Work, employment and society

Copyright © 2005
BSA Publications Ltd®
Volume 19(1): 91–106
[DOI: 10.1177/0950017005051295]
SAGE Publications
London,Thousand Oaks,
New Delhi

Sources of change in trade unions

■ Edmund Heery
Cardiff University, UK

A B S T R AC T
It is argued widely that if trade unions are to experience renewal then they must
invest in organizing the unorganized and align their strategies of interest represen-
tation with the needs of women and those in atypical employment. This article
examines the groups and factors internal and external to trade unions that
encourage representatives to engage in both types of activity. Drawing on a large
survey of union paid officers in Britain, it identifies those internal and external
pressures that encourage change and uses these data to comment on current
theories of change in trade unions.

K E Y WO R D S
equal pay / part-time work / trade unions / union organizing

Introduction

T
he revival of trade unions in Britain and other countries is believed to rest
on unions adapting proactively to declining membership and creating a
new union identity. Two types of adaptation have featured strongly in
recent literature. On the one hand, it is argued that unions must accord more
priority to ‘organizing the organized’ and recreate their structures and culture
to embody the characteristics of ‘organizing unionism’ (Bronfenbrenner and
Juravich, 1998). Central to this argument is the belief that revitalization
requires unions to attach greater priority to what has often in the past been a
secondary function, recruiting workers and extending the boundaries of union-
ization through new recognition agreements with employers. On the other
hand, it is argued that unions should reflect the changing composition of the
workforce, including the increasing proportion of women in paid employment

91
Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
92 Work, employment and society Volume 19 ■ Number 1 ■ March 2005

and the growth of forms of work that depart from the male norm of a full-time,
open-ended job. The emphasis here is on a shift in substantive policy, such that
it accommodates a more diverse workforce through a strategy of ‘field enlarge-
ment’ (Wever, 1998).
Arguably unions are under selective pressure to make both of these adapta-
tions: if they fail to organize or reflect changing workforce composition they will
continue to decline. But it cannot be assumed that unions will respond to pres-
sure of this kind. Rather, the formulation of an appropriate response may
require that either of two pre-conditions is met: that there is a prior internal
renewal of trade unions to facilitate external change and that the policies of
employers and state afford opportunities for unions to re-form their strategies of
interest representation. If unions are to embark on a sustained attempt to orga-
nize the unorganized it may require organizational changes that facilitate the
cross-subsidy of union activities or favourable employment law that diminishes
the risks of organizing. If they are to represent women more effectively then it
may require the reform of union government to provide for women’s voice and
receptive employers, persuaded of the ‘business case’ for equal opportunities.
The purpose of what follows is to present an empirical inquiry into these
pre-conditions for change in trade unions. Data are presented from a survey of
union paid officers, which was administered in the spring and summer of 2002.
The survey asked officers to identify the factors that had encouraged them to
recruit new members and seek recognition from employers and prioritize equal
pay for women and improved pay and conditions for part-time workers. The
research was designed to test the relative importance of groups, both internal
and external to unions, in pressing for change on each of these four dimensions.
In so doing, it was also intended to comment on the explanatory power of
recent theoretical accounts of union change.

Change in trade unions

The influential renewal thesis of Fairbrother (1996: 142–3) suggests that change
in unions will be driven primarily by mobilization from below; that the main
pressure on officers to innovate will stem from members and activists at work-
place level. On this view, it is at the workplace that alienating conditions of
labour are experienced directly and hence pressure for change and a stronger
challenge to the power of employers are likely to emanate from this source. This
argument has been reproduced in literature on the feminization of unions,
which similarly emphasizes change through the mobilization of women trade
union members against an unresponsive, male-dominated bureaucracy (Colgan
and Ledwith, 2002). Other versions of renewal, however, believe
that change will originate elsewhere in unions. For advocates of what can be
called ‘managerial renewal’ (Willman, 2001), pressure to organize and accom-
modate to new groups in the labour market is likely to come from the national
leadership of unions. National leaders are relatively distant from the existing

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016

 Sources of change in trade unions Heery 93

members who may bear the cost of innovation and so resist change, and they
also have a functional responsibility for the long-term development of union
strategy. This may endow national leaders with an investment orientation that
leads both to innovation and attempts to ensure policy is adhered to by the
unions’ officer workforce.
A third position is adopted by those who emphasize the role of specialist
functions as bearers of change. The re-direction of union policy towards women
and part-time workers has been said to require the functional differentiation of
union government to endow women with dedicated mechanisms for participa-
tion and voice (McBride, 2000). Similarly, the re-direction of union policy
towards organizing may rest on the creation of a dedicated function, complete
with specialist organizers (Heery et al., 2000). For those who adopt this posi-
tion, the increasing differentiation of worker interests, between the organized
and the unorganized, between those belonging to majority and minority groups,
requires a similar differentiation of union government and management if
unions are to respond effectively to change.
The three positions just outlined identify internal change as a necessary
condition for innovation in trade unions. An alternative tradition, however,
stresses external determination of union behaviour. This is particularly a feature
of the institutional tradition within academic industrial relations with its iden-
tification of the structure of collective bargaining as the primary influence on
the pattern of union activity (Clegg, 1976). It is also a feature of writing that
emphasizes the dependent, secondary nature of trade union organization;
dependent that is on the policies of employers and governments which provide
opportunities for unions to engage in interest representation. The dependence
of trade unions on employers has been stressed particularly by Bain (1970),
who argues that union recruitment activity is largely ineffective outside of a
context in which employers accept that unions discharge a useful function. In
analogous fashion, where employers are persuaded of a business case for equal
opportunities, they may open negotiations with unions to promote equal pay or
improved conditions for part-timers (Dickens, 1998: 9). In a fragmented system
of industrial relations, like the UK’s, with a decentralized structure of collective
bargaining, the styles and policies of individual employers might be expected to
exert an especially potent influence on the activities of trade unions.
While employers in Britain enjoy wide latitude in developing industrial
relations policy, the latter has become increasingly subject to legal regulation.
Employers and unions today operate in a post-voluntarist labour market, regu-
lated by a substantial volume of individual and collective employment law
(Dickens and Hall, 2003). Legislation of this kind, and the public policies that
underpin it, may serve as a second external factor determining strategies of
interest representation: union change may follow the shifting contours of pub-
lic policy. On this view, organizing will be stimulated by the statutory recogni-
tion procedure (Oxenbridge et al., 2003), while equality bargaining will arise
from European directives and the regulations that transpose them into UK law
(Dickens, 1998: 20–4). In the terms used by theorists of social movements, the

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016

94 Work, employment and society Volume 19 ■ Number 1 ■ March 2005

framework of employment law and associated public policy can furnish unions
with an ‘opportunity structure’ that will draw them towards innovation (Foley,
2003: 249).
A final group of external agencies that may prompt change in unions is
composed of not-for-profit, campaigning and advisory bodies. The latter
include the statutory provider of third party and advisory services, the
Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS), and the Equal
Opportunities Commission (EOC), which is charged with advising employers
and unions on sex discrimination and equality at work. The Trades Union
Congress (TUC), part of the labour movement but ‘external’ to each of its affili-
ates, may also play this kind of prompting role. Particularly in the literature on
equality bargaining (Dickens, 1998: 9–10), it has been suggested that bodies of
this kind can play an important part in educating union representatives and
encouraging them to include issues like equal pay and part-time work on the
bargaining agenda. Where union officers form part of a wider network that
extends beyond their own union and the employers with which they deal
directly, they may have a greater capacity for innovation. Indeed, this has been
a central claim of recent attempts to apply network theory to trade unions
(Safford and Locke, 2001). Furthermore, those who advocate ‘community’
unionism have urged unions to make stronger connections to other movements
in civil society (Wills, 2002). The infusion of new ideologies, practices and
objectives into unions from non-labour movements and institutions has been
observed both in studies of organizing and of field enlargement (Heery, 1998;
Voss and Sherman, 2000). Innovation in this case is believed to flow from a
creative borrowing as the labour movement is overlain by and receives fresh
stimulus from new social movements.

Research

The primary method adopted in the research was to ask paid union officers to
select from lists of ‘internal’ and ‘external’ groups and factors those that had
exerted significant influence on their pursuit of four issues.1 These were
increased recruitment, seeking new recognition agreements, promoting equal
pay and improving pay and conditions for part-time workers. The survey
focused on paid officers for two reasons. Union officers are both a key group of
representatives within unions, with a prime responsibility for organizing and
bargaining, and they can be contacted relatively easily through their employing
unions, in a manner that cannot be easily used for other layers of representa-
tives. The survey population comprised union officers with a responsibility for
collective bargaining and/or union organizing in all TUC-affiliated unions with
100,000 or more members plus specialist unions in higher education, media,
communications, manufacturing and healthcare. The latter were surveyed
because they had significant concentrations of members in non-standard
employment, including part-time work.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016

 Sources of change in trade unions Heery 95

In total, 19 unions agreed to participate in the survey, which employed a

total of 1406 officers. Nearly 600 of the latter provided a return, which gave an
excellent response rate for a postal survey of 42 percent. The pattern of
response across unions is shown in Table 1. The survey can be considered

Table 1 The survey of union paid officers, 2002

Membership Number of Number of Response rate

Trade union 2001 officers responses %

Association of University 42,709 10 6 60

Teachers (AUT)
Broadcasting, Entertainment, 25,799 30 12 40
Cinematograph and Theatre Union
(BECTU)
Connect 17,616 20 7 35
Chartered Society of 32,576 13 7 54
Physiotherapists (CSP)
Communication Workers’ Union 284,422 32 11 34
(CWU)
British Actors’ Equity Association 35,246 24 10 42
(Equity)
GMB* 692,147 111 62 56
Graphical Paper and Media Union 200,676 94 44 47
(GPMU)
National Union of Knitwear, 20,650 7 6 86
Footwear and Allied Trades
(KFAT)
NATFHE – the University 65,031 43 23 53
and College Lecturers’ Union
National Union of Journalists (NUJ) 22,930 9 5 56
Public and Commercial Services 267,644 90 37 41
Union (PCS)
Prospect 103,942 53 29 55
Transport and General Workers’ 858,804 300 58 19
Union (TGWU)
Transport Salaried Staffs 31,494 18 12 67
Association (TSSA)
Union of Construction Allied 123,000 50 31 62
Trades and Technicians (UCATT)
UNIFI 160,267 108 38 35
UNISON 1,272,470 283 103 36
Union of Shop, Distributive and 310,222 111 84 76
Allied Workers (USDAW)
Total 4,567,645 1406 585 42

* In the GMB the survey was restricted to four of the union’s constituent regions: Northern,Wales and South
West, London and Liverpool, North Wales and Northern Ireland.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016

96 Work, employment and society Volume 19 ■ Number 1 ■ March 2005

broadly representative of union officers in Britain, of whom there are fewer

than 3000, though the failure to respond of Amicus and the main teaching
unions should be noted, as should the low rate of response from the TGWU.
The combined effect of the latter, the absence of replies from Amicus-AEEU and
the fact that responses for the GMB are drawn from only four of the union’s
constituent regions, means that union officers dealing with manual workers are
under-represented in the survey.
The vast majority of respondents to the survey were generalist union offi-
cers with a broad responsibility for organizing, bargaining and representing
workers in company procedures and before tribunals. Most were locally-based,
though a small percentage (8 percent) were national officers with a wider remit.
Specialist organizers who concentrate on recruitment provided a further 8 per-
cent of the responses. In a small number of unions participating in the survey
(CWU, PCS, UNIFI), seconded lay representatives take on a role analogous to
that of paid officers and officers of this stamp provided an additional 4 percent
of responses. Responding officers were largely male (76 percent), overwhelm-
ingly white (98 percent), and were experienced, with five or more years’ service
(80 percent). Just over a third had been educated to degree level, while only 15
percent had prior experience of part-time work. The majority had served as
workplace representatives (86 percent) and as union branch officers (75 per-
cent) before taking on their present role. Their combined responses cannot fur-
nish the kind of insight into the process of union organizing or field
enlargement that can be generated by case research. But they can be used to
identify the main sources of change within and beyond unions and rank their
relative significance across much of the UK trade union movement. In so doing,
key propositions that have emerged in the debate over the future of unions can
be tested systematically.

Internal pressures for change

Table 2 shows the groups internal to unions that have encouraged officers to
prioritize recruitment, recognition, equal pay and part-timers. The first thing to
note is that significant pressure to innovate is reported by only a minority of
officers for all of the groups listed. The only exception is pressure to recruit,
where majorities of officers report encouragement from workplace representa-
tives and senior officers. Encouragement of organizing and the inclusion of the
needs of women and part-timers in the bargaining agenda have been advocated
strongly at the apex of the trade union movement for several years (Bewley
and Fernie, 2003: 96–7; Carter and Cooper, 2002: 717; Heery, 1998). The
results indicate that initiatives of this kind have been implemented unevenly
across trade unions: that central policy has often left a shallow imprint at lower
levels.
The second main finding in Table 2 is that no single internal source of pres-
sure predominates: officers have been pushed towards change from above and

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016

 Sources of change in trade unions Heery 97

Table 2 Groups within unions that have encouraged officers to pursue organizing and equality
issues to a significant degree, percentages (N = 560–62)

Increased Seeking Improved

Groups exerting pressure recruitment recognition Equal pay conditions
for change activity agreements for women for part-timers

Existing union members 50 27 25 37

Workplace representatives 56 23 19 28
Lay committees and conferences 39 17 23 22
Senior union officers 63 32 20 18
Specialist officers 8 3 36 19
Specialist committees 12 5 22 16

below and from specialist officers and committees. Upward pressure from mem-
bers, workplace activists and lay committees has been a significant factor
encouraging officer engagement with all four issues, in accordance with the
model of union change proposed by renewal theorists. Members and activists
have sought help from the external union in establishing and maintaining union
organization, reflecting the fact that the wellsprings of collective organization
often lie within the workplace (Taylor and Bain, 2003). There has also been
pressure from below to prioritize equal pay and the needs of part-timers,
though it is notable that the primary source on both issues is the members them-
selves rather than lay representatives. This may reflect the attachment of pre-
dominantly male lay representatives to a customary bargaining agenda that is
relatively unresponsive to the needs of women (Colling and Dickens, 1989:
29–31).
While upward pressure has been important, pressure from other sources is
reported more frequently for all issues apart from the pay and conditions of
part-timers. There is support in the findings for the ‘managerial’ version
of renewal, particularly with regard to organizing. The main source of pressure
on officers to recruit and seek recognition came from superiors at a higher level,
in line with the belief that leaders develop an investment orientation. Pressure
from senior officers to embrace the causes of equal pay and improved condi-
tions for part-timers, however, is significant but less strong. For these issues,
specialist committees and officers emerged as a significant alternative influence.
This was particularly the case for equal pay, where more than a third of officers
reported pressure from specialist officers and more than a fifth reported pres-
sure from specialist committees. Unions have been criticized in the past for fail-
ing to integrate specialist machinery for women’s voice with their work of
collective bargaining (Colling and Dickens, 1989: 40; see also McBride, 2000).
These findings do not negate this argument, but they indicate that a link is
forged in some cases and that it can be effective in shaping the priorities of offi-
cers involved in negotiations. The absence of a link between specialists and gen-
eralists is more apparent in the case of organizing. UK unions have appointed

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016

98 Work, employment and society Volume 19 ■ Number 1 ■ March 2005

more specialist organizers and created dedicated organizing units in recent

years. In all but a small minority of cases, however, these developments have
not impinged greatly on the work of paid union officers.
The findings provide support for all three accounts of change that are cur-
rent: leader- and member-led change and change through the representation of
diversity. What is not supported is a belief that there is a single or dominant pat-
tern of internal renewal. Rather, the pattern varies, depending on the issue, with
senior officers taking the lead role in pressing for recruitment and recognition,
specialists taking the lead on equal pay and members leading on part-time
work. Within each issue, moreover, officers frequently report several influences
and it is not the case that some officers are susceptible to pressure from below
while others respond to pressure from above. The responses on the different
sources of pressure for each issue are positively, not negatively, correlated. It has
been argued that effective trade unionism in a decentralized system of industrial
relations like Britain’s requires the articulation of activity at different levels
(Waddington, 2000: 622). A theme in recent literature on organizing, moreover,
is that effective action requires both leadership support and rank-and-file
involvement (Milkman and Wong, 2001: 127). The pattern of findings on inter-
nal pressures for change supports these arguments. Union officers are more
likely to report relatively heavy involvement in recruitment, recognition, equal
pay and part-time work when they are encouraged from multiple points within
their unions. The correlation coefficients are modest, reflecting the fact that
other factors influence the pattern of officer behaviour, including their own
preferences and the organizing and bargaining contexts they face.2 But they are
all positive and significant and indicate that the articulation of voice mecha-
nisms supports change.

External pressures for change

Table 3 shows the pattern of replies to questions about groups or factors exter-
nal to the union that have prompted change. Amongst the advisory and cam-
paigning organizations listed in the first three rows of the table, the labour
movement’s own agency, the TUC, emerges as the primary influence. Nearly a
fifth of officers state that the TUC has encouraged greater recruitment activity
with slightly smaller percentages reporting that it has encouraged attempts to
gain recognition and bargaining on equal pay. These reports reflect the pattern
of internal campaigning and advisory work of the TUC in recent years. The
TUC has sought to promote the cause of organizing within the movement and
has also promoted the cause of equal pay, most recently in the creation of a new
programme for training lay equal pay representatives (Bewley and Fernie, 2003:
97). In the mid-1990s the TUC ran a similar campaign on the rights of part-
time workers (Heery, 1998). The reduced prominence granted to this issue
recently, however, may account for the fact that only 12 percent of officers cite
the TUC as a significant influence on this topic.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016

 Sources of change in trade unions Heery 99

Table 3 Groups external to unions that have encouraged officers to pursue organizing and
equality issues to a significant degree, percentages (N = 560–62)

Increased Seeking Improved

Groups exerting pressure recruitment recognition Equal pay conditions
for change activity agreements for women for part-timers

Trades Union Congress 19 14 16 12

Campaigning or voluntary organizations 4 3 5 4
Specialist agencies (e.g. ACAS, EOC) 5 9 9 7
Employers and management organizations 6 6 1 4
Individual employers 22 18 6 9
Changes in employment law 40 39 21 28
UK government policy 22 21 12 15
European Union policy 16 11 19 25

Other advisory and campaigning organizations have had significantly less

influence than the TUC. On none of the four issues do more than 10 percent of
officers report that campaigning or voluntary organizations or specialist gov-
ernment agencies, like ACAS and the EOC, have exerted significant pressure.
Where pressure has been exerted it has tended to come from government agen-
cies. Just under a tenth of officers, report that state agencies have encouraged
them to seek recognition and to negotiate on equal pay. The latter finding prob-
ably reflects the EOC’s encouragement of the negotiation of voluntary equal
pay audits and equal pay policies. Just under a tenth of officers also report that
state agencies have encouraged attempts to obtain recognition. This undoubt-
edly reflects the role of ACAS, which often provides conciliation and advisory
services in cases of recognition. Although ACAS’s statutory duty to promote
collective bargaining has been abolished, the fact that officers report encour-
agement to seek recognition suggests that it exerts a continuing influence.
The least influential group, according to the table, are campaigning and
voluntary organizations. In a small number of cases they have played a sub-
stantial role in encouraging action. Nevertheless, it is the absence of significant
contact of this kind that stands out from the table. It has been argued that the
revitalization of unions requires coalition-building and joint working with
other organizations in civil society based on reciprocal influence (Turner and
Hurd, 2001: 10). There is very little evidence to date of this approach being
adopted by British unions on issues, like union recognition and sex equality,
that seemingly lend themselves to action of this kind.
Rather more influence has derived from employers. Indeed, higher percent-
ages of officers report encouragement from employers to recruit and seek
recognition than report encouragement from the TUC. These figures belie state-
ments that the interests of employers and unions are universally opposed (Kelly,
1996: 99): under certain circumstances employers may develop a positive inter-
est in the collective organization of workers. The strongest encouragement is for
recruitment, suggesting that employers, once unionized, may back the creation

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016

100 Work, employment and society Volume 19 ■ Number 1 ■ March 2005

of authoritative union organization, resting on majority support. There is also

evidence of employers encouraging unions to seek recognition. In a proportion
of cases this will be due to the use of ‘divide and rule’ tactics by employers faced
with multiple unions seeking recognition (Ewing et al., 2003: 16–18;
Oxenbridge et al., 2003: 323). In other cases, however, employers may accept
that unions are legitimate, that they can improve the efficiency of workforce
management or that recognition will bestow competitive advantage.
Contractors to the public sector and large employment agencies have become
more accepting of unions in recent years to facilitate their winning contracts
from unionized client organizations (Oxenbridge et al., 2003: 326).
Reports that employers have promoted negotiation on equal pay or part-
timers are less common. In some cases employers have taken the initiative in
equality bargaining but the pattern of findings indicates that this is unusual.
Collective bargaining on equal pay and non-standard work, when it occurs, is
likely to be initiated by the union side (Dickens, 1998: 8; see also Bewley and
Fernie, 2003: 104–15). This finding has relevance to public policy. It suggests
that without compulsion employers are unlikely to eliminate pay discrimination
or enhance the poor conditions of part-time workers, themselves a major con-
tributing factor to the extent of the gender pay gap in Britain (Rubery et al.,
1999: 230). The implication is that employers should be placed under a statu-
tory duty to eliminate pay discrimination.
The importance of legislation in stimulating union activity is borne out by
the bottom three rows of Table 3. The most frequently cited source of external
influence for all four types of change is employment law. The influence on
recruitment and recognition is particularly strong and points to the importance
of the statutory recognition procedure introduced by the Employment Relations
Act 1999 in stimulating union organizing (Wood et al., 2003). The law has also
been an important stimulus to activity on equal pay and on behalf of part-time
workers. For the latter, the Part-time Workers Regulations 2000 have stimu-
lated negotiations to remove unlawful discrimination, while union activity on
equal pay has arisen from evolving case law. Indeed, much of the latter has orig-
inated in the deliberate selection and sponsorship of strategic cases by trade
unions themselves. In the field of equality the integrated use of case law and
bargaining to establish and diffuse concessions respectively has become charac-
teristic of union strategy (Colling and Dickens, 2001: 150–1).
Beyond employment law the general framework of public policy emerges
as a further significant influence on the behaviour of union representatives. It is
notable, however, that officers appear to draw a distinction between employ-
ment law and the policy of the present UK government, being notably less likely
to report the latter as a prompt to innovation. The pattern of influence from
public policy also shows significant variation by issue. Domestic policy is the
strongest source of pressure on organizing, while field enlargement has been
encouraged by policy at European level. The data underline the importance of
European social policy as a resource for UK unions (Howell, 1999: 49–50), par-
ticularly in drawing equal pay and the conditions of atypical work within the

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016

 Sources of change in trade unions Heery 101

ambit of collective bargaining. In combination, the findings on employment law

and public policy point to the significance of the ‘opportunity structure’ facing
unions in encouraging innovation in policy and practice. Where public policy
leads, it seems, unions will follow, albeit with the caveat that UK unions them-
selves can exert significant influence on public policy at both European and
domestic levels.
The number of external sources of influence identified by officers was cor-
related positively with reports of activity in the four fields of recruitment, recog-
nition, equal pay and part-time work.3 This suggests that where union officers
are embedded in extended networks and are susceptible to a broader range of
influences they are more likely to innovate. The networked union on this evi-
dence is a union that is susceptible to change (Safford and Locke, 2001). The
evidence in Table 3, however, points to the limited extent of external influences
on many union officers: 43 percent reported no external pressure to recruit and
the equivalent figures for recognition, equal pay and part-time work were 46,
59 and 55 percent, respectively. Officers are employees of their unions and
unions are representative organizations, so it is unsurprising that the strongest
influences on officers’ work arise within unions. But the limited exposure to
external influence is nonetheless striking, as is the modest degree of contact with
advisory and campaigning organizations beyond the narrow confines of the
labour movement. It is sometimes suggested that the concept of a relatively self-
contained industrial relations sub-system is no longer a valid descriptor of col-
lective employment relations (Hyman, 2001: 13–15). The pattern of influence
on union officers shown in Tables 2 and 3 suggests that this judgement may
have been too hasty. The work of officers is increasingly shaped by employment
law but in other regards the ongoing work of representation in trade unions is
relatively insulated from outside pressure. The self-sufficient nature of the trade
union world, moreover, arguably renders it slow to change and imposes a brake
on adaptation through both organizing and field enlargement.

Conclusion

Sociological theories of trade unionism differ in terms of where they identify

pressures for regenerative change as likely to arise. It is believed widely that the
revitalization of trade unions requires an increased organizing effort and a pro-
cess of field enlargement, such that unions become more responsive to the
needs of women and workers in non-traditional employment. But there is no
consensus over which factors within and beyond unions will promote change.
The purpose of this article has been to present systematic survey data on the
main pressures for change experienced by a key group of union representa-
tives, paid officers engaged in organizing and collective bargaining. In so doing
it has provided findings that have relevance to the broader debate over union
revitalization.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016

102 Work, employment and society Volume 19 ■ Number 1 ■ March 2005

The first noteworthy finding is that there is no overriding source of inter-

nal pressure for change. Theories of rank-and-file and managerial renewal sug-
gest that there should be, with change hypothesized to come from below in one
case and from above in the other. In fact, the evidence points to innovation aris-
ing from articulated pressures on union representatives: that change is most
likely where there are multiple sources of influence. Within this general pattern,
however, there are notable differences in the relative weight of influences across
issues. In the case of union organizing top-down encouragement to officers is
more significant, providing support for those who argue that increased invest-
ment in organizing requires arrangements for cross-subsidy and the strategic
management of trade unions (Willman, 2001). For equal pay and part-timers,
in contrast, specialist structures and equality officers emerge as a stronger influ-
ence, supporting the argument of those who believe that representing more dif-
ferentiated social identities requires a prior differentiation of union systems of
government and management (Colling and Dickens, 2001; McBride, 2000). In
combination, the findings demonstrate the need for theorists to move beyond
the unidirectional and universal models of union change that have dominated
the debate over internal trade union renewal.
If multiple pressures within unions push union officers towards innovation,
then multiple pressures beyond unions also pull them towards change. Officers
who report greater involvement in recruitment, recognition, equal pay and part-
time work tend also to report that several external forces are encouraging them
to take up these issues. There is support in the findings for the belief that net-
worked unions are more innovative (Safford and Locke, 2001). The main find-
ing with regard to external sources of innovation, however, is that pointing to
the facilitating effect of employment law. Union representatives, it seems,
respond to the opportunity structure with which they are faced and the primary
component of this structure is the framework of law and public policy. The
positive effect of European social policy on union activity is also noteworthy.
The primary external institutions that have been identified as shaping union
behaviour in earlier research are the structure of collective bargaining and the
policies of employers (Bain, 1970; Clegg, 1976), the favourite explanatory vari-
ables of the Oxford School. In a post-voluntarist, increasingly regulated labour
market, employment law emerges from the survey as another key institutional
influence, suggesting a need to update the formal propositions that lie at the
heart of the academic institutional tradition. Institutional explanations of union
behaviour remain valid but there is a need to acknowledge the increasing sig-
nificance of the opportunity structure afforded to unions by European public
policy and domestic employment law.
Another piece of evidence of note is essentially a non-finding. Very few
union officers report that other organizations within civil society have pressed
them to organize or enlarge their field of representation. There is little sign of
unions forming coalitions of reciprocal influence with non-labour organiza-
tions. Despite recent interest in social movement and community unionism
(Robinson, 2002; Wills, 2002), British trade unionism appears to be a relatively

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016

 Sources of change in trade unions Heery 103

closed institutional field. Indeed, it may be that the juridification of industrial

relations noted earlier can, itself act as a barrier to coalition with other social
movements. If developments in employment law provide opportunities for
unions to organize and represent hitherto neglected groups there will be less
incentive to seek out other resources in the wider civil society. In short, the find-
ings may tell us something about the conditions under which community-based
unionism is likely, or unlikely, to emerge.
The last finding of note is that both for organizing and field enlargement,
pressures that arise within unions appear stronger than those that originate
from outside. There has been a shift in writing on unions over the past two
decades from a position that emphasized the institutional determination of
‘union behaviour’ (e.g. Clegg, 1976) to one that stresses the status of unions as
strategic actors (e.g. Boxall and Haynes, 1997). While not decisive, the findings
point to the validity of this second position and the role of governmental and
managerial processes within unions in pushing representatives towards engage-
ment with new issues. Union activity is not just a pragmatic adaptation to the
structure of opportunity presented by employers and state. It is also an expres-
sion of internal politics, dialogue and power. Seemingly, unions will invest more
heavily in recruitment and recognition where national leaders can allocate
resources, they will promote equal pay where internal structures represent
diversity and they will be receptive to the needs of part-timers when these work-
ers have opportunity for voice. Union politics matter and change in unions is a
function of their effective government and management as well as the institu-
tional context to which they must adapt.

Acknowledgement

The survey was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council as part of the
Future of Work (Project Number: L212252023). Thanks are due to Melanie Simms
for help with the survey, to the trade unions who agreed to research access and to
the many officers who completed a long questionnaire. Any errors of fact or inter-
pretation are the responsibility of the author alone.

Notes

1 The internal groups included the members, activists and officers of the officer’s
union, while the external groups included the TUC, state agencies, voluntary
and campaigning organizations, employers and government. It must be
acknowledged that this distinction is slightly artificial: unions are political
agents and influence government policy and other aspects of their environment,
while activists in other movements also shape the labour movement.
Nevertheless, a distinction can be drawn between pressures that arise within the
formal boundaries of the officer’s employing organization and those that arise
beyond.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016

104 Work, employment and society Volume 19 ■ Number 1 ■ March 2005

2 The pattern of correlation between the number of pressures for change and offi-
cer activities was as follows: increased recruitment activity (0.164, N = 560);
seeking recognition agreements (0.262, N = 558); promoting equal pay (0.334,
N = 535), improvements for part-timers (0.247, N = 538). All correlation coef-
ficients were statistically significant at the .000 level. The measures of recruit-
ment and recognition activity were six-point scales derived from questions
asking officers if these constituted important components of their work. The
measures of equal pay and part-time bargaining were derived from 15 and 12
items, respectively, which asked if these had been the subjects of negotiation by
the officer in the past three years.
3 The correlation coefficients were as follows: recruitment activity (0.184, N =
55), recognition (0.230, N = 556), equal pay (0.321, N = 534), part-time work
(0.207, N = 536). All were significant at the .000 level.

References

Bain, G.S. (1970) The Growth of White Collar Unionism. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bewley, H. and Fernie, S. (2003) ‘What Do Unions Do for Women?’, in H. Gospel
and S. Wood (eds) Representing Workers: Union Recognition and Membership
in Britain, pp. 92–118. London: Routledge.
Boxall, P. and Haynes, P. (1997) ‘Strategy and Trade Union Effectiveness in a Neo-
Liberal Environment’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 35(4): 567–91.
Bronfenbrenner, K. and Juravich, T. (1998) ‘It Takes More Than House Calls:
Organizing to Win with a Comprehensive Union-Building Strategy’, in K.
Bronfenbrenner, S. Friedman, R.W. Hurd, R.A. Oswald and R.L. Seeber (eds)
Organizing to Win: New Research on Union Strategies. Ithaca and London:
ILR Press.
Carter, B. and Cooper, R. (2002) ‘The Organizing Model and the Management of
Change: A Comparative Study of Unions in Australia and Britain’, Relations
Industrielles 57(4): 712–42.
Clegg, H.A. (1976) Trade Unionism under Collective Bargaining: A Theory Based
on Comparisons of Six Countries. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Colgan, F. and Ledwith, S. (2002) ‘Gender, Diversity and Mobilization in UK Trade
Unions’, in F. Colgan and S. Ledwith (eds) Gender, Diversity and Trade Unions:
International Perspectives, pp. 154–85. London: Routledge.
Colling, T. and Dickens, L. (1989) Equality Bargaining – Why Not? London:
HMSO.
Colling, T. and Dickens, L. (2001) ‘Gender Equality and Trade Unions: a New Basis
for Mobilisation?’, in M. Noon and E. Ogbonna (eds) Equality, Diversity and
Disadvantage in Employment, pp. 136–55. Basingstoke and London: Palgrave.
Dickens, L. (1998) Equal Opportunities and Collective Bargaining in Europe:
Illuminating the Process. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement
of Living and Working Conditions.
Dickens, L. and Hall, M. (2003) ‘Labour Law and Industrial Relations: a New
Settlement?’, in P. Edwards (ed.) Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice, 2nd
edn, pp. 124–56. Oxford: Blackwell.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016

 Sources of change in trade unions Heery 105

Ewing, K., Moore, S. and Wood, S. (2003) Unfair Labour Practices: Trade Union
Recognition and Employer Resistance. London: The Institute of Employment
Rights.
Fairbrother, P. (1996) ‘Workplace Trade Unionism in the State Sector’, in P. Ackers,
C. Smith and P. Smith (eds) The New Workplace and Trade Unionism, pp.
110–48. London: Routledge.
Foley, J.R. (2003) ‘Mobilization and Change in a Trade Union Setting:
Environment, Structures and Action’, Work, Employment and Society 17(2):
227–46.
Heery, E. (1998) ‘Campaigning for Part-Time Workers’, Work, Employment and
Society 12(2): 351–66.
Heery, E., Simms, M., Delbridge, R., Salmon, J. and Simpson, D. (2000) ‘The TUC’s
Organising Academy: An Assessment’, Industrial Relations Journal 31(5):
400–15.
Howell, C. (1999) ‘Unforgiven: British Trade Unions in Crisis’, in A. Martin and
G. Ross (eds) The Brave New World of European Labor, pp. 26–74. New York
and Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Hyman, R. (2001) Understanding European Trade Unionism: Between Market,
Class and Society. London: Sage.
Kelly, J. (1996) ‘Union Militancy and Social Partnership’, in P. Ackers, C. Smith and
P. Smith (eds) The New Workplace and Trade Unionism. London: Routledge.
McBride, A. (2000) ‘Promoting Representation of Women within UNISON’, in M.
Terry (ed.) Redefining Public Sector Unionism. London: Routledge.
Milkman, R. and Wong, K. (2001) ‘Organizing Immigrant Workers: Case Studies
from Southern California’, in L. Turner, H.C. Katz and R.W. Hurd (eds)
Rekindling the Movement: Labor’s Quest for Relevance in the 21st Century,
pp. 99–128. Ithaca and London: ILR Press.
Oxenbridge, S., Brown, W., Deakin, S. and Pratten, C. (2003) ‘Initial Responses to
the Statutory Recognition Provisions of the Employment Relations Act 1999’,
Work, Employment and Society, 41(2): 315–34.
Robinson, I. (2002) ‘Does Neo-Liberal Restructuring Promote Social Movement
Unionism? US Developments in Comparative Perspective’, in B. Nissen (ed.)
Unions in a Globalized Environment, pp. 189–235. Armonk, NY, and London:
M.E. Sharpe.
Rubery, J., Smith, M. and Fagan, C. (1999) Women’s Employment in Europe:
Trends and Prospects. London: Routledge.
Safford, S.C. and Locke, R.M. (2001) Unions on the Rebound: Social
Embeddedness and the Transformation of Building Trades Locals, Sloan
Working Paper 4175–01. Boston, MA.: Sloan School of Management.
Taylor, P. and Bain, P. (2003) ‘Call Center Organizing in Adversity: from Excell to
Vertex’, in G. Gall (ed.) Union Organizing, pp. 153–72. London: Routledge.
Turner, L. and Hurd, R.W. (2001) ‘Building Social Movement Unionism: the
Transformation of the American Labor Movement’, in L. Turner, H.C. Katz
and R.W. Hurd (eds) Rekindling the Movement: Labor’s Quest for Relevance
in the 21st Century, pp. 9–26. Ithaca, NY, and London: ILR Press.
Voss, K. and Sherman, R. (2000) ‘Breaking the Iron Law of Oligarchy: Union
Revitalization in the American Labor Movement’, American Journal of
Sociology 106(2): 303–49.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016

106 Work, employment and society Volume 19 ■ Number 1 ■ March 2005

Waddington, J. (2000) ‘United Kingdom: Recovering from the Neo-Liberal Assault’,

in J. Waddington and R. Hoffman (eds) Trade Unions in Europe, pp. 575–626.
Brussels: European Trade Union Institute.
Wever, K. (1998) ‘International Labor Revitalization: Enlarging the Playing Field’,
Industrial Relations 37(3): 388–407.
Willman, P. (2001) ‘The Viability of Trade Unionism: a Bargaining Unit Analysis’,
British Journal of Industrial Relations 39(1): 97–117.
Wills, J. (2002) Union Futures: Building Networked Trade Unionism in the UK,
Fabian Ideas 602. London: The Fabian Society.
Wood, S., Moore, S. and Ewing, K. (2003) ‘The Impact of the Trade Union
Recognition Procedure under the Employment Relations Act, 2000–2’, in H.
Gospel and S. Wood (eds) Representing Workers: Union Recognition and
Membership in Britain, pp. 119–43. London: Routledge.

Edmund Heery

Edmund Heery is Professor of Employment Relations at Cardiff Business School and

has a primary research interest in the sociology of trade unions. Recent publications
have focused on the theme of union renewal through studies of union organizing,
coalition-building and the representation of workers with atypical contracts.
Address: Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Colum Drive, Cardiff CF10 3EU, UK.
E-mail: Heery@cf.ac.uk

Date submitted July 2003

Date accepted January 2004

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016