The limitations of the theory and practice of mobilization in trade union organizing

Abstract

Since the publication of Rethinking Industrial Relations in 1998, John Kelly's mobilization theory has been used by many scholars attempting to understand union organizing-often using specific campaigns to unpack and analyse various elements of the theory that help to explain the success or failure of collective mobilization. We review this literature and highlight the major areas of interest from the book-injustice, framing, and leadership-and the contribution to industrial relations research. We find that the terms mobilizing and organizing are used interchangeably, which, we argue, is problematic and has led to confusion about what is actually happening in unions. Unpacking the difference between the two terms can help to explain limitations in the way mobilization theory has been used by scholars, and, at the same time, deepen our understanding of why unions have not been particularly successful in reversing their decline despite the 'turn to organizing' over the last few decades.

Breaking Fragmentation through Mobilization: The Development of a Collective Identity during Movistar’s Contractors’ and Technicians’ Strike in Spain

“…The interviewees reveal that these activities helped to sustain the collective identity, especially important in moments in which the fight seemed to be facing a dead end. In this regard, activities related to 'deep-organizing' (Holgate et al, 2018) during the strike appeared as a crucial factor for the long-term protest. As one striker says when remembering the moments in which hope was low: '(...) trying to keep up the morale, always doing a lot of activities together: blood donations, climbing naked in the ladders in front of the company [laughs], the assemblies, picketing ... all those things make you not think too much and it helps to keep the morale high' (self-employed, 30, Bilbao)…”

Ireland's conundrum on union bargaining rights: assessing the Industrial Relations Amendment Act 2015

“…Lengthy procedural timelines are unhelpful for unions facing anti‐union or ‘union reluctant’ employers; for example, employees are more exposed to employer pressure and the natural momentum of organising declines (Holgate et al . ). For example, that the United States exemplifies lengthy procedures with no time restrictions, and provides ample scope for employers' right to appeal, is widely perceived as a significant limitation of the certification process in this country (Godard, ; Wood and Godard ).…”

“…Given such systems are characterised by voluntary initiation by unions via statutory procedure, timeline duration is a well-noted concern: chiefly time from initial application to formal recognition and time from recognition to concluding first agreement. Lengthy procedural timelines are unhelpful for unions facing anti-union or 'union reluctant' employers; for example, employees are more exposed to employer pressure and the natural momentum of organising declines (Holgate et al 2018). For example, that the United States exemplifies lengthy procedures with no time restrictions, and provides ample scope for employers' right to appeal, is widely perceived as a significant limitation of the certification process in this country (Godard, 2003;Wood and Godard 1999).…”

“Not Fissures but Moments of Crises that Can Be Overcome”: Building a Relational Organizing Culture in Community Organizations and Trade Unions

“…Importantly, however, scholars have highlighted the differences between “organizing” and “mobilizing” members (e.g., Han ; McAlevey ; Holgate, Simms, and Tapia ). Whereas the former refers to a deep, interpersonal, and transformative way of bringing people together, mobilizing refers to a more shallow, transactional way.…”