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).

At the time of writing, Britain is being subject to “the worst storms for 200 years”, an extraordinary battering with virtually endless rainfall, and widespread flooding and travel disruption, including the severing of the rail link to the South West where I live. It echoes extreme weather events in other parts of the world. Here, amidst the extensive news coverage of lakes and rivers (where there should be fields and roads) and of people flooded out their homes, there is only the most marginal acceptance by media and politicians that it “might be” related to climate change. Rather, there is a sense of shock and anger: how could this happen?

To many of us working long in the fields of environmental and sustainability education, there are no surprises here. The long-predicted signs of climate change have been evident for some years now – although the sudden onset, severity, and duration of the storms, which have been racing in from the Atlantic for nearly three months now, could not have been foreseen. However, the general reluctance in the country to acknowledge and accept that this weather pattern is in all probability a manifestation of climate change, is perhaps predictable.

However, it is clear to many that we are entering a different age, and a different world.

REGENERATION AND THE PULL OF HOPE

It was 1971, and I had just graduated as a teacher. Browsing in a London bookshop, I discovered a book which, if not exactly “life changing”, certainly influenced its direction. The title of the book – sufficiently intriguing to grab my attention – was Teaching for Survival (Terry 1971). If it was relevant then, it is even more pertinent today. The cover blurb states that the book: “presents a way to change in the classroom the basic assumptions of our educational system – assumptions which ultimately lead to the destruction of our natural environment”. That was a very long time ago – and the need to change educational assumptions, and the Western cultural metaparadigm from which they derive, is now inescapable.

We are living at a watershed point of history, a pivotal period where the aggregate of human beliefs, ideas, policies, activities and behaviours across the world will, in the months and years to come, profoundly affect the chances and quality of life afforded current and future generations of people, the health of the biosphere, and the very habitability of the planet into the second half of the century (Brown 2011; Dixson-Declève et al. 2022; McGuire 2022). The challenge is immense and daunting, and it is global in scope.

We have a narrow but real opportunity to bend current negative trajectories towards a path of human and biospheric flourishing, should we collectively choose. The import of our collective choice cannot be overstated – now, “is the last time in history when we will be able to do this” (Figueres & Rivett-Carnac 2020: 9), or as reflected in Lester Brown's forewarning (2011: 202) “The choice will be made by our generation but it will affect life on Earth for all generations to come”. It is not clear what the future holds, but we do know that it not certain and it can be shaped.

Some years ago I came across the phrase, “the push of fear, the pull of hope” as motivators for change. Deep concern is being evoked by the consequences of our unsustainable way of life and the prospect of worsening conditions.

LEARNING AND CHANGE

The above proposition about learning and change could not be more relevant to our times. It lies at the heart of this book. In the Anthropocene age, the fundamental issue is whether or not humanity can change sufficiently to assure its future, and that of its biospheric planetary home. To do so requires deep learning, urgently and on a global scale.

Starting around a half-century ago, there have been increasingly frequent and insistent calls that transformative social change is necessary if we are to avert a chaotic future; if we are to achieve a path towards a secure and stable world. Mounting high-level reports (e.g. IPCC 2022a; UNEP 2022; WWF 2022; WEF 2023) reinforce the message that now is the time; an historic reckoning which demands an urgent and commensurate response.

Concern is growing rapidly, with the result that research is increasingly realigning and focussing on issues and possible answers, while pressure for policy re-thinking is mounting across sectors. A recent survey amongst people across G20 countries shows that 74 per cent of respondents are concerned and want to “prioritise well-being, health and protection of the planet over a singular focus on profit and economic growth” (Dixson-Declève et al. 2022), whilst a 2021 European Union survey of opinion in EU countries indicates that “93 per cent of people surveyed consider climate change to be a serious problem with 78 per cent considering it to be very serious”. A shift is occurring, albeit slow and partial – not least given entrenchment and resistance by interests vested in the norms of “business as usual” (often abbreviated to BAU).

If we want the chance of a sustainable future, we need to think relationally. That's it, full stop. No need to write any more … or there wouldn't be, if it was that obvious. It's because we don't think in a relational way that we need to explore why we don’t, how we can, and what it means. The world is increasingly complex, interdependent and unsustainable, yet conversely, the way we perceive, think, and educate tends to be fragmentary and limited, and we tend to live “like there's no tomorrow”. Addressing this mismatch requires developing competencies in systems thinking, critical thinking and creative thinking, but it requires something more fundamental and challenging besides: no less than our becoming “conscious agents of cultural evolution” (Gardner 2001: 206) towards a more ecological culture and participative worldview, consistent with and able to address the highly interconnected and endangered world we have created.

Worldviews are “epistemological structures for interpreting reality that ground their picture of ‘reality’ in their own construction” (Milbrath 1994: 117). The contemporary challenge is to transcend our self-referential constructions, recognizing that the increasingly pressing sustainability problems we face are rooted in the dominant underlying beliefs and worldview of the Western mind, which, according to Clark (1989: 472) has grown “maladaptive”.

INTRODUCTION

According to Richmond (2009: 3) writing in the UNESCO mid-term review of the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, “A paradigm shift in thinking, teaching and learning for a sustainable world” needs to be realized, and a holistic approach to teaching and learning is vital and urgent. Yet, within environmental and sustainability education, there is a tension which arguably impedes their effectiveness in helping achieve more resilient social-ecological systems and a more sustainable world, at a time when the need to realize transformative change is increasingly urgent. Further, after more than three decades working in the field, I feel that the paradigmatic base of “education for sustainable development” (ESD) is as yet insufficiently clear to spearhead the kind of shift envisaged by UNESCO. This paper attempts to develop and substantiate an integrative view which may help this process, which I label “sustainable education” (Sterling 2001).

I begin with a brief review of two key positions within the environmental education and sustainability education debate which, fundamentally, represent different views of the purpose of education. One puts primary emphasis on nurturing a quality within the learner, the other on attaining an external outcome. I will argue in this paper that this is more than a difference of emphasis, but rather a philosophical and problematic dichotomy.

I see myself as an environmentalist. And have done so ever since my early teens – which was a long time ago. So why would I be writing a blog with such a title? On the face of things, perhaps it seems a bit contradictory – a little sacrilegious even – amongst fellow greenies.

I was prompted to write because of the England Chief Inspector of Schools’ recent statement, on launching Ofsted's (Office for Standards in Education) Annual Report. She worried there were efforts to “commandeer” schools and the curriculum to cover worthy social issues, including environmental causes and tackling racism. Well, that view probably needs an additional blog response, but it's what she said next that bothered me.