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.

Ghost Tree Social

GHOST TREE SOCIAL tells a coming out story of sorts. In terms of style, many of the poems are short, imagistic lyrics, though some are extended catalogues. Specific natural images—lakes, rivers, and snow—are often contrasted with cultural markers. The imagistic poems are thinking through the work of Sylvia Plath. The catalogue poems shift between diaristic, narrative, and critical modes, responding to the poetry of Elizabeth Bishop and the essays of Edouard Glissant. Voice-driven fragments disrupt the more traditional lyric poems. The fragments fall between formal lyrics like confetti from a gay club’s rafters; or the fragments hold the lyric poems in bondage. The lyric poem then re-signifies as form through resonances with the other discursive and poetic form of the fragment. Following critical writers such as Adrienne Rich and Audre Lorde, the re-signification of lyric form reflects the need for new signs for self and community organized queerly as opposed to more typical binary categories—man or woman, living or dead, rich or poor, white or black—where the first term is privileged and the second term often denigrated.