Introduction

This final chapter first explores the implications of the work for the understanding of trade union identities and niche unionism in Great Britain and beyond. As stated at the outset, this work not only seeks to develop an understanding of contemporary union identities and the role of niche unionism, but also to stimulate debate. To this end the chapter then raises a number of critical questions that emerged during the course of the research. These questions have clear implications for the future of trade union organization, union renewal and revitalization and the challenge of organizing the unorganized. The questions concern the apparent primacy of general unions, the persistence of niche unions, whether general or niche unions might be better placed to organize the unorganized and whether niche identity is an inherent barrier to niche unions expanding their membership territories.

Understanding trade union identities and niche unionism

This work argues that while much of the extant industrial relations literature is devoted to understanding aspects of trade unions, there is limited consideration of union identity and still less to the concept of niche. The approach of ‘categorizers’ was considered to be too rigid, although some of the established categories were absorbed into the multidimensional framework of analysis (Webb and Webb, 1894, 1902, 1920; Hughes, 1967; Hyman, 1975; Clegg, 1979; Heery and Kelly, 1994; Visser, 2012). The work of those who employ more ‘flexible approaches’ was also considered but these were judged variously outdated, not entirely relevant or inadequate for addressing the questions of union identity and niche explored in this work (Turner, 1962; Blackburn 1967; Undy et al, 1981; Hyman, 1994, 2001; Hodder and Edwards, 2015). Blackburn's (1967) seven elements of unionateness were considered at some length because of the inevitable overlap with this work, but were found to be more or less relevant to understanding contemporary union identities. Turner's (1962) open-to-closed continuum was the most directly relevant to this work, but it was considered that a single dimension was inadequate for understanding the complexity of contemporary union identities and that a multidimensional framework of analysis was required (see discussions in Chapters One and Two).