This study also considered women’s participation in the NSWTF and representativeness of the union’s decision-making structures given the increasingly feminised profile of the union’s membership and importance of gender democracy (and democracy generally) for union renewal (Colgan and Ledwith 2002). Presently, 78.4 percent of the NSWTF’s members are women (NSWTF Annual Report 2017: 92). This statistic is reflective of the experience of teacher (and other) unions in many other Western democracies where women now comprise a far greater proportion of union membership than ever before (Kirton 2017). Research by Ledwith and Colgan (2002) and Kirton (2015) has highlighted that as workforces and union memberships across the world have become increasingly diverse, more demands have been placed on unions to advance gender democracy throughout their work and structures.
Although the NSWTF developed a Women’s Action Program in 1975 to improve the representation and participation of women in the union’s decision-making structures, challenges have persisted for improving gender democracy. Regarding Annual Conference, during the mid-1980s, women were under-represented in this forum. However, gains have since been made such that now 68.7 percent of Annual Conference delegates are women, although this is still not proportionally representative (NSWTF Annual Report 2017: 93). Similarly, Council in the 1980s was described as “90 percent men and very blokey” (Irving-
106 Former General Secretary; Murphy- Former Deputy President) with only 31 female to 163 male Councillors (Phelan 1981: 42). While there is a perception that Council remains male- dominated today (NSWTF Annual Report 2012; O'Sheades- Former Country Organiser), latest statistics show improvements with 59.5 percent of Councillors now women (NSWTF Annual Report 2017: 93). Similarly, although the percentage of women on Executive was 40 percent in 2012, this statistic was below the 71 percent required to make Executive representative at the time (NSWTF Annual Report 2012: 88).
Despite enduring issues regarding women’s representation in these forums, a policy on proportional representation has never been adopted. The rise of the ‘Women’s Movement’ in the union during the 1970s delivered a push to have all aspects of the union’s structure made representative (Duncan- Former Women’s Coordinator). This was reflective of the broader ‘second wave feminism’ movement occurring from the late 1970s onwards in other countries as women campaigned for equality and gender democracy in the workplace and society more broadly (Kirton 2017). This campaign sparked a “heated” and “protracted debate” (Former senior union official 3) in the union with male figures eliciting “bitter” and “disgruntled” attitudes (Former senior union official 1) towards women (Junor- Former Research Officer; Former Women’s Coordinator; Ferguson- Former Councillor). This reinforces Ledwith and Colgan’s (2002) observations that as unions have adopted specific policies and practices for increasing women’s representation, a common response has been antagonism (by males). For the NSWTF, gender representation by enforcement of “rules” has generally been rejected in favour of building a “culture” of representation “naturally [and] organically” in the NSWTF (Former senior union official 3; Wheatley- Current Country Organiser). However, the effectiveness of this strategy has not appeared to “translate in reality” (Salisbury- Former rank- and-file activist) (evident in the above statistics of women’s mediocre representation in NSWTF forums), with a sense that the union commonly overlooked difficulties women faced in participating, which will be described below (Former senior union official 3; O'Sheades- Former Country Organiser; Current departmental officer; Stavert- Oral History Interview).
The culture, operation and dynamics of the NSWTF’s decision-making forums, particularly Council, were viewed by many female participants in this study as “alienating” towards women (Duncan- Former Women’s Coordinator). Council was described as a “hard…difficult forum” (O’Halloran- Former President) where debate was “hostile” (Current union official 2), “confronting” (Rosicky- Current NSWTF Deputy Secretary), “intimidating” (Shelston- Former Women’s Coordinator) and “unwelcoming to some women” (Former senior union official 3). The “patriarchal and male” (Former union official 2) style of debate of Council was seen as conflicting with more collaborative approaches preferred by women (Former Women’s
107 Coordinator; Former union official 2). During debate, men typically spoke for longer, naturally expected extensions to their speaking time, and were comfortable with repeating arguments (O'Halloran- Former President; Leete- Oral History Interview).
By comparison, women generally spoke less in frequency and duration, wouldn’t repeat an argument, and less frequently sought an extension of time (O'Halloran- Former President; Rosicky- Current NSWTF Deputy Secretary; Leete- Oral History Interview). The practice of needing to “physically stand up out of your seat with your hand raised…then be very, very loud and then talk in the kind of strident, dominant, union kind of voice” (Former Women’s Coordinator) to have a view heard in the debate was seen as “quite daunting” for some women (Former Women’s Coordinator) and thus could affect participation (Duncan- Former Women’s Coordinator; Current departmental officer). This reinforces Kirton and Healy’s (1999) observation that although unions have become more progressive in redressing the gender imbalance in union structures, union cultures have generally remained enduringly patriarchal. To some extent, this could influence the issues given priority by the union. As commented by a former Women’s Coordinator: “It’s hard because within the Federation…you can see yourself [that] those issues are of vital importance for women, but you have to convince other Federation members to give priority to those matters” (Former Women’s Coordinator). These comments from participants reinforce other scholarship which has noted how some women can find the stereotypically masculine culture of unions as a deterrent to participation (Colgan and Ledwith 2002; Kirton 2006 cited in Kirton 2015). Similarly, in Colgan and Ledwith’s (2002) examination of traditional models of union democracy, the scholars highlighted how numerical modifications to union representative structures to encourage women’s participation is necessary but not sufficient and that other forms of participative democracy are required. However, there was general hesitation for the NSWTF to renew the style of Council, with expression from a (male) senior union official that “I don’t think we can successfully change the adversarial nature of some of our forums because we’ve had it so long and it has other positives”46 (Former senior union official 3).
Beyond the style and culture of these forums, women’s participation could also be affected by time and workload pressures and caring responsibilities (Seymour- Former Assistant General Secretary; Shelston- Former Women’s Coordinator; O’Sheades- Former Country Organiser).
46 Although the Independent Education Union (IEU) in 2018 adopted a rule that women will now make
up at least half of all members elected to its federal council branches in order to improve representativeness and participation in state branch structures and union affairs, based on evidence from the NSWTF’s experience, it is questionable whether adopting rules around representation alone will improve women’s participation in union forums and activities (Workplace Express 2018).
108 This reinforces Kirton’s (2015: 487) “well-documented problem” of women’s activism being stifled by caregiving and work responsibilities. Due to caring responsibilities, women could face difficulties in regularly attending Council meetings (held on Saturdays) and Annual Conference (which fell during the school holiday period), with difficulties also exacerbated for women travelling to Head Office from country areas (Seymour- Former Assistant General Secretary; Ainsworth- Former Country Organiser). Having nightly Executive meetings during weekdays was viewed as “not compatible with family life” (Seymour- Former Assistant General Secretary). Additionally, holding Association meetings outside of school hours meant some women with caring responsibilities were “locked out” from attending this forum (Junor- Former Research Officer), which was problematic given that participation in Association meetings was essentially a “stepping stone” (Junor- Former Research Officer) to participation in broader (more influential) union forums (Junor- Former Research Officer; Edsall- Former Welfare Officer; Duncan- Former Women’s Coordinator). These difficulties, however, did not suggest that women “aren’t as committed [or]…don’t want to participate” in union activity (O’Sheades- Former Country Organiser). In fact, it was remarked how some women activists can “juggle it all…[being] up to their necks in campaigns, while balancing teaching and family” (O’Sheades- Former Country Organiser).
There was a sense that given the “typical unionist” in Australian trade unions was now a “female in a white-collar profession” (O’Sheades- Former Country Organiser), the NSWTF needed to revitalise its strategies for improving women’s participation in these forums. Some initiatives implemented over time had been noted, such as encouraging women to attend as Council observers when there was no female Councillor from an Association represented (Rosicky- Current NSWTF Deputy Secretary; French- Oral History Interview; NSWTF Annual Report 1987), or providing child care facilities at union forums (Simpson- Former Assistant General Secretary; Country Organiser 2; Ferguson- Former Councillor). However, while child care was available ‘in principle’, it was observed to not be readily taken up by women (Junor- Former Research Officer; O’Sheades- Former Country Organiser) with an overall sense that sometimes “[the union] forget[s]” about the more systemic challenges facing women’s participation (O’Sheades- Former Country Organiser).
This section of Chapter 5 has examined governance structures as critical to building organisational capacity for teacher unions during neoliberal times where members can shape the strategic direction of the union. It has highlighted the long-standing decision-making structures of the NSWTF as generally facilitating member participation and enabling the union to be responsive to changes in the external environment, which is important in an era where spaces for public, democratic engagement are being restricted (Bascia and Stevenson 2017).
109 While the NSWTF’s governance structures were viewed as largely effective in encouraging member participation in union decision-making, this study also uncovered the importance of facilitating genuine and robust member participation and managing constraints that may inhibit participation. With regard to gender democracy, it also draws attention to the importance of enhancing equality and women’s participation as part of union renewal, particularly in an era where women still remain statistically under-represented in decision-making structures (Kirton 2017).