From Adversarial to Aspirational -  a new agenda for trade unions?

By John Earls, Joint Head of Research, UNIFI, November 2002

Trade unions are said to have come out of a trough; a halt in membership decline, legal rights to recognition and improved access to the policy arena. Yet the future of trade unionism is by no means assured. 70% of employees - some 18 million people - are not in a union. There are also problems with retaining members. A step change is required. There needs to be a shift in emphasis in relation to trade unions and how they are perceived. Trade unions should promote a more aspirational agenda which meets the needs of workers in a modern economy.

Introduction

To modify a familiar slogan, trade unions need to address two core questions : ‘What do workers want?’ and ‘How do they want it?’ In essence, the answers seem to be ‘representation at work’ and ‘through strong, independent and co-operative means’.

Research evidence consistently shows that, by a considerable margin, the two main reasons people join trade unions are “support if I have a problem at work” and “to improve pay and conditions”(1).  Increasingly, ‘quality of working life’ issues, such as the intensity and hours of work, and the opportunity to influence the organisation of work, are featuring as important concerns for workers.

There is also evidence to suggest that the vast majority of workers prefer a co-operative, rather than adversarial, means of representation(2).  Workers want trade unions to work with employers to improve the work experience.

Trade unions can ‘add value’ to members’ lives – and enhance their own appeal - by recognising that it is not just about what trade unions do, but how they do it.

In addition, trade unions can ‘add value’ for employers. This is often an uncomfortable thing for employers and policy makers to come to terms with. As importantly, it is also sometimes an uncomfortable thing for unions themselves to accept.
 
From Adversarial…

Let’s be clear from the outset. This paper is not about ‘sweetheart’ deals, conceding independence or diluting collectivism. Representing workers interests, particularly if they have a problem at work, is the raison d’etre of trade unions. And it is the collective nature of trade unions that is their primary source of strength. It is the unions’ legitimate role to challenge management where appropriate. This sometimes means telling managers what they do not want to hear. It sometimes means ‘taking on’ bad employers.

However, workers tend to prefer a co-operative strategy to a conflictual one. Yes, they want to be represented by someone who is strong and independent enough to be able to defend them vigorously when necessary. But they do not want to be represented by someone who is always looking for a fight.

The appropriateness of a permanently hostile stance is questioned by findings from a workforce survey of trade union members and non-members conducted by Wayne Diamond and Richard Freeman of the London School of Economics(3).  It confirms that union members regard defending workers against unfair treatment to be one of the principle goals of their union. However, it also reports that the vast majority of workers – union as well as non-union – prefer a co-operative strategy to an adversarial one. Given a choice between two organisations representing workers – one that declares its main function as “work(ing) with management to improve the workplace and working conditions” versus one that declares its main function as “defend(ing) workers against unfair treatment by management”, 75% of non-union members and 72% of union members chose the organisation that worked with management.

For too many people trade unions are seen as trouble-makers rather than problem-solvers. Too quick to escalate an issue rather than resolve it. This is not only a bad image, it is also a poor strategy. Sometimes being in the company of the most able fighter is a liability rather than a strength if the only signals being transmitted are aggressive ones.

It is also often a false impression. Notwithstanding recent events, the number of strikes in the UK has been on a downward trend over the past 20 years, and has been at a relatively constant level since 1992. Levels of industrial action are still low when compared with the late 1970s and similar economies.

Much of what trade unions do is about solving problems that deliver benefits to members (and often non-members!) But unions can also be part of the problem-solving process for employers and policy makers.

…to Aspirational

In the main, most people’s experience of work is not a bad one. Most employees say they are satisfied with their current job, although levels of satisfaction vary according to personal characteristics and occupation.

Diamond and Freeman find that most employers treat workers reasonably well most of the time. Although it should be noted that they also report that “at the same time…employers invariably treat some workers unfairly at some time, for any of a number of reasons”(4).

Evidence from the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey (WERS) finds that on a summary measure of job satisfaction (which considered influence over job, pay, sense of achievement and respect from managers), nearly half of employees were satisfied and one in ten very satisfied(5).  Three in ten were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Two in ten said they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

This is not to say that all is well in the world of work. Evidence from the  ESRC-commissioned Working in Britain survey suggests that levels of satisfaction are declining with workers less satisfied with work today than ten years ago(6).  Employees’ satisfaction has declined in every facet of their job, especially in the areas of pay, prospects and training.

A key issue arising from these surveys is the importance of giving workers influence over their jobs. Substantial numbers are dissatisfied with the intensity of their work and long hours and have little in the way of job commitment.

It is noteworthy from the Diamond and Freeman survey that deciding how to do their job and organise their work is the top area where workers want - and say they have - influence. But ‘making work interesting’ is towards the bottom of the list of issues – behind things like ‘protection against unfair treatment’, ‘protecting existing jobs’ and ‘promoting equal opportunities’ - that workers (members and non-members) think should be very important for trade unions at their workplace.

This raises the issue of realistic expectations. Laura Edwards and Nick Burkitt of the Institute for Public Policy Research report that whilst workers stress the importance of having an enjoyable working life and achieving job satisfaction, many counter this with a recognition that you can’t always get what you want(7).  Most particularly there is a correlation between people’s earnings and expectations such that the higher paid expect more ‘quality of work’ factors to be in place. They are also more likely to get them as pay is an indicator of bargaining power.

Unions need to develop an aspirational agenda while dealing with today’s problems at work. This means recasting their traditional role in humanising the world of work and refocusing on the quality of members’ working lives. Priorities should include issues like working time and information and consultation. To quote from another TUC report, unions need to help people to get on at work as well as get even when things go wrong(8).  The challenge is that part of improving the quality of people’s working lives is encouraging them, particularly those on low incomes, to expect it. Not only this, but ensuring that trade unions can help them to achieve it.

Working Ambitions

Work continues to be a critical part of most people’s lives. Not just as a means of economic survival, but as part of one’s overall well-being.

Work should enable people to contribute to the success of their enterprise or organisation, and do so in a way that enriches them and enhances their development. This is what people want from work. Research commissioned by the Work Foundation has identified the UK workforce’s desire for secure, interesting work. Given a choice between ten items that make a company a good employer, the most important factor identified by workers was that it “Offers long term security”, chosen by 57%. The next most important factor was “Provides interesting and stimulating work” (42%)(9).

But it is not just about what workers want. It is also about what works. Trade unions deliver for members on a whole host of variables. Professor David Metcalf of the London School of Economics writes of the ‘sword of justice’ effect of trade unions. Unions compress the gender pay differential, cut industrial accidents and are more likely to be associated with equal opportunity policies and family-friendly policies in the workplace(10).  

Where trade unions and management are working co-operatively together this seems to produce positive benefits for members. A survey of over 2000 members of finance sector union UNIFI found that members report better experiences on a whole host of key issues, such as job security, job satisfaction, utilisation of skills and work-life balance, where management is positive about the union in their workplace(11).

Not surprisingly, co-operative relationships between trade unions and employers also deliver for employers. Metcalf points out how the “vested interest” impact of unions shows a positive link between trade union recognition and profits in competitive sectors.

A recent report based on WERS links the presence of unions to improved financial performance in companies faced with a declining or turbulent market(12).  Earlier analysis of WERS data found that on four key measures of economic performance and wellbeing – financial performance, labour productivity, voluntary resignations and dismissals – workplaces that both recognised trade unions and made use of eight or more “high commitment management practices” scored better than those with no trade union and fewer than eight such practices(13).

Unions can get too hung up on the fact that they deliver benefits for employers. Of-course members are a union’s core constituency – it’s customers if you will - but employers are a key constituency that unions also need to organise. Trade unions often have considerable expertise and experience to bring to the management of work organisation, particularly in times of change. That is not to say that they should not be critical - sometimes it is a critical, but informed, perspective that is required.

The Learning Agenda

One key area of the aspirational agenda is learning.  Workers want to acquire, develop and utilise skills.  This tends to make for more fulfilling work experiences as well as increase marketability. Training is also a central part of the Government’s agenda in improving productivity.

Union learning representatives (ULRs) will soon acquire statutory rights in all workplaces where trade unions are recognised for collective bargaining,  although unions will not have any new collective rights to bargain over training. They will play a key role in supporting workers in the pursuit of learning opportunities.

Beyond this, unions need to ensure that skills acquired are given the opportunity to be utilised and developed in the workplace.

But training is crucial to unions in another way.  Much of the future of trade unions depends on effective workplace representatives.  This means that they have to be adequately trained and supported.  Not only this, but the work of reps needs to be both rewarding and rewarded.

Unions have to be more imaginative about what a rep is, catering for a range of representative roles that fit in with the other responsibilities and interests in peoples’ lives.  There can be no one model of the union rep for unsuspecting victims to be shoe-horned into.

In addition, more needs to be done to encourage greater recognition of the skills that representatives have.  Communication, counselling, time and project management are skills that most employers should value and they should not be prejudiced on account of the context in which they are acquired.

Unions should also ensure that appropriate standards are applied to the services they deliver.  Admittedly, this is more problematic when applied to ‘volunteers’, but nevertheless, ‘quality of service’ is one of the criteria by which the value of what organisations – including trade unions – do will be judged.

Needless to say, some of the issues outlined above throw up a number of tensions.

Individual and collective

As noted earlier the collective nature of trade unions is central to their purpose and effectiveness.  However, trade unions need to be more imaginative about how this is utilised, not least because only a third of all employees are now covered by collective bargaining – although the influence of collective bargaining goes beyond those directly covered.

More recognition needs to be given to the increasingly individualistic elements of people’s employment experiences. Different workers have different needs. Not surprisingly, in respect of the quality of work agenda, individuals rank elements differently and these elements also change over time.

We should not generalise about workers preferences for collectivist or individualist solutions to workplace problems. Findings from the Diamond and Freeman survey indicate that workers differentiate among problems. They prefer to deal with issues such as negotiating working conditions, negotiating salary, sexual or racial discrimination, bullying in the workplace, and training and skill development on a collective basis, i.e. with fellow employees. However, workers prefer to deal with some issues, such as promotion, on their own.

Much of the new employment rights introduced since 1997 have been individual rights, such as the right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings.

There are opportunities here for unions to facilitate ‘self-help’ by providing advice and support to equip workers who wish to pursue issues on a more individualistic basis. This chimes with the increasing popularity of ‘empowerment’ which is itself a feature of the ‘organising’ model of trade unionism.

Partnership, organising and servicing

Any current discussion of a move from adversarial to co-operative employment relations - which of-course is not a new subject - inevitably leads to a consideration of ‘partnership’. Similarly, a distinction is often made between ‘organising’ and ‘servicing’ dimensions of trade unions’ activities.

These may provide useful tools for analysis, but, not surprisingly, in the real world these things are not mutually exclusive but inter-related. Unions that do not organise well will not be able to service their members individually or to bargain effectively on their behalf. Unions need to operate what I have heard described as a ‘virtuous triangle’ of organising, servicing and bargaining if they are to survive.

Similarly, while the tensions between partnership and organising should not be dismissed, it is not simply a case of either/or. There are a range of employer attitudes to trade unions – good, bad and indifferent. Effective partnerships require employer commitment too. Yet some employers themselves choose to pursue an adversarial route. Consequently, trade unions need to have a range of strategies in their employment relations tool-kit depending on the environment in which they are working. A number of unions (my own included) have signed partnership agreements whilst maintaining a strong organising element in their work.

The impact of partnership on trade union organisation is a contentious issue. Some have argued that partnership can erode local shop-floor union organisation as managers sideline the union from local decision making through the use of alternative channels such as consultative committees(14).  However, there is also evidence to suggest that partnership arrangements can help unions develop a local profile ensuring local representation and recruitment as well as extend access to members and potential members(15).

Professor Ed Heery of Cardiff Business School has identified some ways in which the partnership and organising agendas might be married(16).  A union’s strategies could be segmented in a manner akin to portfolio management within large companies. Partnership can be pursued with those employers who engage constructively with trade unions, whereas a more campaigning, organising unionism may be required elsewhere. In an economy of diverse employment systems and practices, a mix of strategies may be required. Alternatively, these different perspectives may be accommodated in a ‘representation cycle’ whereby partnership is conceived as the end-point of organising such that it is built upon the collective strength of workers rather than being offered as an alternative to it.

But it need not end there. As Professor David Guest of King’s College, London has argued, the challenge is how to develop partnerships such that high trust relations lead to increased worker autonomy with consequent improvements in job satisfaction and productivity(17).  Now that is something to aspire to.

Acknowledgement
I am grateful to those who commented on an earlier draft of this paper. The usual disclaimer applies.
John Earls, November 2002

KEY CHALLENGES:
Can unions meet the challenges of the 'aspirational agenda'?
Do unions think too much about what they do rather than how they do it?
Is the role of the union rep flexible enough to meet the needs of today's members and reps?
Can unions achieve a 'virtuous triangle' of organising, servicing and bargaining?
Can unions accommodate different strategies for different employment relations environments?

Endnotes
1. Waddington, J and Whitston, C., Why Do People Join Unions in a Period of Membership Decline? (British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 35, 1997)
2. Wayne Diamond and Richard Freeman,What workers want from workplace organisations, (TUC, 2000)
3. ibid
4. ibid
5.Mark Cully, et al, Britain at Work : as depicted by WERS (Routledge, 2000)
6. Robert Taylor, Britain’s World of Work – Myths and Realities (ESRC, 2002)
7. Laura Edwards and Nick Burkitt, Wanting More from Work? Aspirations and expectations of work from Nick Burkitt (ed) A Life’s Work : achieving full and fulfilling employment (IPPR, 2001)
8. TUC, Reaching the Missing Millions (TUC, 2001)
9.The Work Foundation, Working Capital (The Work Foundation, 2002)
10. David Metcalf, Turning the Tide (CentrePiece, Spring 2001)
11. David Cowie and John Earls, UNIFI Members Survey Report 2001 (UNIFI, 2001)
 12. Alex Bryson and David Wilkinson, Collective Bargaining and Workplace Performance : an investigation using WERS (DTI/PSI, 2002)
13. Mark Cully, et al, Britain at Work : as depicted by WERS (Routledge, 2000)
14. Taylor, P. and Ramsey, H., Unions, partnership and HRM : Sleeping with the enemy? (International Journal of Employment Studies, 1998)
15. Jane Wills, Partnership and trade unionism in practice : an overview of the Barclays-UNIFI Partnership Agreement (Working Paper Five, Geographies of Organised Labour : the reinvention of trade unionism in millennial Britain, ESRC Fellowship Award, 2002)
16. Ed Heery, Partnership versus Organising : alternative futures for British trade unionism (Industrial Relations Journal 33:1, 2002)
17. David Guest, We’ve Never Had It So Good? An analysis of what workers want from work from Nick Burkitt (ed) A Life’s Work : achieving full and fulfilling employment (IPPR, 2001)