Service model: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:19, 11 November 2005

Latest revision as of 14:20, 26 April 2025

(33 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Globalize|article|Australia|date=December 2010}}

While the '''servicing model''' is difficult to precisely define, it generally describes an approach whereby unions aim prmarily to satisfy members' demands for resolving grievances and securing benefits through methods other than direct industrial pressure from members such as industrial action or a [[strike]].

{{For|the 2024 science fiction novel by Adrian Tchaikovsky|Service Model}}

In the Australian context, this model was encouraged through a comprehensive mechanism of centralised wage fixing and an industrial arbitration system. This system was particularly reliant on [[closed shop]]s, and the ability of unions to obtain preference of employment for their members. In 1987 the [[ACTU Congress]] adopted a "Future Strategies" document. The aim of this document and the underlying strategy was to encourage [[union rationalisation]] and therby larger, more efficient unions that were more able to "service" their members' needs. This was further endorsed by the "Organisation Of Resources And Services Of The Trade Union Movement Policy" adpted in the 1991 congress. Both of these strategies were aimed at improving the delivery of services to members, which was seen as necessary to halt membership declines durring this period.

While theThe '''servicingservice model''' is(or difficult'''servicing to precisely define, itmodel''') generally describes an approach whereby labour unions aim prmarily to satisfy members' demands for resolving grievances and securing benefits through methods other than direct industrialgrassroots-oriented pressure fromon membersemployers. such asIt industrialis actionoften orcontrasted ato the [[strikeorganising model]]., and to [[wikt:rank and file|rank and file]] organization.

The period following the 1987 congress saw significant shifts in the Australian industrial relations landscape including:

*an end to [[closed shop]] arrangements that were sanctioned by legislation

*prohibition of [[secondary boycots]]

*a move to decentralise the award system through enterprise based bargaining.

These changes made it increasingly difficult to retain union membership numbers and density by applying a purely servicing model.

==Australia==

Furthermore, the change that was brought about by the ''Workplace Relations Act'' 1996 curtailed the power of the [[Australian Industrial Relations Commission]] to resolve disputes by arbitration. This meant that in many cases the system of [[ Australian Arbitration system|industrial arbitration]] was no longer available to resolve disputes, particularly where what was sought by workers was an increase in wages and conditions in excess of a centrally fixed "[[safetynet]]". For the first time since federation industrial action was sanctioned by federal legislation in certain defined circumstances. This meant that the bargaining strength of the respective industrial parties became a primary determinant of the outcome, and their ability to organise became crucial.

In the Australian contextAustralia, this model was encouraged through a comprehensive mechanism of centralised wage fixing and an industrial arbitration system. This system was particularly reliant on [[closed shop]]s, and the ability of unions to obtain preference of employment for their members. In 1987 the [[ACTUAustralian CongressCouncil of Trade Unions]] (ACTU) adopted a "Future Strategies" document. The aim of this document and the underlying strategy was to encourage [[union rationalisation]] and therbythereby larger, more efficient unions that were more able to "service" their members' needs. This was further endorsed by the "Organisation Of Resources And Services Of The Trade Union Movement Policy" adptedadopted in the 1991 congress. Both of these strategies were aimed at improving the delivery of services to members, which was seen as necessary to halt membership declines durringduring this period.

The period following the 1987 congress saw significant shifts in the Australian industrial relations landscape including:

At Congress 2000 the unions adopted the "21st Century Organising and Campaigning Policy" which effectively gave formal recognition to the growing need to focus on actively organising workers to encourage membership growth, or adopt an [[organising model]]. This change also reflected the need to change to succeed in a decentralised bargaining context. While there is considerable controversy amongst unions about what constitutes a servicing or organising model, most Australian union structures incorporate a combination of both strategies to varying degrees.

*an end to [[closed shop]] arrangements that were sanctioned by legislation

*prohibition of [[secondary boycotsboycotts]]

*a move to decentralise the award system through enterprise based bargaining.

These changes made it increasingly difficult to retain union membership numbers and density by applying a purely servicing model.

Furthermore, the change that was brought about by the ''[[Workplace Relations Act'' 1996]]'' curtailed the power of the [[Australian Industrial Relations Commission]] to resolve disputes by arbitration. This meant that in many cases the system of [[ Australian Arbitration system|industrial arbitration]] was no longer available to resolve disputes, particularly where what was sought by workers was an increase in wages and conditions in excess of a centrally -fixed, "[[safetynetminimum wage]] "safety net". For the first time since [[Australian federation]] industrial action was sanctioned by federal legislation in certain defined circumstances. This meant that the bargaining strength of the respective industrial parties became a primary determinant of the outcome, and their ability to organise became crucial.

The distinction between servicing and organising is not unique to the Australian Union movement. The discussion between various models is also prominent in other countries such as the United States.

At Congress 2000, the unions adopted the "21st Century Organising and Campaigning Policy" which effectively gave formal recognition to the growing need to focus on actively organising workers to encourage membership growth, or adopt an [[organising model]]. This change also reflected the need to change to succeed in a decentralised bargaining context. While there is considerable controversy amongst unions about what constitutes a servicing or organising model, most Australian union structures incorporate a combination of both strategies to varying degrees.

The distinction between servicing and organising is not unique to the Australian Union movement. The discussion between various models is also prominent in other countries such as the United States.

==External links==

{{Portal|Organized labour}}

*[https://web.archive.org/web/20050615084331/http://www.actu.asn.au/public/papers/category_index.html ACTU policies]

*[https://web.archive.org/web/20050918021806/http://www.wpea.org/mobilizing_members_twomodels.htm Washington Public Employees Association comparison]

[[Category:Labor]]

{{Organized labor|sp=uk}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Service Model}}

[[Category:LaborTrade unions]]