Avisos de error

Leôncio Martins Rodrigues (1999) in “The Destiny of Unionism” (Destino do

Sindicalismo) declared, almost peremptorily and definitively, that “The set of political,

economic, commercial, technological, and cultural of the last decades, sometimes assigned under the term ‘globalization’ […] reached hardly the labor unionism” (Rodrigues 1999: 11, my translation)39 _{and, in the best style “against data there’s no}

argument”, shows statistical analysis on shrinking affiliation rates in the United States and Western Europe. One of the chapters is named “The decrease of the union power”

39 _{Original text: “O conjunto de mudanças políticas, econômicas, comerciais, tecnológicas e culturais dos}

últimos decênios, às vezes designadas pelo controvertido termo ‘globalização’ [...] atingiu duramente o sindicalismo”.

(O declínio do poder sindical40_{, my emphasis), as well as factors of de-unionization. The}

exception would be essentially Nordic.

There’s indeed a close link between affiliation density and union capability, mainly in the national level. It’s worth mentioning that the author makes the important distinction between unionism as a movement and as an institution, as well as the assumption that there’s no general law that correlates union density with strikes and union capability.

It’s worth questioning, however, the hypothesis “labor unionism loses strength in the extent that union density diminishes, which is, in the extent that workers abandon the organization” (Rodrigues 1999: 125)41_{. This is an axiom, since it is not}

proven considering the other independent or control variables. First of all, unions can fake their existence (de gaveta, de carimbo or de papel42_{unions are some examples)}

and, in these cases, union’s capabilities are illegitimate. Secondly, although the author mentions factors of union’s weakening due to globalization processes (capital mobility, companies’ competitiveness and so on), there’s not even a line about other forms of union organization and empowerment, such as international unionism and associations with women’s, Black, and student’s movements. My research takes seriously the ways that workers organize that fall outside the scope of traditional unions - both the organizations that pop up when unions aren’t present and the organizing that surfaces when unions aren’t enough: “In response to declining union membership, there is a growing perception that labour will have to develop strategies that complements local

40 _{Original text: “[...] estamos entendendo o poder sindical como a capacidade de as elites sindicais}

imporem decisões (geralmente na forma de obtenção de reinvindicações), vetarem decisões ou – alternativa menos favorável – modificarem decisões que partam do governo, das empresas ou de outras elites. [...] Há, pois, em face do fenômeno das quedas dos coeficientes de filiação sindical, dois pontos interligados: A) o das relações entresindicalização e poder sindical, de modo mais direto, e poder das classes trabalhadoras, de modo mais indireto; B) o das relações entre as taxas de sindicalização e conflito, expresso geralmente, mas não unicamente, em paralisações do trabalho”.

41 _{Original text: “o sindicalismo perde força à medida em que caem os índices de sindicalização, isto é, à}

medida em que os trabalhadores abandonam a organização”.

42 _{“De papel” unions are a Mexican phenomena. As the name suggests, these are associations that exist}

only in formal contracts, but no intention on actually representing them. Other names (“de gaveta” ou “de carimbo”) are other names for the same phenomena.

organizing and national activism with international campaigns” (Gordon and Turner 2000 qtd. Anner 2007). This is not to say that workers didn’t organize internationally before, Bakunin and Marx and Engels pushed for a more internationalist approach, as did some anarchists and communists. However, understanding contemporary international unionism is key to addressing present global solidarity dilemmas. This new unionism grew out of a globalized world economy and the issues that come with it such as multinational companies, mobility and the search for a cheaper/ precarious workforce, vulnerability of refugees and migrant workers, relative loss of power from Nation-States, power of international organizations, an internationalized hegemonic dominant class, flexible production systems and management systems, regionalization processes, free market agreements, divisions of labor by gender, race, age, nationality, and so on.

The literature on international union networks have many approaches: the networks’ internal and external structures (Gray 2015); the relation among labor unions’ level of militancy, the state, and the supply chains (Anner 2011); Corporate Strategic Campaigns Research (perspectives of different authors at Brofenbrenner 2007; Juravich and Brofenbrenner 1999); the alter-globalization (another globalization) perspective (Sousa Santos 2005; Anner 2007; Webster, Lambert and Bezuidenhout 2008); the importance of education (Croucher and Cotton 2009); different proactive answers from Global Unions (Harrod and O’Brien 2002); and the role of the leadership (Rombaldi 2012).

According to Gray (2015), relevant internal structures of international union networks that measure their success would include cohesion (low or high) and density, frequency, scope and effectiveness of a network’s activities. In order to expand internal cohesion, important actions should include regular meetings, institutionalized organizational structure, free exchange of information, corporate research, regular communication, and solidarity campaigns. External recognition would be one of the most valuable characters of an international union network and important variables would include international social dialogue, International Framework Agreements

(IFAs)43_{, other international agreements, and Codes of Conduct. Union strategies to}

reach these structures have five dimensions: research, campaigns, integrative actions, co-management of international regulation, and support in communities. The level of all these variables would result in GUF networks, Consultative networks, Union Side networks, and Consolidated networks (Gray 2015). Although these variables are important, they do not entirely explain why some networks that reach all these prerequisites still do not result in better living and working conditions for workers in any given industry, as workers in the garment industry still face building collapses and risk death on a daily basis. In fact, the fire at Matrix Sweaters, a building in Bangladesh in which workers produced clothing for H&M and JC Penney, demonstrates that even if a network in the garment sector accomplishes all of the structural improvements noted above, the sector will still be more precarious than other sectors that don’t.

Anner (2004; 2011) union designs are shaped by the relation among labor union’s level of militancy/ideology (combative/cooperative), the state relative attendance to labor demands (unfavorable/less favorable), and the type of supply chains (buyer driven/producer driven). According to the author, labor responses do not necessarily lead to internationalism. When the state doesn’t work to improve or maintain labor gains, union organizations forge different strategies based on their ideology/militancy that often include putting pressure on or interrupting supply chain production. Moreover, in the garment sector (buyer driven commodity chains), the radical flank mechanism pops up when union organizations are moderate and international campaigns are more likely to happen when oppositional union organizations enter the battle. In the automobile sector (producer driven commodity chain), micro corporatist pacts emerge when labor organizations are moderate and union networks when not. This explanation provides us useful tools in framing an understanding of workers’ strategy on the ground;

43 _{International Framework Agreements are usually agreed upon Global Union Federations (GUFs) and}

multinational corporations. In theory they are worldwide agreements supposed to reach all works of the world in a specific multinational company that signed the agreement.

however, the methodology doesn’t consider minorities or how state structure effects supply chains, or how these strategies play out as components of radical unions.

Corporate Strategic Campaigns focus primarily on mid- or short-term institutions. Some corporate campaigns have successfully targeted companies even considering the historic power relationship between the Global South and North (Snell 2007), precarious sector, such as the campaigns in the banana industry (Frundt 2007), racism and colonialism (Sukthankar and Kolben 2007), and women (Gunawardana 2007). However, this literature fails to explain structured designs of supply chains based on an intersectional approach, as well as intra-union intersectional politics that could lead to success in international organizing, in part due the focus on mid- or short-term institutionalized solutions. As Brofenbrenner (2007: 222) points out, in her Corporate Strategic Campaigns Research literature “the global labor movement is truly divided within and across countries, sectors, industries, regions and hemispheres”. I suggest that within this hemispheric divide, there are more profound divides based on colonialism--national and regional affiliation and residency, gender, race, and age. Additionally, (and not denying the importance of) Corporate Strategic Campaigns Research suggests that to be most viable, we need a stable, amicable workforce, pay experts, engage in expensive research, and simply organize.

Alter-globalization perspectives spread like wildfire after the World Social Forum and the Seattle’s WTO protests (Webster, Lambert and Bezuidenhout 2008) that took aim at neoliberalism (Sousa Santos 2005). A new international unionism was born. This new international perspective placed the Global South front and center in the fight against labor exploitation, in no small part due to the growing precarity that neoliberalism demanded from the Southern Hemisphere. The South would be the equivalent of immigrant workers in England during the First International challenging relatively well-established and unionized workers: they might be enemies, but if they are radically politicized, they can be string allies to an organized working class. It’s the place in which global whipsawing outflows. Overcoming the North-South divide is the most challenging task for labor internationalism to succeed and would “require the

formation of alliances between the labour movements and social movements around gender, the environment and other social issues” (Webster, Lambert and Bezuidenhout 2007). It would be a way of overcoming The Paradox of Labor Internationalism (Anner 2007) through, for instance “coalitions between labour, environmental and social justice interests, as well as alliances with NGOs, women’s movements, consumer organizations and community” (Webster, Lambert and Bezuidenhout 2007: 193), networks of community-based activists and organizations, direct participation (democracia participativa), international campaigns and alliances, codes of conduct imposed on transnational corporations, coordinated partnerships between unions from developed and developing nations, Human Rights petitions and etc. (Sousa Santos 2007).

Table 1 – Contrasting “old” and “new” labour internationalism

Old labour internationalism New labour internationalism

Career bureaucrats

Political generation of committed activists

Hierarchy and large

bureaucracy Network

Centralization Decentralization Restricted debate Open debate

Diplomatic orientation Mobilization and campaign orientation Focus on workplace and

trade unions only

Focus on coalition building with new social movements and NGOs Predominantly established,

Northern, male, white workers

Predominantly struggling Southern Afro, Asian and Latino workers

Source: Munck, Ronaldo. Globalization and Labour: The New 'Great Transformation'. Zed Books, 2002.Webster, Edward; Lambert, Rob; Bezuidenhout, Andries (2008).Grounding Globalization: Labour in the Age of Insecurity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Proposals constructing new labor international strategies centering the South are maybe the most effective efforts to build counter-hegemonic forces combating global power imbalances. The gap in this argument is that categories and concepts of addressing the North and South dilemma seem to focus on the importance of nation-states as opposed to problematizing the nation-state as an intentional colonial (and thus capitalist) project. Although these authors take into account the history of colonialism, racism, sexism, and other variables in their analysis, in their imagination, the most important variable to understanding the working class is to know the country where they work. This proves problematic when we consider colonies within countries being analyzed; there is a very real Global South inside the Global North, and a Global South inside the Global South, as we mentioned immigration flows from Nicaragua to Costa Rica, Bolivia to Brazil, Peru to Chile, as well as within these countries (Veiga and Galhera 2015; Mora and Undurraga 2013; Lee 2010). What if we looked at Black and indigenous workers, undocumented or informal workers, young workers, and working class women through the lens of an exploited labor reserve that resides within a larger exploited working class community? In other words, these workers are theoretically Global South workers no matter where they reside even if they work in the US, France, or Japan. Identity politics crosses borders, and continents. Just as the movement of capital flows from peripheries to core communities without skipping a beat building channels of solidarity based on common experiences should as well

No doubt education within the labor movement (Croucher and Cotton 2009) is part of building a stronger united front. However, it’s important to think whether or not educational systems promoted in Global Unions and other international organizations reinforce power imbalances, the status quo, and paternalistic relationships. Additionally, I tend to disagree that “The global unions are the only institutions that can develop the collective experience, articulation, and collaboration between unions in the ways demanded by globalization” (Croucher and Cotton 2009). As Waterman (2005) states, if international organizations want to have a more democratic agenda internationally, they need to be more democratic internally. Furthermore, Global Unions tend to lose power if

they don’t agree a common agenda with other actors at all levels. If these unions are not seriously taking the contributions of Black and gender justice organizations and movements into consideration-- , they cannot rightfully present themselves as the sole

loci of information and thus the answers to any contemporary globalized economy

problems.

An analysis of international unionism that focuses on leaders and their cultural capital has been prominent in Brazil(Rombaldi 2012) and, not surprisingly, primarily focuses on the experiences of men in the metallurgical and chemical sectors. Cultural capital, in this case, doesn’t consider power imbalances that created a social reality that made it possible for men to hold most leadership positions in international unions.

Proactive work from Global Unions to address these issues (Harrod and O’Brien 2002)admit the working class is divided by social markers of difference but rely heavily on the narrative of union organizations that falls back on the fallacy that “worker” is the most important variable, thus ignoring intersectional identities and further homogenizing the workforce. As a result, the “two IR” (International Relations and Industrial Relations) proposed by the author tend to concentrate only on successful experiences of labor organizing, without reflecting which groups inside their narrow definition of the working class are more or less empowered to organizing. Additionally, the authors argue that the end of the Cold War period brought with it an end to radical labor ideology. But ideology born of racism experienced by colonial experiences, genderism in all societies and so on are also labor ideology (communists, anarchists, cooperationists, feminists, liberationists and so on) and deserve a place in our analysis of global capital. As a matter of fact, contemporary studies regarding the most precarious workers are found in much of widely accepted economic theory.

CHAPTER 2 - FROM INTERNATIONAL PROLETARIAT TO GLOBAL