Many of us have been there. Those organising conversations that are going incredibly well, where we’ve made a genuine connection, have established solid rapport and the worker is furious over a particular issue – you know, those conversations that seem almost too easy at times – then comes the ask and everything turns on a dime. A line has been crossed. All momentum seems to evaporate. Suddenly the body language of the worker changes from alert and confident to fear and doubt. We can’t move them, not this time – the moment passes. So what happened? The answer is quite simple – we’ve failed. We haven’t done enough to shift this particular worker at this time. Perhaps we didn’t appear confident or our message isn’t strong enough to inspire action. Maybe our campaign is unclear, the strategy untested, or the win too pedestrian. While it could be any of these factors one thing is certain – whatever we may have done, it wasn’t enough this time around.
I’ve been organising workers for the past 15 years. My journey involves a handful of unions, 10 industries, the private and public sector, and spans three countries. During this time I’ve worked at most levels in the union movement. I’ve organised facilities from scratch, starting with nothing more than a street address, and I’ve seen workers overcome incredible odds to win and change their lives in the process. Conversely, I’ve been stonewalled, stood up, assaulted and even had a shotgun drawn on me – so I’m no stranger to failure either. These experiences have taught me that while there are many factors that affect workers ability and willingness to organise, there are a few core barriers for all workers when considering whether or not to take action. For many years I’ve been fascinated by the choices workers make when faced with this challenge, and I’ve become interested in understanding what gives some workers the confidence to proceed into the unknown, while others resist the same choice. It’s my conclusion that the three most significant barriers to union organising are inertia, cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. It’s the purpose of this paper to discuss these concepts with their relation to organising workers.
What is inertia?
Inertia is the law of motion that was first coined by Isaac Newton in 1687, which states that an object at rest will remain at rest – unless disturbed – and an object in motion will remain in motion – unless disturbed. However, inertia also exists within people and it’s sometimes referred to as the ‘law of human inertia’ or ‘cognitive inertia’. I feel that this is the single most important concept to understand for any union organiser, it explains more about our work than anything else in my experience. So what is inertia in people then? Dr. Jim Taylor defines inertia in people as the “tendency of people, having once established a life trajectory, to continue on that trajectory unless acted on by a greater force”. Here ‘force’ is a metaphor encompassing a range of habits, behaviours and interactions between people as well as institutions. The actual definition of inertia (in this context) is – “a tendency to do nothing or remain unchanged”. What Taylor seems to be expressing is that once people get into a routine, once a “trajectory” is set, that trajectory will be followed until a greater power comes along with enough force to set a new trajectory.
My experience organising workers perfectly lines up against this theory. However, I have a slightly different definition of human inertia. I define inertia in people as a strong sense of security that results from habitual routine. Routine provides security, security provides comfort, change produces discomfort – this is a problem. This discomfort can cause many workers to reject change irrespective of how positive or beneficial the change may be. Most of us know this through another saying – the devil you know. It gets worse. This process is made more challenging because the worker may be unconscious of their own motivations. This means that when a worker resists change they may not even understand they are resisting anything – it just happens. Routine provides security, security provides comfort. So why would workers take the risk?
It gets better. There are plenty of exceptions to the rule and proven methods to overcome inertia in people and shift them closer to taking action. How aggressively the change will be resisted will be based on various factors. For organisers, the amount of resistance faced will usually be based around the following:
(a) Reward for action – the win, is it worth it?
(b) Consequences of action – perceived or literal risk(s)
(c) Consequences of inaction – current level of discontent being experienced
(d) Probability of a successful outcome – strategy and/or plan to win
So what does this mean for union organisers in the field? It means that many workers are naturally going to resist our asks without hesitation because they are experiencing inertia. Think about it, it’s the same feeling we get when we see someone in the street signing people up to the latest noble cause – even though that person poses no threat whatsoever to us we seek to avoid them 9 times out of 10. Why? Because it’s easier, that’s why.
Getting back to Taylor’s definition of inertia, we understand that these workers will need a significant force in their lives to set a new trajectory – and that’s no simple task. It’s pretty common for union organisers to focus on issues when attempting to make a genuine connection with workers, and for this purpose issues are effective. It’s very easy to connect with a fellow worker while discussing issues, but we can’t confuse that with workers being prepared to step off a cliff with someone they’ve just met. The problem we face is that issues alone will not shift the overwhelming majority of workers, regardless of how extreme these issues may seem to us.
Many workers’ current trajectory include poverty wages, insecure work, bullying, sexual harassment and unsafe workplaces. This is normal to them, routine – it’s the devil they know. It’s what Saul Alinsky called “the accepted pattern”. So those conditions alone will not typically lead to action, another ingredient will be needed – the “greater force”. This is where we come in – the union movement must become that greater force. We must be running genuine & inspiring campaigns that have the power to change the world that surrounds these workers. This means that as long as we’re out there talking about the services we provide and how it’s better to be union than non-union – we are largely going to fail. These are not inspiring messages. Even though the information we provide is relevant and factual, we fail because information does not organise workers. Self-knowledge does not lead to behavioural change – cigarettes anyone?
This is where our movement commonly gets it wrong – our message too pedestrian, our vision too uninspiring, our strategy too vague. Furthermore, nearly all workers understand that joining a union is not a benign act, they know they’re taking a risk and there could be challenging consequences. So if we really want to shift workers beyond their inertia then we need to become that “greater force” by laying the groundwork, doing the research, creating the compelling message, projecting our bold vision and a clear, robust strategy for success. Most of all, there must be a place for that worker to contribute in a meaningful way.
Cognitive dissonance and why facts don’t matter
I’m not the most educated person, I have a two year degree from a community university back home, so it wasn’t everyday that I heard terms like ‘cognitive dissonance’. When I first heard the term defined I immediately connected with it as it seemed to explain so many experiences during my years of organising. However it wasn’t until after debriefing my flatmate one night during a campaign that it all clicked. He was door knocking and speaking with a worker at his home, everything was going to plan. The man was leaning up against his doorframe with his arm extended upwards resting against the other side of the door frame. My co-worker was asking him questions and it was going well, so like any good organiser the questions became more challenging as the conversation went on – standard escalation, very basic tactic. Suddenly the worker’s arm started to shake and his demeanor became aggressive, not long after the door was slammed in my co-workers face. So what happened?
I believe that worker held certain beliefs that were being challenged during this conversation, and while not out in the open, these beliefs were being challenged by his own answers. For most people this will be quite uncomfortable. My co-worker was only asking questions, he wasn’t firing information at this person, yet at some point, the worker became too uncomfortable and refused to engage further. This is a form of cognitive dissonance – the discomfort people face when they find their beliefs are challenged through compelling evidence to the contrary, especially if that evidence comes from someone they don’t know that well. When I say beliefs I don’t necessarily mean beliefs based in fact, just beliefs in general – and we all have them. Evidence (facts) are not what’s important, what’s far more relevant is our emotional response to a particular circumstance – how does it make us feel? Therefore, what seems to happen when confronted with cognitive dissonance (a challenge) is that workers face a choice:
(a) Accept the evidence presented and abandon long standing beliefs (uncomfortable)
(b) Reject the evidence presented (comfortable)
Rejecting evidence and confirmation bias
Why would a person reject clear evidence when making a choice? This is where the phenomenon of confirmation bias arises, the process of only considering evidence or information that confirms your position on a particular subject. Or more simply put – you believe something because you want to believe it. Then having formed a view, the person rejects any evidence that undermines that position. Unfortunately for us, this is remarkably convenient for those who are not prepared to face the challenges in their lives.
So for anyone out there who’s in the trenches organising workers day in and day out, attempting to shift people’s thinking, trying to create the motivation for those workers to take action and break “the accepted pattern” – these concepts should explain a lot. Another concerning observation is that it’s pretty rare for these barriers to be discussed in standard union or organiser circles, in fact outside of Marshall Ganz I’ve never heard the word inertia used in any aspect of organising until we started addressing it years ago at the ACTU. What I did hear often was the word ‘apathy’, however in my experience when most people cite apathy as a barrier, what then end up describing is inertia. So if you’re a skilled organiser who is well versed in frameworks and disciplined organising conversations, yet you’re consistently running into workers who appear apprehensive and apathetic, perhaps this combination of inertia, cognitve disonance and confirmation bias explains why.
So what will it take to break through?
If we really expect workers to take the risks in standing up to their employers and confiding in organised labour, then it’s not just about getting better at what we currently do. We need to become that significant force that is so compelling, so inspirational, so worthwhile, that workers willingly lean into the uncomfortable and join with us. This means that we need union leaders who are willing to take risks, make hard decisions, fund real organising campaigns and we need to be willing to fail – because playing it safe has led to a generation of declining density, resources and power.
This also means that union staff must face some uncomfortable truths about our own roles, because this is not about us – it’s about power – and we all need to be willing to do whatever it takes to build the power needed to restore dignity to the working class. This power will not come from our existing models. Don’t forget, non-union workers are not the only ones affected by inertia and a resistance to change, we are affected by this as well. From what I see the questions are pretty simple, however the answers are incredibly challenging. The following will need to be considered for each union:
(a) What is the win that will bring significant change to workers?
(b) What is the strategy that can deliver that win? How do we know it will work?
(c) What type of union do we need to be to implement that strategy?
(d) What steps need to be taken to become that union?
Radical ideas have the power to overcome inertia because they’re forceful ideas, and forceful ideas have the power to alter a worker’s trajectory and break the accepted pattern. A 3% wage increase is not a forceful idea. Why would anyone take the risk of organising a union for a 3% increase when a modest house in Auckland goes for $800,000? It just doesn’t make sense, and our quarter-century of declining density reinforces this point. As a general rule, we are smaller and weaker than ever before. Our current models really are hangovers from a distant past, when 3000 workers walked into an auto factory or manufacturing plant, when capital was smaller and less able to cross oceans, when laws were more favourable to the working class. Those days are gone and they’re not coming back. Someone said to me once that there always comes a time when the old is dead but the future is uncertain and untested. It’s in the space that we currently live.
However, I’m very optimistic because I’ve seen workers change their lives while fending off aggressive employers and I know it can be done. I have experienced this kind of organising before and been fortunate enough to watch workers transform themselves from a seemingly hopeless state to a powerful, organised union that is capable of winning. It still happens every day around the world. History shows that workers join unions and fight back only when there is compelling motivation to do so, and when that time comes, not only will workers stand together and fight, they will do so regardless of the consequences.
For reasons I’ll never quite understand our movement seems to be afraid of change, yet we’re supposed to be the ones teaching workers how to overcome their own fears. As I get older I’ve become increasingly frustrated by the unwillingness of many unions to take the action so desperately needed, because we’re running out of time. None of us are getting any younger, we’re mortal, we are finite resources. We’re not going to be able to do this forever, so what do we want our legacy to be?
I don’t accept that workers are apathetic and unwilling to fight, and I don’t accept the labour movement faces greater barriers today than we did 50 years ago. Organising is problem solving, it’s finding a way to win. Organising means becoming comfortable with being uncomfortable, this means we can’t avoid risk and difficult decisions. While we may not know the path forward at this stage, there is nothing stopping us from using every available resource to fund a project devoted to answering this critical question – how can we once again transform the working class into a force to be reckoned with?
This is our generation’s great challenge.