La nouvelle phase du syndicalisme brésilien (2003-2013)

Boito, Armando; Galvão, Andréia; Marcelino, Paula

doi:10.4000/cal.4184

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the polarisation illustrated by the MCA, there are some key distinctions: Dependencies between the party system and trade unions do not favour the reorganisation of labor relations. The CUT was the cornerstone of the PT electoral victories and favoured a subsequent moderation of the CUT, in terms of conflict, towards the governments of Lula and Dilma (Boito et al, 2015). As a consequence, the growth of other, smaller centrais was natural: Some examples include Conlutas (which is more closely related to the Partido Socialista dos Trabalhadores Unificado, PSTU), Intersindical (which is more…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…70 per cent of the economically active population). Despite their success in the 1980s, the number of strikes was dropped by half during the 1990s and demands became fundamentally defensive (Boito et al, 2015). However, the last few years mark a progressive escalation in both conflict and the number of strikes, culminating in a new cycle of union protests against Michel Temer's labor reform (DIEESE, 2015;Marcelino, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Labor Reform in Brazil, Politics, and Sindicatos: Notes on the General Strikes of 2017

Carbonai

2019

Journal of Politics in Latin America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Labor Reform in Brazil, Politics, and Sindicatos: Notes on the General Strikes of 2017

Carbonai

2019

Journal of Politics in Latin America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This moderation coexisted, however, with the resumption of union activity and the success of the struggle for union demands (Boito and Marcelino, 2010). In our view, it is impossible to understand the unionism of this period without taking into account the strong impact of the economic policies of governments on union bases with regard to both their disposition to the pursuit of demands at the level of occupational categories and their diffuse support for the PT governments (Boito, Galvão, and Marcelino, 2015). This support sustained the candidates of that party in four consecutive elections and seems to have been only marginally in doubt with regard to the demonstrations of June 2013, given that Dilma was reelected in 2014.…”

Section: Unionism Under the Pt Governmentsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…The activity of the union movement between 2003 and 2014 has been called a "new phase" (Boito, Galvão, and Marcelino, 2015) marked by the support of the great majority of union members for the PT governments, the growing participation of union centrals in state institutions, the achievements of the economic plan, and the resumption of strike activism. These features contrast sharply with the situation in the 1990s (Noronha, 2009: 136), when the Collor government, the Real Plan in the Itamar [Franco] government, and the Fernando Henrique Cardoso governments changed the signals for the union movement: the opening of the Brazilian economy and its consequences for the adjustment of companies; the mass layoffs that have occurred since 1990, pointing to the rising trend of unemployment rates; and the control of inflation, which ended with the premature aging of collective contracts such as occurred when high and unpredictable inflation rates eroded wages before the one-year period provided for the renewal of collective agreements.…”

Section: Unionism Under the Pt Governmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Brazilian Union Movement in the Twenty-first Century: The PT Governments, the Coup, and the Counterreforms

Galvão¹,

Marcelino²

2019

Latin American Perspectives

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unionism, an allied, albeit subordinate, force in the neodevelopmentalist political front of the governments of Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff, was relatively absent from the mobilizations against or in favor of Dilma’s impeachment compared with other social movements and sought to resist and, in a way, realign itself to counter the counterreforms of Michel Temer’s government. Although union and popular demonstrations have multiplied, the absence of a unified strategy in the face of the coup and the reforms have weakened the possibilities of union resistance, and losses for workers have accumulated. O sindicalismo foi uma força aliada, ainda que subordinada, na frente política neodesenvolvimentista dos governos de Lula da Silva e Dilma Rousseff, foi uma força política relativamente ausente nas mobilizações contra ou a favor do impeachment de Dilma, se comparado a outros movimentos sociais e tem procurado resistir e, de certo modo, se realinhar, para enfrentar as contrarreformas do governo de Michel Temer. No entanto, apesar de as manifestações sindicais e populares terem se multiplicado, a ausência de uma estratégia unificada diante do golpe e das reformas fragilizou as possibilidades de resistência sindical e as perdas para os trabalhadores têm se acumulado.

show abstract

“…Historical claims of unionism, although presented by Lula and Dilma at striking and symbolic moments, were ignored by the PT governments, among them the reduction of working hours, approval of International Labor Organization Conventions 151 and 158 (which prevent dismissals without cause and guarantee collective bargaining in the public sector), the end of the welfare factor, restrictive outsourcing regulations, revision of the income tax table, and others (Marcelino, 2017). The environment for union struggle improved greatly as the policy of stimulating economic growth reduced unemployment from 13.5 percent in 2003 to 4.6 percent in 2014, increasing the willingness of workers to fight and the number of strikes and greatly improving collective agreements and conventions (Boito, Galvão, and Marcelino, 2015). However, the only important economic or social measure directed exclusively to the union movement and in response to a demand was the policy of valorization of the minimum wage.…”

Section: Varguism and Lulismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lulism, Populism, and Bonapartism

Boito¹

2019

Latin American Perspectives

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lulism is one of the most important political phenomena of twenty-first-century Brazil. It can be compared to the Varguism that dominated Brazilian politics between 1930 and 1964 in its broad popular but politically unorganized base and its policy of state intervention in the economy to stimulate economic growth, increase the state’s room for maneuver against the imperialist countries, and promote a moderate income distribution. These two variants of populism differ, however, in that Varguism was based on the working class while Lulism, which may be called “neopopulism,” is based on the marginal mass of workers and has less potential to destabilize the political process. Bonapartism, to which Lulism has also been compared, is distinct from it in that what links its leadership to its base is the fetish of the state based on order rather than the fetish based on protection. O lulismo é um dos fenômenos políticos mais importantes do Brasil do século XXI. Pode ser comparado ao varguismo que dominou a política brasileira entre 1930 e 1964 em relação à sua ampla, mas politicamente desorganizada, base popular, e sua política de intervenção estatal na economia para estimular o crescimento econômico, aumentar a margem de manobra do Estado contra os países imperialistas e promover uma distribuição de renda moderada. Essas duas variantes do populismo diferem, no entanto, no sentido de que o varguismo era baseado na classe trabalhadora, enquanto o lulismo, que pode ser chamado de “neopopulismo”, é baseado na massa marginal de trabalhadores e tem menos potencial para desestabilizar o processo político. O bonapartismo, ao qual o lulismo também foi comparado, é distinto dele, pois o que liga sua liderança à sua base é o fetiche do estado baseado na ordem, e não o fetiche baseado na proteção.

show abstract

La nouvelle phase du syndicalisme brésilien (2003-2013)

Cited by 8 publications

References 4 publications

Labor Reform in Brazil, Politics, and Sindicatos: Notes on the General Strikes of 2017

Labor Reform in Brazil, Politics, and Sindicatos: Notes on the General Strikes of 2017

The Brazilian Union Movement in the Twenty-first Century: The PT Governments, the Coup, and the Counterreforms

Lulism, Populism, and Bonapartism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About