Austerity,union policy and gender equality bargaining

Abstract

German

French

Inattention to the gender implications of austerity measures, and coincident cuts in gender equality structures by state, employers and often unions themselves threaten gender equality measures and equality bargaining. These threats are compounded by the reconfiguring of the language of equality which is now re-focused on class inequalities, on the one hand, and an expanded range of equality-seeking groups, on the other. The language of equality no longer adequately captures trends in gender equality. Intersectionality (compound discrimination) is explored as a reference point for bargaining equality. Austerity measures are also reshaping the household-workplace-community nexus, re-invoking outdated and conservative views of women’s place, reconfiguring the positioning of women’s rights, and, to some extent, engineering women’s return to the household. This article argues that unions need to radicalize discourses around the household-workplace-community nexus, and explores gendered social unionism as an alternative progressive frame for equality bargaining. It concludes that bargaining for equality may support not only a revival of innovative collective bargaining but also union revitalization.

Keywords

Bargaining for equality gender equality bargaining collective bargaining austerity social unionism intersectionality union renewal

Bargaining for gender equality has always needed vigorous champions and unwavering vigilance. Certainly the increasing feminization of union density and membership in many countries (for example, Working Lives Research Institute, 2006; Uppal, 2011) strengthens the case for gender equality bargaining. However, in the current context in which austerity measures are invoked by state, employers and often unions themselves, equality bargaining is under threat of marginalization. This article suggests that unions seek new paradigms for framing gender equality bargaining which speak to increasingly diverse memberships, encourage worker mobilization, and facilitate building alliances with broad communities of interest.

Recent European studies highlight both the inattention to the gender implications of austerity measures, and coincident cuts in gender equality structures. Research on Canadian unions suggests disturbing parallels to these studies: the increasing invisibility of gender and lack of gender analysis, and the concomitant reduction of space and resources for union women’s constituency organizing.

The article explores two trajectories which are reshaping gender equality bargaining in the context of austerity. First, the reconfiguring of the language of equality. The European Commission (2012) questions whether gender gaps ‘adequately capture trends in gender equality in recessionary times’ (11–12). Further, equality language has been re-invested with class content in the context of the growing gap between rich and poor, on the one hand, and expanded to include a range of equality-seeking groups, on the other. In regard to the latter, the article explores intersectionality as a reference point for bargaining equality.

Secondly, austerity measures are reshaping the household-workplace-community nexus. Ideologically and structurally, they are re-invoking outdated and conservative views of women’s place, reconfiguring the positioning of women’s rights, and, to some extent, engineering women’s return to the household. This article argues that, in such a context, unions need to radicalize the discourse around the household-workplace-community nexus and present an alternative progressive frame. The final section considers gendered social unionism (GSU) as one potential frame for equality bargaining.

Methodologically, this article uses a transdisciplinary problem-solving approach. It sets out to consider a problem (austerity and equality bargaining), bringing together material from various debates and disciplines, some of which has not been previously applied to equality bargaining (such as social unionism or intersectionality). The goal is to re-invigorate discussion about gender equality bargaining in the context of austerity measures and discourses by identifying some troubling trajectories and some possible avenues of response. The article does not offer a scholarship review, investigate the considerable array of issues on the equality bargaining agenda or focus on a country-specific conversation; as a result, the discussion only draws on selective empirical material. Given limited research on many of these lines of inquiry, the text is suggestive and exploratory in tone, and strategic, conceptual and analytical in intent.

Austerity, gender and equality

Evidence shows the declining status of equality initiatives in legislative and policy contexts. The 2011 ILO report Equality at Work: The Continuing Challenge noted:

‘During economic downturns, there is a tendency to give lower priority to policies that are targeted against discrimination and promote awareness of workers’ rights. Austerity measures…can seriously compromise the ability of existing institutions to prevent the economic crisis from generating more discrimination and more inequalities’ (x).

Research on crisis, cutbacks and austerity in Europe presents troubling confirmation: first, the lack of attention to the gender implications of cuts, that is, the absence of gender mainstreaming; and secondly, the coincident cuts in gender equality structures. The impact of the economic crisis on the situation of women and men and on gender equality policies (European Commission, 2012) notes that ‘the European Economic Recovery Plan made no mention of “gender”, “women” or “equality”. The absence of gender mainstreaming is symbolic of a low sensibility towards gender equality in responding to the crisis’ (18). In fact, ‘in the vast majority of countries gender mainstreaming has not been implemented in policy design and policy implementation over the crisis’ (14).

In The price of austerity – The impact on women’s rights and gender equality in Europe (2012), the European Women’s Lobby, which gathered data from 13 European countries, found that ‘no country has assessed the impacts of the proposed cuts in public spending from a gender perspective, neither of the individual measures nor of their cumulative impact’ (3). The Lobby concluded that ‘cuts in public spending have had a disproportionate impact on women’ (3): ‘Austerity policies in Europe undermine women’s rights, perpetuate existing gender inequalities and create new ones, and hamper the prospects of sustainable and equal economic progress in Europe’ (2). Gloria Mills, president of the Women and Gender Equality Committee of the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) called this trajectory ‘a silent crisis’ (EPSU, 2011).

Both reports also highlight cuts in gender equality structures. The European Commission found that ‘cuts in public budgets are seriously affecting the functioning of gender equality infrastructures’ (2012: 136). The Lobby pointed to cutbacks, merging and abolishing of such structures (2012: 13). It concluded that ‘public gender equality institutions are being destroyed on the pretext of austerity. The erosion of the public gender equality machinery is an infringement of EU and international level commitments to women’s rights and gender equality’ (14). In fact, the Lobby report underscores the myriad ways that austerity is used as an excuse to cut back support for gender equality.

An exhaustive review of official documents from the European Commission together with analyses of 27 national reports prepared by members of the European Commission’s Expert Group on Gender and Employment (EGGE) confirms the findings of these reports. Smith and Villa (2010) found that ‘gender has fallen out of the equation.’ They note ‘the weakened position of gender mainstreaming in European-level initiatives’ which ‘has led to gender being marginalized or ignored in national and EU policy responses to the crisis. The prominence of gender has declined further in the 2010 revision of the European Employment Strategy (EES) under the 2020 banner’ (526). They conclude that ‘the explosion of new measures in response to the crisis were largely gender neutral at best, or risked widening inequalities at worst’ (538).

Austerity discourses and practices inside unions

In 2007, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), which represents 82 trade union organizations in 36 European countries, plus 12 industry-based federations, adopted a Charter on Gender Mainstreaming in Trade Unions. It states:

‘Gender equality is an essential element of democracy in the workplace and in society. The ETUC and its affiliates confirm their commitment to pursue gender equality as part of their broader agenda for social justice, social progress and sustainability in Europe, and therefore adopt a gender mainstreaming approach as an indispensable and integral element of all their actions and activities.’¹

This section explores whether the austerity context is weakening the commitment of unions to gender equality and mainstreaming. To what extent are unions importing austerity discourses and practices into their internal policies and bargaining? Little research addresses this important issue. However, a Canadian project in which I am involved suggests that the adoption of austerity discourses inside unions has been coincident with the implementation of austerity programmes in the public domain.

Leadership, Feminism and Equality in Unions in Canada (2012) explores the current climate and attitudes to women, feminism, leadership and equality through the insights, voices and experiences of 44 women union leaders, activists and staff. Women from seven Canadian provinces and territories were involved, including retired and active staff, elected leaders and activists, racialized and Aboriginal women, lesbians and young women, and women from public and private sector unions and central labour bodies. Two-hour teleconferences each involving a range of respondents were wide-ranging, analytical and deeply moving.²

What emerged was a widespread consensus that there is a serious problem within the Canadian labour movement in advancing women’s equality work. In fact, the project on Leadership uncovered disturbing parallels to the European studies: the increasing invisibility of gender and gender equality, the lack of gender analysis, and the concomitant reduction of space and resources for union women’s constituency organizing. Although comprehensive and comparative research is necessary to assess the degree to which unions in other countries are using austerity discourses to justify a retreat from equality initiatives, it is hoped that this discussion of the Canadian context will open up a conversation about this troubling trajectory

Canadian unions are adopting internal austerity policies in response to the current crisis around labour market restructuring and declining union membership. Participants argued that these policies are being used as a pretext and justification for under-resourcing, and often cancelling, hard-fought for equality programmes.

‘It feels like the union movement these days is mirroring the…broader conservative trends in society, as opposed to challenging them.’³

‘The economic realities…[have] given the leadership at all levels an opportunity or an excuse as to why they can’t fund programs which support women’s equality.’

In policies and campaigns, many Canadian unions are replacing the words ‘equality’ and ‘equity’ with ‘fairness’. This shift hides women’s equality concerns, and obscures gender and other forms of discrimination. It follows the lead of the conservative government which, in 2006, claimed that women were equal and expunged the word ‘equality’ from Status of Women Canada (SWC), a federal government agency that supposedly ‘promotes equality for women and their full participation in the economic, social and democratic life’.⁴ It cut more than 30 per cent of SWC funding defending the decision not only with reference to fiscal responsibility and efficiency but also with the claim that ‘the unit’s mission had been fulfilled’ (Bashevkin, 2012: 4). As one participant commented: ‘You know when Harper came in, he decided the word equality needn’t be in things. I never thought I would have the same debate within my own union to maintain a word like equality.’

Coincident with the shift to a fairness discourse inside unions, women’s equality issues are being sidelined and the long-fought for gender lens is disappearing.

‘When I started…there was a gender lens on almost everything…And it seems like now there is nothing: there is no gender lens, there is no equality lens…We’ve now become an aside again.’

‘There was an analysis done of the [Canadian] federal budget and I read it and so help me God, I almost started to weep. If I’d had time to cry, I would have. There wasn’t one mention of women in that analysis.’

At the same time, participants were troubled by re-emerging challenges to the legitimacy of women-only spaces and the diminishing room for women to come together to build skills, discuss issues and develop strategies. As one woman put it, ‘What I’m hearing the men saying now is that the time for women meeting alone in women’s committees is over.’

Aggressive employer and government attacks, coupled with declining membership and dues, have also taken their toll on equality work inside unions. Participants reported that unions are responding with their own ‘austerity’ policies, in which women’s and other equality programmes are often seen as expendable. Funding is reduced, staff cut back, and programmes ‘streamlined’ or eliminated outright. As a result, there are now fewer women’s conferences, and women-only courses and training. Women’s committee meetings are smaller and less frequent. Equality initiatives and materials are more limited. Many echoed the sentiment expressed by this comment: ‘I feel that we’ve gone backwards. It’s all about money. It’s all about funding. It’s not about including women.’

Many believe these trends reflect the shallow commitment of the current union leadership to equality and inclusion. ‘The economic realities…have made it difficult for women. I think it’s given the leadership at all levels an opportunity, or an excuse, as to why they cannot fund programs which support women’s equality.’

In contrast to the trajectories suggested by this Canadian research, this article argues that unions must embrace, integrate and revitalize, rather than retreat from, their equality mandate. Not only is women’s union density often higher than that of men, but in many countries, women represent a larger percentage of union members (for example, Canada and New Zealand). Membership demographics are also changing to include a greater proportion of workers of colour, workers with disabilities, young workers, self-identified gay, lesbian and transgendered workers, and in some countries, Aboriginal and native workers. These constituencies have traditionally been marginalized in unions, but their claims to citizenship inside unions have been consolidating.

Equality initiatives are also inextricably linked to union renewal (see Kainer, 2009; Foley and Baker, 2009).

‘When we…say, “Listen, we can’t have a discussion about union renewal without talking about equality”, [we’re told]…“We don’t have time to talk about equality. We have to talk about saving unions, saving workers and saving jobs”. The conversation about equality gets put on the backburner because…the people who are at the decision making tables, don’t see…that equality is part of…that strategy.’

Unions may well be at a crossroads. Despite increasingly widespread and mainstream views that austerity measures are not solving the problems of economies, unions can fall into the ‘austerity trap’ (ILO, 2012: 3). Undoubtedly, in the context of austerity, unions do face serious challenges not only protecting the working conditions and wages of union members but also collective bargaining itself. In such a context, what are the implications for bargaining for gender equality? How should equality bargaining be positioned, protected and enhanced?

Gender equality bargaining in the context of austerity

Collective bargaining has made significant contributions to improving the conditions of women workers and supporting gender equality in many developed countries. In fact, advances in collective agreement provisions and the overall bargaining agenda demonstrate that collective bargaining can be a flexible, responsive and creative process. It can offer much support for the gender equality project, especially when combined with internal union measures to support equality bargaining. Briskin (2014) explores two such internal measures: the increase in women’s participation on collective bargaining teams, that is, representational democracy; and institutionalizing and constitutionalizing links between collective bargaining and union equality structures, that is, representational justice which speaks to collective mechanisms which ensure that women’s interests are represented.

Scholarly research has paid considerable attention to the array of issues on the equality bargaining agenda, particularly wage inequality. Unions have produced documents which cover a range of equality bargaining issues, and include sample and model clauses.⁵ The Collective Bargaining Newsletter Database (CBND) of the ETUI is an excellent source of information and can be sorted by keywords such as equality.⁶ Three of the Equality Audits from the TUC have specifically addressed equality bargaining (2005, 2009, 2012). It is beyond the scope of this article to consider this material in any depth. However, the 2012 TUC Equality Audit, which focused specifically on austerity, tracks the number of unions which have up-to-date materials on the impact of spending cuts and austerity, covering the following areas: campaigning against cuts from an equality perspective; assessing the equality impact of redundancy and restructuring proposals; equality impact of pay and progression freezes, pension reform and reduced facility time; and the impact of cuts and austerity on mental health and stress at work.

The Audit finds that ‘the economic crisis, austerity and public sector spending cuts [are] giving employers a reason – or excuse – to avoid equality improvements.’ It quotes from the Communication Workers Union (CWU): ‘In the face of austerity, companies see equality as an easy target’ (7). It points to the difficult bargaining climate:

‘Compared with previous years, trade unions have faced unprecedented challenges in the period covered by the audit (2009 to 2012) as the effects of the recession and austerity began to bite. A majority of the respondent unions expressed the view that overall it had become more difficult to negotiate and make progress on equality issues’ (4).

A reinvigorated discussion of bargaining for gender equality seems more than timely. This article now explores two trajectories which are reshaping equality bargaining in the context of austerity: the reconfiguring of the language of equality; and the impact of austerity measures on the household-workplace-community nexus.

Austerity and the language of equality

The language of equality in reference to gender, and thereby to equality bargaining is being reconfigured. Emerging problems with the language of equality have been taken up in official policy documents in Europe. For example, the European Commission (2012) questions whether gender gaps ‘adequately capture trends in gender equality in recessionary times’ (11–12), and concludes that equality may now be a flawed measure.

Although commonsense as well as previous research has pointed to a closing of gender gaps, evidence now suggests that using a comparison of women and men as a measure of equality is increasingly problematic. As the 2012 European Commission report points out: ‘The leveling down of gender gaps in employment, unemployment, wages and poverty…does not reflect progress in gender equality as it is based on lower rates of employment, higher rates of unemployment and reduced earnings for both men and women’ (11–12). The report’s conclusion suggests that equality may be a flawed measure and no longer an adequate reference point for gender equality bargaining. A different set of benchmarks may be necessary.

Equality language is also shifting in other regards. The 2013 OECD report found income inequality growing across the industrialized world and a deepening divide between the rich and the poor. Although the widening gaps between rich and poor have reinvigorated discussion of class inequalities, by and large, these discussions do not incorporate a gender analysis (see, for example, Faroque and MacLean, 2013; OECD, 2013). Where once the language of equality carried with it a gendered resonance, this no longer seems to be the case.

The language of equality has now also expanded to include a variety of equality-seeking groups. For example, the TUC 2012 Equality Audit includes information on women’s pay and employment; however, it also addresses conditions affecting black and minority ethnic workers, migrant workers, lesbian, gay and bisexual workers, and workers with a disability, as well as a range of issues about religion, belief, and age. On a more optimistic note, then, bargaining agendas are increasingly considering not only the concerns of women but also those of specific constituencies of workers based on race, ethnicity, age, sexuality, ability and aboriginal status.⁷

In addition to what is documented in the 2012 TUC report, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) offers some interesting examples. At Ontario Hydro (CUPE Local 1) a workplace harassment policy was negotiated that not only included women, people of colour, people with disabilities, First Nations, and gays and lesbians, but also gave employees the right to leave work without loss of pay in an atmosphere of harassment (Das Gupta, 1998: 330). CUPE in Saskatchewan (Canada) signed a partnership agreement with government and employers to promote a ‘Representative Workforce Strategy’, a form of employment equity which seeks to ensure that workplace representation of Aboriginal People is in proportion to their working age population. This innovative initiative in the health care sector includes education, training, succession planning and retention strategies (Moran, 2006: 76–78). CUPE 3903 has negotiated for eight weeks of Transsexual Transition leave from teaching with York University. Discussions of family benefits increasingly reject narrow and generic definitions of family that exclude gay and lesbian couples. Scrutinizing issues for their impact on diverse groups highlights diversity, and helps build alliances across equality-seeking constituencies, for example, between women and marginalized male workers, and may offer direction for equality bargaining in an austerity context.

Intersectionality

Still missing in the equality bargaining paradigm is what is often referred to as an intersectional approach, called compound discrimination by the European Commission. Although there is an extensive feminist literature on intersectionality which emphasizes the dangers of claiming any kind of coherent women’s experience, none of it draws any links to bargaining. So the comments that follow are of an exploratory nature. In 2007, a European Commission report recognized compound discrimination which highlights discrimination occurring ‘on the basis of two or more grounds at the same time and where…one ground gets compounded by one or more other discrimination grounds’ (16). In North American, the term ‘intersectionality’ is widely used to acknowledge that ‘intersectional oppression arises out of the combination of various oppressions which, together, produce something unique and distinct from any one form of discrimination standing alone’ (Ontario Human Rights Commission [OHRC], 2001: 4).⁸

‘[I]n many cases, racial minority women experience discrimination in a completely different way than racial minority men or even women as a gender…Applying an intersectional…approach to multiple grounds of discrimination…acknowledges the complexity of how people experience discrimination…Categorizing such discrimination as primarily racially oriented, or primarily gender-oriented, misconceives the reality of discrimination as it is experienced by individuals’ (Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2001: 3–5).

At this time, there are few examples of bargaining from an intersectional perspective. However, in the university sector in Canada, affirmative action hiring clauses (sometimes called employment equity) include complex sets of rules for assessing candidates which take account of their membership in more than one of the groups designated under Canada’s Employment Equity Act, all of whom are dramatically under-represented in the ranks of full-time faculty. This employment equity clause from the collective agreement at York University might be seen as a nascent form of intersectional collective bargaining.

‘(i) In units where fewer than 40 per cent of the tenure-stream faculty/librarian positions are filled by women, when candidates’ qualifications are substantially equal the candidate who is a member of a visible/racial minority, an aboriginal person or a person with a disability and female shall be recommended for appointment. (ii) If there is no candidate recommended from (i) above then when candidates’ qualifications are substantially equal a candidate who is female or who is a male and a member of a visible/racial minority, an aboriginal person, or a person with a disability shall be recommended for appointment.’⁹

In an austerity context, it is timely, indeed necessary, to move toward elaborating an intersectional approach to bargaining equality which takes account of the needs of specific constituencies but also the complexity of lived discrimination. Without an intersectional approach, many workers experience what Crenshaw (1991) calls ‘intersectional disempowerment’ (1251–2).¹⁰ The goal, however, is not to move beyond gender but to nuance the understanding of the interaction of race, class, ethnicity, citizenship, sexuality, age, ability and gender and, in some contexts, aboriginal status. In fact, legitimate concerns are expressed that diversity, intersectionality and even ‘gender’ itself may make invisible women’s concerns. For example, based on an eight-country study, Woodward pointed to the fear that gender mainstreaming will disappear into a ‘larger whole of diversity policy, wherein the specificity of gender will scarcely be accounted for’ (van Roemberg and Spee, quoted in Woodward, 2008: 295).

Intersectional initiatives offer innovative ways to take account of difference and specificity, complexify the notion of gender, and help reconstitute and reconceptualize union solidarity.¹¹ They further challenge the notion of generic workers with homogeneous and self-evident (class) interests which has traditionally influenced collective bargaining strategies, shaped collective agreement provisions, and framed ideas of union solidarity (Briskin, 2012), and which is now reflected in the gender-blind discussion of the gaps between the rich and poor. In terms of moving forward the project of bargaining equality, it is likely that both intersectional sensitivity to capture the lived experience of discrimination, and a continued emphasis on women are important.

Austerity and the work-household-community nexus

Austerity measures are reshaping the household-workplace-community nexus. Not unlike the 2012 Women’s Lobby report, McRobie (2012: 1-2) concludes that austerity has become ‘a convenient excuse for Tories to enact their regressive vision of gender roles…primarily as mothers and carers…under the cloak of emergency and expediency’ (1–2). She sees austerity as ‘an excuse for anti-equality legislation’ (1). The EU (2012: 117) speaks more generously of ‘unintended consequences’ and the ‘collateral damage of gender blindness in governance’. In this context, it is important for unions to radicalize the discourse around the household-workplace-community nexus and present an alternative progressive frame. The final section of the article considers gendered social unionism (GSU) as one potential frame for equality bargaining.

Writing about the UK, McRobie (2012) argues that austerity measures, both ideologically and structurally, are re-invoking outdated and conservative views of the place of women, reconfiguring the positioning of women’s rights, and, to some extent, engineering women’s return to the household.

‘In a climate in which women’s jobs were disproportionately on the line, and services necessary for women…disproportionately corroded by the post-2010 austerity measures, cultural codes that exalted motherhood, return to the family and “community” could assist in creating the impression that women were jumping out of the workplace, rather than being pushed’ (2).

Rubery and Rafferty (quoted in Gregory et al., 2013: 535) point to the withdrawal of ‘state support for mothers in work, through proposed or implemented reductions in child benefits, child tax credits…Fertility, childcare and work choices have been presented increasingly as a private matter.’ A 2012 EU Report concretizes these concerns. It speaks of unpaid work as a ‘hidden aspect of the crisis that may disproportionately affect women but hardly features at all in public debates about the crisis or in official statistics’.

‘In the depth of the recession household expenditure went down in most European countries on the consumption of items for which unpaid work may provide a good substitute and the recession unloaded additional care work on to women…or may have slowed down progress in the redistribution of housework’ (201).

Furthermore, ‘in cases where the “male breadwinner model” is (implicitly) seen as the norm, the kinds of expenditure prioritizing “heads of household” may be seen as more important than social services supporting women’s entry in the labour market, which could implicitly be treated as luxuries’ (117). Naylor (2012: 4) concludes that ‘silence on the relationship between paid and unpaid work means [the] neglect [of] some of the most important implications of austerity.’ Reminiscent of earlier debates about the reserve army of labour, Naylor suggests that ‘women's unpaid and unacknowledged work is essential to the austerity agenda because it is considered an infinitely elastic resource, capable of stretching to meet even the most onerous demands’ (5).

In this context, what is the status of work-life balance (WLB) policies? From the 1990s until 2008, such policies were ‘an integral part of employment-led social policy in Europe, both at EU and national level…[which were] accompanied by a shift in policy assumptions away from a male breadwinner/female carer model family toward the promotion of an adult worker model’ (Gregory et al., 2013: 533). However, within the austerity context, 2013 reviews suggest not only that WLB may be a ‘fair-weather’ policy but also that such policies may entrench gender inequalities:

‘Measures introduced under the heading of work-life balance may have a range of outcomes, not all of which help parents to juggle work and family commitments, and some of which may actually entrench gender inequalities by for example trapping women into low-paid, insecure employment or outside the labour market altogether’ (Gregory et al., 2013: 529).

Tobío and Cordón (2013: 1) concur: ‘Efficiency in making job and family responsibilities compatible does not always go hand in hand with increasing equality.’

The conservative right has seized austerity as a vehicle to undermine women’s rights. Work-life issues have largely been co-opted and reframed within neoliberal discourses of flexibility. At this conjuncture, it is important for unions to take charge of and radicalize the discourse around the household-workplace-community nexus and present an alternative progressive frame. The next section of the article considers gendered social unionism (GSU) as one such possibility.

Social unionism

Although the terms social unionism and social movement unionism are often used interchangeably, in this discussion disaggregating them is useful. Social unionism has historically referred to the struggle to expand what are seen to be legitimate union issues and broaden the collective bargaining agenda. Ross (2012: 40) suggests that ‘social unionism begins with a more expansive understanding of the community of interest it speaks to and for. Social unionists tend to frame issues in terms of general community or working-class interests, and not merely of those segments of the already unionized working class.’

I would argue that the expansion of social unionism in many Western countries was prompted by movements of union women encouraging unions to include an equality agenda in union policy and collective bargaining. In Canada, for example, a decades-long struggle on the part of union women pressured unions to take up issues of child care, reproductive rights, sexual/racial harassment and violence against women, pay equity, and employment equity among others. Initially, union hierarchies questioned the legitimacy of unions addressing such issues. With each victory, the boundaries of what constituted a legitimate union issue shifted, the understanding of what was seen to be relevant to the workplace altered, and the support for social unionism increased. The expansion of social unionism provided a basis for social movement unionism. As union issues complexified, for example, the inclusion of child care and reproductive rights within the purview of unions, the community of interest expanded both across and outside unions, creating both the foundation for and the inclination to build alliances and coalitions with community groups.

Despite the links between the expansion of social unionism and union women’s organizing, the language of social unionism often does not include explicit gender content. For example, in their Statement of Principles, the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) uses the language of social unionism:

‘Our collective bargaining strength is based on our internal organization and mobilization, but it is also influenced by the more general climate around us: laws, policies, the economy, and social attitudes. Furthermore, our lives extend beyond collective bargaining and the workplace and we must concern ourselves with issues like housing, taxation, education, medical services, the environment, the international economy. Social unionism means unionism which is rooted in the workplace but understands the importance of participating in, and influencing, the general direction of society.’¹²

No explicit gender lens is adopted, and yet the enumerated issues have gender-specific impacts. In the current context in which unions and women’s rights are under serious attack, gendering social unionism takes on a particular relevance.

Gendered social unionism (GSU)

GSU recognizes that gender organizes households, workplaces and communities. In fact, Pocock (2011: 574) points to the inextricable links between and among workplace, household and community: ‘For unions today, analysis of the changing nature of work, home and community and the nature of their interactions is vital.’ Yates (2011: 586) notes ‘the blurring of boundaries between work, home and community that results from women’s greater responsibility for, and in many instances desire to be involved in family and community. This blurring of boundaries, and the spaces in between, arguably offer unions new and distinct opportunities for appealing to women workers and forging collective identities that make sense of women’s lives.’

Although Yates focuses on the blurring of lines for women workers, North American data suggest that the constellation of work and household is also dramatically changing for male workers. Michael Kimmel, a pre-eminent scholar on men and masculinities, finds that ‘men now expect their wives to work, assume they will be involved fathers [and] are comfortable with women as colleagues’ (quoted in Anderssen, 2012). Duxby and Higgins (2012) surveyed more than 24 000 Canadians on work-life balance and care giving, and found that in over half of families, women were either primary earners or equal breadwinners; and 33 per cent of women said their partner had primary responsibility for child care. In Québec, the Canadian province with the best provisions for parental leave, 84 per cent of men took time off for the birth or adoption, up from 32 per cent in 2005 under an older plan.¹³

Gendered social unionism uniquely situates unions, and collective bargaining in particular, as policy and political vehicles in relation to the workplace-household-community nexus. It recognizes how demographic, labour market and household changes are transforming this nexus for both women and men. It appreciates the gender-specific concerns of women and of men, grounded in a materialist social construction approach which recognizes that such realities emerge from lived experiences rather than from any narrow biological, essentialist or ‘natural’ imperatives (Briskin, 2006). At the same time, it offers an alternative to those frames that focus narrowly on ‘women’s issues’ in ways that imply problematically that women are responsible for households. Not only does it reject as obsolete the male breadwinner model, it recognizes the centrality of non-standard work (Forrest, 2009). Finally, GSU does not rely on comparative equality measures which are of declining relevance given ‘the leveling down of gender’ (European Commission, 2012: 11).

Gendered social unionism speaks to both earner and citizen, recognizes the link between the public and the private, and the economic and social. It is oriented to ‘a broader definition of collectivity [given] its emphasis on the worker as citizen as well as wage earner…[and] its focus on both the workplace and society’ (Kumar and Murray, 2006: 82).¹⁴ In offering an expansive understanding of the community of interest that unions should speak with, for and about, it creates a basis to mobilize widely within, across and outside unions.

Gendered social unionism operates as what social movement theorists call a frame. The choice of frame can shape political commitment, policy, strategy and efficacy. To put it another way, framings adopted in policy interventions, political campaigns and bargaining agendas are not simply academic distinctions but rather tactical questions. In every political moment, competing frames struggle for dominance and legitimacy. ‘The frame determines whether most people notice…a problem, as well as how they evaluate and choose to act upon it’ (Entman quoted in Yates, 2010: 402). The choice of framing can challenge taken-for-granted, commonsense and naturalized social practices and re-position them as open to intervention and social change.

The issue of framing has been a central struggle within unions, and in particular around the agenda for bargaining equality. At different historical moments and with great variance across unions and countries, ‘gender’ issues have been framed as women’s issues, family issues, equality issues, workers’ issues and/or union issues, or a combination thereof. Each of these discursive framings has a unique political resonance, a particular effect on bargaining success and an impact on worker consciousness. How issues are framed reflects political struggles within unions, the degree of organizing among equality-seeking groups, the depth of equality consciousness among union members, and the extent of leadership commitment to such measures.

The frame of ‘women’s’ issues has been particularly susceptible to marginalization. A 2007 assessment of labour’s collective bargaining record on women and family issues in Canada concluded:

‘Casting specific bargaining goals or collective agreement provisions as women's issues causes them to be perceived as special needs rather than as universal rights and risks blinding unions and their members to the gendered nature of traditional bargaining issues. Furthermore, agenda items viewed as special needs of women workers are likely to be considered of lower importance, less likely to even be included in the bargaining agenda, and more likely to be sacrificed at the bargaining table in favour of gains in other areas’ (Bentham, 2007: 124).

Furthermore, ‘the visibility of separate women's issues is enough to convince many members that women are actually privileged in contemporary collective bargaining, facilitating a backlash against equity policies’ (Creese, 1996: 453–454).

Yates (2010) offers an instructive example of what might be seen as GSU framing. She recounts the ongoing efforts of the British Columbia Government and Service Employees Union (BCGEU) to organize child care workers, domestic workers and live-in nannies situated in homes and/or day care centres. Central to this campaign was a re-framing of ‘child care as caring labour that is skilled work and socially and economically valuable, a frame that attempts to be inclusive of parents, live-in nannies, child care workers and in-home child care providers’ (408). The union simultaneously made a case for improved wages and conditions while building ‘solidarity amongst workers and with parents, by framing these workers as caregivers with common interests to parents’ (400).

Building inclusive solidarity (Ferree and Roth, 1998), changing worker consciousness and extending equality bargaining are inextricably linked. A South African study drew out these connections. It analysed collective agreements in relation to the promotion of equality in the workplace, and in relation to workplace safety, job creation, and family, reproductive, sexual and health rights. Its foundational assumption was that ‘gendered collective bargaining agreements’ play an important role in ‘shaping the consciousness of the workers participating in the collective bargaining process in understanding their existing rights and their role in changing gender relations in the workplace and society more generally; and impacting on the workplace by assisting in the transformation of gender relations’ (Benjamin, 2007: 57).

Gendered social unionism and bargaining

How do and how should collective bargaining agendas reflect the seismic shifts implicated in gendered social unionism? Some versions of social unionism cast ‘collective bargaining as an inherently narrow expression of union members' interests and an inevitably bureaucratizing mode of action…Social unionism is often interpreted – by both proponents and critics – as action outside of the workplace separate from, and sometimes in competition with, workplace-based action’ (Ross, 2012: 33). This article, however, positions collective bargaining as a central vehicle for implementing gendered social unionism.

GSU has the potential to frame and legitimize a more expansive and relevant bargaining agenda. Linking social unionism and gender offers a contrast to the way that gender has often operated in disguise in collective bargaining. GSU challenges the gender neutrality embedded in equal opportunities bargaining approaches which privilege men. It also challenges gender blindness which fails ‘to recognise the gender of the actors…and treats women but not men as gendered subjects’ (Danieli, 2006: 329). In their study of equality bargaining, Colling and Dickens conclude: ‘This gender-blind approach can hinder the pursuit of equality’ (1990: 34). GSU does not counter pose equality bargaining and what are sometimes seen as the core traditional bread-and-butter issues of unions, but rather ‘genders’ recession and austerity-driven issues such as pay freezes, pension issues, restructuring and job losses. It also speaks to innovative approaches to bridge the increasingly tangled web of workplace, household and community which is of increasing significance to all workers.

Undoubtedly WLB is closest to the frame of GSU. In some countries, WLB is a mainstreamed issue, and an area where unions have had considerable success. Both the 2012 and 2009 Trades Union Congress (TUC) Equality Audits found that 44 per cent of unions have achieved bargaining results on flexible working and work-life balance (TUC, 2009; 6–7; TUC, 2012: 16). Part of the explanation for this success is the apparent convergence of interests between workers (seeking WLB) and employers (seeking flexibility). On the latter, Gregory and Milner (2009) point to union concerns that ‘WLB measures typically encompass flexible working, which…[are] often seen by unions as a removal of collective, protective rights, and is usually employer led rather than employee or trade union led’ (123).

The move from a focus on WLB to a more expansive elaboration of gendered social unionism will be resisted by those unions which actively uphold narrow parameters of collective bargaining. Gregory and Milner’s 2009 cross-national study of work-life balance bargaining in the UK and France offers an example. They quote the woman’s officer in the Confédération française démocratique du travail (CFDT):

‘WLB is still seen as a no-go area for bargaining, because it introduces non-work elements, which do not traditionally belong to the sphere of collective bargaining, and which are seen as women’s responsibility…The issues we’ve concentrated on…have been the most visible inequalities in the workplace such as the wage gap, inequalities in access to training and promotion…[E]ven though the negotiating teams may be ready to fight over wage inequality or inequalities in the labour market…they’re not ready to take on issues relating to family responsibilities’ (131–132).

GSU is a perspective from which to build a bargaining agenda which speaks to the complexity of the lived experiences of women and men. Evidence suggests that some unions in some countries have adopted GSU in bargaining approaches, especially in response to organizing by the movement of union women. For example, the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) has negotiated protection against discipline procedures for women who lose time at work as a result of an abusive family situation, an innovative approach that bridges family and workplace experience.¹⁵ In 1993, the CAW negotiated a women’s advocate programme. By 2009, women’s advocates were established at about 137 workplaces, ranging from auto to health care to retail to transportation (Woodhull and Leach, 2010: 52). The full-time advocates, who receive 40 hours of employer-paid training, act as referral agents for women who are dealing with violence, abuse or harassment at home or at the workplace. In their study of this programme, Woodhall and Leach conclude:

‘[A] women’s advocate also addresses the broader problem of unequal power relations between men and women that exist in the home, in a union local, and within labour-management relations…Having a woman in the role of advocate to accompany them enhances a woman’s individual power in the relationship, and at the same time bolsters women’s collective power within their union and their workplace’ (55).

In an evocative article tracing bargaining for women’s economic equality from the 1930s to the present, Forrest (2009) concludes that ‘equality for women was every bit as radical a demand as equality for industrial workers had been, with an equivalent potential for union growth and renewal.’ In fact, she finds that via bargaining for women’s economic equality, ‘unions reversed their slide toward irrelevance and repositioned themselves at the centre of economic and employment growth, and public debate…[and] brought new groups, energy, ideas, leadership to the movement’ (97–98). This article suggests that a turn to gendered social unionism holds a similar promise for unions in the current context.

Gendered social unionism provides an alternative to union retreat from equality claims in response to austerity measures, and a frame within which bargaining for equality can be understood, explored, expanded, defended and reinvigorated. It has the potential to provide conceptual, tactical and strategic support to this end. GSU reconstitutes solidarity to take account of difference which, in turn, positions unions to mobilize diverse memberships. It offers a foundation to support union renewal, organize the unorganized, build alliances and coalitions with broad communities of interest within and across unions, and with social movements, and move more fully toward social movement unionism.

Championing bargaining for equality

It may seem optimistic to call for an expanded frame of reference for collective bargaining in a context of austerity measures and severe attacks on union rights. However, even in times of austerity, union movements can use collective bargaining to advance an alternative vision generated by and for an increasingly diverse membership. Recent research on nurse militancy highlights not only resistance to austerity initiatives but also success at expanding the bargaining agenda to take more account of working conditions and quality of care (Briskin, 2013). Gindin and Hurley (2010: 5–6) point to government attempts to narrow the scope of collective bargaining, often by removing wages and benefit improvements from negotiations. They call for unions to respond by expanding collective bargaining: ‘What if public sector unions refused to settle collective agreements unless the settlements address the level, quality and administration of the services being provided?’ Gendered social unionism is in this tradition of expanding rather than contracting the bargaining agenda.

Furthermore, the current context intensifies pressure on collective bargaining to address equality issues, even as the unions find themselves in a weakened position. A report by the ILO-ICFTU concluded: ‘The current inadequacies of equality legislation and its enforcement in many countries underscore even more the potential of collective bargaining to address equality of opportunity and treatment within the terms and conditions of employment’ (ILO, 2002a: 34). Given the lack of equality initiatives in legislative and policy contexts, unions need to reclaim their radical potential, reinvent themselves, and set a new bargaining agenda for the 21st century.

In contrast to the commonsense claim that equality issues need to drop off the bargaining table during times of austerity, this article contends that bargaining for equality offers a wedge to support a revival of innovative collective bargaining, and, by extension, union renewal and revitalization. Such a conclusion is supported by the 2012 European Commission report which claimed that ‘gender equality [is] a way to push the economy out of the crisis rather than…a cost to be reduced in times of restraint. A strategic vision of women’s employment as a growth engine is warranted’ (207). Perhaps re-invigorating bargaining for equality can also push unions toward renewal, and offer some degree of inspiration and optimism in these difficult times.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

References

Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL) (2009) Domestic Violence is a Workplace Issue. Policy paper adopted at AFL 46th Constitutional Convention. Available at: http://www.afl.org/index.php/Policy-Papers/domestic-violence-is-a-workplace-issue-2009.html

Anderssen

(2012) With ‘the end of men,’ a new beginning. Globe and Mail, 26 December (I.2).

Bashevkin

(2012) Regress trumps progress: Canadian women, feminism and the harper government. Washington: Friedrich Ebert Foundation.

Benjamin

(2007) Mainstreaming gender standards in collective bargaining: Raising gender standards for low wage women workers. In: Bargaining Indicators 2007. A Collective Bargaining Omnibus. Volume 11. Woodstock: Labour Research Service, pp.45–79.

Bentham

(2007) Labour’s collective bargaining record on women’s and family issues. In: Hunt

Rayside

(eds) Equity, Diversity and Canadian Labour. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp.101–129.

Briskin

(2006) Victimization and agency: The social construction of union women’s leadership. Industrial Relations Journal 37(4): 359–378.

Briskin

(2008) Cross-constituency organizing in Canadian unions. British Journal of Industrial Relations 46(2): 221–247.

Briskin

(2012) Merit, individualism and solidarity: Revisiting the democratic deficit in union women’s leadership. In: Ledwith

Hansen

(eds) Gendering and Diversifying Trade Union Leadership. Routledge, pp.138–161.

Briskin

(2013) Nurse militancy and strike action. Workers of the World – International Journal on Strikes and Social Conflicts 1(2): 105–134. Available at: http://workeroftheworldjournal.net/index.php/current-edition2

10.

Briskin

(2014) Strategies to support equality bargaining inside unions: Representational democracy and representational justice. Journal of Industrial Relations (forthcoming).

11.

Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) (2004) The MORE We Get Together: Disability Rights and Collective Bargaining Manual. Ottawa. Available at: http://www.canadianlabour.ca/sites/default/files/pdfs/manual.pdf

12.

Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) (2009) Recipes for Setting the Table. Prepared for conference on women and collective bargaining. Ottawa. Available at: http://cupe.ca/updir/Recipes_for_Setting_the_Table.pdf and http://cupe.ca/updir/AppendixA-Contractlanguage.pdf

13.

Colling

Dickens

(1990) Equality bargaining - Why not? Equal Opportunities Commission Research Series. UK: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

14.

Creese

(1996) Gendering collective bargaining: For men’s rights to women’s issues. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 33(4): 437–456.

15.

Crenshaw

(1991) Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and the violence against women of colour. Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1241–1299.

16.

Danieli

(2006) Gender: The missing link in industrial relations research. Industrial Relations Journal 37(4): 329–343.

17.

Das Gupta

(1998) Anti-racism and the organized labour movement. In: Satzewich

(ed.) Racism and Social Inequality in Canada. Toronto: Thompson Educational, pp.315–334.

18.

Duxby

Higgins

(2012) Revisiting work-life issues in Canada: The 2012 National Study on Balancing Work and Caregiving in Canada. Canada: Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario,. Available at http://newsroom.carleton.ca/wp-content/files/2012-National-Work-Key-Findings.pdf

19.

European Commission (2007) Tackling Multiple Discrimination: Practices, Policies and Laws. Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities.

20.

European Commission (2012) The Impact of the Economic Crisis on the Situation of Women and Men and on Gender Equality Policies: Synthesis Report. Prepared by Francesca Bettio, Marcella Corsi, Carlo D’Ippoliti, Antigone Lyberaki, Manuela Samek Lodovici and Alina Verashchagina.

21.

European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) (2011) Time to speak out about the silent crisis - Years of work on equal pay and gender equality under threat. Available at: http://www.epsu.org/a/7578

22.

European Women’s Lobby (2012) The Price of Austerity: The Impact on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality in Europe. European Commission.

23.

Faroque

MacLean

(2013) From the Great Recession of 2008-9 to fiscal austerity: The role of inequality. In: Fowler

(ed.) From Crisis to Austerity: Neoliberalism, Organized Labour and the Canadian State. Ottawa: Red Quill Books, pp.49–79.

24.

Ferree

Roth

(1998) Gender, class and the interaction between social movements: A strike of West Berlin day care workers. Gender and Society 12(6): 626–648.

25.

Foley

Baker

(eds) (2009) Unions, Equity, and the Path to Renewal. Vancouver: UBC Press.

26.

Forrest

(2009) Bargaining for economic equality: A path to union renewal, then and now. In: Foley

Baker

(eds) Unions, Equity, and the Path to Renewal. Vancouver: UBC Press, pp.97–119.

27.

Gindin

Hurley

(2010) The public sector: Searching for a focus. Socialist Project • E-Bulletin No. 354. Available at: http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/354.php

28.

Gregory

Milner

(2009) Trade unions and work-life balance: Changing times in France and the UK? British Journal of Industrial Relations 47(1): 122–146.

29.

Gregory

Milner

Windebank

(2013) Work-life balance in times of economic crisis and austerity. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 33(9/10): 528–541.

30.

International Labour Office (2002a) The Role of Trade Unions in Promoting Gender Equality and Protecting Vulnerable Women Workers: Report of the ILO-ICFTU Survey. Geneva: Gender Promotion Programme.

31.

International Labour Office (2002b) Promoting Gender Equality: A Resource Kit for Unions. Geneva: Gender Promotion Programme. Available at: http://www.workinfo.com/free/links/gender/cha_0.htm

32.

International Labour Office (2011) Equality at work: The continuing challenge. Report of the Director-General – International Labour Conference 100th Session Report I(B).

33.

International Labour Office (2012) World of Work: Better Jobs for a Better Economy.

34.

Kainer

(2009) Gendering union renewal: Women’s contributions to labour movement revitalization. In: Foley

Baker

(eds) Unions, Equity, and the Path to Renewal. Vancouver: UBC Press, pp.15–38.

35.

Kumar

Murray

(2006) Innovation in Canadian unions: Patterns, causes and consequences. In: Kumar

Schenk

(eds) Paths to Union Renewal: Canadian Experiences. Peterborough: Broadview Press, pp.79–102.

36.

McRobie

(2012) When ‘austerity’ sounds like ‘backlash’: Gender and the economic crisis. New Left Project, 14 September. Available at: http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/when_austerity_sounds_like_backlash_gender_and_the_economic_crisis

37.

Moran

(2006) Aboriginal organizing in Saskatchewan: The experience of CUPE. Just Labour 8: 70–81. Available at: http://www.justlabour.yorku.ca/volume8/pdfs/08%20Moran%20Press.pdf

38.

Naylor

(2012) Economic crisis and austerity: The stranglehold on Canada’s families. The Bullet Socialist Project • E-Bulletin 614. Available at: http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/614.php

39.

OECD (2013) Crisis Squeezes Income and Puts Pressure on Inequality and Poverty: New Results from the OECD Income Distribution Database.

40.

Ontario Human Rights Commission (2001) An Intersectional Approach to Discrimination: Addressing Multiple Grounds in Human Rights Claims: Discussion paper.

41.

Pocock

(2011) Rethinking unionism in a changing world of work, family and community life. Relations industrielles 66(4): 562–583.

42.

Ross

(2012) Business unionism and social unionism in theory and practice. In: Ross

Savage

(eds) Rethinking the Politics of Labour in Canada. Halifax and Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing, pp.33–46.

43.

Smith

Villa

(2010) The ever-declining role of gender equality in the European Employment Strategy. Industrial Relations Journal 41(6): 526–543.

44.

Tobío

Cordón

(2013) A social policy model for the reconciliation of employment and family life from a gender equality perspective. International Review of Sociology 23(2): 379–400.

45.

Trades Union Congress (TUC) (2005) TUC Equality Audit. London. Available at: http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/auditfinal.pdf

46.

Trades Union Congress (TUC) (2006) A TUC Guide for Union Negotiators on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans Issues. London. Available at: http://www.tuc.org.uk/equality/tuc-19413-f0.cfm

47.

Trades Union Congress (TUC) (2009) TUC Equality Audit 2009: Progress on Bargaining for Equality at Work. London. Available at: http://www.tuc.org.uk/equality/tuc-16977-f0.pdf

48.

Trades Union Congress (TUC) (2012) TUC Equality Audit. London. Available at: https://www.tuc.org.uk/tucfiles/380/TUC_Equality_Audit_2012_AW.pdf

49.

Uppal

(2011) Unionization 2011. Perspectives on Labour and Income. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Available at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2011004/article/11579-eng.pdf

50.

Woodhall

Leach

(2010) Who will fight for us? Union designated women’s advocates in auto manufacturing workplaces. Just Labour: A Canadian Journal of Work and Society 16: 44–58.

51.

Woodward

(2008) Too late for gender mainstreaming? Taking stock in Brussels. Journal of European Social Policy 18(3): 289–302.

52.

Working Lives Research Institute (2006) Union membership and density levels in decline. Available at: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2006/03/articles/eu0603029i.htm

53.

Yates

(2010) Understanding caring, organizing women: how framing a problem shapes union strategy. Transfer 16(3): 399–410.

54.

Yates

(2011) Organizing women in the spaces between home, work and community. Relations Industrielles 66(4): 585–603.