The association between precarious work and non-union workplaces

Although the rate of precarious work in Britain has grown in recent decades, it remains relatively concentrated among certain segments of the workforce. This is reflected in the patterns of workers earning less than the low-pay threshold. A 2012 report for the Resolution Foundation identified a high rate of workers receiving an hourly wage below the low-pay threshold in the hotels and restaurants (69%), wholesale and retail (41%), administration (39%) and arts sectors (37%). At the other end of the spectrum, there is a low rate of workers in low-paid employment in the professional, scientific and technical services (8%), information (7%), financial services (4%) and public administration sectors (2%). A high incidence of low pay is also found among workers in elementary occupations (including cleaners, security guards, catering assistants and leisure workers) and sales and customer service occupations. Low pay is very common among young workers, part-time workers and those with lower levels of qualifications and formally recognised skills. It is more common among women and temporary workers than men and permanent workers (Reference Pennycook and WhittakerPennycook and Whittaker, 2012; cf. Reference Mason, Mayhew, Osborne, Lloyd, Mason and MayhewMason et al., 2008b).

The near-doubling in the proportion of workers in low-paid jobs since the early 1980s corresponds with the growth of non-standard forms of employment, particularly among smaller firms and private sector firms. Between 1980 and 2004, the number of British workplaces using workers on fixed-term contracts increased from 19% to 30%, those where at least half of the workforce was part-time went from 13% to 28%, those using temporary workers engaged through labour agencies rose from 20% to 27%, and the proportion of the workforce whose main job was self-employed went from 8% to 13% (Reference BroughtonBroughton, 2010; Reference Brown, Edwards, Brown, Bryson and ForthBrown and Edwards, 2009: 17–18).

Unions are weak in many of the industries and workforce segments characterised by low-pay and non-standard employment (see Table 1), which are both commonly associated with precarious work. However, union leverage is not the sole determinant of precarious work. For example, union membership, union workplace presence and collective bargaining coverage are low in the financial services and information sectors, where low pay and poor conditions are less likely. The highly skilled or high-demand nature of labour in these sectors, which serves to raise the individual bargaining power of workers, helps to account for these outcomes. The high level of union representation in the university sector has not prevented a significant growth in fixed-term contracts. Moreover, women are more likely than men to be low-paid and engaged in non-standard employment, but are also more likely to be represented by a union (Reference BroughtonBroughton, 2010; Department for Business Innovation and Skills (DBIS), 2013).

Table 1. Various indicators of union leverage (membership, workplace presence and collective agreement coverage) in Britain (%), 2012.

Source: DBIS (2013).

Nevertheless, union leverage is low across much of the workforce defined by precarious work. This is reflected in low membership density, workplace presence and bargaining coverage in the accommodation and food services sector, the administrative services sector, the arts, entertainment and recreation sector, the wholesale, retail trade and motor repair sector and in smaller workplaces. Workers in these parts of the labour market are likely to be low-paid and in non-standard employment. In contrast, union leverage remains high among parts of the workforce where precarious work is less problematic, such as in the education, public administration and defence and public utilities sectors, and also in larger workplaces. Younger workers, workers with lower levels of formal qualification and workers in service and elementary occupations are far less likely than average to be represented by a union, as well as being far more likely to be in low-paid and non-standard employment (DBIS, 2013; Reference Mason, Mayhew, Osborne, Lloyd, Mason and MayhewMason et al., 2008b: 45).

The decline of union leverage in Britain

Conceived as a tool for evaluating the decisions of unions in the pursuit of their objectives, Weil’s strategic choice framework allows the sources of union leverage for representing workers and regulating labour standards to be analysed. The concept of ‘strategic leverage’ is used to explain the impact of external factors shaping union leverage. These factors include the legal framework regulating employment relations, the structure and profitability of firms and industries, the ways that work and production are organised, and labour market supply and demand. While these external factors are all largely beyond the control of unions, the concept of ‘organisational capacity’ helps to explain the impact of the internal factors affecting leverage, which unions have much greater capacity to shape. These include internal structures for governance and resource allocation and the strategies used to translate organisational objectives into practice. A positive shift in external factors affecting a union’s leverage will take pressure off its organisational capacity. Conversely, a negative shift in the factors affecting its strategic leverage will place greater pressure on internal union decisions regarding resource allocation, governance structures and organisational strategies. The overall level of union leverage will shape its ability to meet objectives and to fulfil basic functions (Reference WeilWeil, 2005: 329–333).

Among the numerous functions that unions perform, representing workers and regulating labour standards are the two most fundamental. The representation function of unions allows workers greater ‘voice’ in workplace decision-making and in negotiating the conditions of work with their employer. Through their regulation function, unions seek to establish common standards across workplaces within a given market to ensure that the gains achieved in an organised workplace are not undermined by non-unionised ones (Reference EwingEwing, 2005).

The capacity of British unions to perform these two functions has been constrained over the past three decades by the decline of union leverage. This has undermined their ability to counteract the rise of precarious work. Union membership and collective bargaining coverage, which are proxies for the capacity of unions to represent workers and to regulate employment conditions, have been in sharp decline. The decline has been particularly dramatic in the private sector, where union membership fell from 52% in 1980 to 14% in 2012 and collective bargaining coverage fell from 57% to 16% (DBIS, 2013).

The representation and regulation functions of unions have come under major challenge from internal and external factors that have undermined their leverage. Changes in the regulatory framework and in the organisation of work and production are the most significant external factors that have adversely affected union leverage in this respect. The Thatcher and Major Conservative governments implemented reforms that weakened union leverage through restrictions on workplace and industrial activity. These reforms consolidated a ‘single-employer’ regulatory model that constrained the ability of unions to extend gains made at one workplace to other workplaces in the same industry which weakened their regulation function. The Blair and Brown Labour governments acknowledged that the reforms of their Conservative predecessors led to a growth in precarious workers. New workplace rights for unions and a national minimum wage were introduced to prevent wage inequality from growing further, but these reforms did not lead to a notable decline in the incidence of low-paid or non-standard employment (Reference BroughtonBroughton, 2010; Reference Brown, Edwards, Brown, Bryson and ForthBrown and Edwards, 2009: 17–18; Reference Mason, Mayhew, Osborne, Lloyd, Mason and MayhewMason et al., 2008a: 16).

Changes in the organisation of work and production are other significant external changes that have undermined the capacity of unions to address precarious work. The exposure of British firms to greater competition has eroded traditional employment relationships based on full-time and permanent work. Various forms of non-standard employment, often involving intermediaries such as employment agencies situated between the worker and their ‘effective’ (rather than legal) employer, have grown as a consequence. The trend towards inter-organisational contracting and the externalisation of employment arrangements has resulted in production systems becoming increasingly disaggregated. Numerous studies have identified a range of negative outcomes for workers and unions resulting from externalisation (Reference James, Johnstone and QuinlanJames et al., 2007: 167–168; Reference Marchington, Rubery, Cooke, Marchington, Grimshaw and RuberyMarchington et al., 2005: 241–244; Reference Walsh and DeeryWalsh and Deery, 2006: 560–561).

The negative impact on union leverage resulting from these external shifts has placed more importance on the internal factors relating to organisational capacity. The Blair government’s reforms gave unions the right to be recognised by employers in enterprises where they had support from a majority of employees. But the continued operation of the single-employer regulatory model blunted the impact of this provision, with the incidence of statutory recognition applications very low in recent years. The maintenance of legal restrictions on industrial and secondary action has severely limited the ability of unions to gain recognition at new enterprises and to organise across organisational boundaries (Reference SmithSmith, 2009: 344–345). Unions have thus struggled to contain the adverse impacts of externalisation and segmented production on precarious work.

Union strategies to regain leverage among precarious workers

The adoption by many British unions of partnership and organising strategies in the late 1990s did little to improve their leverage, either overall or among precarious workers. Partnership involved unions’ establishing agreements with employers around the principles of mutual gains through cooperation and joint commitment to the success of the enterprise. These agreements were adopted mainly in enterprises where unions already had a presence, rather than in non-unionised enterprises where precarious workers are most likely to be found. Organising aimed to empower workers by instilling a culture of workplace activism and giving them skills to maintain organisational strength with minimal reliance on union officials. This was advanced as a more suitable strategy than partnership for gaining a foothold in non-union enterprises where managerial hostility could be expected. Although organising has been embraced widely, much activity has focused on existing areas of strength. As with partnership strategies, unions have struggled to organise in small firms and in the industries and workforce segments where precarious work is concentrated (Reference Daniels, Daniels and McIlroyDaniels, 2009: 266; Reference SimmsSimms, 2010).

A core weakness of these strategies is that they accept the logic of the single-employer regulatory model by aiming to organise workers or establish partnership agreements on a workplace-by-workplace basis. While these strategies have allowed unions to improve membership density and gain recognition in certain firms and industries, any gains have been fragile given the continuing growth of non-unionised enterprises. In the absence of regulatory reforms enabling unions to extend gains within a given market more easily, firms have an incentive to compete over labour costs and therefore to resist attempts at unionisation (Reference Nowak and GallNowak, 2009: 150–151). The continued dwindling of membership and bargaining coverage indicates that these strategies have not, for the most part, succeeded in strengthening union leverage among precarious workers.

In recent years, the TUC has sought to address as a matter of priority the challenge facing a weakened union movement in representing and improving the conditions of precarious workers. Most notably, the TUC established the Commission on Vulnerable Employment (COVE) in 2007 to document the growing incidence of precarious (or what it termed ‘vulnerable’) work and to propose solutions for how unions and policymakers could address this challenge more effectively. According to the COVE final report (2008),

The report made several recommendations for unions to adopt. Of particular note are the strategies suggested for strengthening the capacity of unions to represent workers and regulate standards in the context of fragmenting employment relationships and production systems.

With respect to representation strategies, the COVE report encouraged unions to devote more resources to organising precarious workers. It suggested that the proliferation of labour agencies and subcontractors requires unions to organise across organisational boundaries and among different employers operating in the same workplace. Unions were urged to reform their membership and participation structures to be more inclusive of groups that have traditionally been difficult to organise, such as migrants and workers from ethnic minority backgrounds. Because the high incidence of non-standard employment among these workers makes it hard to reach them through workplace-based strategies, the report called on unions to develop alliances with local community and faith groups. The COVE report also encouraged unions to use workplace learning as a mechanism to engage and organise precarious workers. In order to strength the capacity of unions to regulate employment standards within disaggregated production systems, the report suggested that unions work with government agencies to improve the enforcement of legal regulations down the supply chain. It encouraged the use of strategies to pressure firms and public bodies to reform procurement practices to improve employment standards among contract firms (COVE, 2008).

Following the publication of the COVE report, the TUC’s Organising and Services Department and Unionlearn (its learning and skills division) encouraged affiliates to use these strategies in their organising and bargaining campaigns. The Organising Academy and TUC Education promoted the strategies to union officials and representatives. The next section examines the extent to which unions have adopted these measures to reach precarious workers and to improve their conditions.

Improving the union representation function through community organising

Community unionism has become increasingly common in recent years, especially in countries most associated with the organising model, such as the United States and Australia (Reference FineFine, 2005; Reference TattersallTattersall, 2010). This strategy is based on the assumption that intermittent work patterns pose a challenge for unions seeking to use traditional workplace-based strategie to organise workers in non-standard employment. The difficulties of reaching precarious workers concentrated in small firms require unions to organise them through their communities outside of the workplace, for example, by developing alliances with local community organisations, sports clubs and ethnic community groups (Reference HolgateHolgate, 2005: 476–477; Reference Martinez Lucio and PerrettMartinez Lucio and Perrett, 2009; Reference WillsWills, 2002: 32–35).

British unions are generally considered to have weak records of community engagement (Reference Martinez Lucio, Stuart and GallMartinez Lucio and Stuart, 2009: 34; Reference StirlingStirling, 2005: 56–57; Reference WillsWills, 2002: 2). In recent years, senior TUC officials have advocated community unionism as a ‘valuable tool’ to be used alongside workplace organising for ‘reaching out to groups of workers which have failed to engage with our traditional structures’ (Reference O’Grady, Nowak, Kelly and WillmanO’Grady and Nowak, 2004: 160).The growth of non-standard employment has prompted greater interest among British unions in using organising strategies based on community engagement. These factors have influenced the recent decisions of several unions to establish or consolidate community engagement initiatives.

In one such example, the GMB (a general union) ^{Footnote 1} used alliances with local churches and community organisations to organise migrant workers and to establish a Polish workers branch in its Southern Region. In addition, the TUC launched the Vulnerable Workers Project, a 2-year pilot project in East London supported by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Unions involved in the project developed partnerships with voluntary and community sector organisations in recognition that these groups would assist attempts to make contact with precarious workers. Unions adapted their strategies and structures to work with these organisations more effectively to this end. Local union branches established advice surgeries alongside weekend training courses as well as a Vulnerable Workers Group to extend their reach into the workers’ communities.

Various unions have used the ‘learning agenda’ as part of their community-based strategies for organising precarious workers. The Blair government’s establishment of the Union Learning Fund and a statutory role for union learning representatives (ULRs) in 2002 led unions to become much more active in the delivery of work-related skills and learning. The initiative has been cited as an avenue for union revitalisation because it gives unions an opportunity to position themselves around themes such as skills development, dignity and inclusion, which are likely to appeal to precarious workers often marginalised from such opportunities (Reference Martinez Lucio, Stuart and GallMartinez Lucio and Stuart, 2009: 34; Reference Munro and RainbirdMunro and Rainbird, 2004: 431). The 22,000 ULRs who have been created are more representative of the broader workforce than union workplace representatives, since they are much more likely to be younger, female and from an ethnic minority background (Reference DarlingtonDarlington, 2010). According to Reference Fitzgerald and O’BrienFitzgerald and O’Brien (2005), this diverse and broadly reflective demographic profile has allowed unions to use ULRs to connect with precarious workers more effectively (pp. 23–24).

Union learning is most likely to take place in the workplace, especially in workplaces where unions are recognised (Reference Stuart, Cook and CutterStuart et al., 2010). This has inhibited the ability of unions to use learning initiatives to reach precarious workers. Critics have argued the programme is not targeted sufficiently towards those less likely to have access to workplace learning centres or to receive training from their employer. Workers in non-standard employment without union representation are highly likely to fit this profile (Reference Wallis, Stuart and GreenwoodWallis et al., 2005: 294).

In addressing the limitations of workplace-based learning, a number of unions have used community learning centres to widen access among precarious workers. By using the Union Learning Fund to deliver free training in English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), GMB and the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians (UCATT) have worked with community learning centres and migrant community organisations to reach precarious workers. In GMB’s case, this proved to be an effective recruitment strategy, as the vast majority of the 600 migrant workers enrolled in GMB-provided ESOL courses became union members. This finding leads Reference HeyesHeyes (2009) to conclude that community-based learning assists precarious workers in gaining initially positive impressions of unions that can be later consolidated through the provision of additional support and services. Community learning initiatives thus help to embed unions within workers’ broader communities (Reference HeyesHeyes, 2009).

Community-based learning has become a more common strategy among unions seeking to organise precarious workers. The Migrant Workers Participation Project helped the public sector union UNISON to cultivate links with advocacy and community groups in the Filipino and Polish communities. This allowed UNISON to organise and deliver support and education to migrant workers (Reference Moore and WatsonMoore and Watson, 2009). Through its Migrant Workers Education Project, Unite (another general union) developed links with migrant community organisations to deliver skills development programmes and ESOL training to precarious workers in the cleaning and domestic service sectors. By utilising the community networks of existing activists to promote the project, Unite was able to deliver union-based learning to more than 1000 non-unionised workers. Unions have also worked with local government, development authorities and sports clubs to deliver learning to workers through local community learning centres. For instance, the creation of the Community and Trade Union Learning Centre by unions and the Olympic Development Authority in 2010 provided learning opportunities to over 500 workers at the Olympic site in East London and community members in the surrounding boroughs.

The ‘living wage’ campaign for better pay and working conditions for contract cleaners in various British cities (notably London) represents the most comprehensive example of community unionism in Britain. Citizens UK (an alliance of community and faith groups) has been the main protagonist in the living wage campaign, which has also involved unions such as UNISON, Unite, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS). The campaign has entailed protest action against banks, universities, hospitals, museums, hotels and government authorities. Its aim is to pressure these entities to oblige their cleaning contractors to improve pay and conditions for low-paid cleaning workers.

Cleaners have been organised through their communities outside of the workplace, such as the churches and faith groups that they belong to, and then mobilised by unions at their place of work as part of protest actions. Some notable wins have been achieved through this process, and 100 firms across Britain have agreed to pay the living wage, including KPMG, Barclays, the City of London and various local authorities. Although unions have been active in many specific living wage campaigns, successful cases where workers have won the living wage without union participation leads Reference WillsWills (2009) to argue that union involvement, although beneficial, is not necessarily a critical ingredient for success (pp. 448–457).

The prominence of civil society organisations like Citizens UK in the living wage campaign has prompted scepticism among some unions towards community engagement initiatives. These unions perceive community and civil society organisations to be encroaching upon their territory. Tensions between unions and these organisations have manifested around differences in their objectives and philosophies, campaigning approaches and internal structures (Reference Holgate, McBride and GreenwoodHolgate, 2009: 58–71).

Hostility from unions to the prospect of working with civil society organisations is short-sighted and potentially self-defeating. The role of these organisations complements rather than rivals the role of unions. There are practical limits to the capacity of community groups to influence employer practice because, unlike unions, they do not have a direct presence in the workplace. Furthermore, these groups are primarily campaign organisations that seek to raise awareness about worker vulnerability and achieve one-off victories, rather than provide continuous bargaining and workplace representation (Reference Williams, Abbott and HeeryWilliams et al., 2011: 79–82). Nevertheless, unions need to use the strong community ties of such organisations to organise the growing number of workers in precarious employment. The effectiveness of organisations like Citizens UK means that unions have to continue working closely with them if they are to reach these workers, which have proved notoriously difficult to organise through conventional workplace-based strategies.

The practical challenge of working with civil society organisations is one barrier that unions may encounter in developing community organising strategies. The resource-intensive nature of these strategies is another barrier. Although community engagement can help improve the legitimacy of unions in the broader community and yield longer term benefits, the resources devoted to these campaigns may not necessarily translate into short-term membership gains. This may make union leaderships reluctant to use community unionism at the expense of more conventional workplace campaigns. This challenge is also relevant in considering the development of sustainable sourcing strategies.

Improving the union regulation function through sustainable sourcing

If community unionism represents an attempt by unions to improve their representation function in the context of fragmenting employment relationships, ‘sustainable sourcing’ strategies represent an attempt to strengthen their regulation function in the context of fragmenting production systems. When business functions are externalised, the actions of a firm can significantly influence the working conditions and labour management practices of its suppliers and subcontractors. Suppliers that face a power imbalance when negotiating commercial contracts may pass pressures imposed by clients onto their employees, especially those in non-standard employment. This makes it difficult for unions to organise these workers and to establish resilient standards (Reference Wright and BrownWright and Brown, 2013a).

The profound implications of externalisation and supply chain pressures for the organisation of work and production call for unions to develop strategies that are ‘attentive to how organisations are embedded within [these] wider institutional structures’ (Reference Grimshaw, Marchington, Rubery, Marchington, Grimshaw and RuberyGrimshaw et al., 2005: 261). Convincing large firms to use only contractors and suppliers that comply with basic labour standards as a contractual requirement is the main aim of these strategies. To this end, sustainable sourcing strategies by unions aim to counteract the negative impacts resulting from pressure imposed by firms onto their suppliers through the terms of the commercial contract (Reference WeilWeil, 2009).

Sustainable sourcing strategies have been used more widely among British unions in recent years. Unions have increasingly used the procurement procedures of large private firms and public entities to organise, extend collective bargaining and improve conditions for workers in non-standard employment engaged by suppliers and subcontractors. This is a central objective of the living wage campaign. Rather than establishing agreements with the cleaning contractors that are the legal employers of cleaners, the living wage campaign aims to secure agreements with the large firms that effectively determine the workers’ conditions through the commercial pressures they impose on the cleaning contractors (Reference WillsWills, 2009).

Several unions have adopted similar approaches by utilising their position in large unionised entities to raise the standards of suppliers and subcontractors. For instance, PCS and the Communication Workers’ Union have succeeded in using their organising strength to pressure government departments and public entities to secure recognition agreements with non-union employment agencies, and thereby improve the pay and conditions of agency workers. UNISON has also utilised pressure from members working in local governments, state schools and hospitals as part of its strategy for gaining recognition and improving conditions among workers employed by catering and cleaning contractors.

UCATT has adopted a similar strategy in the civil construction industry, where insecure working arrangements have become widespread with the segmenting of contracting chains in recent decades. Pressure from UCATT has led a number of firms to adopt ‘framework agreements’ that all contractors must comply with. These agreements have helped improve employment relations among lower-tier and self-employed contractors, where precarious work is most likely to exist. In a similar case, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has worked with the retailer Tesco, with whom it has a longstanding bargaining relationship, to establish a recognition agreement covering agency workers at the retailer’s distribution centres. This led to a rationalisation of Tesco’s use of employment agencies. The Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union has also used its organisational strength at the British Broadcasting Corporation to organise and establish recognition agreements for technical specialists engaged as freelancers by internal production units and private production firms.

Unions have also used their political links to pressure government bodies to incorporate fair employment principles into their procurements policies. When Labour was in government, public sector unions negotiated the National Health Service (NHS) Soft Facilities Management Contractors Staff Joint Statement with the Department of Health and several employer associations. The statement compels NHS contractors to provide their employees with the pay and conditions equivalent to NHS employees. Unions also convinced the Scottish government to adopt procurement laws specifying that all private contractors of public services are expected to provide their employees with the same wages and conditions as public sector employees and comply with best practice workplace safety and equal opportunity standards. Several local authorities have enacted similar procurement policies to maintain decent labour standards among private contractors.

In one of the most prominent examples of sustainable sourcing, Unite targeted commercially powerful firms in the supply chain as part of its attempts for raising employment standards in the meat processing industry. Its strategy focused on supermarket retailers, whose commercial demands for cost reduction resulted in their meat suppliers engaging labour agencies to employ temporary workers below market rates. Although Unite had established collective agreements with a majority of firms in the meat industry, it was unable to prevent widespread use of low-cost labour management practices. This failure led Unite to develop a strategy for improving standards focused on the supermarket retailers.

The union sought to persuade the retailers to compel suppliers to reduce their reliance on low-paid temporary agency labour. After attempts at industry-based dialogue failed, Unite pressured the retailers by mobilising shareholders and consumers in support of the campaign. This culminated in the supermarket retailer Asda obliging its 29 suppliers to engage agency workers on the same terms and conditions as directly employed workers. The campaign resulted in Unite almost doubling its membership in the meat industry (to 26,000 workers out of a total workforce of 45,000) and improving conditions and achieving permanent status for over 1300 agency workers.

Although sustainable sourcing strategies to improve working conditions across organisational boundaries have become more common, their uptake remains reasonably limited. Nevertheless, sustainable sourcing offers a relatively resource-efficient means of using the commercial influence of large entities, which are more likely to be unionised and adverse to bad publicity, for improving standards among their non-unionised suppliers and contractors. It is likely that British unions will follow the example of unions in other countries in using these strategies more widely for improving their regulation function among precarious workers (Reference Wright, Brown, Freedland and CountourisWright and Brown, 2013b).