<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
    xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
	<channel>
<title>Union Leadership Development </title><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/index.html</link><description>Latest additions</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:rights>Copyright 2006 UnionEduAction</dc:rights><dc:date>2007-02-20T19:23:56-05:00</dc:date><admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.realmacsoftware.com/" />
<admin:errorReportsTo rdf:resource="mailto:mballantyne@mac.com" /><sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
<sy:updateBase>2000-01-01T12:00+00:00</sy:updateBase>
<lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:02:03 -0400</lastBuildDate><itunes:owner><itunes:name>Morna Ballantyne</itunes:name><itunes:email>mballantyne@mac.com</itunes:email></itunes:owner><itunes:category text="Union Leadership"/><itunes:keywords>Harvard Trade Union Program</itunes:keywords><item><title>And the last words go to others</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-02-20T19:23:56-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/Last_words.html#unique-entry-id-33</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/Last_words.html#unique-entry-id-33</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On our last day of classes, with only one more session to go, I sat down with seven fellow students to talk about the Harvard Trade Union Program.  I taped the session (with their permission, of course) and used the material, along with some material from our graduation ceremony, to create the podcast below.

(I have also posted an MP3 version of the conversation in the event you have problems downloading the podcast.  It is a big file so please don't try to open it if you are not on a high-speed internet connection or if your computer is more than a couple of years old.)

With this last post, I end this participant's blog.

I hope you will come back to the web site again to visit other sections that I am constructing as I continue on with my investigation into union leadership development.  In solidarity, Morna Ballantyne  Podcast]]></content:encoded><enclosure url="http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/podcast_33.mp3" length="36517093" type="audio/mpeg"/></item><item><title>Too much to tell all</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-02-20T19:21:15-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/miscellaneous.html#unique-entry-id-32</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/miscellaneous.html#unique-entry-id-32</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[I have enough material for at least thirty more web site postings.

I would like to tell you about Tom Juravich&rsquo;s excellent presentation on stress in the workplace and the research he is doing about working conditions at a Verizons call centre and other sectors of the "new" economy.  Instead you will have to read his soon-to-be-published book on the subject.

Steve Early (CWA) and Robert Schwartz (author and attorney) led a good discussion about strikes and why their are so few these days, particularly in the US. In 1952, 3 million US workers engaged in major strikes (those involving 1,000 or more union members).  In 2004, the number of strikers was down to 316,000.  This session on strikes came to mind when I heard on the news this morning that the Canadian federal government will be legislating back to work the strikers at CN rail after being on the picket line for 12 days.

Jack Trumbour, Research Director for Harvard&rsquo;s Labor and Worklife Program, gave a talk on Labour in film (along with a good listing of what is available), and he showed us a segment of Salt of the Earth.  It has been years since I watched this classic last and, like all previous times, I was in tears within minutes.  (By the way, a re-mastered DVD version of the film, with a cleaned up soundtrack so that you can actually make out the dialogue, is available from www.amazon.com.)

I learned so much about so many things.

I heard a different perspective on the NAFTA side agreement on labour rights.  Like many other Canadian trade unionists, I have written it off as useless.  But Tamara Kay (Sociology, Harvard University) told us about her research that demonstrates its positive impact on union solidarity.  The side deal, administered through the Commission on Labour Cooperation, permits unions to complain about violations of labour rights but they have to file their complaints in one (or both) of the other NAFTA countries.  This process has encouraged labour unions in Canada, the US and Mexico NAFTA countries to cooperate and work together, just as they did during the free trade negotiations.

I learned about liberal democracy in the US. Did you know that the right of citizens to vote is not guaranteed in the US constitution?  Furthermore, a proposal to make it so (sponsored by Jesse Jackson) has the support of only 60 members of Congress, and no US senators or Republicans?  In his lecture on the topic, Alex Keyssar (Kennedy School of Government) argued that securing this right would go some way to enfranchising the millions of working class US citizens who can&rsquo;t vote for a myriad of reasons.

We heard all the arguments against merit pay and useful information on performance evaluation; we talked about pensions and old age security; we received an excellent update on the various US campaigns to win living wage ordinances; we were enthralled (I kid you not) by Barry Bluestone&rsquo;s lectures on the economy; and we were taken on a trip through time by Labour historian James Green (who has written an excellent book describing major turning points in US labour history).

As I&rsquo;ve already reported, David Weil gave us tools to assess and build union strength.  Finally, and perhaps most important of all, Elaine Bernard did an amazing job of weaving together all the different pieces and connecting them to the organizational and leadership challenges facing our unions today.

The Harvard Trade Union Program gave me six weeks to think, talk and read about trade union organizational and leadership development without distractions from all my regular routines.  It isn&rsquo;t often that any of us in the labour movement get such an opportunity.  A big thank you to my union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, for making it possible.

I am looking into a number of different union leadership programs during my sabbatical leave from CUPE.  I search web sites, collect documentation, and by interviewing speak to program conveners and participants.  I am fortunate to have been able to get first-hand information about the Harvard Trade Union Program as a participant and to share some of the content with others through this blog.

Throughout the HTUP project (and my postings) I have tried not to comment on my fellow student out of respect for their privacy and that of the group.  What I will say about them now is that they are articulate, thoughtful, very experienced, incredibly bright, full of good humour, and extremely committed to the education process as well as to the trade union movement.  It was a privilege to get to know them and I am indebted to them for most of my learning these past six weeks.

I will give the last words to them in my next and last posting.  Please stay tuned to hear my concluding podcast.  And, please comment on any or all of the postings by clicking on the comment button at the end of each one.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Personalities and leadership</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-02-16T08:24:21-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/Personality_counts.html#unique-entry-id-29</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/Personality_counts.html#unique-entry-id-29</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[These kinds of personality exercises give people in a group an opportunity to recognize and discuss their individual differences and to signal their particular needs.  Almost all groups are made up of individuals who see and experience the world differently.  Many people assume that fearless, outspoken extraverts make the best leaders.  In fact, good leadership has less to do with having a specific personality as it does with understanding the personalities of others.  Good union leaders&mdash;and good union educators&mdash;appreciate that the individuals who make up the membership respond to things in a variety of ways.  Some look to a leader for logical arguments and indications of competence, whereas others might respond better when a leader can tap into their emotions.  Some members do better receiving information visually, so leaders have to paint a picture of a problem for it to be understood.

Good leaders also understand that a group works best and is most powerful if it is inclusive of different personality types.  Differences within a group can make it stronger and more dynamic&mdash;but only if the differences are managed and facilitated.  And that&rsquo;s the job of leaders.

There are lots of tools&mdash;many more straightforward than Myers-Briggs&mdash;that can help a group identify and better understand the personalities that are contained within it.  This understanding is key to building positive group dynamics.  Training for Change, for example, offers a "team types" discussion tool that invites members of a group to stand in either the North, South, East or West positions according to how they see themselves.  I&rsquo;ve done the exercise as part of leadership training workshops, and in bargaining preparation workshops, and found it to be a useful device to make people more sensitive to the personality factors that conribute to group dynamics.

If you are curious about your own personality type, and can&rsquo;t wait until one of these workshops to come along to find out, you can google Myers-Briggs to get pages of information, or complete an on-line questionnaire.  Even if you think it is hocus pocus, it can be useful in leadership development.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>A conversation with David Weil</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-02-15T22:03:10-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/David_Weil_interview.html#unique-entry-id-28</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/David_Weil_interview.html#unique-entry-id-28</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[In an earlier posting, I outlined Weil's srategic choices framework that suggests there are two dimensions to building union power: building organizational capacity and increasing strategic leverage.

You can hear him expand on his views in the taped conversation I had with him early one morning before the class bell rang.  Just click on the link below.  It will give you a taste of some of the best the Harvard Trade Union Program has to offer.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Continuous bargaining</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-02-15T20:23:36-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/workplace_organization.html#unique-entry-id-27</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/workplace_organization.html#unique-entry-id-27</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Charley Richardson has a lot of experience with change in the workplace.  He has studied how, time and time again, Management introduces new technology and systems to increase productivity, profitability, efficiency and control at the expense of workers.  He has also studied how, time and time again, unions fail to respond adequately to the challenge.

The problem is that work reorganization is seen as an exclusive management right.  Management takes that view, but so too do many union leaders.  Yet, how work is organized (how services are delivered or how products are made) has enormous short and long-term consequences for the things unions care about most: the wages, working conditions and wellbeing of our members.  More importantly, management-inspired workplace reorganization almost always reduces the control of individual workers over their work, thereby reducing the strategic leverage of their unions.

Often union members understand the critical importance of technology and work organization better than their leaders.  If you work as an office secretary, you understand that a change to even a single office procedure or a single piece of office machinery could affect your job and a range a related things: the job description, job classification, work hours, etc.

Most workers want to have a say over these things and so they want a say in the workplace changes.  When the union does not get involved, members will find another way to have some influence.  And employers take advantage of the union&rsquo;s absence to engage workers directly, outside of the collective bargaining arrangement.  For example, employers may invite workers to join work teams or &ldquo;quality of life circles.&rdquo;  Workers who participate don&rsquo;t realize that these processes are more about Management getting the workers&rsquo; knowledge to better control workers than they are about addressing workers&rsquo; concerns.

The better approach is for unions to actively address work reorganization by using their full organizational capacity and by exercising their bargaining power.  This doesn&rsquo;t mean waiting for the next round of bargaining by which time it will be too late to make a difference.  Rather, it means engaging in what Richardson calls &ldquo;continuous bargaining.&rdquo;  That is, being continuously alert to changes that will likely come down the road and continuously working with member to address the change through union processes.

Unions have to train their leaders on issues related to work organization.  This includes training leaders (and members) to watch out for the tricks and traps of Management-controlled employee involvement programs.  It also includes training union leaders how to anticipate workplace change and new technologies, how to develop strategies for forcing the employer to address the union&rsquo;s concerns regardless of whether or not workers are protected in the collective agreement, and what language to negotiate in the collective agreement to increase the union&rsquo;s leverage for addressing change.  It also means training union leaders to work with members to identify positive workplace changes for members, and to make sure those are the ones that get put in place.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Reorganizing for power  (the case of BCGEU)</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-02-15T14:00:05-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/BCGEU.html#unique-entry-id-26</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/BCGEU.html#unique-entry-id-26</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&rsquo;s &ldquo;Member to Member&rdquo; initiative, have been used to build the union&rsquo;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&rsquo;s really the best way of assessing any union&rsquo;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.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Gender gets raised (finally)</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-02-14T12:47:26-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/Gender.html#unique-entry-id-25</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/Gender.html#unique-entry-id-25</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[HTUP program director Elaine Bernard was reviewing the arrangements for our graduation ceremony on Friday, which turns out to be a better deal than I expected (corsages for the women, boutonnieres for the men, class photo at 10 a.m., distinguished guest speaker, etc.).  She explained that it was traditional for the class to select a representative to address the crowd.  Given the size of our group, she invited us to select two speakers.

Three women and three men agreed to stand for election.  After some back and forth, a student moved a motion that we select at least one woman.  The ballots were distributed to the class (of ten women and 30 men) and Elaine reminded us to vote for at least one female candidate.  We voted, and guess what?  Two women were selected as the speakers.

I was intrigued by the election process and result.  When groups want to ensure the election of a woman, they often take the approach of designating the position as female.  In this case, the positions were not designated but the voters were instructed to include at least one woman in their choice, with the option of casting votes for two women.

By structuring the electoral process this way, the three women candidates had access to a larger pool of potential votes, thereby increasing their chances of election.  However, the voting arrangement did not guarantee the election of even one woman.  For example, if the three women candidates had equally split the 40 ballots designated as &ldquo;female,&rdquo; each would have received either 13 or 14 votes.  If the remaining 40 ballots had been equally split between two of the three male candidates, each would have received 20 votes, putting two men at the top of the list.

This morning I asked the student who had proposed the election system if he had considered that the result could have been the election of two men.  He explained that his proposal was misinterpreted.  He did not propose that we be required to vote for at least one woman; he had proposed that at least one of the speakers elected be a woman.  In making the proposal he had assumed that voters would vote for any two candidates, male or female.  If none of the woman candidates ended up in either of the top two places, the highest-ranking woman would be &ldquo;bumped up&rdquo; to replace the male candidate in second position.  (This he explained to me is the system used by Britain's Labour Party to ensure women representation on executive bodies.)

What did I learn?  There are a number of different ways to structure an election process depending on what you want to achieve.  If the objective of the class was to elect one man and one woman, the system we used failed to achieve the desired result.  If the objective was to increase the opportunities for women to get elected, it seems to have worked, and two women (not one) ended up as our representatives.

No doubt some would argue that putting in place a special voting system was not necessary; that the two women would have been elected (on their own merits) without the requirement to vote for at least one woman.  At the same time, everyone in our class seemed to think it made sense to put in place some kind of measure to ensure female representation.  It is interesting that no one objected to two women being elected.  I&rsquo;m not sure that I would have been able to keep quiet if two men had topped the polls.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Howard Zinn&#x2019;s class on class</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-02-13T16:39:51-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/Howard_Zinn.html#unique-entry-id-24</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/Howard_Zinn.html#unique-entry-id-24</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[His main message to us: history is the story of class conflict, just as Karl Marx said.  Union leaders have to understand the importance of class, he said, if we want to make a real difference.  We have to understand that (ruling) class interests are behind every decision by governments, employers, and corporations&mdash;and that these interests are opposite to the interests of the working class.  Those in power want to deceive us into thinking we are a classless society.  They want to fool us into thinking we have common interests.  But be very skeptical of such claims.  History has shown them to be false.

The full recording of Zinn&rsquo;s time with us is posted below as a pod cast.  (Hopefully, those of you who had trouble downloading my Chomsky tapes will have an easier time with this one.)

For those who don&rsquo;t have the time to listen to the full 75 minutes, get a taste of Zinn by clicking on the 12-minute audio file posted below-- the best 12 minutes of the entire six-week program.

And, by the way, here&rsquo;s a gift idea.  Zinn&rsquo;s people&rsquo;s history is now available as an audio book with Matt Damon helping out with the narration.  It&rsquo;s an updated edition of the original classic and covers the Clinton years.  It&rsquo;s a fantastic listen.  12 minutes of Howard Zinn on class:  For the full Zinn lecture and discussion (75 minutes) click here:]]></content:encoded><enclosure url="http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/podcast_24.mp3" length="74158497" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>EduAction</itunes:author><itunes:keywords>Howard Zinn working people history</itunes:keywords><itunes:subtitle>Howard Zinn on Class</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary>Howard Zinn speaks to the 2007 Harvard Trade Union Program about the history of the United States&#x2c; class politics&#x2c; and war.</itunes:summary><itunes:image href="http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/podcast_image_24.png" /></item><item><title>A tool to analyze our employers (the pickle story)</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-02-13T12:41:54-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/Anaylsing_employers.html#unique-entry-id-23</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/Anaylsing_employers.html#unique-entry-id-23</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[It&rsquo;s hard to conceive of a more challenging organizing environment than that confronting FLOC in North Carolina&rsquo;s pickling cucumber fields.  The labour force is made up of migrant workers.  Union density in the state is very low.  Labour laws and employment standards are very weak.

The pickling cucumber growers sell almost all of their produce to pickle packers and processors.  The contracts with these processor buyers specify what production and agricultural practices farmers are to follow, and what price will be given for the produce.  After processing, pickled cucumbers end up in retail supermarkets and the foodservice sector (an increasingly important player in the industry with more and more food being consumed away from home).

One of the big changes in the industry in recent years is consolidation.  The number of growers has dropped as small farms go our of business or are bought out by large farms.  The pickle-processing sector is dominated by a handful of big firms as a result of mergers and acquisitions.  At the same time, the domestic pickle industry is facing growing competition from cheap imports of both fresh cucumbers and processed pickles.  In response to this consolidation, the growers have come together into a growers&rsquo; association to strengthen their leverage in contract negotiations with the processors.  The tool our class was given to analyze an industry&rsquo;s situation says there are five factors that impact on competitive position:  -  The bargaining power of suppliers -  The threats of new entrants into the industry -  The threat of substitute products (or services) -  The rivalry between players -  The bargaining power of buyers  Applying this model to the situation of North Carolina&rsquo;s cucumber growers, we identified that:

1.  Their main suppliers are workers who have very little bargaining power.

2.  The growers face no threats from substitute products because pickles can&rsquo;t be made without cucumbers.

3.  Rivalry between farmers is not a big problem now that they have come together to form a growers&rsquo; association and negotiate the price of product together.

The big threats for growers come from (a) new entrants into the industry in the form of imports, and (b) the growing bargaining power of their consolidated buyers (the processors) who, in turn, are under pressure from the consolidation of their food retail and service sector customers.  The processors have responded to this environment by changing the way they do business with the growers.  In the past they contracted with growers by the acre, not by the output, which transfers all growing risks to the growers.  As well, the consolidated processors have exercised enormous pressure on growers to keep prices low.  The growers, in turn, have squeezed the workers demanding more for less.

What can a union do for workers facing this kind of pressure?  Even if it succeeds in signing-up the workers, how will it bargain better working conditions when the growers have so little control over the prices of the produce?

FLOC&rsquo;s strategic solution (after analyzing the industry) was to go after the processors.  After years of persistent campaigning, threatening and organizing consumer boycotts, FLOC was able to bring some of the big processors to the bargaining table, alongside the growers&rsquo; association, and negotiate tripartite agreements that set out terms for both cucumber prices and workers&rsquo; wages.  This arrangement gets the growers a higher price for the produce from the processors but ensures that the money gets passed onto the farm workers rather than stay in the hands of the growers.  Now FLOC&rsquo;s challenge is to bring all processors under similar contracts so that the organized sector doesn&rsquo;t get penalized in the market because it provides higher wages and prices.

This FLOC case is a great example of a union increasing its strategic leverage by adapting both its organizing and bargaining strategy to address the specific circumstances of a specific industry.  It is also a great example of a union organizing successfully despite what many would write-off as a hopeless situation.

Of course, the story isn&rsquo;t over.  The cucumber pickling industry continues to change.  In recent years there have been many mergers and acquisitions of retail supermarkets and foodservice operators (the final buyers of pickles).  A few massive merchandise retailers emerging as major players.  These big corporate players, like Wal-Mart, will do everything they can to undermine agreements like those negotiated by FLOC.  Wal-Mart, unlike the smaller pickle processing companies, likely will not be swayed by consumer pressure alone.  This new threat in the industry is likely keeping FLOC leaders awake at night.  The good news is that the union has shown itself to be strategic, creative, well organized, very alert and always thinking.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Voices from Australia</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-02-07T14:55:40-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/Interview.html#unique-entry-id-22</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/Interview.html#unique-entry-id-22</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Australian labour movement initiated a process of renewal long before the current government attack on workers&rsquo; rights.  Already in the late 1980s, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) began to restructure along sectoral by pushing through the amalgamation of unions.  Amalgamate or die, was the rallying cry.  Consolidation would strengthen bargaining power and end inter-union competition, facilitating real membership growth.  ACTU also promoted the transformation of unions from service to organizing organizations by building power through grassroots activism and participation.

Fast-forward to today.  While ACTU is still organizing and promoting activism, union density has declined dramatically.  This is the result of a decade of radical neo-conservative economic and social policies that reshaped the labour market.  To make matters worse, John Howard has managed to get his &ldquo;WorkChoices&rdquo; industrial relations agenda through the Senate giving way to the most profound changes in labour law in the last century.  The new laws came into effect March 2006 but popular opposition is mounting thanks largely to an aggressive ACTU&rsquo;s rights at work campaign.

I interviewed fellow student Matthew Thistlethwaite, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the New South Wales Central Labour Council, to get a first-hand account of what is going on. Click on the audio clip below.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Union managers or leaders?</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-02-06T15:14:29-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/managers_leaders.html#unique-entry-id-21</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/managers_leaders.html#unique-entry-id-21</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Management theory generally holds that managers:  &bull;  Cope with complexity &bull;  Plan and budget &bull;  Set targets and goals &bull;  Organize staff &bull;  Control and problem solve &bull;  Control spending &bull;  Seek stability and predictability

Leadership, on the other hand, has a different emphasis.  Leaders are expected to:  &bull;  Cope with change &bull;  Set direction &bull;  Articulate a vision &bull;  Tell us &ldquo;who we are&rdquo; &bull;  Align others to the vision &bull;  Motivate new people &bull;  Develop new leaders &bull;  Shake things up

How much authority and responsibility a hired union manager has (relative to an elected leader) varies from union to union, as do the lines of accountability.  But regardless of level of authority or scope of responsibility, hired union managers should apply leadership principles to their work.  A senior staff manager who presented to the class explained it to me this way: &ldquo;I am more organizer than manager.  It&rsquo;s not that I don&rsquo;t worry about management issues, like spending, performance and all of that.  But my approach to the job is that I am hired to make sure that the decisions of the leadership and membership are implemented and the best way to do that is to work with my staff--to lead, not manage them in the traditional sense.  This means helping to set goals collectively, fostering creativity, mentoring, inspiring and motivating.&rdquo;

The argument is that good leadership, as opposed to good management, is key to union renewal and transformation.  Leadership, not management, is the best way to build organizational capacity.  The following table illustrates how exercising leadership functions can take an organization from a position of weakness (disorganization) to a state of strength (organization):  Disorganized State  Leadership Function  Organized State  Reactive&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;...................Strategize&hellip;&hellip;.&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;........Proactive Passive&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;...........Motivate.........&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;..Participatory Divided&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;...........&hellip;Build relationships&hellip;&hellip;......&hellip;&hellip;.United Confused&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;.........&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;.Interpret&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;.........&hellip;..Understands Inactive&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;.........&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;Mobilize&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;&hellip;.........&hellip;....&hellip;&hellip;...Active

This view that good union managers need to be good leaders has implications for their selection and training.  Often management training is suggested as the way to make union managers more effective.  Perhaps a better solution is leadership training&mdash;as long as the leadership training is about learning how to strategize, motivate, build relationships, interpret (decisions, policy, etc), mobilize and constructively shake things up.  A number of unions are taking this approach as part of their union renewal strategy.  They are also applying leadership screens to their selection procedures.  But more on that in a future post on staff hiring.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Noam Chomsky comes to class</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-02-04T16:24:04-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/Noam_Chomsky.html#unique-entry-id-20</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/Noam_Chomsky.html#unique-entry-id-20</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[(null)]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>The unresolved case of HUCTW</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-02-01T16:59:33-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/HUCTW.html#unique-entry-id-19</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/HUCTW.html#unique-entry-id-19</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[On the surface, HUCTW&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&mdash;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&mdash;and the ones that formed the foundation of the drive&mdash;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&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&rsquo;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.  &ldquo;We don&rsquo;t use lawyers for anything,&rdquo; said Secretary-Treasurer Donene Williams.  In fact, HUCTW doesn&rsquo;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 &ldquo;interest based bargaining&rdquo; tools will be used to amend the collective agreement.

It is perhaps this &ldquo;alternative&rdquo; 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&rsquo;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&rsquo;s way is to engage in politics of &ldquo;kindness and respect,&rdquo; described this way on the web site: &ldquo;Making sure the rights and well-being of staff are among [the university&rsquo;s] priorities&mdash;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 &lsquo;angry politics&rsquo; feel they can still be actively involved.&rdquo;

There is much that is attractive about HUCTW&rsquo;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&rsquo;s total rejection of union &ldquo;professionals&rdquo; 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&rsquo;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&mdash;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 &ldquo;neutral&rdquo; ground for the parties to work things out as &ldquo;equals.&rdquo;

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&rsquo;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&rsquo;t understand their strategy.  And even though HUCWT keeps coming up, I don&rsquo;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.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Lessons from community organizing</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-01-29T21:38:13-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/Community_organizing.html#unique-entry-id-18</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/Community_organizing.html#unique-entry-id-18</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Michael Jacoby Brown, who just published Building Powerful Community Organizations (A Personal Guide to Creating Groups that Can Solve Problems and Change the World), spoke to our class about the theory of community organizing: 1.

The people closest to the problem are the experts, 2.

People close to the problem have to be part of figuring out the solution if the solution is going to be implemented, 3.

To make change you need to build and exercise power.

The point of community organizations (including unions) is to give people a vehicle to harness and exercise their power.  But organizations don&rsquo;t get created (or keep going) by themselves.  A principal of community organizing is that organizations need organizers.  Organizers have two jobs: (a) develop leaders (b) build organizations.

Easy to say but complicated to do.

One of Brown&rsquo;s main messages is that &ldquo;community organizing, building the power of a group to change the world, is both an art and a science.  It requires understanding your self-interest in the deepest sense, building relationships with others, and a desire to change the world.&rdquo;

Personal relationships, says Brown, are fundamental to building a powerful organization.  If members of a group are connected to one another in a personal way, they are more likely to be able to overcome differences that inevitably arise.  Brown believes that group members connect on a personal level through the sharing of their stories and organizations have to give room for that to happen.  To illustrate the point, Brown asked us to team up with someone in the class to talk about who has most influenced us in our lives.  In just a few minutes of conversation, connections were made that hadn&rsquo;t been made in our first three weeks together.

Brown&rsquo;s book is a good guide to building powerful organizations through effective organizing.  By using his own personal stories and case studies, he goes through the steps of building an organization to last .  The book includes a chapter on developing leaders; a chapter on meetings, a chapter on recruitment; a chapter on taking action and getting results.  The book also includes a series of exercises to help the reader put theory into practice, as well as a listing of the quick tips that can be found throughout the book (eg.  on physical layout of furniture at meetings, a checklist for evaluating an action, etc.).

The book is a good and easy read and a helpful guide for anyone wanting to build powerful unions.  Highly recommended.  Click here for information on how to get a copy.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Police and power </title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-01-29T21:23:22-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/Police_power.html#unique-entry-id-17</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/Police_power.html#unique-entry-id-17</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[First, some background on police unions: Police officers are one of the most highly unionized groups in the United States, although 80 to 85 per cent of police unions are outside of the AFL-CIO, and few refer to themselves as unions, preferring to be called associations or lodges.  As a group, the police have high strategic leverage and they understand power.  As DeLord told the class, quoting Saul Alinksky, &ldquo;Change comes from power, and power comes from organization.&rdquo;

DeLord believes that it is more important for union leaders to understand organizational theory than it is the mechanics of bargaining.  &ldquo;Building a powerful union,&rdquo; he says, &ldquo;is more than a table game every few years.&rdquo;  He suggests there are four pillars of a powerful union: (1)

Organizational power: &ldquo;The sole purpose of the union is the accumulation and use of power to achieve the goals of the union.&rdquo;  (2)

Political action: &ldquo;It&rsquo;s the only power game in town.&rdquo;  (3)

Media: &ldquo;Use it or it will use you.&rdquo;  (4)

Confrontation: &ldquo;Use it as a tool to maintain respect.&rdquo;

On the subject of union leaders, DeLord says they fail for three reasons: they fail to understand that power comes before professionalism; they fail to understand how to move the union toward achieving the power needed to accomplish their goals; they are distracted from achieving power by failing to avoid individual interests and misdirection.

DeLord urged us to think creatively about how to accumulate and use power to achieve the goals of the union.  He believes the key to success is figuring out what buttons to push&mdash;and it&rsquo;s not necessarily the strike button.  Often, for police unions, it&rsquo;s hot button advertising that works best.  For example, a police union ad campaign for higher wages in Baton Rouge included billboards with the following message: &ldquo;Welcome to Baton Rouge: Protected by some of the lowest paid police officers in the country.  Mayor Simpson: Pay Your Police.&rdquo;

This was one of several really good examples of using paid advertising to exert pressure and increase the police union&rsquo;s strategic leverage.  (Click on the audio file at the end of this posting.)  What was less clear was how this advertising helped increase the union&rsquo;s organizational capacity.  If this program has taught us one thing it&rsquo;s that to make gains, unions have to be concerned about both leverage and capacity.  But perhaps police unions don&rsquo;t have to be as concerned with organizational capacity as those of us who aren&rsquo;t regarded as quite such a powerful force.

One student asked DeLord, &ldquo;Aren&rsquo;t you ever afraid of over-playing your hand?  Some of those ads you&rsquo;ve shown us are really out there.&rdquo;  DeLord replied that you have to be &ldquo;in their faces&rdquo; even if that means falling on your own face occasionally.  Sometimes you have to fight even if you end up losing because you end up stronger for the next battle.  &ldquo;A lot of people say that PATCO* overplayed its hand,&rdquo; he continued.  &ldquo;&hellip;But the main problem with PATCO was that the rest of the labour movement stood by and watched it happen.&rdquo;  If there had been a general strike in solidarity the outcome would have been very different, DeLord said.

I recall this was a view shared by many in Canada at the time.  It was good to be reminded of this interpretation of history.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Evaluating local union strength</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-01-29T15:51:40-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/73b7cab936bbd2a387f0d283cc3380c2-16.html#unique-entry-id-16</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/73b7cab936bbd2a387f0d283cc3380c2-16.html#unique-entry-id-16</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[A framework for assessing local union strength was introduced to the class last week.  It suggests that local union capacity can be measured by looking at five areas of local activity:

1.

Leadership 2.

Membership mobilization 3.

Bargaining and Dispute settlement/resolution 4.

Member participation 5.  Power of members and power of staff

Some unions in the United States have developed tools to evaluate performance in these areas.  They use the results to identify local unions that are (a) operating at good capacity; or (b) need some additional resources or assistance to move to good capacity, or (c) require significant help.  Then, staff resources are allocated to local unions according to need, and with the expectation that performance in the identified areas will improve.

How a union evaluates local union performance of course depends on what the union is trying to achieve.  Ideally, the evaluation criteria are decided on by staff and elected leaders together.  Similarly, the process of evaluation usually works best if it involves both staff and local leaders, as well as members.  In one case that we looked at, the following criteria was applied to assess local union strength:  Leadership: &bull;

How experienced are the leaders?  &bull;

Do leaders receive ongoing training?  &bull;

Are new leaders being recruited and developed?  &bull;

How diverse is the leadership?  Does it reflect the diversity of the membership?  &bull;

How inclusive is the leadership?  Are those with minority viewpoints included in decision-making?  Are decisions reached by consensus?  Membership mobilization: &bull;

Does the local union have an effective internal and external communication system?  Does the local union use it to mobilize around issues?  &bull;

To what extent to members participate in mobilization efforts?  Dispute settlement/resolution capacity: &bull;

How effectively does the local union engage in collective bargaining?  &bull;

How effectively does the local union resolve member grievances?  &bull;

Are stewards and other local activists trained in these areas?  Member participation: &bull;

Do members and activists participation in educational activity?  &bull;

Do members and activists engage in community activity?  Power of members; power of staff: &bull;

Who is involved in making decisions about what?

...What roles do staff play in the local union?  What roles to elected members play?

Of course, what is set out above, is just one possible approach to evaluation.  Each union has to decide for itself what questions are appropriate.  But the framework suggested gives an idea of what an evaluation tool could look like, and how it could be applied to help the union decide what work and resources are required to build strength at the base.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Making organizational change</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-01-23T14:33:36-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/Making%20organizational%20change.html#unique-entry-id-13</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/Making%20organizational%20change.html#unique-entry-id-13</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[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 &ldquo;change to organize&rdquo; 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&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&rsquo;s majority position of leverage.

Despite good effort, the Council&rsquo;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&rsquo;t actually bargain on behalf of members, and collect union dues, if they haven&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&rsquo;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&mdash;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.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Political action &#xe0; la AFL-CIO</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-01-22T10:34:02-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/62dfb59b4741956d1a62155710ee6b7d-14.html#unique-entry-id-14</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/62dfb59b4741956d1a62155710ee6b7d-14.html#unique-entry-id-14</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[In a presentation to our class, Sandy Felder, North-East Regional Director for the AFL-CIO, explained that the AFL-CIO organized for the election knowing that the majority of union members disapprove of President Bush&rsquo;s job performance, particularly with respect to the war in Iraq and the economy.  As AFL-CIO President John Sweeney put it after the election, "our challenge at the AFL-CIO was to provide the organizing to transform the frustration and anger into political power.  We responded with the biggest, most energetic grassroots program in our history, and it worked.&rdquo;

The AFL-CIO&rsquo;s strategy was to focus efforts on thirty-two battleground states and turn out the union vote on election day.  The program was successful in reaching 13.4 million voters who were either union members, members of union households, union retirees, or members of Working America, the AFL-CIO&rsquo;s community affiliate for workers who don&rsquo;t have a union.  (See my blog posting about Working America for more details on this interesting initiative.)

The AFL-CIO&rsquo;s political action machinery is formidable.  They have put together massive databases with voter information drawn from all kinds of sources, including newspaper and magazine subscription lists.  Their technology is so sophisticated they can predict how an individual union member is likely to support by taking into account various sources of electronic &ldquo;intelligence.&rdquo;  They have access to millions of union household phone numbers and email addresses.  And they have put together an impressive network of activists who do the political work on-the-ground.  This complex machinery is essential because by law, US unions are restricted to communicating with members only, and only through direct communication (as opposed to through public advertising, for example).

More than 205,000 union members volunteered for the AFL-CIO&rsquo;s political program leading up to the election.  They knocked on more than 8.25 million doors, made 30 million phone calls and passed out more than 14 million leaflets at workplaces and in neighborhoods.  More than 20 million pieces of mail were sent to union households, not including those sent by affiliate unions.  In the last four days of the campaign, the AFL-CIO turned out 187,000 volunteers, made nearly 8 million phone calls and knocked on 3.5 million doors.  Ninety-two per cent of union members in battleground states said they heard form their union in the last election campaign.

One of the goals of the campaign was to reach drop-off voters&mdash;voters who usually don&rsquo;t turn out in mid-term elections.  The results: 79 per cent of union drop-off voters said they voted, and 76 per cent of these cast a Democratic ballot both for the Senate and the House, according to election night polling.

So, now that the Democrats hold the balance of power, what is the AFL-CIO&rsquo;s agenda.  Sweeney says the immediate priorities for Congress should include passing a higher minimum wage, giving Medicare the power to negotiate for lower drug prices, ending rewards for companies for sending US jobs overseas, restoring college funding and giving workers the freedom to organize and bargain.  Long-term goals include health care reform, laws supporting retirement security and brining troops back from Iraq.

Sandy Felder acknowledges that most of the AFL-CIO&rsquo;s political action energy and resources have focused on US elections but there are plans to move to other targets.  The AFL-CIO&rsquo;s ten-point program for political action aims to motivate and support year-round action by local unions in the workplace by integrating the work into regular union activity, and by carrying out special campaigns.  Also, now that the Democrats hold the majority of seats, the AFL-CIO is committed to pushing its labour agenda forward through on-going pressure.  For more details, check out the AFL-CIO political action site.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Working America &#x2013; a labour organization for the unorganized</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-01-21T15:22:54-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/8d3a28da2be251655620d9a1c67ab216-15.html#unique-entry-id-15</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/8d3a28da2be251655620d9a1c67ab216-15.html#unique-entry-id-15</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Working America delivers some direct services, like access to a group health plan as well as free legal help through a network of volunteer lawyers.  Working America also sells a credit card.  But the main job of the organization is to bring together non-union workers into a force that can mobilize and campaign for workers&rsquo; rights, jobs and expanded public and social services.

Working America is an example of some of the rethinking that is going on in the US about organizing and representing workers.  Experience and statistical evidence reveals that workers on average have a less than 20 per cent chance of winning formal union representation by organizing under existing labour laws&mdash;and that&rsquo;s in workplaces where employers don&rsquo;t actively oppose unionization.  In many industries and parts of the country, the chances are even lower.  Furthermore, union membership is very tenuous for most workers.  The labour force is made up of many more former union members than current ones.  Working America provides organizational support and structure to workers who want to unionize but can&rsquo;t, and to workers who leave union jobs for one reason or another.

In class discussions about Working America it has come out that some in the labour movement are concerned that this type of organization could get in the way of unionization efforts if it starts acting to much like a union.  Apparently there is a political understanding within the AFL-CIO that Working America will not organize in workplaces, leaving that territory to the AFL-CIO&rsquo;s affiliates.  Nevertheless, Working America can provide a bridge for workers who are between union jobs, which are increasingly few and far between The US Bureau of Statistics released today show that the number of persons belonging to a union fell by 236,000 in 2006 to 15.4 million: a drop of 0.5 per cent. Other highlights of the report:  &bull;  Workers in the public sector had a union membership rate nearly five times that of private sector workers &bull;  Education, training and library occupations had the highest unionization rate at 37 per cent &bull;  Men have a higher rate than women &bull;

Black workers are more likely to be union members than white, Asian, or Hispanic workers.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Strategic choice vs strategic planning</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-01-17T17:18:40-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/4bb77226a515dfd7c73e9315d7da0851-11.html#unique-entry-id-11</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/4bb77226a515dfd7c73e9315d7da0851-11.html#unique-entry-id-11</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Weil&rsquo;s strategic choices framework offers a way to bridge the gulf between strategic planning and day-to-day union operation and decision-making.  It is a framework to help union leaders and activists make strategic choices about what they are going to do&mdash;and not going to do&mdash;in order to reach their goals.

In his words: &ldquo;Strategic choices occur when leaders evaluate and make decisions in light of (rather than separate from) their long-term and strategic objectives.  Strategic choice, therefore, does not only occur in those rare forums where fundamental change in union strategy and structure can be adopted&hellip;Instead it is an intrinsic part of ongoing decisions on internal matters (hiring, promotion, resource allocations) and day-to-day operations (collective bargaining, contract administration, organizing campaigns) that cumulatively affect the direction in which a union is moving.&rdquo;  Strategic leverage and organizational capacity

Weil&rsquo;s strategic choices framework suggests that all decisions (day-to-day operational decisions as well as longer term strategic decisions) must take into account two factors: strategic leverage and organizational capacity.

Strategic leverage arises from external factors.  For example, a union that operates in a country with strong labour laws has more strategic leverage than a union in a country with weak laws.  Unions that represent highly skilled workers may have more strategic leverage than unions with members who can be more easily replaced.  These external factors might be influenced by a union&rsquo;s strategy in the long term, but the union has little control over them in the short and medium term.

Organizational capacity, on the other hand, is something that a union can determine.  For example, a union&rsquo;s organizational capacity is impacted by its own financial decisions, human resource decisions (who is recruited, who is assigned to do what, what training is provided), structural decisions (what the union&rsquo;s internal collective bargaining structures look like), and so forth.

Unions with high organizational capacity are more capable of implementing key strategic decisions, of increasing the union&rsquo;s strategic leverage, and ultimately achieving success.  It is possible to be in a position of high strategic leverage without having organizational capacity&mdash;a union that represents very skilled workers in highly regulated industries may be in such a position.  But it is difficult if not impossible to move from a position of low strategic leverage to a higher position without increasing organizational capacity.  Most importantly, it is very rare that a union can succeed (or sustain success) without having both high organizational capacity and high strategic leverage.

David Weil has developed a really nifty web-based &ldquo;Strategic Choice Assessment Tool&rdquo; at www.scatsurvey.com.  It is designed to assist union leaders to carry out a strategic choice analysis of their own union.  It is free of charge and anyone can use it to assess their own union&rsquo;s strategic leverage and organizational capacity.  Interestingly, the students in our class assessed their own union strength and capacity very high.  (There is a tendency in the labour movement for leaders at all levels to over-estimate strength, perhaps because we feel a need to counter the negative views of unions that dominate society.)  Regardless of individual results, the assessment tool generates good discussion and leaders can use it to try to agree on a common starting point for the journey forward and upward on the strategic board game.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Group survival </title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-01-15T21:11:30-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/06c3e62f19696e4f5c3d3a30c643813b-12.html#unique-entry-id-12</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/06c3e62f19696e4f5c3d3a30c643813b-12.html#unique-entry-id-12</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The first part of the assignment was to rank the 15 items individually starting with the most important.  Our class then divided into smaller groups, each made up of about 6 people.  Each group had to come up with a team ranking.  We were then given an expert's ranking so that we could evaluate our individual and team performances.

This kind of survival exercise always proves to be interesting and engaging even if you have done it before.  The idea is to come up with a survival strategy and then decide which tools (or tactics) would be most helpful in advancing that strategy.

Interestingly, my group spent very little time discussing the strategy and jumped immediately to the task of ranking the items.  We did this by comparing individual scores and discussing the thinking behind these individual assessments with a view to reaching group consensus.  Because this was a time-limited exercise, we moved quickly to decisions.  Whenever anyone spoke authoritatively, the others in the group assumed that person was an expert.  At no point did we do a go-around to see if anybody in the group actually had knowledge of northern Canada or survival know-how.

Our group would be dead if the situation had been real.  We assumed, wrongly, that our best chance of survival was to make our way to Schefferville rather than stay put.  A losing strategy, as it turns out.  Not surprisingly, our ranking of items was way off as a result.

When asked to compare individual to team scores, almost everyone in the class reported they scored worse as individuals.  The lesson: groups do better than individuals.  The most successful groups are those that figure out how to build on the strengths and expertise of every individual on the team to find a winning strategy.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>A bit about life in Cambridge</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-01-14T17:37:17-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/250da3430f31e60b62d7fe2bc718dfcd-10.html#unique-entry-id-10</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/250da3430f31e60b62d7fe2bc718dfcd-10.html#unique-entry-id-10</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Understanding the local accent is only one of the challenges of being in Cambridge.  The drivers live up to their reckless reputation.  The other day, I watched a police officer pull over two cars in a five-minute period because each ran a red light at a very busy intersection.  Another issue is the high cost of living.  I just assumed a person could live relatively cheaply in a university town (there are about 40 university and colleges in the area) but no so.  Food in stores and restaurants is especially expensive.  Public transit, on the other hand, is reasonable&mdash;about $1.65 a trip if you pay the fare using a pre-paid &ldquo;Charlie Card.&rdquo;

Other random things to report: (1) People keep referring to Harvard as a bastion of liberalism (what does that mean, I wonder); (2) the university is tuition-blind, meaning low-income students who are admitted have easy access to scholarships, although I&rsquo;m not sure how many low-income students are admitted; (3) students here actually wear those crimson (not red) sweatshirts, jackets, hats, etc. with the Harvard logo plastered on them; (4) the cultural scene is thriving&mdash;the free weekly paper has pages and pages of film, music, theatre and visual arts listings and I was thrilled to see that both Fred Eaglesmith and Harry Manx are scheduled to play a local venue before I head home (5) Cambridge looks very white and feels very rich.

The trade union program itself is quite social.  The students get together at every opportunity in small and large groups to discuss and share information.  Except for a few who commute to the program from home, we are being put up in apartment buildings within walking distance to class at Radcliffe College gym, which is unlike any gym I&rsquo;ve seen: beautiful wood floors, high ceilings and a raised wooden spectators&rsquo; gallery that runs around the perimeter.  Lovely surroundings, but the acoustics stink.  The instructors (all but Elaine who has a booming voice) have to use a lapel mike to be heard, and a hand-held microphone gets passed around during discussion period.

Yesterday Elaine took us on a walking tour of downtown Boston, following along the famous freedom trail, a two and a half mile red line of paint and inlaid brick that passes many historic landmarks (most of which meant nothing to me because I am so ignorant of US history).  We started off from the Boston Common (a large central park where all the major demonstrations have been held throughout the city&rsquo;s history) and walked by the golden roofed statehouse on Beacon Hill (painted grey during the second world war).

Our tour ended at the Holocaust Memorial made up of six glass and steel towers, 54-feet tall, with smoke billowing up each one.  Six million serial numbers are etched into the glass.  The towers recall the death chambers of the six main Nazi death camps, the six million killed, or a menorah of memorial candles.  At the entrance of the memorial there is a stone plaque with the words of Pastor Martin Niemoeller: They came first for the Communists, and I didn&rsquo;t speak up because I wasn&rsquo;t a Communist; then they came for the Jews, and I didn&rsquo;t speak up because I wasn&rsquo;t a Jew; then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn&rsquo;t speak up because I wasn&rsquo;t a trade unionist; then they came for the Catholics, and I didn&rsquo;t speak up because I was a Protestant, then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.

As Elaine pointed out, often people omit the first line of this statement when they recite it.  I was glad to see it included in this moving memorial.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Strategic planning&#x2c; the case method and PATCO</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-01-13T19:29:48-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/47953c0dca5ff4957875a495562d98db-9.html#unique-entry-id-9</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/47953c0dca5ff4957875a495562d98db-9.html#unique-entry-id-9</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[In his book, Turning the Tide: Strategic Planning for Labour unions, Weil "eschews blanket remedies" for solving the enormous challenges facing the labour movement.  Instead he "provides tools for evaluating the environmental context of strategic decisions faced by labor unions and for designing strategies for action.&rdquo;

Weil identifies the major components of strategic planning as: 1.

Analyzing the external and internal environment 2.

Setting priorities 3.

Assessing present resource allocation 4.

Evaluating the ability of present union organizational structures to achieve new priorities 5.

Analyzing the success of chosen strategies at achieving initial objectives.

Weil takes these components, all of which are commonly advanced by strategic planners, and explores how they can be adapted to take into account the unique democratic nature of unions.  In Weil&rsquo;s words: &ldquo;Undertaking each of these steps in a labor union requires an approach specific to the objectives, orientation, and democratic nature of labor unions.  Despite these unique aspects of strategic choice in labor organizations, techniques for systematically planning can be adapted from tools developed over time in private, public and non profit organizations.&rdquo;  But, Weil warns, "strategic choices that are not adequately attuned to environmental realities, or that fail to accomplish key objectives, will undermine the union in the long run."

(I will report further in a future posting on David Weil's strategic choices framework and how he distinguishes it from strategic planning.)

This past week in the Harvard program, David Weil introduced the topic of strategic planning (as he does in his book) with a study of the PATCO strike.  For those who are too young (or getting too old) to remember, this was the 1981 strike by the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization that was crushed by US President Ronald Reagan when he fired 12,000 controllers.  The PATCO case is characterized often either as (1) a masterful anti-union strategy by the Reagan administration, (2) an example of a union blowing it by being too militant, or (3) a classic drama with an inevitable tragic conclusion: like a train headed towards a break in the line but nothing can be done to avoid the crash.

Our task as students in this class was not to debate where we stand with respect to these three interpretations.  Rather, we were asked to think through the situation by putting ourselves in the shoes, first of the White House, then those of PATCO President Robert Poli.  What were the circumstances that led to the contract dispute; why might the White House have done what it did; what was the thinking of the union; what objective and subjective conditions influenced the outcome; were there alternative courses of action that could have been taken; if so why might they have been rejected; and so forth.  Through the case method, we were challenged to analyze the internal and external environment and relate it to the various strategies that came into play.

An interesting exercise.  I&rsquo;ll try to get permission to post the case notes on this blog&mdash;that way, you can do the exercise yourselves and use the blog's "comment" feature to share your thoughts.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Almost end of week one&#x21;</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-01-12T13:28:09-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/722932b6fbab3b9a574d1aedece5b228-7.html#unique-entry-id-7</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/722932b6fbab3b9a574d1aedece5b228-7.html#unique-entry-id-7</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The students: There are 40 of us &ndash; a big class when it comes to discussions.  Surprisingly, only ten of us are women.  The group includes four Canadians, two Australians, one British, one Chinese, one Puerto Rican; the others are from the US. There is good racial diversity.  There is a mix of public and private sector unions: operating engineers, boilermakers, municipal and county employees, longshoremen, police, professional engineers, transit, journalists, firefighters, teachers, nurses, steelworkers, and others.  No one here from the Change to Win coalition( the unions that recently broke away from the AFL-CIO).  There is a mix of union staff and elected officers.  Most hold senior positions at a local, district or state level.  A few of us hold senior positions at a national level.

The course: So far, the program has consisted of four sessions a day, most consisting of a lecture followed by a question/discussion period.  The format does not involve much back and forth between students but there is a lot of interaction and good discussion in smaller groups outside of class time.  The program covers a lot of topics.  Some are addressed in a single session, others are revisited several times over the six weeks.  Several topics, such as strategic choices for unions and organizational development, are covered through the &ldquo;case method.&rdquo;  We are assigned a case to read and prepare, and in class we engage in an analysis of the situation: what happened, what decisions were made, why did things go the way they went, could there have been a different outcome, and so forth.  This week we dealt with the case of the PATCO strike, when the U.S. air traffic controllers struck and were consequently fired in 1981 by Ronald Reagan and his administration.

It has been thirty years since I&rsquo;ve been in this kind of classroom environment.  I am doing my best to stay with it even though the approach goes against the popular union education model that I support.

More on the speciics of what I am learning to come in my next posting.  And stay tuned for an account of our student life in Cambridge.]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Getting ready</title><dc:creator>mballantyne@mac.com</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2007-01-05T00:07:38-05:00</dc:date><link>http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/9b5c8f47607d42eb854c1bdb7143fcbe-6.html#unique-entry-id-6</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://homepage.mac.com/mballantyne/unionleadership/page2/page12/page10/files/9b5c8f47607d42eb854c1bdb7143fcbe-6.html#unique-entry-id-6</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The session begins in a few days.  I am not quite sure what to expect.  As of today the program web site outlines the daily schedule for the 2006 session, but nothing about 2007.  I suspect the rhythm of the program doesn't change that much from year-to-year.  It looks intense, with a lot of seminars.  Understandably the focus is on the US labour movement.

My main worry at this point now is being separated from my youngest for six weeks.  I've been travelling with my job since she was born 16 years ago, but I've never been away from her for longer than a couple of weeks at a time.  Being away from home is of course is one of the drawbacks of residential leadership programs.  Few women can leave their kids behind.

The other barrier is cost, of course.  I am fortunate to be on a sabbatical leave from work, receiving 80 per cent of my regular pay and my union is covering the cost of the course.  I'm checking out the Harvard program to see what it can offer to Canadian union leaders in elected or staff positions.

My next post will be from Cambridge, after the long drive from Ottawa.  I just hope the good weather holds and the roads stay clear.]]></content:encoded></item></channel>
</rss>