The unresolved case of HUCTW
01/Feb/2007 16:59
The story of
Harvard’s clerical and technical workers
(HUCTW) has come up a lot in
this program. In the first week, HUCTW President
Adrienne Landau and Secretary Treasurer Donene
Williams spoke to us. Last week, founding leader
Kris Rondeau gave a guest lecture. The story also
crops up in several of our assigned readings.
Thomas A. Kochan, in his article,
Restoring Voice at
Work and in Society, offers HUCTW as an
example of the kind of unionism that could
revitalize the labour movement. In
Turning
the Tide, David Weil includes
HUCTW as a case study to demonstrate how a union
can succeed when it responds effectively to both
its external and internal environments. Why all
this attention to an organizing victory that took
place more than fifteen years ago?
On the
surface, HUCTW’s organizing story is not so different
than many others. It has villains (the Harvard
administration), heroes (the union leaders and
members), struggle (not just against the
administration but also against the UAW when it
pulled the plug on the local organizing committee), a
sound track (music, song and fun was a big part of
the campaign) and amazing drama (including two
defeats along the way) concluding with a happy ending
(one of the largest bargaining units certified in
recent history).
Not such an unusual story until you consider how few large groups of workers in the US (or Canada, for that matter) have been organized in the last twenty years. With more than 5,000 workers organized, the HUCTW campaign was a stunning success achieved largely because of the union’s particular approach to organizing.
HUCTW organizer Kris Rondeau, who has gone on to organize other workplaces, rejects what she says are the prevailing view of union organizers. When she was hired on by the UAW she was told to divide workers into three categories: those that are anti-union and hostile to organizing, those that are supportive, and those that are undecided. Focus on the middle group, she was instructed; ignore those that are hostile, and take for granted those that are supportive. Also, Rondeau says that union organizers tend to operate on the assumption that the more miserable and vulnerable a worker is the more likely she or he will be to support the union. Rondeau says that if HUCTW had adopted these approaches, the union would have failed at Harvard.
For one thing, it was clear from the outset that clerical and technical workers were neither miserable nor that vulnerable. A lot of them felt complained they were underpaid and that their benefits could be better, but most liked their work and their jobs. An organizing drive that attacked Harvard was not going to resonate—the strongest argument for unionization was that employees would get a voice in university decision-making. According to Rondeau, what the employees wanted most was to be noticed and treated with respect.
HUCTW also found that some of the strongest union supporters—and the ones that formed the foundation of the drive—were those who felt most secure. As Rondeau explained, those who had good relationships with their supervisors were best able to take the risk of supporting the union.
Ignoring the opponents of the drive and concentrating on the undecided wasn’t an option for the HUCTW organizers because that was a moving target. The university administration waged a strong anti-union campaign and employees swayed back and forth from supportive, to undecided to opposed. More importantly, HUCTW wanted to be seen as an organization open to all employees, not just supporters. The union’s principal organizing tool was dialogue. They organized themselves to have conversations with potential members to develop personal relationships. Rondeau says they spent more time talking to coworkers about their families than about the union. The sign-up didn’t begin until a very strong network of relationships had been created.
Since winning recognition, HUCTW has continued to use one-on-one member communication to keep members informed and get input into decisions. Although affiliated with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the union relies exclusively on internal resources. “We don’t use lawyers for anything,” said Secretary-Treasurer Donene Williams. In fact, HUCTW doesn’t have grievances. Union President Adrienne Landeau explained that the members themselves engage in problem-solving with the help of other members trained in conflict resolution. And this year, HUCTW is bringing the problem solving model to the bargaining table where “interest based bargaining” tools will be used to amend the collective agreement.
It is perhaps this “alternative” approach to labour relations that makes HUCTW so interesting to some of those searching for solutions to the weakening position of organized labour in the US. The argument is that, when union density is low (only 12 per cent in the US), unions don’t have sufficient power to engage in more traditional labour-management forums. Also, to organize the unorganized (many of whom are women) unions have to show they are not all about confrontation. Unions have to demonstrate that there are other better ways to influence decisions.
HUCTW’s way is to engage in politics of “kindness and respect,” described this way on the web site: “Making sure the rights and well-being of staff are among [the university’s] priorities—both locally and University-wide-- is the job of the Union. Doing so with kindness and respect makes our Union more powerful, because it relies on a dynamic but lasting Union-management relationship, rather than on isolated acts of gamesmanship and antagonism. Perhaps as important, operating with kindness and respect makes our Union more inclusive, because members who are not interested in what they may see as ‘angry politics’ feel they can still be actively involved.”
There is much that is attractive about HUCTW’s model of organizing and representation. The one-on-one systems of communication, the direct involvement of members in representation and solving problems, the development of solid relationships between union representatives and individual members; these are all things that many of us have been pushing for as a way to build union. HUCTW’s total rejection of union “professionals” is unique and shows not only that workers are capable of representing themselves and each other, but also that they grow stronger and more empowered by doing so.
But what to make of HUCTW’s embracement of interest-based bargaining and other cooperative labour-management structures that (evidence shows) are used to diffuse the very membership power that HUCTW believes in so strongly? Is cooperating with management a strategic move on the part of the union—does HUCTW think to do so will increase its strategic leverage? If so, how does that work? After all, interest-based bargaining is supposed to be about removing strategic leverage from both parties--it is supposed to be about creating “neutral” ground for the parties to work things out as “equals.”
A small frustration I have experienced in this program is not having more time and opportunities to push further on issues like these and to engage in more detailed debate. There is a tendency to back away from disagreeing for fear of seeming too critical of others. But I would like to understand better HUCTW’s thinking. The leaders of HUCTW strike me as incredibly bright, progressive and strategic. They are obviously courageous and creative and its not as if they haven't at times expressed discontent. But I don’t understand their strategy. And even though HUCWT keeps coming up, I don’t feel that we have really talked through all the questions that the case raises. Perhaps there will be other opportunities to do so--there are still two weeks left to go.
Not such an unusual story until you consider how few large groups of workers in the US (or Canada, for that matter) have been organized in the last twenty years. With more than 5,000 workers organized, the HUCTW campaign was a stunning success achieved largely because of the union’s particular approach to organizing.
HUCTW organizer Kris Rondeau, who has gone on to organize other workplaces, rejects what she says are the prevailing view of union organizers. When she was hired on by the UAW she was told to divide workers into three categories: those that are anti-union and hostile to organizing, those that are supportive, and those that are undecided. Focus on the middle group, she was instructed; ignore those that are hostile, and take for granted those that are supportive. Also, Rondeau says that union organizers tend to operate on the assumption that the more miserable and vulnerable a worker is the more likely she or he will be to support the union. Rondeau says that if HUCTW had adopted these approaches, the union would have failed at Harvard.
For one thing, it was clear from the outset that clerical and technical workers were neither miserable nor that vulnerable. A lot of them felt complained they were underpaid and that their benefits could be better, but most liked their work and their jobs. An organizing drive that attacked Harvard was not going to resonate—the strongest argument for unionization was that employees would get a voice in university decision-making. According to Rondeau, what the employees wanted most was to be noticed and treated with respect.
HUCTW also found that some of the strongest union supporters—and the ones that formed the foundation of the drive—were those who felt most secure. As Rondeau explained, those who had good relationships with their supervisors were best able to take the risk of supporting the union.
Ignoring the opponents of the drive and concentrating on the undecided wasn’t an option for the HUCTW organizers because that was a moving target. The university administration waged a strong anti-union campaign and employees swayed back and forth from supportive, to undecided to opposed. More importantly, HUCTW wanted to be seen as an organization open to all employees, not just supporters. The union’s principal organizing tool was dialogue. They organized themselves to have conversations with potential members to develop personal relationships. Rondeau says they spent more time talking to coworkers about their families than about the union. The sign-up didn’t begin until a very strong network of relationships had been created.
Since winning recognition, HUCTW has continued to use one-on-one member communication to keep members informed and get input into decisions. Although affiliated with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the union relies exclusively on internal resources. “We don’t use lawyers for anything,” said Secretary-Treasurer Donene Williams. In fact, HUCTW doesn’t have grievances. Union President Adrienne Landeau explained that the members themselves engage in problem-solving with the help of other members trained in conflict resolution. And this year, HUCTW is bringing the problem solving model to the bargaining table where “interest based bargaining” tools will be used to amend the collective agreement.
It is perhaps this “alternative” approach to labour relations that makes HUCTW so interesting to some of those searching for solutions to the weakening position of organized labour in the US. The argument is that, when union density is low (only 12 per cent in the US), unions don’t have sufficient power to engage in more traditional labour-management forums. Also, to organize the unorganized (many of whom are women) unions have to show they are not all about confrontation. Unions have to demonstrate that there are other better ways to influence decisions.
HUCTW’s way is to engage in politics of “kindness and respect,” described this way on the web site: “Making sure the rights and well-being of staff are among [the university’s] priorities—both locally and University-wide-- is the job of the Union. Doing so with kindness and respect makes our Union more powerful, because it relies on a dynamic but lasting Union-management relationship, rather than on isolated acts of gamesmanship and antagonism. Perhaps as important, operating with kindness and respect makes our Union more inclusive, because members who are not interested in what they may see as ‘angry politics’ feel they can still be actively involved.”
There is much that is attractive about HUCTW’s model of organizing and representation. The one-on-one systems of communication, the direct involvement of members in representation and solving problems, the development of solid relationships between union representatives and individual members; these are all things that many of us have been pushing for as a way to build union. HUCTW’s total rejection of union “professionals” is unique and shows not only that workers are capable of representing themselves and each other, but also that they grow stronger and more empowered by doing so.
But what to make of HUCTW’s embracement of interest-based bargaining and other cooperative labour-management structures that (evidence shows) are used to diffuse the very membership power that HUCTW believes in so strongly? Is cooperating with management a strategic move on the part of the union—does HUCTW think to do so will increase its strategic leverage? If so, how does that work? After all, interest-based bargaining is supposed to be about removing strategic leverage from both parties--it is supposed to be about creating “neutral” ground for the parties to work things out as “equals.”
A small frustration I have experienced in this program is not having more time and opportunities to push further on issues like these and to engage in more detailed debate. There is a tendency to back away from disagreeing for fear of seeming too critical of others. But I would like to understand better HUCTW’s thinking. The leaders of HUCTW strike me as incredibly bright, progressive and strategic. They are obviously courageous and creative and its not as if they haven't at times expressed discontent. But I don’t understand their strategy. And even though HUCWT keeps coming up, I don’t feel that we have really talked through all the questions that the case raises. Perhaps there will be other opportunities to do so--there are still two weeks left to go.
|