"More than we bargained for?"
Understanding Unions as Democratic Organizations
Discussion Guide and Questions

A one-act play and case study on union democracy Written and performed by:  Angelo DiCaro Amy Lavender Harris and Erin Jonasson All rights reserved. Do not use, reference, or perform without permission. Cente for Industrial Relations University of Toronto March 2005

Understanding Unions as Democratic Organizations: How Union Structure Influences Union Democracy

I. Why (and How) Unions Transform Themselves and Engage in Frame Extension

Contemporary unions are consistently being called upon to re-examine their traditional service orientation (or ‘business unionism’ philosophy), which has focused on ‘bread and butter’ issues such as wages, working conditions, and job security. The concept of frame extension within social movement theory (see the Cornfield and Fletcher article) tries to account for the conditions under which unions extend their core objectives beyond “bread and butter” issues and become involved in macroeconomic, political, and social issues (perhaps equating somewhat with Frenkel’s ‘macro’ level of engagement). Unions engage in frame extension to attract supporters and members, to lobby governments, and to remain relevant and radical in the face of increased employer resistance, declining union density, and unfavorable legislative environments.

1.       In what ways might the merger between the RWC and the UGWC represent an exercise in frame extension?

2.       What are the implications for RWC and UGWC members of the reorganization of union goals following the merger?

II. Union Structure: The Relations between Parent Unions and their Locals

Unions may exist as stand-alone (independent) unions, or they may be local unions affiliated with a larger ‘parent’ union. In addition, most unions in Canada are also members of labour organizations like the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC). The most visible purpose of local unions is to address and represent the immediate and daily concerns of the local’s membership. It is at this level that union members have the greatest chance to participate directly in union matters. Although the division of responsibilities between local and parent unions is not rigid, parent unions represent members on broader and more substantive issues. Parent unions focus not only on membership concerns but also seek to strengthen the union movement through lobbying for broader social reforms. Godard describes the main roles of parent unions in relation to local unions as including 1) taking wages out of competition, 2) organizing the unorganized, 3) assisting in collective bargaining and grievance handling, 4) providing strike assistance and funds and 5) representing member interests. Relations between local and parent unions reflect, in many ways, Frenkel’s ‘meso’ and ‘micro’ levels of engagement.

1. Which of these roles and functions does the UGWC appear to prioritize? Which are absent? How do you think the merger and the proposed new structure and size will affect the ability of the parent union to fulfill these functions?
2. What kinds of new dynamics and goals can you see developing in the long term?  How will the merger change the relationship between the local and parent union?

III. Implications for Union Democracy

Unionization is a valuable source of democracy for workers. Godard lists some of the ways democracy in unions is achieved (which he calls ‘sources of democracy): 1) union officials are selected through an electoral system, 2) there is the potential for union decertification, 3) members are afforded the opportunity to attend union meetings to address pressing concerns and 4) negotiations are subject to the approval of membership support. However, the democratic potential of unions is constrained by several limitations. Godard identifies limits to union democracy as including 1) the iron law of oligarchy, 2) operational ineffectiveness (democracy can be inefficient), 3) the realities of capitalism and the contradictory position unions and union members find themselves in with respect to the conflict/cooperation relationship that characterize collective bargaining environments;  and 4) bureaucracy and the corruption of union leadership.

1.  Which of these limits to democracy are symbolized within the narrative? (For example, the gender roles, the left vs. the right side support and disapproval, the structure and layout of the conference; Sarah Porter’s role)
2. What are some of the benefits and drawbacks of direct vs. delegate voting systems? Has the delegate system actually worked well for the RWC? Will a direct-vote system be more successfully democratic in practice? How does this affect the prospects for genuine democracy within the UGWC? Which system would you recommend?
3. With reference to the sources and limits of democracy, what are the benefits and drawbacks of the inclusion of self organized groups within the local? How does factionalism or internal divide help or hinder democracy?
4. In the larger picture, what does union democracy mean? What or who should it serve? In your view, should unions focus on so-called ‘bread-and-butter’ issues? How should they navigate toward broader social movements? How do these changes impact a) union democracy and b) social democracy in general?