Social Movement Unionism or Social Justice Unionism? Disentangling Theoretical Confusion within the Global Labor Movement

After the election of John Sweeney as President of the AFL-CIO in October 1995, activists and supportive intellectuals in the United States began thinking about how to revitalize the almost moribund American labor movement. A key part of this literature has revolved around the concept of “social movement unionism.” This term touched a nerve, and has garnered widespread usage in North America over the past two decades. However, most researchers using this term have no idea that it was initially developed to understand the new unionism developed by members of specific labor movements in Brazil, the Philippines and South Africa, a type of unionism qualitatively different from that found in North America. This paper argues that the term “social movement unionism” should be confined only to labor organizations developing the same type of unionism, wherever in the world such should be found. Accordingly, this concept should not be utilized in North America today as there are no labor centers or unions present that are developing this type of trade unionism. It is important to clarify this confusion because it is leads to incorrect understandings and miscommunication. Accordingly, the current situation—whereby the same term is used to refer to two qualitatively different social phenomena —theoretically works against efforts to build global labor solidarity. What about the progressive, broad-scope unionism emerging in North America over the past two decades? Taking a page from labor history, this article argues that the proper precedent is progressive unionism developed by the United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, and others, and therefore should be referred to as “social justice unionism.” An Appendix provides a measurement tool. The argument is empirically grounded and theoretically developed, allowing us to better understand trade unionism around the globe.

The construct of work commitment: Testing an integrative framework

This dissertation meta-analytically examined the expansive material associated with work commitment. Work commitment, a multidimensional construct, encompasses the level of involvement an employee has with his or her work, organization, job, career, and union (Morrow & Goetz, 1998). Each of the dimensions of work commitment has been further divided into a number of subdimensions. The primary purpose of this study was to (1) cumulate the correlations found among each of the dimensions of work commitment to see which, if any, were intercorrelated, and to (2) determine the impact of work commitment dimensions and subdimensions on specific outcome variables (job satisfaction, job performance, and turnover). ^ A number of interesting results stemmed from the 213 separate meta-analyses that were conducted. First, the evidence did not indicate that all of the subdimensions for each respective dimension were positively correlated. Specifically, there was not enough evidence to indicate that continuance organizational commitment was positively correlated with its other organizational commitment subdimensions. Future research might consider revamping the work commitment taxonomy so that all subdimensions that fall within a particular dimension are interrelated. It might be appropriate, therefore, to drop continuance organizational commitment from the work commitment taxonomy. Second, while most of the respective dimensions were interrelated, this was not the case across the board. For instance, there was no evidence of a significant positive relationship between organizational commitment and union commitment. In fact, the only significant relationship was negative between organizational commitment and belief in unionism. Further, there was no evidence of a positive relationship between union commitment and either work ethic endorsement or job involvement, respectively. These findings supported Morrow's (1993) rationale for excluding union commitment from the work commitment taxonomy. ^

Building Global Labor Solidarity Today: Learning from the KMU of the Philippines

New labor movements are currently emerging across the Global South. This is happening in countries as disparate as China, Egypt, and Iran. New developments are taking place within labor movements in places such as Colombia, Indonesia, Iraq, Mexico, Pakistan and Venezuela. Activists and leaders in these labor movements are seeking information from workers and unions around the world. However, many labor activists today know little or nothing about the last period of intense efforts to build international labor solidarity, the years 1978-2007. One of the key labor movements of this period, and which continues today, is the KMU Labor Center of the Philippines. It is this author’s contention that there is a lot unknown about the KMU that would help advance global labor solidarity today. This paper focuses specifically on the KMU’s development, and shares five things that have emerged from this author’s study of the KMU: a new type of trade unionism, new union organizations, an emphasis on rank and file education, building relations with sectoral organizations, and the need to build international labor solidarity.