Search

Gerald Friedman'sReigniting the Labor Movementwas a highly ambitious, unashamedly partisan, historical and transnational comparative analysis of the rise and demise of the labour movement, which identified the way in which rank-and-file workers' spontaneous and innovative strike militancy represents an ‘incipient rebellion against the capitalist system’. In the process, the book made a compelling case for the restoration of past militant worker action as an essential means of ‘reigniting’ the contemporary labour movement. While I find myself in considerable sympathy and agreement with much of the overall analysis, there are distinct but related features of Friedman's thesis that are critically explored in this article. These concern the nature of the relationship between strike movements and union membership growth, and the process by which the unions that emerge from periods of radical labour unrest then seek to dampen down worker militancy in order to bargain with employers/state within the confines of capitalism. My reassessment of Friedman's analysis, framed specifically within the national context of the UK during the historical window of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (specifically 1889–1920), aims to illustrate what I regard as five of the main problematic features of the study. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to build on the insights of mobilisation theory to examine the interplay of structure and agency dynamics in strike activity. It proposes to do so by investigating the 2007 36-hour strike undertaken by 2,300 engineering and infrastructure workers employed by the private consortium Metronet on the London Underground, focusing attention on the relationship between workers' militancy, trade union leadership and left-wing politics within a highly distinctive and union favourable "opportunity structure" context. Design/methodology/approach – Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 24 RMT union informants within Metronet and the London Underground (including union members, reps, branch and regional officers); analysis was made of documentary industrial relations and trade union material; and personal fieldwork observation. Findings – Although favourable specific contextual and contingent factors served as both provocations and resources for strike action, notably in enhancing workers' bargaining position and lending feasibility to a strike mobilisation approach, the role of trade union leadership and left-wing politics at every level of the union in collectivising workers' experiences and aspirations in forms which directly encouraged combativity was also crucial. Research limitations/implications – The specificity of the case study limits the degree of generalisation that can be made to other industries. Researchers are encouraged to test the proposed analytical approach further. Originality/value – The paper provides case-study empirical evidence into an important arena of employment in the UK, contributes to our understanding of the multi-dimensional causes of strike activity; and adds an important political dimension to the analysis of collective mobilisation often neglected in both industrial relations and social movement literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]