ABSTRACT

The “apolitical” economic laws of supply and demand do not really work in the labour market. Instead, employment relations are first and foremost shaped by power relations between capital, labour and the state. Unions can, therefore, hardly afford to abandon the political terrain. This chapter first explains why politics plays such a central role in employment relations in capitalist societies, and then outlines the merits and limitations of the various political action repertoires of unions (private interest government, lobbying, protest action, corporatist political exchanges, alliances with sister parties, direct democratic citizens’ initiatives and referendums).

Keywords: Politics; political exchange; challenges for unions

INTRODUCTION

Throughout their history, unions have played a key role in the making of working classes and political mobilizations across the world. Without the support of the associational networks provided by the union movement across towns and workplaces, left-wing labour parties would not have been able to flourish, nor would the left– right divide have become a central feature of democratic politics (Bartolini 2000; Thompson 1963). More than a century ago, the British socialist reformers, Sidney and Beatrice Webb (1897), made a clear distinction between unions and labour parties in their seminal book, Industrial Democracy. Whereas unions represented the economic wing of the labour movement and defended workers’ economic interests through collective bargaining in their trade, the Labour Party was tasked to represent the cause of labour in the political sphere. This conception of union-party relations had been particularly strong in Britain and also shaped unions’ relationships to centre-left parties in many other parts of the industrialized world (Allern & Bale 2017).

Unions, nevertheless, also continue to play an important autonomous role in politics. First, unions give rank-and-file workers a forum where they can learn to articulate and pursue their interests collectively. This makes unions intrinsically political, even where they delegate parliamentary politics to centre-left sister parties or claim to be politically, confessionally and ideologically neutral. Thus, unions can be important “schools of democracy” (Sinyai 2006) even when they target employers rather than governments. Regardless of their particular political orientation, unions provide workers with a space that helps them to act collectively not only at workplace level but also in the political sphere.

ABSTRACT

The chapter is concerned with the 40-year crisis of organized labour in the advanced capitalist world since the end of the 1970s. While that crisis has had an uneven spatial spread and temporal evolution, the overall trajectory of organized labour has been, by all conventional measures, one of unrelenting secular decline. The chapter argues that labour strength and influence have been shaped by the underlying growth model and the extent to which unions and collective regulation contribute to or conflict with the dominant form of growth. As such, the collapse of Fordism and its replacement by a range of accumulation models not dependent upon wage-led growth have been central to the story of decline. The chapter also argues that foregrounding neoliberalism as a form of regulation of contemporary accumulation helps explain how and why labour movements have experienced such reversals and declines over the last four decades.

Keywords: Union decline; neoliberalism; challenges for unions

INTRODUCTION

Previous chapters have traced the rise of organized labour in both Western countries (Chapter 9) and state socialist ones (Chapter 10) to their highpoints in the 1970s. These highpoints were characterized by organizational strength, political influence and economic power. Indeed, it is often forgotten that the 1970s was widely seen as a moment when the long postwar class compromise disintegrated, not because of the strength of capital, but rather that of labour (Crouch & Pizzorno 1978). By the end of the 1960s, in country after country, labour militancy reflected a growing self-confidence on the part of workers and a willingness to challenge the Fordist bargains of social democratic countries, the Keynesian-welfarist compromises of most capitalist democracies, the indicative planning model of developmental states and the forms of labour paternalism in state socialist countries. In many, if not most cases, this newfound militancy involved challenging union bureaucracies (see Chapter 15) themselves through unofficial or wildcat industrial action. The response of governments, particularly those on the left, was to move left to accommodate this challenge, through new rights to unions, an extension of co-determination, a further decommodification of the labour market, and experiments in fund socialism, worker self-management and industrial planning.

ABSTRACT

This chapter discusses the quasi-corporatist labour relations in the USSR. Soviet Taylorism necessitated the absorption of unions into the apparatus of state from the very beginning. The unions’ role became one of assessing the value of workers as applied to production processes. However, Taylorism in the USSR never fully developed, and unions became important in implementing paternalistic workfarism and welfarism. This chapter then analyses so-called “transition” in socialist countries to marketized capitalism and in China's case to a so-called “socialist market economy”. Path dependency from the socialist period led in the same direction – quasi-corporatism, with co-option by the ruling elite of federated unions and so-called tripartite structures, with China diverging somewhat in its search for a legalist solution to labour unrest. In conclusion, the demise of legacy labour representation leaves open the question of the “traditional” unions’ continuing role in authoritarian states that lack the welfare state histories of their Western European counterparts.

Keywords: Unions under socialism; state-controlled unionism; Russia; China

INTRODUCTION

While the meaning of “actually existing socialism” in terms of typologizing the political economy of communist and socialist countries (state capitalism, bureaucratic collectivism, etc.) is beyond the scope of the chapter, the first section discusses in some depth the substantive character of “quasi-corporatist” (Pravda 1983) labour-enterprise-state relations in these countries in the period roughly between Stalinism in the USSR in the 1930s to the transition of China towards some form of hybrid market socialism in the 1990s and beyond. The point of this section is to argue that such corporatist dependency left an indelible mark on labour subjectivity and relations, organizational forms and resources of unionism. This focus also allows reflection on the degree to which the high socialist period (1945– 89) offers points of similarity between Eastern Bloc countries and social democratic ones. While China, Vietnam, Eastern Europe and the USSR – the places with the most wide-ranging extant academic literature – were all different, their common dependency upon the party-state nexus shaped the existential terrain in profound ways. This comprised, among other things, the distance between union leadership and activism, a hidebound conservative ideology, and, relatedly, a paternalist, quasi-welfarist sense of role and identity.

ABSTRACT

This chapter argues that an alignment of interests between capital and labour, demonstrated in voluntary cooperative relationships between enterprise managers and unions, is possible in liberal market economies, although relatively rare. The central question is: under what circumstances do these relationships develop and bear fruit for all participants? The chapter begins by selectively reviewing the literature and identifying challenges to measuring “success” in alignment of interests. Next, three related sets of factors that may support (or thwart) development of cooperation are identified: context in which the parties operate; agency of the parties; and historical path of relationships. Experiences of participants in successful examples of cooperation, drawn from primary data and published accounts, are discussed. These reveal how manifestations of the three factors have come together in particular times and places to support cooperation. They also reveal the significant challenges to sustaining alignment of interests in individual enterprises.

Keywords: Partnership; union interests; challenges for unions

INTRODUCTION

The point of departure for this chapter is the recognition that an alignment in the interests of labour and capital at an enterprise level, leading to the establishment of cooperative relationships and collaborative action by managers and unions, is possible, even though it is rare and often short-lived. Moreover, where and when these unusual examples of labour-management cooperation occur, they have benefited the enterprise, workers and unions through outcomes like financial stability of the enterprise, greater job security, improved job satisfaction and enhanced union influence and membership. We explore this by identifying some examples of alignment from various “liberal market economies” and show how they are largely exceptional, depending on how “success” and/ or “alignment of interests” are defined and measured. So, the key question is: under what circumstances does this alignment occur? Our answer to this explanatory question is not a simple one and focuses upon three sets of factors, which must come together at a particular time and in a particular place. First, the context in which the parties operate; second, the agency of the parties (i.e. the particular representatives of labour and capital involved); and third, the historical path by which relations within the enterprise evolve.

In exploring these three sets of factors and the way they come together, we draw on a well-established English-language research literature and primary data from over 140 semi-structured interviews conducted in Australia between 2015 and 2021.

ABSTRACT

The South African labour movement's role in the collapse of apartheid in South Africa is renowned. Historically, the unions’ opposition to apartheid can be attributed to their robust internal governance structures, which were premised on democratic workplace organizing rather than solely relying upon their leaders. In the post-apartheid era, workplace governance presented new challenges and, with the pressures to rapidly transform workplaces demographically, many firms targeted shop stewards for management roles, which in turn led to a significant loss of local leadership. Furthermore, the top union leadership structures had to contend with the demands placed upon them due to their participation in the African National Congress-led alliance. This chapter explores in detail how the model of successful union governance, which was centred on dynamic internal democracy, has substantially declined in three key areas of union strength.

Keywords: Union governance; South Africa; challenges for unions

INTRODUCTION

The mixed fortunes of unions around the world have led to increased interest in union governance, and the extent to which this is part of the recipe for success, supplementing earlier interest in union strategy and the organizing model (Visser 2019). The meteoric rise and decline of the South African labour unionism highlights some of the challenges in promoting effective governance of unions and sustaining it in the face of emerging challenges. The South African labour movement is well known to have played a leading role in the demise of apartheid, and was part and parcel of the negotiated transition, leading the promulgation of a highly progressive body of labour legislation. Part of the unions’ success in opposing apartheid was highly effective internal governance structures, founded upon democratic workplace organizing, which reduced a reliance on key leaders, an experience relevant for unions in many countries under repressive rule. This focus made it much harder for the state to repress the labour movement.

However, effective workplace governance posed new challenges in the post-apartheid era. Under pressure to advance Blacks in the workplace, many firms took to poaching shop stewards, leading to the loss of a large strata of local leadership.

ABSTRACT

This chapter interrogates sectionalism and sectionality, discussing intersectionality and its potential to rethink ideas about union collective identity and organizing concerning diversity and difference. The chapter contends that the traditional use of sectionality seems obsolete and there is clear potential for more inclusive and demo-cratic organizing and mobilization through an intersectional approach that places closer attention to how socially constructed categories of difference interplay with the work and employment experiences of particular groups. The framing of single identity in struggle is insufficient to capture the needs of worker groups sitting at the intersection of multiple marginalities, so adopting intersectional organizing would enable developing collective identity and organizing activities that resonate with the lived experiences of diverse groups and promote intersectional solidarity to support coalitionist alliances that have stronger potential for social justice and change.

Keywords: Collective identity; intersectionality; challenges for unions

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, I discuss intersectionality and its potential to rethink ideas about union collective identity and organizing. One of the main challenges of advancing discussions about collective identity in unions is both the fixed understanding about union-related collective identity as well as how this collective identity develops and is – or should be – maintained. There are two issues here. First, the historical prevalence of White, male-dominated logics that has shaped union activities and priorities has meant that the interests of specific groups remained largely ignored. Second, scholarship problematizing key ideas pertaining to unions, such as power relations and ideology, has been developed without consideration of the complex identities of those it seeks to theorize about. However, exceptions are found in some more recent work in the 2000s (see Colgan & Ledwith 2000; Dickens 2000; Greene & Kirton 2002; Holgate 2005; Kirton & Healy 2004; Ledwith & Colgan 2002; McBride 2001; Noon & Hoque 2001; Wajcman 2000). While these works set the foundation for the analysis of gender and race in unions, this remains at the margins of dominant discussions about unions.

Against this backdrop, narratives about solidarity and collectivism presented by unions need to pay closer attention to the role of difference(s) in the way workers understand the collective and how it mediates notions of collective identity and organizing.

ABSTRACT

The changing composition of labour at a global level is posing both challenges and opportunities for labour unions. The doubling in numbers of workers worldwide since the advent of globalization creates the conditions for a revitalization of the labour movement despite the challenges posed. This chapter asks the following: How has this global working class organized or not organized when we think of both ends of the spectrum, the informal and the high-tech sectors? How have labour unions – and other non-traditional forms of labour representation – risen to the challenges posed by neoliberal globalization? Based upon an understanding of the identity and appeal of labour unionism, this chapter examines what labour unions try to achieve, and what frameworks govern their strategic choices. It is then the ideologies of labour unionism that determine how the various interests of labour – economic, political and social – are articulated and pursued on behalf of their members.

Keywords: Union interests; union ideology; analytical framework; challenges for unions

INTRODUCTION

Now that we understand better the identity and appeal of labour unionism (see Chapter 1), we can seek to uncover what it is that labour unions then try to achieve, and what frameworks govern their strategic choices. It is then the ideologies – as set of comprehensive of values and beliefs – of labour unionism that determine how the various interests – as set of concerns and desires – of labour – economic, political and social – are articulated and pursued on behalf of their members. That is the purpose of this chapter, building upon the findings of Chapter 1, which developed a multidimensional, multilevel, and multi-actor conceptual framework to evaluate union identity.

We need to bear in mind when pursuing this analysis that the composition of the labour force is complex and involves horizontal and vertical divisions and pre-existing solidarities. There are many key questions that need to be asked. Prime among them is: How does labour unionism create a unified set of interests and an ideology that can carry it forward to achieve its aims and objectives? Historical precedents matter here, and the formative phase of the industrial working class is always relevant, but we must be prepared to rethink labour, its organizations and ideologies if labour unionism is to have a future.

ABSTRACT

This chapter examines and analyses the external relations of individual unions. Seeking to identify the interlinkages between power resources, union identities and union strategies towards external actors, the chapter makes three arguments. First, the interplay between the structural leverage and associational power of workers is linked to labour unions predominantly building relations in either the economic nexus or the state nexus, with each one marked by a prevailing union strategy, respectively mobilizing or political advocacy. Second, and although being dependent upon the institutional context, external relations within both nexuses have been deteriorating, relatively speaking, over time. Third, being associated with an organizing strategy, the development of coalitional power; that is, seeking alliances with non-labour actors in civil society, becomes consequently more desirable if unions want to retain or regain relevance in the twenty-first century. Opportunities lay in strengthening solidarities with, for instance, immigrant and ethnic communities and networks, on embarking on intersectional approaches to mobilizing and organizing, and union-environmental alliances.

Keywords: Union external relations; union strategy; challenges for unions

INTRODUCTION

Labour unions exist in largely predetermined worlds. Yet, in trying to change these worlds in order to attain their aims, they then must often necessarily choose to make decisions about what relationships they want to have with other actors with a view to achieving their objectives. This chapter examines and analyses the external relations of unionism; that is, the tactical and strategic behaviour of individual unions in building relations with their environment, this is other actors and forces outside the union movement, to pursue union goals.1 Thus, three interrelated questions about union behaviour regarding external relations can be posed. First, why are labour unions building relations with external actors? In other words, what are the drivers for initiating and developing interactions with others?2 Second, which other actors are potential candidates for establishing relations, and how do unions select them? Third, what is the nature of relation-building with those external actors? Put differently, is this relation-building temporal or permanent (structural), mutual or compatible, opportunistic or strategic, or materially underpinned or ideological mediated?

ABSTRACT

Several labour scholars have argued that workers are rediscovering their power by collectively mobilizing to influence the asymmetric relationship between capital and labour. As a result of these developments, the power resources approach (PRA) emerged as a research heuristic. In this chapter we will outline the discussion on the PRA and present a scheme to differentiate workers’ power into structural, associational, institutional and societal power. We discuss two drivers of structural change – globalization and digitalization – and their implications for workers’ power. By referring to Silver's work and the PRA, we analyse emerging forms of transnational organizing. A prominent example of transnational organizing is that of global union federations. We then focus on labour organizing in the platform economy. We observe the emergence of hybrid forms of union-like associations in the transportation sector. We conclude with some questions for a research agenda on workers’ power and global capitalism in the twenty-first century.

Keywords: Union resources; analytical frameworks; challenges for unions

INTRODUCTION

Over the past two decades, many scholars have challenged the “end of work” paradigm in labour studies and research on unions by arguing that unions are strategic actors and, therefore, able to revitalize. Thus, even under the conditions of an increasingly globalized economy, organized labour can develop and mobilize power to protect workers’ interests. As a result of this discussion, the power resources approach (PRA) emerged as a research heuristic to identify different sources of workers’ power. The PRA argues that organized labour can build its power through the collective mobilization of power resources to advance their interests in the structurally asymmetric and antagonistic relationship between capital and labour.

Today, several conceptions and varieties of the PRA have emerged, which identify a variety of power resources (Brookes 2013; Gumbrell-McCormick & Hyman 2013; Refslund & Arnholtz 2022; Schmalz, Ludwig & Webster 2018; Von Holdt & Webster 2008), strategic capabilities (Lévesque & Murray 2010, 2013) and spaces of action (Ford & Gillan 2021) of workers’ power. The PRA has, therefore, become an important research tool in global labour studies and inspired rich empirical studies on successful organizing strategies (Rhomberg & Lopez 2021), campaigning (Pannini 2023) and on labour relations (Rego 2022).