IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Does the New Labor Movement Look So Much Like the Old One? Putting the 1990s Revitalization Project in Historical Context




In the 1990s the labor movement underwent a major transformation in an attempt to confront the challenges facing organized labor, most notably a precipitous membership decline--in the private sector, membership is currently at a post-Great Depression low. Despite the enthusiastic response among unionists and scholars alike to this revitalization project, as Zald and Berger (1978) note, change within formal organizations is often a contentious process, as competing interests struggle for control. The current labor movement is no exception: Significant conflict surrounds the issue of new organizing activities. While this period is certainly interesting for the level of open debate occurring over the future of the movement, it is not unique as a time of heightened tensions among unionists. Herein I describe debates, both historical and present, over organizing goals and tactics. In order to draw parallels between the past and present, I offer a theoretical account of why organizing is such a controversial topic. Initial support for these explanations, drawn from quotes from unionists and observers of the movement alike, indicates that the current turmoil in the labor movement is similar to that which occurred in other important periods and that the consequences of the decisions made today regarding organizing can have significant ramifications for the movement's future.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew W. Martin, 2006. "Why Does the New Labor Movement Look So Much Like the Old One? Putting the 1990s Revitalization Project in Historical Context," Journal of Labor Research, Transaction Publishers, vol. 27(2), pages 163-185, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:tra:jlabre:v:27:y:2006:i:2:p:163-185

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:tra:jlabre:v:27:y:2006:i:2:p:163-185. 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: (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.