The Development of Canadian-American Trade Union Relations: Some Conclusions

Le phénomène d'un syndicalisme binational qu'on retrouve seulement au Canada a toujours été une source de conflit au sein du mouvement ouvrier canadien ; en particulier, chez les militants qui soutenaient la thèse d'un syndicalisme exclusivement canadien, soustrait à la dépendance des Etats-Unis.LA STRUCTURE SYNDICALE CANADIENNE : LES CAUSESLes facteurs qui peuvent expliquer l'origine et la persistance d'un syndicalisme binational diffèrent passablement de ceux qui peuvent rendre compte des rivalités internes au sein d'un syndicalisme exclusivement canadien.L'expansion du marché des produits, la migration des travailleurs, les investissements américains au Canada, la croissance rapide du syndicalisme américain sont autant de facteurs qui présidèrent au développement du syndicalisme binational. Par ailleurs, les rivalités internes au sein du syndicalisme ouvrier canadien seraient le résultat de diverses influences comme la montée du nationalisme économique, la diffusion de l'enseignement social de l'Eglise et l'opposition au syndicalisme de métier tel que conçu par la Fédération Américaine du Travail.Pour retracer les causes de l'apparition et du développement d'un syndicalisme binational nous avons fait l'étude des dossiers des industries et syndicats suivants :                    Compagnies                              SyndicatsCanadian Iron Foundry Industry             International Molders and Allied                                                         Workers' Union of North America (1860-85)Canadian Coal Industry                        United Mines Workers of Canada                                                         (1900-1960)Canadian Pulp and Paper Industry         United Paper Makers and Paper                                                        Workers (1910-45)Après un examen des archives qui relatent les débuts des relations syndicat-direction dans ces secteurs industriels, cinq causes principales énumérées plus haut peuvent expliquer l'origine et l'évolution du syndicalisme binational et de son opposé, le syndicalisme exclusivement canadien. Cependant, le degré d'influence de chaque cause varie d'une industrie et d'une région à l'autre.LE SYNDICALISME AMÉRICAIN ET SES INTÉRÊTS AU CANADALes adversaires d'un syndicalisme binational soutenaient l'idée que les unions américaines oeuvraient au Canada dans le but de promouvoir les intérêts de leurs industries aux Etats-Unis. Ils affirmaient, par exemple, que les unions sous domination américaine pouvaient influencer les coûts de production des produits fabriqués au Canada. Ainsi, ces unions pouvaient à la fois, sauvegarder le marché canadien pour des produits d'importation américaine et préserver le marché américain pour des produits fabriqués dans ce pays. L'analyse des archives démontre que ce mode de pensée est incompatible avec la conception d'un syndicalisme national aussi bien que binational.De plus, ce genre d'argumentation laissait croire que le syndicalisme américain, à quelque moment que ce fût, a reconnu la menace concurrentielle de l'industrie canadienne et s'est dirigé vers le nord pour lancer une campagne d'organisation en territoire canadien. Dans la mesure où les trois cas étudiés sont représentatifs, il n'existe pas d'évidence pour en arriver à une telle déduction. Le syndicalisme binational n'est pas le produit d'un mouvement ouvrier américain déterminé à dominer l'industrie et les travailleurs canadiens, mais plutôt le produit de leaders ouvriers américains et canadiens qui ont développé une conscience mutuelle des faiblesses d'un syndicalisme canadien et américain séparé.CONTROVERSES AU SEIN DU MOUVEMENT OUVRIER CANADIEN ET AMERICAINTrois types de controverses ont accentué le conflit au sein du syndicalisme nord-américain :a)Grief contre le syndicalisme binationalCe premier type de difficultés a pris naissance dans les relations entre des organismes syndicaux subordonnés (les locaux canadiens) et des organismes supérieurs (l'union binationale). Ce fut une protestation locale sur la façon dont les règles et règlements étaient appliqués par l'union binationale.b)Le type de syndicalisme conçus par la FATLa mésentente portait sur la doctrine de la représentation exclusive prônée par la Fédération américaine du Travail, sur l'accent mis sur le syndicalisme d'affaires, et le refus d'organiser le nombre sans cesse grandissant des travailleurs semi et non spécialisés.c)Les intérêts économiques du monde syndical canadien et américainQuand une institution à caractère économique, telle qu'une union binationale, transcende la sphère des juridictions politiques distinctes, la probabilité d'un conflit entre les juridictions sur le plan des intérêts économiques est grande. L'histoire des relations syndicales canado-américaines offrent de nombreux exemples de ce genre de conflit.On one hand, binational trade unionism seems to be the product of three features in Canadian-American economic relations: international trade, labor migration and American investments in Canada. On the other hand, the origin of Canadian unionism and conflicts within can be explained by economic nationalism, by a commitment to the teachings of the Church in Québec and by an opposition to the AFL-type of craft unionism outside Québec. The boundary issue is irrelevant to the explanation of both phenomenas. In this article, the author has gathered some evidence which tends to support those hypotheses

Vers un syndicalisme d'organisation ?

International audienceBéroud et Yon (2011) rappellent les faiblesses du syndicalisme français avec son taux de syndicalisation très bas (8 % de la population active), une compétition syndicale renforcée, des mobilisations sociales qui ne parviennent pas à canaliser la conflictualité dormante, entraînant un décalage entre le monde réel du travail et sa représentation. Andolfatto et Labbé, (2009) avaient mis au jour ce déclin du syndicalisme français en parlant d’un syndicalisme sans adhérent tirant sa légitimité plus de la reconnaissance par l’État que de la confiance des travailleurs. Nous voudrions discuter la conclusion selon laquelle il y aurait un fossé entre le monde du travail réel et sa représentation syndicale. En effet, nos recherches dans la fonction publique territoriale ont fait émerger une activité syndicale singulière chez les membres élus du CHSCT qui montre l’émergence d’un syndicalisme de proximité témoignant d’un rapprochement du représentant syndical de la personne qui travaille et du milieu ; ce rapprochement est une réponse aux malaises organisationnels vécus et exprimés par les salarié

Le syndicalisme est-il la réponse au problème des « cadres »?

Après avoir souligné la modification relativement récente, en divers milieux québécois, des attitudes traditionnelles à l'endroit des«  cadres » d'entreprise, l'auteur déplore la faiblesse lexicologique du terme«  cadres » dans ce contexte, de même que l'ambiguïté de ce vocable globaliste, eu égard à la grande diversité des agents qu'il recouvre. A partir donc d'une esquisse de typologie des«  cadres », il s'interroge ensuite sur leursproblèmes présumés ou réels— qu'il s'agisse plus largement d'«  aliénation » ou plus spécifiquement de divers malaises concrètement identifiables à partir d'une échelle donnée de besoins. Pour chacun de ces problèmes, l'auteur examine enfin diversessolutions institutionnelles qui sont à la disposition des«  cadres » : action patronale, association de cadres, syndicalisme de cadres et législation élargieIn recent years, managerial and supervisory personnel have elicited quite a bit of interest, not only from top managementwithin the business organization — this is, of course, not a new development, since top management has always seen all their levels of management and supervision as one monolithic block—, but also from various quartersoutside the firm proper, namely :1)university pofessors (and especially sociologists and industrial relations specialists), who have always been sympathetic and sensitive to collective problems and solutions, to proletarian miseries (are we not now talking and writing more and more about the « new proletarians of knowledge » ?) and to democratic values everywhere, respect and freedom for man ; and who easily see in unions of all types and levels of employees an « irreversible » trend, and a good and necessary one at that, which should be fostered by intellectuals and legislation ;2)union leaders, who used to blast any and all executives or foremen as capitalistic exploiters or technocrats, and who now discover in them a great reservoir, both strategic and numerous, to be tapped in order to multiply union strength tenfold ;3)government people, who are quite ambivalent about management and. supervision, since they act as both employer and lawmaker ; in the first rote, they are stuck with very difficult problems of an administrative nature : assaults by politicians, a history of nepotism, and an increasingly large bureaucracy spread over a broad territory ; in the second, they are tempted to enact all-embracing legislation (for all employees of all sectors, whether public or private) to solve problems which initially and basically could and should be solved at home.This newly-oriented interest in management and supervision from outside groups coincides with some aspirations of some levels of management, mainly in the public and para-public sectors, toward some form of unionization, especially in the Province of Quebec.All this interest, however gratuitous or selfish, should blind no executive to the basic postulate that he, and he alone, should be the one to define his problems and to find appropriate solutions for them, according to the great variety which is evident among his ranks : does he act in a line or a staff capacity, and then, at what level of supervision or management ? Obviously, problems and solutions will differ in kind and intensity according to the nature of the function held by the executive.And then, if one turns to theproblems of managers or supervisors, one should not « overkill » with such broad diagnoses as « alienation », which today means just about everything and then nothing, not being specific enough and leading nowhere in terms of remedies. What needs are not met by managers and supervisors : are they, or do they feel, relatively powerless, meaningless, normless, isolated, and self-estranged ? Is it a problem of not having enough of the primary needs satisfied : physiological-hygienic or safety (not enough money, not enough security) ? Or does it go deeper and more diffuse in terms of lack of belonging, esteem, and self-achievement ?And finally, if we now turn to solutions.Which are the ones most closely adapted to the specific problems diagnosed ? Will it be a new realization by top management, aided by lower levels, of the need for more of the behavioral satisfactions : more communication, more information, more participation in decision-making, more warmth in the day-to-day relation-ships ? Should this fail, will it lead to in-firm managerial or supervisory associations ? Should these appear inadequate, will they be turned into regular unions, with the standard paraphernalia of collective bargaining ? And then, will these affiliate to an outside federation of managerial people exclusively, or rather will this affiliate with a central labour body ?Before deciding, managerial and supervisory personnel should first evaluate their problems realistically, and then reach first for the means closest to their reach. Unions carry their own brand of bureaucracy and « alienation » ; they are not a dogma or a postulate any more, even among their own membership ; they have not yet made much headway in North America, at the professional and managerial levels ; for the time being, at least, they may seem like a jack-hammer cracking a nut. So, legislation at this level of personnel seems at this time inopportune and would create much ambiguity

Le syndicalisme de transformation sociale (Social Movement Unionism). Voie de renouvellement des théories du syndicalisme ? Le cas des services de garde

Depuis quelques années, nous sommes à même de constater que le syndicalisme mondial est en perte de vitesse. Les principaux facteurs explicatifs de ce déclin recensés dans la littérature des relations industrielles sont de type structurel, entre autres, la globalisation des marchés, les nouvelles technologies, les variations dans les types d'emploi, la venue de gouvernements néo-libéraux au pouvoir et l'adoption subséquente de législations anti-syndicales, et les stratégies d'entreprises (restructurations, délocalisations). Bien que d'accord avec l'identification de ces causes du déclin du syndicalisme, nous considérons toutefois que ces analyses sous-estiment un aspect majeur : les causes culturelles liées au passage des sociétés modernes vers des sociétés de la modernité avancée (Giddens 1990) ou postmodernes. Plusieurs des propositions de relance du syndicalisme tournent autour de la création de coalitions, de social Movement Unionism ou de Community Unionism. Ces approches posent problème car même si elles clament la nécessité d'une ouverture aux autres groupes sociaux et d'une relation bidirectionnelle, elles sont tout de même principalement préoccupées par la syndicalisation et les conditions de travail des salariés, présentant la relation avec les autres groupes sociaux selon une optique instrumentale ou, tout au moins, comme ayant des objectifs limités en termes de transformations sociales. Cette ouverture à des coalitions de longue durée est nécessaire mais il faut que le syndicalisme et les autres mouvements sociaux transforment mutuellement leurs identités respectives. Or, cette dimension culturelle liée aux enjeux identitaires est généralement peu considérée dans la littérature au sujet de renouveau du syndicalisme. Dans ce texte, nous faisons état de la création et de la vie d'une coalition vieille de plus de trente ans entre des syndicats affiliés à deux centrales syndicales « concurrentes », les mouvements de femmes et les regroupements de parents en vue d'obtenir un réseau universel de services de garde à la petite enfance de qualité et accessible financièrement à tous les parents. Ce cas permet de montrer empiriquement comment le syndicalisme peut devenir de nouveau un mouvement social capable d'arracher à l'État une politique sociale d'envergure. Dans cette lutte sociale, le syndicalisme a eu à s'adapter dans ses relations avec les partenaires de cette coalition à deux réalités relativement nouvelles pour lui : celle du mouvement et des modes de gestion féministes, et celle de l'économie sociale ; deux types de mouvements sociaux qui ont des revendications qui portent principalement sur le champ politique de la vie.Le cas étudié permet de réfuter les analyses à prétention universaliste de Touraine (1980),Offe (1985) ou Kochan (1988), selon qui le syndicalisme aurait perdu son caractère de mouvement social. En conclusion, nous indiquons un certain nombre de pistes d'action et de pistes de recherche pour contribuer à la relance d'une action syndicale efficace au XXIe siècle

L’évolution du syndicalisme dans la révolution tranquille

L'auteur soutient que l'intégration politique du syndicalisme, soit comme groupe d'intérêt soit comme corps intermédiaire, pendant la Révolution tranquille n'a pas été, en dépit d'un net progrès sur la période pré-1960, aussi profonde et définitive qu'on l'avait espéré. Cette période a cependant été pour le syndicalisme l'occasion de prendre conscience de certaines contradictions intrinsèques et de reviser ses objectifs, méthodes et structures. Enfin, à l'encontre des autres observateurs, l'auteur prétend que les principaux objectifs des deux centres ouvriers pendant cette période, n'ont pas été aussi radicalement différents qu'on le prétend généralement.This article is a critical observation of the evolution of Quebec trade-unionism during the period called « La Révolution tranquille ».The author concludes that the penetration into the political process by trade-unionism either as an interest group or an intermediary body has not been so impressive as it appears at first sight. It was nevertheless a time of great progress over the pre-1960 period.For the author, however, La Révolution tranquille as an environmental factor of trade-unionism, was the occasion of an internal reevaluation of the objectives, methods and structures of the two labor movements in Quebec. Both movements had to cope with internal contradictions because, on account of their origins, they were faced with what he calls, the dilemma of two societies.From another point of view, the author points out that the main objectives of both labor centers were more similar that it is generally recognized by the observers

Le syndicalisme de cadres et la législation québécoise du travail

Quelques notions qu'on entretienne sur le syndicalisme de cadres, il convient de le situer, comme concept et comme fait, dans le contexte plus large de la réalité sociale, économique, politique etjuridique du milieu même dans lequel on souhaite ou redoute son épanouissement. De même, il faut tenir compte de la tradition et des structures administratives des entreprises de ce même milieu. Tout emprunt, en cette matière, à des conceptions ou à des structures juridiques et administratives étrangères (pour fertiles que soient les comparaisons) doit s'entourer de beaucoup de circonspection, sous peine de flotter en pleine équivoque ou de n'être qu'une manoeuvre tactique.No matter how one feels about supervisory and managerial. unionism, this level of organization must be pitted, as both concept and fact, against the larger context of law, sociology, economics, politics and business administration in a given society. This essay will develop no thesis, « pro » or « con ». It will lay emphasis on thelegal aspects, hoping for others to indicate, through careful research, the important differences (social, political, economic and administrative) existing between the European context (in which some form of supervisory and managerial unionism flourishes) and the North-American one (in which such unionism is practically non-existent).Legislation in both continents is closely related to such divergent realities. It is clearly restrictive, as regards supervisors, managers and collective bargaining, in all of North America ; on the contrary, it is permissive in Europe, and particularly in France.One distinction must be made at the outset betweenprofessional andmanagerial unionism. The professional employee relates to an intellectual discipline in which he has acquired competence after years of university training ; he often, although not necessarily, belongs to the supervisory or managerial ranks. The supervisor or manager, on the other hand, exercises a given amount of delegated authority, whether technical or administrative; he obviously does not have to be a professional man.In Québec, as well as in the rest of Canada and the U.S., the collective bargaining legislation (the 1944 Labour Relations Act and the 1964 Labour Code) acknowledges two basic categories in organizations : those who manage, at whatever levels, and those who obey. In France, as well as in several European countries, three categories, rather than two, are recognized : the workers-employees, the employers, and the supervisors-managers in between, who are not on the board of administrators and are not responsible for general policies, although they participate in management, control or advising.THE PROFESSIONAL SYNDICATES ACT (QRS 1941, Ch. 162)In Québec, several hundreds of engineers have elected to associate through incorporation under the Professional Syndicates Act, first adopted in 1924 when legislators certainly did not have professional employees in mind, although the latter may legitimately use the law for their purposes of associating and acting collectively in a variety of endeavours : appearing before the courts, acquiring property, establishing indemnity funds, building houses, setting placement bureaus, administering professional undertakings, subsidizing co-ops, and « enter (ing) into contracts or agreements with all other syndicates, societies, undertakings or persons, respecting the attainment of their objects andparticularly such as relate to the collective conditions of labour » ( Art. 6, par. 9 ).Section III of the Act, accordingly, covered the « Collective Labour Agreement », which could not belegally forced upon a reluctant employer.THE LABOUR CODE (12-13 Elis. II, 1964, Ch. 45)The new Labour Code has eliminated articles 21-26 of the Professional Syndicates Act, which constitute precisely Section III on collective bargaining. In other words, collective bargaining under the law, from now on, will be governed by the Labour Code alone.The Code introduces no novelty with respect to the 1944 Labour Relations Act on supervisory and managerial unionism. It covers by its stipulations an association only « recognized » by the employer, but obviously favours an association « certified » by the Labour Relations Board (See articles 6, 21, 38,40ff, 49 and 123 to verify the legislator's preference for certification as illustrating the « plenitude » of the law ).The new Code maintains the very spirit of the 1944 Labour Relations Act as regards the definition of the « employee ». Article 1, par. m excludes from the purview of the law : « 1. a person who, in the opinion of the Board, is employed as manager, superintendent, foreman or representative of the employer in his relations with his employees ; 2. a director or officer of a corporation... ». In other words, managers and supervisors are not to be legally considered as compulsory interlocutors at the bargaining table, although, again, they may be recognized « freely » as such by the employer.For the first time, however, the Québec labour law covers professional employees as such for collective bargaining purposes, provided :1. they belong to the same profession (art. 20) ;2. they hold an absolute majority in a given bargaining unit ;3. they be « employees » according to art. 1, par. m, which specifically excludes supervisors and managers.THE AMBIGUOUSNESS OF THE TWO LAWSAccording to the Professional Syndicates Act, therefore, professional employees « in similar trades, or doing correlated work » (art. 2), mayassociate, whether they belong or not to supervisory and managerial levels, andact collectively in a number of specific endeavours, although, since September 1st, 1964,not for collective bargaining purposes by legal compulsion or intent.What happens, then, to a union of professional employees, both supervisory and non-supervisory, managerial and non-managerial, who have developed among one another a strong level of solidarity and belonging, who are incorporated together under a given law, and who finally ask their employer to recognize them « de facto », telling him at the same time that they do not intend to get a certificate from the Labour Relations Board ? They argue according to the following logic : « The right of association is basic ; we are associated under formal law by incorporation with colleagues of the same profession ; a corollary to this association is collective action, a privileged form of which is collective bargaining. We therefore want to bargain collectively all together for all of us ».The employer may go along with that logic, out of sheer « social realism » or because he is faced with strong economic pressure (as, for instance, the threat of a strike ) on the part of the union. And yet, he is likely to prefer the « plenitude » of the law, that is, certification of the union before the Board. Or else, he may accept « de facto » recognition, provided both parties agree on the bargaining unit in which the union will have to demonstrate its majority ; failing this, the employer will attempt to convince the union to go before the Board for a certificate. And furthermore, his definition of a correct bargaining unit will probably try to equate the intent of the legislator as expressed in article 1-m of the Code ; in other words, he will attempt to exclude from the bargaining unit all professional employees who act in a supervisory or managerial capacity, thus painfully amputating the union for collective bargaining purposes. Should he decide to go beyond the spirit of the law, he may be accused by other employers of creating « dangerous precedents » and of « playing legislator » in a legal and administrative context which runs against such precedents.Should the employer « play it safe » and stay at the level of article 1-m of the Code, he may be threatened with a strike. Should the strike occur, the legal position of the parties seems to be as follows :1. If the union groups only non-supervisory professionals, i.e. « employees » under the Code, the latter may not legally strike to compel their employer to recognize them « de facto », since they may go before the Board to get a certificate which will impose bargaining upon the employer. If they strike, there is a breach of individual contract, with all accompanying risks for the individual professionals.2. If the union groups only supervisory or managerial professionals, i.e. « employees »not covered by the Code, these would in vain ask for a certificate from the Board. They remain bound by their individual contract ; should they strike, this will be a breach of individual contract, which may be followed by strong disciplinary action, including dismissal.3. If the union groups both supervisory and non-supervisory professionals, these may not legally strike to forcibly bargain with the employer, for reasons given above for each of the two categories of professionals.Facts and precedents, however, are often more decisive than laws, provided they be backed by strong economic power and patient resistence by a sufficiently numerous group of useful employees. Such forceful « precedents » are often what makes new laws.CONCLUSIONIt is to be hoped that the intent of the legislator will be clarified as soon as possible and that, once made perfectly clear as representing the mores and the will of a majority of the people, it will be respected by all interests groups, so that, inasmuch as it is humanly possible, the individual business concerns (whether government or private) be not the scene of costly and painful tests of strength

Syndicalisme critique et défi institutionnel : Vers l’individualisation du militantisme ?

Nous posons dans le cas d’une monographie française (les syndicats Sud) la question de la régénérescence démocratique du syndicalisme bureaucratique. Malgré des référents politiques communs, notamment le souci de rénovation « démocratique » via la recherche de proximité avec la base, le réveil de l’action revendicative met aux prises des logiques d’action et des porte-parole opposés au nom du réveil de sensibilités politiques divergentes, mais tous héritiers d’une même culture politique soixante-huitarde. Dimensions collectives et individuelles se mêlent donc à des problèmes de structure du syndicalisme, partagé entre deux conceptions contradictoires du contrôle (salarial ou social) ou de la démocratie (directe et indirecte). Le procès d’institutionnalisation contredit la réactivation des référentiels politiques du syndicalisme français, tandis que le procès d’individuation sociale accentue le rôle des individus dans un contexte de rareté de l’action collective.The French union movement welcomed a new member into its midst during the 1990s, the Fédération des syndicats Sud (Solidaires, Unitaires and Démocratiques), a breakaway group from the CFDT (Confédération française démocratique du travail). Members of the Fédération des syndicats Sud mostly come from a hard left tradition. They are typically a young, but otherwise diverse, group who see strike action as the principal means of achieving workplace change. Leaders of the Fédération des syndicats Sud may be described as “strike generators.”Trade unionists who are members of the Fédération des syndicats Sud made a breakthrough in the elections following its constitution, and the union had success in recruiting members in the Public Service, especially the rail service, the hospitals, the postal service and telecoms. The approach adopted by the Fédération des syndicats Sud appears to have spawned a renewed interest in radicalism and militancy amongst members of other unions and employees generally. In particular, the Sud example is creating an impetus for organized labour leaders to renew their links with members.The success of Sud-PTT, the first of its kind, rests on a mixture of political and union families and existing union attitudes and preoccupations. The new movement’s success appears to be due to a strategy of identifying and addressing particular worker needs. These are: the protection of salaries and working conditions (of the CGT type), the more qualitative need for the reduction of work time and of racism (of the CFDT type), and the more reformist need for career management and social causes (of the FO type) (Sainsaulieu, 1998).This article examines the way Sud currently operates and how it is perceived 10 years after it was formed. The study uses a participative observation approach and examines, in particular, two struggles faced by paramedical hospital and non-medical workers in the Paris region. The author observed that local strikers were acting without the support of Sud militants, and the union federations, including their own Sud-Santé federation. The action of local activists was called “basist” or “localist” by their federation. The local strike was led by a non-permanent and politicized anesthesia nurse (who had hitherto refused union membership) and by a psychiatric nurse, with a similar profile in the neighboring hospital. It is concluded that these strike leaders took collective action while the federation sought unity with other unions at the regional level. This phenomena can be viewed as a tradeoff between taking strike action without the endorsement of others in the region and achieving unity amongst unions and unionists.It is concluded that taking strike action with broad support has been a key component of Sud’s success. In particular, the Sud approach has been based on: radicalism and the influence of the masses, direct and representative democracy (in professional elections), control over workers and social control (Hyman, 1991). The hospital sector is not the only one involved, other conflicts within Sud became evident in discussions within the federation of Postal Services and Telecoms. These conflicts revolved around on the choice between general and sectoral campaigns, and between local and federal concerns.Studies of strikes show that the “base/summit” divide (if one can use this image, given the small size of the sudiste pyramid) is carried out within a single generation. Those of the “sixty-eight” generation may be considered to possess either a responsibility ethic or a conviction ethic. Founded by radicals, Sud has moderated over the years and has divisions within its membership which would seem to separate it from the CFDT. These ideological gaps have revealed themselves in practice between partisans of direct and indirect democracy. They are also based upon the experiences of different sets of activists, some concerned with structure, and the others attached to teams and local practices, more sensitive to collective action.The primary focus of our analysis is dual: born of and for collective action, unionism appears yet again amid contradictions, between control over workers, and social control. At the same time, the importance of the individuality of opinion leaders is reaffirmed. More militant unions typically gain their reputation from the attitudes and orientations of their leaders. Finally, we find traces of the anarcho-syndicalism militants “persuaded of the necessity of individual action and of the value of the individual, trained and educated” (Chambelland, 1999). In other words, faced with institutionalism the strong individualist dimension of collective unionism has persisted, even grown.What then becomes of the democratic union collectivity, caught between institutionalization and individuality? Democracy is a source of legitimacy for any modern political organization. Unions in particular should remain democratic, irrespective of their degree of professionalism or centralization. In the same way, unions must be grounded in the collective work, from which they stray on more than one point. However, despite the ethical involvement of activists and occasional collectives, it seems to us that it is necessary to abandon the assimilation of unionism into a “vast movement of emancipation” (Contrepois, 2003). Its local or temporal vitality translates into action but without subverting a tendency to union supremacy for itself (Hyman, 1991). There does not seem to be any intangible safeguard, or political culture, so present in France (Clegg, 1976), nor a “militant elite” sheltered from distortions (Collinet, 1951), even if collective action requires, in effect, collective and individual resources.Intra-organizational tensions underline the importance of individual militant energy, first for action and implantation, then as a counter weight to institutionalization. Everyone, regardless of their position in the union, can keep or preserve preoccupations outside of the union and follow higher principles, be they ethical or political.Con el caso de una monografía francesa (los sindicatos del Sur), nosotros planteamos la cuestión de la regeneración democratica del sindicalismo burocrático. A pesar de las referencias políticas comunes, en especial la preocupación de renovación « democrática » vía la búsqueda de proximidad con la base, el despertar de la acción reivindicativa enfrenta lógicas de acción y voceros opuestos en nombre del despertar de sensibilidades políticas divergentes, pero todos ellos herederos de una misma cultura política de la revuelta del 68. Las dimensiones colectivas e individuales se mezclan entonces a problemas de estructura del sindicalismo, dividido entre dos concepciones contradictorias del control (salarial o social) o de la democracia (directa o indirecta). El proceso de institucionalización contradice la reactivación de referenciales políticos del sindicalismo francés mientras que el proceso de individualización social acentúa el rol de los individuos en un contexto de escasez de acción colectiva

La théorie de Selig Perlman : une étude critique

L'auteur analyse du point de vue méthodologique et du point de vue substantif la thèse exposée par Selig Perlman dans«  A Theory of the Labor Movement ». Il en examine la consistance intrinsèque, l’utilité et les faiblesses. Il conclut que la théorie de Perlman est fondamentalement une apologie anti-marxiste dirigée principalement contre des propositions de Lénine. Une telle approche apporte une conception incomplète et normative du phénomène syndical. C'est pourquoi la thèse de Perlman demeure au niveau de généralisations dont l’utilité est limitée. En effet, considérant la base de la solidarité, les buts, les méthodes et les comportements syndicaux, elle ne fournit qu'une explication partielle, parfois subjective, des diverses composantes de faction syndicale.In this article, the author provides a systematic and detailed analysis of the theory of Selig Perlman, and submits it to a critical evaluation, both in terms of methodology and substance. The following is a brief outline of Perlman's approach.In his methodology, Perlman relies on three analytical elements: 1) three factors: the Power of subsistence of the capitalist system, the degree of influence of intellectuals upon organized labor, the level of maturity of the working class;2) three characteristics: the strength of the institution of private ownership, the degree of class consciousness among labor, the inadequacy of political tools;3) the psychology of manual labor.The essence of Perlman's theory may be outlined in the following manner. At the basis of labor solidarity is « the consciousness of scarcity of opportunity ». This explains why the role of trade unions is to control job opportunities; « job control » is based on « job interests ». For this purpose economic action, through collective agreements and strikes, appears to be the most effective approach. Political action may play, at best, a supplementary role. This approach is bound to lead to equality in industrial relations and to democratization in the economic structure; this may be attained without going through class warfare and without introducing a socialist or a communist system.A critical analysis of Perlman's theory brings out a number of points of methodological character:a) Essentially, the theory is an anti-Marxist apology of the stability of the capitalist system, mainly directed against the position of Lenin. At the basis of the divergence between Perlman and Lenin is the different evaluation of the role of the « intelligentsia ».b) Despite Perlman's claim to the contrary, he provides only a partial definition of trade unionism. This definition presents a scheme for a specific functional model; only through extension by means of a normative projection it becomes a general model for a true trade unionism.c) The analytical variables are not independent one from another, and because of this their interrelation cannot be significant. The three factors are defined, in part, each one by means of the others. The three characteristics are a descriptive elaboration of the three factors within the American context. Psychological categories are implicit in the definition of the third factor.d) The depreciatory concept of the « intelligentsia » reflects a subjective and biased approach to the problem of leadership in trade unionism. According to Perlman's definition, leaders who rose from the ranks of labor represent the concept of a « stable and responsible » trade unionism; in contrast, intellectuals, that is, « educated non-manualists », who enter the labor world introduce with them radicalism and revolutionary program of action, or advocate political action within trade unionism, in terms of Perlman's definition.With regard to the substance of Perlman's theory, this writer suggests the following points for consideration:a) The psychological approach ( « the consciousness of scarcity of opportunities »), despite some inconsistencies in definition and despite the fact that it may be regarded as typical for a particular group only, provides room for some useful generalizations; yet these generalizations are of limited character and cannot lead to theoretical conclusions. They reflect one element in workers' motivation to join the union and to support its activities. This element, in itself, cannot explain the process of labor organization, nor the occupational and territorial differentiation in the degree of unionization. Moreover, its origin is in the assumption of a state of chronic underemployment — a condition which is least favorable to labor solidarity.b) The concept of « job control » is related exclusively to occupational goals.c) Perlman sees in the joint system of control the most advantageous alternative; in his view, the autonomous system of control has no advantages, and control by external factors has an entirely secondary significance. By emphasizing collective negotiations he grossly underrestimates the importance of various forms of mutual assistance. Also, Perlman was not able, unfortunately, to provide a clear distinction between political activities of non-occupational character (revolutionary and other) and the utilization of political levers as a supplementary tool in realization of occupational and semi-occupational goals.d) The idealistic concept of « parity » in industrial relations cannot be ignored. Its eventual realization will call for a framework different from that provided by Perlman; under modem conditions the solution for existing problems often cannot be found on local level and has to rely on the dynamic intervention of a new interested party — the state

L'Union syndicale Solidaires : une organisation au miroir de ses militants : profils, pratiques, valeurs

Ce rapport repose sur une enquête quantitative réalisée auprès des délégués du congrès national de Solidaires en juin 2008, des délégués du congrès fédéral de SUD Rail (2009) et de SUD Santé Sociaux (2009) ainsi que sur une enquête qualitative (série d'entretiens). L'objectif est de comprendre ce qui se joue en termes de transmission, de valeurs mais aussi de pratiques, entre les fondateurs des premiers syndicats SUD et les militant-e-s qui ont adhéré plus récemment à des organisations membres de Solidaires