Abstract
Claims as to the emergence of a new phase of unionism – social movement unionism – returning to its original ‘counter-cultural roots’, are closely allied with the claims as to a ‘new labour internationalism’ that is a significant break from the influential postwar trend of nation-statist unionism. This article interrogates these two popular paradigms from the perspective of the Swedish labour movement. The analysis is based on qualitative interviews with union officials, as well as quantitative analysis of union homepage content and responses to surveys among May Day demonstrators. The general conclusion as regards social movement unionism in Sweden is that the major unions, although increasingly interested in cooperation with social movement organizations, are still far from changing the repertoire of action that has been predominant in the postwar period. International solidarity – among both union officials and grassroots activists – is strongly ambivalent, and attitudes to international support oscillate between charity and self-interest.
David Meyer and Sidney Tarrow (1998) have proclaimed that in western societies social protest has become so common and sponsored by increasing numbers and so many types of organizations that we can call them ‘movement societies’. This thesis bears some credence in Sweden. One of the single largest demonstrations during the 1980s was the 4 October demonstration in Stockholm, which gathered around 75,000 marchers from the centre and right opposition parties and employer organizations, in protest against the Swedish Trade Union Confederation’s (LO) and the Social Democratic Party’s (SAP) proposal of so-called ‘wage-earner funds’ (Bjereld and Demker, 2005: 212ff.; cf. Stråth, 1996: 99ff.). 1 Protest on the streets is not solely a prerogative of left parties or marginalized groups. This development is the result of the institutionalization of movements: a routinization of collective action; inclusion, whereby challengers who follow the ‘rules of the game’ are granted access to mainstream political institutions, and marginalization of those protesters who break these ‘rules’; and cooptation, whereby protesters alter their claims and tactics to ones that can be pursued without disrupting the normal practice of politics (Meyer and Tarrow, 1998: 20–1). Much of the contention in movement societies, according to Meyer and Tarrow, does not come from new social movement organizations as such, but from campaigns organized by political parties, interest groups, professional associations, citizens’ groups and public servants. To this list we can add trade unions, which according to the movement society thesis, are more apt to move to and fro between their established, more conventional collective actions and unconventional collective actions inspired by the new social movements surrounding them. According to this thesis, movement-orientated identities, goals, strategies and tactics, together with personnel are blending into the structures of civil society within which in Sweden the trade union movement is a major ‘player’ (along with the trade union’s employer counterpart, the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise [formerly the Swedish Employers’ Confederation, SAF]). In this article we interrogate the movement society thesis in relation to the Swedish labour movement.
Industrial relations researcher Richard Hyman (2001) argues that trade unions, whether they like it or not, must expand their concerns to encompass the wider social and political dynamics which structure the labour market. According to Hyman:
To exert effective influence on the market, trade unions must address the state, and in order to assert the relevance of an alternative ‘moral economy’ they must also participate in civil society. (Hyman, 2001: 15)
Dan Gallin (2000), chair of the Global Labour Institute, has argued that in a globalizing economy and society, trade unions face three main challenges: organizing employees in transnational corporations; organizing the informal sector; and connecting with other civil society actors to advance a broader social and political agenda. Both Hyman and Gallin are similar, admonishing trade unions to broaden their scope of activities beyond the immediate ‘bread and butter’ issues of their members’ employment contracts. Gallin is calling for what he deems a necessary expansion to engage with transnational governing institutions, such as the EU, as well as seeking cooperation more generally with the international trade union movement and an emerging global civil society in order to meet the challenges of globalization. So while calls for international solidarity between workers have a long history, an important part of the rhetoric of globalization during the past few decades has been the argument made by many that it is now essential for workers to organize transnationally to meet the global organization of their employers if they are to be successful (see Herod, 2003: 507).
According to Gallin (2000), the trend is that trade unions are forging partnerships with NGOs (in this article we use the more specific term ‘new social movement organizations’ [NSMOs], rather than the more inclusive category ‘non-governmental organizations’) in order to enhance their efforts in addressing the new issues being raised in an increasingly globalized economy. He states that ‘important segments of the labour movement are returning to their roots in the form of “social movement unionism” ’ (2000: v). These are indeed bold claims. However, he is not alone in heralding the emergence of social movement unionism. Peter Waterman (2004), who was first to suggest the notion, Rob Lambert (1990), Paul Johnston (1994), Kim Moody (1997), Karl von Holdt (2002) and a number of others, have advanced the notion of social movement unionism, most often on the basis of empirical examples from newly industrialized countries such as South Africa and the Philippines.
Andrew Vandenberg (2006) is perhaps taking a more radical position and has studied what he calls social movement unionism in Sweden. Vandenberg argues against the classical theoretical model as to the inevitability of a deradicalization and ensuing bureaucratization process within traditional social movements – the trajectory away from spontaneous origins in principled opposition towards professionalization and incorporation. At the same time he finds relatively weak vertical linkages within the labour movement, which were in turn weak because they lacked strong horizontal linkages to debates and discourses available in other civil society arenas of contention. Vandenberg is departing from an assumption that social movement unionism exists in Sweden. This is, we argue, an empirical question. In this article we interrogate the potential for an emergence of a social movement unionism in Sweden among grassroots union activists, on the one hand, and among top union officials, on the other.
Claims as to the emergence of a new phase of unionism – social movement unionism – returning to its original ‘counter-cultural roots’, are closely allied with the claims as to a ‘new labour internationalism’ distinguished from the historical and short-lived heyday of labour internationalism prior to the First World War and which is a significant break from the influential postwar trend of nation-statist unionism (cf. Lambert and Webster, 2001). Peter Waterman (2001a) has conceptualized these two emergent models of trade unionism as embracing distinct characteristics. Social movement unionism, or what Waterman calls ‘new social unionism’, ‘surpasses existing models of “economic”, “political” and “political-economic” unionism by addressing itself to all forms of work, by taking on sociocultural forms and by addressing itself to civil society’ (2001a: 316). Further characteristics of this model would be unions struggling for socially useful and environmentally friendly products, a reduction in work hours and for the sharing of domestic work; and unions intimately related to other civil society movements (e.g. women’s, ecological, human rights and peace movements) and which relate to these movements as autonomous, equal and democratic partners in horizontal, flexible coalitions (Waterman, 2001a). The new labour internationalism in Waterman’s scheme sees itself as a part of a general global solidarity movement, which implies (among other things) moving beyond organizational relations towards more ‘face-to-face relations of concerned labouring people on the shop floor, community or grassroots level’ (2001a: 317); going beyond centralized bureaucratic organizational models by stimulating decentralized, horizontal and democratic models of international information networking; ‘moving from an “aid model” (one-way flows of money and material from the “rich, powerful, free” unions . . .) to a “solidarity model” (two-way or multidirectional flows of political support, information and ideas)’; ‘moving from verbal declarations, appeals and conferences to political activity, creative work, visits or direct financial contributions (which will continue to be necessary) by the working people concerned’ (2001a: 318).
From the perspective of the Swedish labour movement we interrogate these two popular paradigms and analyse the degree to which we can find support for the emergence of these new labour union models (or elements of these models) in Sweden. We particularly focus on the concept of solidarity and the type and extension of the unionists’ solidarity with external groups. On the basis of questionnaires distributed among marchers during the 1 May 2009 labour demonstrations in Gothenburg and the 1 May 2010 labour demonstrations in Stockholm, we evaluate the potential among grassroots union activists to lend their solidarity to labour struggles beyond Sweden’s borders, as well as their political concern in general for the wider global issues of environmental threats, third world poverty and human rights – indications of support for a new labour internationalism. Furthermore, we analyse grassroots unionists’ support for social movement actors, as well as their positions regarding the action strategies commonly used by SMOs – indications of support for a new social movement unionism. On the basis of interviews with union officials, together with relevant union documents, we investigate union leadership’s position towards trans-border cooperative efforts within the European Union, as well as towards collaboration with other social movement organizations on specific issues. The questions we pose focus on the Swedish trade unions’ positions towards international labour strategies in the face of the global economic and climate crises and whether these positions can be interpreted as one of global solidarity (Waterman, 2001a: 319) or conversely, containing elements of chauvinism, paternalism and/or protectionism. In conclusion we juxtapose our findings from the two studies to investigate possible asymmetrical support for trans-border union activism.
The Swedish labour movement – background
The Swedish labour movement, together with the labour movements in the other Scandinavian countries, is uniquely powerful compared to its counterparts elsewhere in the world. The Swedish trade union movement has historically been well integrated in the state and a key partner in the state’s labour legislation, not least through its close organic relations with the Social Democratic Party, which was the governing party throughout most of the 20th century. This political alliance resulted in a notion of ‘social partnership’. The trade unions, upon the initiative of the Social Democratic government, forged in the 1930s a ‘basic agreement’ with the employers’ organizations, which encouraged a cooperative strategy by the unions resulting in almost uninterrupted industrial peace in exchange for social reforms and improved material conditions – the foundations for the Swedish welfare state were laid (see Hyman, 2001: 46–7).
In Sweden union density is exceptional, with slightly over 70 percent union membership among the employed in 2008. Even if union membership has steadily decreased from a high of 85 percent in 1993, due among other factors to the increased costs of unemployment insurance and subsequently the cost of union membership, Sweden, Finland and Denmark are still world-leading (Kjellberg, 2009: 267). This high density of union membership has been achieved in large part because of the success of the country’s white-collar unions in attracting members. Anders Kjellberg (2000) points out that this is one of the paradoxes of Swedish unionism. The Scandinavian countries, while they are traditionally recognized as welfare societies with comparatively far-reaching provisions for equality, ‘also contain the most class-segmented union movements of all countries’ (2000: 530). On the one hand, we find the blue-collar/white-collar divide profoundly impacting the union movement structure with LO, the Swedish Trade Union Confederation, organizing the blue-collar workers. On the other hand, white-collar workers are further divided between university-educated professionals organized under the umbrella of SACO, the Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations, and other white-collar workers organized under the umbrella of TCO, the Swedish Confederation of Professional Employees, including employees from both the public and private sectors. ‘Were it not for the existence of separate unions and confederations for each category of worker, Swedish white-collar workers would not be almost as well organized as the traditional working class’ (Kjellberg, 2000: 531). Furthermore, Kjellberg claims that the combination of a simultaneously centralized (strong union confederations and national unions that promote bargaining power and make a wage solidarity policy possible) and a decentralized industrial relations system has also been important for achieving high union density. Decentralization in the form of strong workplace union organizations vertically well integrated into national unions, brings the unions close to their rank-and-file membership. Together with class-segmented union membership, this structure of industrial relations has also been instrumental in making union membership attractive for employees. Sverke and Sjöberg (1997) comment that instrumental or support issues are growing in significance as a reason for joining a union, and ideological reasons are steadily declining in significance. The Swedish union structure with strong workplace union organizations has been successful in fulfilling these ‘bread and butter’ reasons for membership.
Trans-border cooperation
This industrial relations structure combining strong centralized union confederations and national unions, together with active workplace union organizations, impacts as well the Swedish labour movement’s engagement with international union organizations and the global solidarity issues that have been raised. All three union confederations are now members of the ITUC (International Trade Union Confederation) and the ETUC (European Trade Union Confederation); the Swedish LO played an active part in the founding of the latter in 1973. Through SAMAK (the Scandinavian Co-operation Committee of the Labour Movement, which first met in 1897) comprised of the Scandinavian LOs and Social Democratic parties, and later NFS (the Council of Nordic Trade Unions, founded in 1972), the Scandinavian unions have had a coordinated role in developing and strengthening the ETUC and TUAC (Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD). In particular, the Scandinavian countries have worked for reforms of decision-making and working methods within the ETUC (Kjellberg, 2000: 543ff.). At the time of writing, the president of the ETUC is the Swedish president of LO, Wanja Lundby-Wedin. However, even if EU-level unions have become strengthened and the Swedish union confederations have been active in this process, the Europeanization of the union structure is being resisted, especially by those unions that are stronger in their national contexts, such as the Swedish unions (Martin and Ross, 2001). In these unions’ cost-benefits analyses, they calculate that they have more to lose than win through a deepened trans-border European collaboration. In general at the EU level the unions have lagged behind other interest organizations in their capacity to organize and act transnationally (Marks and McAdam, 1999).
An international engagement with the challenges posed by an increasingly globalized economy is more or less delegated to the top echelons of union leadership and coordinated through the three union confederations in Sweden. In particular this engagement on the European level has been directed towards assuring some degree of union representation in transnational companies through the European works councils. As Kjellberg (2000: 529) points out:
Considering its modest size (9 million inhabitants) few, if any, countries have such a large share of major transnational companies as Sweden. These have shown a fast increasing tendency to become ever less ‘Swedish’ and have been stepping up their demands for deregulation, reregulation of labour law and tax reductions.
Not surprisingly, Swedish unions have awarded priority to representation in transnational companies.
At the international level through the union confederations’ membership in the ITUC there has been a limited engagement in the World Social Forums and European Social Forums, LO to a greater degree and TCO to a lesser degree, while the participation of SACO have been very limited. According to della Porta (2004), the unions that have taken part in the Global Justice Movement, through engagement in World Social Forums (WSF) and European Social Forums (ESF), have been ‘epitomised as linked – because of more or less selfish interests or path-dependency – to the defence of the nation state, as the natural territorial environment of welfare arrangements’ (2004: 12). Research on the position of unions towards supranational institutions stresses their resistance to adapt to multilevel governance (cf. Haworth and Hughes, 1997; Ghigliani, 2005 on the futile efforts of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions; see also Olle et al., 1977).
Research methods
In order to capture the degree and character of social movement unionism and trade union internationalism in Sweden, we have included three different sources of data for the analyses. First, to form a general picture of the official stances of the unions in regard to trade union internationalism and union cooperation with new social movements, we have carried out a content analysis of the web-pages of all 14 LO (blue-collar), all 16 TCO (white-collar) and all 23 SACO (academic) unions, SAC (the anarcho-syndicalist union), as well as three independent unions. These 57 unions organize around 99 percent of those affiliated to a trade union in Sweden. Mainly the homepage sections regarding the unions’ international policies or projects were analysed, and some specific words or terms were searched using the internal search engine of the homepage. Thus, the results should not be interpreted as an exhaustive mapping of the unions’ official stances on these issues as such (since we have not analysed their official documents if they were not presented on their homepages), but rather as a descriptive mapping of how internationalism and new social movement cooperation is framed when communicated to both members and the public on their official websites. 2 Nevertheless, this can be seen as a way to capture the relative priority given to these issues by the unions when they present their activities in a public space.
Second, in order to capture the union leaderships’ strategies and attitudes in regard to these issues we have conducted a qualitative analysis of eight semi-structured interviews with trade union international secretaries (or people in equivalent positions) from LO unions, TCO unions and SAC. As some of the unions’ international activities and/or cooperation with NSMOs are not centrally coordinated within a single union, we made the assumption that the international secretaries of unions would at least be aware of most initiatives of this type. In the selection of unions for the interviews with international secretaries, the choice was first made to exclude the academic unions (SACO); given their role as both unions and associations for professionals, we expected them to be less connected to the traditional ideas of workers’ solidarity primarily connected with the labour movement. This was largely confirmed by our initial homepage analysis. However, several white-collar unions are active within the service sector and in many respects share the same broad interests as the blue-collar unions, while some differences could be noted. The selection was also made to include officials from unions organizing members from both the private and the public sectors, and thus from different parts of the economy more or less vulnerable to the pressures of globalization (those being employed in the public sector traditionally more secure from such pressures, having their counterpart in the Swedish state or local governments in Sweden, rather than foreign-owned companies or Swedish companies more vulnerable to the demands of the international market). The qualitative interviews were semi-structured around questions guided by the theoretical interests of the study. The analysis was, then, inductive in the grounded theory tradition (see Charmaz, 2006; Martin and Turner, 1986), with the aim of retaining a sensitivity to respondents’ perspectives when developing the analysis. Our initial focus in the interviews was on cooperation and motives for (or lack of) cooperation, whereas patterns in the material called for special attention to the notion of solidarity.
Finally, we were interested in the opinions and actions of not only the top-level union representatives, but also grassroots union activists. Subsequently, we captured this group by surveying unionists taking part in five Labour Day demonstrations:
1 May 2009 – the SAC (the anarcho-syndicalist union) march in Gothenburg
1 May 2009 – the Left Party march in Gothenburg
1 May 2009 – the Social Democratic Party and LO march in Gothenburg
1 May 2010 – the Left Party march in Stockholm
1 May 2010 – the Social Democratic Party and LO march in Stockholm.
The advantage of focusing on union members who participate in political demonstrations, compared to distributing a survey to a sample of all the members of specific unions, is that our prime interest is in ‘union activists’, rather than the average member. 3 In other words, protest surveys pinpoint unionists who are not only members for instrumental reasons, but are actively engaged in their union’s political and social goals through participation in protest activities. Those participating in political demonstrations associated with trade union goals presumably also identify with their union as a political actor. The basic idea of such a participation-oriented approach – central within social movement studies – is highlighted in Figure 1, illustrating how one can conceive the relationship between membership, collective identity and participation. The prime interest in our survey of May Day demonstrators is thus to focus on the trade unionists that actually participate in trade union activities, and thus neither their members in general, nor their top representatives.
Constituencies of trade unions in terms of organizational membership, collective identity and participation in organized activities, i.e. activists.
In our case it is also important to point out that one may assume that demonstrations include grassroots activists of different types, due to the fact that the unions were organizers or co-organizers for some of the demonstrations, but not for others. More specifically, the Social Democratic marches were co-organized with LO, and SAC was the official host of a broader anarcho-syndicalist march. However, many grassroots activists from LO unions can be found in the Left Party march, and one can find as well activists from TCO or SACO in both the Social Democratic/LO and the Left Party marches. Regarding the organizations as such, LO has traditionally been the only major union confederation officially taking part in Labour Day demonstrations due to its strong linkages with the Social Democratic Party. In Table 1, the division between union activists in different trade union confederations is shown, specified according to the demonstration they took part in.
Trade union member participation in 1 May Labour Day marches, Gothenburg 2009 and Stockholm 2010 (in percentages).
Note: The category ‘other union’ also includes those declaring trade union membership without specifying the union.
To create a representative sample of the protesters at the demonstrations we used a standardized protest surveying method (see Peterson et al., 2009; Walgrave and Verhulst, 2011) employed by the ongoing international research programme ‘Caught in the act of protest: Contextualizing contention’. At specified intervals, demonstrators were given a postal survey to complete, and in 2010 roughly one-fifth of these were also posed a few of the survey questions orally. The latter oral questionnaires enabled us to test the reliability of our data. The response rates were 43 percent for 2009 and 40 percent for 2010, which is relatively high, considering that the method does not allow for reminding the respondents.
The quantitative analyses in this article consist in cross-tabulations of mean responses to various items in relation to union membership. We have made sure that the general patterns that we find persist when controlling for the background variables sex, university education, immigrant background and age. The possible effects of the latter variables are not our primary theoretical concern and are therefore left out of the presentation. However, in order for the reader to acquire an overview of the sociodemographic composition and how the union activists in the different trade union confederations in our sample may differ in these respects, Table 2 provides these data. The data in this table show that with regard to gender and ethnicity, the trade union activists do not differ significantly from the general population. Some differences in the percentage of women and the mean age between the different unions can, however, be noticed.
The sociodemographic composition of the union members, 1 May Labour Day marches, Gothenburg 2009 (in percentages and mean values).
Notes: The figure for education concerns those having completed a university degree, or currently studying at the university. Measure of significance used for gender, ethnicity and education is Cramer’s V, and for age, the measure of significance used is Eta. * = 5%, ** = 1%, and *** = 0.1% significance. NS = not significant.
When it comes to the sociodemographic composition of the nine trade union officials that we interviewed, they were three women and six men, all but one were born in Sweden and one was below the age of 30 while most of the rest were between 45 and 60 years.
Part one: Trade union internationalism in Sweden?
Global solidarity
The concept of solidarity is notoriously complex (Houtepen and Ter Meulen, 2000; Pensky, 2006; Waterman, 2001b), and is entangled in both normative and descriptive meanings. Within social science and in particular sociology, the concept of solidarity has often been elaborated using Durkheim’s (1964 [1893]) classic notion that the cohesion of traditional society was based on a ‘mechanic’ form of solidarity based on in-group identification, whereas modern society relied on ‘organic solidarity’ that acknowledges the complex interdependencies in a (capitalist) society characterized by increasing differentiation and extensive division of labour, as well as ideas of collective and individual autonomy. In even more complex societies such a notion of organic solidarity becomes even more indicative, which, for instance, can be illustrated by Young’s (2000: 222) discussion regarding differentiated solidarity: ‘Ideals of inclusion in our complex, plural, and populous societies, however, must rely on a concept of mutual respect and caring that presumes distance: that norms of solidarity hold among strangers and those who in many ways remain strange to one another’. One factor that indeed adds even more complexity to contemporary society is the interdependencies connected with globalized capitalism. If nation-state based solidarity was about creating institutions granting inclusion for members of the national polity, on the basis of their acknowledged contributions within a national division of labour, global solidarity would imply both values and institutions being functional within a more global division of labour. It is within this space of renegotiation of the forms of solidarity that we must situate contemporary trade unions and their contestations over current forms of global economic organization.
Such a Durkheimian perspective is however not sufficient for our analysis, given its focus on society at large. Thus, one would have to have a more nuanced analysis of the more specific relations of (global) solidarity between members of the working class and that between members of labour movements. Waterman (2001b: 235–8) identifies six different complementary meanings of solidarity, which in his view are each insufficient and prone to various exclusions, and which therefore all need to be taken into account by activists and analysts alike. Waterman distinguishes between (1) identity, maintained in opposition to a common antagonist; (2) substitution, which in practice means charitable assistance to weaker parties; (3) complementarity, the exchange between groups of different experiences related to their political struggles; (4) reciprocity, an essentially instrumental give-and-take relationship that balances out over time; (5) affinity, the main emotional aspect of the concept, directed to specific groups and individuals; and (6) restitution, compensating for historical inequalities and wrongdoings between groups. Solidarity can be viewed as a balance between different extremes, some of which are in more or less direct conflict with an intuitive notion of solidarity. If one social movement actor behaves in relation to another solely in terms of ‘substitution’ we have a charity relationship which implies a status asymmetry that conflicts with the notion of solidarity. On the other hand, providing help entirely based on the logic of ‘reciprocity’, where assistance is entirely based on in-group utility maximization over time, contradicts the (relative) unconditionality one would expect from a genuinely solidaristic relationship.
There appears to be some potential in extending the discussion about identity and difference as grounds for societal solidarity to the problems encountered within/between movement solidarity. Any tendencies to internationalist social movement unionism should include a degree of acknowledgement that movement-based solidarity can be extended to other radical movements on the basis of difference and functional differentiation in terms of methods and/or subject matter. Our study can therefore be framed as an investigation into the degree and forms of solidarity internationally as well as directed towards other social movements.
Constraints for wider forms of solidarity
Richard Hyman (2001: 170) points out that:
The boundaries of union inclusion are also frontiers of exclusion. The perceived common interests of the members of a particular union (or confederation) are defined in part in contradistinction to those workers outside. In compartmentalizing workers, unions traditionally have compartmentalized solidarity.
In Sweden, the powerful central union confederations have resulted in redefining workers’ interests to more general categories of class, and in some cases, have even bridged class interests, to lay the preconditions for a wage solidarity policy, demands for workplace democracy, etc. The ‘national compartments’ have been broad enough to assure a high degree of class solidarity, and in some cases the union movement has been powerful enough to even reach a degree of cross-class solidarity. This is certainly an achievement, however the basis for workers’ recognition of shared interests and a sense of solidarity has been largely confined to the national spatial context.
Herod (2003: 513) points out that ‘workers frequently engage in international solidarity to protect not their class interests but, rather, their spatial ones’ – they protect the frontiers of their ‘compartments’. He argues that workers’ identities are both classed and spatialized. Swedish workers may think of themselves as both workers and Europeans, or both workers and Swedes, or both workers and Stockholmers, etc. In some situations they may choose to emphasize different aspects of their identities, which has important implications for their practice of international solidarity (cf. Johns, 1998).
Sörbom (2005) discusses the boundaries for Swedish social democracy’s solidarity as a way of understanding a political organization’s difficulties in internationalizing or globalizing its activities. She finds a considerable degree of inertia on the part of the Social Democratic Party to leave its dominant frame of reference. Solidarity for SAP is based on national identity and methodological nationalism. To enter a frame of reference for solidarity which would reach beyond Sweden’s borders appears to be at odds with this underlying frame. In the wake of a globalized economy and the situations of competition that emerge, the struggles that dominate LO and SAP’s politics are located at the level of community or workplace – these are the bases for solidarity. Global solidarity finds its expression in support of foreign aid administered by international organizations.
The official stances of Swedish trade unions on international issues
To provide an initial overview of the Swedish trade unions’ engagement in international issues, the homepages of the unions provide basic indications. The indicators that we analysed consider issues connected with international cooperation and issues connected to globalization in general. Regarding the content of the unions’ pages dealing with international issues, the overall tendency is that the homepages of LO are the richest in content among the three confederations, followed by TCO and SACO. It is mostly issues concerning the European labour market and the EU that are mentioned, followed by questions about supporting human rights including labour rights in other countries, and development and solidarity projects in which the unions are involved. Some also mention fair trade projects as a means of granting respect for labour rights in other countries.
Especially among the LO unions forms of transnational cooperation other than the traditional international channels (i.e. officials representing centralized national trade unions having contact with corresponding officials from other nations’ unions) are mentioned relatively often. These forms of transnational cooperation deal with forms of union cooperation within a specific (multinational) corporation, or in regard to so-called Global Framework Agreements (GFA), both taking a specific enterprise rather than national unions as its organizational basis. In summary, the content analysis of the Swedish trade unions’ homepages shows that the LO unions, closely followed by the TCO unions, display a generally high interest in international issues, which ranges from formal cooperation with unions in other countries and through international confederations, to involvement in concrete solidarity projects with unions in developing countries, and support for labour rights for unions in countries with low respect for these. In some respects, the low interest in these issues from the SACO unions can be said to reflect the traditional position of most unions for professionals to not get involved in questions not directly connected to ‘bread and butter’ issues or directly to the work- or profession-related interests of members. On the other hand, there has also traditionally existed a reluctance among TCO unions to become ‘too political’, which is not reflected in this analysis.
The analysis of our interviews with trade union international secretaries revealed an emphasis on the unions’ self-interest in their support of unions elsewhere in the world:
We don’t give away money because we are naive. We give away money in order to secure our own conditions. If unions and their conditions are weakened in other countries in the long run we will feel the effects here. The case of Laval is a good example. If the unions had been strong in the Baltic countries that would never have happened. (Interview with representative from SKTF, the Swedish Union of Local Government Officers) We have a guy working from Tallin in Estland keeping track of the workers’ conditions in the Baltic countries. So that we can help them organize a strong dockworkers union over there. They are neighbours you know . . . they are so close to us that goods from Sweden can be redirected from their ports because labour costs are cheaper. So we help them to organize, but we do it to protect ourselves too. (Interview with representative of Swedish Transport Workers’ Union) There are two sides to solidarity. On the one hand it is help to self-help. On the other hand, by working to secure better labour conditions in these countries we even secure jobs here at home. (Interview with representative of the private sector white-collar union Unionen)
The international secretaries stressed that solidarity with workers in other countries was driven by their self-interest to avoid losing jobs at home to workers in low wage labour markets abroad. ‘It’s a long-term strategy, it is both solidarity and self-interest’ (interview with representative of the metalworkers’ and industrial workers’ union, IF Metall). In union officials’ descriptions of their international cooperation and support, one can to varying degrees find several, if not all, of the dimensions of solidarity identified by Waterman (2001b). Largely, however, solidarity is described in terms of Waterman’s concept of substitution, with little sense of complimentarity. In other words, weaker trade unions in other countries are assisted on a largely charitable basis, with no marked sense that the sharing of experiences can itself be rewarding for the Scandinavian unions. Any utilitarian benefit from the support is not expected in terms of direct reciprocity from the assisted parties, but rather as the indirect effect that wage dumping is prevented.
Grassroots union support for international concerns
Some of the union representatives that we interviewed expressed concern whether internationalization was something that the average member cares about. One representative commented: ‘You are on a slippery slope if you can’t speak to your members’ everyday lives’ (interview with representative of Unionen). However, more than one respondent described their members as becoming more and more internationally engaged:
The news and the Internet has made everyone knowledgeable about everything that is happening all over the world, and the news travels fast especially when it affects you. When union representatives or union members are treated badly somewhere in the world now we more often get reactions from our members. (Interview with representative of Swedish Municipal Workers’ Union)
We now turn our attention to the political priorities of grassroots union activists, with regard to whether trade unions should have an internationalist outlook or foremost protect jobs from foreign competition.
As we can see in Table 3, the LO respondents ranked all goals relatively high, including goal 5 – trade unions should work for the good of all workers, irrespective of which country they live in or come from – which can be interpreted as an indication of support for a degree of global solidarity which underpins a ‘new labour internationalism’ (Waterman, 2001a). Furthermore, the LO respondents display a high degree of identification with trade unionists participating in Labour Day demonstrations in other countries, revealing the remaining potential for traditional forms of solidarity with the international labour movement. On the other hand, LO members also ranked relatively high on goal 4 – trade unions should work for the protection of Swedish workers from competition from abroad – which can be interpreted as an indication of protectionist tendencies (even though the statement does not specifically specify whether one should be protected from foreign workers or foreign companies). The relatively high score on goal 2 – trade unions should work primarily for their own members’ wages and rights – is more difficult to interpret, since we do not know if the respondents thereby exclude members of related unions in other countries or only non-unionized workers domestically. Taken together, we can see that the trade union activists, much like their formal representatives, express ambivalence in regard to global solidarity.
Attitudes towards union internationalism among union members, 1 May Labour Day marches, Gothenburg 2009 and Stockholm 2010 (mean values).
Notes: Concerns the two questions ‘To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?’ (having a 1–5 scale with the alternatives ‘strongly disagree’, ‘disagree’, ‘neither’, ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’) and ‘to what extent do you identify with the other people present at these [Labour Day] demonstrations in other countries?’ (having a 1–5 scale, but originally having a 1–7 scale in the 2009 questionnaire, and a 1–5 scale in the 2010 questionnaire). Measure of significance used is Eta. * = 5%, ** = 1%, and *** = 0.1% significance. NS = not significant.
Part two: Social movement unionism in Sweden?
Constraints for cooperation with new social movements
Waterman (2004) argues that the fundamental problem confronted by a new international social movement unionism is the unions’ organizational form,
. . . which is still primarily organizational/institutional in a period in which both capitalism and the global justice and solidarity movement are taking the network form. For a theory of international social movement unionism this is a problem in that the inter/national labour movement is still being understood in organizational/institutional terms when it increasingly needs to be understood in networking/communicational ones. (Waterman, 2004: 221–2)
All trade unions have a clearly defined constituency: the members, to whom the leaders are accountable. Representative governing bodies elect union leaders at regular intervals. Monitoring and evaluation of trade union performances take place constantly, beginning in the workplace by the members, and more formally in elected governing bodies. Union leaders are therefore obliged to seek support among the membership about the merits of any given policy; they have to relate short-term goals to long-term objectives in a way that is understandable to the membership and ensures its support. The consequences of union policy are often immediately felt by members (for example, in the form of good or bad collective bargaining results). New social movements such as the Global Justice Movement, 4 on the other hand, have no clearly defined constituency and group/organization leadership is often informal with few avenues for monitoring their performance. The fundamental resource available to these movements is the active participation of their members and supporters. While the Swedish unions have an impressive number of elected officials, the majority of the membership is passive.
For writers attempting to promote a new international social movement unionism this is perhaps a problem. But most importantly it is a problem for union practitioners struggling to bring unions and union members in a closer cooperation with new social movements and more specifically the Global Justice Movement. Transforming the ‘old’ or traditional and established global unions to a ‘new’ form of internationalism often founders upon their reliance on their members who are representatives of national unions and union confederations. Waterman points out that the formal representativity of traditional international union institutions (TIUIs) conceals the ‘ignorance or passivity of most union members internationally. The TIUIs know they have 157 to 200 million members. But how many of these members know that the TIUIs have them?’ (Waterman, 2004: 228–9).
Sörbom (2006) argues that the new social movement organization (NSMO) Attac – one of the foremost actors within the Global Justice Movement – emerged with their global framing of politics in a social and political space that was more or less left vacant by the older established social movements, more specifically, the labour movement. LO’s scepticism towards the initial globalization critical frames has, according to Sörbom been tempered, but LO remains sceptical of their mission statement that ‘another world is possible’. So while many of LO’s globalization measures put forth by leading LO intellectuals dovetail with those of Attac – Tobin tax, sympathy strikes, etc. – the Swedish labour movement is, according to Sörbom, more or less solidly connected to the frame of liberal capitalism. More far-reaching demands, which would transform this underlying frame, are at this point in time incompatible. More than the Global Justice Movement’s frames, according to Sörbom, their action strategies pose what appear to be relatively insurmountable obstacles for a closer cooperation with the movement. The long historical legacy of a ‘social partnership’ reinforces the Swedish labour movement’s preferred strategy of lobbying over mobilization. LO’s top-level leadership perceives the negotiation table as their arena for bringing about change, not the streets. Efforts by the LO unions to mobilize their membership have become more or less reduced to the 1 May Labour Day demonstrations – an annual ritual.
In their research on the role of trade unions for the mobilization of the Global Justice Movement on the European level, Andretta and Reiter (2009: 178ff.) have pointed out that the degree of cooperation between newer movement actors such as Attac and dominant trade unions has been less profound in countries where the unions traditionally have been strongly tied to social democracy (such as in Germany), while there has been a greater openness to cooperation in countries where the dominant unions were traditionally connected to the Communist Party (such as in Italy). Such an analysis seems to resonate with the findings of Sörbom mentioned earlier, regarding the Swedish situation.
In the Swedish context, the only union heavily involved in the activities of the Global Justice Movement is the rather small grassroots oriented anarcho-syndicalist trade union SAC, which has a repertoire of political action very close to new social movements (e.g. Wennerhag, 2008: 200). Andretta and Reiter (2009: 181ff.) claim that these kinds of grassroots unions – often developed out of the New Left activism of the 1970s, or from autonomist tendencies during more recent years – have played a substantial role in the development of the Global Justice Movement in Europe at large (taking as examples the Italian COBAS, and French Syndicale Solidaires).
Trade union cooperation with new social movement organizations and campaigns: The official view
The content analysis of the trade unions’ homepages regarding cooperation with NSMOs reveals a general lack of interest among the Swedish trade unions. However, some of the LO unions and even fewer among the TCO unions mention limited cooperation with NSMOs, whereas the SACO unions do not mention any forms of cooperation. As can be expected, the grassroots-oriented union SAC, with its firm ties to different NSMOs, displays a significant interest in such cooperation. Regarding the LO unions that display interest in these types of organizations, they mention both partners connected to the Global Justice Movement – e.g. the organizations Attac and Friends of the Earth, and arenas such as ESF and WSF – and more institutionalized or NGO-type NSMOs such as Amnesty International and the United Nation Association Sweden. The TCO unions more often mention the latter types of organizations, for example, Amnesty, fair trade associations and ECPAT.
Despite the lack of information on their homepages, quite a high proportion of the LO unions, and in some respects the TCO unions, took part in the 2008 Fifth European Social Forum in Malmö, Sweden. A majority of the LO unions were represented in the Nordic organizing committee, either from their national board or from district or local committees. Furthermore, two LO unions (the Swedish Transport Workers’ Union and the Swedish Commercial Employees’ Union) and the local LO district had four representatives on the ESF 2008 board (out of a total of 15 persons on the board). Both LO and TCO unions organized seminars during the 2008 ESF, which was also the case for the confederations themselves, including not only LO and TCO but also SACO (the latter organizing one seminar). The degree of Swedish trade union participation was quite high at this event organized by the Global Justice Movement, which would indicate a change from the relative disconnection of the dominant trade unions from the activities and discourses of the Global Justice Movement in Sweden. However, two years after the 2008 ESF, few trade unions mention this involvement on their homepages. Regarding the LO unions, it is more common to mention their traditional cooperation with the Social Democratic Party (SAP) as a successful way to achieve political influence and change. Even though only 50 percent of the LO unions mention their traditional ties with SAP on their homepages, they are all effectively taking part in formalized cooperation with SAP, through LO centrally, through support for SAP MPs from the LO unions, or through establishment of local SAP workplace committees. Thus, this is still the dominant action strategy for the LO unions in Sweden. In contrast to recent developments in other countries, there has been no significant weakening of the linkage between Swedish LO and SAP.
One of the hallmarks for social movements is the demonstration action strategy. When asked about their views on demonstrating, the Swedish union representatives agree that demonstrating is not part of the standard repertoire of union action within the ‘Swedish model’ (or the ‘Nordic model’ as they present it in international contexts). This model is generally connected with the agreement signed in Saltsjöbaden 1938, prior to which the labour struggle in Sweden was more conflictual and characterized by strikes and demonstrations. A representative of the transport workers’ union notes that:
It is just not in our nature. I think that . . . we solved this with the Saltsjöbaden agreement . . . the parties should reach an agreement. We are almost alone in the world with that system. So we negotiate instead of fighting. That has sort of followed us since then. And it has given us success . . . maybe not now any more, but we have achieved considerable success. So that is why we don’t have demonstrations.
Several interviewees compared the Swedish situation with other countries on the European continent, where union membership rates are significantly lower. We can see here two very different expressions of the ‘logic of numbers’ that della Porta and Diani (2006) identify as one of the major logics behind the action repertoires of social movements. A country like France is described as typically using a strategy of overt displays of numbers in demonstrations, where the unions generally receive significant support from non-members, to compensate for lower membership rates. Meanwhile, the Swedish unions describe themselves as making a rather more implicit use of numbers, when they are able to point to their very large constituencies. A representative of the trade union Unionen (the union of white-collar workers in the private sector) says that:
When Swedes sit at the negotiation table then the employer knows that the union represents 80 percent of the employees in that company – or 79 percent or 84 percent. We have so many members and this is our strength when we sit down to negotiate and then we can have a dialogue.
In comparison with this strategy, overt displays of numbers can paradoxically be interpreted as a sign of relative weakness. ‘Show of force’ through demonstrations is unnecessary when an organization’s power of numbers is difficult to dispute. The representative of the metalworkers’ and industrial workers’ union (IF Metall) that we interviewed expressed this standpoint, somewhat ambiguously:
Take a country like France with only around 10 percent union membership. Still they have an incredible influence, because their unions are more like political mass movements. . . . And even in regard to the mass media, it is more effectual if you can show that you have lots of people behind you, at least for your own members. . . . But if you look behind the scene, like in France, what have you influenced? Almost nothing, unfortunately. So even if they have thrown tomatoes or something, it is seldom that they actually achieve anything.
Another factor that is conveyed by the interviewees, to account for unionists’ lack of incentive to demonstrate, is the structure of labour regulations in Sweden. Since the rise of the nation-state, public mass mobilizations have typically been directed at the state rather than private actors. When the labour market is almost entirely regulated by the agreements between unions and the employers’ federations, as in Sweden, there is little point in directing one’s demands at the state. However, with increased legal regulation of the labour market, under the influence of EU directives, an interest in expressing union grievances towards the state or the EU might increase. A representative of Swedish Municipal Workers’ Union notes that:
We are maybe on our way towards a tripartite system and then maybe demonstrations will suit us better. . . . In countries where unions can’t sign agreements with employers and the unions must always go through the state . . . if their demands will influence the country’s economy and such. We might very well be going in that direction. Then maybe in a few years demonstrations will begin to suit us.
Furthermore, while political lobbying is indeed used by the Swedish unions today, it is not obvious that they have the mandate to make reference to their numbers the same way as in relation to an employer. The low degree of politically motivated union membership in Sweden indicates that union members give the unions a mandate to negotiate with employers, but not necessarily to put forth political claims. Yet if a union can amass tens of thousands of demonstrators, they have a stronger case for claiming to communicate their members’ demands. The obvious exception to this is the historically close links between the Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO) and the Social Democratic Party (SAP), where LO has had relatively direct access to political decision-making.
The lack of tradition in using demonstrations to put forth claims, and the disinterest in this strategy from the major unions, has probably contributed to the by and large low legitimacy awarded social movement action strategies more generally by the union representatives.
Grassroots union activist support for social movement activism
To get a picture of the experience of participation in demonstrations among Swedish trade union members in general, we analysed the general population using national survey data from the Swedish SOM Institute. As shown in Table 4, there is no (statistically significant) difference regarding participation in demonstrations between members of different trade unions and non-members. Thus, trade union membership as such is not a mobilizing factor, at least not in relation to the population at large.
Participation in demonstrations and movement unionism among trade union members and the Swedish population (in percentages).
Notes: Data concerning the Swedish population in general from National SOM 2008 (study no. SND 0878; principal investigators: Lennart Nilsson, Sören Holmberg, Lennart Weibull, SOM Institute, University of Gothenburg), made available by Swedish National Data Service. Measure of significance used is Cramer’s V. * = 5%, ** = 1%, and *** = 0.1% significance. NS = not significant.
When looking at other forms of participation – taking part at a trade union meeting and/or doing voluntary work for a trade union – there are, however, some minor differences between the members of the different unions. Members of LO unions have a lower degree of participation in these forms of union participation, compared to members of both TCO and SACO unions (and, oddly enough, on the same level as non-members of trade unions) (see Table 4). These differences notwithstanding, the generally low degree of participation in these types of more ‘activist’ or participatory forms of political action among trade union activists in our study is difficult to explain. A distinctive feature of a highly decentralized union structure such as the Swedish is the number of elected union officials. The number of workplace union ‘clubs’ has decreased since the 1990s, however in 2006 the total number of union members who were elected officials was approximately 340,000 (within a country of about 9 million inhabitants). While this figure is down from a total number of approximately 500,000 union officials in 1998, the proportion of actively involved union members in Sweden is still remarkable (Kjellberg, 2009: 253).
While trade union members in general do not demonstrate more than their fellow Swedes, we can see some significant differences in the political repertoire of the activists from our own demonstration survey compared to the general population (see Table 5). The anarcho-syndicalist union SAC distinguished themselves from other union activists and the general population. They less often used the traditional channel of contacting politicians and government officials (11 percent) and they more often boycotted certain products (89 percent) and as many as 29 percent reported using violent forms of action. The members of the dominant trade unions report contacting politicians and government officials far more often than other Swedes, in particular LO activists use this political channel (53 percent). They use consumer actions more often, such as boycotting certain products – in particular the white-collar unionists (81 percent of the SACO members and 75 percent of the TCO members). A negligible number of these unionists report taking part in violent forms of political protest and only 4.6 percent of the LO activists reported taking part in a strike. Aside from the SAC activists, trade union activists in Sweden seek more traditional avenues of political influence than those that characterize new social movement activism, with the exception of taking part in consumer actions. Among the union activists in our study a low proportion participate in what can be regarded as some kind of movement unionism, apart from the fact that they all participated in a demonstration.
The political protest repertoire among union members, 1 May Labour Day marches, Gothenburg 2009 and Stockholm 2010, compared to the Swedish population (in percentages).
Notes: The data concern the question ‘There are many things people can do to prevent or promote change. Have you, in the past 12 months . . .’ in the Labour Day questionnaire. The data for the Swedish population are from the European Social Survey (ESS) Round 4 (2007–8), apart from the last alternative, which is taken from ESS Round 1 (2002–3). In the ESS 1 survey, the alternative was also phrased a bit differently (asking if the respondent had ‘participated in illegal protest activities’).
In Table 6 we can find strong support for the importance of cooperating with new social movements among all of the union activists in our study. Among TCO and SACO unionists, cooperation with new social movements was given a significantly greater importance than cooperation with the Social Democratic Party. LO activists, mirroring their historically close ties to social democracy, gave cooperation with SAP more importance. So while participation in social movement actions was low among the union activists in our study, they awarded a significant importance to cooperating with new social movements.
Attitudes towards social movement unionism among union members, 1 May Labour Day marches, Gothenburg 2009 and Stockholm 2010 (mean values).
Notes: Concerns the question ‘Which political organizations do you consider it important for the trade unions to closely cooperate with?’ (having a 1–5 scale with the alternatives ‘strongly disagree’, ‘disagree’, ‘neither’, ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’). Measure of significance used is Eta. * = 5%, ** = 1%, and *** = 0.1% significance. NS = not significant.
One further measure of the union activists’ identification with new social movement actors is their relation to the Global Justice Movement. As discussed earlier, quite a large proportion of the LO unions took part in the 2008 European Social Forum in Malmö, and also some of the TCO unions. In the 2010 Labour Day survey it was also asked whether the demonstration participants considered themselves to be a part of the Global Justice Movement. This was answered affirmative by 61 percent of the LO union members, 49 percent of the TCO union members, 47 percent of the SACO union members, but only by 42 percent of the non-union members (in total, only 16 percent answered ‘no’ to this question, and 34 percent ‘don’t know’). Thus, a majority of the union activists do feel part of the Global Justice Movement, while very few do not.
Conclusions
In regard to the first paradigm, a new labour internationalism is emerging, the picture was ambivalent. All of the union activists gave strong support to the goal that trade unions should work for the good of all workers, irrespective of which country they live in or come from – which can be interpreted as an indication of a general internationalist view of union activity. On the other hand, LO members also ranked relatively high on the goal that trade unions should work for the protection of Swedish workers from competition from abroad – which can be interpreted as an indication of protectionist tendencies. However, our findings that a significant majority of LO Labour Day demonstrators identified themselves as part of a Global Justice Movement, as did almost half of the TCO and SACO demonstrators, indicates a significant support for global solidarity, which Waterman (2001a) claims underpins new labour internationalism.
Our quantitative analysis of union homepages as regards mentions of different types of international engagement indicated a hierarchy of preferred strategies for the unions. Our main analytical distinction for this part was that between strategies founded on a movement driven symmetry of the relations between the cooperating actors, i.e. transnational trade union cooperation, and strategies implying an inherent asymmetry of relations between the cooperating actors, i.e. union engagement channelled through aid organizations. Some international activities are more easily associated with social movement unionism than others, that is, symmetrical relations between actors. In the homepages, transnational trade union cooperation is emphasized far less than more charity-like strategies and more institutionalized symmetrical and geographically bounded activities. This hierarchy was largely reflected in the qualitative interviews with union representatives, where the ‘substitution’ aspect of solidarity was emphasized.
There are probably several interacting explanations for the overall tendency to emphasize foreign aid projects rather than more equal cooperation. One is that in order to cooperate internationally on a more or less equal basis Swedish unions require reasonably strong unions to cooperate with. From this perspective, while containing elements of paternalism, aid can be regarded as a first step towards a less asymmetrical relationship.
Protectionism and solidarity appear to have formed an alliance for several Swedish unions, albeit perhaps one that will become problematic in the long run. Giving aid to foreign unions as a form of self-help by counteracting wage dumping is close to, but does not neatly fit, the ‘reciprocity’ aspect of solidarity that Waterman identified; here there is no expectancy of mutual support between the parties that evens out over time, but rather utilitarian gains that follow indirectly from foreign support. This attitude is arguably at odds with a genuine international solidarity, since it is not obvious that the international aid would continue if there were no indirect gains attached to it. In sum, while we did find indications of relatively significant support for a new labour internationalism among the May Day demonstrators in our study, union leadership was at best ambivalent. This would indicate that union leadership is more or less out of tune with their grassroots activists. However, our empirical materials do not allow us to investigate whether this dissonance extends to the unions’ broader membership bases.
In regard to the second paradigm we investigated – the emergence of a new social movement unionism – the analysis of our interviews with top-level union representatives and the analysis of the union websites gave an ambivalent picture of the unions’ readiness to cooperate with new social movements. A statement on the homepage of the Swedish Municipal Workers’ Union clearly illustrates this ambivalence:
There are fundamental differences between a campaign organization and an organization for struggle. The Swedish Municipal Workers’ Union is an organization that uses union-political cooperation and not confrontation. Our union reaches and follows collective agreements, engages in politics in different forums but we seldom are seen on the streets and squares aside from during strikes or other labour conflicts. Reformism is the way we work. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t meet. Both the ‘old’ and ‘new’ movements have much to win by exchanging experiences and ideas. (www.kommunal.se)
Among grassroots union activists, on the other hand, we found significant support for further cooperation with the new social movements, both among the white-collar union members and LO members. However, the unionists in our study more often used traditional channels for political influence and were seldom engaged in new social movement actions. While indications of support for a new social movement unionism were relatively weak (albeit more robust among activists than among the formal representatives), there appears to be some potential for cross-fertilization between new social movements and the Swedish trade unions.
In the meeting between the traditional ‘organization Sweden’, exemplified here by the trade unions, and ‘movement Sweden’, with its flora of new social movement organizations and networks, the former are stubbornly maintaining the superiority of their action strategies, indicating a degree of chauvinism. There is some evidence of a burgeoning cooperation with new social movements, particularly in connection with the Social Forums and the Global Justice Movement, but this has not yet had any significant impact on trade union strategies or politics. The Swedish trade union movement is more or less compartmentalized within its national context, enjoying close ties with the Social Democratic Party and a cemented industrial relations model of collective negotiations.
Thus, in many respects, our findings suggest that the reluctance of the Swedish trade unions to use forms of protests often associated with new social movements – such as organizing protest demonstrations – remains closely related to the specificities of the Swedish (and Scandinavian) labour market regime. As discussed by our interviewees, the Scandinavian system of trade unions and employers’ organizations directly making agreements without mediation or involvement by the state and politicians, in combination with a still internationally exceptional high degree of union membership, has traditionally given low priority to strategies involving street protests – given the fact that they are often conceived as public forms of protests aiming at making politicians change the policies of the state. In tripartite labour market regimes where the state plays a more central role – as in many countries of continental Europe – mass demonstrations and other forms of protests directly addressing politicians, and also involving other actors such as new social movements in such protests, become a more plausible strategy. Thus, this can be seen as a case of how different ‘political opportunity structures’ in different labour market regimes also shape the political strategies of trade unions in different countries.
However, and which was the starting point of this article, these fundamental characteristics of the Swedish labour market have in some respects been challenged during the last decades: internally, by right-wing political parties and the employers’ organizations, and externally, by membership in the Common Market of the European Union, and general pressures of globalization. In light of these challenges, one can see the relative, but still very hesitant, openness towards new strategies and new forms of cooperation with other movements expressed by some of the interviewees, as a slow adaptation to what can be characterized as a multilevel system of governance – in which the conditions of the labour market are not only decided within the Swedish polity, but also on a supranational level – and economic conditions characterized by a greater mobility of both labour and capital. However, aside from the small anarcho-syndicalist union SAC, we cannot say that these developments have impacted prevailing union action strategies. Rather, the unions appear to be aware that these changes are gradually impacting their political opportunities and they are, consequently, slowly diversifying their action repertoires to better meet the future.
Footnotes
Funding
This article was written with support from the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS 2008-1799) and the European Science Foundation, EUROSCORES Programme and is part of the collaborative research project ‘Caught in the act of protest: Contextualizing contestation (CCC)’ led by Professor Bert Klandermans.