An Analysis of Workplace Representatives, Union Power and Democracy in Australia
| Date | 01 December 2009 |
| Author | David Peetz,Barbara Pocock |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00736.x |
| Published date | 01 December 2009 |
An Analysis of Workplace
Representatives, Union Power and
Democracy in Australiabjir_736623..652
David Peetz and Barbara Pocock
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to illuminate the views and experiences of work-
place representatives in Australia in the context of falling union density, and to
analyse factors that are most strongly associated with subjective union power at
the workplace level, as perceived by delegates. The analysis relies on a large
random survey of workplace delegates in eight significant Australian unions.
The article describes the situation broadly facing delegates as shown by the
survey and analyses a set of factors associated with the power of workers as
perceived by delegates. We find that higher levels of reported activism among
delegates are strongly associated with greater subjective union power. We also
find that self-reported delegate confidence is also strongly associated with
perceptions of higher union power, as is delegate’s clarity about their roles. The
data also show a strong association between perceptions of democracy within
the union and union power. Support for delegates from the union office and
organizers is also associated with higher levels of union power at the local level.
The analysis provides some support for union renewal strategies associated with
the ‘organizing model’ as applied in Australia and some other Anglo-Saxon
countries that aim to increase the activism of workplace delegates through
education, the provision of support for workplace delegates and more demo-
cratic union structures.
1. Introduction
The last part of the twentieth century saw falls in union density throughout
industrialized countries including the United States, the United Kingdom,
New Zealand and Australia (Fairbrother and Yates 2003). Falls in union
power and resources accompanied these falls in density. A number of
David Peetz is at the Centre for Work, Organisation and Wellbeing, Griffith University. Barbara
Pocock is at the Centre for Work +Life, University of South Australia.
British Journal of Industrial Relations doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00736.x
47:4 December 2009 0007–1080 pp. 623–652
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2009. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Australian unions responded to this crisis by adopting organizing strategies
that amount to a greater focus upon new membership growth and workplace
activism, and a lesser focus on the servicing of existing members. This ‘orga-
nizing approach’ was strongly fostered by the labour movement’s single peak
council, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). With many varia-
tions, this ‘shift to organizing’ has also had salience in some unions in the
United States, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom (Fairbrother
2005; Heery et al. 2000).
The conceptualization and analysis of an organizing approach has not
been without controversy in the international literature (Carter 2006, de
Turberville 2004, 2007). Its characteristics have differed in practice between
countries, and between and even within unions in particular countries (Carter
and Cooper 2002; Peetz et al. 2007). However, an ‘organizing approach’ is
more than a ‘useful rhetorical device’ (de Turberville 2004: 776). It suggests a
union strategy that is focused on workplace activism and membership
growth, as contrasted to a form of unionism that provides services to existing,
dependent member-clients (Bronfenbrenner et al. 1998; Labor Research
Review 1991). The organizing approach is generally taken to mean union
strategy that embodies a pivotal role for workplace union delegates (repre-
sentatives) in activating members, recruiting and thus reviving union mem-
bership (Bronfenbrenner et al. 1998; Carter and Cooper 2002; Ellem 2002;
Erickson et al. 2002; Findlay and McKinlay 2003). The organizing literature
— whether analytical (de Turberville 2004) or prescriptive (Crosby 2002,
2005) — emphasizes the essential role that workplace activists play in recruit-
ing new members, creating a strong positive profile for unions in the work-
place and leading local activism. Among other things, delegates in this model
release organizers and other full-time union officers to increase organizing
and recruitment efforts in non-unionized sites. Thus, workplace union dele-
gates are central to union renewal (Crosby 2005; Oxenbridge 1997).
This article examines the situation of workplace delegates in Australia. We
analyse the relationship between the perceptions and experience of workplace
delegates and perceptions of union power — ‘subjective power’ — in the
workplace. Our analysis has two purposes. First, we aim to illuminate, after
a decade of active discussion about union renewal and steps towards an
organizing approach in Australia, the current state of workplace delegate
structures and perceptions. Second, and more importantly, we aim to inves-
tigate the relationship between the characteristics of workplace delegates and
perceived power, and whether the features of an organizing strategy as they
exist at the workplace level — including more training, support and activism
by local workplace representatives — are associated with greater subjective
union power.
This investigation is relevant to the discussion about union strategy (Heery
and Kelly 1994). In analysing what paid officers in UK unions do, based on
data collected in two waves (1980s and 2002), Heery (2006) contrasts ‘agency’
and ‘articulation’ union strategies. In the former, union officers’ activities
and action are driven by their different characteristics, values and
624 British Journal of Industrial Relations
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2009.
To continue reading
Request your trial