The Anthropology of Labor Unions

7: Small Places, Close to Home: The Importance of Place in Organizing Workers

131 In small places, close to home—so close and small they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. . . . [T]hey are the world of the individual persons; the neighborhood . . . the school or college . . . the factory, farm, or office. . . . Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity , equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. —Eleanor Roosevelt (1958)1 The challenges unions in the United States face in organizing workers are enormous and should not be underestimated. Recent changes at the national and international levels, such as the Change to Win coalition departing from the American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organization (AFL-CIO), are indicative of philosophical and strategic differences within the U.S. labor movement. While much of the focus is now on organizing, efforts and resources seem to be concentrated on a speedy certification election and building union membership density. In this chapter I argue that workers choose unionization based on their own lived experiences in “small places, s e v e n Lydia Savage Small Places, Close to Home: The Importance of Place in OrganizingWorkers Ly d i a S ava g e 132 close to home.” I suggest that a single-minded focus on density can easily lead unions away from building deep roots in workplaces and communities. If unions are to organize for the long term and to rebuild the labor movement , it is not enough to understand the relationship between workplace variables and union election outcomes; organizers must also understand how workers’ experiences in their community, workplace, and home affect their decisions.2 To talk about the importance of place and local context for organizing and representing workers, I draw upon research carried out since 1992 on the State Healthcare and Research Employees (SHARE).3 SHARE ran an organizing campaign at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center (UMass Medical) in Worcester, Massachusetts, from 1990 to 1997 when it successfully won a certification election. Since 1997, SHARE has represented workers with innovative contracts that provide for flexibility, work redesign, benefits for part-time workers, worker education projects, and expansive work security. In this chapter I first outline the background of the organizing campaign , then discuss obstacles to organizing including previous organizing attempts, and finally present the challenges and possibilities in organizing a diverse group of workers in an industry that is under tremendous financial pressure. In doing so, particular attention is paid to ways in which “small places, close to home” inform workers and organizers in their efforts to build a strong union. Worcester and UMass Medical In 1990 several clerical and technical workers from UMass Medical independently contacted the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW) about organizing their workplace. HUCTW had received much publicity for winning a seventeen-year campaign at Harvard to represent 3,700 workers. Two organizers from HUCTW—Elisabeth Szanto and Jean Lafferty—began exploring the possibility of organizing at UMass Medical. They had both been laid off from HUCTW after the first contract was settled with Harvard University and were looking for a place to start organizing again. UMass Medical offered the HUCTW organizers a chance to test their model of one-on-one organizing and their belief in building deep roots within a workplace in a city less than fifty miles away. HUCTW and SHARE represent nearly 8,000 workers, and the sister unions are affiliated S m a l l P l a ce s , C l o s e to H o m e 133 with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).4 Kris Rondeau, the team leader, explained that the organizers are committed to the idea that the union should have a relationship with every one of its members, with the overall goals of creating community and changing the experience of work.5 The guiding principle is that without relationships in the workplace between organizers and workers as well as among the workers , the union and workers cannot create change. The relationships built during and after the organizing campaigns allow the union to build leadership and negotiation skills among members. Rondeau has identified four areas that HUCTW and SHARE view as key pieces of their work. They first seek as much participation from members as possible through a variety of activities such as work redesign, joint committees , joint education projects...