularly in CEE, is thus likely to have had a negative effect on union capacity to retain members.
‘Belief’ is ranked below ‘pay’ in 10 of the 14 unions and above ‘benefits’ in 11 of them, with a range of scores between 15 (TU) and 50 percent (Solidarność). The highest scores are in CEE (KASz, BBDSz and Solidarność) and Southern Europe (CC.OO and UILCA). While Hungary, Poland, Spain and Italy, unlike most other countries in the survey, have competing union confederations, there is no obvious reason to suggest that inter-union competition in itself generates greater ideological commitment to unionism. However, making a choice of one from two or more rivals may generate a greater ideological commitment to the chosen confederation. The results on ‘belief’ are generally positive for unions in so far as they suggest that an ideological commitment to unionism remains among a substantial section of the workforce, which is supplementary to the demand for union services. Furthermore, these results suggest that a proportion of members are still prepared to take an active part in union affairs.
The ‘benefits’ available to members of the participating unions vary markedly. While most of the unions in Western Europe offer a package that covers some or all of sickness, funeral, accident, injury and strike benefits, the Hungarian unions retain provisions for holiday accommodation in addition to some of the benefits offered by Western trade unions. The value of the benefits available also varies. To illustrate, the sickness benefit available to TU members in Finland is of far greater value than that available to Solidarność members in Poland, even after national differences in living standards are taken into account. Given the variation in both the range and value of available benefits, it is remarkable that the position of ‘benefits’ is so consistent in the ranking (between 14 and 20 percent of the members of nine of the unions citing ‘benefits’ as one of the two principal reasons for staying in membership). Two exceptions are BBDSz and KASz, where ‘benefits’ receive higher scores, suggesting that the holiday accommodation provisions remain important to membership retention. Both TU and NITO offer a range of benefits specific to professional engineers, which may also explain why ‘benefits’ are valued relatively highly by their members. Were unions to develop their provision to meet some of the shortfall arising from government cuts imposed as part of austerity programmes, the value of ‘benefits’ for membership retention may be enhanced (Johnston et al., 2012), as is illustrated by the ‘income insurance’ offered by SIF.
Of the reasons for staying in the union for which the data are not presented in Table 2, ‘lobbying to influence government decisions’ (hereafter lobbying) tends to appear next in the ranking. Only in Solidarność does ‘lobbying’ appear higher than ‘benefits’, whereas in five unions (SIF, RBF, TU, UILCA and BBDSz) ‘most people at work are members’ (‘hereafter’, ‘fellow workers’) appears higher in the ranking than ‘lobbying’. Only in three unions, however, do more than 10 percent of members consider ‘lobbying’ one of the two principal reasons for staying in the union (NITO, KASz and Bondgenoten).
‘Fellow workers’ was included in the survey as a means of assessing whether establishing high membership density would encourage member cohesion in the form of high levels of membership retention. But percentage scores range between 1 percent in ver.di (Vereinte Diensleistungsgewerkschaft) and 10 percent in KASz, suggesting that this is not very influential on decisions to retain trade union membership. Only in NITO – which offers professional training for engineers – do more than 4 percent of members regard ‘union training courses and career development advice’ as one of the two main reasons for membership retention.
Packages of financial services such as discounted insurance and banking services have been introduced by many trade unions as a means to attract and retain younger and, supposedly, more instrumental workers. The range of financial services in CEE and Southern European trade unions tend to be narrower than that offered in Northern Europe. This variation, however, is not reflected in the results for ‘financial services’, which appear in the lower reaches of the ranking irrespective of country. In every union, fewer than 7 percent of members regard this as one of the two main reasons for remaining in membership.
Membership retention and gender
Although the influence of gender on decisions to unionize is contested (Blanchflower, 2007; Scheuer, 2011), it is generally agreed that the low proportion of women in senior union positions has adverse consequences for internal equality and democracy (Hansen, 2008; Ledwith and Colgan, 2002). Men and women have different requirements from unions (Briskin, 1999; Milkman, 2007): women prioritize social over economic interests and affective over instrumental relationships (Cunnison and Stageman, 1993), tend to view unions as more ineffective than men (Sinclair, 1995; Walters, 2002) and find the workplace and experiences of work to be gendered (Bradley, 1999). This section examines whether these different priorities influence the reasons for membership retention.
Immediately apparent from Table 2 is that women rank the reasons for membership retention in the same general order as respondents in general. With the exception of TU, ‘support’ heads the ranking for women, followed in most cases by ‘pay’ in countries that do not operate the Ghent system. In Italy and CEE, women rank ‘belief’ above ‘pay’. Hence if women and men place different requirements on unions, these differences are found within the categories used in the ranking rather than in a re-ordering of the categories. Within the general order of the ranking, however, there are some marked differences in emphasis.
In twelve unions, women placed greater emphasis on ‘support’ than their male counterparts. This result is consistent with earlier national studies (Klandermans, 1984; Waddington and Whitston, 1997) and findings that women are more likely than men to cite the absence of ‘support’ as a reason for leaving (Jódar et al., 2009; Waddington, 2006). Given that support is available at workplaces through either shop stewards in single-channel systems or works councillors in dual systems, it is noteworthy that among the survey respondents 60 percent of men reported the presence of a shop steward at their workplace and 71 percent the presence of a works councillor compared to 54 and 61 percent of women. 5 In other words, the availability of support in the form of a representative at the workplace is more limited for women, suggesting that women are unlikely to receive the same support from workplace representatives as their male counterparts and that the coverage of representation is a key element to an explanation of the differences in emphasis between men and women.
In 10 unions, women give ‘pay’ greater priority than their male contemporaries, although in six of these the differences are less than five percentage points. This at least brings into question the argument that women tend to downplay economic and emphasize social interests, but may reflect an influence arising from the gender pay gap found in all the countries. The category ‘pay’ as used in this research, however, also embraces other conditions of employment. Women’s responses could thus also result from a desire to pursue an equality agenda or other collective bargaining objectives. Whatever the case, the emphasis women place on ‘pay’ confirms the policy requirement to increase bargaining coverage to embrace those areas of national economies where women form a majority of the workforce but are excluded from collective bargaining, as in many private sector services. Tests showed no influence of existing levels of pay on responses: low-paid men and women expressed a similar emphasis on ‘pay’ as their higher-paid counterparts.
Women expressed a weaker ‘belief’ in unionism than men in all unions except HK and KASz. In six unions – RBF, CC.OO, ver.di, GPA-djp (Gewerkschaft der Privatangestellten, Druck, Journalismus, Papier), Bondgenoten and UNITE – the difference was greater than 10 percentage points. At one level the results suggest that women are not as ideologically committed to unionism as men. This explanation is certainly consistent with findings that demonstrate sex to be an influential variable on the decision to unionize, in so far as a lower ideological commitment to unionize may make recruitment more problematic (Blanchflower, 2007). This explanation would be more persuasive, however, if the absence of unions at workplaces where women are employed had not been shown to be the major influence on the effect of sex on unionization rather than ideological differences (Walters, 2002). Alternatively, and given that respondents were already unionized, the downplaying of ‘belief’ by women may result from their views of union organization. For example, women may be pessimistic about the capacity of unions to implement internal changes favoured by women and to improve the gendered experience of unionism at the workplace. The limited collective representation at workplaces where women are employed, noted above, supports such an explanation.
Examination of the items rated towards the bottom of the ranking reveals very few differences in the priorities of men and women. Differences between the scores assigned to ‘benefits’ are relatively narrow; it is clear however that ‘benefits’ are more attractive than ‘financial services’ to both men and women in every union. Gender differences on ‘lobbying’, ‘fellow workers’ and ‘training’ are negligible and show no consistent pattern.
Membership retention and age
There is widespread evidence of low union density among younger workers (Ebbinghaus et al., 2009) so that many union organizing campaigns are directed specifically at them (Bailey et al., 2010; Pedersini, 2010). One explanatory framework detects a change in the propensity of young workers to unionize arising from increased instrumentality and individualism among recent generations. Alternative explanatory frameworks emphasize reduced opportunities to unionize as underpinning lower unionization rates among young workers, viewing the activities of employers, trade unions and the state as influences in addition to changes in attitude.
According to the first framework, the changed social, economic and political circumstances, marked, in particular, by the ascendency of the neoliberal agenda, have affected the attitudes, beliefs and ideology of young people (Cregan and Johnston, 1990; Gomez et al., 2002). Associated with these changes are more instrumental attitudes and shifts in ideological perspectives that run counter to the collective orientation that underpins unionism (Gomez et al., 2002; Kelloway and Newton, 1996). Accentuating these developments is the breakdown of many traditional points of social reference, which has limited the ‘passing down’ of union tradition through social and family networks (Giddens, 1990). For this explanation to be supported by the data, young workers would be expected to exhibit a more marked instrumentality and a lower ideological commitment to unionism than their older counterparts.
Within the explanatory frameworks that incorporate opportunities to unionize, it is argued that young workers are concentrated in precarious employment at workplaces where unions are rarely present, hence the opportunity to unionize is reduced (Oliver, 2010; Vandaele, 2012). Workers of all ages in precarious employment desire to reduce job insecurity and their vulnerability to exploitation and intimidation (Levine et al., 2008). Should unions establish a presence at workplaces where young workers in precarious jobs are employed, young members would be expected to emphasize ‘support’. An additional aspect of the opportunity to unionize argument concerns the influence of existing levels of unionization at the workplaces where they are employed on joining and remaining members; some research shows such an influence (Cregan and Johnston, 1990; Klandermans, 1984). For the results of these national studies to be upheld on a comparative basis, young members would be expected to cite ‘fellow workers’ more frequently than their older counterparts.
For most participating unions, four age groups were identified: 25 and under, 26–40, 41–50 and 51 and above. For SIF, NITO and UILCA, whose members undergo lengthy training before employment, and also for RBF, there were insufficient respondents from the 25 and under category, hence this category is excluded. In BBDSz, each age category comprised very few respondents, and the union is omitted from the analysis by age.
The same general order of reasons for membership retention for all members and women is reproduced when the data are disaggregated by age; ‘support’ tends to head the ranking followed by ‘pay’ or ‘belief’ in countries that do not operate a variant of the Ghent system. In TU, ‘access to unemployment benefit’ ranks first for members up to 50 years of age, after which ‘support’ is emphasized. The most obvious variation from the general pattern is in Solidarność, where there is an inverse relationship between age and the importance attached to ‘pay’; members aged 25 and under rank ‘pay’ above ‘support’, which becomes increasingly important relative to ‘pay’ with age.
In general, young members tend to emphasize ‘support’ more than their older counterparts. Only in NITO, KASz, Solidarność and UNITE was the reverse the case. The greater desire for ‘support’ from young members is consistent with the notion of reducing insecurity when employment circumstances are precarious, although it is not an indication that unions are successful in this endeavour.
Differences between age groups on ‘pay’ are relatively narrow. Furthermore, there is no consistent relationship between age and ‘pay’ across the participating unions. Indeed, there is no consistent relationship between age and ‘pay’ when smaller groups of unions are assessed, such as when disaggregated by geographical location or the features of the industrial relations system in which they operate. The failure of young members to emphasize ‘pay’ does not suggest more instrumental attitudes among those young workers that join unions compared to their older counterparts. Furthermore, there is no consistent relationship between age and ‘access to unemployment insurance’, again suggesting that instrumentality and age are not directly related. Of course, it may be that the young workers who join unions are less instrumental than non-unionists, but assessment of this argument is beyond the scope of this article.
There is a positive relationship between age and ‘belief’ in every participating union. Given that ‘belief’ was specified in the questionnaires in terms of a belief in and a desire to take part in trade unions, the positive relationship indicates that there is less ideological conviction among young members than among their older counterparts. This suggests that the ideological changes associated with the ascendency of the neoliberal agenda are not necessarily restricted solely to the choice between unionization or non-unionism, but may also impinge on the ideological convictions of young unionists. The positive relationship between age and ‘belief’ also suggests a greater instrumentality among young members in so far as they are prepared to join a union, but are more reluctant to take part than their older counterparts: that is, they wish to benefit from union membership without necessarily engaging directly in union activities. Both of these points raise significant policy challenges for trade unions, as they suggest a different ideological disposition among young workers compared to older workers and a reduced likelihood of active participation in union affairs, a ‘willingness to pay’ without an accompanying ‘willingness to act’ (Offe and Wiesenthal, 1979). What is unclear from these results, however, is whether members come to believe in trade unionism with age and exposure to unionists and unionism at the workplace. While the positive relationship between age and ‘belief’ certainly suggests that such exposure with age may influence attitudes, only by tracing the ideological convictions of a cohort of unionists over time would it be possible to confirm this argument.
The proportion of respondents that cite ‘fellow workers’ is relatively small across all age groups, and there is no consistent evidence that young members are more likely to do so than older unionists. In seven unions the youngest age group is the most likely to give this reason, but only in KASz did more than 15 percent of the 25 and under age group do so. With the exception of SIF, young workers in the Nordic trade unions were more likely than older workers to give this reason, but there are no other geographical concentrations of unions where this is the case. These data thus suggest that the influence of existing unionization rates is not markedly more pronounced among young members than their older counterparts.
‘Financial services’ were not markedly more attractive to young members than to older members. Although in six of the 13 unions (SIF, TU, CC.OO, Solidarność, GPA-djp, Bondgenoten) the youngest age category was the most likely to cite this as one of the two principal reasons for membership retention, the highest proportion giving this response was 8 percent in Bondgenoten. In other words, young members are not consistently more attracted by ‘financial services’, which remain marginal to membership retention across all age groups. These results further question an increased instrumentality among young members.
Conclusions
This article has highlighted four points. First, ‘support’ followed by ‘pay’ underpins membership retention in most countries. The importance attached to these issues, long central to the raison d’être of trade unionism, suggest that a traditional desire to be treated fairly and to be rewarded appropriately remains apposite to any current trade union membership strategy. The importance attached to these issues also reflects the continued salience of collective reasons for membership retention. Recent initiatives intended to respond to the supposed increased instrumentality and individualism of potential members in the form of ‘financial services’ are marginal in their impact on retention. Traditional ‘benefits’ remain more attractive, suggesting that at issue may not be individualism or instrumentality, but the type of service that is available.
Second, the delivery of ‘support’ at the workplace requires robust workplace organization. Although the character of such organization will differ between single-channel and dual systems of representation, the point remains that the coverage of workplace organization is declining in most countries assessed in this study. Similarly, the delivery of improvements in ‘pay’ constitutes a further challenge for trade unionists in the light of the contraction in bargaining coverage and the decentralization of collective bargaining (Aidt and Tzannatos, 2008; Traxler et al., 2001), effects that are likely to be exacerbated by the impact of the crisis. In short, activity at the workplace is central to the delivery of ‘support’ and, with the decentralization of collective bargaining, is becoming more central to securing improvements in ‘pay’, yet more than 40 percent of members in single-channel systems and more than 30 percent in dual systems report no shop steward or works councillor present at their workplace.
Third, men and women rank the reasons for membership retention in the same general order. Women, however, emphasize ‘support’ more than their male counterparts. This may result from there being fewer representatives at workplaces where women are employed. Similarly, women downplay ‘belief’ compared to men. Whether this results from different ideological outlooks, greater pessimism regarding the capacity of unions to exert influence or the gendered experience of unionism at the workplace remains an open question.
Fourth, ‘pay’, ‘benefits’ and ‘financial services’ were no more likely to be cited by younger workers than by their older counterparts, suggesting that they are no more instrumental. Young trade unionists emphasized ‘support’ more than older unionists, again confirming the centrality of workplace representation to trade unionism. Age and ‘belief’ are directly related in each of the participating unions, raising questions whether young unionists exhibit different ideological perspectives and are less willing to take part in union activities compared to older unionists. The impact of union education and ‘socialization’ remains an open question, which can best be directly addressed through the examination of cohort data.
What are the implications of these findings for explanations of membership change and trade union renewal strategies? The findings presented here confirm that the efficacy and character of activity at the workplace underpin membership retention. This point of departure raises different policy questions in circumstances of single-channel and dual systems of workplace representation. Where single-channel systems operate, ‘support’ and, if collective bargaining is decentralized, ‘pay’ may be available through the activities of lay representatives or full-time officers. Relatively few unions have opted for servicing strategies based on providing ‘support’ by employing additional full-time officers; membership decline with its adverse effects on union finances precludes this. Reliance on lay representatives is thus commonplace. As has been shown here, many trade unionists are employed at workplaces where there is no lay representation, and women are less likely than men to work at a workplace where a lay representative is present. Furthermore, women remain under-represented among lay representatives (Hansen, 2008; Ledwith and Colgan, 2002). Similarly, in dual systems the provision of ‘support’ depends on the activities of works councillors, the distribution of which replicates that of lay representatives in single-channel systems. In short, relying on workplace representatives to provide ‘support’ to members requires increased coverage of such representatives, particularly in segments of the labour market where women are employed in large numbers.
Footnotes
Funding
This research was conducted under the auspices of the European Trade Union Institute, which receives funding from the European Commission.