Trade unions’ ‘deliberative vitality’ towards young workers: survey
evidence across Europe
Kurt Vandaele, European Trade Union Institute
1. Introduction
The vast majority of studies dealing with trade unions and young workers explain the
low unionization rate of this membership category by focussing on the intrinsically
low propensity or reduced opportunities of young workers to become unionized. Yet
the pressures for union revitalization are not dependent upon environmental factors
alone; internal change within the unions themselves can also stimulate innovation
(Heery,
2005).
Until
recently,
research
seeking
to
explain
the
wide
underrepresentation of young workers in unions has paid less attention to such
endogenous, union-related reasons. This chapter, which is exploratory in nature,
contributes to an alternative approach by asking, as its central question, to what
extent unions promote ‘deliberative vitality’ (Lévesque and Murray, 2010) aimed at
their young members. This deliberative vitality – defined here as the integration and
participation of young members in union life and structures – is crucial to unions.
Together with cohesive (intergenerational) collective identities, it underpins one of
the power resources available to unions, namely internal solidarity, which is a
prerequisite for effectively influencing the regulation of work.
In particular, this chapter focuses on youth structures (henceforth, YS), as one
significant aspect of deliberative vitality, seeing these as a means of representing and
promoting the interests and needs of young workers. What is the internal capacity of
YS in terms of their infrastructural resources and power to communicate? How
popular and effective are specific youth-only-type structures for organizing young
workers separately? And, finally, to what extent are those types and YS in general
able to influence the unions? In the effort to answer these research questions, a
descriptive and inferential statistical analysis of survey data is provided; this has been
collected via a survey conducted among primarily young unionists across Europe.
Based on the survey evidence, two arguments run through this chapter. First, YS
could prove influential and effective in enhancing unions’ deliberative vitality
towards young workers only if their internal capacity is sufficiently strong and, thus,
if there are not ‘cosmetic constructions’. Secondly, youth-only specific types taken a
network form are perceived as less effective for representing and promoting the
interests and needs of young workers.
1
The chapter is organized as follows. Taking its inspiration from the literature
about women and unions, section two discusses the drive in unions towards
establishing and developing YS. Details of the method and data are presented in
section three. The empirical section four shows that the sustainability of YS is
compromised, in particular, by low budgeting and understaffing and that network
types are functionally different from other specific youth-only types. Section five
evaluates young unionists’ views about the influence of YS and youth-only types in
their unions. Section six concludes.
2. Women and young workers in unions: all too similar?
Without providing an extensive overview of studies of women and unions, it is
important to mention that this strand of literature can be inspirational for studying
the underrepresentation of young workers (or other marginalized groups) in unions.
There exist hints in the direction of at least two parallels. First, although young
workers should not be treated as a homogeneous group, they might, like women, be
considered a specific union constituency given a set of common employment needs
and concerns (Price et al., 2011). Secondly, in a manner reminiscent of the ‘gender
democracy deficit’ (Cockburn, 1996), unionized young workers experience systematic
obstacles to participation in union democracy and action.
One barrier relates to the dominant model of aggregative democracy within
unions and the attitudes, culture and, sometimes, gerontocratic tendencies that
young unionists tend to associate with this model. Indeed, young unionists often
perceive their older counterparts as paternalistic and not very willing to alter
established routines and traditional ideas (Cultiaux and Vendramin, 2011; Hodder,
2014; Laroche and Dufour-Poirier, 2012). Insofar as it is often claimed that unions
tend to defend their current constituencies, it could be that they are too lethargic
when it comes to shifting resources for effectively organizing and representing young
workers and responding to their specific interests and needs (Esders et al., 2011). A
second set of barriers concerns the stereotyped views of young workers held by many
older unionists, for these can hamper an adequate engagement with their younger counionists. Young workers are not always taken seriously and it is harder for them to
assert their authority in the union structure due to their lack of experience and the
hierarchical views held by older unionists (Bielski et al., 2013; Hodder, 2014;
Cultiaux and Vendramin, 2011). In fact, one of the most obstinately held beliefs is
that young workers are by and large unwilling to unionize due to their individualistic
orientations (Peetz, 2010). While there is little evidence for this deterministic claim
2
in relation to age as such, at least in the English-speaking and some West European
countries, this ‘misconstruction of the “problem” of excessive individualism amongst
young people’ (Esders et al. 2011, p.272) could engender self-fulfilling-prophecy
behaviour affecting union agency.
These similarities between young workers and women in their relations with
unions notwithstanding, it might still be asked whether young workers should be
considered a distinct constituency within unions and therefore regarded as in need of
special treatment. In other words, is the method of organizing young workers
separately, by establishing youth-only settings, necessary, insofar as these workers do
have time on their side? It should be possible, after all, for selected young workers to
simply acquire union leadership positions as they become older and gain seniority in
the union structure as the years pass. Yet, most likely (revolutionary) attentisme will
in all likelihood prove insufficient. The probability is that such an attitude will inhibit
internal debate, as well as awareness-raising and two-way exchange of knowledge
and experience between the generations. Since a prerequisite for young people to
participate in union life is the feeling ‘that their contribution can make a difference’
(Byford, 2009, p.237), attentisme entails the danger of demobilizing young union
activists and hampering unions’ deliberative vitality. Also, certain barriers are likely
to remain in place, particularly if formerly young unionists, once in a leadership
position, identify with their own generation, thereby showing themselves less
responsive to the interests and needs of the next generation.
As with women-only spaces, establishing participatory structures for young
workers could contribute to internal solidarity within unions because specific
structures of this kind enhance unions’ deliberative vitality (Lévesque and Murray,
2010). Ideally, YS could be laboratories of fresh energy and innovative ideas (Bielski
Boris et al., 2013); they might help unions to overcome their ‘fear of flying’ when it
comes to experimenting with new practices, challenging the existing predominantly
paternalistic culture and transforming their strategic orientations. Furthermore,
institutionalized YS might be expected to stimulate generational renewal in terms of
both formal and informal leadership development. Potentially, such structures could
also build ‘aspirational bridges’ between the labour movement and progressive social
movements. Finally, participation in union affairs might also have the effect of
educating young workers to better understand the ‘inner workings of the political
processes’ (Brown Johnson and Jarley 2005, p.609). Most of these possibilities
should be understood as plugging into pre-existing practices so as to complete them
in an incremental way rather than questioning the underlying aims and objectives of
3
unions (Laroche and Dufour-Poirier, 2013). Expectations should be moderate,
however. From the scholarship on separate organizing of women unionists, it is
known that enhancing unions’ deliberative vitality requires more than simply
reforming the union organization, since other essential prerequisites include a
thoroughgoing change in the pervasive union culture, informal norms and everyday
practices (Ledwith 2012).
3. A mixed-mode survey: response rate, representativeness and sample
composition
In order to explore the influence of YS in unions across Europe, the members of the
YS of six European Trade Union Federations (ETUFs) – thereby enabling crosssectional diversity – were selected for the conduct of a survey (see Table x.1.)1. Given
their active involvement at the European level, it was assumed that the overall
majority of these members have an educated view of the role played by the YS in their
national unions. Obviously, the youth bodies of these ETUFs themselves vary in
terms of, for instance, aims, statutory position, membership composition and size,
and such differences will affect the sample composition of the survey. Thus, the youth
body of the European Federation of Building and Woodworkers (EFBWW),
IndustriAll’s Youth Networking Group, and UNI Europa’s Youth Steering Group, are
all informal YS. In addition, UNI Europa has set up a virtual network by means of a
Facebook Like Page. Some of the ETUFs have recently reinforced their YS: the
European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) and the European Federation of
Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions (EFFAT) officially set up, in 2013, a
formal youth committee consisting of elected representatives of national affiliates.
EFFAT, at the same time, has established a virtual network by means of a Facebook
Like Page. The survey, however, has been distributed only among the EFFAT youth
committee members since at the time when it was being conducted the virtual
network was still in its infancy. The ETF too has initiated a virtual network via a
closed Facebook Group and maintains a mailing list of young unionists who have
participated in workshops, seminars or conferences for preparing the establishment
of the youth committee. The virtual and informal ETF networks overlap with each
other, which is the reason why the survey was circulated only to the members of the
mailing list (which includes the members of the youth committee). Finally, the
European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU) maintains an up-to-date
mailing list of young unionists who have attended recent seminars or workshops
focusing on youth issues.
4
Table x.1 The presence of YS in six ETUFs
Youth network
Virtual
Informal
EFBWW
EFFAT
Youth body
Informal
Formal
Present
Present
EPSU
Present
Present
ETF
Present
IndustriAll
UNI Europa
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Source: author’s own classification.
The cross-cultural survey was designed in close collaboration with the union officers
of the six ETUFs in charge of the YS. The survey, the pre-notification letter, and two
reminders were made available in English, French, German and Spanish. The
numbers of French and Spanish questionnaires returned was rather low and since the
French, German and Spanish language versions are associated with specific countries
and European regions (p=0.00; FET), it can be assumed that possible differences
reflect regional variations in the survey results instead of different interpretations of
the survey questions. In addition, although the survey was confined to national
unions, for 13 per cent (n=32) of the respondents, and particularly those from Spain,
it is unclear to what extent their responses are of relevance to the union level as they
identify themselves with the confederal level.
In order to guarantee a high response rate a mixed-mode survey was
implemented consisting of a questionnaire distributed at youth meetings, seminars
or conferences organised by the ETUFs, and an identical web-survey making use of
computerized, self-administered questionnaires. Less than 20 per cent (n=51) of the
questionnaires were completed on the spot, with the actual level varying depending
on ETUF. Regarding the web-survey, in the case of UNI Europa’s virtual network,
because the Facebook Like Page did not allow respondents to be addressed
5
personally, potential members of the Facebook Like Page were defined as members of
the youth committees of UNI Europa’s affiliated unions. A total of 481 members were
thus addressed personally since their e-mail address was publicly available on the
webpages of their union.2 There are no strong significant differences – i.e. a p-value
of 0.05 or smaller – between the survey responses of the two data collection modes.
Both surveys were conducted mainly during the last quarter of 2013 for most of the
ETUFs involved. Except for UNI Europa’s virtual network, all other respondents
received first a personal pre-notification letter underlining that the ETUF to which
they belonged was supporting the survey. A few days later the respondents were
personally invited to complete the survey online. A first reminder was sent out after
about ten days and a second and final reminder after another ten days.
A total of 263 usable surveys were obtained, yielding a response rate of 34 per
cent, equivalent to an error level standing at 4.9 per cent at the 95 per cent
confidence interval. Due to the trend of conglomerate unions and the specific YS
composition of each ETUF, some unions are represented more than once in the
survey sample. As such, some of the results presented below might be merely
indicative, although the maximum percentage of respondents from the same union is
lower than five per cent. Following Gumbrell-McCormick and Hyman (2013) and
Visser (2009), a classification of industrial relations regimes has been made between
English-speaking (n=13), Central (n=61), Nordic (n=85), Southern (n=39) and
Central and Eastern European countries (CEE) (n=64) as a very rough indicator of
contextual differences. Interestingly, about 14 per cent (n=36) of respondents, mostly
from CEE countries (n=19), indicated that there is – so far – no YS present in their
union. When the survey responses from the members of UNI Europa’s virtual
network are excluded, the responses are also representative in terms of the different
regimes in Europe (χ2(4, n=177)=3.73, p=0.44) and the ETUFs’ distribution (χ2(5,
n=178)=2.61, p=0.76). While the respondents’ views can thus be seen as
representative of the YS of the ETUFs (excluding UNI Europe’s virtual network) in
question, it could not be claimed that the responses are representative of each and
every YS within the national unions. Hence, the modest aim of this chapter is to offer
some insights concerning the YS in unions.
Finally, respondents were asked, unless otherwise noted, to give their opinion
of items on a five-point Likert-type scale (1=strongly disagree/ineffective to
5=strongly agree/effective). The respondents’ and unions’ characteristics can be
summarized as follows. Women represent 43 per cent (n=113) of the survey sample.
The sample is representative in terms of gender (χ2(1, n=263)=0.55, p=0.46). The
6
average age of the respondents is about 31 years (n=259, SD=6.1), while they have an
experience of being in charge of subjects relating to young workers of about 4.5 years
on average (n=246, SD=4.1). Most of the respondents, that is 62 per cent (n=161),
have received training in representing the interests and concerns of young workers in
the past three years. The union position of the respondents (n=262) is as follows:
about 20 per cent are a union member or union activist; 28 per cent a union
representative; 42 per cent a full-time official (FTO), while ten per cent do not belong
to any of these categories. Finally, it was hardly possible to take into account in the
context of this survey of the ‘varieties of unionism’ (Kelly and Frege, 2004) in terms
of, for instance, union aims, structures, governance and size, although a distinction is
made – where such information was available – between respondents (n=240) from
craft or occupational unions (10 per cent), industrial unions for manual workers (22
per cent) and for non-manual workers (19 per cent), general unions (36 per cent) and
confederations (13 per cent).
4. Youth-only types and the internal capacity of YS
Just like the unions themselves, the capacity of YS to have an influence in the union
depends on their power resources and their strategic capabilities to use them
(Geelan, 2013). The survey has been restricted to assessing the YS’ capacity in terms
of their infrastructural resources, communicative power and network embeddedness
(though findings on the latter aspect will not be reported here due to space
limitations). Respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they agreed with the
statements in Figure x.1 – assuming that those statements fairly reflected the
infrastructural resources and communicative power available to YS. Based on the
agreement
ratio,
calculated
by
subtracting
those
respondents
expressing
disagreement (‘disagree’ plus ‘strongly disagree’) from those who agree (‘strongly
agree’ plus ‘agree’), it is clear that the respondents are quite positive about the YS,
insofar as the use of new technologies is concerned, as a dimension of the
infrastructural resources (59 per cent); about the degree of autonomy (51 per cent);
the communication strategy (57 per cent); the clarity about the position and role (49
per cent); and the abilities of the staff (48 per cent). At first sight, these results are a
promising outcome in terms of unions’ deliberative vitality towards young workers.
However, confirming earlier survey results of YS at the confederal level across Europe
(Vandaele, 2012), the respondents are far less positive about the YS’ financial and
human resources. Nearly one third of them regard the budget of the YS as
7
inadequate, while even more consider that there are too few staff. The agreement
ratios stand at respectively 22 and -7 per cent.
Figure x.1 YS in my union…
Source: survey results.
Note: Cronbach’s alpha: 0.78.
Since the Likert-type scale is internally consistent and unidimensional (based on a
factor validity test (not reported here3)), the total sum of all items, i.e. the Likert-type
scale score, can be calculated as an indicator of the YS’ overall internal capacity.4
Interestingly, whereas there is no relationship with the respondents’ experience
(rs(211)=0.05, p=0.44), older respondents tend to be significantly more negative
about the capacity (rs(216)=-0.19, p=0.01). However, respondents who have been
received training over the last three years in representing the interests and concerns
of young workers (M=3.64, SD=0.75) are significantly (t=-2.28, df=217, p=0.02)
more positive about the internal capacity than untrained respondents (M=3.41,
SD=0.66). There are no significant differences (t=-0.46, df=218, p=0.65) between
female (M=3.54, SD=0.73) and male (M=3.58, SD=0.73) respondents or between the
respondents’ union function (F(2, 2)=0.60, p=0.55). Finally, there are differences
neither between the union types (F(4, 4)=1.91, p=0.11), nor between unions active in
the different industrial relations systems (F(4, 4)=1.18, p=0.32).
8
Figure x.2 Percentage of non-presence of youth-only types
60%
53%
50%
48% 48%
41%
40%
40%
37%
32%
31%31%
30%
27%
24%
22%
20%
20%
18%
15%
12%
10%
33%
32%
30%
14%
11%
7%
20%
16%
12%
13%
23%
23% 22%
14%
16%
7%
0%
Youth committee Virtual network
Informal
Dedicated FTO Formal network
Special
Youth committee
Seperate
at national level (n=219, 51, 87, network (n=221, (n=219, 50, 87, (n=220, 50, 87,
department
at branch/
organisation
(n=221, 51, 89,
74)
51, 88, 75)
75 )
76)
(n=224, 52, 89, regional level
(n=221, 51,88,
74)
76)
(n=222, 51, 90,
75)
74)
Overall
Weak structures
Intermediate strong structures
Robust structures
Source: survey results.
Young workers’ interests and needs could be carried forward via specific youth-only
structures within their union. Figure x.2 provides an overview of the overall
popularity of several types of such structure and, more interestingly, also
distinguishes between the YS in terms of their internal capacity. The latter is obtained
using a data clustering approach, based on a k-means clustering algorithm of abovediscussed Likert-type scale scores measuring the YS’ internal capacity (n=220). This
clustering results in three different categories labelled as, respectively, weak (24 per
cent), intermediate strong (41 per cent) and robust (35 per cent) YS. From Figure x.2
it is clear that formally constituted youth committees at the national level and virtual
networks are the most popular types of youth-only structures in the survey sample.
Other network types are also quite common and the same is true of FTOs focussing
on youth outreach. Special departments and youth committees at the branch or
regional level are less widespread; separate organisations are the least popular type of
structure. Looking at the different categories of YS, an interesting pattern can be
discerned: weak YS are generally associated with a lower presence of youth-only-type
structures compared to YS with an intermediate and robust capacity. This
dissimilarity between weak and firmly established YS is most pronounced with regard
9
to FTOs and informal networks. A comparison of intermediate YS with robust ones
reveals that special departments, in particular, are lacking in intermediate YS.
Figure x.3 How effective are the youth-only-type structures for representing young
workers’ interests and needs?
Source: survey results.
Note: Kruskal-Wallis tests; **p<0.05; ***p<0.01.
Furthermore, respondents were asked to evaluate the effectiveness of the youth-only
types for representing young workers’ interests and needs in cases where such
formations were present in their union.5 Figure x.3 summarizes the respondents’
answers. With an agreement ratio of 68 per cent, dedicated FTOs are perceived as the
most effective. This assessment confirms findings from a union report recommending
the assignment of at least one FTO focused solely on young workers since this can
enable coordinated, long-term planning; enhances the unions’ responsiveness
towards young workers; and provides a signal that they are taken seriously (Crick,
2013). Special departments and youth committees at the national level also have a
rather high agreement ratio of respectively 59 and 57 per cent. Probably for different
reasons, youth committees at the branch or regional level (40 per cent), separate
organizations (33 per cent), and virtual networks (32), are perceived as the least
effective for representing the interests and needs of young workers. The latter are
10
likely more oriented towards potential young members, whereas, to a larger extent
than the youth committees, separate organizations entail the danger of weaker
integration within the mainstream union structures (Laroche and Dufour-Poirier,
2013), and this is perhaps more pronounced in YS with a weak internal capacity.
Finally, a pattern can once again be discerned: respondents assess the effectiveness of
the youth-only types differently according to the internal capacity of their YS. The
effectiveness of those types is significantly lower within weak YS except for the
network types, probably because the key to the success of the latter, particularly
(in)formal networks, is building and sustaining network density (Brown Johnson and
Jarley, 2005) rather than representing young workers as such. In other words,
network types are likely to be more focussed on making young unionists active and
connecting them by offering opportunities for the exchange of ideas, information and
experience. A confirmatory factor analysis supports this line of reasoning:
respondents do indeed perceive the network and non-network types differently.
5. The influence of YS and youth-only types
Previous research found that the YS’ influence on transforming the union is
embryonic and, as such, still patchy (Laroche and Dufour-Poirier 2013; Vandaele
2013). The survey findings presented here seem to confirm this. The questionnaire
asked for the influence of YS on day-to-day youth issues, general issues, national
union leadership, strategic orientation of the union, its dominant culture including
within its local and regional bodies. Two points arise from the results presented in
Figure x.4. First, based on the agreement ratio, respondents are more positive about
the overall YS’ influence in relation to day-to-day youth issues (54 per cent) and their
impact on the local and regional union bodies (44 per cent). The agreement ratio is
lower with regard to general issues (30 per cent), national leadership (28 per cent)
and the degree to which YS can exert gradual influence the predominant union
culture (27 per cent). The ratio stands at 23 per cent for the YS’ influence on the
strategic orientation of the union. Secondly, the same pattern emerges yet again,
namely that influence is dependent on the YS’ internal capacity. In other words, the
influence of rather fragile YS is significantly lower in comparison with YS having an
intermediate-to-robust internal capacity, whereas the influence of intermediate YS is
also significantly lower in comparison to robust YS.
Figure x.4 YS in my union are able to influence…
11
Source: survey results.
Note: Kruskal-Wallis tests; ***p<0.01.
Given the Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91 and the unidimensional character (based on a
factor validity test) of the scale, the Likert-type scale score can be calculated
measuring the overall influence of the YS. Male (M=3.5, SD=0.80) and female
(M=3.4, SD=0.92) respondents perceive no significant differences (t=-1.99, df=215,
p=0.31) in the YS’ overall influence. Nor is there a relationship with either the age of
the respondents (rs(213)=-0.10, p=0.13) or their experience (rs(208)=0.11, p=0.10) or
union function (F(3, 3)=0.26, p=0.86). However, trained respondents (M=3.55,
SD=0.86) are significantly (t=-2.90, df=214, p=0.00) more positive about the YS’
influence compared to respondents who have not, in the past three years, received
any training on representing young workers’ concerns and interests (M=3.21,
SD=0.78). A significant difference occurs, what is more, between unions active in the
different industrial relations systems (F(4, 4)=2.55, p=0.04). However, a post hoc
Tukey test showed that only respondents from unions in CEE-countries perceive the
influence as significantly lower compared to respondents from unions in the Nordic
countries (p=0.02). There is no significant difference between union types (F(4,
4)=1.03, p=0.39). Unsurprisingly, given the significant differences for each individual
item, the differences in influence depending on internal capacity are very significant
between all YS (F(2, 2)=55.02, p=0.00).
12
Table x.2 Correlations between the youth-only type and YS’ influence
Category
Overall
Weak Intermediate Strong
Youth committee at national level (n=187, 0.43***
0.21
0.35***
0.25**
0.34***
0.28
0.27**
0.14
Youth committee at branch/regional level 0.31***
0.20
0.22*
0.07
-0.05
0.27**
0.25**
39, 79, 68)
Special department (n=159, 34, 61, 63)
(n=151, 33, 61, 56)
Formal network (n=165, 32, 68, 64)
0.31***
Dedicated FTO (n=164, 29, 70, 64)
0.30*** -0.15
0.22*
0.22*
Separate organization (n=113, 23, 46, 34)
0.24**
0.03
0.26*
0.13
Virtual network (n=182, 38, 75, 68)
0.19***
0.20
0.15
0.03
Informal network (n=171, 31, 74, 65)
0.14*
0.19
0.11
0.14
Source: survey results.
Note: *p<0.10; **p<0.05; ***p<0.01.
Furthermore, Table x.2 reports Spearman’s rank-order correlations in order to
determine the relationship between the effectiveness of the specific type of YS and its
perceived influence. These results are indicative, since further information is lacking
about, for instance, the specific statutory position of the youth-only types,
particularly the youth committees, that is, whether their motions are merely advisory
or are compulsory within the union decision-making structures. Overall, there is a
(very) significant positive – albeit generally moderate – correlation between all types,
except for the informal networks, and the overall influence; the correlation is
substantial for youth committees at the national level. Disaggregating the correlation
by the YS’ degree of internal capacity, there are no thus significant relationships
between the weak types and their influence. YS with an intermediate strong capacity
are marked by significantly influential youth committees at the national level but also
by special departments and formal networks for young unionists. Virtual and
13
informal networks do not have a significant influence, whereas the correlation
between other types and their influence is more doubtful judged in terms of
conventional levels of significance. Finally, only formal networks and youth
committees at the national level are significantly correlated with influence within
robust YS.
Table x.3 Cross-tabulation of YS’ internal capacity and executive committee status
Executive committee status
YS’ Internal capacity
No seats
Observer status or right to speak
Right to vote
Weak (n=46)
35%
26%
39%
Intermediate (n=83)
24%
27%
49%
Strong (n=68)
19%
19%
62%
Total (n=197)
25%
24%
51%
Source: survey results.
In terms of gaining an influence within the union and moving young workers’
interests and needs higher up the union agenda, the (statutory) presence of workers
in the national executive committee and the rights within the committee might also
be of importance.6 There is indeed a significant effect of the executive committee
status upon the respondents’ perception of the YS’ influence (F(2, 2)=4.19, p=0.02).
Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey test indicate that respondents from unions
with voting rights for young workers on the executive committee consider the YS’
influence significantly greater than respondents from unions without reserved seats
(p=0.02). However, respondents from unions with non-voting representation do not
significantly differ from respondents from unions without reserved seats (p=0.45) or
with voting rights (p=0.46). But then again how does the executive committee status
relate to the YS’ internal capacity? Table x.5 shows that the percentage of non-voting
representation on the executive committee is roughly the same for all three categories
of YS. Furthermore, more than one third of the respondents with weak YS report that
their union has no reserved seats for young workers on the committee, whereas this
figure stands at 19 per cent for respondents from unions with robust YS. And yet
14
there is no significant association between the YS’ internal capacity and the specific
status of young workers within the executive committee (χ2(4, n=197)=6.56, p=0.16).
Figure x.5 Mean level of YS’ influence by internal capacity and executive committee
status
Source: survey results.
While having reserved seats for young workers on the executive committee may
possibly contribute to the YS’ overall influence, this effect might be dependent upon
the YS’ internal capacity. This is indeed the case: the interaction between the YS’
internal capacity and executive committee status is significant (F(8, 4)=2.71,
p=0.03). Respondents with a difference in executive committee status but within the
same YS category perceive no significant differences in influence (F(8, 2)=1.55,
p=0.21). Respondents from unions with a difference in the YS’ internal capacity but
sharing the same executive committee status showed significant differences in the
influence of YS (F(8, 2)=49.89, p=0.00). Figure x.5 shows the mean of the YS’
influence for each combination of YS categories and executive committee status.
Accordingly, the YS’ internal capacity makes a difference to the YS’ influence in the
union, as does its interaction with the executive committee status. Remarkably,
respondents from unions with weak YS perceive the YS’ influence as slightly lower
15
where young workers have statutory representation on the executive committee than
where this is not the case. Finally, as an indicator of a ‘critical’ mass of young
unionists, there is a significant relationship between the YS’ internal capacity and the
trend in the share of young workers in the union over the last three years (χ2(2,
n=171)=8.40, p=0.02). Thus, YS with a stronger internal capacity are more likely
than weak YS to show an increase in the youth membership share.
6. Conclusion
In general, trade unions across Europe have paid increased attention, since the Great
Recession, to young people’s interests and concerns on the labour market, although
the extent of such interest has depended in particular on external pressures like the
almost overall increase in youth unemployment and the national and European
attention paid to it (Vandaele, 2013; Simms, 2011). The insiders’ perspective
presented here, based on a cross-cultural mixed-mode survey, cannot provide a
dynamic picture that would show whether or not YS have become more widespread
and whether their internal capacity has improved since the Recession. Even so, it
does look as if unions in CEE-countries especially need to catch up in the creation of
YS compared to other European regions where specific youth-only-type structures
appear more common. Such catching-up seems, however, rather improbable in cases
where unions face departmental cuts due to a sustained and escalating membership
decline.
Undoubtedly, the empirical results in this chapter need further, qualityoriented research, for instance via in-depth interviews or case-studies, in order to
detect causal factors and to contextualize the findings within the broader unions’
processes and policies and their interrelation with other actors. Nonetheless,
regarding the deliberative vitality of unions towards young workers, several
conclusions can be drawn. First, an optimistic reading of the survey results points to
the potential of YS, particularly those with an intermediate or strong internal
capacity, for promoting a more deliberative form of union democracy, whereby both
younger and older unionists can learn from each other. Indeed, the importance of
educational and awareness-raising activities for a better understanding of the union
decision-making structures is clear insofar as trained respondents evaluate the YS’
internal capacity and their influence significantly more positively compared to
untrained respondents.
16
Secondly, and this is a more pessimistic finding, a considerable percentage of
respondents consider the budget of the YS to be rather modest and, above all, too
dependent on key individuals. This impedes a sustainable model of YS, makes such
structures vulnerable to union policy changes and, ultimately, calls into question the
unions’ deliberative vitality towards young workers. For further interpretation of this
assessment, it might be important to ascertain whether the YS in question have been
designed top-down by veteran union leaders or whether they are primarily the
bottom-up outcome of more organic processes among young activists (Bielski Boris et
al. 2013). In certain cases, respondents from YS that are the outcome of top-down
design might be more sceptical about the power resources to hand, although this is
not to suggest that there is a direct linear relationship between the decision-making
process for establishing YS and the respondents’ evaluation of their internal capacity.
Regardless of the YS’ design, their influence seems pretty much confined to day-today youth issues and the decision-making bodies at the local and regional union
bodies, a finding which calls for further research on the articulation of youth
activities with the union more widely.
Thirdly, on the basis of the survey results, it might be possible to devise an
ideal organizational setting of effective and influential YS, but any such attempt
would exclude the external context within which unions inevitably operate. Apart
from a robust internal capacity, marked by sufficient infrastructural resources and
communicative power, such YS will also benefit from having an effective youth
committee at the national level, as well as formal networks of young union activists,
with a dedicated FTO for youth affairs as the link between these two specific youthonly types. Whereas the youth committee probably has a more representative
function within the union bureaucracy and hierarchy, organising is likely to prevail
within the network, with equality issues playing a secondary role only. This particular
youth-only setting is likely to be reinforced if young unionists have reserved seats on
the executive committee, ideally with voting rights, and if there is a ‘critical mass’ of
young workers. In order to stem the growing demographic gap in union membership,
to revitalize unions, and to empower young workers generally, this might well be a
suitable model to strengthen or to introduce as a first but necessary step. A new
departure or stronger efforts in this direction will require a shift in the trade unions’
power resources.
References
17
M. Bielski Boris et al. (2013) ‘Next up: The promise of AFL-CIO-affiliated young
workers groups’, Working USA, 16, 227–252.
N. Brown Johnson and P. Jarley (2005) ‘Unions as social capital: the impact of trade
union youth programmes on young workers’ political and community
engagement’, Transfer, 11, 605–616.
I. Byford (2009) Union renewal and young people: some positive indications from
British supermarkets, in G. Gall (ed.), The future of union organising. Building
for tomorrow. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 223–238.
C.
Cockburn (1996) ‘Strategies
for
gender democracy:
strengthening
the
representation of trade union women in the European Social Dialogue’,
European Journal of Women’s Studies, 3, 7–26.
C. Crick (2013) Our time is now. Young people and unions: lessons from overseas.
London: Unite the Union.
J. Cultiaux and P. Vendramin (2011) Militer au quotidien. Regard prospectif sur le
travail syndical de terrain. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
L. Esders et al. (2011) Declining youth membership. The views of union officials, in R.
Price et al. (eds.) Young people and work. Farnham: Ashgate, 263–281.
T. Geelan (2013) ‘Responses of trade union confederations to the employment crisis’,
Transfer, 19, 399–413.
R. Gumbrell-McCormick and R. Hyman R (2013) Trade Unions in Western Europe:
Hard Times, Hard Choices. Oxford: OUP.
E. Heery (2005) ‘Sources of change in trade unions’, Work, Employment and Society,
19, 91–106.
A. Hodder (2014) ‘Organising young workers in the Public and Commercial Services
union’, Industrial Relations Journal, 45, 153–168.
J. Kelly and C. Frege (eds.) (2004), Varieties of unionism: comparative strategies
for union renewal. Oxford: OUP.
M. Laroche and M. Dufour-Poirier (2013) ‘Revitalizing union action: The impact of
youth committees in a public sector labour federation in Québec’, Just Labour,
20, 1–11.
S. Ledwith (2012) ‘Gender politics in trade unions. The representation of women
between exclusion and inclusion’, Transfer, 18, 185–199
18
C. Lévesque and G. Murray (2010) ‘Understanding union power: resources and
capabilities for renewing union capacity’, Transfer, 16, 333–350.
D. Peetz (2010) ‘Are individualistic attitudes killing collectivism’, Transfer, 16, 383–
398.
R. Price et al. (2011) A majority experience: young people’s encounters with the
labour market, in R. Price et al. (eds.), Young people and work. Farnham:
Ashgate, 1–17.
M. Simms (2011) Helping young workers during the crisis: contributions by social
partners and public authorities. Dublin: European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
K. Vandaele (2012) ‘Youth representatives’ opinions on recruiting and representing
young workers. A twofold unsatisfied demand?’ European Journal of Industrial
Relations, 18, 203–218.
K. Vandaele (2013) ‘Union responses to young workers since the Great Recession in
Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden: are youth structures re-orienting the
union agenda?’, Transfer, 20, 381–397.
J. Visser (2009) ‘The Quality of Industrial Relations and the Lisbon Strategy’ in
European Commission, Industrial Relations in Europe 2008. Luxembourg:
Publications Office, 44–72.
1
Interestingly, in 2014, those YS have united forces by setting up a campaign, called
‘Enough of their crisis. Back to our Future’, its main aim being to put youth
unemployment at the top of the European political agenda.
2
In comparison, the Facebook Like Page of UNI Europa Youth had 865 likes at the
time of the survey distribution.
3
Details about this and other factor analyses in this chapter can be obtained from the
author upon request.
4
This internal capacity is limited to the YS’ infrastructural resources and
communicative power; other power resources like their network embeddedness and
narrative resources are thus excluded.
5
The year of establishment of the types is unknown, as is their size and scope, as this
information was not requested in the survey.
19
6
It is not known whether there are any young unionists on the committee as a result
of coincidence.
20