Class Situation, White Collar Unionization and the `Double Proletarianization' Thesis - A Reply to John Heritage

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

In the two articles cited in Heritage's critique,1 one of my main objectives (broadly stated) was to argue that the class situation of a union's membership (or potential membership) should be considered a relevant factor in explaining patterns of white-collar union growth. In taking up this position, I was arguing against the theorists of the 'industrial relations' school, who have sought to deny the relevance (at aggregate levels of union growth) of 'class factors'.2 However, as I have made clear in both articles, I have at no time attempted to deny the relevance of the factors contributing to union growth which have been identified by the industrial relations school these would include employer attitudes, government action, the impact of the business cycle, etc.3 Indeed, as is implicit if not explicit in both articles, I think that all of these factors, including class position, are interrelated at the level of political economy. In essence, Heritage claims that (i) I have over-estimated the extent of proletarianization in the insurance industry and that in any case, to the extent that proletarianization has occurred 'it has not contributed to unionization in the financial industries in any direct or unmediated fashion'; (ii) that the factors identified by the 'industrial relations' approach are of more relevance in explaining union growth (if indeed it has occurred) in the insurance industry, and (iii) that the feminized organizational form of proletarianization in the financial industries 'may actually be a factor tending to decrease rather than increase the density and unionateness of unrecognized white collar unions in these industries'.4 Heritages' critique raises a number of methodological and empirical issues which I discuss below. At the outset, however, it should be pointed out that the second article focuses almost entirely on the insurance industry.5 Despite his frequent references to the inadequacy of the empirical data deployed in this article, he himself presents absolutely no fresh or additional material on the insurance industry all his examples are drawn from banking. As I have already noted, although Heritage concedes that 'proletarianization' has probably occurred in the insurance industry; 'it has not contributed to unionization ... in any direct or unmediated fashion'. I was not aware that I had made this claim.6 However, Heritages' case seems to be that unless I can 'prove' that 'proletarianization' did (or does) have a 'direct and unmediated' effect on union growth, then my arguments are fallacious and the class situation of clerical workers is largely irrelevant in explanations and interpretations of white collar unionism. Therefore, for example, I should demonstrate that the mechanized bottom levels of the clerical hierarchy are the (first?) to unionize,7 seek for similar associations amongst the ' low-trust men below the promotion gap',8 and, furthermore, that the lack of a direct association between GIO membership figures during the 'sixties and the processes of proletarianization demonstrates that, in any case, proletarianization had little effect.9 In short, Heritage seems to be recommending a methodology which closely parallels that of the