community unionism and union renewal- building linkages between unions and community in victoria,...

7/27/2019 Community Unionism and Union Renewal- Building Linkages Between Unions and Community in Victoria, Australia

1/26

http://lsj.sagepub.com/Labor Studies Journal

http://lsj.sagepub.com/content/34/4/461

The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0160449X083247062009 34: 461 originally published online 8 October 2008Labor Studies Journal

Sandra Cockfield, Al Rainnie, Donna Buttigieg and Marjorie JerrardUnions and Community in Victoria, Australia

Community Unionism and Union Renewal : Building Linkages between

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

United Association For Labor Education

can be found at:Labor Studies JournalAdditional services and information for

http://lsj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://lsj.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://lsj.sagepub.com/content/34/4/461.refs.htmlCitations:

by Nicolas Diana on October 25, 2012lsj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://lsj.sagepub.com/http://lsj.sagepub.com/http://lsj.sagepub.com/http://lsj.sagepub.com/content/34/4/461http://lsj.sagepub.com/content/34/4/461http://lsj.sagepub.com/content/34/4/461http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.uale.org/http://www.uale.org/http://lsj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://lsj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://lsj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://lsj.sagepub.com/content/34/4/461.refs.htmlhttp://lsj.sagepub.com/content/34/4/461.refs.htmlhttp://lsj.sagepub.com/content/34/4/461.refs.htmlhttp://lsj.sagepub.com/http://lsj.sagepub.com/http://lsj.sagepub.com/http://lsj.sagepub.com/http://lsj.sagepub.com/content/34/4/461.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://lsj.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://lsj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.uale.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://lsj.sagepub.com/content/34/4/461http://lsj.sagepub.com/


2/26

What is This?

- Oct 8, 2008OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Nov 6, 2009Version of Record>>

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://lsj.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/10/08/0160449X08324706.full.pdfhttp://lsj.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/10/08/0160449X08324706.full.pdfhttp://lsj.sagepub.com/content/34/4/461.full.pdfhttp://lsj.sagepub.com/http://lsj.sagepub.com/http://lsj.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://lsj.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/10/08/0160449X08324706.full.pdfhttp://lsj.sagepub.com/content/34/4/461.full.pdf


3/26

461

Authors Note: Earlier versions of this article were presented to the ACREW/KCL Conference on

socially responsive, socially responsible approaches to employment and work, July 14, 2006, Prato, Italy

and the 22nd European Group for Organizational Studies Colloquium, July 68, 2006, Bergen, Norway,

and we would like to thank the participants for their comments. We would also like to thank all those who

agreed to be interviewed and to acknowledge and thank Annie Delaney and Pravin Madhavan for their

assistance with data collection.

Labor Studies Journal

Volume 34 Number 4

December 2009 461-484

2009 UALE

10.1177/0160449X08324706

http://lsj.sagepub.com

hosted athttp://online.sagepub.com

Community Unionism and

Union RenewalBuilding Linkages between Unions and

Community in Victoria, Australia

Sandra CockfieldMonash University

Al RainnieUniversity of Leicester

Donna ButtigiegMonash University

Marjorie JerrardMonash University

The purpose of this article is to identify various ways unions engage with communities

and to understand the obstacles that confront unioncommunity cooperation. Qualitative

data was analyzed from multiple sources, including documentary evidence and inter-

views with union officials and community activists. We locate the debate on community

unionism within the broader literature on union renewal and revitalization. In doing this

we are able to explore the potential of different forms of unioncommunity relationships

to foster union renewal. The study reveals the diversity in relationships both within and

across unions and the existence of coalitions operating at different levels within union

organization. While the unions in this study were actively seeking to engage with the

community, not all alliances were reflective of an inclusive social and political agenda

which could constitute the basis for union renewal.

Keywords: community unionism; union renewal; union strategy; Australian union-ism; inclusive social agenda

Agrowing debate within the union renewal literature concerns the relationshipbetween unions and the community. Driven by an ongoing crisis of membership

http://lsj.sagepub.com/http://lsj.sagepub.com/http://lsj.sagepub.com/http://lsj.sagepub.com/


4/26

462 Labor Studies Journal

in Europe, North America, and Australia, accompanied by a perceived failure of ear-

lier models of union organization (Moody 1997; Robinson 2000), many writers are

recognizing the increasing importance of unions moving beyond the workplace andengaging with communities (Brecher and Costello 1990; Craft 1990; Wills 2001;

Wills and Simms 2004; Turner 2006; and see Nissen 2004 for an overview of U.S.

studies). Alliances between unions and community groups are seen as a way unions

can broaden their appeal and relevance (see Brecher and Costello 1990; Nissen

2004). Unions are a part of the community, and by forging common cause with com-

munity groups they can tackle issues that extend beyond the workplace and reach

workers who have been traditionally marginalized from trade unions or have been

difficult to reach with traditional organizing methods (Wills 2001, 466; Cranford and

Ladd 2003).The article explores this phenomenon in an Australia setting. Our purpose is two-

fold. First, we examine how a number of Australian unions have connected with

the community. To date, research on union and community links in Australia has

focused mostly on single case studies (Cutcher 2004; Ellem 2004; Jones 2002;

Rainnie and Drummond 2005; Sadler 2004; Tattersall 2006), with the exception of

Tattersall (2005), who addresses the questions of typology and levels of union

community alliances. In contrast, our purpose in this article is to paint a broader

picture of unioncommunity coalitions and alliances within one region, the state of

Victoria in Australia.Second, we ask to what extent these union and community relationships pro-

vide opportunities for union renewal. The label community unionism is used to

describe a wide range of union and community relationships but there is a danger

that the sheer diversity of organizations and actions so labeled threatens the con-

cept with becoming chaotic. By this we mean that politically it is a strong policy-

driving concept but is so packed full of diverse definitions and meanings as to have

little analytical value. Union and community alliances have a long history and not

all of these relationships will foster renewal. Fairbrother (2000) argues union

renewal must encompass a political agenda. While halting decline or membershipgrowth are signs of resilience or revival, renewal involves organizational and polit-

ical changes within unions that foster activism, engagement, and participation. The

challenge addressed in this article is to identify those union and community rela-

tionships that will foster this deeper understanding of union renewal while

acknowledging the roles that traditional alliances still play for both unions and

their community partners.

These issues are explored through semi-structured interviews with union officials

and community activists and the analysis of associated documentary sources, includ-

ing minutes of meetings, correspondence, newsletters, and Web sites. Ten tradeunions and eight community organizations participated in the study. Interviews with

senior officials were sought as it was considered they offered two advantages. First,

they have overview of events across the organization and second, they can discuss



5/26

the strategy and policies of the organization with authority. As senior officials may

in some cases be remote from the daily challenges faced by those further down the

hierarchy, evidence is corroborated with other sources such as documentation andcross referencing information between interviewees.

The article begins with an analysis of the literature on community unionism while

acknowledging the complex and contested notion of community. Trade union and

community relationships are then examined with an analysis of which alliances work

within each of the sectors. The article concludes with the implications of the research

for union renewal.

Union Renewal through Communities and Social Justice

Even a cursory survey of the various examples of unioncommunity relationships

reveals the diversity of forms these take, and this can cause problems in identifying

exactly what is community unionism. From the point of view of unionists, activists,

and scholars, a common understanding of what is being discussed needs to be

arrived at to avoid ongoing confusion of terminology and also wasting of resources

developing inappropriate tactics as part of alliance building. A key element of com-

munity unionism is that it extends beyond the workplace to achieve objectives that

may have elements of commonality to the union, its members, and the community.

This is particularly important as the union and its members are part of the commu-nity and the identification of common objectives will lead to mutual, albeit not nec-

essarily equal, support.

Union and community collaborations can consist of community involvement in

a particular union campaign or may involve unions assisting specific community

groups. In some cases these alliances may produce new organizations (Lipsig-

Mumme 2003). For Turner (2006), coalitions develop through stages, beginning

with one-off events that may develop into campaigns and finally lead to institutional

consolidation. An example of this staged progression is found in the alliance

between the Victorian branch of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union(AMIEU) and various animal rights groups (Jerrard 2007). This originated with an

alliance between animal liberationists and the unions members and officials for a

protest in 1974 against live sheep export from Portland in the south of the state; and

has resulted in a three-decade -long reciprocal alliance to campaign against live ani-

mal export and the formation of a number of new groups drawn from members

of the community and union members; for example, People Against Live Export

(PALE) and People Against Cruelty to Animals in Transport (PACAT).

Several writers have sought to identify different types of unioncommunity rela-

tionships. These typologies direct attention to various dimensions that characterizeunioncommunity relationships but tend to regard unions and their members as sep-

arate from the community, not part of it. One such dimension is the extent of union

or community influence and control within the alliance (Frege, Heery, and Turner

Cockfield et al. / Community Unionism and Union Renewal 463



6/26

2004). Various authors have noted the power imbalance between unions and com-

munity groups, which tend to be resource poor and rely on donations, public fund-

ing, and volunteers (Needleman 1998; Mathers 2000; Wills and Simms 2004). Inthese circumstances it is easy for union interests to dominate, causing a breakdown

in the relationship. A further distinction examines the purpose of the relationship for

coalition partners, differentiating between instrumental relationships, where com-

munity or union involvement is little more than a new range of campaign and orga-

nizing tactics, from more reciprocal relationships where both the unions and the

community can share common interests and utilize each other as resources (Stirling

2004, 5). Tattersall (2005) adds the level and location of participation to the mix, not-

ing alliances and coalitions can operate at any level or location. However, she draws

on recent arguments on spatiality derived from labor geography to argue real poweris derived from grassroots participation and commitment, which involves organizing

at the local level. Similarly, Clawson (2003), Cutcher (2004), Lopez (2004), Schenk

(2003), and Stirling (2004) all argue participation is vital to sustaining effective

coalitions. Finally, Frege, Heery, and Turner (2004) consider whether alliances are

insider groups (coalitions of influence) or outsider groups (coalitions of protest).

The plethora of relationships labeled community unionism renders the concept

problematic because not all types of relationships are equally powerful and sustain-

able. Moreover, many of the examples now labeled community unionism are not

new and have always existed under a variety of labels over time (Wills and Simms2004; Clawson 2003; Jerrard et al. 2007). Frege, Herry, and Turner (2004) suggest

that unions have always built coalitions that are beyond the normal scope of trade

unions and are necessarily secondary to the primary goals of unions. However, rele-

gating such movements to secondary status ignores the arguments about the possi-

bility of new tactics and union forms fitting emerging sociopolitical circumstances

and also ignores the possibility that unions as part of the community may have objec-

tives in common with the community. If community unionism constitutes a new

form of unionism, then it is important to identify the elements that constitute this

new form of unionism. Simply rebadging old models does not fulfill this function,although it remains necessary to consider how elements of old models, such as union

charity work and political unionism, may be extended by this new form of unionism

or, alternatively, add to it.

Frege, Heery, and Turner (2004) borrow from the varieties of capitalism literature

(see Hall and Soskice 2001) to argue the forms communityunion relationships take

are influenced and shaped by the place of the labor movement within the political and

economic institutional structures and processes within a country. Several writers argue

that neoliberal restructuring not only makes increasingly redundant old social-democratic

models of trade union organization but also, in opening up civil society, providesunions with new opportunities to mobilize and organize as part of that society

(Mathers, Upchurch, and Taylor 2004; Upchurch, Mathers, and Taylor 2004, 34). In

an environment dominated by global capital and characterized by organizational




7/26


8/26

prevent community unionism from developing. As Rudy (2004) argues, in such

cases unions need to build the community. This raises an important question about

the meaning of community. The concept of community is used quite loosely andcan either refer to specific groups or a locality or have a more expansive meaning, in

some cases even being used as a euphemism for the public (Lipsig-Mumme 2003;

Sadler 2004). Indeed Pocock (2003) argues that with the fragmentation of previously

homogenous workplace-based communities, the workplace itself can come to play

the role of community. Implicit in much of the discussion of community unionism is

a positive notion of community as inherently good. The term is value-laden and

normative, with communities seen as representative, participatory, and cohesive, a

problem common in discussions of community more generally (Fremeaux 2005).

More critical interpretations of community point to its contested nature. Communitieshave a political and social dimension as well as a spatial dimension (Taksa 2000).

They have identities distinguished by shared values and meanings but these are

defined through political contests and struggles and in the process, communities can

be both exclusive and inclusive (Taksa 2000; Wills 2001). Labor geographers have

described this process as the operation of the sociospatial dialectic, producing the

particular politics of place (Herod 2002). What the contemporary definitions of com-

munity lack is the original sense of the Latin word communitas, which encapsu-

lated a spirit of belonging, rather than of identification with a group or a region,

and this absence has largely contributed to the disparity of terms.The preceding discussion suggests not all union and community alliances repre-

sent a shift in union strategy and in some cases, alliances are merely new tactics har-

nessed to old causes. The comment by Allan Flanders (1970, 15) that trade unions

have always had two faces, sword of justice and vested interest highlights the dual

concern of unions over time, namely objectives that are of concern to those outside

of the union and the narrow industrial objectives of immediate concern to members.

However, there is one key feature that is apparent in all of the relationships, namely

that the objective must extend beyond the workplace and its narrow industrial focus

to include a broader social agenda, a feature that highlights the overlap betweencommunity unionism and social movement unionism (Waterman 2001; Lopez

2004). This allows both temporary and long-term alliances to be acknowledged as

community unionism. It also allows for charity work to be included because the

union and its members are working on behalf of a community of which they are part

or may become a part. A unions members are workers, consumers or purchasers,

belong to the union, and belong to a geographic community, meaning that if a union

relates to its members in multiple roles, it is more likely to build a deeper relation-

ship with them, leading to a stronger base from which to develop alliances with those

not directly part of the union. A union is part of wider society and its actions willaffect that society (Wishart 1992).

The sector in which a union operates is also an important consideration when

establishing objectives that extend beyond the workplace. Those unions covering




9/26

workers in the areas of public health, public education, and emergency services have

greater opportunities to tie their industrial objectives into broader social justice objec-

tives and to attract public attention and support for their campaigns than do thoseunions operating in the private sector (Johnston 1994; Hayes and Jerrard 2007). These

public sector unions, because of a more direct and vital link with all sections of the

community, find it easier to portray their industrial campaigns sympathetically

because they can easily make a case for being part of the community and for their

objectives to be considered as protecting these broader community interests. For

example, nursing unions asking for a higher nurse-to-patient ratio improves working

conditions while providing a higher level of care for patients; education unions con-

cerned with lowering class sizes are arguing simultaneously for improved working

conditions and better educational outcomes for children; police unions fighting for anincrease in police numbers not only improves conditions but also improves public

safety. The members of these unions are visible: police on the streets, nurses caring

for patients during visiting hours, teachers at parentteacher events at schools.

Unions in the private sector find it more difficult to attract public sympathy and

positive media attention and this may be why a greater number of unions in this sec-

tor rely on charity work and political or environmental campaigns as an initial start-

ing point for building bridges with the community from which support may then be

sought. To briefly illustrate the distance that has to be overcome for these private sec-

tor unions, steel manufacturing will be used. Customers or clients of a steel manu-facturer will be other manufacturers such as automotive companies, geographically

distanced in many cases from the location of the steel workers jobs. These end

users, the automotive companies, are therefore more likely to be able to combine

with the initial employer to manipulate media portrayal of an industrial campaign in

their favor, even if it is over an issue of concern to the community in which the steel

manufacturer is located (e.g., job security or job losses with a flow-on effect on the

local geographic community) (Hayes and Jerrard 2007). The original employer and

the end users are all corporations with the strength of multinational corporations

behind them, not individuals, which further exacerbates the difficulty unions in thissector face when making contact with the community to gain support for union cam-

paigns. Later in the article, sectoral differences will be further analyzed as part of

discussion of the unioncommunity alliances in Victoria, Australia.

From Supporting the Community to GainingCommunity Support

In Victoria, neoliberal restructuring has reached further than in any otherAustralian state. The election of the conservative Kennett Liberal Government in

1992 led to extensive privatization of public instrumentalities and severe cuts in

government funding, particularly for education, health, and policing. The Victorian




10/26

Government also took an aggressive antiunion stance. Aside from ceding its indus-

trial relations powers to the Australian Federal Government, it coerced public sector

staff onto individual contracts and ended the payroll deduction of union dues (Costarand Economou 1999). This occurred within a broader context of organizational and

labor market restructuring, accompanied by decentralized bargaining, including

moves to nonunion bargaining and individual contracts occurring across Australia.

The election of a Victorian Labor Government in 1999 saw increased public funding

for education, health, and policing, but within a neoliberal agenda.

A major overhaul of federal industrial relations regulation in late 2005 by the

conservative Liberal-National Government, incongruously libeled WorkChoices,

places further restrictions on union organization and representation, collective bar-

gaining and industrial action. This is complemented by other legislative changes thatwill force some single mothers and workers on disability pensions into the work-

force. Many of those who will be hardest hit by the legislation are not covered by

unions, and in some cases are not in the workforce (Hall 2006). In this environment,

traditional union strategies that center on bargaining and protective legislation are

unlikely to be effective in either furthering the union cause or protecting the position

of workers and those not in paid employment. Once the legal rights and protections

that had previously guaranteed union reach much greater than union density are

removed, unions must find new strategies to attract and retain members and remain

a viable part of the community or else wither and die.The following discussion identifies and analyzes the unioncommunity relation-

ships found in Victoria. From the data analysis, unioncommunity relationships have

predominately been formed around two major but interlinked drivers: industrial issues

and social justice issues. There are a number of different types and levels of alliances

considered, including temporary and long-term alliances that are drawn from both the

public and private sectors and derived from the membership or by the leadership,

reflecting different types of unions and different types of community partners.

Building Community Support: Public Sector Unions

A number of alliances have at their core a concern with industrial issues, though

often presented within a broader social justice framework. Some of these alliances

can be considered as traditional or instrumental in the sense that they initially

reflect the unions vested interest and second, the issue for the community. From the

sample, it appears that, as argued earlier, the formation of alliances is easier for

unions representing workers providing a public service and benefit to the commu-

nity. In these situations, working with the community is a way of getting key stake-holders on side. This does not mean the alliances and coalitions are necessarily

limited to industrial issues, nor the absence of a reciprocal relationship between the

union and the coalition partner(s). Essentially though, as Wills (2001) notes, these




11/26

alliances use community to support traditional union organization but may include

objectives of dual concern. Alliances developed in response to industrial relations

changes and conservative government policies are therefore aimed at mobilizingopposition and resistance beyond the narrow confines of union members. While such

coalitions provide additional leverage during campaigns (see Stirling 2004), they are

in some cases little more than a new tactic, and sometimes an old tactic used to gain

instrumental objectives on behalf of the union.

At one level unions can seek broad public support through media campaigns that

raise awareness of issues and their wider impact. Our research supports the view that

public sector unions find this easier than those in the private sector. The teachers,

nurses, and police unions have all run professional media campaigns to raise aware-

ness of the impact of inadequate public funding on the range and quality of servicesprovided. Both the Australian Education Union (AEU) and the Australian Nurses

Federation (ANF) attribute membership growth and improved industrial outcomes to

these campaigns (Cockfield and Lazaris 2007). Similarly, officials of the Victorian

Police Association (TVPA) argue the campaign entitled Cutting Police Numbers is

a Crime contributed to the electoral defeat of the conservative Kennett Government

in Victoria. Aside from these media campaigns, these unions have also sought to

build alliances with community groups.

The most developed public sector coalition exists between the Australian

Education Union (AEU), representing school teachers in the public sector, theVictorian Council of State School Organizations (VICCSO), and Parents Victoria,

who meet semi-regularly. The alliance dates back to the 1970s, but it became more

active and was formalized in the 1990s when the policies of the conservative Liberal

Government of Jeff Kennett threatened public education in Victoria. The alliance

deepened at a time when both the union and VICCSO had limited access to the gov-

ernment and school closures, increased class sizes, and greater use of contracts

undermined public education in Victoria. A distinguishing feature of the coalition is

the shared commitment to quality public education and the recognition by coalition

partners that decent working conditions are central to this objective. While the inter-ests of the AEU at times clash with community partners, the alliance is sustained

because the partners have mutual respect for one another and focus on areas of

agreement.

This formal alliance also has clear limitations that were offset by more informal,

locally based community alliances. Though the alliance increases the capacity of the

AEU to achieve its goals, it does not challenge the established positions of the part-

ner organizations, nor encourage grassroots participation. The limitations of the

alliance are most apparent over the issue of industrial action, which VICCSO and

Parents Victoria feel unable to support as they represent school management andparents. But like union leadership, community advocates are not necessarily repre-

sentative of the broader community. A campaign initiated in the community led to

the establishment of Parents Against Large Class Sizes (PALCS). This informal




12/26

grassroots group, formed in response to Government funding cuts, openly supported

strike action by teachers. In this case the AEU benefits from the emergence of a new

community group with a different set of values from established groups. The grass-roots focus of the group also opened up space for parents and teachers to participate

in a joint campaign. Several school closures during the Kennett Government era also

prompted community-initiated and driven campaigns in which both parents and

teachers participated. These various alliances reflect an explicit community-focused

strategy by the AEU which has seen membership grow and member involvement in

union and community activities increase.

The recent efforts of the Australian Nursing Federation (ANF) to build

alliances also highlight constraints imposed by sectional interests. The ANF has

participated in the Council of the Ageing and the Victorian Mental IllnessAwareness Council, as well as pursuing a high-profile media campaign on

increasing nursepatient ratios. In contrast to the AEU, the ANF has struggled to

build ongoing alliances with community groups. In some cases this is because

industrial issues clash more directly with key goals of the community partner,

limiting the usefulness of the alliance. For example, in midwifery the community

group is focused on extending services and is thus sensitive to cost increases in

service provision.

In some cases, an absence of organized community groups has inhibited the

development of alliances. In the health area, community groups have formed butare poorly organized and often short lived, which has affected the ANFs ability

to form longer-term alliances. The problem also confronts the AEU with respect

to the TAFE (further education) sector, where the lack of resources and transient

membership of TAFE student organizations make alliances problematic. Yet in

some cases this could be overcome by unions taking a proactive and strategic

approach, assisting in establishing and organizing a community group. This

appears to be more commonly done by unions in the private sector, probably

because groups with which alliances could be formed do not readily exist. For

example, the Victorian Independent Education Union (VIEU) organized primaryschool parents to push for greater government funding to private primary

schools.

In regional areas unions have shown more initiative in building community.

The TVPA campaigned in local communities on the need for extra police in grow-

ing regional areas. They used the mechanisms of local government, in particular

meetings in the local City Hall, to organize and mobilize community support. A

more passive approach to community building was the postal workers unions

(part of the Communications Electrical Plumbing Union) successful response to

the threatened closure of a suburban post office through a petition obtained whilepostal workers delivered the mail. In these examples the communities are initially

unorganized but share a common concern and the relationship that develops is

often reciprocal.




13/26

Building Community Support: Private Sector Unions

The three public sector unions discussed above demonstrate clearly the relativeease with which unions in this sector can establish common ground with members

of the broader community through identifying shared interests: industrial interests

for the unions and members and social justice or welfare objectives for the commu-

nity. In contrast, unions operating in industries and sectors where the link between

work and public welfare is less direct and overt find it more difficult to frame indus-

trial issues within a broader community agenda. Nevertheless, there are several

examples where unions have built community support, most notably in regional

areas where the community is defined geographically.

There are several examples of unionscommunity relationships developing inresponse to workplace disputes in regional locations. Unions bring organizing

ability, advocacy, and expertise to alliances. In return, communities provide people

resources, support, and legitimacy. For example, during a five-month lockout of

Textile, Clothing, and Footwear Union of Australia (TCFUA) members at a Geelong

workplace, the local community, incorporating schools and shops, provided practi-

cal support through donating food, money, etc. and speaking publicly about the dis-

pute in the local community, in newspapers and on radio. One union official from the

TCFUA said,

Weve learnt I think through bitter experience that if you have those long battles and

strikes and disputes in a local community and you dont link into peoples families,

neighborhoods, and communities, then it really affects the ability of those workers to

survive it as well.

During a twenty-two-day strike by members of the Electrical Trades Union (ETU)

and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU) at BHP-Billitons steel

manufacturing plant at Hastings, east of Melbourne, the local businesses and

members of the community supported the picketers with donations of food and vis-

its to the picket line. The driver of this support originated from the Hastings business

communitys fear that for every potential job loss at the plant, seven jobs in the

Hastings region would also be lost. An industrial campaign over job security for

three hundred workers threatened by outsourcing turned into the economic survival

of a regional town and saw the two unions involved receive business, church, and

public support.

While on the surface these alliances appear instrumental, they can encourage a

deep level of engagement from the union membership and community. However, the

limitations are also clear. Most notably, the unions appear to allow the alliances todissolve once the issue is dealt with rather than exploring the options for a sustained

relationship, as was the case in the examples above. Similarly, the Australian

Services Union (ASU) received unsolicited support from a range of community




14/26

groups during a dispute over alcohol and drug testing at Qantas Airlines. Yet, recip-

rocal support was not offered to these groups nor were there efforts to build ongoing

communication and cooperation. It is generally more difficult for unions in the pri-vate sector to establish long-term links with the geographic community from which

they draw their members because the industrial objectives do not readily fit with

those of community groups for the long term. The issues at stake, while crucial to

the community, once solved do not easily promote ongoing formal alliances.

Building Community Support: The Birthof Independent Organizations

In some cases, coalitions driven by industrial issues have taken the form of inde-

pendent organizations. The AMIEU supported the formation and spread of the

PALE, now a group influential across Australia, and also the independent group

known as PACAT, again an organization whose influence has spread beyond a sin-

gle state to the rest of Australia. However, the best known and most successful in

Australia is the Fairwear Campaign, which aims to eliminate the exploitation of

homeworkers. To this end, this organization has been very successful in pressuring

government for legislative change, including mandatory codes of practice in NSW

and Victoria and the extension of employee rights to contract workers in the indus-try. The organization played a key role during the Senate Inquiry into the new indus-

trial relations laws and achieved amendments that protected rights for outworkers.

Fairwear Australia consists of a network of unions, churches, nongovernment orga-

nizations, and other community groups. The Textile, Clothing, and Footwear Union

of Australia (TCFUA), which organizes workers in the clothing industry where

homeworkers are common, was instrumental in establishing Fairwear. However, the

union does not dominate the organization and has been willing to relinquish some

control over the campaign. Nevertheless, Fairwear and the union work closely

together and provide complimentary resources. The union provides expertise andknowledge about the industry and industrial relations while Fairwear provides media

coverage and legitimacy in addition to mobilizing the community. Another signifi-

cant factor in Fairwears success is the dynamic character of the organization as it

has allowed activists and people in the community and union to come through it and

move in and out of it or move away from it and then generate another round of

activists and people in it . . . (Union official, TCFUA 2005).

Independent union and community organizations that are locally based and rely on

community and rank-and-file union activists have arisen around Melbourne in

response to the Federal Governments industrial relations changes in 2005. Thesechanges led to a battle between unions and the Government to gain the support of the

community. The Government spent millions of dollars on a national advertising cam-

paign to promote the changes and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU)




15/26

responded with its Your Rights at Work (YR@W) campaign targeted broadly at the

community. The unions campaigns against the changes have included several nation-

wide mass demonstrations. The second, the National Day of Community Protest inNovember 2005, saw approximately two hundred thousand people mobilize in

Melbourne. Subsequent demonstrations in 2006 drew smaller though still significant

numbers of people. Embryonic grassroots coalitions of community and union

activists have played a central role in organizing this community opposition.

Union Solidarity was formed in late 2004, with the support of several militant

unions, after the Federal Government announced its intention to introduce new indus-

trial relations laws targeting trade union action and involvement at workplaces. It is dri-

ven by active union members rather than union officials, though some officials and

organizers are involved, thus emphasizing that unions are not separate from the com-munity and that discussions of community unionism should regard the union movement

as part of the community and its interests as being those of part of the community. The

key organizer had a long history of union involvement and community activism, but

Solidarity remained independent of unions. Indeed, Union Solidarity recognized the

narrow base of unions and sought to build a broader base outside of organizing in the

workplace by drawing on support from a diverse range of people. It was set up to ensure

that the peak union organizations, the Victorian Trades Hall Council (VTHC) and

ACTU, did not take a step back from opposing the industrial relations laws. The focus

was spelt out clearly on the Union Solidarity Web site (www.unionsolidarity.org/):Union Solidarity has only one reason to exist: show solidarity to unions and commu-

nities taking action in opposition to the Howard Government attacks on our rights. This

extended beyond opposing the introduction of the legislation to fighting its implemen-

tation by employers, most notably through community assemblies on picket lines. In

addition, Solidarity branches played a key role in educating the community about the

legislation and its consequences through street stalls, public forums, and the like.

Union Solidarity consisted of autonomous branches established and sustained by

local activists, with a central branch providing limited coordination and support. In a

number of cases, such as the Western Suburbs branch discussed below, branches grewout of pre-existing community-based movements. Mostly the branches were geo-

graphically based and spread across metropolitan Melbourne, with the exception of

two regional branches and one interest-based branch representing community sector

workers. The branches operated with a degree of formality, holding regular meetings

and keeping minutes, though this varied across branches. In some cases branches even

opened bank accounts to manage monies raised through fundraising activities.

The Western Suburbs Unions and Community Coalition was the most success-

ful branch of Union Solidarity. This group began around the same time as the

Union Solidarity network, but existed independently initially before joining withSolidarity. While covering a broad area, the western suburbs include a number

of low socioeconomic areas with a strong working-class tradition. Headed by a

long-time community activist with strong links to the union movement, the aim




16/26

of this group was to build a broad-based coalition of local community members,

local community groups, rank-and-file members, residents, and organizers who live

and work in the area (Representative, Western Suburbs Unions and CommunityCoalition 2005). The coalition focused on social justice issues and reaching people

beyond unionized and active workplaces, including Liberal Party voters who

opposed the industrial relations laws. Through street stalls and community

forums, which attracted several hundred people, the group played a central role

in raising awareness and educating the broader community about the industrial

relations legislation. Alongside these activities, the group also organized commu-

nity pickets to support industrial action by workers at local work sites. The group

was resource poor, relying on donations and the support of established local com-

munity groups and unions who printed and helped distribute leaflets and providedspeakers at meetings. With limited financial resource, the group relied heavily on

a core group of local activists that included individuals from unions, political par-

ties, and community organizations.

The elements contributing to the success of the Western Suburbs Group also high-

light the challenges the various branches of Union Solidarity faced. Broad-based

activism was central to the sustainability of the group and attracting a diverse base

was a key goal. The dual activities of the passive activism of informing and educat-

ing the public and the more militant activism associated with a community picket

allowed participants to choose their level of involvement and type of engagement,thus allowing both militant and moderate activists to participate. Nevertheless, the

group experienced tensions between radical left activists and other community

activists and group leaders were aware that dogmatic left positions could turn away

more moderate participants.

Alongside Union Solidarity were Your Rights @ Work (YR@W) groups estab-

lished and funded by the union movement under the aegis of the ACTU. Three

groups were established in Victoria. These groups had a more overtly political objec-

tivethe removal of the conservative Howard Governmentthan Union Solidarity.

Accordingly, they were geographically defined by electoral boundaries and situatedin marginal electorates. Their operation reflected an organizing approach with a paid

union organizing coordinating activities, though identify and training activists to

take control of the campaign was also important. They also built alliances with local

community groups but their activities were more limited than Union Solidarity

branches, eschewing the more militant activities of community pickets. Whereas

Union Solidarity drew some strength from its unofficial and indirect link to unions

and was able to undertake actions which may have had tacit but not official union

endorsement, the direct and explicit union involvement in the Your Rights @ Work

groups imposed constraints. The 2007 federal election results indicate the success ofthese groups, with significant swings to the Australian Labor Party in YR@W elec-

torates across Australia. However, it is too earlier to tell whether the alliances and

relationships built during the campaign will be sustained.




17/26

These independent organizations highlight a number of issues that are relevant to

building successful and sustainable union-community relationships. First, in the case

of Union Solidarity, YR@W groups and Fairwear, industrial issues are entwined andinseparable from social justice concerns. This is in contrast to the emergence of

PALE and PACAT in the fight against live animal export where protection of meat-

workers jobs is not a concern of these groups even though their campaigns for ani-

mal rights will result in job security in the industry. Second, the groups are actively

seeking to shape values within the community but these values are shaped by polit-

ical struggles within the groups involved. Third, the coalitions are inclusive and

based on local participation. There is a level of independence which ensures it is

activists, not union leaders, who drive the agenda, although the union leadership may

formalize grass roots activities. Fourth, the leadership of individuals, or what Nissen(2004) refers to as bridge builders, has been important in driving these groups. The

politics of these individuals and their interactions with other activists were also cen-

tral to shaping the values and agenda of the groups. Of course, there are dangers in

relying to heavily on particular individuals. Here Fairwear offers important insights.

Coalitions must be dynamic. They have to allow people to move in and out of the

organization, allowing new ideas and initiatives to emerge and sustain enthusiasm.

This reinforces our earlier point regarding the question of politics and leadership in

unioncommunity organizations.

Supporting the Community: Charity Workor Community Unionism?

In contrast to the examples above, several unions are primarily focused on help-

ing the community rather than gaining industrial support. Here it is worth noting that

a distinction has been drawn between charity and alliance work with communi-

ties. Craft (1990) argues that, in the U.S. context, charity work characterized com-

munity work under business unionism, as opposed to being an example of socialjustice work. A distinction might be drawn between doing work with communities

rather than on or for communities. This is in contrast to Lipsig-Mummes (2003)

approach where she includes union charity work as part of her understanding of

community unionism because charity work has broader objectives reaching beyond

the workplace. Furthermore, the Victorian unions participating in charitable activi-

ties perceive their actions as community involvement because, for them, fundraising

and charitable actions toward community groups are carried out because unions and

members are part of the community and are engaging in these activities to strengthen

the community. Unions such as the Construction, Forestry, Mining, and EnergyUnion (CFMEU) and the ETU, which sponsor local sporting clubs and raise money

for them, regard these activities as building genuine communityunion partnerships,

notas charity. The AMIEU, which raises funds for regional aged-care facilities,




18/26

engages in these activities because its members have aged relatives requiring care in

these areas and the union sees an opportunity to assist in regional development of

facilities as a means of strengthening its position within these communities whereslaughterhouses provide employment for large number of workers. Furthermore, the

concept of business unionism is anathema to these unions, so the discounting of tra-

ditional union charity work as part of community unionism in Victoria does not hold

the same validity as argued by Craft for the U.S. unions. Instead, Victorian unions

are more likely to regard their charitable activities as what Craft (1990) refers to as

community service but not as part of business unionism.

Several unions, primarily from the private sector, have built alliances around

charity and community service because this offers these unions a greater opportu-

nity to access community members, access which has otherwise been difficult forthem to gain. The Construction Division of the CFMEU has appointed a commu-

nity liaison officer, produced a handbook for shop stewards encouraging commu-

nity work, and is deliberately placing greater emphasis on building community

relationships within the union journal. Similarly, the ETU has surveyed members

regarding their participation in various community organizations with a view to

formalizing these links at the grassroots level and also leadership levels. The

CFMEU has initiated several charitable programs. The most successful involves

raising money at local worksites to provide breakfast for children in forty-seven

disadvantaged primary schools. This program also includes the participation ofother unions on building sites and is implemented with the assistance and support

of the teachers union, the AEU, parents, church groups, and community organi-

zations. Another endeavor entails members donating old work coats (blueys) to the

Sacred Heart Mission for distribution to homeless people. Notably, both examples

were initiated by rank-and-file members and a notable feature of the CFMEUs

assistance is the involvement of organizers and local delegates in the delivery of

support.

A related type of charitable activity has involved unions facilitating and orga-

nizing initiatives that encourage members to use their skills for community bene-fit. VIEU, which represented teachers in independent schools, has participated in

a program to raise money and provide educational services to East Timor. The

union has raised $AUD70,000 and used this to fund members to travel to East

Timor and work as teachers. Though not overtly aimed at recruitment or organiz-

ing, an outcome of the VIEUs East Timor program has been the recruitment of

teachers attracted to the program and greater participation in the union by

members involved in the program. Similarly, the ETU is involved in the Phoenix

Fridge Program where members recondition old refrigerators, making them more

fuel efficient and environmentally friendly, and distribute them to low-incomehouseholds.

While these sorts of strategies go beyond the simple charitable action or

donation, they are nevertheless aimed at ameliorating the worst excesses of class




19/26

society rather than confronting their cause. Although they reflect and reinforce a

set of broad social values within the union, their material benefits are far more

limited. For example, for the CFMEU, a clear purpose of these acts is to chal-lenge the public perception of the CFMEU and its members as militant thugs.

Yet, despite the unions efforts, the media has ignored the initiative and

consequently the union has had no success in gaining wider recognition of this

community contribution.

The CFMEU, along with the AMWU, the ETU, the ASU, and the Maritime

Union of Australia (MUA), have also used their industrial strength to support par-

ticular community issues. For the CFMEU, ETU, and AMWU, this has most often

involved supporting local communities resist inappropriate development through

banning work on these sites. The ASU took a stand against Indonesias occupa-tion of East Timor and members in the freight section banned all incoming freight

from Indonesia off Garuda Airlines. The MUA was also active in limiting loading

and unloading of Indonesian registered vessels during the Indonesian East Timor

occupation and has refused to load the so-called ships of shame that ply the

worlds oceans with crews who are not allowed to leave the often only marginally

seaworthy vessels for shore leave and who are paid below a living wage. Of

course, this type of action is not new, and several unions have a history of using

their industrial power for political purposes (see for example, Burgmann and

Burgmann 1998). However, the argument can be made that these activities areindeed community unionism: for the community the benefits are clear. In addition

to industrial power, the unions also bring skills and expertise in campaigning that

assist community organization and mobilization. Both the CFMEU and ETU

noted the importance of the community taking ownership of the campaign and

being actively involved. In contrast, the value of union participation is less obvi-

ous and more contested. There is a question mark over whether this support

should or can be reciprocated by the various communities. As interviewees noted,

in these alliances the unions possess the power and strength and the communities

turn to the unions often after they have exhausted all other options. Nevertheless,union involvement does indicate a union willing to move beyond narrow indus-

trial concerns to broader social justice objectives. Furthermore, these actions

require the active participation and support of members. This is not unproblem-

atic. One interviewee acknowledged, . . . to be honest with you, most commu-

nity issues we fight involve us telling our members theyre not allowed to work.

Nothing but grief. Members do not necessarily share the progressive views of

their elected officials, particularly when there are economic consequences; also

leadership may not share the progressive view of members. Leadership and union

identity are important issues driving union participation in these alliances. Wheresuch actions take place, they link industrial methods with political and social

issues and thus breakdown the socially constructed divide common under social

democratic unionism.




20/26

The Role of Peak State-Based Union Organization

The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) response to the FederalGovernments industrial relations changes is a clear example of a successful com-

munity campaign. The YR@W campaign was a broad-based media campaign that

included television, radio, and newspaper advertisements; mass rallies; and various

local workplace and community events. The campaign united various community

organizations, including church groups, in opposition to the legislative changes. It

sought to raise awareness of the legislation and its consequences and resulted in

widespread community support. As a result, industrial relations became a key issue

in the 2007 federal election and a contributing factor to the defeat of the conserva-

tive Liberal-National Coalition Government.Echoing literature in the United States and United Kingdom on central labor

councils promoting union and community alliances (Gapasin and Wial 1998; Ness

and Eimer 2001; Wills 2001), the peak state-based union organization, the VTHC,

has established alliances with various community groups, including church groups,

Victorian Council of Social Services (VCOSS), and civil liberties groups, with vary-

ing degrees of success. One success was the Victorian Peace Network, which existed

from 2002 to 2006 and brought together a diverse range of groups around a core set

of principles related to obtaining and sustaining peace. Less successful was the

VTHC-initiated Fair Australia, a coalition of unions, church, and communitygroups brought together to campaign on education, health, and justice with the aim

of attracting middle-class support. The coalition fell apart when the dominance of

left groups within the alliance and VTHC led to the adoption of a more radical

agenda that clashed with the more conservative values of several alliance partners.

Other political considerations also hindered building and sustaining alliances. Union

ties to the Australian Labor Party raised issues for the Uniting Church, which was

concerned about being seen to endorse a political party. For other community

groups, issues of funding complicated their ability to be involved and publicly asso-

ciated with unioncommunity coalitions in opposition to the Government. Forexample, a coalition with Community Legal Centers fell apart when it became

apparent federal funding could be threatened. Nevertheless, the VTHC has sustained

a more modest alliance of union and community groups through the Roundtable

Network which meets regularly to discuss issues of mutual concern. These alliances

have led to successful rallies and forums and allowed cross fertilization with unions

speaking at peace and refugee events and community leaders speaking to, and sup-

porting, union forums. They have also resulted in a more coordinated approach

toward influencing government social policy.

These broad alliances provide a number of benefits to unions. The inclusion of pro-gressive church groups, civil liberty groups, etc. in these coalitions provides unions

with access to a broader section of the community, though this is not one way as com-

munity leaders also get to appeal to union members. The support of community leaders




21/26

also gives unions added legitimacy, both in the community and in representations to

government. However, these benefits are restricted by the nature of the alliance, which

consists of union and community leaders with limited direct involvement of rank-and-file union or community members. Several interviewees questioned the level of com-

mitment and awareness of their broader memberships. As one interviewee admitted

Ive got no idea of the extent to which the peak bodies are including their broader con-

stituency in some of the issues that were working on. Another described such initia-

tives as the VTHC Round Table as leaders endorsing leaders and added I think what

works a lot more is where you actually get voices from the community itself. . . . This

is not to suggest that coalitions driven by officials are unimportant or ineffective.

Rather, different forms of coalitions have different purposes. Those driven by officials

oscillate between being coalitions of influence and coalitions of protest (see Frege,Heery, and Turner 2004). In respect of the former, the VTHC Roundtable has achieved

some success influencing the social policies of the Victorian Government. However,

on its own, this level of participation will not necessarily mobilize and activate union

and community members.

Conclusions: Toward Community Unionism

The contemporary political and economic environment provides a conducive cli-mate for unioncommunity relationships, but also renders such relationships more

important. What emerges from our research is an awareness by unions of the impor-

tance of community and commitment to building links. Our data demonstrate

the diversity in the purpose, form, and sustainability of relationships developing

between unions and various community groups and organizations. The extent and

type of member participation in the alliance also varies across unions and the type

of alliance, as does the level of leadership commitment. Some unions engage more

systematically and successfully than others. Some, such as the public sector AEU,

ANF, and TVPA, have greater opportunity for alliance building because they providea service direct to the public. However, our research demonstrates private sector

unions can also build strong community ties when they embrace a deliberate strat-

egy to connect with the community.

All the alliances provided some benefit to either the union or the community, or

both, but not all provide the basis for renewal, which we argue has a political agenda.

This involves unions, often working with community groups, reshaping community

values and setting a new social agenda where industrial issues are entwined and

inseparable from social justice concerns. Many of the examples discussed demon-

strate how industrial issues can be framed in a broad social justice framework. Publicsector unions appear to have an advantage because they can link the work members

do directly to the type and quality of services provided to the public. However,

unions in the private sector can also frame issues broadly, as demonstrated by the




22/26

AMIEUs alliance with animal rights groups to prevent live animal exports and the

various alliances that formed to build opposition to the WorkChoices legislation.

There are also several examples where community issues are framed as industrialissues. The participation of unions in the construction industry in campaigns against

inappropriate development is one example. Even the various forms of charity, such

as VIEUs East Timor education program, serve to highlight the relationship

between union memberswork and social outcomes. In all these examples unions are

seeking to redefine social values but contests occur as the sectional interests of both

unions and community groups remain present and at times dominant. In essence,

unions engage in a struggle to define a new community identity.

This raises important issues about the nature of community, in particularly, who

is part of the the community and how is community identity defined. Overcomingsectional interests demands an inclusive approach to community that engages

union members and the broader community. It is widespread support and participa-

tion that provides the movement for change and it is coalition building at the local

level that is most likely to elicit this broad support. In contrast, coalitions that con-

sist of union and community leaders and have little direct involvement of rank-and-

file unionists or community members do not necessarily have the support and

commitment of those the leaders represent. This is not to suggest that leadership is

unimportant or that coalitions driven by officials are ineffective, rather they have dif-

ferent purposes and objectives. What appears to be important is engagement at var-ious scales of union organization in ways that are mutually enforcing. Movements,

such as Union Solidarity and the public education campaign of PALCS provide cam-

paigns initiated at a higher level with a dynamism and drive that only comes from

grassroots participation. In turn, these grassroots movements benefit from the sup-

port and coordination provided by leaders operating at broader scale. In particular,

union leadership is important in shaping and setting the political agenda of the

union. Nevertheless, we concur with Tattersall (2005) that it is locally based coali-

tions that offer the most potential to engage broadly across a range of communities

and build an identity around social justice principles that can challenge the domi-nance of neoliberal restructuring.

Unions are part of the community; members live and work in communities.

Hence, unions cannot be entities whose actions exist in isolation without wider

impact. The current wave of interest in union and community coalitions reflects this

position. But how unions view their communities can shape their extent and form of

engagement. Community unionism can operate at different scalar levels and need

not necessarily involve workplace organization or rank and file members. While by

definition community unionism has a community engagement element at its core, it

need not necessarily have an overt radical or social justice based agenda. However,if community unionism is to be a new model for union renewal, unions must

embrace a political agenda which expands the traditional approach to industrial

issues and embraces a participative and inclusive approach to community.




23/26

Interviews

UnionsAustralian Education Union (AEU) Victorian Branch.

Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) Victorian Branch.

Australian Nursing Federation (ANF) Victorian Branch.

Communications Electrical Plumbing Union (CEPU) Communications Division, Victorian Postal and

Telecommunications Branch.

Victorian Independent Education Union (VIEU).

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) Construction DivisionVictorian Branch.

Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia (TCFUA) Victorian Branch.

Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU) Victorian Branch.

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU) Victorian Branch.

The Victorian Police Association (TVPA).

Community Groups

Socialist Alliance.

Refugee Action Collective.

Victorian Council of Social Services (VCOSS).

Western Suburbs Unions and Community Coalition

Justice and International Mission Unit.

Union Solidarity

Your Rights at Work Campaign (Deakin)

Your Rights at Work Campaign (LaTrobe)

References

Alexander, P. 2003. Anti-globalization movements, identity, and leadership. Paper presented to South

African Sociological Association Conference, Durban.

Barker, C., A. Johnson, and M. Lavalette, eds. 2001. Leadership and social movements. Manchester:

Manchester University Press.

Brecher, J., and T. Costello. 1990.Building bridges: The emerging grassroots coalitions between labor

and community. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Burgmann, M., and V. Burgmann. 1998. Green bans red union: Environmental activism and the NewSouth Wales Builders Laborers Federation. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

Clawson, D. 2003. The next upsurge: Labor and the new social movements. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press.

Cockfield, S., and M. Lazaris. 2007. Building community support for union campaigns. In Trade unions

in the community: Values, issues, shared interests and alliances, ed. Donna B., S. Cockfield,

R. Cooney, M. Jerrard, and A. Rainnie, 20114. Melbourne: Heidelberg Press.

Costar, B., and N. Economou, eds. 1999. The Kennett revolution: Victorian politics in the 1990s. Sydney:

UNSW Press.

Craft, J. A. 1990. The community as a source of union power.Journal of Labor Research 11 (2): 14560.

Cranford, C., and D. Ladd. 2003. Community unionism: Organizing for fair employment in Canada.Just

Labor3 (Fall): 4659.

Crosby, M. 2005. Power at work: Rebuilding the Australian union movement. Annandale, New South

Wales: Federation Press.




24/26

Cutcher, L. 2004. The customer as ally: The role of the customer in the finance sector unions campaign-

ing.Journal of Industrial Relations 46 (3): 32336.

Darlington, R. 2006. The agitator theory of strikes re-evaluated, Labor History 47 (4): 485509.

Ellem, B. 2004. Hard ground: Unions in the Pilbara. Port Headland, Western Australia: PilbaraMineworkers Union.

Fairbrother, P. 2000. Trade unions at the crossroads. London: Mansell.

Fine, J. 2005. Community unions and the revival of the American labor movement. Politics & Society 33

(1): 15399.

Flanders, A. 1970.Management and unions. London: Faber.

Frege, C., E. Heery, and L. Turner. 2004. The new solidarity? Trade union coalition-building in five

countries. In Varieties of unionism: Strategies for union revitalization in a globalizing economy, ed.

C. Frege and J. Kelly, 13758. Oxford: Open University Press.

Fremeaux, I. 2005. New Labors appropriation of the concept of community: A critique. Community

Development Journal 40 (3): 26574.

Gapasin, F., and H. Wial. 1998. The role of central labor councils in union organizing in the 1990s. In

Organizing to win: New research on union strategies, ed. K. Bronfenbrenner, S. Friedman, R. W.

Hurd, R. A. Oswald, and R. L. Seeber, 5467. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Hall, P. A., and D. Soskice. 2001. An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In Varieties of capitalism:

The institutional foundations of competitive advantage, ed. P. A. Hall and D. Soskice, 168. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Hall, R. 2006. Australian industrial relations in 2005The WorkChoices revolution.Journal of Industrial

Relations 48 (3): 291303.

Hayes, W., and M. Jerrard. 2007. Traditional and instrumental union and community links: A case study

of a trade union campaign. in Trade unions in the community: Values, issues, shared interests and

alliances, ed. D. Buttigieg, S. Cockfield, R. Cooney, M. Jerrard, and A. Rainnie, 21527. Melbourne:Heidelberg Press.

Herod, A. 2002. Towards a more productive engagement.Labor and Industry. 13 (2): 518.

Jerrard, M. 2007. Building alliances to protect jobs: The AMIEUs response to live animal export. In

Trade unions in the community: Values, issues, shared interests and alliances, ed. D. Buttigieg,

S. Cockfield, R. Cooney, M. Jerrard, and A. Rainnie, 185200. Melbourne: Heidelberg Press.

Jerrard, M., C. Richard, B. Donna, C. Sandra, and A. Rainnie. 2007. Unions in the community: Towards com-

munity unionism? In Trade unions in the community: Values, issues, shared interests and alliances, ed.

D. Buttigieg, S. Cockfield, R. Cooney, M. Jerrard, and A. Rainnie, 110. Melbourne: Heidelberg Press.

Johnston, P. 1994. Success while others fail: Social movement unionism and the public workplace. Ithaca,

NY: Cornell University Press.

Jones, S. 2002. A womans place is on the picket line: Towards a theory of community industrial relations.Employee Relations. 24 (1/2): 15166.

Lipsig-Mumme, C. 2003. Forms of solidarity: Trade unions and community unionism. ACTU Organizing

Centre. http://www.actu.asn.au/organising/news/1053579943_13456.html.

Lopez, S. 2004.Reorganizing the rust belt: An inside study of the American labor movement. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Mathers, A., M. Upchurch, and G. Taylor. 2004. Opening up civil society. Paper presented to Labor

Movements in the 21st Century conference, University of Sheffield.

Mathers, T. 2000. Coalition building: A progressive strategy for Canadian unions. Queens University,

Kingston, Ontario: Industrial Relations Centre Press.

Moody, K. 1997. Workers in a lean world: Unions in the international economy. New York: Verso.

Needleman, R. 1998. Building relationships for the long haul: Union and community-based groups work-ing together to organize low-wage workers. In Organizing to win: New research on union strategies,

ed. K. Bronfenbrenner, S. Friedman, R. W. Hurd, R. A. Oswald, and R. L. Seeber, 7186. Ithaca, NY:

ILR Press.




25/26

Ness, I., and S. Eimer, eds. 2001. Central labor councils and the revival of American unionism. Armonk,

New York: ME Sharpe.

Nissen, B. 2004. The effectiveness and limits of laborcommunity coalitions: Evidence from south

Florida.Labor Studies Journal 29 (1): 6789.Pocock, B. 2003 The work life collision. Anandale: Federation Press.

Rainnie, A., and G. Drummond. 2005. The organizers tale (of three barbies): Home grown community

unionism in a less favored region. Paper presented to AIRAANZ conference, University of Sydney,

Sydney. February.

Representative, Western Suburbs Unions and Community Coalition. 2005. Personal interview by author.

August 15.

Robinson, I. 2000. Neoliberal restructuring and U.S. unions: Toward social movement unionism? Critical

Sociology 26 (1/2): 10938.

Rudy, P. 2004. Justice for janitors, not compensation for custodians. InRebuilding labor: Organizing

and organizers in the new labor movement, ed. Ruth Milkman and Kim Voss, 13349. Ithaca, NY: ILR

Press.

Sadler, D. 2004. Trade unions, coalitions, and communities: Australias Construction, Forestry, Mining

and Energy Union the international stakeholder campaign against Rio Tinto. Geoforum 35:3546.

Schenk, C. 2003. Social movement unionism: Beyond the organizing model. In Trade unions in renewal:

A comparative study, ed. Peter Fairbrother and Charlotte Yates, 24459. London: Routledge.

Stirling, J. 2004. Organizing communities and the renewal of trade unions. Paper presented to Miners

Strike 20 Years On conference, University of Northumbria, Newcastle.

Taksa, L. 2000. Like a bicycle, forever teetering between individualism and collectivism: Considering

community in relations to labor history.Labor History 78:732.

Tattersall, A. 2005. There is power in coalition: A framework for assessing how and when unioncom-

munity coalitions are effective and enhance union power.Labor and Industry 16 (2): 97112.. 2006. Bringing the community in: Possibilities for public sector union success through commu-

nity unionism. International Journal of Human Resource Development and Management6 (2/3/4):

18699.

Turner, Lowell. 2006. Globalization and the logic of participation: Unions and the politics of coalition

building.Journal of Industrial Relations 48 (1): 8397.

Union official, TCFUA. 2005. Personal interview by author. August 15.

Upchurch, M., A. Mathers, and G. Taylor. 2004. New strategies of UK unions. Mimeo, University of West

of England.

Voss, K., and R. Sherman. 2003. You just cant do it automatically: The transition to social movement

unionism in the United States. In Trade unions in renewal: A comparative study, ed. Peter Fairbrother

and Charlotte Yates, 5177. London: Routledge.Waterman, P. 2001. Globalization, social movements, and the new internationalisms. London:

Continuum.

Wills, J. 2001. Community unionism and trade union renewal in the UK. Transactions of the Institute of

British Geographers 26:46583.

Wills, J., and M. Simms. 2004. Building reciprocal community unionism in the UK. Capital & Class

82:5984.

Wishart, J. 1992. The challenge for unions: Workers versus the New Right. Sydney: Left Book Shop Co-

operative.

Yates, C. 2003. The revival of industrial unionism in Canada: The extension and adoption of industrial

practices to the new economy. In Trade unions in renewal: A comparative study, ed. Peter Fairbrother

and Charlotte Yates. London: Routledge.




26/26

Sandra Cockfield, PhD, is a lecturer in the Department of Management, Monash University, Australia.

Her research interests include social movement unionism, union renewal strategies, and the regulation of

workplace industrial relations.

Marjorie Jerrard, PhD, is a senior lecturer in the Department of Management, Monash University. Her

research interests are industrial relations and HRM issues in the meat processing industry, trade union

strategy, and diversity management and trade unions.

Donna Buttigieg is an associate professor in the School of Business and EconomicsGippsland, Monash

University. Her research interests are union and organisational commitment; union participation and

turnover; absenteeism and turnover; HRM and performance; and issues affecting vulnerable workers

(ageing workers, women, bullying, homeworkers).

Al Rainnie is professor and director of Research at the Centre for Labour Market Studies at LeicesterUniversity, UK. Al has researched and written widely in the fields of globalization, work, employment,

regional development, and trade union organization. He has published and co-edited books on work and

industrial relations in small firms, regional and employment restructuring in Central Europe, public sec-

tor restructuring, and community unionism. Current research interests include work, space and place,

social movement unionism, as well as trade unionism and community engagement.


community unionism and union renewal- building linkages between unions and community in victoria,...

Documents