Robertson 1
Social Movement Unionism and Union Renewal: A Study of the CAW-CEP Merger
Brendan Robertson
Supervisor: Don Wells
MA in Work and Society
September 2013
Robertson 2
Introduction
Organized labour in North America is in a state of crisis. The labour movement has been
engaged in a decade’s long struggle to maintain its power and influence in adverse political and
economic times. The recession of 2007-2008 exacerbated the situation and caused tremendous
damage to a number of Canada’s major unions as working people nationwide experienced
rising rates of job loss, falling living standards and downward pressure on their wages. The
Canadian Auto Workers (CAW,) in particular, was battered by the Detroit Three auto
manufacturers, an aggressively conservative government and a hostile media. 1 While the
automotive industry and other sectors of the Canadian economy have experienced a slow
recovery, the security of organised labour remains in jeopardy. Progressive thinkers, activists
and the leadership of unions are now thinking about union renewal in an attempt to defend
workers’ power in the 21st century.
In the summer of 2012 the membership of the CAW and the Communications, Energy
and Paper Workers (CEP) ratified a proposal to join together into a new Canadian union. Shortly
afterwards they began the work of drafting a new constitution, a new organizing policy and
new name and logo.2 The CAW-CEP merger was premised upon the need to strengthen the two
unions, which, though struggling, still maintained a large membership, considerable bargaining
1
The CAW and the UAW were explicitly blamed for the poor performance of GM, Chrysler and Ford by bargaining
“uncompetitive and unsustainable” benefit packages for their members. As part of an agreement for the auto
makers to retain production capacity in Canada and to secure a bailout package from the federal government the
CAW was forced to accept wage concessions and reduced benefit levels in their collective agreements. The
legitimacy of the union was weakened with the adoption of two-tier contracts. For more discussion about the
aggressively anti-union elements of the automotive bailouts see Jim Stanford, “The Geography of Auto
Globalization and the Politics of Auto Bailouts,” Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society. vol.3, no.3
(2010), 383-388.
2
th
Discussion with union leadership at 2013 CAW Convention. Sheraton Centre, Toronto, May 28 2013.
Robertson 3
power and a relatively secure financial base. The leadership of the two unions stated that they
recognized the necessity of a serious commitment to self-reflection and experimentation with
new strategies and organizational forms in an effort to increase the power of organized labour
within society. The proposal documents for the New Union Project emphasized that the merger
was not a defensive action to combat declining membership but was an offensive move to
increase the unions’ influence, extend the benefits of unionization to a larger proportion of the
working class and to improve the accountability and legitimacy of organized labour in Canada.3
On May 30th 2013 the new union revealed its name and future identity: Unifor.4
The leadership of the CAW and the CEP have clearly linked the creation of the new
union with the process of union renewal in Canada. The proposed constitution of Unifor
proclaimed the union’s commitment to the ideals of social movement unionism (SMU) and
experimentation with more open membership structures. While it is easy to embrace the ideals
of SMU, it is much more difficult for a general union to transform itself into a popular
democratic social movement. The CAW-CEP merger is an interesting case, a process of
experimentation with new ideas and organizational forms, accompanied by a commitment to
the established framework of general unionism.
The basic structure, goals and political orientation of the unions that created Unifor will
remain largely unchanged, as will the avenues available for member participation in democratic
bodies and direct action. The increased size, economic strength and visibility that result from
the merger will do little to address the root causes of falling union density but might strengthen
3
CAW, CEP. “Towards a New Union: Proposal Committee Final Report,” Internal document prepared by the
Proposal Committee of the CAW-CEP New Union Project, (2012), 3.
4
th
Tony Van Alpen. “Unifor: Super Union Unveils not-so-super Name.” The Toronto Star. May 30 2013.
Robertson 4
the union’s ability to defend its members. However, contained within Unifor’s constitution is
the potential for significant changes that could eventually lead to the creation of a stronger,
more inclusive, engaged and progressive labour movement. Among the innovative features of
the proposed constitution is the concept of Community Chapters; a new, experimental
structure for involving groups of workers traditionally barred from union membership. While
the Community Chapter model has some serious limitations, it has the potential to evolve into
an effective new model for representing more of the working class. The creation of Unifor is
worthy of attention because of the size and influence the new union will command and
because it is a relatively unique example of union leadership in Canada participating in the
move towards SMU.
This paper will begin with an overview of the economic and political changes which led
to the declining strength of unions and the growing interest in SMU as an alternative. The paper
will then analyze the CAW-CEP merger which has been framed in the language of union renewal
and as a step towards the SMU model within Canada. The paper will argue that the merger
itself will create a larger general workers’ union with some clearly progressive changes and
some limited ventures into Social Movement Unionism. Finally the paper will turn its attention
to perhaps the most interesting element of the merger: the Community Chapter model. The
paper will take the position that while the merger itself will not likely result in a major step
towards union renewal, the introduction of the Community Chapters into Unifor’s constitution
allows for the possibility that Unifor will evolve into a more SMU oriented organization and
serve as an example to other groups within the labour movement concerned with renewal.
Robertson 5
Methods
The research for this paper involved a review of the scholarly literature regarding union
renewal, precarious employment and Social Movement Unionism. It also required the use of
primary sources and internal documents from the CAW and the CEP which were made available
to me by staff involved in the New Union Project. Finally, I interviewed a number of people who
participated in the merger negotiations and the creation of Unifor. All five interviewees were
staff or senior leaders from the CAW and the CEP and were selected because of their
involvement with the Proposal Committee, the Constitutional Working Group or the Organising
Committee. The participants were approached through email and agreed to be interviewed in
person, or over the phone, and to be audio-recorded. The interviews were conducted in June
2013, prior to the official launch of the new union. All of the interviewees will remain
anonymous throughout the paper, due to McMaster Research Ethics Board requirements, and
will be referred to as interviewee A, B, C, D or E.
Acknowledgements
This Paper would have been impossible without the help and willingness of the people
at the CAW and the CEP who agreed to be interviewed by me. These people were keen to share
information about the proposed structure of the new union, the process of the merger
negotiations and the drafting of the constitution as well as their hopes and fears for the future
of Unifor. My thanks to all of my interviewees, and to the CAW and the CEP for allowing me to
Robertson 6
attend the 2013 CAW convention, meetings of the Organising Committee, the CAW National
Executive Board and the New Union Launch.
Union Decline, Renewal and the Rise of Social Movement Unionism
During the course of the last few decades, union density in the private sector has fallen
steadily. The declining strength and influence of unions is linked to changes in the global
economy and the rise of neoliberal politics.5 The social contract which existed between capital
and labour dissolved after the election of conservative governments in America and Britain,
when growing international competition led businesses and many politicians to demand
deregulation and greater flexibility.6 The fall of the Soviet Bloc and the entry of China, India and
the countries of central Asia effectively doubled the size of global labour markets; moreover the
workers in these areas were typically poorly paid. This had a depressing effect upon global
income levels as the availability of cheap labour increased. 7 Stagnating wages were
accompanied by the financialization of the economy and the growing importance of short term
profiteering as investors sought to maximize the profits accrued from dividend payments. This
led to waves of restructuring and downsizing as corporations sought to cut labour costs, reduce
duplication and increase efficiency.8 Millions of workers were displaced from their jobs while
those that remained faced increasing pressure from employers seeking to cut costs. With falling
5
Michael Goldfield and Amy Bromsen. “The Changing Landscape of US Unions in Historical and Theoretical
Perspective.” Annual Review of Political Science vol.16 (2013), 234.
6
Larry Haiven, Stephane Le Queux, Christian Levesque, Gregor Murray, “Union Renewal Amid The Global
Restructuring of Work Relations,” Just Labour vol. 6 (2005), 24-25.
7
Guy Standing, The Precariat: The new Dangerous Class (New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2011), 28.
8
Jim Stanford,Economics for Everyone: A Short Guide to the Economics of Capitalism. (Halifax: Fernwood
Publishing, 2008), 215-220.
Robertson 7
membership due to job loss as well as the passage of business friendly legislation, unions
experienced declining influence, politically and at the bargaining table and struggled to meet
their members’ expectations.9 As a result, workers experienced a loss of ability to utilize
collective action to resist management imperatives.
The industrial relations regime that was developed after the Second World War in North
America poses difficulties for organized labour today. This system, which has come to be known
as Wagnerism, trades union security and legal recognition in return for industrial peace. In
Canada PC 1003 and the Rand formula outlawed closed shops, secondary industrial action and
created difficulties for unions to negotiate multi-employer contracts.10 This restricted the right
to strike to the end of a contract, outlawing sympathy strikes in support of fellow workers and
impeded a union’s ability to engage in broader, class mobilization. The Wagner system
organised workers into collective bargaining units and created incentives for unions to focus on
servicing their narrow membership rather than advocating for the working class as a whole.11
Because the system ensures management has unrestricted prerogative over the labour process
as well as the determination of investment location, unions are largely unable to resist the
competitive pressures arising from the enhanced mobility of capital in deregulated global
markets. Unions are now in a state of crisis, their security has been undermined by plant
9
Richard Croucher and Chris Brewster, “Flexible Working Practices and the Trade Unions,” Employee Relations vol.
20, no. 5, (1998), 443.
10
Dorothy Sue Cobble and Leah Vosko, “Historical Perspectives on Representing Nonstandard Workers” in
Nonstandard Work: The Nature and challenge of Changing Employment Agreements, ed. Frangoise Carre,
Marianne Ferber, Lonnie Golden and Stephen Herzenberg (Champaign, Industrial Relation Research Association,
2000), 297-298.
11
Wells, Don. “Origins of Canada’s Wagner Model of Industrial Relations: The United Auto Workers in Canada and
the Suppression of Rank and File Unionism, 1936-1953.” Canadian Journal of Sociology 20 (1995), 216.
Robertson 8
closures and relocation and they are experiencing diminishing power and influence.12
Interestingly, a growing share of the population expresses the desire to be represented by a
union.13
Nonstandard employment relationships such as temporary, part-time and contract
positions are becoming more prevalent as employers seek more flexibility and greater profit.
Compared to many full-time long-term occupations, these jobs generally have poorer
remuneration packages, worse working conditions, elevated physical and psychological health
risks and greater instability.14 The fact that many precarious workers must expend a significant
amount of time and effort looking for work, balancing multiple jobs and seeking to improve
their employability through additional training or schooling contributes to ill health and feelings
of insecurity.15 While there is great diversity within nonstandard occupations, and some are
well paid and relatively secure, many scholars consider those employed within them to be
among the most vulnerable and precarious within society. 16 Precarity is not a new
phenomenon, rather, it has been the norm for most of the history of industrial capitalism, but
now, after a period of relative employment stability, it is affecting more workers and
occupations previously considered secure, such as middle management and manufacturing.17
12
Wells, 194-195.
Kate Bronfenbrenner, “No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing.” Paper
presented at the Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DC, May 20 (2009) ,6.
14
Cynthia Cranford, Mary Gellatly, Deena Ladd and Leah Vosko, “Community Unionism and Labour Movement
Renewal: Organising for Fair Employment,” in Paths to Union Renewal: Canadian Experiences ed. Pradeep Kumar
and Christopher Schenk (Toronto: Broadview Press, 2006), 239.
15
Wayne Lewchuk, Alice de Wolff, Andy King and Michael Polanyi, “From Job Strain to Employment Strain: Health
Effects of Precarious Employment’” Just Labour, vol.3 (2003), 27.
16
Kevin Doogan,New Capitalism?The Transformation of Work.(Cambridge, Polity Press, 2009), 148.
17
Kallerberg, 24.
13
Robertson 9
Traditionally, nonstandard occupations have been difficult to unionize. The Wagner
system encourages enterprise level bargaining and creates difficulties in representing the
mobile and decentralized contingent workforce.18 Not only are the conditions of precarious
employment poor, but they are also problematic because they contribute to the general
insecurity of labour in society. The high cost of job loss allows employers greater power in
controlling the conditions of employment.19 The thrust of Neoliberal policies has been directed
at disciplining workers by tying their wellbeing ever closer to the labour market. With fewer
forms of social assistance, and contracts designed so that employers can easily terminate and
replace employees, many workers are stripped of the ability to even consider collective action
because they fear the consequences of job loss.20 Because of the poor conditions of
nonstandard employment and the disciplining effect its spread has upon all workers, it is
important for the labour movement to develop strategies to organize workers in these jobs.
There is a clear link between the growth of nonstandard employment and the prospect
of union renewal. Organized labour is fighting a defensive battle to survive. Meanwhile, a
growing portion of the workforce desperately needs the benefits that belonging to a union
could bring but are nearly impossible to organize using traditional tactics. The crisis within
organized labour has led progressive thinkers to consider the prospect of union renewal. They
ask how the labour movement can be reinvented as a powerful force for workers’ voice within
society and how can unions reach out to the myriad workers without a collective agreement,
18
Pradeep Kumar and Christopher Schenk, “Union Renewal and Organizational Change: A review of the
Literature,” in Paths to Union Renewal: Canadian Experiences ed. Pradeep Kumar and Christopher Schenk
(Toronto: Broadview Press, 2006), 54.
19
Jane Wills, “Subcontacted Employment and its Challenge to Labour,” Labour Studies Journal vol. 34, no. 1 (2009),
444.
20
Stanford, “Economics for Everyone,” 153-156.
Robertson 10
employment security, or even those who, through ignorance or experience, are hostile to the
labour movement. As more and more jobs depart from the standard employment relationship
unions will need to develop new ways to organize these workers.21 The characteristics of
nonstandard employment should cause unions to rethink traditional models of organizing that
depend upon winning a majority of votes within a single enterprise. Unions need to create a
variety of organizing strategies while developing new forms of membership in an effort to build
working class solidarity and social reform. This should include, but not be limited to, lobbying
for legal reform, grassroots or community level organizing drives, funded educational and
retraining programs, and opening membership to the unemployed and workers not covered by
a collective agreement.22
Researchers have identified organizational structures which unions are likely to adopt as
the viability of traditional unionism becomes compromised. There is the risk that trade unions
will retreat into the model of business unionism. This is clearly the preference of capital and the
majority of western governments.23 Business unionism has a narrow view of representing
workers and a limited focus upon gaining some element of control in a particular workplace,
while demonstrating less concern for influencing the market or broader politics.24 Some
21
Kate Bronfenbrenner, Sheldon Friedman, Richard Hurd, Rudolph Oswald and Ronald Seeber “Introduction” in
Organizing to Win: New Research on Union Renewal ed. Kate Bronfenbrenner, Sheldon Friedman, Richard Hurd,
Rudolph Oswald and Ronald Seeber. Ithaca: Cornel University Press, 1998.
22
Richard Freeman and Joel rogers. “Open Source Unionism: Beyond Exclusive Collective Bargaining.”
WorkingUSA, vol.5, no. 4, (2002), 27-29
23
The American state was instrumental in forming business or enterprise unionism in Japan and Europe after the
Second World War and the passage of the Wagner and Taft-Hartley acts were likely designed to encourage it
domestically. For further discussion of the Japanese social contract see Martin Kenney and Richard Florida, Beyond
Mass Production: The Japanese System and its Transfer to the U.S. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.)
24
Pradeep Kumar and Gregory Murray, “Innovations in Canadian Unions: Patterns, Causes and Consequences” in
Paths to Union Renewal: Canadian Experiences ed. Pradeep Kumar and Christopher Schenk (Toronto: Broadview
Press, 2006), 82.
Robertson 11
theorists argue that if a union seeks simply to maintain the economic benefits of its members
whilst increasing productivity and avoiding adversarial relationships with management, union
density can be maintained.25 However, because the business union’s financial resources,
membership, collective identity and bargaining leverage are tied to specific worksites, the union
becomes dependent upon the survival of the company. While the company is strong, members
are likely to share in the profitability of the firm; however, during times of hardship the union is
likely to bargain concession contracts. The influence of business unions will depend upon the
effectiveness of the employer but in increasingly competitive markets it is likely that these
unions will be forced to act defensively and may accept management’s efforts to reduce labour
costs.
Business unions promote the narrow interests of a very limited portion of the working
population, often at the expense of others. This creates a situation where new members are
difficult to recruit. The resulting negative image of unions would likely damage the prospect of
wider mobilization. Because of this, business unionism will fail to organize effectively.26
Furthermore, since business unionism is often focused on individual worksites and relies on a
secure membership, it is highly unlikely that unions practising this model will have any interest,
let alone success, in organizing highly mobile contingent workers.27However, unions in the
construction and building trades, which are generally considered to be the closest adherents of
the business union model, have also developed some of the most innovative methods and tools
25
Saul Rubinstein. “Unions as Value-Adding Networks: Possibilities for the Future of U.S. Unionism,” in Bennett and
Koffman The Future of Private Sector Unionism in the United States. (Armonk: Sharpe, 2002), 144.
26
Paul Johnson, “The Resurgence of Labor as Citizens Movement in the New Labor Relations Environment,” Critical
Sociology no 26 (2000), 140.
27
Edmund Heery, Hazel Conley, Rick Delbridge and Paul Stewart, “Beyond the Enterprise? Trade Unions and the
Representation of Contingent Workers” Future of Work Series, Working Paper 7.
Robertson 12
for organizing and servicing workers typically involved in contract or multi-employer
relationships. These unions have successfully bargained multi-employer contracts within
particular geographic areas, forced non-union contractors to sign union contracts through legal
action or workplace advocacy, gained special provisions for the use of hiring halls and closed
shops and have supplied economic benefits, partially funded by employer’s contributions,
which are transportable across job sites.28 Some of these strategies could be used as a model by
other unions concerned with representing the larger body of precarious workers.
A major current of opinion in the literature on union renewal agrees that Social
Movement Unionism is likely to be the most effective way of organizing the contingent
workforce and building union power. As an ideal, Social Movement Unionism seeks to develop
solidarity and class consciousness in order to mobilize a mass of activists to pressure for
legislative and political change and to fight workplace and economic exploitation. 29 There are a
variety of opinions about what a Social Movement Union could and should look like. Some
proponents view traditional social democrats as tacitly supporting liberal markets and instead
encourage non-parliamentary action, civil disobedience and cooperation with allied citizen’s
movements in the struggle for change.30 Others encourage building alliances with formal
political parties on the left.31 A lot of the literature on SMU is really a critique of traditional
28
Janet Lewis and Bill Mirand, “Creating an Organising Culture in Today’s Building and Construction Trades: A Case
Study of IBEW Local 46,” in Organizing to Win: New Research on Union Renewal ed. Kate Bronfenbrenner, Sheldon
Friedman, Richard Hurd, Rudolph Oswald and Ronald Seeber (Ithaca: Cornel University Press, 1998), 300.
29
Simon Black, “Community Unionism and the Canadian Labour Movement,” in Ross, Stephanie and Larry Savage,
Rethinking the Politics of Labour in Canada: An Introduction. (Halifax: Fenwood Publishing, 2012), 157-160.
30
Stephanie Ross and Larry Savage, “Rethinking the Politics of Labour in Canada: An Introduction” in Ross,
Stephanie and Larry Savage, Rethinking the Politics of Labour in Canada: An Introduction. Halifax: Fenwood
Publishing, 2012.
31
Jeremy Reiss, “Social Movement Unionism and Progressive Public Policy in New York City.” Just Labour, vol. 5
(2005), 36-39.
Robertson 13
unionism rather than an attempt to construct an actual model to use as an alternative. SMU
theorists are critical of the wide gap that separates traditional union leadership from the
workers they represent. The core of many unions, its elected representatives and staff,
generally enjoy secure career jobs with remuneration packages far superior to the members
they represent. SMU theorists question the ability of these staffers to appreciate the
experience, or understand the concerns, of the precarious workforce. They are uneasy with the
heavily bureaucratized structure of many unions and are critical of business unions staffed
largely by professionals. Some SMU theorists accuse the leadership of traditional unions of
having become more conservative due to their distance from the concerns of the average
working person and by their preoccupation with the survival and stability of the organizations
they lead.32
Many proponents of SMU are critical of the passive nature of union membership and
the limited opportunities for these members to become more engaged in the life of the union.
Some SMU theorists call for forms of democracy that are far more active and direct than
anything existing within the union movement today. It is often unclear just how a union could
be structured to facilitate radical direct democracy. Some extreme suggestions within the
literature argue that instead of elected representatives delegated to service, organize and
bargain on behalf of the membership, SMU requires a membership which takes direct control
over the responsibilities of the union. Union leadership in this model exists primarily to train
32
Kim Voss and Rachel Sherman, “Breaking the Iron Law of Oligarchy: Union Revitalization in the American Labour
Movement.” American Journal of Sociology vol. 106, no. 2.,(2000), 304-7.
Robertson 14
the membership to undertake their more active roles and are far less likely to benefit from the
wages, benefits and security typical of staff today.33
There is no universally accepted ideal type of SMU. It is hard to find concrete examples
of pure Social Movement Unions in existence. However, it is possible to establish a framework
of features which begins to describe what it means to be SMU oriented. Adherents of Social
Movement Unionism are generally concerned with extending the benefits of unionism and
collective bargaining to a broader range of workers and are more likely to consider workers as
citizens rather than mere employees.34 This means that SMU proponents are more concerned
with organizing workers as a broad social class rather than as isolated individuals or at
particular worksites. This leads Social Movement Unionists to be concerned with issues beyond
the workplace or the shop floor, from practical community issues such as transportation,
affordable housing, childcare to broader political concerns.
A second feature of the SMU framework is an eagerness to form coalitions with other
progressively-oriented groups within society.35 SMU theorists argue that they have access to a
33
Kumar and Schenk, 31.
Johnson, Paul “The Resurgence of Labor as Citizens Movement in the New Labor Relations Environment,” Critical
Sociology no 26 (2000), 139-141.
34
35
The Coalition of Immokalee Workers’ (CIW) boycott of fast food firms, such as Taco Bell, which utilise sweatshop
or slave labour in Florida is a good example of unions supporting coalitions of community organizations. The CIW is
a community organisation composed primarily of Latino, Haitian and Mayan Indian immigrant workers which has
campaigned against the terrible conditions of farm labour in Florida. With the support of the United Farm Workers,
the SEIU, the AFL-CIO as well as other unions, community partners and students associations the CIW began a
campaign that included hunger strikes, picketing and various other tactics. The campaign succeeded in barring
Taco Bell from numerous university campuses and eventually forced the company to agree to deal only with
suppliers who agreed to avoid using indentured labour and began to pay workers what amounted to a 75% raise.
The fact that the CIW is a workers’ coalition, rather than a certified union, allowed them to engage in secondary
industrial action, without which the campaign would have been impossible. After the victory at Taco Bell the CIW
successfully repeated the campaign against employers such as McDonalds, Burger King and Whole Foods. For more
Robertson 15
variety of methods for reaching and communicating with precarious workers, who are often
difficult to reach, through citizens’, faith-based, community or ethnic groups and associations.36
Social movement unionists have an incentive to target poorer workers in nonstandard
employment relationships because they are often the most insecure in society and because
demographically, they are likely to be from vulnerable segments of the population which
unions have failed to represent.37
Another aspect of the SMU orientation is a broad concern for social justice. SMU is
premised upon creating solidarity and class consciousness by building upon the diversity and
interdependence of all working people, regardless of their occupation, skill, race or gender.
SMU adherents agitate against all forms of exploitation and oppression in society and seek to
develop bonds with marginalised groups. An SMU oriented union is predisposed to create
opportunities for equity seeking groups such as women, workers of colour and LGBT workers in
order to allow them a forum to advance their specific interests.38
The fourth feature of the SMU framework is a commitment to member development
and activism. A Social Movement Unionist works to develop active and engaged members
capable of identifying common cause with other progressive groups and individuals in their
communities. A key to SMU is “rank and file mobilization in organizing, grassroots politics and
nd
discussion of the CIW see Michael Yates, “Why Unions Matter, 2 ed.” (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2009)
and the CIW website at www.ciw-online.org/ .
36
Richard Saundry, Valarie Antcliff, Mark Stuart, “Its’s more than who you know: Networks and Trade Unions in
the Audio-visual industries,” Human Resource Management Journal vol. 16, no. 4 (2006), 377, 390.
37
Kendra Coulter, “Anti-Poverty Work: Unions, Poor Workers and Collective Action in Canada,” in in Ross,
Stephanie and Larry Savage, Rethinking the Politics of Labour in Canada: An Introduction. (Halifax: Fenwood
Publishing, 2012), 167-170.
38
Stephanie Ross, “Business Unionism and Social Unionism in Theory and Practice,” in in Ross, Stephanie and Larry
Savgae, Rethinking the Politics of Labour in Canada: An Introduction. (Halifax: Fenwood Publishing, 2012), 40-41.
Robertson 16
elsewhere”.39 SMU theorists argue for more political education in addition to vocational
training to improve the capacity for critical analysis throughout the working class.40
A related element of SMU is a willingness to encourage and facilitate opportunities for
more direct democracy. SMU theorists argue that workers need to be engaged in all of the
union’s affairs and for more direct member influence and control over policy, staffing and
leadership. External to the union they encourage the creation of democratic assemblies which
organise around a range of community issues such as transportation, support for injured
workers, minimum wage laws and environmental concerns. The goal of direct democracy is to
win tangible benefits but also to build solidarity and power as workers are united around
common issues. Thus SMU involves developing the human potential of the working class and
demonstrates a faith in the average person’s ability to make important decisions about how to
organize society.41
39
Lowell Turner and Richard Hurd, “Building Social Movement Unionism,” in Turner, Katz and Hurd Rekindling the
st
Movement: Labors Quest for Relevance in the 21 Century. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001), 11.
40
The Construction Organising Membership Educational Program (COMET) designed by the leadership of
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) is a good example of an educational campaign that sought
to reduce the fragmentation of workers in the construction trades and reduce feelings of resentment held by
union members towards outsiders while developing skills that could be used by these members to help organize
new worksites. The IBEW leadership recognized that their members were hostile to their non-union counterparts,
who they viewed as competition. COMET was developed to educate the membership on the need to organize new
members, form alliances with other workers and groups within the community and to achieve density within the
building trades in order to halt falling wages and unemployment. Comet proved successful and the membership
endorsed an expensive organizing campaign in order to re-establish union control over the industry in Seattle. The
COMET program was also used to train local leadership and rank and file members in unique methods such as
“salting” that would be used to organize new workers. For more discussion about the experience of the IBEW see
Brian Condit, Tom Davis, Jeff Grabelsky and Fred Kotler, “Construction Organising: A Case Study of Success,” and
Janet Lewis and Bill Mirand, “Creating an Organising Culture in Today’s Building and Construction Trades: A Case
Study of IBEW Local 46,” in Organizing to Win: New Research on Union Renewal ed. Kate Bronfenbrenner, Sheldon
Friedman, Richard Hurd, Rudolph Oswald and Ronald Seeber (Ithaca: Cornel University Press, 1998), 312, 318.
41
Michael Eisenscher, “Is the Secret to Labor’s Future in the Past? Working USA vol. 5., no. 4. (2002), 95-98.
Robertson 17
The sixth attribute of the SMU orientation involves an effort to reduce the gap which
separates union leadership and members in terms of power and influence over the union’s
policies. This could be accomplished by restricting the incomes of union officials, involving more
informal leaders, developing more democratic forums and creating more avenues for bilateral
communication between staff and members.42
The final feature of the SMU framework is a general anti-capitalist perspective. A union
which ascribes to the ideals of SMU would be highly critical of liberal markets and capitalist
modes of production and exchange. Unlike business unions, Social Movement Unionists are
uneasy about creating coalitions with management and are generally more content with
adversarial relations. Furthermore, a Social Movement Union would demonstrate concern for
creating broad social change and worker empowerment to reduce the commodification,
exploitation and alienation experienced by workers throughout society.43
SMU is really about a process of progressive development within the labour movement
rather than an existing form of unionism. Elements of the North American labour movement
have shown signs that they are adopting some social movement characteristics but there is
generally a wide gulf between unions today and Social Movement Unionism. There are
numerous obstacles that will challenge the ability of unions to adopt a SMU framework. The
most obvious of these challenges is that SMU requires a radical rethinking of not only the goals
42
Margaret Levi, David Olson, Jon Agnone and Devin Kelly, “Union Democracy Reexamined,” Politics and Society,
vol. 37, no. 2 (2009), 207.
43
Sam Gindin, “Socialism with Sober Senses: Developing Workers’ Capacities,” The Socialist Register, vol.34 (1998),
90-95.
Robertson 18
of the labour movement but also the role of leaders and members and what is meant by union
democracy.44
The CAW-CEP merger can be measured against the features of this template in order to
judge whether it is likely to represent a step towards union renewal in Canada. The remainder
of this paper will analyze the innovations of the proposed constitution of Unifor and the
Community Chapter model and ask whether the character of the new union contains the
features of the SMU framework developed above. However, it is important to note that this
enquiry is largely speculative. As of the time of writing, Unifor does not formally exist, the
constitution has not been adopted by a Founding Convention and there is no history of practice
to review and assess.
One of the most discussed examples of the effectiveness of SMU in action serves as a
cautionary tale. It demonstrated the risks of potential bureaucratization that can result despite
experimentation with SMU models. The SEIU’s Justice for Janitors (JFJ) campaign successfully
organized low skilled precarious workers throughout the United States. 45 The JFJ template
consisted of empowering precarious workers with the support of a centralized and professional
organizing committee. The SEIU’s JFJ campaign was expensive and required the support of its
members; fully a quarter of the union’s expenditure went towards organizing. The campaigns
required substantial staffing, involved a large legal component and were generally quite
44
Kumar and Schenk, 44-47.
Patrice Mareschal and Patricia Ciorici, “Against all Odds: Civic Engagement and Power Building in an Invisible
Workforce,” accessed at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2309027
45
Robertson 19
protracted.46 The SEIU concentrated on mobilizing potential members at their workplaces and
within their communities, while avoiding certification votes at any particular worksite. The
union attempted to hurt employers economically, by filing complaints over unfair labour
practices and to embarrass them by exposing exploitative working conditions. 47 The union
aimed to incite public opinion and to build coalitions with community groups in order to
pressure local and state politicians to intervene.48 Only then did the union formally organize the
workers. The JFJ campaign was effective at organizing and representing some of the most
precarious employees in North America, including recent immigrants and women.
However, after the initial successes of the JFJ campaign, the SEIU went through a
repressive period of centralization and bureaucratization. The leadership of SEIU under Andy
Stern became preoccupied with expanding membership and lost sight of the original goals of
the JFJ campaigns. The union began making concessionary deals with employers and accepting
poor labour standards in order to facilitate new organizing. The leadership responded to
internal opposition in a heavy-handed manner. More than 80 locals were put in trusteeship,
staffers which expressed concern were fired and local leadership was removed as opportunities
for rank and file participation were reduced.49 Thus, what began as an ideologically progressive
46
Roger Waldinger, Chris Erickson, Ruth Milkman, Daniel Mitchell, Abel Valensuela, Kent Wong and Maurice
Zeitlin, “Helots No More: A Case Study of the Justice for Janitors Campaign in Los Angeles,” in Organizing to Win:
New Research on Union Renewal ed. Kate Bronfenbrenner, Sheldon Friedman, Richard Hurd, Rudolph Oswald and
Ronald Seeber (Ithaca: Cornel University Press, 1998), 112-113.
47
Waldinger et al., 114-115.
48
Waldinger et al. 115-117.
49
Steve Early. The Civil War in US Labor: Birth of a New Workers Movement or Death Throes of an Old? Chicago:
Haymarket, 2011.
Robertson 20
experiment with SMU quickly dissolved into the adoption of business union attributes and the
centralization of power within leadership structures. 50
The CAW-CEP Merger
Internal documents of the CAW and the CEP explain that the merger is being
undertaken, in part, to create a union more closely tied to the ideals of SMU.51 However, just
how the new union will adopt a SMU orientation is somewhat vague. The leadership of the
CAW and the CEP recognize that the status quo is unsustainable and that alternatives must be
developed. What exactly those alternatives may be and how to go about constructing them is
framed largely within the structures, however modified or progressive, of the pre-existing
unions. Leadership and staff know that a simple merger between the two unions will not
resolve the pressing issues of union decline and union renewal. But a radical reconfiguration of
the organizational structure of the new union was also not the intention of the merger.52
There is a long and troubled history of union mergers. Unions have often used mergers
to combat adverse conditions such as falling membership, weakened financial security or to
increase density in particular sectors.53 Others, such as the merger which will create Unifor, are
undertaken for a mixture of ideological and pragmatic concerns. Mergers between unions
generally fit into two analytical categories. The first, absorptions, occur when a smaller union
50
Kyoung-Hee Yu. “Between Bureaucracy and Social Movements: Careers in the Justice for Janitors,” dissertation
submitted to the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (2008), 3.
51
CAW-CEP. Towards a New Union: CAW CEP Proposal Committee Final Report. 2012.
52
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15 2013.
53
Jurger Hoffman, Marcus Kahmann and Jerremy Waddington. A comparison of the Trade Union Merger Process in
Britain and Germany: Joining Forces? New York, Routledge, 2005, 13
Robertson 21
joins a larger one. This type of merger generally occurs when the smaller union fears collapse
due to falling membership numbers.54 In most absorptions the smaller union becomes a section
or division of the larger union, and is generally allowed, at least for a period of time, to retain its
officers, locals and bargaining councils in return for losing its identity as a separate
organization. This degree of autonomy is often necessary to ensure the success of the merger
negotiations. Meanwhile the larger union’s structure, culture and procedures are minimally
affected. Because the more powerful union allows the smaller union a large degree of
autonomy after the merger and the fact that many small unions considering mergers do so for
pragmatic reasons, absorptions generally have high success rates.55
Amalgamations are the second type of union merger. In an amalgamation two unions of
relatively equal power disband to create a brand new organization. Amalgamations occur far
less frequently than absorptions and represent less than 15 percent of all union mergers.56
Amalgamations are more complicated mergers as they require the creation of new governing
structures, constitutions, practices and dues systems. The internal politics of amalgamations
can be hazardous, as staff and elected positions disappear, representatives are retired, top
leadership positions are contested by persons arising from the different predecessor unions,
some locals become redundant and are forcibly merged, and members retain previous
loyalties.57 As a result amalgamations generally have lower success rates than absorptions.58
54
Chaison, Gary and Magnus Sverke and Anders Sjoberg, “Do Union Mergers Affect the Members? Short- and
Long-term Effects on Attitudes and Behaviour” Economics and Industrial Democracy, vol. 25, no.1 (2004), 108.
55
Gary Chaison, “Union Mergers: The New Interest and Some Old Questions,” Employee Responsibilites and Rights
Journal, vol. 22, no. 2 (2010), 151.
56
Chaison, “Union Mergers: The New Interest and Some Old Questions,” 151.
57
Somewhat counter-intuitively, research suggests that it is members with shorter tenure who are less likely to
support a merger, and to experience negative behavioural and attitudinal changes after a successful agreement.
Robertson 22
Most negotiations often dissolve in the early stages of informal consultations between
union officers. However some mergers are abandoned in later and more public stages of the
merger negotiations such as the proposed merger between the UAW, the IAM and the USW.
The recent breakup of UNITE HERE demonstrates that mergers have the potential for failure
even years after the merger is officially ratified.59 Even when successful, the literature suggests
that mergers do not guarantee that economies of scale can be reached, while increased
bargaining power and political clout are only potential outcomes. Servicing efficiencies are not
normally met until after the transition period when staff positions are retired, locals are
consolidated and the bureaucracies of both unions are streamlined. Sometimes issues arising
from internal politics or external factors prevent any significant cost savings or increases in
servicing efficiencies. Furthermore, research suggests that mergers generally fail to arrest
membership decline in most Western nations. Thus the literature suggests that union mergers
by themselves are not only risky but are unlikely to seriously increase union power or challenge
falling density. 60
The New Union Project, however, is relatively unique among union mergers. First of all,
it is the amalgamation of two of the largest private sector unions in Canada. Despite adverse
political and economic conditions both the CAW and the CEP have retained much of their
This is likely because of their weaker attachment to the labour movement in general, as well as the level of
interaction they experience with union leadership. More tenured members are more likely to be informed about
merger negotiations and are more likely to support the leadership despite their longer and potentially stronger ties
to the predecessor union’s culture and identity. For more discussion see Stephan Baraldi, Magnus Sverke and Gary
Chaison, “The Difficulty of Implementing Union Mergers: Investigating the Role of Members’ Merger Orientation,”
Economics and Industrial Democracy, vol. 27, no.3 (2006), 485-504.
58
Chaison, “Union Mergers: The New Interest and Some Old Questions,” 151-152
59
Chaison, “Union Mergers: The New Interest and Some Old Questions, 149.
60
John Gennard, “Editorial, Trade Union Merger Strategies: Good or Bad?” Employee Relations, vol. 31, no.2
(2009), 118-119.
Robertson 23
power. Neither union was in terrible financial hardship even though both unions have lost
members in recent years. Unlike mergers such as the creation of UNITE HERE, the
amalgamation of the CAW and the CEP does not seem like a marriage of convenience.61 The
proposal committee of the New Union Project was keen to point out that the merger was not a
desperate or defensive act but was premised upon a shared political vision. Both the CAW and
the CEP have a long history of political action and activism to improve the condition of the
working class as a whole rather than just their particular membership.62
The negotiation process of the new union project included two main phases. In the first
phase a proposal committee was established to build a consensus around the goals and
structures of the new union. The proposal document that was developed was then endorsed by
the conventions of both unions. The second phase involved a number of working groups
composed of elected and staff representatives from both unions. These committees were
responsible for the drafting of a new constitution, the creation of a new organizing policy and
61
The UNITE HERE merger was one of the most publicized mergers in recent labour history. It was announced with
great enthusiasm that the creation of UNITE HERE would represent a revolutionary change in the North American
labour movement which would reach out to workers never before unionized and resist employers throughout the
hospitality sector. However in 2009, only 5 years after the merger, the union disbanded in a messy and very public
split. It became apparent that the reasons for the amalgamation were purely pragmatic to begin with. UNITE
owned a bank and numerous other financial assets and possessed an experienced organizing staff. However, their
core industries had been gutted by off-shoring and membership decline seemed inevitable. Meanwhile HERE had
poor finances and an underdeveloped organizing department but represented a growing industry ripe for
organization. The unions acted defensively and merged. However the merger involved little rank and file
participation and failed to fully integrate the two unions’ membership structures. Furthermore, the presidents of
both unions retained power in the amalgamated union and shared decision-making power over budgetary issues,
staffing and strategic concerns beyond the transition period after the merger. Both members and leaders retained
loyalty to their predecessor unions and political infighting soon erupted. It became apparent that the merger had
been premised upon the quest for financial gain and the ambitions of key leaders. Soon the two unions began to
raid one another’s members and accused each other of negotiating poor contracts, failing to organize and
misappropriating funds. The UNITE HERE example demonstrated the risks associated with a poorly planned merger
as well as the difficulties in achieving success in post merger years. For a more thorough discussion of the UNITEHERE merger see Chaison, “Union Mergers: The New Interest and Some Old Questions.”
62
CAW-CEP, “Towards a New Union.”
Robertson 24
the development of a new union identity. Interestingly, the Presidents of neither union were
part of the committee structure.63 The committees met regularly and published reports on their
progress which were made available to members and the public on the projects’ website.64
Member participation and input was encouraged through various channels including online
communications and surveys, focus groups, discussions with local leadership, national tours
and hall meetings.
While largely transparent and more inclusive and accountable than most merger
negotiations, the New Union Project was still a top-down process conducted by union
leadership and with only nominal member involvement. The merger proposal was ratified in
the summer of 2012 with extremely high levels of support and enthusiasm at both the CAW and
the CEP conventions.65 However, somewhat disturbingly, despite the effort of the leaders to
ensure the transparency and accountability of the negotiation processes, a phone survey in
2013 suggested that a high percentage of both unions’ membership remained completely
unaware of the impending merger.66
The people involved in the creation of Unifor were conscious of the risks and limitations
associated with union mergers. The committees and working groups worked hard to develop a
process and structure that would avoid the failures of other mergers while creating some truly
progressive innovations within the union’s organization. One committee member explains;
63
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15 2013.
CAW-CEP, “New Union Project,” accessed at www.newunionproject.ca/
65
Interview with key participant C in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 19, 2013.
66
Discussion with union staff at the 2013 CAW Conference, Sheraton Centre, Toronto, May 28, 2013.
64
Robertson 25
“We are conscious of the failures around us, and I can truthfully say that this is not
another business union merger. We are not coming together simply to increase membership
for the sake of increasing membership or to guard our finances. This is about more than just
that. We have a vision of both becoming a stronger, more democratic union than any other,
and that this will be represented in the constitution, and that we will be more accountable and
accessible to all working people than ever before.”67
The merger process was designed to create a strong union structure, which avoided
radical changes which could compromise the stability and strength of the new union. The
structure of Unifor was constructed to promote strong local unions. The leadership plans to
encourage, but not force, current CAW and CEP locals which represent workers from a
particular sector or share a locality to amalgamate. This could help intertwine the two
membership bases and promote a sense of solidarity. Locals will be able to send delegates to
industry councils, standing committees and convention, which will further expose members to
their new peers.68 Both the CAW and the CEP have prior experience with developing a shared
sense of community after a merger. Over the course of its history the CAW undertook 42
absorption mergers, many of which were ideologically motivated. The CEP was formed through
an amalgamation of 3 different unions.69 The two unions have dealt with tensions arising from
members nurturing old loyalties and with frictions between workers in different sectors but
both managed to foster pride and feelings of solidarity within their structures. By encouraging
interaction at the local level and participation in various campaigns, demonstrations, councils
and conventions, the key participants in the creation of Unifor hope a new sense of pride,
solidarity and mutual support will develop within the new union.
67
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15, 2013.
Interview with key participant C in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 19, 2013.
69
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15, 2013
68
Robertson 26
“You have two proud union cultures coming together into a new organization. It is our intention
to build a new culture that takes the best from both predecessor unions. In the course of that will there
be a tendency from people coming from the CAW culture to say “well, we are doing things this way
because that’s how we’ve always done things,” and the same attitude from parts of CEP? Of course.
That goes without saying that this will happen but that’s human nature and part of the ride, part of
building the new union. It happened in the early days of CEP with people from different areas who
tended to do things differently, and that went on for a few years until after a while without anyone
noticing, we did things the CEP way. One would hope that evolution happens in Unifor. Hopefully it
won’t take too long before people stop talking about how the CAW and CEP used to do things.”70
The committees then turned their attention to developing the broader goals of the new
union. The final report of the proposal committee listed a number of the new union’s guiding
principles;
“The new union must be democratic, progressive and active, and committed to the
principals of social unionism...the new union must organize itself to...fight on behalf of all
workers (our members and others), and to campaign for progressive change in all areas of
society. The new union’s democracy will be governed by the “rank and file principle,” fostering
maximum involvement by rank-and-file members at all levels of the union’s democracy.”71
Though somewhat vague, there is clearly a commitment to elements of social
movement unionism within these goals which are also reflected in the preamble to Unifor’s
constitution. The leadership of the two unions clearly recognize the importance of political
mobilization and active membership and wish to establish Unifor as a popular and democratic
force within society. The union is keen to adopt the ideology of SMU and have created a
number of structures which are reflective of some of the features of SMU.
The main governing bodies of the union; the National Executive Board (NEB), the
Canada Council and the Regional Councils have been constructed so that rank and file leaders
70
71
Interview with key participant E in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 25, 2013.
CAW-CEP, “Towards a new union.”
Robertson 27
have the majority of seats and a large amount of power in relation to full time officers. For
example, all six full-time officers are present on the NEB, but the other 19 positions are held by
local union leaders. While top executive positions such as the President, the Secretary
Treasurer, the Quebec Director and the Regional Directors will be able to exert tremendous
influence, the representation of local leaders is far greater than in many unions today.72 The
President is required to report to each of the four Regional Council meetings and the Canada
Council once a year. In many unions the president reports only to Convention once every three
years.73 This structure was designed to build the link between the top officers and delegates to
council, and will help ensure that leadership is connected to, and accountable to, elected rank
and file leaders within Unifor. While a great gulf still exists between the average member and
leadership, this is a positive change within the union’s structure.
All of the councils and the NEB are governed by provisions in the constitution to
encourage the participation of equity seeking groups within the union’s decision making
structure. For instance women’s representation on the National Executive Board must be
proportional, at a minimum, to the number of women within the membership of Unifor.
Similarly, every Regional Council is required, and every local encouraged, to set up Standing
Committees for women, Aboriginal workers and workers of colour, LGBT members, youth and
disabled workers. In a similar vein, the constitution requires the executive committees of all the
structures within the union to reflect the gender and equity principles of the union. The
councils also provide for peer election to these committees rather than appointments or
72
73
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15, 2013.
CAW-CEP, “Draft Constitution” May 2013, 22-26.
Robertson 28
general elections. While this does not guarantee full participation in the structures of the union
it does provide forums where members can express their concerns and ideas.74 The standing
committees are seen as a way to build the capacity of often marginalized workers to develop
and determine policy and enter union leadership.
In Unifor elected delegates and local leadership will meet regularly and frequently.
Delegates to the Regional and Canada Councils will discuss policy, debate resolutions and set
the overall direction of the union. But in addition, they will get to know one another, listen to
the concerns of various locals, from different sectors or regions, and join together to support
each other. A member of the Constitutional Committee explains that “the frequency of the
Councils’ meetings in Unifor was designed to build class solidarity between different elements
of the union and to avoid a drift into the bureaucratic hierarchy that is typical of many unions
today.”75 Through regulations such as these, the organization and constitution of Unifor has the
potential to create one of the more progressive unions within Canada. These changes increase
the representativeness and accountability of the union while creating more opportunities for
activists to enter leadership. However, they do not radically alter the democratic structure of
the union nor do they challenge the passivity of most union members.
In an attempt to encourage more member engagement and develop activists, the new
union will make union education a top priority. Unifor will commit a sizable share (3.75%) of its
dues revenues to education.76 But perhaps more important, one of the first resolutions to be
discussed at Unifors’ founding convention commits every bargaining committee to negotiate
74
CAW-CEP, “Towards a New Union.”
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15, 2013.
76
CAW-CEP, “Draft Constitution,” 64.
75
Robertson 29
Paid Educational Leave. The CAW already gets most of its funding for union education from
employers. That practice is to be continued and expanded in the new union. If the education
program not only teaches members the skills necessary to become a good trade unionist, such
as grievance handling or negotiation skills, but also to develops critical analysis and activism,
then it will honour the unions’ commitment to SMU.77
The merger will result in the doubling of both unions combined organizing budget. Fully
ten percent of Unifor’s annual budget will be used to finance membership drives. The union has
planned a large organizing wave which will begin as soon as the new union is launched in order
to capitalize upon the publicity and attention paid to the merger.78 The organizing policy has
been designed to target strategic sectors, workplaces and groups of workers. An effective string
of drives would do a lot to increase the new union’s image and would likely pave the way for
further organizing success. It also seems that many involved in the New Union Project hope that
the excitement caused by the merger, and a string of successful drives will encourage smaller
unions in Canada to consider joining Unifor themselves.79
The merger process was well designed and executed and the constitution and
leadership structure of Unifor appears strong and stable. However, Unifor, while larger, will still
face adverse economic conditions, a political climate hostile to organizing as well as mercurial
public support for the labour movement. The new union’s size alone will not necessarily
translate into gains at the bargaining table or in the political arena. The basic goals and actions
77
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15, 2013.
Interview with key participant A in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 14, 2013.
79
CAW-CEP, “Outline for New Union Organizing Policy Document.” presented at 2013 CAW Convention. Sheraton
th
Centre, Toronto, May 28 2013.
78
Robertson 30
of the union will remain largely the same after the creation of Unifor. The union will continue to
represent workers in sectors of the economy which bleed jobs to cheap labour zones overseas
and it will continue to lobby government to introduce legislation to benefit working people.
While there will be a process of amalgamation and reformation around local unions and a
reshuffling of representatives on leadership bodies, the organizational structure of the union
will be fairly reflective of the structures which existed before the merger. Unifor will maintain
the core organizational structure of a general workers union. There will be some new avenues
for member participation, control and direct action but there will still be a sizeable partition
between membership and leadership in terms of member involvement and influence over the
union. Furthermore, those involved in the New Union Project explain that the focus of the
union will continue to be representing members in collective bargaining units.80 This
demonstrates that Unifor will still focus primarily upon workplace issues and servicing its
membership. The union has clearly adopted some features of a Social Movement Unionism but
the new union was not meant to be a radical break with past practices.
The Community Chapter Model
Though the leadership of the CAW and the CEP, and the members of the various
proposal and working committees were keen to ensure that traditional collective bargaining
units remained the centre of the new union, the creation of Unifor was also premised upon the
revival of a powerful and more inclusive labour movement. Thus the leadership of both unions
80
Interview with key participant D in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 21, 2013.
Robertson 31
decided to experiment with opening membership structures in order to represent struggling
workers unable to join a union through the traditional Wagner- style certification processes.81
An important goal of the New Union Project was to broaden the demographics of the
union’s membership to include groups traditionally underrepresented by the labour movement
and to improve the union’s image in the community and amongst the non-organized.82 The
staff of CAW and the CEP were keen to demonstrate that they were an organization willing to
fight on behalf of all working people rather than just the specific interests of their membership
base.83 The organizing and constitutional committees decided to develop a flexible organizing
framework that could be used in campaigns to organize a variety of groups in different
employment circumstances. Nonstandard workers, along with other groups such as the
unemployed, members of social movements such as environmental activists, and workers in
the sites of failed certification drives will have the option of joining Unifor through a community
chapter.84 Members of a Community Chapter will not be members of a collective bargaining
unit, and will thus be barred from many of the benefits of unionization. However membership
in a chapter will facilitate the opportunity of these workers to use their collective strength to
improve their conditions.85 For example, members of a community chapter could attempt to
81
Interview with key participant D in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 21, 2013.
Interview with key participant D in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 21, 2013.
83
CAW-CEP, “Broadening the Concept of Union Citizenship: Members in Community Chapters in the New Union,”
Internal document, March 2013.
84
Interview with key participant C in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 19, 2013.
85
Interview with key participant A in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 14, 2013.
82
Robertson 32
achieve fair hours or living wages through a work stoppage or a community campaign.86 This
would be difficult to do as individual workers without the institutional support of the union.
The concept of collective action is central to the community chapter framework. It was
important for the Proposal Committee that new members not join based upon purely economic
appraisals comparing the cost of dues and the benefits of representation.87 Instead, to form a
Community Chapter, a “critical mass of people, with shared experiences and goals, must
approach or be approached by an existing local of Unifor in order to use their collective
potential to win improvements from their employers or government.”88 The number of
potential activists required to constitute a critical mass will vary from chapter to chapter
depending upon workplace, geographical characteristics, visibility, political importance and
strategic considerations. A local union wishing to create a Community Chapter would apply for
permission from the national office before amending their bylaws in order to create the
chapter. Local unions will have discretion to determine the form of the Community Chapter’s
structure, practices and the extent of its integration into the host local. The local will be
responsible for gaining the approval of its membership for the creation of the chapter and for
its ongoing financial stability.89 It is presumed that large locals with secure finances,
memberships and infrastructures will host the initial community chapters due to the risks
86
The Organization United for Respect at Walmart (OUR Walmart) campaign is a great example workers using
collective action to achieve a range of issues. Workers in dozens of Walmart retailers and warehouses engaged in
one day strikes, walk-outs and a media campaign in the fall of 2012. The protestors demanded living wages and
reasonable hours. These work stoppages resulted in limited improvements such as having available shifts posted
for pick-up and having workers fired for union activity reinstated with back pay. Similar action in 2005 and 2006
appears to have been instrumental in causing Walmart to raise wages in 700 of its North American stores in 2006.
For more discussion see Jenny Brown, “In Walmart and Fast Food, Unions Scaling up a Strike-First Strategy”
Labournotes no. 407 (2013), 1-7 and the OUR Walmart website at http://forrespect.org/ .
87
Interview with key participant A in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 14, 2013.
88
CAW-CEP, “Broadening the Concept of Union Citizenship,” 3.
89
Interview with key participant A in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 14, 2013.
Robertson 33
associated with opening membership structures. A number of key locals appeared enthusiastic
about the opportunity to develop Community Chapters and voiced suggestions about potential
target groups for community organizing campaigns during a national trip of key organizers.90
Members of a Community Chapter will be full voting members within their specific
chapter but will be limited from certain aspects of participation in the larger union. Chapter
members will elect an executive body and determine its size and function. Depending upon the
host local’s decisions the chapter members may also elect a representative to sit on the local’s
executive board. Community Chapter members will be encouraged to participate in the
initiatives of their host local and the national union. They will be invited to join standing
committees, educational campaigns and political campaigns.91 However, because they are not
members of collective bargaining units, chapter members will be barred from voting upon
strike mandates, bargaining proposals, contract ratifications, or, initially, to run or vote for
executive positions within the local or national union.92
The dues structure of community chapters will reflect the fact that these members have
more limited participatory rights in the union, will not benefit from a collective agreement and
will often have less secure sources of income compared to traditional members. Non-waged
members will pay $5 a month while waged members will contribute a minimum of $10 a
month, although these rates are subject to increase depending upon the servicing initiatives of
the Community Chapter and their host.93 All dues will be collected through a centralized
90
Interview with key participant E in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 25, 2013.
CAW-CEP, “Broadening the Concept of Union Citizenship,” 4-5.
92
Interview with key participant C in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 19, 2013.
93
CAW-CEP, “Broadening the Concept of Union Citizenship,” 5.
91
Robertson 34
electronic infrastructure that allows members to use their credit cards and bank deductions,
and resolves the problem posed by the fact that chapters are not certified collective bargaining
units and thus barred from the Rand formulas dues check-off schema. Every Community
Chapter will receive the entirety of the dues collected by the national union and will be
responsible for its allocation.94
The servicing of Community Chapters will largely be left to the discretion, and available
finances, of particular chapters and their host locals. The national union will provide an online
database containing information about advocacy, workers rights, organizing and political issues
that has been tailored to the specific characteristics and needs of chapter members and to
support the actions of those members.95 The national will work with locals to deliver
educational and training programs relevant to chapter members and to engage them in political
and community campaigning. What these programs will consist of has been left largely
unspecified. It would be interesting to know how Unifor would design an educational program
for a chapter composed of activists organized around a particular set of issues such as
environmentalists or injured workers. Unifor will also attempt to use its buying power to
leverage discounted health, car and home insurance programs which will be made available to
all union members at additional cost.96
94
CAW-CEP, “Draft Constitution,” 59.
Interview with key participant E in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 25, 2013.
Unifor could consider making this service available to all workers regardless of whether they are members or not.
While the union could not tailor the information for every worker/workplace, supplying this information to
everyone, in a conveniently organized and accessible on the unions’ website, would seem to be more compatible
with the ideals of SMU.
96
Interview with key participant D in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 21, 2013.
95
Robertson 35
The Community Chapters will be able to provide additional services to their members
such as skill upgrading, job placement information and more; however the national union will
be unable to provide financial support for these undertakings. Furthermore chapter members
will not enjoy the benifits of being a recognized bargaining unit and thus will experience more
limited representational services, grievance handling and advocacy services and will not be
guaranteed pay or benefit increases.97 Therefore the advantages of membership in a
community chapter will not be as extensive as those received by traditional members of a
bargaining unit. However it is hoped that these Community Chapters will enable workers
unable to form collective bargaining units to utilize their collective potential to wrest some
improvements from their employers.98 Furthermore, it is hoped that Community Chapters will
act as a stepping stone towards certification. Workers interested in union membership in
workplaces where organizing campaigns failed will be able to join the union, though in a more
limited role. If these workers are able to win some minor victories and benefit personally from
involvement, future drives may be more successful.99
The Community Chapter model represents the largest break from traditional general
union structures within the New Union Project and has clearly been influenced by the ideals of
SMU. Whereas the merger itself will have the potential to achieve economies of scale within
certain sectors, increase the union’s membership and finances as well as the union’s political
97
Interview with key participant E in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 25, 2013.
The experience of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance (NYTWA) provides a good example of how a non
bargaining unit union has used direct action to win benefits for members. Through a number of city wide strikes
and a living wage campaign the NYTWA has dramatically increased driver’s wages and recovered thousands of
dollars in lost income caused by unfair management practices. For more information refer to the NYTWA website
at https://nytwa.org/
99
Interview with key participant D in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 21, 2013.
98
Robertson 36
clout and create some truly progressive changes in the leadership structure, the Community
Chapters initiative will open membership to groups of workers who are currently barred from
union membership in Canada. This element of the New Union Project, if developed correctly,
could help to create stronger bonds of solidarity amongst the working class and is thus a step
towards union renewal.
The Community Chapter structure has a number of advantages that will likely prove to
be important in the first years of Unifor’s existence. The organization of the Community
Chapters was purposefully left largely unspecified. The leadership of Unifor decided that a
flexible program for representing workers would allow organizers to modify campaigns,
servicing and representation to match the particular needs and characteristics of a target
population.100 Furthermore, the flexibility could allow new members a great degree of
autonomy and discretion within the local union. If designed well, the decision making power
within the Community Chapter could encourage rank and file involvement within the local and
help to mitigate against the fact that chapter members will be barred from full participation in
the national union when selecting leadership positions.101 For example, a chapter Member,
through a direct vote, could have more individual power to determine how their dues were
used or what issues their chapter would focus on, compared to a member in a traditional
bargaining unit. A key participant explains that they hope a “Community Chapter member will
have the same degree of autonomy within their host local, as that local has within the national
union.”102 The Community Chapter structure opens up additional avenues for member
100
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15, 2013.
Interview with key participant C in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 19, 2013.
102
Interview with key participant A in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 14, 2013.
101
Robertson 37
participation within the chapter itself and the host local and demonstrates that the leadership
of Unifor is content to allow new members discretionary power over the conditions of their
membership and responsibilities.
Another strength of the community chapter model is that the national union is prepared
to supply support and certain services to chapter members. However, the type and quantity of
services extended to Community Chapter members has the potential to become an area of
difficulty in the future. As discussed, many of the workers who will be able to join Unifor
through a Community Chapter will be among the more precarious in society. Due to the
financial insecurity of nonstandard work, many of the new chapter members will be interested
in gaining some material benefit in return for their dues and time.103 While this is obvious, and
warranted, considering the poor wages and often nonexistent fringe benefits associated with
precarious work, it poses a number of problems.
The first issue is that the level of services may be relatively insignificant in many
chapters as well as uneven between stronger and weaker chapters due to the fact that the
particulars of the package of services supplied by any chapter is left to the discretion of that
chapter and their host local. The dues money of many chapters will be too meagre to fund
extensive programs such as extended health coverage or vocational retraining programs which
their members may desire. Many prospective members may be seeking such services and will
be disinclined to join without any immediate tangible benefit. Furthermore, the financial divide
between different locals, depending on the size and demographics of the workforce which they
represent, could lead to uneven servicing between different groups of members. This is
103
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15, 2013.
Robertson 38
problematic because it is likely that the more secure, both financially and in terms of ongoing
employment prospects, will receive a more robust package of services.104 While this is morally
and ideologically problematic it also has the potential to cause serious problems within the
union itself. This creates the risk of a class structure developing within the membership of the
union, with standard full time manufacturing employees at the top and various groups of more
insecure nonstandard employees towards the bottom, all receiving different levels and quality
of services. This could be a serious obstacle to creating a sense of solidarity between various
elements of the union.
There is a debate among the left about exactly what type of services a union should
consider providing. Supplying economic benefits to members has always been one of the core
responsibilities of the labour movement, however supplying such services to the existing
members of unions, while ignoring those outside the union’s ranks, runs against the ideals of
SMU. On one hand it is undeniable that services which help to decommodify labour would be
beneficial to all union members, but especially so for those engaged in non-standard
employment. The traditional manufacturing base of the CAW and CEP as well as those engaged
in parts of the service sector are quickly becoming more and more insecure. Workers within
traditional employment settings and in bastions of traditional union power report a growing
fear of dismissal and a greater sense of employment insecurity.105 These workers would likely
value a package of benefits which reduces their vulnerability to job loss while those in
nonstandard jobs would gain incredibly if assisted through their cycles of unemployment. There
104
105
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15, 2013.
Kallerberg, 24.
Robertson 39
are services that have been provided by unions in a variety of jurisdictions which act as an
augmented safety net for union members. The most obvious of which are augmented
unemployment insurance programs provided by unions themselves, a system which is common
in parts of Europe.106 Unifor could conceivably fund and deliver an unemployment fund, similar
but more extensive than a strike fund, to all of its members. This fund could be claimed after
the period which state EI is available to help workers through the loss of their jobs. Other
services such as retraining, skill updating or vocational training services would be valuable to all
union members to increase their future employability.
Some form of service which helps connect members with jobs or employment
opportunities could be incredibly useful for standard and Community Chapter members. There
are various ways that this could be done. The most obvious and simple method would be for
the union to compile a current and regularly updated listing of jobs which would be made
accessible to members. The union could also track an employer’s performance and warn
workers about bad bosses. 107 While this would not guarantee employment it would save
members from resorting to a head-hunter or one of the various online job search tools. A more
intensive method would be for the union to act as a hiring hall similar to unions in the building
trades. By representing a significant proportion of the workforce in a particular sector the union
could control the supply of labour and win jobs for members. Similarly, the union could use its
bargaining and political clout to leverage jobs for members in workplaces that they
106
Heery et al, 21-22.
Edmund Heery, “Trade Unions and Contingent Labour: Scale and Method,” Cambridge Journal of Regions,
Economy and Society vol. 2 (2009),436
107
Robertson 40
represent.108 Finally the union could act as an employment agency. The union could then
replace the exploitative companies which acquire employment for an extensive group of
contract employees by enforcing low wages and extracting surplus through the ludicrous
differentials between the costs of a contract and the wages received by an employee. The
union could then help to connect its members with an ongoing supply of contracts while
providing them with better wages than other agencies.109 In an economy plagued by insecurity
and poor employment prospects services such as those discussed would be incredibly
important to a wide variety of workers.
However, the supply of such services raises a broader issue if the union seeks to become
a vehicle of working class solidarity that is concerned with the wellbeing of every working
person including those who are not union members. Supplying services which increase the
competiveness of union members in the labour market, or services which shield these members
from the costs of unemployment, places union members in an enviable position compared to
the unorganized.110 Hiring halls, preferential hiring, retraining programs and the union engaging
in agency-like behaviour could result, and if working successfully would result, in union
members winning contracts at the expense of non members. Meanwhile augmented
unemployment insurance would basically create a private welfare state solely for union
members within Canada.111 While it could be argued that this would prove to be an incentive
for the unorganized to join a union it could easily backfire. Unions already face the stigma of
being little more than private interest groups concerned only for their members and leveraging
108
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15, 2013.
Interview with key participant E in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 25, 2013.
110
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15, 2013.
111
Interview with key participant E in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 25, 2013.
109
Robertson 41
unfair advantages for them. It is easily conceivable that the resentment towards unions would
increase when organised workers push their non-union peers out of competitive contracts.
Furthermore, with public services already under tremendous assault by neoconservative
governments, the labour movement becoming the supplier of services such as EI would partially
legitimize actions undertaken by the state to reduce public programs further. 112 Unions in
North America should be very wary about becoming the suppliers of services which should
rightly be the responsibility of the state, and should instead focus their efforts upon pressuring
the national government to arrest the reduction of public programs and eventually to increase
their scope and coverage. The labour movement and the leadership of Unifor must carefully
consider which services to supply to their membership and at what cost, both financially and
politically.
Fortunately, the leadership of Unifor has decided to reject what they refer to as the “1800 join-a-union model,” where the union seeks to increase its membership by encouraging
workers to join on an individual basis.113 Those involved in the creation of Unifor have clearly
rejected the servicing model of unionism and have adopted a more SMU oriented approach to
new organizing. The organizing and constitutional committees recognized that when workers
join a union individually they are likely doing so based upon the same market logic which a
Social Movement Unionist hopes to challenge.114 Furthermore, if a member was to join
individually, online or by phone, they would quickly become lost and isolated within the union
and would be unlikely to make the friendships and bonds with activists which are so
112
Interview with key participant E in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 25, 2013.
Interview with key participant A in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 14, 2013.
114
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15, 2013.
113
Robertson 42
instrumental to building solidarity, strength and a common purpose. Requiring Community
Chapters to join as a collective of individuals with shared goals and ideals increases the
likelihood that the chapters will be active and engaged in the labour movement and their
communities. One Committee member explains;
“We are not appealing to those who strictly want to join for the fiscal benefits of joining
a union, for discounted car insurance or something, that’s business unionism in a different way;
its consumer unionism. We recognise that many people will be influenced solely by these
considerations but we are willing to accept a limited number of people to join the chapters
initially, but active and engaged people.”115
The union should develop a set of services for chapter and core members which combat
the fragmentation that is so prevalent among progressive groups and working populations. The
type of services that are least likely to generate feelings of resentment amongst various
elements of the working populations are likely to be programs which seek to develop the
capacity for critical analysis and action rather than strictly economic benefits. Union renewal is
about more than fortifying bargaining power, leverage in partisan politics and expanding
membership. Instead it should involve the effort to create and support a mass mobilization and
a critical alternative to the accepted ways of living, working, travelling, consuming and
communicating that exist within liberal society.116 The benefits of this type of program are
harder to quantify and are less immediately visible or valuable even to those who participate in
them.
115
116
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15, 2013.
Kumar and Schenk, 36.
Robertson 43
The most important of these non-monetary services is the supply of accessible and
continuing education, especially of the political variety. The education system in Canada does
not encourage the flourishing of creative and radical alternatives to the destructive capitalism
of the 21st century. In fact most people leave their schooling believing that no viable alternative
to market exchange is possible, if they even manage to grasp the influence and pervasiveness
of market logic within society. A major failing of the modern left has been the loss of a strategic
orientation to politics, a failure to theorize about class and the abandonment of a unified
political and philosophical framework to serve as an alternative to market logic.117
Unifor should attempt to address this state of affairs by designing educational programs
oriented towards developing a theoretical framework through which members can analyze and
critique the immediate concerns of their everyday lives, the state of the political realm and the
struggle against the various forms of exploitation within the world. This obviously is not an easy
proposition and will require careful course designs and implementation. If the left is to reinvent
itself as a popular political force within society, the intellectual capacities of the working classes
cannot be ignored. The courses offered to workers should avoid dogmatism. Instead the main
goal of political education should be to link the ideas of political theorists, progressive
economists, social movement theorists and philosophers to the experiences of workers in their
workplaces and communities. Workers should be encouraged to think about their lives from a
theoretical perspective and to interact with their ideas in order to change the conditions of
their employment. Furthermore, the curriculum should provide some assistance to workers
engaging in collective action for the first time. Luckily, chapter members will have access to the
117
Tony Judt, “Ill Fares the land,” 81-93.
Robertson 44
educational programs of Unifor, which if anything like those of its predecessors, will all have a
strong political component.118 However, Unifor should increase the range and accessibility of its
educational programs and attempt to develop class consciousness within its membership.
The union could also encourage members of Community Chapters, as well as its regular
membership, to become more involved in programs of direct democracy. This could simply
mean engagement within the Community Chapter to determine which services are valuable
and feasible but could also take the form of more ambitious community based projects such as
a communally run childcare program, housing or transportation alternatives. Through further
political education and more active participation, members are more likely to develop a sense
of solidarity with other members of the union in different locals, chapters and sectors.
A strength of the Community Chapter model is that it will allow the union to remain
connected to two important groups of workers. The first of these are the activists who took
part in failed certification drives. These workers, who are often among the most engaged,
militant and courageous activists, often lose contact with the unions they wish to join and with
each other after they lose the vote. The chapter model will allow these workers to join the
union and enjoy the solidaristic benefits of membership, as well as some services, even though
they are unable to bargain. These members could then form a base for future organizing drives
and benefit from their past collective experiences with the union as well as the strength and
resources they have developed as a community chapter.119 One risk here is that the organizers
within Unifor could begin to use the chapter structure solely for regrouping within certain
118
119
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15, 2013.
Interview with key participant E in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 25, 2013.
Robertson 45
workplaces to build up momentum for a successful certification drive. Focussing solely, or even
primarily on creating bargaining units could easily result in nonstandard workers being
overlooked because they are almost impossible to organize into bargaining units due to the
conditions of their employment and labour law in Canada.120 In such a case, the Community
Chapter model, which opens up the possibility of organizing these workers, would be wasted in
return for victories in more traditional workplaces. Similar to the example of the JFJ campaign,
the Community Chapters create opportunities for SMU organizing, while simultaneously
creating opportunities for a relapse into business union strategies.
The Chapter model also allows Unifor to maintain important ties with the thousands of
workers who have been laid off due to restructuring, plant closures and outsourcing. A
committee member describes the experience of some laid off workers in this way; “it’s bad
enough to lose my job, but what also hurts is losing my union, sometimes it’s just nice to have
somewhere to go (the union hall) or have someone to call brother or sister.”121 The Community
Chapter model will allow these workers to stay in touch with their peers and remain active in
the struggle for social justice. The displaced workers who join Community Chapters will likely be
those who were more engaged in the union when they were employed as many laid off
workers will simply drift away from the union as they find new jobs or enter retirement.
The Community Chapter model may also have the effect of encouraging host locals to
become more fully engaged in their communities. Currently the CAW and the CEP have some
very strong locals which focus exclusively upon collective bargaining and are only marginally
120
121
Kumar and schenk, 54.
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15, 2013.
Robertson 46
engaged in their communities.122 While these locals have strong internal solidarity and are
effective at defending their member’s interests they do little to address the problems of public
cynicism faced by the labour movement. A key participant in the proposal committee explains
that “what would be best are locals that are active and involved in their communities; lobbying
municipal council for improved transit, participating with charities and supporting local
workers’ action centres, pushing for benefits that will help all working people.”123 This type of
community involvement and the example of the union lending its muscle to support community
issues and to improve universal programs is the best route available for unions to address the
failings of business unionism and demonstrate that they are eager to act on behalf of nonmembers.124
122
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15, 2013.
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15, 2013.
124
The relationship between workers’ action centres (WACs) and unions in North America is a complicated one.
While both organizations exist to defend workers rights, their structure, political orientation and demographics
have been the cause of tensions. Many unions in North America have traditionally been large member oriented
organizations primarily concerned with workplace issues and collective bargaining. These unions focussed almost
exclusively upon the productive sphere, and supported policies that were beneficial to sectors of the economy
with high union density. WACs on the other hand are relatively new organizations with small memberships
generally drawn from racialized and ethnic groups as well as low-skilled workers within a particular geographical
area. WACs are less concerned with supporting key industries and focus more attention on the reproductive realm
around issues such as public education and healthcare, housing and immigration reform. Many of the activists
involved in WACs view unions as self-serving hierarchal organizations that aren’t necessarily welcoming to
marginalized groups such as recent immigrants. Meanwhile many unions have ignored WACs and have been less
than receptive of WAC members who wish to join a union on a number of occasions. It seems that many of the
tensions that exist between unions and workers’ action centres would cease to be an issue as unions adopt a SMU
framework. Both the CAW and the CEP have a long history of supporting equity seeking groups and lobbying for
progressive reform in social policy outside of the productive realm. Furthermore both unions have a history of
supporting WACs such as those in Toronto and Windsor. During the drafting of the proposed constitution and the
new organizing policy, the CAW and the CEP invited activists from WACs to help them design policies that would be
effective at reaching out to nonstandard workers. Hopefully this suggests that Unifor will work to form stronger
coalitions with workers action centres than other unions have historically. For more discussion of the tensions
between unions and WACs in America please refer to Janice Fine, “A Marriage Made in Heaven? Mismatches and
Misunderstandings between Workers’ Centres and Unions.” British Journal of Industrial Relations no.45, vol.2,
(2007), 335-360.
123
Robertson 47
Strong ties between the union and vulnerable workers, community, ethnic and faith
based groups, and other local bodies will increase the chances of success for any political or
issue-based campaign. Currently many unions lack the power to develop, or the support of, a
social movement while alternative labour groups lack the institutional and financial power
which unions possess. Thus cooperation could be beneficial to both groups; unions would gain
access to the energy of militant activists while social movements could gain staying power and
become less likely to dissolve quickly after initial setbacks or success.125 Locals which are
engaged in the community, as opposed to those that are strictly bargaining oriented, are thus
more likely to grow in size through their chapters, gain respect within their localities and
experience the support of the community, which is so vital for the success of any strike or
demonstration.126
Through Community Chapters Unifor could develop a stronger relationship with the
broader working class. Currently the union interacts primarily with employed full-time
bargaining unit members. The chapter model could increase the union’s interaction and
support for not only those employed in nonstandard occupations and workers in sites of failed
drives but also with the unemployed, students and those yet to enter the labour market.
Interaction with these groups could breathe new life into the labour movement, and extend the
range of issues that the union would consider addressing.127 “Interaction alone will encourage
the growth of affinity and solidarity between these various elements of society and could build
the willingness of those with more political and economic power to exercise it on behalf of
125
Josh Eidelson, “Alt-Labor,” The American Prospect, Jan 29, (2013), 19
Rolf Gerstenberger, “Discussion about the experience of Steel Local 1005” McMaster University, Jan 30 (2013).
127
CAW-CEP, “Broadening the Concept,” 1, 6.
126
Robertson 48
those less fortunate.”128 Alliances with other progressive movements can increase workers
attachment to the union and the politics of resistance. These alliances are likely to help unions
build a sense of working class solidarity as they demonstrate opposition to the exploitative
aspects of the capitalist system as a whole, rather than a narrow concern around workplace
issues. Community Chapters could therefore enable Unifor to become more involved with
efforts to promote broad social change. This could increase the legitimacy of the union as
representative of the working class while exposing the labour movement to new segments of
the population.129It must also be acknowledged that interaction will also give rise to frictions
and tensions but if the union is sensitive to the needs of others, who are willing to reciprocate
this openness, the risk of fracture could be outweighed by the possibility of cooperation.130
A final and very important strength of the chapter model is that Community Chapters
will receive and have control over the entirety of their dues. The national union will supply the
infrastructure to collect and coordinate these revenues but once they are pooled the
Community Chapter will have the autonomy to decide democratically how to use this money.131
The national union will not use the chapters to funnel or siphon money from new members.
This is important because it demonstrates that the introduction of the chapter model is based
upon an ideological orientation towards union renewal and opening membership rather than a
128
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15, 2013.
Waldinger 115-116.
130
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15, 2013.
131
CAW-CEP, “Draft Constitution,” 59.
129
Robertson 49
defensive measure to increase the financial security of the union and to acquire a shield of
more expendable members to defend the union’s core.132
While the Community Chapter model has a number of strengths it also has a number of
weaknesses or shortcomings. The first and most salient of these issues is the potential for
Community Chapters to create tensions and fracture within the union structure. As discussed
previously, some of those who join through Community Chapters will want a servicing model of
unionism where they receive significant economic benefits in return for their dues. These
members may resent the premiums earned by bargaining unit members, who may in return
resent the new Community Chapter members for consuming union resources. There is also a
risk of tensions developing around the level of democratic participation Community Chapter
members are allowed.133 Because Community Chapter members are barred from running in
leadership campaigns at the national level, and because of their limited involvement at the
local level, they may begin to feel like second class members within the union structure. The
leadership of Unifor is conscious of this and are keen to explain that as, and if, Community
Chapters evolve and become an important part of the union, these restrictions will be open to
review. In the meantime the committees determined that a greater risk of resentment and
fracture would occur if Community Chapter members immediately enjoyed the privileges of
traditional membership.134 Those involved in the development of the chapter model
acknowledge that there is a risk of disagreement and hostility between traditional and
132
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15, 2013.
Interview with key participant A in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June ,14 2013.
134
Interview with key participant E in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 25, 2013.
133
Robertson 50
Community Chapter members but appear optimistic and not particularly concerned about the
occurrence of serious issues, one committee member explains;
“The labour movement is by definition a political animal and even within the existing unions
there are tensions between the different industry and occupational groups, there can be tensions
regionally, and Unifor is going to be a very large union, with more than 20 economic sectors. Potentially
all of these differences will be the source of some tension. It would be naive to think that Community
Chapters could not also be the source of tension. On the other hand, I’m not sure why there would be
enhanced tensions that would arise from the very idea of Community Chapters. They will be union
members, they will have rights and obligations as all members do. If you’re waged and employed in a
low wage sector and you’re paying $10 a month, this is not insignificant dues that you’d be paying. So of
course theses members will be subsidized by other members, but all members in a union are subsidized
by other members. Your average union member will never file a grievance but their dues subsidize the
grievances filed by thousands of other members. So that’s the nature of collective institutions.”135
A shortcoming of the Community Chapter model is that it relies on local unions
demonstrating interest and initiating the process of becoming a host for a chapter. The risk is
that locals might show little interest in amending their bylaws, initiating organizing drives and
accommodating new groups of workers into their structures. While considerable support was
shown by local leadership for the Community Chapter initiative during the nationwide tour of
the Proposal Committee in 2012 and again in 2013 there is the additional risk that a particular
local will show no interest in hosting a chapter in an area or sector were there is a strong
mobilization among prospective chapter members.136 While the national union will not force a
local to become a host there are conceivable solutions to such a problem. The national could
place the group of prospective members in contact with a local which would host them or it
could discuss the benefits of hosting a chapter to the reluctant local, who would retain the final
decision to organize one. However one positive arising from host locals deciding whether or not
135
136
Interview with key participant E in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 25, 2013.
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15, 2013.
Robertson 51
to form a chapter, acknowledged in the quotation below, is that those locals who form a
chapter will be more likely to welcome and fully integrate their chapter members into their
structure.
“Then, of course, the actual model is clear that existing local unions will not be forced to
organize community chapters. So the organizing model that commences with Unifor will be
very much based on going to where local unions have an interest, see that they can forge some
success for themselves and their existing members by building community chapters. So in other
words, we start where consent and enthusiasm is already there, rather than spending a long
time trying to convince sceptics to do something they don’t want to do.”137
This will likely increase the chances of strong bonds forming quickly between a local’s
standard and nonstandard members while reducing the likelihood of friction and resentment
developing between these two groups. Where fragmentation is likely, the host local would not
agree to become a host in the first place.138
The Community Chapter model has the weakness of being fairly limited in scope. The
conditions of precarious employment as well as those of the unemployed and other vulnerable
groups in society are unlikely to improve without broad legislative and political reform. The
chapter model will look to empower a tiny segment of some of the more vulnerable members
of the working class but will have little impact, at least initially, upon the lives of the vast
majority of nonstandard workers.139 Unfortunately the chapter structure will need to be very
successful if one expects it to have a significant effect upon the creation of the conditions
necessary for legal reform or a shift in political and economic power. The number of members
137
Interview with key participant E in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 25, 2013.
Interview with key participant C in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 19, 2013.
139
Interview with key participant B in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 15, 2013.
138
Robertson 52
in Community Chapters is expected to remain low for the foreseeable future but any attempt to
force broader social change will require mass mobilization.
A final and related weakness is that while the Community Chapter model is considered
by those involved in its creation as an experimental first step and an addition to the union’s
core responsibilities, the outside world may not view it in the same light, and thus judge its
success differently.140 As discussed previously, the priorities of Unifor’s leadership will be
organizing and servicing its core membership. The majority of the union’s organizing fund,
advocacy work and servicing capacity will be directed towards bargaining units rather than to
community chapters. This could affect the formation of chapters and the retention of chapter
members and reduce the likelihood of the experiment’s success. Furthermore, prioritizing
bargaining unit members, while potentially politically and pragmatically necessary in the short
term, results in no radical rethinking of the organizational structure of the union occurring.
Unifor could become a progressively oriented general union with the chapter structure
representing little more than a Social Movement Unionism add-on. If the union is seen to be
lending only a token amount of support to chapter members and the various groups that could
gain representation through chapter structures, the problem of public cynicism could very well
increase.141 Unifor must find a way to prioritize both its traditional responsibilities and
experimentation with the chapters and other new approaches to organizing and mobilizing for
broader political reform if its example is to mark a step towards union renewal.
140
141
Interview with key participant D in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 21, 2013.
Interview with key participant D in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 21, 2013.
Robertson 53
Members of the organizing committee explain that they would be content and excited if
a couple hundred workers were organized into a handful of community chapters within the first
years of Unifor’s existence.142 These same individuals readily acknowledge that the structure
and goals of the Community Chapter initiative will and must evolve through practice if there is
to be any hope of success. However, some members express a fear that the media, academia
and the general population expect too much from the chapter structure, and that there is
already too much excitement about it already.143 If people confuse the union’s intentions with
the chapter model they may be more likely to consider it a failure if it does not immediately
reach their expectations. This could have drastic consequences for ongoing support and interest
in forming new chapters.
The Community Chapter model was clearly influenced by many of the features of SMU.
The chapter model has the potential to organize workers traditionally ignored by the labour
movement, increase the likelihood of Unifor creating bonds and coalitions with community
organizations, encourage grassroots activism and provide additional avenues for member
involvement and capacity building. However, without extensive support the chapter model
could result in the organizing of a few nonstandard workers who would constitute an
underclass within the union’s structure.
142
143
Interview with key participant C in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 19, 2013.
Interview with key participant D in the New Union Project, Interview by Brendan Robertson, June 21, 2013.
Robertson 54
Conclusion
The merger between the CAW and the CEP has been a very ambitious and important
project. In an effort to avoid the failures of other amalgamations, those behind the idea of the
merger designed an open and accountable process which encouraged the participation of
various elements of both unions in determining the goals and structure of Unifor. The
organization of Unifor is one of the most progressive and inclusive among modern unions with
special attention being paid to the interests of equity seeking groups and vulnerable sections of
the working class. The new union’s proposed constitution contains some features associated
with the SMU orientation. However, the core structure of Unifor cannot be considered a major
departure from those of traditional general unions. The union is still an organization primarily
concerned with advocating for workplace issues and with a clear division between members
and leaders. The New Union Project was not designed to create radical changes within the
union’s structure and internal democracy, nor did it. However, the New Union Project has
introduced the concept of Community Chapters, bodies designed so that workers and activists
who are traditionally barred from union membership can use their collective power to advocate
for a range of workplace and community issues, which could become a vehicle for broader
mobilisation and the spread of anti-capitalistic sentiment.
Through the chapter initiative and some of the changes in the union’s constitution
Unifor is tentatively experimenting with new and radical ideas and modes of worker
empowerment which could lead it to develop into a more Social Movement oriented union.
Compared to the constitutions of the CAW and the CEP, the proposed constitution of Unifor
Robertson 55
contains more opportunities for members to participate in a number of councils and
committees and creates opportunities for the involvement and representation of marginalized
groups. This demonstrates a concern for social justice and an effort to increase the
opportunities of members to participate in the decision making process of the union, two major
elements of the SMU framework. The union has also attempted to increase the interaction of
national and local leaders, as well as members and activists, through the creation of bodies
such as industry councils and standing committees. While these new bodies will not seriously
alter the democratic structure of the union they are clearly motivated by a desire to increase
member involvement and address the problems associated with isolated and unaccountable
leadership. There will still be few opportunities within the union’s structure for direct
democracy and the majority of members are unlikely to become more active but it would be
remiss to deny progressive change. The union seems keen to develop broader alliances with
community groups and other activists but it remains unclear how this will be accomplished and
how much of a priority it is. Once again the leaders of the new union seem to be motivated by
the ideals of SMU but are wary of drastic change. However, the Community Chapter structure
will allow Unifor to interact with and engage elements of the working class which the CAW and
the CEP had no way to organize. For the first time the union will have the potential to move
beyond the limitations of general unionism and become a vehicle for the representation of the
entire working class. Thus the union seems ideologically committed to many of the elements of
the SMU framework, and has undertaken a number of progressive initiatives motivated by this
commitment, but is content to retain the basic structure and practices of the two predecessor
unions.
Robertson 56
Bibliography
Baraldi, Stephan, Magnus Sverke and Gary Chaison, “The Difficulty of Implementing Union Mergers:
Investigating the Role of Members’ Merger Orientation,” Economics and Industrial Democracy, vol. 27,
no.3 (2006), 485-504.
Black, Simon. “Community Unionism and the Canadian Labour Movement,” in Ross, Stephanie and Larry
Savgae, Rethinking the Politics of Labour in Canada: An Introduction. Halifax: Fenwood Publishing, 2012.
Bronfenbrenner, Kate. “No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to Organizing.”
Paper presented at the Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DC, May 20, 2009.
Bronfenbrenner, Kate, Sheldon Friedman, Richard Hurd, Rudolph Oswald and Ronald Seeber
“Introduction” in Organizing to Win: New Research on Union Renewal ed. Kate Bronfenbrenner, Sheldon
Friedman, Richard Hurd, Rudolph Oswald and Ronald Seeber. Ithaca: Cornel University Press, 1998.
Brown, Jenny. “In Walmart and Fast Food, Unions Scaling up a Strike-First Strategy” Labournotes no. 407
(2013), 1-7
CAW-CEP, “Broadening the Concept of Union Citizenship: Members in Community Chapters in the New
Union,” Internal document, March 2013.
CAW-CEP. “New Union Project,” accessed at www.newunionproject.ca/
CAW-CEP. “Outline for New Union Organizing Policy Document.” Presented at 2013 CAW Convention.
Sheraton Centre, Toronto, May 28th 2013.
CAW, CEP. “Towards a New Union: Proposal Committee Final Report.” Internal document prepared by
the Proposal Committee of the CAW-CEP New Union Project, (2012).
Chaison, Gary and Magnus Sverke and Anders Sjoberg, “Do Union Mergers Affect the Members? Sortand Long-term Effects on Attitudes and Behaviour” Economics and Industrial Democracy, vol. 25, no.1
(2004), 103-124.
Chaison, Gary “Union Mergers: The New Interest and Some Old Questions,” Employee Responsibilites
and Rights Journal, vol. 22, no. 2 (2010), 149-156.
Coalition of Immokalee Workers. www.ciw-online.org/
Cobble, Dorothy Sue, and Leah Vosko, “Historical Perspectives on Representing Nonstandard Workers”
in Nonstandard Work: The Nature and challenge of Changing Employment Agreements, ed. Frangoise
Carre, Marianne Ferber, Lonnie Golden and Stephen Herzenberg. Champaign, Industrial Relation
Research Association, 2000.
Robertson 57
Condit, Brian, Tom Davis, Jeff Grabelsky and Fred Kotler, “Construction Organising: A Case Study of
Success,” in Organizing to Win: New Research on Union Renewal ed. Kate Bronfenbrenner, Sheldon
Friedman, Richard Hurd, Rudolph Oswald and Ronald Seeber. Ithaca: Cornel University Press, 1998.
Conley, Hazel and Paul Stewart, “Representing Fixed-term Workers: the Anatomy of a Trade Union
Campaign,” Employee Relations vol. 30, no. 5 (2008), 515-533.
Coulter, Kendra. “Anti-Poverty Work: Unions, Poor Workers and Collective Action in Canada,” in in Ross,
Stephanie and Larry Savgae, Rethinking the Politics of Labour in Canada: An Introduction. Halifax:
Fenwood Publishing, 2012.
Cranford, Cynthia, Mary Gellatly, Deena Ladd and Leah Vosko, “Community Unionism and Labour
Movement Renewal: Organising for Fair Employment,” in Paths to Union Renewal: Canadian Experiences
ed. Pradeep Kumar and Christopher Scenk. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2006.
Croucher, Richard and Chris Brewster, “Flexible Working Practices and the Trade Unions,” Employee
Relations vol. 20, no. 5, (1998), 443-452.
Doogan, Kevin. New Capitalism? The Transformation of Work. Cambridge, Polity Press, 2009.
Early, Steve. The Civil War in US Labor: Birth of a New Workers Movement or Death Throes of an Old?
Chicago: Haymarket, 2011.
Eidelson, Josh. “Alt-Labor,” The American Prospect, Jan 29, (2013).
Eisenscher, Michael “Is the Secret to Labor’s Future in the Past? Working USA vol. 5., no. 4. (2002), 95122.
Fine, Janice . “A Marriage Made in Heaven? Mismatches and Misunderstandings between Workers
Centres and Unions.” British Journal of Industrial Relations no.45, vol.2, (2007), 335-360.
Freeman, Richard and Joel Rogers. “Open Source Unionism: Beyond Exclusive Collective Bargaining.”
WorkingUSA, vol.5, no. 4, (2002), 27-29
Gennard, John. “Editorial, Trade Union Merger Strategies: Good or Bad?” Employee Relations, vol. 31,
no.2 (2009), 116-120.
Gerstenberger, Rolf. “Discussion about the experience of Steele Local 1005” McMaster University, Jan
30, (2013).
Gindin, Sam. “Socialism with Sober Senses: Developing Workers’ Capacities,” The Socialist Register,
vol.34 (1998), 75-101.
Goldfield, Michael and Amy Bromsen. “The Changing Landscape of US Unions in Historical and
Theoretical Perspective.” Annual Review of Political Science vol.16 (2013), 231-257.
Haiven, Larry, Stephane Le Queux, Christian Levesque, Gregor Murray, “Union Renewal Amid The Global
Restructuring of Work Relations,” Just Labour vol. 6 (2005), 23-36.
Heery, Edmund. “Trade Unions and Contingent Labour: Scale and Method,” Cambridge Journal of
Regions, Economy and Society vol. 2 (2009), 429-442.
Robertson 58
Heery, Edmund, Hazel Conley, Rick Delbridge and Paul Stewart, “Beyond the Enterprise? Trade Unions
and the Representation of Contingent Workers” Future of Work Series, Working Paper 7.
Hoffman, Jurger, Marcus Kahmann and Jerremy Waddington. A comparison of the Trade Union Merger
Process in Britain and Germany: Joining Forces? New York, Routledge, 2005.
Johnson, Paul “The Resurgence of Labor as Citizens Movement in the New Labor Relations
Environment,” Critical Sociology no 26 (2000) 139-160.
Judt, Tony, Ill Fares the Land. London: Penguin, 2010.
Kallerberg, Arne. Good Jobs: Bad Jobs. New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 2011.
Kenney, Martin and Richard Florida, Beyond Mass Production: The Japanese System and its Transfer to
the U.S. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Kumar, Pradeep and Christopher Scenk, “Union Renewal and Organizational Change: A review of the
Literature,” in Paths to Union Renewal: Canadian Experiences ed. Pradeep Kumar and Christopher Scenk.
Toronto: Broadview Press, 2006.
Kumar, Praddep and Gregory Murray, “Innovations in Canadian Unions: Patterns, Causes and
Consequences” in Paths to Union Renewal: Canadian Experiences ed. Pradeep Kumar and Christopher
Scenk. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2006.
Levesque, Christian and Gregor Murray, “Globalization and Union Renewal: Perspectives from the
Quebec Labour Movement,” in Paths to Union Renewal: Canadian Experiences ed. Pradeep Kumar and
Christopher Schenk. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2006.
Levi, Margaret, David Olson, Jon Agnone and Devin Kelly. “Union Democracy Reexamined,” Politics and
Society, vol. 37, no. 2 (2009), 203-228.
Lewchuk, Wayne, Alice de Wolff, Andy King and Michaeil Polanyi, “From Job Strain to Employment
Strain: Health Effects of Precarious Employment’” Just Labour, vol.3 (2003), 23-35.
Lewis, Janet and Bill Mirand, “Creating an Organising Culture in Today’s Building and Construction
Trades: A Case Study of IBEW Local 46,” in Organizing to Win: New Research on Union Renewal ed. Kate
Bronfenbrenner, Sheldon Friedman, Richard Hurd, Rudolph Oswald and Ronald Seeber. Ithaca: Cornel
University Press, 1998.
New York Taxi Workers Association. https://nytwa.org/
OUR Walmart. http://forrespect.org/
Patrice, Mareschal and Patricia Ciorici, “Against all Odds: Civic Engagement and Power Building in an
Invisible Workforce,” accessed at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2309027
Reiss, Jeremy. “Social Movement Unionism and Progressive Public Policy in New York City.” Just Labour,
vol. 5 (2005), 36-48.
Ross, Stephanie and Larry Savage, “Rethinking the Politics of Labour in Canada: An Introduction” in Ross,
Stephanie and Larry Savage, Rethinking the Politics of Labour in Canada: An Introduction. Halifax:
Fenwood Publishing, 2012.
Robertson 59
Ross, Stephanie.“Business Unionism and Social Unionism in Theory and Practice,” in in Ross, Stephanie
and Larry Savgae, Rethinking the Politics of Labour in Canada: An Introduction. Halifax: Fenwood
Publishing, 2012.
Rubinstein, Saul. “Unions as Value-Adding Networks: Possibilities for the Future of U.S. Unionism,” in
Bennett and Koffman The Future of Private Sector Unionism in the United States. Armonk: Sharpe, 2002.
Saundry, Richard, Valarie Antcliff, Mark Stuart, “Its’s more than who you know: Networks and Trade
Unions in the Audio-visual industries,” Human Resource Management Journal vol. 16, no. 4 (2006), 376392.
Standing, Guy. The Precariat: The new Dangerous Class. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2011.
Stanford, Jim. Economic for Everyone: A Short Guide to the Economics of Capitalism. Halifax: Fernwood
Publishing, 2008.
Stanford, Jim. “The Geography of Auto Globalization and the Politics of Auto Bailouts,” Cambridge
Journal of Regions, Economy and Society. vol.3, no.3 (2010), 383-405.
Turner, Lowell and Richard Hurd, “Building Social Movement Unionism,” in Turner, Katz and Hurd
Rekindling the Movement: Labors Quest for Relevance in the 21st Century. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 2001.
Van Alpen, Tony. “Unifor: Super Union Unveils not-so-super Name.” The Toronto Star. May 30th 2013.
Voss, Kim and Rachel Sherman, “Breaking the Iron Law of Oligarchy: Union Revitalization in the
American Labour Movement.” American Journal of Sociology vol. 106, no. 2.,(2000),303-349.
Waldinger, Roger, Chris Erickson, Ruth Milkman, Daniel Mitchell, Abel Valensuela, Kent Wong and
Maurice Zeitlin, “Helots No More: A Case Study of the Justice for Janitors Campaign in Los Angeles,” in
Organizing to Win: New Research on Union Renewal ed. Kate Bronfenbrenner, Sheldon Friedman,
Richard Hurd, Rudolph Oswald and Ronald Seeber. Ithaca: Cornel University Press, 1998.
Wells, Don. “Origins of Canada’s Wagner Model of Industrial Relations: The United Auto Workers in
Canada and the Suppression of Rank and File Unionism, 1936-1953.” Canadian Journal of Sociology 20
(1995), 193-225.
Wills, Jane. “Subcontracted Employment and its Challenge to Labour,” Labour Studies Journal vol. 34, no.
1 (2009), 441-460.
Yates, Michael . “Why Unions Matter, 2nd ed.” New York: Monthly Review Press, 2009.
Yu, Kyoung-Hee. “Between Bureaucracy and Social Movements: Careers in the Justice for Janitors,”
dissertation submitted to the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. (2008).