Positive Action in Trade Unions? 

The Case of Women and Black Members

Paper presented to the 16^th European Group of Organisation Studies (EGOS) Conference, Helsinki, July 2000.

Gill Kirton and Anne-marie Greene

Introduction

That trade union decision-making structures are unrepresentative of membership diversity is now widely recognised, with the various levels of union government remaining dominated by white men (Labour Research, 1998; Dickens, 1997).  In this sense the institutionalised sexism and racism of the labour market are reflected in sexual and racial disadvantage within the internal life of trade unions (Leah, 1993).  It is also uncontested that union survival and revival are dependent upon broadening the unions’ traditional recruitment areas (Kirton & Healy, 1999) and attracting a diverse workforce into membership.  Various authors have sought to show a link between the unrepresentative nature of trade union structures and the unions’ historical relative lack of success in organising women and black^[1] workers (Cockburn, 1995; Colgan & Ledwith, 1996; Dickens, 1997; Kirton & Healy, 1999): that is unions have not fully come to terms with ‘managing diversity’ among their (potential) members (Bradley & Hebson, 1998).  However, there are important differences when comparing the two groups - women and black workers - in that women now constitute a major proportion of the UK labour force (about 46%), whilst black workers are a numerically small group (about 6%).  Nevertheless, there is a considerable membership gap in the case of both groups.  In the case of women, the membership gap is of particular concern to unions, since economic restructuring has resulted in the decline of traditional male jobs and the increase of female ones, with most future job growth predicted in feminised sectors and occupations.  Further, membership among women and black people has held up well during the years of decline, suggesting that targeting these groups may bear fruit in recruitment and retention terms.  Nevertheless, from an organisational (numbers) perspective unions might have a greater interest in developing strategies to attract women into membership and to encourage female activism, which may militate against strenuous efforts to improve membership and participation among black members. 

However, of equal importance within the debate about the unrepresentative nature of trade union decision-making structures is the issue of union democracy.  Cockburn (1995) coins the term ‘democracy deficit’ to describe the present situation within most UK unions.  Thus, the concern is not simply one of needing to recruit a diverse constituency, but also one of ensuring gender and race democracy within unions as a goals in themselves.   Most large UK trade unions have adopted various positive action strategies to enhance women’s and black members’ participation in trade union affairs.  The campaign for gender equality now has a long history, whilst the campaign for race equality is less well developed (Bradley & Hebson, 1998) and there is also far less written in the academic and policy literature about issues of race democracy within unions.  The structural changes that are necessary to encourage the participation of women are widely thought to centre on separate organisation (for example, Briskin, 1993; Cockburn, 1995; Colgan & Ledwith, 1996; Healy & Kirton, 2000).  When it comes to race there is less agreement, with some unions adopting black members’ structures, whilst others have developed race structures within a wider equal opportunities framework (TUC, 1991).  The various advantages and disadvantages of separate women’s structures, separate black members’ structures and race equality structures are the subject of much debate within the trade union movement.  This paper aims to contribute to this discussion.

Methodology

The paper examines union data and existing literature to provide an overview of women’s, black members’ and race equality strategies and structures within large TUC unions, exploring their provenance, their status and objectives.  The paper also provides a detailed case study of the national gender and race equality strategies and structures of the fifth largest UK trade union - MSF (Manufacturing, Science and Finance).  The membership of MSF consists largely of profesional and skilled workers drawn from both the private and public sectors, although it is a predominantly private sector union.  Thirty-three per cent of MSF’s 420,000 members are women.  Like most other British unions, MSF has only recently begun monitoring the race and ethnicity of new members and can at present give only a reliable estimate of the size of its black membership, about five per cent of total membership, based on knowledge of the sectors and occupations the union organises within.

Specifically, the paper draws on an earlier case study of MSF by one author, supplemented by additional field work involving in-depth interviews with women and black activists.  In total the paper draws on interviews with 32 MSF lay and paid officials: 4 black women, 5 black men, 23 white women.  We also attended an MSF seminar ‘Race to the Top’, in May 1999 which brought together activists and officials to launch a campaign for  workplace race equality.  Following this event we conducted a survey of those present, however data from the survey are not yet available for analysis.

Gender and Race Equality Strategies and Structures in UK trade unions

Most unions now recognise the need to develop strategies and structures in relation to diverse groups of workers: the unitary conception of trade union matters, reflected in and  institutionalised by union structures, has been successfully challenged in most large UK trade unions, many of which now have broad ranging equality structures designed to give voice to marginalised and under-represented groups including women, black members, disabled and lesbian and gay members.  It is argued that to be effective such structures need adequate financial resources and strong links to the mainstream decision-making structures of the union (Briskin, 1993; Trebilcock, 1991), which is not always the case.  Given the different issues involved, we now consider separately the provenance, objectives and effects of gender equality strategies and structures and of race equality strategies and structures.

Gender Equality Strategies and Structures

Pressure on unions to adopt strategies in pursuit of women’s equality emanated from the feminist movement of the 1970s (Cockburn, 1991), such pressure being translated into policy by the TUC’s Charter for Equality for Women within Trade Unions in 1979.  Amongst other things, this charter encouraged the individual union to consider radical measures including ‘the desirability of setting up advisory committees within its constitutional machinery to ensure that the special interests of its women members are protected’ and to ensure women’s representation on decision-making bodies ‘either through the creation of additional seats or by co-option’ (Beale, 1982:100). Unions were also urged to adopt more liberal measures including providing childcare facilities at meetings and conferences.  Basically, the charter recognised that various forms of positive action would be required if women were to play a full role^[2] in the life of the union movement.  Over the twenty years or so since the charter’s original appearance, many unions have responded to feminist and TUC pressure by developing a range of liberal and radical (Jewson & Nason, 1986) positive action strategies with the aim of increasing women’s participation and involvement.  These include (i) developing new approaches to conducting union business, (ii) publishing literature covering issues of special interest to women, - both of these measures can be classified as liberal (Jewson & Mason, 1986), in the sense that they are non-interventionist - (iii) providing women-only education, (iv) establishing women’s committees, (v) women’s conferences and (vi) women’s officers, and in some cases (vii) reserving seats for women within decision-making structures (Trebilcock, 1991).  The last five categories can be classified as radical, in that they represent forms of women’s separate organisation (Briskin, 1993).  Table One shows the nature of the current gender equality strategies and which large TUC unions have adopted them.

 

Table One: Women’s Structures and Strategies in the Ten Largest TUC Unions

 

It can be seen that large TUC unions now have a range of strategies and structures designed to encourage and increase women’s involvement, although reserved seats for women remain less common.  These measures have undoubtedly brought about change within the internal life of trade unions, in that women’s representation, participation and involvement in most large TUC unions has increased over time.  The greatest change has occurred more recently, since radical measures (women’s committees and reserved seats) have become more commonplace.  In other words, liberal measures (such as provision of childcare facilities or changing the location of union meetings), designed to dismantle the perceived barriers to women’s participation had only limited impact, whilst more radical measures designed to promote women’s participation have been more successful.  Structural changes of the nature discussed here do not necessarily in themselves effect transformation of union culture, policy and agendas.  The point is that, once in positions of influence and power, women use their agency to inject their own beliefs, values and concerns into strategy, policy and actions (Colgan & Ledwith, 1996; Healy & Kirton, 2000; Heery & Kelly, 1988; Kirton & Healy, 1999).

However, despite almost two decades of positive action, the gap between the proportion of women who are members and those who are senior (lay and paid) officials remains wide and women also remain under-represented among the ranks of local stewards and representatives.  In the largest ten TUC^[3] unions women represent forty-one per cent of members overall, between ten per cent (AEEU) and seventy-two per cent (UNISON) of individual unions (Labour Research, 2000).  Among these, five unions have achieved or exceeded women’s proportionality on their national executive committees (AEEU, T&G, GMB, MSF, GPMU), whereas in 1987 none of the largest ten TUC unions could claim women’s proportional representation (SERTUC, 1987).  The five are all unions in which women constitute a minority and it is also interesting to note that these are all unions which have reserved seats for women at national level.  In others words, proportionality has been achieved in male dominated unions with the aid of a radical positive action measure, which in the short-term guarantees a minimum female presence as well as working towards the longer agenda of recasting union government.  However, in male-dominated unions the transformation that could occur from proportionality has limitations because women remain in a minority in positions of power.  Healy & Kirton (2000) speculate that ‘proportionality that results in a numerical domination of women would meet disproportionate resistance from the  gendered oligarchy’, which may contribute to explaining why the female dominated unions have not all embraced proportionality and reserved seats.  The remaining five of the largest ten unions have a proportionality gap of between three (CWU) and thirty-four per cent (NUT), therefore the struggle towards equality continues.

Women’s proportional representation on some unions’ national executive committees is an important step forward for women’s equality, but it is not the only indicator of  gender equality within unions.  For example, on the negative side, there has been a recent decline in the number of women general secretaries, who are the leaders of unions and the symbolic figureheads: there is now not one single female general secretary of a union with more than 7,500 members (Labour Research, 2000).  However, a number of unions have succeeded in increasing the numbers of women employed as paid national and regional negotiating officials: seven of the largest ten TUC unions have made progress here over the last two years, although the goal of proportionality is distant for most.  Thus, although positive action has not failed, it has delivered only limited gains in terms of gender equality, with the more radical elements achieving the most visible change.

Race Equality Strategies and Structures

The TUC first published its ‘Black Workers’ Charter’ in 1981 and in 1984 recognised the right of black workers to self-organise^[4] (Cunnison & Stageman, 1995).  In 1994 the TUC re-issued its strategy for the ‘Representation of Black Workers in Trade Unions’ (TUC, 1994).  The strategy operates at three levels: branch, regional/national and TUC, with the aim of improving black workers’ representation in decision-making structures at all three levels.  The strategy makes a series of recommendations, which at national level include reviewing existing structures for black organisation and representation, establishing a national committee on race equality matters and setting targets for black representation for all the union’s decision-making bodies.  There is no mention of reserved seats, however, this may relate to legal difficulties surrounding this issue in the case of black members^[5].  However, the legal difficulties do not appear to be insurmountable because three TUC unions, UNISON, TGWU and MSF, have reserved seats for black members on their national executive committees.  One of the issues which marks a sharp distinction between unions’ approach to women’s equality and that to race equality is the fact that women’s structures are always women-only, whereas race equality structures are not black member-only and are therefore not to be confused with black member structures.  UNISON is the only large TUC union to have black member-only structures at national level, whilst other unions have formal and informal black member forums at branch or regional levels.

Although the literature on black workers’ involvement in trade unions is somewhat scant, there are two surveys which offer insights into recent developments.  One of the points to emerge from the TUC’s 1991 survey of ten unions is that ‘arrangements for black workers have largely supplemented rather than altered trade union structures’ (TUC, 1991:14, original emphasis).  Most of the unions’ race structures were of advisory status, which means that they had limited executive powers, in contrast to women’s committees which were usually sub-committees of the national executive committee.  The 1998 TUC/Labour Research Department survey finds that having black union representatives makes it more likely that there will be agreements and procedures in place addressing black members’ needs, yet black representatives are a tiny minority (four per cent) (LRD, 1998).  The survey also found that workplaces with more than five per cent of black employees were more likely to develop initiatives to encourage black participation in the union, suggesting that the issue of numerical concentration is likely to be of importance.

Table Two shows the race equality structures adopted by the largest ten TUC unions.

 

Table Two

 

It can be seen that unions have generally been less ready to embrace race equality strategies and structures and the spread of these is far more patchy than in the case of women.

The radical positive action measures described above in relation to gender and race equality strategies constitute forms of separate organisation, which can be regarded as the hallmark of developing the long equal opportunities agenda (Colgan & Ledwith, 1994).  The strategy is controversial among both male and female (Healy & Kirton, 2000) and black and white trade unionists (Virdee & Grint, 1994), as it may be perceived as a threat to the existing white-male dominated power structures.  Further, some trade unionists regard separate structures as tokenistic gestures which do not overall transform the status quo, instead marginalising the issues and the people involved in them (Trebilcock, 1991).  It is these issues that we explore below through the case study of MSF.

Gender and Race Equality in MSF

At national level, MSF has a women’s committee (National Women’s Sub Committee, NWSC), an annual National Women’s Conference, reserved seats for women on the National Exeuctive Committee (NEC) and women-only courses.  The NWSC is a sub-committee of the NEC, rather than an advisory committee, with four voting members on the NEC (women in reserved seats).  This set-up provides the women’s committee with a strong structural link to the central decision-making body of the union and places it in a more powerful position than the union’s other equality committees.  The National Race Equality Committee (NREC) also has sub-committee status, but its two representatives occupying reserved seats on the NEC are observers only and are therefore not entitled to vote.  However, there is a commitment from the union’s leadership to change these seats to full voting status in the near future.  The NREC is not a black member-only structure and there is no requirement for the Chair and Deputy Chair, who occupy the reserved seats on the NEC, to be black.  Informally, however, it is generally accepted that those positions are for black activists, as currently there are no black members in the geographically or sector-based NEC seats.

The composition of the two committees changes regularly, as all members are elected annually.  It is, however, the norm for the NWSC to be dominated by white women and for the NREC to be male dominated.  Therefore the issue arises as to how well these structures give voice to black women in the union.  Do black women fall off the agenda if their presence is lacking in both areans?  In its report on the involvement of black workers in trade unions, the TUC (TUC, 1991) expresses this concern and argues that the different equality committees need to be aware of what each other is doing and to forge links among themselves. The way this works in MSF is that all the different equality committees - women, race, disability, youth, lesbian and gay - are able to send a representative to the other committees.   NEEDS TO BE EXPANDED AND SOME QUOTES INSERTED.  There is a debate about black women’s relationship with the largely white feminist movement and a concern that black women feel excluded from the organising initiatives of white feminists within the labour movement (Leah, 1993) AND?????

At national level MSF also has black member-only courses, and although the NREC does not organise a conference, it does host an annual weekend event at the union’s college.

(The Experience of?) Positive Action for Women in MSF

On getting more women involved:

‘As a woman manager I don’t feel that I’m representative of all women.  A lot of women, for example, are lower grade, lower paid workers.  I don’t feel that I can necessarily represent those women very well.  I think that people have the need to be represented by someone of their onw strata.  You don’t need the ten most competent people to make a successful union branch - what you need is representiveness.’  (White woman activist)

Thus, positive action for women must recognise women’s heterogeneity as well as what women have in common.  Also relates to question of black women’s involvement.

‘As a woman I feel it’s important that there are other women comin up behind you, to take over later so that things don’t go back to the way they were, with men dominating everything.  In the health service with so many women as employees, it is a bit easier to get women involved.  Although having said that, although in my area it’s sixty per cent women at the workplace, when you look at the union locally the structures are still male dominated, but it’s improving.  I’ve seen improvement in my time.’  (White woman activist)

Some interesting quotes to build some points/arguments around:

‘Men are more aggressive than women, but I think once you achieve proportionality men are forced to stop behaving in this way.’  (White woman activist)

‘I think women are more keen to share power than men - they prefer to hog it for themselves.  But it’s getting more and more difficult to encourage reps of any sort, so we don’t always have the luxury of being able to choose women.’

‘It’s good to have separate women’s and race structures, but they should overlap more.  Issues should also be raised at NEC meetings, not just at specialist committees’.  (White woman activist).

‘A lot of women in the trade union movement don’t want to be seen to be different from the men, they want to be part of the club, they’re not willing to challenge men.  We’re not a minority group, most women do work and we need a voice.  If you become just like the men, are you then representive of women?’

(The Experience of?) Positive Action for Black Members in MSF

‘It’s rewarding to be a black woman involved in the union.  I think it makes other black women feel optimistic to see you there, yes it makes a difference.’  (Black woman activist)

On observer status of NREC seats on NEC:

‘I feel it isn’t the perfect solution, but an important step forward, because no black person has been on that committee before.  I am optimistic that something better would happen in time, that MSF will work towards black people being fully represented on the NEC.’  (Black woman activist)

Conclusion

The above examination and discussion of unions’ gender and race equality strategies and structures have shown how positive action for women has meant the creation of different forms of women’s separate organisation.  In contrast, the approach generally adopted in relation to black members is one of race equality structures, rather than nationally endorsed separate black members’ structures (with the exception of UNISON (Virdee & Grint, 1994)).  What is the rationale and justification for this differential strategy to tackle ostensibly similar problems - institutionalised sexism and racism?  Although there are many parallels between women’s inequality and black people’s inequality within employment and unions, the solutions are not necessarily the same.  To begin with we need to acknowledge the fact that black workers constitute a relatively small numerical group in the British labour market and in unions.  Therefore to find a sufficient quantity of black activists willing to become involved at the various levels of the union to push a race equality agenda, in the same way that the more numerous union women are pushing for gender equality,  would be problematic, especially if we accept that most union members do not wish to participate actively anyway.  Secondly, it is important to bear in mind that most men are in relationships with women either as partners, fathers, sons, brothers etc, and that this inevitably adds a different flavour and dimension to gender relations, with men having at least a sense of, or being exposed to some degree to, women’s life experiences and concerns.  Whereas, in British society there are many white people who have very little meaningful contact with black people and therefore very little first-hand knowledge or sense of black people’s life experiences, and who are therefore all too ready to leave the problem of racism to black people to tackle.  These factors make the challenges within unions in tackling gender and race inequality quite different.  This to some extent justifies the ‘race equality’ approach adopted by most unions, but does not suggest that black representatives and officials are not essential to the unions, on the contrary, nor that black member-only groups or structures do not have a place within an overall union strategy to advance the interests of black workers and to combat racism (Virdee & Grint, 1994).

References

Bradley, H (1999) Gender and Power in the Workplace, Basingstoke: Macmillan

Briskin, L (1993) ‘Union Women and Separate Organising’ in Briskin, L & McDermot, P (eds) (1993) Women Challenging Unions, Toronto: University of Toronto Press

Cockburn, C (1995) Strategies for Gender Democracy, Brussels: European Commission

Colgan, F & Ledwith, S (1996) ‘Sisters Organising - Women and their Trade Unions’, in S.Ledwith & F.Colgan Women in Organisations, London:Macmillan

Dickens, L (1997) ‘Gender, Race and Employment Equality in Britain: Inadequate Strategies and the Role of Industrial Relations Actors’, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol28:4

Healy, G & Kirton, G (1999) ‘Women’s Structures, Oligarchy and Trade Union Government’, Employment Studies Paper 28, University of Hertfordshire

Kirton, G & Healy, G (1999) ‘Transforming Union Women: the Role of Women Trade Union Officials in Union Renewal’, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol30/1

Labour Research (1998) Hard Work ahead for Unions, LRD

Trebilcock (1991) ‘Strategies for Strenghtening Women’s Participation in Trade Union Leadership’, International Labour Review, Vol130:4

TUC (1991) Involvement of Black Workers in Trade Unions, December, TUC