ISSUE 107 : Jul/Aug - 1994 - Australian Defence Force Journal

X AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE JOURNAL NO. 107 JULY/AUGUST 1994US and UK RejectionThe concept of military unionisation has beenrejected by both the United States and the L'nitedKingdom. It is appropriate to examine the approachof each of these countries separately because theirexperiences are markedly different. The US consideredthe concept of collectivism for its military in themid 1 970s. but the prospect caused so much concernthat Congress moved to legislate against the possibility.However, there has never been any seriousattempt to unionise the British military.The move to unionise the US military gatheredmomentum in the mid 1970s when the large governmentemployee union, the Association of FederalGovernment Employees (AFGE). proposed organisingthe military. The union's campaign gained supportfrom many serv icemen, and a number of reasonswere suggested for this rev ersal of the traditional conservatismof US servicemen in this area. The US militarywas now an all-volunteer force with the recentabolishment of conscription, and it was felt thatsoldiers now wanted a career with benefits similar tothose available in civilian employment. They were nolonger prepared to accept low pay and poor conditionsout of a sense of duty or patriotism. It was alsoacknowledged that there had been a general erosionof benefits which created dissatisfaction amongservicemen and fostered support for some form ofcollectivism. The military had apparently enteredMoskos' "occupational" phase.Both the general public and the US Congress werestrongly opposed to the concept of military unionismfor the American armed forces. Acknowledgementwas made of the successful European experiences:however, it was generally felt that this was irrelevantto the United States. This argument was summarisedin an article in a 1978 military journal which arguedthat the societal context of European unions wasvastly different from that of the United States. Thearticle described the nature of civil-military relationsin America as different from those in Europe:Americans did not consider their armed forces as justanother part of the labour force: "Americans continueto expect standards of conduct, discipline, dedicationand self-sacrifice from their military which they arenot prepared to have bargained away at the behest ofany union." (Taylor. 1978. p.87).Opposition to the prospect of a unionised US militarywas strong. Some opponents argued that unionisationwould mean an increase in manpower costs aspay and conditions were "improved" by union action— if unions do nothing else well, they do raise wagesand benefits — and this would inevitably result inhigher defence costs or a reduction in operationalcapabilities {Sabrosky. 1977. p. 150). The attitude ofthe military hierarchy was expressed by GeneralMaxwell Taylor: "Collective bargaining over suchmatters as pay. overtime and safe working conditionshas no place (in the military) since pay is fixed by law.overtime has no meaning in a profession always onduty, and the work is of necessity often dangerous"{quoted by Coulter. 1978. p.23). A further fear wasbased on a traditional distrust of unions. There wasconcern that once a military union gained power, itcould present a real threat to government control of thearmed forces: "There is no sound reason to assumethat military unions would exercise indefinitely a degreeof politically neutral self-restraint and self-denialunparalleled in the history of the union movement . . .To rely on a military union not to act like a union, isfundamentally unwise" (Sabrosky. 1977, p. 156).Government action to prohibit unions in the USmilitary quickly followed. The bill was drafted bySenator Strom Thurmond, who argued that "thefundamental need for obedience and the consequentneed for discipline make it impossible for servicemento do some of the things that civilians are entitled todo" (quoted by Coulter. 1978. p.24). The bill waspassed with only three dissenting votes. The AFGEbacked away from its proposal without any effort tochallenge the government action. The issue had beenquite definitely put to rest, and there has been noserious attempt to resurrect it since.The British perception is that there can never be aplace for unionism in the British armed forces. Asargued by one former senior officer, the military areregarded as belonging to a service, not an occupation(Lunt, 1978). The Queen's Regulations specificallyban military collectivism. This attitude places theBritish military firmly in the Moskos "institutional"phase, with no likelihood of progressing on to the"occupational" phase. The British accept the paternalisticrole of the government and the military hierarchyin looking after the interests of service personnel.Service pay is largely determined by recommendationput to the government by the Review Body of ArmedForces Pay. which was established in 1971 to advisethe Prime Minister on pay and allowances for thearmed forces. The Review Body bases its approachon acceptance of the fact that members of the armedforces have no right of association and that the Rev iewBody's responsibility is to ensure fair levels of paywhere there cannot be a process of collective bargaining(Review Body on Anned Forces Pay [UK], 22ndReport. 1993).