Despite celebrations from governments, corporations and international financial institutions around increasing economic growth, the majority of the world’s urban labour force continues to work under informal conditions, lacking enforceable contracts, adequate earnings, democratic representation, secure employment and social protection. The pervasiveness of informal labour globally has given rise to numerous calls to adopt a wider and more diverse understanding of what constitutes labouring classes and what is required to organise them. Our case study assesses the outcomes and effectiveness of informal sector organising in Uganda, focusing on the transportation, market and textile sectors. Drawing on Guy Standing’s distinction between “business” and “community” unions and Benjamin Selwyn’s contrasting of “capital-centred development theory” (CCDT) and “labour-led development” (LLD), we argue that community unionist approaches are most effective in addressing the decent work deficit in the informal economy. Simultaneously, the trade unions face constant barriers to successful community organising in the informal economy that cannot be easily overcome without wider changes to the structural conditions under which union organisers must operate. KEYWORDS: Trade unionism; informal labour organising; labour-centred development; Uganda; decent work
{"title":"Trade Union Transformation and Informal Sector Organising in Uganda: The Prospects and Challenges for Promoting Labour-led Development","authors":"Tobias Gerhard Schminke, Gavin Fridell","doi":"10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4394","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4394","url":null,"abstract":"Despite celebrations from governments, corporations and international financial institutions around increasing economic growth, the majority of the world’s urban labour force continues to work under informal conditions, lacking enforceable contracts, adequate earnings, democratic representation, secure employment and social protection. The pervasiveness of informal labour globally has given rise to numerous calls to adopt a wider and more diverse understanding of what constitutes labouring classes and what is required to organise them. Our case study assesses the outcomes and effectiveness of informal sector organising in Uganda, focusing on the transportation, market and textile sectors. Drawing on Guy Standing’s distinction between “business” and “community” unions and Benjamin Selwyn’s contrasting of “capital-centred development theory” (CCDT) and “labour-led development” (LLD), we argue that community unionist approaches are most effective in addressing the decent work deficit in the informal economy. Simultaneously, the trade unions face constant barriers to successful community organising in the informal economy that cannot be easily overcome without wider changes to the structural conditions under which union organisers must operate.\u0000KEYWORDS: Trade unionism; informal labour organising; labour-centred development; Uganda; decent work","PeriodicalId":44737,"journal":{"name":"Global Labour Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42213019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Hong Kong’s pro-universal suffrage and anti-authoritarian movement (Hong Kong Democracy Movement hereinafter) was a highly complex social movement that lasted almost a year. The movement began in June 2019 in a successful mass collective response to a contentious Extradition Bill allowing the transfer of suspects to mainland China courts that operate under a different and opaque legal system. However, the Hong Kong government’s early cancellation of the Bill did not end the Hong Kong Democracy Movement. Four more demands emerged, driven by “mass dissatisfaction with Hong Kong’s lack of democracy and the police’s performance” (Sing, 2020: 2). These were: universal suffrage; an end to the government’s categorisation of the protests as riots; an independent inquiry into police violence during the protests; and an amnesty for arrested protestors. Twelve turbulent months later, this current stage of the struggle to uphold and, crucially, extend Hong Kong’s limited democracy – already quietened by the pandemic – was ended by the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) direct imposition of a draconian National Security Law (NSL) in June 2020. The NSL contains ill-defined crimes of secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces that carry sentences of up to life imprisonment. The implications for trade unions of such vague categories are clear, and two trade union leaders are currently in custody pending trial under the NSL. They have received widespread support from the global labour movement. Carol Ng, chairperson of the pro-democracy Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (HKCTU) and Winnie Yu, chairperson of the recently organised Hospital Authority Employees Alliance (HAEA) were both arrested on 6 January this year in a police sweep of democracy activists and charged with “subversion” on 28 January. They had taken part in an unofficial primary election to decide on candidates to Hong Kong’s partially elected parliament known as the Legislative Council or LegCo. Unrelated to the NSL, HKCTU General Secretary Lee Cheuk-yan has been sentenced to fourteen months in prison for taking part in pro-democracy events in August 2019 and faces further charges. HKCTU Education Officer Leo Tang was sentenced to four months for possession of a retractable “baton” and cable ties. Trade unionists have been sacked from or harassed out of their jobs for declaring support for the Hong Kong Democracy Movement. Dragon Airlines Flight Attendants’ Association chairperson Rebecca Cy On-na was dismissed by her employers Cathay Pacific.
{"title":"The Unionisation Wave in Hong Kong: The Noise before Defeat or the Route to Victory?","authors":"Tim Pringle","doi":"10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4778","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4778","url":null,"abstract":"Hong Kong’s pro-universal suffrage and anti-authoritarian movement (Hong Kong Democracy Movement hereinafter) was a highly complex social movement that lasted almost a year. The movement began in June 2019 in a successful mass collective response to a contentious Extradition Bill allowing the transfer of suspects to mainland China courts that operate under a different and opaque legal system. However, the Hong Kong government’s early cancellation of the Bill did not end the Hong Kong Democracy Movement. Four more demands emerged, driven by “mass dissatisfaction with Hong Kong’s lack of democracy and the police’s performance” (Sing, 2020: 2). These were: universal suffrage; an end to the government’s categorisation of the protests as riots; an independent inquiry into police violence during the protests; and an amnesty for arrested protestors. Twelve turbulent months later, this current stage of the struggle to uphold and, crucially, extend Hong Kong’s limited democracy – already quietened by the pandemic – was ended by the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) direct imposition of a draconian National Security Law (NSL) in June 2020. The NSL contains ill-defined crimes of secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces that carry sentences of up to life imprisonment. The implications for trade unions of such vague categories are clear, and two trade union leaders are currently in custody pending trial under the NSL. They have received widespread support from the global labour movement. Carol Ng, chairperson of the pro-democracy Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (HKCTU) and Winnie Yu, chairperson of the recently organised Hospital Authority Employees Alliance (HAEA) were both arrested on 6 January this year in a police sweep of democracy activists and charged with “subversion” on 28 January. They had taken part in an unofficial primary election to decide on candidates to Hong Kong’s partially elected parliament known as the Legislative Council or LegCo. Unrelated to the NSL, HKCTU General Secretary Lee Cheuk-yan has been sentenced to fourteen months in prison for taking part in pro-democracy events in August 2019 and faces further charges. HKCTU Education Officer Leo Tang was sentenced to four months for possession of a retractable “baton” and cable ties. Trade unionists have been sacked from or harassed out of their jobs for declaring support for the Hong Kong Democracy Movement. Dragon Airlines Flight Attendants’ Association chairperson Rebecca Cy On-na was dismissed by her employers Cathay Pacific.","PeriodicalId":44737,"journal":{"name":"Global Labour Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41620658","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
From the very beginning of my writing on the regime of informality I have rejected the notion of a dichotomy between formal and informal labour relations. The fracturing solidifies a differentiated absorption in the labour process – own-account workers versus waged labourers, regular against casual employment, replacement of sedentary engagement in paid work by footloose mobility – and all of this culminating in divergent patterns of livelihood and lifestyles. It is along these lines that I have split up “informality” class-wise, following up on the contention that rather than juxtaposing the working class as an amalgamated lot, there are indeed diverse classes of labour with distinct identities. The way in which differentiation has come about cannot only be comprehended in terms of social class-based alignments but also finds expression in an axis of steep inequality. It is a ranked order taking the shape of a class–caste nexus and makes clear how corresponding trajectories of accumulation and dispossession operate in tandem. The backdrop to this essay is the process of informalisation pushed by the stakeholders of globalised capitalism from the early 1970s onwards. The shift away from the regime of formality which used to be enjoyed by a minor segment of India’s mega-workforce has in many instances ended their privileged employment, legal protection and social security, tearing up the domains in which labour moves around.
{"title":"Classes of Labour in India: A Review Essay","authors":"J. Breman","doi":"10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4670","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4670","url":null,"abstract":"From the very beginning of my writing on the regime of informality I have rejected the notion of a dichotomy between formal and informal labour relations. The fracturing solidifies a differentiated absorption in the labour process – own-account workers versus waged labourers, regular against casual employment, replacement of sedentary engagement in paid work by footloose mobility – and all of this culminating in divergent patterns of livelihood and lifestyles. It is along these lines that I have split up “informality” class-wise, following up on the contention that rather than juxtaposing the working class as an amalgamated lot, there are indeed diverse classes of labour with distinct identities. The way in which differentiation has come about cannot only be comprehended in terms of social class-based alignments but also finds expression in an axis of steep inequality. It is a ranked order taking the shape of a class–caste nexus and makes clear how corresponding trajectories of accumulation and dispossession operate in tandem. The backdrop to this essay is the process of informalisation pushed by the stakeholders of globalised capitalism from the early 1970s onwards. The shift away from the regime of formality which used to be enjoyed by a minor segment of India’s mega-workforce has in many instances ended their privileged employment, legal protection and social security, tearing up the domains in which labour moves around.","PeriodicalId":44737,"journal":{"name":"Global Labour Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44358041","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I am grateful to Jan Breman for his generous comments on, and critical engagement with, Classes of Labour, and to the editors of this journal for the opportunity to reply. Breman’s focus is on just one of the book’s central arguments. My response will for the most part follow suit, though to explain why I do not find his strictures on it convincing I need to briefly refer to some other strands in my analysis that his commentary has largely passed over and that are indispensable background to the key proposition with which he takes issue. In the opening sentence of his Abstract Breman declares that from the beginning of his career he rejected the idea that the landscape of labour can be seen in dichotomous terms, divided between a formal and an informal sector workforce. Perhaps he forgets? Originally published in 1976, the first chapter of his 1994 essay collection is a repudiation of his own earlier attempts “to divide the local labour market into two divisions” and a plea for a more nuanced picture of the labour hierarchy as composed of multiple gradations (Breman, 1994: 18). Two aspects of Breman’s recantation particularly struck me when I attempted to review his position in the book (Chapter 2, Section 3). First, in the light of the empirical evidence alluded to in that 1976 essay itself and in the one that is reprinted next in the 1994 collection, the need to recant at all did not seem pressing. What much of that evidence in fact pointed to was a deep division between the labour elite (mainly regular workers in sizeable enterprises in the organised sector) and the rest of the workforce (primarily the three other major fractions of labour that Breman identified: the petit-bourgeoisie, the sub-proletariat and the paupers – a list that was seemingly provisional and expandable). Among other things, the labour elite was more like a salariat than a proletariat, was clearly distinguished from others in its material conditions, consumption patterns, aspirations and values, and by its consciousness of having different interests. Mobility into this stratum was very limited and joint households that included workers from across this divide seldom remained joint for long. The second aspect that struck me was that two other doyens of Indian labour studies had followed much the same trajectory at much the same time. Consider the shift between Holmström (1976) and Holmström (1984), and between Harriss (1982) and Harriss (1986). What was initially portrayed was a clear break in the hierarchy of labour between, on the one hand, those who occupy a “citadel” of relative privilege with secure and well-
{"title":"Response to Jan Breman's Review Essay on Classes of Labour: Work and Life in a Central Indian Steel Town","authors":"J. Parry","doi":"10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4784","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4784","url":null,"abstract":"I am grateful to Jan Breman for his generous comments on, and critical engagement with, Classes of Labour, and to the editors of this journal for the opportunity to reply. Breman’s focus is on just one of the book’s central arguments. My response will for the most part follow suit, though to explain why I do not find his strictures on it convincing I need to briefly refer to some other strands in my analysis that his commentary has largely passed over and that are indispensable background to the key proposition with which he takes issue. In the opening sentence of his Abstract Breman declares that from the beginning of his career he rejected the idea that the landscape of labour can be seen in dichotomous terms, divided between a formal and an informal sector workforce. Perhaps he forgets? Originally published in 1976, the first chapter of his 1994 essay collection is a repudiation of his own earlier attempts “to divide the local labour market into two divisions” and a plea for a more nuanced picture of the labour hierarchy as composed of multiple gradations (Breman, 1994: 18). Two aspects of Breman’s recantation particularly struck me when I attempted to review his position in the book (Chapter 2, Section 3). First, in the light of the empirical evidence alluded to in that 1976 essay itself and in the one that is reprinted next in the 1994 collection, the need to recant at all did not seem pressing. What much of that evidence in fact pointed to was a deep division between the labour elite (mainly regular workers in sizeable enterprises in the organised sector) and the rest of the workforce (primarily the three other major fractions of labour that Breman identified: the petit-bourgeoisie, the sub-proletariat and the paupers – a list that was seemingly provisional and expandable). Among other things, the labour elite was more like a salariat than a proletariat, was clearly distinguished from others in its material conditions, consumption patterns, aspirations and values, and by its consciousness of having different interests. Mobility into this stratum was very limited and joint households that included workers from across this divide seldom remained joint for long. The second aspect that struck me was that two other doyens of Indian labour studies had followed much the same trajectory at much the same time. Consider the shift between Holmström (1976) and Holmström (1984), and between Harriss (1982) and Harriss (1986). What was initially portrayed was a clear break in the hierarchy of labour between, on the one hand, those who occupy a “citadel” of relative privilege with secure and well-","PeriodicalId":44737,"journal":{"name":"Global Labour Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42500826","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review of: Roberto Véras de Oliveira (2019) Crisis and Social Regression in Brazil: A New Moment of the Social Question","authors":"Victor Fabian Climent Peredo","doi":"10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4781","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4781","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44737,"journal":{"name":"Global Labour Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49329385","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review of: Jonathan Parry (in collaboration with Ajay T.G.) (2020) Classes of Labour: Work and Life in a Central Indian Steel Town","authors":"Suravee Nayak","doi":"10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4773","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4773","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44737,"journal":{"name":"Global Labour Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44211204","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
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
{"title":"Freedom of Association in Vietnam: A Heretical View","authors":"J. Buckley","doi":"10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4442","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4442","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.\u0000KEYWORDS: Strikes; unions; freedom of association; Vietnam; WROs","PeriodicalId":44737,"journal":{"name":"Global Labour Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42594893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review of: Michael D. Yates (2018) Can the Working Class Change the World?","authors":"Fathimah Fildzah Izzati","doi":"10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4711","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4711","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44737,"journal":{"name":"Global Labour Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46221287","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review of: Christoph Scherrer and Katja Radon (eds.) (2019) Occupational Safety and Health Challenges in Southern Agriculture","authors":"F. Doerr","doi":"10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4731","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4731","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44737,"journal":{"name":"Global Labour Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46497609","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the 1980s and 1990s, a significant number of rank-and-file trade union activists in Canada became actively engaged in various forms of international labour solidarity. This activity, the end of the Cold War and the increasing impacts of neo-liberal globalisation combined to spark hopes for greatly expanding practices of labour transnationalism. This vision of transnationalising trade union organisation has not materialised and, in fact, inside Canadian unions there has been declining faith in the possibilities of building transnational solidarity. Starting with an analysis of the dominant dichotomies underlying the literature on labour transnationalism, I suggest that stepping outside these dichotomies can provide a different way of assessing the role of transnational labour solidarity within broader struggles for workers’ justice. In this article, drawing upon the case of transnational political solidarities built by workers inside Canadian unions in the 1980s and 1990s, I argue that assessing transnational practices with a longer view to class formation and the goals of workers’ emancipation can help to expand conceptions of what constitutes successful transnational practice. Such a reassessment of the role of labour transnationalism is particularly timely in the current context of right-wing populism.
{"title":"Transnational Labour Solidarity as Transformative Practice: Reframing the Role of Labour Transnationalism","authors":"Katherine Nastovski","doi":"10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15173/GLJ.V12I2.4042","url":null,"abstract":"In the 1980s and 1990s, a significant number of rank-and-file trade union activists in Canada became actively engaged in various forms of international labour solidarity. This activity, the end of the Cold War and the increasing impacts of neo-liberal globalisation combined to spark hopes for greatly expanding practices of labour transnationalism. This vision of transnationalising trade union organisation has not materialised and, in fact, inside Canadian unions there has been declining faith in the possibilities of building transnational solidarity. Starting with an analysis of the dominant dichotomies underlying the literature on labour transnationalism, I suggest that stepping outside these dichotomies can provide a different way of assessing the role of transnational labour solidarity within broader struggles for workers’ justice. In this article, drawing upon the case of transnational political solidarities built by workers inside Canadian unions in the 1980s and 1990s, I argue that assessing transnational practices with a longer view to class formation and the goals of workers’ emancipation can help to expand conceptions of what constitutes successful transnational practice. Such a reassessment of the role of labour transnationalism is particularly timely in the current context of right-wing populism.","PeriodicalId":44737,"journal":{"name":"Global Labour Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41721168","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：