The organizing model contributes to the discussion of how trade unions can reverse the trend of declining membership, which they are experiencing in most industrial nations,[citation needed] and how they can recapture some of the political power, which the labor movement has lost over the past century.
[2] According to Bill Fletcher and Richard W. Hurd, unions that employ the organizing model often try to apply the above tactics in "internal",[2] not just "external"[2] campaigns.
[2] Trade unions originally existed to organize their members democratically, and during their early growth, they typically put a strong emphasis on active recruitment and militant rank and file action, including strikes.
In the context of this history, the organizing model is in principle not so much a new conception, as an attempt to recapture the essence of the labor movement.
[5] Carter says that "After a visit to the US of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), the influence of the organising approach spread to Australia and New Zealand and back to Britain via MSF.
[6] According to Richard W. Hurd, the history of the organizing model in the US began from the failure of a "labor law"[4] to be passed in the 1970s.
[4] In addition, Hurd explains that the 1980s were a very troubling time for unions in the US as a result of "the anti-union reign of Ronald Reagan"[4] and "Twin recessions".
A period of intense internal discussion gave rise to the view that a radical program was needed to rebuild the union and make it relevant to current and potential members.
The Justice for Janitors campaign was launched as the organizational spearhead of the SEIU's attempt to reinvigorate their membership; beginning in Denver, Colorado, in 1985.
"[7] Working along the lines described above, the SEIU experienced huge growth in membership and a significant number of high-profile public victories for workers.
For instance, the drive to gain industry-wide coverage across a large geographical base – i.e., to organize janitors not only within one building but across a whole city, state and eventually all across the US – or the advocacy of union mergers.
After a wave of massive industrial unrest and unprecedented increases in wages and conditions during the 1970s, the union movement became restrained in their demands, and part of the official apparatus of government during the ALP-led, neo-corporatist, Accord period (1983–96).
Additionally, during the period of mergers, the traditional links between members, local organisers, industrial officers, branches and the peak leaderships of unions broke down.
[8] According to Carter and Cooper, the decline of union membership was worse, during the 1980s and the 1990s, in Australia than it was in the U.K.[8] Carter and Cooper explain that the membership decline in Australian unions was the result of the "...pro-active anti-union approach..."[8] by the "...conservative Coalition federal government...",[8] along with other "...structural changes in the labor market.
"[8] Peetz and Pocock state that during the 1980s and the 1990s, unions had to deal with "...outright hostility..."[6] and "...successive pieces of legislation..."[6] that were harmful to their membership and growth.
[8] In response to unfavorable conditions for unions, according to Carter and Cooper, the TUC tried implementing the "servicing"[8] model, but it failed to provide measurable improvements in the labor movement or in "membership".
[8] According to Bob Carter, the "first major British union"[5] to employ the organizing model was "Manufacturing, Science and Finance (MSF)",[5] not necessarily the TUC.
[5] Carter makes the case that the MSF's implementation of the organizing model came after they tried "Reinforcement of a servicing culture...",[5] which was, overall, not very successful.
[5] However, according to Carter, MSF had many problems arise in the wake of the model's adoption, such as the fact that "It was conceived and implemented from the top downwards... without wide discussion in the union.
"[5] Carter sees this as a fundamental problem posed by the organizing model, and he thinks it must be overcome in order for it to be effective.
[1] While the graduates of the Academy have produced positive results,[9] in general the model has not been implemented in the UK with the same comprehensive commitment as it has been by some unions in the US.
"[10] Heery, Simms, Simpson, Delbridge, and Salmon have isolated several aspects of the organizing model that are likely to appear in the U.K., namely "one-to-one recruitment",[1] and "petitions, surveys and demonstrations".
[1] According to Heery, Simms, Simpson, Delbridge, and Salmon, British unions are more likely to focus on the ideological basis for the organizing model, rather than the practical applications of it.
[3] Fiorito states that "Although the OM varies somewhat in meaning, a strong majority of unionists feel that their union is truly committed to recruiting and organizing new members...".
In 2005, the T&G launched a Justice for Cleaners campaign, which has been organizing workers in Canary Wharf, the Houses of Parliament, and, towards the end of the year, on the London Underground.
However, there remain concerns about the T&G's commitment to rank and file workers' action, considering how the union acted during the Gate Gourmet strike.
[1] More broadly, one of the obvious advantages of the organizing model is that it allows workers to actually be involved in the campaigns that most closely affect them, promoting both equity and equality.
[1] Heery, Simms, Simpson, Delbridge, and Salmon talk about "...instances of a lack of support or even opposition to organizing within unions.
[1] Fletcher and Hurd state that unions may also face issues of resistance by pre-existing "staff",[2] who may be hesitant or even suspicious at the adoption of the organizing model.
[8] Carter and Cooper believe that the organizing model is rather limited in terms of its scale, and it cannot start a "...wider working class movement".