Reorganising UNISON within the NHS

Abstract

Purpose -This paper aims to explore the rationale underpinning the national development of UNISON's organising strategy and its implementation at regional and branch levels. Design/methodology/approach -The author used non-participant observation case studies in three National Health Service (NHS) UNISON branches of 92, 49 and 17 per cent density and 45 interviews with non-members, members, branch activists (key-stewards and stewards), full-time officers and managers. Findings -UNISON aimed to devolve financial resources to branches whilst encouraging participation supported by training and increased in-fill recruitment. Initial regional support diminished because of managerial opposition. Individual attempts by regional staff to resurrect the strategy met with significant resistance within branches as key-stewards regarded it as largely inappropriate. Research limitations/implications -Concentration on a single union region, which experienced specific problems, could exaggerate poor articulation of strategy. Small numbers of interviews with full-time officers may ignore alternative viewpoints within the national and regional levels. Originality/value -Rather than using the union organising model as a yardstick against which to measure the impact of change, this work examines the incremental development of national strategy and explores the problems of implementation throughout the union to branch level.

Union organizing: a response to Carter

“…Such problems suggest that union officials can be acting rationally when distorting the militant potential of the OM. For example, the relatively high recognition rates of UNISON branches are reflected in a downplaying of managerial-independent tactics during reorganization while much of the conservative behaviour of its officials stem from bottom-up pressures from members for servicing, rather than oligarchic forces per se (de Turberville, 2007a). Similarly, state support for partnership has made it a more, and the OM a less, influential option in Britain than Australia (Carter and Cooper, 2002).…”

Relational union organising in a healthcare setting: a qualitative study

“…Furthermore, in some workplaces, the adversarial approach to industrial issues that underpins much organising sits uneasily with the commitment of lay officials to partnership working and the apparent preference of many members for stability (Heery, ; Hurd, ; Jarley, ). Although this organising inertia can be dismissed as a conservative attempt to resist change and protect vested interests, there seems to be a fundamental gulf between the rhetoric of union organising and the daily reality of union work as perceived by local union branches (De Turbeville, ; Fletcher and Hurd, ; Hurd, ).…”