British Journal of Industrial Relations

7/29/2019 British Journal of Industrial Relations

1/28

Transforming a TradeUnion?

AnAssessment of the Introduction ofanOrganizing Initiative

Jeremy Waddington and Allan Kerr

Abstract

In 1995 Unison implemented a National Recruitment Plan, and, in 1997, a

National Organizing and Recruitment Strategy, with the objective of reversing

the decline in union density in the public sector. This article traces the develop-

ment of these initiatives and assesses their results. The article shows that there

is limited involvement of lay representatives in the National Organizing and

Recruitment Plan, but that there is a positive relationship between participation

in union programmes intended to promote organizing and the performance of

individual branches.

1. Introduction

The end of the long postwar boom during the mid-1970s coupled with the

election of a Conservative government in 1979 marked the start of a pro-

tracted and almost uninterrupted decline in annual trade union membership.

The result was a loss of approaching six million members in the period of

December 1979 to April 2006. While the annual rate of membership declineslowed from the mid-1990s, density continued to fall as employment

expanded (Certification Officer various; Grainger 2006; Waddington 1992).

In practice, unions were unable to recruit new members from expanding

sectors of the economy at the same rate as members were lost from unionized,

contracting sectors. Although there is no agreement on the relative effects of

the forces that promoted this decline, it is generally accepted that external

influences such as macroeconomic context, the changing composition of the

labour force, management resistance and workplace practices, and state

policy had adverse effects on unionization (Mason and Bain 1993; Metcalf

Jeremy Waddington teaches Industrial Relations at the University of Manchester and is theProject Coordinator for the European Trade Union Institute, Brussels. Allan Kerr is Head ofOrganizing and Recruitment, Unison.

British Journal of Industrial Relations doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8543.2008.00707.x

47:1 March 2009 00071080 pp. 2754

Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2009. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd,9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.


2/28

1991). In addition, issues internal to unionism are viewed as contributing to

the decline. Included among internal issues are inadequate recruitment pro-

grammes, whether inadequacy is measured in terms of resources allocated

or practices implemented (Kelly 1990; Voos 1984); union failure to deliver

benefits effectively for employees (Bryson and Gomez 2005; Metcalf 2005);the commitment of senior officers to reform (Undy et al. 1981); and the

failure to reform union policy and government to fit with the interests of

new members (Dlvik and Waddington 2005; Hyman 1999). During this

period of decline and in recognition of the impact of internal issues on

decline, some unionists gradually directed attention to the question: how

might unions adapt to new circumstances. This article examines whether

internal adaptation within Unison has contributed to union renewal.

Following initiatives taken in the United States and Australia, British

unions turned to the organizing model as a means to reverse membershipdecline and to encourage the involvement and participation in union affairs

of members from hitherto under-represented groups of workers. In essence,

the organizing model is an approach to union membership and renewal that

encourages local union activity, greater local self-reliance and a collective

identity (for details, see Bronfenbrenner et al. 1998; Heery 2003; Russo and

Banks 1996). Proponents of the organizing model argue that increased

recruitment and self-sustaining workplace unionism may result from orga-

nizing around local or workplace issues with which members and potential

members are likely to identify (Clark 2000; Lopez 2004). Associated with theorganizing model is a range of techniques intended to promote union activity

among members rather than them remaining as passive recipients of service

and support. Among the techniques employed in organizing are person-

to-person recruitment based, as far as is possible, on the assumption of

like-best-recruits-like, the mapping of workplaces to locate members and

non-members, the identification of workplace grievances, and the targeting

of particular groups of potential members (Fantasia and Voss 2004; Sherman

and Voss 2000). Not all unions employ the same range of techniques (Heery

et al. 2003: 626; Kelly and Badigannavar 2004), with the practical conse-quence that different variants of the organizing model are in operation.

Research conducted largely in the United States indicates that specific

organizing techniques employed in isolation by unions or locals do not have

significant effects on the win rate of certification elections and, hence, on

membership growth. Only when a wide range of such techniques is employed

in the same campaign is a significant effect recorded (Bronfenbrenner and

Hickey 2004). Further research demonstrates that a wide-ranging organiza-

tional transformation of unions is required if innovative organizing tactics

are to be implemented at a local level on a consistent basis and to good effect(Sherman and Voss 2000). Integral to such a transformation is a strong

commitment to organizing among senior union officers and higher levels of

member participation in organizing campaigns (Sharpe 2004; Voss and

Sherman 2000). A purpose of this article is to examine the development of the

membership strategy of Unison since 1995. In particular, the article examines

28 British Journal of Industrial Relations

Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2009.


3/28

the introduction of the National Organizing and Recruitment Strategy

(NORS) within Unison, the reception given to the NORS by local represen-

tatives, the extent to which the NORS has been diffused throughout the

union and the efficacy of the techniques implemented through the NORS.

Unionists that implement the different variants of the organizing modelacknowledge that it is at the workplace that the majority of unionists join

unions and experience unionism (Waddington and Whitston 1997) and,

therefore, it is at the workplace that the primary organizing effort is required.

Recognition of this point, however, is not to argue that national policies have

no influence on outcomes (Charlwood 2004; Foerster 2001). A wide range of

national policies may impinge on the outcome of organizing, including train-

ing provisions for local representatives and organizers, the designation of

organizing as a policy priority, commitment to organizing among senior

union policy makers, and the allocation of material resources and personnel.Integral to the implementation of any variant of the organizing model, thus

is the articulation of activities conducted at local and national levels.

The relationship between activities conducted at local and national levels is

debated. One position argues that the bottom-up elements of the organizing

model constitute a radical shift in union strategy away from the top-down

servicing model (Carter 2000, 2006), whereas others argue that the organizing

and servicing models are mutually reliant to a degree because activities at the

workplace have to be supported by activities conducted elsewhere in a union

(Heery 2003; de Turberville 2004). While advocates of both of these positionsassume that change is required if union renewal is to be achieved, it is the

nature of the required change that is debated. The former position argues

that implementation of only the organizing model will generate renewal,

whereas the alternative suggests that unionists should be strategically

adaptive in combining organizing and servicing if they are to survive (de

Turberville 2007: 566). This article contributes to this debate through an

assessment of the implementation of the NORS.

In addition to variation in the techniques employed within British unions

when implementing the organizing model, there are different strategicapproaches, which lie principally along two dimensions. The first concerns

the extent of centralization in implementing the organizing model. Unions

may establish a central organizing unit or equivalent which has managerial

control over organizers irrespective of the location of their activity within the

union. Alternatively, organizers may act within regions or some other geo-

graphical sub-unit of union organization and be under the day-to-day mana-

gerial control of the senior unionist within the region, although the general

organizing brief is usually set centrally. The second dimension concerns the

origins of the organizers. One approach is to recruit additional staff to workas organizers. The Transport and General Workers Union (now part of

UNITE), for example, set out to recruit 100 additional staff to work as

organizers. In contrast, other unions have transferred extant union personnel

from other duties to organizing. In its original conception the NORS prima-

rily relied on the transfer of extant Unison personnel to organizing and

Assessment of the Introduction of an Organizing Initiative 29



4/28

day-to-day management conducted with each region of the union. The effi-

cacy of this approach is examined in this article.

A final introductory remark addresses the burgeoning literature on the

barriers to organizing. Both external and internal barriers to the implemen-

tation of the organizing model have been identified (Heery and Simms 2008).External barriers include other unions, employer opposition, legal context

and unreceptive workforces. It should be noted, however, that issues related

to the legal context and employer opposition are not central in the largely

public-sector environment in which Unison operates, in so far as union

recognition is wide-ranging and there is no evidence of widespread employer

or managerial opposition to unionism.1 Inadequate resources, the absence of

leadership commitment, the use of inappropriate techniques, inadequate

management systems, and opposition to organizing have all been identified

as factors internal to unions that inhibit the development of the organizingmodel (Bronfenbrenner and Hickey 2004; Gall 2003; Heery and Simms 2008;

Penney 2004). This article assesses the impact of these barriers on the imple-

mentation of the NORS.

To address these issues the article comprises three sections. Section 2

introduces the different elements of the NORS and traces its development

over almost a decade. Section 3 details the methods used to assess the efficacy

of the different elements of the NORS. Section 4 presents the results in terms

of the prioritization, diffusion and impact of the NORS at branch and

workplace levels. Two themes run through these sections. First, the prioriti-zation and diffusion of the NORS is uneven as a result of a variety of factors,

principal among which is the demand for advice and support from existing

members to local representatives. Second, shifts in policy as wide-ranging as

the NORS require continual monitoring and refinement if they are to

produce their intended effects. The argument here is that policy shifts intro-

duced at the peak of the union movement cannot be readily adopted at a

myriad of workplaces. The process of diffusion is contested as vested interests

are disturbed and is subject to refinement as initial plans confront practical

obstacles. In consequence, the process of diffusion is uneven in effect andtime-consuming in implementation.

2. The National Organizing and Recruitment Strategy of Unison

Unison was formed by amalgamation in 1993. Five features of the environ-

ment within which the union operates have influenced the development of the

unions organizing and recruitment strategy. First, in many areas of organi-

zation other unions compete for membership with Unison.2 Second, Unisonis recognized by employers throughout its principal areas of organization. In

the main, therefore, Unison organizing campaigns are not about securing

recognition from employers, but focus on in-fill recruitment; that is, raising

density where union members are already present. The focus on in-fill

recruitment also means that organizing in Unison necessitates a degree of




5/28

reorientation among existing workplace and branch representatives. Only

where services have been contracted out or privatized is the securing of

recognition an issue for Unison, and there is the possibility of establishing

workplace organization from scratch. The classic organizing campaign

based on achieving recognition is thus not central to Unison with the conse-quence that the character of organizing in Unison differs from that in much

of the private sector. Third, most Unison branches were originally conceived

as being based on a single employer: characteristically, a health service trust

or a local authority. Initially, branches were thus expected to cover a large

number of workplaces, but a single employer. The extent of contracting out,

privatization and decentralization has led to marked increases in the number

of employers covered by each branch. Recent unpublished Unison research,

for example, indicates that 45.4 per cent of Unison branches now deal with

more than ten employers, of which almost 17 per cent handle 51 or moreemployers. This development places an enormous burden on activists within

the branch. Fourth, within each of the principal segments of the public

sector, national pay determination remains largely in place. Within these

segments, wages are taken out of competition. The damaging effects of wage

competition, noted on some organizing campaigns in the USA (Erikson et al.

2002; Lerner 2003), is thus largely not present in the case of Unison. Fifth,

since about 1999, employment in key areas within the recruitment base of

Unison, notably health, education, civilian police service and local govern-

ment, has increased (Livesey 2006). A feature of the debate within Unisonconcerning organizing is that Unison density3 is declining because member-

ship is increasing at a slower rate than employment.

As part of the post-merger Strategic Review, Unison adopted a National

Recruitment Plan (NRP) in 1995, with the stated aim of increasing member-

ship from 1.2 to 1.5 million members by 2000. The NRP was a traditional

recruitment initiative in that it pre-dated the introduction of organizing

techniques in Britain, explicitly emphasized recruitment and retention in

terms of national, regional and branch targets, viewed leaflets and direct mail

as key recruitment devices and made little reference to reorganizing theprocess of recruitment within the union (Unison 1995). Monitoring of the

NRP was the responsibility of regional Recruitment and Retention Commit-

tees, several of which were established in conjunction with the NRP. The

NRP was monitored by the Development and Organization Committee, a

sub-committee of the National Executive Committee. A nominated full-time

officer within each region was required to take on additional duties as the

Regional Coordinator.4 This officer acted as the contact person on recruit-

ment matters and served on a National Recruitment Group that met quar-

terly. Although there was extensive lay involvement in the institutions of theStrategic Review and in setting the membership targets, the NRP was essen-

tially a top-down initiative that required branches to meet general member-

ship targets and excluded any targeting of specific membership groups or the

identification of concerns particular to such groups. Between December 1994

and December 1998, by which time the NRP had been replaced by the




6/28

NORS, the membership of Unison only increased from 1,160,000 to

1,189,500 (Unison internal data).

Concurrent with the initiative of the TUC to set up the Organizing

Academy, an internal paper, endorsed by the Senior Management Group of

Unison, proposed the building of an organising culture (Unison 1997). Inpositively referencing the organizing activities of the Service Employees

International Union (SEIU) in the USA, the paper recommended that the

top leadership in the union must demonstrate a commitment to an organizing

culture in every aspect of its programmes; the union and the leadership must

devote more resources to organizing; the role of the Regional Officer has to

change from a servicer to an organizer, and stewards have to play a greater

role in supporting members; and that a high-level Organizing Task Group be

established to transform Unison into an organizing union. As with the NRP,

the NORS set overall membership targets of 1.5 million members by 2007and two million members by 2010. The National Delegate Conference

adopted a motion that endorsed these principles in 1998, although no refer-

ence in the motion was made to membership targets.

The NORS constituted a break with the NRP in four key regards: changes

in Unison procedures and infrastructure regarding recruitment were envis-

aged as integral to the NORS; a range of innovative measures intended to

facilitate organizing through building lay involvement were implemented,

including the BeeActive initiative (see below for details), winning the orga-

nized workplace (WOW) training courses and branch development and orga-nizing plans (BDOPs); the targeting of potential members; and the emphasis

of links between organizing activities and other union activities. In each of

these areas initial plans were subsequently amended as Unison representa-

tives refined the NORS. The experience of Unison in seeking a solution to

membership decline is thus a learning process. It should be noted that

this process of refinement is ongoing, a point to which we return in the

conclusion.

The changes to procedure and infrastructure were intended to transform

the union and its approach to organizing and recruitment. The Developmentand Organization Committee was responsible for devising and implementing

policy and the monitoring of its effects. To inject greater energy into orga-

nizing Unison embarked on a long-term programme of sponsoring trainees

through the Organizing Academy. By December 2006, a total of 21 trainees

sponsored by Unison had entered the Organizing Academy, of which eight

were in post in Unison and five had left before graduating.5 Trainees were

principally appointed from outside the union (about 90 per cent), although a

few were seconded from within. Irrespective of the origin of the trainees, they

were selected on the basis that like-best-recruits-like, and thus tended to beyoung and comprised a relatively large proportion of people from ethnic

minorities. In addition to the graduates from the Organizing Academy, the

NORS envisaged that Regional Organizers would spend a larger proportion

of their time on organizing and, in particular, co-ordinating organizing

activities within branches in each region. It was also assumed that more case




7/28

work arising from individual representation would be undertaken by lay

representatives within branches.

From the outset, it should be acknowledged that the NORS was largely

reliant on shifting responsibilities between existing personnel rather than

buying-in large numbers of specialist recruitment officers. After 2000,however, between four and five Branch Development Officers per region of

Unison were appointed with the brief of assisting local representatives in

their efforts to meet the requirements of the NORS. In an associated devel-

opment, funds for organizing activities were made available through a

regional pool to which branches could apply for additional funding to

support specific initiatives. The concentration of personnel and funding on a

regional basis are indicators of the extent to which the NORS is viewed

within Unison as a set of co-ordinated regional programmes. As such, the

emphasis placed on the NORS with each Region is, to a degree, dependent onthe commitment of each Regional Secretary to the strategy.

Accompanying changes in the process of recruitment were measures to

encourage lay involvement and expertise, three of which are central to our

purposes. First, a BeeActive campaign was launched with the intention of

encouraging more members to become active in Unison. The BeeActive

campaign was directed particularly at women and young members. Within

the campaign, efforts were made to break down the role of the lay represen-

tative into more manageable segments, so that new activists could take on

some responsibilities of the lay representative rather than the complete range.Similarly, members were encouraged to offer their specific skills to assist local

Unison activities, rather than take on a formal position within the union. The

assumption underpinning these approaches was that the new activist would

become more confident, more quickly, by undertaking either a narrow range

of duties or duties in which they were skilled and, in time, may thus be

encouraged to take on additional responsibilities. Second, WOW training

courses were introduced in 2000 as a means of encouraging commitment to

organizing among lay representatives, of disseminating best practice and to

provide skills for building organizing teams within branches and workplaces.Third, and central to the NORS, branch development and organizing plans

(BDOP) were introduced. Initially, objectives in 14 fields were identified as

the subject of BDOPs, but these were distilled to four in 2000, when it became

clear that the setting of objectives in 14 fields was unmanageable locally, and

impossible to monitor. The four fields in which objectives were required from

2000 cover: the recruitment and retention of members; the organization and

development of networks of lay representatives within all branches; the gen-

eration of higher levels of membership participation in branch life; and more

effective representation and negotiation within branches. Mapping by everybranch to identify potential members was viewed as the single most impor-

tant activity in developing BDOPs. Responsibility for drawing up BDOPs

was allotted to branches working in conjunction with Regional Organizers

and Branch Development Officers. The same people were expected to set up

organizing teams within each branch. Implementation of the BDOP was then




8/28

the responsibility of the organizing team, branch officers and Regional

Organizer. Regional committees monitored the rate at which branches drew

up BDOPs and reported this rate nationally. Once a BDOP was in place, the

branch was expected to monitor progress towards the objectives identified in

the four fields. It was assumed that a BDOP may change from year-to-yearas initial objectives were met and subsequent objectives identified (Unison

n.d.).

Linked to the introduction of BDOPs was the idea of targeting specific

groups of potential members. The NORS assumed that, by mapping work-

places, groups of potential members would be identified, together with the

issues of immediate concern to them. Organizing campaigns would then be

implemented, targeted specifically at these groups. As the identification of the

groups of potential members for targeting arises from the mapping of work-

places, targeting is, to a considerable extent, an issue internal to the branch.It is also apparent from the NORS literature, however, that target groups can

be identified by the Executive Committees of the National Service Groups

should a national campaign be initiated.6 Irrespective of whether the cam-

paign is initiated locally or nationally, the NORS makes it plain that litera-

ture directed towards the concerns of the targeted groups of members would

be made available to organizing teams to facilitate their organizing efforts.

A final feature of the NORS that distinguished it from the NRP was that

efforts were made to link organizing to a range of other Unison activities and

to improve efficiency in the conduct of some long-standing activities associ-ated with recruitment. Return to Learn and life-long learning schemes, for

example, were directly linked to the NORS in that Learning Representatives

were viewed as a source of major benefits to Unison in terms of recruiting

members, recruiting activists and building branch and workplace organisa-

tion (Unison 2003: 4). It was also anticipated that local contacts would be

established by branches with community organizations, as a means of pro-

moting local campaigning, and that self-organized groups allowed in the

Unison rulebook for women; black; lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender;

and disabled members be involved in the NORS to engage with specificgroups of potential members.7 The issue here was to tighten up arrange-

ments that were already in place in many workplaces, but that were not being

fully exploited. Unison also had a project designed to encourage branches to

improve the amount and distribution of facility time, having established that

the number of lay representatives was insufficient and that employers had cut

facility time.

The NORS thus differed markedly from the NRP along these four dimen-

sions. Although the activities of the SEIU in the USA were acknowledged as

an initial inspiration for the NORS, Unison rejected the deployment of largenumbers of additional, dedicated organizing staff, as recommended by the

SEIU and other US trade unions. Instead, Unison adopted a form of

managed activism (Heery 2003), in which union officials were central to

promoting and monitoring the NORS, whereas workplace activists were

encouraged to undertake a wider range of support functions. The NORS also




9/28

allowed strategic adaptation (de Turberville 2007) in so far as long-standing

recruitment activities were incorporated where it was viewed that they may

assist in raising density. Latitude was afforded to the regions, Service Groups

and branches to select appropriate targets for organizing campaigns. The

degree of central control was thus lessened in the NORS compared to theNRP. Furthermore, the NRP was solely directed to increasing the number of

members, whereas the NORS recognized that an organizational transforma-

tion (Sherman and Voss 2000) was required in the form of an infrastructure

for organizing and the means to encourage the participation of new members

if membership decline was to be reversed. It should be acknowledged,

however, that repeated refinements to the NORS were necessary, as elements

of its initial conception were found to be unworkable. In practice, the policy

shift was accompanied by a learning curve, as attempts were made to

implement the policy. Even in a refined form, however, it was far from certainthat the NORS could be implemented and, if it was, that it would meet

objectives. These are the issues to which the article now turns.

3. Data, methods and sample composition

Two data sources underpin the results that follow: the national membership

database held by the union, known as the replacement membership system

(RMS); and data drawn from surveys of branch secretaries and shop stew-ards. Six of the 12 regions of Unison participated in the research.8 The cost of

the survey distribution precluded the inclusion of all twelve regions in the

research. It was necessary to distribute 18,154 questionnaires to cover the

Branch Secretaries and shop stewards in the six participating regions. The six

regions that participated in the research were representative of the union in

terms of membership size, composition and geographical distribution and,

within the union, were viewed as representing different managerial styles. On

these grounds there is thus no reason to assume that the six participating

regions were not representative of the entire union.Within the six participating regions of Unison there were a total of 627

branches, each of which is required by the rulebook to submit an annual

membership return. The end-of-year returns for all branches were assembled

for the years 2000 to 2003. Reference to these data allowed the identification

of branch membership trends. It should be noted that the RMS is far from a

perfect instrument for recording the membership of Unison. Membership

application forms are processed either within a branch or by the region.

Information on the total number of members is transferred to the regional

membership database, which, in turn, transfers it to the RMS. It is generallyagreed within the union that the reporting of new members in this manner is

accurate. The weakness of the RMS system lies in the removal of union

leavers from the record. At the time of the research two systems operated in

this regard. Three participating regions (Greater London, Northern and

Scotland) operated a line count system whereby the deduction-at-source




10/28

records provided by employers were annually cross-checked against the

Unison record. Disparities between the two records revealed the leavers from

the union, whose records were then removed from the RMS. In these regions

the membership record is thus relatively accurate. Three participating regions

had not implemented the line count system when the research was conducted.In these regions (North West, South East and East Midlands), greater inac-

curacies in the membership record existed, as there was no certain method

whereby the leavers were regularly removed from the branch records. The

inaccuracy is thus likely to exaggerate the number of members within the

branch.9 At the time the research was conducted, the three regions that had

not yet implemented the line count system for every branch were in the

process of adopting the line-count system and, hence, cleansing the branch

membership record. As is noted below, these practices had to be taken into

account in the analysis.Two surveys were distributed from Unison head office to the entire popu-

lation of Branch Secretaries and shop stewards within the six participating

regions during the Spring of 2005. A total of 63210 questionnaires were

distributed to Branch Secretaries and 17,522 questionnaires to shop stewards.

Of these, 205 were returned from Branch Secretaries, constituting a rate of

return of 32.4 per cent, and 2,220 were returned from shop stewards (12.7 per

cent). Each questionnaire was tagged with a branch identification code. It

was thus possible to link survey responses from within a branch to the

membership record of that branch.At the time the surveys were conducted 71 per cent of Unison members

were women. Survey returns comprised 50.2 per cent from women among

Branch Secretaries and 45.9 per cent from women among the shop stewards.

The proportion of women was thus lower among representatives than among

members. It should be noted, however, that the gender parity achieved for the

senior and influential Branch Secretary positions represents a marked

increase in the proportion of women since the founding merger, when inter-

nal union estimates suggest that between 30 and 35 per cent of Branch

Secretaries were women.Sector and membership size may influence the recruitment and organizing

capacities of a branch. The different Service Groups of Unison were

employed as an indicator of sector. The distribution of branches within the

six participating regions by Service Group, and by membership size was

cross-checked against the branches from which the 205 questionnaires were

returned by Branch Secretaries. The results, shown in Table 1, demonstrate

that the questionnaire returns from Branch Secretaries are representative of

the total distribution of branches by Service Group and by membership size.

The distribution of Branch Secretaries and shop stewards across ServiceGroups reflects sectoral differences in the density of steward networks. For

example, 46.3 per cent of responses from Branch Secretaries were from the

Local Government Service Group as were 60.7 per cent of shop stewards.

These data indicate the relatively high density of steward networks in

local government. By comparison in Health Care (34.2 per cent, Branch




11/28

Secretaries; 23.7 per cent, shop stewards) and Higher Education (7.8 per cent

and 4.6 per cent), the networks of shop stewards are relatively sparse.11 All

other things being equal, it should thus be more straightforward to imple-ment the NORS within local government as there is a denser network of shop

stewards on which to build.

4. The prioritization, diffusion and impact of the NORS

Key to the success of the NORS in terms of transforming Unison to become

an organizing union are the activities of Branch Secretaries and shop stew-

ards. This section analyses the involvement of these lay representatives withthe NORS in three stages: prioritization, diffusion and impact.

The Prioritization of the NORS

Table 2 details the range of duties undertaken by Branch Secretaries and

shop stewards, together with an assessment made by both groups of their

three most important duties. From the outset it is apparent that Branch

Secretaries and shop stewards undertake a wide range of duties in their

capacity as lay representatives. For example, more than 80 per cent of BranchSecretaries undertake 11 of the 17 duties listed in Table 2. Of more impor-

tance for our purposes recruiting/organizing new members, encouraging

members to become active and encouraging recruitment/organizing activi-

ties by shop stewards are among the 11 activities in which more than 80 per

cent of Branch Secretaries are engaged. Not surprisingly, shop stewards tend

TABLE 1The Distribution of Branches by Service Group and Membership Size

Service group Distributionof branches

in the six

participatingregions

Distributionof survey

returns

fromBranch

Secretaries

Branchsize

(members)

Branch sizein the six

participating

regions

Distributionof survey

returns from

BranchSecretaries

No. % No. % No. % No. %

LocalGovernment

291 46.4 95 46.3 Up to 200 97 15.4 27 13.2

Health Care 207 33.0 70 34.2 201 to 500 186 29.6 67 32.7Higher

Education66 10.5 16 7.8 501 to 1,000 113 18.1 38 18.5

Police

SupportStaffs

19 3.0 10 4.9 1,001 to 3,000 143 22.8 41 20.0

Business andEnvironment

44 7.0 14 6.8 3,001 or more 88 14.0 32 15.6

N = 627 N = 205 N = 627 N = 205




12/28

to be involved in a narrower range of duties than Branch Secretaries.

Recruiting/organizing new members and encouraging members to become

active, however, are two of only four duties, which more than 60 per cent of

shop stewards undertake.Turning to the three most important duties reveals the extent to which lay

representatives support existing members, and how support duties tend to be

prioritized over activities related to the NORS. The three duties that head the

ranking among Branch Secretaries, for example, include preparation for and

conduct of negotiations, representing members in disciplinary/grievance

cases and advising members on employment and related issues. Only 27.3

per cent of Branch Secretaries regard recruiting/organizing new members as

one of their three most important duties. Support duties are thus prioritized

over NORS-related activities by most Branch Secretaries. Although a largerproportion of shop stewards than Branch Secretaries regard recruiting/

organizing new members to be one of the three most important duties,

support functions remain a greater priority.

Three points can usefully be linked to these findings. First, there are no

significant differences in the pattern of these results by reference to the gender

TABLE 2The Duties of Lay Representatives Within Unison

Duties ofBranch

Secretaries%

Three mostimportantduties %

Dutiesof shop

stewards %

Three mostimportantduties %

Preparation for and conduct ofnegotiations

91.2 60.6 54.2 40.2

Representing members indisciplinary/grievance cases

92.7 47.7 68.6 56.4

Advising members on employmentand related issues

94.1 31.1 73.5 48.6

Recruiting/organizing new members 89.8 27.3 72.3 42.6Advising and supporting stewards 91.4 24.2Encouraging members to become

active85.6 21.6 64.7 33.2

Consultation and information

exchange with employer

88.6 19.2 46.4 15.6

Building collective organization 84.5 12.5 28.3 9.8Encouraging recruitment/organizing

activities by shop stewards83.9 12.3

Identifying sites for recruitment 63.4 8.4 20.8 3.3Negotiating new recognition

agreements45.7 8.2

Serving on internal union committees 85.9 7.6 55.8 13.8Training stewards 54.2 7.4Serving on joint union committees 83.9 5.4 41.6 15.2Serving on external (public)

committees27.4 4.7 23.4 10.6

Developing national/regionalrecruitment or organizing policies

28.8 2.8

Researching issues for Unison 41.4 0 22.6 0.9N = 205 N = 2,220




13/28

or Service Group of the lay representative. The argument that the denser

networks of shop stewards in local government may be associated with the

greater prioritization of NORS-related activities is thus not sustained.

Second, there are no differences between recently appointed Branch Secre-

taries (those with five or fewer years in post) and long-standing BranchSecretaries (those with more than five years of service) in the proportion

allocating recruiting/organizing new members to be one of the three most

important duties. Recently appointed shop stewards, however, were more

likely to regard recruiting/organizing new members as one of their three

most important duties than were long-standing shop stewards, although

support functions were still deemed more important. Third, irrespective of

the differences between shop stewards, the point remains that the support of

existing members, rather than the organizing of new members, constitutes the

key priority for Branch Secretaries and shop stewards. Demands from exist-ing members for representation and advice, coupled to the more wide-

ranging negotiating role arising from decentralization, appear to limit the

extent to which Branch Secretaries and shop stewards can prioritize NORS-

related activities. Insofar as decentralization appears to restrict involvement

in organizing, this result is inconsistent with the argument that decentraliza-

tion stimulates union renewal (Fairbrother 1989).

The relatively low priority attached to recruitment/organizing activities by

lay representatives can also be illustrated by reference to the time devoted to

such activities. Branch Secretaries, for example, received an average of 19.9hours facility time per week, in addition to which they spent a further 10.2

hours per week of their own time on union duties. On average, each Branch

Secretary thus spent a total of 30.1 hours per week on union duties. Branch

Secretaries spent 2.7 hours per week or 8.9 per cent of the total time allocated

to union duties on recruitment/organizing activities. Similarly, on average,

shop stewards receive 6.2 hours per week facility time, work on union duties

for an additional 3.4 hours per week in their own time and spend an average

of 1.4 hours per week on recruitment/organizing activities. Shop stewards

thus spend 14.6 per cent of the total time allotted to union duties onrecruitment/organizing activities.

The results obtained here for Branch Secretaries and shop stewards raise

two issues relating to previous research. First, surveys of full-time officers

from several unions conducted in 1987 and 2002 found that a wide range of

organizing, bargaining and representation functions were undertaken by

full-time officers (Heery 2006; Kelly and Heery 1989). It is apparent that

within Unison a similar broad range of functions is undertaken by Branch

Secretaries and shop stewards. Whereas for full-time officers in 2002 the three

functions of organizing, bargaining and representation have broadly equalweighting (Heery 2006: 453) for Unison Branch Secretaries bargaining and

representation take priority over organizing and for shop stewards represen-

tation is the most important function. Second, existing research demonstrates

that full-time officers are now likely to be engaged in formal management

systems designed to encourage them to assign a higher priority to recruitment




14/28

and organizing (Heery 2006). These management systems do not appear to

have influenced Branch Secretaries in the same way as full-time officers.

Table 2, for example, shows that very few (12.3 per cent) Branch Secretaries

prioritize encouraging recruitment/organizing activities by shop stewards,

developing national/regional recruitment or organizing plans (2.8 per cent),and identifying sites for recruitment (8.4 per cent). The impact of new

management systems within Unison have thus not led many Branch Secre-

taries to prioritize recruitment and organizing, raising the questions: are new

management systems appropriate for full-time officers, paid employees of a

union, appropriate in the management of lay representatives?, and is it pos-

sible, appropriate and beneficial to manage lay representatives?

The Diffusion of the NORS

At the core of the NORS implemented in 1998 are BDOPs. By 2005, when the

surveys were conducted, 71.7 per cent of Branch Secretaries reported that a

BDOP was in place for their branch and of these Branch Secretaries 94.6 per

cent had been involved in the formulation of the BDOP. Seven years after the

introduction of the NORS just under 30 per cent of branches thus had not

formulated a BDOP. Where a BDOP had been drawn up, 68.7 per cent of

Branch Secretaries indicated that this had been followed up by mapping of

the branch and 65.3 per cent reported that the BDOP had led to the devel-

opment of a plan to recruit non-members. Fewer than half of all branches(46.7 per cent) had thus developed a plan to recruit non-members seven years

after the adoption of the NORS.

The knowledge of, and involvement in, BDOPs among shop stewards

was more sparse than among Branch Secretaries. Only 36.1 per cent of

shop stewards reported that there was a BDOP in place for the branch of

which they were a member and of this proportion only 56.3 per cent indi-

cated that they were involved in drawing up the BDOP. Where branches

had established a BDOP, 57.3 per cent of shop stewards reported that their

workplace had been mapped and 53.6 per cent indicated that a plan torecruit non-members was in place. In other words, 19.3 per cent of all

stewards were in possession of a plan to recruit non-members at their

workplace.

Three initial points emerge from this analysis. First, at branches where a

BDOP had not been implemented only two Branch Secretaries reported

density in excess of 65 per cent. The potential for membership growth at most

branches without a BDOP was thus pronounced. Second, as almost 30 per

cent of branches did not have a BDOP seven years after the adoption of the

NORS, it is apparent that there is reluctance among some Branch Secretariesto adopt BDOPs. Third, it is not surprising that fewer shop stewards are

involved in BDOPs, as many shop stewards have no facility time. The mark-

edly lower rates of awareness of BDOPs among shop stewards compared to

Branch Secretaries suggest that communications within branches regarding

the NORS, and the BDOPs in particular, leave something to be desired. Even




15/28

if a shop steward is not involved in organizing activities, it is reasonable toassume that s/he would be informed of branch activities regarding the NORS

at branch meetings.

An assumption that underpins the NORS is that the implementation of

a BDOP will be followed by the mapping of branches and workplaces. As

the above-mentioned results indicate, however, the progression from BDOP

to mapping is far from certain. The reasons provided by Branch Secretaries

and shop stewards as to why the progression from BDOP to mapping did

not take place are shown in Table 3. There are marked differences between

Branch Secretaries and shop stewards on this issue. In particular, BranchSecretaries highlight the lack of resources and time as the principal reasons

that preclude mapping. This result is consistent with the difficulties faced

by many Branch Secretaries in prioritizing recruitment and organizing

activities over supporting existing members. Shop stewards, in contrast,

tend to mention a lack of knowledge of mapping per se. An explanation for

this variation lies in the manner in which the WOW courses were rolled

out. WOW courses were the key source of information on how to map.

Resource limitations meant that when WOW courses were introduced in

2000, they were only available to Branch Secretaries, hence most BranchSecretaries know how to map.12 Only from 20022003 were WOW courses

available to shop stewards. The later starting date, coupled with the con-

siderably larger number of shop stewards, effectively meant that knowledge

of how to map was available to a relatively small proportion of shop stew-

ards when the surveys were conducted.

Table 4 extends the analysis of diffusion by considering the frequency at

which NORS-related and other recruitment activities are undertaken by

Branch Secretaries and shop stewards. It is immediately apparent that both

Branch Secretaries and shop stewards frequently organize new membersand are engaged in person-to-person recruitment at the workplace. The

relatively high frequency of these activities is consistent with the perception

of new members that shop stewards and Branch Secretaries are the most

effective recruiting agents within trade unions (Waddington and Whitston

1997). Integral to the NORS is the promotion of the more intensive use of

TABLE 3If a BDOP is Present, Why Have You not Mapped?

Branch Secretaries%

Shop stewards%

My branch decided not to map 7.4 2.9Mapping takes too much time 20.0 3.8Mapping is too complicated 1.9 0.9Mapping is not necessary 3.8 8.3I do not know how to map my branch/workplace 13.1 55.4I do not have enough help or resources to map 51.8 16.7It is not my job to map 1.9 12.0

N = 101 N = 459




16/28

TABLE

4

TheDiffusionofDifferentNORS-RelatedandOtherRecruitmentActivities

BranchSecretaries

Shopstewards

Used

frequently

%

Us

ed

occasionally

%

Used

rarely

%

Never

used%

Used

frequently

%

Used

occasionally

%

Used

rarely

%

Never

used%

Doyouorganizenewmembersyourself

65.6

28

.5

3.8

2.2

51.0

35.0

7.1

6.9

Person-to-personrecruitmentattheworkplace

59.6

31

.1

7.3

2.1

65.2

23.8

5.5

5.5

Campaigningaroundlocalornationalissues

45.7

37

.8

10.1

6.4

29.3

41.4

12.8

16.4

Joboroccupationspecificliterature

24.9

37

.8

21.6

15.7

21.8

37.0

17.0

24.2

Like-recruits-likerecruitment

13.6

31

.5

26.5

28.4

9.4

22.0

24.4

44.2

PromotionofUnisonself-organizedgroups

12.4

29

.6

34.4

23.7

11.3

21.0

20.1

47.5

Directrecruitment

bypaidunionofficersandorga

nizers

6.1

19

.9

29.3

44.8

14.9

22.0

15.3

47.8

Link-upwithcomm

unityorganizations

5.6

14

.1

29.4

50.8

5.9

11.1

22.7

60.3

Promotionalincentivesfornewmembers

35.9

43

.2

12.0

8.9

20.2

28.3

17.4

34.1

Directmail-shotstopotentialmembers

30.2

26

.0

22.4

21.4

15.5

17.5

15.5

51.5

Employerencourag

ementofunionjoining

22.9

31

.4

20.7

25.0

7.3

17.2

18.4

57.0

Useofpartnership

agreements

21.7

27

.2

15.8

35.3

12.7

15.4

18.2

53.7




17/28

targeted campaigning and literature. Majorities of both shop stewards and

Branch Secretaries report using such approaches, at least, occasionally.

Far less widespread was targeting through like-recruits-like recruitment.

The relative infrequency of like-recruits-like recruitment, may result from

a wide range of factors, prominent among which are likely to be a lack ofinformation among lay representatives and an absence of fit between

potential members and lay organizers in terms of personal or job-related

characteristics. The point remains, however, that the NORS is associated

with the frequent use of some, but not all, approaches to targeted

campaigning.

Two features associated with the NORS are used very infrequently by

Branch Secretaries and shop stewards: promotion of self-organized groups

and link-up with community organizations. Given that many self-organized

groups have been in place since the founding merger of Unison in 1993 andthat self-organized groups often represent interests similar to those of poten-

tial members, it is contrary to expectations that members from self-organized

groups have not been engaged with the NORS more frequently. It should be

noted, however, that self-organized groups have not been established at every

branch. In Health, for example, only 10 per cent of branches have established

a self-organized group for black and minority ethnic members. Furthermore,

many self-organized groups have tended to focus their activities on regional-

and national-level activities rather than those at workplace or branch level

where the NORS activities are concentrated. Similar arguments could also beadvanced regarding the infrequency of contact with community organiza-

tions, although link-ups with community organizations clearly require

engagement beyond the workplace.

As the emphasis within Unison is on shifting organizing responsibilities to

existing representatives rather than on employing dedicated organizing staff,

it is not surprising that the majority of Branch Secretaries and shop stewards

report that direct recruitment by paid union officers and organizers is either

used rarely or never used. In the light of the work-load undertaken by lay

representatives in supporting existing members and the experience of suchrepresentatives in such activities, it remains a moot point whether a greater

reliance on dedicated organizing staff is necessary if membership targets are

to be met in the medium and long term.

It is also apparent from Table 4 that traditional recruitment techniques

are still used fairly frequently in many localities. It is not possible to iden-

tify whether this indicates strategic adaptation or reluctance to adopt new

techniques. Promotional incentives for new members, for example, are used

at least occasionally by almost 80 per cent of Branch Secretaries. Such

promotional incentives include key rings, pens and lanyards. Similarly,direct mail shots to potential members are used at least occasionally by

more than 56 per cent of Branch Secretaries. In other words, Branch Sec-

retaries are more likely to use direct mail shots than aspects of the NORS

such as like-recruits-like, involving self-organized groups and contacting

community groups.




18/28

The Impact of the NORS

To this point the analysis has demonstrated that the reception to, and

engagement in, the NORS was mixed among Branch Secretaries and shop

stewards. It is apparent that a range of duties connected to individual repre-sentation and bargaining are assigned a higher priority than activities asso-

ciated with the NORS by most lay representatives. The analysis now shifts to

examine the relationship between elements of the NORS and the level of

membership change recorded by branches.

The effective population of branches was 205, as determined by the

number of questionnaire returns from Branch Secretaries. The percentage

membership change of each of these branches was calculated for the period

December 2000 to December 2003, during which time the aggregate mem-

bership of Unison rose by 1.3 per cent. The branches were then divided intothree groups. Group I comprised those branches that appeared in the top half

of the ranking of all branches by percentage membership growth/decline.

Branches included in Group III were positioned in the bottom third of the

same ranking. The branches in Group II were those positioned intermediary

between Group I and Group III in the ranking. Group I was termed high

growth and effectively comprised branches in which membership grew by a

minimum of 6.2 per cent, Group II was termed some growth and comprised

branches where membership increased by between 0.1 per cent and 6.1 per

cent, and Group III was termed no growth and comprised branches wheremembership either remained constant or declined between December 2000

and December 2003.

All branches were then checked to identify any local peculiarities that may

have had a significant effect on the recorded levels of membership change.

One element of this checking procedure was a desk-based analysis of post-

merger branch restructuring. Following the merger to form Unison in 1993

branches of the three partner unions were initially encouraged to merge.

Subsequently, a deadline of 1997 was set, by which time it was anticipated by

senior officers of Unison that all branch restructuring would be completed. Inthe main, this was the case. In a limited number of cases, however, branch

restructuring had not been completed by this date. It should also be noted

that the merging of branches is a regular occurrence within Unison for a

variety of reasons other than the founding merger. Branches that were

involved in mergers between December 2000 and December 2003 and, hence,

achieved marked membership growth by means other than the implementa-

tion of the NORS, were removed from the population of high growth

branches.

A second element of the checking procedure involved a telephone survey ofbranches. The Branch Secretary, Regional Organizer with responsibility for

the branch or, in a few instances where initial responses were ambiguous,

both representatives were contacted to ascertain whether there had been any

peculiar local circumstances in addition to branch mergers that had had a

significant effect on membership change. In practice, membership change in




19/28

high growth branches had been influenced by particular circumstances such

as local pay disputes and campaigns against cuts in local services. These

circumstances were viewed by local representatives as promoting member-

ship growth because members joined Unison in order to seek protection

against adverse local developments. In other words, local representativesrecognized that specific local circumstances may mobilize members and

promote unionization irrespective of the presence or absence of a developed

recruitment or organizing strategy. The outcome of the checking procedure

was that 49 high-growth branches were identified that had neither been

engaged in a merger nor had been significantly influenced by the local cir-

cumstances identified above. A similar checking procedure was carried out

for the no growth branches. For these branches, local representatives

reported major reductions in membership when branches adopted the line

count system and thus excluded large numbers of people registered asmembers; when management outsourced sections of the membership, par-

ticularly where the contract was secured by a company unwilling to employ

the extant public sector workforce; relatively large-scale redundancies; and

inter-union competition that resulted in Unison members leaving to join

another union. Branches affected by one or more of these developments were

excluded from the population of no growth branches with the result this

category comprised 35 branches. Several some growth branches had been

affected by the phenomena noted for high growth and no growth branches.

Again, such branches were excluded with the result that the some growthcategory comprised 20 branches.

From the initial population of 205 branches, 101 were excluded because of

the significant impact of local circumstances. A total of 104 branches were

thus available for further examination. Reference to the Service Group and

the membership size of these branches indicates that they were distributed in

a manner consistent with the overall distribution of returns.13 There is thus no

bias by reference to Service Group or membership size. Both Branch Secre-

taries and shop stewards were asked which elements of the NORS they had

implemented at branch or workplace level. Table 5 reports the results of thisenquiry by reference to mapping, training provisions, support from person-

nel and the Regional Pool, and internal-branch adaptation.

From the outset it is important to note that 40 of the 49 high-growth

branches had been mapped, half of the some growth branches had been

mapped and that 30 of the 35 no growth branches had not been mapped. In

other words, mapping tends to be associated with high growth, whereas an

absence of mapping tends to be associated with no growth. Branch Secretar-

ies and shop stewards at high-growth branches tend to be more engaged with

the range of NORS-related activities than with their counterparts elsewhere.This tendency suggests that the embedding of NORS-related activities at the

level of the branch may promote growth.

Branch Secretaries and shop stewards at high-growth branches were the

most likely to have received training in recruitment and organizing tech-

niques. The extent of training in recruitment and organizing techniques




20/28

TABLE5

Th

eUseofNORS-RelatedActivitiesandMembershipChange

Highgrowthbranches

Somegrowthbranches

Nogrowthbranches

Branch

Secretaries

%

Shop

stewards

%

Branch

Secretaries

%

Shop

stewards

%

Branch

Secreta

ries

%

Shop

stewards

%

Mappinghasbeen

undertaken

81.6

77.6

50.0

53.2

14.3

19.5

Ihavebeenprovidedwithtraininginrecruitmentandorganizingtechniques

59.2

67.3

45.0

56.7

20.0

44.1

IhaveattendedaW

OWcourse

40.8

8.5

30.0

10.8

34.3

9.7

MyBranchhasrec

eivedsupportfromtheRegionalOrganizerinorganizing

57.1

62.1

45.0

47.7

45.7

49.7

MyBranchhasrec

eivedsupportfromBranchDevelopmentworkersinorganizing

44.9

37.1

35.0

38.7

40.0

39.5

MyBranchmakes

useoftheRegionalPool

40.8

44.1

30.0

43.2

25.7

34.9

Aplantoorganize

non-membersisinplace

67.3

51.8

35.0

30.6

25.7

12.3

MyBranchhasimplementedcampaignsonlocalissuesinconjunctionwithorgan

izing

49.0

36.4

45.0

44.1

37.1

30.3

Iprovideregularb

riefingsonmembershiplevelsandorganizingtotheBranch

36.7

30.0

17.0

Organizingisastandingorderitemontheagenda

atBranchmeetings

63.3

57.7

60.0

54.1

57.1

46.7

MyBranchallocatesabudgettoorganizingactivities

55.1

44.1

50.0

40.5

40.0

34.9

N=

49

N=

272

N=

20

N=

111

N=

35

N=

195




21/28

among Branch Secretaries and shop stewards in the other two branch cat-

egories is markedly lower. Similarly, Branch Secretaries at high-growth

branches were the most likely to have attended a WOW course, suggesting

that such attendance also promotes engagement with the NORS to positive

effect. It is apparent, however, that WOW training has been undertaken byabout a third of Branch Secretaries at both some growth and no growth

branches, indicating that attendance at such courses is not necessarily asso-

ciated with membership growth. One explanation for the inconsistent asso-

ciation between the WOW training of Branch Secretaries and membership

change may be the paucity of WOW training offered to shop stewards. As

was mentioned above, shop stewards were excluded from WOW training

when the programme was initially rolled out due to resource limitations. This

exclusion resulted in the responsibility for mapping resting largely, if not

exclusively, with Branch Secretaries, while the vast majority of shop stewardswere unaware of the detail of the procedure. Two consequences arose from

this situation. First, within the branch the implementation of the NORS and,

in particular, mapping was top-down with the Branch Secretary effectively

acting as a gatekeeper. Second, if the Branch Secretary opposed the imple-

mentation of the NORS, shop stewards were often insufficiently informed to

campaign against, or overturn, the position of the Branch Secretary if they

supported the NORS. Both of these consequences raise questions concerning

the articulation of NORS-related activities within the branch.

Support from Unison in terms of personnel is also most marked at high-growth branches. Branch Secretaries and shop stewards at such branches are

more likely to report being in receipt of support from Regional Organizers

than their counterparts elsewhere. Again, however, differences between high-

growth branches and other branches are not as marked as would be expected.

Indeed, contrary to expectations, over 45 per cent of the Branch Secretaries

and shop stewards at no growth branches report receiving support from a

Regional Organizer. Given that the same Regional Organizers are respon-

sible for branches that exhibit markedly different performances, it seems

likely that circumstances within the branch lay at the source of an explana-tion of this situation rather than variations in the quality of the support

offered by different Regional Organizers. Several Regional Organizers,

however, reported that they were often overwhelmed by requests from

branches for support, suggesting that some branches may be in receipt of

support from Regional Organizers for shorter periods of time than others.

Branch Secretaries at high-growth and no-growth branches are more likely

to have received support from Branch Development Officers than their coun-

terparts at some growth branches. This result is consistent with the role

allocated to Branch Development Officers; namely, extending the range ofmapped areas of organization. Support from Branch Development Officers

in extending mapping is not directly linked to membership growth.

The Regional Pool comprises limited funds, available for allocation

throughout branches in each region for NORS-related activities. It is

apparent from Table 5 that the take-up of funds from the Regional Pool is




22/28

positively associated with membership change. Branches that had not

mapped were the least likely to have received funds from the Regional Pool.

As such funds are limited, the process whereby they are allocated is competi-

tive and a criterion in the allocation is the extent to which a branch has been

mapped, it is not surprising that non-mapped branches are less likely to havemade use of the Regional Pool.

Five items listed in Table 5 are concerned with adaptation within the

branch. Branch Secretaries at high-growth branches were almost twice as

likely as their counterparts elsewhere to report having plans in place to

recruit non-members, suggesting that development of the NORS beyond

mapping tends to be associated with membership growth. Similarly, it is only

at high-growth branches that more than half of the shop stewards report

the presence of a plan to recruit non-members. Branch Secretaries at high-

growth branches are also more likely to report implementing campaigns onlocal issues in conjunction with organizing than Branch Secretaries at no

growth branches. Again, this result suggests that mapping is associated with

a broader commitment to the different elements of the NORS among Branch

Secretaries.

Administrative arrangements associated with the NORS are also more

frequently found at high-growth branches. In particular, Branch Secretaries

at high-growth branches are more likely to provide regular briefings on

membership levels than their counterparts at no-growth branches. Similarly,

organizing is more likely to be a standing-order item on the agenda of branchmeetings at high-growth branches. Branch Secretaries at mapped branches

are also most likely to report that monies from branch funds are allocated to

organizing activities. Furthermore, it is at no growth branches that the lowest

proportion of Branch Secretaries and shop stewards report that a budget is

allocated to organizing.

5. Conclusions

Two key points arise from the survey evidence. First, demands from existing

members and the preferences among local representatives to meet such

demands limit the time available for engagement in the NORS among Branch

Secretaries and shop stewards. These pressures prohibit some local represen-

tatives from involvement at all. Second, there is a positive relationship

between the performance of individual branches and participation of Branch

Secretaries and shop stewards in the different elements of the NORS. The

limited capacity or reluctance of some Branch Secretaries to engage in the

NORS restricts the extent to which it is embedded in day-to-day branchprocesses. A shortage of people prepared to stand as shop stewards consti-

tutes a further limit on this embedding.

These results raise three issues regarding the implementation of the orga-

nizing model in Britain and the NORS in particular. First, it is apparent that

the NORS tends towards a regionally decentralized approach to organizing.




23/28

Although there are some central managerial initiatives in the form of gener-

ating activities that might support organizing, WOW courses and the Bee-

Active campaign for example, and the monitoring of the coverage of BDOPs,

the identification of targets, the introduction of BDOPs and the day-to-day

management of the NORS rests within the regions. Regional decentralizationcoupled to the relatively few officers exclusively engaged in the NORS means

that within each region resources are limited and thinly spread.

A second issue concerns the articulation of activities within the NORS.

Where the NORS is articulated in the form of WOW training and support for

activities in the branch from Branch Development Officers and Regional

Organizers, higher rates of membership growth tend to be recorded thus

confirming the view that organizing can be exclusively neither top-down nor

bottom-up (Heery 2003; de Turberville 2004). Two interlinked points may

underpin this observation. First, the articulation of the branch with theregion and the union more widely may lead to a shift in priorities among the

lay representatives within the branch away from bargaining and representa-

tion towards organizing. Second, the deployment of additional personnel in

the form of Branch Development Officers and Regional Organizers may

contribute to an easing of the work-load among lay representatives who can

thus spend more time on recruitment/organizing. It should also be noted that

articulation in the context of organizing in the public sector is required

between the branch and wider union and within the branch. The growth in

the number of employers and the large number of workplaces covered bymany branches coupled to the manner in which NORS-related training pro-

grammes were rolled out exacerbates the difficulties of maintaining cohesion

within branches and thus the implementation of the NORS.

A third issue arising from the survey concerns the barriers to organizing.

Among the internal barriers identified in extant research (Gall 2003; Heery

and Simms 2008), the lack of time available for organizing within Unison

figures large. Demands for representation from members and involvement in

bargaining restrict the amount of time that lay representatives can spend on

organizing. Our survey made no attempt to assess whether increases in thenumber of shop stewards or active members accompanied the implementa-

tion of the NORS. Surveys conducted by the authors since 1997, however,

consistently indicate that about 30 per cent of existing Unison members

report that there is no shop steward at their workplace. In other words, the

wide-ranging initiatives launched by Unison to encourage members to stand

as stewards do not appear to have been effective, and thus steward numbers

remain a limit to the NORS. Similarly, campaigns to increase facility time

and to distribute existing facility time more evenly among lay representatives

have yet to release more time for organizing. To accommodate the absence ofshop stewards, the approach adopted by Unison is to deploy more paid

officials to organizing. Branch Development Officers were introduced after

2000 and from Autumn 2007 a new grade of full-time officer, the Local

Organizer, has undertaken NORS-related activities. Twenty-six Local

Organizers will be appointed from among the existing staff and transferred to




24/28

organizing campaigns. Albeit on a different scale, this pattern of develop-

ment replicates that of the SEIU, where the number of full-time officers

increased from 40 in 1984 to more than 600, to accommodate more intense

organizing activities (Early 2004).

A barrier to organizing that is not mentioned in the existing literaturearises from the emphasis on in-fill recruitment within Unison. The emphasis

on in-fill recruitment is entirely understandable within the context of the

public sector. A consequence of this emphasis, however, is that lay represen-

tatives often view the NORS as an additional workload. Furthermore, the

NORS requires lay representatives to change what may be long-standing

practices and may disturb vested interests within branches. Where organizing

initiatives are implemented at unorganized sites these shifts in behaviour are

not required and organizing can be scheduled by lay representatives into their

activities from the outset.

Final version accepted on 18 July 2008.

Notes

1. Unpublished research conducted by the authors shows that fewer than 4 per cent

of managers strongly discourage unions or unionization in the segments of the

public sector represented by Unison.2. The principal unions that compete with Unison for members include: the Trans-

port and General Workers Union and the GMB for manual workers in local

government; the GMB for senior white-collar grades in local government and for

teaching assistants; the Royal College of Nursing for nurses and nursing assis-

tants; and a range of unions that represent specific professions within health and

local government.

3. Unison density is the term used within the union to refer to the density of

organization achieved by Unison. For example, if a local authority employed

30,000 people and Unison organized 15,000 of them, Unison density would be 50

per cent. Other unions might organize some of the 15,000 workers not representedby Unison, hence Unison density is lower than union density.

4. The full-time officers nominated to act as the Regional Coordinator for each

Region retained the range of representative and bargaining duties usually asso-

ciated with a trade union full-time officer.

5. Many, but not all, of the other graduates from the Organizing Academy spon-

sored by Unison chose to move to other unions, where they are also involved in

organizing initiatives.

6. Unison is divided into a number of Service Groups, each of which has responsi-

bility for a particular industrial concentration of members. The number of Service

Groups has varied since 1993. At the time of writing Unison operates with six

Service Groups with responsibility for Local Government, Health Care, Higher

Education, Police Support Staffs, Transport, and Water and Environment.

Although the two Service Groups, Transport and Water and Environment, are

afforded the same status as the other Service Groups within the Unison rulebook,

they are often treated as a single Service Group in practice under the title




25/28

Business and Environment. This latter approach is employed in the analysis that

follows.

7. Although self-organized groups are in operation within each region of Unison,

the total number of active self-organized groups within the union is unknown as

is their distribution across the different membership subsections.

8. The six regions of Unison that participated in the research were: East Midlands,

Greater London, Northern, North West, Scotland and South East.

9. The line count system is now in operation in all regions in Unison.

10. At five branches two people operating on a job share basis acted as the Branch

Secretary, hence the number of questionnaires distributed to Branch Secretaries

was greater than the number of branches. Only one questionnaire, however, was

returned from these branches. There was thus no branch from which more than

one questionnaire was returned by a Branch Secretary.

11. In the Police Support Staffs Service Group the responses comprised 4.9 per cent

of the returns from Branch Secretaries and 3.9 per cent from shop stewards. Thecorresponding data for Business and Environment were 6.8 per cent among

Branch Secretaries and 5.8 per cent among shop stewards.

12. WOW courses were also initially available to Regional Organizers, National

Executive Committee members, National Committee members and Regional

Convenors in addition to Branch Secretaries.

13. The distribution of the branches by Service Group, membership size and mem-

bership change is illustrated below.

Service Group Distribution of survey returnsfrom Branch

Secretaries

Distribution ofsurvey returns withmembership growth

data attached

No. % No. %

Local Government 95 46.3 48 46.2Health Care 70 34.2 38 36.5Higher Education 16 7.8 7 6.7Police Support Staffs 10 4.9 5 4.8

Business and Environment 14 6.8 6 5.8N = 205 N = 104

Branch size(members)

Distribution ofsurvey returnsfrom Branch

Secretaries

Distribution ofsurvey returns withmembership growth

data attached

No. % No. %

Up to 200 27 13.2 13 12.5201 to 500 67 32.7 34 32.7501 to 1,000 38 18.5 19 18.31,001 to 3,000 41 20.0 21 20.23,001 or more 32 15.6 17 16.3

N = 205 N = 104




26/28

References

Bronfenbrenner, K. and Hickey, R. (2004). Changing to organize: a national assess-

ment of organizing strategies. In R. Milkman and K. Voss (eds.), Rebuilding

Labor: Organizing and Organizers in the New Union Movement. Ithaca: Cornell

University Press, pp. 1761.

, Friedman, S., Hurd, R., Oswald, R. and Seeber, R. (eds.) (1998). Organizing To

Win: New Research on Union Strategies. Ithaca: ILR Press.

Bryson, A. and Gomez, R. (2005). Why have workers stopped joining unions? The

rise in never-membership in Britain. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 43 (1):

67116.

Carter, B. (2000). Adoption of the organising model in trade unions: some evidence

from manufacturing, science and finance. Work, Employment and Society, 14 (1):

11736.

(2006). Trade union organising and renewal: a response to De Turberville.Work, Employment and Society, 20 (2): 41526.

Certification Officer, various. Annual Report of the Certification Officer. London:

Certification Office for Trade Unions and Employers Associations.

Charlwood, A. (2004). Influences on trade union organizing effectiveness in Britain.

British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42 (1): 6993.

Clark, P. (2000). Building More Effective Unions. Ithaca: ILR Press.

de Turberville, S. (2004). Does the organizing model represent a credible union

renewal strategy?. Work, Employment and Society, 18 (4): 77594.

(2007). Union organizing: a response to Carter. Work, Employment and

Society, 21 (3): 56576.Dlvik, J-E and Waddington, J. (2005). Can trade unions meet the

challenge? Unionisation in the marketised services. In G. Bosch and S.

Lehndorff (eds.), Working in the Service Sector. London: Routledge, pp. 316

41.

Early, S. (2004). Reutherism redux: What happens when poor workers unions wear

the color purple? Labor Advocate Online. Retrieved 4 June 2008. Available at:

http://www.kclabour.org/reutherism_redux.htm

Erikson, C., Fisk, C., Milkman, R., Mitchel, D. and Wong, K. (2002). Justice for

janitors: lessons from three rounds of negotiations. British Journal of Industrial

Relations, 40 (3): 54368.Fairbrother, P. (1989). Workplace Unionism in the 1980s: A Process of Renewal.

London: Workers Educational Association.

Fantasia, R. and Voss, K. (2004). Hard Work. California: University of California

Press.

Foerster, A. (2001). Confronting the dilemmas of organizing: obstacles and innova-

tions at the AFL-CIOS organizing institute. In L. Turner, H. Katz and R. Hurd

(eds.), Rekindling the Movement: Labors Quest for Relevance in the 21st Century.

Ithaca: ILR Press, pp. 15581.

Gall, G. (2003). Employer opposition to union recognition. In G. Gall (ed.), Union

Organizing. London: Routledge, pp. 7996.Grainger, H. (2006). Trade union membership 2005. Supplement to Labour Market

Trends, March.

Heery, E. (2003). Trade unions and industrial relations. In P. Ackers and A. Wilkin-

son (eds.), Understanding Work and Employment: Industrial Relations in Transition.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 278304.


http://www.kclabour.org/reutherism_redux.htmhttp://www.kclabour.org/reutherism_redux.htm


27/28

(2006). Union workers, union work: a profile of paid union officers in the

United Kingdom. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 44 (3): 44571.

and Simms, M. (2008). Constraints on union organising in the United

Kingdom. Industrial Relations Journal, 39 (1): 2442.

, Delbridge, R. and Simms, M. (2003). The Organising Academy. London: Trades

Union Congress.

Hyman, R. (1999). Imagined solidarities: can trade unions resist globalization? In

P. Leisink (ed.), Globalization and Labour Relations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar,

pp. 94115.

Kelly, J. (1990). British trade unionism 19791989: change, continuity and contra-

dictions, Work, Employment and Society, 4 (Special Issue): 2965.

and Badigannaver, V. (2004). Union organizing. In J. Kelly and P. Willman

(eds.), Union Organization and Activity. London: Routledge, pp. 3250.

and Heery, E. (1989). Working for the Union: British Trade Union Officers.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lerner, S. (2003). An immodest proposal: remodelling the house of labor, New

Labor Forum, Summer, pp. 930.

Livesey, D. (2006). Public sector employment 2006: seasonally adjusted series and

recent trends, Labour Market Trends, December, pp. 41938.

Lopez, S. (2004). Overcoming legacies of business unionism: why grassroots orga-

nizing tactics succeed. In R. Milkman and K. Voss (eds.), Rebuilding Labor:

Organizing and Organizers in the New Labor Movement. London: Routledge, pp.

11432.

Mason, B. and Bain, P. (1993). The determinants of trade union membership in

Britain: a survey of the literature. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 46 (2):33251.

Metcalf, D. (1991). British unions: dissolution or resurgence? Oxford Review of

Economic Policy, No. 7, 1832.

(2005). Trade unions: resurg

Documents

British Journal of Industrial Relations