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

Abstract

German

French

In a broader context of austerity, sustained financial pressures and policies of restructuring and outsourcing have steadily eroded traditional features of UK public sector employment such as job security, fair reward and collective representation through trade unions. This article examines how a UK trade union representing local government workers attempted to respond more effectively to radical restructuring plans. By engaging in a process of democratic experimentation, full-time officials from above and activists from below sought to challenge the existing ‘insider’ relationship between branch officers and management, which was seen as ineffective in responding to a severe disruption in the regulation of local government employment. Drawing on participatory ethnographic research, the findings show the importance of leadership in the processes towards union renewal and the tensions and struggles underlying democracy and solidarity. 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.

Keywords

Democracy full-time officers local government leadership solidarity 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).

Leadership and collective identity

The politics of union leadership is an oft-neglected but important ingredient, amongst other factors, in contributing to an understanding of the dynamics of union organisation and renewal. Studies by Darlington (2009) and Connolly and Darlington (2010) have shown how left-wing union leaders with an overtly ideological and solidaristic (rather than instrumental and individualistic) commitment to trade unionism, can play a crucial role in framing collective organisation and action with a political edge. The term ‘left-wing’ can be defined broadly to include those union activists who have a fixed affiliation to a radical left political party or are left-wing members of social democratic parties. It also includes independent non-party activists who are committed to building the strength of workplace union organisation through a consistently adversarial approach to managerial prerogative and a commitment to redistribution of wealth and power in society (Darlington, 2009).

Left-wing leaders can encourage workers to see their grievances as part of a broader class struggle and urge them to seek redress through collective organisation and action. This can contribute to the subsequent direction and leadership of such activity and taking events in a different and more combative direction than might otherwise have been the case had they not acted (see Darlington, 2002). Left-wing leaders can place a strong emphasis on taking political issues into the workplace. They can frame collective interests in relation to austerity, privatisation and neoliberal policies, as well as arguing the need for a class and socialist understanding of society generally. Concerning the defence of public services, leaders can attempt to frame collective organisation and action within a broad conception of economic and social justice and to encourage an engagement with external constituencies by developing links with social and political campaigns.

Darlington and Upchurch (2012) argue that while the political differences between left- and right-wing officials are important in influencing their behaviour, these differences are ultimately less important than what unites them at the most primary level and at decisive moments. This suggests that regardless of political orientation, trade union officials will ultimately act in their own best interests rather than those of the ‘rank-and-file’. However, FTOs and rank-and-file leaders with collectivist values can still play a key role in supporting and encouraging union democracy at the local level (see Kelly and Heery, 1994). Drawing on mobilisation theory, collective organisation is a socially constructed, situationally specific response that is formed and sustained through the processes of interaction (Kelly, 1998). Whilst structural factors create a more or less favourable environment for the collectivisation of workers, they do not in themselves generate collective interests. Collective interests and identity have to be constructed by activists or other opinion formers (Kelly, 1998). The collectivist values of left-wing FTOs and activists can encourage a greater sense of collective identity, participation, activism and leadership, which can interplay with each other on a virtuous path.

Conceptualising union capacity for renewal

If we are aiming to understand union capacity to resist and renew in the face of new contexts and challenges a useful framework is Lévesque and Murray’s (2010) work on union power resources, and particularly the concept of ‘internal solidarity’. ‘Internal solidarity’ is a set of relationships, underpinned by the extent of 1) cohesive collective identities and 2) deliberative vitality. First cohesive collective identities concern the degree of membership cohesion. The decline of trade unionism, in terms of density and the relative importance of trade unions as socio-political actors, is often associated with the fragmentation of collective identities. Yet, trade unions have always faced the difficult task of harmonising and reconciling a multiplicity of particularistic interests and identities (Hyman, 1994: 112). Understanding cohesive collective identity requires asking questions about which interests and identities prevail in unions, the extent of competing identities and projects, and the resilience of common interests over time and under changed circumstances.

Second, deliberative vitality refers to the extent of participation of activists and members in the life of the union. A union culture that emphasises active participation and deliberation can be a source of strength in trade unions, sustaining and facilitating hard bargaining and organising (Levi et al., 2009; Parker, 1998). There are two aspects to deliberative vitality. The first concerns the basic internal mechanics of union representation, which include the presence and density of union representatives and activists in the workplace, the existence and regularity of mechanisms and procedures that ensure links to members, the existence and relative effectiveness of different means of communication between members, activists and local leaders and with other levels of the union. The second aspect of deliberative vitality concerns the extent of membership participation and the quality of engagement in these different deliberative structures. This can be measured by looking at the extent to which engagement and participation of members and activists is passive or active and by using measures for union democracy such as contested elections and the levels of voter turnout (Lévesque and Murray, 2010: 338).

For ‘internal solidarity’ to be a power resource there is a need for both cohesive collective identities and deliberative vitality as it is possible for unions to be strong on one and not on another (see Lévesque and Murray, 2010: 338). While not a given, we can argue that with strong deliberative vitality, there are mechanisms in place to facilitate and encourage the construction of more cohesive collective identities. These concepts are revisited below in the discussion of the findings.

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 officers¹. 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 […].

There had been little consultation or challenge around the outsourcing plans and no consultation with members about a forthcoming pay claim. In branch meetings the FTOs, assistant branch secretary and stewards continuously raised concerns about the lack of challenge and consultation from the branch.

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)

During the away day FTO(1) encouraged branch officers to think about the role of the branch and branch officers. FTO(1) consistently framed the purpose and identity of the branch as being in opposition to employers.

You know, if we espouse solidarity and collectivism, then we should be, practice what we preach, shouldn’t we? […] So there’s two sides, as I see it here, [Midcounty council], Tory Council, neoliberal, corporate power, very powerful, and then there’s us down here, this is the trench, if we’re straight over the trench at them, we’ll get battered. So we don’t want to do that. We’ve got to think about, be a bit more clever and use guerrilla tactics […].

FTO(1) also encouraged branch officers to develop a more antagonistic approach towards managers.

Well I think we’d agree, hopefully we’ll agree, that the role of the union is also to challenge the dominant narrative, whether it’s at a County Council level or national level, isn’t it?

Communication was a theme of the strategy away day – where participants identified the lack of communication and information sharing as a problem.

In this branch we don’t communicate with each other, we don’t have open and frank discussions and I have said a few things today that I haven’t said […]. But we don’t have a method of reporting it and putting it in one place and keeping it together, to put a strategy going forward, you know. So, and that’s the problem, isn’t it? We don’t have, we don’t sit together and talk about what’s actually happening.

Discussions around relationships in the branch dominated much of the strategy away day and in the ‘Power Structure Analysis’ session, the branch officers kept referring back to tensions and the breakdown in relationships in the branch. Rather than impose more of a structure on to the session FTO(1) and I left the officers to discuss their issues together.

And we need to be far more supportive of each other […] we are trying to make everybody else look bad, and there is a lot of that goes on. And we shouldn’t be making each other look bad, we should be supporting each other, because if, as a branch, we aren’t united and aren’t working together, then it just won’t work, it won’t work at all. And I think we need to start, we need to stop putting each other down all the time and finding every opportunity to put somebody down. That I’ve witnessed a number of times, and we need to start pulling together and actually being cohesive and getting on with each other.

Shortly after the strategy away day, the existing branch secretary resigned stating: ‘I do think it’s time to move aside for someone else fresh and new and bushy tailed like I used to be years ago, and to step in and take over’. At the AGM in March 2016 a new leadership team for the branch was elected. The branch and assistant branch secretary positions went to three (the assistant branch secretary role was shared) very active stewards (two men and one woman), two of whom had never held official positions in Midcounty branch. Two of the new branch officers, including the new branch secretary, were also members of and active in a local socialist group.⁴ The new branch secretary was unknown to FTO(1) up until the election. He had been a steward since 2006 and assistant branch secretary in 2011–2012, so had some experience of being in an official position. He was a popular steward in his workplace and had stood for branch secretary, which in discussions he said was partly due to him becoming disillusioned with the local leadership.

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.

The branch secretary talked about the importance of building membership to strengthen the position of the union in the context of outsourcing, which he often discussed in relation to the threats that outsourcing posed to the union branch:

You know, and I keep saying that to people, we need people. I say, look, get your colleagues to join now because as we get privatised, we need people in the union. Otherwise, we’ll be so diluted we’ll be useless.

A major challenge for the branch was keeping members once they were transferred to the outsourced companies and mobilising support from a more fragmented membership base. It became more difficult to envisage taking industrial action and the new branch secretary and FTO(1) encouraged members continuously to challenge ‘things through procedures’ in order to keep up the pressure on management.

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.

In interviews and discussions with the FTOs they related this issue of confidentiality to the legacy of partnership working in local government and how the withholding of information in the branch was an example of individualistic and fragmented approaches in the branch. The FTOs also reflected in interviews that the sharing of information in the branch was crucial in order to develop better responses to the outsourcing plans.

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?

There were other examples where the union had not been successful and unable to follow through on disputes because of the high turnout required for ballots on industrial action. The Branch secretary said in future they would start the process earlier with indicative ballots to help mobilise support for industrial action.

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.

During a branch committee meeting a year after the AGM (March 2017), I organised a focused discussion on the changes in the branch. The committee members reported that relationships between officers had improved and there was better participation and more communication between stewards, officers and members.

Assistant branch secretary(2): Basically, we got a team together, a team that gelled and pulled together. We all knew what we were supposed to do to contribute to the whole. We knew what our goal was and we went for it. And however far we’ve got down that line, we did actually get down that line. So yes, I think it’s been pretty positive, personally.

Branch committee chair: […]. And the fact that we’ve got so many new people sitting around the table, new faces […] you know, renewing, new ideas, we can’t get stuck in the past. The branch keeps getting new stewards, new members and, to be honest, it’s probably one of the worst years we’ve ever had to deal with […]. So the fact that we’re still here and most of us are still just about surviving is good.

Branch committee member (2): I think one of the things that ordinary members would say, is that they feel a lot more listened to under this and that it’s a lot more open. And certainly, you know, you raised pay and benefits and what happened there, at the time I don’t think the union was responsive and I don’t think the union was supportive. Whereas I feel, I’m only saying what people have said to me, they feel a lot more now like people are listening and prepared to actually do something and not just talk.

During the focus group, FTO(2) and the branch secretary reflected on the renewal of branch officers:

FTO(2): I’d say there’s been like, there’s this renewed openness in the branch. And people don’t see, the individual post that they stood for last year, they don’t see that as their right, yes? Everybody’s up for the fact, well it’s written into the rules that you have to be nominated every year, but when people have been around for a long time, they begin to see it as their role and their empire. And that has completely gone away now, hasn’t it, really. That people aren’t sort of going, well this is my bit. You know, they’re trying to involve more and more people […]. Because when you gate keep, so to speak, then you won’t be getting any new blood or new ideas at all. So that’s probably been one of the biggest benefits, that there have been so many new faces over this last fifteen or so months. That it’s just refreshed the branch completely.

However, challenges were still apparent. There was discussion in the branch about putting a motion forward for a rule change to limit the number of years branch officers could hold positions. The branch officers were fearful of the same pattern emerging if branch officers remained in post for too long. The FTOs said it would be difficult to get through at a national level, but encouraged the branch officers to put forward a motion.

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.

Towards the end of the research, the FTO support was no longer sought out to the same extent as the branch officers became more independent. FTO(1) was allocated to support another branch. In summing up the changes in the branch FTO(1) spoke about one activist who had said to him that he used to be ‘terrified of going to branch meetings, it was horrible’.

Now he’s a lot more vocal and all that, you know, a lot more inclusive. So I mean I think the impressions I had at the start, was one, to address the issue of complaints, two, to get the branch more democratic and inclusive, and I think those two have been achieved. Well they have been achieved really.

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.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Gerry Looker for making this research possible. Thanks also to Gregor Murray, Jeremy Waddington and two anonymous reviewers for their invaluable insights and comments.

Funding

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

Notes

References

Bach

Stroleny

(2014) Restructuring UK local government employment relations: pay determination and employee participation in tough times. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 20(3): 343–356.

Bohle

(2011) Trade Unions and the Fiscal Crisis of the State. Warsaw Forum of Economic Sociology 2(1): 89–105.

Brook

Darlington

(2013) Partisan, scholarly and active: arguments for an organic public sociology of work. Work, Employment and Society 27(2): 232–243.

Carter

Danford

Howcroft

, et al. (2012) Nothing gets done and no one knows why: PCS and workplace control of Lean in HM Revenue and Customs. Industrial Relations Journal 43(5): 416–432.

Cohen

(2006) Ramparts of Resistance: Why Workers Lost Their Power and How to get it Back. London: Pluto Press.

Connolly

Darlington

(2010) Radical political unionism in France and Britain: A comparative study of SUD-Rail and the RMT. European Journal of Industrial Relations 18(3): 235–250.

Darlington

(2002) Shop stewards’ leadership, left-wing activism and collective workplace union organisation. Capital & Class 26(1): 95–126.

Darlington

(2009) Leadership and union militancy: The case of the RMT. Capital & Class 33(3): 3–32.

Darlington

Upchurch

(2012) A reappraisal of the rank-and-file versus bureaucracy debate. Capital & Class 36(1): 77–95.

10.

Fairbrother

(2005) Rediscovering union democracy: processes of union revitalization and renewal. Labor History 46(3): 368–376.

11.

Grimshaw

Johnson

Marino

, et al. (2017) Towards more disorganised decentralisation? Collective bargaining in the public sector under pay restraint. Industrial Relations Journal 48(1): 22–41.

12.

Guillaume

Kirton

(2017) Challenges and pitfalls for workplace unionism in a restructured public service. Economic and Industrial Democracy 41(1): 212–228.

13.

Gumbrell-McCormick

Hyman

(2019) Democracy in trade unions, democracy through trade unions? Economic and Industrial Democracy 40(1): 91–110.

14.

Hyman

(1971) The Workers’ Union. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

15.

Hyman

(1989) The Political Economy of Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice in a Cold Climate. London: MacMillan.

16.

Hyman

(1994) Theory and industrial relations. British Journal of Industrial Relations 32(2): 165–180.

17.

Hyman

(2015) The very idea of democracy at work. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 22(1): 11–24.

18.

Johnson

Rubery

Grimshaw

(2019) Public sector employment relations after the crisis: A comparative case study analysis of UK local authorities. Economic and Industrial Democracy. Epub ahead of print 19 June 2019. DOI: 10.1177/0143831X18823699.

19.

Kelly

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

20.

Kelly

Heery

(1994) Working for the Union: British Trade Union Officers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Kessler

(1991) Workplace industrial relations in local government. Employee Relations 13(2): 1–31.

22.

Lévesque

Murray

(2010) Understanding union power: resources and capabilities for renewing union capacity. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 16(3): 333–350.

23.

Levi

Olson

Agnone

, et al. (2009) Union democracy reexamined. Politics & Society 37(2): 203–228.

24.

Looker

(2019) Union organising and Full-time Officers: acquiescence and resistance. Industrial Relations Journal 50(5–6): 517–531.

25.

McAlevey

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

26.

Michels

(1962) Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. New York: The Free Press.

27.

Murray

(2017) Union renewal: what can we learn from three decades of research? Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 23(1): 9–29.

28.

Parker

(1998) Appealing for democracy. New Labor Forum 3: 57–73.

29.

Simms

Hopkins

(2020) The Changing Face of UK Public Sector Policy. In: Keune M, Ramos Martin N and Mailand M Working Under Pressure: Employment, Job Quality and Labour Relations in Europe’s Public Sector Since the Crisis. Brussels: ETUI, pp. 327–358.

30.

Stewart

Martinez Lucio

(2017) Research, participation and the neo-liberal context: The challenges of emergent participatory and emancipatory research approaches. Ephemera 17(3): 533–556.

31.

Voss

Sherman

(2000) Breaking the iron law of oligarchy: Union revitalization in the American labor movement. American Journal of Sociology 106(2): 303–349.

32.

Webb

(1894) The History of Trade Unionism. London: Longmans.

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

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Union renewal: democracy, leadership and solidarity

Leadership and collective identity

Conceptualising union capacity for renewal

Researching union renewal and democracy

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

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

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

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Funding

Notes

References

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

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

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