Mobilizing for Recognition: Indie Unions, Migrant Workers, and Strategic Equality Act Litigation

IF 0.8 Q3 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations Pub Date : 2022-06-01 DOI:10.54648/ijcl2022007
Manoj Dias-Abey
{"title":"Mobilizing for Recognition: Indie Unions, Migrant Workers, and Strategic Equality Act Litigation","authors":"Manoj Dias-Abey","doi":"10.54648/ijcl2022007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Drawing on a broad repertoire of action, including strategic litigation, several new activist unions have appeared that seek to represent the multiracial working class of contemporary Britain. Although the court cases that have drawn the most attention are those that challenge the misclassification of employees or ‘workers’ as ‘self-employed’, another dimension of these unions’ strategic litigation has been the utilization of the Equality Act 2010 (Equality Act) to allege racial discrimination. The contention advanced in this article is that it might be possible to read unions’ increasing use of the Equality Act as instances of them pursuing a politics of recognition. For those of us interested in analysing and assessing the strategies of unions in respect of their multiracial membership, the critical question is why and how race discrimination claims may act to boost indie unions’ efforts to organize diverse workplaces. Drawing on Nancy Fraser’s work that asserts a politics of recognition can contribute to a politics of redistribution, this article proposes that recognition claims may be advancing the broader goals of labour organizing by building a worker subjectivity poised for action, and a collective identity undergirded by respect, mutual understanding, and solidarity.\nDiscrimination, Migrant Workers, Legal Mobilization, Recognition, Organizing","PeriodicalId":44213,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/ijcl2022007","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: 0

Abstract

Drawing on a broad repertoire of action, including strategic litigation, several new activist unions have appeared that seek to represent the multiracial working class of contemporary Britain. Although the court cases that have drawn the most attention are those that challenge the misclassification of employees or ‘workers’ as ‘self-employed’, another dimension of these unions’ strategic litigation has been the utilization of the Equality Act 2010 (Equality Act) to allege racial discrimination. The contention advanced in this article is that it might be possible to read unions’ increasing use of the Equality Act as instances of them pursuing a politics of recognition. For those of us interested in analysing and assessing the strategies of unions in respect of their multiracial membership, the critical question is why and how race discrimination claims may act to boost indie unions’ efforts to organize diverse workplaces. Drawing on Nancy Fraser’s work that asserts a politics of recognition can contribute to a politics of redistribution, this article proposes that recognition claims may be advancing the broader goals of labour organizing by building a worker subjectivity poised for action, and a collective identity undergirded by respect, mutual understanding, and solidarity. Discrimination, Migrant Workers, Legal Mobilization, Recognition, Organizing
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
动员承认:独立工会,移民工人和战略平等法案诉讼
利用包括战略诉讼在内的广泛行动,一些新的激进工会出现了,它们试图代表当代英国的多种族工人阶级。虽然引起最多关注的法庭案件是那些挑战将雇员或“工人”错误分类为“自营职业者”的案件,但这些工会战略诉讼的另一个方面是利用《2010年平等法》(《平等法》)来指控种族歧视。本文提出的论点是,工会越来越多地使用《平等法案》,这可能被解读为他们追求政治认可的例子。对于我们这些有兴趣分析和评估工会在多种族成员方面的策略的人来说,关键的问题是种族歧视索赔为什么以及如何推动独立工会努力组织多样化的工作场所。南希·弗雷泽(Nancy Fraser)的研究断言,承认的政治可以促进再分配的政治,本文提出,通过建立一种准备采取行动的工人主体性,以及一种以尊重、相互理解和团结为基础的集体身份,承认的要求可能正在推进劳工组织的更广泛目标。歧视,农民工,法律动员,承认,组织
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
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Published four times a year, the International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations is an essential source of information and analysis for labour lawyers, academics, judges, policymakers and others. The Journal publishes original articles in the domains of labour law (broadly understood) and industrial relations. Articles cover comparative and international (or regional) analysis of topical issues, major developments and innovative practices, as well as discussions of theoretical and methodological approaches. The Journal adopts a double-blind peer review process. A distinguished editorial team, with the support of an International Advisory Board of eminent scholars from around the world, ensures a continuing high standard of scientific research dealing with a range of important issues.
期刊最新文献
Litigating the Algorithmic Boss in the EU: A (Legally) Feasible and (Strategically) Attractive Option for Trade Unions? Modern Slavery in Liner Shipping: An Empirical Analysis of Corporate Statements The Requirement of Fair Negotiation (Gebot des fairen Verhandelns) and the Principle of Undue Influence in German and US Employment Law Regulating Platform Work in the UK and Italy: Politics, Law and Political Economy Regulating Algorithmic Management at Work in the European Union: Data Protection, Non-discrimination and Collective Rights
×
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