Social Capital, Service, and Organization: A Conceptual Framework for the MTA
The MTA has historically offered a service model of unionism providing negotiating expertise, legal services, and political advocacy. With the election of Barbara Madeloni as MTA President in 2014 and subsequently several of the Educators for a Democratic Union (EDU) caucus to the Board of Directors, the MTA has shifted toward an organizing model, attempting to agitate and mobilize members into a political force to be reckoned with. The focus on political advocacy through lobbying elected officials was largely supplanted by direct action.
It’s no secret that labor unions in the United States have been on the decline for the last 50 years. The reasons are many and don’t necessarily apply to the Massachusetts Teachers Association to which most Massachusetts teachers were required to belong. For the moment, membership remains strong. Our political power, on the other hand, has been variable. The MTA has had some victories in recent years as a union and as part of labor coalitions as well as organizations representing school committees and school superintendents in Massachusetts. The emergence of the EDU caucus is perhaps the most significant event within the MTA in years, not because it has the answer to our problems, but because it has, for the first time in memory, brought the function of the MTA squarely into question. An understanding of different unionism models can clarify how the MTA has been regarded by its leaders in the past and what directions we might take in the future.
A Very Short History of Union Models
The term organizing is somewhat ambiguous, having different meanings in common usage and even within the context of organized labor. As it applies to the contemporary MTA, however, it has a specific and recent meaning as a model for unionism. Heery et al offers a useful description of the model:
The organizing model… tends to be used in two overlapping senses. First, it can refer to a mode of good practice which contributes to membership growth… Elements of this good practice include: reliance on targeted and planned organizing campaigns; … identification of issues around which workers can be mobilized and the use of mobilizing tactics in the workplace…; the use of rank-and-file organizing committees to plan and conduct campaigns… Second, it represents an attempt to rediscover the ‘social movement’ origins of labour, essentially by redefining the union as a mobilizing structure which seeks to stimulate activism among its members.
In “The Rise and Fall of the Organizing Model in the U.S.”, organized labor and the AFL-CIO in particular began looking for ways to shore up unionism after the election of Ronald Reagan as president. Their actions included creating the Organizing Institute, “ostensibly a training school for organizers but symbolizing dreams for union revitalization.” By 1996, new membership became the aim of the AFL-CIO and organizing, primarily in the first sense of the word, became the focus of unions.
The 21st century has seen some organizing in the “social movement” sense of the word. In her book No Shortcuts: Organizing for Power in the New Gilded Age, Jane McAlevey offers case studies ranging from the successful, 16-year unionizing war at the Smithfield hog-processing plant in Tar Heel, NC to Chicago Teachers Union’s strike in 2012. These successes were made possible with the support and coordination of labor organizers and the community.
In addition to case studies, McAlevey provides a useful continuum that clarifies organizing. Advocacy, top-down union action carried out by lawyers and lobbyists is the least empowering and organizing, grassroots action which forms coalitions, is the most empowering. Between them is mobilization, which involves top-down issues and elite organizers. Mobilization is led by union staff and professional activists. Mobilizing occasionally wins issues, but it doesn’t change existing relations of power. Aside from the source of union power, these strategies differ in effect on power relations with only organizing having a lasting effect on the relations of power between employers, workers, and the community.
In contrast to the organizing model is the service model. Jack Metzgar has likened the service model to an insurance agency with the union contract an insurance policy and the union representative an insurance agent.
Workers paid dues (insurance premiums) and expected “service” from the union steward and higher-level union representatives when they had a problem. Conflict resolution became institutionalized largely through the grievance procedure, which settled disputes with employers over members’ contractual rights and obligations. (Jarvey)
It was the shortcomings of the service model that led to the organizing model. According to Jarvey, the organizing model arose due to “membership apathy, over-dependence on union staff to solve problems, and declining membership.”
In his paper “The Rise and Fall of the Organizing Model in the U.S.”, Richard W. Hurd writes:
Much of the strategic debate in the U.S. has revolved around the organizing model, which is associated with more activist, grassroots methods of organizing and member mobilization. In spite of the widespread endorsement of this model, the reality is that rhetoric has far outpaced action and mobilization is still a relatively isolated phenomenon.
Although union actions in the last 20 years suggest that the organizing has the potential to build union strength, Hurd concludes “Organizing alone is not enough in the U.S. and is unlikely to drive labor movement renewal elsewhere.”
The MTA Union Model: Another Short History
Aside from a timeline on our website, there appears to be no written history of the MTA. The MTA, in its modern incarnation, seems to have operated a service model employing specialists to provide negotiating and legal services and lobbying on legislative issues of concern. This model would seem to parallel the rest of organized labor during this time. Things changed with the uniting of Educators for a Democratic Union (EDU) and the presidency of Barbara Madeloni, who made a conscious, concerted effort to shift MTA to an organizing model that tried to “rediscover the ‘social movement’” origins of labor. The response of Madeloni’s successors to the pandemic is instructive.
Going Forward
The MTA has long and short-term problems to address. While membership has remained steady since Janus v. AFSCME in 2018, it is not guaranteed to remain that way.
Of more immediate concern is the relative lack of power the MTA wields on political and policy issues that materially affect members’ working conditions. The Stand for Children ballot question demonstrated our lack of power when faced with a well-funded ballot initiative that sounded reasonable to the average voter. The MTA might have defeated the measure at the ballot box with deep organizing, but the MTA has never had the requisites necessary for deep organizing.
Teachers unions are a perennial scapegoat. Howie Carr, the Massachusetts stand-in for Fox News, constantly takes potshots at us. People repeat his criticisms. Neo-liberal Democrats, often serving corporate interests and following managerial ideology, attack us. Unfriendly legislation and court decisions have removed important tools we have for maintaining our bargaining and political strength. There’s no question we’re under attack.
We remain a bastion of union strength just by our sheer numbers. In Chicago and West Virginia, we saw the power teacher unions can have in bringing about improvements in their working conditions. Massachusetts is not West Virginia, and the MTA is not a union local in a single community. There are lessons we can take from their success, though not all of them apply. We serve 117,000 members in hundreds of locals and chapters serving teachers, professors, and paraprofessionals in diverse communities across the state. Our working conditions and the communities in which we work are too varied. And truth be told, many of our members hold moderate to conservative political opinions and are less than enthusiastic about all of the MTA’s initiatives. As it stands, twenty years into the 21st century our future is uncertain.
Social Capital
Union — the very term — implies connection, that is a network, that is social capital.
— Dan Clawson
As the EDU has shown, it’s easy enough to take office with a progressive agenda aspiring to mobilize the membership as a unified front. It’s another thing to make those aspirations a reality. The reason, I think, is simple: the MTA lacks social capital. Until the EDU’s attempt to transform our model into social movement organizing, the MTA has always operated in the service model. The transformation to the organizing model failed for many reasons, but primarily because we have always lacked the social capital to make collective action work. It’s easy enough to mobilize members occasionally or in relatively small groups like the EDU or Board of Directors, but there are not enough social networks to build deep organization in the MTA.
Many of us share common interests in education, the needs of our locals and chapters differ as do our politics and our locations. An MTA member in Pittsfield has no idea what school district Freetown is in or where it is located for that matter. The educational needs of Brockton differ greatly from those in Colrain. Not only are they geographically and culturally different, but the political views of their membership also parallel the public and vary accordingly. As Jane McAlevey points out, the Civil Rights Movement’s success wasn’t built on the spontaneous organizing of individuals, but the organizing of existing networks. The same is true of the CTU’s teacher strike.
As an idea, social capital has been around for over 100 years, though it came to prominence more recently in the writings of Robert L. Putnam and Pierre Bourdieu. The concept is now so widespread that the World Bank (1999) even issued a report on the topic. As a union, the MTA has never depended much on social capital. Our relationship with locals and chapters is voluntary and even regionally, locals and chapters are not closely associated. Aside from collecting dues, there is very little the MTA can require of its affiliates. (Since Janus v. AFSCME, an agency fee is compulsory). The rank-and-file are even more disconnected. They know little or nothing about how the MTA runs or what it does or what their dues finance.
At the moment, the MTA depends on local and chapter presidents to disseminate information to their members in spite of the fact that many lack the practical ability to do so. Larger, better funded locals and chapters might be shocked to find out how many of their counterparts lack the ability to directly email their members. Practicalities, however, are not the only problem. As we know from our classrooms, thoughtful conversation is necessary for learning. Educators build social interaction into our lessons, yet our members lack the same context when it comes to making sense of their work situations. Learning and maintaining a knowledge base depends on social capital. As Paul Jarvey states, “If human capital entails ‘what you know,’ social capital involves ‘who you know’ (and who and what they know).” Too many of our members don’t know enough informed people to form communities of learning about their rights or their unions.
There is no right answer to union models. There is, however, a scholarly consensus that the service model is no longer sufficient to maintain a healthy union and that the model has contributed to the decay of the union movement in general. This isn’t to say that unions shouldn’t provide services rather we should not see ourselves merely as service providers.
Labor scholars widely agree that contemporary unions, like contemporary society, lack social capital and need it to maintain their strength. Paul Jarley was the first scholar to put forth the idea of unionism and social capital in his article “Unions as Social Capital: Renewal through a Return to the Logic of Mutual Aid?” (2005), which set off a series of articles and dialogue about “social-capital unionism.” The key is to focus on people before issues.
the social-capital model of unionism organizes around people, not issues. It modifies the service model by shifting from a dependence on employer-provided benefits negotiated by expert staff toward greater reliance on self-help through the direct provision of in-kind union services by rank-and-file members. It redefines union activism, expanding the scope of legitimate activity from acts of confrontation to include acts of workplace community-building. It seeks to reinforce, harness, and extend members’ naturally occurring work, professional, and social networks by providing multiple venues for member interaction and brokerage activities that enhance both the normative and instrumental value of trade unionism. Like social-movement unionism, the social-capital model seeks to build bridges with other groups, but unlike either social-movement or value-added unionism, it recognizes that any successful partnership is more a consequence than a source of union power.
And in spite of deep organizing successes in other parts of the country, the organizing model has not worked in the MTA. Social justice issues, while important to our mission, do not spontaneously produce the necessary critical mass to transform the MTA into an organizing union. Aside from widespread support of these issues, the MTA simply lacks the social capital for the organizing model. Aside from the EDU, there are no networks within the union to mobilize.
There is no guarantee that social-capital unionism will return labor to its former glory, but I believe it offers a useful model for the MTA going forward. It leaves room for the services we do provide and can create the underpinnings and potential for successful organizing. Dan Clawson, former Massachusetts Society of Professors president and manager of Barbara Madeloni’s campaign for MTA president, wrote in a review of Jarvey’s article on social capital and unionism: “Even though I am unequivocally a supporter of an organizing model and social movement unionism, I find a great deal to like in Paul Jarley’s social capital approach.”
A Transformational Proposal
How would the MTA look under the social-capital union model? In many ways, a lot like it does now. We would recommit to the service aspects of our mission and continue developing our capacity for organizing, but we would also restructure our governance, create a 21st-century communication platform for creating “redundant and multiple connections, such that both information and mobilization can (and do) flow through multiple channels” (Clawson, 2005). We should also create some new programs and recast some of our existing programs with the aim of social capital. Instead of abandoning what we’ve done, we would look at it through a new lens that measures value, not just in services provided or political power accumulated, but the fulfillment of members’ personal, professional, and political goals by building social networks within the union.
A Vision for the MTA
By creating a culture of membership through democratic participation in the MTA, every member will have the opportunity to improve themselves as educators, workers, colleagues, and citizens for themselves, their students, their communities, public education, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The phrase “culture of membership” is a version of the “culture of the customer,” a term that comes from the continual improvement process (CIP) common in the business world. The premise of CIP is that a business should continually improve its processes, products, and services to increase the value the customer receives. Every decision is ultimately based on maximizing the value received by the customer.
MTA Members are not customers, and the MTA is not a business, yet the same principles should apply to us. We have an ethical and fiduciary responsibility to continuously improve and increase the value we provide to members. If the World Economic Forum can agree to this principle in their 2020 Manifesto, we ought to be able to act on it. Our decisions should be guided by the question: how do our actions increase the value of the MTA, first to our members, then to our students, communities, public education, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
To create this culture, our union democracy must be continuously renewed. We are set up as a representative democracy with a Board of Directors of seventy members, yet these representatives are elected by a handful of voters and their constituents could not tell you who represents them, what they believe, or what they do. Our president and vice president, our most prominent members, the people who speak for 117,000 members, are not elected by the rank-and-file. They are elected by a little more than the 1% of the membership that attends the Annual Meeting. Even those who attend the Meeting represent no more than 60% of our locals and chapters.
Electing the president and vice president at the Annual Meeting suppresses the vote. Why? Because there is no venue in the Commonwealth that could physically accommodate all of those members eligible to attend. Even if they could attend, attending the Annual Meeting to vote costs far more than many locals and chapters and their members can afford. The method for electing our leaders more closely resembles the realities of 19th-century political conventions than the ideals of 21st-century democracy.
Voting for members of the Board of Directors and the President and Vice President should follow as many of the best election practices as feasible. There should be a window for voting. After the MTA’s summer 2020 election, there is no excuse for us not voting online instead of by mail.
Not all value can or should be measured in money. Educators find satisfaction in helping students and doing their job well. They find satisfaction in learning and personal growth. Like most people, they want to make positive contributions to society. There is value in helping them accomplish these goals. We will always provide services, but if we can help members improve their lives while making them more effective teachers or better colleagues or active, thoughtful citizens, they benefit their students, their schools, and communities.