Membership Participation in British Trade Unions

An introduction to membership participation in British trade unions, with reference to the National Union of Teachers

A University of Manchester Working Paper, September 2004

Gemma Edwards, Department of Sociology

The following report is intended as an introduction to some of the issues surrounding membership participation in British trade unions, with particular reference to the National Union of Teachers (NUT). Existing literature on union participation and membership activism is reviewed in this context, alongside the latest national statistics on union participation from the Department of Trade and Industry (Palmer et al 2004). Where appropriate, I refer to my ongoing research project on NUT membership participation[1], and specifically, to the data collected from twenty-five in-depth interviews with NUT ‘activists’[2].

The paper is divided into three sections: in section one I identify the issue of membership non-participation in the NUT, providing two essential ‘disclaimers’ which need to be considered by anyone addressing the ‘problem’ of ‘non-participation’, in section twoI highlight the problem of non-participation in the NUT as both a general problem and as one which requires the special consideration of women and young members if it is to be appropriately addressed, and finally in section three I review some of the

theories of membership participation presented in existing literature.

Section one: participation in trade unions

The NUT is an interesting case when considering the question of trade union participation in the currentBritish context. As a union, it has continued to increase its membership since the early 1990s, despite a dip in numbers throughout the 1980s. This dip is the likely after-effect of the teacher strikes of 1984-7 and the anti-trade union legislation that followed (Barber 1992, 64) (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Total number of paid-up NUT members, at four yearly intervals from 1979

Year / Number of members contributing to the NUT General Fund
2003 / 267,671
1999 / 228,438
1995 / 192,009
1991 / 178,112
1987 / 195,126
1983 / 226,227
1979 / 260,727

Source of statistics: NUT Annual Returns to the Certification Officer.

Note, Annual Returns state the ‘membership total’ for a trade union, however, CO figures are thought to suffer from a degree of inflation (Disney et al 1998, 3). I have therefore used the figure relating to ‘number of members contributing to the general fund’ instead. This figure includes only those paying membership subscriptions and therefore gives a more accurate picture, as well as being closer to figures published elsewhere, such as the Annual TUC Returns.

The NUT’s growing membership seemingly goes against the well-documented decline in trade union density[3] since 1979 (Disney et al 1998, Brook 2002). Although, the latest research indicates that rates of membership are beginning to stabilise, and a slight increase in employee union density of 0.1% was recorded between autumn 2002 and 2003 (Palmer et al 2004[4]).

The sustained growth of the NUT is partly because as a public sector white-collar union it has been less affected by changes relating to the decline of manufacturing industries and issues around union recognitionin the private sector[5] (Lawrence 1994, 41, Disney et al 1998). This is not to say however that the political context of the 1980s failed to have a profound effect on teacher unionism (Seifert 1987, Barber 1992), creating a more hostile environment through measures like the removal of national negotiating rights over pay[6]. Teacher unions have therefore also been subject to restrictions and have managed to recover numbersin spite of this.

Due to this growthin membership the wealth of literature on declining trade union participation is not the focus for the NUT and apart from where ideas are transferable to the question of membership participation, this body of literature will be largely left aside. The problem for the NUT is not with recruiting workers to the union, but with recruiting members to positions within the union. In short, the problem is with union activism. This statement does, however, require at least two disclaimers.

Disclaimer One

Firstly, it is acknowledged that the problem of membership non-participation or ‘membership apathy’ as it is sometimes referred to in the literature (Lipset 1954, Roy 1968, Franzway 2000), is not a new one, either for trade unions or academic reflection. Many have been keen to point out that mass non-participation in union affairs is indeed the norm for trade unions. In 1954 S.M Lipset made the following observation, which is often quoted in research seeking to address the ‘problem’ of membership participation (see Roy 1968, Lawrence 1994, 13):

Even in trade unions and professional associations which affect the individual’s occupational role vitally, such membership apathy is the usual state of affairs in the absence of severe organisational crisis (Lipset 1954).

This view is also often shared by those looking at political participation more widely. Dahl, for example, argues that considering the costs of participation in political groups and parties, the puzzling question is not why some people do notparticipate, but, on the contrary, why some people do (Dahl 1961) (see also Olson 1965).

These academic observations have not, however, prevented concerns being raised over membership participation,either within trade unions themselves or industrial relations research. In February 2004, the NUT formed a ‘Union Democracy Working Party’ to discuss new ways of increasing membership involvement. This measure followed the ‘Union Democracy’ resolution agreed by Conference in 2003. This stated that:

Conference believes that it is important for the future of the Union that more members become involved in its activities and its decision-making.

Conference urges the National Executive to address democracy issues at each level of union organisation, national, regional, local and at school levels and to consider ways in which the staff of the Union contribute to membership participation within the Union.

(Resolution onUnion Democracy, NUT Conference 2003).

The NUT Working Party is due to report back to Conference with its findings in 2005. Issues of membership participation are, therefore, both immediate and central to the NUT.

Concerns of this nature are not, however, ‘new’ to the Union. Roy’s(1968) study of participation in the NUT reveals anxiety over the issue back in the 1950s and 1960s. Using historical records from local association minute books, he concluded that there had been a ‘steady decline’ in attendance at NUT meetings and events from the 1870s to the 1960s, signalling a fall in active involvement. Roy also cites the 1955 General Secretary address to NUT National Conference. This is worth quoting at length in order to establish that the issue of non-participation has at times been a key part of the NUT’s historical, as well as present-day, agenda.

When I became General Secretary of the NUT, I was determined that so far as national duties would allow, my colleagues and I would make ourselves accessible. Like our officers and executive members, we would go to the members. But even when we visit local and county associations we cannot get in touch with members unless they are prepared to come to meetings. What is the effect of this apathy? First, members are cut off from their representatives and do not know what is being done on their behalf. Secondly, inactive members have no part in influencing, guiding or controlling the policy of the union. The machinery of the union is thoroughly democratic. It enables every member to express opinions and to influence policy. But if members do not attend meetings, discussions and the resolutions which emerge are not truly representative. Thirdly, lethargy in the membership results in officials and representatives being chosen from only a part of the membership (NUT General Secretary 1955, quoted in Roy 1968, 46).

The issue of membership participation can be traced back further than this, however, tothe editorial opening of The Schoolmaster[7] in 1872:

There must be no apathy. Every member must actively fulfil his or her share of the duties which membership involves. (Editorial: ‘Setting out the vision of the NUT’, The Schoolmaster, March 30, 1872, p.137).

If non-participation by members was to be the norm, as Lipset suggested, the NUT clearly set out against it and soughtinstead to instil an expectation of active involvement. For a union priding itself on democratic organisation (Manzer 1970, 49), membership duties involve attending meetings, participating in debates over policy, and formulating memoranda to be voted on by representatives at conference (Figure 2). Additionally, some members would be required to take on positions of leadership and responsibility at each of these levels.

Figure 2

The Democratic Structure of the NUT

A problem with membership non-participation therefore signals a problem with the workings of union democracy, at least in terms of the NUT’s ideal vision. Again, the issue of getting members involved in these democratic processes is not ‘new’. In Manzer’s examination of NUT membership participation in 1970, he estimated that 75% of members consistently failed to attend General Meetings of the local NUT associations (Manzer 1970, 31).

Summary

The assertion that there is a present-day problem with membership non-participation in the NUT needs to be qualified by stressing that membership non-participation is often seen as the norm in trade unions, and that the problem creating concern today is not a ‘new’ problem facing the NUT.

Disclaimer Two

To a large extent,expectations of how much a member should participate in their union determine how far membership non-participation is to be regarded as a ‘problem’ for the union. In this respect, the NUT’s democratic vision, as outlined above, translates into an expectation of participation that leads to a ‘problem’ when this ideal is not made reality (as reflected in studies like Roy 1968, and Manzer 1970). This observation converges with the literature on participation in the political science field more generally. Parry et al, for instance, argue that any study of participation is also, in one way or another, a study of democracy. Further, they suggest that democratic ideals influence a researcher’s interpretation of exhibited levels of citizen participation (Parry et al 1992).

Similarly, ourideas on what form membership participation should take influence our definitions of what counts as ‘participation’ and thus our assessments of decline/crisis/apathy. In this respect, the NUT’s democratic vision puts the emphasis on attendance at meetings and conferences, and previous studies have tended to define participation in terms of these activities. Interestingly, this is the case in Roy’s(1968) study of NUT ‘membership apathy’. The extent to which an account of members’union activities can shed light upon their engagement with union affairs is, however, questionable[8]. Through the use of qualitative interviewing,the research in progress aims to let NUT members themselves define what counts as participation, raising the possibility that forms other than meetings and official roles should be considered as meaningful ways to be active within the union.

Summary

The assertion that there is a present-day ‘problem’ with membership participation in the NUT needs to be qualified by stressing that the identification of a ‘problem’ with participation depends largely upon expectations of participation levels, as well as on what forms of participation are taken as the basis of definition.

For the purposes of this paper, non-participation will be discussed in the following section in terms of official positions, but this is not to deny the importance of other, subjectively defined forms, of meaningful participation on the part of members.

Section two:membership non-participation in the NUT

The non-participation of members in NUT meetings and official positions is a widespread problem affecting every local association involved in the research to date[9]. This is a good indictor of a national situation in which membership non-participation of this type is a key concern for union activists and, furthermore, union democracy. The following comment on local levels of participation was fairly typical of interviewees:

How would you describe the levels of participation in the NUT in your area?

From nil, absolutely zilch - they pay membership and its an insurance scheme and then they ring you when they’ve got a disaster - through to those people who do come to meetings but don’t want to take an active role, which is absolutely fine because people are very, very busy - through to the hardcore, which is about eight of us (which is pathetic out of a membership of about six hundred), who meet very, very regularly and spearhead campaigns up there. And that number of eight has gone down from about thirty, to a hardcore of eight (NUT Local Association Secretary, April 2004).

Non-participation can be said to be widespread in that the majority of people do not participate, and this includes men and women, young and old, and teachers of varying ethnic identities. It is not, therefore, just a question of howto get groups traditionally seen as less active to participate (like women and young people), for example, but how to get anybody to participate. This was stressed by NUTSchoolRepresentatives and DivisionalSecretaries in interviews.

National Trends in union membership

In terms of the national picture, women are now catching up with men in terms of trade union density. In 2003, men’s union density was only 0.1% higher than that of women (Palmer et al, 2004, 5). This was due to a growth in women’s union membership coupled with a fall in men’s membership over the previous year (Palmer et al 2003, 3).

Trends relating to age and union membership are also reflected in the latest national statistics. In 2003 trade union density for UK 16-24 year olds was 5.6%, compared to 45.3% for those aged 35-49 (Palmer at al 2004). Whilst past studies have pointed to such a correlation between age and union membership (with older workers more likely to be unionised than younger workers) (Conlon and Gallagher 1987), more recent research shows how this correlation is influenced by changes in the nature of the labour market entered into by younger generations of workers, rather than by age as a characteristic of the worker alone (Disney et al 1998). Disney et al thus make an important differentiation between age and cohort (or generation) (Disney at al 1998, 9-10).

These national patterns in trade union membership have some relevance when considering membership participation in the NUT. Even though non-participation is widespread among members, there are still clear patterns relating to issues of identity in the minority who do participate in official positions.

Female NUT members

The NUT does not have a problem attracting female members. Latest TUC figures show that 182,677 out of a total of 239,796 NUT members are female (TUC Membership Return, 2003). This means that women are by far the majority of NUT members (76%). This numerical dominance does not however translate into higher levels of union activism by women NUT members compared to their male counterparts.

Figure 3 shows the positions held by men and women in NUT associations in England and Wales, derived from the listings in the NUT Annual Report for 2003.

Figure 3

Positions held by men and women in NUT Associations in EnglandWales, 2002

Position in union association / Number held by men / Number held by women / Total
Secretary / 194
(65%) / 102
(35%) / 296
(100%)
Treasurer / 178
(65%) / 97
(35%) / 275
(100%)
President / 112
(44%) / 145
(56%) / 257
(100%)
Equal Opportunities / 43
(20%) / 173
(80%) / 216
(100%)
Health & Safety / 141
(65%) / 75
(35%) / 216
(100%)
Teacher Support Network (TSN) / 92
(43%) / 121
(57%) / 213
(100%)
Membership / 117
(53%) / 104
(47%) / 221
(100%)
Totals / 877
(52%) / 817
(48%) / 1694
(100%)

Source of information on who holds association positions: Index of NUT Annual Report 2003, ‘List of Associations in Union 2002’ pp. 357-425.

Note: A member can sometimes hold more than one position in an association. Where this is the case, that member has been counted in each instance. The ‘total’ column therefore represents the total number of positions in associations, rather than the total number of members participating in the associations (which will be lower because of multi-position holding).

Note: In rare cases where the names listed are inconclusive of the sex of the position-holder, the position has been recorded as held by a female.

Figure 3 shows little overall difference in the numbers of men and women participating in official positions in union associations. Men are a slight majority at 52% of all positions. It does, however, reveal some differences in the type of positions men and women tend to hold. Male members are concentrated in positions of Treasurer and Health & Safety Officer (holding 65% of those positions). Men also make up 65% of Association Secretaries. Women, on the other hand, make up just over half of Association Presidents (57%) and TSN (Teacher Support Network) Officers (57%). The biggest concentration of women members, however, is in positions relating to EqualOpportunities, where they account for 80% of all officers.

The fact that men and women participate in NUT associations in almost equal numbersneeds to be qualified therefore by pointing to differences in the type of positions they are likely to hold, particularly as men dominate higher positions like ‘Association Secretary’. Furthermore, the equal participation of men and women in union associations does not translate into equal representation of male and female members. Here it is necessary to refer back to the latest figures, which show that 76% of NUT members are female (TUC Membership Return,2003). Equal participation for women, ironically perhaps, still translates into a problem of under-representation. Figure 4 highlights this by showing the number of union association positions held by women in relation to the number of positions that would be proportionate to female membership overall.

Figure 4

The under-representation of women in NUT associations in England & Wales 2002, proportionate to membership numbers[10]

Position in union association / Number held by women / Number proportionate to female membership (76%) / Short-fall
Secretary / 102 / 225 / 123
Treasurer / 97 / 209 / 112
President / 145 / 195 / 50
Equal Opportunities / 173 / 164 / -9
Health & Safety / 75 / 164 / 89
Teacher Support Network (TSN) / 121 / 162 / 41
Membership / 104 / 168 / 64
Totals / 817 / 1287 / 470

Source of information on who holds association positions: Index of NUT Annual Report 2003, ‘List of Associations in Union 2002’ pp. 357-425.

The last column of the table in figure 4 shows the shortfall of women in association positions relative to the proportion of the membership who are female. It shows that although women are over-represented as Equal Opportunities Officers, they are under-represented in all other areas. Essentially, this indicates that women NUT members are disproportionately absent from those who participate in association positions. This clearly suggests a gender issue with regards to non-participation of this type. The question of how to increase participation therefore requires a consideration of the experiences offemale NUT members.