Social movement unionism since the fall of apartheid: the case of NUMSA on the East Rand

The role that COSATU now plays in the post-apartheid political dispensation is changing. The systemic political and legislative reforms ushered in by the ANC in the 1990s were designed not to usher in a socialist society, but a deracialised and stable capitalism. The essential conditions of labour subordination therefore remain, only now overlain at a national level with a social democratic political structure with a black complexion. This structure has taken the form of a corporatist political arrangement centred on the Tripartite Alliance and NEDLAC. Tripartism has yielded the unions certain historical gains, including the passage of relatively progressive labour relations legislation. As a result of this legislation, trade unions have now achieved what Gramsci (1919) called 'industrial legality', whereby the restrictions on managerial arbitrariness mark a historical advance for trade unions. In many respects, therefore, the institutionalisation of unions that occurred in the 1990s is a significant gain for the black workers of South Africa who were denied any role in the old political order. The question that is tackled in this chapter is whether these gains have come at the price of neutering much of the dynamism that made the federation such an explosive force for change in the 1980s. Specifically, can COSATU and its affiliates continue to be regarded as a model of social movement unionism (SMU), which comprises the following elements: mass mobilisation of members; internal democracy; broad social objectives; alliances with progressive social movements; functional independence from political parties; and recognition of diverse membership? Or, have the processes of bureaucratisation and routinisation evident in most Western unions after their initial explosive growth period now become dominant

Making capitalism acceptable? The economic policy of Australian social democracy since the 1970s

Labor governments since the early 20th Century have consistently attempted to boost business profits. The way they have done so has changed but their policies have been consistently shaped by both the shifting requirements of Australian capitalism and the ALP’s nature as a capitalist workers party. From the 1940s until the early 1970s, Labor advocated a program of Keynesian and protectionist economics. As the economics profession turned against protectionism, the Whitlam Government sought to integrate Australian capitalism more closely with the global economy. The Hawke and Keating Governments went much further in opening the economy, deregulating, privatizing and corporatizing than their conservative predecessor. In most areas, with the notable exception of industrial relations, they generally acted in line with the new, neo-liberal orthodoxy in economics. The logic of the Rudd and Gillard Governments’ responses to the global economic crisis, invoking a mixture of neo-liberal and Keynesian precepts, like the economic policies of its Labor predecessors, can only be grasped in terms of the ALP’s distinctive material constitution

Resisting Howard's Industrial Relations 'Reforms': An Assessment of ACTU strategy

The purpose of this article is to provide a critical assessment of the strategy drawn up by the ACTU to resist WorkChoices. Although there are differences of emphasis within their ranks, the ACTU executive and office bearers have pursued a strategy with five main components. First, to convince employers that they are wrong to break from the system that has served them well for a century. Second, to lobby the ALP at state and federal levels. Third, to lobby government politicians and those of the minor parties. Fourth, to raise community awareness of the issues at stake. And, finally, to mobilise the rank and file membership of the unions. In what follows I explain briefly each of these components before analysing their effectiveness as a strategy to defeat the Government's industrial offensive

A study of the antecedents and consequences of psychological ownership in organizational settings

Psychological ownership is a feeling of possession in the absence of any formal or legal claims of ownership. In this study, the authors aimed to extend previous empirical testing of psychological ownership in work settings to encompass both job-based and organization-based psychological ownership as well as related work attitudes and behavioral outcomes. Questionnaire data from 68 employees and their managers revealed that job-based psychological ownership and organization-based psychological ownership are distinct work attitudes that are distinguishable from job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Psychological ownership predicted job satisfaction and organizational commitment and mediated the relationship between autonomy and these work attitudes. There was no support for a relationship between psychological ownership and behavioral outcomes. The authors discuss the limitations of the study and the implications of psychological ownership