This is a pre-refereed version of an article that was revised and published in the Journal of Human Resource Management, Special Issue on Human Resource Management and Employment Relations in Australian public sector and not-for-profit organisations (2006).

Bringing the Community In:

Possibilities for public sector union success

through

community unionism

Amanda Tattersall

Officer Unions NSW

Work and Organisational Studies, University of Sydney

amandatattersall@gmail.com

Abstract:

Public sector employment relations are increasingly difficult for public sector unions. It

has been suggested that alliances between public sector employees and public service

consumers may provide a strategy for enhancing union success in bargaining and

achieving reforms in the public service. This paper uses the concept of community

1

unionism to explore how and when relationships between unions and community

organisations may provide a means for enhancing union success for public sector

unions. The paper uses a case study of the NSW Teachers Federation and their four year

campaign for public education between 2001 and 2004. This case study shows the

success of long term deep alliances between parents and teachers in achieving reform of

the public service, while highlighting some limitations for community unionism strategy

in salary negotiations. The paper concludes that community unionism is a viable

strategy for public sector unions, and suggests that organisational relationships,

common interest and mutli-scaled forms of activity are important ingredients of

successful community unionism in the public sector.

While there is a marked decline in union density across liberal

market economies, public sector union density has shown greater

resilience. Public sector union density in Australia and the UK

is twice that of overall density, and in New Zealand and the USA

public sector density is three times that of overall density.i

Yet, public sector unions remain constrained in their negotiations

with Governments who are fiscally conservative and criticise the

narrow vested interests of unions. They are also increasingly

subject to restrictions on the use of traditional forms of

industrial action, like the strike.

2

Indeed, public sector union success has been muted by the ‘crises’

of union power apparent in many industrialised countries. Public

sector unions in Australia, which in the past enjoyed

accommodating, consent-based relationships with Government now

experience relationships with far more conflict. In the State of

NSW, Transport and Nursing unions who have a history of non-

militancy and strong relationships with the Australian Labor Party

(ALP), now find themselves in protracted struggles to prevent

concession bargaining and achieve wage increases (Markey 1994;

Tattersall 2004). The WorkChoice legislation has recently

restricted the types of industrial action that are able to be

taken by front-line public sector workers.

In this context the NSW Teachers Federation has experimented with

a practice I term community unionism, to try to advance the

concerns of public education and worker voice in a space of

deteriorating employment relations. This paper first develops a

framework for understanding this concept of community unionism and

then explores the various strategies of the NSW Teachers

Federation over a three year period to assess their relative

success and the potential of those strategies for enhancing the

strength of public sector unions.

3

Community Unionism: an introduction

Public sector employment relations are directly connected to

public services, with many Non-Government Organisations and local

communities sharing a direct interest in the quality of the

services produced. The term ‘community’ has come into vogue as a

possible frame for advancing the interests of unions in an

environment of declining service quality and hostile employment

relations (Johnston 1994; Carpenter 2000; Terry 2000).

‘Community,’ in the form of community unionism or (labour) union-

community coalitions is said to provide a mechanism for increasing

power and enhancing union success (Brecher and Costello 1990;

Tuffs 1998; Reynolds 1999; Nissen 2000; Clawson 2003).

Community is one of those troublesome ‘keywords’ of sociology. It

is almost always invoked positively – an adjective antidote – that

conjures up ideas of generalised public support (Williams 1976;

Tattersall forthcoming). For unions, community is often perceived

as an instrumental, external, silver bullet that will multiply the

power of unions through joint union and community action. Yet,

like the measure of union density, the mere presence of community

partners does not translate into enhanced power or union success.

4

Success is a more subtle outcome of the complex types of

interactions between union and ‘community’, and how those

interactions create and respond to external political

opportunities.

Approaches to community unionism and labour-community coalitions,

while confusing, elucidate some consistent themes. Most commonly,

the term community is used to substitute for the phrase community

organisation. This slippage is so common it is built into the

term labour-community coalition, which refers to coalitions

between unions and community organisations (Brecher and Costello

1990; Tuffs 1998; Reynolds 2004). Secondly, community is also

used to describe a group of people who have a set of common

concerns, interests or identities, such as a community of women or

environmentalists (Waterman 1991; Taksa 2000; Clawson 2003;

Cranford and Ladd 2003; Fine 2005). Thirdly, community is also

used to mean place, as in a geographic area, in particular a local

neighbourhood (Patmore 1994; Jonas 1998; Savage 1998; Walsh 2000;

Ellem 2003). These three definitions of community are not

mutually exclusive. They can be seen as complementary and

supplementary: the greater the interaction between organisation,

5

common interest/identity and place, the stronger the ‘community’

foundations.

Community unionism can be seen as a broad concept that describes

the intersection between unions and these three forms of

community. Thus the strategy of community unionism includes

unions working to build power at the scale of a place, a union

working with community organisations and unions working on issues

of community identity (such as with immigrants, women) or on

broader community issues (such as public education or peace).

Within this, union-community coalitions refer one kind of

community unionism – that is coalitions between community

organisations and labour unions.

This categorisation of community unionism provides a three part

framework for analysing how and when this form of union strategy

can be successful. Community unionism has a relational dimension,

made more successful when there are interdependent, trusting

coalitional relationships between community organisations and

unions (Tuffs 1998; Frege, Heery et al. 2004; Obach 2004).

Community unionism also has a political frame, made more

successful when the common concern between the organisations is in

6

the mutual interests of those organisations, deeply connected to

the experiences of union members and framed as a social concern

rather than a vested interest (Flanders 1970; Brecher and Costello

1990; Moody 1997). Thirdly, community unionism has a spatial

dimension, made more successful when it is able to act at multiple

scales, such as the local, city, state and the national (Ellem

2005; Walsh 2000, Castree et al 2004, Pastor 2001). In addition,

these three types of relationships are also dependent on the

available political opportunities (Reynolds 1999; McAdam, Tarrow

et al. 2001; Frege, Heery et al. 2004; Turner forthcoming).

The usefulness of this analytical framework is that it overcomes

the empirically intensive literature that tends to equate

successful outcomes with successful union-community relationships.

While obviously successful political victories are important, the

‘means’ of political action are as important as the ‘ends.’ The

ability for community unionism to develop powerful reciprocal

relationships with community organisations, and build the capacity

i In Australia total density is 23%, public sector density is 46%; in UK total density is 26% and public sector density is 60%; in Canada total density is 30% and public sector density is 70%; in the USA total density is 13% and public sector density is 36%; in New Zealand total density is 21% and public sector density is 66%: sources Australian Bureau of Statistics 2005; Human Resources and Skills Development Canada 2005; UK Dept of Trade and Industry 2005; US Dept of Labor 2005; Statistics New Zealand, QES March 2005.

7

and politicisation of union members are important goals for

building successful and sustainable and long term union power.

In particular, the strategy of community unionism may be

particularly useful for advancing union and community interests in

the public sector, given the nature of public service and the

crisis in public sector employment relations. A union’s

industrial location may make successful engagement in community

unionism more likely. Labour geographers suggest that reaching

out to the community is most likely in service-based industries,

particularly ones where the consumer market and labour market are

fixed in the same geographic spaces {Walsh, 2000 #53; Savage, 1998

#39; Pastor, 2001 #279}. Johnston suggests that community

unionism is a promising strategy for public sector unions, because

these workers provide services of public benefit, creating a ready

constituency of consumers with an interest in improving the

quality of public services (Johnston 1994). It is widely

speculated that the economic conditions of international

competition and privatisation create a ready environment for

community unionism (Brecher and Costello 1990; Robinson 2000). In

addition, it is suggested that community unionism is more likely

to be chosen as a strategy in periods of union crisis, that union

8

leaders play a critical role in its development and that embarking

on community unionism requires a process of internal union change,

or union renewal (Voss and Sherman 2000; Tattersall forthcoming;

Turner forthcoming).

I will examine this framework using a case study of the public

education campaign run by the NSW Teachers Federation from 2001 to

2004. I will examine how variations in the relationship between

the union and community organisations, the types of interests

campaigned on and the scale of the campaign affected the success

of the union’s campaign. I conclude by considering the

possibilities and limitations of this strategy for public sector

unions more generally.

NSW Public Education Campaign: Community Unionism and the NSW

Teachers Federation

The NSW Public Education campaign was a four year campaign lead by

the NSW Teachers Federation in a comprehensive attempt to ‘do

things differently’ by structuring their fight for improved

conditions in schools as a broad-based campaign for public

education. The stimulus for this campaign arose from a brutal and

damaging salaries campaign in the late 1990s, prompting dramatic

9

internal structural and strategic changes. The four year campaign

involved creating state-based and locally organised alliances

between ‘parents, principles and teachers.’

The NSW Teachers Federation is the largest public sector union in

NSW. It was formed in 1918, and represents public school teachers

and teachers in the NSW-based ‘Technical and Further Education

(TAFE) system (O'Brien 1987). The union has very strong density,

with well over 90% of full-time teachers in the union (White

2004). Over 70% of its members are women. It has a long history

of radicalism for public education and on social issues as broad

as peace and feminism (O'Brien 1987). Its radicalism has meant it

often had a tense relationship with the Australian Labor Party

(ALP). The union has a strong commitment to member involvement,

with a 300 rank and file person council that meets eight times per

year and over 2000 union delegates and 2 000 women’s contacts, one

each in each school across the state (Federation 2005). The union

has a regional structure, with over 150 regionally-based teacher

associations that meet monthly.

The 2001 Public Education campaign grew out of a crisis in public

education, and a crisis in the ability for the union to change it.

10

The State and Federal Governments are responsible for education

funding, with the State Government primarily responsible for

running the public school system. The 1990s saw significant budge

reductions to public education from both Governments. At a

Federal level, there was a shift in funding from public schools to

private schools. At a state level, the policy of fiscal

tightening was directed at school restructures and reducing

recurrent expenditure – the greatest item being teacher wages.

Union members and leaders were drawn into the union’s battle

against fiscally conservative Government policy as salary battles

became increasingly difficult during the 1990s. Salaries

campaigns became ‘increasingly bitter,’ with condition stripping

becoming the basis for award negotiation (Author interview, Maree

O’Halloran, NSWTF President 20 Dec 2004). The hostility reached

fever pitch in 1999 with The Daily Telegraph, the largest circulation

paper in the country running a front page campaign attacking the

credibility of the Teachers Federation and their wage claims.

This culminated in a tabloid front-page article on the day of a

strike that featured a cartoon of the Teachers Federation

President who was drawn wearing a dunce’s cap with the slogan ‘if

the cap fits!’ (Telegraph 1999).

11

The media campaign was unusually brutal; prompting the union to

embark on new thinking about types of campaigning that could be

used to reinstate their credibility and capability to advance the

conditions of public education. During 1998 and 2000, the union

undertook three structural innovations. A group of teachers and

organisers, mainly based in the South-Western and Outer Western

suburbs of Sydney, an area of socio-economic disadvantage, began

planning a program for new union strategies (Author interviews,

NSWTF organisers Feb and March 2005). The first initiative was to

establish a membership levy to assist the Teachers Federation to

campaign proactively on public education through the commercial

media and in the community. The second innovation was the

development of Public Education Lobbies. These locally based

lobby groups, the same size as Federal Electorate Districts, and

would function as advocacy group for public education, run by a

local parent, local teacher and local principle (Zadkovich 1999).

Thirdly, the union at a leadership level decided to restructure

its relationship with principals, committing to a stronger

relationship between Teachers and Principals Associations as a key

ally in public education.

12

These three structural shifts allowed the union to embark on a

broad strategy of community unionism involving three key elements.

Firstly, the union formed closer relationships, and eventually a

formal coalition with the Principal Associations (Secondary

Principals Association, Primary Principals Association and Public

Schools Principals Forum) and Parent Groups (the Federation of

Parents & Citizens (P&C) and the Federation of Community

Organisations (FOSCO). Secondly the union shifted to frame all

its campaigns as campaigns for public education. Thirdly, the

union established capacity at a local as well as a state level in

order to build member participation, political influence and

public awareness about publication education.

During 2001 to 2004 there were a series of different campaign

periods, with different types of relationships between the parties

which had varying successes. These periods will be briefly

examined and the success and weaknesses of the changing contours

of community unionism will be evaluated.

Period One: Federal Election, Jan -Nov 2001

13

The public education campaign began with the aim of influencing

the outcome of the 2001 Federal Election, and to do so developed a

simple coalition with parents and principals.

The Election campaign consisted of a series of ad hoc events. It

began with an advertising campaign focused on the merits of public

education, then extended locally as the new public education

lobbies undertook local events. Through the lobbies local

parents, principles and teachers met with politicians. The major

activity of the campaign was a Public Education Convention on

September 8. Planning was coordinated by the Teachers Federation,

with the other partners consulted in drafting a joint statement,

and then encouraged to bring people to event (Anonymous author

interview, Principal Representatives, Feb 2005). The Convention

was attended by over 10 000 people, in a space that fits 30 000,

with the audience addressed by politicians from all the major

parties. Teachers Federation organisers described the event

positively, one even called it ‘groundbreaking’ (Anonymous author

Interview, Teachers Organiser March 2005). Yet, many of the

principal and parent representatives who were less involved had

quite modest reflections (Author interview, Principal

Representative Feb 2005). Education as an issue was overshadowed

14

during that election. September 11 and the issue of refugees and

border control dominated the election, and saw the conservative

Government re-elected.

The community union strategy during this period was moderately

successful. The union relationships with community organisations

shifted from an ad hoc coalition to a more formal coalition

structured around planning a joint event (Tattersall forthcoming).

These relationships allowed for joint participation, and

established bonds of trust that later deepened into stronger

coalitions. However, the Teachers Federation’s organisational

dominance over the event constrained others ownership. On the

question of common interest, the campaign was consistently framed

as public education. Local lobbying events harnessed rank and

file participation and created a platform for lobbying and local

awareness for the union in addition to the national Convention.

Period Two: Vinson Inquiry, March 2001-August 2002

The public education campaign’s most successful activity was the

Vinson Inquiry, an independent Public Inquiry into Public

Education organised by a deep coalition between the NSW Teachers

Federation and the Federation of Parents & Citizens. It created a

15

teacher/parent agenda for public education, and engaged a large

number of rank and file teachers in the Inquiry process.

The Vinson Inquiry was a political opportunity, created by the

Teachers Federation and the P&C in response to repeated

restructuring proposals from the NSW State Government. The State

Government’s controversial Building the Future proposal, released in

March 2001, recommended the closure of 13 schools, and was

immediately opposed by inner city communities through wildcat

strikes and public meetings (O'Halloran 2001). The union

initially called for the Government to review its proposals

through a Government Inquiry, then, during its April Executive

meeting one rank and file representative exclaimed ‘why don’t we

just do a review ourselves’ (Author interview, Simpson, former

NSWTF President, 12 April 2005). With the Public Education Levy,

which had accumulated over $1 million for public education, an

independent review, while expensive was possible.

The Vinson Inquiry was run by a tight formal partnership between

the Federation of Parents & Citizens and the Teachers Federation

through a separate independent structure. A partnership across

the ‘education community’ gave the Inquiry legitimacy to comment

16

on the future of public education. A joint decision making

structure was formed, with a dedicated representatives from the

Teachers and the P&C directly responsible for the day-to-day

operation of the Inquiry. The Teachers found an Inquiry head,

Tony Vinson, an Emeritus Professor of Education at the University

of Sydney who also had previous experience in reviewing Government

Services. He established a separate structure for the Inquiry

process, acting as an autonomous head of a distinct organisation.

He set up an office in separate premises, hired as research team

and was given control over discretionary funds provided mainly by

the Teachers Public Education Fund, but also by the P&C.

The Inquiry’s independent status gave it authority within

Government and amongst the partner groups. Vinson independently

sought out a constructive relationship with the ALP Government and

the Department of Education, requesting their support as a

condition for the inquiry proceeding (Author interview, Tony

Vinson, 3 March 2005). Although it was created by the parents

and teachers, the inquiry sat above them, allowing it to focus on

the common concerns for education issues and not tensions or

conflicts of interest. The Inquiry looked like a formal

Government Inquiry while acting as a tool for agenda setting and

17

generating mass union participation. The Vinson Inquiry had

submissions, hearings and public meetings. But it was also

consciously structured to increase awareness about public

education for the 2003 State Election and to maximise teacher and

parent participation. The union constantly used mass-based

activities for every stage of the Inquiry. Submissions were

advertised in the major daily newspapers, the Inquiry was launched

through a Sky Channel meeting (which is a live television

broadcast that plays live in over 40 locations around the state,

followed by meetings of teachers and parents in those locations),

772 Submissions were received and the Inquiry held 28 public

meetings and school visits across the state (Vinson 2002).

Simultaneously, this community oriented practice reflected a

conscious commitment by the Teachers Federation to broaden how it

expressed its public messages and how it engaged its members.

Maree O’Halloran, the President of the Federation recalls ‘I made

an effort … of saying parents, principals and teachers say’ not

just speaking as the union, but as the education community (Author

interview O’Halloran, President NSWTF, 20 Dec 2004). The members

were engaged in ongoing activities that sought their input, and

asked them to reflect on public education. Sue Simpson, the former

18

NSW President noted that ‘it is a more engaging collective process

to write a submission, compared to a strike which can be organised

in an individualised way … this was deeply collective and

participatory (Author interview, Sue Simpson, former NSWTF

President, 12 April 2005). The activities of the Inquiry

constantly engaged the union membership in new ways and on issues

not simply about wages but about the status of the education

system.

The Inquiry’s backbone was its hearings, which allowed it to

operate simultaneously at the local scale and the scale of the

state. The hearings lasted over six months and were staged as

local events across the state, engaging rank and file

participation and major media attention. These hearings became a

space for direct union member engagement with the Inquiry, and by

asking teachers and parents to air their grievances and make

recommendations, it generated a deep level of rank and file

participation. As Maree O’Halloran commented ‘it touched the

middle teacher that doesn’t get involved in their union’ (Author

interview, Maree O’Halloran 20 Dec 2004). The hearings were also

a vehicle for media attention on public education across the

state, as a senior official noted ‘there was hardly a day (in 2002

19

and 2003) where there was not a story about public education’

(Author interview, Angelo Gavrielatos, then NSWTF Vice President,

1 Feb 2005).

Furthermore, the Inquiry developed a research agenda on the future

of public education, synthesising the concerns of teachers,

parents and principles into a vision for public education,

captured as 96 recommendations for reform (Vinson 2002). The

issue of public education was broad enough to mutually and

directly engage the organisational interests of the NSW Teachers

Federation and the P&C. And importantly, the Inquiry also

provided a framework that engaged rank and file teachers and

parents. Teachers and parents have an interest in public

education funding, and the Inquiry, by asking them to raise

specific grievances, engaged organisation members about their

specific issues of concern. The intermixing of a broad direct

interest and specific issues enabled the common concern at the

heart of the coalition to act as a mobilising, participatory force

that deeply engaged the rank and file.

The Vinson Inquiry represented a very successful form of community

unionism. The structure of the relationship between the parents

20

and teachers was deep and intimate. There was a formal decision

making structure, with dedicated organisational staff and the

formation of a separate independent coalition office. The common

concern at the heart of the relationship was the mutually-engaging

interest of public education. The program of the Inquiry allowed

rank and file parents and teachers to engage in this concern as

the issue of public education could be connected to the day to day

issues experienced on the job or as a parent. The social justice

frame of public education enabled the research agenda to gain

significant publicity in the media. Finally, the Inquiry was able

to act locally at a school level as well as at a state level,

sustaining public interest and escalating concern for public

education in the lead up to a State Election.

Period Three: The State Election, August 2002 to March 2003

The NSW Teachers Federation formed the Public Education Alliance

as the vehicle for the public education campaign between August

2002 and March 2003. That Alliance of ‘parents, principals and

teachers’ was a group of six public education partners that

created a mutual-interest coalition structured around winning

targeted reforms identified by the Vinson Inquiry.

21

The Public Education Alliance evolved out of the deep

relationships between the parents and teachers created through the

Inquiry, and the simple coalition initiated with the principals

during the Federal Election. The Public Education Alliance sought

create a ‘united front … of parents, teachers and principals

speaking with a united voice’ tied to agreed common priorities

that would be jointly promoted through a series of events in the

lead up to the state election (Author interview, Principal

Representative, 9 March 2005). The Alliance operated through

irregular but constant meetings held at the Teachers Federation.

These meetings were attended by the senior executive officers of

all of the participating organisations (Author interview,

Principal Representative, 11 March 2005). The participants put

aside differences within the Alliance space, as one representative

acknowledged:

‘I wouldn’t say we are close now as individuals, but when it

comes to a public face in terms of pursuing those ideas for

public education, well then we are buddies (Author

interview, Principal Representative, 26 Feb 2005).

22

The Alliance was a space for negotiation, evident in how it

formulated its six united demands for the Election campaign. The

Teachers Federation was an initiator of this process by preparing

the initial draft of demands, then ‘shopping them around’ for

discussion (Author interview, O’Halloran, NSWTF President 20 Dec

2004). Other groups then amended the documents, as a

representative from FOSCO describes, ‘we always had the power to

veto … anything that we didn’t approve of’ (Author interview,

Allen FOSCO, 17 Feb 2005). The formulation of united demands

sought to balance the specific issues that concerned individual

organisations within a broad interest frame of public education.

As one Principal noted ‘we were all encompassed by those

recommendations’ (Anonymous author interview, principal

representative, Feb 2005). The demands included the issues of

class sizes, school maintenance, quality teachers and professional

development. The negotiated balance of the demands allowed the

broad concept of public education to translate to the specific

concerns of each constituent organisation, binding them to the

campaign through their own self-interest.

Controversies surfaced over a few issues, the major one being how

the Alliance framed its concern for salaries. The Teachers

23

Federation knew ‘they couldn’t get away without having salaries

there’ as a part of the united demands (Author interview,

O’Halloran NSWTF 20 Dec 2004). After the election, the union

would move into bargaining its next wages claim, and mentioning

salaries would offset any disquiet in the union’s membership that

the Federation was forgetting its core responsibilities (Author

interview, Federation official, Dec 2004). However, the parent

groups, particularly FOSCO, were equally adamant that salaries

would not be mentioned, arguing it was ‘inappropriate,’ fearing

that this issue would come to dominate the Alliance, given the key

role the union was already playing (Author interview, Parent

representative, Feb 2005). Eventually the Federation compromised,

with the United Demands calling for ‘the development of strategies

to attract and retain teachers in an era of teacher shortage’

which was a way of expressing a need for salary justice to union

members without mentioning the word salaries.

This controversy highlights a limitation in how coalitions frame

common concerns. While an alliance flourishes on issues of mutual

common interest, organisations also have autonomous internal needs

that must also be satisfied. For unions, salaries are inevitably

a concern as wage justice is a key purpose for why people join

24

unions. The art of coalition practice is balancing the

contradiction between autonomous organisational needs and common

unity – a dialectic between unity and autonomy (Hyman 1989). The

tension between salaries and the broader frame of public education

is a clear example of this.

Once the united demands were agreed upon, the Alliance planned a

series of joint events that led up to the State Election. The

events were staged at multiple scales, with greatest focus on the

scale of the State Government – where the key decision makers

were. The public education lobbies did undertake local activities

– displaying school signs that said ‘public education is the

issue,’ and continued with local lobbying. But the momentum from

the Alliance was drawn to State based events – including central

lobbying of key politicians and a State Public Education Forum.

The Alliance’s agenda setting power created political

opportunities. In November 2002, the Opposition leader in the

State Parliament endorsed the Alliance’s demands over class-sizes

five months before the election. This escalated pressure upon the

Government. The Alliance met with the Premier (Government Leader)

on January 22nd, an incredible achievement given the Teachers

25

Federation had not met with the Premier in years. The Alliance

also hosted a Public Education Forum on February 16th 2003.

Unlike the Convention in 2001 – this forum was meticulously

planned within the Alliance and was ‘packed to the rafters’ mainly

with teachers, but also with parents bussed in from around the

city. This escalation of public and private pressure created

political success with the Government announcing support for

reducing class sizes and increasing funding for professional

development two weeks out from the election.

In this period, the Public Education Alliance was extremely

successful in achieving outcomes for public education, while less

successfully at sustaining and developing union rank and file

ownership and participation. This example of community unionism

set a broad based agenda for public education, achieved reform on

class sizes and professional development, and put teacher salaries

on the agenda. It also involved rank and file union members in

several centrally organised events. However meaningful activity

was controlled by the State leaders of the Alliance. As Clawson

argues, a coalition can be successful without deeply engaging

organisation participants, and this mutual interest coalition

highlights this gap (Clawson 2003).

26

Period Four: The Salaries Campaign, March 2003 to May 2004

The final stage of the Public Education campaign saw a rapid

deterioration of the close relationships built over the last 2

years, with mutual interest relationships pulling back into ad hoc

relationships.

The public education agenda set up the teachers’ salary campaign.

As Angelo Gavrielatos noted, ‘we had created a platform from which

we were able to launch into salaries (Author interview,

Gavrielatos, then Vice-President, 1 Feb 2005). Indeed, the

momentum gave the union an early meeting with the Premier, and to

the Federation’s shock, an early pay offer. The offer of a 6%

wage increase over 2 years was significantly below union

expectations, but it was a dramatically better starting point than

the 1990s demand for concession bargaining. Indeed, the

Department of Education was keen to ‘avoid a war.’ The

Government’s strategy was to make an offer and push for

Arbitration using the NSW Industrial Relation’s Commission’s

powers to hear demands for pay claims and determine an independent

settlement (Author interview, Department Official, April 2005).

27

The Federation proceeded to prepare for Commission hearings during

a period of shifting ground. One problem was policy-based; the

union had not secured a commitment from the Government to fully

fund any pay recommendations. A fear was that if the Industrial

Relations Commission awarded a pay increase above 6%, then the

Government would pay for that increase out of the existing public

education budget – in effect cutting money from schools to pay for

teacher salaries. A second problem was organisational. During

2002 the Parents & Citizens Federation experienced an acrimonious

change in leadership. The new leaders of the P&C prioritised

building a stronger relationship with the Government, distancing

the Parents from the Teachers Federation (Author interviews,

parent representatives, February and May 2005). A third issue was

the Teachers Federation’s decision to campaign on salaries alone.

The commission hearings took the union into a courtroom separated

from the public agenda it had just created. While the union

brought their members into the courtroom and ran a very public

campaign around the hearings, they distanced themselves from their

education partners. For instance, the Teachers Federation

produced a pamphlet about their pay claim that they circulated in

the Sunday newspapers, which talked about ‘parents’ without

consulting the parents first (Author interview, teacher official,

28

Dec 2004). These entwined issues pulled previously close

relationships apart, reducing trust between parents and teachers.

The campaign events during this period were organised by the union

and were industrially not community focused. The rallies had only

union speakers, the first with speakers only from the Federation,

and the second adding the Secretary of Unions NSW (Central Labour

Council in NSW). The activities were industrial, mobilising union

support not the public education community. Similarly media

commentary focused on the percentage of wage increase that was

being offered, and advertisements run by the Federation also

narrowly focused on the issue of teacher pay, rather than the link

between pay and quality education (Federation 2003).

Further pressure came from the Government who placed aggressive

pressure on the Commission in the lead up to it making its award.

The Premier ‘warned’ the Commission not to hand out ‘affordable

wage increases, and then opened the Salaries case to lodge

evidence about incapacity to pay wage increases (Dixon 2004).

The Government’s aggression inadvertently changed the outlook of

the campaign, shifting the issue from the quantum of pay to the

29

issue of fully-funding the pay rise. With this broader issue the

Federation began a process of reaching out to education partners

as well as to its members. It staged a strike, but also leafleted

parents at schools demonstrating that full funding was in the

interests of the public education community, as it protected the

public education budget (Zadkovich 2004).

The Commission handed down their award creating a 12.5% pay

increase, much lower than the Federation had hoped. But, by this

stage the union was focused on the issue of full funding and was

galvanising the public education community. Media messages began

to change, even the conservative Daily Telegraph noted – ‘this is not

the usual fight by teachers over money. This has become a fight

for the survival of a valued and quality public education system’

(Parker 2004). In this context, the Federation prepared for a

state-wide strike on 25 June over full funding.

The pressure of this reaching out strategy was magnified by a

historic vote at the P&C. For the first time since the 1980s, the

P&C voted to support the strike. It was a controversial vote too,

because the motion was not supported by the President of the P&C

(Author interview, parent representative, April 2005). That

30

afternoon, news of the vote hit the press. It was this

controversial and unpredictable support that saw the Government

change its policy – and the day before the strike – it came out in

support of full funding.

This ad hoc support from the P&C was critical for the union to

finally achieve the full funding of its salary rise. In Maree

O’Halloran’s opinion ‘it kicked the balance in terms of full

funding and was why we got it in the end’ (Author interview,

O’Halloran President NSWTF, 20 Dec 2004). This support came even

while there was poor relationship between the leaders of the two

organisations. Beneath the leadership, officials in both parent

and teacher groups had continued to talk, and those relationships

had generated the support that cemented the teachers’ victory.

The salaries campaign represented a low point in the community

union strategy. The Teachers Federation became isolated through

Commission hearings, which were fought as an industrial not

community battle. Fundamentally, this campaign revealed a key

limitation and contradiction in community unionism. At one level,

the most important issue for unions are salaries, yet salaries

create the greatest level of tension and conflict with community

31

partners. While the preceding community campaigns around public

education built a powerful platform for the salaries campaign,

creating the largest salaries offer that the union had received in

recent times, those relationships fell away as the union reverted

to its traditional industrial tactics and the leadership in the

parent organisation changed.

Yet, even with weak community relationships, it was resilient

relationships between union officials and the Parents & Citizens

that created the victory. These officials were bridge builders,

overcoming the tension between the two organisations and allowing

the groups to work together (Rose 2000). This campaign shows the

power of even weak ad hoc relationships between unions and

community organisations. It was this historic action by the P&C

that ‘tipped the balance’ away from the Government and created the

pressure that shifted the Government’s decision.

Reflections and Conclusion

Public sector unions have the capacity to use their role as public

service providers as a ‘sword of justice’ to enhance their power

in public sector employment relations (Flanders 1970). This case

study demonstrates key possibilities and limitations for community

32

unionism as a public sector strategy. If community unionism

becomes more powerful through strong relationships, strong mutual

issues and strong multi-scaled action, then it requires a

supportive context to flourish. Community unionism relies on

strong non-Government organisation partners. Here the

relationships were built through a close knit group of parents and

principals, commonly interested in public education. However,

these partners had a significantly reduced capacity to mobilise

members, are highly influenced by their leadership and had

significantly smaller financial resources than the Teachers

Federation which placed constraints on the strategy. Community

unionism also relies on strong interests and issues. Here the

issue of public education was directly in the mutual interest of

all the partners, yet the issue of salaries – a core concern of

the union – was controversial. This case study makes clear that

salaries can be an issue of conflict, while also showing that it

does not have to be the case. This salaries campaign broke down

because of how it was run and because of a decline in consultation

between the parties; these are variables and not fixed limitations

on the possibilities of community unionism. Finally community

unionism also relies on multi-scalar action. The public education

33

lobbies initiated this capacity, but they were difficult to

sustain.

This case study demonstrates that there are contextual

opportunities and choices that support the development of

community unionism. Confirming Johnston’s argument about public

sector social movement unionism and Walsh and Savage’s arguments

about service unionism, the Teachers Federation’s location in a

public, service-based industry, with local workplaces that

interact with a stable ‘customer’ base, provided a steady,

organised constituency of parents and principles, committed to

supporting public education (Savage 1998; Johnston 2000; Walsh

2000). Organisational leadership in the unions and community

organisations was critical for sustaining trusting relationships

and successful community unionism. For the union, size was

important. The Teachers Federation was a large, resource rich

union which enabled it to embark on an Independent Inquiry and

public community campaign. The demographics of union members may

also be important; the Teachers Federation was female dominated.

As Needleman and Pocock note, the boundaries between ‘work’ and

‘home’ are less distinct for women, who continue to be the primary

child carers, perhaps making the shift to ‘community issues’

34

easier (Needleman 1998; Pocock 2003). The Teachers Federation’s

internal democracy and its large number of delegates, regional

organisers and regional Teacher Associations provided a mobilising

structure to undertake local hearings and the mass events during

the campaign. Finally, the union’s internal shift towards

community unionism affirmed Voss’s prediction, in that the public

education campaign was preceded by an environmental crisis that

triggered an internal union crisis and structural changes (Voss

and Sherman 2000).

From the experience of the public education campaign, we can

speculate about the applicability of this strategy across public

sector unions and public sector employment relations. The idea of

a constituency of service recipients that is organised in a local

area is a common feature in other public sector industries,

particularly for front-line public sector workers like public

transport, police and emergency services, health care and

childcare (Pastor 2001, 275). For some like health care workers,

this consumer base may be more transient than parents, but there

is clearly a constituency of people with a common concern capable

of being organised and connected to the issue of quality public

service, in addition to NGOs who are capable of forming

35

coalitions. Similarly, public sector unions generally negotiate

wage claims in an environment of fiscal crisis that often includes

privatisation. These issues deeply affect union members by

threatening to reduce wages and conditions, while also affect the

capacity of a union to bargain. In such circumstances, a broad

based community campaign not only enhances the power of a union,

but provides a proactive frame for a campaign – a union becomes

‘for’ quality, public services, rather than reactively against

privatisation or wage cuts. In addition, public sector unions, by

having relatively strong union density and a larger pool of union

members may also have the internal financial and human resources

capable of mounting a community union strategy. Yet variables for

whether a public sector union will choose community unionism still

remain, and success will depend on the capacity of a public sector

union to mobilise its own membership base and the supportiveness

of union leadership. However, there is a broad coalescence of

political opportunities that make community unionism a viable

strategy for public sector unions.

This paper has explored the possibilities of community unionism by

examining the four year public education campaign of the Teachers

Federation. The Teachers Federation’s campaign achieved

36

significant and unprecedented political victories for the union,

at a policy level and in bargaining. The public education

campaign created an agenda for positive policy reform, while also

transforming the hostile employment relationship of the 1990s to a

constructive non-concession bargaining environment in 2003. Since

this campaign, the union has had even greater success – in 2005

the Teachers Federation and the Government negotiated ‘an

unprecedented settlement’ outside of arbitration that did not

involve industrial action (NSWTF 2005).

Most importantly, this study demonstrates that community unionism

is not a simple recipe for union power or union success. Rather,

the practice of campaigning in coalition, on issues of mutual

community concern at multiple scales is a variable beast, which

changes overtime given the shifting relationships between the

organisations, the changing issues at the heart of the campaign

and the capacity to resource local as well as state and national

activity and organisation. Community unionism may deliver a

policy victory, but unless it also sustains and develops the

politicisation, engagement and participation of union members it

may provide only limited long term capacity benefits. Similarly,

coalition relationships do not necessarily improve over time.

37

Rather, this case study demonstrates that coalition relations are

transient, a produce of sustained trust, mutual interest,

leadership and reciprocity. Community unionism has the potential

to enhance the success of public sector unions in achieving policy

reform, electoral influence and bargaining outcomes. However the

successfulness of these strategies is a product of the dynamic

political opportunities, relationships and interests that are

combined in particular campaigns.

Primary References

Author interviews conducted between December 2004 and May 2005.

In total 42 interviews undertaken with union and community

organisation representatives, one Minister for Education and

several Department of Education Officials. Most of the

interviewees are cited anonymously. Named interviewees include:

Maree O’Halloran, NSWTF President, Sue Simpson, former NSWTF

President, Angelo Gavrielatos, NSWTF Vice-President 1 Feb 2005,

Author interview, Tony Vinson, 3 March 2005, Author Interview Bev

Baker, former President of Federation of P&C.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2005) catalogue 6310.0 Employee Earnings, Benefits and Trade Union Membership. Canberra: ABS.

38

39