I\u2019m not a labor historian, but I grew up in a long-time union household that instilled a strong sense of working-class values. For most of my adult life, I\u2019ve thought about labor unions, how they could better organize, and how those of us not organizing on the shop floor could aid such efforts.<\/p>\n
Indeed, there\u2019s much to learn from any movement or organization that\u2019s been able to stand the test of time, regardless of the sectoral, geographical, or political context in which they emerge, organize, and fight.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, in my experience, activists and organizers in the U.S., particularly those in trade unions, rarely seek advice, lessons, or to better understand trade union movements in what some might refer to as the \u2018Global South.\u2019 This, of course, is a major problem, and one of the reasons why U.S. labor organizing, mobilization, and activism has been so abysmal.<\/p>\n
Kim Scipes<\/a>, in his latest book, Building Global Labor Solidarity: Lessons from the Philippines, South Africa, Northwestern Europe, and the United States<\/em><\/a>, adds a significant and meaningful contribution to our understanding of trade unionism, how we might better theoretically understand the concepts of \u201clabor movements\u201d and \u201csocial movement unionism,\u201d and how labor centers such as the KMU in the Philippines and others in South Africa embody these understandings and practices.<\/p>\n Scipes takes us on a fascinating and inspiring personal and political journey, from San Francisco in 1984 to Northwestern Europe during the fall of 1985, experiences in the Philippines in 1986, and reflections on trade union organizing in South Africa during the late-1980s and early-1990s. Without question, Scipes\u2019 personal history and tails from his international travels are as engrossing as the intellectual content contained in his latest book.<\/p>\n For the sake of time, I\u2019ll limit my reflections to the latter, in the hope that activists and organizers of all stripes can take away important lessons from this lengthy review.<\/p>\n Shop Floor Internationalism<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cShop floor internationalism is workers joining together across national boundaries to support each other through concerted action on the shop floor.\u201d As an example, Scipes references the experiences of Larry Wright, \u201ca key organizer of the Liberation Support Committee in the International Longshoremen and Warehousemen\u2019s Union (ILWU) in San Francisco.\u201d In 1984, Larry and members of the ILWU Local 10 stopped a Dutch ship from carrying South African cargo for three days during November-December of that year.<\/p>\n A few key points: first, the action was led by rank and file workers; second, a robust and long-term educational program laid the ideological groundwork for such an action to have any level of success (leaders within the union spoke openly about and stood in solidarity with workers abroad); and third, the union actively sought support from different unions and community organizations\u200a\u2014\u200athree points that come up routinely throughout the book.<\/p>\n One of the key components to building shop floor internationalism is the ability to communicate and convey a sense of internationalism. As Scipes points out, \u201cOne of the first efforts to communicate and theoretically develop the concept of shop floor internationalism was the establishment of NILS, Newsletter of International Labour Studies<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n Other important journals such as International Labor Reports<\/em> (ILR), based in England, a project Scipes actively worked with from 1984\u20131989 as ILR\u2019s North American representative, the Asian Labour Monitor<\/em> (ALM), published in Hong Kong, LABOUR, Capital and Society<\/em>, located in South America, the South African Labour Bulletin<\/em>, and the KMU\u2019s journals, KMU Correspondence<\/em> and KMU International Bulletin, <\/em>have all played significant roles in communicating the vital and important role of internationalism in trade union struggles.<\/p>\n Films have also played a significant role in shaping the ideological contours of working-class people and the communities in which they live. Scipes suggests viewing Controlling Interest<\/em>, The Global Assembly Line<\/em> and Bringing It All Back Home,<\/em> to name a few. <\/em><\/p>\n For Scipes, one of the keys to understanding successful trade union movements is their ability to educate and mold member consciousness, values, and worldview, a point we\u2019ll return to later. Scipes is correct when he claims identity and ideology must be developed<\/em>. The methods mentioned above\u200a\u2014\u200aeducation, films, and journals\u200a\u2014\u200aplay a vital role in this process.<\/p>\n Theoretically Understanding Labor Movements<\/strong><\/p>\n In Part Two, Scipes poses the question, \u201cHow do we theoretically understand labor movements and worker mobilization?\u201d Here, I\u2019ll do my best to summarize some dense and reasonably complicated concepts.<\/p>\n To begin, he argues that \u201cusing broadly comparative methods to understand global unionism is\u2026a necessity, as it is not enough just to use case studies of single labor movements or even narrow comparisons: doing so, we find that a structural analysis cannot provide the level of analysis needed [to understand the emergence of \u2018social movement unionism\u2019].\u201d<\/p>\n In this section, he clearly and convincingly rejects the notion that structural based analyses can explain the surfacing of social movement unionism and distinguishes between three types of trade unionism: economic<\/em>, political<\/em>, and social movement unionism<\/em>.<\/p>\n While Scipes accepts \u201cthat structural changes can<\/em> account for changed conditions leading to the emergence of militant labor <\/a>movements,\u201d he\u2019s very explicit that, \u201cstructural changes cannot<\/em> account for the emergence of any particular type of trade unionism, thus specifically cannot account for the emergence of social movement unionism.\u201d<\/p>\n In other words, a nation\u2019s changing political-economic landscape\u200a\u2014\u200aNeoliberalization, rapid industrialization, trade agreements, financialization, broader economic restructuring, etc.\u200a\u2014\u200acannot account for the birth of \u201csocial movement unionism.\u201d For instance, the percentage of Filipinos working in the manufacturing sector in 1990 (9.7%) was less than in 1960 (12.1%), yet social movement unionism emerges in the Philippines in 1980, during a decline in industrialization.<\/p>\n So, what accounts for the emergence of the KMU (Kilusang Mayo Uno, or May First Labor Movement)? Before we answer that question, let\u2019s examine some of Scipes\u2019 definitions and conceptualizations. Labor movements, in Scipes\u2019 view, are simply one example of social movements, though an important one due to their proximity to economic production and exchange.<\/p>\n Social movements are defined as \u201ca collectivity acting with some degree of organization and continuity outside of institutional channels, for the purpose of promoting or resisting change in the group, society or world order of which it is a part.\u201d Trade unions are at the heart of labor movements. Labor centers seek to \u201cunify and strengthen the unions.\u201d Intellectuals, individuals, and various other organizations, educational institutions, allies (progressive churches, for instance), together, \u201cmobilize into a mutually-reinforcing social network, that comprises a labor movement.\u201d<\/p>\n In short, \u201clabor movements derive their power from their ability to mobilize large numbers of people as a unified force to disrupt production, distribution and\/or exchange, and to withstand counterattacks from capital and\/or the state.\u201d<\/p>\n According to Scipes, there are three types of trade unionism: economic<\/em>, political<\/em>, and social movement unionism<\/em>. Economic unionism is defined as \u201cunionism that accommodates itself to, and is absorbed by, the industrial relations system of its particular country,\u201d and \u201cengages in political activities within the dominant political system for the well-being of its members and its institutional self but generally limits itself to immediate interests.\u201d<\/p>\n Political unionism, though somewhat similar in its overall posture and relation to workers\u2019 autonomy and democracy, is defined as a \u201cunionism that is dominated by or subordinated to a political party or state, to which the leaders give primary loyalty\u200a\u2014\u200aand this includes both the Leninist and \u2018radical nationalist\u2019 versions\u201d and \u201cresults in generally but not totally neglecting workplace issues for \u2018larger\u2019 political issues.\u201d<\/p>\n Social movement unionism, on the other hand, differs qualitatively from both economic and political trade unionism:<\/p>\n Social movement unionism is a type of trade unionism that differs from the traditional forms of both economic and political unionism. This type seeks workers\u2019 struggles as merely one of many efforts to qualitatively change society, and not either the only site for political struggle and social change or even the primary site. Therefore, it seeks alliances with other social movements on an equal basis and tries to join them in practice when possible, both within the country and internationally.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Social movement unionism is trade unionism democratically controlled by the membership and not by any external organization., and recognizes that the struggles for control over workers\u2019 daily worklife, pay and conditions are intimately connected with and cannot be separated from the national socio-political-economic situation. This requires that struggles to improve the situation of workers confront the national situation\u200a\u2014\u200acombining struggles against exploitation and oppression in the workplace with those confronting domination both external from and internal to the larger society\u200a\u2014\u200aas well as any dominating relations within the unions themselves [race, gender, sexuality]. Therefore, it is autonomous from capital, the state, and political parties, setting its own agenda from its own particular perspective, yet willing to consider modifying its perspective on the basis of negotiations with the social movements that it allied with and that it has equal relations.<\/p>\n Drawing from the work of Alberto Melucci, Scipes argues that researchers must seek to \u201crecognize [and better understand] the constitutive processes by which they [social and labor movements] are constructed.\u201d Put differently, one must not treat movements as a given, an empirical reality, \u201cbut rather focus on the process of how [such movements] have been built.\u201d<\/p>\n Here, collective identity plays a key role. Developing a collective identity is an ongoing process. First, the collective identity must be developed, then the collective group of people who commonly identify must choose to take collective action and maintain that identity. Again, none of this is a given. In some places, movements have arisen in the context of rapid industrialization, while in other places with a similar socio-political-economic context, no such movements developed. Individuals, in the end, must choose how they respond to changing structural circumstances.<\/p>\n Scipes agrees with Carol Mueller who claims that \u201cthe status quo must be challenged at the cultural level in terms of its claims to legitimacy before mass collective action is feasible.\u201d Mueller suggests four levels of analysis: \u201cpublic discourse, persuasive communication initiated by movement organizations, consciousness-raising from participation in episodes of collective action, and the creation of collective identities in submerged [social] networks.\u201d<\/p>\n That said, the author is very clear: \u201cwe also have to recognize, especially in labor struggles, that collective identity is not solely created through conscious, rational, or cognitive processes\u200a\u2014\u200ait can also be created through partaking in collective action.\u201d In other words, the emergence of collective identity is not always a deliberative process.<\/p>\n The ramifications of this new conceptualization are threefold:<\/p>\n First, it consciously conceives of workers\u2019 struggles as being directed against dominative power and consciously joins workers with all other people in the struggle for emancipation. Second, it sees workers\u2019 struggles as integrated with all other struggles against dominative power\u200a\u2014\u200athus, the separation of labor from other social movements is ended. And third, it does not limit this model of trade unionism to workers in the LEDCs [less economically developed countries]; it is one that allows workers anywhere to adopt it.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n
\n