Does traditional workplace trade unionism need to change in

order to defend workers’ rights and interests? And if so,

how?

Ria Aslam
Development from Below
April 2, 2021

1
 The rapid proliferation of industrial society in eighteenth century Britain led to the

mobilization of workers, skilled and unskilled, as a means of safeguarding their interests against

the antagonistic industrial capitalist and the hostile political status quo. “If we go back one

hundred years we would see the formation of the trade union movement taking place as part and

parcel of the formation of a national working class. Industrialisation, urbanisation and

unionisation all went hand-in-hand” (Munck 2010, 218). Over the years, labour unions thus

played an integral role in resisting the bourgeoisie elite. The question thus presents itself. What

has changed in the global and national structure that requires an adequate and equal response

from the organizers of workers? The answer, while grounded in a myriad of embedded factors,

points towards globalization. The culminating issues are both global and national in their nature.

For instance, globalization has radically altered the nature of the connection between firm and

worker. Finding it easier to find cheaper forms of labour abroad, more specifically in the Third

World, most multinationals and conglomerates have shifted their centres of production abroad.

Such outsourcing alters the nature of the interaction between the worker and the original firm, in

whose hands lies the working circumstances and the welfare of the worker. This is just one

among the plethora of challenges that globalization poses to trade unions, their organizational

strength and their practical efficacy. It is in context of these evolving circumstances that trade

unions need to address the issue. By analyzing present efforts, this essay attempts to arrive at an

understanding of the general response by labor unions. Examining on both sides of the coin, we

adopt an argumentative approach to the text, not only critiquing current policies, but also

illustrating shortcomings in the present scenario and a means of improvement.

While labour movements have been historically slow to adjusting to international patterns

of capital accumulation and employer strategization, “what we have begun to see from 2000

2
onwards is a clear recognition from the international trade union movement that globalisation is a

new paradigm which demands new strategies, tactics and organisational modalities. (Munck

2010, 219). It is thus evident that the unions have responded. In our study, we must allude to

Polanyi’s concept of social embeddedness, and the indispensability for unions to proceed

keeping in mind the socially embedded nature of the economy. We also evaluate existing unions

and movements in terms of the strength of their collective bargaining agency.

What we have today in China and India is the creation of a mass proletariat, along the

lines predicted by Marx. Let us take China’s instance. Friedman argues the lack of a linkage

between insurgency and institutional representation but that might not be the case. While “trade

union approaches to representation, organizing, and bargaining are embedded within specific

contexts” (Quingle and Meng 2018), an analysis of success stories can provide key observations

and solutions. “YICT’s low rates of labor turnover and better pay and conditions reflected

significant levels of structural power that acted as a catalyst for trade union innovation following

the first strike” (Quingle and Meng). The YICT case study becomes all the more interesting,

given the coercive power of the Chinese government and its zero tolerance for dissent.

Associational and structural power can be identified as key to this amelioration. It also holds a

number of lessons for workers and union movements throughout the world. The key to

enhancing labour power is the increased dependency of the worker on the capitalist. The

dynamic nature of the correlation between associational and structural power proved vital. This

can take the shape of solidarity, such that it improves the use of resistive resources and opens up

opportunities for collaboration with third parties. The study also serves as an effective refutation

of the claim that “it is the power of the state and not workers’ associational power that forces

employers to bargain collectively and that workers’ interests are therefore unlikely to be

3
represented” (Quingle and Meng). While the study is limited to the political context of its

occurrence, it does posit a way forward and an exemplary instance for trade unions to emulate. It

is also understandable how such a particularist approach might not translate well into a

universalist approach that accounts for the collective welfare of the international working

community. Nonetheless, moving forward, it is something organizations can learn from.

There is also the increasing notion that an increasing focus on the increasing

neoliberalism of the global marketplace has shifted attention away from alternative forms of

social organization, primarily the informal sector. Hence, we postulate an increasing need to

fathom that unions cannot succeed on their own, entailing that worker movements need to have a

more socially inclusive approach, both realizing and propagating that other issues such as

healthcare and housing are intricately embedded and intersect profusely with labour

emancipation. In the view of Munck, this is key to attaining greater relational power and

effective mobilization. While the labour world reels from the dominance of neoliberal ideology,

these worker groups have often instituted innovative strategies that have proven their vitality.

Belonging to groups considered harder to organize, this was a pleasant surprise in the US, where

social movement unionism propped up. Again, its success was linked to the incorporation of

other social factors in the labour struggle. “In India, a country characterized by a high level of

informality, the associational power of street vendors has not been built in the form of a

conventional trade union but through associations for informal workers” (Webster 2019). “Farm

workers in the Western Cape of South Africa mobilized what we call logistical power through

street blockades or other forms of joint action by trade unions together with social movements”

(Webster 2019). These instances provide viable alternatives, should trade unions prove

insufficient in their purpose. There is thus a lot to learn from these Polanyian counter movements

4
that were primarily attempts to safeguard local societies from the impacts of market deregulation.

The ILO has had mixed success in its role to de-commodify the worker, but other institutions

such as the Global Union Federations and the ITUC (International Trade Union Confederation)

have emerged in the meanwhile. Within existing movements of a truly international scale, the

IUF campaign against Nestle is notable. The problem arises in the fact that these movements

have been isolated instances and have for the most part, failed to garner global support. The lack

of intimacy between international organizations and local - national workers limits opportunities

for coordination and mobilization. “With the Global Union Federations at one removed from the

workplace their solidarity campaigns appear remote. With most national unions still committed

to an outdated concept of ‘partnership’ international solidarity is reduced to ritual” (Munck

2010). Indeed, the main means of overcoming such fragmentation would be, as Munck puts it, a

solidarity rooted in the diversity of the international working class. As emphasized, the removal

of barriers to inclusion in labour movements could really help foster support and grant workers

membership support and renewed vigour to continue their struggle against corporations and

make their voice heard. It might also entail a reversion to the past, emphasizing the role of trade

unions as nation building institutions, instead of just collective bargainers.

A key impact of global proliferation has been the overall shift of industrial units from the

North to the South, as corporations increasingly look to cheaper sources of labour. Production

has come to be increasingly outsourced, creating newer global commodity chains. This has had

two impacts, mass unemployment in the First World, and greater concentrations of labour in the

Third World. The process of outsourcing, “through the imposition of systemic rationalization and

flexible production” (Suwandi 2019), means that multinationals have both the ability to influence

the conditions of production, yet claim to have no legal obligation to the workers. Let us take the

5
instance of Indonesia, where two thousand workers were laid off without prior warning or

severance payments. In the meetings between Uniqlo representatives and the workers, Uniqlo

refused any form of remuneration on the grounds of no legal obligation to do so. What we intend

to highlight here, is the nature of arms length contracts and how they privilege the corporation

over the worker. Since the essence of the problem is global, the union based response needs to

belong similar lines. FDI is often conducive to weaker labour power, because as in the case of

Uniqlo, corporations have shown variously how “time and distance are not obstacles to the

relocation of their facilities” (Anner 2011). “The global spatial dispersion of production sites also

weakens labor relative to capital because it undermines the capacity of workers to communicate

across borders” (Anner 2011), and simultaneously enhances the relevance of the union too. This

is because horizontal dispersion of contracts leaves workers more vulnerable in terms of both

wage security and wage rises. The union response to this has been mixed, with some worker

societies unionizing more and others less. The creation of so many unions at the local level

entails greater solidarity and mobilization, but the root of the problem remains that the problem

is global and needs to be addressed as such. What unions can fight for, is the legal obligation for

severance packages by the parent form, but also unemployment benefits that stabilize worker

conditions in the transition period.

“Workers with limited structural power are able to mobilize other sources of power” (Webster

2019). There are multiple instances of mobilization at the national level, such as South Africa,

India and Uganda, where mobilization has been effective in displaying the discontent of the

working class. We must however understand that globalization represents an altogether different

challenge. While movements can benefit from improved communication, the lack of uniting and

effective leadership continues to pose problems. Despite the fluidity of borders, national and

6
socio-political cleavages still play an integral role in determining social outcomes. The idea of

cosmopolitanism within labour organization sounds appealing, but the socio-political fabric of

different states poses several problems to this homogeneity. “The question is whether the concept

of cooperation and individual sacrifice for the common good will work in a global labor market

populated by large multinational employers” (Heskett 2005). While the capitalist is linked

through and incentivized through an extensive network of capital and money that overrides the

need for allegiances and collective welfare, the worker’s motive may be insufficient to prompt a

response of adequate measure. In terms of the theory of collective action too, we acknowledge

that there are limitations to such global, cosmopolitan approaches. “Labour activists and analysts

imbued with the spirit of labour internationalism too often forget how workers draw on non-class

forms of identity to protect themselves from the maelstrom of capitalist restructuring” (Munck

2010).

Our analysis leads us to conclude that present labour movements and efforts are

inadequate to deal with the social, economic and structural changes globalization entails. The

ITUC and IUF have often adopted a leading role in the organization og lobal solidarity for

workers and protesting against corporation injustices, but the movement lacks the tools and

organizational strength to prove effective. Indeed, such movements deal a blow to notions of

labour internationalism. Our observations lead us to conclude that trade unions are insufficient to

deal with the challenges of globalization. This is rooted in the prevailing relevance of socio-

political divides, a lack of organizational power and the absence of linkages that translate

national success to global success. However, the IUCF case study helps us learn in several ways,

along with providing a way forward. In addition, looking to other forms of social and economic

organization, such as the informal sector, as well as expanding labour struggle beyond the scope

7
of just wage security and unionization can prove vital in enhancing its effectiveness. In essence,

improvement needs to take place at both the national and global level, and there is also the need

for looking beyond trade unions as the sole means of organization by viewing alternative means

such as social unionist and migrant movements.

8
 Bibliography

Giddens, Anthony. The Class Structure of Advanced Societies. London: Hutchinson, 1981.

Wright, Erik Olin. “Introduction.” Approaches to Class Analysis, 2005, 1–3.

https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511488900.001.

Wright, Erik Olin. Interrogating Inequality: Essays on Class Analysis, Socialism, and Marxism.

London: Verso, 1994.

Archer, Robin. Why Is There No Labour Party in the United States. Princeton University Press,

2007.

Przeworski, Adam. Capitalism and Social Democracy. Cambridge University Press, n.d.

Ronaldo Munck. "Globalisation and Trade Unions: Towards a Multi-level Strategy?" Work

Organisation, Labour & Globalisation 2, no. 1 (2008): 11-23. Accessed April 1, 2021.

doi:10.13169/workorgalaboglob.2.1.0011.

Shaw, Linda. Development in Practice 13, no. 4 (2003): 426-28. Accessed April 1, 2021.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4029673.

Pringle, Tim, and Quan Meng. “Taming Labor: Workers’ Struggles, Workplace Unionism, and

Collective Bargaining on a Chinese Waterfront.” ILR Review 71, no. 5 (October 2018):

1053–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793918768791.

Munck, Ronaldo. (2010). Globalization and the Labour Movement: Challenges and Responses.

Global Labour Journal. 1. 10.15173/glj.v1i2.1073.

9
Suwandi, Intan. “Outsourcing Exploitation: Global Labor-Value Chains.” openDemocracy,

August 20, 2019. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/outsourcing-

exploitation-global-labor-value-chains/.

ANNER, MARK. "THE IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL OUTSOURCING ON UNIONIZATION

AND WAGES: EVIDENCE FROM THE APPAREL EXPORT SECTOR IN CENTRAL

AMERICA." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 64, no. 2 (2011): 305-22. Accessed April

2, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41149494.

“What's the Future of Globally Organized Labor?” HBS Working Knowledge, October 3, 2005.

https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/whats-the-future-of-globally-organized-labor.

Pringle, T and Meng, Q. (2018). Taming Labor: Workers' Struggles, Workplace Unionism, and

Collective Bargaining on a Chinese Waterfront. ILR Review 71 (5).

Webster, Edward. “Trade Unions and the Polanyian Countermovement: a Southern Perspective.”

Culture, Practice & Europeanization 4, no. 1 (2019): 24–28.

Franzway, Suzanne. “Transnational Labor Movements.” The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of

Gender and Sexuality Studies, 2015, 1–7.

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss624.

Dietrich, G. and N. Nayak (2007), ‘Exploring the Possibilities of Counter-hegemonic

Globalization of the Fishworkers’ Movement in India and its Global Interactions’, in

Santos, B. de S., ed., Another Production Is Possible: Beyond the Capitalist Canon,

London: Verso

10
‘Propositions on Trade Unions and Informal Employment in Times of Globalisation’, Antipode,

v. 33 #3, pp. 531-549.

Forces of Labor. Workers’ Movements and Globalization since 1870, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

11