Union Structure and Strategy in Australia and Canada

THE AIM OF THIS PAPER is to compare the experiences of Australian and Canadian unions during die 20th century. This comparison reveals many more similarities than differences. The similarities are best understood within a framework developed by Ross Martin. He identifies five types of national trade union movements based on the relationship between unions, the state, and political parties: party-ancillary; state-ancillary; party-surrogate; state-surrogate; and autonomous. Unions in Australia and Canada fall into die last "autonomous" group, which comprises union movements from just twelve developed Western nations. Unlike the vast majority of union movements around the world, autonomous unions are dominated by neither the state nor political parties. This allows them relative freedom to define and pursue their organizational forms and goals. Despite this fundamental similarity, "the structure and functions of autonomous trade union movements vary considerably. So, too, do their precise relationships with political parties and with the state." The account below explores these differences in Australia and Canada by tracing the development of unions in the two countries and identifying the differences in their memberships, structures, and strategies; hence, much of the paper is descriptive in nature. But some explanation is also offered. In developing this explanation, both internal and external factors are assumed to be important. Clearly, union members and leaders participate in debates and struggles over the structure of their organizations, the objectives they should pursue and the tactics and strategies they will adopt, while at the same time these choices are at least partly moulded by the broader environment (the state,