Making organizational change
23/Jan/2007 14:33
A large
number of unions and union leaders are trying to
change their organizations to put themselves in a
better, more powerful, position to advance the
interests of their members. The need for change is
made urgent by the increasingly difficult environment
in which unions operate: for example, loss in net
membership, a drop in overall union density, laws
that give advantage to employers, social and economic
policy (like privatization and free trade) that
diminishes union leverage. Of course, succeeding in
bringing about fundamental change is no easy task.
Today, we
looked at the case of Ohio Council 8 of the American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), which embarked on an
ambitious program to “change to organize” in the
late 1990s.
Council 8 consists of several regions, each made up of local unions of various sizes with varying resources. Some of the larger local unions hire their own staff and/or have full-time elected officers; all local unions, but particularly the smaller ones, are very reliant on Council 8’s paid staff representatives to carry out representation of members. The staff representatives report to the full-time director for their region, who, in turn, is accountable to the Council 8 President.
The move for organizational change was driven by the Council 8 President Patricia Moss who was convinced of the need to do more organizing in order to counter the potential net membership loss as a result of privatization, on the one hand, and to increase its bargaining power by building sector union density, on the other hand.
This thinking was not necessarily shared. Council 8 itself was doing well in addressing privatization and was not suffering a membership drop. Members and staff were asking, if it’s not broken why fix it? Why change?
What changes did Moss attempt to implement to move to an organizing model of unionism? Central to her plan was that organizing would be integrated into existing structures and roles. Each of the eight regional directors was given principal responsibility for organizing within his/her region and told to spend half the time on organizing. They were to develop organizing plans for their regions. This was to include assessing and targeting likely prospects, and developing campaign plans. Regional directors were to be assisted by a new classification, Lead Staff Organizer. These organizers were to be chosen from among the existing service staff representatives and paid a premium. They would be expected to devote 40 per cent of their time to organizing and to continue servicing with the remaining 60 per cent of time.
Other servicing staff members were to assist the organizing efforts in a number of ways: by helping to identify members who could assist in organizing drives, helping to identify targets for organizing, and by negotiating longer term collective agreements to free up union bargaining resources for organizing.
Ohio Council 8 decided to set their organizing sights on the health care sector, which was largely unorganized and expanding rapidly. The Council had a base in the sector but other unions were also moving in and thereby threatening to undermine the Council’s majority position of leverage.
Despite good effort, the Council’s first organizing campaign in the sector was not successful. The Council found that organizing in the (private) health sector was tougher than their experience in the public sector with employer opposition much stronger. The second organizing drive went much better. In this case, the objective of the campaign was to sign up employees for whom the union had representation rights, but who were not card-carrying members of the union. The governing labour laws in this situation are such that a union can win recognition but can’t actually bargain on behalf of members, and collect union dues, if they haven’t specifically signed up. (Interestingly, union density in the US would increase by 2 per cent if the labour movement was successful in signing up all such workers.)
The Council’s strategy was to increase its membership base through internal organizing and all of its resources were deployed in a coordinated way to achieve that end: workplace activists, all the specialized union staff (legal, communications, organizing, research, education and so forth). The foundation of the campaign was a one-on-one recruitment drive.
The beauty of this strategy was that the organizing drive brought in new members while significantly strengthening the existing local union in the process. Existing members didn’t resent the resources being expended to bring in non-members because they knew a positive result would benefit everyone. The staff also welcomed the initiative because it would increase and consolidate the group’s bargaining power giving more leverage in getting grievances addressed, and settling contracts.
Of course forcing change from the top down, and winning a campaign or two, doesn’t magically translate into huge shifts in thinking and operation. Cultural shits in unions take a long time to achieve, and a lot of work. In this case, the Council put enormous effort into engaging the leaders at all levels of the union and staff in the change-process. The Council also put in place a comprehensive education program, including staff training initiatives, to support the union’s new orientation. Staff duties were shifted, For example, the job description of the regional directors was changed significantly with more emphasis placed on leadership duties and skills than on day-to-day management and coping skills. (I am currently seeking permission to post on this web site the old and new regional director job descriptions—so check back again for future postings.)
The lesson of the story: organizational change is possible but takes a long time, a lot of consultation, some concrete short-term and long-term results, a willingness to evaluate and shift gears to avoid stalling, and determination to persevere even if you suffer setbacks.
Council 8 consists of several regions, each made up of local unions of various sizes with varying resources. Some of the larger local unions hire their own staff and/or have full-time elected officers; all local unions, but particularly the smaller ones, are very reliant on Council 8’s paid staff representatives to carry out representation of members. The staff representatives report to the full-time director for their region, who, in turn, is accountable to the Council 8 President.
The move for organizational change was driven by the Council 8 President Patricia Moss who was convinced of the need to do more organizing in order to counter the potential net membership loss as a result of privatization, on the one hand, and to increase its bargaining power by building sector union density, on the other hand.
This thinking was not necessarily shared. Council 8 itself was doing well in addressing privatization and was not suffering a membership drop. Members and staff were asking, if it’s not broken why fix it? Why change?
What changes did Moss attempt to implement to move to an organizing model of unionism? Central to her plan was that organizing would be integrated into existing structures and roles. Each of the eight regional directors was given principal responsibility for organizing within his/her region and told to spend half the time on organizing. They were to develop organizing plans for their regions. This was to include assessing and targeting likely prospects, and developing campaign plans. Regional directors were to be assisted by a new classification, Lead Staff Organizer. These organizers were to be chosen from among the existing service staff representatives and paid a premium. They would be expected to devote 40 per cent of their time to organizing and to continue servicing with the remaining 60 per cent of time.
Other servicing staff members were to assist the organizing efforts in a number of ways: by helping to identify members who could assist in organizing drives, helping to identify targets for organizing, and by negotiating longer term collective agreements to free up union bargaining resources for organizing.
Ohio Council 8 decided to set their organizing sights on the health care sector, which was largely unorganized and expanding rapidly. The Council had a base in the sector but other unions were also moving in and thereby threatening to undermine the Council’s majority position of leverage.
Despite good effort, the Council’s first organizing campaign in the sector was not successful. The Council found that organizing in the (private) health sector was tougher than their experience in the public sector with employer opposition much stronger. The second organizing drive went much better. In this case, the objective of the campaign was to sign up employees for whom the union had representation rights, but who were not card-carrying members of the union. The governing labour laws in this situation are such that a union can win recognition but can’t actually bargain on behalf of members, and collect union dues, if they haven’t specifically signed up. (Interestingly, union density in the US would increase by 2 per cent if the labour movement was successful in signing up all such workers.)
The Council’s strategy was to increase its membership base through internal organizing and all of its resources were deployed in a coordinated way to achieve that end: workplace activists, all the specialized union staff (legal, communications, organizing, research, education and so forth). The foundation of the campaign was a one-on-one recruitment drive.
The beauty of this strategy was that the organizing drive brought in new members while significantly strengthening the existing local union in the process. Existing members didn’t resent the resources being expended to bring in non-members because they knew a positive result would benefit everyone. The staff also welcomed the initiative because it would increase and consolidate the group’s bargaining power giving more leverage in getting grievances addressed, and settling contracts.
Of course forcing change from the top down, and winning a campaign or two, doesn’t magically translate into huge shifts in thinking and operation. Cultural shits in unions take a long time to achieve, and a lot of work. In this case, the Council put enormous effort into engaging the leaders at all levels of the union and staff in the change-process. The Council also put in place a comprehensive education program, including staff training initiatives, to support the union’s new orientation. Staff duties were shifted, For example, the job description of the regional directors was changed significantly with more emphasis placed on leadership duties and skills than on day-to-day management and coping skills. (I am currently seeking permission to post on this web site the old and new regional director job descriptions—so check back again for future postings.)
The lesson of the story: organizational change is possible but takes a long time, a lot of consultation, some concrete short-term and long-term results, a willingness to evaluate and shift gears to avoid stalling, and determination to persevere even if you suffer setbacks.
|