An analysis of the Unite Community program

Unite’s ambitious new community membership program for people who are not in paid employment, is now underway and so some analysis is appropriate. It seems to be doing very well, and it is an ambitious and welcome entry into a community activist scene dominated by ‘partnership’ approaches and neo-liberal development. There is a great deal more enthusiasm and vibrancy than you might usually find in the rest of the trade union movement. It certainly seems that it has great potential, and with the backing of the biggest civil society organisation in the UK, it will certainly do well. It is a project I am very interested in, in my role as a community activist, and because I am considering whether to start a Unite community branch where I stay. But there seems to be some issues with the program as it stands, and how it can move beyond being a branch for people who are not in paid employment.

What is Unite Community?

First though, how does the community program work? Well, anyone who is unwaged, unemployed, retired, a student, can join, for 50p per week. There are 7, soon to be 10 community organisers each covering a very large region of Britain, who have been employed by the union to coordinate and encourage their community members to take on a range of campaigns, from welfare, to saving local community services.

The organisers are on a generous £30k+ per year, which gives some idea of how financially committed the union is to this plan. Some branches, such as Tower Hamlets and Liverpool have as many as 400 people, with dozens of activists attending meetings, and are running exciting campaigns against cuts and austerity. They are also setting up Unite run community centres, in several parts of the country. It certainly seems that Unite is giving the community program lots of resources and are planning to expand and grow it.

Ambitious plans, structures and campaigns

Unites plan is welcome in a community scene where the dominant angle is the neo-liberal and market based views found in most community development, and ‘big society’ projects. For example, volunteer run libraries replacing council services, and employability schemes that help people back into poorly paid work, without addressing the structural roots of problems. Unite is already providing a great example for progressive community organising which, for example, the partnership focused tenants movement can learn from.

But at the moment it hasn’t coalesced into a coherent program. Unite has said they don’t want a top down approach, but instead to allow for unforseen needs and directions. There are very successful ‘community organising’ models, which are fairly widespread, which they could learn from. Such as the trade union style ‘community unionism’ of ACORN, and its international affiliates. Due to the complex structure of Unite, it isn’t clear yet how community branches fit in exactly, and also they are pretty limited in terms of input into the demographic process of the Union. However it seems that there is appetite for change, and their model is improving all the time.

At the moment, the organisers have a large amount of discretion about how to run their regions, and are bringing together members and helping facilitate campaigns. Things are developing at different rates, and in different ways across the country. Issue based organising seems to be the way it is being run, and it looks likely that it will be focused on fighting cuts and austerity, and these are probably going to be the biggest issues. The poll tax was a single issue campaign, which left very little in the way of permanent organisation behind, but Unite will not make this mistake as it wants to have its permanent neighbourhood based branches doing the campaigning.

One future problem could be a contradiction between a communities interests, and that of the Union. For example, a polluting or otherwise environmentally problematic development may make a section of Unite more powerful, while the community where such a development will happen, may want to fight against it. Mining and certain types of power generation being the obvious examples. Not insurmountable problems, but certainly something to be wary of.

I think one of Unite’s important contributions will be to bring community activism back to the bread and butter of material gains for the working class, away from the quagmire of postmodern identity politics and the culsdesac of single issue campaigns, and here it will no doubt do a great job.

Membership issues

Despite the community membership being advertised as only for unwaged people such as students, the unemployed, and the retired etc., people from other unions and in work are in fact joining. This may cause tensions with other unions, and could leave unite open to allegations of poaching members, which is against the Bridlington Agreement.

Within Unite, one can not presumably be a community member and a healthcare member simultaneously, for example, and so some Unite members who maybe be very active in their community can not properly fit into the community membership structure. Similarly, community development workers who might be well suited to working within Unite’s community membership structure may find difficulties here as well.

Strategically, people in paid employment should probably be in the relevant section of Unite or in the relevant union for their workplace, and hopefully the Unite community membership will not create a barrier to this. Despite these issues though, neighbourhood based union organisations in working class areas have great potential for increasing trade union membership, by reaching people in casual employment who are very difficult to unionise, and are a rapidly increasing proportion of the workforce.

The bottom line?

Money is always an issue in politics. Unite membership is 50p per week, a very affordable rate for an unemployed or unwaged person. However, only 7.5% of this returns to community branches. This means that branches are not able to be financially self sufficient, and they are recommended to apply for money from other branches of the union that have more money. It seems that there will be a fair bit of competition for funding within Unite once the community program grows, and employed branches will run out of money. This 7.5% rate also does not encourage branches to work to recruit, but hopefully the quality of the campaigning will be enough to bring in new members.

The fact that this community program is tied into Unite in this way, means that they may have difficulties recruiting people from other unions or people who have a wage, and so compared to independent community organisations who can recruit anyone, like ACORN, this is a disadvantage. Because it can properly recruit waged people, ACORN Canada has dues of between $10 to $30.

Unite have worked out that it takes 1500 members to cover the costs of a community organiser, and despite assurances being made that ‘its not about numbers’ you can’t help but wonder, if the program isn’t coming close to breaking even at some point will they axe it? There are of course ‘positive externalities’ which wouldn’t be taken into consideration with a ‘bottom line’ approach, such as increasing peoples positive impressions of unions (it is widely felt for example that unions are selfish and only in it for themselves) something which is being countered by the community program. I believe though, that the value of the campaigns run by Unite’s community branches will be worth the costs, and the union as a whole will recognise this.

Political problems

Politically there are interesting questions as well. Labour party affiliation is a big concern for many people, and its very off putting considering the role of the party in cuts and the rolling back of the welfare state in the very recent past – something which is exactly what the community program is fighting against. So, quite rightly, many people are pointing this out and are not happy. Though, the answer to that is that you can argue and vote for disaffiliation within the union better than from without.

The other political issue is the fact that the community program is the significant far left involvement. This may be off putting to some potential members. Some may also question the far lefts competence and ability to manage such a program, and put aside its sectarianism and infighting. The left sometimes ‘projects’ issues onto a community which it thinks are important, rather than asking the community what its needs are. The other issue is that the more centrist mainstream of the union may not appreciate a growing far left influence. The far left could get the community program shut down, if it is clumsy with its plans, which in part seem to involve using community membership radicalise the union.

Suggestions

I am strongly in favour of community organising and working hand-in-glove with the trade union movement, and would love to see this kind of project succeed. So, how could the Unite model of organising be improved then? Or what might be a more appropriate vehicle for a model of community organising working hand-in-glove with the unions?

In terms of Unite’s plans, they could learn from a very trade-union style of community organising such as that found in the hugely successful ACORN model. This is membership based, multiple issue, turf based organising, in working class areas, with an emphasis on door knocking and having conversations with people in order to find the most widely and deeply felt issues in those areas. ACORN branches run powerful and participatory campaigns, involving direct action, protest, and publicity stunts. ACORN grew to 500,000 members in the United States, and was credited with redistributing tens of billions of dollars from the state and big business to low income people. ACORN has an international, with affiliates in south America, Europe, and Asia. The 45,000 strong Canadian section for example, is active on living wage campaigns amongst many others. Clearly a formidable example of ‘community unionism’.

How could Unite follow ACORN more closely? They would need to allow all their members to be ‘community members’ in some way, and allow them to hook into the community branches more properly. For example, Unite could have workplace and community branches, where membership of a community branch is automatic for all its members depending on where they are living. Every Unite member regardless of industry, could be a member of the relevant community branch. This doesn’t avoid the potential problem of people being in other unions though.

Overall, it seems to me that Unite running this community program by itself is a disadvantage. A joint project run by the big unions, potentially through the TUC would be more appropriate, through a semi-independent organisation. This could allow people who work to be members of a community organisation, not just the unwaged. And it would ensure that problems of people already being members of other unions be no longer a problem. This organisation could encourage all the people it meets in working class areas to join the appropriate union, while also encouraging them to be involved in turf based community organising. All the benefits of being backed by big unions like Unite, and fewer of the problems.

Concluding thoughts

The Unite Community project will no doubt be a success, since it has the backing of the biggest civil society organisation in the UK. It is also not a program set in stone, and seems keen to learn from its experiences on the ground to improve what it is doing. It has an approach which I believe will refresh peoples views about what community organisations should be doing in a time where the very idea of ‘community’ has been stolen by neo-liberals and used as an excuse for rolling back the welfare state. But at the moment, it may struggle to move beyond being a powerful unwaged section of Unite. People in employment belong to communities as well, and may find it difficult to properly be ‘community members’ as things stand.

I would like to see powerful community organisations, working hand-in-glove with the unions, with a national scope and influence, and Unite has certainly made a positive step towards this, but we are not there yet. I had been considering setting up a Unite branch in my neighbourhood, however, because of the issues noted above, I will be pursuing a project in my area following the ACORN model of community organising. I will ensure we have very strong links with Unite, and the wider trade union movement, but maintain the independence that allows for better financing, and the involvement of a broader section of the working class.

Planting ACORNs - a different approach to community activism

As community activists, involved in our community councils or tenants and residents associations, there is always that sense that we could be doing more. Wouldnt it be great if we were involved in a community organisation that has 500,000 members, and was credited with re-distributing tens of billions of pounds from big business and the state to low income people? Sounds impossible! But this is exactly what one community organisation, called the Association of Community Organisations for Reform Now (ACORN) has achieved in the United States.

Community Council’s (CC’s) and Tenants and Residents Associations (TRA’s) in the UK share some similarities with groups like ACORN, and so comparisons are very relevant. They are all geographically based groups, that deal with many issues, and people from many different backgrounds. They are what the founder of ACORN calls ‘majority constituency’ groups, not focused on a single issue campaign or a specific demographic. They would often be campaigning on similar issues such as housing and service provision. There are lots of differences in style and structure though, and it is these differences which really make for an organisation with more vitality, and one which can have those impressive achievements.

Reading about ACORN and speaking to its founder, Wade Rathke, over the last few months has greatly impressed me, and encouraged me to wonder what I can borrow from the way they organise to help me with my work in the local tenants and residents group which I chair, or with the city wide private tenants group which I am the secretary of. What can we learn about ACORN which could help us achieve more in our communities?

One of the main differences between ACORN and our community organisations is membership and finance. Our organisations usually have a symbolic membership, where communities or streets are covered by a group, but not in any formal or concrete way, and they can be pretty unrepresentative. People do not opt-in to become members – they are members by default. This is in contrast to ACORN which has a formal membership structure, and which only represents people who sign up and pay ten or twenty dollars a month. 

They are also mainly funded by their members dues, and from some donations and grants as well. Being funded largely by their membership seems very important, it gives a great amount of independence from external sources of funding, be it Local Authorities in the case of TRA’s, or foundations in the case of single issue campaigning groups. For ACORN, it also seems to give members a greater sense of ownership over an organisation and encourage a sense of belonging to it, something which can be lacking in other community organisations. Their formal membership enables a very democratic organisation, that is led by its members, through voting, at a local level, city level, and ultimately deciding policy on the national level.

It also allows for progress to be more objectively measured. You can see how well connected you are to your community in terms of how many people join up and pay their dues. It means that a group is far more responsive to the needs of its members – if it isn’t doing what people want then people leave and its funding drops. This is quite unlike CC’s and TRA’s who are often funded by local authority grants, and can be quite un-responsive to their communities.

ACORN branches always do extensive door knocking in the areas they operate in, and in fact, this door knocking approach could be said to be the cornerstone of their organisational model. Through these regular door-to-door interviews they find out what the most widely-felt and deeply-felt issues are, and recruit new people into their organisation. This means that there is a greater independence to campaign on the issues that members choose, unlike TRA’s and CC’s which are usually involved in community planning/tenant participation structures which are often very much led by Council agendas and priorities, leaving little time and energy for independent campaigning. In most community organisations the issues picked to campaign on are usually picked on the basis of whoever turns up to meetings, and only occasionally involve door-to-door consultations. 

Because of this emphasis on door knocking to find the best issues, ACORN branches have much more participatory style, involving their members in planning the campaigns, in a more exciting and empowering process. This approach does seem to counter the widespread apathy that tenants groups generally report. There is a greater emphasis on conflict, mobilising members, and being visible with more effective use of the media. ACORN groups will often use direct action in their campaigns, sometimes protests, publicity stunts and other more disruptive actions like office occupations.

In order to sustain this kind of activity, they employ community organisers, who are paid from the members dues. These organisers assist members with developing their skills to run ACORN branches, do door-knocking, and run effective and strategic campaigns. These campaigns are based on ACORN’s extensive knowledge of running such campaigns, and they tend to focus on their members material self-interests, and aim to have visible results.

One criticism of ACORN might be that you are better working within the system, than from the outside. However, ACORN tends to do both, employing antagonistic tactics to increase its influence, to get a seat at the table, and to show they mean business when they negotiate with decision-makers. The partnership approach that is almost fundamental to many community organisations in the UK certainly doesn’t give us much influence beyond what the city councils grant us in their community planning structures.

With their antagonistic and participatory style, ACORN branches are involved in local campaigns that we would find familiar, such as getting local parks cleaned up, or improving local authority service provision. Other victories have been living wage campaigns, which ensure their low income members get to take home more money at the end of the month. Due to the size of the organisation they have been capable of impressive coordinated national campaigns, for example winning concessions from banks involved in predatory lending. The campaigns they pick tend to have very visible gains for its members, and often more money in their pockets. One study estimated that from 1994 to 2004 ACORN redistributed $15 billion dollars to low income families.

For example, in a national campaign against predatory lending, ACORN picketed around 50 offices of a big financial services company, H&R Block, on two occasions. This encouraged the company to negotiation, and ACORN won substantial concessions, including funding to go door-to-door encouraging low income working families to take up benefits that they were entitled to, like working tax credits, and money for ACORN’s financial advice programmes.

The demographics are also pretty different. While community organisations in the UK tend to struggle to have ethnic minorities and younger people involved, and are largely older or retired people, ACORN groups tend to be more representative. There are more people of working age, families, and very diverse ethnically, with large numbers of non-white people involved. This is certainly due to the more involving style of campaigning that they employ, the door knocking and the effort to ensure the issues picked are those which affect large numbers of people in a strong way.

One issue that must be mentioned is the collapse of ACORN in the USA. Having grown to 500,000 members and re-distributing billions of dollars from big business and the state to low income people it became the target of the right wing in the USA, who resented its growing influence. There isn’t room to go into it here, but several spurious allegations were championed by the right wing media, leading to it losing allies and funding.

It is down but not out, dozens of its local branches, affiliates and programmes still exist in the USA, and the living wage laws they helped win still benefit millions of people. There is also now an ACORN international which has chapters in countries around the world including Canada, Peru, India, Czech Republic and Italy. Canada ACORN is a good example, having grown rapidly to 45,000 members and is active on the living wage, payday lending and healthy homes.

Our community organisations in the UK could learn a great deal from ACORN, and I believe that we should borrow as much as possible from their model of organising to make our community organisations more relevant and powerful. Most importantly we should work towards creating an ACORN-like organisation here in the UK.

Further reading:   

For more on the ACORN organising model, you can read one of their training manuals - http://chieforganizer.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ACORN-Organizing-Model.pdf
There is an excellent book written by John Atlas, on the history and methodology of ACORN - http://www.scribd.com/doc/57787950/Seeds-of-Change-The-Story-of-ACORN-America-s-Most-Controversial-Antipoverty-Community-Organizing-Group  
Another excellent book about ACORN, ‘The People Shall Rule’ – http://www.scribd.com/doc/57783977/The-People-Shall-Rule-ACORN-Community-Organizing-and-the-Struggle-for-Economic-Justice    - For an overview about what ‘community organizing’ is compared to other types of activity in the community, this article is excellent - http://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers97/beckwith.htm  
There isnt space to cover the reasons for the problems with the tenants movement, which are identified above. Essentially housing policy since the 80’s including right to buy and stock transfer has led to its decline as a social movement. For more information: http://www.criticalplace.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Proud_to_be_a_Tenant_20121.pdf , an article written by Sarah Glynn on the tenants’ movement http://www.sarahglynn.net/The%20Tenants’%20Movement.html and Kim McKee on ‘The ‘responsible’ tenant and the problem of apathy’, http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/6098/1/6098.pdf