Labour market or labour movement? The union density bias as barrier to labour renewal
Most 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:woemps:v:24:y:2010:i:1:p:145-156. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
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.