The very fate of unions in this country may depend on their ability to deal effectively with the challenge of workplace restructuring. UNIONS AND WORKPLACE REORGANIZATION addresses many of the most important issues currently facing the U.S. labor movement.

Advises trade unions on how to stay influential in a changing workplace.

Presents a workplace transformation process model and six case studies which examine how unions and management can work together during a workplace transformation project. Describes the nature of the changes and how they were implemented, and evaluates the effects of the changes on production performance and worker/union issues. Draws lessons from the cases and the model.

Over the last decade, many unions affiliated to the Fédération des travailleurs du papier et de la forêt (FTPF-CSN), which represents about 25% of unionized workers in this industry in Quebec, have become involved in the management of work organization and the modernization of their plants. In 1993, the FTPF put forward an action program that encouraged active union and worker participation in work reorganization so long as the autonomy of union action was guaranteed through the use of formal agreements establishing joint committees to implement organizational change. Work reorganization leads unions to focus their activity on the workplace level, which in turn modifies the relationship between local unions and the federation. This shift in the strategic level of union activity alters the traditional sources of union power by reducing the ability of unions to neutralize wage competition between establishments within the same industrial sector. Several researchers (Betcherman 1991; Heckscher 1988; Katz 1993; Lapointe and Bélanger 1996) argue that new forms of work organization that rely on the active involvement of workers in the management of their work, on improved technical skills, and on team work, represent a new source of power for unions, allowing them to participate in the implementation of organizational change in the interests of their members. Lapointe and Bélanger (1996) identify two factors that can help strengthen union power through participation in the management of work organization: the democratic character of the union; and the union's ability to define and defend an autonomous and independent point of view. The involvement of local unions in the management of work leads to a demand for new services and a redefinition of the responsibilities of appointed union representatives from the industry federation and of elected local union officers. For the FTPF, the coordination of local collective bargaining is a strategically important activity in terms of setting the overall bargaining objectives and priorities for all of the unions in the paper industry. This coordination also makes it possible to reconcile local demands with common priorities, thereby providing a framework for local negotiations. However, over the last decade, the FTPF's ability to coordinate local negotiations has declined as a result of increasingly decentralized bargaining in response to union participation in work reorganization and job insecurity in a number of establishments. The involvement of local unions in work reorganization has had a significant impact on the nature of the tasks and responsibilities assumed by the FTPF's union representatives, for this involvement has often gone hand in hand with new negotiating practices at the local level, practices that combine integrative and continuous bargaining (Deschênes et al. 1998). Under these new negotiating approaches, elected representatives from the local union play a larger role and federation representatives need to have a wider array of technical skills than in the past. In many ways, the work of a union representative now more closely resembles that of an organizational consultant providing advice to local unions. Local union officials seek the advice of the representative on a range of questions related to the organization of work and the management of the firm. The increased involvement of the FTPF's affiliates in work organization and plant modernization over the last decade has sparked a renewal of union action at the local level. Officials and stewards have had to get involved in new areas linked to the management of organizational change, like process reengineering, the organization of production, quality assurance, and problem-solving techniques. In many of the paper mills organized by the FTPF, bargaining over work reorganization has given birth to partnerships that have substantially changed the approach to negotiating and the conduct of union-management relations. Collective bargaining has become more integrative and continuous so as to allow the gradual implementation of organizational changes. Local unions' internal structures and activities, as well as the role and responsibilities of their leaders, stewards and members have been redefined in order to support union and worker involvement in the organization of work. An analysis of the experience with work reorganization and technological modernization involving two local unions affiliated to the FTPF - in the Clermont and Donnacona mills - highlights the interaction between the economic context and union action. First, it should be emphasized that the two unions involved successfully fought, each in its own way, to have their mill modernized. To support their actions, they turned to the CSN's Research Department for studies of technological and organizational change, and, with the support of the FTPF, they led campaigns to raise public awareness of the need to secure investments in their mills. Each of the two unions has a core of active stewards who meet regularly to discuss problems and decide what action to take. Since 1995, they have held regular discussion meetings with union stewards and other union members with the purpose of assessing the role of the union in the mill and the members' perceptions of local union activities. However, the two unions have adopted different approaches to the issue of the modernization of their mills. Since the early 1980s, the Clermont union has adopted a proactive approach, whereas the involvement of the Donnacona local in the management of the mill is the result of a management plan to reduce production costs, which led to a union-management partnership agreement in 1991 aimed at reviving the mill. A number of scholars (Katz 1993; Voos 1994; Walton, Cutcher-Gershenfeld, McKersie 1994) link the decentralization of bargaining to a decline in union power. Fiorito, Gramm and Hendricks (1991) argue that it can also reflect a union preference for greater internal democracy, or for an “efficiency strategy” based upon the union's contribution to the improvement of organizational performance. The FTPF's experience corroborates these ideas in many respects because, parallel to the decline in the federation's influence over industry-wide coordination of local bargaining, it is possible to observe an intensification of its efforts to help local unions improve the organizational efficiency and competitiveness of their mills. As a result of these efforts, the officials and members of the local unions get more involved in the management of the firm, as demonstrated by the two case studies. The changing relationship between the FTPF and its affiliated unions reflects a shift in power towards the local level rather than an overall weakening of bargaining power of the FTPF. As Fiorito, Gramm and Hendricks (1991) stress, union structures and strategies are dependent on the objectives that unions seek to attain. In this respect, they distinguish between two fundamental objectives. In the workplace, unions have to work to improve working conditions and job security, whereas at the societal level union action focuses on the quality of life of all workers. In periods of economic insecurity and industrial restructuring, these two objectives are difficult to achieve, and it is often through the search for practical solutions to them that other aspects of union action surface, like the democratization of the workplace. For local unions, bolstering the competitiveness of their plant can therefore be seen as a necessary condition to protecting working conditions and jobs, as the two case studies clearly show.

"Work is widely thought to have become more precarious. Many people feel that unions represent the interests of protected workers in good jobs at the expense of workers with insecure employment, low pay, and less generous benefits. Reconstructing Solidarity: Labour Unions, Precarious Work, and the Politics of Institutional Change in Europe argues the opposite: that unions try to represent precarious workers using a variety of creative campaigning and organizational tactics.00Where unions can limit employers' ability to 'exit' labour market institutions and collective agreements and build solidarity across different groups of workers, this results in a virtuous circle, establishing union control over the labour market. Where they fail to do so, it sets in motion a vicious circle of expanding precarity based on institutional evasion by employers. Exploring the struggle of the unions against the expansion of precarious work in Europe, Reconstructing Solidarity explains the importance of how unions build, or fail to build, inclusive worker solidarity. It uses a diverse range of comparative case studies to describe the struggles of workers and unions in industries such as local government, music, metalworking, chemicals, meat-packing, and logistics, to argue against the thesis that unions act primarily to protect labour market insiders at the expense of outsiders."--Back cover.