An International Study of Trade Union Involvement in Community Organizing: Same Model, Different Outcomes
| Published date | 01 September 2015 |
| Date | 01 September 2015 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12098 |
| Author | Jane Holgate |
An International Study of Trade Union
Involvement in Community Organizing:
Same Model, Different Outcomes
Jane Holgate
Abstract
This article reports on a two-year study of union/community organizing in the
UK, USA and Australia. It takes a particular model of organizing — that of the
Industrial Areas Foundation — and analyses trade union engagement in
coalition-building activity in each of the three countries. Findings show mixed
approaches to working with community groups from ad hoc instrumentalism to
deep coalition-building. While these variations may, in part, be explained by
different industrial relations contexts, it appears that the ‘fit’ between ideology
and culture of unions and their coalition partners, as well as the practices and
strategies that reinforce this fit, have much greater effect on the attitude and
behaviour of unions towards non-workplace-based organizing. The article con-
tributes to debates about the conditions under which unions succeed (or not) in
sustaining strong coalition-building beyond their traditional constituencies.
1. Introduction
Over the past three decades, we have witnessed trade unions trying to deal
with the social, economic and structural problems that have beset trade union
membership as it slumped across the world. These problems have been
particularly challenging in Anglo-American countries, such as the USA,
Australia and the UK, where, in each, unions have attempted to shift their
focus from servicing existing members to organizing in order to recruit
diverse constituents in new labour markets (Bronfenbrenner et al. 1998;
Crosby 2005; Simms et al. 2012). One approach has been a growing involve-
ment of unions in community-based organising (Holgate 2013a). This ‘com-
munity turn’ is, in part, recognition that (re)organising beyond the workplace
may provide greater opportunities to engage with different groups of workers
Jane Holgate is at Leeds University Business School.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd/London School of Economics. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
British Journal of Industrial Relations
53:2 June 2015 0007–1080 pp. 460–483 doi: 10.1111/bjir.12098
who might otherwise remain outside of the reach of unions (Herod 2001;
Rainnie et al. 2007), as well as recognition that ‘new’ tactical approaches in
local communities, which have wider appeal, may provide unions with
greater opportunities to tap into social and moral concerns held by wider
society — particularly in this period of deep economic crisis (Fine and
Holgate 2014). As such, we have seen the development of more community-
based approaches where unions are working alongside or in coalition with
community-based partners (Fine 2005, 2011; Holgate 2013a; Lévesque and
Murray 2002; Nissen 2004; Osterman 2006; Pocock 2011; Tattersall 2010;
Yates 2011). One of these, and the focus for this research, is the Industrial
Areas Foundation (IAF) — an American-based organization formed in 1940
by Saul Alinsky to bring communities together to organize for the ‘common
good’.
Community organizing1has, by and large, adopted Alinsky’s theoretical
approach, if not always his methods and tactics. At the start, he was influ-
enced by and worked closely with labour unions, most notably the
meatpackers in Chicago where he brought together the Catholic Church and
the union to form his first community organization, Back of the Yards
(Horwitt 1989). Despite this early involvement of trade unionists, labour
unions and the IAF do not have much of a history of working together in
coalition. While union engagement has, overall, been limited, there are a
number of examples where unions and IAF groups have attempted to forge
common ground and invested time and resources in exploring how to work
together. This article compares three of these coalitions: London Citizens
(UK), Sydney Alliance (Australia) and the Seattle-based Sound Alliance
(USA). Findings show that despite similar factors pushing unions to consider
new strategic community alliances, union approaches to working with the
IAF differed across the three cases: while unions in Sydney and Seattle
sought to build deep and sustainable coalitions, unions involved in London
Citizens adopted a more ad hoc instrumentalist approach, only engaging with
the coalition when it was dealing with issues of specific interest to the union.
The aim of this article is to explain these differences in approach. Findings
contribute to debates concerning why some unions are more successful than
others in working effectively in communities beyond the workplace.
2. Building bridges: Unions, other actors and allies beyond the workplace
Industrial relations (IR) researchers have sought to explain why unions are
increasingly motivated to form coalitions with community-based organiza-
tions. The willingness of unions to involve themselves in community orga-
nizing is often driven by declining union membership and the failure to
reverse this, along with the current economic climate that is causing large-
scale scale job losses and deteriorating terms and conditions of employment
(Fine and Holgate 2014; Givan 2007; Holgate 2013a; Tattersall 2005). There
is recognition that unions are politically and industrially weak, and have lost
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd/London School of Economics.
Trade Union Involvement in Community Organizing 461
To continue reading
Request your trial