For the purpose of this chapter, namely to indicate what research on the Janus-facedness of cities might look like, it is once again helpful to consult Braudel. Although he writes about capitalism from the fifteenth to the eighteenth century, his work offers more than just insights into history. Braudel provides us with a method for a citified analysis of capitalism, a way of doing research in order to gain new insights into the functioning of uneven development. He draws our attention to the various “weapons of domination” which, in all their diversity, have two things in common: first, they all come from cities, are invented and produced there and orchestrated from there. Second, they all serve the economic interests of the dominant groups there (in the times that Braudel writes about, basically long-distance traders); their goal is to make value or surplus that people have produced wherever to “flow” into their city. Yet, Braudel (1984: 248) also urges us to pay attention not only to the cities themselves, but in particular to their networks: “It is with these connections, meeting-points and multiple links that we shall be particularly concerned, since they reveal the way in which a dominant economy can exploit subordinate economies”. At each node of the inter-city networks, there are different ways in which the appropriation of surplus is organized, according to the requirements of geographic or historical circumstances, and each way requires specific weapons. Braudel accordingly enumerates different types, namely “shipping, trade, industry, credit, and political power or violence”, each of them with its particular value (1984: 35). There is, however, one weapon that Braudel does not mention here, but which, as we have seen, he discusses at length elsewhere, namely the physical infrastructure of cities. Following on from this, in this chapter I use three examples to show how we can locate the production of uneven development in cities, first by looking at particular buildings, and second by scrutinizing particular capitalist practices (namely super-exploitation and monopoly formation) and the actors who exercise them, and what they have to do with the genius of cities.

ABSTRACT

This chapter traces the development of labour unions as a response to liberal capitalist structures between the late eighteenth and the middle of the twentieth century. It starts off by asking how the introduction of the factory system led to the formation of early unions and how these were different from the old guilds that had characterized the social organization of life in pre-industrial times. Thereafter, it traces their long struggle for recognition and the divisions within the union movement. The chapter discusses both the Global North and the Global South by looking at the development of labour unionism in the colonial and semi-colonial periphery before 1945.

Keywords: liberal capitalism; union genesis; union development

INTRODUCTION

There undoubtedly were a “variety of capitalisms” (Hall & Soskice 2001) that shaped industrialization processes in different parts of the world between the eighteenth century and the present day. And for much of the twentieth century, industrialization also occurred in communist regimes that postulated that they marked the transition from capitalism to communism (Stearns 2013). Yet, it still remains the case that labour unionism fundamentally began to emerge under conditions of industrialization in liberal capitalist regimes. This chapter traces their development as a response to liberal capitalist structures between the late eighteenth and the middle of the twentieth century. It starts off by asking how the introduction of the factory system led to the formation of early unions and how these were different from the old guilds that had characterized the social organization of life in pre-industrial times.

In many parts of the world, unions struggled for a long time to gain acceptance by employers and the state, often in the form of legal rights and policy. This chapter traces this struggle among some of these industrializing countries from the nineteenth century to the end of the Second World War. The fight of unions for legal recognition and legitimacy was accompanied by debates surrounding the best way to organize that came to focus upon two contrasting principles – organizing by craft or organizing by industry. At the same time, ideological divisions between unions emerged, with socialism, syndicalism, Christianity, liberalism and communism being the main contenders for unionized workers’ loyalty

ABSTRACT

This chapter focuses, first, upon debates around collective bargaining and in relation to union strategy. Second, it examines how collective bargaining structures and practices develop and operate in distinct national and economic contexts. Third, it looks at rethinking the role of joint-regulation in terms of its dynamics, practices, aims and actors whereby a widening of the ways in which we view collective bargaining is required. So, collective bargaining and new variations of it need to be placed within a broader approach to the dynamics and politics of work since it has become an even more contested. Approaches linked to such a broadening allow a better understanding of the contexts that are beyond the “developed” economic ones.

Keywords: Collective bargaining; character and form of collective bargaining; challenges for unions

INTRODUCTION

In an episode of the American cartoon comedy series, The Simpsons, the young Bart Simpson has broken his leg and is resigned to spending summer in his room, unable to engage in fun activities with his friends. He turns to the television set in his room to take his mind off his predicament only to find that very old programmes are being broadcast due to staff summer holidays. To Bart's horror, they are reruns of black-and-white television interviews with union leaders about the crisis of collective bargaining. This clearly exacerbates the situation for Bart, but also serves as a gentle and albeit peculiar example of the way collective bargaining and related union issues are viewed in some popular circles. Even within various academic circles of a more sociological orientation – and even, increasingly, in some high-profile work-related journals – the question of collective bargaining is increasingly seen as a particular and limited feature of work and discussions pertaining to it. Hence, its exclusion as an acceptable theme on which to publish. Collective bargaining is seen as a narrow and minimalist dimension of the regulation and politics of work. Radical academics – a broad term that would include the present author – are also particularly worried about the way collective bargaining can sometimes be seen as being overstated, especially within the mainstream history of industrial relations debates.

ABSTRACT

Workers’ control has been a slogan and an aspiration of many unions and their activists and leaders. If the older craft societies were founded with collective bargaining as the raison d’être of their trade unionism, unionization of the unskilled constituted a challenge to this by straddling the “political” and “economic”, conventionally posed as the division between party and union within the social democratic tradition. But workers’ control was submerged in the integration of organized labour within commodity relations through collective bargaining with grievances converted into cash payments. Yet from its earliest expression, industrial action has also been linked with alternative organization for subsistence and meeting social needs, broadening and deepening the horizons of what labour unionism could be conceived for and, ultimately, raising the prospect of workers’ control defined as a system such as socialism.

Keywords: Workers’ power; managerial prerogative; challenges for unions

INTRODUCTION

Workers’ control has been a slogan and an aspiration of many unions. If the older craft societies had been founded with collective bargaining as their raison d’être, the unionization of the unskilled rallied a challenge to the very system of capitalism. Rather than negotiation and compromise with employers, the “new unionism” posed direct action as a means of overthrowing capitalism. Not only the strike, the withdrawal of labour, but tactics like sabotage and occupation entered workers’ repertoire. The skilled could see workers’ control as a defence of their autonomy over the labour process, a defence of their job control. The unskilled could see the building of their union, or their workplace organization, as mobilizing for the “general strike” and prefigurative of the administration of a socialist society. Workers’ control was the aspiration for revolutionary syndicalism and of other revolutionary and democratic socialists. In a more moderate formulation, workers’ control has been associated with the establishment of cooperatives and other self-managed enterprises in a more gradual transformation of capitalism from within (Ranis 2016). Further, workers’ control has been presented as the shifting frontier of struggle between labour and capital: “Militant trade unions … able to wrest some, or most, of the prerogatives of management from the unilateral disposition of managers” (Coates & Topham 1972: 61).

ABSTRACT

This chapter reviews the different forms unions can take and have taken across time and space as they have adapted to changes in the labour market. When examining union “forms”, we focus upon their internal governance structure, the constituencies they represent, and their repertoires of representation. Specifically, we draw upon examples from Denmark, Italy, Germany and the United States, which reflect traditional union typologies. For each country, we sketch out the union forms as well as how traditional unions have changed over time. We show that some unions have changed their statutes and bargaining strategies, expanded their services or set up new structures. Finally, we compare the trajectories of labour unionism and highlight the commonalities across countries as well as the differences due to the institutional context and the strategies of the main employment relations actors.

Keywords: Union forms; union function; union identity; challenges for unions

INTRODUCTION

Unions can take and have taken on different forms across time and space as they have chosen or been compelled to adapt to a new worlds of work. In this chapter we use the term, “labour union form”, as the defining organizational characteristic to distinguish labour unions analytically from each other and trace their organizational changes over time. In line with others such as Fiorito and Jarley (2008), Givan (2007) and Streeck (2005), we distinguish union forms along three dimensions: internal governance structure, constituency and repertoires of representation. Internal governance structure – also called “internal vertical structure” – refers to the way in which organizational levels are ordered and the degree of articulation or division of power between leaderships and the rank-and-file or grassroots members. Constituency – also called the “external horizontal structure” or the “who” – refers to the groups of workers the union purports to represent. It sets the scope of membership and, thus, delimits the union from other unions (Fiorito & Jarley 2008). Repertoires of representation – also called “the how” – refer to the typical representational practices that unions employ to realize the interests of their constituencies and/ or the interests of the organization.

There is a relatively well-known saying on the left in the Anglophone world: “The cause of labour is the hope of the world.” “Labour” here is not any Labour (political) party but, rather, the largest existing social group of human beings, namely workers whose labour is held to create the wealth of the world but that never receives anything approximating to its “fair” share of that wealth. If labour can achieve economic equality and social justice for itself, then it would achieve economic equality and social justice for the vast majority of human beings.

In 1894, English artist and book illustrator and sometime collaborator with William Morris, Walter Crane, created the illustration of the “The Workers’ Maypole” for the socialist newspaper, Justice, from which the dictum is derived. Among the demands adorning the maypole are “socialization”, “solidarity” and “humanity”. These are expressed in the aforementioned saying along with another one on the maypole being “the hope of labour is the welfare of all”. Only a few years earlier in 1875, Karl Marx (1950:17– 18) in the Critique of the Gotha Programme had boldly stated the notion that workers create the wealth of the world and that exploitation as theft of the fruits of labour creates a separate social class: “Since labour is the source of all wealth, no one in society can appropriate wealth except as the product of labour. Therefore, if he himself does not work, he lives by the labour of others …”

If both assertions are true, and there is much evidence and inclination to support them, some of which can be found in the preceding pages, then it is politically and practically correct that most of the analysis and assessment made in this handbook has concerned itself with not just diagnosis but also prognosis. This is because, in general and notwithstanding certain places in time and space including Russia in October 1917, not only has labour as an organized force through labour unions (and any associated political parties) been historically weaker than capital but in the new millennium labour is weaker than it has been for many decades.

ABSTRACT

There are strong arguments for unions to work with other social movements, especially in the context of neoliberalism and the growth of informal, contingent and precarious work. Social movements provide new ideas, new resources, new strategies and tactics and new sites of struggle as well as the potential to speak to younger, precarious and immigrant workers. There are also strong arguments for social movements to work with unions, who tend to be better resourced, with established consensus-based structures and representation in the workplace. This chapter considers the relations between unions and social movements in theory and practice, showing what unions and social movements can learn from each other, asking whether the relations between union and social movements are likely to be characterized by conflict, cooperation or indifference. More fundamentally, the question asked is whether other social movements are replacing organized labour as the main dynamic force for advancing workers’ interests.

Keywords: Social movements; extra-workplace action; challenges for unions

INTRODUCTION

There is now a well-established set of studies in industrial and labour relations on unions adopting forms and practices of social movement unionism, and the links between unions and community groups (see Engeman 2015; Heery, Williams & Abbott; Holgate 2015; Tattersall 2011; see also Chapter 16). This chapter adds to the debate by considering the relations between unions and social movements in theory and practice, drawing on contemporary examples to show what unions and social movements can learn from each other and asking whether the relations between union and social movements are likely to be characterized by conflict, cooperation or indifference (Heery, Williams & Abbott 2012). More fundamentally, the question asked, using the example of the “Yellow Vests” movement in France is whether other social movements are replacing organized labour as the main dynamic force for advancing workers’ interests.

There are strong arguments for unions working with other social movements, especially in the context of globalization and neoliberalism, deindustrialization and the growth of informal, contingent and precarious work. Social movements provide new ideas, new resources, new strategies and tactics, new sites of struggle and the potential to speak to younger, precarious and immigrant workers.

Publishing this handbook on labour unions towards the middle of the second decade of the twenty-first century comes at an opportune time. This is because there is something of a glint in the eyes of many members, activists and officers of labour unions and their supporters. This glint is one of cautious and tempered hope. It arises because, after the tremendous disruption of the Covid pandemic to economies and societies (and, thus, including employment matters), there is a sense that many unions and their members have found their “mojo” again. In the battle to at this stage protect – rather than advance – members’ interests in the cost-of-living crisis that has afflicted most economies around the world, unions have had an opportunity to “stand up and be counted” in order to reassert their historic purpose of pursuing members’ self-interest combined with social justice. This has most obviously taken the form of strike and street mobilizations. In the UK, for example, the number of days not worked as a result of strikes – officially designated as “days lost” – in 2022 was nearly ten times higher than in the previous years for which there is full data, namely 2017 and 2018 (ONS 2023a). And from June 2022 to May 2023, data showed some 3.93 million days were not worked due to strikes (ONS 2023a), this being the largest uptick in strike activity in the UK since the late 1980s.

In the case of the UK – but which has implications for unions elsewhere in other countries – although halting and hesitant as well as far from encompassing all unions and all workers (mostly obviously including non-union workers), the hope is that by doing so unions can begin the process of renewing and revitalizing themselves internally and externally. The former refers to levels and types of membership participation and the latter refers to augmenting recruitment (based upon high levels of retention). Both should make unions “bigger” and “better” in their ability to advance – rather than just protect – their members’ economic and political interests. The stimulus of striking to this internal and external generation is held to be true by both practitioners and scholars. Kate Bell, the Assistant General Secretary at the Trades Union Congress, told the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union annual conference in 2023: “We know that industrial action usually drives membership” (Morning Star 13 June 2023).

ABSTRACT

This chapter addresses commitment and activism in labour unions. We first define our topic and the relationship between these two key concepts and their relationships with other “unionism terms”. Next, we review selected theoretical perspectives and selected “classics” in the scholarly literature on commitment and activism. Following that, we review findings on possible antecedents, emphasizing meta-analytic and recent reports. We then turn attention to a few critical issues for the future, among them younger workers, new technology and measurement of commitment. We conclude with a brief comment on the importance of commitment and activism for union vitality and renewal.

Keywords: Union commitment; union activism; union activists; challenges for unions

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter we focus upon the relationship between workers and their unions, and the role that relationship plays in worker activism on behalf of unions. Various terms have been used to refer to the relationship between workers and unions, including “attachment”. A more common term in the scholarly literature is “commitment”, which is often recognized as multidimensional, and consequently differentiated into sub-dimensions such as belief in unionism, loyalty, responsibility and willingness-to-work on behalf of the union. Additional closely related terms include union citizenship behaviours (see Chapter 16) and allegiance. All these terms focus heavily on the affective, attitudinal and intentional orientation of the members towards their unions. Many other union-related concepts, such as union satisfaction (satisfaction with the union) or perceived union support (of workers), may be related to union commitment, but are seen as distinct concepts.

There are other relationships between workers and their unions that are not usually considered part of the commitment construct. Notably, workers have quasi-contractual relationships with unions wherein they agree or at least accept that the union will be their exclusive bargaining agent, their advocate for public policy issues, a provider of direct benefits and (often) that the union will be compensated for its services, typically through dues payments. To this point we have deliberately avoided the term “union member” to emphasize that the relationships of interest can also involve non-members represented by the union but who do not pay dues, also known as “free riders”.

ABSTRACT

Workers’ organizing efforts have expanded over time, moving beyond the boundaries of individual workplaces to encompass larger circles of influence within corporate structures, entire industries and even whole global supply chains. This chapter explores the reasons behind this outward expansion and the factors that have facilitated or hindered it. Why have workers seen a need to organize more expansively? What is the relationship between local-level organizing and worker organization on the international scale? This chapter considers these questions through the lens of concentric circles of class struggle, which suggests that strong organization at the workplace level plays a vital role in helping workers achieve higher levels of organization. In other words, this smaller circle of worker organization provides the foundation for more encompassing circles of organization, including transnational labour alliances and other modes of collaboration involving a multitude of workers around the world.

Keywords: Union organization; scale of organizing; challenges for unions

INTRODUCTION

The first two decades of the twenty-first century saw a surge in strategic cooperation among workers and unions from different countries in response to myriad challenges and opportunities associated with economic globalization. Nevertheless, international organizing is neither new nor inevitable. Well before a wave of workers’ transnationalism swept the 2000s and 2010s, labour unions in the nineteenth century were widening their circles to encompass their brothers and sisters in other countries. Indeed, the very idea of “the labour movement” was originally conceived of as international (Hyman 2005). Nevertheless, as the twentieth century commenced, unions found themselves caught between the enticements of internationalism and the relentless rise of the nation-state. For the most part, the latter won. By the close of the twentieth century, however, disruptive forces were once more dramatically altering the nature of the terrain of work and employment with economies growing evermore global, and the relationship of workers and unions to the state – and to each other – started to shift yet again (see also Chapter 7). This led labour union leaders, who sought new strategies for sustainable and effective organizing, to expand their fields of vision and those of their unions ever more widely. In other words, outwards to the concentric circles beyond themselves.

Why have workers seen a need to organize in ever larger circles expanding outward from the workplace: within corporate structures, throughout entire industries and across whole global supply chains

ABSTRACT

This chapter considers the factors associated with members’ commitment to, and participation in, their unions, with the latter conceptualized broadly to encompass formal and informal activities. Key findings from the research literature are highlighted and the policy implications for unions discussed. A notable finding is that instrumentality does not fully explain why members commit to and participate in unions, with pro-union attitudes and ideological motivations also significant. Research findings suggest that unions need to go beyond narrow instrumentalism and should instead pursue a broader social justice agenda, perhaps, encompassing notions such as “community unionism”. Findings also suggest that this should be associated with a local union leadership style that emphasizes member participation and aims to build members’ sense of shared mission and self-worth as a union member. Finally, the chapter reviews future research needs, focusing on how researchers can help inform more effective union strategy.

Keywords: Union commitment; union participation; union effectiveness; challenges for unions

INTRODUCTION

Unions in the UK, the US and elsewhere have been in crisis in terms of absolute and relative membership levels and in economic and political influence. “Union renewal” has been an ongoing project for some time, linked to an attempt to focus more strongly on union organizing, rather than simply servicing existing members (e.g. Heery et al. 2000). A key concern is with the extent to which unions can wield the necessary resources to maintain their existing organization as well as to organize new sectors, especially given the limited numbers of employed union officials and their dependence upon lay activists to shoulder much of the burden of member servicing and recruitment (Gall & Fiorito 2012b). Although some have suggested that member activism is not necessarily the key to union renewal in every situation, with central leadership strategy and the role of full-time officer involvement more significant in some campaigns, member activism emerges as a key factor in many cases (Hickey, Kuruvilla & Lakhani 2010). Furthermore, in recent years, lay activism itself has been in decline as members are more reluctant to take on active roles (Gall & Fiorito 2012b).

ABSTRACT

Union identity is a highly contested and multiplex terrain. Union leaders aim at shaping a union's official, projected identity, but union identity is also shaped by actual union actions in the everyday efforts of numerous actors besides union officials. Taking stock of extant literature, we tease out relevant analytical dimensions along which union identity can be studied and compared. We highlight how certain macro-institutional, meso-organizational, and micro-quotidian forces affect the characteristics of these dimensions. We then analyse union identity and its appeal to different populations. Finally, we propose a comprehensive and original analytical scheme for union identity that incorporates the analysed elements. We indicate some challenges for the debate on union identity and appeal and trace strategies to overcome them.

Keywords: Union identity; union appeal; analytical framework; challenges for unions

INTRODUCTION

“Who are we?” and “What do we stand for?” These fundamental questions define the identity of a union (Albert & Whetten 1985). Answers reflect a union's core values and goals; that is, its “essence” (Hodder & Edwards 2015) or “very nature” (Hyman 2001: 1), and distinguish a union from other organizations and other unions (see, e.g. Ravasi & Schultz 2006). Self-referential meanings that constitute union identity are used to project union organizational patterns of actions (see Gioia et al. 2013) and to define union appeal among members to motivate their commitment, participation and activism to achieve union goals (Gall & Fiorito 2012). Moreover, union identity can appeal to a wider range of potential supporters, such as non-member workers and even non-workers, thus giving unions access to a wider constituency whose resources can contribute to a greater impact (e.g. Marino 2012; Scott & Lane 2000).

A better understanding of union identity and appeal may yield deeper insights into specific unions, as well as the union movement as a whole today (Smale 2020). Unions have traditionally been understood as wielding a “sword of justice” in the promotion of labour rights (Flanders 1975). However, there is more heterogeneity in union identity than this common understanding suggests.

ABSTRACT

This chapter will explore the performance of social democratic parties in Sweden, the UK and Australia during the period of prosperity that followed the Second World War, highlighting their general approach to social and economic policy and their specific relationship to unions. The parties were closely linked to their national union movements and placed an emphasis upon protecting and improving workers’ living standards. While the Swedish labour movement made major gains with SAP, the relationship between unions and their respective labour parties in Australia and the UK were tense by the end of the 1970s as they tried to deal with the economic and social fallout from the end of the postwar economic boom. There was a growing recognition, particularly in the UK and Sweden, of need for worker voice at the enterprise level.

Keywords: social democratic parties; union ascendancy; union influence

INTRODUCTION

This chapter will explore the performance of social democratic parties during the period of prosperity that followed the Second World War. It commences with a review of the concept of social democracy and provides an overview of the electoral fortunes and policy initiatives of social democratic parties in Sweden, the UK and Australia, with a particular focus on their relationship with unions. The Swedish Social Democratic Party (SAP) dominated politics in Sweden during the postwar period, while the UK's Labour Party (UKLP) held power from 1945– 51, 1964– 70 and 1974– 79. Australia had only relatively short periods of national Australian Labor Party (ALP) governments, 1945– 49 and 1972– 75, with state ALP governments being at the forefront of industrial and social reforms.

While the Swedish labour movement made major gains with the SAP, the relationship between unions and their respective labour parties in Australia and the UK were frayed by the end of the 1970s as they tried to deal with the economic and social fallout from the end of the postwar economic boom. Unions in the UK then faced the neoliberalism of Thatcherism, while the ALP adopted more neoliberal economic policies to restore their credentials as economic managers in the wake of the apparent economic mismanagement of the Whitlam government.

ABSTRACT

The idea that unions are bureaucratic organizations is an old one. However, there is no consensus on what bureaucracy is, why unions are so often bureaucratic, what the interests of full-time officials are and whether the union officialdom is inevitably a conservative influence within unions. This chapter provides an overview of efforts to answer these questions and attempts to advance thinking about the union officialdom. It considers the ideas of both academic writers and political thinkers committed to working-class movements. It begins by considering why workers create, maintain and join formal organizations and what generates bureaucracy in them. It then examines efforts to explain what bureaucracy is and why workers’ organizations are so often bureaucratic, before turning to the much-debated question of whether the interests of full-time union officials are different from those of the workers they represent and whether the officialdom is always a conservative force within unions.

Keywords: Union organization; union democracy; union bureaucracy; challenges for unions

INTRODUCTION

Union activists and academic analysts of unions have long thought about unions as bureaucratic organizations. However, there is no consensus on what exactly bureaucracy is, why unions are so often bureaucratic, what the interests of full-time union officials – as the personnel of the bureaucracy – are and whether the union officialdom is inevitably a conservative influence within unions. This chapter provides an overview of efforts to answer these questions and seeks to advance thinking about the union officialdom. It considers answers proposed by both a range of academic writers and by political thinkers committed to working-class movements. It begins by considering why workers create, maintain and join formal organizations and where bureaucracy arises from in these circumstances. It then examines efforts to explain what bureaucracy is and why workers’ organizations are so often bureaucratic before turning to the much-debated question of whether the interests of full-time union officials are different from those of the workers they represent and whether the officialdom is always a conservative force within unions.

FORMALITY AND ORGANIZATION

Bureaucracy is a feature of formal organizations (Beetham 1987). While workers have long created and sustained unions and other formal organizations of one kind or another, it is worth pausing to examine why this is the case before considering the phenomenon of bureaucracy itself. Clarity about why workers create, maintain and join formal organizations is helpful for the study of bureaucracy.