What's new
		Discussion Paper Harnessing globalization for development: Opportunities and obstacles by Eddy Lee New Volume Cross-border social dialogue and agreements, edited by Konstantinos Papadakis New Volume Governance, International Law & Corporate Social Responsibility New Volume Pursuing decent work goals: Priorities for research, by Gerry Rodgers and Christiane Kuptsch Subscribe to our mailing list and we will keep you informed about our new publications

Interactive Conference on

"Organized Labour in the 21^st Century"

Organizing Strategies

Kate Bronfenbrenner, Cornell University, United States, 1.12.1999, Union Organizing in the Global Economy

Gay Simpkin, 1/12/99 - Organizing and Occupational Unionism

Salihu Lukman, Nigeria, 3/12/99 - Unions and Organizing

Roy J. Adams, University of Hamilton, Canada, 07/12/99 - The Global Representation Gap and How to Close It

Tom Collins, Municipal Employees Union, Australia, 08/12/99 - Practical Organizing

Jason Gibson, Australian Services Union, Australia, 0 8/12/99, Practical Organizing

Max Ogden, 10/12/99, Unions and seeking maximum efficiency

Charley Richardson, University of Massachusetts United States, 18/12/99 - Continuous Bargaining and Labour-Management Relations

Stephen Pursey, ILO, Geneva, 20/12/99 - Unions and Collective Bargaining in the 21^st Century

Tan Ern-Ser, Singapore, 07/01/00 - Survey Data on Union Membership

Roy Adams, Canada, 10/1/00 - Survey of Workers' Attitudes

Jeannette Gabriel, 11/1/00 - Union Democracy is Key

Darien Fenton, Service & Food Workers Union, New Zealand, 11/1/00 - Union Democracy

Zvi Galor, Israel, 12/1/00 - Trade Unions and Employment

Linden Lewis, Bucknell University, United States, 12/1/00 - Trade Unions and Employment

Jeannette Gabriel, United States - 12/1/ 2000 - Union Democracy is Key

Robert Durbridge, Australian Education Union, Australia, 12/1/2000 - "Social Movement" Unionism

Linda MacKenzie-Nicholas, Northumberland Labour Council, Canada, 12/1/00, Union Democracy is Key

Satendra Pasad, XXXX, 12/1/00 - Trade Unions and Employment: Reversing the Rules

Gilbert Renard, ILO, Switzerland, 12/1/00 - Trade Unions and Employment

A. Ghosh, ILO, Switzerland, 13/1/00 - Trade Unions and Employment

Brian B. McArthur, 13/1/00, Unions and Collective Bargaining in the 21st Century

David Peetz, Griffith University, Australia, 13/1/00 - Survey Data on Unionism and Intimidation

L.V. Subramaniam, India, 13/1/00 - Trade Unions and Employment

Don Sutherland, Trade Union Training Australia, Australia, 14/01/00 - Organizing Frameworks

Arun Kumar, ILO, India, 19/1/00 - Collective Bargaining as a Human Right

David Peetz, Griffith University, Australia, 19/1/00, Unions and Providing for Unemployed Members

Kuriakose Mamkoottam, India, 19/1/00 - Implications of Declining Unionism for Industrial Relations

Arun Kumar, ILO, India, 20/1//00 - Trade Unions and Unemployed and Unorganized Workers

Stuart Maxwell, CFMEU, Australia, 20/1/00 - Using Pension Funds to Strengthen the Role of Labour

Emmanuel Tugabiirwe, Institute of Social Studies, The Netherlands, 22/01/00 - Declining Unionism

Michael Eisenscher, Project for Labor Renewal, United States, 25/01/00 - Declining Unionism

Linda MacKenzie-Nicholas, Northumberland Labour Council, Canada, 25/1/00 - Declining Unionism

Paul Stowers, New Zealand, 25/01/00 - Declining Unionism

Kate Bronfenbrenner, Cornell University, United States, 26/01/00 - Unions as Relevant Today as in Decades Past

Michael Eisenscher, Project for Labor Renewal, United States, 27/1/00 - Declining Unionism

Michael Eisenscher, Project for Labor Renewal, United States, 28/01/00 - Rebuilding Labour Movement Requires Healthy Organizations and Willingness to Change with Times

Leo Casey, United Federation of Teachers, United States, 28/01/00 - Declining Unionism

Arturo Nuera, The Philippines, 29/01/00 - Declining Unionism

Michael Herrmann, Germany, 31/01/00 - Pressure on Real Wages Perpetuates Need to Organize

Hank Frundt, American Federation of Teachers, United States, 31/01/00 - Case Study of Union 'Success'

Pravin Sinha, India, 02/02/00 - Declining Unionism

Pravin Sinha, India, 12/02/00 - Trade Unions, Cooperatives and Employment

Zvi Galor, Israel, 13/2/00 - Trade Unions, Cooperatives and Employment

Kate Bronfenbrenner, Cornell University, United States, 1.12.1999, Union Organizing in the Global Economy

In the last two decades, unions around the globe have watched in dismay as employers and governments have hastened to replicate US economic policies, labour laws, and union avoidance strategies. What has resulted is a race to the bottom for every aspect of the employment relationship-whether safety and health, contract enforcement, job security, pension benefits, or the right to organize. Never before have American workers and their unions faced such effective, powerful, and globally connected opposition on every front: economic, political, and legal. However, despite this rapidly deteriorating climate for unions, for the last several years the AFL-CIO (the US national trade union federation), along with national and local unions, have together been engaged in an aggressive effort to significantly improve their organizing capacity and success. This has included shifting staff and financial resources into organizing, mobilizing leaders and members to support organizing campaigns, and developing and implementing more effective organizing strategies and tactics.

Recently released organizing data show that these new union organizing initiatives have finally begun to bear fruit. Throughout the US, unions are running more campaigns, recruiting and training more organizers, and winning more elections and voluntary recognitions. They are also winning them in larger units, and winning them with new workers in new industries. The great American decline in union organizing may have finally bottomed out.

Yet, before we spend too much time celebrating the somewhat dubious accomplishment of standing still at 14 percent union density, it is essential for unions in the US and around the globe to critically take stock of what it is we need to do to not just stand still, but to grow. While today there is near universal agreement both inside and outside unions that the future of the labour movement depends on organizing massive numbers of unorganized workers as rapidly as possible, there is much less of a consensus on how best to meet the organizing challenge. These are not questions with easy answers. In fact, of late they have been subject of very active debate in the US both within the labour movement and among those studying the labour movement.. Key issues in the debate include: Should we give up on the NLRB certification election process and focus our energy on leveraging employers to recognize unions without going through a certification election? Should unions be focussing their efforts on recruiting organizers from college campuses or from union members, or both? Are more aggressive and rank-and-file intensive union organizing strategies the only way to win against increasingly aggressive and effective employer opposition to unions, or do they serve simply to alienate certain groups of unorganized workers? Should unions be concentrating their organizing efforts to build bargaining power in their primary jurisdiction or are old jurisdictional boundaries no longer relevant? Are we doing enough to bring more women and people of colour into staff and leadership at a time when the overwhelming majority of new workers being organized are women, people of colour, and new immigrants? Are we putting too much emphasis on top-down mobilization of rank-and-file workers and not enough on rank-and-leadership development and ownership of the organizing campaign and the union to follow? Is there a critical link between more aggressive contract campaign strategies and building organizing capacity and success? Can multinational companies be organized absent cross border organizing?

I have spent the last 10 years trying to answer these and other questions regarding which union strategies are most effective in rebuilding and revitalizing the labour movement through new organizing. Using data collected from a series of surveys of lead organizers in private and public sector organizing campaigns over the last decade, this research provides some important insights on which strategies are most effective to rebuild the labour movement through new organizing in the US and around the globe. What I have found is that unions that win elections in the context of aggressive employer opposition, tend to run very different campaigns from those that lose. In fact, union strategies and tactics were found as a group to matter just as much, if not more, in determining election outcomes than other groups of variables including bargaining unit demographics, employer characteristics and tactics, and the broader organizing climate. This is one of the most striking findings of the research because this means that the one element of the election process which US unions control, namely their own organizing strategy and tactics, can make a significant difference in determining whether they win or lose elections, even in a hostile organizing climate.

What we found is that unions are most likely to win certification election campaigns when they run aggressive and creative campaigns utilizing a grassroots, rank-and-file intensive strategy, building a union and acting like a union from the very beginning of the campaign. Thus, campaigns where the union focussed on person-to-person contact, house calls, and small group meetings to develop leadership and union consciousness and inoculate workers against the employer's anti-union strategy were associated with significantly higher win rates than traditional campaigns which primarily utilized gate leafleting, mass meetings, and glossy mailings to contact unorganized workers.

Unions were also more successful when they encouraged rank-and-file participation in and responsibility for the organizing campaign. More than any other single variable, having a large, active, rank-and-file committee representative of all the different interest groups in the bargaining unit was found to be critical to union organizing success, increasing the probability of the union winning the election by as much as 20 percent. With employers aggressively campaigning against the union eight hours a day in the workplace, these committees are the most effective vehicles for generating the worker participation and commitment necessary to counteract the fears and misinformation created by the employer campaign. Representative rank-and-file committees are also essential in order for the union to keep in touch with the issues and concerns of the workers they are attempting to organize. But perhaps most important of all, these committees give workers a sense of ownership of the union and the organizing campaign and a sense that they are part of a democratic and inclusive organization. Rank-and-file leadership and ownership of the union campaign also make it much more difficult for the employer to paint the union as an outside third party.

Escalating pressure tactics in the workplace and the community such as petitions, mass grievances, T-shirt or button days, rallies, public forums, or leveraging the employer through suppliers, investors, stockholders or customers, were also found to have a significant positive impact on union organizing success. These actions are important because they build worker solidarity, develop leadership, re-enforce commitment among pro-union workers and help convince undecided voters that they can safely support the union. These tactics also actively demonstrate support for the union among the workers and the broader community and can therefore compel the employer to scale back its anti-union campaign.

According to our findings, union success also depends on developing a long range campaign strategy that incorporates building for the first contract into the original organizing process. Union win rates were significantly higher in campaigns where the union started preparing for the first contract before the election by conducting bargaining surveys, selecting the bargaining committee, and involving the workers in researching and preparing proposals. These tactics are important because they build worker confidence that the union is going to win the election and successfully bargain a first agreement and because they demonstrate to the workers that they are going to play an active role in the collective bargaining process.

Unions are also more successful in organizing when there is an emphasis on developing a culture of organizing that permeates everything that the union does. This includes a serious commitment of staff and financial resources to organizing at both the local and international levels. Organizing costs money -- for staff, training, cars, gas, hotels, literature, computers, and phones. In a time of declining members and dues, most unions are struggling with how to best allocate increasingly scarce resources. Thus, unions will only be successful in transferring sufficient resources into organizing if they are able to convince union leaders and their members that the future of their union depends on organizing, and organizing depends on transferring resources from servicing to organizing.

One of the most effective ways to mobilize membership support for organizing is through the recruitment, training, and utilization of member organizers from already organized units. These volunteers are important not only because they can inexpensively supplement scarce organizing staff resources. Their most important contribution is in their ability to speak sincerely and powerfully from their own experiences of organizing and winning a first contract. Much more than paid professional organizers, these volunteers can credibly convince unorganized workers that not only is it possible to organize and win, but it is also worth the risk, fear, and conflict that it takes to do so.

Lastly, union organizing success depends on strategic research and targeting that carefully assesses whether the workers are really ready to organize; whether the union has the expertise, experience, and resources to organize workers in this industry; and perhaps most important of all, whether the union has the leverage to gain a first contract for the workers once the election is won.

Our research on organizing and first contract campaigns clearly demonstrates that in the 1990s more unions in the US are consistently adopting the more comprehensive approach that is required to win elections and bargain first contracts in the current organizing climate. Not surprisingly, it is these unions that have won the lion's share of the union victories in the last five years. These are also the unions that have committed the most resources to organizing, are recruiting the most women and people of colour to their organizing staff, are running the most election campaigns, are winning the largest units, and have contributed the most to the recent upturn in union organizing numbers. Unfortunately they still represent the minority, which is why the US labour movement is still so far from organizing the millions of new workers it needs to regain its bargaining and political power.

There is no question that free market economic policies, liberalized trade practices, and the elimination or weakening of protective labour legislation have greatly increased the costs and risks to workers and unions attempting to organize in every nation. But the findings from our organizing and first contract research also hold out the promise and possibility that unions can organize and win, even in the most hostile organizing climate, if they are willing to commit to a much more costly and comprehensive organizing strategy.

But they cannot delay. For too many decades unions in the US failed to accept responsibility for their declining numbers and power. Not only did they continue to blame external forces for their organizing difficulties, but they also continued to seek to be rescued by their political allies, blinded by the belief that any organizing renewal was entirely dependent on first achieving significant labour law reform. In doing so they failed to understand that the deteriorating legal climate for organizing has always been a direct result of their declining numbers and political power. In fact, only through organizing massive numbers of new members in every sector of the economy, will US unions once again have the political leverage to ensure more progressive and more effective labour legislation.

This organizing will need to be achieved through massive numbers of NLRB elections in larger and larger units. But increasingly it will also need to go beyond the traditional board certification election process to organize workers in industries and occupations that are either too large, too diffuse, or too contingent, to be successfully organized under the certification election model. For these employers, many of whom are the richest and most powerful multinational corporations in the world, what is required is a comprehensive campaign simultaneously organizing the rank-and-file workers in the workplace and the community from the bottom up, while leveraging the employer through its investors, suppliers, customers, owners, and subsidiaries from the top down.

But unions engaging in such organizing cannot and should not assume that they are simply mobilizing new workers to become dues payers for the status quo. Workers who organize today are not going to be willing to take on the risks or put in the hard work of organizing if they are not going to be given a voice and a seat at the table once the union is won. These new workers, will come into the labour movement with new issues and new demands, and with the expectation that the union will continue to be the same activist and democratic organization it was during the organizing campaign through the first contract and beyond.

Nor can we assume that there is some other less difficult and less adversarial model that would more gently convince employers to grant union recognition and engage in a new more collaborative industrial relations model for the new millennium. The evidence of the last decade is very clear. Employers in the US today, whether foreign based multinationals or US based family businesses, manufacturing or health care, high-tech or low wage, will not and do not voluntarily recognize unions absent the expression of union power in the workplace and in the broader community.

For many years labour's declining political power in the US was cushioned by the post-World War II economic boom. By the time most of the US labour movement woke up and recognized that they were in a crisis, they faced a hostile President and a global market economy. For other many other industrial nations the crisis has developed much later and much more quickly. But today, whether in Great Britain, Brazil, Korea, or New Zealand, it is no less acute.

Unions in the US are learning that, even in the most hostile organizing climate, workers do organize and unions can win, if they are willing to commit to a more aggressive and comprehensive organizing strategy which slowly but steadily builds the union from the bottom up. This is how unions everywhere have always had to organize in the absence of strong enforceable protective labour legislation and this is how more and more unions around the world will have to organize in an era of free markets, free trade, deregulation, and multinational corporate restructuring. It is a great challenge, but it is also a great opportunity, to build a stronger, and more united labour movement around the globe.

Gay Simpkin, 1/12/1999, Organizing and Occupational Unionism

There have been references to the need for organizing in the debate so far. But the bulk of the discussion has centred around union leadership and international unionism. Effectively, the assumption has been that the leaders of the union movement will rebuild the membership of unions and take them into a securer position in the global economy. I wonder if this is missing the point about what unions can do for workers apart from pay and conditions of work.

Occupational unions have largely disappeared in New Zealand. First, as the result of mergers brought about by legislation in the 1980s which required memberships to be larger than 1,000. Secondly, as a deliberate strategy by the Council of Trade Unions to bring about industry unionism. This was a leadership strategy to try and counteract the hostile anti-unionism and individualism of the Employment Contracts Act. The guiding principle was that of strength in numbers, rather than strength in identification. An example of this was the Clerical Workers' Union, made up almost totally of women, which collapsed and the women members were distributed among large industry sector unions. No one union now looks after the interests of clerical workers. Nor can clerical workers organize as a group.

A large number of the members in the education sector have refused to enter into mergers and the two largest unions covering primary and secondary teachers respectively remain divided and successful. It is possible to mount a number of arguments as to why this should be so, but the one I want to address here is the idea of occupational unionism providing a strength of organization to which members of the occupation respond.

Purists of the industry model, and teachers from other countries, bemoan the fact that New Zealand's teacher unions are divided between primary and secondary teachers. This is not the issue being addressed here, but rather the existence of two unions which have a collective strength deriving from continuing loyalty of members. Why is it that they have continued to organize and mobilise strongly while many other unions are finding it difficult? I would suggest that the reason may be because of the common occupation of their members.

Organizing around a common occupation provides members with support for each other and opportunities for discussion of common difficulties and strengths in the job. It also enables an overview to be taken of where the occupation is heading. This leads to a feeling of control, despite the imposition of ideologies which teachers (in this example) know will not work. It also leads to collective action in support of pay and conditions and continuing opposition to the worst excesses of employer(State)-driven changes. Both teacher unions in New Zealand have strong democratic structures and executives which come out of and are constantly returning to the membership. In other words, the unions provide members with dignity and voice in a hostile world.

Some might argue that teachers exist in a gentle, State-protected world. But I wonder if there is not a lesson to be learnt, even so. Dignity and voice have been constant (unstated) themes throughout this conference. The MUA activity in Australia was about workers asserting their right to be heard about the way they do their job. The globalization debate has been about the treatment of workers as ciphers in global capital vs the assertion on our part of the rights of workers to be treated as human beings.

The earliest unionism was formed out of trade connections. The forging of a collective identity out of early Fordist factories also demonstrated the power of identification with others on the basis of common skills and common experience. Workers in New Zealand are now separated from each other along enterprise lines. Organization of union members solely along enterprise lines may not be sufficient to bind workers in loyalty to each other. Loyalty to the enterprise is certainly a business and management strategy but may not be sufficient to create common identification between, say, a clerical worker and a machinist.

One of the early papers in the Conference questioned whether democracy can have any meaning under globalization. While not as glamorous as considering global strategies for union survival, perhaps the recreation of a solid, democratic base for unionism as opposed to the leadership model would be a fundamental starting point for organizing. Is it possible to carry out the building or rebuilding of this along the lines of occupational unionism or have those days gone forever? What occupation unionism would provide would be a counterfoil to the enterprise emphasis of global business.

It would be interesting to hear from those in countries where workers are at the bottom of the global pay hierarchy as to which units of organizing are likely to be the most workable.

Salihu Lukman, Nigeria, 3/12/99 - Unions and Organizing

I think the discussion is shifting to perhaps more familiar terrain for us in the practical field. There has been discussions about organizing strategies and how that has impacted on working conditions. One major limitation perhaps is the ideological focus, which tend to inject issues of value judgement. However, in all cases, questions of numbers are hardly dismissed. I would like to make two points in relation to Simpkin's presentation.

First, Simpkin started by dismissing the perceived assumption that "the leaders of the movement will re-build the membership of unions and take them into securer position in the global economy". My attitude here is not so much to contest whether such an assumption is correct or not. But to say that I am not able to establish any clear between her initial contest of this "assumption" and the discussion of "occupational unionism". When I read that opening paragraph I thought, we need to confront ourselves with the issues so that we don't just dismiss claimed assumptions. I am raising this point because as we discuss issues of organizing, we need to bear in mind the capacity of leaders to either facilitate the transformation of organizations or stagnate them.

Secondly, if occupational unionism is about industrial unions, which are results of mergers, then the experience of the New Zealand's teachers unions is revealing. To quite some extent, this reflect the problems facing many of our unions here in Nigeria. Our unions pass through the processes of mergers twice. The first time in 1978, when through legislation, the then military government intervene in the re-organization of unions with a legislation that imposed 42 industrial unions and one central labour organization with a legislation. One of the industrial unions that emerged, Custom, Excise and Immigration Staff Union (CEIMSU) was proscribed in 1988 after a strike action, demanding for review of members working conditions. The remaining 41 unions were similarly re-organized to 29 through legislative intervention in 1995. Now the result is that there are huge concentration of workers under a single union but that does not translate to strong organizations. Many issues are responsible for this. There is, again, the leadership factor, which manifest itself by way of issues of self survival. Union leaders are reluctant to accept merger talks with stronger unions. Old rivalries, sometime ideological, also play a role in this regard.

Perhaps, more important is the results of mergers. Although, workers conditions are not any better, stronger organizations have produced career unionists with high security of tenure. What this means is the emergence of generation of union leaders whose tenure is not determined by union performance. This accounts for why for instance workers conditions of service in the public sector stagnated for nine years. For us therefore in Nigeria, the debate is about re-focussing the union movement particularly given our terrible experience.

Roy J. Adams, University of Hamilton, Canada, 07/12/99 - The Global Representation Gap and How to Close It

(Paper prepared for delivery at an International Colloquium on Organization Flexibility, Employment Practices and Globalization held at the Faculty of Management, University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, December 1-3, 1999)

During the past decade a strong international consensus has emerged that freedom of association and collective bargaining should be accepted by the world community as fundamental human rights (Adams and Friedman 1998). The implication is that, as a condition of their humanity, all human beings have a fundamental right to form or join organizations with a view towards forwarding their employment interests and a right collectively to negotiate the terms under which they labour.

Although freedom of association traces its lineage as a human right back to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted in 1947, during the 1990s several notable international organizations from all parts of the political spectrum have reaffirmed their support for the proposition that all parties to the employment relationship have a moral obligation to respect labour rights as human rights. Among the international organizations that have endorsed that proposition are the World Trade Organization, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the International Organization of Employers and even the International Chamber of Commerce (Adams 1999). In the summer of 1998, the International Labour Organization passed, without a dissenting vote, a Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work which committed all of its members not only to respect but also to promote a core set of human rights in employment which included freedom of association and the effective right to bargain collectively (ILO 1998). The ILO's secretariat was given the task of establishing an action program in pursuit of that goal. In order to fulfill its mandate it will be necessary for it to settle on a method to assess progress. I propose that the target should be near-universal collective bargaining. That may sound like an ambitious goal since, in most of the nations of the world, only a minority of the labour force has its conditions of employment established through collective bargaining (ILO 1997).Nevertheless, I suggest that it is realistic because nation-states have the capacity to achieve it. The only impediment to near-universal collective bargaining is the absence of sufficient resolve to make it happen.

Near universal collective bargaining should be the ILO's goal because if given the unfettered choice the great majority of workers across the world would choose to be represented in the making of their conditions of work. The only alternative is to assert, preposterously, that sane adults prefer their employers unilaterally, without their input, to make and administer rules of work critical to their welfare.

While accepting that all employees should have a say in the establishment of their conditions of work, some observers argue that workers may choose individual over collective bargaining. That may be a viable option, especially for employees in very small undertakings and that is the reason for setting the target at Anear-universal instead of Auniversal collective bargaining.. Even in large organizations some rules of work, at least in theory, may be individually negotiated. But individual bargaining has severe limitations that hinder its usefulness. As observers have pointed out for over a century, organizations of any size have a significant bargaining advantage over individuals and thus, from the point of view of the individual, agreements reached on many issues have a take it or leave it character.

Even more important, however, is the observation that many key employment issues such as the overall pay structure, health and safety, training policy, and employment equity to name just a few are collective in nature and cannot be individually negotiated. They are rules that must apply equally to everyone. Thus to accept the notion that employees in large organizations might prefer individual bargaining is to accept the ludicrous assertion that these people have no interest in influencing the many collective regulations operative in such organizations - regulations which are critical to their well being. In short, the theory that individual bargaining is an alternative to collective bargaining is fraudulent. The alternative to collective bargaining with respect to collective issues is unilateral imposition.

If individual bargaining is not an alternative to collective bargaining and employees want to influence conditions critical to their welfare it follows that they will choose to bargain collectively unless to do so results in unacceptable costs or risks. What then are the costs of establishing a collective bargaining relationship? Most of them, and certainly those with the greatest potential for negative consequences, are within the power of the employer or the government or both to minimize and, since collective bargaining is a human right, they should be ready to do that.

Lets examine some of the reasons frequently given for not unionizing and bargaining collectively (see e.g., Hughes 1976, Foulkes 1980; Hardison 1997):

A. A fear that the employment relationship will deteriorate into an adversarial one marked by animosity. Most workers, research suggests, like their employer and want to maintain a good and positive relationship. But there is no reason why collective bargaining should have a negative effect on the employment relationship if the employer accepts it as a normal and healthy aspect of doing business.

B. A fear that collective bargaining will lead to strikes or other forms of work disruption. Although most unions treasure their right to strike, if the employer is willing it is certainly possible for the union to enter into an agreement not to strike. Thus, the employer and union might agree that in the event of an impasse they would submit their differences to mediation or binding arbitration. Even if the union does not give up the right, strikes are a rare occurrence when the union-management relationship is a positive one (Adams 1995). By their willingness to involve the union in corporate decision-making employers can do a great deal to establish a good relationship.

C. An opinion that the available unions are inappropriate and might attempt to impose rigidities or introduce an unwanted ideological agenda into the employment relationship. Even if all of the established unions were as flawed as their worse critics assert, that is still not a valid argument against collective bargaining. Employees need not become associated with an already established union. Subject to appropriate legislation, if the employer is willing to recognize it, they may form their own independent negotiating organization. Freedom of association requires, however, that the choice be theirs and not the employers.

D. A fear that unions will impose high costs weakening the competitive prospects of the enterprise. In fact, unions generally want enterprises to prosper and there is a wealth of research which supports the proposition that employee representation does not in general hinder the competitive ability of enterprise (Freeman and Medoff 1984). Indeed, Scandinavia with the globe's strongest unions has gone from one of the world's poorest regions to one of the richest in the past century (Galenson 1998).

E. Individuals lose the ability to work out individual arrangements regarding issues that are individually bargainable. In fact collective agreements may and many do in practice allow considerable leeway for individual bargaining.

The objections noted above are generally raised by employers and their spokes people when arguing against legislation or union organizing campaigns. When employers do not raise such issues but instead indicate a real willingness to recognize and bargain with trade unions, in fact employees nearly always respond favourably. Most notable in this regard was the response of public sector employees in many countries in the 1960s and 1970s. When governments as employers dropped their opposition nearly all of them entered into collective bargaining arrangements. Where public sector employer opposition has disappeared, collective bargaining is nearly universal (Ozaki 1987).

No doubt, even if employer opposition disappeared entirely some people would still fail to unionize with a view towards bargaining collectively because of inertia and the transaction costs involved with seeking out an existing organization or forming a new one and because of the inevitable union dues that they would have to pay. Government policy, if it really wanted to promote collective bargaining could help to overcome these factors by making organizing easy and, perhaps, by subsidizing dues - may be through the tax system. Employers could also help immensely by making it known to their employees that they prefer to deal with a representative over collective issues. It is difficult to imagine a group of employees refusing an employer request that they form or join an organization with a view towards working out mutually acceptable conditions of work.

Near-universal collective bargaining has been achieved in many of the countries of continental Western Europe. In most other parts of the world, however, only a minority of the labour force enjoys the benefits of collective representation (ILO 97). Our analysis to this point suggests that if employers fully accepted collective bargaining and made that acceptance publicly known to their employees it is very likely that near-universal collective bargaining would soon be achieved. However, it is unlikely that employers will do that, unless compelled to do so, for a few reasons:

A. Whatever the research evidence on the generally benign to positive impact of collective bargaining, in some circumstances bargaining arrangements can deteriorate producing negative results. Thus, voluntarily accepting collective determination involves risk and rational employers avoid risk when possible.

B. Moving from unilateral to collective determination means giving up power and control and those with power and control rarely give them up willingly (Barbash 1984).

Since employers with unilateral power to decide cannot be expected willingly to accept collective determination, they must be required to do so either by pressure exerted directly by unions, by the force of custom and tradition or by government action. In continental Europe there is a combination of legislation and strong social norms established in the late 19th and early 20th centuries which make it nearly impossible for employers formally to oppose collective bargaining (Adams 1995). In most of the world's nations, however, although they formally accept the notion of freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively, governments do little actively to promote the exercise of these rights. Instead they adopt a formally neutral stance behind the assertion that employees have the right to choose. That stance is inadequate because an environment tainted by employer opposition raises high the subjective risk of negative consequences to the employee. In that milieu, real freedom of association cannot be said to exist and government neutrality is really a policy to discourage rather than to promote worker representation in employment rule making.

Governments desirous of actually promoting collective bargaining are capable of influencing employers both through the shaping of social norms and through proven legislative and political techniques.

With respect to the shaping of social norms, the policy of the United Kingdom throughout most of the twentieth century until the advent of the Thatcher regime is a good example. Successive British governments promoted the idea that collective bargaining voluntarily agreed to by employers was the proper thing to do. As a result a strong norm against active opposition was established. By the late 1970s over 75% of the British work force was covered by collective agreements. However, when the Thatcher regime withdrew its support of that norm, the practice of collective bargaining receded to a point where today well under 50% of British workers have the benefit of representation (Adams 1994, Towers 1997).

With respect to legislative coercion many effective approaches are available. For example, as in Sweden and France, governments could require that employers recognize and bargain with employee representatives even if only a minority of employees are members of the representative organization (Adams 1994). As in many European countries, negotiated conditions could be legally extended across the industry. This policy induces employers to form associations in order to negotiate on an industry wide basis with the relevant unions. It results in broad collective bargaining coverage (Traxler 1998).

Governments may also establish statutory works councils with power to negotiate a range of conditions. German councils backed by veto power subject to arbitration are required in all organizations with more than five employees. They have been very successful in representing employee interests and have also won the approval of German management (Wever 1995; Rogers and Streeck 1994).

On the other hand, the certification policy adopted in North America has proven to be entirely ineffective as a means of promoting widespread collective bargaining. Instead of encouraging employers to recognize and bargain with trade unions it has legitimized opposition leading to a decline in the practice of collective bargaining in the private sector (Adams 1993a).

A few years ago I examined 13 episodes of positive government intervention in support of collective bargaining in eight countries over two centuries. In every instance when governments in power decided clearly to promote collective bargaining its practice did in fact expand (Adams 1993b).

In conclusion, there is a global representation gap. It is not the result of employee choice as is sometimes asserted. It is instead the result of employer opposition justified by the notion that collective bargaining will have negative consequences for the enterprise. Experience suggests, however, 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 employment rule making can have positive benefits for the organization (Heller, et al. 1998). Even if there was 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.

Bibliography

Adams, Roy and Sheldon Friedman, The Emerging International Consensus on Human Rights in Employment,

Perspectives on Work, 2, 2, 1998, pp. 24-27.

Adams, Roy J., Industrial Relations Under Liberal Democracy, Columbia, University of South Carolina Press, 1995b.

Adams, Roy J., A The North American Model of Employee Representational Participation:

A Hollow Mockery, Comparative Labour Law Journal, 15, 1, 1993a, pp. 210-211.

Adams, Roy J., A Regulating Unions and Collective Bargaining: A global, historical analysis of determinants and consequences, Comparative Labour Law Journal, 14, 3, 1993b, 272-301.

Adams, Roy J., A Labour Rights are Human Rights, Working USA, July/August, 1999, pp. 72-77.

Adams, Roy J., A Union Certification as an Instrument of Labour Policy: A Comparative Perspective, in Sheldon Friedman, Richard Hurd, Rudy Oswald, and Ronald L. Seeber, eds., Restoring the Promise of American Labour Law, Ithaca, NY, ILR Press, 1994.

Barbash, Jack, The Elements of Industrial Relations, Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 1984.

Foulkes, Fred K., Personnel Policies in Large Nonunion Companies, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1980.

Freeman, Richard and James Medoff, What do Unions Do?, NY, Basic Books, 1984.

Galenson, Walter, The World's Strongest Trade Unions, The Scandinavian Labour Movement, Westport, CT, Quorum, 1998.

Hardison, Laura, A Staying Union Free, Plants Sites & Parks Magazine, January/February 1997. Available on the internet at http://www.bizsites.com/PastPres/JF97/unionside2.html.

Heller, Frank, Eugen Pusi*, George Strauss and Bernhard Wilpert, Organizational Participation, Myth and Reality, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998.

Hughes, Charles, Making Unions Unnecessary, NY, Executive Enterprises, 1976.

ILO, A Clearing the Final Hurdle, World of Work, no. 25, 1998.

ILO, Industrial Relations, Democracy and Social Stability, Geneva, ILO, 1997.

Ozaki, M., 1987, A Labour Relations in the Public Service, International Labour

Review, part 1, vol. 126, #3; part 2, vol. 126, #4.

Rogers, Joel and Wolfgang Streeck, A Workplace Representation Overseas: the Works Council Story, in Freeman, Richard, ed., Working Under Different Rules, NY, Russell Sage Foundation, 1994.

Towers, Brian, The Representation Gap, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1997.

Traxler, Franz, A Collective Bargaining in the OECD: Developments, Preconditions and Effects, Wever, Kirsten, Negotiating Competitiveness, Boston, Harvard Business School Press, 1995.

European Journal of Industrial Relations, Volume 4, Number 2, July, 1998, pp. 207-226.

Tom Collins, Municipal Employees' Union, Australia, 08/12/99 - Practical Organizing

I have only one question: It is becoming common practice to situate call centres overseas , a recent scenario was an Australian company which had its call centre in India. This was for obvious reasons "COST".

How does the A.S.U. intend to combat this loss of jobs to countries which provide the service at an unbearable price?

Jason Gibson, Australian Services Union, Australia, 08/12/99, Practical Organizing

Service Partners Organizing and Recruitment Plan 1999

Introduction

Service Partners Pty Ltd are operators of the Qantas Frequent Flyer Service Centre. They operate this business from the Qantas building at 50 Franklin Street, Melbourne. This site is important to the union for two major reasons. Firstly, due to its position as a major contractor to the airline industry which is our largest membership area. Secondly, because of the earlier organizing effort which resulted in 50% membership and the achievement of the first union Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA) in the contract call centre industry. A renewed organizing and recruitment effort is required because all long-time delegates and activists have either left the company or have 'burnt out' and scaled back their involvement. As a result, recruitment has stalled and membership density is falling due to the high natural turnover of staff. This plan is intended to take us through until the middle of 1999, after which time we plan to involve the delegates in planning sessions for the second half of the year.

Situation Analysis

An ASU negotiated EBA applies and is operative until September 2000. Company management are very proud of their EBA and are generally co-operative on issues such as access. We currently have approximately 45% membership. There are approximately 260 employees, all situated at the one location, across five floors. There are currently three delegates (from a target of five - one per floor). These delegates are all fairly new to their roles and require a high degree of guidance and training. The company's contract with it's major client, Qantas Airways, was recently extended by 12 months. The company's, and it's client's, own data shows that it has been highly successful in reducing the unit cost per customer contact.

Strengths

• Existing membership base.

• Three delegates and a number of 'team contacts'.

• Easy access to site and agreement on speaking to new staff.

• Union well thought of in the workplace, mainly due to achievement of EBA.

• 'Breakaway Club' issue identified and confirmed to be very deeply and widely felt.
  

Weaknesses

Inactive membership and delegates. Lack of identified and trustworthy activists. High staff turnover. This means that we are constantly losing members. It also leads to a "I'm looking for another job anyway" attitude which undermines the message of union membership and activity.

A predominantly young workforce with no experience of unions.

Objectives

• Increase membership density to 60% by the end of 1999.

• Recruit a further two delegates so that we achieve one per floor.

• Have a union contact in every team. Provide contacts with relevant material outlining their role. Support and encourage contacts to recruit and increase activism.

• Educate membership to think and act union.
  
  

Tasks and activities

• Map the workplace using information supplied by existing team contacts.

• Provide each team contact with a kit containing: membership forms, workplace map, training material on recruitment and their role as a team contact.

• Conduct one-on-one sessions with each team contact over lunch/tea. Use the Breakaway issue and the Anger-Hope-Action framework to motivate contacts to take a more active role.

• Conduct a phone survey of members around the Breakaway issue. Use as an opportunity to motivate involvement and try to gain some commitment to various action options. Also use survey to deliver the message that membership levels have direct affect on our likely success and that recruitment is every member's responsibility. Get delegates and contacts involved in conducting phone survey. Following phone survey, hold a members' meeting to discuss and vote on next action in Breakaway campaign. Non-members welcome to participate in debate, but cannot vote. Winning in the Workplace training for delegates once we have full compliment of five. Run a recruitment competition for team contacts. Establish a members' only newsletter (mailed to home addresses) on regular basis (monthly or fortnightly). Use to promote various union campaigns, to offer special deals and to be an education forum.
  

Organizing Works Final Project - Evaluating Recruitment Plan

(1) The objectives for this workplace were:

• to increase membership density to 60% by the end of 1999

• to recruit delegates in areas with no delegate

• to establish union 'contacts' in each work team

• to educate the membership to increase union consciousness and activity
  
  

The activities planned to achieve these aims included:

• mapping

• provide kits and training materials for contacts

• one to one sessions with contacts over lunch

• phone survey members re. Breakaway issue

• winning in the Workplace training for delegates

• recruitment competition for team contacts

• establish members-only newsletter

The objective of increasing membership to 60% has not been achieved. We began the year with approximately 40-45% membership. Membership is currently 35-40%. This drop in density reflects the high staff turnover for this workplace, a common feature of contracting call centres.

The recruitment of additional delegates has been successful. We have now established a delegate presence on each of the five floors, and on one floor, which previously had no delegate, we now have two.

In addition to delegates, we have recruited 10 members to the role of team union 'contact'. Their role is to assist and support their delegate, to recruit and to facilitate union communications. This represents a little under half of the teams in the workplace.

Education of the membership has commenced primarily via the union newsletter. However, there has been little discernable increase in union consciousness generally. Formal training of team contacts has occurred and the resultant increase in activity and involvement from these people is promising.

All of the tasks and activities outlined in the plan (and above) were carried out with the exception of the recruitment competition. This was shelved in favour of a 'three months free membership offer' which had been very successfully trialed within Qantas itself. The recruitment competition may resurface next year in the lead up to enterprise bargaining.

'Kits' were produced and distributed to contacts earlier in the year. This was not successful as there was no follow up, training or discussion with the contacts as to their role. Late in the year we met with each contact informally over lunch, conducted a two hour training session in paid time and supplied more up to date and relevant supporting materials.

Winning in the Workplace training was delivered to three of our six delegates. One further delegate received the standard shop stewards training separately. It is planned to train the remaining delegates next year.

The members-only newsletter was actually introduced as a workplace newsletter, distributed to all staff. This change was made to ensure that we continued to have a vehicle by which we could communicate with, and pitch our message to, non-members.

(2) Reasons for these results

The failure to achieve membership growth at this workplace has been frustrating. However, the goal itself was probably a little unrealistic given the circumstances. Turnover of staff remains high, meaning that we needed to recruit just to stand still, let alone grow. Even this we failed to do to a certain extent.

An EBA was negotiated at this site in 1998, and is due to be renegotiated in 2000. Therefore 1999 was always going to be a largely issue-less period. In addition, most of our experienced delegates (myself included) left the company in late 1998. This meant that our focus had to change from recruiting members to recruiting delegates and developing them in their roles. It actually took most of the year to fill all delegate positions, and the development of the new delegates still has a way to go.

Motivating participation in the union has also been a significant difficulty. The achievement of 10 team contacts is pleasing, but the level of these people's activity remains to be tested. The major issue we have been running this year- Breakaway travel Club membership - has also highlighted another problem for us - freeloading. We have constantly faced criticism from non-members over our lack of success on this issue. Yet these people have an "if you succeed , we'll benefit anyway" attitude. Despite our best efforts we have been unable to make them understand the connection between union strength and campaign outcomes. The members too have criticised the lack of success, yet despite many different initiatives have been completely unwilling to take even the mildest of actions, or to assist in campaign planning. The reasons for this are related to the difficulties of the call centre environment i.e. close supervision, heavy workloads etc., but also to a perception of the union as a third party who 'fix things for us with their magic wands'. There is still obviously work to be done in establishing an organizing culture.

(3) What did and did not work

The introduction of three months free membership (for new starters all the time, and for all non-members for a limited period only) has been wildly successful at Qantas Telephone Sales and at Melbourne Airport. It has been introduced at this workplace in the context of needing to build strength in the lead up to enterprise bargaining . Although in it's early days, the offer appears to be producing results here too. The offer, together with a planned approach to conducting induction presentations to new staff, has seen us pick up new members amongst the new staff.

The workplace newsletter has also been a success. It is now keenly read each month and versions have been introduced in other workplaces. This is largely due to the controversies it has provoked. Company management has issued written rebuttals to some of the items which has only served to increase interest in our issues. Additionally, the company's sole client, Qantas Airways, has been upset by several items we have published and have put pressure on Service Partners to 'pull the union into line'. Although this created significant friction between us, it has lead to approaches from company directors who are interested in exploring ways in which we can expand cooperation. Their stated goal is to assist us in achieving our Breakaway Campaign aims in return for us curbing our criticisms of Qantas, who have threatened their contractual arrangements. However, the areas of possible cooperation extend beyond the Breakaway Campaign. Service Partners seem interested in becoming a 'union preferred' tenderer in the call centre market place and are keen to explore this, and what we might want in return. High on my agenda is that they contribute to a Union Education Trust Fund or similar arrangement. This has been an unexpected result of a campaign (Breakaway Club membership) which was going nowhere fast, and proves that it's sometimes worth simply being an irritant to employers for strategic purposes.

Calling for volunteers to be team contacts, but offering no explanation as to the role, nor providing any training, was a big mistake. We spent most of the year with several contacts 'on paper', but with none of them being at all active.

Mid-year we held an action as part of the Breakaway Campaign. It was designed to be as 'fun' and non-threatening as possible, but was very poorly supported by members and non-members alike. Whilst the anger and interest surrounding the issue was high, willingness to participate was very low.

(4) Lessons

The major lesson is that it is vital to involve your delegates in the drafting of a recruitment plan from the beginning (in established sites). It is also best not to plan too far ahead as circumstances change and events move on. While you can set year end goals, you should plan and evaluate tasks and activities over a much shorter time frame, again with delegate involvement.

It is also important to be brutally honest at the outset as to the achievability of any goals you set. In this case growth to 60% membership in a non-bargaining period was proven to be unrealistic.

There remains a problem with perceptions of the union as an outside force. More work needs to be done at this site in explaining the basic concept of collectivism. I think we shied away from, and glossed over, this a little in order to not scare people off, or to enhance the attractiveness of our membership pitch. But the language of "we do this and this for you...you get this and that benefit/discount" only reinforces our position in many members' minds as a service provider.

(5) Future ideas

Particularly in the area of call centres (already identified as a major target area and campaign priority for this union in 2000), I would like to see the following initiatives trialed/introduced:

PEL - as mentioned above, a paid education leave trust fund contributed to by employers (modelled on PEL in Canada). This would allow us to more easily take delegates off the job for training. It could be used for delegate training in addition to that which existing TUTA (Trade Union Training Australia) leave provisions provide for. It could also be used to rain members other than delegates. It could also allow us to take activists off the job, possibly for weeks at a time, for training and to work on external organizing campaigns. There may even be possibilities to use the fund to provide membership incentives and rewards to delegates such as subsidising Virtual Communities (cheap computers and internet for union members) packages.

I would like to eventually see this as a standard claim for enterprise bargaining. Perhaps discussions with Service Partners will lead to the concept being trialed at this workplace in 2000.

ACTIVIST NETWORK - A formal structure for delegates and other activists who are particularly interested in being involved in external campaigns. This could include a training program designed to skill up activists as volunteer organizers. I believe that all unions would have members who are prepared to perform this role. A program based on the Anna Stewart Project, but linked into an ongoing network and with a strong campaign focus, would not only add to the union's external campaigning resources, but would lead to more active and skilled workplace reps.

'TRINKETS' - our experience in running workplace events - BBQs, cake breaks etc. - has shown that members love both special events and trinkets (give-aways etc.). Whether it's coffee mugs, water bottles, key rings or pens, members like union branded promotional items. I think it really does help to foster a feeling of belonging and loyalty to the union. Especially if we can identify items which are occupationally useful (lanyards for security passes, for example).

Whilst I have the opportunity I should also draw your attention to the debate happening at the ACTU council meeting being held here in Sydney at the moment. Earlier this year the new secretary of the ACTU, Greg Combet, released a report unions@work which spoke of the need for unions to adopt an organizing focus. At this council meeting, more concrete plans are being discussed for the reorganization of the ACTU and resource reallocation into areas of growth within individual unions. Later this week the ACTU will also be launching a web site to assist unions with researching and corporate campaigning. You might like to stop by the ACTU web site for reports on the Council meeting, the unions@work report and the new online research/corporate campaigning resource. They can be found at: www.actu.asn.au

Max Ogden, 10/12/99, Unions and seeking maximum efficiency

First I agree that most employers are obsessed with establishing ever greater control over the labour process, and they try to use technology among other means to do it. However just because that is their objective, it does not mean they always achieve it, and to base a strategy on their objectives rather than what really occurs is inadequate. I believe this is a major problem with many union responses, i.e. they take what the employer says, (which is fairly predictable) as reality, rather than what is happening in the real world.

Despite attempts to de-skill and increase control through the use of technology, managers increasingly find that most technologies cannot be used effectively without greater skill and autonomy. This is especially the case with micro-processing, PCs, etc., which don't lend themselves easily to centralised control, in the way that management would prefer. This added to the need for more autonomy to effectively focus on customer service, innovation, using high levels of skill and knowledge, confronts management with a dilemma: How do they conduct a successful business without conceding power and autonomy to their employees?

Of course most don't, as we know whenever we talk to our members, they can reel off a thousand ways that would double efficiency immediately, virtually all to do with greater employee autonomy, proper use of their skills, knowledge, and innovation. A few employers have learnt that they can get better results by greater empowerment, and working constructively with their employees and union, but most won't relinquish power.

The way around the dilemma for many managements and a huge challenge for unions, is to individualise through contracting out, casualising, individual contracts etc., so that they achieve some of the necessary innovation and use of skills and knowledge, but still have some semblance of control. I am not suggesting that this is the basis for all contracting out and casualising, but it certainly is in the professional areas, and most new jobs are emerging, where the focus is increasingly on specific projects, but it is growing in areas that would not traditionally be seen as professional.

The point for unions is that if they don't have as a key component of their strategy, the need for their members to challenge for greater collective power within the labour process, they seriously limit their ability to grow and be relevant within modern workplaces and industries.

In this regard I don't believe Charlie's idea of continuous bargaining will help much and in my experience is not very practical. Far more important is that the union has a very clear and independent strategy for it's industry and enterprises to constantly guide everything it does. i.e. the union, with maximum involvement of the members develops its own vision of what a successful industry/enterprise would look like from the point of view of the employees, as well as how all the other stakeholders will benefit. The strategy to operate at all levels from the shop/office/hospital floor etc., through to the national and international.

I have an attachment setting out a draft which is developing from a Cornell/AFL-CIO project I am working with titled, "Union Building and Workplace Democracy". In the draft I set out the strategy at the various levels and make the point that the union vision for the industry/enterprise is not for negotiation as that would water it down, but is the guide as we set about negotiating what we can towards those goals.

It is very important that such a strategy/policy framework is focussed on the industry sector as well as the enterprise, otherwise we fall into the trap of isolating the members in an industry from one another, and also tacitly accept the idea that all problems can be resolved at the local level, when patently they can't.

This was done during the nineties in the food industry in Australia, where for a period the unions virtually set the agenda, but what was important was how well the vision and agenda was received by the members in the industry. They really appreciated that the unions had a plan for their industry and that they didn't just work in some isolated enterprise. In conjunction with the government of the day, and many employers, quite a deal of the plan was achieved. Similar discussions are now being initiated in a couple of other industries.

All this raises the controversial issue as emerged in Roy Adams comments about the union role in contributing to business competitiveness. There is increasing evidence which I believe we should welcome and use, of how union enterprises tend to be more efficient than non-union enterprises. A striking example is the article in the August '98 edition of Scientific American titled, "Look for the Union Label", which outlines the research of Lisa Lynch and Sandra Black, demonstrating that where management have a clear program for change involving new work systems, skills, consultation etc., and the business is unionised, the result will be twice as good as where that enterprise is non-union. This we should use widely as it also represents the view of our members who in my experience always want to work in, and contribute to a successful business.

As I say at the end of the draft strategy document, it meets the criteria that David Peetz in his book, "Unions in a Contrary World", for those with a propensity to join unions to be attracted as members.

Charley Richardson, University of Massachusetts, United States, 18/12/99 - Continuous Bargaining and Labour-Management Relations

I agree that we should not take what the employer says as reality. But I also believe that we cannot afford to ignore what is happening in the real world - in the workplace. Management is using technology as a lever to transform workplaces and to change power relations. They are, for example, monitoring our members on a continuous basis and using the information gathered to decrease their reliance on worker skill and knowledge. The work process is changed in a way that increases stress and workload and decreases job security, even as important sources of union power are undermined. This in turn makes it more difficult for workers through their unions to exert control over the future.

I don't believe that PC's and micro-processors bring "greater skill and autonomy". The majority of computer users are slaves to their machines, have little control over their work processes and have only limited computer-related skills. The computer, in the unfettered hands of management, is not a tool of liberation - but a tool of oppression.

I do agree that unions need to develop clear and independent strategies for their industries and for the economy as a whole. Good bargainers always begin from a clear sense of where they want to end up. The best bargainers think beyond the end of the current bargaining process - seeking to achieve today the things that will better prepare them for the next round of bargaining down the road. They are constantly thinking not just about improving the lives of members, but also about increasing the institutional strength and bargaining power of the union. This is particularly critical given the ongoing assault on union power that takes so many forms.

Regarding the efficiency of union workplaces and the fact that this efficiency could satisfy both management and labour, I would like to point out, that management is interested not only in efficiency, but also in control - control over the workforce and the work process. They are constantly introducing new ways (from computerization to Six Sigma) to increase their control to the detriment of the workforce's ability to have a voice in the future. Second, efficiency is not an absolute but a relative value. Management in the United States has shown pretty clearly that they are not seeking efficiency, but are instead seeking constantly growing levels of efficiency. What is efficient today is behind the times tomorrow. Third, efficiency is not really the issue at all - profitability is the goal. A production process can be very efficient, but if it is dependent on skilled workers who can demand a large portion of the surplus, management is not going to be very happy. And again, profitability is a relative term. They don't seek to be profitable, they seek to be more profitable than they were yesterday and more profitable than the investment alternative.

Thus, multiple stakeholder satisfaction may be achievable in the manner that you have suggested, but it is not (and I would argue can't be)a stable state for any significant portion of the workforce. If you look at the "successful" labour-management/high performance partnerships of the last decade, you find that most, if not all, of them lose their luster after management has gotten what they have wanted most from the workforce, acceptance of change and donation of their skills and knowledge. Xerox, Corning, Levi, and even Saturn are all good examples.

Continuous bargaining is the idea that management will constantly be introducing new factors into the labour-management relationship - and that therefore unions need to constantly be prepared to be at the table representing - bargaining for - the needs of the members and of the workforce overall. We need an overall vision for the economy and for particular industries - of that there is no doubt. But we also need mechanisms that allow workers an ongoing and powerful voice in all of the decisions that are being made about the workplace that are so critical to their future. This is the challenge of continuous bargaining.

Stephen Pursey, ILO, Geneva, 20/12/99 - Unions and Collective Bargaining in the 21st Century

In the debate about union strategies for the future I have been wondering whether there is any basic opinion survey information on two simple issues.

First, to what extent do employees/workers feel intimidated in making the choice to join a union or become an organizer for the union? Intuitively, I presume that in many countries the answer is yes and in some cases it could be fear of sacking or worse. In other cases it might simply be that opting for the union is perceived as running the risk of making daily relations with the supervisor unpleasant.

If the answer is yes, then a second series of questions arise which would try to identify more precisely the origin of the fear. Is it the employer, public authority of one form or another, or a more intangible worry of doing something the local community might regard as threatening.

The second question concerns employer attitudes to unions these days. Do employers see unions as a useful partner or a nuisance? And then of course the follow on questions arise of why might some employers have a reflex attitude of hostility and others be more constructive.

I suspect all participants in the discussion have an opinion and relevant experience on these questions. What I am looking for is whether we can find any opinion survey information from different countries which is a bit more scientific, takes us beyond case studies and might possibly allow for some comparisons between countries. If such information does exist it might help triform the debate about strategies and focus on the what needs to be done to make it easier for people to join unions and then develop a bargaining agenda with employers.

So, if anybody in the discussion could point us at such material, I for one would be most interested to know the source and have a brief summary of the findings. I suspect many others in the discussion would also find it useful.

Union Building Through Workplace Change At the Industry Sector & Enterprise Levels.

An important point about the strategy suggested here is that it is intended that all elements fit together. This is different to the process where unions decide on a range of policies, but they are usually disconnected, fragmented, and actioned separately. All levels of the strategy are critical, but from time to time the levels will have different priorities depending on the immediate job at hand.

National Level

The national element of the strategy is to create the best possible climate for improved living standards and union rights, increased worker power, and should always be tested against these objectives.

• •Dialogue with whichever government is in power.

• •Attempting to get the most union sympathetic government in power.

Best possible legislation or policy in a number of areas that impinge on the members and the workplace. e.g. Fiscal Policy & Jobs etc., Industrial Relations, OH&S, Education & Training, Trade and Industry Policy, Social Wage i.e. Taxes, Social Welfare, Pensions, Health, and so on.

National dialogue with employer organizations, relevant communities e.g. farmers for the food industry etc.. Given the European experience of Social Partners, the strategy would have a longer term objective of national tripartite agreements such as exist in Ireland, Scandinavia, Italy, etc.. Employee living standards and unions do better in such situations. (The point being that while this will be seen as almost impossible in the US, by having it even as a remote objective, it will help inform the strategy at the various levels). For example some of these ideas can possibly be implemented at the state level.

National Industry Sector Level

Dialogue with specific industry employers with a view to negotiating an industry sector strategy e.g. paper, steel, banks, health care, etc.. Where possible this should include government. (Even under the current Australian conservative government, industry plans originated under the Labour Government in Autos, Textile, Clothing & Footwear, Pharmaceuticals, and Food, continue to exist). Again this maybe achievable at the state level if not national.

Other stakeholders should be invited to be part of the process. e.g. consumers, suppliers, environmentalists, educationists, local communities, etc. as appropriate.

Union/s should develop their own independent plan for the industry as a guide and prelude to such discussions. This enables the union/s to take the initiative and have something concrete to put forward. This plan should remain intact as the unions' guide, despite whatever maybe negotiated with the employers and government. It provides the union with a useful recruiting tool as it can demonstrate to potential members its commitment to, and plans for the industry, and demonstrates to other stakeholder groups the commitment and genuineness of the union. The plan should make the point that there is good evidence to demonstrate that union workplaces and industries tend to be more efficient that those that are non-union. Other stakeholders should be invited to review and input, but it must be clear that this is a union industry strategy.

Even if it is not feasible to negotiate an industry sector strategy with the employers or government, it is an important tool for the union/s to develop such an independent plan to help guide their work, and to enable others to see where they are coming from.

Such plans ought to deal in general with such things as: Government Policy required to make the industry successful, Skills and Training, Improving Management, Improving IR if that is an issue, Links to Suppliers and Customers if that is appropriate, Improved work systems, OH&S, Union Rights, Highlighting where investment is required, etc., and any problems/issues identified as industry wide that cannot be resolved purely at the enterprise level. e.g. industry wide skill competencies, various regulations, government policies, some IR issues, etc..

Such a union plan offers a good opportunity for the union/s to demonstrate to members and potential members the wider vision and ramifications, that don't occur when only focussing on the enterprise. Experience suggests that many employees like the idea that they work within an industry and not just an enterprise.

This approach is not limited to the private sector, as public servants can outline the way they would like to deliver a better and more efficient service to the public, and point out the reasons why they are prevented from doing so.

Enterprise Level

Develop a union detailed plan for the enterprise within the context of the more general industry sector proposals dealing with skills, optimum work design, wage levels, consultation and information systems, suggest areas for new investment such as upgrading technology, how efficiency can be improved particularly through eliminating waste, better layout of plant or office, better flow through of the work, improved OH&S and saving in workers compensation, unnecessary numbers of managers, improvement of quality and so on.

Such a plan is a guide to negotiations but not for negotiation, because union/s and members must regularly use it as a checklist to gauge how far they have progressed towards their objective with each set of negotiations, and to review and update it as required.

Despite the legal limitations that exist as to what unions can negotiate about especially in the US, every attempt should be made to have all these issues negotiated as an integral part of traditional contracts, so that they are seen as an integral part of their jobs, living standards, and rights. When the approach is rejected by the employer, the union then has a tool to demonstrate to the members, potential members, and even local communities and the broader public, that management is not really interested in efficiency, but wants only to maintain control.

The Specific Union Agenda

The union/s should develop its/their own specific agenda as to what it/they as an organization should achieve out of the process.

A membership recruiting drive with a target objective, particularly aimed at non-union enterprises within the industry sector.

Union Training and the development of more shop stewards and activists. The development of the strategy itself is a good mechanism for generating involvement.

Increased power for workers to intervene in management decisions, as more and more workers manage in some form.

Develop better means of communicating with and involving the members.

Working and building unity with other unions, utilising peak union bodies such as the AFL-CIO at various levels etc..

Ensuring that the local community, broader public, employers, appropriate influential members of the community, know about the union industry sector and enterprise plans. For example if it is in the health sector the Secretary/Minister for Health, doctors and health insurance organizations, should all be made familiar with the union position. The production of a good quality publication is well worthwhile for this purpose.

All this implies a different kind of union and this was recognised in a group discussion recently in a seminar of the AFSME local of the Oregon University Hospital when examining such an approach.

The Process

It is most important that the process for developing the strategy and activism are integral to one another. Underlining the whole strategy and tactics are basically the democratisation of work and empowering of workers, at the enterprise, the industry, and to some extent the broader community level, therefore the process for achieving it must reflect the democratic objectives.

The wide use of union seminars, surveys, small group discussions on the job, inter-active web site input, television and video conferencing, etc., should all be considered in the process of developing the overall strategy. The members must feel that they are major contributors, and strengthening organization becomes an integral part of strategy development. Done properly it will take at least six months to have an industry sector and enterprise strategy which has the full support of the members.

Some experts will be required to undertake research about the industry to gather important information, but this should be done as action research utilising the members as far as possible.

Starting Points and the Strategy

The process is not linear as all sorts of things, many of them unexpected, intervene along the way. The development of the strategy will need to be done along side of the myriad of things that a union has to do on a daily basis.

The important point is that having finalised the strategy the union/s now have a guide that helps them respond better to the traditional day to day problems, issues, chaos, and the unexpected.

This means that all levels of the strategy are of equal importance, but at various times different parts will have higher levels of immediate priority. The workplace and membership involvement will be a constant priority and touchstone.

Therefore the starting point is not all that relevant, except that it must be a real felt issue among the members and not artificial. It maybe the upcoming contract negotiations, OH&S problems, redundancies, new owners, product quality problems, or virtually anything. In other words the strategy helps us deal creatively with chaos and the unexpected by harnessing it to our objectives.

The skill of the union leadership is to take those real practical issues and develop them, using the strategy and democratic processes as guides, to ensure that these are not solved as isolated one off problems, but are contributing to the achievement of the strategic objectives, by logically raising other more fundamental issues of greater power and say at work, and hopefully in the community. This can only be done on the basis of having established the longer term and broader strategy.

This last is mindful of the important point Kris Rondeau made recently about organizing, and to paraphrase her, "employers can resolve issues and they are finished, processes can't be resolved, and the employer cannot deliver what unions are able to in this regard". If we organize within the overall strategy, only the union can deliver.

Two points are worth noting about the above strategy. It is not based on the unions being anti-employer, and anyway most employees don't appreciate their employer being attacked. However this is implied by the central element of worker empowerment, because no matter what they think of their employer, all workers know how their business could be vastly more successful.

The strategy meets all four criteria Davis Peetz identified in his book "Unions in a Contrary World", as appealing to potential new unionists, which are:

The union delivers well or at least makes a good effort around the traditional issues of wages, conditions, rights, job security etc..

• •Is democratic and listens closely to what the members are saying.

• •Co-operates with management in making the business successful.

• •Is independent of, and not an apologist for management.

Tan Ern-Ser, Singapore, 07/01/00 - Survey Data on Union Membership

Regarding the availability of survey data on union membership. In 1998, as part of a large project to collect data on general social indicators, I have asked my survey respondents three questions relating to union orientations in Singapore:

(1) How important is the union to you?

(2) If union member, ...main reason for joining union.

(3) If not a union member, main reason for not joining a union.

Our analysis indicates that 42 percent of those who are eligible for union membership felt that unions are important to them. About 53 percent of those who join unions do so for reasons of job security or welfare benefits. About 6 percent join unions because of peer pressure or pestering by union recruiters.

My data show that 58 percent of those for membership have joined the unions.

However, I want to caution participants that what I have is merely survey data, for whatever they are worth, and therefore I would treat my results as indicative, rather than definitive.

I'd infer that, by and large, Singapore workers do find unions relevant. A high percentage gave "pull" factors, rather than "push" factors for joining unions. This would be seen as a good sign from the perspective of union organizers.

As for the 6 percent who joined unions because of "peer pressure/ pestering by union recruiters", I'd not, on the basis of my understanding of the local context, classified these as cases of harassment, but as pressure from informal groups that are, I believe, likely to be found in any organizational context, be it a union or a neighbourhood voluntary association, etc.

As you have correctly implied, in cross-national research and world conferences, such as this one, there is room for a great deal of misunderstanding arising from misinterpretations of findings, of intentions, etc. I hope that we could, through this forum, developed better cross-cultural understanding, while sharpening cross-cultural research/discussion/debate on unionism and globalization. May there be more light than heat.

Roy Adams, Canada, 10/1/00 - Survey of Workers' Attitudes

Although surveys that pose the specific questions raised by Stephen Pursey regarding worker attitudes and behaviour towards unionization and collective bargaining are rare, the recent book by Richard Freeman and Joel Rogers What Workers Want comes pretty close. In the US Freeman and Rogers found a significant "representation gap." In their survey there were a lot of unrepresented workers who were not satisfied with the status quo but desired some form of collective representation. When the authors explored the reasons why the unorganized did not take steps to change the situation they found that "most believe that management will not voluntarily give them more voice and representation than they currently have." Most believe that "management will actively resist employee attempts to establish the one form of independent workplace organization nominally encouraged by US labour law--unions."

Jeannette Gabriel, United States, 11/1/00 - Union Democracy is Key

It doesn't matter how many statistics we accumulate and books we write if we don't confront the internal crisis of business unionism. There are many union members who challenge the leadership for being undemocratic and unable and unwilling to negotiate good contracts. This is an important and necessary criticism. What is wrong with the structure of the unions that they cannot respond to the members needs? It is that we have bad leaders? Or is it a deeper, more structural problem with the structure of business unionism? This is a valuable and necessary discussion and I would urge member of the list not to ignore it.

I strongly agree with Brother Perez that an open and frank discussion is needed about what is wrong with the union movement. We must be honest with ourselves in order to figure out how to build a real union movement that can respond not just to its members needs, but to all working people in society. I am a rank and file activist in NYC and a grad student at the labour studies program at Rutgers. I don't have much credentials to throw around and I haven't written a book. But I am actively engaged with union organizers every day who are fighting back against their unions and seeking to build a real union movement. I am also seeking historical models of moments where unions really met their potential instead of cutting deals with management and becoming indistinguishable from the bosses. During the 1930s there were city-wide workers movements that developed across the United States that offered an alternative to craft and industrial unionism.

I would urge us not to cut ourselves off from rank and file concerns. There are REAL internal problems in the union movement that cannot be ignored.

Darien Fenton, Service & Food Workers Union, New Zealand, 11/1/00 - Union Democracy

Many union movements (particularly in the developed countries) are facing deep problems with survival and struggling to understand what it needs/takes to rebuild a strong movement.

Here in NZ we have suffered under the harsh constraints of a law introduced in 1990 that was intended to destroy unions. Over the past nine years, unions that have survived have had to face this question - and the question will continue and answers sought, even under a more union friendly government.

Organizers (and members) fighting back against their own unions - too often, union organizations are places that are not particularly safe to have strong opinions about what needs to change - where organizing staff that have ideas are ignored or isolated by others who prefer to stay in their comfort zone and where union members are actively discouraged in becoming too active - because staffers think they are too stupid and simply incapable of doing things for themselves.

For me, the underlying problem of business unionism is just this - the development of union institutions over the past decades who employ "experts" who know everything, do everything and get their enjoyment out of having personal victories with bosses.

A recent experience highlights the difference where a group of low paid, part-time and casual workers were facing contracting out, with the loss of all of their jobs. They could apply for jobs with the contractor, but with no guarantee of success. For our union, this was in an area where contracting out had not previously occurred and so this issue was of vital importance. The organizer assigned told me that the workers were not up to a fight - that they were only interested in redundancy pay and was making sure they got everything they were entitled to.

A different organizer met with the workers, spent an hour talking with them, having them write down how they felt about what was happening, got them talking about what was possible and what they could do. Over the next two weeks, those workers picketed, signed petitions, wore stickers and finally walked off the job and held a march. Member leaders emerged who are now active in the workplace and the industry, their confidence in themselves has grown and they are staunch in sticking up for each other.

The purpose of this story is to demonstrate the difference between how many paid staff in NZ see their jobs. The first as an "advocate", whose job is just to make sure that the workers got their legal entitlements and the second an "organizer" who saw her job as motivating and inspiring the workers to take on the issue, to build leadership among the members and to help the workers build power for themselves.

Not that there isn't a job to do in ensuring workers get their entitlements. The difference is I suppose, how much faith we have in workers ability to make their own decisions and actively pursue their issues, or how much we assume that they are not interested or willing.

I agree it starts with ourselves. We must be willing to look openly and honestly at our unions, to listen to members and workers views and to take real risks in making changes that will build more worker-driven unions.

Zvi Galor, Israel, 12/1/00 - Trade Unions and Employment

It is a long time situation, in many countries, that workers are members of trade unions as long as they are wage earners. This generalizing statement wishes not to say that this situation is everywhere, but rather that where this is not the case, it is an exception. A worker, when losing his job, in his most difficult time, is no more a member of his union, when especially he needs this support. I would like to propose a discussion subject relating to the role of trade unions in the creation of employment. I feel that this issue has a relative high priority, not only in developed world but also in the emerging world, especially to Trade Unions movements in these countries which are needed so much to cope with the issue of unemployment as well as with the issue of underemployment.

Linden Lewis, Bucknell University, United States, 12/1/00 - Trade Unions and Employment

My comments on unions and employment refer mainly to the Caribbean but may resonate with other parts of the so-called Third World.

It seems to me as though some trade unions do not actively or aggressively think about the issue of job creation as much as they are preoccupied, understandably so perhaps, with job retention and matters of job security. To me also, not many Caribbean unions are particularly interested in organizing the unemployed for a host of reasons, some of which have been mentioned in earlier discussions in this conference.

I would like to raise another issue related to employment and job creation, which is perplexing for some Caribbean unions, this applies to employment in Export Processing Zones (EPZs). I am sure that most people involved in this conference are aware of the conditions under which people reproduce themselves in these EPZs. My concern is why are some trade unions prepared to look the other way when violations of health standards, occupational safety, and other types of industrial arrangements occur. Ironically, some of the same trade unions which are not prepared to challenge these violations in the EPZs would not tolerate such flagrant abuses in the wider society. Resistance is left to be mounted from within the EPZs by some of the most vulnerable of workers. It seems to me that two issues need to be addressed seriously and urgently. First, does the trade union movement find itself in a contradictory location with respect to EPZs? My concern here has to do with trade unions not wanting to opposed the idea of providing jobs in areas of high unemployment, while simultaneously recognizing that such employment is highly exploitative and problematic from a union perspective. Or is this a simple capitulation in the face of increasing peripheralization?

Second, and perhaps even more disturbing is what appears to be the complicity of Caribbean (and indeed other) states in the undermining of trade union practices and legitimacy. As everyone knows, EPZs are off limits to trade unions and trade union activity. It may or may not be known to some in this conference, that in the Caribbean, many political parties have emerged out of trade unions and some trade unions have been established from within political parties. Given this history, is it merely political pragmatism or economic expediency, which allows states in the region to accept such forms of job creation, even though they are inimical to their own established trajectories of industrial relations. Is it more important to political survival, for instance, to be able to boast at election time, of being able to create jobs, irrespective of their impact on the human condition? In short, does the peripheral capitalist state have any autonomy in the forging of alliances of this nature, which run contrary to the well-being of working class people, especially women? Could it also be that answers to such questions must start from an examination of the political economy of global capital rather than in purely national terms? It seems to me that the global and the national are so intertwined that separating the two could be more difficult than it appears on the surface and that national or domestic considerations may already be predicated on the position of these economies in the global economic order.

Finally, with regard to the issue of union democracy, one of the issues we have not yet addressed is the role of the charismatic union leader who personalizes power, privatizes decision making, and monopolizes all forms of organization knowledge - the impact of which is the creation of an authoritarian environment within the union itself. This situation leads to another dilemma for the union - how to police and ensure democratic participation for an organization which conceives of itself as one of the guardians of democracy.

Jeannette Gabriel, United States - 12/1/ 2000 - Union Democracy is Key

It doesn't matter how many statistics we accumulate and books we write if we don't confront the internal crisis of business unionism. There are many union members who challenge the leadership for being undemocratic and unable and unwilling to negotiate good contracts. This is an important and necessary criticism. What is wrong with the structure of the unions that they cannot respond to the members needs? It is that we have bad leaders? Or is it a deeper, more structural problem with the structure of business unionism? This is a valuable and necessary discussion and I would urge members of the list not to ignore it.

I strongly agree with Brother Perez that an open and frank discussion is needed about what is wrong with the union movement. We must be honest with ourselves in order to figure out how to build a real union movement that can respond not just to its members needs, but to all working people in society. I am a rank and file activist in NYC and a grad student at the labour studies program at Rutgers. I don't have much credentials to throw around and I haven't written a book. But I am actively engaged with union organizers every day who are fighting back against their unions and seeking to build a real union movement. I am also seeking historical models of moments where unions really met their potential instead of cutting deals with management and becoming indistinguishable from the bosses. During the 1930s there were city-wide workers movements that developed across the United States that offered an alternative to craft and industrial unionism.

I would urge us not to cut ourselves off from rank and file concerns. There are REAL internal problems in the union movement that cannot be ignored.

Robert Durbridge, Australian Education Union, Australia, 12/1/2000 - "Social Movement" Unionism

Perceptions of union members are often negative and democratic accountability is important. It is hardly surprising that wealthy bureaucracies staffed by professionals with internal career paths and links to the interests of political parties to which the interests of members are perceived as being subsumed would be treated by members with anything but suspicion, if not hostility. After all, they are paying for it.

As at least some of this spat seems to be about Australia, the conventional wisdom in unions about the period of agreements between the peak union council, the ACTU, and the Labour Party in Government in Australia between 1983 and 1996, known as the Accords, supports that view. The research from a number of sectors of the movement shows that union members came to see their unions as part of the problem and were alienated from them, and from the ALP.

The defeat of the ALP government then became inevitable, although the party took a long time to realise that its alienation from its core constituency was a powerful factor as compared to the superficialities of swinging voters in marginal electorates driven by polling.

At the time to criticise the Accords was treated as tantamount to treachery. It was a great agreement to make with a right wing Labour party in government and stands the test of time well. The problem was that while the initial agreements contained much that was sought by unions, commitments were only partially delivered and the agreement was modified over time. It became an electoral gimmick and a means of disciplining labour to the increasingly right wing policies of the Labour in office as it implemented its version of the then conventional international economic orthodoxy. The obvious question is whether entering any sort of agreement is an original sin which inevitably leads to downfall. My answer is that it depends on how well the wider labour movement can maintain its militancy and independence.

The response to members disillusionment has been a focus on organizing in the workplace and union reform across all factions. While this is necessary it has been to the neglect of seriously tackling the labour movement's independent role in policy development. While organizational reform is long overdue, the capacity of the movement to rebuild depends on developing support for policies which are in the interests of working people regardless of media and poll-driven preoccupations of the political parties, including Labour.

Union activism depends not only on reforming union structures for accountability and to sponsor membership activity but on a clear social project in alliance with other forces...known in Canada as "social movement" unionism.

Where unions have formed such alliances in Australia, the movement has won disputes and defeated governments. The campaigns for the withdrawal of anti-union federal laws, the support for independence of East Timor and the defeat of the conservative Kennet government in the state of Victoria in late 1999 deserve mention, on top of the seminal defence of the maritime union against corporate and state power.

For unions such as my own in the public education sector, such alliances are fairly obvious as we work with communities and parents against school closures and system cuts in alliance with other public service-related organizations.

Confronting conservative governments and global corporations has meant that the union movement in Australia at least has had to re-learn some of the skills it needs to fight against attempts to win back previous gains. One of our needs in the coming period is to better clarify what we are fighting for.

Combined with reshaping unions as activist social organizations this should produce a more effective and independent union movement. This should stand us in good stead for the next round of corporatist pressures as Labour governments are being re-elected in major states and hopefully nationally.

Linda MacKenzie-Nicholas, Northumberland Labour Council, Canada, 12/1/00, Union Democracy is Key

I don't know if workers/members don't want what's fair. The feedback I often receive while organizing is many people don't like the term"fight"- even though that is what we need to do. But they certainly support arguing for what's fair. To me the problem is we have to continue to find a way to communicate to our members as much as possible- the goal being daily. You can't build trust, I don't feel, if there is poor communication. And with constant communication with the members, this communication can be used as an organizing educational and mobilizing tool. Our biggest problem with communication is finding the money to do it.

We were able to bargain paid time by the employer for communication(Union controlled), in my previous workplace. After a year or so, the rank and file even came to the union to ask for a petition to go around to be send to our provincial government representatives to oppose the proposed changes to our workers compensation in Ontario. Later, other rank and file members came and suggested we meet with our federal representative to declare our opposition to Unemployment Insurance changes.

Our workplace has been closed since April, 1998. Recently, we have experienced more closures in the area where we live. My former co-workers- who are now working elsewhere, contacted me - because they feel people are not as concerned as they should be with job loss of good jobs and they wanted to put pressure on politicians to make this issue a bigger priority. We organized a rally for jobs. They participated in the rally as well.

These are not members who held union positions.

Most of us are afraid with losing our jobs - for sure- and for good reason- and the battle to continue to provide a decent living for our families is very stressful and a priority for all of us.

But if we can communicate regularly to our members on issues, what our objectives are on all of our behalf, members will participate and come forward with ideas. That has been my experience.

Satendra Pasad, 12/1/00 - Trade Unions and Employment: Reversing the Rules

Trade unions should squarely face the challenge of seeking to reverse the regulatory and policy regimes that throw up obstacles to organizing and successful campaigning in the first place.

There are small lessons for international unionism from the Fiji Islands where the trade union movement which has been similarly on the receiving end of a decade and more of harsh neoliberal

reforms. Its trade union movement has literally taken control of government.

In its first six months of government, it has rolled back privatisation in the main sectors, reviewed existing labour laws, promoted unionism in no-go sectors such as the export processing garment, textiles and footwear enterprises owned by multinationals etc.

Politics, I think holds the key to organized labours struggles in this era of globalization.

Organized labour should therefore think more carefully about the factors that restrict its ability to directly influence government, and explore new options and strategies to directly increase its political influence - both nationally and internationally.

Gilbert Renard, ILO, Switzerland, 12/1/00 - Trade Unions and Employment

I would like to support the proposal made by Mr. Zvi Galor, Academic Director, The International Institute - Histadrut, Israel (his