Editing Organizing model (section)

==Disadvantages==

===Practical disadvantages===

Heery, Simms, Simpson, Delbridge, and Salmon list several disadvantages of the union organizing model, with the most critical being that the model is very "resource-intensive",<ref name="Heery et al" /> in terms of both people and money.<ref name="Heery et al" /> Since the organizing model is, at its core, about people, rather than services, it cannot be effective without people to both implement it and carry it out.<ref name="Heery et al" /> Heery, Simms, Simpson, Delbridge, and Salmon talk about "...instances of a lack of support or even opposition to organizing within unions."<ref name="Heery et al" /> Because the organizing model is so dependent upon worker motivation and action, if the workers themselves oppose the implementation of the organizing model, it cannot be effective.<ref name="Heery et al" /> Fletcher and Hurd suggest that even if members are not resistant to adoption of the organizing model, they still have to learn how to perform tasks previously handled by organizers, and there have to be enough active members to facilitate this kind of action.<ref name="Fletcher" /> This clear dependence on the support and actions of the workers is a disadvantage of the organizing model, as opposed to the servicing model, which, for the most part, does not require worker support or demand worker action.<ref name="Fletcher" /> According to Heery, Simms, Simpson, Delbridge, and Salmon, "Employers are often resistant."<ref name="Heery et al" /> Unions that have to deal with this problem would very clearly have a hard time using the organizing model, as it could antagonize the employer even further and erode any previously existing relationship between the employer and the union.<ref name="Heery et al" />

Fletcher and Hurd state that unions may also face issues of resistance by pre-existing "staff",<ref name="Fletcher" /> who may be hesitant or even suspicious at the adoption of the organizing model.<ref name="Fletcher" /> Dealing with resistant staff would be a major disadvantage of using the organizing model, as opposed to the servicing model, to which the staff are both accustomed and familiar with.<ref name="Fletcher" /> Fletcher and Hurd assert that, based on the fact that unions employing the organizing model have to reassign tasks and take time to train people, "...following the organizing model creates more work than sticking to the servicing model."<ref name="Fletcher" /> Richard Hurd argues that the organizing model can, at times, create "...continual warfare..."<ref name="Hurd" /> between the workers and the employer, which is a disadvantage because there is a trend of workers "...preferring stability rather than on-going class struggle."<ref name="Hurd" /> If this is really the mindset of the workers, then it would be hard to actually maintain the organizing model for long periods of time.<ref name="Hurd" /> Fred Glass says that "...an organizing model of unionism requires an organizing model of labor communications"<ref name="Glass">{{cite journal|doi=10.1353/lab.2003.0009|title=Amplifying the Voices of Workers: An Organizing Model for Labor Communications|journal=Labor Studies Journal|volume=27|issue=4|pages=1–16|year=2003|last1=Glass|first1=Fred|s2cid=201770314}}</ref> because the organizing model requires an effective way to share information with workers quickly and efficiently.<ref name="Glass" /> Bob Carter, in regard to the organizing model in British unions, is concerned with the method of implementation and whether or not workers consent to switching from servicing to organizing.<ref name="Carter" /> Carter says that "A model which is premised on debate and involvement cannot be successfully introduced without discussion..."<ref name="Carter" /> Carter worries about whether or not workers are a part of the transition process and whether they consent to all of the implications that come with the organizing model.<ref name="Carter" />

===Criticisms from the Left===
Most practical criticism of the model has emerged as a criticism of the practice of the model by the SEIU and other organizing unions, especially in America.  Criticisms from the left generally contrast (explicitly or not) the organizing model to a [[rank and file model]], in which the confrontational style of organizing, and broad-based member involvement in campaigning is supplemented by broad-based member power. According to Bob Carter and Rae Cooper, the organizing model is not inherently "democratic".<ref name="Cooper">{{cite journal|doi=10.7202/006907ar|title=The Organizing Model and the Management of Change|journal=Relations Industrielles|volume=57|issue=4|pages=712–742|year=2003|last1=Carter|first1=Bob|last2=Cooper|first2=Rae|doi-access=}}</ref> In the organizing model, the workers are not as active as they could be, and staff are still responsible for many aspects of union organizing.<ref name="Cooper" /> Carter and Cooper believe that the organizing model is rather limited in terms of its scale, and it cannot start a "...wider working class movement".<ref name="Cooper" />

===Criticisms from the Right===
Critics{{who|date=May 2025}} argue that the organizing model is inappropriate to the task of unions in the modern global economy.  They say that industrial disputes of the type that organising engenders are harmful to the national economies in which they occur: by increasing uncertainty and raising wages (labor costs), they will make economies less attractive to inward investment. Hence, working people will suffer in the long term, as the less investment, there is, the fewer jobs there will be.  The conclusion of those who take this line is that unions should emphasize their service aspects, particularly those that contribute toward the well-being of the employer as well as the employee. In addition, there are the criticisms leveled by the anti-union Right, who often associate collective action with the tyranny of 'Big labor', contrasted to the free operation of the capitalist labor market.