DECLINING UNION DENSITY IN CANADA:
REASONS AND STRATEGIES FOR RENEWAL
by

Michelle Manveer Kaur Dhami
B.Ed., University ofNorthem British Columbia, 2007
B.A., University ofNorthem British Columbia, 2005

PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
May 2013
© Michelle Man veer Kaur Dhami, 2013

UNIVERSITY of NORTHERN
BRITISH COLuMBIA

UBRARY
Prince George, B.C.

ABSTRACT

Union density represents the number of private and public sector unionized
workers in Canada. Currently, one in three Canadians is a member of union, though the
rate of density has declined in recent years. A union is an organization that engages in
collective bargaining with its employer to establish working conditions, wages, benefits,
etc. In order to understand the varying opinions about unions, it is necessary to assess
unions from a variety of perspectives. The five chosen perspectives are the viewpoints of
society, an employer, an employee, a union, and a unionized worker.

To assess the

declining rate of union density, four major reasons for decline were identified. Proposed
revitalization strategies are aimed at mitigating the reasons for decline, propositioning
ways to reverse the decline.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract. ... . ..... . . .. . ..... .. ........ . ................. . ... .... .. . . . . . ...... . ... ... .... ... .. ... ... ... . ..... ... ... ii
Table ofContents ...... ... .............. . . . ........ .. ............. .. .. ............. . ......... . ....... . ........ iii
List of Figures ... .. ............ . . ...... ....................... .. .. .. ..................................... .. .. .... v
Acknowledgements . ........ ............ ... ...... ... . ......... . . .................. .. ............ . . .. . . ... ..... vi
Chapter One - Introduction
Section 1.1 Purpose & Objective of Project .. ........ .. .... .. ...... ................ ...... .. .. .... 1
Section 1.2 Decline and Revitalize .. . ... .. . ............... ..... . ...... .. ........... ..... .......... 2
Section 1.3 Background to Canadian Unionism .................................... .. ........... 3
Section 1.4 Canadian Union Density ...................... .......... .................. .... .... ... 5
Section 1.5 What do Unions Do? .................... .. ...... .. .................................................. ....... 8
Chapter Two -Perspectives
Section 2.1 Society' s Perspective ................ . .......... .. . . .......... .. . . .............. . ... .. 11
Section 2.2 Employer' s Perspective .............................. .... .... . ......... .. ........... .14
Section 2.3 Employee ' s Perspective ... . ..... .. ..... .. .... . ... . .. . ... .... . .... . . . ... . . .. ..... ..... 15
Section 2.4 Union ' s Perspective . ............. . ...... ... . ... ... .... ..... .. ............. ..... .... .. 17
Section 2.5 Unionized Worker' s Perspective .. .... .. . .. .. .... ... . . . ....... ..................... 20
Chapter Three- Reasons for Decline
Section 2.1 Reasons for Decline .... . ..... . .... . .... ... . .. . ..... .. .... .. ...................... ..... 23
Section 2.2 Reasons for Decline #1- Growth in Nonunion Areas & Globalization ...... 24
Section 2.3 Reasons for Decline #2- Government/Employer Opposition .................. 25
Section 2.4 Reasons for Decline #3- Changing Economics ......... . ....... . ...... . .. . ..... 28
Section 2.5 Reasons for Decline #4- Societal Shifts ...................... .. .. ................. 30
Section 2.6 Reasons for Decline- A U.S . Example .... . . . ....... . ..... .. . .................... 32
Chapter 4- Revitalization Strategies
Section 4.1 Defining Revivalism .............. .. ....... .. . .. . . ..... .. .. . .. ........ . . .. . ........... 37
Section 4.2 Pursuit of Union Revivalism ....... . . .... ... . . .. . . ...... ..... ....... . ....... .. . ..... 37
Section 4.3 Revitalization Strategy #1 : Expansion into Union and Nonunion Zone ....... 39
Section 4.4 Revitalization Strategy #2: Extension of Relevance to Employer ............ .44
Section 4.5 Revitalization Strategy #3: Meaningful Policy Change .... . .... ...... . . . ...... .45
Section 4.6 Revitalization Strategy #4 : Broaden Appeal .. .................. ........ .... ..... .48
iii

Section 4. 7 Strong, Healthy Unions for the 21 st Century .............. .. ...... .. ............... 52
Chapter 5- Conclusion ...................................................................................... 57
Bibliography ... ..... ................................ ... .... . .................... .... ...... ...... .. .... .... . .... 59

iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Unionization in Canada, 1977 - 2011 ........... .......... .. . . .. . .............. . ................. 6
Figure 2: Unionization by Province, 2011.. ......... ... .......... ..... . .. . ... ... .. ........................ . 8
Figure 3: Union and Nonunion Zones . . .... .. ...................... . .. ... .. ...... . ... .................... .40

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am deeply indebted to many individuals without whom the completion of this program
would not have been possible. Without the support of my family and grandparents, especially
my Nana and Nani , there would not have been the inspiration to strive for further learning.
Without my cohort, there would not have been laughs and social times that helped fuel the
cohesiveness of the group. Without the professors in the program, there would not have been the
exposure to new ideas. Without Rick Tallman, there would not have been a paper with structure
and meaning, and it would have failed to become what I had envisioned. Without my friends and
mentors, there would not have been passion and positive inspiration to draw from. I am truly
grateful to UNBC for giving me years of educational opportunities and above all friendships and
relationships for a lifetime. I would also like to thank Alex Ng and Fiona MacPhail for providing
feedback and suggestions on how to improve my project for greater relevance and meaning to
me.

vi

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Section 1.1 Purpose & Objective of Project
The purpose of this project is to explore the reasons for the decline of unions and their
decreasing density within Canada; density is defined as the number or percentage of private and
public sector unionized workers, compared to total workers. Unions are organized groups of
workers who negotiate the terms of their working conditions with their employer through
collective agreement. This research is of significance because one in three Canadians belong to a
union, and unions affect all Canadian workers and influence nonunionized workplaces.
A major objective is to explore whether the decline will continue or whether a reversal is
possible. The major informing research questions are: what has Jed to the decline of unions and
can unions increase density? The selection of the research questions stems from an interest in
examining short-term and long-term trends in Canadian industrial relations and the social impact
of unions.

There are five major perspectives from which to view unions: society's perspective,

the employer's perspective, the employee's perspective, the union 's perspective, and the
unionized worker's perspective. In addition to examining the five different perspectives, this
project will explore the reasons for decline. Comparison to the United States was made due to
the similar collective bargaining systems, economy, and industrial relations; the strong influence
the U.S. has had on the Canadian system also helps to justify its comparison.
Renewal strategies that address the reasons for decline will be offered, in an attempt to
solve the major research questions posed for this project. Methodologically, this project has
relied on a literature review from a variety of sources. An examination of relevant literature
suggests that there are a number of renewal strategies which could lead to increased union density
in Canada.
1

Section 1.2 Decline and Revitalize
During a Labour Day parade on September 6, 1960, John F. Kennedy gave a speech to a
crowd of workers about the importance of unions. He said:
"Our labor unions are not narrow, self-seeking groups. They have raised wages,
shortened hours and provided supplemental benefits. Through collective
bargaining

and

grievance

procedures,

they

have

brought justice

and

democracy to the shop floor ... those who would cripple collective bargaining
or prevent organization of the unorganized do a disservice to the cause of
democracy."
Unions have deep historical and social roots in the previous two centuries, but with
declining density in most member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), the future of unions is uncertain. Camfield (2006) states that it is widely
accepted that unions in advanced capitalist countries have suffered from declining density. He
states union renewal is not an ' unambiguous notion' and it is also uncontroversial to suggest that
unions must reform to regain influence. The major question that arises from this growing trend is
whether unions will become a part of our historical and social past, or whether it is possible for
unions to increase in union density.
To understand the role of unions it is necessary to examine the differing viewpoints about
unions and in this project five different perspectives are presented. The purpose of using five
different perspectives is to provide many lenses for comparisons, as well as to highlight that
unions are not viewed as a unified institution, but there are many viewpoints. The perspectives
are followed by an analysis of the major reasons for the decline of unions, and lastly, renewal
strategies are offered.
An analysis of relevant literature highlighted four major reasons for the decline of unions:
2

the growth of employment in traditionally nonunion areas, employer opposition to unionization,
changing economic policies, and societal shifts. The renewal strategies address the reasons for
decline, offering ways to overcome the challenges associated with each reason for decline. Based
on the major reasons for decline, four main revitalization strategies are suggested : expansion into
non-traditional union areas, extension of relevance to the employer, implementation of
meaningful policy change, and broaden appeal to be more responsive to members' needs. Prior
to looking at the perspectives, it is important to gain an understanding of the union movement
and how it has progressed in Canada.

Section 1.3 Background to Canadian Unionism
Providing a collective voice to workers, unions have shaped labour laws and practices
throughout the modern world. In a discussion about the gains of the Canadian labour movement,
Political Scientist Marc Crawford groups the gains made by the Canadian labour movement into
three categories: wages and benefits for workers, employment standards (these include health and
safety and human rights in the workplace), and broader political activism, which includes
advocacy for minimum wages and health care benefits for all (personal communication, January
17, 2013).
Canada's first "Dominion Statistician," R.H. Coats (1923) reported that Canada' s union
history began with "labour circles" in Lower Canada, and then printers and shoemakers
organizing in Montreal and Toronto during the 1830s and 1840s.

Coats (1923) writes that the

main characteristics of the Canadian labour movement were defined by two influences, beginning
in 1869 when the International Typographical Union moved into Canada from the United States,
and secondly from British legislative influences. The Trades and Labour Congress of Canada
became a permanent national institution in 1886, and most of the craft unions were affiliates of

3

union headquarters in the United States.

Despite most unions being heavily influenced by

American and British immigrants, Canadian trade unions, associations, and organizations were
springing up around the country and engaging in active workplace engagement.

Coats (1923)

points out the growing political power of unions was due to their ability to elect labour politicians
federally and provincially, and establish provincial labour parties. Canadian trade unionism was
weaker than unionism in Britain and the United States but both heavily influenced it. British
political ties and the United States' economic position shaped the Canadian union movement
(Coats, 1923).
In the late 19th century, the labour movement made recognizable gams.

In 1872,

following the Toronto printers' strike, John A. MacDonald introduced the Trade Unions Act,
which stated that unions were not to be regarded as illegal conspiracies. The printers ' strike,
known as the "Nine Hour Movement," began in Hamilton, Ontario and moved to Toronto,
Ontario with workers fighting for a shorter workweek.

Labour Day was officially adopted as a

national statutory holiday in 1894, growing out of the annual celebrations to honour the Nine
Hour Movement. The Royal Commission on the Relations of Labour and Capital (1887) upheld
labour organizations as a form of association in the face of the industrial changes Canada was
facing, as more and more Canadians moved into urban areas for work but faced poor financial
circumstances and working conditions.
Following World War I, massive unemployment and inflation led to the Winnipeg
General Strike (1919) and the formation of One Big Union, which eventually became a part of
the Canadian Labour of Congress. With rampant unemployment during the Great Depression,
workers pressed for measures such as employment insurance, and many strikes took place in the
workplace and led to the formation of the Canadian Labour of Congress.

4

Following World War II, improvements were seen m wages, work hours, grievance
procedures, and vacation pay. In 1946, following a strike between the Canadian Autoworkers
Union and the Ford Motor Company, Supreme Court Justice Rand ruled that employers would
deduct union dues from employees and provide them to the union; the Rand Formula secured the
financial future of unions (Csiernik, 2009). Industrial relations in the United States continued to
influence the Canadian movement in the 19th and 20th centuries, however the Canadian system
would sustain growth in density compared to the United States throughout the 21 st century.

Section 1.4 Canadian Union Density
Currently, roughly one in three Canadians is a member of a public or private sector union
despite a downward fluctuation in union density in the last thirty years (Canada, 2012). Or, as
Kuhn (1998) states, one in three Canadians worker's wages and working conditions are
determined through collective bargaining. Statistics show that Canada's unionized workforce has
actually grown in recent years, currently, with more than 4.5 million unionized workers, up more
than 800,000 since 1997 (Canada, 20 12). However, the non unionized workforce has grown by
2.5 million workers in the same period, surpassing union growth. Figure 1 shows the amount of
overall unionization in Canada, distinguishing unionized and nonunionized workers.

5

Figure 1: Overall unionization in Canada, 1977 - 20 II

Overall Unionization
22000
20000
18000
'""'
0
16000
0
0
14000
' - ' 12000
r.. 10000
~
8000
.!1::
r..
0
6000
~
4000
2000
0
<I)

·=

-

- - - -

--------

-

~

--

..-.

-

--

<I)

----

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

199719981999 2000 20012002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
~ Unionized

- - - Non-unionized

(Source: How Canadian Unions are Changing, 2012)
Unionized workers in Canada are highly concentrated m a small number of unions.
Nearly 50% of national and international unionized Canadian workers belong to nine unions,
each covering at least 100,000 workers. The five largest Canadian unions are: the Canadian
Union of Public Employees (611 ,827 workers), the National Union of Public and General
Employees (340,000 workers), the United Food and Commercial Workers Canada (245,327
workers), the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial
and Service Workers International Union (230,700 workers), and the Public Service Alliance of
Canada (192, 080 workers); 162 unions have fewer than 10,000 members and represent 8% of
workers, with an average size of 2,160 workers (Canada, 20 12).
In 1997, the Canadian unionization rate was 33.7% and in 2011 it was 31.2%. In 2011,
women held 51.7% of unionized jobs.

"The public sector has added more than 650,000

unionized workers, a 33% increase over the past decade and a half. Meanwhile, private sector
union growth has flat lined, growing by less than 70,000 workers (4%). While the public sector
6

has maintained its current rate of unionization (74% of workers are unionized), the private
sector's rate has dropped from 21 % in 1997 to 17% in 2011. " The higher rate of public sector
unionization is perhaps a symptom of less opposition to unionization in the public sector,
compared to the private sector and due to the addition of health-care sector jobs ("How Canadian
Unions," 20 12).
Up until 1997, manufacturing accounted for the largest unionized sector in Canada.
However, in the last fifteen years, the manufacturing industry has lost 250,000 jobs.

The

healthcare sector has added the greatest number of jobs with 660,000 and the vast majority of
them are unionized. "Workers over the age of forty-five are most likely to be unionized, but that
figure has dropped by more than 7% since 1997. Workers under the age of twenty-five lag well
behind, but their demographics ' unionization rates have actually risen since 1997" ("How
Canadian Unions," 20 12). Figure 2 shows unionization rates by province. "More than 40% of
Quebec workers were unionized in 1997, the highest rate of any province and almost 7% higher
than the national average. Alberta was, and remains, the least unionized province. In British
Columbia, unionization levels dropped by almost 6% in B.C. in the past fifteen years, while
rising in some Atlantic provinces" ("How Canadian Unions," 2012).

7

Figure 2: Unionization by Province

Unionization by Province
50
40

30
20

10
0
Que.

N.L.

Man.

B.C.

Sask.

National

N.S.

N.B.

Ont.

P.E.I.

Alta.

• 1997 • 2011

(Source: How Canadian Unions are Changing, 20 12)

Section 1.5 What do Unions Do?
The 1984 book by Freeman and Medoff, What do Unions Do, was considered to be
groundbreaking in the areas of labour economics and industrial relations. The authors looked at
unions' effects on productivity, growth, profits, and investment while acknowledging variation
among labour environments and degree of competition (Hirsch, 2004). Hirsch (2004) suggests
that the authors' research is still relevant today despite its limitations, since it is still difficult to
quantify what unions do because of the differences between the public and private sector, and
variation among industries.

Freeman and Medoffs work has been widely dissected and

contested, however most scholars agree that Freeman and Medoff asked the following defining
question: "how can we encourage value-enhancing workplace arrangements that facilitate voice

among workers, while constraining unions' monopoly face?" If unions operate with a monopoly
face, it is important to question whether they add value to a workplace.

8

The precursor to What do Unions Do , Freeman and Medoffs (1979) article "The Two
Faces of Unions," explained what is implied by the union ' s monopoly face.

In their discussion

of unions, Freeman and Medoff, presented the idea ofthe "two faces ofunions." The first face is
the monopoly view, which presumes that unions increase inefficiencies and inequality by raising
wages solely for their members. The second face is the "collective voice/institutional response
view," which states unions provide their members with collective voice, affecting the working
relationship positively, resulting in increased productivity and equality in the workplace. The
monopoly view sees unions as impediments because unions drive up wages for employers, which
can actually lead to fewer positions. Workplace disruptions such as strikes can interfere with
economic functions and contracts can be limiting. However, the authors found that unionized
workplaces suffered from less turnover because there is less preoccupation with working
conditions or rivalry among employees.
Freeman and Medoffs paper was published during the 1970s, a time when anti-union
sentiment was high, and most union coverage in the media was becoming increasingly vitriolic
(Western & Rosenfeld, 2011 ). The authors do not reject the monopolistic view or dispute that
unions raise wages for their members, because in general , unionized members typically enjoy
greater benefits than nonunionized workers (Freeman & Medoff, 1979). However, it is the type of
relationship between employees and employers that most effects workplace productivity.
According to Freeman and Medoff, in an employers ' relationship with a union and its unionized
workers there are two possible reactions that employers can have to collective bargaining, either a
positive reaction or a negative one. By reacting positively, employers can raise productivity
because management and employees can work together to find mutual solutions due to greater
communication.

A negative reaction can adversely affect productivity because of possible

worker dissatisfaction if workers' needs are not met. The research did not provide a strong link
9

between unionism and increases or decreases in productivity, as evidence suggested increases and
decreases in productivity were found in both unionized and nonunionized workplaces. Freeman
and Medoff (1984) conclude by suggesting that unions certainly have parts of both views; the
monopoly view is exhibited in the fact that most benefits are experienced by unionized workers
and the voice view can lead to operating inflexibility and higher costs. Despite the negative
effects, Freeman and Medoff suggest that the positive results outweigh the negative effects.
Unions may be favoured as one ofthe best vehicles to influence workplace conditions due
to their collectivized nature, and currently they are one of the best-equipped institutions that serve
the collective needs of all workers. They appear to be, as Freeman (1981) suggests, one of the
existing players that has the capacity to effect changes in industrial relations ; however, Freeman
does suggest that most significant workplace reforms were the products of great social disruption.
Perhaps unions can be instrumental in addressing the needs of workers. They will need greater
social appeal to inspire unionized and nonunionized workers, because it was out of social
disruption that the right to association was granted in an effort to achieve industrial peace
following workplace unrest and strikes in the 1930s. By identifying unions as the best vehicle to
increase union density, it is important to assess whether this is a contentious or popular notion.
The following chapter will present the five different perspectives, which will help to identify a
broader opinion of unions.

10

Chapter 2
FIVE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES
Unions evoke reactions for individuals based on their own prior experiences with unions,
or perhaps based on their current employment position. To understand the differing opinions and
views on unions it is useful to assess them from various perspectives; this helps to provide an
understanding of the complexities of unions by assessing the many, often conflicting viewpoints.
The following chapter looks at unions from five different perspectives beginning with a broad
societal perspective, followed by an employer' s perspective, an employee' s perspective, a union
perspective, and lastly a unionized worker' s perspective.

Section 2.1 Society's Perspective
It is necessary to look at unions from a societal perspective, because unions not only
affect unionized workers, but have implications for all citizens. Fick (2009) states unions are
assessed by how they impact workers, trade unions, and employers, but suggests that the
influence of unions is not restricted to the workplace because unions impact society by
contributing to the creation and maintenance of democratic societies (Fick, 2009). Historically,
authoritarian regimes, such as the fascist regimes of Italy, Spain, and Germany, viewed unions as
a challenge to power and took steps to limit their power or bring them into government (Fick,
2009).

Today, citizens in countries such as China and Sudan face challenges to collective

bargaining and association, and unions are prohibited in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
Emirates (Fick, 2009), which are all countries with limited democratic functions. Fick (2009)
cites examples in Latin America and Spain to demonstrate that union movements can provide
pro-democratic dialogue and lead to the destabilization of authoritarian regimes.
Fick (2009) points to perhaps one of the greatest contributions of unions, which is that they

11

provide a voice for all workers.

The 'democratization effect of unions,' has justified their

existence as they have helped to bring about laws in the workplace, regulating conditions and
limiting the way management can exercise its authority, which extends security, dignity, fairness,
and justice to all workers (Godard & Frege, 2013). Unions are able to exert this type of influence
because they have skill sets that other organizations lack.

Though some non-governmental

organizations or voluntary associations have some of the following characteristics, it is unions
that possess all

five : democratic representation, demographic representation, financial

independence, breadth of concerns, and placement within society (Fick, 2009).

These

characteristics allow unions to be representative of societal concerns and in a position to bring
about change for all citizens, including effecting labour laws.
Coiquaud (as cited in Brunelle, Hayden, & Murray, 201I) assesses the role Canadian
courts have played in assessing laws which have attempted to limit unionization.

Canadian

courts have upheld rights to collective bargaining and the constitutional guarantee of freedom of
association.

Many laws have been subjected to revision after they have been found to be

unconstitutional. Courts are used to support legislation which ensures employers are abiding by
their legal duties, and also to uphold rights to bargain working conditions, for rights, and
prOVISIOnS.
There are four tools that have been influenced by unions and have been used to improve
working conditions: collective bargaining, substantive rights, procedural rights, and social
security (Pocock, 20 II) .

Collective bargaining ensures some voice in influencing working

conditions, and includes a union ' s ability to withdraw services, which can put increased pressure
on employers.

Substantive rights, such as minimum wage, leave, and working hours have all

been established as standards through legislation. Each of the these tools came from collective
organizations, or political partnerships and public campaigning (Pocock, 20II).

12

Procedural

rights are designed to "contest managerial prerogative" and promote collective organization.
They offer protection from unsafe or unhealthy work, rights to flexible working conditions or
consultation, and rights to contest discrimination, sexual harassment or unfair dismissal (Pocock,
2011). Social security provisions allow employees to "decommodify" themselves and access
services without an employer, such as workers ' compensation, disability support, paid parental
leave and access to education and health services (Pocock, 2011 ). Each of these tools have been
applied to make improvements for all workers. In addition, unions also help to maintain wage
equality by influencing the wages of all workers. There is also a connection to maintaining a
strong middle class, as will be demonstrated in Chapter 3 by referring to the United States
example and the correlation between the decline of unionization and the decline of the middle
class.
To further illustrate the growing inequality between CEO 's compensation and that of an
average worker' s, Fick (2009) provides comparison of CEO wages and the average worker.
During the 1950s to 1970s, CEO compensation remained relatively stable and began a gradual
increase from the 1970s to the 1980s, followed by a steep increase thereafter. Between 1990 and
2004, the average worker' s pay increased 4.5% while the average CEO ' s pay increased 319.2%
(Fick, 2009). The divide and stagnation of worker' s wages continues and unions are in a position
to be the collective voice to bring attention to the issue. Though unions can bring awareness to
wage stagnation which has effected the average worker' s wages, from the employer' s
perspective, union wage demands can often be onerous and effect the long-term viability of an
organization.

13

Section 2.2 Employer's Perspective
The employer is classified broadly to include management, private sector employers, and
public sector employers such as the government.

A major concern for an employer in a

unionized environment is whether or not the presence of a union effects operations, or in the
private sector, the effect that a union can have on the financial performance of a firm. Unionized
workers in Canada and the United States make 15% more than nonunionized workers in their
respective countries by engaging in bargaining with their employer; however there appears to be
a greater reluctance to invest in unionized workplaces due to the higher wages (Kuhn, 1988).
This reluctance to invest could affect the long-term viability of an organization and have greater
impact on the unionized workforce in reduced hours and reduced positions.
Odgers and Betts (1997) looked at the level of industry unionization and industry
investment, specifically of 18 industries m manufacturing, finding strong evidence that the
presence of labour unions in an industry will reduce the level of investment to below that of a
similar nonunionized firm because of a reduced incentive to invest. They found that industries
with average unionization experienced an 18-25% reduction in investment, and reduction in net
investment of 66-74% in comparison to a relative nonunion industry (Odgers & Betts, 1997). In
addition, they also found that when the threat of unionization exists and wages are increased to
discourage the process, those companies suffer from a lack of capital for investment because
unions are viewed as a threat to profitability and lead to inflexibility. Previous studies have also
found unions to have a negative impact on profits, which leads to an inability to finance
investment internally and leads to lower returns on capital.

Employers also experience less

flexibility with their workforce in a unionized environment.
Attention is often drawn to the high wages, benefits, and pension programs of unionized
workers; in the public sector these provisions are considered to be at the expense of taxpayers,

14

especially when private sector wages stagnate. McGinnis and Schanzenback (20 10) argue that
during the industrial age, unions were necessary checks against the exploitative powers of private
companies when workers were less educated and skilled; provisions like collective bargaining
were granted to balance the power between employee and employer. The authors suggest that it
is no longer about the checks to power because unions have formed themselves into interest
groups, which are no different than lobbyists. Employers may find themselves with reduced
flexibility because ofthe concentration and organization of workers.
McGinnis and Schanzenback (20 10) suggest that private sector unions are regulated by
the free market and an individual company's ability to raise capital; in the public sector, the
funding for unions comes from taxes. The union wage premium relates to the amount of cash
compensation. McGinnis and Schanzenback (20 10) suggest that this premium is higher than it
appears because of the intangible benefits of job security, early retirements, and pension plans.
From an employer's perspective, unions can interfere with the level of investment in a particular
industry and drive up wages. The wage premium public sector unionized workers receive draws
attention because taxation funds these premiums, which can influence public opinion. The next
section will assess how public support for unions is formed , from the perspective of an employee.

Section 2.3 Employee's Perspective
Periods of economic downturn and uncertainty may lead to greater public support for
unions. Following the recession of the early 1980s, which Jed to periods of high unemployment
and job instability, Lowe and Krahn (1989) studied public support and attitudes towards unions
in Edmonton and Winnipeg in 1981. Because periods of recession can lead to greater layoffs,
concession bargaining, and in general, pose a challenge to union power due to perceived
ineffectiveness in raising wages and conditions from members, they wanted to assess

15

respondents ' support. Lowe and Krahn (1989) revisited the 1981 results in 1987 to determine
whether economic conditions affect perception of the role of unions, whether intercity differences
were diminished due to economic activity, and whether difficult economic times influence
nonunion employees decision to join a union.
The 1981 data had found higher support for a unions ' ability to improve wages and job
security in Winnipeg versus in Edmonton. Lowe and Krahn (1997) found there was reversal of
the 1981 results; in 1987, a higher proportion of Edmontonians agreed unions protected wages
and working conditions, and a higher portion of respondents expressed they would join a union if
one were available. Explanations provided for the higher support in Edmonton during the second
survey, are greater economic downturn and higher unemployment, and industrial disputes (Lowe
& Krahn, 1997).

The data from Edmonton and Winnipeg demonstrates that economic activity

can affect support for unions .
The authors also included results from Gallup Polls on attitudes towards unions. The
1981 survey had found that 40% of respondents answered that they would join a union if one
existed in their workplace (Lowe & Krahn, 1997). In 1986, Canadian labour unions received the
lowest public confidence score of all institutions, these include institutions such as multinational
corporations, the tobacco industry, and oil companies, even though the differences were not
pronounced (Lowe & Krahn, 1997). The same research found that government was seen as the
main player to address working conditions, not unions.
Gallup Poll surveys from 1950-1958 found that when asking whether unions were "bad,"
12 to 20% of respondents agreed while 60 to 69% responded "good;" when asked the same
question between 1976-1982, 30 to 42% answered bad while 42 to 54% answered good (Lowe &
Krahn, 1997). Between 1936 and 1985, when asked the following question: "do you approve or
disapprove of labour unions," the majority responded they approved, adding that unions help to

16

improve wages and working conditions, and provide a voice to big corporations. A 1997 Gallup
Poll found Canadian support of unions to be 57%, with a 39% disapproval rating (Lowe &
Krahn, 1997). While periods of economic downturn can influence public support for unions,
unions need to fulfill a broader role for their members and for their employers.

Section 2.4 Union's Perspective
From a union ' s perspective, a unionized workplace provides greater wages and benefits.
Long and Shields (2009) looked at 250 Canadian firms in 2000 and 2004 to determine how
unions effect compensation. Their research findings suggest that higher unionization results in a
larger proportion of indirect pay, or employee benefits.

They cite empirical evidence from

Canada to suggest that unionized employees ' indirect pay component of compensation is 45%
higher than nonunionized members. In the United States it adds 20-30% to employee benefits
and amounts to compensation which is 10% higher. Unionized workers have higher indirect pay
because pay is often one of the bargaining focuses, as unions tend to favour base pay because it is
easier to monitor than performance pay, and little differentiation between members and benefits
is preferred. However, the 2004 results show that increased benefits are at the expense of base
pay because firms with more unionization devoted a larger proportion of total compensation to
indirect pay (Long & Shields, 2009).
The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) refers to the "union advantage" which is illustrated
in its study of twenty-nine Canadian communities.

The findings show that communities with

higher rates of unionism enjoy higher levels of income and greater services and small businesses.
High unionization rates lead to higher wages, greater benefits, and pension plans for workers. On
average, unionized workers make $5.11 more than non unionized workers and women with
unionized jobs make $7.94 more than their counterparts, nonunionized women.

17

In addition,

88.5% of unionized workers received non-wage benefits like drug, v1s1on, and dental plans,
compared to 68.6% of nonunionized workers. Ninety-two percent of large unionized workplaces
(with 500 or more employees) had pension plans, compared to 68.4% of nonunionized
workplaces of similar size. In small, unionized workplaces (with less than twenty employees),
4 7.6% offered health-related benefit plans and 34.2% had pension plans. In contrast, 31.1% of
similar sized nonunionized workplaces had health-related benefit plans and 12.5% had pension
plans for their workers (CLC , 20 13). The union advantage clearly helps to bring gains and
benefits to its membership and these gains often extend to all workers through fringe benefits.
From a union perspective, few organizations have the capacity to influence workplace
conditions and standards as unions do.

Given declining union density in the United States,

Godard and Frege (2013) were interested in determining what types of organizations were
fulfilling the former role of unions.

The authors found that identity-based associations and

employer created alternative, nonunion systems of representation have been filling the void,
despite management established labour organizations being illegal under the Wagner Act in the
United States (Godard & Frege, 2013 ). In order to determine the efficacy of these organizations,
telephone interviews were conducted with 1,000 members who were members of a umon,
management-established system, or an independent nonunion association.
The surveys were based on participants' perception, but the authors conclude that the newly
created alternatives are not fulfilling the former roles of unions. The two main conclusions are,
unions are an important way to manage workplace authority relations, and second, management
created associations do not extend workplace rights and are often a way to forestall unions
(Godard & Frege, 2013).

Identity-based associations, or employer and management created

nonunion systems of representation do not compare favourably.

These organizations lack

independence from their employer and do not have the capacity to represent union members

18

through democratically elected leaders.
Clark, Gray, and Solomon (1996) explore the relationship between Canadian unions and
their employees, suggesting that unions as employers, or employer-unions, are only as effective
as their employees. Union leaders are often selected based on their political skills, and it is not
uncommon for leaders to draw on these skills, rather than their personnel and administrative
skills (Clark et al., 1996). They suggest that employer-unions recruit from their union members,
but they often lack the personnel and administrative experience needed; this affects the fairness,
equality, and transparency of the level of service delivered and is directly hypocritical with the
standards that unions often demand of their employers. Clark et al. ' s (1996) six-survey study of
30% of Canadian unions found that unions lack personnel and administrative policies related to
discipline and discharge, hiring, performance appraisal , and salary review. The results indicated
that less than 50% of unions had related personnel policies.

The authors suggest three

contributing factors: unions are primarily political organizations that use things like job
promotions and assignments as a means to reward loyalty or punish disloyalty, lack of personnel
policies centers operational control in the union leaders, and union leadership lacks
administrative ability.
Through social activism, labour unions have provided wellness services to union members,
however these benefits indirectly affect all Canadian workers, leading to greater well-being for
all Canadian employees (Csiernik, 2009). Partnerships with organizations like the United Way
also make it possible for the benefits of these services to be realized by unionized and
nonunionized workers. Nonunionized organizations have also adopted many of the services.
Examples of these services negotiated and implemented by unions include Employee Assistance
Programs that are independent of management, counseling, referral services, and substance abuse
programs (Csiernik, 2009).

Unions have also partnered with community organizations for

19

improvements to social housing, the prevention of violence against women, affirmative action for
First Nations and minorities, and human rights (Csiernik, 2009).

Section 2.5 Unionized Worker's Perspective
By becoming a member of a union, a union member agrees to the contract theory of union
constitution, which establishes a contractual relationship between the member, the union, and
every other member. The union is given the authority to deal with all internal matters except for
the judiciary responsibility of upholding contract law (Lynk, 2002). A union member is tied to
its union and members. It is assumed that a member makes this obligation in the hopes of
receiving greater work satisfaction and a guarantee of working conditions. Powdthavee (2011)
looked at whether unionized workers are happier than nonunionized workers and found that in
the first year of unionization, there is a positive and significant feeling of job satisfaction in both
males and females. This positive job satisfaction tends to decline over the years as the result of
bargaining efforts.
In addition to bargaining, which can have a negative effect on members ' perception of
their union, strikes can also produce the same result. Following a five month strike, Chaulk and
Brown (2008) conducted a survey of workers to assess organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, work climate satisfaction, management satisfaction, and union commitment. The
prime objective of the study was to assess the impact job action like strikes has, which can affect
all levels of the organization. Unions may experience less union commitment and involvement
from members, while workers may experience feelings of disenchantment, or frustration with
union and management. Chaulk and Brown (2008) found that following a strike, workers viewed
both management and union in a negative way. The author' s research revealed that workers who
have a negative experience during a strike may develop a negative view, which can alter their
20

view of their job, umon, manager, and workplace.

In addition to negative views, workers

experience "decreases in satisfaction and organizational commitment," which can lead to
decreased productivity and inefficiency, and ultimately higher turnover.

Chaulk and Brown

(2008) suggest that it may be more useful to measure pre-strike, during bargaining, and poststrike views.
The level of dissatisfaction following bargaining efforts and strikes, shows that union
members are not always satisfied or convinced of their union ' s efforts. Levesque and Murray
(2006) interested in the perspectives of former union members examined the reasons for
departure of 5,645 union members who belonged to a mix of public and private unions from blue
and white-collar professions. Levesque and Murray (2006) found that the biggest reason for
leaving was based on a belief of the union ' s inability to solve members ' problems or improving
working conditions. Waddington (as cited in Levesque & Murray, 2006) and Gahan (2012) both
looked at union member' s dissatisfaction with their unions because of the correlation between
union satisfaction and the level of worker commitment, loyalty, participation, and decision to
quit. Participation of union members is key to maintaining the democratic nature of unions, and
ensuring engagement. Waddington (as cited in Levesque & Murray, 2006) suggests that the key
to retention is to pursue strategies that enhance membership identification through new forms of
governance that increase representation and participation.
Because perceived union efficacy forms the strongest indicator of an individual ' s
willingness to join a union, Givan and Hipp (2012) looked at how union and nonunion members
viewed unions, how former members and those who were never members of unions, and different
groups perceived unions. They collected data from over 15,000 respondents from twenty-four
countries, finding that union members are more positive in their belief that unions can improve
working conditions and former union members hold more positive views of unions than those

21

who have never been unionized. Givan and Hipp (2012) found that woman tend to have a more
positive view of unions because of the belief that unions help to maintain job security. They add
that women may have better awareness of union benefits because they are more susceptible to
workplace discrimination. In addition to gender, skill level also effects unions perception, those
with low skill or education levels were less likely to view unions positively.
Some research has shown that nonunion members may have a higher rate of job satisfaction
compared to union members, but this may be due to higher expectations and desire for improved
working conditions; union members do have a more favourable view of unions than nonunion
members, despite lower job satisfaction, union members tend to have better working conditions
and more job security (Givan & Hipp, 2012). The studies also showed that those in supervisory
positions, those who feel they are easily replaceable in their organization, individuals who are
satisfied with their work, and those with good relationships with management do not believe
unions can improve or positively influence working conditions. In contrast, workers who have
good relationships with their colleagues, those who have physically demanding jobs or work in
dangerous conditions, or are single believe that unions can positively influence working
conditions (Givan & Hipp, 20 12).
The five different perspectives demonstrate that there is a broad range of attitudes and
opinions of unions, each influenced by a particular viewpoint, however at times, some overlap
exists.

Many social, political, and economic factors influence the perspectives.

Unions do

influence the working conditions of unionized and nonunionized workers, but from an
employer's perspective, there is a cost associated with a unionized environment. Not only have
social, political, and economic factors shaped perspectives, they also shape the reasons for
decline. The following chapter will highlight four major reasons for the decline of unions.

22

Chapter 3
DECLINING UNIONISM
Section 3.1 Reasons for Decline
North American unions have their roots in an industrial economy, however the traditional
structure of unions does not allow for worker's interests to be represented effectively in the
contemporary workplace (Brunelle et a!., 2011 ).

The contemporary workplace of the post-

industrial economy is one that is technologically advanced and increasingly globalized. As most
institutions, unions need to evolve to become progressive institutions that serve as an active
solution for all employees; in addition, unions need to be responsive. Though the nature of work
has changed, according to Brunelle et a!. (20 11 ), it is still important to promote and advance
democracy in the workplace to advocate for those who are excluded from current union coverage
and in vulnerable circumstances.

In addition, the authors suggest that this is of utmost

importance due to prevailing neoliberal ideology which advocates for the absence of union
principles (Brunelle et a!. , 2011 ).
In addition to a post-industrial economic shift, there are a number of other factors that
have significantly affected union density. Some of the factors are beyond the control of unions
and are a result of economic, political, and social shifts. There does appear to be some scholarly
consensus for factors, and this chapter will analyze the four most prominent ones: the growth of
employment in traditionally nonunion areas due to the effects of globalization, employer
opposition to unionization, changing economics, and societal shifts. Each reason for decline will
be followed with the identification of possible issues unions may be able to address or ways to
counter the reasons; however, more concrete revitalization strategies that address the reasons will
be provided in Chapter 4.

23

Section 3.2 Reasons for Decline #1- Growth in Nonunion Areas & Globalization

Haiven (2006) suggests that there are two primary reasons for the decline of unions.
First, he suggests that employment is growing in areas where unions are scarce and decreasing in
areas that have traditionally been unionized ; second, unionized jobs in manufacturing have
disappeared or shifted overseas, and mechanization has reduced the number of employees
required. Pocock (2011) affirms Haiven 's (2006) assertion, stating that the greatest job growth
has been in the service sector, which accounts for nearly 70% of all jobs today.
Like Haiven (2006), Schmitt and Mitukiewicz (20 12) found that a shift away from
industrial jobs, jobs typically with higher unionization, was attributable to efficiency in
manufacturing which led to greater productivity.

Technology increased productivity and

efficiency in industrial and manufacturing jobs, and it also increased the automation and offshoring of unions jobs (Schmitt & Mitukiewicz, 2012). Not only did technological advances and
decreases in manufacturing jobs lead to fewer union jobs, a job polarization effect was also seen.
The polarization led to jobs that either required less skill, face-to-face, manual tasks or jobs that
required more skill and the performance of abstract tasks, these jobs could not be automated or
off-shored (Schmitt & Mitukiewicz, 20 12).

The application of technological advances to

increase productivity and replacement of traditionally unionized jobs was made easier with
increased globalization.
In addition to the growth of jobs in nonunion areas, the globalization of the labour force
has also challenged unions ' ability to compete.

According to the International Labour

Organization, traditionally, the international community had accepted that labour is not a
commodity that can be negotiated for the lowest price or substandard working conditions.
However, Guille (2009) argues that the size of the global workforce, shift of manufacturing,
increased competition, and free trade agreements have caused labour to become a commodity.
24

Schmitt and Mitukiewicz (2012) add that union ' s competitive abilities are compromised due to
direct competition with low wage earners in other countries and 'heightened capital mobility' that
allows employers to move production, reducing the bargaining power of unions. Many countries
have experienced technological change and globalization. However, they have all had different
experiences and different effects to their unionization rates.
It is highly unlikely that jobs lost to oversees competitors will be regained. To improve
unions' ability to compete, and to mitigate losses in traditionally unionized areas, unions should
focus on the service sector, an area that is largely not unionized.

Due to increased global

competition and heightened capital mobility, unions will have a role to play in helping employers
remain competitive or enhance their competitiveness at the risk of losing more jobs. A strategy
to avoid labour becoming a commodity even further will be to bring attention to the low wages
and working conditions companies may be taking advantage of overseas and shifting focus to a
global workforce. Working with employers is one of the key ways to work together to find
mutually beneficial solutions. This may be difficult to achieve because the degree of government
and employer opposition has significantly affected declining union rates as well.

Section 3.3 Reason for Decline #2 - Government/Employer Opposition
As previously noted, the classification of employer includes private and public sector
employers, including the government. Employers can be a strong force of opposition to unions
due to many factors, such as reduced flexibility due to collective agreements and the higher costs
associated with unions. Haiven (2008) suggests governments are making it increasingly difficult
for employees to organize and bargain collectively, which results in employer' s taking advantage
of this. There are many recent examples in Canada of governments attempting to limit collective
bargaining rights and constitutional challenges to the Supreme Court of Canada, such as teacher's

25

job actions in British Columbia and Ontario which challenged government legislation. In 2007,
in Health Services and Support - Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association v. British

Columbia, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the right to bargain collectively was
constitutionally protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ' guarantee of freedom of
association, which reversed a 29-year decision. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled: "the right
to bargain collectively with an employer enhances the human dignity, liberty and autonomy of
workers by giving them the opportunity to influence the establishment of workplace rules and
thereby gain some control over a major aspect of their lives, namely their work" (as cited in
Tucker, 2008, p. 157). The recognition of the Charter right proved that workers should have the
ability to influence workplace conditions.

Furthermore, the court's decision recognized the

greater role collective bargaining has in society, stating that "collective bargaining also enhances
the Charter value of equality. One of the fundamental achievements of collective bargaining is to
palliate the historical inequality between employers and employees" (as cited in Tucker, 2008, p.
157).
Employers have the ability to influence workplace relations with unions in a positive or
negative way, depending on their approach to union relations. A 1995 survey of a representative
sampling conducted by Freeman, a Harvard University labour economist and Rogers of the
University of Wisconsin Law School, found that one in three respondents had a preference for
working in a unionized workforce, but would not vote to be unionized due to fear of
management's response. Freeman and Rogers (1995) find that the fear of management's
opposition towards unionizing can be enough to convince workers that they should forego
unionization. Sheer anti-union sentiment can be detrimental or affect willingness to unionize, but
outright opposition can have even greater effects.

26

Bentham (2002) looked at the impact of employer' s resistance to unionization in eight
Canadian jurisdictions, finding that employer resistance accounted for 80% opposition. Bentham
(2002) assessed research on the United States where nearl y every study found a negative link
between employer opposition to unionization, union growth, and employee decisions to unionize.
In fact, Bentham (2002) argues that employer resistance to unions has increased and public policy
has not gone far enough to protect employees from the impact of such sentiments, this is noted as
one of the primary contributors to the decline of organized labour in the United States. Bentham
uses two measures, the percentage of employees voting in favour of the union, and the percentage
of union election wins.
Using previous studies, Bentham (2002) outlines three main resistance variables: actions
that prevent or limit a union's ability to communicate with employees or with employees ' ability
to communicate amongst themselves, employer directed communication regarding the union
certification application, and the tightening of work rules or monitoring of employees.

Six

"dummy variables" were added: administrative challenges and delays such as postponements,
objections or appeals of board decisions, objection(s) to the bargaining unit that were granted,
objection(s) to the bargaining unit that were denied or partially denied, training managers to deal
with an organizing drive, hiring a lawyer or consultant, and whether unfair labour practice
charge(s) were filed against the employer. This opposition can take many forms , but Bentham
(2002) finds that United States employers engage in tactics quite different from Canada. She
suggests that employers in the United States engage in more obvious and direct resistance. Some
of the methods she highlights are training managers to deal with organizing campaigns, the
transfer or removal of activists, the issuance of threats, and the communication of anti-union
sentiment, to undermine the long-term worker solidarity.

27

According to Pozzebon and Thomason (1998), in the United States, managerial
opposition reduces union support during the certification processes. They analyzed Ontario and
Quebec to find whether or not there were similar trends to the United States where managerial
opposition is a prime factor in declining union density. The results found that Canadians engaged
less in similar activities, such as distributing anti-union literature, but this raises the question of
whether they can use similar tactics to reduce union density in Canada. Pozzebon and Thomason
(1998) conclude that similar tactics can be used but legal differences, such as the right to work
legislation in the United States cause dissimilarities.
In addition to the perception of employer or managerial opposition to unionization,
employers and management affect unionization through their faith in bargaining and interaction.
A union goal should be to engage in more meaningful communication which is for the better of
the entire organization.

According to R. Tallman, unions can help to combat employer and

government opposition to unions by acting as a solution to problems and challenges that arise in
the workplace; an extension of relevance to the employer would lead to Jess opposition (personal
communication, September 10, 20 12).

Section 3.4 Reasons for Decline #3 - Changing Economics
Tucker (2008) suggests that following World War II, liberal state policies modeled after the
Keynesian welfare regime were designed to promote employment, economic growth, and the
welfare of citizens with a commitment to union-based industrial relations through collective
bargaining.

However, this changed in the 1970s when employers and industrial capitalist

countries adopted policies that attempted to avoid collective bargaining.

With increasing

globalization, a shift to neo-liberalism led to the establishment of free trade agreements; the
agreements reduced governments ' ability to control capital as in the previous manner and led to a
28

greater need to be competitive with other countries. Through changes to labour and employment
laws, employers attempted to regain control at the expense of working conditions and job
security. At the same time, there were greater reductions in social spending and attacks on
collective bargaining rights and working conditions, but tax cuts for the wealthy (Tucker, 2008).
Employers began to demand more from their workforce, as the structure and conditions of work
began to change. Jobs were shifted to part-time, contract, or causal , which saved employers costs
like benefit expenses.

Employers attempted to control wages through layoffs, demands for

concessions, back-to-work legislation, privatization, contracting-out, and imposed collective
agreements (Camfield, 2006). Greater flexibility and control over working condition were sought
after due to the economic priorities of reducing costs.
Levesque and Murray (2006) suggest that decreasing umon density is attributable to
economic shifts due to increased globalization and the unyielding desire to achieve labour
flexibility by employers. Like Tucker (2008), Brown (2006) points to capitalism ' s preoccupation
with flexibility as a contributing factor to the decline in union density. Some of the effects of that
preoccupation are casual jobs which often have no benefit provisions such as sick leave, and an
increase in the number of low paying jobs. Since the 1970s, a rise in the neoliberal economic
policies pursued by many governments due to increased global competition resulted in increased
privatization and the growth of new industries. Neoliberal policy aimed to implement reforms by
reducing the role of government by allowing the marketplace to drive economic policies and
development strategies (Murray & Overton, 2011 ). This pursuit of flexibility and economic
policies, further reduced the bargaining power of unions ; however there are many recent
examples of challenges to the neoliberal shift.
Stanford et al. (2009) explain that some of the basic tenets of neo-liberalism that have
dominated since the 1970s have recently been shown to be imperfect around the world. The

29

examples demonstrate that though neo-liberalism has been advanced as a suitable economic
system, recent occurrences may expose some if its shortcomings. The first is a preoccupation
with privatization, Stanford et al. provide the example of the government bailout of banks and the
auto industry to illustrate government involvement in the bailing out of private industry. The
second tenet of neo-liberalism Stanford et al. point to is the downside of globalization, where
economic failures in one country are linked to another. They provide the example of the Iceland
economy collapse as a result of real estate prices in Florida. The third challenge they point to is
government intervention, which has recently been necessary during the financial crisis of 2008 in
the form of stimulus money.
Camfield (2007) refers to neoliberal restructuring as a move from the post World War II
welfare state to what he calls the ' lean state ' which seeks to create more flexible and lean
operations by reducing the number of staff through part-time and casual workers and increased
privatization.

The role for unions to play is to help reduce some costs and engaging in

meaningful policy change because there may be some positives that can arise in helping to
address some of these issues. Some of the provisions of lean state, such as casual jobs, benefited
employees as social changes shifted the nature of work and more women entered the workforce.
Other social shifts, however, have significantly contributed to union density decline, as discussed
in the next section.

Section 3.5 Reasons for Decline #4 - Societal Shifts
Brown (2006) points to ' shifts in consciousness and ideology' which have eroded
working class solidarity; workers are increasingly in jobs that can isolate them from others in
small sites or costs centers, or through contract or casual work. The nature of work makes it
difficult for unions to pass on the collectivist values that can lead to cohesiveness in the
30

workforce. Levesque and Murray (2006) believe that challenges to union identities stem from the
differing values individuals bring to work, which are influenced by public policies that have
attempted to make employment an individual relationship between employee and employer. New
technologies have also changed the idea of workplace and traditional work hours, as people in
certain positions have flexibility to work in their homes or set their own work schedules.
Furthermore, shifts in generational ideology have also played a role in the decline of unions.
A generational issue at play is the inability to recruit young workers to unions. This is
problematic because the unionized workforce is ageing at a faster rate than the labour force
(Lowe & Rastin, 2000).

Lowe and Rastin (2000) looked at reasons that influence a young

worker' s desire to join a union, they found that it was not necessarily education that effected
willingness to join, but due to work experience as a youth and then experience in the labour
market.
Lowe and Rastin (2000) analyzed the responses of high school and university graduates in
three Canadian cities, Toronto, Sudbury, and Edmonton, to determine how previous union
membership, attitudes, education, and work experiences shaped their willingness to join unions.
The authors suggest that it is more difficult to recruit than in previous generations due to changes
in the structure and conditions of work. Factors that have affected the ability to engage youth in
meaningful union discussion is due to high rates of youth unemployment, wages that are typically
lower than other workers, and youth are typically employed in part-time or temporary jobs (Lowe
& Rastin, 2000).

The authors suggest that youth leave such employment to go on to post-

secondary education which leads to greater experience in the student job market of low-skill,
low-wage jobs; in turn, youth may become critical of poor working conditions and rewards,
leading to greater occupational aspirations but more importantly, a greater sense of individualism
rather than the collectivist ideals of unions (Lowe & Rastin, 2000).

31

It is clear that in order to address the issues that arise from societal shifts, unions are
going to need to broaden their appeal.

Increasing appeal to youth, workers entering the

workforce, and helping to build awareness of union values can all help to broaden union appeal.
As noted by Lowe and Rastin (2000), individualism can be counter to union ideals. This sense of
individualism may also relate to the differing of union density rates in Canada and the United
States, arguably the United States has a stronger culture of individualism. The following section
will detail the differences in the Canadian and United States' union experiences.

Section 3.6 Reasons for Decline- The United States Example
As previously stated, comparison to the United States is justified due to Canada' s strong
economic ties, and the United States' influence on Canada' s industrial relations. Recently, there
has been much attention given to the declining density rates in the United States. Lichenstein's
(2011) assessment of the declining union density in the United States begins by suggesting that
the New Deal , backed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had given legal and ethical legitimacy to
unionism. Unions were seen as necessary to balance out the power of corporations, as well as a
necessary part of American democracy. From 1933 to the end of the 1940s, union numbers had
grown from 3 million to 14 million. However, the challenges began in 1947 with the TaftHartley Act, which allowed states to pass the "right to work acts,' which challenged unionism
(Lichenstein, 2011). Right to work acts made union membership in organizations where a union
operated optional, rather than compulsory, as in the past. Canadian unions have not faced the
challenges of right to work legislation as in many areas of the United States. This legislation
undermines unions ' abilities to collect dues and remain viable. Furthermore, unions in the United
States began facing increasing challenges from conservative thinkers and activists of the right

32

during the 1960s and 1970s, when they associated unions with the slow growth and inflation of
the period (Lichenstein, 2011 ). Today, only approx 12% of Americans are represented in unions.
Labour laws in the United States have affected Canada' s labour laws, from the Wagner Act
(1935) to affirmative action, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the duty to
accommodate. However, Canada differs in its regulation of union democracy by refraining from
instituting legislation regulating the internal political and administrative affairs of unions (Lynk,
2000). Lynk (2000) attributes this difference to a greater political respect for the autonomy of
industrial relations, and there is a general acceptance of the ability of unions to manage their
affairs through democratic process.

Four reasons are provided to explain why union democracy

in Canada has avoided the challenges the United States' unions face. Historically, Canadian
unions have been democratic with social aspirations, they are free of corruption, employers are
accepting of collective bargaining, and unions are voluntary associations (Lynk, 2000).
However, it is important to notice a shift in tone in the last decade as Canadian provincial
governments attempt to use legislation to circumvent Charter rights and the right to association.
There is some consensus (Godard 2003 ; Rose & Chaison, 1985; Rose & Chaison, 2001)
that compared to the United States, Canadian unions have avoided the situation of the United
States. Declining union density was common throughout most liberal market economies, but the
United States experienced one of the sharpest declines and has some of the lowest union density
of those countries (Rose & Chaison, 2001). Rose and Chaison (2001) identified factors for the
difference in the United States and Canada. Organizing activity and organizing success rates
have been substantially higher in Canada, and higher unionization has enabled Canadian unions
to outperform their American counterparts in collective bargaining, particularly during the
turbulent 1980s. The third reason identified is concession bargaining was far more prevalent in
the United States, where union membership losses and aggressive employer bargaining strategies

33

put unions on the defensive. Another factor is the political influence Canadian unions gained by
forming alliances between organized labour and social democratic parties, such as the New
Democratic Party (Rose & Chaison, 200 I).
Recently, in the United States there has been increased dialogue about the decline of the
middle class and links to the declining rate of unionism ; the middle class is defined as the middle
60% of households in terms of income (Madland & Bunker, 2012). Using United States Census
data, a clear correlation between declining union density and the subsequent decrease in the
middle class ' share of income is witnessed.
Due to the influence of the United States, it is reasonable to question how far Canada' s
density decline will go, and whether a further decline of Canada' s middle class will be
experienced. Kidd (2005) suggests that Canadian unions exhibit a sense of overconfidence about
the country's state of unionization because comparison is often made to the United States. Kidd
(2005) warns that Canadian union density is declining and this further weakens the ability of
organized labour to advocate for rights and leaves unions in a reactive position to the economic
changes occurring globally.

In addition, Kidd (2005) suggests that union density in Canada has

dropped, with the sharpest decrease in the private sector. This leads to the question of whether
continuing union density decline in Canada will translate to a further decline in the middle class,
as appears to be happening in the United States.
Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman (2007) suggests that a strong middle class
is connected to labour unions in the United States. Labour unions are able to negotiate wages
which are often extended to nonunionized employees, leading to higher wages and some benefits.
Krugman suggests that unions are an important counterbalance to the political influence held by
corporations and the economic elite, and posits that unions did not succumb to a natural death,
but from a deliberate attack from corporate America. Furthermore, Krugman (2007) points out
34

that corporations like Wai-Mart have been able to draw favourably from a political environment
which is hostile to organized labour and closely align with conservatives in an effort to challenge
the Democratic Party which has traditionally been aligned with organized labour. In summation,
Krugman (2007) offers that the decline of private-sector unions has led to the United States
"becom[ing] more oligarchic and less democratic over the last thirty years," and unions are one
of the most important institutions that have the power to stand up to the power of big money.
Researchers at Harvard University, the Center for American Progress, the Economic
Policy Institute, and the Pew Research Center (2012) used Census data to show the correlation
between the rate of unionization and distribution of wealth. The studies showed that unions
advocate for wages and working conditions, but also make democracy work by advocating for
policies which create a strong middle class, an engine for economic growth (Madland & Bunker,
2012). Census data showed that in the five states with the lowest unionization (North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, Arkansas, and Louisiana), the middle class had the lowest share of
income, compared to four out of five states with the highest unionization (Alaska, Hawaii,
Washington, and Michigan) in which the middle class had above-average income strength
(Madland & Bunker, 2012). In addition, the research shows that higher unionization rates result
in reducing the gap between the rich and poor.
Besides any level of complacency Canadian unions may suffer from , there appears to be
greater managerial hostility to unions in Canada, compared to the United States. In a United
States and Canada comparison of managerial hostility towards unions, Campolieti, Gomez, &
Gunderson (2012) found there to be greater hostility from Canadian managers due to a higher
perception of union power, which is greater in Canada. Campolieti et al. ' s research findings are
contradictory to that of Pozzebon and Thomason's cited earlier. The reason for this may be the
time difference between the two articles, as over a decade has elapsed since the initial research.

35

Another explanation is that Pozzebon and Thomason ' s research looked at the certification
process whereas Campolieti et al. looked at managerial hostility.
Using Ispos-Reid data, Campolieti et al. asked two questions : (1) Are managerial attitudes
towards unions more hostile in the US than in Canada? (2) Are American managers more likely
to employ extreme measures to thwart a unionization drive? Campolieti et al. (2012) found that
Canadian managers were more likely to engage in extreme methods, such as an attempt to
interrupt organizing campaigns. Campolieti et al. (2012) provide two reasons for the differences
in managerial hostility; first, the United States' culture emphasizes individual over collective
rights and managerial tactics are often more sophisticated in the form of anti-union tactics.
Second, the United States anti-union movement is more effective at using legislative means and
the opposition is often state-led (Campolieti et al., 2012). The greater level of managerial
hostility, based on the research of Campolieti et al (20 12), draws further attention to the situation
in Canada, and how union density rates in Canada may continue to fluctuate without the proper
attention to developing renewal strategies. The next chapter focuses on four major revitalization
strategies, each selected for the purpose of highlighting what unions can do successfully to
overcome objections and resistance.

36

Chapter 4
REVIT ALSING STRATEGIES
Section 4.1 Defining Revivalism
To increase union density in Canada would be to increase the percentage of unionized
workers. In order for greater density, a revival movement is needed for public and private sector
unions. It is important to define what is meant by revivalism, is it simply a greater number of
union members or is it something greater?

Rose and Chaison (2001) suggest that union

revivalism is defined in a number of ways. For example, some people see unions as capable of
addressing the power imbalance between workers and employers by devoting organizational
efforts to promoting human rights and social justice. Others view union revival as a method to
unionize in non-traditional areas, or achieve greater influence over policies and management's
decisions.

For the purpose of this project, both definitions are adopted to assess how

Canadian unions can achieve their goal of increasing density by broadening their appeal to
human rights and social justice, as well as unionizing in non-traditional areas to have greater
influence over workplace conditions.

The following chapter will present four revitalization

strategies, each of the formulated strategies are based on the reasons for decline from the
preceding chapter.

The revitalization strategies were formulated based on issues that were

identified in each section as areas that unions can help to address; the broader aim is to suggest
viable strategies that will contribute to an increase in union density.

Section 4.2 Pursuit of Union Revivalism
In Pocock's report: Rethinking Unionism in a Changing World of Work, Family and

Community Life (2011), a number of reasons are outlined as to why unions' traditional focus and
tools may not work. Changes to the forms and structure of employment interfere with the ability

37

to collectivize and mobilize workers (Pocock, 2011 ). In addition, the growth of part-time, casual,
or contract work, challenge the ability to collectivize.

With the service sector accounting for

70% of all jobs, most jobs are low wage jobs or in areas not traditionally unionized.
Furthermore, more women are unionizing, but younger workers are somewhat unfamiliar with
the appeal of unions that resonated with previous generations. Another factor is workers are
changing jobs more frequently than in the past, and this can be a challenge because it may be
difficult to build loyalty to an organization or union that is perceived to be a temporary
assignment (Pocock, 2011 ). When pursuing revitalizing strategies, it is essential to formulate
strategies that appeal to all workers from a wide variety of demographics.
The aim of union revivalism is to increase union density in Canada, and to have greater
influence over the working conditions of all workers. Some researchers suggest it is known what
needs to be done, while others suggest significant social change and new forms of collective
representation are needed for changing workplaces (Levesque & Murray, 2002). Unions are
facing a "decline of instrumentality," which comes from the challenges of unions ' abilities to
negotiate collective agreements and better working conditions. Levesque and Murray (2002)
suggest that unions need to look to new sets of resources and levers of power to renew core
functions which help to achieve core objectives, which is through union governance and internal
organization to generate greater efficiency and sense of belonging.
Three areas are highlighted to achieve this : through collective identities, external expertise
and networks, and union leadership (Levesque & Murray, 2002).

Collective identities are

challenged by ideological and value shifts. To combat this, unions need to be more attune to
membership to be informed of trends and changes. To convey these shifts to membership and to
influence change in the workplace, external expertise and networks are needed. The third area
highlighted by Levesque and Murray (2002) is perhaps the most important. Union leadership

38

need to be tactical and flexible, not dominated in the rigid structures of the past. Leaders require
the ability to anticipate changes and to develop appropriate and acceptable responses.

In

Waddington ' s paper, he suggests that the ability to read change, as well as understand the
different interests can help unions determine where they are at, where they should be, and why it
is necessary (as cited in Levesque & Murray, 2002). The ability to anticipate and read change,
will put unions in a better position to be able to approach management with alternatives (as cited
in Levesque & Murray, 2002).

By improving their relationship with union members and

management, union leaders can get involved in encouraging others to join which would lead to
increased union density.
Union resources come from their membership in the form of financial contribution through
union dues and certification costs. In addition to having the resources, unions need to redefine
their capabilities through the creation of distinct strategies; these strategies can draw on the
current strengths of unions and be leveraged in the form of methods to increase union
membership. The first strategy aims to address the first reason that was identified as a cause for
the decline of unions.

Section 4.3 Revitalization Strategy #1: Expansion into Union and Nonunion Zones
The strategy is to take advantage of the growth of employment in traditionally nonunion
areas, and overcome the jobs losses that have occurred as a result of technology and the shift of
manufacturing jobs due to globalization.

Haiven (2006) uses the terms of union zone and

nonunion zone to illustrate how unions can increase density, and to explain the challenges and
opportunities for unions. Unions can only be the premiere front line organization to represent the
collective interests and needs of workers by seeking out alternative forms for collective
organization and allying with other organizations, they can not afford to ignore alternatives

39

(Haiven, 2006). Haiven (2006) uses a matrix to outline the areas where unions are present and/or
absent, how to enhance union representation in growing sectors, and how to expand to areas of
highly skilled workers.

He uses specific references to Canada, stating that Canada has not

experienced declining rates as the United States, but warns of complacency. Figure 3 provides an
illustration ofHaiven's matrix.
Figure 3: The union and nonunion zone
High
Negotiation

Subcontract
line

>-

E

0

c

0
......

::::s

<(

'"C

c

I'1J

32
VI

......
QJ

..::.t.
......

..2:-

Union
Zone

""§

....
Ql

.!!!

·c:

"'

-o

s.:0

0..

E
Qj

~ "E0
Lo

Low
Negotiation

Low skill, low

e~

nd services
High

Need for mutuality in workplace order

(Source: Haiven, L., 2006)
Haiven (2006) created the "Matrix of Negotiation," which aims to remedy the limitations of
the traditional model of representation. To sustain their role as the best representatives of the
interests of working people, unions need to expand the scope of representation by allying with

40

new organizations and interests (Haiven, 2006). Unions could make use of the matrix to identify
areas to gain access to increase union density.
The matrix shows skilled workers and the amount of control they exert in the workplace;
the vertical axis, called worker skill and autonomy, has highly skilled workers with little to no
supervision at the top and those with less skilled workers who are monitored by bosses or
machines at the bottom. The horizontal axis, called "need for mutuality in workplace order,"
indicated the area where the employer is reliant on workers to participate and coordinate in work
processes (Haiven, 2006).

The axis measures workers ' ability to regulate and organize

independently. A diagonal measure within the matrix ranges from low negotiation at the bottom
to high negotiation at the top.
The upper left comer (Zone I) of the matrix includes autonomous workers, considered to be
highly skilled, such as accountants and web designers, less skilled such as plumbers and
mechanics, or low skilled contract workers such as cleaners; they generally control their work
processes and may not have a legal employment relationship with their employer (Haiven, 2006).
Workers in this zone have some individual negotiating power, but cohesiveness and collective
action are rare; the amount of isolation and individual oriented work could be an obstacle to
collective action in this area (Haiven, 2006).

The upper right comer (Zone 2) encompasses

highly skilled and autonomous workers, however they must to work together to accomplish tasks.
Haiven uses computer programmers and highly skilled technicians as an example.

The top

middle of the matrix includes craft workers like millwrights, nurses, and other semi-professional
practitioners; these workers have a high degree of skill and autonomy but are in legal
employment relationships with their employers that are dependent on mutuality for work because
their needs are more collective than other areas of the matrix (Haiven, 2006).
The lower section of the matrix (Zone 3) encompasses workers who are low skilled with

41

little independence, at the lower left they have low ability to organize and in the lower right
workers have a greater ability to organize. Haiven (2006) adds a "union zone" to the matrix with
the nonunion zone found in the upper-left corner, upper-right hand corners, and bottom left
corner, which is key to his model.

It demonstrates the connection between negotiation and

unionization as well as the absence of unionization in areas where negotiation is required.
Haiven (2006) advises three areas which unions should be and are attempting to unionize, the
upper left, the upper right, and the bottom left of the matrix. "Unions have little influence over
the growth and shrinkage of areas of employment. Thus, the survival of the union movement
crucially depends on its ability to embrace workers in these areas" (Haiven, 2006, p. 93).
Each zone has its specific impediments to unionization, but the potential to organize is
high. The upper left corner or Zone 1 workers, are generally not employees but are contracted, so
things like bargaining in good faith do not bind them. The main impediments to unionization in
the upper right or Zone 2 are the personal benefit concerns of the workers in this area, and their
traditional , individualized negotiating is counter to collective bargaining (Haiven, 2006). Zone 3
workers, or the bottom part of the matrix, include those who work for large corporations that are
stringently opposed to unionization, like Wai-Mart and McDonalds.

These workers face

challenges to organization because of the large amount of resources these corporations possess
and their anti-union sentiment, and the corporation will often close down specific operations to
avoid unionizing. Haiven (2006) focuses on Zones 1 and 2 as areas that unions should focus their
efforts because workers in these areas already engage in some organizing.
Haiven (2006) provides examples of some occupations that can benefit from unionization
and areas where unionizing has been successful; the five groups are : musicians, video artisans,
fish harvesters, medical technologists and nurses, and computer specialists.

Though self-

employed, or employers themselves, organization in these occupations can help to improve work
42

conditions (Haiven, 2006). Successful unionization efforts were made by the Canadian Artists
and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal. The body represents members as a bargaining
group, with access to mediation, and legal rights to strikes and lockouts. Other examples in
media and the motion picture industry include the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television, and
Radio Artists (ACTRA; for performers), the International Association of Theater and Stage
Employees (IATSE; for technical workers), and the Directors Guild of Canada (for direction,
design, production, and editing).

Though it is uncommon for self-employed workers to gain

legal collective bargaining rights, the fish harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador were
successful as a result of intense lobbying of the provincial and federal governments resulting in
the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.
Haiven ' s matrix focuses on Zones I and 2, suggesting that unions can be successful by
focusing on the collective needs of these workers. By providing for worker' s rights such as
collective bargaining in the absence of legal bargaining rights, strong networks, some benefits
and services, and training and career development opportunities, unions can help provide a form
of job security. Haiven (2006) states that organization in Zones 1 and 2 can lead to the formation
of communities of workers that are not bound by geography and overcome the barriers of
individual projects.
Other scholars have looked at the idea of expanding into nonunion areas. Legault and
D'Amour looked at how "hard to organize" workers are regulating work by looking at video game
developers and performance artists - both with types of work that is highly skilled, but often
short-term, project work (as cited in Brunelle et al. , 2011 ).

Both groups have adopted

representation which is collective and individual, using industry associations. By expanding into
non-traditional areas of unionization, unions are able to respond to the needs of potential union
members, an important factor in expanding revitalization efforts. This strategy also helps to

43

address the challenges of globalization and technology, by recruiting from capital intense jobs
that are less likely to be outsourced.

Section 4.4 Revitalization Strategy #2: Extension of Relevance to Employer

This strategy seeks to address the second reason for decline, defined as government and
employer opposition. To overcome this reason for decline, unions can enhance their relevance to
their employer by collaborating on mutually beneficial solutions to the problems and challenges
that arise in the workplace, as this would increase the usefulness of unions to the government and
employer.
Meaningful policy change at the umon level entails umons servmg as an answer to
workplace issues and solving employer' s problems by posing mutually beneficial solutions.
These solutions can help to reduce the second reason for decline, government and employer
opposition. Jalette and Hebdon (2012) state that "unqualified union opposition as an opposition
strategy" is not sustainable. The strategy lacks long-term success potential because unions lack
the resources to counter employer demands, which may lead to unions having to accept
concessions or privatization in the future. By adopting a new method, or acting as a solution to
an employer' s problem, these unions can successfully overcome anti-union efforts. Jalette and
Hebdon (2012) explore union responses to privatization proposals in Canadian municipalities,
when fiscal pressure, new management, citizen demands for efficiency or opposition to tax
increases, and the deregulation of private markets drive privatization. The authors suggest that
umons are often depicted as staunch opponents of change and management is depicted as
pragmatic. Because unions may increase the cost of service delivery due to the difference in
public and private wages, the threat of privatization can lead to lower wages, or job losses, but
this can also lead to alternatives. The study showed that unions are most successful in rejecting

44

privatization efforts when they use the following strategies: suggesting alternatives, which can
also lead to a less adversarial relationship, multi-faceted and multiple strategies through
negotiation, and presence of contingency plans such as a displacement policy for affected
employees (Jalette & Hebdon, 2012).
The privatization example can be applied to general union operations. A way to address
government and employer opposition, is to increase relevancy to the employer and government
by working collaboratively to solve problems, and set goals and objectives.

This strategy

requires union members and employers to see themselves as members of the organization, not
solely members of union or management. Employees and employers can work together to solve
problems through the creation of plans to achieve goals.

These plans could lead to more

productive workplaces and greater flexibility for all due to enhanced communication.

Section 4.5 Revitalization Strategy #3: Meaningful Policy Change
The third reason identified for the decline of unions was changing economic policies and
the rise of neoliberal policies. Unions can counter the effects of the dominant neoliberal agendas
by presenting themselves as a viable counterweight, through enhanced awareness by being
proactive. In addition to enhanced awareness and being proactive, meaningful policy change is
also necessary. Camfield (2007) writes that neoliberal restructuring in the public sector leads to
greater demands for concessions, and privatization and contracting-out efforts.
The right to strike and collective bargaining are challenged in the workplace; "job losses
and the spread of precarious employment continue, as do the intensification of work and a change
in the ethos of public sector work as managers promote the culture of the lean state" (Camfield,
2007, p 294). Furthermore, Camfield adds that these changes lead to insecurity, fear, and lack of
confidence for workers that can translate into a sense of competitive individualism. In order to

45

tum these fears into opportunities, first, unions need to move away from the periodic contract
bargaining because change in the workplace is not limited to contract negotiations, as well as
engage in opposition to privatization. The second approach advocated by Camfield is getting
union members to believe in the union as a form of "us," by enhancing union democracy because
active member involvement strengthens and enhances it, whereas low level involvement
discourages participation, commitment, and loyalty (Camfield, 2006).

Some of these

recommendations can be achieved through a shift in operations and more openness to different
approaches.
Mironi (20 10) argues that ideological divisions of union and nonunion advocates have
prevented meaningful policy changes, and there is a greater need for representation models that
are suited to the modem workforce and modem workplace relations. Furthermore, she suggests
that global union declines and increasing workplace diversity has led to a decline of industrial
relations as a field of study because scholars in the field have been unable to broaden their studies
to analyze alternatives forms of representation in workplace relations ; collective bargaining is
still seen as the most legitimate form of representation (Mironi, 201 0).
From Mironi ' s (2010) perspective it is difficult to find mutually beneficial solutions
because unions and employer relations tend to be polarized and subjected to ideological
rigidness. Mironi refers to the "terminological problem" ofthe traditional terms of unionized and
nonunionized, which can be misleading because unionized can entail anything from a collective
agreement to association, or a nationwide or industry agreement. In order to resolve this
"terminological problem," Mironi provides a two dimensional framework to overcome the
rigidity of terms and ideology, the first is to use the terms of individual versus collective and the
second is to use direct versus represented. The use of these terms can help revive industrial

46

relations discussions, while searching for ways to increase union density or alternatives to the
traditional representation model (Mironi, 20 I 0).
Mironi (201 0) advocates for two things in her article, first embrace terminology away from
unionized and nonunionized and second, view the workplace as a set of multiple modern day
units. The term unionized can be misleading because often times it refers to a percentage of a
workforce within an organization or it can apply to a collective agreement. Unionism means
different things in different regions of the world. It can be differences in the amount of control,
whether workers are affected by collective bargaining or a member of a craft union, or an
association. For example, European employer associations play a significant role in establishing
working conditions through industry wide agreements.
Meaningful policy change could lead to reforms which can increase union density. These
changes needs to come from a variety of areas including union structures and government
policies and laws.

Discussion of the Australian union experience and the attempts to regain

losses in union density has been written about extensively. This experience has been contrasted
with Canada and details a relevant example of how to increase density.

The Australian

experience demonstrates that aligning union interests so closely to that of labour parties, can be
detrimental, especially in a country such as Canada that experiences many pendulum shifts in
policy due to political power.
Brown (2006) writes that the decline of Australian density and resulting loss of influence
came from union's aligning of its interests with the labour party. During the 1980s and 1990s,
Australian labour unions worked closely with the government to bring about policy changes,
however this changed in the late 1990s with the election of a conservative government which
sought reforms.

Labour unions in Australia, as well as other countries with strong union

movements, were weakened by the neoliberal policies. Unions suffered from membership

47

declines, a hostile legal environment, challenges to employment conditions, as well the
restructuring of employment to low-wage, casual positions and jobs shifting overseas. Australian
union leaders sought to adopt new organizing methods, education, new community alliances, and
political tactics to rebuild and redevelop unions (Brown, 2006). It is these newly sought after
methods from which Canadian unions can borrow ideas.
Australian unions sought to rebuild at the base by aligning with community groups to
build power at the community level , this allowed members to feel responsible for their
community and involved in shaping future direction (Brown, 2006). Members were trained in
protest techniques, political action, mutual aid, communication and organizing development, and
media work, these tactics included rallies, boycotts, lobbying, press releases, and media
conferences (Brown, 2006). Through the bottom-up movement, unions attempted to empower
communities to achieve collective and democratic social change, since historically bottom-up or
grassroots movements were instrumental in shaping industrial relations . This strategy also shares
some overlap with the fourth recommended strategy, to revitalize by broadening appeal to a
wider group, compared to the traditional form of recruiting new members to and from existing
organizations.

Section 4.4 Revitalization Strategy #4: Broaden Appeal
Revitalization strategy four aims to address the fourth reason for the decline of unions,
societal shifts. In order to overcome this issue, unions can benefit by broadening their appeal to a
larger set of demographics, namely youth, women, and low-skill workers; this strategy will
provide methods to target each demographic. Studies show women as well as individuals with
greater job instability and those who have a greater number of jobs following graduation are
generally more willing to join a union (Lowe & Rastin, 2000). Generally, it takes approximately

48

three years for a young person to make a decision about whether or not to join a union and high
school graduates are more likely to go from a neutral to favourable position to join a union (Lowe
& Rastin, 2002).

An important part of the strategy to target youth, women, and low-skill workers is to
create a more collectivist appeal, which is counter to the individualistic ideals that have been
prevalent due to societal shifts, as outlined in Chapter 3. Individualism is strong predictor of
inclination to join union or not (Lowe & Rastin, 2000). If this trait is significantly stronger or
more developed than any collectivist ideals, it may be difficult to convince someone of the
collective benefits of joining a union. However, even if there is a strong sense of individualism,
it is still possible to highlight some of individual benefits of membership in a union, such as the
possibility of higher wages and greater benefits. A collectivist appeal can be created through a
better understanding of the needs of membership, and identification of trends that are common to
many groups.
Brunelle et al. (20 II) see the current problems of unions embedded in their traditional
approaches, which do not accommodate the realities of their members or potential members due
to a failure to address worker's diverse needs within and outside the workplace. The authors
suggest that unions can ensure they represent their membership effectively through awareness of
needs and interests. By putting member needs at the center of focus , unions can seek to increase
density by being responsive and attune to members' needs. Pocock (20II) suggests a better
understanding of home, work, and community could lead to better tactics, including a better
understanding of the need for greater flexibility with work hours. Time pressures and the need
for flexibility are not new challenges for workers, but are more pronounced currently due to a
growth in dual earner and single parent families (Pocock, 2011).

Other strategies linked to

accommodating members ' needs are to provide enhanced feelings of autonomy, control,

49

education, and quality of service and outcomes, while providing opportunities for skill
acquisition, professional development, and enhanced career identities (Pocock, 2011).

Being

more responsive to member' s needs, translates into broader appeal. This appeal can also enhance
the desirability of union membership for individuals in the target demographics.
Union density can be enhanced through appeal to the current generation through the use of
social media, lessons can be drawn from the level of Generations Y' s participation in politics.
This is a valid comparison because recent political experiences have demonstrated how to
connect a disconnected demographic to politics. Similar results can be achieved in unions to
appeal to a generation with which the current message does not resonate. Ward (2008) looked at
the different appeals that were made to 18-35 years old during the Australian election of 2007.
Both competing parties were able to enhance and market their message through the use of social
media. Successful candidates used a strategy based on YouTube, Facebook, and MySpace, with
youth visiting the websites and downloading content.

Some videos received over 100, 000

views. Youth were able to openly voice their concerns and communicate with candidates. In a
survey of the top election concern, 18 - 24 year olds identified employment as a top concern.
User-generated content helped connect youth and allowed them to feel empowered.
Other examples of the use of social media to bring about change were evidenced during the
Arab Spring, which began in Egypt.

Gaworecki (2011) writes that Facebook was the main

organizing tool which was used primarily by youth.

It enhanced the abilities of 'traditional

organizing tactics ' by helping to communicate the message and facilitate on the ground
organization efforts. Another recent example of the use of social media in a political campaign
was seen during the U.S. election of 2012. Unions can use social media to the extend their
message to the current generation and youth entering the workforce since it takes three years for
them to form their opinions on labor unions .
50

Lowe and Rastin (2000) suggest strategies aimed at the service-sector, which is more
difficult to unionize, compared to traditional manufacturing or industry jobs and to create ways to
recruit members from the next generation of workers who work primarily in the service sector.
Yates (2006) writes, women are central to union revitalization because they are the fastest
growing group of unionized workers . The year 2004 was the first time women' s union density
exceeded men ' s. She challenges four major conceptions and concludes that unions are gender
biased, resulting in missed opportunities for unions to the large pool of union members to
increase the labour movement. Given the growth of the number of unionized women, nearly 52%
in 2011 , a viable strategy is to put women into leadership roles to create greater appeal and
reflection for union members.
Workers in low-skill and service sector jobs seek to benefit from union membership and
would be a way to increase union density. As mentioned, union density is lower in the private
sector due to increased opposition. Yates (2006) points out that sector and nature of work are
central to increasing the unionization of women, even though the sectors where women dominate,
such as retail , accommodation, and food , have the lowest union density. These occupations and
industries often include low wages, high employer opposition to unionization, and high turnover
(Yates, 2006).

Women ' s greater support for unionization may be an effect of gendered

inequalities in access to union representation, as the majority of organizers are white men.
However, in the public sector there is a higher percentage of women organizers. As it stands,
Yates (2006) suggests that unions are investing far greater resources in recruiting men but this
can reversed through greater use of female organizers and widening appeal aimed at women.
Fine (as cited in Brunelle, et al. , 2011) discusses declining private sector unionism in the
United States and how work centres arose to help the large number of immigrant, low-skilled
workers who earned low wages without any workplace protection. When these work centres

51

started five years ago they focused on enforcing current laws. However, these centres have allied
with political and economic influences to form strategic partnerships and get labour standards
regulations on to the public policy agenda which has resulted in greater policy changes to labour
laws.

Low-skill workers can experience the benefits of organized work centres, and this

experience can easily extend to the unionized sector.

Section 4.7 Strong, Healthy Unions for the 21st Century

Union density has declined primarily due to external factors but unions have the
capability to increase density. In addition to applying the four suggested revitalization strategies,
Canadian unions can look around the world at other successful labor unions. Strong, healthy, and
effective unions will be those that are proactive in reading change in labour relations and able to
serve their members in a more effective way.

Unions will need to be pragmatic and adopt

multiple strategies to increase union density. Canadian unions can look to countries with high
levels of union density, such as Scandinavian countries to learn what healthy unions in the 21 st
century look like.
2011 statistics show that the four OECD countries with the highest union density rates

are: Iceland (79.4%), Finland (70%), Denmark (68.8%), and Sweden (67.7%). (OECD, 2011).
Each of these countries has experienced declines in density and has taken steps to reduce further
losses. Bild, Jorgensen, Lassen, and Madsen ' s (1998) analysis of the Danish labour movement
suggests that unions need to engage in a process where they are ' open and self-critical ' so that
they can move away from being an apparatus to a movement.

A healthy Canadian union

movement is also one that is able to focus on the movement part which can also help to shed the
institutional view of unions, as evidenced by the Danish example.

52

Bild et al. (1998) write that despite social and political pressures, Danish labour unions
are in a decent position due to Denmark' s decentralized corporate decision and implementation
systems and provisions of the welfare state. Danish labour unions are considered to be one of the
strongest in the world due to their strong density, participation in the political system, lack of
oppositional attitudes towards unions, and as social partners they have influenced private and
public regulation (Bild et al. , 1998). However, the authors state that Danish unions have had to
use their resources intelligently as union density has recently been challenged through the
election of a liberal-conservative government and a new era of corporatism where unions are now
part of an advisory process, rather than directly involved in decision-making.
Unions can leverage their power to influence by using their strategic resources and
capabilities (Bild et al., 1998). The research of the Danish unions reveals that certain things can
be done to increase relevance and density. To counter rising individualistic attitudes, Bild et al.
(1998) suggest unions promote a more ecological aspect that fits with global environmental
concerns. They also suggest instrumentality of unions can be increased by offering opportunities
for personal development. It is also suggested that unions' ' classical leadership ' needs to evolve
to a style that includes open communication and decentralized decision-making to enhance union
democracy. If this does not occur, Bild et al. (1998) warn that members who feel alienated will
move away from unions and only those members who are elderly, Jess-skilled, Jess-educated, and
in the public sector will remain. In addition to drawing from Denmark' s experience of being
more strategic, Canadian unions can look to Finland which also has a high rate of density.
Kalliola' s (2005) research of Finnish unions' responses to social and economic changes
reveals that these unions engaged in modernization strategies and greater labour-management
cooperation to ensure long-term job security and viability. Multi-professional teamwork is a
process where unions work together to form new alliances, often through mergers (Kalliola,

53

2005). The research of Finnish labour unions revealed four areas where unions are concentrating
their efforts: job security, maintenance of collective bargaining, ability to influence social
legislation and labour law, and revamping the organization of unions (Kalliola, 2005). Canadian
unions can use this type of approach as well , by narrowing their focus of activity and effort.
Through new alliances and new forms of representation, Canadian unions can enhance their
effectiveness. It is useful to look at other countries that have succeeded in establishing successful
workplace relations without the presence of a history of unionism. South Korea is considered to
be an example of a country that underwent late industrialization compared to countries like
Germany and Japan, therefore its labour relations are fairly young (Kong, 2012). The newness of
labour relations also allowed Korea to look to successful parts of Germany, Japan, and Sweden's
systems that used elements of participatory labour relations (Kong, 20 12).

Korea has

experienced success in its use of 'high performance work systems' (HPWS), which allows
management and employees to work together in ' cooperative labour relations' (Kong, 2012).
Cooperation between both groups means that employers and employees work together for longterm benefits by collaborating and consulting with one another to formulate goals. According to
Kong (2012), HPWS originated in Japan and has been used in counties like the United States. It
is a process that uses continuous, informal negotiation between an employer and a union, it also
involves the union in strategic decision-making.
The Korean labour experience demonstrates that it is possible to move to a wm-wm
situation by adopting mutuality through cooperation.

This does not mean it is necessary to

implement HPWS, it simply means that lessons can be learned from the system.

Through the

use of collaborative strategies, labour was able to move away from confrontational situations
where management was more likely to seek dominance (Kong, 2012). Kong (2012) writes that
four collaboration tools were sought after: private provision of welfare, managerial practice based

54

on partnership, informal and partial participation in decision making, and education, training, and
other company-sponsored activities that enhanced understanding of operations. These initiatives
allowed unions to be more pragmatic and cooperative in workplace relations by focusing on the
long-term interests oftheir members (Kong, 2012).
An effective union is one that is able to plan an effective strategy, and one that is able to
move away from the administrative functions to the representative ones (Boxall & Haynes,
1997).

In addition, an effective union is one that moves away from simply servmg the

membership to one that is driven by bottom up decision-making and organizing that helps drive
union behaviour (Boxall & Haynes, 1997).

Boxall and Haynes' (1997) discussion of the

servicing model suggests that this is not a long-term solution.

A union that only serves its

members as consumers of services such as grievance procedures or legal advice, is likely to be
ineffective in organizing workers for greater collaboration and involvement in decision-making.
Unions need to convince members that they are all the union, and avoid an "us" versus "them"
approach (Boxall & Haynes, 1997). A successful union is one that is able to engage its employer
in a way that an individual worker is not able to.

This could lead to greater workplace

satisfaction for members . Boxall and Haynes (1997) also make specific suggestions for things to
incorporate into the organizing, such as the creation of networks of influential union members
who take part in negotiations and joint committees, or having the ability to have members come
together at critical times.
A strong, healthy Canadian union movement will need to embrace revitalization strategies
to increase density. By looking at examples from union movements and labour relations from
around the world, Canadian unions can become more pragmatic by adopting methods that can
lead to further reforms. Ideally, unions will be open to reform to become a movement and to get
to a position where they are considered a credible partner in advising on workplace relations.

55

The classic union approach will need to be replaced with more open communication and
decentralized decision-making. New alliances and forms of cooperation with management are
needed to engage in continuous, informal dialogue for involvement in strategic decision-making
for organizations. Long-term gains aimed at organizing, not just servicing membership, can lead
to greater involvement from members.

56

Chapter 5
CONCLUSION
Unions fulfill an important role as workplace institutions that endeavour to serve their
membership by acting as a collective and representative body, while engaging in bargaining with
employers to establish better working conditions. The role of unions extends beyond the direct
membership, as unions advocate for or influence the working conditions of the unrepresented and
non unionized. All Canadians are affected by union gains, not just the one in three Canadians that
belong to a union.
Unions are an industrial construct. As is true of many institutions, unions have failed to
reinvent themselves in the face of change in order to continue to be an important institution of the
post-industrial economy. It is not to say that the function of unions is obsolete. They serve a role
in maintaining democratic society, and in maintaining a strong middle class as proven by the
United States example. An exploration of the five different perspectives, society, employer,
employee, union, and unionized worker, was to demonstrate that unions are not viewed from a
unified lens. Economic, political, and social factors within each perspective influence the points
of view as does experience with unions, demographics factors, and one' s position of
employment.
The basis of this project was to determine what factors had led to the decline of union
density and whether it was possible to increase union density. Four major reasons for decline
were identified. Each of the reasons for decline illustrated that there is some overlap existing
within the reasons. Each of them is also affected by economic, social, and political factors. The
reasons for decline identified some possible areas were unions could address issues to enhance
their instrumentality. An objective of presenting the revitalization strategies was to address the
reasons for decline by presenting possible solutions.

57

Revitalization strategies were recommended based on their ability to address the reasons
for decline. Four major strategies were outlined as the best way to increase union density. The
pressure for unions to reform is mounting and it is clear that post-industrial strategies are
necessary to remain relevant to the workforce. Implementing the revitalization strategies will
allow unions to adapt and reinvent themselves, increasing their relevance to society, employers,
employees, and union members.

58

Bibliography
Bentham, K. J. (2002). Employer resistance to union certification. Industrial Relations, 5 7(1),
159-187.
Bild, T. , J0rgensen, H. , Lassen, M., & Madsen, M. (1998). Do trade unions have a future ? the
case of Denmark. Acta Sociologica, 41(3) , 195-207.
Boxall, P. & Haynes, P. (1997). Strategy and trade union effectiveness in a neo-liberal
environment. British Journal of Industrial Relations 35(4), 567-591.
Brown, T. (2006). Organizing for the future: labour' s renewal strategies, popular education, and
radical history. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(1), 33-48.
Brunelle, C., Hayden, A., & Murray, G. (2011). Employee representation in the new world
of work: the dynamics of rights, voice, performance and power. Industrial Relations,
66( 4), 503-511.
Camfield, D. (2006). Neoliberalism and working-class resistance in British Columbia: the
hospital employees' union struggle, 2002-2004. Labour, 579-41.
Campolieti, M, Gomez, R. , & Gunderson, M. (2012). Managerial hostility and attitudes
towards unions: a Canada-US comparison. Journal of Labor Research, 34(1 ) , 99-119.
Canada. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. (2012, September 17). Union
coverage in Canada, 2011. Retrieved from http ://www.hrsdc .gc.ca/eng/labour/labour_
relations/info_analysis/union_membership/20 11 /tableofcontents.shtml
Canadian Labour Congress. (2013 , January 22). The union advantage. Retrieved from:
http://www .canadianlabour .ca/about-clc/union-advantage
Chaulk, K., & Brown, T. C. (2008). An assessment of worker reaction to their union and
employer post-strike. Industrial Relations, 63(2), 223-245.
Clark, P.F., Gray, L., & Solomon, N. (1996). The union as employer: personnel practices in
Canadian labour unions. Industrial Relations. 51(3), 488- 506.
Coats, R.H. (1923). The labour movement in Canada. Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science. 107, 282-285.
Csiemik, R. (2009). Labour welfare in Canada: an examination of occupational assistance.
Journal OfWorkplace Behavioral Health, 24(1 /2), 147-164.
Fick, B. (2009). Not just collective bargaining: the role oftrade unions in creating and
maintaining a democratic society. Working USA: The Journal of Labor & Society, 12(2),
249-264.

59

Freeman Jr., G. L. , & Moser, H. (20 10). An empirical analysis of the public's attitudes toward
labor unions. National Social Science Journal, 34(2), 41-50.
Freeman, R. B. (1981 ). The effect of unionism of fringe benefits. Industrial & Labor
Relations Review, 34(4), 489-509.
Freeman, R.B . & Medoff, J.L. (1979). The two faces of unionism . The Public Interest, 57, 6993 .
Freeman, R.B. & Medoff, J.L. (1984). What do unions do ?, New York: Basic Books.
Freeman, R.B. & Rogers, J. (1995). The worker representation and participation survey: first
report findings . Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Meeting of the IRRA.
Gahan, P. (20 12). 'Voice within voice': members' voice responses to dissatisfaction with their
union. Industrial Relations, 51(1), 29-56.
Gaworecki, M. (20 11 ). Organizing tool and a "space of liberty" in post-revolution Egypt?.
Social Policy, 41 (4), 66-69.
Givan, R., & Hipp, A. (2012). Public perceptions of union efficacy: a twenty-four country study.
Labor Studies Journal, 3 7(1), 7-32.
Godard, J. (2003). Do labor laws matter? the density decline and convergence thesis revisited .
Industrial Relations, 42(3), 458-492.
Godard, J. & Frege, C. (2013). Labour unions, alternative forms of representation, and the
exercise of authority relations in U.S. workplaces. Industrial & Labor Relations Review,
66(1), 142-168.
Guille, H. (2009). Unions have no future if they do not become truly global institutions. Social
Alternatives, 28(1), 37-41.
Haiven, L. (2006). Expanding the union zone: union renewal through alternative forms of
worker organization. Labor Studies Journal, 31(3), 85-116.
Hirsch, B. T. (2004). What do unions do for economic performance? Journal Of Labor
Research, 25(3) , 415-455
How Canadian unions are changing. (2012 , March 1). Retrieved from:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/labour-demographics/

Jalette, P. & Hebdon, R. (2012). Unions and privatization: opening the "black box." Industrial
& Labor Relations, 65(1), 17-35.
Kalliola, S. (2005). Confronting a changing economy: union responses in Finland. Economic
and Industrial Democracy, 26(2) , 257-287.
60

Kidd, D. (2005). State of the unions, 2005. Canadian Dimension, 39(3), 29-3
Kong, T.Y. (2012). Among leading South Korean firms cooperation in unlikely settings: the
rise of cooperative labor relations. Politics and Society, 40(3), 425-452.
Krugman, P. (2007, December 4). State of the unions. New York Times . Retrieved from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007 / 12/24/opinion/24krugman.html?_r=O
Kuhn, P. (1998). Unions and the economy: what we know; what we should know. The
Canadian Journal of Economics, 3I(5), I 033-1056.
Levesque, C. & Murray, G. (2006). How do unions renew? paths to union renewal. Labor
Studies Journal, 31(3), 1-13.
Lichtenstein, N. (20 11 ). The long history of labor bashing. Chronicle Of Higher Education,
57(27) , B6-B7.
Long, R.J & Shields, J.L. (2009). Do unions affect pay methods of Canadian firms? a
longitudinal study. Industrial Relations, 64(3), 442-465 .
Lowe, G. S. (2000). Organizing the next generation: influences on young workers'
willingness to join unions in Canada. British Journal Of Industrial Relations, 38(2), 203222.
Lowe, G. S., & Krahn, H. (1989). Recent trends in public support for unions in Canada. Journal
Of Labor Research, I 0( 4 ), 391-41 0.
Lowe, G.S., & Rastin, S. (2000). Organizing the next generation: influences on young workers '
willingness to join unions in Canada. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38(2), 203 222.
Lynk., M. (2002). Union democracy and the law in Canada. Just Labour, I , 16- 30.
Madland, D. & Bunker, N. (2012). Unions make democracy work for the middle class. Centre
for American Progress. Retrieved from :
http://www .americanprogressaction.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/20 12/0 I /pdf/unions_mi
ddleclass.pdf
McGinnis, J.O. & Schanzenbach, M. (2010). The case against public sector unions. Policy
Review, (162), 3-12.
Mironi, M. (2010). Reframing the representation debate: going beyond union and non-union
options. Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 63(3), 367-383.

61

Murray, W. E., & Overton, J.D. (2011). Neoliberalism is dead, long live neoliberalism?
neostructuralism and the international aid regime of the 2000s. Progress In
Development Studies, 11(4), 307-319.
Odgers, C. W ., & Betts, J. R. (1997). Do unions reduce investment? Evidence from
Canada. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 51(1), 18-36.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). Trade Union Density.
Paris: OECD.
Pocock, B. (2011). Rethinking unionism in a changing world of work, family and
community life. Industrial Relations, 66(4), 562-584.
Powdthavee, N. (2011). Anticipation, free-rider problems, and adaptation to trade
unions:
re-examining the curious case of dissatisfied union members. Industrial & Labor
Relations Review, 64(5), 1000-1019.
Pozzebon, S. & Thomason, T. (1998). Managerial opposition to union certification in Quebec
and Ontario. Industrial Relations, 53(4), 750.
Rose, J. B., & Chaison, G. N. (1985). The state ofthe unions: United States and Canada.
Journal Of Labor Research, 6( 1), 97-111.
Rose, J.B . & Chaison, G.N. (2001). Unionism in Canada and the United States in the 21st
century. Industrial Relations, 56(1), 34-65.
Savage, L. (2009). Workers' rights as human rights. Labor Studies Journal, 34(1), 8-20.
Schmitt, J. & Mitukiewicz, A. (2012). Politics matter: changes in unionisation
rates in rich countries, 1960-2010. Industrial Relations Journal, 43(3), 260-280.
Stanford, J., Wilson, F., Cohen, M., Payne, L., Schwartz, K., Levine, G., & ... Palmer, B. D.
(2009). Forum on labour and the economic crisis: can the union movement rise to the
occasion?. Labour, 64, 135-172.
Survey Says Fear Is Cause ofUnion Decline. (1995). Management Report for Nonunion
Organizations, 18(8), 1-2.
Tucker, E. (2008). The constitutional right to bargain collectively: the ironies of labour history
in the Supreme Court of Canada. Labour, 61,151-180 .
Ward, I. (2008). Kevin07. labor's pitch to generation youtube. Social Alternatives, 27(2), 11-15.
Western, B. & Rosenfeld, J. (2011). Unions, norms, and the rise in U.S. wage inequality.
American Sociological Review, 76(4) 513-537.

62

Yates, C. (2006). Challenging misconceptions about organizing women into unions.
Gender, Work & Organization, 13(6), 565-584.

63