CONCLUSIONES Y RECOMENDACIONES

participation in the traditional servicing model. In contrast members expect to be active in union matters and act as agents in recruiting others and representing the brand values as espoused by National Division union officials when operating under the organising model. The organising model, first developed in the late 1990s, continues to be used by the ACTU and leading unions, as evidenced by the broad marketing

campaign entitled ‘Organising Works’ – a program set up by the ACTU to deliver well-trained organising officials well versed in industrial relations issues

(Australian Council of Trade Unions, 2016b)2.

An underlying factor in adopting either of these two options, servicing or

organising, is the depth of members’ industrial relations knowledge as it applies to their workplace. Each Higher Education workplace is covered by a local union branch and operates within a web of rules arising from local enterprise agreements, and state and federal legislations, (as an example, the enterprise agreement training pack (National Tertiary Education Union, 2013b) takes up almost 200 pages of précis instructions and complex explanations of diverse issues). Each university must apply the web of rules allowing for the variation between institutions. Branch union officials have their time consumed with casework (The Australian Workers' Union, 2017), which needs individual care by the industrial officer; disputes are difficult in that groups as well as individuals may be party to the dispute. Union representatives (including the industrial officer) need to be well versed in the ‘web of rules’ to represent and protect members. In large

workplaces like universities the lay involvement (such as the Branch members and delegates), has some visibility and has local employees and delegates helping but their assistance is limited by their understanding of the legislation and the enterprise

agreement. However, help in this form is not enough because as membership numbers decline so does the pool of knowledgeable members that can assist especially because application of laws and rules is complex and very context dependent. Union power is weakened because of a diminishing pool of members as a result of unemployment and a reluctance to join (Ellem, 2013). An outcome of a weakened union base is a diminishing capacity to represent members and protect employees, further reducing non-members willingness to join. Therefore, it is vitally important to involve employees in identifying issues they want solved and getting them to join in the process, and part of this process is ensuring delegates have sufficient technical knowledge and the union can provide

2_{Organising Works assists unions to develop trained and competent organisers, capable of delivering}

effective and sustained campaigns. OW aims to provide new organisers with skills and knowledge in: Organising and recruitment;

The workplace relations system and laws; Bargaining and dispute resolution;

Consultation and communication with workers and employers; Identifying and resolving issues of concern to workers;

industrial relations expertise through Industrial Organisers.

Contemporary union movements have endorsed a move away from the servicing model in which members’ expectation is that the union will step in and resolve

workplace issues on their behalf (Cooper, 2001). Researchers (Bowden, 2009; Cooper & Patmore, 2010) in the debate about the efficacy of the servicing model argue that unions would be wise to move away from it and activate the membership to resolve issues at the workplace themselves, while supported by union expertise and know how thereby

allowing freed up union resources to be dedicated to further recruitment. Although much has been done to adopt the organising model as sanctioned by union officials, at the grass roots level it is reported that there is resistance (Cooper, 2001; Voss & Sherman, 2000). Opposition comes in various forms but in the main is spearheaded by a membership that has become accustomed to having their workplace issues being resolved for them and would express resentment at the prospect of their membership dues going to recruitment or other projects than to representing them to management (Voss & Sherman, 2000). It is easy to see that organising may be ineffective, if workers are generally disinterested, too reticent to participate (Bowden, 2009) or insufficiently knowledgeable about the ‘web of rules’ and hence the need for marketing to stimulate members and potential members hedonistic and utilitarian motivations.

With the introduction of a move from the servicing model members could consider that there had been a reduction of value for money, that the organiser was cowardly and that they would not intercede with management on behalf of paying members (Voss & Sherman, 2000). Unions are also seen as still relying on paid staff to run campaigns giving the impression that the service model is still in play. In spite of the resistance experienced in some quarters, there has been recognition of the need to

revitalise the union movement and focus on membership drives through organising, for example, Peetz’s (2006; Peetz et al., 2002) work on the importance of delegates to sustain union presence in workplaces.

Organising in Australia is believed to have contributed to a modest but brief rise in membership (Australian Workers' Union, 2011) and this view is consistent with the opinion of the President of the ACTU who advocates organising as an organisational management strategy (Kearney, 2010a). They emphasise that there is still a long way to go to achieve healthy growth. Therefore it is important to examine some of the elements of organising and the relationships between them. Union organising brings in members that are ‘empowered to solve problems themselves, as opposed to having the union solve

it for them and thereby appear as an external entity rather than as simply collective expression of the membership’ (Peetz et al., 2002). Milkman (2006) suggests that to be truly effective organising must be activated from both the top down and the bottom up in tandem. The degree of member activism is strongly influenced by the level of

managerial support or hostility, with hostility associated with higher levels of current and long-term effort. The reasons are clear; bad managers create issues that led to union activism such as the situation at Rio Tinto’s (global mining company) Bell Bay aluminium smelter in Tasmania, one of the most union hostile organisations where managers are now being approached by union leaders worldwide regarding their treatment of their workers and where workers have undermined management’s blanket decision to exclude the union (Australian Workers' Union, 2011).

Another problem with the organising approach is that historically labour

movements have been weak in engendering internal democratic systems and open debate and supporting the rank and file to become more active and powerful (Clawson, 2003). Organising is a comprehensive approach and includes many activities such as strategic targeting, effective staffing and resourcing of union branches and activating local branches and members. It is suggested (Crosby, 2005), that the organising model aligns more with members and potential members, who believe social justice and class issues are important.

Marketing techniques can be used effectively to achieve this end such as personal selling, which puts emphasis on personal contact between the union (via a union

delegate) and members or potential members. The full suite of marketing promotion tools such as advertising, public relations, and sales promotion (using a variety of media vehicles) are important regardless of which model (servicing or organising) has been adopted, because as noted by Barnard and Ehrenberg (1990) familiarity leads to greater liking of the brand. While structural influences are of major importance (G. Griffin & Moors, 2002) it cannot be overlooked that marketing has the potential to be a powerful factor in influencing human attitudes and behaviour, for example the forwarding of social justice issues, as previously mentioned. Personal selling (a form of marketing

promotion) lends itself, in part, to the organising model that relies on interpersonal communications between members and members and their union.

Heartland3 organising is seen as a way to fund further organising (Cole, Briggs, & Buchanan, 2002) and reverse the decline in membership numbers (Peetz et al., 2002; Voss & Sherman, 2000) with future aspirations to move into less union minded midlands. However, a simple increase in the number of union members as the main goal is short sighted whereas empowering workers will lead to greater commitment and ownership by those members (Clawson, 2003). Worker based organizing drives (Moody, 2007) are encouraged in the era of worker involvement and can form a strong base to draw upon in difficult times such as the organising at BHP Iron Ore (BHPIO), where worker resistance stopped the adoption of individual contracts (Ellem, 2002). At this grass roots level one advantage of this method is that: “If the Organizing Committee includes the department’s most respected worker, the supervisor has little credibility or influence” (Clawson, 2003), and although not necessarily a planned tactic, one that would be hard to counter.

Other successful union tactics in the United States include various forms of “rank and file intensive tactics such as person to person contact, active representative

committees, member volunteer organizers, solidarity days, and [in the United States] building for the first contract before the election” (Bronfenbrenner & Hickey, 2004). Less successful in more recent times are traditional organising approaches (Hurd, 2001) and using isolated tactics but when all these items which on their own were not

successful are used in tandem, they increase the probability of the union winning the election [in the United States] by “as much as 9% for each additional tactic used” (Bronfenbrenner & Hickey, 2004).

However, using a democratic approach to running a union is not necessarily in the overall best interests of the union itself (and therefore its members), because sometimes current members oppose a change from a service union (with paid staff) to an organising model with volunteer staff representatives. The current membership may also oppose organising because they may not wish to permit the entry of new members (Sharpe, 2006). To achieve internal democracy, it is important to manage the interface between union leaders and membership. This can be achieved in part through union training and an awareness by the leadership that their communication to the members must be understood (and so perhaps not couching the communication in heavy industrial

language) and have a likelihood of success (Sharpe, 2006). The trainees for the ACTU’s

3 _{After extensive debate Martin et al. (Martin et al., 2012) define union heartlands as the combined factors} of high union density and strong political power.

Organising Works campaign (Hall & Harley, 1996) initiated in 1994 were, in the main tertiary educated, young and female (Gahan, 1996) and therefore more likely to represent those they wished to recruit. The effect of recruiting at the grass roots level (Hall & Harley, 1996) is the higher likelihood of them remaining members and their participation acting as a powerful modifier of the union internal profile.

A perceived issue is that these staff may be so inculcated into union language and mindset that they may not have the capacity to bridge the gap between union organisation and member or potential member and hence not be able to democratically represent that membership. Conversely Hall et al. (1998) argue that based on their findings the increase in the number of appointed officials did not negatively impact at all on the democratic decision making processes within unions and did not limit the voice of the rank and file in being heard.

Many of these issues and the attempts at solutions are not unique to Australia (Abrahamsson, 1993; H. C. Katz, 1993; Kitschelt, 1994; G. Strauss, 1991). The year 1995 saw a renewed focus on organizing in the United States with the result of a net gain in membership of 265,000 by 1999. Unfortunately this growth was not sustained and only a handful of the unions involved in the organizing retained these gains whereas the majority of unions were still experiencing membership losses (Bronfenbrenner & Hickey, 2004). Against this background of dropping membership numbers the United States union the SEIU, saw spectacular membership growth but not because of new organizing but rather due to “accretion; that is, to increased employment in already unionized units – particularly in health care – rather than to new organizing” (Milkman, 2006). Shoring up union numbers in one union by poaching members from another was a short-sighted and ultimately unsuccessful method of improving what had become a parlous situation for unions.