Reorganizing for power (the case of BCGEU)
15/Feb/2007 14:00
The big
divide in the US labour movement is supposedly over
differences about how unions and labour
representation should be structured. I say
“supposedly” because nothing I have read or heard in
this program suggests a big gap in point of view.
Both the AFL-CIO and Change to Win camps speak of the
need to change. Both speak of the need to organize
the unorganized. Both speak of the need to build
union power. Both are putting significant resources
into organizing and campaigns. Neither seems to be
moving forward any radical restructuring of the
broader labour movement to accomplish those goals.
There have
been a lot of union mergers in the US and
considerable success in organizing in the face of
huge resistance from employers and governments. The
outcome hasn't necessarily been more consolidation of
union strength along sectoral or industrial lines. In
some cases, the movement’s mergers and organizing
strategies have had the opposite effect: an increase
not a decrease in the number of unions present in
some sectors or industries. Competition among unions
is on the rise, reducing the potential of building
unity against employers within industries or sectors.
In class, we looked to Canada for an example of a different approach to reorganization. The story of the transformation of the BC Government and Service Employees Union (BCGEU), told to us by President George Heyman, is a story of a union that deliberately changed to build sector power.
BCGEU was founded as a provincial government civil service association. It became a trade union, and organized itself accordingly, when government employees won the right to collective bargaining in the 1960s. In the last few decades, the provincial civil service (like those across the country) has undergone profound change. Many provincial services and jobs have been cut. Responsibility for the delivery of many programs has been downloaded to municipalities and community agencies. In 1983, a total of 34,013 BCGEU members worked in the government sector compared to 4,423 in other sectors. By 1988, this second number had doubled while the government sector membership dropped to 27,508.
In response to these shifts, and in anticipation of further government restructuring, BCGEU had to change to survive. The starting point was a 1984 BCGEU convention plan (Building for the Future). It created a new organizing department with a mandate to organize workers in existing sectors, workers performing services formerly done by provincial employees, as well as workers in unorganized private sector workplaces. At the same time, the union changed its political structures moving from regional representation on the executive board to representatiion from the union's key sectors.
By changing political representation in this way, the executive board's focus shifted with more attention being given to the specifica challenges facing the different sectors. In some ways the board became more relevant to members. As well, sectoral representation resulted in more diversity on the board, including representation of women, especially from the female-dominated sectors.
Organizing local unions into sector councils or components (replacing the old geographically based structures) created pressure for other changes. Each sector moved towards improved coordination and centralized provincial bargaining. With central or provincial collective agreements in place, there was a need to coordinate the administration of the agreements (grievance handling).
One of the concerns with moving to sectoral provincial bargaining is that the bargaining process can become distant and disconnected from the members. To address this, the union put in place a program of education and other supports to membership and local leader involvement in all the day-to-day activity. All of this made for a more vibrant and powerful membership base, improved representation and better contracts.
BCGEU’s structure has continued to evolve and change as the membership profile changes. Take for example the changes in the community social services sector. When BCGEU put its new component structure in place, workers in the social services sector were combined with health service workers. By 1996 the union decided to split off social services into its own component bringing together members working for a broad spectrum of community services like women’s shelters, developmental support agencies, family and children service agencies, and Aboriginal services. Since the creation of the new component in 1996, membership has grown from 4,000 8,000 members. The component is represented on the provincial executive board giving this group of workers a direct say. BCGEU now has a major orgnaizing drive on to bring in more child care workers. If that part of the sector grows, and if there is a demonstrated need, the child care sector could evolve into a separate component down the road.
Hand-in-hand with structural change, BCGEU has tried to make organizational and cultural change. New education programs, and an expanded education budget, have allowed for significant leadership training at all levels of the union. Programs, like BCGEU’s “Member to Member” initiative, have been used to build the union’s capacity to communicate to members in the workplace and bring them closer to the union. Most importantly, the union has initiated campaigns to raise the profile of the union and engage members in actions to force employers to improve working conditions and to push back the (neo) liberal government of BC. It is this kind of activity, Heyman told us, that brings in the next generation of leaders.
Perhaps that’s really the best way of assessing any union’s transformation. Perhaps you can claim success if your reorganization and restructuring increases organizational capacity, strategic leverage, and most of all a large crop of engage activist who can then lead the union through further renewal.
In class, we looked to Canada for an example of a different approach to reorganization. The story of the transformation of the BC Government and Service Employees Union (BCGEU), told to us by President George Heyman, is a story of a union that deliberately changed to build sector power.
BCGEU was founded as a provincial government civil service association. It became a trade union, and organized itself accordingly, when government employees won the right to collective bargaining in the 1960s. In the last few decades, the provincial civil service (like those across the country) has undergone profound change. Many provincial services and jobs have been cut. Responsibility for the delivery of many programs has been downloaded to municipalities and community agencies. In 1983, a total of 34,013 BCGEU members worked in the government sector compared to 4,423 in other sectors. By 1988, this second number had doubled while the government sector membership dropped to 27,508.
In response to these shifts, and in anticipation of further government restructuring, BCGEU had to change to survive. The starting point was a 1984 BCGEU convention plan (Building for the Future). It created a new organizing department with a mandate to organize workers in existing sectors, workers performing services formerly done by provincial employees, as well as workers in unorganized private sector workplaces. At the same time, the union changed its political structures moving from regional representation on the executive board to representatiion from the union's key sectors.
By changing political representation in this way, the executive board's focus shifted with more attention being given to the specifica challenges facing the different sectors. In some ways the board became more relevant to members. As well, sectoral representation resulted in more diversity on the board, including representation of women, especially from the female-dominated sectors.
Organizing local unions into sector councils or components (replacing the old geographically based structures) created pressure for other changes. Each sector moved towards improved coordination and centralized provincial bargaining. With central or provincial collective agreements in place, there was a need to coordinate the administration of the agreements (grievance handling).
One of the concerns with moving to sectoral provincial bargaining is that the bargaining process can become distant and disconnected from the members. To address this, the union put in place a program of education and other supports to membership and local leader involvement in all the day-to-day activity. All of this made for a more vibrant and powerful membership base, improved representation and better contracts.
BCGEU’s structure has continued to evolve and change as the membership profile changes. Take for example the changes in the community social services sector. When BCGEU put its new component structure in place, workers in the social services sector were combined with health service workers. By 1996 the union decided to split off social services into its own component bringing together members working for a broad spectrum of community services like women’s shelters, developmental support agencies, family and children service agencies, and Aboriginal services. Since the creation of the new component in 1996, membership has grown from 4,000 8,000 members. The component is represented on the provincial executive board giving this group of workers a direct say. BCGEU now has a major orgnaizing drive on to bring in more child care workers. If that part of the sector grows, and if there is a demonstrated need, the child care sector could evolve into a separate component down the road.
Hand-in-hand with structural change, BCGEU has tried to make organizational and cultural change. New education programs, and an expanded education budget, have allowed for significant leadership training at all levels of the union. Programs, like BCGEU’s “Member to Member” initiative, have been used to build the union’s capacity to communicate to members in the workplace and bring them closer to the union. Most importantly, the union has initiated campaigns to raise the profile of the union and engage members in actions to force employers to improve working conditions and to push back the (neo) liberal government of BC. It is this kind of activity, Heyman told us, that brings in the next generation of leaders.
Perhaps that’s really the best way of assessing any union’s transformation. Perhaps you can claim success if your reorganization and restructuring increases organizational capacity, strategic leverage, and most of all a large crop of engage activist who can then lead the union through further renewal.
|