Unions
and the World Social Forum Process:
Findings
from the 2005 World Social Forum Survey
Ellen
Reese, Christopher Chase-Dunn, Erika Gutierrez,
Rebecca
Álvarez, Linda Kim, and Christine Petit
Department
of Sociology and Institute for Research on
World-Systems, University of California-Riverside
Assembly
of Social Movements, Kasarani Complex, 2007 WSF,
Abstract: Since it was first established in 2001, the World
Social Forum has quickly become the largest international gathering of social
activists who are opposed to neoliberalism. Our survey research at the 2005 WSF
meeting in
This paper was presented at the 2007 annual meeting of
the Society for the Study of Social Problems in
v. 10-17-07 5908 words. This research is supported by a grant from
Initially organized by the
Brazilian labor movement and the landless peasant movement in 2001, the World
Social Forum (WSF) has quickly become the largest international gathering of
social activists opposed to militarism and neoliberalism. Social Forums are an
“open space” where participants in a variety of progressive social movements
from around the world, or particular regions, can meet, exchange ideas, and
coordinate actions. The 2005 meeting of the WSF drew 155,000 registered
participants from 135 countries. Meanwhile, hundreds of regional, thematic, and
local Social Forums have spread, particularly within Latin America and
As the labor movement mobilizes to
confront globalized capital it must squarely face the issues that divide
workers across national boundaries and between the core and the non-core
countries. And labor also needs to consider and to respond to the important
issues raised by the other progressive movements in order to ally with them in
campaigns to make world society more humane and sustainable. The WSF provides
an important site through which unions and other labor activists can pursue
both of these goals.
In
this paper, we focus on the role of organized labor within the larger “movement
of movements” for global justice. In particular, we examine through survey data
the backgrounds and political attitudes of WSF participants who belong to
unions, comparing them to the characteristics and attitudes of participants who
do not belong to unions. There are two common images of organized labor. On the
one hand, following the insights of Karl Marx, many understand unions to be the
politically organized and class conscious wing of the working class, which is
highly oppressed under capitalism. As such, they are often viewed as an
important source of support for radical, anti-capitalist goals. The spread of
“social movement unionism” has helped to revive this image of organized labor
(Clawson 2003). On the other hand, because of the predominance of nationalism
and “business unionism” within many countries around the world, unions are often
understood to be highly bureaucratic, hierarchical organizations that pursue
extremely narrow, self-interested political goals, such as improving wages and
working conditions for their own members or workers within their own nations,
sometimes at the expense of other workers.
Because many unions represent skilled workers, organized labor is also
commonly understood to represent an “aristocracy of labor.” These latter images
of unions shaped debates surrounding the Social Forum process, which were
particularly heated at the time of the 2004 European Social Forum in
Organized Labor and
the Global Political Economy
While the global nature of capitalism is not new, the intensity of
economic globalization has increased remarkably over the past fifty years. Economic globalization spread in the 20th
century as a result of a wave of decolonization that began in the 1950s, the
collapse of the communist bloc in
Public policies, including tax, welfare, and labor laws, play an
important role in mediating the impacts of economic globalization (Levine
1995). The extent to which protective labor legislation, social welfare, and
corporatism can continue to minimize the detrimental effects of economic
globalization on workers is uncertain, however, because of the spread
neo-liberal doctrines. Such doctrines uphold the virtues of a free market
society and market values and oppose governmental regulations of the
economy. This anti-statist rhetoric
obscures the real nature of neoliberal reforms, which transform the functions
of the state to favor the rich over the poor rather than weaken the state
altogether (Moody 1997). Heavily promoted by conservative think tanks, the
World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank (WB), and the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), neoliberalism has become hegemonic throughout much of the
world. Elites within the global north
have readily carried out neoliberal reforms, restricting welfare programs,
weakening labor and environmental regulations, liberalizing their trade and
financial policies, and privatizing social services. Within the global north, these developments
have been the most extensive in countries such as the United States and Great
Britain, where market regulations have always been fairly weak (Hicks
1999). In the global south, the IMF and
WB imposed neoliberal reforms (often in the form of structural adjustment
programs) on national governments as conditions for receiving loans or repaying
past debts. Such policies have
impoverished workers and made them more desperate to accept jobs on almost any
terms by increasing unemployment and by making it more difficult for workers to
organize, obtain social services, or cope with job displacement (Harris and
Seid 2000). The spread of neoliberal policies thus exacerbates the competitive
pressures on corporations to minimize labor costs and relocate jobs abroad.
This international “race to the bottom” can only be stopped by
promoting labor rights in the national as well as the global economy, including
fair labor standards, economic security programs, workers’ rights to organize,
and rights to education and training. The “low wage
road” to national competitiveness, reliant on minimizing labor costs as much as
possible, is certainly not the only path to economic growth in the global
economy; corporations could compete with their rivals through the
“high-wage road” of using highly skilled labor to create new technologies,
redesign the labor process, identify new markets, and invent and market new
products (Reich 1991; Cormier and Craypo 2000; Moody 1997). However, the lure
of the “low wage road” will remain strong without strong international pressure
on all nations to better regulate their labor markets and respect workers’
rights. Curtailing the global “race to the bottom” depends greatly on the
capacity of workers and their allies to mobilize and influence both national
and international policies. A vibrant transnational
labor movement promises to improve workplace conditions for workers employed by
the same corporations, and it can serve as a deterrent to corporations that
seek to utilize cheap labor in the global south rather than to provide workers
in the global north with a living wage and a safe workplace. International
labor solidarity is also necessary to promote workers’ rights in international
trade and financial agreements (Aguirre and Reese 2004).
But workers and unions in the global south are wary of the
“race to the bottom” discourse because they fear the labor unions in the north
will use their political leverage to prevent job formation in the south, as
they arguably have in the past. The discussion of global labor standards is the
terrain where compromises between northern and southern workers and unions can
be worked out. Global labor standards that price southern workers out are not
acceptable. The long-run task is to raise the productivity of labor in the
south, but in the short-run northern workers must be willing to take into
account the needs that southern workers have for jobs. This is why north/south
dialogues are so important, and it is imperitive that workers and unions
directly confront these issues rather than just sweeping them under the table.
The labor movement also has much to gain by joining forces with
other types of social movements, both domestically and internationally to
promote more “labor-friendly” policies. Transnational feminist organizations
have become increasingly active on labor issues, pushing for improvements in
international labor regulations and their enforcement by national governments
(Moghadam 2005). Labor unions have also found strong support among
environmental organizations for many of their campaigns, including those
against toxic working conditions and against free trade agreements (Dreiling
1998; Obach 2004). Within countries, the labor movement’s efforts to promote
living wages and oppose the privatization of, and cutbacks in, public social
services has been greatly served by their alliances with local community
organizations. Many other social movements, such as the anti-war movement and
the movement for immigrants’ rights, promise to benefit workers, and unions
have participated actively within them (Clawson 2003; Reese, Giedraitis, and
Vega 2005; Tait 2005). Deepening and expanding these kinds of ties to other
movements is likely to increase the political influence of the labor movement
at all levels of governance, which is why many labor activists are participating
within the WSF.
The World Social Forum (WSF) is an arena for sharing experiences and
for formulating new strategies for confronting global capitalism. It was
originally sponsored by the Brazilian Worker’s Party and met in
Of the 544 attendees at the 2005 World
Social Forum who responded to our survey and answered the question about union
membership 127 or 23% indicated that they were union members. Nearly 16% of the 2005 WSF attendees said
they were going to report back about their experience at the WSF to a union.
Nearly 28% of survey participants reported that they strongly identify with the
labor movement, and nearly 13% report that they are actively involved in the
labor movement. While union members are significantly more likely to identify
with, and be involved in, the labor movement than non-unionists, this
relationship is not as tightly coupled as one might imagine. Among union
members, slightly more than half (51%) strongly identify with the labor
movement but only about one-third (34%) claim that they are actively involved
in it. Among those actively involved in the labor movement, nearly half (47%)
do not belong to a union.
Union members who participate in the World Social Forum are unlikely
to be a typical sample unionists from all over the world. Participation in the
WSF already reveals a propensity toward internationalism and “social movement
unionism” and a degree of willingness to try to work with other movements that
may be unusual in comparison with most labor activists and union members in the
world.
UCR Project on Transnational Social
Movements
Since
2004 the Transnational Social Movements Research Working Group at the
Tables 4 and 5 shows the most common types of responses to two
open-ended questions that we asked respondents regarding potential divisions
among labor and environmental activists and among labor activists in the global
north and south. The first question was “How might actual or potential contradictions
between the environmental movements and the labor movements be resolved?” As Table 4 shows, the most common answers
emphasized the importance of better communication between the two movements or
greater coordination between them. For example, a participant from
Despite
a history in many countries of poor relations between the labor and
environmental movements, we found that unionists are just as connected with
environmentalism as non-unionists are. About 27% of unionists and 26% of
non-unionists claim that they are actively involved in the environmental
movement, while 54% of unionists and 46% of non-unionists strongly identify
with it, and these differences are not statistically significant.
The
second question asked, “How might actual
or potential contradictions between the labor movements in the developed
countries and the labor movements of the less developed countries be resolved?”The
two most common answers also emphasized the importance of improving
communication and coordination between the two groups (see Table 5). For
example, a participant from
Conclusion
Unionists
and the labor movement form a significant segment of the activists involved in
the Social Forum process. At
Debates surrounding
unions’ participation in the Social Forum process conjure up contradictory
images of organized labor. Some imagine union members at the WSF as part of a
radical vanguard promoting a fundamental restructuring of the global economy.
Others portray them as representing the “aristocracy of labor,” or lump them
together with members of other “vertical” organizations that are presumed to be
less radical than other grassroots social activists. Our findings provide
support for these first two of images of organized labor, but contradict those
who portray union members as moderate reformists. Our findings suggest that
most union members attending the WSF do represent an “aristocracy of labor” in
many respects, but nevertheless are more radical in their political goals than
other WSF participants.
We
also found that WSF unionists tend to be relatively privileged workers. They
are older, more likely to be men, and whiter (but also more Asian) than WSF
non-unionists. WSF unionists are also more educated and a greater share of them
are skilled workers, especially “Professionals, Technicians, or Artists” than
WSF non-unionists. Thus, the most oppressed workers, those from the periphery,
younger workers, women, and racial minorities are not fully represented among
unionists at the WSF; this will limit the kinds of international labor
alliances that can be formed at the WSF. Social differences between unionists
and other WSF participants may also create potential challenges for building
stronger alliances between organized labor and other social movements.
We found that WSF
unionists are more politically active and radical than non-unionists. Nearly
half of unionists attended five or more protests in the past year. Most
unionists at the WSF appear to be synergists with ties to multiple social
movements. On average, union members attending the WSF are involved in almost
three movements, compared to 2.5 for non-unionists. A greater share of
unionists than non-unionists want to abolish capitalism and existing
international economic organizations. Despite a long history of supporting
national protections for workers, union members attending the WSF appear to be
less nationalistic than other WSF participants. We found that fewer unionists
than non-unionists in our sample want to strengthen nation states as an
approach to solving the problems created by global capitalism, and more
unionists than non-unionists favor the idea of a global democratic government.
More WSF non-unionists
than unionists favored keeping the WSF an open space. But in both cases it was
nearly half, so those who want the WSF itself to become a global political
organization that takes stands greatly risk driving away nearly half of the
activists who favor keeping the WSF an open space. But this does not mean that
a global united front of the kind proposed in the Bamako Appeal (2006) cannot
emerge from the Social Forum process. Indeed the WSF Charter encourages those
who want to organize new political projects to do so. Peter Waterman (2006) has
proposed a global labor charter, which gained considerable support among labor
activists during the 2007 WSF meeting. This is part of a ferment of manifestos
and charters have been put forth since 2005 as the Social Forum process moves
from defense to offense (Wallerstein 2007).
Table 1: Cross tabulation tables
comparing social characteristics of union members with non-members from 2005
WSF Survey
Note: All
percentages below refer to valid percentages. The tables marked with an
asterisk are those in which the
|
|
Union Members |
|
|
|
|
No |
Yes |
Chi Square |
|
Sample size |
417 |
127 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survey Language |
|
|
3.269 |
|
English |
33.30% |
36.20% |
|
|
Spanish |
21.10% |
26.80% |
|
|
Portuguese |
45.60% |
37.00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friends in other countries |
|
|
0.168 |
|
|
72.20% |
70.20% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Languages spoken |
|
|
0.557 |
|
One language |
32.60% |
34.60% |
|
|
Two languages |
35.50% |
34.60% |
|
|
Three languages |
17.00% |
18.10% |
|
|
Four or more languages |
14.90% |
12.60% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gender |
|
|
2.935* |
|
male |
48.80% |
57.50% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Students |
|
|
7.782*** |
|
|
52.40% |
37.80% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years of education |
|
|
9.247* |
|
None |
0.20% |
0.00% |
|
|
Under 11 |
9.40% |
8.90% |
|
|
11 to 15 |
41.90% |
29.00% |
|
|
16 or more |
47.60% |
62.10% |
|
|
Unclear or no answer |
0.70% |
0.00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Educational Degree Subject |
|
|
4.018 |
|
% Social Sciences |
54.40% |
46.10% |
|
|
% Natural Sciences |
12.10% |
10.80% |
|
|
% Arts/Humanities |
26.60% |
31.40% |
|
|
% Technology |
6.90% |
11.80% |
|
|
|
Union Members |
|
|
|
|
No |
Yes |
|
|
Age |
|
|
52.385*** |
|
under 18 |
3.80% |
1.60% |
|
|
18-25 |
39.20% |
17.30% |
|
|
26-35 |
32.00% |
25.20% |
|
|
36-45 |
12.30% |
22.00% |
|
|
46-55 |
8.20% |
17.30% |
|
|
56-65 |
3.90% |
12.60% |
|
|
over 65 |
0.40% |
4.00% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Race/Ethnicity |
|
|
18.826** |
|
White |
36.80% |
43.10% |
|
|
Asian |
4.90% |
12.80% |
|
|
Black |
15.70% |
15.60% |
|
|
Latino |
6.60% |
5.50% |
|
|
Indigenous |
2.50% |
0.00% |
|
|
Other |
11.50% |
5.50% |
|
|
Nationality |
16.20% |
11.00% |
|
|
Religion |
|||