Labour market or labour movement? The union density bias as barrier to labour renewal
Labour market or labour movement? The union density bias as barrier to labour renewal
复制标题
劳动力市场还是劳动力运动？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. Sullivan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Sullivan
大多数劳工学者认为工会在劳动力市场的份额，工会密度，是运动的主要力量来源。相反，社会运动学者通常认为权力嵌入在破坏、组织网络、资源或政治机会中。虽然许多劳工学者提倡“社会运动工会主义”来扭转劳工的衰落，但他们在很大程度上未能采取彻底的社会运动观点。这方面的一个迹象是，工会密度仍然是劳工组织成功和权力的神圣指标。我认为，这种密度偏差具有显着的分析意义，导致观察员忽略非市场来源的运动力量，减少一个单一的组织形式的异构运动，并过度简化运动组织的复杂过程。我认为，将劳工明确地视为一场社会运动，而不是隐含地视为市场中的一个代理人，将开辟新的调查路线，可能会加强对劳工复兴前景的分析。
Most labour scholars view the unionised share of the labour market, union density, as the movement’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 ‘social movement unionism’ to reverse labour’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 labour’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 labour’s prospects for renewal.