Freedom of Association in Vietnam: A Heretical View

IF 1.3 Q3 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR Global Labour Journal Pub Date : 2021-05-31 DOI:10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4442
J. Buckley
{"title":"Freedom of Association in Vietnam: A Heretical View","authors":"J. Buckley","doi":"10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4442","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Vietnam is a one-party state with a single state-led union federation and significant numbers of wildcat strikes. In January 2021, independent worker representative organisations became legal. The reforms are creating significant excitement among labour watchers and practitioners. This article, however, provides a more sceptical tone. Drawing on Atzeni’s critique of trade union fetishism, I argue that, rather than being a progressive step forward, freedom of association reforms are an attempt to reduce labour militancy. First, Vietnam is implementing reforms while further embedding itself into neo-liberal capital flows and global production networks – the very form of capitalism that undermined trade unionism elsewhere. Second, workers have been using effective forms of self-organised, wildcat militancy for two decades, which has led to significant improvements in terms of wages, conditions and national policy. The current organisational form of wildcat strikes does not easily fit into a worker representative organisation (WRO) structure. Third, because existing forms of resistance have worked, workers have not been demanding independent organisations. Rather, such demands have come from capital. Previous attempts to build harmonious labour relations by reducing militancy through incorporating class antagonisms into non-threatening forms have failed. Consequently, capital has now embraced ideas around freedom of association as an attempt to tame worker resistance.\nKEYWORDS: Strikes; unions; freedom of association; Vietnam; WROs","PeriodicalId":44737,"journal":{"name":"Global Labour Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Labour Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4442","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Vietnam is a one-party state with a single state-led union federation and significant numbers of wildcat strikes. In January 2021, independent worker representative organisations became legal. The reforms are creating significant excitement among labour watchers and practitioners. This article, however, provides a more sceptical tone. Drawing on Atzeni’s critique of trade union fetishism, I argue that, rather than being a progressive step forward, freedom of association reforms are an attempt to reduce labour militancy. First, Vietnam is implementing reforms while further embedding itself into neo-liberal capital flows and global production networks – the very form of capitalism that undermined trade unionism elsewhere. Second, workers have been using effective forms of self-organised, wildcat militancy for two decades, which has led to significant improvements in terms of wages, conditions and national policy. The current organisational form of wildcat strikes does not easily fit into a worker representative organisation (WRO) structure. Third, because existing forms of resistance have worked, workers have not been demanding independent organisations. Rather, such demands have come from capital. Previous attempts to build harmonious labour relations by reducing militancy through incorporating class antagonisms into non-threatening forms have failed. Consequently, capital has now embraced ideas around freedom of association as an attempt to tame worker resistance. KEYWORDS: Strikes; unions; freedom of association; Vietnam; WROs
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
越南的结社自由:一种异端观点
越南是一个一党制国家,有一个由各州领导的工会联合会和大量的野猫式罢工。2021年1月,独立的工人代表组织合法化。这些改革在劳工观察家和从业者中引起了极大的兴奋。然而,这篇文章提供了一种更加怀疑的语气。根据阿特泽尼对工会恋物癖的批评,我认为,结社自由改革并不是向前迈出的进步一步,而是试图减少劳工的战斗性。首先,越南正在实施改革,同时进一步融入新自由主义资本流动和全球生产网络——正是这种资本主义形式破坏了其他地方的工会主义。其次,20年来,工人们一直在使用有效形式的自我组织、野猫式的战斗,这导致了工资、条件和国家政策的显著改善。目前的野猫式罢工组织形式不容易融入工人代表组织(WRO)结构。第三,由于现有形式的抵抗已经奏效,工人们没有要求独立的组织。相反,这种需求来自资本。以前试图通过将阶级对立纳入非威胁形式来减少战斗性,从而建立和谐的劳动关系,但都失败了。因此,资本现在接受了围绕结社自由的思想,试图驯服工人的抵抗。关键词:罢工;工会;结社自由;越南WRO
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Global Labour Journal
Global Labour Journal INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR-
自引率
12.50%
发文量
26
审稿时长
39 weeks
期刊最新文献
Review of Supriya RoyChowdhury (2021) City of Shadows: Slums and Informal Work in Bangalore Racial Capitalism and Global Labour Studies – a Missed Encounter ? Precarious Associational Power Editorial: Going Against the Grain: Our Commitment to Truly Global Labour Studies Pandemic Necrolabour and Essential Workers in the UK and France
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1