Making Unions Meaningful to the Typical Member - labor unions, Canada

Some years ago, I studied the factors affecting two Canadian unions' women's committees' ability to increase women's participation in union decision making. Prior to the study, I had believed unions to be the primary democratizing force in the workplace because their power and representativeness ensured workers' concerns would be voiced and addressed. Now, although union power has eroded and I am much more realistic (as a result of the study) about the limits on unions' ability to represent their members' interests, I remain convinced that workers are better off with union representation. However, in my opinion, union structures and practices must be adapted to enable unions to respond to the changing needs of their members.

There is a great deal of evidence that the composition of the labour force is changing as a result of demographic and social trends, and globalization. Some of the changes include more women, more mothers, more single parents, more minorities and more part-time and temporary workers. As the labour force changes, so does the profile of the "typical" union member. No longer is he white, male, and married with a stay-at-home wife looking after the children. Unfortunately, union traditions, practices and procedures generally appear to be continuing to serve this mythical member. The consequences are easy to see. Increasingly, dues-paying members are questioning whether they're getting the returns they expected from unionization. Unions are having to fight harder to retain the loyalty of a membership that may be more inclined to form partnerships with management in an effort to resolve their problems. Organizing younger workers is becoming more difficult because their part-time work experience while going to scho ol has often left them frustrated with collective agreements that limit the number of hours they can work or their pay and promotion opportunities, because they lack seniority.

In truth, it was much easier for unions to carry out their function when the membership was more homogeneous. Unions are democratic institutions, so majorities rule. When the membership consists of a disparate mix of interest groups - all wanting their concerns to be addressed - and resources are limited so that not all interests can be satisfied, then any decision made will disappoint many people. The solution appears to be to let consensus emerge, but that is along, drawn-out process that is also frustrating for many of those awaiting change. And unfortunately, as I discovered in carrying out the study previously mentioned, structures and practices are frequently impediments to change.

I will conclude this essay with a few examples of how union structures impeded the women's committees' ability to carry out their formal mandate - to increase women's participation in union decision making. These structures could create similar problems for any other interest group trying to secure change. What is insidious about them is that while their intent was not to foster male dominance within the union, they nonetheless did so. For that reason, all union structures need to be scrutinized carefully to ensure that they do not simply reinforce the status quo, which serves an increasingly smaller proportion of the membership.

The first major problem in one of the unions was that, in an effort to be fair, different occupational groupings that varied greatly in size but were gender-typed (with the female-dominated groupings by far the larger in size but the fewer in number), were all given one vote at the executive leadership table. This effectively meant that the male occupational groupings made the decisions in the union even though they represented a minority of the membership. The only way the female members' wishes could prevail was if they could secure sufficient male support for their initiatives.

Both women's committees were set up as advisory committees, which meant that the executive leaderships of the unions (which were both male-dominated) could (and did) control committee budgets and activities. This meant that unless the initiatives being pursued found favour with enough male leaders, they could be crushed before they were ever presented to the membership for approval.

In one of the unions, money was not made available to allow committee members to get time off from work to build grassroots support for women's issues. The importance of grassroots support for achieving change was well-documented in the union that encouraged the women's committee to establish linkages with the grassroots.

Acquiring leadership positions was extremely difficult for women if they had families. Union meetings were held at night, and training conferences and conventions occurred on the weekends. Childcare was frequently unavailable and husbands, if present, were often involved in the union too. Non-attendance was considered evidence of lack of interest in union affairs and attending these union events was prerequisite to becoming an activist and future leader.

Women felt that they were not welcomed onto negotiating committees, or indeed onto any other decision making body. Hence their participation was limited and there were few proponents willing to speak up on behalf of women's issues.

There are numerous other examples that could be recounted but I believe the point has been made - structures and practices can be major impediments to change. On a positive note, eventually both committees were able to secure a number of gains for women and to achieve structural reforms as well. But it took enormous amounts of effort, persistence, political smarts and conviction, and consensus around the issues had to be developed from the grassroots up.

The main finding of the study was that a mobilized membership could substantially influence leadership actions. I therefore believe that the greatest responsibility for union transformation for the 21st century lies with union members themselves. At a minimum, they must start to attend union meetings so they can participate in decision-making about union priorities and future strategies. Union leaders must, through member-directed education, prepare their memberships to fulfill their role in a responsible fashion. Unless this happens, the Canadian labour movement and workers themselves may face a grim future.

Janice Foley is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Administration at the University of Regina.

COPYRIGHT 2001 Briarpatch, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group