From Equality to Diversity:
The Role of Women-only Trade Union Education
Anne-marie Greene
Paper to 18th
The need to improve the level of membership and the number of women activists, has been a central feature of overall ‘renewal’ strategies of many British trade unions. Within this, equality education has been a key part of policy-making. This research draws on detailed case studies of two trade unions and focuses on their women-only education courses. We suggest that a greater understanding of the contribution of different types of trade union education to the advance of equality, is a key factor in the ability of unions to maintain a central role at workplace level, within the context of an increasingly diverse labour market.
Having suffered massive membership decline in the 1980s and (to a lesser extent) in the 1990s, British trade unions have been compelled to develop strategies to increase the recruitment of previously under-represented groups of workers (Labour Research, 1996). Women are a particularly important target group because of their increased share of the labour market and the fact that most growth in employment is projected to occur in female dominated sectors and occupations. Further, the membership decline for women has been far less steep than that for men (Cully & Woodland, 1998). The Trades Union Congress (TUC) underscores the importance of women workers to union survival and revival by showing that even in areas of low level union density, such as ‘personal and protective services’, simply retaining the within-occupation density would increase women’s actual and proportional union membership significantly, because of the sheer growth in numbers forecast to work in these jobs in the near future (TUC, 1997). Although in the face of overall decline, women’s membership has held up well when compared to men’s (Labour Research, 1996a), growth in employment does not automatically translate into growth in union membership, especially when jobs increase in sectors and occupations where unions are traditionally weak (TUC, 1997). The picture is a complex one and predictions of future union membership rates and patterns are complicated by the intersection of factors influencing individuals’ propensity to unionise, including industrial, work, occupation and demographic characteristics. Nevertheless, the unions can draw comfort from the apparently continuing support for and belief in trade unions expressed by British workers (Bradley, 1994; Kellner, 1996), which suggests potential for renewal.
When it comes to recruiting women, one of the factors that may prevent such potential from being realised is the continuing male domination of union decision-making structures. Research by a number of authors (including work published by Cunnison & Stageman, 1995; Cockburn, 1991; Ellis, 1988; Heery & Kelly, 1988; Kirton & Healy, 1999) has shown there to exist a connection between women’s inequality within the internal environment of trade unions and unions’ historical (relative) lack of success in organising women workers. The argument made is that male domination has resulted in union men drawing up bargaining agendas which reflect their own needs and not always those of the wider membership, women for example. There is no claim made here that there exists a simple boundary between what women want from trade unions and what men want, but there are gendered elements within the concerns of the membership (c.f Cockburn, 1995; Munro, 1999). For example, Bradley’s (1994) study finds women ranking action on equality a higher priority for the union than do men.
Further, it can be argued that women’s participation and involvement within trade unions needs to increase in order that women can develop policies and agendas to address their specific bargaining and representational concerns. In their discussion of unions’ failure to adequately address women’s bargaining concerns, Colling & Dickens suggest that the ‘absence of women at the table has to be part of the explanation for the absence of women on the table’ (1989:32 original emphasis). These are views lent further support by Sinclair’s work (1995, 1996), which contends that women’s experiences of trade unions must be improved if more women are to be encouraged to participate and to join. Thus, the argument comes full circle.
Efforts in the direction of women’s equality have been made by most large trade unions (or at least those with substantial female memberships), triggered originally by the 1979 ‘TUC Charter for Equality for Women within Trade Unions’. For example, developing new approaches to conducting union business, publishing literature covering issues of special interest to women, by offering women-only education courses, by establishing women’s committees, women’s conferences and women’s officers, and in some cases reserving seats for women within decision-making structures (Trebilcock, 1991). These measures have brought about change within the internal life of trade unions, such that women’s representation, participation and involvement have increased, although remaining out of proportion with their rates of membership (Labour Research, 1998). Against this background, this paper explores one aspect of unions’ gender equality strategies: women-only trade union education.
Trade unions have a history of strong support for workers’ education (Cook et al, 1992; Cunnison & Stageman, 1995), which is being accorded a new impetus because of wider concerns about union renewal and because of wider debates in political and educational circles about ‘lifelong learning’. Having said this, there is a dearth of recent writings in the academic literature on union education, although some works do include references to, or short sections on the topic. The demise of ‘The Industrial Tutor’ and the ‘Trade Union Studies Journal’ in the early 1990s has left a gap where once issues surrounding and centred on trade union education were discussed, views exchanged and contested. In view of the foregoing discussion, we believe it is timely to resurrect trade union education as a topic worthy of academic research and debate. in particular, to consider the potential role that union education has to play in increasing women’s involvement and participation in union affairs at the workplace and within union structures, and consequently the impact that this has on workplace structures and practices. In one of the largest recent studies of trade union education, Holford echoes this view: ‘Union education can be a vital catalyst as the movement tries to come to terms with new realities, and to shape it in the interests of its members’ (1993:12). One of these new realities is that unions are now faced with a plurality of membership constituencies (including women) and therefore with a plurality of interests. This section of the paper will first provide a brief overview of trade union education in Britain[1] and then proceed to consider the case for women-only education.
In the UK most union education courses are aimed at shop stewards, workplace representatives and other activists, rather than at ‘ordinary’ members (Cook et al, 1992; Holford, 1994), with the basic aim usually being to equip activists with the requisite skills and knowledge to perform their union roles, although the term ‘skill’ needs to be broadly interpreted as courses often go beyond the traditional territory of workplace negotiations. Over 60,000 trade unionists each year enrol in a course of trade union education provided by the TUC or by its affiliated unions (TUC, 1992). Courses are provided free of charge to participants and since most courses take place during ‘normal working hours’ any loss of earnings (where employers do not grant paid release) is usually compensated for by the union. Some of the large TUC unions own residential facilities which host national education courses. Overall, education represents a considerable investment and expenditure for many British unions.
Women have had less exposure to trade union education than men, because of their lesser representation among the ranks of stewards, representatives and activists, at whom most courses are aimed, combined with most ‘ordinary’ members’ inability to take paid leave. To address this problem some unions also now provide weekend courses, aimed particularly at those who find it difficult to take time off work and often aimed at both members and representatives. Women are among the beneficiaries of this development (Cunnison & Stageman, 1995). A further development has been the, now widespread, provision of women-only union educational courses.
Women-only courses emerged around the time of the TUC Charter for Equality for Women within Trade Unions (1979), when the TUC reviewed its service for women and created a ‘bridging course’ to encourage women to become stewards/representatives and to prepare them for mixed-sex courses (Cunnison & Stageman, 1995). This was in recognition of the fact that in practice mixed-sex union education was male dominated ‘90% of the time’ (Elliot, 1980:5) and the belief that this was deterring many women from attending courses. ‘Bridging courses’ were designed to develop among women the skills and the confidence deemed necessary to participate in mixed, male-dominated courses, in other words to bridge women’s perceived skill and confidence gap. The courses were not therefore about women’s ‘rights’ and ‘issues’ as such (Elliot, 1980), nor explicitly about developing a women’s agenda, although it was recognised that until more women became stewards and activists, their needs would continue to be neglected (Beale, 1982; Elliot, 1980). From early evaluation (Elliot, 1981), it appears that the ‘bridging courses’ were well received by women trade unionists, with a high number of women subsequently expressing interest in further TUC courses. It is unclear from available accounts whether the ‘bridging courses’ were originally viewed as a temporary positive action (see below) measure or as a permanent form of separate women’s organisation (Briskin, 1993), but women-only courses remain a key feature of the trade union education portfolio. Nine out of ten of the largest TUC unions now provide women-only courses (SERTUC, 1997). It is therefore appropriate to examine the rationale underpinning women-only union education.
As a form of women’s separate organisation, what purpose
does women-only education serve? Union
education employs a specific pedagogical model, the essential features of which
are use of participants’ own experiences, an orientation towards collective action,
and an emphasis on shared understandings, knowledge and definitions (Walters,
1996). This model has particular
salience within women-only education, as it affords the opportunity for women
participants to inject their own gendered experiences and develop gendered
understandings of trade union issues.
Social psychological approaches to understanding collective orientations
and action suggest that a sense of group identification is central (Kelly &
Breinlinger, 1996). One of the implicit
and underlying rationales for women-only courses is that they encourage women
to identify with women as an oppressed or disadvantaged social
“the aim.. it’s twofold, one is to encourage and support women to be
involved in the union because there is serious under-representation and
secondly, to make sure that certain issues which are much more directly related
to women’s working experience and working lives are properly brought forward
and on the agenda
Thus, women-only courses, according to this perspective, may contribute to the development of a collectivist orientation and to a willingness to take part in collective actions with the aim of seeking to overcome women’s inequality in the workplace and the union. Of course unions would hope that a gendered collectivist orientation would then grow into greater participation and involvement in the union generally, together with a willingness to take up and support issues affecting other groups of workers. However, the possibility that this will not occur is one of the sources of tension inherent within women’s separate organisation: in other words some (male and female) trade unionists fear creating divisions among the membership.
We thus aim to further explore the rationale for and effectiveness of women-only courses within the specific union contexts researched, looking at both officer and tutor rationales, and the experience of women participants. We place such discussions within a framework of wider debates about approaches to equality policy. In particular, we explore how trade union women-only education fits into current theoretical developments around equality issues.
One debate involves whether the model of equality being utilised is liberal or radical. The liberal approach derives essentially from political ideals of classic liberalism and liberal democracy (Jewson and Mason, 1986) and is based around a view of the rights of the individual to universally applicable standards of justice and citizenship (Webb, 1997). Therefore, “equality of opportunity exists when all individuals are enabled freely and equally to compete for social rewards” (Jewson and Mason, 1986: 307). The model is predicated on a philosophy of ‘sameness’: that people should have access to and be assessed within the workplace as individuals, regardless of social category (for example gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age group). Equality policies and practices within the liberal approach are focused on what Jewson and Mason (1986) call ‘positive action’, where efforts are made to remove obstacles to the operation of the free labour market and meritocratic competition. In the sense that it equips women to function in a male-dominated environment, women-only education can be viewed as a form of positive action within the trade union context. The liberal approach underlies the campaign for anti-discrimination legislation in Britain in the 1970s, and can also be seen to underpin most general trade union equality education, based predominantly around awareness-raising and formalisation of procedures and practices at workplace level designed to achieve more equality of treatment.
In contrast to the liberal approach, the radical view emphasises direct intervention in order to achieve not only equality of opportunity (the ‘rules of the game’ in Jewson and Mason’s terms) but also equality of outcome. Thus, the point is not only in achieving fair procedures, but also in achieving fair distribution of rewards. In this aim, the focus is not on individuals, recognising that while discrimination affects individuals, it is at the group level that this discrimination can be identified. The philosophy that all people are equal regardless of social group membership should therefore be actively reflected in the distribution of rewards in the workplace, or in the case of trade unions; within the decision-making and representation structures. The absence of fair distribution is therefore evidence of unfair discrimination. While the aim is to achieve equality of outcome on the same terms, there are elements of a ‘difference’ perspective in the radical approach. This ‘difference’ approach recognises the differential treatment received by members of certain social groups and the social construction of the differential abilities possessed by members of different social groups (Jenkins, 1996).
The policies associated with the radical perspective focus around ‘positive discrimination’ (Jewson and Mason, 1986), where practices are deliberately manipulated to obtain a fair distribution of those disadvantaged groups in the workplace. While the liberal approach emphasises the need to formalise procedures, the radical approach emphasises the need to politicise the processes of decision-making. Reserved seats within trade union decision-making structures for those facing under-representation within trade unions would thus be seen as a radical intervention, because reserved seats give women ‘preferential’ treatment. In the same way, (and in contrast to the view above) women-only education courses within the union could also be seen as radicalised interventions in the sense that they aim to identify women who can be pushed forward in the union.
It is recognised that it is difficult to ascertain the particular philosophy of equality being followed with any particular strategy, not least because the objectives are often eclectic in nature. Most notably, as we have discussed, women-only education encompasses elements of both the liberal and radical approaches. However, what is perhaps more significant, is to assess the impact of either liberal or radical interventions on the organisational context; in this case the structures and practices of trade unions. While liberal interventions have been criticised for failing to deliver real equality gains (Cockburn, 1991; Webb, 1997; Liff, 1996), radical interventions have also been criticised for being negatively seen as ‘special treatment’ or reverse discrimination (Cockburn, 1989, 1991). Perhaps the loudest criticism of any equality intervention however is to look at whether it challenges the status quo. We share a view which states that an intervention is weakened if “it seeks to give disadvantaged groups a boost up the ladder, while leaving the structure of that ladder and the disadvantage it entails just as before” (Cockburn, 1989: 217). Cockburn thus refers to ‘short’ and ‘long’ agendas of equality. The ‘short’ agenda characterises the traditional equality approach based around treating the symptoms of discrimination and disadvantage, or pushing for special policies to protect or enhance the position of certain social groups.
Alternatively, the ‘long’ agenda would seek to respond to, and respect differences rather than seeking to assist people in fitting into the existing organisations and cultures. In essence, what is meant by a ‘long’ agenda is a campaign to change the unequal systems and structures and transform organisational cultures. This fits in with recent changes in thinking on equality issues (and particularly management practice) towards conceptualising workforces as composed of diverse social groups, who, while sharing many experiences, also are treated differentially and who at times, require different treatment. This movement in direction is perhaps most pronounced in the recent popularity of ‘Managing Diversity’, avidly proclaimed by the IPD as a ‘new way forward’ in management practice. However, we focus more on a more general move away from the traditional ‘sameness’ approach to one based around a diversity or ‘difference’ model of equality.
As one might expect, there are a variety of ways in which the ‘difference’ or diversity model has been viewed. At the heart is the idea that differences should be recognised rather than denied or diluted (Liff, 1996). There is a move away from the idea that different groups should be assimilated to meet an organisational norm. In this case, the organisational (here, the trade union) apparatus should be geared towards creating structures and processes which facilitate the inclusion of different social categories and enable everyone to contribute in their own way (Webb, 1997) – for example, some of the measures mentioned earlier now used by trade unions. Difference is thus viewed positively, looking at the benefits to the organisation which could derive from different perspectives and approaches and seeing that differences should be nurtured and rewarded rather than suppressed (Liff and Wajcman, 1996). Liff (1996) sees the diversity strategy to equality as involving four approaches based around ‘difference’; dissolving differences, valuing differences, accommodating differences and utilising differences.
· Dissolving difference: Some similarity to the ‘sameness’ approach but goes further, aiming to dissolve group-based differences, focusing on equality for individuals.
· Valuing difference recognises that some differences are socially based and are significant in perpetuating inequality. The aim is to create an organisational culture where all members feel they belong, rather than having to meet the dominant white, male norm.
· Accommodating differences is similar to the radical approach, recognises that specifically targeted programmes may be necessary to ensure that talent is recognised.
· Utilising differences is distinctive in making a specific case for the need to give different treatment in order to recognise the different needs of people within an organisation.
The diversity approach has the advantage of having a more positive message, as it seeks to ensure the maximisation of potential rather than only focusing on the prevention of discrimination. Secondly, it involves a broader range of people than the common social categories covered in equality legislation and policies. Thirdly, it is presented as not only re-dressing the balance but as an attempt to change the culture of organisations: the long agenda. This could be said to be the aim of trade union education: the national education officials of the two unions in the present study, both emphasised the need to change the culture of the trade union movement to one which is inclusive and embracing of workforce diversity; further they saw education as the driver of such change.
However, there are also weaknesses,
firstly that the diversity approach simply becomes a name change for existing
equality initiatives with no qualitative differences (Webb, 1997). In practice,
the diversity approach tends to involve market-driven and politically
unthreatening measures. More
importantly, within a trade union context, it should be noted that one
criticism focuses on the fact that an emphasis on ‘difference’ and on
differences between individuals weakens the ties that people have through
common experience. This common experience can provide the necessary support to
push for action, meaning that the ‘difference’ approach can essentially leave
people alone and isolated in their struggle (Cockburn, 1988). In some circumstances then, rather than being empowering,
the ‘difference’ or diversity approach can be disempowering, dissolving
collective identity and strength. This is seen as problematic by
some commentators who believe that the campaign for equality needs the force of
political action and collective feeling to have any effect.
The research involves four trade unions[2], exploring their strategies and policy developments for meeting the challenge of attracting and retaining members within a more diverse workforce. This particular paper draws on one aspect of that wider project, and is focused around the 1999 national education courses of two large TUC unions: Manufacturing, Science and Finance (MSF) and Transport and General Workers’ Union (TGWU). MSF is Britain’s fifth largest trade union with around 420,000 members, thirty-three per cent of which are women. Its membership consists largely of professional and skilled workers drawn from both the private and public sectors. TGWU is Britain’s second largest trade union with around 875,000 members, 20 per cent of which are women. Its members include both manual and non-manual workers in production and services, in the public and private sectors. Thus, both unions are male-dominated, but they are seeking to attract more women into membership, as both unions recruit in those areas of the economy which have become increasingly feminised.
The fieldwork was primarily based around women-only courses: a week long, residential National Women Members’ School at TGWU involving 60 women, and a weekend, residential National Women Members’ School at MSF involving 34 women, both in October 1999. We also attended a mixed course at each union in order to provide some comparison. The field work involved observation at courses, a survey of all course participants at the women-only schools and one of the mixed schools (with close to 100 per cent return) and use of documentary evidence, including course materials. In addition findings are drawn from in-depth interviews with national education officers, national equality officers, course tutors, and samples of course participants. In total twenty women course participants were interviewed: ten from MSF and ten from TGWU. The women selected for interview had varying levels of union activist experience, ranging from new member/activist to long-standing representative.
Thus,
the methods enable us to offer a participant perspective as well as a
‘provider’ perspective. More
significantly, we explore whether the unions’ approaches to equality as
represented in the courses studied, offer the potential to advance the
participation and involvement of women within the unions, exploring how
participants received the courses and their efficacy and value to those
involved. The focus of this paper is women’s
experiences during the courses.
It
is recognised that the membership bases of the two unions are significantly
different: MSF being predominantly non-manual and TGWU being predominantly
manual. However, given the issues
discussed in this paper, the research findings within each union were remarkably
similar. Therefore we do not discuss
these separately for each union; rather we examine the overall themes arising
from the study of women-only education.
The view that women-only
education is an essential element of union equality strategies was expressed by
national officials, education officers and tutors in both unions, suggesting
strong support at the top and among the unions’ paid educationalists.
In contrast, our survey findings reveal less consensus among the membership: 70
per cent of (85) participants at the women-only schools said that women-only
education is an essential component of a union’s gender equality strategy;
whilst at the mixed (predominantly male) school only 30 per cent (of 66)
agreed. Further, 17 per cent (all men)
of mixed-sex course participants felt that women-only education was divisive,
whereas only one woman from the women-only schools agreed.
In the case of both unions the
stated policy objectives underpinning equality education generally are to
promote and increase the participation and involvement of under-represented
groups and to increase awareness of equality issues within the union. In practice, and among other things, both
unions utilise the opportunity of women-only education for ‘talent spotting’
purposes - identifying and encouraging women deemed to have the potential,
energy and commitment to go further in the union, thereby creating a possible union ‘career’ route for a small number of
women. There are success stories to be
told by both unions: of women becoming lay tutors, full-time tutors, regional
and national education officers, national executive members, after being
‘discovered’ at women-only courses. For example, the tutors on the TGWU course had all come
through this route. In the case of MSF,
one of the education officers interviewed had also been a former
‘student’. She had become more involved
in the union after attending a week long residential women’s school and had
subsequently applied for and been appointed to her present paid position. As an
MSF national officer stated: “I don’t
think you would find one woman officer of the union now who would say that
education hadn’t played a role in her getting where she is, and doing what she does”.
It is no coincidence that these
successes emerge from the women-only route, if we accept that women-only
education provides an opportunity for women to grow, develop and fully
participate, rather than take a backseat.
Participants’ perspectives on this issue speak for themselves in the
following quotations:
‘It was important, (that the course was women-only) women were more themselves than if men had been present. The women seemed to feel more at ease.’ (Recently elected representative)
‘Women behave differently when men are around. When it’s women only, women are more prepared to take risks, they’re less inhibited. For example, in role plays in mixed groups, women are more inclined to leave the lead roles to the men’. (newly active member)
‘On women-only courses there’s a great camaraderie which builds up.’ (experienced representative)
‘The atmosphere might be different in a mixed course, women relate differently with the men around them, they tend to be less open and discuss different issues” (inexperienced member)
‘Mixed-sex courses tend to be dominated by
men and their agendas’
A view expressed by a number of interviewees was that women-only courses are especially important for newer activists and members. Such women feel less threatened and intimidated and the courses represent a ‘safe space’ in which women can learn how the union functions and is structured, what roles activists can play and so on. This could be a function of the lack of sexism/discriminatory behaviour noted by the women at the courses. Some women had stories about occasions of sexist behaviour at the mixed courses, but the overall opinion was that this did not occur within the women-only arena.
In
addition, observing the participant small group discussions at the mixed
courses indicated that the women tended to have overall, more liberal attitudes
on a variety of issues than the male participants. This included a recognition
that in certain circumstances equal treatment is more analogous to ‘different’
rather than ‘same’ treatment. By this we mean that the women were far more
understanding of the discrimination faced by many different social groups and
more accommodating in terms of expected policy. For example, when discussing
whether different minority ethnic groups should be allowed to have special
holidays appropriate to their own religious festivals, one of the men in the group
stated: “People should be treated the
same, we all have to follow the same rules.. if you want a public holiday for
Ramadan, go and live in India”
We
also noted some differences in the nature of participation between the mixed
and the women-only courses. At both types of course, the overall level of
participation was high with only a very small minority not becoming involved in
discussions. However, the participation was more formal at one of the mixed
schools. For example, comments were passed through the chair (commonly the
tutor) and the discussion progressed in order of people having put up their
hands to indicate they had something to say. At the women’s schools, the
participation was notably more informal with comments intersecting and
interrupting each other and the dialogue progressing in a much more organic
way. In addition, at the women’s school, we noted how open the women were about
very harrowing personal experiences, there were emotional outbursts, one woman read out a
poem to express a point, and one woman burst into tears during a session. Such
events did not occur in the mixed arena.
This is important not only because it reveals the way in which behaviour
and contexts are gendered, but also because many women interviewees described
how the ‘bonding’ and closeness built up during the women-only courses had had
such profound effects upon their perceptions of and perspectives on the union
and its meaning in their own lives.
Thus, it can be contended that women-only courses are pivotal in the
construction of a female activist identity, coalescing around notions of
women’s oppression.
Note: Respondents
were able to choose as many of the above as they considered applicable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gaining Knowledge
Although within a trade union pedagogical model, tutor-led sessions are usually kept to a minimum, lecture-style presentations do feature on the agenda. In the trade union education context, the provision of ‘lectures’ ties in with liberal notions of equality, in the sense that the perceived task is to inform representatives how to negotiate fairer workplace policies and procedures and to provide instruction on rights at work. There were some mild grumbles voiced by some participants who found this part of the course ‘hard-going’, ‘boring’ or ‘over my head’, other women considered the information imparted to be of great importance. Tutors also facilitate the wider group-led discussion within sessions, usually focused around questions written in the resource packs accompanying the courses. This material was based around traditional liberal models of equality and tutors themselves indicated in conversations with us, that their agenda was based around the need to raise awareness of equality issues, rather than aiming to radicalise issues and practice. Some interviewees described how the tutor-input (lecture) sessions had exposed them to information they had previously been ignorant of (the workings of the law, for example, or Human Resource Management), however, there was a general view that tutor-led sessions were of lesser importance than the student-centred small group work activities:
‘I’ve got more from people and their experiences, rather than the tutors’. (recently elected representative)
‘I’ll make more of a difference when I go back, because I know now what I want. When I’ve learned what other people have got, I realise what can be achieved.’ (Recently elected representative)
‘I find you can get just as much info from other people who are on the course. When you come back and you do reports, you spread the information. It gets people interested in the union.’ (Experienced representative).
The above views were not presented as criticisms of tutors or guest-speakers, who were highly praised, but were offered in response to a question about what they had most gained from the course. Thus, this suggests that from the perspective of participants the content of the learning, whilst important, is secondary to the process of shared learning.
We recognise
that within union education there is some emphasis on developing skills. For example, on the longer (TGWU) school, there were
student-centred activities involving role-plays and discussions, for example
drawing up an agenda for a branch meeting, negotiating with management and
representing members with problems.
Most interviewees said that they had found these exercises useful, but
there was less emphasis placed by the women upon the development of skills
during the courses than on the building of confidence: confidence to take part
in the union, to represent members and to negotiate with management. It can be argued that building women’s confidence
empowers them to ‘know their strength and recognise themselves as experts about
their own lives’ (Reinelt, 1994) and in the trade union context to develop
strategies in pursuit of gender equality.
Building structures to sustain the confidence gained during education
courses is of equal importance if there is to be a lasting impact. Women’s networking, discussed below, is one
mechanism which has the potential to make this happen (Kirton, 1999).
When we
asked women what they had gained from women-only schools, the building of
confidence was often the first factor to spring to mind.
‘It was so nice being there and seeing so many women who really want to make a difference. I couldn’t believe it, at the end of it, there was me giving a speech (to a packed conference hall). (Recently elected representative)
‘When someone went to the front of the class and she got stuck and quite upset, everyone was there saying quietly ‘come on, come on’, supporting her. It was very emotional and just marvellous. There wasn’t one person who sticks out in my mind as not being interested in getting involved’. (Recently elected representative)
‘Usually, only the really confident women
will stand up, whereas here, no-one would have felt inhibited, everybody had
something to say and I think when you go away on courses with men, there are
one or two that will say everything and the women get left behind” (inexperienced
union member)
At one of the unions, the
course ends with speeches, written and developed by course participants, most
of whom had never spoken in a public arena before. While these were time
consuming and the women were visibly stressed by the prospect, both the tutors
and the participants themselves recognised how important they were in building
the confidence of the women involved.
‘There was one lass, on the first day, wouldn’t have said boo to a goose, she was shaking and stammering, and now she’s speaking to the whole conference tomorrow. That’s in one week - if you can do that in one week, what’s going to happen on the next course and the one after that?’(Recently elected representative)
Networking
Building
women’s confidence is undoubtedly a positive outcome of women-only
education. However, this is of limited
use if the structures at various levels within the union do not continue to
support women’s activism. As a national officer stated: “there are too many women in our union that have got beyond
the first stage but then they never get beyond their own workplace”.
Women’s networking is a response to the feeling of isolation and
marginalization that women often experience within male-dominated environments
(Kirton, 1999). Participants mentioned the networking opportunities
provided by women-only courses and we observed participants within the
workshops exchanging contact details at the end of the courses. Several women
interviewed commented that they had made many contacts on the course and had
kept in touch with them, ringing them frequently, and sharing advice and
tactics. For some women, it was an essential rationale for attending the
course. This was particularly the case for inexperienced members; one stated
that as the only member of her union in her workplace, she wanted to meet other
union members, while another commented on how useful it was to find out that
there were other women facing similar problems at work: she derived immense confidence
from finding that she was not an isolated case (although it should be noted
In summary,
the benefits of women-only education for the women participants include the
opportunity it offers to build confidence within a ‘safe’ environment, where
they are not restricted by the male dominated bureaucratic structures; where
they can meet other women who face similar experiences to them and female
activists who can stand as positive role models; and where they can gain
knowledge and skills enabling them to be more effective in workplace
situations.
Sidelining Women’s Equality Issues
One of the themes emerging from interviews was that women’s equality issues should not be confined to women-only domains. The issues must also be integrated into mixed-sex union education for the reasons expressed by these participants:
‘Men have been at it a lot longer than we have and you need their experience. Men know how the system works. Women have been in trade unions for years and years, but we’re getting more organised now.’ (Recently elected representative)
‘There is a risk of sidelining women’s issues and if that happens the issues will never reach the bargaining agenda’ (experienced representative)
Both unions seek to avoid the risk of ‘sidelining’, albeit in different ways. TGWU provides equality courses (for example, ‘Equality for All’ at its mixed-sex National Members’ Schools), whilst MSF has taken the route of ‘mainstreaming’ equality within its entire education provision. In other words, both unions seek to develop long equality agendas (Cockburn, 1989). The male and female tutors we spoke to appeared to be aware of the need to incorporate equality perspectives into mixed-sex course activities, although MSF takes a more self-conscious mainstreaming approach than TGWU. The danger inherent within the TGWU approach of providing equality courses is that (male) representatives can opt out, whilst within the MSF mainstreaming approach the risk is that equality issues are not given adequate emphasis and attention. There are no easy solutions. Writing almost two decades ago, McIlroy (1982) argued that ‘a concerted and deep assault by men tutors on sexism on what might with only slight exaggeration be termed men only courses must go hand in hand with the development of this provision (women-only bridging courses)’. From our research it appears that mixed-sex union courses are in fact still often heavily male dominated and therefore the dual approach recommended by McIlroy continues to have currency even if it takes different forms.
Childcare Issues
Difficulties
with childcare is one of the most frequently cited reasons for women’s lesser
participation and involvement in trade unions (Colgan & Ledwith, 1996).
In terms of participation in union education, crèches are provided, but there
are difficulties with school-age children especially if courses are held during
term time. Weekend schools are therefore
a valuable element of the educational provision. One
‘[At the mixed courses],
you’d get partners together and they don’t really want to voice their opinion
because he’s talking sort of thing, or she’s got to go and look after the kids
because it’s their time to come out of the crèche, so he’ll stay on. And it’s
not like that when it’s a women’s week, it’s more-you finish on time because
all the mothers have to go and get their kids..’
Week long courses are problematic
for some women with family responsibilities and the importance of a supportive
partner was emphasised by a number of women in this study. This echoes earlier studies which have found
that women who lead traditional lives are less likely to become
representatives, whereas men leading traditional lives are not similarly
constrained (Lawrence, 1994; Walton, 1991).
This also emerges in Kirton & Healy (1999) where most senior union
women were ‘atypical’, as these are the women who are most able to give the
necessary time, effort and commitment to trade union participation. Again, it could be
argued that there is no point in building women’s confidence to participate if
the barriers to their participation remain in place. The necessity to renegotiate domestic responsibilities remains an
issue for many women.
Communication
Intra-union communication was perceived to be a problem by course participants, as well as by the unions’ paid officials - how do women hear of courses, especially members? Without good communication channels the reservoir of (potential) women activists could dry up, representing a perennial challenge for the unions. For example, at a mixed-sex school we came across a woman who had been a representative for 22 years and who had never been on a union course. She said her branch secretary had not informed her that courses were available for representatives and it was only now that the union had a policy of identifying women representatives and encouraging them to attend courses that she had finally done so. Whilst this example bears testimony to the success of positive action initiatives, it also presents a worrying picture of historical neglect. Branch secretaries are thought to be key figures in the chain of communication:
‘A lot of women never find out about the courses available, coz unless you’ve got a good branch secretary who wants people to go on these courses, you never get to see the book (of courses)’ (experienced representative)
‘If you listen to some of the girls and what their branch secretaries do and don’t, it’s surprising we get so many women on the courses. Knowledge is power. The key roles in the branch are always the same people. Some of the girls said that they don’t get to vote in their branch secretaries, they’re just there forever.’ (Experienced representative)
Women only education is focused
predominantly on traditional gender equality issues premised upon a liberal ‘sameness’ conception of women’s interests,
perhaps to the detriment of other disadvantaged and under-represented
groups. The courses tend to focus on
participants’ identity as women.
However, there is an argument to be made that
‘if a black person manages to get
through [the structures] and they are the only black person, where is
their support?’(experienced member).
Minority ethnic participation in
unions is low (Modood et al, 1997), which raises the question of role-models
for black women. On courses tutors and officials did encourage all women to come forward and seek advice
about how to ‘get on’ in the union, but two black women interviewees both felt
that the ‘double disadvantage’ they faced was not recognised.
Earlier work has attempted to evaluate the impact of trade union education upon workplace trade unionism and upon the wider labour movement (Miller & Stirling, 1992) and has found there to exist a positive correlation. This paper has taken a qualitative, participant perspective and has drawn similar conclusions in relation to women-only education and the goal of increasing women’s participation and involvement. All the women we spoke to, either as part of our formal interview programme or during coffee breaks in periods of course observation, were positive about their experiences of trade union women-only education. Most intended to enrol for more courses, suggesting the strong likelihood to their involvement in the union consolidating and strengthening in the future. It has been noted (Miller, 1983) that participation in trade union education can assist in breaking down the sense of isolation that representatives often experience in their role, which is especially salient for women representatives given their lesser numbers. As we have shown the camaraderie which develops on and from women-only courses (as women stay in touch with each other) can provide a life-line for many women representatives which has the potential to both sustain and spawn their activism.
In both unions, a difference between the structure and process of the courses can be identified. The more traditional and ‘short’ agenda is reflected in tutor input and course structure, with the emphasis being on raising awareness of equality issues, and focused primarily around liberal approaches to equality practice. However, the process of the courses in terms of value to the participants and participant behaviour during the courses, indicates a more radical and ‘long’ agenda, focusing on empowerment and the building of support networks. Thus while the structure may have a more limited impact, the process of the courses offers more opportunity for long term influence on gender relations within the unions and within workplaces, through the development of necessary social capital by the women participants.
There
is also evidence of a ‘difference’ or diversity approach to equality, implicit within the process of women-only education. Women-only education provides the vehicle through
which women can develop the confidence to construct their own agendas within
the workplace and the union, as McIlroy says, ‘The job should be not to integrate women in the inefficient movement
that already exists but to develop women who will change that movement in their
own image’ (1982:). Drawing on Liff’s four-fold model of
diversity, there are some elements of women-only education suggestive of
dissolving and accommodating women’s difference, by for example, seeking to
equip women to operate on male-defined terms. This reflects the short agenda,
focused around tutor-input and formal course materials. However, our
conclusions indicate that women-only education is more about valuing and
utilising women’s difference (Liff, 1996), thus drawing on some more
radicalised areas of ‘managing diversity’. For example, women are seen by
participants and ‘providers’ as important role models for newer, aspiring women
activists.
However, trade unions obviously still have a long way to go. If trade union education is to achieve the aim of developing women who will transform the unions, the structure and substance of the courses must, then place less emphasis on dissolving and accommodating women’s differences and allow a more radical agenda to emerge: ‘It’s not just a question of ‘educating’ women (like some colonised race about to be enfranchised by the colonisers) in the ways of Trade Unionism. It is a question of examining how the principles and practices of Trade Unionism can work against the interests and the involvement of women, and exploring means of overcoming and changing this situation’ (Elliot, 1980a:4)
It can be argued that trade union education brings the union closer to the member and the member closer to the union and that this mutual exchange increases the likelihood of a meaningful role for the union in the lives of its members: ‘The development of ‘personal power’ in each shop steward and member is strongly linked with the development of an effective, united union’ (Beale, 1982a:20). This comes into sharper focus in the case of women and women-only education, in that the union’s stated commitment to women’s equality seems to take on more of a reality than can ever be conveyed through literature and public statements by union leaders.
We
would like to thank the two unions, MSF and TGWU, for co-operating with this
research. We are grateful to the
officials and members of both unions who were so generous with their time in
allowing us to interview them at length.
Beale , J (1982) ‘Getting it Together’, London: Pluto
Beale, J (1982a) ‘What Can We All Learn From Women’s Courses?’, Trade Union Studies Journal, Winter, pp20-21
Bradley, H (1994) ‘Divided We Fall: Unions and their Members’, Employee Relations, Vol 16:2, pp41-52
Briskin, L (1993) ‘Union Women and Separate Organizing’ in Briskin, L & P.McDermott (1993) ‘Women Challenging Unions’, Toronto: University of Toronto Press
Cockburn, C (1995) ‘Strategies for Gender Democracy’, Brussels: European Commission
Cockburn, C. (1989), ‘Equal opportunities: the long and short agenda’, Industrial Relations Journal, Autumn, 213-225.
Cockburn, C. (1991), In the Way of Women: Men’s Resistance to Sex Equality in Organisations, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Colling, T & L.Dickens (1989) ‘Equality Bargaining - Why not?’, Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission
Colling, T. and Dickens, L. (1998), ‘Selling the case for gender equality: deregulation and equality bargaining’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 36: 3.
Cook, A, V.Lorwin, A.Kaplan Daniels (1992) The Most Difficult Revolution: Women and Trade Unions, Ithaca: Cornell University Press
Cully, M & S.Woodland (1998) ‘Trade Union Membership and Recognition 1996-7', Labour Market Trends, July, pp353-362
Cully, M, S.Woodland, A.O’Reilly,
G.Dix (1999) Britain at Work, London:
Routledge
Cunnison, S & J.Stageman (1995) ‘Feminising the Unions’, Aldershot: Avebury
Dickens, L. (1997), ‘Gender, race and employment equality in Britain: inadequate strategies and the role of industrial relations actors’, Industrial Relations Journal, 28, 4, 282-289.
Elliot, R (1980) ‘Women in Unions: the Contribution of Trade Union Education’, Trade Union Studies Journal, Autumn, pp3-6
Elliot, R (1981) ‘Update on Women’s Courses’, Trade Union Studies Journal, Spring, p17
Ellis, V (1988) ‘Current Trade Union Attempts to Remove Occupational Segregation in the Employment of Women’, in S.Walby ‘Gender Segregation at Work’, Milton Keynes: Open University Press
Healy G. and Kirton, G. (1999), ‘Women’s structures, oligarchy and trade union government’, Employment Studies Paper, 28, University of Hertfordshire.
Heery, E & J.Kelly (1988) ‘Do Female Representatives Make a Difference? Women FTOs and Trade Union Work’, Work, Employment & Society, 2:4, pp487-505
Holford, J (1994) ‘Union Education in Britain’, Nottingham: University of Nottingham
Jewson, N. and Mason, D. (1986), ‘The theory and practice of equal opportunities policies: liberal and radical approaches’, The Sociological Review, 34, 2, 307-34.
Kellner, P (1996) ‘Trade Unions: the Popular Verdict’, London: TUC
Kelly, C & S.Breinlinger (1996) The Social Psychology of Collective Action, London: Taylor & Francis
Kirton, G & G.Healy (1999) ‘Transforming Union Women - the Role of Women Trade Union Officials in Union Renewal’, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol30:1
Kirton, G. (1999), ‘Sustaining and developing women’s trade union activism: A gendered project’, Gender, Work and Organisation, 6: 4.
Labour Research (1996) ‘Recruitment - Stopping the Rot’, pp11-13, September, London: LRD
Labour Research (1996a) ‘Women Resist Union Decline’, June, pp16-16, London: LRD
Labour Research (1998) ‘Are Women out of Proportion?’, March, London: LRD
Labour Research (1998) Hard work ahead for unions, LRD.
Lawrence, E (1994) Gender and Trade Unions, London: Taylor & Francis
Liff, S. (1996), ‘Two routes to managing diversity: individual differences or social group characteristics’, Employee Relations, 19, 1, 11-26
Liff, S. and Wajcman, J. (1996) ‘Sameness’ and ‘difference’ revisited: which way forward for equal opportunity initiatives?’, Journal of Management Studies, 33, 1, 79-95.
McIlroy, J (1982) ‘Sexism and Trade Union Education’, Trade Union Studies Journal, Summer,
Miller, D & J.Stirling (1992) ‘Evaluating Trade Union Education’, The Industrial Tutor, Vol5:5, pp15-26
Miller, D (1983) ‘Student Centred Learning in Trade Union Education’, Trade Union Studies Journal, Winter, pp6-9
Munro, A (1999) ‘Women, Work and Trade Unions’, London: Mansell
Reinelt, C (1994) ‘Fostering Empowerment, Building Community: The Challenge for State-Funded Feminist Organizations’, Human Relations, Vol 47, No6, pp685-705
Sinclair, D (1995) ‘The Importance of Sex for the Propensity to Unionise’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 33:2, pp239-252
Sinclair, D (1996) ‘The Importance of Gender for Participation in and Attitudes to Trade Unionism’, Industrial Relations Journal, 27:3,
Terry, M (1996) ‘Negotiating the Government of UNISON: Union Democracy in Theory and Practice’, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol 34: pp87-111
Trebilcock, A (1991) ‘Strategies for Strengthening Women’s Participation in Trade Union Leadership’, International Labour Review, Vol 130:4
TUC (1992) ‘TUC Guide to Paid Release for Trade Union Training’, London: TUC
TUC (1997) ‘Women and the New Unionism’, London: TUC
Walters, D (1996) ‘Trade Unions and the Training of Health & Safety Representatives in Europe’, Employee Relations, Vol18:6, pp50-68
Walton, J (1991) ‘Women Shop Stewards in a County Branch of NALGO’, in N.Redclift & M.Sinclair (eds) (1991) ‘International Perspectives on Labour and Gender Ideology’, London: Routledge
Webb, J. (1997) ‘The politics of equal opportunity’, Gender, Work and Organisation, 4, 3, 159-167
[1] For an historical account of the evolution of trade union education, see Holford (1994).
[2] The Research project, ‘Trade Union Policies and Strategies’, is funded by University of North London.