Why Is It Labor Unions vs. Volunteers?

This month's hot topic is often discussed in whispers and in private, and rarely confronted openly: labor union resistance to volunteer involvement. In the belief that any topic can be discussed and examined, I am willing to risk controversy and even anger. But more than anything I hope my editorial will bring this discussion out of the back room; please share your reactions with us all.

I should start by saying that I respect the historical importance of unions which truly improved the conditions for working people everywhere and I continue to see their value in maintaining the quality of work life today. Furthermore, I believe volunteers should not be used to replace the jobs of workers. My frustration with unions is in their response to creative volunteer development. They often see the development of any volunteer position as a direct threat to their jobs, not recognizing that it is entirely possible to be in favor of 100% employment and 100% volunteering.

Although it is impossible to adequately cover the entire scope of this issue in one commentary. I would like to start the discussion by introducing three thoughts on this topic.

Volunteerism played an integral part in the rise of unions and the development of jobs in America

The union movement could not have grown without the help of thousands of volunteers. Union leaders began as volunteers, for the most part, organizing workers during off hours and losing pay while protesting conditions. Even today labor unions rely heavily on the contributed services of shop stewards and other local organizers, as well as sponsor many charitable projects in which union members serve their communities.

In addition most jobs in the non-profit sector and government originally began as volunteer positions. Traditionally, volunteers have created more jobs than anyone else. They prove what work is necessary to do full time. Furthermore, volunteers are usually the strongest supporters of additional funding because they see the important work employees do.

Volunteers usually take on tasks not jobs

Despite fears that volunteers will be used to replace paid staff, it would take 10 or more volunteers working in shifts to replace one persons' full-time job--and the coordination headaches would be enormous.

When volunteers are introduced into a setting, they offer the opportunity to reallocate tasks and free paid staff to do work that requires consistency, continuity, and perhaps specialized training. Ideally, employees retain accountability for getting all their work done, but now can delegate the doing of the tasks to volunteers while moving on to different work themselves. Unfortunately, this is exactly what unions fight. Do their members understand that their leadership is demanding status quo rather than opening up new assignments?

There is often confusion between saving jobs and saving tasks. Unions are reluctant to allow any change in the job descriptions of their workers, again out of fear that this will lead to job elimination. This position is doomed, and for many more reasons than volunteer involvement. Today's world is changing so rapidly that no one can expect to do their work in the same way forever. From technology to diversity to legal issues, the work place is in a state of flux--perhaps permanently. Unionized workers must be willing to redefine their tasks to keep up with advances in technology, cope with changing client needs, and react to new mandates.

The focus should be on what is best for the people being served

Which leads me to the last point (for this essay at least!). Labor unions historically organized in profit-making environments to challenge top executives and stockholders who were getting rich off the labor of low-paid workers. When unions moved into government and nonprofit organizations, their confrontational attitude about "employers" was transferred whole, without any consideration as to who controlled the purse strings or who gained personally. Just who is the "enemy" in a setting that serves the public and gets its revenue not from sales but from taxes or donations? How can there be any validity in arguing that volunteers have no right to help organizations for which it is perfectly acceptable to give cash? Why shouldn't taxpayers be willing to "tithe" time to some government programs in order to maintain acceptable levels of taxation?

Lost in the shuffle is any consideration of what is best for the people being served. I have had many encounters with union members. One incident that remains particularly vivid involves a union member (wearing a union tee-shirt to a staff orientation meeting) who, when asked what she would suggest as a way past the impasse of limited resources and the needs of children in the area, shouted: "I don't care; it's my job that matters!"

It is not unreasonable to ask unions to recognize that funds are being cut for many services--or that the needs for services are increasing faster than funding. First we must cope with providing services. Then--or simultaneously--we ought to be advocating and lobbying together for adequate funding. This is a job that volunteers do amazingly well!

What do you think?

• What is your perspective on the issue of employment "versus" volunteering?
• Do you think there should be a difference in union attitudes when organizing in a nonprofit or government setting?
• Have you experienced union resistance to volunteers? How? What did you do about it?
• How can we work together with labor unions to gain a better understanding of both points of view?