The work- life balance strategies of USDAW: mobilizing collective voice

Rigby Mike

O’Brien Smith Fiona

Word Count: 6226

Abstract

This paper examines the articulation of member voice on work-life balance by USDAW at political, corporate and workplace levels. Despite eliciting favourable institutional responses at a political and corporate level, the necessary union role in policing and facilitating agreements at workplace level emphasizes the interdependence of partnership and organizing.

Mike Rigby, London South Bank University, 103 Borough Road, London SE1 0AA

Email:

Fiona O’Brien Smith, London South Bank University, 103 Borough Road, London SE1

0AA Email:

1: Introduction

Discussions of union renewal have tended to focus on the relative merits of two different approaches, one emphasizing the possibility of building upon common interests between

unions and employers (e.g. partnership , voice), the other stressing the need for unions to prioritize organizing activity and the representational power of workers. Some writers (Ackers and Payne; 1998; Jacoby, 1997) suggest the two approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive or contradictory but others have pointed to the tensions of combining them (Heery, 2002).

This paper considers the approach of USDAW (Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers), the main union organizing in the UK retailing sector, a union which has often been associated with a more integrative approach to employers (Haynes and Allen, 2001) but which has also invested significantly in organizing (Heery, 2002). By an examination of the union’s intervention in work life issues the paper seeks to show how the two approaches have to be reconciled as the union’s options are constrained by membership and sector characteristics.

It has been suggested that work life issues offer considerable scope for union intervention (Arthur, 2002; Gerstl and Clawson, 2001). Work life issues have been seen as an area particularly fitted to an integrative approach to employment relations where common ground between unions and management might be identified (Clutterbuck, 2003; Morris and Pillinger, 2006). From the employee’s point of view work life balance policies can enable them to manage more effectively the interface between work and non-work. From the employer’s perspective the ‘business case’ for action on work life issues holds out the prospect of reducing labour turnover/absenteeism and increasing employee loyalty/commitment. Indeed, the two most substantial efforts to examine trade union intervention on work life issues, Budd and Mumford (2004) and Heery (2006), do identify the development of an integrative approach, although in the former case the approach depended on the type of issue. For Budd and Mumford the increased availability of parental leave and paid family leave appeared to stem from the monopoly effect of unions on employee benefits while the provision of child care and job sharing policies stemmed more from the collective voice effect of union intervention. Unfortunately, in the case of both studies, the limitations of the data make it difficult to fully evaluate the union approach and its effectiveness. Budd and Mumford’s analysis of WERS 1998 data cannot consider how policies are initiated or implemented (and the nature of union involvement in these processes). Heery, using data collected in 2002, provides evidence of union success in negotiating agreements but not of any employer role in the development of these agreements nor the degree to which they are subsequently implemented.

The need for a sceptical approach to the significance of policies and agreements on work life issues is emphasized by other research. Despite the articulation of the ‘business case’ by the Government and various work life pressure groups (Lowe, 2007), many employers seem unconvinced. WERS, 2004 found that 69% of managers in the private sector thought it was up to individuals to balance their work and family responsibilities (Kersley et al, 2006). Evidence of progress in employers making available work life balance options has been disappointing (Taylor, 2003; White et al, 2004; Kersley et al, 2006). The ‘empty shell’ theory put forward by Hoque and Noon (2004) in relation to equal opportunities policies – that many policies are only narrowly available and not worth the paper they are written on - would also seem to apply to work life policies. Kodz et al (2002) found that employees are inhibited from taking advantage of available policy options for improving their work life balance. Gambles et al (2006) suggest policies are undermined by working practices, structures and cultures.

This paper explains the methodological approach adopted in the study and then traces the involvement of USDAW in the work life area and the different approaches adopted at different stages, relating the union’s action to the context in which it is operating. It finally locates the findings in the discussion of union renewal.

2. Methodological Note

The study was located in multiple retail supermarkets, the only sector of retailing with significant union organization. The retail sector is a challenging one for the main union, USDAW, largely because of the high staff turnover rates. Union membership density for the sector as a whole has been estimated at 11% (Grainger and Crowther, 2007).

Qualitative data were collected from union respondents at national, regional and workplace level via in depth interviews. The research sought to trace the emergence, development and implementation of union strategy through various contexts/levels (political, company, workplace etc). To understand this process it was felt necessary to explore the contexts in which the various actors were operating. A qualitative approach, with its emphasis on exploring the research subjects’ experience, appeared more likely to achieve this (and overcome the limitations noted in previous studies). The use of qualitative methods inevitably limits any claims about the representative nature of the data.

The interviews (30 in all) took place with USDAW representatives, with the two exceptions indicated below, and included:

  • Workplace representatives from Morrisons, Sainsburys and Tesco (including a group interview with TGWU ( Transport and General Workers Union) London Stewards from Sainsburys)[1]
  • Divisional /Regional officials (including the TGWU regional official for Sainsburys).
  • National Officials responsible for company level negotiations in the three companies
  • National officials in USDAW responsible for the work life area and political development
  • TUC (Trades Union Congress) officials responsible for the work life area.

The interviews were carried out in 2006. In relation to access direct contact was made with USDAW nationally on the basis of TUC recommendations and USDAW national officials furnished contact details for divisional and workplace respondents. It is probable that the workplace representatives identified in this way were from better-organized stores. Direct contact was made with the TGWU official for Sainsburys and, with his help, London based stewards were invited to a group interview.

The interview schedule was to a limited extent adapted according to the status of respondent but included a number of common ‘grand tour’ areas:

  • organizational/union context
  • understanding of work life issues and problems
  • employer perspective on work life issues – acceptance of business case- relation to model of employment relations
  • awareness/perception of union policies and activity
  • work life issues taken up by union, methods adopted, success achieved
  • role of legislation
  • problems faced by union in the area
  • perception of particular work life strategies – flexible working, part time working

3. Data and Analysis

Pressures to adopt an integrative, voice approach and focus on work life issues

There are serious limits to USDAW’s ability to use monopoly power in its relations with the major retail supermarkets. Although density of union membership in the retail food multiples is above the average for the sector as a whole it rarely reaches 50%, average density in the best organized employer, Tesco, being 45%. The high labour turnover in the sector is a major factor contributing to this situation.

The employers approach to pay reflects the limits to union power. The introduction of the minimum wage has now effectively taken pay out of competition in the retail sector. Wage levels are no longer a major focus of collective bargaining for employers. Negotiations effectively relegate wage increases to an annual balance sheet enquiry. Major supermarkets take the minimum wage as their base line, typically ‘floating just above’ this line to ensure a position as ‘good employer’ within local labour markets (the 2008 main grade C rate at Tesco was 6.496 per hour, about £1 more than the current National Minimum Wage rate). From the union’s perspective there is the recognition of the constraints within which pay bargaining takes place and of the limited scope for manoeuvre:

I think there is a recognition in the pay review process that the days when an employer and a trade union could turn up with a blank sheet of paper and absolute free hands, that’s not been the reality for a long, long time, I mean everyone’s got their budgets and so on. (National Official)

An awful lot of our members work much longer hours than they would want to. If they were better off they would work less hours. Follow that through then you might think that, well on the logic of that, we should just negotiate on core pay rates. But in actual fact, I think quite often the dynamic of pay negotiations with many employers are that you can agree the pay claim, you can agree what the pay rise is, you can see the range where pay settlements are, you wouldn’t have to be a rocket scientist to predict where some of the pay settlements are going to be in the year ahead. (National Official)

The limited scope for making progress on pay in the retailing has as a result encouraged USDAW to develop a bargaining agenda that includes a range of non-pay issues

. …. if we are looking at pay, well if that pay percentage increase is within that

narrow area, then what else we add into that package is actually quite

important , and could be at a relatively low cost. (National Official)

Among those non-pay issues the work life area is prominent as a result of the union’s perception of its members and their priorities. Of USDAW’s 360,000-strong membership, 58% are women but the proportion is still higher in retailing because in other areas of the union’s membership such as warehousing and distribution there are significantly more male members. One in three of USDAW’s membership is part time (up from one in four in the mid 1980s) but in the stores included in the study most members were part time women. The average worker in the sector studied therefore is a female, part time employee often with caring responsibilities limiting her labour market mobility. The relatively high labour turnover in the sector often in part reflects job moves because of changes affecting employees’ caring responsibilities. The following comments stress the significance of the work life issue to union officials and at the same time its perceived integrative potential.

We have shifted as negotiators, not that we don’t put the emphasis on the rate

of pay. For the part time women members it (work life balance) is a big issue – if

they ( the company) want to keep people in they need to do something - people

look at the whole package - if they have good work life balance policies in place

they will come to you rather than going down the road. (National Official)

Work life balance – it has always been there – we just never called it work life balance before - all the issues around child care – being able to fit the job around your family – whether children or caring for another member of the family. They are the key issues – trying to convince employers that if they do it this way it is in their interest. (National Official)

People who work part time and have caring responsibilities build their lives around a certain working pattern, sometimes combining incredibly complicated support networks in order to be able to go to work. (National Official)

Three quarters of national, regional and lay officers interviewed identified work life issues as central to members’ interests. Membership surveys, branch resolutions and office enquiries all provided evidence of the importance of the area to the membership. However respondents stressed that it was necessary to provide strong national leadership in the area because of the specific characteristics of the membership:

It’s one of those things also where the union has to give a positive steer, or positive support to these items because it’s always and inevitably the case that those people with the biggest work-life-balance issues aren’t necessarily going to be those people who feel they can play a full role in the union or a full role in the partnership process. So we’ve been, from the centre really, we’ve seen the importance of placing strong stress on this area, even though there might be more interest in privilege cards, for example. (National Officer)

Therefore USDAW is more advanced than the membership on the issue - it is being led from the top rather than the bottom. (Store Representative)

The USDAW case supports the argument of Heery (2005) that union initiatives on behalf of part-time workers are associated with equality structures in unions. Work life issues were initially promoted by the Women and Equalities Section of the union and then by the National Women’s Conference, from which the Parents and Carers’ Campaign originated in 2004. The focus on work life issues was also encouraged by the significant number of women full time officials and officers, confirming previous research (Kirton and Healy, 1999; Conley, 2005). Five out of seven national officers responsible for national agreements and 52% of workplace representatives were women.

The Articulation of Member Voice

USDAW articulates membership voice at two levels – at a national political level and at company level. The dialogue between union and employers around voice issues begins, albeit indirectly, at the national political level. Heery (2006) has pointed to the importance of European and national legislation in the work life area as a lever used by trade unions to open up negotiations. In retailing, the legislative framework plays a crucial role given the weakness of collective bargaining and union organization in the sector. As a result USDAW has seen it as a priority to influence legislation on work life issues as a precursor to advancing these issues at company level. Similarly, on the employers’ side, the Retail Consortium and individual companies have regularly sought to influence legislative proposals.

At both levels, political and company, the union places priority upon the articulation of voice being evidence based and surveys of the membership play a key role in providing this evidence. This approach lends substance to the voice but also recognizes the realities of power. Thus:

What we try to do in USDAW, which probably differentiates us from most other unions, is that we try to base everything in the experience of our members and it’s not just a General Secretary’s sounding off about an issue. Before we sound off about something we do tend to go and survey our members. (National Officer)

I think because we’ve never been in a position to use industrial strength, because in retail we’ve never had it, we’ve had to evidence base all our arguments over the years. (Area Organizer)

USDAW has used such evidence to support campaigns such as ‘Parents and Carers’, ’Sunday Trading’ and ‘Protect Christmas Day’ to lobby the government to achieve favourable legislation. Key elements in the union’s lobbying approach have been organizing petitions among customers and in the local community, writing to MPs and to the local press, and forming alliances with other organizations e.g. parents’ groups and churches. The union’s national political officer maintains a close relationship with the twenty MPs committed to intervene on USDAW’s behalf in relevant parliamentary debates. The union emphasizes the constructiveness of its approach to the Labour Government and its efforts to fit the interests of its membership to the government agenda.

We are trying to show the government that this (the right to request flexible working) links in to the whole respect agenda as well, that parents are being given more responsibilities, ensuring that their children get to school, ensuring that their children aren’t out on the streets in the evening and the whole respect agenda and the anti-social behaviour measures, such as parenting orders, don’t take into account the parents’ working situation. I mean millions of parents work in the service sector, not just in retail, and the busy times in services are evenings and weekends when children aren’t in schools and when often there’s no childcare available at all. (National Officer)