Does Strike Action Stimulate Trade Union Membership Growth?

Date01 March 2017
AuthorAndy Hodder,Mark Williams,Nick McCarthy,John Kelly
Published date01 March 2017
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12188
British Journal of Industrial Relations doi: 10.1111/bjir.12188
55:1 March 2017 0007–1080 pp. 165–186
Does Strike Action Stimulate Trade
Union Membership Growth?
Andy Hodder, Mark Williams, John Kelly
and Nick McCarthy
Abstract
Most of the literature on strikes has addressed one of four issues: causation,
variation between sectors and countries, trends over time and the relationship
between strikes and other forms of collective and individual protest. Very little
research has addressed the equally important questions of strike outcomes and
trade union membership despite the substantial body of research on the causes
of trade union membership decline and strategies for membership growth. In
this paper we reverse the usual sequence of trade union membership as a causal
factor in the genesis of strikes and examine the impact of strikes on trade union
membership levels.After setting out the relevant theory and hypotheses, weuse a
unique seven-year dataset of trade union membership joiners and leavers from a
major British trade union with a substantial recordof strike activity. Controlling
for other possible determinants of trade union membership, we find that months
in which there is strike action, whether national or local, are associated with a
significantly higher rate of membership growth, measured both by the number
of joiners and by the ratio of joiners to leavers. Data from new union members
suggest that perceived injustice and perceived union eectiveness both motivate
the decision to join.
1. Introduction
Scholars of strike action have often deployed trade union membership as
an explanatory variable treating union density as an imperfect proxy for
the resources required to organize collective action (e.g. Edwards 1986;
Franzosi 1995). In this paper we reverse the normal direction of causation
Andy Hodder is at the University of Birmingham. Mark Williamsis at the University of Surrey.
John Kelly is at the University of London. Nick McCarthy is at the Public and Commercial
Services Union.
C
2016 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.
166 British Journal of Industrial Relations
and ask whether strike action can stimulate trade union membership by
encouraging non-members to join. Throughout Western Europe, including
the UK, employees are free to join or not to join a union even where
the union collectively bargains on their behalf. Most unionized workplaces
therefore comprise a mix of union members and free riders and it is the
latter that comprise the focus of this paper. Much of the strikes literature
has focussed on four main issues: the causes of strikes, trends over time,
variations between countries and the relationship between strikes and other
forms of protest (e.g. Dix et al. 2009; Edwards and Hyman 1994; Hyman
1989; Kelly 2015; van der Velden et al. 2007). A few scholars have examined
outcomes in relation to worker demands (e.g. Lyddon 2009) and the social
organization of strikes themselves (e.g. Batstone et al. 1978; Franzosi 1982;
Hartley et al. 1983; Hiller 1928). Whilst strike activity has declined recently
(Godard 2011; Piazza 2005; Shalev 1992), the strike still remains an important
aspect of contemporary industrial relations because of its disruptivepotential.
However, the connections, if any, between strike activity and trade union
membership remain seriously under-researched, which is curious given the
scale of union decline and the potential for collective action to increase union
membership.
From a peak of aroundthirteen million in 1979, UK union membership has
declined to approximately 6.4 million by 2014, with a density level of 25.0 per
cent (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 2015). Declining union
density is now the most common experience across the advanced capitalist
world despite a small number of exceptions (Gumbrell-McCormick and
Hyman 2013). A combination of external (economic, legal and socio-political)
and internal (union policy) reasons havebeen advanced to explain this decline.
In response,trade unions began to place renewed emphasis on recruitment and
organizing, particularly in the UK, USA and Australia. Whilst there is much
literature concerning why people join unions (e.g. Klandermans 1984; Van
der Vall 1970; Waddington and Whitston 1997), it is seldom (if ever) linkedto
collective action. The focus of research on organizing has involved conscious
eorts to distinguish between recruitment and organizing, as recruitment
relates solely to membership growth, whereas organizing encompasses this
with a growth in activism and self-organization entrenched into overall union
strategy (McIlroy 2008: 301). Indeed, ‘the question to organize or not to
organize a union . . . is an entirely dierent proposition from joining or not
joining a trade union’ (Mills 1951: 306). In 1998, the TUC created its own
Organizing Academy in order ‘to train a new generation of union organizers
and foster “a culture of organizing” within trade unions’ (Heery et al. 2000:
400). Organizing in the UK has been subject to considerable academic
attention, which has generally found that it has not been as successful in
terms of membership growth as had first been envisaged (Simms et al.
2013).
Whilst mobilization and collective action are central to organizing, there
has been limited research into the impact of collective action alone on
membership growth (notable exceptions include McCarthy 2009 and Cregan
C
2016 John Wiley& Sons Ltd/London School of Economics.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT