LABOR DISCUSSION 4

GLOBAL UNIONS

Challenging Transnational Capital through Cross-Border Campaigns

EDITED BY

KATE BRON FEN BR EN NER

ILRPress AN IMPRINT OF

Cornell University Press Ithaca and London

------------. 8. LABOR-COMMUNITY COALITIONS, GLOBAL UNION ALLIANCES, AND THE POTENTIAL OF

SEIU'S GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS

AMANDA TATTERSALL

The idea that the workers of the world should unite is deeply rooted in union rhetoric, yet the means by which global union alliances can be effec- tivelysustained is less apparent. This chapter uses lessons from labor-community coalition practices to help explore the elements of effective long-term global union alliances. In doing so, it suggests there are generalizable lessons about coalitions, whether between unions or between unions and community or- ganizations, that can inform our understanding of union collaboration. It considers the possibilities for creating powerful global union alliances in the servicesector through a case study of the Service Employees International Union's(SEIU) new global partnerships unit. The chapter first outlines the key elements of labor~community coali-

tions, identifying five significant indicators of coalitions, including common concern, structure) organizational commitment, organizational capacity and culture,and campaign scale. These are then explored through the global part- nerships unit established by SEIU in 2004. The core organizational elements of the unit are identified, and then its campaign practices are examined using examples from the Driving Up Standards campaign between SEIU and the UnitedKingdom's Transport and General Workers Union (T&G or TGWU) between2004 and 2005.

Union collaboration lies at the heart of strategies for enhancing union power.Union movements exhibit tendencies toward both unity and fragmen- tation, with collaboration representing an ascendancy of the forces of solidar- ity over fragmentation at a particular historical period (Hyman 1975; Ellem

156 AMANDA TATTERSALL

and Shields 2004). Global union alliances are just one manifestation of this broader form of union practice. . . . .

While international collaboration has been used in the maritime, logistics telecommunications, and manufacturing sectors for decades (Banks and Russ 1999;Hickey 2004; juravich and Bronfenbrenner 2003; Cohen and Early 2000; Meyer 2001), until recently the service sector had rarely been a site of deep global collaboration. However, rapid decline in union density has promoted new forms of union campaigning to rebuild union power. Furthermore, as firms in all industries have increasingly merged, successful organizing cam- paigns have required more than just nationally organized movements (Harrod and O'Brien 2002; Lillie and Martinez-Lucio 2004; SEIU 2005). Service unions have now joined these other sectors in making global organizing a priority to establish union recognition and bargaining power.

This chapter suggests that global union collaboration, as one form of union collaboration, may be able to draw insights from another form of collabo- ration-between labor unions and community organizations. Over the last fifteen years, since the publication of seminal books such as Building Bridges, coalitions between unions and community organizations have become a key part of union renewal (Brecher and Costello 1990; Reynolds 2004). This surge of coalition practice in the industrialized world was preceded by the practice of social movement unionism in the Global South, which connected unions and movements for democracy (Moody 1997; von Holdt 2002). Labor-community coalitions have, in particular, been used to resist global corporations, and de- pending on the industrial scale of those corporations, have had varying suc- cess (Herod 2001). However, as capital has globalized, it has been necessary to revisit traditional definitions of the community as "local" (Ellem 2005). While the term "community" in labor-community coalitions implies notions oflocal place, employers and government operate at multiple scales, which requires hat unions be capable of resistance and confrontation at multiple scales of ower (Tattersall 2006). This may mean including a broader range of multi- caled coalition stakeholders, such as global unions. Thus, this chapter adapts cholarship on labor-community coalitions to enhance our understanding of different form of coalition, the global union alliance, in order to explore hen those alliances are likely to be powerful.

, o

t p s s a w

c: ~111 ttl -:;;1 ! I

,,~t':::

Lessons from Labor-Community Coalitions

Labor-community coalitions vary, and whether they can build powerful sustamable campaigns depends on the degree of reciprocal, interdependent connection between coalition partners (Tattersall 2005). This section ex- plores five features of coalitions-conlillon concern) structure, organizational

........------------ .. SEIU GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS 157

commitment, organizational culture, and a coalition's scale-as a framework for understanding the potential of global union alliances . . The common concern at the heart of a coalition affects the degree of orga- nizational participation and reciprocity. Ad hoc coalitions have a distant form of common interest, where the subject of the coalitional relationships is in the mterest only of the party seeking solidarity. For global alliances, an example is a one-urne picket against a firm's corporate headquarters in solidarity with a strike in another country. For labor-community coalitions, interconnection deepens when the common concern is in the mutual interest of each of the participating parties. Organizational self-interest for a coalition's core issues makes an organi- zation more likely to deepen its commitment to the campaign. The depth of a coalition's purpose also effects organizational interconnection and support. As a coalition moves from planning tactics to longer-term strategy, it creates a deeper, more powerfully negotiated collaboration (Reynolds 1999).Thus the sustainabil- ity and depth of global alliances is likely to increase, depending on the degree to which the coalition's goals reflect the direct interest of each of the union partners, and the extent to which the global alliances build a joint strategy for power. The structure of the coalition relationship also affects the power of a co-

alition. Lasting relationships require formal interconnection though decision- making structures. Indicators of organizational interconnection include groups having equal decision-making power, the participation of senior orga- nizationalleaders, and the space for open negotiation of campaign planning (Tuffs 1998;Nissen 1999). Formal decision making is also assisted by informal support, such as through brokers or bridge builders between organizations (Rose 2000; McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly 2001; Obach 2004). Coalition brokers are dedicated union officials working for the union who act as the regular contact points for external organizations and are responsible for executing co- alition decisions within the union (McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly 2001). Bridge builders are people with experience in both community organizations and unions who translate cultural differences between organizations and help to build trust (Rose 2000). As the trust between organizations deepens, the types of organizations participating can also narrow. Instead of being formed on a come-one-come-all basis, coalitions are self-selecting-members are hand- picked because they have a particular kind of interest or capacity (Tattersall 2005). Global union alliances can increase trust by complementmg formal decision making with informal bridge builders and brokers to assist WIthcul- tural exchange across national boundaries. An example occurred during the United Parcel Service (UPS) 1997 strike, when the tnrernauonal Transport Federation's (ITF) World Council of UPS Unions coordinated a series ofEu- ropean strikes and actions to coincide with the U.S. strike. These acnvines were coordinated by and linked to the International Brotherhood ,ofTeamsters (!BT) by a dedicated JET staff working in the 1FTWorld Council s head office

p

158 AMANDA TATTERSALL

in London. These IBT staff members, who had previous experience in working with international union federations, acted as European bndge budders fo the IBT with the rTF (Banks and Russo 1999).

A coalition's power is enhanced by the degree of organizational commit- ment because such commitment increases the resources an alliance can deploy. Commitment is enhanced by leadership support and demonstrated through the mobilization of a union's or community organization's resources for a co- alition, including financial commitment, activating organizational members in coalition events or activating a union or community organization's external political and organizational relationships to support the coalition's agenda, and'willingness to activate member involvement in coalition events.

The power of a coalition is conditioned by the organizational capacity of its participants and its ability to negotiate differences in organizational culture. Union and community organization capacity varies-some unions have powerful allies or the capacity to mobilize their members; others may have expertise in forms of campaigning (Frege, Heery, and Turner 2004). The capacity of a coalition's par- ticipants shapes the potential power of the coalition. Furthermore, a coalition can experience conflict and tension due to contradictions in organizational culture, which can reduce common understanding and trust (Dreiling 1998).

Finally, coalitions can be distinguished by the scale(s) or level at which they operate. Scale is a concept used by labor geographers to understand the spa- tial aspect of power (Sadler and Fagan 2004). For instance, corporate power, while often categorized by the mobility of capital, can also be constrained by the local, such as in human service work or resource extraction where capital is restricted from moving from specific local places; this creates a capital fix, such as with a mine or property services (Walsh 2000; Ellem 2003). The local scale can be a powerful site for union resistance because it is where people live, work, and can directly participate in decision making and action (Wills 2002). A coalition deepens its power if it is able to sustain organized activity at multi- ple scales because the power of decision makers, such as government or a firm, is rarely focused at only one scale. While a transnational firm may have the capacity to shift its capital globally, human service industries, such as cleaning or school bus driving, are fixed in specific localities. While firms have a choice about where to invest, the work of janitors or school bus drivers remains tied to where its consumer base is located (Herod 2001; Ellem 2005). Organizing power at that local scale may enhance the power of the union (Savage 1998; Walsh 2000): Furthermore, because a coalition's power comes from the people that Itmobilizes, having the capacity to operate at multiple scales, particularly the local, mcreases the degree of rank-and-file participation.

These ind~cat?rs-comrnon concern, structure, organizational commit- me~t). organIZatIOnal capacity and culture, and scale-are indicators of COahtlOnpower, Table 8.1 displays these indicators across a framework of

r

TABLE 8.1. A framework of union-community coalitions

Deep coalitionAd hoc coalition Support coalition Mutual-support coalition

Common concern

Structure

Organizational commitment

Organizational capacity and culture

Scale

Solidarity from one group to another

Initiated by one group (union or community)

Episodic, temporary engagement

Tactical, event-based

No formal coalition formed

Instrumental engagement

Campaign distant from organization member

Participant organizations require only limited capacity

Participant organizations may have very different cultures

Can operate at any scale, from local to global

Coalition activities focused on one organization's interest

Short-term coalition

Some formal shared decision making

Informal dominance by initiating party

Hasty, reactive engagement

Organization leaders dominate decision making; campaign distant from union members

Commitment mainly from organization whose interests are served

Coalition operates at same scale as decision makers (e.g., the state or the city)

Issue of coalition in the mutual direct interest of participating organization

Joint decision-making structure

Midterm focus and planning

Brokers and bridge builders

Union leaders participate in coalition

Some mobilization of union members

Partner organizations mobili- zing their relationships (politicians, media) to support coalition

Participant organizations Similar culture/polit have varied capacity and practice or bridg culture; variations may cause to assist relationship to break down

Organizations work building similar

ical e builders

ing toward capacity

Effective strategy for power at scale of decision maker(s)

Issue ill mutual direct interest of participating organization's members

Long-term plan to build power

Decentralized structure, connections between organi- zations at membership level

A separate formal coalition office

Union actively engaging rank and file

Local structures and local activity happens autono- mously

Organizations have similar capacity and similar culture

Mobilizing capacity at several scales, including local

160 AMANDA TATTERSALL

c:-, ~:'I! U) II

iii ,I ~" "..~~" lel '",..~" :5: :: IF"I.!

increasingly powerful coalition forms, ranging from ad hoc coalitions to deep coalitions. This table shows how each indicator contributes to increasingly powerful labor-community coalitions. .. . .

Thi framework of variations among labor-community coalitions IS use- g . I d'ful for understanding powerful union alliances more generally, 111C u 1l1g

international union alliances. For the second half of the twentieth century, when many unions, particularly in the service sector, constrained thems.elves to the national scale and were closely tied to national regulation, international union relationships were in most cases episodic and distant-such as ad hoc coalitions (Ramsay 1997; Gallin 2002; Castree et al. 2004). There were some notable exceptions, particularly in mining, manufacturing, logistics, and tele- communications, where unions developed global councils and cross-border campaigns to take on corporate giants snch as GE (Meyer 2001), Bridgestone Firestone (Juravich and Bronfenbrenner 2003), UPS (Banks and Russo 1999), Crown Petrolenm (Hickey 2004), and Cable and Wireless Communications (Cohen and Early 2000). The pressure for experimentation with global union alliances, which arises from the challenges that globalization poses to union power, has moved into the service sector.

The service sector has historically been a site of labor-community coali- tions, particularly given the common interests between public-sector work- ers and consumers for quality services (Johnston 1994; Tattersall 2006). Yet privatization has increased the need for service unions to exercise employer pressure, now at an international scale, in addition to more local consumer- based coalitions. In particular, the creation of global partnerships by the SElU is an innovative form of global alliance in the services sector. Below, I examine the establishment of the global partnerships unit and outline its structure. I then use the framework for coalition power to analyze the global alliance's key elements in relation to the Driving Up Standards campaign. This case study included interviews with nine key SElU international staff members, unstructured interviews with four regional SEIU organizers, un- structured interviews with three T&G officers, and three anonymous in- terviews with U.K. union officials between November 2005 and May 2006; analysis of SEIU's conference minutes and internal documents; a T&G lead- ership speech on the alliance with the SEJU in March 2006; and participant observation of an International Transport Organizing Committee (!TOC) and two union trainings, one involving the SEIU organizers in December 2005 and the second involving SEJU and the T&G in March 2006. My data focused on the SEIU staff in order to understand the background and day- to-day operatmn , of the partnerships unit; however, I also undertook inter- views with the T&G and other U.K. union officials in order to understand how the SEIU's organizational changes have been evaluated in the United KlIlgdom.

---....------------- ....... SEIU GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS 161

Global Partnerships: SEIU's Global Union Alliances

In 2006,the SEIU International represented over 1.8million U.S. and Canadian workers across four industries: hospital services, long-term care, the public sector,.and business and property services (SEIU 2006) . It has an mternationa. . I office in Washington, D.C., and over three hundred locals operating through twenty-five state councils. Over the last ten years it has led the debate in the United States on experimenting with growth strategies to organize nonunion workers (SEIU 2004c).

SEIU's global partnerships unit had its inception at the Iune 2004 conven- tion, aiming to build "global strength," one arm of a seven-point platform of collaborative union strengths (SEIU 2004a). The need for global strength came from the increasing challenges of winning for workers in a national con- text,struggling to build local leverage against transnational firms. TomWood- ruff, executive vice president of SEIU, describes the situation: "The world has changed a lot. Companies that used to be in your home town are no longer located in your city. By 2004 many members worked for companies that were multinational. To win members' contracts, we had to campaign at a multina- tionallevel." (interview by author, 2005). The desire for global strength aimed to "move the union global as capital had done" (2005).

The need for global capacity was reinforced by SEIU's industry strategies and its program of comprehensive campaigning. SEIU's organizing strategies are hinged on the plans of the industries it organizes, mapping the patterns of growth in the industry, the major firms, and their relationships and role in setting workplace conditions, in order to identify firms and regions to target in organizing drives (SEIU 2004c).' Woodruff argues that long-term organizing plans compelled the union to take on global organizing; with the "increasing consolidation of the world's economy ... in ten to twenty years each industry sector will be dominated by three to four global companies" (interview by au- thor, 2005). Building global strength was a logical next step for building power in industries that are not confined by national boundaries.

While the idea of global strength is daunting, SEIU argues that the contra- dictions of centralizing capital expose opportunities for unions to organize against it (Herod 2001). The trend toward "the concentration of economic power into fewer hands creates the advantage" of fewer corporate targets for organizing large numbers of workers (Tom Woodruff: mtervi~w by author, 2005). In addition, SEIU's global organizing strategy is targetmg mdustrJ~S that are tied to place. SEIU and the newly formed Change to Win federatlOn s primary aim is to unionize "the more than 50 million Amencan workers who work in industries that cannot be outsourced or shipped overseas" (CTW

I These include building services, public sector, health care, and long-term care.

r 162 AMANDA TATTERSALL

2006). SEIU is targeting forms of work where capital has less mobility, such as in distribution, retail, and human services, to try to overcome the difficulties faced by U.S. unions in industries such as manufacturing and inforn~ation technology when attempting to organize in the context of the offshonng of hundreds of thousands of jobs each year (CTW 2006).

The impetus for global strength came from experiences in several core in- dustries, where the union was unable to build sufficient leverage within the national borders of the United States (SEIU 2005). But previous global work tended to involve one-sided requests, asking for short-term favors from local unions (Debbie Schneider, interview by author, 2005; Emily Stewart, interview by author, 2005). The global partnerships unit sought to shift away from ad hoc solidarity requests to create a systematic capacity for international work.

The global partnerships unit, which was founded in November 2004 and is responsible for the global strength program,' has a reflexive and evolving structure. In 2004, the convention resolution stated that the unit's aim was "to build global strength to win for workers," placing an emphasis on outcomes (SEIU 2004b). This strategy has developed, with the unit now more focused on partnerships that build union capacity internationally across the SEIU's core industries (Debbie Schneider, interview by author, 2005).

The global partnerships unit has a multipronged structure. First, it coordi- nates specific campaigns with a global scope. These campaigns are organized out of particular industrial divisions within the union-for instance, the school bus campaign is coordinated by the public-sector division. The global partnerships unit manages these campaigns, "coordinating and exchang- ing strategy, lessons and best practice" and provides support staff (Debbie Schneider, interview by author, 2005). Second, the global partnerships unit fosters dedicated partnerships to

build union capacity globally for all partner unions. Schneider notes two key examples, a regional partnership in Australia with the Liquor Hospitality and MIscellaneous Workers Union (LHMU) and a partnership in the United Kmgdom with the T&G (Debbie Schneider, interview by author, 2005). The LHMU is a low-wage service union in Australia that has shifted to organizing smce the late 1990s in order to grow in industries such as hospitality, ho- tels, and cleaning (janitorln! services). Similarly, the T&G is a transport and general unI~n th~t is exploring organizing opportunities in cleaning services. These relationship, grew out of long-standing exchanges, initially based on sharing strategIes for growth, and are now focused on building global capac- iry in the buIldmg services mdustry. In Australia and New Zealand SEIU is

, ~~e I refer to the global partnerships unit, it doesn't have a formal name inside the unlOll_ It s somewhere between a division and a department" (Debbie Sch id . t . b author, 2005). net er, In ervtew y

SEIU GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS 163

assisting the LHMU and the Service and Food Workers Union (SFWU) t coordinate the "Clean Start" campaign, and in the United Kingdom it is supo porting "Justice for Cleaners" in London (LHMU 2006; T&G 2006a). These partnerships involve the SElU's employing former local union organizers as SElU officials in each country. They are also long-term, where the goal is to build global union capacity across the cleaning industry (Debbie Schneider, interview by author, 2005).

Third, the global partnerships unit works with targeted global union fed- erations (GUFs) to build their organizing capacity. GUFs are international, industry-specific union groupings. SEIU has attempted to create two organiz- ing projects within these federations. Inside the Union Network International (UNI), the GUF for skills and services, SEIU has helped establish an organizing committee and global organizing plan for property services by providing an organizing director at the international office, and staff and support in several countries including Poland, South Africa, India, the Netherlands, and Germany. A similar project is planned with the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF).

Within this multipronged structure, campaigns are selected according to industry organizing priorities and the availability of union relationships. The goal is "to not pick campaigns because of global input but by asking where are the important players in the industry-and choosing to go after those players" (Debbie Schneider, interview by author, 2005). While that is the in- tention, it has not always been the case in practice. For instance, the Driving Up Standards campaign was selected as a test run for global organizing, given the opportunity of a strong relationship with a U.K. union (Emily Stewart, interview by author, 2005). Campaign choice has been a product of the inter- section between industry priorities and available union relationships and their organizational capacity.

," .......~ :: "'''.. )"1

';1:::, ' .'.',ll:::I'I

::t~l' , ,"~:~:~

Driving Up Standards: Global Union Coalitions

The global partnerships unit entwines selected unions, committed leadership, cultural bridge builders, formal decision-making structures,. and exchanges to interconnect unions in strategic alliances. Using the coalitions framework outlined above, SEIU's global partnerships unit demonstrates an attempt to intensify the SElU's global alliances by moving away from traditional ad hoc international solidarity:

There is a long history of international solidarity, conferences, meetings, a lot of labor tourism; at best it was holding on to what you had .... [Wjorkers here were on strike and unions in other parts of the world would take some

164 AMANDA TATTERSALL

solidarity actions .... [W]hat we are driving at is that's not good enough, the solidarity is certainly a good thing but that it's not enough. We have to orga- nize globally. We have to figure out ways to organize workers In these com- panies in a number of different countries at the same time. (Tom Woodruff, interview by author, 2005)

This section examines the possibilities and lessons from the SElU's glob- al partnerships unit using the five elements outlined above and in table 8.1, drawing on examples from the Driving Up Standards campaign. ThIS cam- paign responded to the shortcomings of SEIU's attempt to organize private school bus contractors for U.S. FirstStudent, a major contractor and standard setter in the industry that operated with a low wage, nonunion business model in the United States. Previous organizing drives were resisted and often failed through the National Labor Relations Board processes. Yet FirstStudent was owned by FirstGroup, a U.K. company that has a working relationship with the T&G. The relationship included rights for union stewards on the job, ac- cess to management to settle grievances, and strong workplace contracts.

In 2006, the T&G was the United Kingdom's largest general union, repre- senting over eight hundred thousand workers. While representing all kinds of workers, it represents four main industrial sectors: food and agriculture, man- ufacturing, services, and transport. The union has a decentralized structure, with shop stewards, workplace branches, and regional offices (T&G 2006b). Under the leadership of TonyWoodley, the union's general secretary, the T&G has shifted to an "organizing agenda," prioritizing strategies for growth and member development in industries such as building services, airlines, and logistics (T&G 2006c).

The formation of a global union campaign between the SEIU and the T&G was seen as the only way to build sufficient power to create an environment where SEIU could unionize U.S. bus workers. This campaign was SEIU's first long-term initiative within the global partnerships unit.

Common Concerns

The global partnerships unit is built on the overarching interest that unions have in "growth" rather than on an "abstract" concern for solidarity (Tom Woodruff, interview by author, 2005). From SEW's perspective, a mutual in- terest in growth is relatively easily cultivated; union density is linked t d "if '. 0 power,

an . \ the unions mternationally are not strong enough to check the com- parues profits then the companies are just going to drive standards down" (Emily Stewart, interview by author, 2005). Tom Woodruff contrasts alliances over density with alliances with community groups noting: "Wh ali .h . , . ffi ~mg Wit commumty groups a mutual objective is hard to figure out, but in global

•

SEIU GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS 165

union work, a mutual objective is not difficult The g I' t . .. . . . oa IS 0 oIgamze com- panyA, lllsldell1dustry A .... [I]t is easier to establish common interest where the mutual objective IS measured and growing" (interview by author, 2005). A common interest m growth is the basis for the long-term mutual interest

alliancebetween the SEW and the T&G. Indeed, beyond the Driving Up Stan- dards~ampalgn, SEIU and the T&G are supporting each other in local growth strategies;the T&G IS supportmg the SEIU by taking action in the United King- dom to Improve working standards in the United States, and the SEIU is sup- porting the T&G's growth by providing experienced staff to help it organize cleaners(janitors) in London (Emily Stewart, interview by author, 2005; par- ticipant observation, T&G speech to Change to Win Organizing Conference, 2005).

Underpinning the alliance is not only a mutual commitment to growth but also a desire to learn and develop similar strategies to achieve that growth. Theseinclude a desire to research industries with growth potential, to under- stand industry power, and to expand and develop strategies for organizing nonunion workers. The T&G's relationship with the SEIU derives in part from its desire to strategically enhance its own internal shift to organizing (T&G union officia12, interview by author, 2006). However, difficulties can stiII surface when negotiating specific campaign

issues. This again requires the negotiation of a specific common interest, whichSEIU has found to be a difficult process. Real, mutual self-interest must be engaged in the specific campaign. Organizers in SEIU talk of searching for campaign issues and strategies "where everyone is participating and gets a shareof the outcome" (Emily Stewart, interview by author, 2005). There is an acknowledgment that this is difficult and is often preceded by learning about howother unions work and what their direct interests and goals are (2005).

egotiating a specific common interest also requires the individual unions to havea clear understanding of their own self-interest and to be capable of calculating the risks and opportunities from alliance work; strong coalitions developfrom strong indivi. ividua I orgamza. tilOns. Thus .,the .orgamzmg focus of. a global coalition needs to connect to local union pnonlles;. the more specific the connection between the local interest and the global pnonnes, the deeper

.d ti I connection tothe interest, engagement, an orgaruza rona the coalition... The complexities of common interest are evident in the Driving U~ Stan-

hi II' carnpatgn lor irn-d dar s alli ance b SEIU and the T&G Tetween . IS a lance IS a h l buses i. hi h i lar e operator of sc uses Provingthe conduct of FlrstGroup, w IC 00 In

IS a g h . h . . h United Kingdom. Bot umons avetheUnitedStates and trams and buses In t e . . b idi

. . Grou and Its Amencan SU 51 iary, members and potential members in FIrst Pl' terest in improving the . . th I each has a mutua mFrrstStudents, and ill e ong run b . d try However there is ad It" ninthe USIn us. , standards of employment an . regu a 10 "SEIU' interest in raising standards disconnection in the "mutuality of mterest. s I

" .......

166 AMANDA TATTERSALL

directly connects to a wide-scale organizing drive in the United States--ereating a deep self-interest. In contrast, the T&G already has very high union ~enslty. SEIU officials acknowledge that the campaign has [imitations due to the lack of mutuality" because the T&G has limited "growth potential" (Debbie Schneider, interview by author, 2005). Similarly, T&G union officials noted that uruon member engagement in the campaign has sometimes been difficult, while there has been support for SEIU members in solidarity with poor working condi- tions in the United States, U.K. member participation has been motivated more by altruism than by self-interest (T&G union official 3, interview by author, 2006). While there is a common interest in growing unionism across the indus- try, there is less of a fit between self-interest in the two national contexts and the campaign's goals (Emily Stewart, interview by author, 2005).

That said, the organizational relationships have allowed the T&G to expand and learn new campaign techniques. In the United Kingdom, the Driving Up Standards campaign has featured a public community campaign, research of the transport industry, and a corporate campaign targeting the First Group's Annual General Meeting (AGM) that has supported the campaign capacity and organizing agenda of the T&G (T&G union official 1, 2006). Achieving common interest requires permanent ongoing negotiation and

open communication, and tensions over bargaining outcomes may prove to be hurdles for global union alliances. This is magnified when, despite union intentions, firms often divide and conquer employees by offering different contracts and terms across borders (Martinez-Lucio and Weston 1995). Given that building trust takes time and given the centrality of wage outcomes to members' interests, it may be a significant chaHenge to sustain joint ac- tion over contract bargaining, as withholding on a contract could amount to a type of permanent solidarity rather than mutual self-interest. Vet the relationship between the unions provides a framework for creating a mu- tual interest around driving standards up. For the T&G that meant prevent- ing the "creeping Americanization" of working conditions, and for the SEIU that meant acting with transnational support to raise U.S. standards (Emily Stewart, interview by author, 2005). This was supported by joint activity and exchanges between U.K. and U.S.workers linking their common exper iences that proactively guarded against corporate attempts to divide these workers by nation.

Additionally, labor-community coalition practices may provide usefulles- sons. A publIc-sector coalition by unions and community organiz ti .Chi . I I a ons III . lCago 11K uded demands for a union contract for workers and commu-

ruty d~mands for improved public services. Early on in the relationship, key orgamzers.ag~eed on a set process. The community organization stated up front that It did not expect the union to refuse to sign a contract if one was offered (Community organizer, interview by author, 2005). To build trust, the

c

SEIU GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS 167

org~nization instead requested that the union be open about its negotiating tactics and the content of Its contract to allow the community organization to adjust its strateg)! according to the changing patterns of the dispute. The coalition recognized that wages and conditions, as core self-interest, had to be managed within the context of the coalition. So the community organization agreedto the union's negotiating its contract with the public service separately from the community organization', campaign while continuing a process of open and transparent dialogue with the organization. This private relation- ship allowed the community organization to demonstrate that it respected the needsand limitations of the unions involved while trust between the organi- zations developed. Simultaneously, the union ensured that its public-sector employment contract did not prevent its taking further political action over the broader public-service concerns that the community organization was campaigning for.

Openly negotiating and respecting the self-interest of coalition partners is an important mechanism for enhancing trust in global union alliances. Hold- ing out contractual agreements across borders will sometimes be a useful tactic but cannot be the basis for developing international bargaining agreements. As relationships build, agreed processes for dealing with conflicts of interest may providea stepping-stone for ensuring that mutual self-interest and reciprocity are sustained as alliances develop and strengthen.

" ........

Organizational Structure

The SEJU global partnerships unit aims to move beyond "ad hoc attempts to use existing relationships and instead provide a permanent base for Ulll~n relationships" (Steve Edwards, interview by author, 2005).The partnerships unit isa group of handpicked unions who share a common mterest In ~rowth. As Debbie Schneider notes) "if there is no interest about organl~mg, .an al- Ii ill b difficult (interview by author, 2005). Indeed, relationships are ance w e 1 . . h' ( h as WIth the cultivated through long-standing informal relations IpS sue. " . I d LHMUor T&G), or through "exploratory visits to other countries -me: ~

. . d h Netherlands, and Germany to ning Australia, the United King 0111, t e . d inf . " . between untons to try an rein orce

instances where there IS a commitment , . b thor 2005). Union . , . h h th -" (Emily Stewart, interview yau ,

organIzmgWIt eac a et , I I b I II' nces In the Driving Up"cal I' atmg stab ego a a ia .leadersplaya cnti ro e mere d h 'II"that could withstand1 d "generate t e WIStandards campaign, strong ea ers h h elationships lasted (Emily.. d ensured t at t e r tensions and negOtIatIOn an . when debates around cam-

. iew b th r 2005) For Instance, Stewart, intervrew yauh d0, 'lyon .. 1 I rionship leadership interven-

in rne re a I , paign styles became eate eal, helped keep the relationship on track tion by the T&G in the United Kingdom e P (T&G union official I, interview by author, 2006).

168 AMANDA TATTERSALL

In individual campaigns, organizational relationships are formally con- nected through governance structures. In the Driving Up Standards cam- paign, the International Transport Organizing Committee, established In

April 2004, evolved out of a year of one-time exchanges between the urnons. The committee included equal numbers of SEIU and T&G members, includ- ing the senior leadership of both unions and rank-and-file represenratives from the T&G (participant observation of ITOC meetmg, March 2006). SEIU organizers repeatedly stated that global unionism requires artful diplomacy to negotiate campaign strategy, and it was in this committee that diplomatic disputes would be negotiated (Debbie Schneider, interview by ~~thor, 2005; Emily Stewart, interview by author, 2005). As Stewart observes: This was to be the forum for critical decisions. Ifwe were going to push one uruon or an- other beyond their comfort zone, this would be the governing body to make that decision, hear the problems and deal with issues around that" (interview by author, 2005).

The campaign had a dual structure, between operation and strategic man- agement. Day-to-day decision making was left to union officials through teleconferences and local meetings, while this formal structure bound the unions through an open safe space for dispute resolution and strategy development.

Interconnection between the two unions is also facilitated through mem- bership and leadership exchanges. The Driving Up Standards campaigns used exchangesat union meetings and conventions to personalize and connect the campaign to the rank and file of each union. These visits "built up support for the campaign ... sparking outrage" and a willingness to act amongst the union as a whole, in addition to the leadership (Steve Edwards, interview by author)2005). Exchanges were used when union commitment was escalated, T&G rank-and-file bus drivers came to the first bus meeting in Chicago in September 2004 to launch the international exchange. Then U.S. workers at- tended the T&G AGM in early 2005 before the T&G lobbied for U.K. politi- cians to undertake a tour of FirstStudent work sites in the United States (Emily Stewart, interview by author 2005).

Organizational Commitment

Toenhance ongoing organizational commitment, the global partnerships unit created formal brokers and bridge builders between unions to resource global mteractlOn. SEIU provides significanj resources for regional offices and or- gamzers in AustralIa, the United Kingdom, South Africa, India, and Poland. Dedicated staff is vital for building local commitment to the global coalition. AsTom Woodruff argues: "Everyone is so busy ... we have found that to have effective partnerships with sufficient energy and resources to foster those

r------- ............. SEIU GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS 169

partnerships and make them happen that die .. . we nee peap e tocused entirely on this ... through dedicated staff" (interview by author 2005) Add' d ffliti fr ' . e reate sta moves a eoa inon om good intentions to creating a sustainable capacity to act.Thus· . the Clean Start for .Cleaners campaign in Austral'la, Whi

IC h IS. a JOInt..

SEIU-LHMU-SFWU. campaign,. followed from the SEIU's emp Ioyment 0f a dedicated ~tMf person, Michael Crosby, and his establishment of a research and orgamzmg team.

Organizational Culture and Capacity

Union brokers also act as cultural bridge builders between different national contexts and union cultures. SEIU officials argue that the most significant obstacle to international exchange is "learning the language of union and in- dustry practice" in other countries (Emily Stewart, interview by author, 2005). These include anything from legal and regulatory differences to understand- ing the accepted codes of local union practice. Having a cultural translator helpsprevent cultural mismatches from creating conflict between the parties. In the Driving Up Standards campaign, Steve Edwards was hired as a bridge builder to help build more formal relationships between the unions. Steve was employed by SETU in March 2004 to be based in Washington, D.C., but his background was as head of the transport division at the T&G in the United Kingdom. His relationships with the T&G and his knowledge of local U.K. union practice enabled him to act as a full-time "bridge between SEIU and campaign with the T&G in the UK" (Steve Edwards, interview by author, 2005).Later on, this bridge-builder model was reproduced in the United King- dom-in September 2004 a U.K. union official was hired as an SEIU organizer to work with the T&G in London. Akey cultural difference in the Driving Up Standards campaign is between

acceptable types of campaign practice (Steve Edwards, interview by author, 2005). SEIU has traditionally used a very "in your face" style of direct action, particularly in its Justice for Janitors campaigns (Emily Stewart, interview by author, 2005). SEIU also relies on comprehensive campaigns, including alli- ances with community organizations, corporate campaigning, and aggressive media as usual practice, because it does not have strong preexisting relation-

shipswith government or corporations. .' This is unlike union practice in other countries. For instance, In t~e Um~ed

Kingdom, unions have traditionally relied on strong, informal relations With government, and unions have a weaker tradition of corporate. or co~m~n.lty

· i (F d K lly2004) The common mode of umon actioncampaigrung rege an e . IS,In- dustrial disputation (Steve Edwards, interview by author, 2005). In the Umted Kingdom the T&G has a strong tradition of rank-and-file Involvement 111

· ' I . hi h isdifferent from SEIU practice in the First Studentcampaign p anrung, w IC I u.

., ........

170 AMANDA TATTERSALL

. The T&G includes rank-and-file representatives in the cross-unioncampaign. . ff ( .. t decision-making structures, while the SEIU relies on paid sta parncipan observation, ITOC meeting, March 2006). ... .

In the Driving Up Standards campaign, campaign style IS a diplomatic IS- sue. At one level, there has been a desire among the T&G to learn new tactics, such as corporate and community campaigning (Steve Edwards, intervrew by author, 2005; T&G union official 2, interview by author, 2006). This expo- sure to SEIU's expertise in this more aggressive form of campaign has been welcomed by the T&G because it has added to the T&G's internal capaCIty and supported its own shift to organizing. However, concerns have been raised locally within the United Kingdom that the learning process between SEIU and the T&G is less than mutual, and even among some of the key supporters of organizing, some U.K. union officials have argued that SEIU's engagement is sometimes seen as a one-way street where SEIU is the teacher and the U.K. unions are the students. In particular, there is some concern that SEI U does not sufficiently respect the strengths of the Ll.K, unions, such as their strong rank-and-file steward structures (anonymous U.K. union official, interview by author, 2006).

While there is a broad recognition inside the T&G staff that the union benefits in its relationship with the SEIU by expanding the T&G's capacity to organize nonunion workers, there have been debates about the merits of adopting SEIU organizing strategies or adapting those strategies by connect- ing them to local union strengths, such as strong stewards networks (T&G union official 2, interview by author, 2006; T&G union official 3, interview by author, 2006). This tension in the United Kingdom is not surprising given the magnitude of the global alliances and the fact that these alliances are new for service-based unions like SEIU. It is also a possible consequence of the problems over mutuality of interest in the Driving Up Standards campaign, rather than an inherent obstacle in the alliance. It should also be acknowl- edged that some of the detractors of the SEIU alliance are motivated by other reasons, such as being resistant to the prospects of change or recognizing that the change process is risky and keeping the option available of blaming SEIU ifthings don't go well.

However, criticisms have also Come from strong supporters of change, and thus this tension around reciprocity and mutual learning is a current weakness to be overcome through negotiation, experience, and relationship building. DIfferences In Campalgn modes also complicate global alliaJ1ces because they can potentIally threaten other traditionally important relationships, such as with the government or employers. In the Driving Up Standards campaign SEIUhas no corporate relationship with FirstStudent and therefore has noth- mg to lose from an aggressive campaign against the employer (anonymous U.K. union official, interview by author, 2006). In contrast, the T&G has

-..¥------------- SEIU GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS 171

strong union density and through this has achieved a "consent b d I ti." . - ase re a 10n- ship with the company that p~ovides union benefits including strong safety standards, good pay and conditions, and organizing rights for union stewards (anonymous SEIU organizer I, interview by author, 2005; T&Gunion officiall, interview by author, 2006). In these circumstances, collaborative relationships Withanother union can threaten employer collaboration. Indeed, in attacking FirstStudent, the T&G potentially threatens the benefits of its consent-based relationship. Consequently, the Driving Up Standards organizing campaign has to delicately manage the desire for global solidarity alongside the poten- tiallyconflicting interests deriving from the contrasting status of the employer, FirstStudent.

The degree of organizational capacity and commitment in the Driving Up Standards campaign ensures that the coalition is well resourced. SElU's com- mitment is demonstrated financially. The T&G's commitment is evident in its willingness to mobilize its powerful union relationships for SEIU. The T&G has repeatedly lobbied FirstGroup, including tendering public submissions critical of FirstGroup's labor practices and mobilizing its parliamentary sup- porters to tour the United States and support a parliamentary motion critical of antiunion practice (Steve Edwards, interview by author, 2005). The mutual commitment of each union produces a powerful, interdependent coalition ca- pableof action in the United States and United Kingdom.

......

Scale

Whileglobal union alliances represent an innovation at the global scale, their effectiveness relies on the capacity to mobilize and engage at other scales. For all the technical expertise of a global corporate campaign, as SErU's Debbie Schneider says, «you can't campaign well without workers, bosses notice If you don't have them, it's a matter of doing both"(interview, 2005): AsHerod (1997) argues, the local remains important even with the globahzatIOn of cap- ital. Engaging workers and harnessing union capacrty ~crosscou~tfles reqmre the global partnerships unit to work inside the countnes at multiple scales.

Yetwhile multiscaled action is vital, it is extremely difficult to sustain and has been a significant challenge in the Driving Up Standards campaign. The campaign has two key arms: first, a political and corporate leverage campaign around FirstGroup's attempt to expand into British Transport, and second, an

h d d f yellow bus operatorsd III theindustry-wide campaign aroun t e stan ar so. . d United States. The U.K. campaign is a political leverage campaign, USl11gstu -

. d Iitical influence to demonstrate thaties, customer awareness, media, an po 1 . t b warded FirstGroup's antiunion behavior in the United States should no efre

. The second armin 0 t he cam-with expansions its U.K. transport operations. ., .' . b unity coalition campaIgn to Improvepaign in the United States IS a la or-corom

172 AMANDA TATTERSALL

the regulation of standards for yellow bus contracts, where w~r~rs, ~i~ pa~ ents and the local community, lobby school boards to deman at t e oar contract only with companies that meet basic levels ?f rna In tenance, ~Ont tar- ing and labor conditions to protect quality bus services for schoolchildren.

The difficulty for the Driving Up Standards campaign is that the Immense breadth of this activity makes it "hard to go deep" (anonymous SEJU orgaru- zer 2,In. terview. by author , 2005) . This was particularly the case early on,.whenf the campaign was focused on mobilizing "U.K. leverage" to the exclusion a deep worker participation in either country (anonymous SEIU orgaruzer I, 2005). However, the worker-community school board campaIgn and the ac- tivity focused on the 2006 AGM have engaged union members 10 both coun- tries in more meaningful activities that have a direct impact on union leverage. which has assisted the campaign's multiscaled capacity.

As one SEIU official said, reflecting on the Driving Up Standards campaign, "[T]he will has been good, the execution has been difficult" (Emily Stewart, interview by author, 2005). This chapter has attempted to introduce a frame- work for understanding how the execution of global alliances work, drawing from the work of labor-community coalitions.

This chapter has identified five key indicators of labor-community coali- tions and then explored those indicators by focusing on a very new global union alliance, SEIU's global partnerships unit. Studying this unit and the Driving Up Standards campaign reveals similarities between the operations of effectiveglobal alliances and effective coalitions. There was a close correlation between the emphasis on common concern and effective global partnerships. The mutual interest in growth and achieving a campaign fit was an important but challenging feature of the campaign. Mutua] interest remains a goal of the global partnerships unit, but it is a constant test to renegotiate this during campaign practice. Similarly, organizational interaction was an important and variable feature of the global union alliance. The formal and informal inter- connection between the unions created bonds of increasing trust as well as providing a space for negotiating tensions and cultural differences. Yet cultural tensions remained a feature of those relationships. Finally, the role of scale is equally important. Without engaging workers at a local scale, the union can easily be "third-partied" in campaigns. Multiscalar campaigning is the great challenge for global alliances, as stretching from the local to the global thins res?urces, and Ineaningfullocal engagement requires meaningful local action) which can also be a challenge.

Despite these successes, the Driving Up Standards campaign has not pro- ceeded WIthout complications, which signal potentia] challenges for future global allIances more broadly. Like labor-community coalitions, the effec- tiveness of union exchanges relies on reciprocity and mutual interest to be

f SEIU GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS 173

effective,and it is on these questions that the global union experiment has somedetractors. The global partnerships unit has proceeded quickly, often at- temptmg to mrtiate campaigns and activity despite tensions within or between unions and the local union movement. SEIU has sometimes been perceived as trying to "pick winners" in this local context, exacerbating local tensions, and has been criticized for being insensitive to local union practices, capacity, and differences. For this, the global partnerships experiment has been criticized outside the United States. Yet the global partnerships unit has the potential to create powerful internationalisms in the fast-growing service sector, and international union organizing in this sector presents an opportunity to shift worker conditions internationally. The SEIU has refined and led comprehen- sive union campaigns in the United States, and spreading these lessons to part- ner unions globally is a very welcome step.

Heeding the experience of labor-community coalitions, this chapter em- phasizes that future global union structures and strategies should proceed as alliancesthat join distinct, differently interested organizations, requiring space for open negotiation. I suggest the goal is not single global unions but global union coalitions capable of negotiating different interests and cultural prac- ticesat multiple scales of organization and power. Sensitivity to reciprocity, respect for difference, and mutual learning will be critical if these alliances are to havelongevity within different national contexts.

Ascapital centralizes into smaller numbers of global firms, unions such as SElUare seeking to engage at the global scale. Global union alliances are just one example of a possible source of powerful collaboration that can support a renewal of union power. This examination of SErU's global partnerships unit suggests that global union alliances can learn from the practice of labor- community coalitions to help create powerful global union collaboration.

~.. : ""'., I"','6 i ~:h

,~l' I ~~:~