巴西的劳工改革、政治和迹象:2017年总罢工纪要

IF 1.6 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of Politics in Latin America Pub Date : 2019-08-01 DOI:10.1177/1866802X19861493
Davide Carbonai
{"title":"巴西的劳工改革、政治和迹象:2017年总罢工纪要","authors":"Davide Carbonai","doi":"10.1177/1866802X19861493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On July 2017, Brazil’s Senate approved the country’s most extensive labor reform since the emergent 1943’s Consolidation of Labor Law (Consolidação das Leis Trabalhistas, CLT). The aforementioned reform provoked heated debates and its approval faced resistance. Unions, for instance, convened two general strikes: the first, on April 2017, garnered a significant amount of participation, while the latter, on June, ended with participation falling significantly below expectations. Despite the widespread rejection of Temer’s mandate and the content of the law, on June, unions were surprisingly unable to agree on a common strategy regarding a proposal on labor reform. The present research aims to explore this paradox. A survey-based analysis, along with a series of unstructured interviews with union leaders and protesters, establishes a solid empirical base from which to draw hypotheses about the Brazilian state corporatist union model and its evolution.","PeriodicalId":44885,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Politics in Latin America","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1866802X19861493","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Labor Reform in Brazil, Politics, and Sindicatos: Notes on the General Strikes of 2017\",\"authors\":\"Davide Carbonai\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1866802X19861493\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"On July 2017, Brazil’s Senate approved the country’s most extensive labor reform since the emergent 1943’s Consolidation of Labor Law (Consolidação das Leis Trabalhistas, CLT). The aforementioned reform provoked heated debates and its approval faced resistance. Unions, for instance, convened two general strikes: the first, on April 2017, garnered a significant amount of participation, while the latter, on June, ended with participation falling significantly below expectations. Despite the widespread rejection of Temer’s mandate and the content of the law, on June, unions were surprisingly unable to agree on a common strategy regarding a proposal on labor reform. The present research aims to explore this paradox. A survey-based analysis, along with a series of unstructured interviews with union leaders and protesters, establishes a solid empirical base from which to draw hypotheses about the Brazilian state corporatist union model and its evolution.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44885,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Politics in Latin America\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1866802X19861493\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Politics in Latin America\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1866802X19861493\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Politics in Latin America","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1866802X19861493","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

2017年7月,巴西参议院批准了该国自1943年颁布的《劳动法》(Consolidação das Leis Trabalhistas,CLT)以来最广泛的劳动改革。上述改革引发了激烈的辩论,其批准面临阻力。例如,工会召集了两次大罢工:第一次是在2017年4月,获得了大量的参与,而第二次是在6月,参与率大大低于预期。尽管Temer的授权和法律内容遭到广泛拒绝,但令人惊讶的是,6月,工会未能就劳工改革提案达成共同战略。本研究旨在探讨这一悖论。一项基于调查的分析,以及对工会领导人和抗议者的一系列非结构化采访,建立了一个坚实的经验基础,可以从中得出关于巴西国家社团主义工会模式及其演变的假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Labor Reform in Brazil, Politics, and Sindicatos: Notes on the General Strikes of 2017
On July 2017, Brazil’s Senate approved the country’s most extensive labor reform since the emergent 1943’s Consolidation of Labor Law (Consolidação das Leis Trabalhistas, CLT). The aforementioned reform provoked heated debates and its approval faced resistance. Unions, for instance, convened two general strikes: the first, on April 2017, garnered a significant amount of participation, while the latter, on June, ended with participation falling significantly below expectations. Despite the widespread rejection of Temer’s mandate and the content of the law, on June, unions were surprisingly unable to agree on a common strategy regarding a proposal on labor reform. The present research aims to explore this paradox. A survey-based analysis, along with a series of unstructured interviews with union leaders and protesters, establishes a solid empirical base from which to draw hypotheses about the Brazilian state corporatist union model and its evolution.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Why Are Constitutional Amendments in Mexico so Frequent? Assessing Electoral Personalism in Latin American Presidential Elections Where did Hyper-Presidentialism Go? The Origin of Bills and Laws Passed in Chile, 1990–2022 Assessing the Relationship Between Compulsory Voting and Over-Representation of Extreme Parties Do Disciplinary Sanctions Affect Political Parties’ Re-election? Evidence from Colombia
×
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