 |
Labour and Society Programme
DP/125/2000
ISBN 92-9014-635-4
First published 2000
The ILO's on-line conference on organized labour in the 21st century
By
Jill Murray
Download PDF Version
|
| The ILO's on-line conference on organized labour in the 21st century |
 1. Introduction
2. The keynote addresses
3. Early responses: The discussion during September/October 1999
4. The November topic: Unions and the challenge of globalization
5. The December/January topic: Unions and organizing
6. The February/March topics: Organizing women workers and organizing in the informal sector
7. Conclusion
Participants
1. Introduction
In September 1999, the International Labour Organization (ILO) launched an on-line
conference entitled Organized labour in the 21st century (hereafter the conference)(Endnote 1). The
conference was part of the Labour and Society programme of the International Institute of
Labour Studies, the research arm of the ILO. It was intended to complement other aspects of
the Labour and Society Programme, including the publication of more formal scholarly papers
and special meetings of experts from the relevant fields.(Endnote 2)
The on-line conference took the form of a moderated discussion on the Internet. The role
of the moderator was akin to that of an organizer/chairperson at a "real time" conference.
Panels of speakers were assembled, their contributions presented in an orderly way, and
contributions from the audience were selected and where necessary vetted and distributed to all
participants(Endnote 3). This was the first time that such an electronic conference had been held by the
ILO. Registration was on-line, via e-mail. Once registered, participants received e-mail
messages from the moderator, which included the contributions of the various subject panels,
comments from participants, and other items of interest. In general, messages from the
conference were sent to participants in digest form : that is, a single e-mail each day included
all the contributions received by the moderator in the last 24 hours. The software gave
participants access to the conference archive, where all contributions were stored in records
arranged chronologically. Participants could withdraw at any time, and new members were
permitted to sign up during the conference.
The registration period ran through August and September 1999 under the auspices of the
International Institute for Labour Studies, working in conjunction with the International
Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), which was involved in the planning and
technical aspects of the conference. This period included an introductory phase when members
of the public were invited to register and introduce themselves and their interests. This phase
was highly successful, as more than 700 people joined the English-language conference. It was
clear from the comments received during this phase that a wide range of people with an interest
in the future of organized labour had been attracted to the conference.
The characteristics of the participants are worth noting. The geographical spread was
extensive, with people signing up from many countries including Australia, Bolivia, Brazil,
Canada, Finland, Germany, India, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New
Zealand, Nigeria, the Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United
States. However, most participants were concentrated in English-speaking countries with high
Internet usage, particularly Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The bulk of contributions also came from these sources. However, the conclusions that may
be drawn from this fact must be carefully considered. First, in what is becoming a well-known
phenomenon in on-line exchanges, the majority of people who had registered for the
conference did not actively participate. This may imply a lack of interest, but people may stay
out of the discussion for other reasons. In the latter case, new postings may still be read with
interest (such people are known as "lurkers" in the electronic communication context), while in
the former case e-mails from the conference might go straight into the electronic "trash" file.
Secondly, if we look at the quality of contributions, rather than the quantity, we find that some
of the most thought-provoking (and discussion-generating) contributions came from countries
with few participants.
This is also the case when we consider the gender distribution of participants. Many more
men than women signed up, and more contributions were received from men than women.
During the first two months of the conference, contributions from men outweighed those from
women by a ratio of five to one. In response to this imbalance, the organizers of the conference
and the moderator attempted to elicit responses from women and from less-represented areas.
Active attempts were also made to broaden the base of the conference to include people whose
first language was not English. The keynote speeches of ILO Director-General Juan Somavía
and ICFTU General Secretary, Bill Jordon, were posted on the ILO website and sent to all
participants in English, French and Spanish. In February, a language sub-group was launched
for Spanish speakers.
Because this form of discussion was new to most of those involved, lessons were learned
by the conference organizers and applied as time went on. The mode of e-mail "presentation"
differs from that of a "real time" conference speech. The standard hour-long conference
speech probably comprises 7,000 - 10,000 words : this quantity of material is not suitable for e-mail discussion, as it is exhausting to read a long text on the screen. Lengthy postings would
have to be printed, which detracts from the immediacy of e-mail. In the November session of
the conference, organizers experimented with the way in which information was posted: each
day for a week presentations from a small number of participants dealing with sub-themes
relating to the general November topic were posted. This approach, while providing some
order in proceedings, appeared to overwhelm participants and to detract from the debate, so in
December it was decided to post the contributions at longer intervals throughout the month to
permit the discussion to develop its own logic.
A further difficulty for those managing the conference was to structure the debate in ways
that participants could easily follow. Unlike an ordinary conference, where a presentation is
followed by questions directly relating to that speech, the on-line debate invited wide-ranging
responses, some of which deviated from the topic at hand. This was particularly evident in
relation to the social clause in world trade, a topic which continued to attract the attention of
some participants even when the conference had moved on. For example, the discussion on
organizing the informal sector was diverted into another consideration of the social clause at
various times (see for example the comments of Ghosh during March 2000).
A different kind of problem arose in connection with topics of particular interest to a
small but vocal group of participants. In October 1999, for example, there was a detailed and
informed exchange about the role of international financial institutions, which generated a lot
of comment from a small number of participants but did not seem to catch the imagination of a
broad base of the conference.
In the interests of providing the best possible structure to the conference, regular
summaries were posted of the debate to date. This enabled all participants to keep in touch
with the flow of discussion, which would not be possible from a reading of any particular day's
postings.
It is also worth noting that the nature and quality of contributions varied widely. This was
not surprising given the wide range of people involved and the different functions they
attributed to the conference. Unlike an ordinary conference, the on-line mode permitted the
sharing of a range of materials and provoked different kinds of exchange. For example,
participants sometimes distributed copies of their own work with detailed bibliographies
relating to the topic then under discussion. Some of the responses from the "floor" took the
form of detailed, closely argued contributions, while others were brief conversational
comments. People used the forum to make jokes, advertise their own conferences, and alert
participants to important developments in various labour campaigns. This multifarious usage
was both a strength of the conference and a weakness: on one hand, it generated an interesting
range of material; on the other hand, people looking for just one of these elements (such as
reasoned academic comments, or the latest from political activists) may have been alienated by
the presence of the other material.
The conference was open to anyone who wished to join. This self-selection of
participants shaped what we might call the products of the debate. Some have argued that the
process of the conference was important in itself: that is, people from different backgrounds
(although the largest groups were academics, trade union officials and students) and
nationalities benefited from the exchange of ideas and views. For example, Spinrad noted that
"the very fact that this Internet conference is taking place is a thrilling and important landmark,
one which proves that trade unionists are thirsty for more international cooperation…" From
another perspective, the conference was valuable to ILO and ICFTU, as it gave those
organizations some insight into the thoughts of a range of people on a number of key issues of
policy and strategy. But, in the final analysis, it is not possible to draw a set of coherent, or
even agreed, "answers" from the conference dialogue. Rather, it has shown that a number of
issues are of keen interest: the social clause, the need to revitalize trade unions, the importance
of empowering women to govern their own industrial affairs, and the current failures in relation
to the informal sector.
What follows is an overview of the content of the conference. This has necessarily
involved culling and summarizing, as hundreds of contributions were received on a very broad
range of topics. A brief summary of the contributions from the invited participants is made,
together with an outline of the main drift of the argument. Where individual contributions are
quoted, the surname of the author is given. Participants are listed at the end of this paper
together with their country of origin and position (if known). This gives the present reader
some sense of the global scope of the discussion and the regional issues which were raised.
2. The keynote addresses
The conference opened in mid-September 1999 with a presentation by Juan Somavía, Director-General of the ILO, to which Bill Jordan, General Secretary of the ICFTU responded.
The text of these presentations is reproduced elsewhere in this volume, but it is useful to
itemize some of the themes which were picked up in the discussion. The first major theme was
Somavía's statement that "there is no substitute for organizing". The richest discussion in
terms of differing views and practical solutions was generated by this statement. A second
theme was that of unions and civil society. Both Somavía and Jordan noted that unions were
unique amongst the various organizations in most civil societies, and Jordan noted the
difficulty that unions have sometimes found in formulating a single, encompassing policy in
relation to other groups. The need to establish such relations was reiterated many times
throughout the conference, as shown in the summaries below. Somavía stressed that "unions
are no longer spokespersons of mere sectoral groups", and that "one of the prerequisites for
revival" was the attraction and retention of union members from all areas of working life.
Jordan also proposed that unions should pay urgent attention to providing a means by which the
"socially excluded and the marginalized get their problems listened to". The debate went on to
consider the issues involved in organizing marginalized workers. Finally, Somavía stressed the
role of trade unions in promoting human rights, a topic to which the conference regularly
returned throughout its course.
3. Early responses: The discussion during
September/October 1999
After the initial registration period, the conference focussed on responses to the keynote
speeches. Because Somavía's speech covered so many areas, it is not surprising that the
responses also ranged widely. In attempting to identify the key themes of the debate at this
stage, it is necessary to recognize that many of the issues overlap.
A central theme at this time was the need to ensure "universal respect for core labour
standards by all countries" (Kumar). There was also consideration of which standards should
comprise a core. Kumar asked why the right to maternity benefits was not part of the core ILO
Conventions. In his introductory remarks Brophy stressed the importance of health and safety
standards. Others questioned the notion of core standards, with Shniad and Spampinato
arguing that even core standards would not address the threat to social cohesion generated by
the forces of globalization. Frundt disagreed with the idea that focussing on a core of standards
implied a retreat for labour. Kyloh and Patel pointed out that implementation of core labour
standards was not intended to be a "full panacea for all social and economic inequalities";
rather it was a "necessary, but certainly not sufficient" response to globalization. This view
was supported by a number of contributions during the debate and from the introductory phase
(for example, by O'Neill). Tan argued that "once labour gets a foot in the door, it can work
towards getting a bigger piece of the pie, through skills upgrading, higher productivity, and
competent and informed bargaining/negotiation". Brooks and Mamkoottam questioned the
characterization of global markets as necessarily "anti-human", while Sepulveda described life
as a Mexican trade unionist living through the "trough of drastic deregulation" in her country.
Participants also referred to other strategies which are available to unions. Turner and
Tan discussed political strategies, picking up Somavía's theme of unions as "spokespersons of
the broader concerns of society". Mackie referred to the "democratic function of trade
unionism", and Durbridge mentioned the political role of unions in Australia. Spinrad argued
that globalization called for international union cooperation and organization.
The question of enforcing trade union rights was mentioned by a number of participants.
For example, Graversgaard argued that more attention should be paid to the "labour inspection"
model of enforcement. Oates mentioned the effectiveness of the ILO's supervisory system,
and prospects for the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its
follow-up. He argued that in addition to legal means of enforcement, attention should be paid
to implementing core labour standards, including freedom of association and collective
bargaining, through "social dialogue, technical assistance and technical cooperation".
A number of participants (including Herrmann) raised the question of the use of
international labour standards as a protectionist device, and Tan asked: "How do we develop a
policy that can uplift the lot of workers, and fulfil some minimum labour standards, without
allowing such a policy to become a disguise for trade protectionism?" Kyloh and Patel pointed
out that "footloose capital" can pose problems for both developed and developing countries.
This was borne out by the comments of Lukman, who described job losses in the textile
industry in Nigeria which resulted from competition from low-wage workers in export
processing zones. Kyloh and Patel noted that unionists in Asia, Africa and Latin America
"have been at the forefront of developing and articulating international trade union policy" on
the question of linking trade with labour standards. They reminded participants of the
commitments made to abide by core labour standards at the WTO ministerial meeting in
Singapore in 1996.
4. The November topic: Unions and the challenge of
globalization
It was decided that the conference should continue to discuss the central themes of the keynote
speakers, so November was devoted to the topic of unions and the challenge of globalization.
In order to provide a new impetus to the debate, a series of panels was invited to make
presentations. These contributions were sent to participants each day for a week.
The first communication was from James Howard of ICFTU. He explained that concerns
about globalization and the liberalization of trade had generated much interest in recent years.
The Copenhagen World Summit for Social Development in 1995 and the Asian economic crisis
had played a part in clarifying issues, and he argued that a consensus was now emerging around
a small number of core labour standards. He stated that this focus on a minimum core did not
mean that other standards (such as health and safety, maternity protection and so on) were
unimportant; it just meant that the core labour standards were "the building blocks which
enable the other standards to be observed". The ICFTU wished to see these core standards
promoted through all the existing international economic institutions, including the World
Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization.
The second panel included Morison, Svendsen and Marges. These panellists gave an
insight into the 1998 dock workers dispute in Australia, and the role that international union
solidarity can play in such circumstances.
The third panel considered the role of the European Union (EU) as an international rule-making body. Carley gave an overview of the trend towards transnational industrial relations
within the EU. O'Donovan gave her version of these developments, and Keller discussed his
most recent research on the European social dialogue. All the panellists emphasized that a
complex picture was emerging within Europe. Given the wide variations between and within
countries and sectors, there was a growing trend towards conducting industrial relations at
regional level within the EU.
On the fourth day Abate discussed the ILO's Tripartite Declaration of Principles
concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy and its role in providing a way of
overseeing the activities of such firms. Although the processes associated with the Declaration
are voluntary, Abate noted that six of the seven fundamental ILO Conventions which make up
the core labour standards are included within the protective scope of the document.
The final member of the November panels was Trebilcock, who outlined the new ILO
Declaration on Fundamental Rights and Principles at Work, and explained the workings of the
follow-up mechanisms. The Declaration places an obligation on member States of the ILO to
"respect, promote and realize" the core labour standards. Later in the month, a response from
the Workers Advisory Bureau within the ILO was sent to all participants.
A general discussion of these themes then ensued. Perhaps because the panels had ranged
over such a wide territory, the discussion tended to flow in various directions. The case study
of the Australian dock workers received considerable attention. Some felt that treatment of the
issues had been somewhat optimistic, and Mazey, pointed out that the interests of workers and
unions do not always coincide. Lukman argued that account should be taken of the particular
circumstances of the case before any lessons could be transposed elsewhere: in particular, she
raised the issue of concern to Mazey that is the competition between unions which often erodes
workers' success in dealing with globalization. This question, also raised by Rejano, was to
become a major theme of the conference in later months.
The question of core labour standards and international trade remained of constant interest
to participants throughout the conference. Many agreed with the position stated by Howard,
that core labour standards should apply regardless of the level of economic development in
particular countries. Others felt that national resources should be considered before "punitive
actions like conditions on loans" were contemplated. Mahendra also noted that the most recent
standard relating to child labour was intended to be implemented through national action in
conjunction with international assistance on poverty reduction and improvement in education.
Tan argued that "there is a need for organized labour to help fellow workers in countries who
lose their jobs as a result of strict observance of the social clause". (Later in the conference,
Nyland and Anderson noted that there was evidence of differences of opinion between certain
governments which opposed the application of core labour standards and the labour movement
in those states. Anderson, for example, had found disagreement between unions and
government in Malaysia and Indonesia). Adams concluded that "most trade union movements
in the developing world strongly support core labour rights as human rights including a social
clause, although not necessarily within the context of the WTO as it is currently constituted".
In a contribution which was to shape the future topics of the conference, Wills developed
some of the themes of Jordan's keynote address. She argued that there was a need to look
beyond the question of core labour standards to issues such as the "structure and organizational
focus" of trade unions. One concern was how best to organize for union solidarity at the
transnational level, and she noted that "existing structures of trade unionism are often a barrier
to successful organization and... change is needed". In particular, she responded to Carley's
contribution by arguing that the experience of the European Works Councils had not been
entirely positive from the union perspective. These issues were then discussed in a national
context in India by Subramaniam.
5. The December/January topic: Unions and organizing
In his keynote address, the Director-General of the ILO noted that "there is no substitute for
organizing". In the light of comments by Hyman that "organizing is an uphill struggle against
massive odds", it was decided to focus on this area. A panel was engaged to present short
papers on the December/January topic of unions and organizing.
The first panellist was Simkin, who focussed on an issue which emerged in the November
discussion, that of union structure. She argued that occupational unions could be strong and
successful because members and potential members share a common identity. This
contribution called into question the wisdom of union amalgamations for the sake of creating
larger units with mixed membership. Bronfenbrenner outlined her research which showed that
certain techniques were more likely to succeed in the crucial processes of US collective
bargaining, i.e. union recognition ballots and the conclusion of the "first contract". Successful
organizing tactics in the United States were those which built strong rank- and- file
participation from the start. Gibson set out the details of an Australian organizing campaign
inspired by the American model. He described the techniques he adopted to recruit workers in
an airline industry call centre. Adams concluded from his detailed research that :
Collective bargaining is not generally detrimental to enterprise performance. Going from
unilateral to collective determination does require that management learn new skills. But
experience suggests that if those skills are learned well, worker participation in rule making
can have positive benefits for the organization. Even if there is a cost, however, near
universal collective bargaining should still be the objective because it is a fundamental
human right and the denial of human rights cannot be justified in pursuit of material gain.
Over January and February, the conference considered these issues. It was clear from the
contributions that "organizing" in the trade union sense is a multi-faceted concept. In the
discussion it was taken to mean the recruitment of members into an organization at workplace
level; it covered the ways in which such recruitment takes place and the factors influencing the
behaviour of union officials, potential members and their employers. Organizing was also
understood to mean the ways in which unions operate to activate and empower their members.
This raised questions about the relative powers of union officials (for example, the national
office versus the workplace delegate), the degree of union leadership control over union affairs,
the ways in which members participate and the nature of the issues dealt with by unions. The
debate coalesced around three connected themes, which are set out below.
Simkin's opening contribution raised a number of important issues which became the
themes of the ensuing debate. She discussed the strengths of occupational unions as opposed to
industrial ones. In New Zealand, separate unions for primary and secondary teachers have
defied pressures to merge and survived the harshly deregulatory industrial relations climate of
the 1990s to emerge as strong and viable representative organizations. Simkin argued that
organizing workers purely at enterprise level would not be sufficient to provide "dignity and
voice in a hostile world", which she saw as the chief function of unions. She argued that
occupational unionism could provide "a counterfoil to the enterprise emphasis of global
business".
Thus the first theme centred on union structure: how should unions be structured to
attract, retain and empower members in a world in which organizing is increasingly difficult?
A second theme arose from Simkin's assertion that occupational unions were successful
because they met the needs and wishes of members better than industrial unions. The debate
on organizing generated a wide-ranging discussion on why people join unions, and why they
might be reluctant to do so. Finally, implicit in both these themes was a deeper issue: what are
unions for? This question was integral to much of the debate, as we shall see.
Before turning to a discussion of these three themes, it should be noted that the conference
also considered the specificity of national problems in the industrial relations field, and the
need to be aware of cross-cultural issues when making judgements about how unions should be
structured, why people join them and what they are for. For example, Lukman noted that
"context and specificities are not universally shared". Tan commented that it was easy to
misunderstand data from another country, and that it was necessary to develop cross-cultural
understanding. Peetz argued that while it may not be possible to transplant certain outcomes
from one context to another, lessons could still be learned from union successes in other
countries. Frundt argued that particular strategies might be required in applying such lessons in
countries where "repression is severe".
The first theme was: how should unions be structured? The debate about union structure
focussed on the possible tensions inherent in organizations which are often both centralized and
decentralized in their power structures and operations. Several participants criticized the
structuring of American unions around the needs of "business unionism". Gabriel spoke of the
"internal crisis of business unionism". In this model union leaders were characterized as
powerful yet remote, and many saw a need to strengthen workplace organization. For example,
Perez argued that too many US trade unions were "old-style political patronage machines"
rather than "vibrant grassroots organizations". Gabriel agreed, and stated that in some unions
organizers were "fighting back against their unions and seeking to build a real union
movement". Eisenscher was also critical of US unions, arguing that "the life of the unions is
defined by the leadership and staff not members". Lewis argued that centralized union
leadership in the form of charismatic leaders "penalizes power, practises decision making and
monopolizes all forms of organizational knowledge" which can create an authoritarian
environment within the union. This accorded with the views of Fenton, who argued that
workplace activism can be stifled by too many experts "who know everything and do
everything". Simkin advocated a shift away from the "leadership model" of unionism. Others
argued that a properly functioning and accountable union structure was necessary to
complement the work of organizers and workplace members.
Some consideration was given to the question of union coverage. Peetz supported
Simkin's argument about occupational unionism, by noting that some of the long-established
occupational unions, such as those for police and nurses, have high density rates (in the case of
some police services close to 100 per cent). Part of the success of these unions lay, in his view,
in the fact that they offered professional services, including insurance. Other contributors
noted that membership was high in countries where unions were responsible for the provision
of unemployment benefits (for example, Denmark). This phenomenon led to a discussion of
the so-called Ghent systems of social insurance. It was acknowledged that where such systems
did not exist, it would be difficult to introduce them in the current political climate in many
states.
The second theme centred on the question: why do workers join unions? Interest in this
topic was stimulated by the contribution of Pursey, who asked if participants knew of any
research into the reasons why workers decided not to join trade unions, specifically enquiring
whether fear or intimidation at work played a part. Many people commented that the
conference was taking place at a time of falling union membership in many developed
countries, although Bronfenbrenner reported that union density rates in the United States had
stabilized in 2000 for the first time in decades of decline, and Rogers reported that the decline
appeared to have halted in the south-eastern branch of the UK's largest union, UNISON.
Others spoke of a "crisis" in unionism, for example in Australia and the United States. It was
noted that privatization and outsourcing were contributing to a less favourable climate for
unionizing, and hence falling density rates (Sinha and Nuero).
Many participants argued that fear and intimidation did play a role in influencing some
individuals' decision to join or not to join a union, although the local "habitat of industrial
relations" was an important contributing factor. For example, Nicholas argued that people
joined unions because they were afraid of what might happen to them at work if they did not.
Tan reported that pressure to join could also be a factor in some cases : a small minority of
respondents (6 per cent) to a Singaporean survey had stated that their decision to join a union
was based on peer pressure.
Peetz provided a detailed response to Pursey's question about survey data on why people
join trade unions. He found that "unwilling exclusion from trade unions" (that is, the
proportion of those surveyed who wished to join a trade union, but for some reason could not)
ranged from 1 in 7 workers to 1 in 4 or 5. However, he cautioned that this unwilling exclusion
was not necessarily a result of employer intimidation. Such intimidation was particularly
difficult to show empirically, as it tended to be hidden and was difficult to unearth through
research by investigators from outside the firm. However, there were indications of an increase
in employer antagonism to unions since the mid-1980s in Australia. Peetz concluded that the
decrease in union density was not due to a decrease in popularity of unions : rather, there
seemed to be a decrease in the number of unwilling conscripts to unionism, and greater scope
for the exclusion of those who wanted to join a union but could not.
McArthur supported the contention that "the biggest obstacle to forming a union in most
jurisdictions around the globe is fear...people still lose their jobs when they try to organize".
He advocated a campaign to amend labour laws as a response to this problem. Adams argued
that it was not just the strictures of labour law which aroused fears about joining a union, but
the whole context of social norms in which such decisions were taken. He argued that freedom
of association and collective bargaining should be seen as fundamental human rights. Despite
the growing international recognition of these rights, in reality "collective bargaining is
commonly treated as an adversarial issue". An adjustment to the social norms was needed,
possibly through widespread community action such as that which opposed the World Trade
Organization. In response to this contribution, McArthur replied that collective bargaining was
"about power sharing and so will never be accepted as a fundamental right": "as long as the
nature of business is concerned with the maximization of profit at any expense, it is extremely
unlikely that we will see a voluntary sharing of power through the adoption of rights to
collectively bargain".
A different perspective was suggested by other contributors who argued that falling rates
of unionization might be linked to worker satisfaction. McQueen speculated that collective
bargaining may have succeeded in meeting workers' demands, and that this in itself was a
barrier to future union growth. Lewis noted that employers in Mauritius were using this
argument as a basis for opposing unionization: they held that "enlightened" employment
practices meant there was no need for workplace representation. A number of contributors
mentioned this argument, which essentially claimed that unions were irrelevant, and several
participants strongly disagreed with this contention. Learmonth argued that members did not
see trade unions as irrelevant but as unresponsive. Bronfenbrenner responded that the so-called
"new industrial relations model" (or human resources management school, as it is known in the
United Kingdom and elsewhere) was not a valid lens through which to view current workplace
dynamics. Union growth in the United States had been seen among particularly vulnerable
workers and among professionals.
A fundamental difference of opinion emerged over the role of union tactics in attracting
members. Tugabiirewe argued that "the traditional confrontational and militaristic approach
(of unions) is not only outdated but also a liability". Another participant noted that potential
members do not like the language of "fighting", but will join to support "what's fair". By
contrast, Rogers argued from long experience as a union official that recruitment campaigns
were actively assisted by a major confrontation with the employer, "as there invariably is from
time to time". This view was supported by Sutherland, who argued that organizing should be
based around a "hot issue" (that is, of high relevance to potential members), as well as one
which is meaningful and achievable. Eisenscher added that while "educating and exhorting
members" might lead to a temporary increase in recruitment, the most effective way to achieve
real change was through "consistent and carefully developed work".
There was some discussion about the new emphasis on the so-called organizing model.
For example, an Australian contributor noted that the Accords (agreements between
government and unions during the 1980s) led to the alienation of members from their unions,
and then unions turned "in desperation to organizing". This shift back to the grassroots task of
recruiting members was, in the contributor's view, at the expense of developing a broader social
agenda. Perez asked about the cost of the organizing model in the American context, raising
questions about its viability as the main tool for union regeneration. He argued that in a recent
American case, 155,000 new members had been recruited at the cost of US$70 million. If
these figures were correct, unions could not afford to mobilize the large sectors of the
workforce which stood outside the established union movement. Casey argued that an
approach to organizing was only part of a broader question - the need to think about new forms
of unionism in the knowledge-based global economy.
Casey's comment led in the direction of the third theme which emerged during the
January/February discussion. Behind issues about the structure of unions and the reasons for
membership and non-membership lay a more fundamental question : what were unions for?
Simkin established a benchmark answer to this question insofar as it related to members
and potential members: unions provided "dignity and voice in a hostile world". While many
participants appeared to regard this as a valid description of the union roles in the workplace,
others argued that unions should look beyond the workplace for their role. An Australian
participant argued that the shift to an "organizing model" in that country had been at the
expense of tackling "the labour movement's independent role in policy development". Union
activism should not be limited to workplace organizing, but should include "a clear social
project in alliance with other forces", such as Canadian "social movement" unionism. Pursey
extended the discussion by enquiring whether employers saw unions as a useful partner or as a
nuisance, and Galor suggested that unions should have a role in job creation, as without jobs
there would be no need for unions.
The call for unions to develop beyond workplace organizing was echoed by many
participants. Stowers argued for greater integration into the community: "Our views have
become myopic in that we have created an invisible boundary for our activities within the
workplace...if growth is our aim, we must take on the bread and butter arguments of the
community". Renard agreed with Galor that unions should help to save and create jobs through
programmes of education and training. In addition, they should actively work towards complex
social goals such as those enshrined in international labour standards, including the abolition of
the worst forms of child labour. He called for the "strengthening of the non-bargaining
activities" of trade unions, and closer alliances with cooperatives and friendly societies, a
position with which Subramaniam agreed. Lewis noted that job creation may come at a price,
especially in the case of export processing zones, where fundamental human rights and labour
standards were ignored in order to gain a competitive advantage in trade. He argued that union
involvement in job creation should be examined in the context of "the political economy of
global capital". He also noted that where trade unions played a broader role in civil society
than simply that of workplace representative, it was necessary to ensure that they themselves
were open and democratic organizations.
Several contributors, including Durbridge, suggested that unions should broaden their
horizons to include political activity. Prasad urged participants to learn from the Fijian
experience: Fiji unions had developed and followed through a political strategy, and now the
Labour Party held power in that country. (Tragically, since the time when this contribution was
posted, the Fijian government has been overthrown in a coup.)
6. The February/March topics: Organizing women
workers and organizing in the informal sector
In February, a new panel launched the next topic: organizing women workers. Briskin,
Goodson and Kelly made contributions, and the conference discussion continued into March.
Discussion on organizing in the informal sector was launched in April, with papers by
Rossingnoti, Cross and Kruse, but in fact the two topics merged. This is probably because, as
Srinivas argued, "women remain largely excluded from present trade unions and form a
disproportionately large fraction of the informal economy".
Because the discussions blended together the proceedings from February to April will be
considered as one part of the conference. In general, the issues which arise from a discussion
of the organization of women are relevant to the organization of workers in the informal sector.
Briskin argued forcefully that unions had to build "unity in diversity": the different and
particular needs of "multiple constituencies" (based not only on gender, but also on race,
ethnicity, citizenship, ability, age and sexuality) had to be recognized before unions could
move forward to deal with the challenges of global competition. She reported on her research
into union organization in Canada and other countries, noting that the question of adequate
representation of women was now receiving active attention. Through the direct action of
women, the agenda for collective bargaining was being extended to such issues as childcare,
reproductive rights, sexual harassment, pay equity and so on. Finally, she drew attention to the
importance of "building alliances and coalitions across political current, sector and institutions
to bring women together from the unions, political parties and community-based groups to
cooperate nationally, provincially and locally".
Goodson pointed out that although 33 per cent of union members were women, only one
per cent participated in the governing bodies of unions. In order to address this imbalance, it
was necessary to recognize that "every region has specific problems and its own story".
Unions had to work at finding out the true situation of women in their ranks and in society.
She argued that social justice required the active involvement of women, and that this in turn
would attract more members to unions - women, men and young people. "Thus a woman-friendly union ensures that all members have a future and a voice in the union."
Kelly gave an overview of the needs of women workers, noting that although the core ILO
Conventions on freedom of association and collective bargaining applied to all, "somehow
these rights have fallen short for most working women".
On the topic of organizing the informal sector, Rossignotti argued that, contrary to much
contemporary comment, "unions can effectively represent workers in the informal sector". She
noted that many unions already did represent informal sector workers, although gains had to be
achieved in the face of monumental difficulties, including "the rigidity of the regulatory
framework, the heterogeneousness of the work relationship, the mobility and often the
invisibility of the workforce, (and) the lack of human and financial resources". She outlined
the need to adapt recruitment strategies, including involving and empowering informal sector
workers themselves (a constant theme of the conference as a whole.) Building on the themes
set out by Somavía, Rossignotti also advocated the forging of links between union organizing
in the informal sector and "non-governmental organizations, religious groups and other civil
society groups acting in defence of and promoting the interests of informal sector workers".
Cross noted that the term "informal sector" covered a wide range of work and modes of
production. He provided a case study on organizing in Mexico City. He pointed out that
informal workers were often small-scale entrepreneurs, and that often there was no identifiable
"employer" to organize against. This called for particular modes of organization and
recruitment, which were sensitive to the needs of the workers in question.
Kruse wrote of his experience in Bolivia, where it is estimated that "65 per cent of the
economically active population works in unregulated sectors of the economy, while 8 out of 10
new jobs appear in the informal sector". He noted the connection between modes of
production and the kinds of problem faced. He noted that there may be "no simple target such
as a large firm dumping risk on vulnerable people". In many cases, he argued, the concept of
workplace organization was meaningless (where work was done within a family unit), so the
level of organization might usefully be placed beyond the workplace. He also noted that in his
field research, small-scale informal sector workers had little idea of workers' "rights", even if
they expressed their dissatisfaction by missing days of work or leaving the job.
Responses to the women and organizing panel focussed on two quite different views. On
the one hand, some participants stressed the difficulties in unionizing women and the
consequences for women of their allegedly lower rates of unionization (lower pay rates and
levels of job security than men in equivalent jobs, harassment at work, less control over the
labour process and unions themselves). On the other hand, some participants warned against
characterizing women as passive recipients of unionizing strategies and stressed the role of
women in creating unionization (as opposed to unions creating organized women).
The latter view accords with many of the earlier contributions describing successful
unions which contain a high proportion of women. The conference heard from several
different countries that unions of nurses and teachers, both with traditionally high rates of
female employment, are growing and strong despite the anti-union environment in which they
operate. As already mentioned, some academics associated this strength with the services
which such unions provide including professional indemnity insurance for nurses. Simkin had
earlier emphasized that the primary teachers' union in New Zealand offered its members
solidarity and service based on the common experience of working as a primary teacher.
The notion of multiple constituencies constructing the form of organization
they need is a
consistent theme running through the debates on women and on the informal sector. The ways
in which taxi drivers and hawkers organize must suit the common needs of those workers, their
employment status (that is, they are not employees and therefore do not need to organize in
such as way as to deal with a single employer), and the power relations in which they find their
work dictated to them. Briskin and others passionately advocated that women needed to, and in
fact did, operate in the same way to address their experiences at work. In response, Casey
made an appeal to the conference:
"Let us be honest about the immense challenge of building political participation and
activism in any political institution at this conjuncture - at least in the advanced capitalist
democracies of the West. Rather than being a function of leadership, cultures of
participation and activism are built, painfully and slowly in this here and this now, one step
at a time".
A number of speakers emphasized the need to view the whole conference and its various
topics in gender terms. Olney stressed the centrality of gender to the processes of collective
bargaining, not just a narrow band of "women's issues". The discourse broadened at this point
to include issues of race and disability, with evidence of progress in states such as Canada
which had a legislated framework of rights. At the same time, some participants expressed
their concern at the lack of response to the posted papers on women and organizing. Briskin
(together with others, including Raya, found that silence significant, and reiterated her belief
that women's concerns continued to be marginalized, a "major strategic error (which)
contributes to the weakness of organized labour". Ramsay felt that the comparative "silence"
on women in the conference forum reflected a broader lack of attention to the question of
women and industrial relations.
Similarly, Cross noted a low level of response to the topic of organizing in the informal
sector. He argued in a later contribution that this may reflect the unease of some people in
organized labour movements about efforts to organize informal sector workers. These were
often a product of business attempts to avoid and undermine the integrity of the formal,
regulated sector.
7. Conclusion
The on-line conference was a great success, and a tribute to those who originally developed the
idea and sought out participants(Endnote 4). As a number of people have commented, the conference
provided direct evidence that many in the labour world wish to communicate with one another,
and have valuable information and opinions to share.
As mentioned in the introduction to this paper, the conference was not designed to come
up with hard and fast answers to the wide-ranging issues facing organized labour in the new
century. Rather, it provided a forum in which ideas and strategies could be put forward and
evaluated by an international audience. Such opportunities are all too rare and it is hoped that
ILO and ICFTU will continue to find ways to nurture such international communication. What
emerged from the discussions were areas of clear consensus amongst certain groups of
participants around a number of key issues, which are outlined above. These included respect
for core labour standards in order to secure the capacity of labour to organize and thence work
towards improved conditions; the need to adapt union structures and operations to meet the
demands of increased competitiveness (including that between unions) in the globalized
economy; the central importance of revitalizing unions through the direct participation of all
kinds of working people; and the need for unions to form alliances with other groups in civil
society to secure support for the broadening union agendas of the twenty-first century.
Participants
Abate Abebe, ILO
Adams Roy, McMaster University, Canada
Anderson Linda
Bronfenbrenner Kate, Cornell University, USA
Brooks Tequila, USA
Brophy Jim, Canada
Briskin Linda, York University, Canada
Carley Mark, Industrial relations specialist
Casey Leo, United Federation of Teachers, USA
Cross John
Durbridge Rob, Australia
Eisenscher Michael
Fenton Darien, New Zealand
Frundt Hank, USA
Gabriel Jeannette, USA
Galor Zvi, Israel
Ghosh Abhik
Gibson Jason, Australia
Goodson Elizabeth
Graversgaard John, Denmark
Herrmann Michael, University of Tübingen, Germany
Howard James, ICFTU
Hyman Richard, UK
Jordan Bill, General Secretary, ICFTU
Keller Berndt, University of Konstanz, Germany
Kelly Peggy, ILO
Kruse Tom
Kumar Arun, India
Kyloh Bob, ILO
Learmonth Anne, Australia
Lewis Linden, USA
Lukman Salihu, Nigeria
Mackie Robert
Mahendra K.V.
Mamkoottam Kuriakose, India
Marges Kees, International Transport Federation
Mazey Edward, Canada
Morison Tony, Maritime Union, Australia
McArthur Brian
McQueen Randy
Nicholas Linda, USA
Nuero Arturo, Philippines
Nyland Chris, Australia
Oates Steven, ILO
Olney Shaun, ILO
O'Donovan Patricia, union official, Ireland
O'Neill Rory, USA
Patel Ebrahim, South Africa
Peetz David, Australia
Perez Guillermo
Prasad Satendra, Fiji
Pursey Stephen, ILO
Ramsay Harvie
Raya Rampalli, India
Rejano Lee, Institute for Development Education and Services, Philippines
Renard Gilbert
Rogers Jon, UK
Rossingnotti Giovanna
Sepulveda Alicia, Mexico
Shniad Sid, Canada
Simkin Gay, New Zealand
Sinha Pravin, India
Somavía Juan, Director-General, ILO
Spampinato Carlo, USA
Spinrad Alex, labour advocate, Israel
Srinivas Smita, USA
Stowers Paul
Subramaniam L.V., President, Indian Managerial & Professional Employees Centre, India
Sutherland Don, USA
Svendsen Helga, Australia
Tan Ern-Ser, Singapore
Tugabiirewe E. Netherlands
Turner Lowell, USA
Trebilcock Anne, ILO
Wills Jane, Queen Mary & Westfield College, UK
Endnote 1:
Jill Murray, "Labour faces the future : The on-line conference on organized labour in the 21st Century",
International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 16, 2000, 103 - 107.
Endnote 2:
These published works are available on the Institute's website, which can be found at www.ilo.org. During this
period, two important meetings of experts were held in Seoul and Sao Paolo to discuss the papers.
Endnote 3:
The legal responsibilities of the ILO in this respect were the same as for publication. That is, it would have been
liable for any defamatory material disseminated through the electronic network. In the event virtually all
contributions were sent out to all participants.
Endnote 4:
The conference was managed by the International Institute of Labour Studies and Jean-Michel Servais was
the coordinator of research. A.V. Jose was the head of the Labour and Society Programme, and Niki Best
worked during the registration period as the conference moderator. Valuable technical advice was received
from Duncan Pruett of the ICFTU, and the support of Bill Jordan and his staff was essential to the success of
the conference.
|
