Lowell Turner, Harry Charles Katz, and Richard W. Hurd. Rekindling the Movement: Labor's Quest for Relevance in the Twenty-First Century. Ithaca: ILR Press, 2001.
Turner and Hurd “Building Social movement Unionism: The Transformation of the American Labor Movement” p. 9-26
Driving revitalization is two factors:
veterans of 1960s social movements in leadership
new generation of campus and workplace activists
Strategies for Revitalization
organizing the unorganized, grassroots political action, coalition building, labor-management partnership, union mergers, internal restructuring, international solidarity
most based on rank and file mobilization
find other groups to support campaigns
may require a broader society-wide movement upsurge, not just movement unionism
Organizational change
1930s movement --> 1970s service --> ‘90s/2000s movement again?
lost political power (and labor law reforms) because could not mobilize
larger, BROADER societal movement can break down obstacles more easily than just movement unionism can
US unionism missed the revitalizing aspects of 1960s movements, why?
unions became increasingly narrow, member-oriented organizations, thus lost broader social justice outlook
anticommunism
missed movements (not always entirely missed):
Civil Rights
supported legislation
but many skilled jobs excluded minorities
leaders kept status quo, didn’t force in minorities so as to not lose support of current members
women’s movement
not interested in organizing clerical workers
authors say some, conservative leaders had desire to quell ‘women’s liberation’
anti-war
anti-communist stance meant pro-war
labor foreign policy funding came from State Dept, demanded anti-Red stance
construction workers beating up anti-war kids
my idea: a few generational differences?
young activists came to see unions as obstacles, not allies
environmental movement
thought this = attacks on union jobs
as movements focused on government policy, unions able to cordon themselves off from movements, insulate
one counter-example is public sector, where there was great union growth
but now people who cut their teeth in social movements are back to help unions
BUT WHY? if they were so alienated by unions, as suggested by authors above
Democratic friends in Congress as a vestige of business unionism! interesting idea
unions shift resources into organizing
social movements once changed workplace institutions (1930s)
hope is the same thing can happen again, change institutions that are hurting workers...
which in turn will revitalize the labor movement
and will also combat inequality (social and economic)
lit they draw on
strategic choice lit: 1980s anti-unionism was possible because unions were so weak (Kochan, Katz, McKersie 1986)
new institutionalism: institutions shape behavior
unions lulled into false sense of security
meanwhile, employers trying to innovate, avoid unions
social movement: soc mov chape institutions
prospects:
organizing more people
but density rate still falling
some success on political front (Clinton)
but many political “wins” are defensive, others indirect (e.g. minimum wage increase)
Battle in Seattle impressive!
MUCH ACTIVITY, MIXED RESULTS
Paul Johnston “Organizing for What?”
two arguments
labor movements vary across the kind of employment relations and historical circumstances they are within
labor movements are an appeal to citizenship, i.e. a position and behavior in public institutions
Diversity in employment styles (sevice, public, etc.)
labor movement should not just be interested in the outcome for a particular bargaining unit, but for the status and future of a community
citizenship, then, offers a unifying social movement frame
six types of citizenship: civil, political, social, educational (affect all); economic citizenship is in perpetual tension with capitalism; cultural identity/citizenship cuts across all of these
all of these combine to be “civic regime”
movements can unite on citizenship, can use any of these types of citizenship to connect movement to larger ‘family’ of citizenship movements
Citizenship becomes very complex as move to global level, BUT all action done at local, community level
Dorothy Sue Cobble “Lost ways of Unionism”
Try to do occupational unionism as opposed to just industrial unionism
better model when worker identity is mostly horizontal (i.e. cross-firm) than vertical (i.e. with a single firm, ILM, etc)
Replaces “mgmt. disciplines and union grieves” with ‘peer management” (i.e. worker control of process)
Union/worker run hiring halls
Unions can have trained workers (think IT), and will be a welcome supply of well-trained contingent workers
Labor movement must define its own membership boundaries, don’t just look at NLRB-defined bargaining units
Early AFL represented nonemployees: contractors, self-employed, unemployed
UNIONS must be a vehicle to create humane and more flexible work patterns
Labor movement needs to move beyond contract unionism, broaden definition of what it means to be a union, include community groups in union membership
Service economy as emotional work…workers want to affect rules of employee-customer relationship, not just employee-boss relationship (have bosses let personality of individual employee through, etc.)
Playboy bunny, ‘barmaids’, flight attendants, smile rules examples
Focus on representing both individual and collective interests
Get rid of seniority, start going for across-the-board wage increases
Charles Heckscher “Living with Flexibility
Propositions:
institutions of worker representation cannot survive unless they are widely perceived as contributing to economic growth as well as social justice.
unions can only succeed if they essentially contribute to good management
But managers have to realize that anti-unionism is likely not in their best interest, is a too-personal view of “what is best for a company
Flexibility is not a passing fad!
But consumers more and more want personalized goods as well, so skill is demanded
Companies don’t want to provide benefits anymore, what to do?
Turn back the clock! Not likely
Need a model that will allow that employees will be more mobile, less tied to one company
less fear and subordination
greater employee participation in defining work
personal improvement (skills)
mentoring, help getting used to mobility for ‘ees
unions need to start going for benefits, etc that work for mobile employees
also, still be able to push back against employers (publicity, lawsuits, financial pressure=using investment of pension funds as bargaining chip…need to figure out how to do this with individual funds)
Katz, Afterword, “Whither the American Labor Movement”
