ii. democracy and participation in unions

II.

DEMOCRACY AND PARTICIPATION IN UNIONS

Thinking About Democracy and Participation in Unions* ARTHUR ROClINER

KAREN KOZIARA STUART SCHMIDT

Temple University

The "Golden Age" of research and discussion on union democracy and participation was from 1945 to 1960. It was followed by a "dol drums" period since 1960. 1 Recent industrial relations research shows a resurgence of interest in union democracy and participation. This re search exhibits new methodological approaches and increased sophisti cation. 2 Additionally, concepts of democracy and participation devel oped in the other social science areas can be used to study union democracy.s Authors' address: Department of Industrial Relations and Organizational Behavior, School of Business Administration, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122. • We wish to acknowledge the useful comments made by Richard Leone and J. Joseph Loewenberg. 1 Trends in this literature are noted by George Strauss, "Union Government in the U.S.: Research Past and Future," Industrial Relations 16 (May 1977), p. 240. For an early comprehensive review, see Daisy L. Tagliacozzo, "Trade Union Govern ment, Its Nature and Its Problems," American Journal of Sociology 61 (1956), pp. 554-81. 2 Recent work in this area includes J. David Edelstein and Malcolm Warner, Comparative Union Democracy: Organization and Opposition in British and Amer ican Unions (New York: Halsted Press, 1976); John C. Anderson, "Local Union Participation: A Re-examination," Industrial Relations 18 (Winter 1979), pp. 18-31; John C. Anderson, "A Comparative Analysis of Local Union Democracy," Industrial Relations 17 (October 1978), pp. 278-95. :1 See Carole Pateman, Participation and Democratic Theory (Cambridge, Eng land: Cambridge University Press, 1970); Joseph A. Alutto and James A. Belasco, "A Typology for Participation in Organization Decision-Making," Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (March 1972), pp. 117-25; and Jack Barbash, Labor's Grass Roots (New York: Harper, 1961). 12

UNION DEMOCRACY

13

Definitional and measurement problems left over from the Golden Age, however, have not been resolved. Many of the inconsistencies are still present in recent research. For instance, the terms democracy and participation are often used interchangeably, thus implying that they are the same. Additionally, discussions of union democracy have often used simple measures such as leadership turnover, the existence of a two-party system, and constitutional protection of individual rights, which do not take into account the complexities of unions as organiza tions. This paper proposes a clear and concise definition of union de mocracy to address some major conceptual issues and controversies. Even though the literature does not provide an explicit framework or a commonly agreed upon definition of union democracy, it generally implies that unions should be democratic. Thus, various discussions of union democracy have different normative orientations which further complicate comparative research on union democracy. Review of Perspectives

A review of representative literature indicates that union democracy is seen to perform a variety of functions. Sometimes these functions are explicitly stated, but often they are implied and unexamined. In general, there are six basic perspectives concerning the functions of union de mocracy.

Industrial Democracy According to this perspective, when workers participate in work place decisions, industrial democracy is fostered. 4 In the United States, this takes place through elected employee representatives, Le., unions. In this setting, democratic unions are necessary, and, in fact, U.S. indus trial relations public policy implicitly recognizes this. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and associated legislation tries to en courage industrial peace through collective bargaining over wages, hours, and conditions of employment. The NLRA attempts to protect worker choice of bargaining representatives, and the Landrum-Griffin Act provides for protection of individual rights. Given this perspective, democratic unions are necessary for workers to take meaningful ad vantage of their right to be represented in bargaining. Protection of Individual Rights This perspective focuses on processes by which individuals are pro tected from manipulation and oppressive practices of their unions. These 4 G.D.H. Cole (John Lovell, ed.), The World of Labor (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1973); S. and B. Webb, Industrial Democracy (London: Longmans Green, 1920 ).

14

IRRA 32ND ANNUAL PROCEEDINGS

protections may be included in union constitutions and collective bar gaining contracts which provide for due process and minority rights. This perspective also examines how undemocratic unions can neglect or ignore these rights and, in effect, disenfranchise individuals or groups. 5

Union Effectiveness This perspective views union democracy as enhancing union effec tiveness by making unions more responsive to member needs and by facilitating selection of able leaders. For instance, increased member participation in demand formulation may provide a wider array of ideas. Also, increased participation may enhance bargaining power through a heightened sense of member commitment and solidarity.6

Democracy as an Ideal This approach stresses the importance of democratic unions because of belief in democracy as an essential value and as an inherently legiti mate process, rather than as a means to achieve other ends. 7

Training Democratic Citizens This perspective views democratic unions as providing training (so cialization) for democratic participation in the larger society. That is, democratic voluntary organizations are seen to be the basis for per petuating democratic society.s

Class Struggle This perspective views democratic unions as potential vehicles to bring power to workers in a capitalist society. In this view, democratic unions act to increase worker consciousness and to redistribute power. v 5 For examples of this perspective, see Clyde Summers, "Union Powers and Workers' Rights," Michigan Law Review 49 (1951), pp. 805--38; Philip Taft, "Democracy in Trade Unions," American Economic Review 36 (1946), pp. 359-81. 6 See Barbash; George Strauss and Leonard Sayles, "Patterns of Participation in Local Unions," Industrial and Labor Relations Review 2 (October 1952), pp. 32-43; and Alice Cook, Union Democracy: Practice and Ideal (Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni versity, 1963). 7 Edelstein and Warner; Barbash; and Clyde W. Summers, Democracy in Labor Unions: A Report and Statement of Policy (New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 1952). 8 S. M. Lipset, M. Trow, and J. Coleman, Union Democracy (New York: Free Press, 1956). 9 This perspective may be Marxist revolutionary as in V.I. Lenin, "What Is to Be Done?" in Essential Works of Lenin, ed. Henry M. Chrishnan (New York: Bantam, 1966), or social democratic as in Burton Hall, ed., Autocracy and In surgency in Organized Labor (New BrunSWick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1972).

UNION DEMOCRACY

15

A Working Definition of Union Democracy

Discussions of democracy generally focus on one of two differing models. One is participatory democracy, or decision-making which ac tively involves all members of a community or organization. The al ternative model is representative democracy. In a representative democ racy, decisions are primarily made by elected representatives rather than in a town-meeting fashion. Representative democracy prevails in the American labor movement. This reflects the practice of representative democracy by the larger so ciety. Also, it may reflect the administrative need for coordination when decisions are made on a daily basis. 1o In addition, representative democ racy is supported by the NLRA and similar public policies. Recent political science and organizational behavior discussions of democracy focus on participatory rather than representative democ racyY Even so, these discussions allow for the use of a broader frame work when looking at democracy. The following definition applies these perspectives to union democracy. The basic definition for democracy used here is control by the gov erned, whether in a participatory or representative manner. Given this definition, democracy is a matter of degree rather than an either/or proposition. Thus, the more control by the governed, the greater the degree of democracy, and the less the governed control, the less the de gree of democracy. Note that this definition makes no normative judg ments about the desirability or efficacy of democracy. This is not a unique definition. Seidman 12 developed a similar defi nition and called it a "rigorous test" of union democracy. He rejected this test as unrealistic. However, Seidman appears to have considered democracy unidimensional, or an either/or matter. The definition developed here is multidimensional. 13 It contains two major dimensions of democracy and several related ones. The first major dimension is: What issues do the governed control? A related dimension is at what organizational level decisional control (initiating, developing, ratifying, and implementing decisions) is exercised. 10 For a discussion of the administrative and representative functions of unions, see John Child, Ray Loveridge, and Malcolm Warner, "Towards an Organizational Study of Trade Unions," Sociology 7 (1973), pp. 71-91. 11 See Pateman; Paul Bernstein, Workplace Democratization (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1976); Arthur Hoehner, "Worker Ownership and the Theory of Participation," doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology and Social Rela tions, Harvard University, 1978. 12 Joel Seidman, Democracy in the Labor Movement (Ithaca, NY: New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Bull. #39, February 1958). 13 See Bernstein; Hochner.


16

The second major dimension is: How much control do the governed exercise? This dimension involves not only the degree of control mem bers have, but also the related dimension of how that control is ex pressed. To address the question of democracy in a particular union, these two major dimensions need to be considered simultaneously. Range of Issues The first democratic dimension is range and number of decisions controlled by union members. The greater the breadth of issues which members control, the greater the degree of union democracy. Similarly, the greater the importance of the decisions influenced by members, the greater the degree of union democracy. Importance would be defined as the members' perceived vital interests. 14 There are at least five major issue domains in union decision-making: 1. Contract negotiation (demand formulation, negotiations, contract ratification). 2. Contract administration (grievances, contract enforce ment, dues, hiring halls). 3. Service to members (legal and social assistance, welfare programs, social activities, informal counseling). 4. Union administration (finances, office procedures, ap pointment of officials and staff, scheduling of meetings, formal communication with members). 5. External political and community activity (candidate endorsement and support, charitable activities, lobbying, public appearances) . A dimension related to range of issues is the organizational level at which decisional control is exercised over a particular issue. When members do not directly control decisions, decisions are made at higher organizational levels. For example, contract negotiation decisions are made at different levels in different unions, such as by local officers, by regional coalitions, or by national officers. However, making decisions at higher levels does not necessarily make the union undemocratic. This is because representatives may be sensitive and responsive to member ship wishes. Furthermore, members often have controls over representa tives, such as rights to review decisions and to choose and recall repre sentatives. Degree of Control The working definition of democracy developed here suggests a sec 14 John C. Anderson, "Local Union Democracy," Relations IndustrieUes 34 (Fall 1979), pp. 431-49.

UNION DEMOCRACY

17

ond important democratic dimension. It is how much control, or the degree of control, the governed have over particular issues. The more control that members have over particular issues, the greater the de gree of union democracy. This dimension includes both objective meas ures of membership control and measures of members' perceptions as suggested by Tannenbaum's concept of "perceived controL" 15 The controls members can have over union decisions range from little or no control to significant or total control. Some of these possi bilities are: 1. No control (decisions made by officers or staff unilater ally without member influence or input). 2. Consultation (members may make suggestions, offer opinions, voice opposition to officer suggestions). 3. Veto power (officer decisions must be ratified or ap proved by members before taking effect). 4. Full decisional control (members participate in suggest ing, developing, approving, and implementing policy). Degree of control and issues over which control is exercised must be looked at simultaneously because amount of member control differs from one issue to another. For example, during contract negotiations members may have the right to make suggestions during demand formulation, but have little control over final decisions about what de mands will be made. Members may also have little control over deci sions made during negotiations, while maintaining the right to accept or reject final contract terms. Because democracy may be either participative or representative, two aspects of control must be taken into account: control over deci sions and control over representatives. The controls listed above apply to both aspects. However, full decisional control may be somewhat less applicable to control over representatives than to control over decisions. Related to the degree of control which members exercise is the form of control. Member control is both formal and informal,16 Formal con trols are found in union constitutions and bylaws. Common formal con trols are requirements that new contracts, strikes, and dues increases be ratified by members. Informal controls are not codified and they in clude a wide variety of individual and group influence tactics. Some of these include informing officers of problems, voicing support for or op 15 Arnold Tannenbaum and Robert Kahn, Participation in Union Locals (White Plains, NY: Row, Peterson, 1958). 16 See, for example, John R. Coleman, "The Compulsive Pressures of Democracy in Unionism," American Journal of Sociology 61 (May 1956), pp. 519-26.


18

position to union policy in casual encounters, or even groups within the union appearing at meetings in unprecedented numbers. Although formal controls have gotten more attention than informal controls in discussions of union democracy, it is not clear that formal controls foster a higher degree of union democracy than informal con trols. On a particular issue, decisions may formally be made at an or ganizational level far removed from individual members. Nonetheless, informal pressures on leaders may make for a high degree of actual member control. Implications

The working definition of democracy presented here has only two major dimensions and may appear relatively simple. However, it does not ignore the complexities involved in studying union government. In fact, its major value is its usefulness in comparing and analyzing many forms of union government. Its value becomes apparent when it is used to address some of the persistent controversies about the meaning and measurement of union democracy. First, this definition of union democracy helps to clarify participation in relation to union democracy. Because democracy is control by the governed, palticipation in union activities has meaning for union de mocracy only to the degree it involves decision-making. Mere attendance at meetings or work on union committees may not be important to union democracy. Equating participation and democracy for unions adminis tered as representative rather than participatory democracies is par ticularly misleading. "Busywork" participation 17 may be important to union functioning, but should not be used as an indication of a demo cratic union. When there is little opportunity for decisional participa tion, it is almost as fruitless to debate the meaning of low meeting at tendance as it would be to wonder about lack of public attendance at sessions of Congress. A second application addresses criticisms of the labor movement for being undemocratic. Two major measures by which unions are judged undemocratic are lack of organized oppositions, or two-party systems, and low officer turnover rates. 1S Because the definition developed here focuses on decisional participation by members, it does not require formally organized internal opposition. Members may influence de cisions through fluctuating issue-oriented coalitions, factions, or pressure Barbash. For a discussion of the importance of the two-party system, see Lipset et al.; Anderson, in "A Comparative Analysis ... ," discusses officer turnover as a measure. 17

18

UNION DEMOCRACY

19

groups. Similarly, low officer turnover may indicate a high degree of responsiveness to members rather than a lack of responsiveness to mem bers. This is clearly a fruitful area for further research. Another implication is that the multidimensional de:finition of de mocracy begins to rectify problems of using simple, single measures of democracy such as formal constitutional provisions or leader turnover. Measures such as these provide little useful information about actual democratic processes in unions. However, the proposed definition of democracy, by incorporating both formal and informal as well as direct and indirect participation in decision-making, allows for more mean ingful comparative interunion research. In summary, this definition of union democracy facilitates systematic examination of union democracy and participation. It avoids value judg ments usually made about union democracy, while providing an analyti cal framework more general than previously used perspectives.