‘We just get a bit set in our ways’: renewing democracy and solidarity in UK trade unions

Introduction

Since 2010, UK government austerity policies have meant real cuts to employees’ terms and conditions, job losses and further privatisations of public services (see Simms and Hopkins, 2020). In local government, the largest component of public sector employment, sustained financial pressures, and policies of restructuring and outsourcing, have steadily eroded key features of public sector employment such as job security, fair reward and collective representation through trade unions. Although centralised collective bargaining remains in place, the institutions of bargaining have become increasingly ‘perforated’ over time, setting only minimum standards and broad procedural rules, thereby allowing for diverging standards at a local level (Grimshaw et al., 2017). While a key driver of change in UK local government is the national political and economic context, research shows that specific local responses depend on the dynamic interplay between local political agendas, local trade union capacities and local managerial strategies for reform (Johnson et al., 2019). Trade union strength and capacity to resist and shape reforms are therefore important elements in understanding the outcomes for employees in UK local government.

This article examines how a UK trade union representing local government workers attempted to respond more effectively to radical restructuring plans. At the start of the research in December 2015, the local government that is the empirical site for this study was planning to outsource over 90 per cent of directly employed staff – an unprecedented move in UK local government at this point. Local government leaders adopted a radical marketisation approach, with the aim of reducing costs and increasing efficiency by fragmenting and outsourcing services, holding down pay and conditions, and introducing greater flexibility in staffing systems (Johnson et al., 2019). Public sector unions in the UK have remained relatively resilient after decades of considerable change, but they are increasingly vulnerable to such neoliberal approaches and, from a position of weakness, have taken a defensive stance as ‘responsible co-designers of austerity’ (Bohle, 2011).

The UK public sector has been associated with a ‘model employer’ tradition, comprising an institutionalised and long-established system of collective bargaining and employee participation (Bach and Stroleny, 2014; Kessler, 1991). In local government, institutions for working in partnership with employers are well established, and were strengthened during the period of Labour government from 1997. Local union branches developed partnership working with employers and largely focused on maintaining a good working relationship with local managers. Yet, sustaining representation and branch activism in a context of an effective wholescale privatisation of local services represents a huge challenge for local unions, with a possible reduction of facility time, bigger risks of union victimisation, increased workforce instability, and segmented and dispersed constituencies. The whole process of restructuring and outsourcing creates higher demands and tensions across activities and questions the relations between members, workplace representatives and national officers and officials in the local union organisation (Guillaume and Kirton, 2017: 3).

How should the unions respond to such severe disruptions in the regulation of employment, which have previously been characterised by salaried employment and collective agreements typical of historic patterns of work regulation in local government? Hyman (2015) argues that to resist austerity and its related policies, trade unions must turn (or return) to a self-conception as organisations campaigning for rights and engaging in ‘contentious politics’. Trade unions need to redefine themselves as ‘outsiders’ in a terrain where until recently the role of being an ‘insider’ was comforting and rewarding. By engaging in a process of democratic experimentation (see Murray, 2017), this article shows how full-time officials from above and activists from below challenged the existing ‘insider’ or accommodative relationship between branch officers and management, which was seen to be ineffective in response to radical restructuring plans. This process led to a form of renewal in the local union branch and the development of a more cohesive and combative approach towards local employers.

The research makes three contributions. First, the findings contribute to debates on union renewal by showing not only the possibilities for renewal but the contested and processual nature of democracy and solidarity (Lévesque and Murray, 2010). A related contribution is to debates on intra-union relations by showing a case of challenge from both above and below for a renewal of democracy in a local union branch. Second, the research demonstrates how leaders with left-wing and collectivist values, both full-time officers (FTOs) and activists, can be powerful advocates for encouraging democracy and for renewing a cohesive collective identity. Third, by adopting a participatory ethnographic approach, the article demonstrates the promise of participatory action research (PAR) for the co-creation of knowledge to aid workers’ struggle for change (see Brook and Darlington, 2013; Stewart and Martinez Lucio, 2017).

The article begins with a discussion on debates on union renewal, democracy and leadership, before setting out the conceptual framework and research methodology. The remaining sections present and analyse the findings by looking at different phases in a process of democratic experimentation in a local union branch.

Union renewal: democracy, leadership and solidarity

There is a well-established body of work exploring the innovations of unions in the face of decline, and the prospects and conditions for union renewal (see Murray, 2017). Trade union renewal and revitalisation perspectives have tended to focus on strategic aspects of unionism and the bases of campaigning in trade unions, but have often neglected the more routine nature of union organisation and activity (Fairbrother, 2005). The ongoing and contested nature of democracy is a key element in understanding the capacity of local unions to influence the regulation of work and to develop resilient responses in new contexts (Lévesque and Murray, 2010). Democracy, in the form of strong participation and deliberative processes, can be a key power resource for trade unions and studies show how democracy can be the ‘foundation of union power in a critical struggle against a corporation’ (Parker, 1998: 57).

Yet, in the extensive literature on union democracy (see Gumbrell-McCormick and Hyman, 2019 for an overview), pessimistic approaches see unions as exemplifying the entrenched leadership and conservative transformation associated with Michels’ (1962) ‘iron law of oligarchy’. Beatrice and Sidney Webb, in their classic analysis of the early trade union movement, identified that the emergence of an officer class separate from the membership had significant consequences ‘with the appointment of a General Secretary, and later other FTOs, the foundations for an elite or governing class were created’ (Webb and Webb, 1894: 15). Full-time officers have been described as a brake on the more radical ambitions of trade union members in putting institutional interests above those of the membership (Cohen, 2006).

Another tendency has been the emergence of a lay or semi-bureaucracy adopting the characteristics of FTOs (Hyman, 1989). With the establishment of statutory rights to facility time and training, as well as the encouragement of procedural approaches to dispute resolution, the rank-and-file shop steward, rather than being the advocate of workplace union building, becomes conservative and resistant to shop-floor pressure. Research has shown how full-time and lay officers can play a conservative, ‘insider’ role by being ‘drawn into a web of cooperation with management the corollary of which is a mediating role during conflict’ (Carter et al., 2012: 22).

However, FTOs and local leaders are also subject to democratic pressures from activists and members (Voss and Sherman, 2000). In Kelly and Heery’s classic study on FTOs they found that FTOs can be ‘enabling rather than “disabling” professionals in that at the heart of their work is an attempt to establish vigorous, self-supporting and relatively autonomous workplace trade unionism’ (Kelly and Heery, 1994: 119; see also Looker, 2019). They also argue for a distinction between local officers and national officers, with the former being committed to the creation of independent workplace organisation and strong ties to membership (Kelly and Heery, 1994: 206). Strong independent workplace union organisation can provide an important counteracting tendency against bureaucratisation and accommodation of the official union leadership (Hyman, 1971).

Plus, external circumstances, which Michels neglected, play a key role in the development of trade union organisation, and, in the context of crisis and an external change, new leaders can emerge with novel interpretations, which can help even formalised bureaucratic organisations that have become oligarchical, to be transformed in a radical direction (Voss and Sherman, 2000). Murray argues that in processes of renewal, unions should engage in rigorous democratic experimentation ‘through which new organisational forms and new types of collective action will emerge, along with renewed union vigour, whatever its shape’ (Voss and Sherman, 2017: 23). The style and character of leadership can exert a critical influence in this process, on the responsiveness to membership aspirations, and willingness and ability to stimulate the collective awareness and activism of workers (Hyman, 1989: 159).

Researching union renewal and democracy

This article draws on ethnographic research conducted with a Unison branch (hereafter Midcounty branch) from December 2015 to March 2017. The approach adopted is one of ‘Participatory Action Research’ (PAR), which is offered as a methodological orientation that underpins and enables organic scholars of work to engage actively with the marginalised and labour in the co-creation of knowledge that aids their struggles for change (see Brook and Darlington, 2013; Stewart and Martinez Lucio, 2017).

I was an active participant in a review of a local union branch shadowing and working alongside FTO(1). FTO(1) was a regional organiser for Unison and my former doctoral student. FTO(1) had worked in trade unions for 25 years, including 14 years as a union official in Unison. He was active in the Labour Party and held a strong ideological commitment to trade unionism and socialist values. After finishing his doctoral research he was tasked by his region to support Midcounty branch. I became interested in researching the case after talking to FTO(1) and he asked Midcounty branch if I could work alongside him on the review of the branch. After agreement from the branch I began shadowing FTO(1), who acted as my sponsor in the initial stages, but I also conducted separate interviews with branch leaders and stewards during the 18 months spent with the union. Initially my research focus was on the response of the union branch to outsourcing plans, but this interest evolved to a focus on the internal workings of the branch. The data consist of observation notes and transcriptions of branch meetings, interviews with branch officials, and documentary sources including written feedback from branch officers on a strategy away day, branch minutes and newsletters.

At the time the research began in 2015, local government leaders proposed a move to become a ‘next generation council’, involving the outsourcing of the majority of local government services. The plan was to transfer 3850 of its 4000 employees to four new dividend-paying service providers (Community Interest Companies, or CICs) which would deliver all the council’s services. The number of directly employed employees had declined from 12,000 in 2010 to 6000 in 2014 and 4000 in 2015. In early 2016, local leaders pushed ahead with plans to begin outsourcing services. Local people mobilised against the cuts amidst fears that this plan was a step towards privatisation. There was a lack of transparency around the plans for outsourcing, which made it difficult for the unions to be proactive and respond effectively. The first wave of outsourcing occurred on 1 April 2016 during the period of research and the others in mid-2017 just as the research period ended.

Midcounty branch is a large predominantly local government branch based around a county council, Midcounty council, with around 5000 members (in 2015) and 20 per cent membership density in the largest employers including local government staff, schools and health and social care, not all of whom were directly employed staff. The branch committee met once a month and comprised 20 branch officers ¹ . There were three permanent lay officers, including the branch secretary, assistant branch secretary and the education officer, who had facility time as part of the union learning representative role. The union had an office on the outskirts of the town. Two part-time administrators were based in the office.

At the regional level of the union, a strategy was in place to review the eight largest branches in the region, with the aim to provide support for recruitment (emanating from the national-level recruitment strategy and targets). At regional level there were concerns that the local branch was losing and not engaging with members. The regional union allocated two FTOs to work with the branch. FTO(1) was tasked mainly with undertaking a review of the branch to analyse how it was functioning and whether there were improvements that could be made, and FTO(2) was based mainly in the local branch office to provide regular support to the branch, including help with individual casework.

The findings are broken down into three phases, with phase 1 focusing on the initial stages of the branch review including a strategy away day organised for branch officers and activists. Phase 2 was a period of transition after the away day where new leaders were shifting their mode of functioning and approach towards management. Phase 3 looks at the evidence on how the branch had changed and how the review process led to different strategies and modes of functioning.

Phase 1: ‘You’re coming into a nest of vipers’ ²

The field research started at the beginning of a review of Midcounty branch in December 2015. In an initial meeting FTO(1) and I reflected on strategies to improve internal relations in the branch. He decided to organise a strategy away day, taking the branch officers and activists away from the branch office to allow them space to reflect on how the branch was working and to agree on plans to respond to the restructuring plans of Midcounty council. FTO(1) and I put together a semi-structured plan for the day which included an exercise on the strengths and weaknesses of the branch. I put together a session drawing on Jane McAlevey’s (2012) work to conduct a ‘Power Structure Analysis’. The aim of this mapping exercise is to help develop a strategic approach to organising in the workplace. This involves mapping out the power structures both internal and external to the union and the sources of power available to the union.

An initial meeting was set up with the officers to discuss issues in the branch and to obtain the agreement of the branch secretary and assistant branch secretary to participate in the strategy away day. Lines of communication had broken down between the branch secretary and the assistant branch secretary and this was causing tension among the rest of the branch officers and the administrative assistants. The lack of communication and dysfunction in the branch had led to gaps in representation, including a lack of follow-up in individual representation cases. The branch and assistant branch secretaries both recognised that there was a problem and that it needed to be resolved. Part of the tension between the two leaders was that the assistant branch secretary was now looking to stand for branch secretary in the forthcoming AGM. The two officers and the branch committee agreed to the idea of an away day and this was scheduled for January 2016.

In interviews and branch meetings, committee members and stewards suggested the current branch secretary, who had been an elected lay officer for nine years (six years as branch secretary and three years as assistant branch secretary), was not leading effectively in the context of the outsourcing plans. He was quoted in the national press as being supportive of the outsourcing for improving the terms and conditions of workers. ³ This went against the position of other branch officers, stewards and members who had raised concerns about the plans. The branch secretary did speak out in committee meetings about being against the planned outsourcing and the potential detrimental effects on employees. Yet, the assistant branch secretary had been leading on the campaign against outsourcing and, with the breakdown in communication between the two leaders, there was a lack of cohesion and support for a common approach.

In a local government survey asking staff whether they were for or against outsourcing, 90 per cent of the responses came back to say they were against the measures (Branch minutes). The branch also set up stalls in different workplaces to raise awareness about the outsourcing plans and again the majority of union members were against the plans. There were several concerns raised by the local branch, including the creation of a two-tier pension system with new starters having a different pension scheme and the fact the ‘process is privatisation regardless of how [Midcounty council] dress it up’ (Branch minutes).

The branch secretary was seen by other leaders and activists as prioritising good relations with managers, over challenging them about difficult issues. This was noted by one local steward in (written) feedback after the strategy away day: ‘I often hear Branch Officers say “the employer can do that”, and there is very little challenge. It seems that befriending HR and management is more important than our members!’

In an interview with the branch secretary, he referred to the importance of having a good relationship with managers.

I always try to be pleasant, no matter who they are, because my view is, you know, I’m going in to meetings, half the time the member’s told me a load of nonsense before you get in and you want a shovel to dig a hole for yourself anyway. But I’m always pleasant to all the HR people, etc […].

In the initial session of the away day when talking about the strengths and weaknesses of the branch, a key recurring theme concerned the tendency towards complacency when branch officers had been in place for long periods.

Well we identified something that’s a strength and a weakness […] that we’ve got quite loyal officers and stewards that have been around for a little while, which is a strength because you’ve got all that expertise, but it’s also a weakness, in terms of we perhaps get a little bit staid about how we do things and, you know, it can become a little bit negative […]. We just get a bit set in our ways. (Branch administrator)

Phase 2: ‘It’s usually been a bit of an easy ride […] he wasn’t used to being challenged on anything’ ⁵

After the election of the new branch officers the local branch began to shift from a more accommodative to a more antagonistic and confrontational approach towards management. The new branch secretary talked about how he was adopting a consistently confrontational and antagonistic approach and sought to challenge management on the outsourcing plans:

And he said, as I’m Chief Exec, generally, what I say happens. And I was like, OK. I said, so what are the plans then, how are we structuring this? We’re not sure yet. I mean this is bonkers, isn’t it? I just said, how would you go on like this? You know, we can’t keep having this “we’re not sure yet” […] but this is what we’re going to keep challenging them on, to be honest. We just need answers really […]. And he also said, when he came in, I’ve got another meeting at half twelve. And I said, well that’s if we’re finished […]. He was really agitated with us […] other unions that were there said that it’s usually been a bit of an easy ride.

An issue for the FTOs was the persistence of some activists prioritising good relationships with managers, which was evident in a branch meeting where committee members were discussing confidentiality when in meetings with employers. The interactions are worth quoting at length as they give a sense of the struggle of confronting ‘insider’ relationships between management and unions and the difficulties of developing effective means of communication.

Assistant branch secretary(1): One thing that needs to be clarified and I think sometimes stops people doing that, is because they always say that the information in the [employer-union meeting] is confidential. I’m never quite sure how far that is confidential as it could be in the unions, is it not to be shared with members?

FTO(1): Well I think part of our job is to push the boundaries on what’s confidential and what isn’t. So maybe we need to do that a bit more.

FTO(2): You’ve got to at least start with sharing amongst yourselves as a branch and then you can make a decision. But as things have stood so far, everyone goes to their varying [employer-union meetings] but nothing actually comes back, if it comes back, and nothing’s done with it.

Branch officer(1): But surely, even if we’re told in our meetings it’s confidential, I’m getting that, don’t get me wrong, but surely, coming back here and going to our branch secretary, the assistant branch secretaries, this was what the meeting was about, minus this little bit, that’s what we should be doing.

FTO(1): No. I’m sorry, you’re a trade union branch, you’re not an individual. You’re there as an accredited trade union representative of a collective organisation. And if there’s a confidentiality issue, the confidentiality issue is with the branch, it’s not with the individual. The branch should be aware of what’s going on, even if it’s confidential within the branch executive. Otherwise, there’s total disorganisation and the employer will run rings round you […] it’s a basic principle I think. You know, we’re here to represent working people and we can only do that if we are able to communicate with them. And if we allow ourselves to be hamstrung, even amongst ourselves as a committee, then we become completely dysfunctional.

Phase 3: ‘They’re management and I’m trade union’ ⁶

The branch secretary and assistant branch secretaries consistently sought to challenge management on their policies and decisions. In an interview with the branch secretary, he talked about how the union had succeeded in challenging and shifting employer practice, including the use of agency staff and consultants. The union made the issue a standing item in meetings with employers and eventually agency and consultant jobs became full-time employee posts. When asked how this was achieved, the branch secretary said:

Because of cost and that we kept on highlighting it, we kept on going to the press saying about this exulting cost. We had someone, eleven hundred pounds a day, to do a job that, essentially, an employed person could do, do you know what I mean? We just kept saying, why are you doing this and how can you justify it in this environment?

The branch gained new members and new stewards in the 12 months after the election of the new leaders. However, this had little impact on density figures as the local government restructuring and outsourcing made it difficult for the branch to maintain membership levels. Branch committee members reported increased attendance in branch and steward meetings and improved communication channels, including the provision of minutes of steward meetings. As one local steward commented in a branch meeting:

There’s good attendance at branch and steward committee meetings. It’s helpful now that we’ve got minutes from stewards’ meetings, so if you can’t make the stewards meeting, you’re getting to know what’s been discussed.

The branch committee members also reflexively discussed the pressures to become more accommodating when dealing with management.

FTO(2): Even I sit in meetings sometimes and think, oh they’d be alright to go for a drink with […] do you know what I mean, they say something daft in the meeting and you think, oh yes, they’ve got the same sense of humour as me. At the same time, they’re management and I’m trade union, you know, so you can understand how it happens if people are around for donkey’s years.

Discussion

The findings present three phases in a process of ‘democratic experimentation’ in a local union branch. The first phase showed how dysfunctional intra-union relations were leading to gaps in representation and problems with developing a common response, particularly to the outsourcing of workers. The second phase showed how the new leaders in the branch attempted to shift their orientation towards management to become more confrontational and antagonistic and how they sought to improve and develop communication mechanisms in the branch. In the third phase, the reflections of the branch leaders showed how, in spite of the obstacles of outsourcing and disruption in the regulation of employment, the branch had been through a form of renewal with improved intra-union relations and a common approach to challenge management on the outsourcing plans.

The findings show that, with the support of FTOs and pressure for change from activists and members, there was a renewed sense of ‘internal solidarity’ in the union branch, both in terms of ‘cohesive collective identity’ and ‘deliberative vitality’ (Lévesque and Murray, 2010). The initial strategy away day and interventions from FTOs and activists helped facilitate a change in the internal workings of the branch, which in turn supported the development of a more cohesive collective identity.

To build a more cohesive collective identity the FTOs and activists sought to show how the existing accommodative approach between branch officers and management was no longer effective in response to radical restructuring. The new leaders adopted a more antagonistic approach towards management and in the final phase the reported response from membership was positive. The FTOs used political language to frame the identity of the union as in opposition to a ‘Tory Council, neoliberal, corporate power’ with the need to use ‘guerrilla tactics’ against management. The new leaders also consistently framed union action in wider political terms, mentioning the broader context of austerity and privatisation.

However, the findings show how the process towards building a common collective identity was a contested one. This was evident in the example of branch officers not sharing information about redundancy, restructuring and outsourcing plans within the branch. Again, the role of leaders with left-wing and collectivist values was significant here in developing an awareness that the trade union was working in the interests of ‘working people’ as opposed to those of management.

In terms of deliberative vitality, there was evidence of improvements on a number of measures. The initial response to the problems identified in the branch was an away day, which had as an aim to improve deliberation and reflexivity among branch officers and activists, particularly in response to the changing context. The deliberation during the away day and the agreements made on the course of action for the branch set off a chain of responses, which improved relations between branch officers, communication channels and participation in the branch. Measures of deliberative vitality included the reported improvements in participation of stewards and in communication mechanisms between stewards and with members. The quality of the engagement with the union appeared to have improved with a renewed openness and a sense that the union was more willing to act.

Conclusion

To conclude, this article makes three contributions. First, the findings contribute to debates on union renewal and democracy. The research goes some way to show how, in spite of the considerable obstacles, union renewal is possible. Triggered by the plans for outsourcing and pressures to improve representation from above and below, the union branch engaged in a process of democratic experimentation, focusing on strengthening internal power resources, to develop more resilient responses. In this process, by challenging management and responding to member concerns, the union began to shift from the ‘comforting and rewarding’ role of ‘insider’ (back) to a position of ‘outsider’ (Hyman, 2015). The findings also demonstrate the importance of avoiding reductionism in analysis of intra-union relations (see Darlington and Upchurch, 2012). The tendency towards bureaucratisation is an issue for both full-time officials and lay officers. Even though lay officers face re-election, they can still become remote from their members and take on similar features to those often associated with FTOs. The findings show how ‘enabling’ FTOs can act as significant counterweights to challenge forms of lay bureaucracy (Hyman, 1989; Kelly and Heery, 1994; Looker, 2019), and to create the conditions for more democratic and autonomous forms of workplace trade unionism. Union renewal is presented here as a dialectical process and set of responses involving both strategic direction from above and membership pressure and activism from below.

Second, the research shows how leaders with left-wing and collectivist values can be powerful advocates for democracy, and for (re)framing collective identity in the context of new challenges. In this case, the biggest challenge facing the union was outsourcing and the resulting change in the regulation of employment. Hyman (2007) argues that for unions to be strategic, they should pursue an agenda or vocabulary of motive that seeks a larger purpose. By (re)framing the interests of the union in opposition to those of employers, the leaders encouraged workers to see their interests as part of a broader class struggle. The leaders framed the outsourcing plans in political terms, linking the plans to privatisation and neoliberalism, and urged them to seek redress through collective organisation and action (see Darlington, 2009). Leaders with collectivist values from both above and below contributed to the direction and leadership of the union branch and took the branch in a different and more combative direction than might otherwise have been the case had they not acted.

Third, the research methodology is based on a participatory action approach (Brook and Darlington, 2013; Stewart and Martinez Lucio, 2017), where I was an active participant in a review of the local union branch. The findings, particularly the open discussions that came out of the away day, show how researchers can constitute new resources, adding assessment and reflexivity in building resilient experimental responses in the context of radical restructuring and disruption of employment regulation.