Are North American Unions facing an Existential Crisis?
Some terms in English carry a lot of meaning and as such can easily be misinterpreted and used out of context and inappropriately. The term “existential threat” for example has been used when the writer meant to suggest that a person or group is facing a dangerous situation that puts their existence in jeopardy. These situations however are usually termed as “potential disasters” or could be termed as extinction events, but they are not existential threats per se.
Climate change, terrorism and political polarization are all threats to humankind that we need to take seriously. However, they are trigger events. These are what can be termed an “existential crisis” which is defined as a recurring pattern of behaviours or thoughts regarding your identity, purpose in life, and legacy, among other things. Groups can also experience existential crises when events or circumstances prompt the group to question why it exists.
Now back to labour relations…
Unions in North America are faced with current circumstances that threaten their continued viability. Therefore, using our definitions above, these unions should be experiencing an existential crisis requiring them to review and adjust their ways in order to survive. In the United States union membership has declined to approximately 9% of the working population. In Canada while up slightly in recent years in terms of absolute numbers, the proportion of workers belonging to a union (as a percentage of the total working population) has declined from a high of about 40% to about 29% today. There are a number of important reasons for the decline.
Factors leading to a reduction in the number of people belonging to unions includes shifts in the economic makeup from traditional “Smokestack” industries to an economy with a larger tertiary sector (finance, retail and services oriented). The rapid advancement of technology has led to a decrease in employment in the primary and secondary sectors where workers have been replaced by automation and processes have improved dramatically from capital investment. In addition, globalization has changed the competitive landscape. In industries with relatively high entry capital costs (for example automotive manufacturing) North American producers have had to face international companies who have been able to enter the market and set up shop here as non-union employers.
These new, often non-union operations, can offer competitive wages and benefits but still have significantly lower labour costs because they do not carry the legacy costs associated with a long tenured and aging workforce (e.g. defined benefit pension costs). As well, new entrants are able to optimize staffing levels and production processes in ways that are more difficult for legacy producers to replicate, and meet with resistance from their staff who are potentially adversely impacted by the adoption of new innovative production techniques.
These threats, which are very real, change the status quo and should lead to forcing unions to change strategies in terms of the potential targets for organizing efforts and in terms of bargaining items and priorities. At the negotiating table we in fact have seen unions seeking concessions with respect to the introduction of new technology, staffing levels and other things related to job security. In the summer of 2023 UAW strike south of the border one of the demands by the union, met by General Motors, was offering recognition of the union as the bargaining agent for new workers at planned battery plants as the company shifts its future focus on Electric Vehicle production.
However, these types of decisions remain more short-term focused and tactical than they are strategic. Casual observers will rightfully note that in the end much of the current tension between unions and employers continues to centre around wage and benefit improvements rather than on things that would truly change the nature of the relationship. Unfortunately this is the nature of our adversarial system which reduces the relationship to a mere bargaining relationship rather than as something elevated such a partners with differing interests that are mutually attainable.
In Canada we recognize the legitimacy of unions as stakeholders in the enterprises where they have won the right to represent workers but we do not accept that they can have a bigger role than that of an agent of the workers. Hence our interactions between management and union leaders is largely transactional. Furthermore, it is unlikely in any instance for the management of an organization to accept that a union has any beneficial role in any transformational efforts. For their part unions have accepted this and have adopted the role of “ opposition” whereby they counter the positions adopted by management as a matter of course regardless of the merits of any given position. This is a manifestation of the “devil’s advocate” role in group dynamics which has some value but is limited in terms of the actual benefits it produces. Moreover, carried to an extreme, this countervailing force can simply create a drag on finding mutually beneficial solutions that take the collective stakeholders into a better future.
Though it is a circular argument the reason management does not accept unions as anything more than a bargaining agent operating at a transactional level is that it fits with the behaviour of the unions. Unions tend to be conservative in the sense that they cling to old concepts and strategies that have brought them success in the past. They are slow to adopt anything new in terms of how they run their businesses. It is likely some unionists would argue that they are in the vanguard when it comes to the promotion of minority rights, women’s issues, pay equity and indigenous inclusion; but these are issues and do not reflect how the union goes about fighting the good fight.
Sadly, union tactics have remained largely the same since the inception of the labour movement over 100 years ago. They develop bargaining power and leverage during negotiations through the threat of work stoppages. For some unions (e.g. in the marine industries and construction) they use their control of labour supply to increase their bargaining clout. Today in lieu of illegal wild cat strikes they pursue issues through legal litigation in the hopes that they can whittle away at contract management rights over the term of a collective agreement. These are all antipodal[1] and interfere with the maturation and success of the relationship between labour and management. At a macro level this also interferes with sector and national economic success.
It would seem logical that the continued threats to the viability of the union movement would lead to some change in behaviour. However, it is quite possible, and likely, that the labour movement will not be able to fully recognize the threats for what they are and will not be able to adopt the right strategies that will allow them to grow in a rapidly changing global environment. This is the distinction between what is a threat to your existence and what is an existential crisis. In this case what unions are facing is a threat to their future viability which, in our opinion ought to trigger an existential crisis.
In many of the current disputes between management and labour in both Canada and the U.S. there has been a marked increase in the disparity between the views of union leaders and the views of their members. Several strikes have occurred following union recommended tentative settlements being turned down by the union members. In other cases, we have seen ratification votes that are very close to 50/50 and that have left a substantial proportion of the workforce dissatisfied.
It is this gap between what union members want from their union representatives and what unions have traditionally delivered that labour leaders need to contemplate. They need to be questioning the very essence of their organizations. They need to look for a transformative change that will establish them as an important valuable stakeholder in the economy of the future. The union of the twentieth century is fast becoming an anachronism[2].
So to answer our original question – “Are North American Unions facing an Existential Crisis?”
The short answer is yes, however the question remains, are they doing anything about it? If the union movement does not reconsider it’s identity and purpose in alignment with 21st century needs, we are all in trouble.
With your help, we would like to grow our readership! Please share this article with two people who might also enjoy and benefit from reading and learning from our articles.
[1] Antipodal definition - relating to or situated on the opposite side of the earth.
diametrically opposed to
[2] Anachronism definition - a thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, especially a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned.