Beyond Wages and Working ConditionsA Conceptualization of.docx

Beyond Wages and Working Conditions:
A Conceptualization of Labor Union Social
Responsibility Cedric Dawkins
ABSTRACT. This article integrates theory and concepts
from the business and society, business ethics, and labor
relations literatures to offer a conceptualization of labor
union social responsibility that includes activities geared
toward three primary objectives: economic equity,
workplace democracy, and social justice. Economic,
workplace, and social labor union stakeholders are iden-
tified, likely issues are highlighted, and the implications of
labor union social responsibility for labor union strategy
are discussed. It is noted that, given the breadth of labor
unions in a global work environment, labor union social
responsibility also has implications for NGOs, corpora-
tions, and how corporate social responsibility is viewed

going forward. This article concludes by noting that the
nexus of labor relations and corporate social responsibility
warrants more attention in management and labor rela-
tions literatures.
KEY WORDS: labor unions, corporate social responsi-
bility, social responsibility
‘‘We have first the typical assumption of all reformers
in all ages … that economic and social conditions can,
by deliberate human intervention, be changed for the
better.’’ Industrial Democracy, Sidney and Beatrice
Webb – 1897
The issues currently driving the discussion about
corporate social responsibility (CSR) – the proactive
engagement in stakeholder issues to assure positive
societal impact while enhancing corporate viability –
are increasingly complex; human and workers’
rights, global supply networks, and governance (or
the lack thereof), issues that also involve the gov-
ernments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs),

and labor unions with whom corporations interact.
As a consequence, CSR research is expanding
beyond how business firms address their responsi-
bilities, to how those responsibilities are framed
altogether. Some research employs the term corporate
citizenship to describe the social role of business and
suggests that as powerful public actors businesses
have a responsibility to provide and respect basic
civil, social, and political rights (Matten and Crane,
2005; Wood and Logsdon, 2001). Some other
research studies suggest that global supply networks
are political and economic entities that are best
viewed from a political perspective (Levy, 2008;
Scherer and Palazzo, 2007), or emphasize the
growing role of NGOs as partners in CSR efforts
(Jamali and Keshishian, 2008). Largely absent from
these discussions are the labor unions, who are the
vital corporate partners and important organizations

in their own right.
Labor union’s reticence toward CSR begins with
skepticism about the voluntary nature of CSR that
circumvents the contractually binding provisions of
collective bargaining. There is also general labor
union’s
1
wariness about the stakeholder framework,
and specific concerns about CSR programs that it
tends to equate labor unions with other stakeholders.
Some unionists believe stakeholder status implies a
separate and subsidiary role, alongside the local
community and others, rather than recognizing
unions as equal partners in the business enterprise.
Moreover, while CSR stresses the importance of
identifying and engaging stakeholders, it emphasizes
unilateral managerial decision making and rarely
refers to the type of power that workers exercise

through their trade unions (Justice, 2003). As a
result of these misgivings, some labor unions have
Journal of Business Ethics (2010) 95:129–143 � Springer 2009
DOI 10.1007/s10551-009-0342-3
concluded that CSR is simply another management
system that will be used to undermine union stature
and influence. They prefer a version of CSR that
complements, but does not replace, legislation on
economic and social rights and environmental stan-
dards and is more deferential to collective bargaining
(Mather, 2006; Preuss et al., 2006).
Other labor union leaders believe unions should
collaborate with organizations concerned about the
social ramifications of business. They contend that
CSR is an enduring part of the business landscape
and failing to engage social responsibility merely
plays into the hands of businesses that are trying to
use CSR to forestall regulation. Engaging CSR also

affords union leaders an opportunity to promote
compliance with regulatory standards and respect for
the role of labor unions (International Confederation
of Free Trade Unions, 2001). Hence, labor unions
should lay claim to a role in CSR, make their
viewpoints known, and take on the challenge of
thwarting business attempts to supplant government
regulation with CSR (FNV Mondiaal, 2004).
As the loyal opposition, and hybrid organizations
that simultaneously embrace and challenge the cor-
porate structure, labor unions are uniquely posi-
tioned to present a view of social responsibility that
speaks to both benefactors and beneficiaries. More
importantly, in the current business and social
environment, labor unions will also be challenged
regarding the social ramifications of their activities.
For example, even as most Americans recognize the
need for labor unions, they question union pro-

ductivity and economic impact (Panagopoulos and
Francia, 2008). Even so, there is no clear formulation
of labor union social responsibility. While the
management literature has focused on CSR, as if
corporations are the only organizations with social
responsibilities, labor relations research is largely
devoid of discussion about labor union responsibil-
ities to society. Labor unions, however, were early
purveyors of the tenets of CSR – an equitable wage,
humane working conditions, due process for
workers, and concern for marginalized communities.
The objective of this article is to provide a con-
ceptual model of social responsibility for labor
unions and discuss its implications. In what follows, I
will contend that labor union social responsibility (a)
is derived from institutional imperatives and the
social contract, (b) occurs within the context of
expected functions, day-to-day activities, (c) requires

the control or influence of something of value, (d) is
directed toward stakeholders, and (e) has ramifica-
tions for strategy and practice.
Foundations for labor union social
responsibility
Social responsibility connotes organizations having a
role in society that extends beyond laws and regu-
lations to maintaining a level of behavior that is in
concert with the prevailing social norms, values, and
expectations (Sethi, 1975), and encompasses a wide
range of economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic
activities that society expects of powerful organiza-
tions (Carroll, 1991). Institutional and social
exchange theories and deontological ethics are bases of
social responsibility that have primarily been directed
toward other organizations, but provide a sound
rationale for labor union social responsibility as well.
According to institutional theory, institutions such as

government, professional groups, and interest groups
jointly specify rules, procedures, and structures for
organizations as a condition for granting legitimacy –
the general perception that the actions of an entity are
acceptable within the normative parameters of society
(Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Suchman, 1995). To the
extent that an organization’s interactions and contri-
butions are viewed favorably, it achieves the legiti-
macy – congruency between the values, norms, and
expectations of society and the activities and outcomes
of the organization (Ashforth and Gibbs, 1990) – that
is essential to its viability and vitality (Aldrich and Fiol,
1994; Scott, 1995). Labor unions, such as other social
institutions, depend on society’s acceptance and must,
therefore, operate in a manner that garners societal
approval.
A second source of labor union social responsi-
bility is the social contract. According to Blau

(1964), an implicit social contract is established when
one party provides something of benefit to another
that produces a reciprocal obligation. In order to
discharge this obligation, the second must furnish
benefits to the first in turn. Donaldson and Dunfee
(2002) refer to implicit understandings or ‘‘con-
tracts’’ that bind industries, companies, and eco-
nomic systems into moral and ethical communities.
These social contracts are necessary because society
130 Cedric Dawkins
confers privileges on certain organizations that
contribute to important societal goals. That privi-
lege, however, must be accompanied by constraints
because privilege can result in a number of trou-
blesome social outcomes (Aldrich, 1999; Valasquez,
1996). For example, because labor unions monop-
olize labor, their actions can disrupt the availability

of vital goods and services. Societal institutions
provide the prerogative for organizations to operate
in the public sphere, but to maintain legitimacy,
those organizations must reciprocate with benefits
for society.
The final source of labor union social responsibility
is ethical obligation. Deontological ethics focuses on
the actions themselves, rather than on consequences,
and its tenets of moral duty and justice form the ethos
of the labor movement. Samuel Gompers, first pres-
ident of the American Federation of Labor, empha-
sizes moral standing in tandem with the teleological
objective of equitable demands by stating,
Labor needs to be strong through … the justice of its
cause, and the reasonableness of its methods. It relies
on moral suasion because of its conviction that its
demands are generally equitable, and picketing is as
necessary to the employment of moral influence as the

boycott is necessary to the proper use of the moral
power wielded by labor and its sympathizers (U.S.
57th Congress, 1902, p. 61).
As a consequence, institutions such as the Catholic
Church and the United Nations have supported
labor unions as a vehicle for improving working
conditions and recognizing human potential (Paul
XXIII, 1991; Thomas, 2009; United Nations,
2008). This support is based on the perceived
morality of labor union appeals and the expectation
that unions will continue their commitment to
moral causes.
Labor union voice
Responsibility, giving account for conduct and
obligations, implies that an entity is consequential in
that it influences, possesses, or produces an outcome
of value. For labor unions that outcome of value is
voice. According to Hirschman (1970, p. 30), voice is

‘‘the ability to change, rather than accept or escape
from, an objectionable state of affairs,’’ and is often
accompanied by the capacity to provide due process
in the hearing of a concern, information about issues
of interest, and safeguards against reprisals for
unpopular views (Budd and Scoville, 2005). As a
direct channel of communication between workers
and employers, voice enables workers to express dis-
content and change the workplace relation without
quitting, slowdowns, or sabotage.
It is often assumed that a union’s most important
asset is its ability to improve the earnings of its
members, but wages are a deficient indicator of
labor union value. After voice is established
through collective action, workers can employ that
voice to any number of interests, including wages.
The market, however, tends to constrain the union
wage premium to approximately 15% such that it

has been relatively stable (Hirsch and Macpherson,
2000; Wunnava and Peled, 1999) or declining
(Bennett and Kaufman, 2007; Blanchflower and
Bryson, 2004) over the last several decades. Thus,
rather than unions having voice because of their
monopoly wage power, it is the promise of voice –
monopoly wage power is derived from collective
bargaining – that inspires workers to form unions.
In a survey of union members, Waddington and
Whitston (1997) found that 72% chose support if I
had a problem at work as a reason for joining a labor
union, compared to 36% that cited improved pay and
working conditions.
2
This outcome is consistent with
classic labor union research (e.g., Parker, 1920;
Tannenbaum, 1951) maintaining that preserving
workers’ dignity is the primary motive for union-
ization.

If, as proposed here, the primary union activity is
to articulate its members’ concerns, then the cur-
rency for labor unions is voice, not wages. Gross
(2002, p. 70) states, ‘‘a full human life requires the
kind of participation in the political, economic, and
social life of the human community that enables
people to have an influence on the decisions that
affect their lives.’’ Of course, labor union members
are the primary beneficiaries of voice, but the fun-
damental necessity of voice makes it valuable to
other union stakeholders as well. Since voice is the
currency of labor unions, labor union impact on
society occurs through advocacy, the use of voice to
advance its interests and objectives.
131A Conceptualization of Labor Union Social Responsibility
Objectives of labor union social
responsibility

With the exception of egregious behavior, social
responsibility usually does not require a radical
departure from an organization’s normal operations,
but rather engaging in their roles and activities in a
way that is consistent with prevailing ethical stan-
dards and societal expectations. With that in mind, a
characterization of labor union social responsibility
must address a central question, where do unions
have societal impact? As shown in Table I, I draw
from a range of perspectives on labor union roles and
activities to identify three primary objectives: (a)
economic equity, which is geared toward gaining
equitable wages and benefits, (b) workplace
democracy, which is centered on social standing at
work through democratic processes and procedures
(e.g., due process), and (c) social justice, which
focuses on justice in the broad societal context
through participation as a members of the polity.

Freeman and Medoff (1984) describe two faces of
unionism, the monopoly face whereby unions em-
ploy collective bargaining to provide wage and
benefit premiums to their members, and the col-
lective voice face whereby the union establishes
mechanisms for fair treatment in the workplace.
These two faces of unionism coincide with the
economic equity and workplace democracy objec-
tives of social responsibility. Godard’s (1997) survey
of Canadian workers resulted in five union roles: (a)
economic, maximizing wages and benefits; (b)
workplace democratization, securing worker rights
and protections; (c) integrative, providing orderly
conflict resolution mechanisms; (d) social demo-
cratic, addressing broader social issues, and (e) con-
flict, countervailing the corporate agenda as a general
advocate for workers. Godard’s economic role is
consistent with the economic equity objective and

the workplace democratization and integrative
functions are subsumed in the workplace democracy
objective. The social democratic and conflict activ-
ities are entailed in the social justice objective
because the social interests of workers are largely
addressed by competing against businesses for
favorable regulations and social legislation.
Based on the experience of European labor
unions Hyman (1996) offers four union identities:
(a) collective bargaining, maximizing wages and
benefits; (b) workplace governance, establishing due
process mechanisms and limits to arbitrary employer
authority; (c) schools of war, advocacy of regulatory
and macroeconomic policies that effect wage rates;
and (d) advocacy on quality of life issues such as the
environment and consumer protection. The collec-
tive bargaining and workplace governance activities
that Hyman identifies align with the economic

equity and workplace democracy objectives of union
social responsibility, while the schools of war and
quality of life identities align with the social justice
objective. Budd et al. (2004) propose that the three
primary objectives for the employment relationship
are efficiency, equity, and voice. Their objective of
efficiency equates to the economic equity objective
and the equity and voice objectives equate to
the workplace democracy objective. They do not
make a connection between the objectives pursued in
the workplace and social conditions on the outside.
Finally, the moral foundations of work presented by
Kochan and Shulman (2007), efficiency, dignity, and
social solidarity, align closely with the economic
equity, workplace democracy, and social justice
objectives, respectively.
The efforts to improve the financial standing of
workers can be effective because of collective

activities such as negotiations, work actions, strikes,
and corporate campaigns. Workplace democracy is
achieved by continually negotiating the collective
bargaining agreement through the grievance and
arbitration procedures. Unions contend that corpo-
rate legal rights have been extended through the
International Financial Institutions (e.g., WTO,
International Monetary Fund, World Bank) and
trade agreements, but worker representation has not
kept pace. Obviously labor unions must deliver
financial benefits to their members to remain viable
but, because the social and political aspirations of
their stakeholders are so closely linked to their
financial well-being, unions are called upon to
address those aspirations as well. Social justice occurs
through political means such as corporate campaigns
and other activities that raise awareness, but also by
bargaining on behalf of stakeholders. For example,

some global union federations have reached Inter-
national Framework Agreements with particular
global corporations that secure workers’ rights to
freedom of association and collective bargaining, and
prohibit forced labor, child labor, and workplace
132 Cedric Dawkins
T
A
B
L
E
I
O
b
je
c
ti
v
e
s
o
f

la
b
o
r
u
n
io
n
so
c
ia
l
re
sp
o
n
si
b
il
it
y
F
re
e
m
an
an

d
M
e
d
o
ff
(1
9
8
4
)
–
tw
o
fa
c
e
s
o
f
u
n
io
n
is
m

H
y
m
an
(1
9
9
6
)
–
U
n
io
n
id
e
n
ti
ti
e
s
G
o
d
ar
d
(1

9
9
7
)
–
so
c
ie
ta
l
e
x
p
e
c
ta
ti
o
n
s
o
f
u
n
io
n
s

B
u
d
d
(2
0
0
6
)
–
o
b
je
c
ti
v
e
s
o
f
th
e
e
m
p
lo
y

m
e
n
t
re
la
-
ti
o
n
sh
ip
K
o
c
h
an
an
d
S
h
u
l-
m
an
(2

0
0
7
)
–
m
o
ra
l
fo
u
n
d
at
io
n
s
o
f
w
o
rk
E
c
o
n
o
m

ic
ad
v
o
c
ac
y
M
o
n
o
p
o
ly
fa
c
e
u
se
s
c
o
ll
e
c
ti
v
e

b
ar
g
ai
n
-
in
g
to
p
ro
v
id
e
w
ag
e
an
d
b
e
n
e
fi
t

p
re
m
iu
m
s
fo
r
u
n
-
io
n
m
e
m
b
e
rs
R
e
p
re
se
n
ti
n

g
w
o
rk
-
e
rs
in
e
c
o
n
o
m
ic
m
ar
k
e
t
fu
n
c
ti
o
n
s

E
c
o
n
o
m
ic
m
ax
im
iz
-
in
g
o
f
w
ag
e
s
an
d
b
e
n
e
fi

ts
E
ffi
c
ie
n
t
u
n
io
n
c
o
n
tr
ac
ts
an
d
ac
ti
v
it
ie
s
th

at
e
n
-
ab
le
fi
n
an
c
ia
ll
y
c
o
m
p
e
ti
ti
v
e
e
m
p
lo

y
e
rs
E
ffi
c
ie
n
c
y
A
li
v
in
g
w
ag
e
W
o
rk
p
la
c
e
d

e
m
o
c
ra
c
y
C
o
ll
e
c
ti
v
e
v
o
ic
e
fa
c
e
ad
v
o
c
at
e

s
fo
r
fa
ir
tr
e
at
m
e
n
t
an
d
c
o
m
p
e
n
sa
te
s
fo
r
m

ar
k
e
t
im
p
e
rf
e
c
-
ti
o
n
s
an
d
e
x
te
rn
al
i-
ti
e
s

R
ai
si
n
g
w
o
rk
e
r
st
at
u
s
W
o
rk
p
la
c
e
d
e
m
o
c

-
ra
c
y
,
se
c
u
ri
n
g
w
o
rk
e
r
v
o
ic
e
,
ri
g
h
ts
,
an

d
p
ro
te
c
-
ti
o
n
s
W
o
rk
p
la
c
e
in
te
g
ra
ti
o
n
,
p

ro
-
v
id
in
g
o
rd
e
rl
y
c
o
n
fl
ic
t
re
so
lu
ti
o
n
m
e

c
h
an
is
m
s
E
q
u
it
y
as
e
v
id
e
n
c
e
d
b
y
m
in
im
u
m

an
d
fa
ir
st
an
d
ar
d
s
fo
r
w
ag
e
s
an
d
b
e
n
e
fi
ts
an
d

ju
st
-c
au
se
d
is
-
c
ip
li
n
e
an
d
d
is
-
c
h
ar
g
e
V
o
ic

e
to
in
c
re
as
e
in
d
u
st
ri
al
d
e
m
o
c
-
ra
c
y
,
e
m
p

lo
y
e
e
d
e
c
is
io
n
m
ak
in
g
an
d
au
to
n
o
m
y
,
fr
e
e

sp
e
e
c
h
,
an
d
p
o
li
ti
-
c
al
e
m
p
lo
y
e
e
ac
ti
v
it
y

D
ig
n
it
y
an
d
p
e
rs
o
n
al
d
e
v
e
lo
p
m
e
n
t
D
iv
e
rs

it
y
an
d
e
q
u
al
o
p
p
o
rt
u
n
it
y
V
o
ic
e
an
d
p
ar
ti
c

ip
a-
ti
o
n
P
ro
b
le
m
so
lv
in
g
S
o
c
ia
l
ju
st
ic
e
S
c

h
o
o
ls
o
f
w
ar
in
th
e
c
o
n
fl
ic
t
b
e
tw
e
e
n
la
b
o
r
an

d
c
ap
it
al
A
c
h
ie
v
in
g
so
c
ia
l
ju
st
ic
e
in
e
n
v
ir

o
n
-
m
e
n
t,
c
o
n
su
m
e
r
p
ro
te
c
ti
o
n
an
d
c
o
m
m
u

n
it
y
S
o
c
ia
l
d
e
m
o
c
ra
c
y
,
ad
d
re
ss
in
g
b
ro
ad
e
r

so
c
ia
l
is
su
e
s,
su
c
h
as
h
e
al
th
c
ar
e
re
fo
rm
C
o
u
n

te
rv
ai
li
n
g
th
e
co
rp
or
at
e
ag
en
d
a
as
a
g
e
n
e
ra
l
ad

v
o
c
at
e
fo
r
w
o
rk
e
rs
S
o
li
d
ar
it
y
/
so
c
ia
l
c
o

h
e
si
o
n
fo
r
th
e
c
o
m
m
o
n
g
o
o
d
R
e
v
is
e
d
so
c
ia

l
c
o
n
tr
ac
t
in
te
g
ra
ti
n
g
w
o
rk
,
fa
m
il
y
,
an
d
c

o
m
m
u
n
it
y
re
sp
o
n
si
b
il
it
ie
s
discrimination. Each of the objectives of labor union
social responsibility exists simultaneously and any
given labor union activity can embody economic,
workplace, and social motives.
Stakeholders and labor union social

responsibility
In developing a conceptual framework for labor
union social performance, it is necessary not only to
specify the nature (economic, workplace, social) of
those responsibilities but also to identify the stake-
holders toward whom beneficial policies and activ-
ities are directed, and to whom accountability is
due. According to Rest (1986, p. 7) the foundation
of ethical decision making is moral awareness,
‘‘…[having] been able to make some sort of inter-
pretation of the particular situation in terms of what
actions were possible, who (including oneself) would
be affected by each course of action, and how the
interested parties would regard such effects on their
welfare.’’ Applying the concept of moral awareness
to labor unions at the organizational level, if labor
unions are able to determine who is affected by their
activities, then they have sound a basis on which to
employ a deontological approach of pursuing pro-

grams that may be unrelated to union members, or a
teleological approach of directing programs toward
areas of mutual benefit for union members and
outside stakeholders.
Figure 1 shows three basic groups of union
stakeholders that align with the three objectives of
social responsibility: the economic community, the
workplace community, and the social community;
Table II provides some ways that labor unions can
respond to their concerns. The economic commu-
nity includes the union locals, businesses, consumers,
and public bystanders who may be affected by the
outcomes of collective bargaining. Labor unions are
business partners that must balance their wage
demands with management concerns about efficiency
and quality. For example, increased quality and
productivity must accompany increased compensa-
tion to maintain current profit margins. Managers,

consumers, and the public require wage demands
that recognize the importance of corporate com-
petitiveness, and responsible strike activity that does
not unduly disrupt essential goods and services.
Lastly, regulatory compliance requires labor unions
to be prudent stewards of their members’ rights and
resources and operate in a way that assures favorable
legal standing.
The workplace community focuses on workplace
democracy and is composed of union workers, their
supervisors, and the management and union hierar-
chies that jointly administer the collective bargaining
agreement. Union members require expeditious
handling of grievances, and constraints on manage-
ment authority, whereas management desires worker
flexibility and problem-solving contributions. Man-
agers generally welcome worker input; it is not
unusual for workers to withhold ideas for fear that

increased efficiencies will lead to reductions in force
(Lawler, 2001). Labor unions interact with man-
agement to ensure that conflicts over work rules and
assignments are resolved constructively and worker
participation can occur without unduly compro-
mising job security. Workplace democracy is joint
administration of the workplace whereby workers
have a vehicle for representation in accordance with
the collective bargaining agreement. The workplace
stakeholders are those that are present a physical
address in the day-to-day issues in the place of
employment such as joint decision making, griev-
ances, and arbitration. Thus, the broad objective of
the workplace stakeholders is effective mechanisms
for conflict resolution in a workplace that is both
humane and efficient.
Just as corporations cannot focus exclusively on
shareholders, labor unions must reconcile the inter-

ests of union members with those of other stake-
holders. Stakeholders in the social community
include NGOs and civic organizations, potential
union members, and the marginalized segments of
society to whom labor unions have traditionally
appealed. Social stakeholders are most focused on
whether unions are addressing ethical obligations
with regard to promoting societal well being and
seeking to affect the pattern of privilege and disad-
vantage in society. Workplace democracy is joint
administration of the workplace whereby workers
have a vehicle for representation in accordance
with the collective bargaining agreement. The
workplace stakeholders are those that present a
physical address in the day-to-day issues in the place
of employment such as joint decision making,
grievances, and arbitration.
134 Cedric Dawkins

There are also issues generated by globalisation
such as offshoring, environmental protection, and
human and worker rights abroad. Activities may be
more typical of social movements and center on
political enfranchisement and mobilizing broad
coalitions on behalf of favorable governmental actors
and policies. As shown in Table III, various stake-
holders will view labor union social responsibility
differently such that it presents threats and oppor-
tunities for labor leaders to consider. Being per-
ceived as socially responsible can improve an
organization’s image (Fombrun et al., 2000) and
increase member commitment (Valentine and
Fleischman, 2008). Some members may, however,
think that it is counter-intuitive for labor unions to
address social responsibility at a time when union
Work Rules

Worker Participation
Workplace
Community
Workplace
Democracy
Labor Union
Social Justice
Social
Community
Workers’ Rights
Political
Enfranchisement
Economic Equity
Economic
Community
Wages
Strike Activity
Conflict ResolutionEfficiency & Quality
Regulatory
Stewardship
= Dimensions of social responsibility

......... = Stakeholders
= Issues
Environment
Human Rights
Figure 1. Labor union stakeholders and issues.
strength is waning and scarce resources can be em-
ployed elsewhere. Depending on how members
view this paradox, labor union social responsibility
may increase member commitment or result in
withdrawal because members question advocacy
directed toward outside stakeholders and issues.
Consumers tend to patronize organizations whose
values they share (Bhattacharya et al., 1995; Maignan
and Ferrell, 2001), and social responsibility may lead
to increased support for labor unions. On the con-
trary, social responsibility involves risk because social

issues may involve aligning with politically unpop-
ular groups that alienate other stakeholders. Busi-
nesses are voluntarily engaging CSR and may simply
add socially responsible initiatives to the list of joint
labor-management programs. Some managers may,
however, view labor union social involvement as an
attempt to corrode management influence. To the
TABLE II
Union responses to stakeholder issues
Economic community Workplace community Social community
Attempt to negotiate Interna-
tional Framework Agree-
ments with business firms
that support workers’ rights
to organize – throughout
corporate GSNs
Advocate the right to collec-
tively bargain for all workers

Use union pension funds
(particularly where trade
unionists are represented on
fund boards), to reward
responsible businesses
Support workers’ attempts for
decent wage and fair work-
ing conditions domestically
and internationally
Promote workplaces that are
safe, secure, healthy and free
of harassment, intimidation,
violence and discrimination
Local plants of a global
corporation, take active part
in building a global union
network for its workers
Campaign/negotiate for work

uniforms, equipment, and
supplies that are ethically
sourced
Ensure that workers’ rights to
freedom of association and
collective bargaining are
more than a charitable con-
cern, but center-stage for
CSR
Promote the integration of
public enforcement bodies
such as labor/health and
safety inspectorates into
CSR initiatives
Pursue stronger domestic and international
legislation to ensure that business firms meet
their social and environmental responsibili-
ties

Advocate for inclusion of workers’ rights,
into the international financial and trade
institutions (WTO, IMF, and World Bank)
regulatory regimes
Encourage businesses to build CSR require-
ments into their public–private partnerships,
supply contracts, and aid programs
Build joint campaigns with NGOs and con-
sumers to legal and ethical conduct and
environmentally sustainable practices with
workers, stakeholders and the community
Voice opposition to discrimination in all
forms including that based on race, religion,
ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual prefer-
ence and political beliefs
TABLE III
Labor union social responsibility – threats and opportunities
Stakeholder Opportunities to pursue Threats to avoid

Union members Increased commitment Withdrawal
Consumers Support Indifference/antipathy
Management Accord Increased hostility
Regulators Favorable regulation Unfavorable regulation
Social community Collaboration Opposition
136 Cedric Dawkins
extent that there is management intransigence or
antipathy, the ability for labor unions to embrace
workplace democracy initiatives may be limited
(e.g., participation in workplace innovation).
Since regulation tends to result from excesses,
labor union attentiveness to regulations makes more
oversight less likely. This factor is particularly rele-
vant given the recent abuses in businesses (US
mortgage crises) and NGOs (e.g., United Way).
Lastly, the level of agreement and cooperation
between labor unions and their partner organizations

is likely to vary significantly. For example, the
Industrial Wood and Allied Workers of Canada
aligned with timber corporations against environ-
mentalists in a dispute over logging in British
Columbia, while the Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers
of Canada has maintained a cooperative relationship
with environmental organizations (Simon, 2003).
Thus, labor union social responsibility occurs to
the extent that labor unions employ voice to
enhance the standing of their stakeholders in areas of
economic equity and efficiency, workplace rights
and protections, and social justice, and reconciles the
interests of their stakeholders in a manner that is
consistent with ethical principles and the social
contract.
Social responsibility and labor union strategy
The strategic ramifications of labor union social
responsibility include not only how unions should

respond to social pressures, but also the character of
their long-term role in society. Labor unions may
chose to anticipate the changes that stem from their
activities, or they may become involved due to the
emergence of social problems wherein they have a
stake or can play an important role. Social respon-
sibility is a reflection of organizational values
(Waldman et al., 2006) and takes shape through an
organization’s strategy. Snape and Redman (2004)
identify three union strategies that they term the
service, organizing, and covenantal models, respec-
tively. As shown in Table IV, these strategies differ
with respect to their ethical foundations and how
they address the objectives, stakeholders, and issues
of social responsibility. Finally, the differences are
clearly reflected in the union mission statements.
The service strategy characterizes union operations
in terms of economic exchange and membership is

based more on instrumental outcomes than ideolog-
ical similarity (Bamberger et al., 1999; Gordon et al.,
1995). Thus, the service strategy is weighted toward
the economic equity objective of social responsibility
and bread and butter unionism focused narrowly on
promoting and securing the interests of union mem-
bers. The primary ethic is utilitarian in that unions
garner support based on exchange – the expected
value to their members and society offsets the unde-
sirable aspects of monopoly labor power. Labor un-
ions that focus on the economic equity aspect of social
responsibility are less likely to afford voice to the
concerns of outside stakeholders. These characteristics
make it more likely that unions employing the service
strategy will react to social issues rather than initiating
action or shaping developing issues. The mission
statement of the Air Line Pilots Association typifies
the service strategy.

The organizing strategy (Grabelsky and Hurd,
1994) emphasizes socialization of members to active
involvement, and the union as a self-reliant occu-
pational community. The primary ethic is justice in
that it focuses on empowering union members to
influence important outcomes with respect to
workplace democracy and economic equity. Orga-
nizing strategy proponents believe that building a
larger labor movement is the way to increase its
strength and this viewpoint leads to a broader
stakeholder focus (Bacharach et al., 2001; Frege and
Kelly, 2004). Labor unions that adopt the organiz-
ing strategy will take stands on social issues that
impact their interests or the interests of prospective
members, particularly those that are the targets of
organizing efforts. For example, union involvement
with home healthcare workers in California, Ore-
gon, and Washington (Schneider, 2005) and with

the Justice for Janitors campaigns (Erickson et al.,
2002) framed economic issues in the social rhetoric
of justice. The mission statement of the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers presented
in Table II exemplifies social responsibility in the
organizing strategy.
The covenantal strategy is most closely associated
with the social justice objective of labor union social
responsibility. Mutually shared values and accep-
tance of the organization’s mission are critical
because members are not only addressed on the basis
T
A
B
L
E
IV
S

o
c
ia
l
im
p
li
c
at
io
n
s
o
f
la
b
o
r
u
n
io
n
st
ra
te
g
y

S
e
rv
ic
e
st
ra
te
g
y
O
rg
an
iz
in
g
st
ra
te
g
y
C
o
v
e
n

an
ta
l
st
ra
te
g
y
P
ri
m
ar
y
o
b
je
c
ti
v
e
E
c
o
n
o
m
ic

e
q
u
it
y
W
o
rk
p
la
c
e
d
e
m
o
c
ra
c
y
S
o
c
ia
l
ju
st

ic
e
P
ri
m
ar
y
e
th
ic
U
ti
li
ta
ri
an
Ju
st
ic
e
D
u
ty
S
ta

k
e
h
o
ld
e
r
fo
c
u
s
N
ar
ro
w
N
ar
ro
w
/
b
ro
ad
B
ro
ad

Is
su
e
ad
v
o
c
ac
y
N
ar
ro
w
/
re
ac
ti
v
e
B
ro
ad
/
p
ro

ac
ti
v
e
B
ro
ad
/
p
ro
ac
ti
v
e
T
y
p
ic
al
m
is
si
o
n
st
at
e

m
e
n
t
T
h
e
A
ir
L
in
e
P
il
ot
s
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
a
:
to
p

ro
m
o
te
an
d
c
h
am
p
io
n
al
l
as
p
e
c
ts
o
f
av
ia
ti
o
n

sa
fe
ty
th
ro
u
g
h
o
u
t
al
l
se
g
m
e
n
ts
o
f
th
e
av
ia

ti
o
n
c
o
m
m
u
n
it
y
;
to
re
p
-
re
se
n
t,
in
b
o
th
sp
e
c
ifi

c
an
d
g
e
n
e
ra
l
re
sp
e
c
ts
,
th
e
c
o
ll
e
c
ti
v
e
in
te

re
st
s
o
f
al
l
p
il
o
ts
in
c
o
m
-
m
e
rc
ia
l
av
ia
ti
o
n
;

…
an
d
to
b
e
th
e
u
lt
im
at
e
g
u
ar
d
ia
n
an
d
d
e
fe
n

d
e
r
o
f
th
e
ri
g
h
ts
an
d
p
ri
v
il
e
g
e
s
o
f
th
e
p
ro

fe
ss
io
n
al
p
il
o
ts
w
h
o
ar
e
m
e
m
b
e
rs
o
f
th
e
A
ss

o
c
ia
ti
o
n
T
h
e
In
te
rn
at
io
n
a
l
B
ro
th
er
h
oo
d
of
E

le
ct
ri
ca
l
W
or
k
er
sb
:
to
o
rg
an
iz
e
al
l
w
o
rk
e
rs
in

th
e
e
n
ti
re
e
le
c
-
tr
ic
al
in
d
u
st
ry
…
in
to
lo
c
al
u
n

io
n
s;
to
c
u
lt
iv
at
e
fe
e
li
n
g
s
o
f
fr
ie
n
d
sh
ip
am
o
n

g
th
o
se
o
f
o
u
r
in
d
u
st
ry
;
to
as
si
st
e
ac
h
o
th
e
r
in

si
c
k
n
e
ss
o
r
d
is
tr
e
ss
;
to
se
e
k
a
h
ig
h
e
r
an
d

h
ig
h
e
r
st
an
d
ar
d
o
f
li
v
in
g
;
an
d
b
y
le
g
al
an
d

p
ro
p
e
r
m
e
an
s
to
e
le
v
at
e
th
e
m
o
ra
l,
in
te
ll

e
c
tu
al
an
d
so
c
ia
l
c
o
n
d
i-
ti
o
n
s
o
f
o
u
r
m
e
m

b
e
rs
,
th
e
ir
fa
m
il
ie
s
an
d
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
ts
,
in
th
e

in
te
re
st
o
f
a
h
ig
h
e
r
st
an
-
d
ar
d
o
f
c
it
iz
e
n
sh

ip
T
h
e
A
m
er
ic
an
F
ed
er
at
io
n
of
T
ea
ch
er
sc
:
to
im

p
ro
v
e
th
e
li
v
e
s
o
f
o
u
r
m
e
m
b
e
rs
an
d
th
e
ir

fa
m
il
ie
s,
to
g
iv
e
v
o
ic
e
to
th
e
ir
le
g
it
im
at
e
p
ro

fe
ss
io
n
al
,
e
c
o
-
n
o
m
ic
an
d
so
c
ia
l
as
p
ir
at
io
n

s,
to
st
re
n
g
th
e
n
th
e
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
s
in
w
h
ic
h
w
e

w
o
rk
,
to
im
p
ro
v
e
th
e
q
u
al
it
y
o
f
th
e
se
rv
ic
e

s
w
e
p
ro
v
id
e
,
to
b
ri
n
g
to
g
e
th
e
r
al
l
m
e
m

b
e
rs
to
as
si
st
an
d
su
p
p
o
rt
o
n
e
an
o
th
e
r
an
d
to
p
ro

m
o
te
d
e
m
o
c
ra
c
y
,
h
u
m
an
ri
g
h
ts
an
d
fr
e
e
d
o

m
in
o
u
r
u
n
io
n
,
in
o
u
r
n
at
io
n
an
d
th
ro
u
g
h
o

u
t
th
e
w
o
rl
d
a
h
tt
p
:/
/
w
w
w
.a
lp
a.
o
rg
/
D
e

fa
u
lt
.a
sp
x
?t
ab
id
=
1
8
8
.
b
h
tt
p
:/
/
w
w
w
.i
b
e
w

4
3
.o
rg
/
m
is
si
o
n
.h
tm
l.
c
h
tt
p
:/
/
w
w
w
.a
ft
.o
rg

/
ab
o
u
t/
in
d
e
x
.h
tm
.
138 Cedric Dawkins
http://www.alpa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=188
http://www.ibew43.org/mission.html
http://www.aft.org/about/index.htm
of self-interest, but on their desire to realize orga-
nizational ideals (Van Dyne et al., 1994). Unions that
adopt the covenantal strategy tend toward a duty
ethic in that they are more likely than other unions
to take stands on issues of public concern and may
support causes that are not closely related to union
interests (e.g., the Teamsters & Turtles campaign).

As a consequence, a covenantal approach is typical of
Social Movement Unionism and aligns trade unions
with outside coalitions for social and economic
justice. Through its recognition of duty to outside
stakeholders, social unionism proponents see unions
not only as workplace vehicles for securing eco-
nomic gains, but as participants in the civic and
political life of their respective countries (Turner,
1992). The American Federation of Teachers mis-
sion statement not only embraces the financial and
workplace objectives of the service and organizing
strategies, but extends to advocate for the economic
and social aspirations of those in social communities
as well. The three strategies represent different
emphases and views of the social role of labor unions
in society, but are not mutually exclusive.
Discussion
Extending discussions of CSR and labor relations to

include a conceptualization of labor union social
responsibility adds a valuable and needed perspec-
tive, because of the prevalence of labor unions
around the world. A few clarifications and cautions
are in order. As the corporations upon which labor
unions depend experiment with new approaches to
CSR, labor relations research has not produced a
framework with which to analyze union impact on
social issues. Indeed, one of the foremost challenges
faced by US labor unions is the perception that they
are exceedingly self-interested. In assessing prospects
of labor unions in the new millennium, Hoyt
Wheeler opined ‘‘[t]o the extent that labor is per-
ceived by policy makers and the public as just one
more interest group fighting for its share of the pie to
the detriment of other interest groups, not much
public support is going to be forthcoming’’
(Wheeler, 2002, p. 97). Therefore, it is important for

labor unions to have a place in the public discourse
surrounding social responsibility.
It is important to emphasize that this initial con-
ceptualization of labor union social responsibility is
primarily a descriptive account of what occurs, ra-
ther than a normative call for what should occur.
The descriptive orientation does not, however,
diminish the normative and instrumental implica-
tions. Labor union social responsibility can be
viewed from a normative perspective as a moral
imperative, or from instrumental perspective as
enlightened self-interest. If, for example, labor un-
ions view social responsibility as a moral obligation,
then the depth of commitment and participation are
likely to be greater than if social responsibility is
engaged for purely instrumental reasons. Bronfen-
brenner and Juravich (1997) wed normative and
instrumental considerations by arguing that an

emphasis on general moral principles such as dignity,
justice, and fairness will improve the success rate of
organizing campaigns.
Nevertheless, I do not intend to imply that social
responsibility will improve the plight of labor
unions. Being more attentive to social responsibility
is not likely, by itself, to reverse or even improve the
current condition of the labor movement – and,
insofar as it complicates the mission of labor unions,
may even be counterproductive. The most plausible
view is that social responsibility is one of many
activities that, properly employed, can contribute to
union viability. Finally, labor unions are not
monolithic and are not likely to engage in similar
behaviors or have similar opinions about how to
advance and strengthen unionism. As a consequence,
the interests of some members will conflict with
those of other members and stakeholders, and social

responsibility will require an appropriate means of
reconciling those interests.
Implications for future research
The preceding discussion raises a number of impli-
cations for further research that can be categorized
into three main areas. First, in addition to being a
conceptualization of social responsibility for labor
unions, this article might also be thought of as a
conceptualization of social responsibility based on
labor unions. Since labor unions exhibit character-
istics of corporations and NGOs the labor union
social responsibility framework can contribute to a
formulation of organizational responsibility and cit-
izenship that addresses all of the key players (multi-
national corporations, NGOs, unions), in a global
marketplace where market and political power are

frequently intertwined. In the global context where
some nation-states do not provide economic equity,
workplace democracy, or social justice, social
responsibility requires that other organizations
advocate on behalf of those prerogatives. The labor
union view of social responsibility aligns with the
corporate citizenship rendering of CSR whereby
organizations assume a role in providing basic rights
that are not provided by nation states. As such, labor
unions have effectively collaborated with NGOs and
governments to promote responsible social (e.g.,
International Labor Organization Declaration on
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work) and
environmental practices (e.g., UN Global Compact),
and political enfranchisement (e.g., South Africa and
Bolivia). Successful partnerships, such as the tripar-
tite ILO, portend of favorable interactions with
business firms on social responsibility issues as well.

A second area is viewing social responsibility
through the lens of voice. Hirschman (1970) origi-
nally coined the concept of voice as an alternative to
passive acceptance or exit, and although it appears
extensively in the labor relations literature, it need not
be limited to that context. What are the implications
of applying the notion of voice-as-currency to different
types of organizations? The stakeholder model,
though it focuses on corporations, argues that those
who provide capital for an entity derive a unique set of
interests and moral rights and expectations based on
that exchange. In essence, rather than accepting cur-
rent conditions (loyalty) or choosing to do business
elsewhere (exit) the stakeholders and corporations can
exercise voice by negotiating the basic rights of citi-
zenship with governments and other powerful orga-
nizations on behalf of their stakeholders. That logic
also holds for private schools and their benefactors,

charities and their donors, hospitals and their com-
munities, NGOs and philanthropists, and other
organizations that enlist stakeholders to provide cap-
ital. It may well be argued that the social responsibility
of such organizations will depend upon the causes and
objectives to which they lend their credibility.
In conclusion, I have established a broad concep-
tual framework for labor union social responsibility,
but empirical research is required to test the potential
dimensionality of the concept and its potential to
describe the activities of labor unions. A desirable next
step would be to develop a valid measure that can be
used in empirical studies. Researchers might, for
instance, explore in more detail the extent to which
labor unions are active advocates of each of the three
objectives of social responsibility, as well as the ante-
cedents and consequences of labor union social
responsibility. Lastly, there is the possible interplay

between socially responsible labor unions and socially
responsible corporations. A number of business firms
explicitly embrace CSR but there is a dearth of sys-
tematic study about what, if any, impacts this has on
their relationships with organized labor. For example,
would social responsibility dictate that a firm operat-
ing in the USA bargain a contract with a newly cer-
tified labor union rather than closing and relocating
the facility?
Conclusion
I have proposed that labor union social responsibility
is an important concept deserving of further inves-
tigation. The study of labor union social responsi-
bility can potentially provide new avenues of
research and practice in the areas of CSR and labor
relations. Given the amount of discussion about
CSR and the debate about the direction of the labor
movement, I hope that this article stimulates interest

in the nexus of these two areas.
Notes
1
In this article, I will use ‘‘labor union’’ to refer to
unions as organizations, and ‘‘union members’’ to refer
to the people who are represented by labor unions,
who may also be workers/employees.
2
The response categories were not mutually exclusive.
References
Aldrich, H. A.: 1999, Organizations Evolving (Sage,
London).
Aldrich, H. A. and M. C. Fiol: 1994, ‘Fools Rush In? The
Institutional Context of Industry Creation’, Academy of
Management Review 19, 645–670.
140 Cedric Dawkins
Ashforth, B. E. and B. W. Gibbs: 1990, ‘The Double-
Edge of Organizational Legitimation’, Organization

Science 1, 177–194.
Bacharach, S. B., P. A. Bamberger and W. J. Sonnenstuhl:
2001, Mutual Aid and Union Renewal: Cycles of Logics of
Action (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY).
Bamberger, P. A., A. N. Kluger and R. Suchard: 1999,
‘Research Notes: The Antecedents and Consequences
of Union Commitment: A Meta-Analysis’, Academy of
Management Journal 42, 304–318.
Bennett, M. and B. Kaufman (eds.): 2007, What Do
Unions Do? A Twenty Year Perspective (Transaction,
Edison, NJ).
Bhattacharya, C. B., H. Rao and M. A. Glynn: 1995,
‘Understanding the Bond of Identification: An Inves-
tigation of Its Correlates Among Art Museums’, Journal
of Marketing 59, 46–62.
Blanchflower, D. and Bryson, A.: 2004, ‘The Union Wage
Premium in the US and the UK’, in London School of
Economics (ed.), Center of Economic Performance

Discussion Paper # 612, 2004.
Blau, P. T.: 1964, Exchange and Power in Social Life (John
Wiley and Sons, New York).
Bronfenbrenner, K. and T. Juravich: 1997, ‘It Takes More
Than House Calls: Organizing to Win With a Com-
prehensive Union-Building Strategy’, in K. Bronfen-
breener, S. Friedmin, R. Hurd, R. Oswald and
R. Seeber (eds.), Organizing to Win (ILR Press, Ithaca,
NY), pp. 19–36.
Budd, J. W.: 2006, Labor Relations: Striking a Balance
(McGraw-Hill/Irvin, Boston).
Budd, J. W., R. Gomez and N. Meltz: 2004, ‘Why
Balance is Best: The Pluralist Industrial Relations of
Balancing Competing Interests’, in B. Kaufman (ed.),
Theoretical Perspectives on Work and the Employment
Relationship (Industrial Relaitons Research Association,
Champaign, IL).
Budd, J. W. and J. Scoville: 2005, The Ethics of Human

Resources and Industrial Relations (Cornell University
ILR Press, Ithaca, NY).
Carroll, A. B.: 1991, ‘The Pyramid of Corporate Social
Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of
Organizational Stakeholders – Balancing Economic,
Legal, and Social Responsibilities’, Business Horizons
34, 39–53.
Donaldson, T. and T. W. Dunfee: 2002, ‘Ties That Bind
in Business Ethics: Social Contracts and Why They
Matter’, Journal of Banking & Finance 26, 1853–1865.
Erickson, C. L., C. L. Fisk, R. Milkman, D. J. B. Mitchell
and K. Wong: 2002, ‘Justice for Janitors in Los Angeles:
Lessons from Three Rounds of Negotiations’, British
Journal of Industrial Relations 40, 543–567.
FNV Mondiaal: 2004, Corporate Social Responsibility in a
Global Perspective (FNV Mondiall, Amsterdam).
Fombrun, C., N. Gardberg and M. L. Barnet: 2000,
‘Opportunity Platforms and Safety Nets: Corporate

Citizenship and Reputational Risk’, Business and Society
Review 105, 85–106.
Freeman, R. B. and J. L. Medoff: 1984, What Do Unions
Do? (Basic Books, New York).
Frege, C. and J. Kelly: 2004, ‘Union Strategies in
Comparative Context’, in C. M. Frege and K. Kelly
(eds.), Varieties of Unionism: Strategies for Union Revi-
talization in a Globalizing Economy (Oxford University
Press, Oxford, UK).
Godard, J.: 1997, ‘Beliefs About Unions and What They
Should Do: A Survey of Employed Canadians’, Journal
of Labor Research 18, 621–639.
Gordon, M. E., J. Barling and L. E. Tetrick: 1995, ‘Some
Remaining Challenges’, in L. E. Tetrick and J. Barling
(eds.), Changing Employment Relations: Behavioral and
Social Perspectives (American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC), pp. 349–366.
Grabelsky, J. and Hurd, R.: 1994, ‘Reinventing an

Organizing Union: Strategies for Change’, Paper
Presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Industrial
Relations Research Association.
Gross, J. A.: 2002, ‘Applying Human Rights Standards to
Employment Rights in the USA: The Human Rights
Watch Report 2000’, Industrial Relations Journal 33,
182–196.
Hirsch, B. T. and D. A. Macpherson: 2000, Union
Membership and Earnings Data Book: Compilation from the
Current Population Survey, 2000 Edition (Bureau of
National Affairs, Washington, DC).
Hirschman, A. O.: 1970, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses
to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States (Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA).
Hyman, R.: 1996, ‘Changing Union Identities in Europe’,
in P. Leisink, J. Leemput and J. Roks (eds.), The Chal-
lenges to Trade Unions in Europe: Innovation or Adaptation
(Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK), pp. 53–73.

International Confederation of Free Trade Unions: 2009,
A Trade Union Guide to Globalisation, July 8.
Jamali, D. and T. Keshishian: 2008, ‘Uneasy Alliances:
Lessons Learned from Partnerships Between Business
and NGOs in the Context of CSR’, Journal of Business
Ethics 84, 277–295.
Justice, D.: 2003, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility:
Challenges and Opportunities’, in D. Justice (ed.),
Corporate Social Responsibility: Myth or Reality? (Inter-
national Labour Office, Geneva).
Kochan, T. and B. Shulman: 2007, ‘A New Social Con-
tract: Restoring Dignity and Balance to the Economy’,
in E. P. Institute (ed.), EPI Briefing Paper (Economic
Policy Institute, Washington, DC), pp. 1–21.
Lawler, E. I.: 2001, Organizing for High Performance:
Employee Involvement, TQM, Re-Engineering, and

Knowledge Management in the Fortune 1000 (Josey-Bass,
New York).
Levy, D. L.: 2008, ‘Political Contestation in Global
Production Networks’, Academy of Management Review
33, 943–963.
Maignan, I. and O. C. Ferrell: 2001, ‘Antecedents and Ben-
efits of Corporate Citizenship: An Investigation of French
Businesses’, Journal of Business Research 51, 37–51.
Mather, C.: 2006, Corporate Social Responsibility: A Guide
for Trade Unionists (Irish Congress of Trade Unions,
Dublin).
Matten, D. and A. Crane: 2005, ‘Corporate Citizenship:
Toward an Extended Theoretical Conceptualization’,
The Academy of Management Review 30, 166–183.
Meyer, W. J. and B. Rowan: 1977, ‘Institutionalized
Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and
Ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology 83, 340–363.
Panagopoulos, C. and P. L. Francia: 2008, ‘The Polls–

Trends’, Public Opinion Quarterly 2008(72), 134–159.
Parker, C.: 1920, The Casual Laborer and Other Essays
(Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., New York).
Paul XXIII, P. J.: 1991, Centesimus Annus, Number 35,
1991.
Preuss, L., A. Haunschild and D. Matten: 2006, ‘Trade
Unions and CSR: A European Research Agenda’,
Journal of Public Affairs 6, 256–268.
Rest, J. R.: 1986, Moral Development: Advances in Research
and Theory (Preeger, New York).
Scherer, A. G. and G. Palazzo: 2007, ‘Toward a Political
Conception of Corporate Responsibility: Business and
Society Seen from a Habermasian Perspective’,
Academy of Management Review 32, 1096–1120.
Schneider, S.: 2005, ‘Victories for Home Health Care
Workers: Home Care Workers Get Organized’, http://
www.directcareclearinghouse.org/download/homehealth
care.pdf, 5 May 2005.

Scott, W. R.: 1995, Institutions and Organizations (Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA).
Sethi, S. P.: 1975, ‘Dimensions of Corporate Social
Performance: An Analytical Framework’, California
Management Review 17, 59–64.
Simon, A.: 2003, ‘A Comparative Historical Explanation
of the Environmental Policies of Two Woodworkers’
Unions in Canada’, Organization Environment 16,
289–305.
Snape, E. and T. Redman: 2004, ‘Exchange or Cove-
nant? The Nature of the Member–Union Relation-
ship’, Industrial Relations 43, 855–873.
Suchman, M. C.: 1995, ‘Managing Legitimacy: Strategic
and Institutional Approaches’, Academy of Management
Review 20, 571–610.
Tannenbaum, F. A.: 1951, A Philosophy of Labor (Alfred
A. Knopf, New York).
Thomas, K.: 2009, ‘Catholic Bishops and Labor Unions

Announce Agreement on Respecting the Rights of
Healthcare Workers’, Service Employees International
Union.
Turner, L.: 1992, Democracy at Work: World Markets and
the Future of Labor Unions (Cornell University Press,
Ithaca, NY).
United Nations: 2008, ‘The United Nations Global
Compact: The Ten Principles’, http://www.unglobal
compact.org/AbouttheGC/TheTENPrinciples/index.
html, 20 Aug 2008.
United States 57th Congress: 1902, ‘Compilation Doc-
uments Relating Injunctions Conspiracy Cases
Together with Arguments and Decision of the Court
in the of Case Commonwealth v. Hunt 4 Metcalf etc.
1902’, http://books.google.com/books?id=kUbvDM
TxgpwC&dq=A+Compilation+of+Documents+Rel
ating+to+Injunctions+in+Conspiracy+Cases&printsec=
frontcover&source=bl&ots=gAdSBQjnwd&sig=uhu

Wms6pFAshEmnavWREhAn-sYo&hl=en&ei=Fwh
dSpjtKoa2MMTJva4C&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct
=result&resnum=1. Retrieved from the World Wide
Web on 14 July 2009.
Valasquez, M.: 1996, ‘Why Ethics Matters: A Defense of
Ethics in Business Organizations’, Business Ethics
Quarterly 6, 201–222.
Valentine, S. and G. Fleischman: 2008, ‘Ethics Programs,
Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility and Job
Satisfaction’, Journal of Business Ethics 77, 159–172.
Van Dyne, L., J. G. Graham and R. M. Dienesch: 1994,
‘Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Construct
Redefinition, Operationalization and Validation’,
Academy of Management Journal 37, 765–802.
Waddington, J. and C. Whitston: 1997, ‘Why Do People
Join Unions in a Period Of Membership Decline?’,
British Journal of Industrial Relations 35, 515–546.
Waldman, D. A., M. S. De Luque, N. Washburn, R. J.

House, B. Adetoun, A. Barrasa, M. Bobina, M. Bodur,
C. Yi-Jung, S. Debbarma, P. Dorfman, R. R. Dzuvi-
chu, I. Evcimen, F. Pingping, M. Grachev, R. G.
Duarte, V. Gupta, D. N. Den Hartog, A. H. B. De
Hoogh and J. Howell: 2006, ‘Cultural and Leadership
Predictors of Corporate Social Responsibility Values of
Top Management: A GLOBE Study of 15 Countries’,
Journal of International Business Studies 37, 823–837.
Wheeler, H.: 2002, The Future of the American Labor
Movement (Cambridge University Press, New York).
142 Cedric Dawkins
http://www.directcareclearinghouse.org/download/homehealthca
re.pdf
re.pdf
re.pdf
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AbouttheGC/TheTENPrinciple
s/index.html
s/index.html
s/index.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=kUbvDMTxgpwC&dq=A+Co

mpilation+of+Documents+Relating+to+Injunctions+in+Conspir
acy+Cases&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=gAdSBQjnwd
&sig=uhuWms6pFAshEmnavWREhAn-
sYo&hl=en&ei=FwhdSpjtKoa2MMTJva4C&sa=X&oi=book_res
ult&ct=result&resnum=1

Wood, D. J. and J. M. Logsdon: 2001, ‘Theorizing
Business Citizenship’, in J. Andriof and M. McIntosh
(eds.), Perspectives on Corporate Citizenship (Sheffield,
UK, Greenleaf).
Wunnava, P. V. and N. O. Peled: 1999, ‘Union Wage
Premiums by Gender and Race: Evidence from
PSID 1980–1992’, Journal of Labor Research 20,
415–423.
California State Polytechnic University – Pomona,
Pomona, CA 92768, U.S.A.
E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of
Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted

to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
UNION ETHICS TRAINING: BUILDING THE
LEGITIMACY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF
ORGANIZED LABOR
Maggie Cohen
This essay argues that the implementation of serious ethics
training at all levels of labor unions will
significantly contribute to union effectiveness by enhancing
union legitimacy—understood as an amalgam of
legal, pragmatic, and moral legitimacy—and by paving the way
to stable recognition of the labor movement
as an integral part of American society, necessary to economic
prosperity and the realization of fundamental
American moral and social values. It proceeds from an
examination of how several labor campaigns have
been enhanced in effectiveness by stressing concerns with
professional responsibilities to the public, and broadly
shared moral values. The concept of legitimacy developed in
these contexts by Chaisen and Bigelow is
expanded to include the internal operations of unions with
emphasis on implementing pervasive democratic
principles and introducing a broad concept of fiduciary
responsibility to activists and leaders at all levels,
which encompasses but surpasses the legal concept.
Introduction

All of our divided labor movement seeks the same thing: greater
union
effectiveness. This practical goal, however, is itself justified
only if it is a means
by which workers secure a better life, a fuller share, more
dignity, and more
self-determination. These are moral goals, consistent with the
most fundamental
American values.1
The meaning and requisites of union effectiveness are currently
under intense
scrutiny and this essay does not pretend to propose a complete
analysis or suggest
a decisive course of action. Yet the current economic and
political circumstances
under which the inquiry takes place—primarily accelerating
globalization and
outsourcing, the global “war on terror” and a capitalist ideology
out of control—
profoundly affects any useful concept of union effectiveness.
They affect the
prospects of all labor organizations, even those that are among
the most “business
unionist” in orientation and function.2 Realization of union
effectiveness and of its
ultimate objectives therefore require power beyond individual
workplaces. They
require industrial power, legislative power, power to affect and
mold international
trade policies, and power to remake public conceptions of
unions so that they are
seen as legitimate representatives of all working people.
WorkingUSA: The Journal of Labor and Society · 1089-7011 ·
Volume 11 · September 2008 · pp. 363–382

© Copyright the Author
Journal Compilation © 2008 Immanuel Ness and Wiley
Periodicals, Inc.
Workingusa
The Journal of Labor and Society
Union effectiveness also requires union legitimacy both in
union objectives
and methods of operation. Legitimacy, this essay contends, is
most consistently
achieved and maintained by compliance with a set of ethical
principles that are
made part of the training and education of every union actor and
activist.3
Union ethics training is understood as training in a broad code
of ethics that
bears many resemblances to professional codes of ethics, in
structure and func-
tion. It relies more heavily than most traditional ethics codes on
inspiration, and
on the concrete realization of aspirational principles, than on
the sort of statute-
like codes characteristic of professions like the law.
Union ethics training is only one element of ongoing efforts
throughout the
labor movement and the labor studies community to reestablish
the socially
valuable, if not essential, place of unions in American culture
and to create public

understanding of the values inherent in unionism and their
centrality among
traditional American values.
Union ethics training, of course, must be more than window
dressing.
Without the thorough commitment of union leaders to union
ethics principles
and training, and the full understanding of these principles by
union rank and
file, the vital role of unions in American society and labor’s
moral legitimacy are
merely theoretical and prospective. Worse, the enunciation of
union principles
becomes deception and manipulation, a source of vulnerability
exploited by the
opponents of labor.
Forms and Constituencies of Legitimacy
To early nineteenth-century workers who joined together to
better their
working conditions, and so their lives, there was undoubtedly
no problem of
legitimacy. They were weak as individuals, stronger acting
together from a
shared need to relieve shared deprivations. Family, close
friends, and community
understood the necessity of these actions.
But the larger society and the courts did not. Understood as
conspiracies to
harm business, and as undermining the sanctity of contract and
the ideal of
individualized pursuits, any rights or recognition enjoyed by
workers who would

join together in labor organizations were begrudging and
circumscribed.
With the passage of early twentieth-century labor legislation,
specifically,
the Norris-LaGuardia Act in 1932 and the Wagner Act in 1935,
unions were
given legal legitimacy and collective action was given legal
protection.
Pragmatic and Moral Legitimacy
Practical unionists care about legitimacy primarily as it
effectively advances
union goals. Viewed as a conglomerate, the unions’ goal is to
improve the quality
of life of workers. Their main focus is to alter the structure of
the labor–
management relationship so that workers have the means and
opportunity to live
better lives, and so that workers are accorded the respect and
consideration that
is the right of every individual.
364 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND
SOCIETY
To do this, unions must extend their power by attracting new
members
through organizing, by attracting needed public and community
support, by
maintaining and strengthening membership commitment and
voluntary partici-
pation, and by political involvement where necessary.

In a profound and compelling examination of the various
concepts of legiti-
macy, Chaison and Bigelow4 argue that “pragmatic legitimacy,”
the ability to
address and meet the needs and advance the interests of
particular groups of
workers, is well served by moral legitimacy, which conceives
union activity in
terms of a broader, morally justified purpose.
The examples which are developed are worth close attention:
• The UPS strike in 1997, which translated the struggle into one
representa-
tive of and for the benefit of all part-time workers;
• The organizing campaign at Harvard university, which
addressed both the
terms and conditions of employment of Harvard’s clerical and
technical
workers, and their values, arguing that the union would
“improve Harvard as
an education and research institution,”5 and would “give
workers access, for
the first time to the decision making processes at the
university.” (Citations
omitted);6
• The campaign against NAFTA , which positioned the
participating unions as
defenders of all American workers, and as proponents of fair
and workable
trade policies;
• The campaign of the Massachusetts nurses, which joined

working conditions
and threats to patient care to arouse the public and garner the
support of
both the public and of nurses who saw themselves first as
professional care
givers and only second, as workers.7
In both the anti-NAFTA and nurses’ campaigns, the unions
“managed
legitimacy by identifying existing processes and goals with
widely shared values
and norms.”8
In each case, the pragmatic legitimacy of the unions’ efforts
was immeasur-
ably assisted by the moral legitimacy of the campaigns.
Moral and Cognitive Legitimacy
Pragmatic legitimacy, as a way to enlist membership support
and to recruit
new members is, however, precarious at best. It can be lost as
easily as it can be
gained, and loyalty to the union or interest in joining it on this
basis can dissipate
with a failed campaign or two. Moral legitimacy will create
broader support and
a stronger commitment to the union, which may survive failures
of pragmatic
legitimacy.
The highest form of legitimacy, what Bigelow and Chaison,
after Mark
Suchman9 call “cognitive legitimacy”, is earned only by those
institutions believed
to be necessarily “there,” whose existence and necessity is

unquestioned. Schools
365COHEN: UNION ETHICS TRAINING
and banks are central examples. Cognitive legitimacy will allow
an organization or
institution to weather storms that would topple temporary or
occasional losses of
pragmatic or moral legitimacy. The authors do not believe that
unions do or can
have such cognitive legitimacy. This may not be so, as
evidenced by the more
institutionalized status of Unions in some European countries.
Legal Legitimacy
Legal legitimacy is arguably an important component of both
pragmatic and
moral legitimacy. To the extent that the law legitimizes various
union activities,
such as organizing and collective bargaining, strikes, and
arbitration, it creates a
structure that becomes part of the social and political landscape,
and enables the
union to accomplish some of its goals. To the extent that the
behavior of unions
and their officers and agents comply with the law, unions avoid
the moral
condemnation of friends and enemies alike, and divest enemies
of an intuitive
public relations weapon in both organizing and political
contexts.
As Levine notes in an interesting philosophical analysis of “The

Legitimacy of
Labor Unions,”10 Federal law recognizes a right to join unions.
In requiring that
certain conditions be met before a labor organization becomes
the representative
of a group of workers,11 federal law also defines which unions
are legitimately
representative of specific groups of workers and entitled to
make negotiating
demands of employers. The legitimacy of negotiating demands
and the means for
making those demands are also a part of labor law. Thus, for
example, if a subject
of bargaining of bargaining is permissive, it may not be
demanded by force of
economic action. If a bargaining issue is illegal, it may not be
demanded at all. If
an otherwise proper demand is made improperly, as by
secondary action under-
taker by unions covered by the Labor Management Relations
Act, then the
union’s actions are no longer “legitimate” in this sense of
legally sanctioned.
The use fulness of legal legitimacy is limited, however. It
enables unionists
to claim that a recalcitrant employer is “violating the law” when
not negotiating
with the representative of his employees, or when otherwise
violating employ-
ees’ Section 7 rights. It enables a willing employer to
definitively know which
labor organization he must talk with when competing unions vie
for represen-
tational status. And certainly legal legitimancy will usually
eliminate some of the

more obviously brutal weapons historically used by employers
against workers
and their organizations: Pinkertons, State police, federal troops.
But without further appreciation of a union’s legitimacy in
speaking for basic
human rights and for a fair distribution of the goods workers
produce, such
violations of labor law do not create indignation in any but the
most directly
affected. These legal violations do not ever compel the
wrongdoers to resign in
shame from their positions. They are never a basis for claims
that those respon-
sible have breached their fiduciary duty to the business.
The downside of legal legitimacy is that labor’s opponents
would limit
further the scope of union activity to what is specifically
provided for by law12, or
they would attempt to scale back the legal sanction so as to
make unions less
SOCIETY
effective in even this narrow range. The other downside is that
workers may
come to believe that their organizations are actually legally
protected, that the
law is the only source of legitimacy, and that it is only within
the law’s structure
that unions will advance.

In fact, the law expressly defines only a narrow swath of
permissible union
activity. Interunion activity, alliances, and pledges are regulated
only to a limited
extent, as in the LMRA’s provision for expedited settlement of
jurisdictional
controversies,13 and that Act’s prohibition of secondary
activity.14
Legal Legitimacy and Internal Union Operations
Legal legitimacy is also required in Unions’ internal operations.
Initially,
legal regulation of these operations derived from a loss of moral
legitimacy in the
organization’s treatment of its members and the nonmembers it
represents.
Specifically, legal requirements of democratic procedures,
member free speech
and full electoral participation, nondiscrimination, and financial
accountability,
contained in the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959
and in judicially created principles of fair representation,
resulted from docu-
mented abuses. These abuses were not pervasive, but neither
were they isolated
incidents. They were sufficiently common that the broader
polity, perhaps
with encouragement from Labor’s enemies, found further legal
regulation
necessary.
Notwithstanding the importance of union autonomy and the
diversion of
member dues to legal compliance with documentary

requirements, much of
what the LRMDA and the Duty of Fair Representation demand
as partially
constitutive of labor organizations’ (legal) legitimacy, is also
necessary, I would
argue, for moral legitimacy.
Moral legitimacy is not solely a function of the ends sought by
labor orga-
nizations, but of the means used as well. The exercise of
collective power,
derived from the strength of numbers, from accumulated dues
and political
influence, is not morally justified—to members, to those who
would be
members, or to the public—solely by virtue of the ends sought
or achieved.15
Legal and Moral Legitimacy in Internal Union Operations:
The Role of Ethics Training
The overarching goal of union ethics training would be to teach
activists,
elected leaders and staff how to integrate principles of
democracy, fiduciary duty,
fair representation, and training of new activists into all their
union activities. Its
ultimate guiding principle would be to engender a personal
understanding of the
uniquely important, vital role of unions in benefiting all
working men and
women, in strengthening America, and realizing American
values.
Although individual unions and their locals act properly in
representing the

interests of particular groups of workers, this must be
understood in a broader
context, where mandates to realize democracy, fair
representation, fiduciary
duty, and member activation are recognized alongside those to
organize, act in
solidarity with other workers, and promote unionism as an
essential and ben-
eficial feature of American society.
Even the more limited objectives of “business unionism” are
better attained
in the context of broader goals, affiliations, and perspectives—
especially in light
of globalization and a hostile administration. For this reason
business unionism
in its most rigorous forms must be left behind. All unions will
benefit from the
acknowledgment of the moral legitimacy and social and
economic necessity of
unions, both in their narrower struggles and in the broader
efforts that create
frameworks for those narrow struggles, such as labor
legislation, trade regula-
tion, and public support.
Ethics training could be conducted at all levels of union
organization, as part
of all functional training, including grievance representation,
organizing, nego-
tiating, mobilization, union administration, and community

outreach. It could
also be offered as stand alone seminars for officers and activists
at all levels.
Ethics training would increase obedience to the laws that
provide minimum
standards of fiduciary responsibility, financial accountability,
democracy, free
speech and member involvement, fair representation, and
nondiscrimination
among represented workers. Compliance with these laws is
necessary for a
number of reasons. First, most of these laws—notwithstanding
efforts of the
enemies of labor to make them oppressive and intrusive—are
aimed at making
labor organizations more democratic and representative
institutions.16 They are
aimed also at preventing what might be euphemistically called
“conflicts of
interest” experienced by labor leaders who might choose
personal benefit over
service to the union and its membership. Second, these are so
often bare mini-
mums that should not be subject to debate. Lastly, exposure of
the union to legal
penalties and adverse publicity based on corruption or
malfeasance should be
avoided in almost all circumstances.
Ethics training would promote legal behavior by placing it in an
ethical
context, rather than an externally imposed coercive one. The
ethical context
itself, moreover, would derive not from legal requirements, but
from the shared

objectives of unionists to provide for themselves and their
fellow and sister
workers better working and nonworking lives, more autonomy,
more respect.17
Fiduciary duties would not be merely burdensome legal
requirements, a list of
steps to “CYA.” They would be expanded in content well
beyond the law and
would be understood as responsibilities and privileges of
service, providing at the
same time opportunities for personal growth, development, and
prestige.
Ethics training, as it moves beyond promoting legal compliance,
would also
aspire to perfect democratic processes, to expand real leadership
opportunities to
members of every ethnic, racial, religious group and to every
sex and gender, to
acknowledge the interdependence of all representative labor
organizations, and
to increase working relationships with progressive community
groups.
Ethics training, as it reflexively acknowledges its goals of
moral and cogni-
tive legitimacy, will teach that all work contributes importantly
to the well-being
of the broader society, and that the well-being of those workers,
and the quality
SOCIETY

of their working conditions is a vital component of providing
quality services and
products.18
To the extent these values of diligent and honest representation,
democracy,
nondiscrimination, and a recognition of the public interest,
become functional
principles within the union, the union gains legitimacy as an
institution, and
consequently, becomes more effective.
Why Ethics Education Is Important for Unionists
Choices arise in all union work, at all levels.19 These choices
are not solely of
an instrumental nature, where a unionist decides which of
several courses will
most effectively achieve the appointed end. No choice that
affects the interests
and needs of people ever really is. Diverse values, conflicting
rights and expec-
tations, multiple objectives, and significant public relations
concerns together
generate dilemmas as to the wisest course.
Developing skills, instincts, and understandings that enable
unionists to
recognize and appropriately weigh these will make them better
decision makers
in their roles as representatives, leaders, persuaders, and
planners.
Ethics training is a means by which such understanding and
skills are devel-

oped. It does not replace, but rather builds upon, training in
collective bargain-
ing, organizing, and mobilizing. Ethics training is practical, not
philosophical;
ethical principles are an inherent part of decision making.
Nonetheless, objections will derive from a belief that ethics
training is, at
best, window dressing for international leaders and staff, and at
worst, harmful
to unified action. But leadership must thoughtfully consider
their objectives and
principles. They must act with insight, understanding, care, and
integrity. Lead-
ership within a union, even the most bureaucratically structured,
is dispersed
throughout the organization, to the locals, to committees, to
stewards, to inter-
nal and external organizers and mobilizers. The circumstances
under which
activists at every level fulfill their “institutional tasks” are too
complex, shifting,
and immersed in human idiosyncrasy, not to require judgment
and character for
their performance. To this end, ethics training at the level of
staff, local leader-
ship, unit activists, and even inactive membership is valuable.
Properly implemented, ethics training will further a number of
Labor’s
broader objectives. For example, views about unions held by the
public, poten-
tial members, legislators, and even active members are less
favorable because of
the dishonesties of a few labor leaders and the self-seeking or
negligence of a

few others. The serious and effective implementation of ethics
training based
on standards adopted by individual unions will work to allay
these concerns.
This translates to more effective organizing, less intrusive
legislation, more
public support of union activities, and more involvement of
individual
members.
This must not be mere window dressing. Unlike the public
relations con-
cerns of “Corporate Ethics Officers,” the ethical principles that
should guide
unionists at all levels coincide with the essential functions,
goals, and justification
of unions. Moreover, although as Americans, union activists
have essentially the
same psychologies and ego-needs of the most ambitious of
corporate players,
they begin with a special subset of values and goals: activists
abhor abuse and
injustice; they are willing to speak up and stand up for a brother
or sister having
problems; they are willing to set aside personal comfort to work
for something
humane and right. These views, feelings, and motivations are
present to greater
or lesser degrees in union activists, but they are a real base
upon which to build
a commitment to realizing ethical principles in union activities.

Another union objective, articulated but often not effectively
pursued, is the
attraction and development of new leaders and activists. Some
members who
want to lead are paid; most are not. We are a movement
primarily of volunteers.
Unions need activists to serve on committees, to do research
and writing, to
mobilize, to organize. They need activists to provide ideas,
energy, and talents,
to lead, and to educate others to the goals and importance of the
labor
movement.
Ethics training will include principles that will advance this
vital goal: the
development of the union’s human resources. This requires
respect, fairness,
opportunity, and, ideally, the nurturing of the individual skills
and talents of
every member, every activist, and every staff member. It also
requires that there
be democratic decision-making procedures that conclude when
united action is
essential.
Lastly, ethics training can better assure compliance with those
laws that
are intended to regulate internal union practices, some of
which—like those
that enforce democracy, financial accountability, and the duty
of fair
representation—are not just legal intrusions on union autonomy,
but also codify
appropriate principles and restraints on unionists. If union

activists embrace and
understand the validity of these principles in carrying out their
union work, they
are less likely to be tempted to transgress or test the limits of
the law to redefine
these duties. This will not preclude legal actions against the
union, which will
have to be defended, but it will prevent many of them.
Principles of Union Ethics Training
The method of ethics training is to pose questions that get
participants
thinking consciously and concretely about values, about the
purpose of unions,
and about their own motivations for involvement. This creates a
framework for
extracting and discussing principles of democracy, fairness, fair
representation,
solidarity, and fiduciary duty. It establishes a personal reference
for discussions of
how best to recruit and keep members and activists—who may
be similar or
dissimilar in their motivations.
One goal of ethics training is to foster an understanding of such
ethical and
quasi-legal concepts as democracy, fairness, fair representation,
solidarity, and
fiduciary duty, so as to develop the ability to evaluate complex
factual situations
with a view to realizing these concepts.
SOCIETY

Democracy
Notwithstanding the mandatory nature of membership when a
union shop
clause is in effect, voluntary commitment to the union’s goals
and active support
of its initiatives is necessary for success. Even a strike, which
requires the most
united, coordinated action must be made the members’ own
purpose or it cannot
succeed.
Loyalty to the organization and its members is a better way to
enlist member
creativity and sacrifice than the threat of sanctions. The
opportunity to debate
policy and suggest strategy, to have one’s views addressed and
considered, and
then to have the course fairly decided by democratic procedures
fosters such
loyalty.
Democratic procedures and an institutional commitment to
democratic
principles also create legitimacy for union actions, to the extent
these are under-
taken on the basis of members’ consideration of shared values
and purposes, and
not merely the personal or political needs and advantages of
incumbent leaders.
Democratic principles and procedures, when viewed from
outside the union,
realize the effectiveness of membership. They assure potential

members that the
organization becomes theirs upon joining, and that they have
the opportunity to
persuade their sisters and brothers of the importance of their
needs or the
validity of their views.
From the perspective of the larger community, democracy
constitutes the
union as a true representative of its members, as the law
requires, and as the
political ideals we share as a nation recommend and applaud.
Even in America,
the bastion of unfettered individualism, democratic decision-
making proce-
dures, fairly and honestly undertaken, can properly oblige
individuals to goals
that broadly benefit larger groups.
Union democracy can thus operate to increase member
involvement, orga-
nize new members, and forestall many public criticisms of labor
and its actions.
Unions may differ, for historical, structural, or other reasons, as
to which
decisions should be submitted to membership vote. Clearly,
unions are and can
only be representative democracies with respect to many of
their functions.
Feasibility, expense, and logic will dictate the use of
representatives who are
appointed as well as elected. But the goals of member
involvement and the need
to assure that those representatives are fully compliant
fiduciaries must never be

forgotten.
A “culture of democracy” must be a practical goal in every
union. To engage
in effective united action and to build solidarity in pursuit of
union goals, the
separation derived from personal and ideological differences
must be removed.
Democratic procedures that are, and are perceived to be, fair
and open are
necessary if this culture is to develop, as is the use of these
procedures to select
leaders and determine the broad outlines of union policy.
Unions are not and should not become “debating societies,”
transfixed by
procedural and conceptual complexities. Their mission is to act
as effective
agents of their members, and for this, real democracy is
essential.20
Fairness, Fair Representation, and Fiduciary Duty
The duty of fair representation or “DFR” has hung over
unionists like a
hammer, suggesting the possibility of legal action should some
especially critical
and demanding constituent not be satisfied. To the extent that
the DFR has
become a legally defined concept and the main source of
constituent action
against union representatives, union lawyers must certainly

mount defenses and
warn stewards and elected and appointed union representatives
about how to
prevent such actions—all defensively formulated. Further
debasing the duty, the
discussion of the DFR is often connected in training sessions to
the begrudging
caution that nonunion members who are within the represented
bargaining unit
must be equally represented in most contexts. Thus, the “free-
rider” resentment
is joined to discussions of the DFR.
The Duty of Fair Representation, however, is a bare minimum
that is
rarely violated. The legally recognized DFR requires only fair,
but not nec-
essarily competent, committed, careful, or loyal representation.
It should be
expanded in the consciousness of unionists to include these
stronger obliga-
tions as part of ethical standards communicated to new and
seasoned activists
by leadership and education departments. This will not only
increase the like-
lihood that the legal requirements are met, but it will have
positive conse-
quences for organizing, mobilizing, and maintaining
membership support.
More fundamentally, these expanded representational duties—
ethically but not
legally mandated—are justified in themselves as appropriate
standards of
behavior for unionists.
To the extent that every individual has, by choice or law, given

the union the
authority to bargain, settle grievances, and administer a binding
collective agree-
ment, this authority must be exercised in the name and in the
interest of those
members, each and all. Any concept of fiduciary responsibility
will include duties
of good faith, care, and the exercise of prudent judgment—as if
the fiduciary
were handling its own affairs.
The law requires fair representation, diversely interpreted from
one Federal
Circuit Court to another. It imposes express fiduciary duties in
connection with
the reporting and disclosure requirements of the Labor
Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act.21 The letter of the law should be regarded
as an absolute
minimum, not because the sources of the rules are worthy of
respect, but because
it is a duty of union actors to protect the institutions from the
legal, public
relations, and monetary sanctions of illegalities. And although it
would have
been preferable if the legal mandates had instead been instituted
by unions
themselves as internal regulations, they have been
acknowledged as broadly and
appropriately restricting union behavior. They are therefore part
of the public
perception of union behavior.
An extension of these “legal” obligations is also called for
because cutting
corners or “merely” strict compliance is prone to error and risk-

taking.
The probable consequences of the recognition of a broader
concept of fair
representation, as an ethical duty, also argue for its obserrance:
SOCIETY
• Members will support their unions more fully, when their
representatives are
more dedicated to their individual welfare, and are more honest
and respon-
sive to their needs.
• Nonmembers will be drawn to join if they believe that unions
will do as they
promise.
• Organizing will gain in integrity if members are convinced to
join an orga-
nization that is genuinely committed to them, and respectful of
their persons
and their needs.
• Corruption for individual gain will be less likely and more
severely sanc-
tioned internally if the union by deeds and words functions on a
higher moral
plane.
• By strengthening their judgment and decision-making ability,
and by
emphasizing the importance and worthiness of their endeavors,

activists will
find greater rewards in their work.
• Public relations initiatives that emphasize these efforts will
help gain the
broader public understanding and support that Labor so vitally
needs.
Inculcating a more precise understanding and acceptance of
their role as
fiduciaries will go a long way in developing effective union
activists. It is fidu-
ciary responsibility that is undertaken by the NYS American
Federation of
Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO) when it
says: “We have
an obligation to our members to keep our integrity as a
movement above
reproach. We have a responsibility to carry out our duties for
the benefit of those
we represent, and ONLY for the benefit of those we represent.”
Fiduciary duty is “the highest standard of duty implied by
law.”22 A fidu-
ciary is one in whom trust and confidence is placed, and of
whom “scrupulous
good faith and candor” is required. A person acting in a
fiduciary capacity
deals in business or property that is “not his own, or for his own
benefit, but
for the benefit of another,”23 Fiduciary duty is the duty to act
for someone
else’s benefit, while subordinating one’s personal interests to
that of the other
person.

The full concept of a fiduciary, derived from agency law and
found in diverse
legal contexts, such as corporate law and partnership law, and
in many estab-
lished professional codes, cannot be transplanted into the law
governing union
representation. In addition to the importance of minimizing
legal regulation of
union activities,24 the unusual agency status of unions and of
individual repre-
sentatives makes a complete, detailed list of legally enforceable
fiduciary duties
infeasible and undesirable.
At the level of international representation, diverse and often
conflicting
union concerns and objectives confront leadership. Even where
only one of
these, such as collective bargaining, is at issue, differences
among represented
constituencies may necessitate choices and compromise. No
derivative of agency
law principles can direct these choices. Recognition of the
claim of every
member and of every constituency and an ability to objectively,
intelligently and
empathetically evaluate these claims is what is called for.
Difficulties with answering the more fundamental questions—
Who are fidu-
ciaries within the labor movement? To whom are their fiduciary

duties owed?
What is the source, and what are the contours of these duties?—
argue against
any complete delineation of strict duties, and even more
strongly against the
wisdom of legal regulation and remedy.
There are some strict fiduciary duties that are imposed by law.
Section
501(a)25 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act (LMRDA)
expressly defines some fiduciary duties to which specific union
officers and
agents are bound. It can be argued, however, that the principles
underlying many
of the LMRDA’s mandates define fiduciary duties for those in a
position to
implement them or to prevent their violation, for example, those
relating to
election procedures and free speech guarantees.
By assuring that the union and its agents comply with
mandatory law, those
agents are protecting the union. On most counts, those
requirements are also
ethically warranted and vital to the moral, political, and
economic mission of
labor unions.
In addition to LRMDA requirements, the unobjectionable
functional
assignment of responsibilities within union constitutions and
bylaws lay out
specific duties owed to the organization or its members by
designated officers or
committee members.

Behind such strict fiduciary requirements are some guiding
generalizations: a
union that has come to exclusively represent the members of
particular bargaining
units is an agent for those bargaining unit members. This is
straightforward; the
undertaking is to represent the members of the unit—whether
they are union
members or not—as their exclusive collective bargaining agent,
for the purposes
of negotiating wages, hours, terms and conditions of
employment. Moreover, the
union acts only through its own agents, who carry out these
duties.
But here clarity ends. In negotiations, for example, the union, as
fiduciary,
must be faithful, diligent, and careful in negotiation and
administration of
agreements that encompass wages, hours, terms, and conditions.
But where does
substantive direction come from? Does it come from the
expertise of elected
representatives or from the expressed directives of membership?
Are union
negotiators and administrators bound to advance the interests of
their constitu-
ents or rather to work toward what the constituency demand of
them, if these
diverge? Certainly, where the expressed directives cannot all be
complied with,
leadership must make decisions with a view to what is best for
the entire group.
If the elected leader disagrees with the members, she is bound
to honestly

Beyond Wages and Working ConditionsA Conceptualization of.docx

Beyond Wages and Working ConditionsA Conceptualization of.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Beyond Wages and Working ConditionsA Conceptualization of.docx

Similar to Beyond Wages and Working ConditionsA Conceptualization of.docx (20)

More from AASTHA76

More from AASTHA76 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Beyond Wages and Working ConditionsA Conceptualization of.docx