About a year ago I wrote a report about the development of trade union membership in Europe. Its title, ‘Bleak prospects’, was self-explanatory: membership had declined in 24 out of 32 European countries in the period 2010–2017, compared to the first decade of the twenty-first century. But the times they are a-changin’. Health and safety issues in the workplace and economic uncertainty have, in certain industries and in some European countries, driven more workers to join unions since the outbreak of the coronavirus.
In Belgium, for example, a considerable increase in union membership has occurred since the pandemic. This can be explained by unions’ involvement in the administration of unemployment benefits. Similarly, Swedish unions have seen an influx of new members. UNISON and Unite, respectively the first and second largest unions in the UK, also report member growth. The same holds true for the UK’s National Education Union. However, whether this all means that the (long-awaited) ‘next upsurge’ in union membership — historically associated with socio-economic turmoil and labour unrest — is finally happening in the global North is not the topic of interest here.
This blog instead focuses on the new members themselves. There are at least two good reasons for this, and for unions to do likewise. First, most members leave the union in their early years of membership. Any retention strategy regarding union membership should thus primarily focus on this period. Second, new members coming for the first time to a union are not influenced by any previous direct union experience or socialisation. They are newcomers, and most of them are young. Their possible creative energy, fresh ideas and imagination offer opportunities for unions to get off the beaten track and to revitalise themselves.
The argument made here is that a critical mass of newcomers has shown a willingness to be more involved in union activities. To reflect on how unions could best respond to this opportunity, it is helpful to distinguish between three ideal approaches for building union power: advocacy, mobilising and deep organising. Figure 1 demonstrates how each approach has a distinctive understanding of member involvement.
Union member participation is practically absent in an advocacy strategy, in which professional union staff prioritise the economic exchange between the union and its members in order to realise immediate gains and benefits. However, union members are involved in the two other strategic approaches, although to different degrees. In the mobilising approach, members are considered potentially active participants. Yet the occasional nature of this strategy implies that this approach only focuses on those who are already supportive: the union activists. Problem-solving for workplace or other issues still largely depends on staff. Finally, in the bottom-up, deep organising approach, the base of activists is widened through engaging and mobilising ordinary workers to achieve transformative change via mass pressure.
In broad terms, grassroots unions mostly oscillate between mobilising and deep organising strategies, whereas most mainstream unions (at least in Europe) orient themselves towards advocating and mobilising. But the latter unions could depart from the dominant instrumental motives and ensuing passivity among their membership. The pragmatic way proposed here is to let newcomers, on a voluntary basis, carry out ‘small’ tasks inspired by the organising approach. My research found survey evidence to support this method among first-time members of a Belgian union. No less than 41 per cent of them were (quite) interested in taking on at least one task aimed at reaching out to potential members.
Apart from a newcomer’s embeddedness in pro-union networks, the belief that one’s personal involvement will make a difference in the union is, in particular, a strong, intrinsic driver for carrying out tasks. Therefore, including a rating scale that asks this question in the union registration form could be very informative. Reponses to this question could be the basis for developing retention strategies and targeting specific member groups for a joint process of organisational learning. Newcomers showing a strong conviction about the value they can bring to the union are low-hanging fruit — they can be put on a fast track to carry out more demanding tasks. But the ones with a weak conviction also need attention, perhaps even more so.
If unions want to pursue policies enhancing the engagement of newcomers via organising tasks, then there are several considerations to bear in mind. First, boosting member-union ties via organising tasks is more successful when underpinned by an articulate political vision and long-term objectives. Second, as tasks differ (time-, skill- and stress-wise), they should be tested to see which member categories they appeal to. Third, unions need to consider a ‘developmental’ perspective on union participation, meaning a step-by-step approach that over time builds a connection between (over-stretched) union representatives and members who are willing to offer their services to the union. Identifying and addressing newcomers who are potentially interested in less demanding forms of activism and a less economic relationship with their union is therefore key.
This blog is based on Vandaele K. (2020) Newcomers as drivers of union revitalization: survey evidence from Belgium, Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 75 (2), pp.351–375.
Have you seen or read?
- Trade unions and young workers: how to overcome the disconnect?
- Social dialogue in a time of pandemic
- Bleak prospects: mapping trade union membership in Europe since 2000
- ‘Algorithm breakers’ are not a different ‘species’: attitudes towards trade unions of Deliveroo riders in Belgium
- Will trade unions survive in the platform economy? Emerging patterns of platform workers’ collective voice and representation in Europe
