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.

Ethnic identification: Impact on HIV/AIDS risk among migrant and seasonal workers in South Florida

Migrant workers are one of the most rapidly growing populations in the United States (U.S.) and have been significantly affected by HIV/AIDS. More than 9 million people in the U.S., primarily concentrated in Texas, Florida, Washington, California, Oregon, and North Carolina, are migrant farm workers. High prevalence rates are also suspected among migrant worker communities where risky health behaviors appear to be common. Constant mobility, isolation, limited education, substandard housing, and poverty are some of the factors that migrant workers experience and in many cases increases their HIV risk. Recent studies have suggested that ethnic identity or the level of attachment with one's ethnic group may influence engagement in HIV risk behaviors, a fact that may be important in the development of interventions among ethnic minorities. This study assesses the relationship between ethnic identity and HIV risk behaviors in two different samples; one assesses this relationship at baseline with a total of 431 African American migrant and seasonal workers in Immokalee, Florida. The second analyzes changes in ethnic identity and HIV behaviors in a sample of 270 Hispanic and African American migrant and seasonal workers in Immokalee, Florida. Data from baseline and 6-month follow-up were used in the analyses presented. The results suggest that individuals with higher levels of ethnic identity report lower levels of engagement in some, but not all, of the risky behaviors examined. These findings point to a potentially protective role for ethnic identity among this sample.