Organizing for partnership: the influence of the American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organisations on the British Trades Union Congress 1995–2005

Abstract

The influence of the ‘organizing model’ of trade unionism developed in America by the American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) on strategies to rebuild British trade unionism is often remarked. Scholars typically distinguish between adversarial organizing and collaborative partnership with employers as competing roads to union revitalization. This article demonstrates that the British Trades Union Congress (TUC) borrowed organizing principles, techniques and animating aphorisms from America, but not a model of trade unionism. The novelty of organizing lay more in its orchestration and recycling of familiar ideas than in its originality. In the hands of conservative leaders, organizing and partnership are not necessarily distinctive approaches. In Britain, as in America, organizing was proposed as a means to achieve partnership, not to prosecute conflict between capital and labour or create more democratic unions. It proved unsuccessful because of lack of resources, employer resistance and New Labour's unwillingness to provide a sufficiently pro-union public policy.

Notes

^2. Gall, “Union Organizing,” 1, 5; Fairbrother and Yates, “Unions in Crisis,” 18, 20 and Daniels, “In the Field,” 270–1.

^1. See McIlroy, Trade Unions in Britain Today.

^3. Kirk, “Transnational Labor History,” 18–22.

^4. This article neglects reciprocity and multiple circulations of ideas between movements. It does not examine the influence the Australian, New Zealand and other movements had on Britain. This requires future address, although in reporting on contacts with the Australians the British concluded that they, too, ‘borrowed the US model’: TUC, 1996a, 11.

^5. See Moody, An Injury to All, 17–69.

^6. See Bronfenbrenner et al., Organizing to Win and Milkman and Voss, Rebuilding Labor.

^7. Bronfenbrenner et al.; Milkman and Voss.

^8. Bronfenbrenner, “American Labor Movement,” 33.

^9. Stepan-Norris and Zeitlin, Left Out, 1–20; Preis, Labor's Giant Step.

^10. Waldinger et al., “Helots No More,” 102–19 and Buhle, Taking Care of Business, 244–65.

^11. Moody, US Labor in Trouble and Transition, 129–32.

^12. Matsios, “What Does Labor Stand For?,” 52; Buhle, Taking Care of Business, 244–65 and Sweeney and Kusnet, America Needs a Raise.

^14. Wright Mills, New Men of Power, 9.

^13. Lewis was formed in the hard school of the mines. Reuther's early socialist alignments and travel in Europe and Russia still marked him in later years. What Hoffa learned from the Trotskyists, particularly Farrell Dobbs, he turned to very different purposes later in life: ‘Hoffa's public speeches and private conversations still give Dobbs credit for the institutional framework and imaginative ideas which have grown famous as Hoffa's collective bargaining hallmarks.’ James and James, Hoffa and the Teamsters, 28–9.

^15. Aronowitz, False Promises, 258.

^16. Piore, “Unions: A Reorientation to Survive,” 327–8.

^17. Masters and Jones, “Hard and Soft Sides,” 297–327; Moody, Trouble and Transition, 143–68.

^18. Milkman and Voss, Rebuilding Labor, 4, 11; Towers, “Comparison and Prospects,” 188; Aronowitz, “Labor on Trial,” 12–6.

^19. Cohen, Ramparts of Resistance, 200, quoting an SEIU pamphlet and Stern, A Country that Works.

^20. Cohen, Ramparts, 154.

^21. Fletcher and Hurd, “Beyond the Organizing Model,” 53.

^22. See, for example, AFL-CIO, The New American Workplace.

^23. Moody, Trouble and Transition, 188–9, Early, The Civil Wars in US Labor, passim.

^24. Lustig, “New Leadership and its Discontents.”

^25. When Stern retired in 2010 he drew criticism for joining a company, SIGA, owned by a private equity firm and accepting a university post endowed by an entrepreneur he had negotiated with for the SEIU: see, Mike Elk, ‘Andy Stern Responds to Critics of His Post-SEIU Career’, inthesetimes.com/working/entry/13605is-andy-stern-selling-o'; Alec MacGillis, ‘The Inscrutable Mr Stern’, New Republic, August 6 2012.

^26. Moody, Trouble and Transition, 184, 196 and Early, Civil Wars, passim. http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/unitehere-write-to-unison-about-seiu-html

^27. Clark and Gray, “Administrative Practice in American Unions,” 42–55.

^28. Bronfenbrenner, “American Labor Movement,” 48.

^29. Lopez, “Overcoming Legacies of Business Unionism,” 114–32.

^30. Milkman and Voss, Rebuilding Labor, 7.

^31. Sharpe, “Union Democracy and Successful Campaigns,” 68.

^32. Lustig, “New Leadership and its Discontents,” 8.

^33. TUC, 1996a, 11 and TUC, 1996b, 52–4.

^34. TUC, 1998, 57.

^35. TUC, 1996a, 6 and TUC 1997a, 40.

^36. Taylor, TUC, 262.

^37. Taylor, Future of Trade Unions, 224.

^38. TUC, 1996a, 12.

^40. Monks, 1993, 233; TUC, 1993, 365 and TUC, 1998, 73.

^39. McIlroy and Daniels, “Anatomy of British Trade Unionism … Strategies for Revitalization,” 98–99 and Kleiner, “Follow the Leader,” 198–212.

^41. Taylor, TUC, 262–3 and TUC, 1999, 62.

^42. Mitchell, “From Whitehall to Brussels,” 39–42.

^43. Murray, New Labour Nightmare, 96.

^44. See Coats, Raising Lazarus. O'Grady was Head of Organization from 1998 and subsequently Deputy General Secretary to Barber who succeeded Monks in 2002.

^45. TUC, 1997b and TUC, 1998, 73–4.

^46. Heery, “Partnership versus Organizing,” 31 and TUC, 1999, 62.

^47. Mason and Bain, “Trade Union Recruitment Strategies,” 44.

^48. TUC, 1997a, 59–65 and TUC, 2001, 53.

^49. TUC, 1997a, 42.

^50. TUC, 1998, 54.

^51. TUC, 1998, 55.

^52. TUC, 1998, 28.

^53. TUC, 1997a, 41.

^54. TUC, 1997a, 39–42 and TUC, 1998, 59.

^55. TUC, 1998, 60.

^56. TUC staff did not simply articulate policies developed by affiliates: they were proactive, formulating policies with leading general secretaries and projecting them in discussions with government. The TUC is not affiliated to the Labour Party. Some, by no means all, affiliates are linked with Labour, and TUC staff, overwhelmingly Labour supporters, avoid debates about political representation at Congress while representing union views to Labour politicians.

^57. TUC, 1999, 11.

^58. Heery, “Partnership,” 28.

^59. TUC, 1999, 62.

^60. Ibid. Soundbite, ‘anger, hope, action model’, stands in for explanation.

^61. Heery, “Partnership,” 28.

^62. See McIlroy et al., The High Tide of British Trade Unionism.

^63. McIlroy, “Ten Years of New Labour,” 293–8.

^65. TUC, 2008, 5.

^64. TUC 1996a, 11.

^66. Murray, New Labour Nightmare, 61–2.

^67. Waddington and Whitston, “Why Do People Join Unions?,” 529–37; Willman and Bryson, Accounting for Collective Action.

^68. Cohen, Ramparts, 121–2.

^69. McIlroy and Daniels, “Anatomy of British Trade Unionism … Organization, Structure,” 143–4.

^70. Lustig, “New Leadership,” 8.

^71. Monks, quoted in Taylor, TUC, 267–8.

^72. Undy et al., Change in Trade Unions, 163–6, 349–50.

^73. Campbell and McIlroy, Getting Organized, 117.

^74. See, for example, Burns and Doyle, Democracy at Work; Hurd, Your Employers' Profits; MacShane, Using the Media; McIlroy, Strike!; Taylor and Fyrth, Political Action. In the USA, the line stretches back at least to Steuben's, Strike Strategy. One can still distil relevant and inspiring working principles from texts analysing strikes and campaigns, notably Dobbs, Teamster Rebellion and its sequels Teamster Power and Teamster Bureaucracy . The development of Hoffa, ‘Dobbs’ prize pupil' who cut his teeth in these campaigns demonstrates how principles can be sanitized and turned to conservative purposes: Muldea, The Hoffa Wars, 28–33.

^75. La Botz, Troublemaker's Handbook. It carried a foreword by Genora Johnson, veteran of the organizing struggles of the 1930s and exemplar of the socialist politics that facilitated success in key disputes.

^76. Carter, “Trade Union Organizing,” 415; Heery, “Partnership,” 26; Fairbrother and Yates, “Unions in Crisis,” 19.

^77. Heery, “Partnership,” 27 and McIlroy and Daniels, “Anatomy … Strategies for Revitalization,” 107.

^78. Simms and Charlwood, “Trade Unions: Power and Influence,”, 139 and Heery et al., “Union Organizing,” 996.

^79. Campbell and McIlroy, Getting Organized, 92.

^80. Ibid., 90.

^81. McIlroy, Strike, 110.

^82. Heery, “Partnership,” 32.

^83. Heery et al., “Union Organizing,” 1004. Academics applied ‘managed activism’ specifically to organizing to describe full-time officers allocating resources in organizing, a process which may be contested. But it applies to trade unionism and full-time officer-lay representative interaction generally, with union staff stimulating action in some cases, moulding it in others, and defusing it when they believe that necessary. This affirms that organizing takes place within broader parameters of power. Moreover, if workers are genuinely empowered why should they need – or accept – managing?

^84. Hyman, Understanding European Trade Unionism, passim, particularly 60–3.

^85. De Turberville, “Does the ‘Organizing Model’ Represent a Credible Union Renewal Strategy?”, 780; and see Moody, US Labor and Early, Civil Wars.

^86. TUC, 1996b, 61 and O'Grady and Nowak, “Beyond New Unionism,” 150.

^87. ‘But when Joe Hill said, “Don't Mourn Boys, Organize”, he didn't mean, “Get Out Your To-Do Lists.”’ Lustig, “New Leadership,” 8. Monks later became an adviser to the insurance and investment corporation Arbejdsmarkedets Tillaegspension. http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/07/10/lords-for-hire

^88. Heery, “Partnership,” 32–3.

^89. Ibid.

^90. See Daniels and McIlroy, Trade Unions and Kelly, “Social Partnership Agreements,” 257–292.

^91. For ‘the awkward squad’ see, McIlroy and Daniels, “Anatomy…: Organisation,” 147–9.

^92. TUC, 2005, 47–8.

^93. For assessment of individual unions which is beyond the scope of this essay, see Daniels, “In the Field,” 259–66.

^94. TUC, 1996b, 54 and TUC, 2007, 19.

^95. Department of Employment Gazette and Labour Market Trends for relevant years.

^96. Brown et al., Evolution of the Modern Workplace, 78–81.

^97. McIlroy and Daniels, “Anatomy … Revitalization,” 112–118.

^98. TUC, 2000, 14 and TUC, 2001, 50.

^99. Bain, Growth of White-Collar Trade Unionism.

^100. www.saferneedles.org.uk page = 51+id = 3.

^101. Comment based on the author's work with the TGWU in Liverpool and Manchester.

^102. Notably the inquiry into structure and purpose launched by George Woodcock in 1962: Taylor, TUC, 143–55.

^103. See, for example, Gall, Union Organizing. All contributors supported revitalized trade unionism, ibid, 242, but there is little expansion on what this entailed. The contradictions between organizing and partnership are referred to – but there is little critical assessment of TUC policy.

^104. Lustig, “New Leadership;” Moody, U.S. Labor and De Turberville “Organizing Model”.

^105. Fairbrother, Unions at the Crossroads; Carter “Trade Union Organizing and Renewal.” For a critique of earlier versions of this model see Gall, “Prospects for Workplace Trade Unionism.”

^106. Kelly, “Social Partnership Agreements” and McIlroy and Croucher, “British Trade Unions and the Academics.”

^107. Kleiner, “Follow the Leader,” 200.

^108. O'Grady and Nowak, “Beyond New Unionism,” 153.