Literature review: Union–community alliances and union revitalisation

Declining union density in countries such as Australia, coupled with the rise of neo-liberalism and labour market changes, has created a very difficult environment for unions and working people more generally. Those interested in how unions might effectively confront these challenges, renew their membership base and increase their political and industrial leverage have increasingly argued that unions need to draw on a broader range of strategies and tactics than those traditionally associated with the business, servicing and organising models of unionism (Reference Jerrard, Cockfield, Buttigieg and GallJerrard, et al., 2009: 100; Reference Turner, Hurd, Turner, Katz and HurdTurner and Hurd, 2001; Reference Wills and SimmsWills and Simms, 2004). The literature on union revitalisation is broad. Recent research includes work on workplace organising (Reference Brigden and KaineBrigden and Kaine, 2013; Reference Simms, Holgate and HeerySimms et al., 2013); ‘inter-union collaboration’ (Reference Brigden and KaineBrigden and Kaine, 2013); community–union coalitions, partnerships and alliances (Reference HolgateHolgate, 2015a; Reference Jerrard, Cockfield, Buttigieg and GallJerrard et al., 2009; Reference PatmorePatmore, 1997; Reference TattersallTattersall, 2010; Reference WillsWills, 2001); and community-based organising and advocacy (Reference Milkman, Milkman, Bloom and NarroMilkman, 2010).

Union–community alliances have attracted much attention of late and some have argued they provide unions with a means to ‘reinvent themselves’ (Reference TattersallTattersall, 2010: 2) and with ‘another weapon … for reversing decline’ (Reference Wills and SimmsWills and Simms, 2004: 59). A number of writers argue that the interest in union–community alliances reflects awareness that unions are unable to rebuild single-handedly (Reference HolgateHolgate, 2015a). Academics have also been interested in how ‘new actors’ such as these alliances and/or community/civil society organisations may influence the employment relationship (Reference HolgateHolgate, 2015a, Reference Holgate2015b) by forming effective coalitions (Reference TattersallTattersall, 2010).

Reference WillsWills (2001), however, observes that there is a ‘danger in overstating the originality of new efforts to establish’ union–community relations and notes that ‘trade unions have always had connections with the communities of which they are a part’ (p. 481). Indeed, in Australia and elsewhere, there is a long history of linkages between the union movement and local communities (Reference HolgateHolgate, 2015b; Reference TattersallTattersall, 2010; Reference Wills and SimmsWills and Simms, 2004). Reference PatmorePatmore (1997) has explored the workings of labour and community coalitions at the Lithgow small arms factory between 1918 and 1932. Reference ThornthwaiteThornthwaite (1997: 262) has demonstrated their effectiveness in ‘conservative rural communities because, by comparison with traditional industrial tactics, they are relatively non-confrontational’. As Reference TuftsTufts (1998) notes, ‘[d]iscussion of an emerging community unionism does not inherently suggest that unionism has ever been historically divorced from working-class political cultures’ (p. 231).

Union–community alliances provide both unions and communities with opportunities for ‘mutual co-operation and collective action’ that may enhance ‘survival’ (Reference TuftsTufts, 1998: 232). They provide unions with the opportunity to confront challenges and ‘to increase the[ir] public and political profile’ (Reference Wills and SimmsWills and Simms, 2004: 66). They help build power within workplaces and within the broader community by demonstrating a union’s relevance and by allowing it to reach beyond its traditional constituents to groups such as migrant or ethnic communities (Reference Cranford and LaddCranford and Ladd, 2003: 48, Reference HolgateHolgate, 2015a: 460). Alliances can assist unions to organise groups that are traditionally difficult to reach such as contingent workers and to ‘increase the pressure brought to bear on any intransigent employer who is resisting union recognition, wage increases or the provision of safe working conditions’ (Reference WillsWills, 2001: 466).

In doing so, unions can be seen to be seeking to improve economic justice, provide services and advance broader societal concerns (Reference WillsWills, 2001). Coalitions have not focused exclusively on traditional industrial issues but, on occasion, have arisen in response to social justice and environmental issues or other concerns less explicitly focused on the workplace. In Australia, perhaps the most famous example of this kind of alliance was that between the NSW Builders Laborers’ Federation and community groups in the preservation of historically and environmentally significant areas of Sydney such as Hunters Hill and The Rocks, given expression in the 1970s Green Bans (Reference Burgmann and BurgmannBurgmann and Burgmann, 2011).

By working with the community, unions may also increase their voice within political parties (Reference Wills and SimmsWills and Simms, 2004: 66), thus potentially enhancing opportunities for worker representation. Union–community alliances may contribute to the building of common cause among people who might otherwise be divided by gender, sexuality, religion or dis/ability. They can then link struggles for redistribution with those for recognition, potentially fostering ‘unity on the left’ (Reference WillsWills, 2001: 469). Voss and Sherman (2000, cited in Reference Heery, Williams and AbbottHeery et al., 2012: 147) suggest that working with civil society organisations facilitates renewal by providing opportunities for the transfer or acquisition of campaigning techniques and increased exposure to new activists.

Despite the associated benefits of ‘community-driven’ campaigns, some academics (e.g. Reference WillsWills, 2001) suggest that conventional union hierarchies and structures inhibit the potential of community unionism to revitalise the labour movement. Clawson (2003, cited in Reference Jerrard, Cockfield, Buttigieg and GallJerrard et al., 2009) notes that top-down campaigns have a tendency to be effective only in the short-term and are ‘anti-democratic’ because workers have neither control nor responsibility. A case study by Reference Jerrard, Cockfield, Buttigieg and GallJerrard et al. (2009) of several Australian unions found such campaigns ‘lack the political change necessary to stimulate union renewal and are just an extension of a narrow organising approach’ (p. 102). Reference TattersallTattersall (2005) maintains that ‘[d]eep coalitions require unions to commit to shared decision making and sharing power with community partners’ (p. 109). Community alliances may also be treated with suspicion by parts of the labour movement because the organisations they are working with may be competitors (Reference Martinez Lucio, Stuart and GallMartinez Lucio and Stuart, 2009: 34) or because they seek to build relationships with employers or governments that may not have a pro-union agenda or fail to engage with unions on an equal footing (Reference HolgateHolgate, 2015b). Reference SadlerSadler (2004) notes that coalition building and the manner in which class intersects with other forms of inequality may challenge ‘established union hierarchies’ (p. 37). Holgate cites Fine’s argument that ‘unions often fall back on old “understanding of the industrial order and their place in it, and rely upon antiquated organisational ideologies, cultures, strategies and structures to carry out their work”’ (Fine, 2007, cited in Reference HolgateHolgate, 2015a: 462).

Reference RossRoss (2007) contends that a proliferation of titles such as ‘union–community coalition’ or ‘social unionism’ across the union renewal literature has muddied our understanding and our ability to ‘assess the relative effectiveness of the different forms it takes in practice’. As Reference Jerrard, Cockfield, Buttigieg and GallJerrard et al. (2009) note, ‘All approaches stress the need for unions to move beyond traditional practices and methods, and develop a community-oriented approach, but there is no consensus around the form and character of these relationships’ (p. 100).

Much of the literature tends to focus on fusing organising with community and on building alliances (Wills, 2004, cited in Reference Martinez Lucio, Stuart and GallMartinez Lucio and Stuart, 2009: 34). The emphasis has largely been on alliances between unions and community groups, but ‘community may also refer to the broader public or the formation of independent organisations’ (Reference Jerrard, Cockfield, Buttigieg and GallJerrard et al., 2009: 100) or non-governmental organisations (Reference SadlerSadler, 2004: 35).Indeed, the concept of community both has changed and is contested (Reference Wills and SimmsWills and Simms, 2004: 61; Delanty, cited in Reference HolgateHolgate, 2015b: 436). Reference Martinez Lucio and PerrettMartinez Lucio and Perrett (2009) suggest that there is a ‘need to understand the variety of community initiatives’ (p. 694).

Reference TattersallTattersall (2008: 417–419) usefully suggests that there are three common themes associated with community. These are community as organisation, community as common interest or identity and community as place. Building on this classification, Reference TattersallTattersall (2008) outlines three different types of community unionism, each representing different organising strategies: (1) unions and community organisations working in coalition; (2) a union strategy of organising workers ‘on the basis of common non-workplace identities, interests or place’; and (3) ‘place-based organising strategies’ which ‘seek to increase a union’s impact at any particular scale’ (pp. 417–418). Tattersall’s definitions accurately capture the different elements of community and community unionism highlighted in the literature. However, as will be seen, the LUCCs do not sit neatly within any of these themes, but reflect facets of each.

Several authors have developed typologies of union–community coalitions. One of the most commonly cited is that developed by Reference Frege, Heery and KellyFrege et al. (2003) who differentiate three types of union coalitions based on ‘the extent to which unions seek coalition on the basis of their own interests or objectives or accept it on the basis of the interests or objectives of nonlabor organizations’ (pp. 124–125). However, these authors’ definition of a union coalition explicitly ‘excludes joint action between unions themselves’; their typology, therefore, does not adequately capture the nature of the LUCCs. Reference TattersallTattersall (2005) also provides a typology of union–community coalitions – ad hoc, support, mutual support and deep coalitions – although again LUCCs do not fit any one category but draw on elements of each.

A difficulty in situating LUCCs in current typologies of community unionism is that they are a hybrid form of inter-union/union–community arrangements. Just as LUCCs draw on elements of community unions, they also draw on elements of the inter-union alliances of peak unions, in particular Trades and Labor Councils. Peak union bodies are premised on cooperation among diverse unions (Reference TattersallTattersall, 2010: 7). They may be defined as ‘permanent inter-union organisations directed at furthering defined or assumed common interests or objectives by means of jointly determined strategies’ (Reference Ellem and ShieldsEllem and Shields, 1996: 377). Drawing on both Tattersall’s definition of community unionism and Ellem and Shields’ definition of peak union bodies, we define the LUCCs in our study as emerging groups of rank-and-file union members, operating under the auspices of Unions NSW, who engage with the communities in which members live and work to further commonly held objectives. At this stage, their permanency, their autonomy and their agency vary across the groups.

Although there is a plethora of studies exploring union renewal and union–community alliances, there is less recent research exploring how peak union bodies and CLCs may seek to advance the aims of their affiliates and the labour movement more broadly by engaging with ‘community’. Peak union bodies have been influential in Australian industrial relations (see Reference HaganHagan, 1981 on the ACTU’s political, institutional and organising roles). Recent studies have adopted perspectives based on gender (Reference Brigden, Baird, Cooper and WestcottBrigden, 2005; Reference WebbWebb, 2004), power (Reference RathmellRathmell, 2007) and organising (Reference CooperCooper, 2003). Reference Brigden and KaineBrigden and Kaine (2013) note that inter-union alliances such as peak union bodies have a long history and can operate at ‘different geographical scales, including the local, industry, national and international’ (p. 2). The following discussion of LUCCs aims to further our understanding of how peak bodies have sought to engage with the community at a local level (or scale) and the hurdles that must be overcome if this particular model is to succeed.

Unions NSW and LUCCs

Unions NSW, formely Sydney Trades and Labor Council, was established in 1871. This makes it ‘one of the oldest peak councils in the world’ (Reference MarkeyMarkey, 1994: 3). Through its affiliates across the state, it ‘represents over 600,000’ union members (Unions NSW, 2014a). There are seven smaller Regional Trades and Labor Councils located in NSW that are affiliated to Unions NSW. It has traditionally campaigned on issues such as wages and working conditions, working hours and occupational health and safety. More recently, it has broadened its campaign agenda beyond industrial issues.

Affiliates of Unions NSW have faced much tribulation over recent decades. There is no sign that this will abate. As a result, Unions NSW is exploring a number of responses to neo-liberal governments and the challenges that generally confront unions. Reference SavageSavage (2006) poses the question, ‘At what scales do … [unions] need to structure themselves in order to face the enormous challenges posed by an ever-changing global economy?’ (p. 651). One response is to campaign at a community rather than a workplace, industry, national or international level. Unions NSW is arguably well placed to campaign at the community level. Unlike individual unions, which may be caught up in their members’ day-to-day issues and in their own specific campaigns, peak bodies are in a position to promote cross-pollination, inter-union cooperation and support among affiliates at the local level.

Coupled with the rise of the neo-liberal agenda has been the changing geographical and industrial landscape. While some regions such as Wollongong and Newcastle still have strong and active Trades and Labor Councils, there has been a general decline in the number, strength and influence of regional councils. While the LUCCs are loosely based on traditional Trades and Labor Councils, as Unions NSW Secretary Mark Lennon notes, regional councils ‘were based very much on the industrial interests of the area and the unions in a particular area and unions working together on particular industrial campaigns usually in those areas’. He continues, ‘I think unions have learnt over the last 30 years that we have to take the message of working people to the broader community, because it is the message of the community at large’. The LUCCs reflect the influence of regional Trades and Labor Councils and are also informed by developments in community organising elsewhere such as the Union Cities initiative in the United States (Unions NSW Officer A). An important precursor to the LUCCs was the establishment of YR@W groups as part of a larger campaign in the lead up to the 2007 Australian federal election.

At the 2007 federal election, the coalition lost government to Labor and the then Prime Minister John Howard lost his seat. In the 2 years prior to the election, the ACTU and other peak bodies such as Unions NSW had been campaigning to repeal the deeply anti-union WorkChoices legislation and bring about this change of government (Reference BarnesBarnes, 2006, Reference Barnes2007; Reference MuirMuir, 2008, Reference Muir2010; Reference Wilson and Spies-ButcherWilson and Spies-Butcher, 2011). The YR@W campaign involved a range of tactics, such as TV ads, large rallies and a bright orange bus that travelled around NSW (see Reference BarnesBarnes, 2006, Reference Barnes2007; Reference EllemEllem, 2013). One of the key means of raising community awareness was the establishment of local YR@W groups, 46 of which were formed in NSW (Reference DoughtyDoughty, 2009). The groups were made up of volunteers who received assistance from full-time campaign coordinators. They arranged street and market stalls, collected signatures on petitions, letter-boxed, sold raffle tickets, organised meetings and handed out YR@W how-to-vote cards on election day (Reference DoughtyDoughty, 2009). A coordinator who worked on the campaign suggested that the groups were most effective when they were relatively informal and relied on person-to-person contact to maintain their ‘dynamism and activity’ (Reference DoughtyDoughty, 2009: 14). Commenting on the YR@W campaign, former Secretary of Unions NSW John Reference RobertsonRobertson (2007) said the campaign ‘showed that success can be achieved by engaging with the community on a number of levels about an issue’ (p. 6).

Despite Reference MuirMuir’s (2008) assertion (p. 201) that one of the legacies of the campaign was the union movement’s learning ‘how to work effectively with and within communities’, a lost opportunity of the YR@W campaign was that many of the groups were allowed to wither in the aftermath of the election. While the YR@W campaign continued via its website and some lobbying of the new Labor government, the 2007 election marked an end point for many of the local group activities (Unions NSW Officer E). As an ACTU officer noted, at the end of the YR@W campaign,

The hibernation lasted until 2012 when Unions NSW, using the framework of the pre-existing YR@W groups, began a process of ‘local geographic organising’ (Unions NSW, 2012). This involved working with existing bodies such as regional trades and labour councils, reinvigorating some YR@W groups and establishing new groups. While the groups are known generically as LUCCs, each has a name that reflects it geography.

LUCCs are composed of ‘local rank and file delegates and union members, retired members along with their families and supporters in the local community’ (Unions NSW, 2014b). They campaign for a broadly progressive agenda but are not tied to any political party. The LUCCs aim to provide working people with a voice or a mechanism to campaign around community and broader state and federal issues such as the closure of local services, privatisations or the erosion of worker rights. Four Unions NSW officers assist in the co-ordination of LUCC meetings and other events. Each officer is assigned a number of groups for which they are responsible. The time spent with each group varies depending upon how autonomously the group is functioning and the level of activity at the time. While Unions NSW funds the LUCCs, its long-term aim is for the LUCCs to operate semi-autonomously (see Table 1 for stages of development).

Table 1. Local Union Community Councils – indicative stages of development.

Source: Unions NSW.

The characteristics of the Local Union Community Council (LUCC) at each stage should be read in addition to those of the (LUCC) in preceding stages.

Unions NSW launched 15 LUCCs in 2012. These have worked on a range of broader campaigns and local concerns such as the employment and community impact of the proposed closure of Grafton gaol (Unions NSW, 2012). There are currently 29 LUCCs across the state at different stages of development. The groups are based on particular geographical localities, both regional and urban, and predominantly in electorally marginal seats, but have also been established in areas where the provision and quality of jobs, workplace rights and community services such as health and education are major community concerns. This framing around jobs, rights and services reflects Unions NSW’s broader campaigning agenda.

Unions NSW has developed skills within the groups by holding planning and training days for LUCC members. To date, there have been two state-wide conferences and these have been attended by, on average, three members each from most LUCCs across NSW. The 2014 state conference examined key LUCC successes such as mobilisation in regional areas and state by-elections. The day involved break-out groups to develop skills in areas such as the use of social media, conducting meetings, visiting local MPs, engaging in effective conversations (at work and in the community), planning campaigns and building momentum. Unions NSW has also held training days for individual LUCCs, focused on specific activities such as power building. LUCC members seek to build the profile of their group and thus its influence by utilising traditional community-organisation tactics such as street stalls, local media engagement, seeking pledges from electoral candidates, candidates’ and other forums, door knocking and electronic media outlets.

The LUCCs are similar to the YR@W groups in terms of structure and tactics, but their aims and strategies differ from those of the YR@W groups, which were explicitly focused on electoral change, especially the impact of legislation on the individual rights of workers. The focus of LUCCs is less on individual workers and more on the impact on the local community of government policies and employer actions. LUCCs also have a greater concern with longevity than their precursors. As one interviewee observed,

Unions NSW does not have the structured links to individual workplaces that single unions, via delegate structures and workplace access, may have. In some ways, the LUCCs function as a tier of Unions NSW that provides it with direct access to union and community activists. This enhances the peak body’s ability to service affiliates by way of an enhanced capacity to mobilise. While the LUCCs at first blush might appear to mostly resemble regional peak bodies in that they seek to mobilise industrially and politically at the local level, at this stage they have no financial independence from Unions NSW nor have they set themselves up to compete with Unions NSW. Moreover, unlike their historically powerful counterpart in Broken Hill, they are unable to act as a consistent ‘industrial disciplinarian’ (Reference Ellem, Shields, Ellem, Markey and ShieldsEllem and Shields, 2004: 133).

The LUCCs display different features from those that the literature suggests are characteristic of community unionism (Reference TattersallTattersall, 2008). First, unlike coalitions such as the Industrial Areas Foundation, Citizens UK or the Sydney Alliance, they are not partnerships between unions and other groups such as religious, community or political organisations. Table 1 indicates that by the time they reach stage 4, LUCCs will have developed strategic relationships with community organisations and leaders. However, such relationships are not at the core of the LUCCs. Temporary or even long-lasting relationships with other groups may appear to be a weakness of the LUCCs, but at this stage the approach seems to be assisting in building internal group stability while not compromising potential capacity building.

A second point of difference is that the idea that community unionism is based on a group of people with ‘community-based identities rather than craft or industry’ (Reference TattersallTattersall, 2008: 418) is only partially reflected in the LUCCs. A strength of the LUCCs is that they are made up of people ‘who may work in different industries but have an inherent similarity of belief’ (Unions NSW Officer A). While community identity is an important element, of more importance is the identity of LUCC members as unionists. The third theme of community as place is more reflective of the LUCCs, whose members work and/or live in the area.

The focus on community is therefore twofold: (1) building a stronger community within the union movement and (2) building stronger links with the broader community on issues important to unions but also to the local community. Through participation in their LUCC, members learn from each other the issues faced by other workers in their area and how these concerns impact that community:

Like more conventional union–community alliances, the LUCCs can contribute to the transfer of campaigning skills within the movement. Their presence also ensures that there is a reserve army of people ready to campaign on a range of industrial and community issues, and they add authenticity to the messages they deliver:

LUCCs also aim to build influence within the local community. They provide an opportunity to extend union voice beyond the confines of individual workplaces and industries. In the process, they can refute sensationalist perceptions of union power or malevolence often promoted by the media. Furthermore, as a consequence of declining union density, fewer Australians have direct experience of the benefits that unions might bring. LUCCs may provide an opportunity to influence or reshape the image of unions at the grass roots in local communities. According to one of our interviewees,

When asked how success could be measured, a common response among Unions NSW officials and LUCC members was that a core criterion would be the LUCC’s recognition by the community and local media. As indicated by Table 1, as a LUCC develops, so too should its local profile. Local news stories about the activities of the groups have to date been generally positive, in turn presenting a positive portrayal of unions. The aim is also for people to be more publicly identified as unionists:

Community and media recognition also places the LUCC in a stronger position when lobbying over matters of importance to local workplaces and to the community.

Longevity, stability and autonomy are other indicators of the LUCCs’ success. A regular theme emerging from interviews with Unions NSW officers is the wish to have the LUCCs functioning without depending on Unions NSW for direction or provision of a dedicated staff member. As one officer stated,

Another noted,

We now turn to an assessment of the factors that may promote or hinder the LUCCs’ ability to reach maturity and thus realise their full potential as part of the Unions NSW tactical repertoire.

The LUCCs at work

Reference ThornthwaiteThornthwaite (1997) poses the question, whether union–community alliances can thrive in urban areas that lack the strong local identity and community links forged by local workers and residents in rural locations. There is no doubt that smaller communities present opportunities for mobilising around local issues. As one interviewee noted,

In rural or semi-rural communities, limited sources of employment may heighten and unite disparate groups around issues such as loss of jobs and community infrastructure. Indeed, another informant remarked that

While the interviews suggest that there is a metropolitan or urban/rural divide, our preliminary findings indicate that it is not simply a case of city versus country, but rather of how closely people identify with an area. This in turn appears to be more influenced by where they live than where they work. It may help explain why the Sutherland Shire, which is not rural but is an area of Sydney with a strong local identity, is one of the more active LUCCs. Establishing and developing LUCCs in areas with transient working and residential populations can prove difficult (Unions NSW Officer D). Moreover, electorate boundaries may encompass localities that do not have a uniform identity, making political lobbying more difficult. The Greater Macarthur group, for example, incorporates a number of state electorates with distinct sub-identities based on demographic, socio-economic and geographic differences (urban, semi-rural and rural). One should not assume, however, that there is little point in establishing groups in these areas: the Greater Macarthur group was actively involved in the 2015 NSW state election campaign and focused its main efforts on one of the electoral seats.

A crisis or an event has frequently proved a stimulus to galvanising a community into action. It may unite communities regardless of size or demography, although what constitutes a crisis may be influenced by geography. In regional areas, this may be any type of job loss, but in metropolitan areas it may be the closure of public services such as hospitals, schools or even swimming pools, and the job losses may be incidental to the loss of the service. Elections have also spurred the LUCCs into action.

Although elections and crises can help to prompt people to act, a sole focus on such events jeopardises the longevity of the group. Part of the problem that the YR@W groups faced was that once electoral success had been achieved, some members felt there was little point in continuing to organise, while others were left burnt out and exhausted. Thus, according to a Unions NSW Officer (cited by Reference EllemEllem, 2013: 277), ‘When you have a common enemy, the commitment to fighting is … strong. Building a proactive agenda is much more difficult’. The mundane day-to-day focus on less exciting activities presents challenges for the LUCCs’ longevity but is crucial for preparing for future critical events.

The LUCCs that seem to have progressed the most are driven by a core group of members. But finding key activists to lead a group and to work semi-autonomously from the peak body has been difficult. Often the people best suited to undertake these tasks are also active in the union at the workplace and thus face the challenge of balancing activism, work and family. LUCCs may, however, provide an avenue for people who are less comfortable with workplace militancy or activity. It was observed that, for some people, LUCCs

For Unions NSW, resources are an issue. While the aim is to have the groups working semi-autonomously from the peak body, some may continue to depend on Unions NSW. As one LUCC member noted of the Unions NSW official designated to liaise with her LUCC,

LUCC members also need to hone their skills in areas such as social media, relationship building, effective conversations, campaigning, public speaking and producing campaign material. Providing this assistance requires Unions NSW to allocate resources and LUCC members their time and energies.

Conversations with activists more broadly suggest that the LUCCs have been viewed by some as a tool to elect the Labor Party, a perception that may have undermined the efforts of Union NSW and LUCC members to attract a broad range of activists. Similarly, the non-partisan nature of the LUCCs may deter involvement in LUCCs by those with strong ties to particular political parties. On the other hand, it is possible that some LUCC members may prefer to work with a non-aligned, non-partisan organisation especially when political parties are out of favour with their local communities.

LUCC members may experience conflicts with regard to their party political affiliations, particular issues or the stance of the LUCC on those issues. In one semi-rural group, for example, tensions have arisen between Labor and National Party supporters. Such tensions may be heightened during election campaigns, particularly in marginal seats, which is where the LUCCs tend to be located. As LUCCs develop through the stages, they become more self-directed, as Table 1 shows, but they are still expected to plan and implement activities as part of Unions NSW’s state-wide strategies. As a result, in some circumstances such as elections, Unions NSW may develop strategies and tactics that are imposed on the local groups. Communication problems can arise, with local members not understanding why certain decisions have been made or disagreeing with the peak body’s focus. In the 2015 NSW state election, for example, there were opposing views within one group as to which electorate the LUCC should focus its energy on. Individual members were also torn between supporting particular local candidates on election day and devoting time to the LUCC campaign. These issues are not unique to LUCCs and may reflect healthy debate. Alternatively, they may contribute to the groups becoming dysfunctional.

Support from unions is another important element of building capacity and resources. Unlike coalitions with community groups, collaborations like the LUCCs do not require unions, in Reference TattersallTattersall’s (2005) words, to shift their ‘frame of vision’ (p. 109). Despite this common ground, LUCCs may still be viewed as ‘competitors’ to unions (LUCC Member B) and an unnecessary drain on their resources. As one LUCC member noted, ‘union buy-in is not a one-way street’, but rather has the potential to be a ‘win–win’:

Individual unions have approached the LUCCs in different ways, ranging from apathy to support. The latter involves encouraging members to attend LUCC meetings and become involved. More active support has emerged on an ad hoc basis on issues relevant to particular unions. In campaigning against the sell-off of publicly owned electricity distribution systems (or ‘poles and wires’), the Electrical Trades Union, for example, worked closely with local groups in the lead up to the 2015 state election. Similarly, the United Services Union and Blacktown Community Unions (in a working-class western Sydney area) worked together to stop the closure of council-run child care centres in the area (Unions NSW Officer D). It has, however, been a struggle to get commitment from some affiliate unions which have competing demands, priorities and a focus on the immediate concerns of their members. Similarly, LUCCs are not the sole strategy pursued by Unions NSW, nor are they necessarily universally accepted as the most promising strategy. Resources devoted to the LUCCs may be better spent building strength in the workplace. As one critic of the LUCCs commented, what can unions offer the community when they are weak in the workplace (Former LUCC Member)? Moreover, a change in the leadership of Unions NSW or pressure from affiliates to change direction may threaten the longevity of the LUCCs that currently rely on the support of the peak body.