Guest editorial: Debates on social movements and trade unionism in Europe. New forms of interaction and transformative identities in work and society

Full text

Guest editorial: Debates on social
movements and trade unionism in
Europe. New forms of interaction
and transformative identities
in work and society
The question of how representation is changing in relation to work has many dimensions and
debates tied to it. The emergence of a more neoliberal economic order and a new set of
challenges facing employment regulation have led to restraints and tensions within
established forms of worker representation and politics. The changing nature of the
workplace and the increasingly fragmented nature of labor markets challenge the established
modus operandi of traditional industrial relations (Baccaro and Howell, 2017). In particular,
we have seen a new range of social movements and actors emerge that are addressing
workplace related issues in new and novel ways through the raising of new social sensibilities
and forms of communication and decision making within the workforce, especially those at
the edges of the traditional regulatory structures.
These shifts in the social dimensions of work and these new voices raise questions as to
whether established actors will be displaced or whether their own approaches will need to
change and shift toward a more open and socially oriented approach to organizing workers
(for a discussion on choices and futures within industrial relations see Hyman, 2015 and
Visser, 2019a).
This special issue aims to cover some aspects of these debates and to place the
contributions in the context of this significant area of discussion which looks at questions of
how boundaries within industrial relations are changing and how we need to draw on broader
aspects of social movement theory and activities (Mart

ınez Lucio, forthcoming). However,
how this is done is a major question, and what these links mean can vary as the contributions
to this special issue suggest.
1. Background and context
Over the last two decades, the proportion of workers in trade unions has been declining across
Europe, and workers have been having to deal with a whole new set of challenges (Visser,
2019b). This change reflects developments such as the emergence of a more decentralized and
outsourced model of capitalism that has undermined the more organized and stable forms of
workplace around which organized labor is normally active. Moreover, the emergence of new
business models in the economy, the introduction of new technologies at work, and the
proliferation of atypical forms of relations between workers and their “company”have led to a
Guest editorial
797
Francisco Fernandez-Trujillo Moares is part of the project “ONDEMANDCITY: Platform capitalism,
digital workers and techification of everyday life in contemporary city”(funding from the Ministry of
Science, Innovation and Universities of Spain Grant Number Grant PID2021-122482OB-I00) in which
some of these ideas and reflections are developed.
The reflections of Gomer Betancor Nuez are part of the “Youth Activisms”Project (PID2020-
117529RB-I00). Spanish Research Agency, Ministry of Science and Innovation.
Employee Relations: The
International Journal
Vol. 45 No. 4, 2023
pp. 797-807
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/ER-06-2023-553

proliferation of challenges in the labor market that have generated difficulties in the
implementation of traditional trade union regulatory tools and repertoires (Keune, 2013).
The reasons for the progressive decline in the levels of worker representation –although
by no means absolute–and the levels of strike activity have been the subject of various
academic debates (Mart

ınez Lucio, 2006), although this decline varies according to the
national context. Among macrosocial causes, the continuing decline of heavy and traditional
industries has contributed to the relative weakening of established cohesive, albeit at times
exclusively working-class, communities. In addition, while globalization in the shape of
mobile and increasingly powerful multinational corporations –and the deregulation of
workers and social rights in a range of national contexts–has reduced trade union power
broadly speaking in terms of strike rates and the effectiveness of national union structures
(Baccaro and Howell, 2017), we have nonetheless also seen incumbent trade union
bureaucracies grappling with new forms of worker activity as they seek to maintain more
traditional and institutional forms of engagement with the state (Piazza, 2010), although there
has been some discussion regarding the nature of union revitalization in recent years
(Murray, 2017) and new waves of union-led protest in various contexts since mid-2022 require
any pessimistic views about unions to be cautious. Some have therefore suggested that the
relatively institutionalized role of traditional unions and their growing distance from new
forms of grassroots’organizing and social movements is one of the factors that can explain
the uneven levels of labor protest and mobilization in the EU (Gajewska, 2008). In addition,
although we are beginning to see significant changes in work- and employment-related
politics, it is the national context (in terms of a country’s legislation, economic structures,
trade union political identity, and specific labor market institutions) that remains the key
arena for researchers studying patterns of trade union and labor protest across European
countries.
Many new but not exclusively social movements and non-governmental organizations have,
therefore, been encroaching on, and influencing, the representation of work and employment
issues. Examples include the organizations related to the living wage campaign in the UK, equal
rights questions in many contexts as highlighted by bodies such as Stonewall, and health and
safety at work issues raised by various organizations dealing with mental health. While some of
these social movements or social organizations appear to be acting as key influencers of policy
developments at work, or in quasi-trade unions in some cases, in other instances new forms of
minority trade unionism seem to be drawing on more radical social movements to develop a
social protest framework and id entity (Waterman, 1993;Stewart, 2006;Heery et al., 2012). We are
also seeing new forms of organizing around community unionism and worker networks that are
using hybrid forms of local-level social movement activism and social networks (Holgate, 2021).
There is also a push toward new radical forms of trade unionism which contribute to this too
(Connolly, 2012;Connolly and Darlington, 2012). In effect, the boundaries between the sphere of
employment and work, on the one hand, and society and community, on the other, are being
eroded in new ways. Indeed, there are increasingly alliances and joint mobilization campaigns
between trade unions (especially minority unions but not exclusively so) and social movements,
which combine resources and political cultures to enhance labor rights mobilization.
Commentators on the future of trade union, such as Visser (2019a,2019b),havearguedthat
one of the scenarios that trade unions face is that of their role being marginalized due to the
impactof new sets of social actorsand movements who engage with a large part of the workforce
that are under-represented.
In this situation different social initiatives are emerging that are related to workers’rights,
working conditions, and economic models themselves. These range from traditional forms of
political mobilization and institutionalized trade union engagement through to mechanisms
that could be considered innovative and more decentred –and participative –than some of
the traditional forms and practices of trade unionism (Alberti and Per
o, 2018). Alliances have
ER
45,4
798

also recently emerged between labor rights activism in poorly regulated sectors, in alliances
with community networks, and in social movements. In some countries, a kind of “social
unionism”is emerging that politicizes the working and living conditions of new
organizations, such as domestic workers, precarious self-employed workers, or workers’
centers in different sectors (Voss and Sherman, 2013;Roca, 2020). These new innovative
developments can also be seen in the form of more public- and media-facing conflict
strategies, in an increasingly strategic engagement with a variety of social media (Geelan and
Hodder, 2017), in the use of new social and organizational participative forms and structures,
and in a new set of sociological categories of worker activists and networks that are beyond,
or on the fringes of, the traditional remit of the “organized”labor movement (Standing, 2012).
2. Recent changes in European trade unionism: new trade union cleavages, trade
union renewal, and new labor subjects
New types of organization advocating for workers’rights and working conditions are
emerging in response to this new, neoliberal, economic context. New forms of autonomous
worker mobilization have emerged in the service sector and on digital platforms, and in non-
traditional sectors for organizing labor (Wood, 2015;Wood et al., 2018). Sectors that have
traditionally had greater difficulties for trade union action and affiliation, such as for waiters,
domestic workers, care workers, or street vendors, have seen new forms of representation
emerge.
The last two decades have also seen an increase in social movement mobilization around
welfare-state-related issues in Europe, for example in relation to housing, pensions, and
migrants’rights. The generalization of economic, legal, and social precarity has rendered a
number of social groups increasingly vulnerable (young people, the working poor, women,
migrants, etc.). These groups have organized themselves to advance various initiatives,
especially in relation to unregulated work and social rights.
The transformation and weakening of traditional unions in some areas and their
traditional approaches to labor conflicts have left a gap that both unions and non-union
organizations have tried to fill. The need to adapt to the new realities of work, the labor
market, and neoliberalism has provided an opportunity to develop new ways of
understanding and pursuing labor struggles. There have also been efforts to expand and
renew trade unions through the adoption of models using methods that are more efficient and
based more on solidarity among workers (Scholz, 2016;Vandaele, 2018). Traditional forms of
union organization and action, such as collective bargaining and strike action (Ortega, 2019),
have begun to be complemented, and even replaced in some cases, by other tactics and novel
organizational forms.
These have also been named “New Forms of Worker Organization”(Ness, 2014), referring
to trade union movements that have interrelated with social movements and have recovered
their repertoires and actions. In Spain, authors such as Moral-Mart

ın and Brunet i Icart (2018)
have named this phenomenon “new trade union movements”, referring to the concept of new
social movements, since they incorporate into the field of trade unions not only new
repertoires typical of social movements, but also demands typical of other social movements
such as feminism, anti-racism, or democracy. There is also a discussion that has been
building steadily regarding minority unions drawing on the Japanese context historically as a
counterpoint to more established company and “majority”unions (Stewart, 2006) and more
recently “indie”(independent) unions with a more direct form of internal democratic decision
making (Alberti and Per
o, 2018).
Trade unionism and labor organizations have consequently been forced to rethink and
reinvent their own traditional and established strategies (Minter, 2017), although one cannot
forget that some are already engaged in local and community forms of action due to their
Guest editorial
799

identity –so this depends on the nature of the organizations in question (Marino et al., 2017).
Trade unions face a serious challenge: their negotiation, representation, and organizing
capacities have been diminished in some respects by the general decline in the broad range of
factors that have historically facilitated trade union action (Due~
nas Herrero, 2019).
In some countries, such as Spain, the weakening of trade unionism at certain moments
in the face of this systemic shift to neoliberalism has led to the adoption of new strategies
that reflect a weaker bargaining position and a declining social relevance (de Guzm
an et al.,
2016). Other factors have also contributed to the decline in trade union capacity,
membership, and activity. The changing nature of migration, for example, has been a
determining factor in shaping the new realities of precarious work (Rogers, 2017;Goods
et al., 2019). Trade unions likely require a different relationship with migrant populations
than with workers born in the country due to factors such as differences in trade union and
political culture, migrants’unfamiliarity with trade unionism in their destination
countries, and, above all, material conditionsthatmakeitmoredifficultformigrantsto
join and be active in unions, although much depends on the context and the migrant
community (Connolly et al., 2019).
An emerging feature of the new forms of union strategy, especially in some of the more
recent forms of representation, has been an intersectional approach, which has also become
prominent in social struggles and increasingly recognizes multi-dimensional, interrelated
axes of oppression grounded in gender, ethnicity, ability, class, and sexual orientation
(McBride et al., 2015;Collins, 2000;Lee and Tapia, 2021). Some social movements linked to
workplace and employment issues have recognized that, in order to further the struggles of
workers and other precarious populations, it is necessary to connect them with others and
that a broader range of non-traditional, non-economic categories and identities are required to
properly diagnose and challenge the multiple causes of social injustice in post-industrial
capitalism.
In this new context, the idea of hybrid identities has been taken up by movements
aiming to gain broader traction and recognition for their struggles in Western Europe and
Mediterranean countries affected by the debt crisis (Ioannou, 2022). Hybrid identities can
be articulated in various ways, but they serve to unify diverse groups under the common
banner of their vulnerability –and this appears to be increasingly a feature of new social
movements related to work and new forms of social-movement-style unionism (Della Porta
et al., 2022;Moody, 1997). These identities appeal to subjects commonly experiencing the
financialization of every aspect of social life and the subordination of representative
politics to financial interests. The discourses around these identities also often embrace a
counter-institutional condemnation of aspects of the European Union’sstrategyasan
“austericidal”enemy. Harvey’s (2005) idea of generalized dispossession is a common
element of these new discourses, reflecting the exclusion and damage wrought by
neoliberalism generally.
In this sense, there are two generally accepted arguments regarding why these new
organizations are not rendered redundant by traditional unions. First, the diminished
capacities or reach of existing trade unions leave gaps that these new groups can usefully fill.
The traditional tools of trade unions are less useful in the context of new forms of work, while
the bureaucratization of these unions and their lack of agility in the face of rapidly changing
labor markets has also made it harder for them to effectively engage the workers represented
by these new groups, although this has been steadily changing and much depends on the
original social orientation of the union (Gumbrell-McCormick and Hyman, 2013). It is not
unknown to see traditional unions being legally and politically constrained in ways these new
groups are not. Second, these new groups do not simply reject or seek to replace traditional
trade unions. They present themselves as complements, rather than substitutes, for
traditional unions, filling the gaps these unions leave (Smith, 2022).
ER
45,4
800

3. Dynamic intersections between new types of trade unionism and social
movements
The most precarious forms of work in the labor market are concentrated among the most
vulnerable people. In recent years, young people, migrants, the elderly, and women (Barattini,
2009;Berg et al., 2018;L
opez de la Fuente, 2019;Gorodzeisky and Richards, 2020) have
sometimes been deprived of trade union instruments that would allow them to articulate
responses to a labor market that is increasingly less secure, with fewer guarantees, and more
unstable. Thus, in recent years there has been a growing concern among trade union
organizations, but also from academia, to address the issues of the representation and
resistance of precarious workers and workers in atypical employment situations (Pulignano
et al., 2016). Although the economic conditions and labor relations generated by neoliberal
processes and globalization have led to a tendency to think about the disappearance of
workers’movements as we know them, the movements that have emerged in recent years to
confront the new realities of work have not always been foreseen (Silver, 2014, p. 47).
At the end of the 1990s, Moody (1997) pointed out the need to weave alliances between
traditional trade union forms and social movements, which were capable of confronting the
realities generated by globalization and the internationalization of work. Thus, in the face
of the new challenges and conflicts resulting from neoliberal labor models, the last few
decades have seen the emergence of experiences in the field of trade unions that have led to
a renewal of the labor movement, both in the North and in the global South (Moody, 1997,
p. 72).
Other authors such as Paret have developed the concept of “precarious politics”to refer to
movements and actions that have sought self-determination for precarious workers, who
have taken the organizational lead to confront their specific increasingly precariousness
conditions in the labor market and to compensate for the problems of representation in these
workers’unions (Paret, 2013, p. 758). These forms of resistance can be characterized by their
not being exclusively focused on the labor field, but rather as also incorporating other
demands and problems associated with precariousness, such as housing or access to other
public services.
Thus, the regeneration of trade unionism in Western democracies has involved the
incorporation of new groups that had been largely forgotten by labor movements, generating
new organizational and action strategies, as well as seeking alliances with other social
organizations and attaching key figures to them (Moody, 1997;Turner and Hurd, 2001). This
has been the case when establishing links with active social movements and a policy of
symbiosis with them (Gall and Holgate, 2018, p. 563).
Different movements have perceived that trade unions had forgotten social demands and
claims that had been taken up by new social movements, such as climate issues or new waves
of feminism. In this tension, trade unions have been seen as outdated organizations in need of
renewal, which means being more flexible in incorporating and addressing new issues
(Vandenberg, 2006;Kirton, 2015).
It has been pointed out that the solution to this problem of traditional trade unionism was:
to incorporate usually forgotten groups, such as youth, migrants, and women; to generate
new demands present in a changing society and approach new labor issues; and to update
and adapt to more disruptive and contentious repertoires typical of social movements
(Hyman and Gumbrell-McCormick, 2017). These strategies have in some cases involved the
recovery of class and grassroots trade unionism, generating mobilization strategies that are
locally focused and more centered on the workplace, involve actions in which militants
recover the leading role and are based on a bottom-up logic rather than on just involving
negotiation between trade union and business elites, generating new alliances and coalitions
with movements and other organizations (including internationally), and developing
emancipatory and transformative policies of the social order (Arriaga, 2020).
Guest editorial
801

One of the most useful accounts for our research that characterizes these developments,
including the emergence of social movement unions (SMUs), has been Peter Fairbrother’s
(2008) study. Trade unions have, in recent years, sought to build alliances with civil society
organizations and movements that do not work directly on labor issues (Dixon, 2014, p. 1185).
This has led to some union campaigns becoming “much more sophisticated, combining
cutting-edge research programmes with contentious protests to bring companies to the
bargaining table”(Dixon, 2014, p. 1185).
The fact that these new kinds of labor organization are often embedded in communities
and networks of other movements working in different areas is of particular interest to us
given its link to the study of social movements (Meyer, 2017, pp. 1128–1129). The embrace by
SMUs of conflicts, activists and movements that are not focused exclusively on labor issues
connects to important concepts in the study of social movements, namely those of a
transversal struggle uniting disparate social forces, and of the intersectional nature of
oppression and injustice (Milkman and Voss, 2004, p. 10).
An example which is often cited is the case of new forms of work in terms of “riders”in
the platform economy who are an interesting reference point for the changes being
discussed in different national countries (Rogers, 2017;Tassinari and Maccarrone, 2017;
Dufresne, 2019;Goods et al., 2019;D
ıez Prat and Ranz Mart

ın, 2020;Vandaele, 2020;
Woodcock, 2020). Much has been said about the experience of “riders”inthedebateonnew
forms of worker representation, although this sector remains remarkably small (Tassinari
and Maccarrone, 2020). However, we have seen that the collective action of riders
mobilizing for their rights as employees is a novel kind of collective labor action. One of the
concepts that has been coined in recent years to identify labor struggles that are twinned
with broader political struggles for human rights and social justice, and that do not simply
organize workers around workplace issues, is that of social movement unionism (Milkman
and Voss, 2014; Engeman, 2015).
Some of the organizations that have emerged in recent years resemble the definition of
social movement unionism in three respects: in experimenting with the introduction
of different collective actions that go beyond the strike (Waterman, 1993); with the creation of
alliances with organizations and collectives in the nearest locality in which action is
developed (Voss and Sherman, 2000,2013); and in the sense that it is a response to the crisis of
the forms of representative and hegemonic unionism (unions on occasions tend to engage in
contentious politics to defend workers’interests).
Other novel dimensions of the riders’contentious actions are their largely instrumental
relationship with traditional unions (because they have not been recognized as workers
until now); their extensive use of social networks as arenas of political contestation; and
their use of strategic litigation to politicize a labor conflict. These mobilizations thus come
close to meeting Tarrow’s definition of contentious action as those in which “ordinary
people –frequently in alliance with more influential citizens and shifts in public opinion –
join forces to confront elites, authorities and their opponents”(Tarrow, 1994,p.4).These
efforts have taken place in the context of the evolving political economy of labor in Spain
and, specifically, in relation to the devastating effects of the platform economy on workers’
social protection.
On the other hand, when the collective actions of these new organizations operate in a
specific community or city, with distinctive characteristics, they come close to the term
“community unionism”as they have a particularly local dimension if their action is deployed
in alliance with local civil society collectives and social movements. Above all, this is because
this is a clear case of precarious workers who are difficult to organize due to deregulation in
their labor framework, although many established unions are learning from these dynamics
and processes in industrial relations and thus engaging with new forms of representation
(Stewart et al., 2009;Smith, 2022).
ER
45,4
802

Hence, from a macro-sociological perspective, the activism of these new hybrid
organizations requires us to analyse these forms of collective labor in terms of their
political engagement, since, as new forms of labor organization, they engage at various
institutional and social levels even going beyond the limits of the national (Fern
andez-
Trujillo, 2022).
4. Conclusion and reflection: appreciating the complexity of trade union-social
movement relations
However, the actual interface and the issues between the social and economic dimensions of
worker representation remain complex, and we are at a stage where we need to see that
perhaps there is no clear fit between the community, social, and movement dimensions of
workers as these can be porous and open to a range of different structures and hybrids
(K€
ohler and Calleja Jim
enez, 2019;Mart

ınez Lucio, forthcoming). The set of papers that
constitute this special issue are a sample of the diverse patterns and issues that can develop
across these spaces, and which suggest that we need to start reflecting on the possibilities and
ironies of new social movement dynamics.
The contributions to this special issue as a whole bring a different set of insights into what
has emerged as an important debate within labor and employment relations. “The Tail that
Wags the Dog: Lessons from London’s Independent Trade Unions for Trade Union Renewal”
is a contribution that points to the lack of risk taking within established unions and a
tendency to focus on partnerships and more institutionalized approaches to relations with
employers. This case study outlines some of the core debates that have emerged in terms of
such concerns and illustrates this through a case study.
The article “Worker Resistance Strategies and UnionAction in Platform Work: The Case of
Uber in Spain”looks at the platform economy and new forms of mobilization and actors that are
emerging, though in this case the paper shows how the nature of existing forms of regulation
and representation of a collective nature can be used by new sets of workers mobilizing
according to their rights and through their socially based mobilizations. This paper builds on
the work and development being seen inthe academic debate, which highlights a more complex
form of interactions between new and old actors within labor and employment relations.
Although established unions are learning how to engagewith new developments and struggles
there is a slowness and bureaucratic legacy that has hampered development.
Issues of class mobilization and its importance are also picked up in the paper related to
Sweden: “Cycles of Labor Protests: Public and Private Sector Unions”Contentious Actions’,
where the debate on mobilization and the realm of the social is discussed up. The argument
that we have seen new forms of mobilization and new forms of repertoires of collective action
is put in a context where changes appear to be much more contradictory across the private
and public sector. The paper argues that we need to locate collective action within a much
broader understanding of actions and to understand that the focus is very much falling on the
public sector where more established forms of worker organization appear to exist.
Finally, a major challenge to the role of the collective voice and the nature of social movement–
labor alliances is raised by the fourth piece “Co-produced or co-opted? Reflections on the
‘Movement’to Promote Good Employment in Greater Manchester”.Thisisanimportant
intervention regarding a local state initiative to set labor standards and good employment
practices through employment charters. The initiative involves state, employer, and labor actors,
though in this detailed case study there is an outline of the manner in which the “social”is r edefined
politically in ways that do not clearly bring collective voices and collective representation to the
center of such developments. Instead, whilst being innovative and often progressive in social
terms, the social interventions of non-union actors may bring real challenges and may
“corporatize”the nature of the debate and have it rely on voluntary and “soft”approaches.
Guest editorial
803

What these articles suggest is that we need to begin to map these relations and structures
across the social and political boundaries of work. The time when we simply contrasted the
social with the economic and judged the strengths and weaknesses of each is being surpassed
as the link between the two is more complex and varied. In addition, there may be a range of
other actors with a “corporate”(and even neo-liberal) dimension de-politicizing these social
agendas of work; see Johnson et al. (this issue). The question therefore is: How do
intersectional and more direct forms of participation shape and counter such developments in
order to ensure that this social shift in the content and context of industrial relations is part of
a democratic broadening of work?
Francisco Fern
andez-Trujillo Moares
Department of Sociolog

ıa I, National Distance Education University, Madrid, Spain
Gomer Betancor Nuez
Department of Sociolog

ıa II, National Distance Education University, Madrid, Spain, and
Miguel Martinez Lucio
Work and Equalities Institute, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
References
Alberti, G. and Per
o, D. (2018), “Migrating industrial relations: migrant workers’initiative within and
outside trade unions”,British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 693-715.
Arriaga, A.E. (2020), “Potencialidad de las discusiones sobre revitalizaci
on sindical para pensar la
historia reciente del movimiento obrero argentino”,Prohistoria. Historia, Pol

ıticas de La
Historia, Vol. 38, pp. 115-133, doi: 10.35305/prohistoria.vi.1195.
Baccaro, L. and Howell, C. (2017), Trajectories of Neoliberal Transformation: European Industrial
Relations since the 1970s, Cambridge University Press.
Barattini, M. (2009), “El trabajo precario en la era de la globalizaci
on. ¿Es posible la organizaci
on?”,
Polis: Revista Latinoamericana, Vol. 24.
Berg, J., Furrer, M., Harmon, E., Rani, U. and Silberman, M.S. (2018), Digital Labour Platforms and the
Future of Work. Towards Decent Work in the Online World, ILO, available at: https://www.ilo.
org/global/publications/books/WCMS_645337/lang–en/index.htm
Collins, P.H. (2000), Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of
Empowerment, Routledge.
Connolly, H. (2012), “Union renewal in France and Hyman’s universal dualism”,Capital & Class,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 117-134.
Connolly, H. and Darlington, R. (2012), “Radical political unionism in France and Britain: a
comparative study of SUD-Rail and the RMT”,European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 235-250.
Connolly, H., Marino, S. and Martinez Lucio, M. (2019), The Politics of Social Inclusion and Labor
Representation, Cornell University Press, Cornell.
De Guzm
an, S., Roca, B. and Diaz-Parra, I. (2016), “Political exchange, crisis of representation and
trade union strategies in a time of austerity: trade unions and 15M in Spain”,Transfer, Vol. 22
No. 4, pp. 461-474, doi: 10.1177/1024258916667013.
Della Porta, D., Chesta, R.E. and Cini, L. (2022), “Class and contention: social movement studies and
labour studies”,inLabour Conflicts in the Digital Age, Bristol University Press, Bristol, available
at: https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/book/9781529228267/ch001.xml
D

ıez Prat, F. and Ranz Mart

ın, R. (2020), “Mi experiencia como repartidor de Deliveroo y el intento por
articular nuestra lucha desde la estructura sindical de UGT”,Teknokultura. Revista De Cultura
Digital Y Movimientos Sociales, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 187-193, doi: 10.5209/tekn.69532.
ER
45,4
804

Dixon, M. (2014), “Union organizing and labor outreach in the contemporary United States”,Sociology
Compass, Vol. 8 No. 10, pp. 1183-1190.
Dufresne, A. (2019), “Coursiers de tous les pays,unissez-vous! En lutte contre le capitalisme de
plateforme”,Gresea

Echos, Vol. 98.
Due~
nas Herrero, L.J. (2019), “Retos y propuestas para la regulaci
on del trabajo en los procesos
productivos de las plataformas digitales”,Cuadernos de Relaciones Laborales, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 275-292, doi: 10.5209/crla.66038.
Engeman, C. (2015), “Social movement unionism in practice: organizational dimensions of union
mobilization in the Los Angeles immigrant rights marches”,Work, Employment and Society,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 444-461.
Fairbrother, P. (2008), “Social movement unionism or trade unions as social movements”,Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 213-220.
Fern
andez-Trujillo, F. (2022), “Resistencia, sindicalismo y conflicto en el 
ambito de las plataformas
de reparto y mensajer

ıa”,Cuadernos de Relaciones Laborales, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 139-160,
doi: 10.5209/crla.74351.
Gajewska, K. (2008), “The emergence of a European labour protest movement?”,European Journal of
Industrial Relations, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 104-121.
Gall, G. and Holgate, J. (2018), “Rethinking industrial relations: appraisal, application and
augmentation”,Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 561-576.
Geelan, T. and Hodder, A. (2017), “Enhancing transnational labour solidarity: the unfulfilled promise
of the Internet and social media”,Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 345-364.
Goods, C., Veen, A. and Barratt, T. (2019), “Is your gig any good? Analysing job quality in the
Australian platform-based food-delivery sector”,Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 61 No. 4,
pp. 502-527, doi: 10.1177/0022185618817069.
Gorodzeisky, A. and Richards, A. (2020), “Do immigrants trust trade unions? A study of 18
European countries”,British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 3-26, doi: 10.1111/
bjir.12466.
Gumbrell-McCormick, R. and Hyman, R. (2013), Trade Unions in Western Europe: Hard Times, Hard
Choices, Oxford University Press.
Harvey, D. (2005), A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford University Press.
Heery, E., Williams, S. and Abbott, B. (2012), “Civil society organizations and trade unions:
cooperation, conflict, indifference”,Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 145-160.
Holgate, J. (2021), “Trade unions in the community: building broad spaces of solidarity”,Economic and
Industrial Democracy, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 226-247.
Hyman, R. (2015), “Three scenarios for industrial relations in Europe”,International Labour Review,
Vol. 154 No. 1, pp. 5-14.
Hyman, R. and Gumbrell-McCormick, R. (2017), “Resisting labour market insecurity: old and new
actors, rivals or allies?”,Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 538-561, doi: 10.1177/
0022185617714423.
Ioannou, G. (2022), Employment, Trade Unionism and Class, Routledge.
Keune, M. (2013), “Trade union responses to precarious work in seven European countries”,
International Journal of Labour Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 59-78.
Kirton, G. (2015), “The coalition of labor union women: still a space of social creativity and a force for
social change?”,Labor Studies Journal, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 129-148.
K€
ohler, H.D. and Calleja Jim
enez, J. (2019), “Social movement unionism in Spain?”,inGrote,J.R.and
Wagemann, C. (Eds), Social Movements and Organised Labour: Passions and Interest, Routledge.
Lee, T.L. and Tapia, M. (2021), “Confronting race and other social identity erasures: the case for
critical industrial relations theory”,ILR Review, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 637-662.
Guest editorial
805

L
opez de la Fuente, G. (2019), “The young worker in the economy of the platforms: youth, divine
treasure?”,International Journal of Information Systems and Software Engineering for Big
Companies (IJISEBC), Vol. 6, pp. 133-141, available at: http://uajournals.com/ojs/index.php/
ijisebc/article/view/467
Marino, S., Roosblad, J. and Penninx, R. (2017), Trade Unions and Migrant Workers: New Contexts and
Challenges in Europe, Edward Elgar Publishing.
Mart

ınez Lucio, M. (forthcoming), “Trade unions (ism), social movements and the community: connections
and politics”, in Atzeni, M., Mezzadri, A., Azzellini, D., Moore, P. and Apitzsch, U. (Eds), Research
Handbook on the Global Political Economy of Work, Edward Elgar 2022, Cheltenham.
Mart

ınez Lucio, M. (2006), “Trade unionism and the realities of change”, in Alonso, L.E. and
Martinez Lucio, M. (Eds), Employment Relations in a Changing Society, Palgrave Macmillan,
London.
McBride,A.,Hebson,G.andHolgate,J.(2015),“Intersectionality: are we taking enough notice in the field of
work and employment relations?”,Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 331-341.
Meyer, R. (2017), “Precarious workers and collective efficacy”,Critical Sociology, Vol. 43 Nos 7-8,
pp. 1125-1141, doi: 10.1177/0896920516655858.
Milkman, R. and Voss, K. (2004), Rebuilding Labor: Organizing and Organizers in the New Union
Movement, Cornell University Press.
Minter, K. (2017), “Negotiating labour standards in the gig economy: airtasker and unions new South
wales”,Economic and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 438-454, doi: 10.1177/
1035304617724305.
Moody, K. (1997), Workers in a Lean World. Unions in the International Economy, Verso.
Moral-Mart

ın, J.D. and Brunet i Icart, I. (2018), “La imagen del sindicato en el siglo XXI a la luz de su
contestaci
on por los Nuevos Movimientos Sindicales”,Sociolog

ıa Del Trabajo, Vol. 0 No. 93,
pp. 307-326, doi: 10.5209/stra.61833.
Murray, G. (2017), “Union renewal: what can we learn from three decades of research?”,Transfer:
European Review of Labour and Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 9-29.
Ness, I. (2014), New Forms of Worker Organization: The Syndicalist and Autonomist Restoration of
Class-Struggle Unionism, PM Press.
Ortega, F. (2019), “Los derechos colectivos de los trabajadores en la econom

ıa digital: ¿hacia un
movimiento obrero digital?”,Revista de Direito Do Trabalho, Special edition, available at:
https://roderic.uv.es/handle/10550/74985
Paret, M. (2013), “Precarious labor politics: unions and the struggles of the insecure working class in
the United States and South Africa”,Critical Sociology, Vol. 41 Nos 4-5, pp. 757-784.
Piazza, J.A. (2010), “Globalizing quiescence: globalization, union density and strikes in 15
industrialized countries”,Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 26, pp. 289-314.
Pulignano, V., Ort

ız Gervasi, L. and de Franceschi, F. (2016), “Union responses to precarious workers:
italy and Spain compared”,European Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 39-55,
doi: 10.1177/0959680115621410.
Roca, B. (2020), “Socio-spatial strategies of worker centres: an ethnography of alt-labour in NYC”,
Antipode, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 1196-1215.
Rogers, K. (2017), “Precarious and migrant workers in struggle: are new forms of trade unionism
necessary in post-Brexit Britain?”,Capital & Class, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 336-343, doi: 10.1177/
0309816817711558a.
Scholz, T. (2016), “Platform cooperativism: challenging the corporate sharing economy”,Rosa
Luxemburg Stiftung.
Silver, B. (2014), “Theorizing the working class in twenty-first-century capitalism”, in Atzeni, A. (Ed.),
Workers and Labour in a Globalized Capitalism: Contemporary Themes and Theoretical Issues,
Palgrave, pp. 46-69.
ER
45,4
806

Smith, H. (2022), “The ‘indie unions’and the UK labour movement: towards a community of practice”,
Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 1369-1390.
Standing, G. (2012), “The precariat: from denizens to citizens?”,Polity, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 588-608.
Stewart, P. (2006), “Marginal movements and minority struggles? The case of the Japanese minority
social and labour movements”,The Sociological Review, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 753-773.
Stewart, P., McBride, J., Greenwood, I., Stirling, J., Holgate, J., Tattersall, A., Stephenson, C. and Wray, D.
(2009), “Introduction”, in McBride, J. and Greenwood, I. (Eds), Community Unionism,Springer.
Tarrow, S. (1994), Power in Movement, Cambridge University Press.
Tassinari, A. and Maccarrone, V. (2017), “The mobilisation of gig economy couriers in Italy: some
lessons for the trade union movement”,ETUI, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 353-357.
Tassinari, A. and Maccarrone, V. (2020), “Riders on the storm: workplace solidarity among gig
economy couriers in Italy and the UK”,Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 35-54.
Turner, L. and Hurd, R.W. (2001), “Building social movement unionism: the transformation of the
American labor movement”, in Turner, Lowell, Katz, Harry C. and Hurd, Richard W. (Eds),
Rekindling the Movement: Labor’s Quest for Relevance in the 21st Century,Cornell
University Press.
Vandaele, K. (2018), “Will trade unions survive in the platform economy? Emerging patterns of
platform workers collective voice and representation in Europe”,SSRN Electronic Journal,
ETUI Research Paper - Working Paper 2018.05 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3198546.
Vandaele, K. (2020), From Street Protest to ‘improvisational Unionism’. Platform-Based Food Delivery
Couriers in Belgium and the Netherlands, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Berlin.
Vandenberg, A. (2006), “Social movement unionism and networked technology”,International Journal
of Technology Knowledge & Society, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 45-51, doi: 10.1080/14742830600807584.
Visser, J. (2019a), Trade Unions in the Balance, ILO ACTRAV Working Paper, ILO, Geneva.
Visser, J. (2019b), “Can unions revitalize themselves?”,International Journal of Labour Research, Vol. 9
Nos 1/2, pp. 17-48.
Voss, K. and Sherman, R. (2000), “Breaking the iron law of oligarchy: union revitalization in the
American labor movement”,American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 106 No. 2, pp. 303-349, doi: 10.
1086/316963.
Voss, K. and Sherman, R. (2013), “You just can’t do it automatically: the transition to social movement
unionism in the United States”,inTrade Unions in Renewal, Routledge, London, pp. 51-77.
Waterman, P. (1993), “Social-movement unionism: a new union model for a new world order?”,Review
(Fernand Braudel Center), Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 245-278.
Wood, A.J. (2015), “Networks of injustice and worker mobilisation at Walmart”,Industrial Relations
Journal, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 259-274.
Wood, A.J., Lehdonvirta, V. and Graham, M. (2018), “Workers of the Internet unite? Online freelancer
organisation among remote gig economy workers in six Asian and African countries”,New
Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 95-112.
Woodcock, J. (2020), “The algorithmic panopticon at Deliveroo: measurement, precarity, and the
illusion of control”,Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organizations, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 67-95.
Further reading
Fita, F. and Goerlich, J.M. (2017), “Sindicalismo y acci
on sindical en el siglo XXI: crisis econ
omica y
transformaci
on del modelo productivo”,Arxius de ci
ences socials, Vols 36-37, pp. 37-48, available
at: http://hdl.handle.net/10550/66745.
Guest editorial
807