What unionism for the Nonprofit Sector?

In continuation of the struggles that have animated the Quebec after the Quiet revolution, number of popular groups have emerged. An observer from the time yet would be hard to navigate, As the changes were significant. Instead of little or no funded groups, the current Community action has government recognition, which ensures a certain financial stability.

How to explain this transformation? The political actions and mobilizations which were at the heart of the practices gave way to the provision of services. in parallel, we have seen a trend towards professionalization, which replaces the militancy of the first hour. Furthermore, and this is perhaps the most important element, the current community environment is the offspring of a social state in acute crisis of neo-liberality. The provision of services and the professionalization of work have prepared the ground for a partnership which allows the State to see in these groups as many actors capable of taking over the social functions that it no longer wishes to fully assume.. From the mid-years 80, Brian Mulroney put it this way : “One of the main priorities of my government will be the complete overhaul of social programs in order to save as much money as possible. One way to achieve this is to encourage the voluntary sector to participate in the delivery of social programs. »

What better source of volunteer action than community groups? In Quebec, the financial envelope of the community goes from around 248 at 635 million dollars between 1996 and 2005. For the state, the formula is simple. Community groups combine a volunteer base with a non-union workforce to achieve social goals, all at a very competitive price. At the same time, the state avoids resorting to its own labor force, which is unionized in a proportion of 82 % . The community sector has therefore greatly benefited from the amputation of the social functions of the state. However, the financial transfer is not up to the transfer of state functions. Salary conditions and social benefits are therefore particularly poor.. Nevertheless, the unionization rate is extremely low, since it is around 3 %. It might be surprising that the community sector is not a more fertile ground for unionization, but several factors allow us to understand this situation. So, community groups are frequently a place to experiment with alternative management methods such as collegial management, co-management or even self-management. In such a context, the attraction of trade unionism focused on reducing management rights is obviously less. Furthermore, according to our experience, many employees firmly believe that unionization would increase the power of employees, to the detriment of the militant base.

The rare studies on the subject seem to corroborate this ambivalence of employees with regard to unionization. If these are generally favorable to the principle of unionism, many would hesitate to unionize themselves. Many fear "inheriting all the rigidity and bureaucracy associated with unionism and the presence of a collective agreement to manage the workplace" and that "joining a union would bring more disadvantages than advantages. " As well, in the absence of additional revenue for the organization, unionization could not lead to an increase in wages, since it is the state and not the body that controls the stock exchange. Furthermore, the attitude of the central trade unions is also for something. The low number of employees in the organizations means that these are accreditation units perceived as being very unprofitable.

Could solidarity unionism succeed where service unionism cannot?? In the United States, the Starbucks Syndicate (IWW) et Jimmy John’s Workers Union (IWW) have built a lasting presence, without accreditation, in one of the most difficult sectors to organize. Union members have developed practices based on concrete demands., outside the context of negotiating a collective agreement. Most recent victory is the recognition of a holiday in honor of Martin Luther King at Starbucks.

In our opinion, two main factors are the strength of solidarity unionism. First, its radically democratic functioning minimizes the importance of permanent staff. This allows an establishment in sectors not profitable for the traditional unions. Ensuite, this is an extraordinarily flexible strategy, which molds itself to the realities of the sector in which it is implanted. In the community sector, this could involve an implementation strategy that recognizes the importance of preserving group democracy. Furthermore, solidarity unionism should create the basis for an alliance of female employees mobilized to fight against the poor working conditions they inherited from the subcontracting of state social functions.

Extract from the volume 1 Sochi, Mars 2014