Mobilization Theory in Understanding Trade Union Activism - Research Paper Example

Consider the value of mobilisation theory in understanding trade union activism in all its forms Abstract Trade union activisms have initiated a different paradigm to the industrial world, with their impact on social, political and industrial fields. Trade unions formed by specific individuals who were able to attract large numbers of followers have successfully ignited numerous people in authority for specific reasons such as bringing about social changes, changes in wage patterns of working class, political and state reforms, managerial changes etc. These paradigms have been studied by various scholars who proposed theories based on their researches, with one such being the mobilization theory. This theory has been deduced in various manners, from psychological, sociological, industrial and other aspects; all of these explain the movement of large numbers of people towards bringing about the specific change through actions such as collaborative discussions, collective bargaining, strikes and agitations etc. This paper attempts to understand trade union activisms from the mobilization theory perspective based on reasons like perceived injustice, influence by authority and political power, employers’ objectives etc. In addition, it also outlines the changed pattern of trade union objectives, along with the issues and challenges that trade unions faced in the past and are facing in the present times. Introduction Mobilization theory revolves around complex plans made by entrepreneurs for deriving optimum work, maximum profits and to gain a competitive advantage by establishing relationships with key people in the industry and the state. Overall, it describes ways and means to establish worker relations from a sociological aspect. The theory has been applied to different principles of industrial relations by various scholars. From the perspective of sociology of work, it has been applied to exclusively understand political dimensions of worker relations that impact industries and employee relations. From a mobilization theory perspective, as opined by Atzeni (2009; p.5), ‘workers have to pass through a certain number of psychological/organisational stages before a collective action can materialise.’ The psychological and organisational stages include notion of injustice, collective action powered by political influences and/or industry owners, industrial actions, political activity and welfare associations. Research and evidences indicate that trade unions primarily function through social movements in which an organised group acts consciously to promote or resist change through collective action. In addition, the industrial setup provides an encouraging platform for activists to make their voices heard; usually springing from worker class who politically lack power to influence the authorities in order to achieve specific goals that they visualize as public issues or injustice to the working class (Kendall, ). Much research and studies have been carried out to interpret trade union patterns and reasons. Major contributors of this dimension in the form of collectivism are Charles Tilly and McAdam (Kelly, 1998). Kelly (1998) explains that Tilly’s (1978) mobilization theory divides the concept into five components namely, interest definition, organisation mobilization, opportunity and action. In McAdam’s view, mobilization theory is based on efforts of collectivists in opposing injustice, and conditions leading to such opposition. Kelly (1998) extensively described collectivism concept with respect to workers’ relations with industrialists, in general. Morrinson (1987) elaborated the social and political mobilization of the Blacks in America that sought justice through social movements through mass action and a defined purpose; this mobilization of masses is highly comparable with the trade union activisms focussed on fighting for, what the union members feel is, justice. Evolution of trade union activisms can be traced back to the 1700s, specifically post Industrial Revolution; the most widespread and aggressive trade union activisms happened in Europe. Post industrial revolution, collectivism assumed another form in the industrial relations aspect, that had been extremely active. Contemporary business world has experienced paradigm shift in industrial relations with a drastic reduction in worker collectivism, emergence of non-union workplaces, power relations, emergence of state and employer totalitarianism, and emergence of human resources and management practices (Kelly, 1998). Atzeni (2009, p.9) states in his article, ‘Trade unions in Argentina, because of their fundamental role as mass organisers and political support for the Perónist movement, have a very high level of politicisation.’ Reasons for such power of Argentinean trade unions in the politics of the nation can be traced back to formation of the largest trade union, Confederacion General del Trabajo and contribution of the labour secretary Juan Domingo Peron. Peron’s approach in mobilizing the trade unions focussed on threatening the governments through the large worker class that was a part of the unions. Further, Peron worked in collaboration with the trade unions and the government in order to ensure unions’ power was saved from governmental reverse actions. Eventually, followers of Peronism failed when this created reverse troubles for the unions as they had to support the government against the union’s interests. Another study conducted by Calveley and Healy (2003) illustrates the impact of unionized teachers’ resistance to change in managerial aspects of education system in a secondary school. This study explains how trade unions can fall owing to inappropriate approach and misinterpretation of activities by union members. Sociologists have attributed mobilization of trade union activisms to various different factors. Historic trade union movements were driven by ideology as well as legitimacy of movements. Members of the union usually consisted of learned professionals, skilled workmen, philosophers and sociologists that could gather and lead huge number of people towards achieving a common cause. In order to effect a social movement and mobilize people, the desire to bring about a change in an industrial system or structure, with commitment and loyalty form the primary precursors. Secondly, an opportunity for the activists towards reformation forms the base for mobilization. In specific terms, Kelly (1998) asserts that roles of injustice, agency, identity and attribution provide an opportunity for the masses to define and refine their interests form time to time. Buttigieg, Deery and Iverson (2008) also identified that the motivating factors for union members to initiate an industrial action include situations that force the workers to anticipate injustice to their employment relationship and when the workers are collectively inclined towards specific direction. Social interactions at work place instigate formation of ideologies that eventually get picked up by leaders as opportunities to design or create new issues that become a part of their interests; for the greater worker populations, these issues tend to shape up as unfavourable conditions or injustice to workers and employee relations. Kelly (1998) refers to this activism as consciousness-raising, and asserts that workers gain great confidence when they become a part of a large group that has similar views and values, and also attracts commitment from disinterested workers within the larger group. McAdam (1989) emphasizes the need for consciousness-raising in social movements because of its sustaining impact on individuals’ commitment. Another important factor impacting mobilization of trade unions is the relationship between the leaders directing the political mobilization efforts and the larger working class population associated with the unions. Leaders should be able to successfully lead, motivate and sustain the employees’ participation in the process through collective activism. The union leaders should be able to define the newly identified ideologies in order to market them to the workers in the right manner, and gain their commitment; this process demands large numbers of followers to initiate the movement. Mobilization theory points at the rationality of the choice made by the participants. For instance, post the identification or realization of an event or policy as causing injustice to the working class, it becomes easier and feasible for union members to initiate movements in collective action because it is the most realistic method of achieving their objectives. From power and authority perspective, trade unions have a history of acting opposite to employment nature in the labour market. Trade unions were very powerful at times of unemployment in the past, and vice versa; however, co-existence of both elements were also experienced in Britain and Italy. Kelly (1998) relates this behaviour to the complex relationship between labour markets and union power. In this case, it can be associated with the influence of state political powers along with internal political games such as divisional struggles instigated between social bodies and employer/state heads on issues related to trade unions. . Overall, mobilization theory explains industrial relations through social relations between employees and employers using perceived injustice. In the process, mobilization theory encompasses the five dimensions as described by Tilly (Kelly, 1998). This is effectively explained by McAdams, McCarthy and Zald (1996; p.9) stating, ‘various types of movements are simply different forms of collective action rather than qualitatively different phenomena requiring distinct explanatory theories.’ From a socioeconomic standpoint, the longstanding tiff between the Socialist Party and trade union organisations in Nicaragua to provide unrestricted freedom for trade unions in the country the right to strike, assure job security and good wages for all employees did end in formulation of one single program that addressed all classes of the employees and employers; however, the opposing nature of both the groups still remained (Foroohar, 1989). Such experiences depict the presence of an undisclosed cause for initiating socialistic movements using the power of unions. Trade unions are also identified with broader struggle through organisations to fight for social causes. Their alignment with political parties is also a means to achieve desired action. Political involvement of union activists in Ceylon had resulted in immense growth and development of labour movements, gained power and purpose for participation in union activities at the initial stages (Kearney, 1971). Mobilization theory enables understanding of the underlying reasons for political parties’ involvement in trade unions, owing to the potential to create mass mobilization. Through trade unions, ruling political parties use tactics to suppress competitors. In a similar manner, employers also attempt to repress the challenging employees by influencing trade unions. In addition, trade unions with political connections can influence state industrial policies and rules either for the betterment of the employees or for the benefit of the employers and the government. However, with growing competition in the industrial sector, this trend declined. While the above factors form the objective differences of trade unions, internal factors such as origin and background of the union, ideological orientation, social beliefs, leadership, membership, and structure also impact their functioning (Dellijas, 1994). Dellijas (1994; p.2) points out that trade unions have considerable impact on economic growth and political stability. Therefore, trade unions are used by governments, large political parties and organisations as effective means to achieve their agendas. Trade unions have been used by social bodies to execute changes in structures of society; by government to maintain power; by industrialists to implement managerial changes within the organisation; by social activists to campaign for specific social causes and/or propaganda. For example, Peron in Argentina had used trade unions’ support to remain in power; Indonesia was able to call for a revolutionary movement against the Dutch from 1945 to 1949 with the help of trade unions. As studied earlier, trade unions were formed to bring positive impact in the society and industry, which was, for example, experienced in the form of economic development (seen in Ceylon) and stabilization of government (seen in Argentina). These causes and effects of union movements seem to meaningfully relate to different dimensions of the mobilization theory as well as to different propositions; however, a holistic concept does not seem to fit between trade union activisms and the mobilization theory, as such. For instance, Tilly’s (1978) five components can be related to the factors and results of trade union activisms as explained earlier. However, from McAdam’s perspective, driven by the concept of perception of injustice and conditions leading to such oppositions, not all trade union activisms can be understood or related. For instance, trade union activisms instigated by political parties or governmental bodies did not really mean or perceive ‘injustice’ in any form. In reality, these actions were initiated by external bodies, either for gaining something not in their purview or due to lack of resources. Conversely, most of the employers and organised structures other than the trade unions believed that trade union formations have negatively impacted economies of the nation. In both industrialized and developing nations, the negative implications of trade unions have been realized by industrialists and state leaders. Trade unions influenced workers and sidetracked them from contributing to the industrial growth; increased chaos and disruption. As seen in the case of Parkville, confrontation from the teachers’ union opposing the new managerial practices depicts, what Kelly (1998) identified as perceived injustice; it also portrays the impact of politically inclined activists on trade unions and further into the industries, usually proving detrimental to both the parties involved (Calveley & Healy; 2003). Challenges faced by trade unions influence the success rate of their activisms. Issues such as pressure by political parties, government officials, activists and revolutionaries and employers in various ways to achieve specific and sometimes selfish goals come in way for trade unions’ effective functioning. Conduciveness of internal industrial dynamics in terms of work organisation, organisational structure and hierarchy, employment policies etc also impact union activism. Atzeni’s (2009) study picks up usage of collectivism in explaining injustice at workplace through his research conducted in the FIAT and Renault car plants in Argentina. Through this research it was noted that injustice did not mean same to all workers. In FIAT, mobilization process was initiated without support or inclusion of trade unions due to certain management changes in terms of salaries. In addition, it also led to formation of workers-elected representative and created solidarity between fellow workers. Consequently, open confrontation between the management and workers’ representative. Renault had adopted slightly different approach of introducing managerial changes, which caused further harm to the working conditions of the workers. Against Kelly’s (1998) conceptualization of the mobilization theory, emergence of conflicting worker-employer relations in these case involved usage of company strategies that provided minimum or no resources to effect worker mobilization. In the contemporary times, when most of the organisations have banned trade unions, sustainability of trade unions in the existing ones has a challenge of redefining their objectives and modes of functioning. These challenges are triggered by factors such as globalization, increased competition for products and services, decline in labour market potentials in developed countries, transformation in economic and organisational structure and aggressive transformation of management practices and human behaviour. Other factors such as include increased privatization and increasing number of small-scale industries both do not support perpetuation of trade unions. Changing nature of society, governmental functioning and structures, organisational management systems do not require any trade unions for collaboration purposes. In conclusion, trade union functioning has experienced a vast change from its evolution post Industrial Revolution to the contemporary times impacted by globalization. If industrial revolution triggered the concept of trade unionism in the industrial sector, globalization is set to create a different form of revolution from an employment perspective that is yet to be conceptualized. Trade unions have functioned and thrived on the basis of mobilization of collectivists through social, political, and/or industrial unions at national and international levels. In their forms, trade unions functioned with support from mass numbers of people that formed an organised group. Application of mobilization theory by few sociologists and researchers to the sociological movements triggered by trade unions is based on the predicament that people tend to question the authorities on what they perceive as injustice with respect to their employment. Leaders that emerge out of these large groups actively involve, along with the masses, in identifying and fighting for issues related to worker wages, socioeconomic conditions, employment policies that were perceived as unjust. While this aspect of the mobilization theory focuses on sociological actions to benefit the working class, another perspective arises from trade unions’ association with political parties, governmental bodies, and even employers who use the power of trade unions to achieve their goals with a dimension different from that of the general masses of working class. For the same reasons, few researchers do not agree with the concept of linking mobilization theory to explain trade union activisms based on the perception of injustice. On the other hand, unionism in the contemporary times is either changing its facet or is diminishing from the industry owing to changing management and structure, orientation towards consumer behaviour, governmental and international treatises and other increasing concerns related to economy and environment. References Books Dejillas, L.J. (1994). Trade union behaviour in the Philippines, 1946-1990. Ateneo de Manila University Press: Manila. Foroohar, M. (1989). The Catholic Church and social change in Nicaragua. SUNY Press: New York. Kearney, R.N. (1971). Trade unions and politics in Ceylon. University of California Press: California. Kelly, J. (1998). Rethinking industrial relations: mobilization, collectivism, and long waves. Routledge: London. Kendall, D. (2008). Sociology in Our Times: The Essentials. 7th ed. Cengage Learning: California. McAdams, D, McCarthy, J.D and Zald, M.N. (1996). Comparative perspectives on social movements: political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings. Cambridge University Press: United Kingdom. Morrinson, M.K. (1987). Black political mobilization: leadership, power, and mass behaviour. SUNY Press: New York. .Journals: Atzeni, M. (2009, January). "Searching for Injustice and Finding Solidarity? A Contribution to the Mobilisation Theory Debate." Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 40, Issue 1, pp. 5-16. Buttigieg, D.M, Deery, S.J. and Iverson, R.D (2008, April). Union Mobilization: A Consideration of the Factors Affecting the Willingness of Union Members to Take Industrial Action. British Journal of Industrial Relations. Vol: 46, No.2. pp: 248-267. Calveley M, Healy G (2003, March) Political Activism and Workplace Industrial Relations in a UK ‘Failing’ School British Journal of Industrial Relations. Vol: 41, No.1.pp:97-113. Read More