Labour market or labour movement? The union density bias as barrier to labour renewal
AbstractMost labour scholars view the unionised share of the labour market, union density, as the movementâ€™s primary source of power. Conversely, social movement scholars usually consider power embedded in disruption, organisational networks, resources, or political opportunities. Although many labour scholars promote â€˜social movement unionismâ€™ to reverse labourâ€™s decline, they have largely failed to adopt a thoroughgoing social movement perspective. A sign of this is that union density remains the sacrosanct indicator of organised labourâ€™s success and power. I argue that this density bias has significant analytical implications, leading observers to overlook non-market sources of movement power, to reduce a heterogeneous movement to a single organisational form, and to oversimplify the complex processes of movement organizing. I contend that treating labour explicitly as a social movement rather than implicitly as an agent in a market will open new lines of inquiry that may strengthen analyses of labourâ€™s prospects for renewal.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by British Sociological Association in its journal Work, Employment & Society.
Volume (Year): 24 (2010)
Issue (Month): 1 (March)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.britsoc.co.uk/
labour movement; labour movement revitalisation; social movements; social movement unionism; unionisation; unions; union density;
You can help add them by filling out this form.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (SAGE Publications).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.