The bureaucratisation of Australian unions ? Evidence from a national survey

Abstract

Using data drawn from the authors' own 1996 Australian National Trade Union Survey, this paper examines the size and implications of union bureaucracies in Australia. In particular, we critically evaluate the arguments of Bramble (1995b) that the growth of Australia's 'new generation' of union officials has had the effect of 'deterring democracy'. We find that while the evidence of increasing numbers of union officials is mixed, there are some trends that are contributing to higher union official density rates while other trends are lowering those rates. However, we find no support for Bramble's central claims that union bureaucratisation and managerial-service unionism have led to less democratic practices in Australian unions. Rather than being concerned with the number or class character of officials, we suggest that organisational features such as delegate structures are more relevant to the issue of union democracy. lntroduction . The Australian trade union movement faces a difficult and uncertain future. A combination of factors including policy changes introduced by hostile state and federal governments, increasing employer militancy, massive industry restructuring, changing patterns of work and employment, declining membership levels and increasing 'globalisation' of the Australian economy pose fundamental challenges for unions (for discussion of key issues see: Deery, Union officialdom has a long pedigree as a focus of inquiry (see, for example, Clegg et al. 1961;Webb and Webb 1898;Wilensky 1956). Recent research has concerned such issues as: the roles and functions of officials in mediating industrial relations and class politics (see, for example, Kelly 1988); the content of union officials' jobs and behaviours (see, for example, Kelly and Heery 1994); and the characteristics and attitudes of contemporary union officials (Chaison and