Side by Side We Battle Onward? Representing Workers in Contemporary America

Abstract

As collective bargaining in the United States declines, diverse forms of worker representation are proliferating. Strategic dilemmas of representation are central to the diverse organizations and coalitions representing disparate aspects of workers' interests. Unions continue to bargain collectively, while forming alliances with other groups and providing an array of services to members. Other organizations and loose associations represent specific aspects of workers' interests and advocate on their behalf while stopping short of collective bargaining. This article compares the scope, objectives and methods of worker representation by unions and non-bargaining actors. It argues that the key dilemmas of which workers to represent, over what issues and through which organizational forms, apply both to unions and to non-bargaining actors, such as community organizations, and advocacy groups, which represent select interests of particular workers. These non-bargaining actors are key strategic allies for unions. While these organizations do not take on collective bargaining, they are sometimes better positioned to represent other key needs and interests of workers. The legal-political and mutual insurance needs of workers are sometimes well met by these emergent groups. However, these organizations do not, and cannot, provide the advantages of traditional collective bargaining. Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd/London School of Economics 2007.

Marching to Different Tunes: Commitment and Culture as Mobilizing Mechanisms of Trade Unions and Community Organizations

“…Community organizations differ from traditional trade unions in the following ways: first, community organizations are non-bargaining actors (Givan 2007). They put pressure on the employers or the policy makers by mobilizing their members.…”

Non-union worker representation through civil society organisations: evidence from the United Kingdom

“…Heery et al, 2004), the system of worker representation in general is marked by an even greater degree of complexity than has hitherto been recognised. There is an emerging international literature devoted to another kind of non-union representation, that offered by bodies that are variously described as 'non-worker organisations' (Freeman, 2005), 'community unions' (Black, 2005), 'quasi-unions' (Heckscher and Carré, 2006), 'non-bargaining actors' (Kolins Given, 2007) and 'non-member organisations' (Freeman and Hersch, 2005). The two most notable characteristics of the non-union employee representation offered by these bodies are that it operates independently of management, and lies beyond the boundaries of the employing organisation.…”

“…Union decline has sparked a growing concern with the representational role and activities of CSOs (e.g. Freeman, 2005;Heery et al, 2004), with a common focus being their role in supporting and representing vulnerable workers at the bottom end of the labour market (Kolins Given, 2007).…”

“…Much of the existing literature on CSOs highlights the extent to which they engage with equality and diversity matters (Kolins Given, 2007), and organise on the basis of social identity. This is exemplified by the role of immigrant workers' centres in the United States, which support and work to improve the lives of their disadvantaged constituents, and which have generally developed along ethnic lines (Fine, 2006).…”

Creating a multilayered representational ‘package’ for subcontracted workers: the case of cleaners at Ben‐Gurion University

“…Where unions are compared with non‐union organisations, the common refrain asserts that non‐bargaining actors (community organisations and advocacy groups) cannot ‘provide the advantages of traditional collective bargaining’ (Givan, : 829)—these ‘autonomous, diverse’ groups ‘lack the institutional capacity to negotiate with or pressure the state (or indeed a political party) in a concerted, or unified manner’ (Givan, : 850). Moreover, among those who

favour the collaboration between unions and CSOs there is a tendency to emphasise the opposition rather than complementarity between their organising strategies, overlooking the benefits of mixing the two models or the limitations of using community organizing alone (Alberti, : 76; see Holgate, ).

…”