Abstract
After the election of John Sweeney as President of the AFL-CIO in October 1995, activists and supportive intellectuals in the United States began thinking about how to revitalize the almost moribund American labor movement. A key part of this literature has revolved around the concept of “social movement unionism.” This term touched a nerve, and has garnered widespread usage in North America over the past two decades. However, most researchers using this term have no idea that it was initially developed to understand the new unionism developed by members of specific labor movements in Brazil, the Philippines and South Africa, a type of unionism qualitatively different from that found in North America. This paper argues that the term “social movement unionism” should be confined only to labor organizations developing the same type of unionism, wherever in the world such should be found. Accordingly, this concept should not be utilized in North America today as there are no labor centers or unions present that are developing this type of trade unionism. It is important to clarify this confusion because it is leads to incorrect understandings and miscommunication. Accordingly, the current situation—whereby the same term is used to refer to two qualitatively different social phenomena —theoretically works against efforts to build global labor solidarity. What about the progressive, broad-scope unionism emerging in North America over the past two decades? Taking a page from labor history, this article argues that the proper precedent is progressive unionism developed by the United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, and others, and therefore should be referred to as “social justice unionism.” An Appendix provides a measurement tool. The argument is empirically grounded and theoretically developed, allowing us to better understand trade unionism around the globe.
Highlights
This concept should not be utilized in North America today as there are no labor centers or unions present that are developing this type of trade unionism
But challenging the state is clearly not in his definition. This is an important point, : the trade unionism that emerged in labor centers in several developing countries in the 1970s and ‘80s—and the KMU should be included in the mix as well (Lambert, 1990; Scipes, 1992a, b, 1996, 2001; West, 1997) — and consciously challenged the existence of the state, the entire established social order of each country,18 and the global political-economic-cultural networks in which their respective countries were enmeshed
This paper has argued that as North American labor writers and theorists have tried to develop “new” thinking about trade unionism that has emerged in Canada and the United States over the past two decades, their chosen terminology has conflicted with previously-developed terminology
Summary
This section discusses the concept of social movement unionism in both North America, and among particular labor centers that have developed in the “Global South.” It first discusses the definition of SMU in North America, notes how it developed, and how it has been applied subsequently. This is an important point, : the trade unionism that emerged in labor centers in several developing countries in the 1970s and ‘80s—and the KMU should be included in the mix as well (Lambert, 1990; Scipes, 1992a, b, 1996, 2001; West, 1997) — and consciously challenged the existence of the state (the dictatorships that controlled each of these respective countries), the entire established social order of each country, and the global political-economic-cultural networks in which their respective countries were enmeshed.19 Despite this attenuated version of SMU—an attenuation that most theorists and writers are not aware of—Moody’s terminology has resonated in North America and has expanded greatly. The most advanced versions were the CUT in Brazil, KMU in the Philippines and COSATU in South Africa. In each of these countries, these new labor centers were challenging employers, their respective state, and the global politicaleconomic-cultural networks in which their countries were enmeshed.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
