IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/brjirl/v62y2024i1p72-97.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Solidarity with atypical workers? Survey evidence from the General Motors versus United Auto Workers strike in 2019

Author

Listed:
  • Carla Lima Aranzaes
  • Christian Lyhne Ibsen
  • Philip S. DeOrtentiis
  • Maite Tapia

Abstract

In this article, we examine the extent to which typical workers act in solidarity with atypical workers. We collected unique survey data from United Auto Workers striking against General Motors in 2019 during the strike and after the ratification vote. Although solidarity was generally high, we do find that typical workers with longer tenure exhibit less solidarity with atypical workers and that they are more prone to be on strike due to material reasons. In the second survey, after workers had voted on the proposed contract, we find that typical workers were more prone to vote yes to the agreement for self‐interested, material reasons and that solidarity with atypical workers had a significant, negative effect on the probability of voting yes to the agreement. Our findings support notions that insiders strike and vote according to self‐interests. We discuss these findings in light of the insider/outsider, dualization and union strategy literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Carla Lima Aranzaes & Christian Lyhne Ibsen & Philip S. DeOrtentiis & Maite Tapia, 2024. "Solidarity with atypical workers? Survey evidence from the General Motors versus United Auto Workers strike in 2019," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 62(1), pages 72-97, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:brjirl:v:62:y:2024:i:1:p:72-97
    DOI: 10.1111/bjir.12763
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12763
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/bjir.12763?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:brjirl:v:62:y:2024:i:1:p:72-97. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.