Union organizing: a response to Carter
Union organizing: a response to Carter
复制标题
工会组织：对卡特的回应
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2007
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Simon de Turberville
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Simon de Turberville
2005年工会成员比1979年减少了近600万（Certification Officer, 1980,2006），更新战略的发展仍然至关重要。其中一种策略是基于工会应该从自上而下的服务模式（SM）转变为自下而上的组织模式（OM）的想法，这种模式将鼓励会员参与，振兴会员议程，提高工会效率并刺激机构增长。我在之前的一篇文章中研究了OM，并得出结论，这不是一个可信的更新策略（de Turberville, 2004）。这篇文章描述了先前的研究如何认为SM和OM要么完全不同（Carter, 2000），要么相互依赖（Waddington and Kerr, 2000）。我关心的是将对OM的分析置于对这两个框架的评估之中。这导致了以下三条推理线。第一，这两种模式所依据的规范原则有共同的因素，因此没有根本的不同- -实际上，工会工作人员在提供服务期间依靠以前的组织水平（一个例子是高度依赖会费来维持提供服务）。此外，工会工作人员在组织期间为会员提供服务（例如使用领导组织者；寻找和培训潜在的活动家；编写支持性文献）。因此，从服务到组织的转变假定工作人员和成员之间关系的质量发生变化，但他们的作用不变。因此，工会衰落的解决方案将包括工会和工会的两个方面。其次，这种共性削弱了卡特所支持的两种模式的根本不同地位，并将每一种模式都降级为名义结构。然而，它并没有挑战激进变革（赋予大多数人权力）的必要性。相反，我认为有必要在更全面地理解工会组织过程的基础上，假设一种重新整合的激进主义，认识到它是三个基本原理之一——另外两个是历史/实用主义（组织工作）和保守主义（它缓解了工会的财务问题）——可能影响参与者的参与。然后就可以争夺了
W ith almost six million fewer union members in 2005 than in 1979 (Certification Officer, 1980, 2006) the development of renewal strategies remains crucial. One such strategy is based on the idea that unions should shift from a top-down servicing model (SM) to a bottom-up organizing model (OM) that would encourage member participation, revitalize member agendas, increase union effectiveness and stimulate institutional growth. I examined the OM in a previous article and concluded that it was not a credible renewal strategy (de Turberville, 2004). The article described how previous research had considered the SM and OM to be either radically different (Carter, 2000) or mutually reliant (Waddington and Kerr, 2000). My concern was to situate an analysis of the OM within an evaluation of these two frameworks. This resulted in the following three lines of reasoning. First, the normative principles on which the two models are based have elements in common and are thus not radically different – in reality, union staff rely on prior levels of organization during servicing (one example being a high reliance on dues to maintain service provision). Moreover, union staff provide services for members during organizing (some examples being the use of lead organizers; locating and training potential activists; generating supportive literature). Consequently, a move from servicing to organizing assumes that the quality of relationships change between staff and members but that their roles endure. Solutions to union decline will therefore include aspects of both the SM and the OM. Second, this commonality undermines the radically different status of the two models espoused by Carter and downgrades each into nominal constructs. It does not, however, challenge the need for radical change (empowerment of the majority). Rather, I argued for the need to posit a reintegrated radicalism within a more comprehensive understanding of union organizing processes by recognizing that it is one of three rationales – the other two being historical/pragmatic (organizing works) and conservative (it alleviates union financial problems) – likely to influence the engagement of participants. It could then be contended