Engagement Newsletter No. 1: Your Currrent State

​

​

Labour leaders often question the levels of engagement and participation within their memberships. Having appeared before international audiences at Harvard's Trade Union Program over many years, I have listened to union leaders from around the world talk about their members, and their experiences have much in common. Research shows that there is generally good news on the question of member engagement. Levels are much higher than many leaders perceive. Moreover, broad support for unions is higher today than it has been for many years. Despite all of this, concerns are warranted. Long-term development of members is necessary, not just for growth and resiliency, but to increase local effectiveness in the day-to-day representation of our members' interests.    

​

There are two main reasons why labour leaders feel their members are disengaged. First, we often use the wrong metric to evaluate engagement. When attendance at union meetings declines, union leaders sometimes interpret this as a sign of disengagement. While low attendance is frustrating for union representatives, who invest considerable time and energy in their work, a better measure of engagement can be found in the attitudes of your members, rather than their behaviors. Assessment of members’ commitment levels, alternative forms of participation and their support of the union movement in general present must stronger and reliable results. An attitudinal assessment of your members is one of several key factors in building greater levels of participation within the organization.

​

The second reason labour leaders may feel that their members are disengaged is found in the business structures that unions have practiced for close to seventy years. At the conclusion of the Second World War the labour movement was experiencing unprecedented success. High union density translated into years of collective bargaining achievements, power in the hallways of government, and broad public support for unions as a welcome voice in public policy. With these successes union leaders turned their attention away from organizing and expanding worker coverage to focus their efforts on high-quality member representation. After all, why not! Labour’s success in wage growth, workplace health and safety, benefits, and pensions (both public and workplace) were outstanding achievements celebrated by leaders and members alike.

​

The resulting business structure for unions emphasized a “transactional relationship” – members were expected to pay their dues and little more. For their part, union leaders were content to maintain the status quo – representation became largely based on a “leave it to us” message to their members. There’s no blame to assign in the long term – this approach was successful for decades. The point to be made, however, is that any perception of disengagement for union leaders is a result, at least in part, of the transactional business structure that has existed for a long time. To put it plainly, we haven’t expected more from our members for generations, so we can’t reasonably expect great strides in engagement overnight. The issue for today’s union leaders stems from changes in labour’s influence that began in the 1970’s and intensified in the 1980’s. Part of the response to these changes is the need to revitalize the labour movement, and engaging members is a first step. While many of these concerns are expressed in “macro” terms, involving the “labour movement” as a whole, enhancing member engagement has an even more significant impact on the “micro” interests of members within their own workplaces and employment relationships.  

​

Understanding these two broad factors – the attitudinal versus behavioral measure of commitment to their union, and the impact of generations of members experiencing a transactional business structure – is the first important step toward improving member engagement. For the purpose of this introductory newsletter, let’s take a look at an alternative business structure to the transactional model.

​

For illustration purposes we divide union business practices into two categories – the transactional model and the mutual aid model. We have introduced the transactional model above – in essence it is a structure where the union is available to its members on an “as needed” basis. Members fulfill their responsibility to their union primarily through the payment of dues; and while the union leadership encourages members to come out to meetings, to vote in elections or ratifications, there’s no obligation to do so. Leaders may encourage ongoing support for union initiatives but little else is done to involve members. The work of the union is done by the elected representatives and, depending on the union’s resources, with full-time staff. The union’s representation of its members is limited to their employment relationship with the employer.

​

On the other hand, mutual aid business structures rely on a greater level of involvement of the membership in the day-to-day operations of the organization. They include members in the creation and administration of union policies and priorities, in collective bargaining and member representation/advocacy. The mutual-aid model often includes a broader range of representational activities – issues of importance to their members but outside of the employment relationship (i.e. community development, global warming and so on). These unions often include robust member committees beyond the traditional areas of health and safety or bargaining, including, for example, committees representing youth, minorities, disabled, or LGBTQIA2S workers (a non-exhaustive list). Mutual aid unions place a high premium on the traditional “democracy” that unions value and involve their members in as many activities as they can. Member participation becomes a core component of the organization’s culture.  

​

The description of these two structures set out above represents the two ends of a business structure continuum. Like most things in life, however, there are countless variations between these two ends. Most unions in Canada and the United States employ business practices that are far closer to the transactional end than mutual aid. Union members have few obligations that extend beyond the payment of dues. For today’s union leader who wants to encourage greater participation and engagement, the task is not to convert from one style of business to the other – such a cultural undertaking is enormous and potentially risky. However, for the union leader who wants change, wants to increase commitment, participation and engagement within their membership, there are many strategies to move off from their current organizational state, away from a transactional model to include greater member involvement. Like most complex changes in organizations, there are lots of moving parts. Future editions of this newsletter will consider a wide range of strategies to improve member commitment, participation, and engagement, including organizational development from the perspective of the follower – the members. Leadership is, after all, a function of the capacity of the leader to give the members a reason to follow.

 

Dr. Bill Cole is the principal at COLE LABOUR with more than forty years of experience working with labour unions across North America. His research has included member engagement, union leadership and members as followers. He also has extensive experience in collective bargaining and dispute resolution in the public and private sectors. Check out his website at colelabour.ca 

​

If you would like to receive this newsletter in PDF format, directly via email, please let us know by registering below or by email at info@colelabour.ca

​

For more information about COLE LABOUR, visit our other website at www.colelabour.ca