Variations in the mobilization processes of digital workers: forms of organizing

Social movement studies have often considered the importance of existing resources and organizational structures for mobilization (della Porta and Diani, 2020, Ch. 5). Mainstream IR literature has emphasized the role of trade unions in setting mobilization processes in motion (Frege and Kelly, 2004), devoting little attention to alternative forms of organization and the capacity of workers themselves to play a central role in mobilization processes (Mathers et al, 2018). Furthermore, some strands of this scholarship tend to see the implementation of technological and organizational innovations in the workplace as a means for increasing managerial control over workers and inhibiting their capacity for organization and collective action (Thompson, 2010).

Notwithstanding the previously mentioned conditions of extreme exploitation and denial of labour rights, platform workers have adopted a hugely diverse array of organizational forms and practices across different sectors, and also across different regions and countries within the same sector, when staging collective action. These multiple configurations have relied on very different networks of actors, which include political activists, traditional and rank-and-file unions, as well as movement collectives and organizations. In an attempt to make sense of such variety, Vandaele (2018) has identified three main patterns of organizational forms used by platform workers, regardless of the sector of action. Most of these workers have opted to ‘self-represent’ themselves, setting up their own self-organized collectives (especially among on-demand workers) or online forums (among crowdworkers, in particular) (Heiland, 2020). Others have been backed by ‘non-traditional’, grassroots, or rank-and-file unions (Alberti and Pero, 2018). Finally, some (albeit an ever-increasing number) have been supported by traditional and established labour unions (Stuart et al, 2020).

IR literature points to a wide range of factors – institutional, agential, and contextual – that may shape the choices available to workers for different organizing forms. Many studies in this field still consider traditional unions and their characteristics as the main explanatory factors for their more or less fruitful encounters with non-standard workers. Institutionalist approaches, such as ‘Varieties of Unionism’ (VoU) (Frege and Kelly, 2004), emphasize the role of extant, path-dependent institutional legacies in shaping the strategies that unions adopt to pursue the mobilization and inclusion of these workers.