Social Movement Unionism: Questions and Possibilities

Abstract

The debate about social movement unionism is long overdue. Of course, as noted in each of the contributions to the symposium, there are twists and turns to the discussion that raise difficult questions to consider. An initial pause for thought comes from Richard Hyman (2001) who reminds us of the origins of trade unions, in almost all countries. Trade unions are social movements that arose out of a questioning of the “principles of the prevailing social and economic order” (p. 60). Hyman locates his analysis in terms of a distinction between trade unions as social institutions or social movements (pp. 60–62) and he goes on to observe that “almost universally trade unions emerged as social movements” (p. 60). Too often we forget the point made in most of Hyman’s writing that trade unions are more or less always caught on a tension between two competing pressures, towards “businesslike service organisation” and “expression and vehicle of the historical movement of the submerged laboring masses” (Herberg 1943: 406, cited in Hyman 2001: 61) or “sword of justice” or “vested interest” (Flanders 1970: 15–16, cited in Hyman 2001: 61). The argument is that this dualism, in some form or other, is universal, and clearly something that we all need to take into account. The implication is that by arguing for social movement unionism per se the argument overlooks the specific features that define trade unionism as well as the relations in which unions are locked and located—and because of this where they have potential. However, before coming back to some of the other aspects of trade unionism that we need to consider it is worth recapping the analysis of social movement unionism, as Employ Respons Rights J (2008) 20:309–313 DOI 10.1007/s10672-008-9091-1