Two forms of transnational organizing: Mapping the strategies of Global Union Federations

Abstract

It has become a commonplace belief among academics and trade union officials that globalization has weakened trade unions. However, the expansion of global capital has also led to a rise of transnational labor organizing. Since the 2000s, Global Union Federations have developed different strategies to tackle the challenges of globalization. In this article, we analyze two such forms of transnational organizing: A network-based and an event-based form of organizing. While the network-based approach brings together unions from different countries in a company or industry-wide cross-border network, the event-based strategy is built on the engagement of the GUFs at large international events to wage local struggles with a lasting impact on labor relations. By drawing on a power resource approach and labor geography and by using empirical data from two case studies, the Building and Woodworkers International’s Fifa World Cup campaign of 2014 and the International Transport Workers Union’s Latam Union network, we demonstrate how GUFs are using different pathways of transnational activism to link the global with the local and why local trade union action is crucial for success in transnational organizing.

Scaling Up? On the Possibilities and Limits of Transnational Labour Organising in Globalised Production

“…Without local and national struggles and unionisation, transnational campaigns and organising efforts remain weak and lose momentum. Gains can be consolidated, as many studies show, only by locally organised forces and their pressure on lead firms and local management to adhere to labour standards and on (sub-)national authorities to enforce them (Wells 2009;Ryland 2016;Schmalz et al 2021). Studies further suggest different targets of struggles: while Northern advocacy campaigns mostly target lead firms or big buyers and are oriented towards large consumer markets, Southern labour confronts local authorities, on the firm and state level (Wells 2009).…”

“…states or lead firms) to intervene or influence behaviours of employers or authorities (Merk 2009). Research reveals a banal but cogent truth: success cannot be achieved without local organising but is strongest if organising is multi-scalar (Munck 2021;Schmalz et al 2021). Hence, transnational activism should not be seen as a panacea but as an opportunity structure which can potentially provide local actors with additional sources of power (McCallum 2013;Zajak et al 2017).…”

Understanding global union repertoires of action

“…Ford and Gillan (2015) identified several domains of GUF activity, namely knowledge production and dissemination, education and training, engagement with different global institutions, internationalization of local conflicts, supporting the establishment and growth of unions and union networks, and creating new spaces for supranational regulation. More recently, Schmalz et al (2021) have suggested three 'fields of action,' namely global framework agreements, organizing and engagement in local struggles, and efforts to exercise influence on national-level labour laws and regulation.…”

“…Having tried to target construction projects linked to the 2010 Commonwealth Games, BWI had more success in its initial engagement with the International Federation of Association Football (Fédération Internationale de Football Association, FIFA) in the lead-up to the 2010 South African World Cup, negotiating an agreement under which unions would be involved in joint inspections of construction sites and secured a 12% increase in wages for 70,000 workers (BWI General Secretary, interview 2015). Buoyed by this success, BWI organized a campaign that ultimately led to gains in collective bargaining and the recruitment of close to 22,000 new union members and five new affiliates in the lead-up to the 2014 Brazil World Cup (Building and Wood Workers International BWI, 2017b; see also Schmalz et al, 2021).…”

“…The unique multi‐scalar positionality of GUFs and their membership‐based representative legitimacy affords them a significant form of coordinating power in mobilizing affiliates and unique opportunities to engage with and seek to influence MNEs, national authorities and global governance institutions (Ford & Gillan, 2015; Reinecke & Donaghey, 2022; Schmalz et al, 2021). Our study indicates that such opportunities for influence and impact are maximized when repertoires are combined in different strategic domains across multiple scales.…”