Membership Participation and Centralized Control
Authors: ROGOW ROBERT 
Published: May 2008

The union faces severe economic and political problems: it is becoming increasingly expensive to perform important union functions, membership losses are difficult to replace, job mortality is high, firm size is small, membership income is modest, skill level is low, and the union has minority status in almost all of its industries.

The policy response to financial pressure is to encourage members to volunteer to perform many union functions which the union can not otherwise afford. Policies supportive of this goal include supply of a broad array of services at union headquarters, insistence that members pay dues in person, insistence on meeting attendance, and emphasis on the steward and crew and the role of the experienced member.

The political pressure is weakened union authority. Unusual heterogeneity among employers, occupations, and members, plus an unavoidably decentralized collective bargaining situation, present strong centrifugal tendencies. Major variations in occupation, skills, income level, union background, job security, and ethnic and cultural identification contribute to a diversity of interests and loyalties. A tendency for the membership to be clustered or differentiated by character of their employment also adds a potential threat of balkanization by local.

The policy response to political pressure has been the effort to centralize authority and initiative. For example, the 1,000‐member General Council has been granted almost unlimited governmental authority. The Council is the channel for downward communication flow; the related structuring, sequencing, and common agendas of all union meetings also keep initiative and authority at the Districtwide level. Additional centralizing aspects include the absence of constitutional restraints on leadership freedom of action; the lack of restraints from the international union; emphasis on crew and steward, rather than on local and local officer; the discouragement of electoral conflicts inherent in the application of the “majority rule”; the preferred ballot position of Districtwide candidates; the Districtwide vote required for the four “regional” leaders; and the offsetting of decentralized collective bargaining with an array of control devices.

Meeting attendance, dues payments (without benefit of checkoff), and electoral participation are unusually high. However, volunteer offices are difficult to fill; experienced occupants are difficult to hold. There is little volunteer participation in organizing and collective bargaining and participation is way below the level prescribed by union policy pronouncements.

Areas of inconsistency, if not conflict, exist between the two major strands of policy, i.e., encouragement of membership participation, on the one hand, and centralization of authority, on the other. Centralization makes it more difficult to involve members in union affairs. De‐emphasis of the role of the local officer and organizer in favor of stewards and vice‐presidents has minimized potential divisive influences, but at the cost of inhibiting volunteer leadership activity.