BookPDF Available

New Directions in Labour Process Theory

December 2024

Authors:

Vincenzo Maccarrone

Scuola Normale Superiore

Elena Baglioni

Queen Mary University of London

Show all 9 authorsHide

Content uploaded by Vincenzo Maccarrone

Content may be subject to copyright.

N. 167 (III fascicolo anno 2023)



Sociologia del lavoro è la principale rivista italiana di sociologia che affronta

specificamente i problemi del lavoro, con una attenzione particolare al dialogo con

le altre discipline e ai cambiamenti sociali in corso.

Ogni fascicolo è composto da un saggio introduttivo su invito della direzione, da una

sezione monografica con curatori, da due o tre saggi su un tema proposto dagli autori

e, infine, da una rubrica di dibattito denominata Taccuino. Per ogni fascicolo è prevista

la pubblicazione di un articolo in modalità open access. Tutti i saggi pubblicati nella

sezione monografica e in quella a tema libero sono selezionati sulla base di call

periodiche e sottoposti a un processo di double-blind peer review mediante la

piattaforma OJS. La redazione si riserva il diritto di respingere i saggi inviati anche

alla fine del processo di revisione qualora non garantiscano la conformità agli standard

di qualità scientifica e di rispetto delle norme editoriali previste.



Direzione e redazione: Dipartimento di Sociologia e Diritto dell’Economia – Strada Maggiore 45 –

40125 Bologna. E-mail: vando.borghi@unibo.it, emanuele.leonardi3@unibo.it.



Abbonamenti

Per conoscere il canone d’abbonamento corrente, consultare il nostro sito (www.francoangeli.it),

cliccando sul bottone “Riviste”, oppure telefonare al nostro Ufficio Riviste (02/2837141) o, ancora,

inviare una e-mail (riviste@francoangeli.it) indicando chiaramente il nome della rivista.

Il pagamento potrà essere effettuato tramite assegno bancario, bonifico bancario, versamento su

conto corrente, o con carta di credito.

L’abbonamento verrà attivato non appena giunta la notifica dell’avvenuto pagamento del canone.



Amministrazione, redazione, distribuzione, abbonamenti: FrancoAngeli srl, viale Monza 106, 20127

Milano, tel. 02/2837141 – Ufficio abbonamenti riviste@francoangeli.it

Coordinamento editoriale di Anna Buccinotti buccinotti@francoangeli.it



Autorizzazione Tribunale di Milano n. 177 del 21 aprile 1978. Direttore responsabile: Michele La

Rosa. Quadrimestrale - Poste Italiane S.p.A. - Sped. in Abb. Post. - D.L. 353/2003 (conv. in L.

- Stampa: Geca Industrie Grafiche, Via Monferrato 54, 20098 San Giuliano Milanese.

Finito di stampare nel mese di gennaio 2024.

SOCIOLOGIA DEL LAVORO n. 167



SOCIOLOGIA DEL LAVORO - Rivista fondata da Michele La Rosa nel 1978



Direzione: Vando Borghi (direttore); Marianna Filandri, Marcello Pedaci, Francesco

Pirone, Barbara Poggio



Comitato editoriale:

Barbara Barabaschi, Filippo Barbera, Giovanni Carrosio, Federico Chicchi, Andrea

Ciarini, Alessandra Corrado, Anna Cortese, Domenica Farinella, Andrea Gandini,

Alberto Gherardini, Barbara Giullari, Giorgio Gosetti, Michele La Rosa, Enrica

Morlicchio, Antonello Podda, Maria Letizia Pruna, Roberto Rizza, Devi Sacchetto,

Angelo Salento, Emanuela Struffolino, Laura Zanfrini



Redazione:

Andrea Bottalico, Anna Carreri, Augusto Cocorullo (Comunicazione), Antonio De Falco,

Emanuele Leonardi (coordinatore), Anna Mori, Rebecca Paraciani, Francesca Vianello



Consiglio scientifico internazionale:

Tindara Addabbo, Leonardo Altieri, Giuseppe Bonazzi, Federico Butera, Carlo Carboni,

Aldo Carrera, Vanni Codeluppi, Domenico De Masi, Donata Gottardi, Michele La Rosa

(Coordinatore), Everardo Minardi, Enzo Mingione, Massimo Paci, Angelo Pichierri,

Enrico Pugliese, Emilio Reyneri, Enzo Rullani, Adriana Signorelli, Mino Vianello,

Luciano Visentini, Paolo Zurla



Mateo Alaluf (Belgio), Vil Savbanovic Bakirov (Ucraina), Juan Josè Castillo (Spagna),

Pierre Desmarez (Belgio), Pierre Dubois (Francia), Claude Durand (Francia), Anna Inga

Hilsen (Norvegia), Bryn Jones (Gran Bretagna), Yuri Kazepov (Austria), Jean-Louis

Laville (Francia), Christian Marazzi (Svizzera), Serge Paugam (Francia), Andrew Ross

(Stati Uniti), Pierre Rolle (Francia), Bengt Starrin (Svezia), Veronika Tacke (Germania),

Dina Vaiou (Grecia), Mario Vargas

(Colombia),

Josh Whitford (Stati Uniti), Ariel Wilkis

(Argentina)



Sociologia del lavoro è indicizzata su EconLit,

Elsevier/Scopus,

ERIH Plus, Google Scholar,

IBSS, ProQuest Sociological Abstracts e ProQuest Summon. La rivista aderisce ai criteri

di referaggio adottati dal Coordinamento delle Riviste Italiane di Sociologia (CRIS).

Avvertenze per gli autori



Gli articoli devono essere proposti per la pubblicazione a questa rivista selezionando il

bottone “Proporre un articolo” disponibile alla pagina web sul sito FrancoAngeli

(www.francoangeli.it/riviste/sommario.asp?IDRivista=83&lingua=it).

Gli articoli devono

essere accompagnati da una lettera di liberatoria (scaricabile dalla pagina della rivista

insieme alle norme redazionali) in cui l’autore concede alla Direzione l’esercizio

esclusivo di tutti i diritti di sfruttamento economico sull’articolo. In aggiunta occorre

inviare due abstract (in italiano e in inglese) di circa 1.000 battute l’uno preceduti dal

titolo e seguiti da quattro parole chiave/keywords nelle rispettive lingue utilizzate (le

parole chiave sono necessarie per l’indicizzazione dell’articolo nelle banche dati

internazionali). L’abstract deve essere espresso col soggetto in terza persona e contenere

in modo chiaro i punti salienti dell’articolo.



L’opera, comprese tutte le sue parti, è tutelata dalla legge sui diritti d’autore. Sono vietate e sanzionate

(se non espressamente autorizzate) la riproduzione in ogni modo e forma (comprese le fotocopie, la

scansione, la memorizzazione elettronica) e la comunicazione (ivi inclusi a titolo esemplificativo ma non

esaustivo: la distribuzione, l’adattamento, la traduzione e la rielaborazione, anche a mezzo di canali

digitali interattivi e con qualsiasi modalità attualmente nota od in futuro sviluppata). Le fotocopie per uso

personale del lettore possono essere effettuate nei limiti del 15% di ciascun fascicolo dietro pagamento

alla SIAE del compenso previsto dall’art. 68, commi 4 e 5, della legge 22 aprile 1941 n. 633. Le fotocopie

effettuate per finalità di carattere professionale, economico o commerciale o comunque per uso diverso

da quello personale, possono essere effettuate a seguito di specifica autorizzazione rilasciata da

CLEARedi, Centro Licenze e Autorizzazioni per le Riproduzioni Editoriali (www.clearedi.org; e-mail:

autorizzazioni@clearedi.org).

In caso di copia digitale, l’Utente nel momento in cui effettua il download dell’opera accetta tutte le

condizioni della licenza d’uso dell’opera previste e comunicate sul sito www.francoangeli.it.

Indice

New Directions in Labour Process Theory

a cura di Francesco Bagnardi e Vincenzo Maccarrone

Some reflections on the capitalist labour process, nature and

social reproduction, di Elena Baglioni

pag.

Labour Process Theory: taking stock and looking ahead, di

Francesco Bagnardi, Vincenzo Maccarrone

I processi lavorativi nel retail: intensificazione, meccanismi di-

sciplinari e resistenze, di Annalisa Dordoni

Coming through in waves. Generational dynamics and re-

sistance practices among blue-collar workers in an Italian

factory, di Angelo Moro

Resisting outsourcing: learning from migrant workers’ power-

building strategies in the British service sector, di Davide

Però

100

Unpacking informality in the gig-economy: ethnographic in-

sights into platform capitalism and its baroque labour pro-

cess, di Gianmarco Peterlongo

121

Collective mobility power: Grassroots unionism in the Italian

meat-processing sector, di Valeria Piro

141

Labour Process Theory and the legacy of operaismo. New di-

rections, old problems, di Paul Thompson, Frederick Harry

Pitts

pag.

163

Saggi

Segregazione come distinzione? Classi occupazionali e segre-

gazione di genere, di Lorenzo Cattani

189

Do funding schemes help ameliorate publications? An analysis

among Italian academics who won FIRB and ERC di Giulio

Marini, Viviana Meschitti

221

New Directions in Labour Process Theory

a cura di

Francesco Bagnardi e Vincenzo Maccarrone

Sociologia del lavoro, n. 167/2023. ISSN 0392-5048. ISSNe 1972-554X.

DOI: 10.3280/SL2023-167001

Some reflections on the capitalist labour process,

nature and social reproduction

Elena Baglioni*1

This article suggests that Labour Process Theory (LPT) could engage

more substantially with the spheres of ecology and social reproduction. By

drawing on ecological and feminist Marxist literatures, it seeks to recast a

materialist analysis of the capitalist labour process, which is reconstructed as

an ecological process as well as a process structurally shaped by spaces and

institutions where the social reproduction of workers and the working class

take place. Drawing from the collective and individual work done over the

last few years within these areas, the article translates abstract observations

in more operative analytical categories by reinstating the relevance of socio-

ecological indeterminacy of the labour process, the materiality of the body,

the commodity and the workplace, the intertwining between exploitation and

disciplining and by introducing the notion of reproductive subsumption.

Keywords: Labour process theory, ecology, social reproduction,

materiality

Introduction

In responding to the call for this Special Issue, this article suggests that

Labour Process Theory (LPT) could engage more substantially with the

spheres of ecology and social reproduction. By adopting a broad meaning of

ecology as the set of relationships and processes between living things and



Articolo ad invito

*School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London, e-mail:

e.baglioni@qmul.ac.uk

1 I would like to thank the editors of this Special Issue, Francesco Bagnardi and Vincenzo

Macarrone, for inviting me to the homonymous workshop in Padua where a draft version of

this article was presented. I am also indebted to the precious comments made by Liam

Campling, Matteo Mandarini, Ariel Salleh, Shreya Sinha and Adrian Smith on previous

versions of this article.

10

their surrounding environments, it follows the invite to see industrial

workplaces as «a peculiar kind of ecological system […], made up of

biological processes (workers’ bodies), thermodynamic properties (power

sources and machines) and social regulation (engineering, labor relations,

law)» (Barca and Bridge, 2015, p. 368). Similarly, by exposing the processes

and relationships between workplaces and the spaces where labour power is

replenished and life is nurtured more broadly, it attempts to highlight how the

labour process – the hidden abode – is structurally linked to «realms that are

more hidden still» (Fraser, 2014, p. 57). The article suggests some preliminary

analytical observations to revive LPT’s focus «on the “objective” conditions

of work» (Thompson and Smith, 2009, p. 916) and recast a materialist

analysis of the labour process, an analysis that re-engages the physical,

embodied, environmental conditions and relations that constitute the

capital/labour relation inside as well as outside the factory gates, where labour

power is made and reproduced.

This contribution continues an ongoing research agenda, which previously

engaged with the LPT “connectivity problem” by flagging a “nature deficit”

in LPT (Baglioni and Campling, 2017) and emphasised the dialectical

relationship between production and other key moments in the circuit of

capital: circulation, social reproduction and ecology (Baglioni et al., 2022)2.

According to this work, «[D]espite theorising the capitalist labour process as

historically specific social relations of production through nature, nature has

not been under the spotlight of labour process theory [thus] the dialectical

relationship between people and nature, which constantly revolutionises the

labour process has been constantly overlooked» (Baglioni and Campling,

2017, p. 2446). At the same time, this scholarship suggested that labour

process analysis needs to more fully uncover the hidden threads that link

production to the world(s) outside the workplace. Ultimately, the latter

«always exists in continuity with power relations (e.g., gender and race),

processes and institutions “external” to firms» (Baglioni and Campling, 2017,

p. 2441). Prominent amongst these are the relations of social reproduction: a

set of relations, spaces, and institutions outside the factory gates that «directly

shape and perpetuate surplus labour extraction» (Baglioni et al., 2022, p. 92).

In continuity with this work, this article restates the relevance of the socio-

ecological indeterminacy of the labour process (Baglioni and Campling,



2 In LPT the connectivity problem refers to the «disjuncture between the dynamics of the

labour process at the point of production with the broader political economy shaping the

nature of contemporary production» (Taylor et al., 2015, p. 5). Key work highlighting this

problem include Thompson and Smith (2009, 2010)

11

2017) and the different facets of its materiality (Baglioni et al., 2022), the

intertwining of exploitation and disciplining (Baglioni 2018, 2022), while also

introducing the notion of reproductive subsumption.

Leaving aside the broader focus on global production networks and labour

regimes characterising this earlier work, this article zooms in on the level of

the labour process and investigates its relations with the spheres of ecology

and social reproduction. It does so mainly by abstraction: it explores these

spheres theoretically, by mentally breaking them «into manageable parts» and

identifying a set of relations and realities underpinning the functioning of

capitalism and «making what is in practice inseparable appear separate and

the historically specific features of things disappear behind the more general

forms» (Ollman, 2003, p. 60-62). Thus, it engages with the labour process at

a general level as concrete labour processes need to be considered through the

«mediating effects of political, industrial relations and other structures»

(Thompson, 2010, p. 10), which global production network and labour regime

analyses can help to tease out.

Green and Feminist Marxism are invaluable to understand the structural

links between capitalism, climate and environmental change and the many

socio-economic crises accumulating in this historical moment. Jason Moore

(2015) defines capitalism as an “ecological regime”, which does not have an

impact on nature but works through nature. That nature belongs to the

ontology of capitalism remains a fundamental baseline shared by this

scholarship, despite the ongoing internal debates on how to make sense of the

complex relationship between society “and/as” nature.3 If one accepts that

capitalism is an ecological regime, the next step is to recognise its central

engine, the capitalist labour process, as an ecological process that mediates

the metabolism between humans and nature in a specifically capitalist way,

i.e. through the value relation. Following the tradition of Burkett and Foster,

Saito recognises the «complex, intense relationship between capital and

nature as a central contradiction of capitalism» (Saito, 2017, p. 19). This

approach views capitalist production, a hidden abode that alienates humanity

from nature, as the root of environmental and climate change.

Parallel to the downgrading of nature and its construction as a resource

available for appropriation, there is the downgrading, appropriation, and

“naturalisation/feminisation” of reproductive work (Merchant, 1980). The

historical separation between the spheres of production and reproduction has



3 Despite, at times, heightened debate on within this area on internal positions and differences,

I focus on the, somewhat structural, commonalities of this scholarship. I find that they seem

to share much more than what the internal debates might otherwise indicate.

12

been manifested in the disentanglement between the workplace and the home,

the public and the private, the social and natural. By separating, privatising,

and naturalising social reproductive work, capitalism seeded a global working

class which grew fragmented and differentiated right from the outset

(Fortunati, 1981, Mies, 1986, Federici, 2004). Thus, while eco-Marxists have

exposed the fundamental ‘metabolic rift’ between humans and nature inherent

in capitalist relations of production (Foster, 2000), Marxist feminists have

highlighted the parallel “labour rift” marking the existence of the global

working class from its inception and the bundling of nature, colony and

women as natural resources (Mies, 1986, Salleh, 2017 [1997]). By showing

how workers are cheapened, tamed, and moulded to the requirements of

specific labour processes, in their homes, schools, neighbourhoods, villages,

religious spaces etc., this scholarship hits at the heart of LPT, ultimately

«concerned with the transformation of labour power» (Thompson and Smith,

2009, p. 919, italics mine). One of the aims of this broad analysis is to

understand that environmental, climate struggles, and key non-workplace

struggles – struggles for housing, for care work, for better schools, etc. – are

fundamental forms of class struggle as they express the request of the working

class to live a better life (Bhattacharya, 2015, 2017).

Below I will start by considering how the labour process, as a form of

metabolism, is inherently an ecological process. In section three, I will

highlight some of the key ways in which the labour process changes under

capitalism as value relations mediate the metabolism between humans and

their external environment and separate productive and reproductive activities.

I will then move on to analyse the relations between production and

reproduction to highlight how the latter remains structurally linked to the

former. Finally, I will suggest some ways in which these abstract observations

might inform LPT’s analyses.

1. How is the labour process an ecological process?

Green thinkers generally start from the most general definition of the

labour process, which is also where Marx starts from in the first volume of

Capital:

Labour is, first of all, a process between man and nature, a process by which

man, through his own actions, mediates, regulates and controls the metabolism

between himself and nature. He confronts the material of nature as a force of

nature. He sets in motion the natural forces which belongs to his own body, his

13

arms, legs, head and hands, in order to appropriate the material of nature in a form

adapted to his own needs. Through this movement he acts upon external nature

and changes it, and in this way he simultaneously changes his own nature. (1990

[1869], p. 283)

The labour process, as we have just presented it in its simple and abstract

elements, is purposeful activity aimed at the production of use-values. It is an

appropriation of what exists in nature for the requirement of man. It is the

universal condition of the metabolic interaction between man and nature, the

everlasting nature-imposed condition of human existence, and it is therefore

independent of every form of that existence, or rather it is common to all forms

of society in which human beings live (1990, p. 290)

Right from the outset, Marx situates production within the polarity of use

and exchange values anchored to the material world. Nature provides the

“material substratum” and humans engage in changing the “form of

materials” in a work of modification helped again by natural forces: «labour

is the father of material wealth, the earth is its mother» (Marx, 1990, p. 134).

In the opening lines of the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx similarly

states: «Labour is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the

source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!)

as labour, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human

labour power!» (2008, p. 18, Italics in original)

These few fragments establish some important principles. First, nature is

at the heart of the labour process, which expresses the relation between

humans and extra-human nature, i.e. the labour process is inherently an

ecological process. At the most essential level, labour «is the praxis by

which the physical organisations of humans remain intact» (Malm, 2018, p.

159) by satisfying some key primary needs, e.g. food, warmth, shelter, rest.

This basic fact is unchanging no matter how sophisticated the labour process

becomes, «whether intelligence it applies to the building of drones or the

implantations of chips, it can only work out laws and draw our latent

processes from nature» (Malm, 2018, p. 159). Nature always straddles

several “positions” in the labour process: as matter to be transformed (e.g.

soil, seeds, fibres, oil), as conditions (e.g. sunlight, oxygen, temperature,

geophysical characteristics), and as labour (the human body).4 From this



4 Although often used interchangeably, the labour process is included but cannot be reduced

to the process of production, the two are not the same (Burkett, 2014); this serves to emphasise

that while all production has a material basis, not all labour is for production, i.e. the labour

process has a much broader realm than producing things as feminists have pointed out.

14

perspective, the labour process appears as a constant flow and

metamorphosis involving the transformation of matter and energy from the

“external environment” into things and bodies and back to the external

environment.

Second, the labour process is the immanent need of humankind; it is an

eternal necessity imposed by nature and it is therefore transhistorical. This

immanency is not lost in capitalism, where the labour process, refashioned

in all sorts of ways, remains a material process between humans and nature,

and hence a process which ultimately relies on transforming matter found in

nature either directly (i.e. whether in the so-called, natural resource

industries) or less directly in all other industries, which rely more

substantially – but never exclusively - on nature already transformed.

Capitalism is therefore framed as an ecological regime, and not simply an

economic or a social system, but «a way of organising nature» (Moore,

2015, p. 2).

Third, the labour process is quintessentially an ecological process

because it is a metabolic relationship between people and nature. They

shape each other, not as external to each other, but as different parts of a

whole. Here metabolism refers to «notions of material exchange and

regulatory action’ through labour expressing «the human relation to nature

as one that encompassed both “nature-imposed conditions” and the capacity

of human beings to affect this process» (Foster, 2000, p. 158). Thus,

studying the labour process means studying the “inner connections” – the

“inneraction” (Ollman, 2003) – between humans and the material reality

surrounding them, whether this is soil nutrients or the air we breathe. So,

«rather than postulating a sharp ontological break between human beings

and nature (…) Marx thus attempted to describe the material

interconnections and dialectical interchanges associated with the fact that

human species-being, similar to species-being in general, finds its objective,

natural basis outside of itself, in the conditioned, objective nature of its

existence» (Foster and Burkett, 2000, p. 411). In short, humans do not exist

outside nature, nor is nature unaltered by humanity (Foster, 2013) as the

current climate and biodiversity crises unequivocally show. The labour

process therefore operates within the broader universal metabolism of

nature – as exchange of matter – that belongs to nature irrespective of, and

prior to human existence (Foster, 2000, Saito, 2017). Within this sits the

metabolism of society as «the complex, dynamic, interdependent set of needs

and relations brought into being and constantly reproduced in alienated form

under capitalism» (Foster, 2000, p. 158). The labour process is, from the

15

outset, a relation tying the ‘human’ and the ‘natural’ within a process where

the boundary between the social and the natural is overcome.

Fourth, as a segue from the latter point, the labour process is inherently

a process that attempts to regulate and control nature whereby humans

«appropriate the material of nature in a form adapted to his [human] own

needs» (Marx, 1990, p. 283). Nature imposes the need for the labour process,

and humans respond to this eternal necessity by attempting to make nature

work to satisfy these needs. The necessity to control and regulate physical

and biological processes develops humans as simultaneous agents as well

as subjects of nature. Humans move from the bonds of this eternal necessity

by harnessing nature:

A machine which is not active in the labour process is useless. In addition, it

falls prey to the destructive power of natural processes. Iron rusts; wood rots.

Yarn with which we neither weave nor knit is cotton wasted. Living labour must

seize on these things, awaken them from the dead, change them from merely

possible into real and effective use-values. (Marx, 1990, p. 289)

In this fragment, two metabolisms meet, the relentless metabolism of

nature, «which proceeds independently of human intervention» through

processes of chemical dissolution and physical transformation» (Saito,

2017, p. 77), and the social metabolism of the labour process, which seizes

matter and gives it a different form. Alongside an image of nature undoing

what humans do, sits an image of nature as inert, or merely a possibility

awaiting the labour process to become reality: «He develops the

potentialities slumbering within nature, and subjects the play of its forces to

his own sovereign power» (Marx, 1990, p. 283).

Marxist feminists have observed the anthropocentric, androcentric, and

Cartesian tones transpiring from these framings, where the active element –

labour – is the father and the passive element – nature – is the mother

(Salleh, 1997), and where the “mastery” and “backgrounding” of nature

(Plumwood, 2003) take centre stage. From the perspective of control, the

regulation of nature peaks with humans, who seem to operate essentially a

different form of labour than other animals and species.

We are not now dealing here with those first instinctive forms of labour which

remain on the animal level. An immense interval of time separates the state of

things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity,

from the situation when human labour had not yet cast off its first instinctive

form. We presuppose labour in a form in which it is exclusively human

characteristics. A spider conducts operations that resemble those of the weaver,

16

and a bee would put many a human architect to shame by the construction its

honeycomb cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees

is that the architect builds the cells in his mind before he constructs it in wax

(Marx, 1990, pp. 283-284).

What counts here as an exclusively human characteristic is the human

ability to imagine the result of the labour process and realise it according to

this will and capacity to envision the product. While this ability is not

exclusively human and pertains also to much of the animal sphere (Salleh,

1997), or as Moore puts it, «humans build empires on their own as much as

beavers builds dams on their own» (2015, p. 7), it is also evident that «some

engineers are more powerful than others» (Moore, 2015, p. 11). Simply, no

other animal has historically arranged their metabolism with nature as

humans have, nor has any other animal ever created capital (Malm, 2018):

no other part of nature has subsumed labour within the orbit of value.

Fifth, and drawing from all of the above, it could be argued that by virtue

of its mediating role, the labour process holds both these moments - the

anthropocentrism and the eco-centrism - it holds them in a dynamic

relationship marked by historical development and intrinsic contingency.5

The contingency inherent to nature does not stop when the world is

inhabited by humans. As Saito posits, «All living creatures must go through

constant interaction with their environment if they are to live upon this

planet. The totality of these incessant processes creates not a static but an

open-ended dynamic process of nature» (2017, p. 63). This open-endedness

highlights the historicity and contingency of capitalism as a world system,

(hence the possibility for an alternative). Equally, the labour process,

capitalism, or humanity can never transcend nature. Although humans

attempt to control and appropriate nature through labour, the result is never

a given, the control can never be total. The labour process is therefore an

ecological process in a further sense: it is inherently a contradictory process,

an open-ended process riddled with tensions, an imposition of control

without its full realisation. This contradiction is heightened in capitalism

because of the particular form the control of nature (human and extra-

human) assumes under this historically specific, value-mediated,

“ecological regime”.



5 Carolyn Merchant (1980) details how prior to the development of capitalism, those

“civilisations” who had most developed commercial relations and networks, like the Romans,

had the greatest environmental impact.

17

2. How does the labour process change in capitalism?

Giving its transhistorical nature, in capitalism the labour process is still

an ecological process:

But just as the labour process originally took place only between man and

the earth (which was available independently of any human action), so even now

we still employ in the process many means of production which are provided

directly by nature and do not represent any combination of natural substances

with human labour (Marx, 1990, p. 290)

The labour process always relies on some produced and some non-

produced, “external” nature. The separation between humans and natural

conditions «does not involve any material uncoupling of human production

from nature. Rather it signifies an autonomization of wealth production from

nature in the sense that the combined roles of nature and labour in

production – are not simply given from nature but are shaped by social

relations of production» (Burkett, 2014, p. 30, italics in original).

The crucial change in capitalism is the objective, the end goal of the

labour process. In capitalism the labour process ceases to be solely about

survival, the satisfaction and materialisation of humans needs, will and

creativity, or the social reproduction of a given household, community, or

society. Rather, the end goal is the unlimited expansion of value:

Use-values are produced by capitalists only because and in so far as they

form the material substratum of exchange value, are the bearers of exchange

value. Our Capitalist has two objectives: in the first place, he wants to produce

a use-value which has exchange-value, i.e. an article designed to be sold, a

commodity; and secondly he wants to produce a commodity greater in value

than the sum of the values of the commodities used to produce it, namely the

means of production and the labour power he purchased with his good money

on the open market. His aim is to produce not only a use-value, but a comm odity;

not only use-value, but value; and not just value, but also surplus-value (Marx,

1990, p. 293)

In the capitalist labour process, the metabolic relationship between humans and

nature is therefore no longer merely aimed at the production of use-values and the

reproduction of life, but becomes a valorisation process, i.e. a labour process, which

yields surplus labour - and therefore surplus value - by exploiting workers. Surplus

labour, and surplus value, still spring from a production process between humans

and nature, yet this surplus is now «involving an historically specific “coercive

18

relation” between capital and labour that “compels the working-class to do more

work than the narrow round of its own life-wants prescribes” (Burkett, 2014, p. 37).

Historically, for the value relation to alter the human/nature relation

inherent in the labour process several developments had to lead the way.

Two were particularly “conducive”: a) the widespread dispossession of

workers from their necessary means and conditions of re/production, so as

to “free” them from their direct dependence on the “land” and other “natural

resources”, 6

and b) the generalised development of exchange relations,

which compelled workers to labour for the market (by selling labour power

or commodities) rather than for subsistence. The combination of these two

meant that an increasing number of human needs – food, clothing, shelter,

recreation – had to be satisfied via the market. This was manifested – and is

manifest today - as an external and disciplining compulsion to produce for

exchange, so that more and more things acquire an exchange-value

alongside their use-value, more things are commodified, more matter from

nature is extracted through labour, deeper and faster. The “reification” of

the exchange mechanism structurally transforms the labour process, which

becomes regulated by value and the attendant domination of abstract labour

over concrete labour (Saito, 2017) and of exchange value over use value

(Burkett, 2014) and metabolic value (Salleh, 2010). Thus, by divorcing

humans from the land, the establishment of value relations severs the

human/nature relationship only to resew it again through the market by

establishing human alienation from the more direct natural environment.7

The historical unfolding of these processes from the long sixteenth

century was a gradual yet immensely violent process of primitive

accumulation involving massive expropriations of land and natural

resources, enslavement and racialisation, genocide, extinction, and

gendering. Severed from the land, enslaved and racialised, gendered,

adversely incorporated, or ultimately excluded from ever growing labour

and commodity markets, the emerging working-class labouring bodies

experienced all sorts of alienations, e.g. from the land and conditions of

social reproduction, the product of the labour process, creativity, and even



6Land is used here as “intermediary concept” «situated between labour and nature, between

activity and object – designating the spatial and territorial specificity of this mediation»

(Nichols, 2015, p. 26)

7 Here, «separation does not imply a disconnection of matter and energy flows, but rather

entails a metabolic change or alteration in the inter-dependence, between producers and the

ecological community to which they belong» (Navarro Trujillo, 2020, p. 28).

19

from humanity (James, 2001, 1938). In a well-known appendix of Capital

this process is differently seen through the analytical lenses of the formal

and real subsumption of labour. The labour process is first pulled within

capital’s orbit and squeezed accordingly (value is extracted by intensifying

labour, extending the working day, etc.), though the material limits of this

form of subsumption prompt all sorts of technological innovations - physical

and organisational - so that the labour process is constantly revolutionised.

More and more labour (now separated from the land and the necessary

conditions for reproduction), is substituted by machines and the relations

between labour and labour-transformed nature (tools, raw materials) is

overturned as workers becomes appendages to the machine (Braverman,

1998[1974]).8 Under this form of subsumption, the privileged realm of LPT,

not only labour but also nature «is likewise treated as a condition of

monetary accumulation, both socially and materially. In this sense, the

subsumption of labour under capital implies a parallel subsumption of

nature under capital» (Burkett, 2014, p. 67).

In the capitalist labour process, the drive to extract value fuels the human

immanent contradictory relations between the necessity and the

impossibility to fully control nature, so that capital articulates an entire

ecosystem pivoting on the organisation and heightened control of nature. 9

However, the increased relation of control meets with greater obstacles to

its realisation, the latent anthropocentrism of the labour process becomes a

full-blown Anthropocene, or Capitalocene (Moore, 2016). In a drive to self-

valorise, and through the extraordinary elasticity of nature (Saito, 2017),

capital constantly captures more and new natural resources - from guano to

deep-sea oil to lithium - the rush takes a planetary scale. Land is

impoverished, oceans are pillaged, forests are cut down, fossil fuels and rare

material are mined till exhausted, new commodity frontiers are constantly

sought, developed and consumed (Moore, 2010). Rather than separated and

transcended, both nature and labour are recombined in manifold ways in

labour processes orchestrated by capital. Here, alienated labour re-



8 The formal and real subsumption stand in a dialectical rather than in a linear relation to one

another, so that forms of formal subsumption continuously crop up in history besides, and in

relation to, forms of real subsumption.

9 This is theorised by Burkett by detailing the contradictions that value generates through its

multiple metamorphoses and manifestations into its sub-forms (e.g. use and exchange-value,

value and rent, concrete and abstract labour to name a few), as well as the tension between

the quantitative and qualitative manifestation of value as socially necessary labour time,

which implies the under-valuation of nature.

20

encounters nature extracted, parcelled out, transformed, and removed from

its original ecosystems, and transported across supply chains reaching every

corner of the planet and thus seemingly breaking with all physical barriers

imposed by nature’s spontaneous metabolic processes. Bluntly, as argued

by this scholarship, by destroying nature, capital creates the condition for its

own material demise.

This new form of “capitalist metabolism” however entails another

crucial mediation by capital, that between production and reproduction. The

shift from formal to real subsumption required not only the generalised

transfer of labour to production for the market but also that other labour

would be devoted to labour processes of social reproduction, now disjoined,

and subordinated to production (Federici, 2004). As labour was

dispossessed from the land, some of that labour came to be the resource

bridging the emerging reproduction gap. Thus, widespread segments of the

global working class, were subsumed by capital in a radically different way,

often divorced from the land and the wage, yet glued to nature (Merchant,

1980, Fortunati, 1981, Mies, 1986). Somewhere and sometime along the

shift between the formal and the real subsumption, a large portion of labour

encountered another form of subsumption - the subsumption of reproductive

labour, or reproductive subsumption. This involved the subordination,

‘naturalisation’, and attendant devaluation of all those labour processes

dedicated to the regeneration of labour power and more broadly of life. In

abstract terms, this fictitious separation entailed that the use value of labour

power was forcibly split into two: one available to be consumed by capital

in production at a price, the other consumed by labour in reproduction,

complimentarily. This split was contradictory as use value consumed in

reproduction was «simultaneously indispensable and an obstacle to

accumulation» (Vogel, 2013[1983], p. 163). It was indispensable to

replenish the material needs of labouring bodies (rest, nourishment, etc.)

and the total social generational replacement of the labour force,10 yet it

implied less labour available for capital to consume in production. In

concrete terms, and unlike ever before, this difference took predominantly

a class form, a class relation within the working class. Thus, reproductive



10 Again, this is at the total social level. At the concrete level, the specific processes of worker

replacement can be various (e.g., historically accomplished through enslavement, colonial

labour regimes, indentured labour, and various migration regimes) and always include class

struggle and inter-state systems.

21

subsumption took overwhelmingly, though not exclusively,11 a gender form

as women came to disproportionally undertake reproductive labour whether

paid or unpaid (Davis, 1983, Mies, 1986).

3. How is social reproduction linked to the labour process?

Unlike most labour processes that take place in factories, offices, fields,

trucks etc, part of the complexity of studying the realm of social

reproduction lies in its lack of visible boundaries, its porosity across several

spheres and scales. While excellent work has been done using social

reproduction as a lens to sharpen LPT,12 there is ample space for further

cross-fertilisation.

At a systemic level, social reproduction indicates the reproduction of the

capitalist system, thus the reproduction of capitalist relations of

reproduction. This is the level of the totality of social relations in capitalism,

how the system continuously renews itself. At a narrower level, social

reproduction refers to the reproduction instead of the labourer and the

working class, itself involving a plethora of spaces and workplaces,

commodified and non-commodified. The individual reproduction of the

worker is most commonly associated with the sphere of the household,

where workers are reproduced daily through food, shelter, physical and

mental care, their labour power recharged for the following day of work.

The household takes care of the individual reproduction of workers, daily

and generationally/biologically through childbirth and childcare. Elsewhere,

other than households, the daily social reproduction of workers also takes



11 Reproductive subsumption involves that part of labour (often but not always or necessarily

coinciding with a distinct section of the labour force) which is subsumed as reproductive

labour, itself subordinated to productive labour. While the forms and genders of this can

change in specific times and places, in capitalism reproductive subsumption becomes

crucially a central driver of gender-making. Reproductive subsumption is also mediated by

other forms of the production of difference, above all by processes of racialisation. E.g., in

plantation economies, women were first and foremost direct workers for capital and

reproductive labour was hardly a ‘women job’ work (Davis, 1983, Reddock, 1985, Bush,

1990).

12 A non-exclusive list of more recent interventions includes McGrath and DeFilippis, 2009,

Ba’, 2019, Hammer and Fishwick, 2020, Kesküla and Loogma, 2017, Jana and Hammer,

2022, Dedeoglu, 2022, Portes Virginio et al., 2022. Although not explicitly engaging in social

reproduction analysis, feminist analyses have challenged some of the boundaries of LPT for

decades. See important reviews of this in Wolkowitz and Warhurst, 2010; Durbin and Conley,

2010 and the critical intervention in the field by Wolkowitz et al., 2013.

22

place in labour camps and dormitories and manifold recreational, religious

and non-workspaces.

Eco-feminists add a crucial dimension to the sphere of social

reproduction, notably the reproduction of eco-systems (Mies and Shiva,

1993). According to Plumwood: «if “reproduction” provides the conditions

for “production” to take place, then it must be thought of as including not

only the reproduction of the labour force and of society, but also the

conditions of the natural world which make life, society and production

possible» (1993, p. 199). Salleh underlines “meta-industrial labour” -

parenting, subsistence work, and environmental stewardship – as a

«metabolic bridging of human and natural cycles» (2003, p. 71), a work of

repair, inherent sustainability ensuring a “metabolic fit” (2010) as the

existing antidote to counteract climate and environmental change. Drawing

from Mellor, Barca builds on the notion of “forces of reproduction” as the

«(trans)feminists, indigenous, peasant, commoning, environmental justice

and other life-making struggles» to reject the hetero-patriarchal capitalist

system (2020, p. 7). All these complex sets of spheres and circuits are

fundamental to reproduce the working class and the broader conditions of

life on this planet. Although the value mediation between production and

reproduction established above has historically resulted in spatially

separated spheres and differently valued bodies, the structural link between

production and reproduction can be re-sealed theoretically.

First, and just as in other modes of production, production and

reproduction form a unitary social process in capitalism (O’Laughlin, 1977).

Marx argues:

When viewed, therefore, as a connected whole, and in the constant flux of its

incessant renewal, every social process of production is at the same time a process

of reproduction. The conditions of production are at the same time the conditions

of reproduction […] If production has a capitalist form so too will reproduction.

(1990, p. 711)

Every act of production is an act of reproduction: by producing

commodities, workers reproduce capital; by producing commodities,

workers reproduce themselves through the wage form; consequently, the

reproduction of the worker is also and fundamentally the reproduction of

capital:

The individual consumption of the worker, whether it occurs inside or

outside the workshop, inside or outside the labour process, remains an aspect of

the production and reproduction of capital […] The maintenance and

23

reproduction of the working class remains a necessary condition for the

reproduction of capital. But the capitalist may safely leave this to the worker’s

drives for self-preservation and propagation. (1990, p. 718)

In reality, the individual consumption of the worker is unproductive even

from his own point of view, for it simply reproduces the needy individual; it is

productive to the capitalist and the state, since it is the production of a force

which produces wealth for other people. (1990, p. 719)

Second, the cost of social reproduction is key in determining the value

of labour power:

The value of labour-power is determined, as in the case of every other

commodity, by the labour-time necessary for the production, and consequently

also the reproduction, of this specific article. […] the production of labour-

power consists in his reproduction of himself or his maintenance. For his

maintenance he requires a certain quantity of the means of subsistence. […] in

other words, the value of labour-power is the value of the means of subsistence

necessary for the maintenance of its owner. (1990, p. 274)

The value of labour power is determined by the cost of the means of

subsistence, the labourer’s necessary requirements and the way they are

satisfied. These are always historically, culturally and spatially determined.

Crucially, as argued by Vogel «the circumstances under which reproduction

of labour power takes place, which include the determination of its price,

are always an outcome of class struggle» (2013, p. 158). The role of the state

is critical here. Access to welfare and state provision for health, schooling,

pension, youth and leisure services are only a few of the class struggles that

emerge at this level. At the same time, the cost of the means of subsistence

is simultaneously determined by competition within capital for the provision

of food, housing, electricity, water and other fundamental requirements.

“Subsistence” incarnates another well-known intrinsic contradiction for

capital: workers are simultaneously a cost of production and a market for

their commodities. This further complicates the landscape of class struggle,

which does not play only between capital and labour, but also among

different classes of capitals, for example those involved in hospitality and

those invested in the supply of staple products.

The value of labour power is therefore determined by a complex, often

contradictory relation between the workplace and broader society. This

complex relation includes different struggles and competition over the

state’s absorption of some of this cost (school system, early childcare, the

health system, welfare), capital’s competition in making the most of

24

workers’ non-work time, and the free reproductive work carried out by

workers. Whatever its form (Banaji, 2010), the wage neither covers the

labour expended in producing commodities (it therefore produces surplus

labour), nor the entirety of reproductive labour required to reproduce labour

power. As countless feminists accounts have highlighted, reproductive

labour always includes some free labour: the list of what constitutes material

and emotional reproductive labour is vast, changes over time and space and

within the working class. While this work has been historically undertaken

disproportionally by women, the modalities, extent, and consequences of

this work vary immensely within the working class. Far from accidental,

these variations are relationally linked. From the greater reproductive

burden borne by women in colonised countries in the past and today

(O’Laughlin, 2013; Naidu and Ossome, 2016), to the feminisation of

industrial labour allowing the spread of supply chains globally (Elson and

Pearson, 1981) and the parallel development of migratory global care chains

(Hochschield, 2015), reproductive subsumption has produced everywhere

different intertwined women, as well as cheaper and more vulnerable

workers than their male counterparts.

Third, large parts of social reproduction are disguised as the private,

natural sphere of the worker. Many of the spheres where workers are

renewed appear and are constructed socially (with a wide range of variety

across cultures) as private spaces. This fetishization has some important

consequences for the capitalist labour process. A key one, as already

indicated, is to cheapen the cost of social reproduction, in itself an important

determinant of the value of labour power. However, this cheapening of

labour power affects female bodies in exceptional ways. The fetishization

of social reproduction as a seemingly non-capitalist, private and natural

sphere has served since early days to cheapen the cost of female labour.

Mies’s concept of ‘housewification’ (1982, 1986) illuminates how the

labour process captures and repackages workers for capital outside the

workplace and through household relations. As Smith recalls, «although the

capitalist purchases a common asset “labour power”, this always comes in

particular or embodied forms, and there is a valuation placed on certain

bodies, by the employer or customer or worker» (2015, p. 11, italics in

original). Without a social reproduction lens to investigate these diverse

evaluation processes and chart how some bodies are trained by society to

care, self-discipline, appease, and endure repetitive monotonous work, it is

extremely difficult to understand why and how women make capital’s

“perfect workers” (Mies, 1986).

25

Fourth, the separation of the productive from the reproductive spheres,

offers another key advantage to capital: it displaces class struggle. By

spatially and socially separating these two spheres key workers’ class

struggles are deflected from capital towards the state and amongst different

sections of the working class. When struggles for housing, child and elderly

care, or even clean air and water, appear as non-workers’ struggles, capital

is off the hook. Most strikingly, reproductive work becomes a permanent

struggle between workers – often internalised in households – or even within

workers themselves, as a permanent struggle to split the use value of labour

power between production or reproduction, since to use one workers forgo

the other.

When not cramped into dormitories, capital loses direct control of what

workers do beyond the factory gates. Nevertheless, indirect control is

maintained in many ways, through the construction of needs and ideologies,

the relentless colonisation of non-workspaces, and in general capital’s

constant encroachment in workers’ lives. Non-workspaces, where class is

formed and fought, remain a crucial terrain shaping the «dynamics of

control, consent and resistance at the point of production» (Thompson and

Smith, 2009, p. 915) or the “social indeterminacy of the labour process”

(Smith, 2006). Their importance becomes most manifest when capital

tightens the control and management of social reproduction by cutting the

distance (physical and mental) between work and social reproductive

spaces. The latter becomes directly organised by capital across a spectrum

of dormitory regimes (Ngai and Smith, 2007) that span factories, mines,

plantations and boats.

More broadly, social reproduction analysis highlights how the process of

exploitation, cannot be fully captured by looking exclusively at the

workplace. Indeed, exploitation pivots around the production of difference

that articulates between workplaces and broader society and always implies

the separation between production and reproduction as well as workers’

separation from the natural conditions of re/production. A social

reproduction lens captures more vividly this broader landscape by shifting

the spotlight to the co-constitutive relations between the workplace and non-

workspaces. Ultimately, for eco/feminists reproductive work preserves the

integrity of life and ecosystems. Its potential to build life beyond capital is

not automatic and needs to be harnessed by class struggle. Indeed, Latin

American feminists reconnect bodies and land, ontologically and materially,

through the notion of “body-territory”, simultaneously analysis, philosophy,

and form of struggle (Serafini, 2023). By struggling against «patriarchal

mandates, extractivism and neoliberal policies», these feminists reiterate the

26

co-constitutive relationship between the individual, the collective and the

territory (Serafini, 2023, p. 582).

4. Some preliminary implications for LPT analysis by way of

conclusion

How to move from this abstract analysis to the concrete level? And how

can all these observations expand the boundaries of LPT? The individual

and collaborative work that I have done previously suggested how to

translate these broader considerations into a broader analysis of the capitalist

labour process (Baglioni and Campling, 2017; Baglioni, 2018, 2022;

Baglioni et al., 2022). This work set out some preliminary questions for

consideration: how does exploitation work in specific places? How do

workers reproduce themselves? Why and how are some workers valued

differently than others? How does capital appropriate nature and transform

it into commodities? What sets of ecological obstacles and opportunities

does capital encounter in production? What are the implications for workers

and for nature?

To investigate the labour process as an ecological process, this work has

argued the need to focus on at least two levels: the materiality of the labour

process (Baglioni et al., 2022) and its inherent socio-ecological

indeterminacy (Baglioni and Campling, 2017). A focus on the material

aspects of the labour process involves attention to the conception of the

labour process as a combination of forces and materials of nature (labour,

raw materials, and instruments/conditions of production). From this

perspective, a material lens simultaneously illuminates some key issues at

the heart of social reproduction analysis, notably the materiality of the

human body at work. The human body represents one of the greatest

contradictions for capital as it symbolises how nature constitutes

simultaneously an obstacle and opportunity for value production. As

mentioned above, whilst human bodies are inherently endowed with “labour

power” that capital can harness and capture in the form of surplus value, the

same labour power requires regular freedom from work (feeding, sleeping,

free time), in short it requires reproduction. At the same time, labour power

comes in a plethora of bodies marked by physical differences (skin colour,

sexual and physical traits), which capital promptly transforms into vehicles

of differentiation, fragmentation, and exploitation. The question LPT should

additionally ask: who does what in production? How are bodies differently

consumed in production? How are they instead reproduced (replenished and

27

eventually replaced)? How and why are some bodies valued differently than

others, or excluded from the labour process?

To answer some of these questions it is also crucial to think

simultaneously of the materiality of the commodity being produced. This

involves investigating how the physical properties of commodities (whether

logs, tomatoes, circuit boards or jeans) shape the production relations and

processes and forms of exploitation. While in natural resource industries the

material aspects of commodities appear more distinctly (e.g., the challenges

of perishability, the life-cycle of plants and animals, seasonality, weather,

or the difficult process of extraction), nature already transformed never loses

its materiality. This still shapes production in multiple ways, whether

production includes sewing cotton to make clothes (Dicken, 2015) or fitting

lithium batteries in electric vehicles, or the use of different raw materials,

instruments and means of production. So, how do these material aspects

shape the labour process? How is technology deployed to transform nature

and speed up commodification? How are some of the inherent obstacles

posed by the commodification of nature passed over to workers?

The materiality of the commodity is inextricably linked to the materiality

of the workplace, often the two are difficult to distinguish whether we

consider some platform work like instant delivery, or a more traditional

industry like forestry. The physical environment of the workplace plays a

role in shaping exploitation. As the shape, size, location, and ‘environmental

conditions’ of workplaces vary tremendously in time and space, these need

concrete investigation. While generally in warehouses, factories and boats

workers can be controlled more closely and directly, management typically

struggles to maintain the same level of control in mines, fields, forests,

trucks, or in the home. Already engaged in investigating dynamics of

workers control and resistance in different workplaces, LPT can swiftly

develop a greater awareness of workplace materiality, its role in shaping

worker bodies and reproduction strategies as well as capital technologies

and strategies to optimise exploitation, workers supply and replacement.

Overall, a focus on these multiple material aspects of the labour process

can highlight its inherent socio-ecological indeterminacy (Baglioni and

Campling, 2017). Besides the social indeterminacy of the labour process

(Smith, 2006) central to LPT, an ecological lens also illustrates how capital

cannot fully control workers or nature, the former being an expression of the

latter. The impossibility to fully control nature makes the labour process as

ecologically indeterminate. As mentioned above, the value relation mediates

how humans reproduce themselves but also, and fundamentally, their

relationship with nature as well as nature’s own metabolisms, which results

28

in a process of environmental degradation. In the capitalist labour process,

capital and labour encounter one another in a hierarchical and antagonistic

relationship based upon appropriating and transforming nature. Capitalism

reifies the regulation and control of nature without ever fully achieving it.

Thus, capital’s limited control of nature has repercussions on the labour

process and on workers. Despite the continuous development of technology

by capital to ‘optimise’ every process and moment of production (from

genetically modified seeds and lab-produced food to more efficient and

faster ways to extract and transport raw materials) risks are never entirely

overcome, crops are never guaranteed, mine shafts can collapse (and

factories too), boats can capture few or little fish, or even sink, and oil can

spill. This level of socio-ecological indeterminacy shapes the labour process

through the continuous appropriation of nature and technological

advancement, or what Moore calls “commodity frontiers”. Again, the

questions that emerge from this include: how does capital seek to control

nature? What obstacles does it encounter in this process? What are the

technological implications of this? What are the repercussions for workers

and natural environments? For example, are workers displaced, un-skilled

or up-skilled? What types of instabilities and tensions are generated when

capital attempts a greater control of nature?

While a green LPT conceives the labour process as a value-mediated

metabolism, a social reproduction lens highlights how productive spaces are

structurally related to reproductive ones. Reproduction includes not only the

reproduction of workers (both as individuals and as a class) but also, more

broadly, natural ecosystems. To solve this central ‘connectivity problem’ it

is necessary to develop more and new intermediate categories. As an attempt

to move in this direction, I have suggested elsewhere that labour control

involves the interplay between exploitation and disciplining (Baglioni,

2018; 2022). This interpretation suggests an expansive understanding of

exploitation, where workers are constituted between productive and

reproductive spheres through multiple forms of disciplining. The latter

indicates the shifting ways by which workers become directly or indirectly

dependent on producing value for capital. Some questions here include: how

and where do workers reproduce themselves? How are reproductive spaces

structured and what hierarchies dominate? Who does what in these? For

example, what is the distribution of paid and unpaid work in households?

How are these types of work related and how do they intersect with gender

and race? This wider landscape makes it possible to see how workers are

segmented and fragmented across the circuit of capital, including its

productive and reproductive nodes. Ultimately, concrete forms of

29

exploitation and disciplining are always the result of historical processes of

labour subsumption marked by class struggle, including the history,

trajectories and struggles around reproductive subsumption in different

places. While some magistral work has explored these processes in Europe

(Merchant, 1980; Federici, 2004), the annals of this eco/feminist history are

only incipient and need to be enriched with diverse accounts from

elsewhere.

Overall, this article makes the case for LPT to reconnect to the ecological

and reproductive foundations underpinning the capitalist labour process.

These shape and constitute work and workers in the workplace and outside

of it, including the work of nature itself. Drawing from the work undertaken

with colleagues in the past, the analytical prompts and questions suggested

here hopefully offer some useful steps towards developing a materialist

analysis «that can be inserted between the generic, structural features of the

capitalist labour process – as represented in the core theory (…) – and work

relations» (Thompson 2010, p. 11). A political economy of this kind is

sensitive to capitalism’s permanent and contingent endeavour to separate

workers from one another and appropriate, disrupt and destruct natural

metabolisms and temporalities. These represent urgent matters for LPT to

consider.

References

Ba’ S. (2019). The Struggle to Reconcile Precarious Work and Parenthood: The Case of

Italian ‘Precarious Parents’, Work, Employment and Society, 33(5): 812–828. DOI:

10.1177/0950017019843089

Baglioni E. (2018). Labour control and the labour question in global production

networks: Exploitation and disciplining in Senegalese export horticulture. Journal of

Economic Geography 18(1): 111–137.https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbx013

Baglioni E. (2022). The making of cheap labour across production and reproduction:

control and resistance in the Senegalese horticultural value chain. Work, Employment and

Society. 3(3): 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017021999569

Baglioni E., Campling L. (2017). Natural resource industries as global value chains:

Frontiers, fetishism, labour and the state. Environment and Planning A, 49(11): 2437–2456.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X17728517

Baglioni E., Campling L., Mezzadri A., Miyamura S., Pattenden J., Selwyn B. (2022).

Exploitation and Labour Regimes: Production, Circulation, Social Reproduction, Ecology,

in Baglioni E., Campling L., Coe N.M., Smith A. (eds) Labour Regimes and Global

Production, Agenda Publishing. DOI:10.2307/j.ctv2b6z898.9

Banaji J. (2010). Theory as History: Essays on Modes of Production and Exploitation.

Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004183681.i-406

30

Barca S. (2020). Forces of Reproduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108878371

Barca S., Bridge G. (2015). Industrialisation and environmental change. In T. Perreault,

G. Bridge & J. McCarthy (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology, 366– 77.

Abingdon: Routledge.

Bhattacharya T. (2015). How Not To Skip Class: Social Reproduction of Labor and the

Global Working Class, Viewpoint Mgazine, [Available at:

https://viewpointmag.com/2015/10/31/how-not-to-skip-class-social-reproduction-of-labor-

and-the-global-working-class/ last accessed June 2023]

Bhattacharya T. (ed) (2017). Social Reproduction Theory, London: Pluto Press

Braverman H. (1998) [1974]. Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review

Press.

Burkett P. (2014). Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective. Chicago: Haymarket

Books

Bush B. (1990). Slave women in Carribbean Society, 1650-1838, London: James Currey

Davis A. (1983). Women, Race and Class, New York: Vintage Books.

Dedeoglu S. (2022). Cultivating Precarisation: Intersecting Vulnerabilities of Syrian

Refugees in the Turkish Agricultural Sector, Work, Employment and Society, 36(2) 345–361.

https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170211041298

Dicken P. (2015). Global Shift. London: Sage.

Durbin S., Conley H. (2010). Gender, Labour Process Theory and Intersectionality: Une

Liaison Dangereuse?, in in P. Thompson and C. Smith (eds.) Working Life: Renewing Labour

Process Analysis, London: Palgrave.

Elson D., Pearson R. (1981). Nimble fingers make cheap workers. Feminist Review, 7:

87–107.

Federici S (2004). Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body, and Primitive

Accumulation. New York: Autonomedia.

Fortunati L (1981). L'arcano della riproduzione: casalinghe, prostitute, operai e

capitale. Venezia: Marsilio Editori.

Foster J.B. (2000). Marx’s Ecology, Ney York: monthly Review Press.

Foster J.B. (2013). Marx and the Universal Metabolism of Nature, Monthly Review,

65(7):1-19.

Foster J.B., Burkett P. (2000). The Dialectic of Organic/Inorganic Relations. Marx and

the Hegelian Philosophy of Nature, Organization & Environment, 13(4): 403-425.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026600134002

Fraser N. (2014). Behind Marx’s Hidden Abode. For an Expanded Conception of

Capitalism, New Left Review, 86: 55-72.

Hammer A., Fishwick A. (eds) (2020). The Political Economy of Work in the Global

South, London: Macmillan International.

Hochschield A.R. (2015). Global Care Chains and Emotional Surplus Value, in Engster

D., Metz T. (eds) Justice, Politics, and the Family, New York: Routledge

Jana M., Hammer A. (2022). Reproductive Work in the Global South: Lived Experiences

and Social Relations of Commercial Surrogacy in India, Work, Employment and Society,

2022, 36(5): 945–966. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017021997370

James C.L.R. (2001) [1938]. The Black Jacobins, London: Penguin

Kesküla E., Loogma K. (2017). The value of and values in the work of teachers in

Estonia, Work, Employment and Society, 31(2) 248– 264.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017016676436

31

Malm A. (2018). The Progress of This Storm. Nature and Society in a warming World.

London: Verso.

Marx K. (1990). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, vol. 1. London: Penguin

Books.

Marx K. (2008). Critique of the Gotha Programme. Holicog: Wildside Press.

McGrath S., DeFilippis J. (2009). Social reproduction as unregulated work, Work,

Employment and Society, 23(1): 66–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017008099778

Merchant C. (1980). The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific

Revolution. London: Wildwood House.

Mies M. (1982). The Lace Makers of Narsapur. London: Zed Books.

Mies M. (1986). Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the

International Division of Labour. London: Zed.

Mies M., Shiva V. (1993). Ecofeminism, London: Zed Books

Moore J.W. (2010). Amsterdam is standing on Norway, Journal of Agrarian Change,

10(2): 188–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0366.2009.00262.x

Moore J.W. (2015). Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of

Capital, London: Verso.

Moore J.W. (2016). Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Nature, History and the Crisis of

Capitalism, Oakland: PM Press.

Naidu S.C., Ossome L. (2016). Social reproduction and the agrarian question of women’s

labour in India. Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy 5(1): 50–76.

DOI: 10.1177/2277976016658737

Navarro Trujillo M.L. (2020). Notes for a Critical and Ecological View of Patriarchal

Capitalism in the Web of Life, Capital and Class, 45(1): 21-32.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0309816820929115

Ngai P., Smith C. (2007). Putting transnational labour process in its place: the dormitory

labour regime in post-socialist China, Work, Employment and Society, 21(1): 27–45.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017007073611

Nichols R. (2015). Disaggregating Primitive Accumulation, Radical Philosophy, 196:

18-28.

O’Laughlin B. (1977). Production and reproduction: Meillassoux’s ‘Femmes, greniers et

capitaux’, Critique of Anthropology, 2: 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X7700200802

O’Laughlin B. (2013). Land, Labour and the production of affliction in rural Southern

Africa, Journal of Agrarian Change, 13(1): 175– 96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-

0366.2012.00381.x

Ollman B. (2003). Dance of the Dialectic, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Plumwood V. (2003). Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London: Routledge.

Portes Virginio F., Stewart P., Garvey B. (2022). Unpacking Super-Exploitation in the

21st Century: The Struggles of Haitian Workers in Brazil, Work, Employment and Society,

Early view. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017021106074

Reddock R. (1985). Women and Slavery in the Caribbean. A Feminist Perspective, Latin

American Perspectives, 12(1): 63-80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X8501200104

Saito K. (2017). Capital, Nature, and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy, New

York: Monthly Review Press.

Salleh A (2003). Ecofeminism as Sociology, Capitalism Nature Socialism, 14(1): 61-74.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10455750308565514

Salleh A. (2017). Ecofeminism as Politics. Nature, Marx and the Post-Modern, London:

Zed Books.

32

Salleh A. (2010). From Metabolic Rift to Metabolic Value: Reflections on Environmental

Sociology and the Alternative Globalization Movement, Organization and Environment,

23(2): 205–219. DOI: 10.1177/1086026610372134

Serafini P. (2023). Collective action, performance and the body-territory in Latin

American feminisms, in Boyle K., Berridge S. (eds), The Routledge Companion to Gender,

Media and Violence, London: Routledge ù

Smith C. (2006). The double indeterminacy of labour power. Work, Employment and

Society 20(2): 389–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017006065109

Smith C. (2015). Rediscovery of the Labour Process, Royal Holloway University of

London Working Paper Series SoMWP-1501.

Taylor P., Newsome K., Bair J., Rainnie A. (2015). Putting Labour in its Place: Labour

process Analysis and Global Value Chains, in Newsome K., Taylor, P., Bair J., Rainnie A

(eds) Putting Labour in its Place: Labour process Analysis and Global Value Chains, New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Thompson P. (2010). The capitalist labour process: Concepts and connections, Capital

& Class, 34(1) 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309816809353475

Thomson P., Smith C. (2009). Labour Power and Labour Process: Contesting the

Marginality of the Sociology of Work, Sociology, 43(5): 913–93.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038509340728

Thomson P., Smith C. (eds) (2010). Working Life. Renewing Labour Process Analysis.

Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Vogel L. (2013). Marxism and the Oppression of Women. Towards a Unitary theory,

Chicago: Haymarket books

Wolkowitz C., Warhurst C. (2010). ‘Embodying Labour’, in P. Thompson and C. Smith

(eds.) Working Life: Renewing Labour Process Analysis, London: Palgrave

Wolkowitz C., Cohen R. L., Sanders T., Hardy K. (eds) (2013). Body/Sex/Work,

Houndmills: Palgrave.

Sociologia del lavoro, n. 167/2023. ISSN 0392-5048. ISSNe 1972-554X.

DOI: 10.3280/SL2023-167002

Labour Process Theory:

taking stock and looking ahead

Francesco Bagnardi*, Vincenzo Maccarrone**1

The article critically reconstructs the trajectory of the Labour Process

Theory debate from Braverman onwards. It analyses the second wave

classics and the principal underpinnings of the so-called core labour process

theory. It describes the debate spurred by the formalisation of the core theory

vis-à-vis changing productive structures. It identifies a few threads of fruitful

internal debate that are crucial for the analysis of current trends and

transformation of work: the missing subject, the connectivity gap, and the

role of technology. The ways in which the LPT literature has tackled such

issues seems promising of an open and lively debate that reasserts the

relevance of the Labour Process Theory as an analytical framework that

remains crucial in the current sociology of work.

Keywords: Labour Process Theory; Labour Regime; Labour Control;

Labour agency

Introduction

Labour Process Theory (LPT) is a Marxist-inspired theoretical

perspective that studies the organisation of work and the agency of workers

* University of Milan, email: francesco.bagnardi@unimi.it

** Scuola Normale Superiore, Florence, email: vincenzo.maccarrone@sns.it

1 We would like to thank all the participants of the workshop ‘New Directions in Labour

Process Theory’, which was held at the University of Padua on January 26- 27, 2023. The

idea for this special issue came from fruitful discussions with our colleagues Riccardo Emilio

Chesta, Lorenzo Cini, Francesco Massimo, Angelo Moro and Arianna Tassinari. We would

like to thank Vando Borghi, Emanuele Leonardi and Francesco Pirone for helping us to put it

together. Devi Sacchetto and Francesco Massimo offered helpful comments on a previous

draft of this article.

Vincenzo Maccarrone acknowledges funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe

programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 101067573 –

GLOGOLAB.

and managers within the workplace. At its core, LPT frames labour as a

crucially indeterminate commodity whose valorisation requires constant

managerial control and frames employment relations as the result of a

continuous mediation between the inherently antagonistic interests of

managers and workers. The analysis of the labour process carved a space in

the sociological debate since in the 1970s and despite continuous critical re-

examination and foretold disappearance, it is currently experiencing a

renewal.

In this article we retrace the LPT debate, and we identify a few threads

that are crucial for the analysis of current trends and transformation of work.

Our review does not aspire to be exhaustive, and our discussion will target

the issues we find more fruitful to inform analyses of contemporary labour

processes. Our aim is to trace the most interesting avenues to overcome

LPT’s shortcomings for the analysis of current debates around work.

The article starts with a brief discussion of Braverman’s work and the

development of a core labour process theory from the second wave of labour

process analyses. Then we discuss how the debate over the missing subject,

the connectivity gap and the role of technology that the core theory triggered

can inform relevant analysis of contemporary work. We conclude discussing

the contribution of the special issue to the LPT debate and reasserting the

continued political relevance of the approaches that LPT has inspired.

1. In the beginning was Braverman

Labour process analysis has its roots in Marxist analyses of the capitalist

labour process, the reproduction of surplus labour, and its extraction at the

point of production. Yet, the starting point of the LPT debate is Harry

Braverman’s book, Labour and Monopoly Capitalism (Braverman,

1998[1974]). Braverman (1974, p. 37) centres his analysis on the crucial

recognition that labour is a commodity like no other. As he put it:

[Labour is]…an inalienable property of the human individual. Muscle and brain

cannot be separated from persons possessing them; […]. Thus, in the exchange, the

worker does not surrender to the capitalist his or her capacity for work. The worker

retains it, and the capitalist can take advantage of the bargain only by setting the

worker to work. It is of course understood that the useful effects or products of labor

belong to the capitalist. But what the worker sells, and what the capitalist buys, is

not an agreed amount of labor, but the power to labor over an agreed period of

time.

Under a capitalist system, therefore, the reduction of labour’s

indeterminacy is a driver of profit, a main aim of management, and the

principal source of workers’ alienation. Workers are, in fact, not only

dispossessed of their means of production but also of the knowledge of the

production processes they once mastered. The re-organization of work under

capitalist social relations follows three principles:

if the first principle is the gathering and development of knowledge of labor

processes, and the second is the concentration of this knowledge as the exclusive

province of management - together with its essential converse, the absence of such

knowledge among the workers - then the third is the use of this monopoly over

knowledge to control each step of the labor process and its mode of execution.

(Braverman, 1974, p.82).

This process also allows managers to order production tasks according to

the skills required to workers performing each task and to calibrate the

remuneration of each group of workers needed according to their

replaceability. By translating workers’ knowledge into an artefact, i.e., a

series of time-motion datasheets and detailed instructions that can be

performed by anyone, labour is stripped of his subjectivity and finally forced

into a commodity like any other. Through scientific management, therefore,

capital aims to realise an ideal of a frictionless, on demand, fully substitutable

labour. As Braverman (1974, p.57) contended:

Labor power has become a commodity. Its uses are no longer organized

according to the needs and desires of those who sell it, but rather according to the

needs of its purchasers, who are, primarily, employers seeking to expand the value

of their capital. And it is the special and permanent interest of these purchasers to

cheapen this commodity. […]. Every step in the labor process is divorced, so far as

possible, from special knowledge and training and reduced to simple labor.

Meanwhile, the relatively few persons for whom special knowledge and training are

reserved are freed so far as possible from the obligations of simple labor.

Scientific management is for Braverman (1974, p. 60) «nothing less than

the explicit verbalization of the capitalist mode of production», it

«dissolve[s] the labour process as a process conducted by the worker and

reconstitute it as a process conducted by management» (Braverman, 1974,

p.118).

Braverman provides a Marxist analysis of technology in the workplace,

it «makes the labour process and the role of science and technology within

it, a legitimate object of class politics» (Thompson and Laaser, 2021, p. 143).

His work shows how capital thrives by appropriating workers’ craft and

situated knowledge echoing the debate of his contemporaries that were

engaging with similar reflections (as Thompson and Laaser notice (2021)

referring to Quaderni Rossi in Italy and to Gorz in France; see also

Thompson and Pitts, this issue). His work resonates in current discussions of

algorithmic management in the platform economy (Gandini, 2019). Yet,

Braverman’s assumption of a generalised - even though uneven - deskilling

tendency, his neglect of a systematic analysis of workers’ resistance and

state’s role, and a simplistic conceptualization of labour market dynamics

called for critiques and debate.

2. A second wave of labour process analysis

While Braverman puts class back in the analysis of the labour process,

the lack of an analytical toolbox to investigate the role of workers’ agency

and their subjectivity called for reformulation. The second wave of labour

process analyses engages sympathetically with his work, but also endeavours

to carry out detailed analyses of control strategies, deskilling dynamics, and

patterns of workers’ resistance. It emphasises the role of workers’ resistance

and external factors - such as the state, or product and labour markets - in

shaping managerial control strategies (Thompson, 1990). Within this strand

of literature, Tayloristic management is not only about deskilling, and

deskilling is not the only strategy of control available to capital. Workers’

resistance is crucial in shaping the forms of control that emerge in different

workplaces, and state policies, industrial relations institutions, market

competition, and labour market segmentation crucially influence workers-

management relations and ultimately labour control systems.

Edwards (1979) recognizes three broad systems of control - simple,

technical and bureaucratic - which coincide with different market and

production structures, but which also emerge as a result of workers’

resistance. Simple control is typical of small enterprises under highly

competitive pressures. It is based on direct surveillance of employers, market

coercion, but also a direct relationship between employer and workers in

which employer’s charisma plays a role in ensuring workers’ acquiescence

and discipline. With the concentration of capital and productive facilities,

simple control becomes increasingly difficult, and the tyranny of foremen

triggers revolt. Technical devices and bureaucratic regulations of the

workplace are set to reduce workers’ resistance and conceal control behind

the structural features of the production process. The maximisation of work-

effort is not sustained anymore by the despotic agency of the foreman but by

the carefully devised rhythm of the assembly line. The legitimacy of control,

instead, is provided by the selective incorporation of workers’ demands, the

recognition of trade unions in work councils, the creation of specific

institutional mechanisms to resolve grievances and even selective company

welfare transfers, promotions, and rewards. Technical forms of control often

increase workers' concentration under the same roofs and give them power

to sabotage production. Their mobilisation can cause productive disruptions

and lead to new social forms of control that acquire legitimacy by

incorporating workers’ representatives in the organisation of the labour

process.

In a similar fashion, Friedman (1977) provides two ideal-types of control

strategies: direct control and responsible autonomy. The former is similar to

Edwards’ ideal of simple control. It relies on close supervision on workers’

effort and limited leeway for their initiative. Responsible autonomy, instead,

attempts

…to harness the adaptability of labour power by giving workers leeway and by

encouraging them to adapt to changing situations in a manner beneficial to the firm.

To do this, top managers give them status, autonomy and responsibility, and try to

win their loyalty to the firm's ideals (the competitive struggle) ideologically

(Friedman, 1977, p.6).

For Friedman, each control strategy brings its own rigidities and

contradictions and gives rise to specific forms of resistance. Managers

generally combine the two strategies by dividing core workers - that are

granted responsible autonomy and are allocated to specific production tasks

requiring initiative and commitment - and peripheral workers - allocated in

fragmented and routinised tasks under direct control.

Friedman also analyses firm-firm relations that reproduce core-periphery

dynamics through asymmetrical subcontracting chains. In such

subcontracting relations, peripheral companies adopting direct control

strategies are crucial to maintain core companies’ economic gains. These

gains provide core firms with the financial viability to grant their workers

with status and rewards required by responsible autonomy. Core-periphery

workers and firm-firm relations are crucial to navigate the inflexibilities that

are inherent of each control strategy. Responsible workers are needed for

complex tasks but are organised and protected, generally hard to fire in crisis

periods. Unskilled workers and peripheral subcontractors instead are

replaceable at will and can be dismissed during periods of crisis and

mobilised on demand. For Friedman, differentiated control strategies

respond to uneven workers’ resistance. Workers’ soldiering (idling while

pretending to work) called for direct control, direct control triggered

organised forms of resistance, requiring better wages and working conditions

and increased autonomy. These led to ever new combinations of forms of

control.

Contrary to Braverman’s presumption of a generalised deskilling that

subjugates all workers alike, therefore, for Friedman control is achieved by

segmenting workers within the same firm and between core and peripheral

firms along skills, labour market positions, gender and ethnic lines. Workers’

differences constructed outside the production processes, therefore, are

crucial in determining both workers’ capacity to resist and managers’ ability

to control. As Friedman (1977, p.52) puts it, «[t]op managers do not create

racism and sexism, but they do use these divisions among workers to their

advantage». The reproduction and assemblage of differences, therefore,

rather than the homogenization of workers (like in Braverman’s work),

emerge as a crucial factor in workplace relations. Despite fragmentation and

control, however, resistance is never defused once and for all and no

combination of managerial control strategies can be considered final.

Burawoy (1979; 1985) is perhaps the most articulate to bring workers’

subjectivity back in the analysis of control strategies and to tease out the

complex intertwining dynamics of control and consent. For Burawoy, despite

inherent conflict of interests between workers and managers, the two parties

remain co-dependent. If workers strive for better paid and more fulfilling

work, maintaining their firm profitable remains at least partially in their

interest if they want to keep their job. Despite their structural positions being

in conflict, therefore, workers and managers end up building generally

cooperative relations at the workplace.

Bringing workers back in the analysis of the labour process, therefore,

means analysing the mechanisms through which workers become active

accomplices in their own exploitation (Burawoy, 1985, p.11). Labour

process analysis therefore entails analysing the dynamics through which

managers build their hegemony in the workplace, i.e., how they present their

interests as the interest of the subordinate classes too. In line with Edwards’s

idea of making control structural, and therefore less visible, Burawoy

contends that factory-level political apparatuses such as collective

bargaining and grievances mechanisms, work councils and rewards systems,

are the crucial underpinnings of consent for the social relations of production

within the workplace. These institutions crystalize the balance of power at

the workplace and set limits on workers’ struggles and managerial

arbitrariness. Any factory regime, therefore, includes two dimensions of

production politics: the labour process itself and the factory apparatuses that

stabilise workplace relations.

Burawoy’s ethnographic investigations also report that, within factory

regimes, workers develop shop floor games such as “making out” through

which teams compete to produce higher levels of output. While games are

started generally out of boredom, they provide workers with spaces of

autonomy and self-organisation, a sense of accomplishment and pride, and

an incentive to increase work effort. By playing games capital-labour conflict

is displaced into horizontal competition for shop floor prestige. Workers who

play games end up accepting the rules of the game, i.e., they consent to the

given shop floor relations of production.

For Burawoy the shift between coercive and hegemonic control is the

result of workers’ resistance, social policies, and the emergence of labour

law constraints. Here, Burawoy carefully links macro processes of labour

market regulation with micro dynamics of control and consent in the

workplace. The (welfare) state lifts workers from depending solely on paid

work and unpaid labour for their own social reproduction. State-sanctioned

trade unions’ rights within the workplace limit managerial arbitrary power

and push managers to seek hegemonic tools of control. Public policies, at the

same time, are crucially shaped by working class pressures in the forms of

unions and parties, and therefore shape and are shaped by labour’s resistance.

Lastly, the change of market and productive conditions are crucial to explain

the viability of hegemonic regimes as the monopoly power of firms

ultimately makes consent-based workplace regimes possible. As Burawoy

(1979, p. 194) explains, «[a]narchy in the market leads to despotism in the

factory […]. Subordination of the market leads to hegemony in the factory».

The concentration of economic power in monopoly capitalism, therefore, is

also a crucial factor of workplace regimes’ transformations.

The second wave of labour process analyses emphasises how managerial

control is always the result of a continuous negotiation with workers.

Workers’ resistance, however, manifests itself in different forms, and

workers’ subjectivities, their consent or opposition to the given social

relations of production are part and parcel of the frontiers of control. Control-

resistance dialectical relationship, therefore, becomes the core concern of

any analysis of the labour process, requiring an analysis of factors that are

also external to the labour process itself. If for Braverman labour

segmentation was the result of the technical division of the labour process in

independent production tasks, for Friedman it has to be understood together

with the multiple factors that are external to the labour process but still

contribute to the segmentation of the workforce. If for Braverman the state

is not really part of the analysis, for Burawoy it becomes crucial in the shift

from coercive to hegemonic practices of control. And finally, if Braverman

focussed on the analysis of the objective conditions of the making of a

working class in itself, postponing any investigation of workers’ resistance

to a latter moment, the accounts of the second wave put this resistance at the

very core of their research.

Second wave LPT accounts presented crucial shortcomings, too. They

generally envision the transformation of control systems as sequential, and

in some cases, they conflate control regimes with entire, successive stages of

capitalism (Littler, 1990). Moreover, they generally overlook any systematic

analysis of the role of gender and masculinity in shaping control and

resistance strategies (Davies, 1990; West, 1990). Feminist scholars,

however, have articulated sympathetic and more comprehensive labour

process analyses since the early 1980s (Cavendish, 1982; Pollert, 1981;

Cockburn, 1983; Baglioni, this issue). The insights of these variegated

contributions have progressively disentangled LPT from its initial

determinism and have set the stage for a formalisation of the core analytical

tools of a coherent theoretical approach.

3. Toward a core theory of the labour process

Thompson (1990) condensed the insights of the second wave of labour

process analyses in four theoretical pillars of a core labour process theory.

First, as the labour process generates surplus value and through the labour

process workers reproduce themselves and the economy, the role of labour

and the capital-labour relations within the workplace is «privileged as a focus

for analysis» (Thompson, 1990, p.99). Second, accumulation logics, the

competition between different units of capital, and the inherent antagonism

between capital and labour at each workplace, «forces capital constantly to

revolutionise the production process» (Thompson, 1990, p. 100). Third,

labour’s indeterminacy entails that any labour process in capitalism must be

driven by a control problem: to maximise work effort and therefore extract

surplus, capital needs to set up structures of control within the labour process.

Fourth, the relationship between capital and labour within the labour process

is one of structured antagonism. Such antagonism does not automatically

translate into open conflict but signals the conflicting interests in-built in

exploitation, i.e., capital’s appropriation of surplus value created in the

labour process through the efforts of workers (Edwards, 1986; 1990).

The formalisation of a core labour process theory was an attempt to

detach LPT from Braverman’s class determinism. As Thompson and Smith

would later explain, it «sought to retain a privileging of analysis of labour

power and the capital-labour relationship, without the burden of traditional

Marxian assumptions about class in the wider societal terrain» (Thompson

and Smith, 2009, p.256). The aim was, therefore, to disentangle LPT from

any over-pessimistic or messianic vision of conflict and control and to offer

a materialist perspective of structurally antagonistic but open-ended

workplace relations (Hassard et al, 2001). Mirroring the political weaknesses

of workers’ movements of the period, the core theory also represented a

reformist shift in the study of work. The need to preserve a conceptual

toolbox based on the material conflicting interest of capital and labour at

work coincided with the abandonment of any quest for a revolutionary

subject or trajectory. Nonetheless, LPT provided the tools for a critical

reading of work relations and the space for a relatively open research agenda.

LPT privileged analysis of capital-labour relation, for example, did not

entail a downplaying of other social relations outside production but was

rather a matter of tracing manageable boundaries of analysis. «The emphasis

of core labour process theory on the immediate processes of production»,

Thompson (1990, p.111) explained, «is dangerous only if it either excludes

or neglects the influence of other social relations, or “invades” the spaces

occupied legitimately by other spheres of analysis and subordinates them to

a narrow focus, and consequent conception of struggles». Nor the focus on

labour indeterminacy and the point of production entailed that control

mechanisms could originate exclusively within the workplace. The so-called

relative autonomy of the labour process (Edwards, 1986; Burawoy, 1985)

did not imply insulating workplace relations from the outside but rather to

take seriously the fact that common trends might be negotiated and translated

in different ways in different workplaces (Edwards, 1990; Edwards and

Hodder, 2022). The core theory, in other words, outlined the core analytical

toolbox of LPT while calling for its expansion and combination with other

frameworks, to better grasp the changing world of work (Thompson, 1990,

p. 112).

4. Beyond the core

Since the early 1990s, the core LPT had already engaged with profoundly

changed productive structures. The focus of second wave studies on

manufacturing companies and Tayloristic control was becoming

increasingly out of sync with ongoing economic restructuring. The shift to

lean manufacturing and just-in-time, the rise of the service economy, and the

emergence of new kinds of knowledge workers became the new focus of core

LPT (Thompson and Warhurst, 1998; Elger and Smith, 2010; Korczynski,

2003). Yet, broad processes of financialization and production

reorganisation in global production networks and subcontracting chains, the

changing structures of employment relations, the rise of creative, self-

employed workers, the retreat of traditional forms of workers’ agency and

mobilisation were new challenges to LPT. Was the privileged analysis on the

point of production still justified? And how could new forms of workers’

agency and subjectivity be analysed with analytical tools developed in a

seemingly bygone season of class struggle?

In the following sections we focus on two interrelated issues that spurred

fruitful debate and pushed labour process analyses’ boundaries: the missing

subject and the connectivity gap.

5. The missing subject: changing workers agency and subjectivities

Despite Burawoy’s emphasis on the production of workers’ consent and

the work of feminist labour process analyses that problematized the role of

gender in the dynamics of control and resistance, LPT’s materialist

perspective of class antagonism in the workplace came under increasing

scrutiny. The core theory seemed to fall short to analyse the role of workers’

agency and their subjectivity at work. As Thompson himself (1990, p.114)

put it, the «construction of a full theory of the missing subject was one of the

great tasks facing LPT».

Feminist labour process analyses had carefully brought into the debate

the role of gender identities and masculinity at work. Gender was seen as a

socially constructed feature that workers bring with them at work with the

burden of expectations, division of productive and reproductive labour, and

perceived skills that such characterization implies (West, 1990). It was a

source of domination and hierarchisation of women and could reproduce

men’s consent for work degradation as long as gender roles were maintained

(Cockburn, 1983). Feminist analyses qualified Burawoyian apparatuses of

consent, i.e., the games, the internal state, and the internal labour market, as

profoundly shaped by processes of gender devaluation that originate outside

the point of production (Davies, 1990).

Analyses of the labour process in the service sector, instead, fruitfully

explored the ways in which workers’ identity are increasingly part and parcel

of the labour process. Labour process in services, in fact, growingly requires

soft skills, aesthetic qualities and interpersonal abilities (Belanger and

Edwards, 2013; Ikeler, 2016; Dordoni, this issue). This strand of literature

explains how the continuous tension over the maximisation of work effort

overcomes purely manual or intellectual work and touches upon

interpersonal dynamics between workers and customers, including workers’

selves, their emotions and feelings. The concept of emotional labour

(Hochschild, 1983) placed subjectivities and identities at work and made

them a new terrain of contention in the workplace (Korczynski, 2003;

Vincent, 2011).

Against this background of sympathetic critique and theoretical

expansion, poststructuralist contributions provided, instead, a more radical

rethinking of the core theory. The main tenet of such a perspective lies on

the expansion of the concept of labour indeterminacy to the subjectivities

and identities of workers and managers themselves. For poststructuralists,

the labour process is shaped not only by the continuous negotiation over the

work effort but by the very construction of the identities of the actors

involved in the work relationship (Thompson and Ackroyd, 1995; Collinson,

2003). As O’Doherty and Willmott (2009, p. 937) put it: «The

“indeterminacy of labour” indicates that human beings are distinguished by

a quality that, in contrast to other ‘factors of production’, lacks a stable

identity».

Relations at the workplace, therefore, are not only about the

determination and monitoring of work activities but are rather a contention

over the very meaning of what a worker is (as critically discussed by Moro,

in this issue). As O’Doherty and Willmott (2009, p. 938) contend:

There is no necessary meaning or motivational interests (cf. Burawoy, 1985), no

identity or behavioural consistency that once and for all defines the worker;

“worker” can therefore be considered a signifier without a fixed signified. Its

meaning is historically and socially contingent and must be constantly constructed

and reconstructed through political acts of representation and constitution.

Poststructuralist analyses generally focus on new forms of digital control

and monitoring, and on hybrid professions (for example creative or

knowledge worker, freelancers) for which the basis of a clear structured

antagonism is not easily identified. These analyses focus on discursive

strategies that build workplace identities and generally mobilise Foucauldian

notions of governmentality and biopower to make sense of resistance and

control dynamics (Collinson, 2003; O’Doherty and Willmott 1990; 2010;

Willmott 1990; 2010; Knights, 1990; Tirapani and Willmott, 2023; see also

Dordoni, this issue). Poststructuralist approaches, therefore, maintain a

rather comprehensive understanding of power and resistance. Forms of

panopticon control often expunge any emergence of workers’ resistance or

are rather contrasted with over encompassing notions of resistance that

include minor transgressions such as humour and cynicism. While

subverting the production of company cultures and discourses, these actions

often amount to forms of decaf resistance, as they do not aim or fall short to

challenge management control strategies (Contu, 2008).

Despite post-structuralist critique, the role of individual forms of informal

opposition to workplace rules such as recalcitrance, pilfering, or sabotage,

has always been a matter of interest within the LPT (Thompson and Ackroyd,

1995). In the 1990s, the concept of organisational misbehaviour was

developed to capture a subterranean form of workers’ agency to

reappropriate time, work, product and even identity (Ackroyd and

Thompson, 1999). Against the emphasis of post-structuralist approaches on

discursive strategies as contested terrain, the debate over organisational

misbehaviour equipped LPT to see workers agency in a time of unions’

retreat and collective action decline and to put workers’ oppositional

practices, from dissent to open resistance, on a continuum of radicality and

disruptiveness (see Peterlongo, this issue). Managerial control and workers’

quest for meaning and better working conditions, therefore, continuously co-

evolve, and cyber-floating and cynicism in digital start-up or platform

companies respond to the same structured antagonism that generates

soldiering in the Tayloristic assembly line (Thompson, 2016). At the same

time, forms of misbehaviour can set the conditions for broader forms of open

and collective resistance (Taylor and Bain, 2003).

Maurizio Atzeni’s (2010) research on automobile plants in Argentina is

perhaps the most advanced approach that systematically links the labour

process to collective action. Contra Kelly’s (1998) mobilisation theory with

its focus on injustice, Atzeni (2010, p. 20) finds that the roots of workers’

solidarity are in the labour process and in the structural antagonism between

workers and capital inherent to it:

Spontaneous, unexpected, unorganised forms of resistance, the sudden

mobilizations of previously loyal workers, the transformations of apparently

economistic types of conflict into political ones, are all forms of mobilization that

can be explained just by reference to the existence of a structure that constantly

reproduces conditions for conflict.

At the workplace, workers develop a sense of shared, collective identity,

a form of embryonic solidarity: «solidarity is the social relation that

expresses the collective nature of the labour process» (Atzeni, 2010: 25).

This embryonic solidarity – or solidarity yet to be activated – can become

the basis of active solidarity and collective action. The emergence of active

solidarity, nevertheless, remains a contingent process, and depends on

factors inside and outside the labour process (Atzeni, 2010; Tassinari and

Maccarrone, 2020; see Moro, this issue, and Però, this issue) This highlights

another theoretical issue of LPT, the connectivity gap.

6. Relative autonomy and connectivity gap

Within the LPT core theory, the point of production remains a privileged

realm of analysis since workplace dynamics are relatively autonomous, even

though not insulated, from the broader political economic pressures and

social contexts. Yet, analytical tools to grasp how dynamics and relations

occurring beyond the factory gates shape labour process and workplace

relations are crucial to avoid the risk of a connectivity gap.

The core theory’s abandonment of a Marxist readings of broader class

dynamics, however, makes LPT poorly equipped to capture systematically

such external dynamics. New theoretical approaches have therefore

integrated LPT to provide analytical tools that could bridge workplace

dynamics with broader contexts and processes (Jaros, 2000). Emphasising

the increasing role of financialization in shaping firms’ competitive

strategies and their impact on the labour process, Thompson and colleagues

draw on the concept of disconnected capitalism(s) (Thompson, 2003; 2013;

Cushen and Thompson, 2016) to analyse the relationship between different

circuits of capital accumulation and the labour process. More specifically,

the combined pressures of globalisation, shareholder value maximisation,

and systemic restructuring along global value chains (Thompson, 2003, p.

371) are analysed as drivers of multiple dysfunctionalities that profoundly

influence workplace relations too. On the one hand, workers are requested to

growingly invest in their “human capital” with shrinking opportunities of

stable employment. On the other hand, management needs to maximise

shareholder value in the short term, which leads to increasing labour cost

squeezing, continuous restructuring, and outsourcing (Thompson 2016).

Other authors, such as Vidal and Hauptmeier (2014) have proposed to

address the connectivity gap by integrating the micro-level insights of LPT

with the focus on the meso and macro-level institutions of the Comparative

Political Economy literature: «while our appreciation of the organisational-

level variation produced by labour process dynamics leads us to reject

determinist arguments about national institutions, we argue that national and

subnational institutional contexts generate strong tendencies toward

particular forms of management control strategies» (Vidal and Hauptmeier,

2014, p. 19).

With a specific focus on the changing structure of production, a strand of

literature has fruitfully combined Global Value Chains (GVCs) and LPT

(Newsome et al, 2015; Hammer and Plugor, 2019; Bagnardi 2023). Drawing

on increasing evidence of a dismantling of vertically integrated Fordist

production in favour of networked and asymmetrical supply relations, this

literature explores the core-periphery relations between firms that Friedman

had already identified as crucially shaping control regimes. GVCs and LPT

are particularly complementary as the former had for long lacked an

analytical toolbox to analyse workplace relations, while the latter needed the

tools to grasp the change that the post-Fordist transformation implied. The

focus of the core LPT on vertically integrated factory case studies, in fact,

entailed a neglect of changing productive transformations. The growth of

outsourcing practices and the de-verticalization of companies did not imply

the end of the monopoly power so crucial in the second wave of labour

process analyses, but rather its radical transformation (Harrison, 1994;

Murray, 1983). Investing in high return production phases while outsourcing

phases with lower returns and high costs and rigidities is common managerial

practice (Borghi et al, 2017; Drahokoupil, 2015; Weil, 2014; Wills, 2008).

In many cases, firms can go beyond coercion and consent and pursue labour

control through outsourcing. Harrison (1994) labelled this process

concentration without centralization: lead firms can concentrate control over

the organisation of production without having to centralise the production

process in one firm, avoiding the strings, rigidities, and costs that the direct

control of the workforce implies2. The combination of GVCs and LPT,

therefore, becomes a tool to investigate how productive geographies are

redesigned around the imperative of labour control and how the asymmetries

of power between firms, the local contexts in which they are embedded, and

the localised patterns of workers’ struggles influence the emergence of

fragmented but interdependent labour control regimes within GVCs.

Lastly, the LPT debate has addressed the connectivity gap by looking at

the dynamics and mechanisms of control and resistance that develop beyond

2 Bellofiore and Halevi (2011), however, note how Harrison inverted the use of terms as

commonly used in Marxian terminology.

the workplace. First, the role of labour mobility and its control was

incorporated in LPT through the concept of mobility power. As Smith (2006)

noticed, labour indeterminacy does not only refer to the negotiation of work

effort but the inherent power to move that workers retain. Quitting, changing

job, moving, or just threatening to do so, are all good ways for workers to

leverage mobility to improve employment relations. Mobility power,

therefore, brings in the LPT an analysis of labour markets and migration

regimes (Piro, this issue). On their side, also managers consider workers’

mobility when they devise control strategies. The so-called dormitory

regimes (when employers provide accommodation to their workers) develop

as a way to limit labour’s double indeterminacy and to extend managerial

controls over time and spaces of social reproduction (Ceccagno and

Sacchetto, 2020; Andriasevijc, 2022). Through dormitory regimes control

expands way beyond the point of production and allows companies to

synchronise workers’ social reproductive time with the demands and

constraints of their just-in-time production model.

The literature on the local labour control regimes (Jonas, 1996;

Pattenden, 2016) further explores the role of control and resistance

developing beyond production. A labour regime «signals the combination of

social relations and institutions that bind capital and labour in a form of

antagonistic relative stability in particular times and places» (Baglioni et al,

2022, p.1). The analytical starting point of this approach contrasts one of the

pillars of core LPT, as it «refuses to privilege any single site in a global

production system but, rather, sees the labour regime as the societal

framework through which capitalist accumulation at a world scale becomes

possible» (ibid.). Nonetheless, the labour regime literature develops as a

sympathetic critique and an analytical addition to the LPT debate and

endeavours to bridge the labour process with developmental studies, feminist

approaches, and the study of racial capitalism.

Labour regime studies defetishise exploitation as the primary concern of

the analysis, and rather investigate the interaction of exploitation with other

forms of domination within situated and geographically specific histories of

production and social reproduction. Labour regime analysis, in other words,

puts labour processes in time and place, and highlights how control and

disciplining are continuously produced and resisted at the workplace and

beyond (Baglioni, 2018). As Baglioni and colleagues (2022, p.3) put it:

Labour regimes are seen as historically formed, multi scalar phenomena

resulting from the articulation of struggles over local social relations, and their direct

or indirect intersections with the commercial demands of lead firms in global

production networks and with the gendered and racialized politics of social

reproduction.

Both mobility power and the literature on labour regimes expand the

boundaries of LPT to the realm of reproduction and the multiple practices of

domination and resistance that develop and are reproduced at the workplace

and beyond.

7. Labour control and new technologies: LPT and the gig economy

Despite its limitations, the capacity of LPT to analyse the changing forms

of work and their implications has also been demonstrated by the recent

strand of literature that successfully applies LPT to a new frontier of workers’

exploitation, the gig economy. This form of work organisation is centred on

the intermediation and the management of labour via online platforms

(Chicchi et al, 2022). Given its origin from Braverman’s work, for whom the

relationship between technology and power relations at work was central, it

is not surprising that LPT-inspired approaches to analyse platform work have

flourished (Joyce and Stuart, 2021). Starting from the seminal work of

Gandini (2019), the LPT literature has dissected the labour process in the gig

economy, identifying certain regularities. Within the gig economy, the point

of production is decentralised and work activity is individualised: «the

platform represents the place whereby the social processes of production are

put under logics of managerialization and work organization within a single,

clearly delimited environment» (Gandini, 2019, p. 1045).

Despite this decentralisation of the point of production, platforms are able

to maintain a high degree of control (Veen et al., 2020; Wood et al., 2019),

through algorithmic management practices and gamification techniques.

Confirming LPT’s insight that control techniques are varied and can be

combined, the literature has also highlighted other, more traditional, control

tools within the gig economy, such as working time regimes (Heiland,

2021a). Despite this high degree of control, the gig economy has also

exhibited a relatively high degree of workers’ mobilisation. Here, Atzeni’s

theorisation of workers’ mobilisation as arising from the structural

antagonism of the labour process is relevant. As long as gig workers

recognise the existence of their shared condition, through online social media

and in physical waiting points, they can develop solidaristic attachments that

provide the basis for the emergence of collective action (Tassinari and

Maccarrone, 2020; Lei, 2021; Cini, 2023). Not only visible collective

resistance, but also individual acts of misbehaviour emerge as instances of

workers’ agency within the gig economy (Heiland, 202b1; Peterlongo, this

issue).

LPT-inspired accounts of the gig economy have also grasped with the

connectivity gap. Heiland (2021b) combines LPT and labour geography to

analyse capital’s and labour’s “spatial fixes” within food delivery platforms.

As migrant labour constitutes a significant share of the platform workforce,

Schaupp (2022) studies the relationship between algorithmic workplace

regimes and migration regimes. Other authors (van Doorn and Shapiro,

2023) have argued in favour of moving from the focus at the point of

production to workers’ (and platforms) social reproduction, mirroring the

direction taken in the general LPT debate.

Conclusion. Labour Process Theory: to do what and for whom?

Our brief recollection of the literature shows that LPT remains a crucial

framework to analyse the changing nature of work and its social relations.

New managerial control strategies and technologies, new sectors, and new

forms of workers’ response can be captured with the LPT changing toolbox

and this demonstrates and justifies its continued relevance in academic

discussions. This special issue aims to contribute and advance further this

framework, and all the articles engage with different aspects of LPT.

Elena Baglioni’s lead article provides new pathways to expand labour

process analyses by addressing two crucial (and intertwined) blind spots in

the LPT debate: ecology and social reproduction. The article emphasises the

centrality of socio-ecological indeterminacy of the labour process and

provides analytical tools to investigate the links between production and

other moments in the circuit of capital: circulation, social reproduction and

ecology. Annalisa Dordoni integrates the LPT literature on the labour

process in services with Foucauldian concepts, with a study of the control

mechanisms faced by retail workers in Milan and London, and their

ambivalent forms of solidarity. Angelo Moro brings us back to the debate on

the emergence of workers’ consent and dissent towards the workplace

regime. Through an in-depth case study of an Italian automotive factory, his

article shows how generational differences among the workforce, related to

distinct socialisation contexts, generate divergent work orientations towards

organisational change. Davide Però bridges LPT’s literature on workers’

collective action with the scholarship on labour’s power resources, analysing

how small rank-and-file unions can empower workers even in a context

unfavourable for organising such as outsourced low-paid services in the UK.

Gianmarco Peterlongo contributes to the thriving LPT debate on the platform

economy with an ethnography of food delivery couriers and ride-hailing

workers (mis)behaviour in Italy and Argentina. He combines LPT and a

baroque perspective to tease out the processes through which platforms

foster the reproduction of informal circuits of labour. Valeria Piro engages

with the concept of ‘mobility power’ with a focus on migrant workers and

rank-and-file unions in the meat packing industry in Northern Italy. Through

ethnographic inquiry she teases out the mechanisms through which migrant

workers’ mobility can be transformed in collective mobilisation and

associational power through the agency of rank-and-file unions. Finally, Paul

Thompson and Frederick Harry Pitts engage with a crucial theme of

discussion within the broad LPT community of scholars, the debate between

LPT and Italian Operaismo and its heirs. Their article dissects differences

and commonalities between the two and provides crucial reflection on the

analytical, normative and methodological dimensions of these two distinct

approaches.

While the contributions of this special issue cover much ground, one

crucial issue requires further discussion. Scholars have long debated whether

LPT had to bargain academic legitimacy and analytical purchase for its

political radicalism. Braverman’s attempt was to place Marx and class

struggles in the sociological analyses of work of his time. His concern was

to understand the making of the class in itself, through the dispossession of

knowledge and the degradation of work (Spencer, 2001). While deskilling

would perhaps prevent the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, such

inevitable degradation of work would at some point compel the working

class to revolt (Hassard et al. 2001).

Amidst the generalised retreat of the left in industrialised economies, the

aim of the second wave, instead, was freeing LPT from any Marxist

theological prediction and revolutionary goals (Jaros, 2005). With its core

theory, LPT became a toolbox for variably radical scholars to analyse

workplace matters. Even scholars in Critical Management Studies, as

Hassard and others emphasised, could adopt it to investigate how

management could devise more palatable control strategies (Hassard et al.

2001). Nonetheless, even in its core theory version, LPT remains a political

project. As Thompson (1990, p. 110) has put it, while «the theory is

compatible with a variety of political positions, in my view the project is

inseparable from the emancipation of labour».

Braverman’s task was devising a materialistic/objective

conceptualisation of alienation in vertically integrated, monopolistic

industrial firms. His aim was clearly to unveil the drivers of exploitation so

that such knowledge could inspire the making of a political project for

emancipation (Spencer, 2001). The need for academic validation that has

certainly shaped the development of LPT also implied the mitigation of these

political goals and underpinnings. And academic legitimacy does come with

a price. If «research on work involves taking a side» (Woodcock, 2021, p.

138; Woodcock, 2020) the quest for academic validation deals cards that are

stacked against the researchers who believe in the emancipatory role of the

knowledge they contribute to generate.

Yet, we think that a radical political project of labour emancipation

remains compatible with LPT and the multiple frameworks that have

emerged to fill the gaps left by its initial formalization. The role of different

axes of workers’ domination, the interaction between productive and

reproductive spheres, the changing shapes of accumulation strategies and

workers’ mobility, the attention to everyday acts of dissent and subversion

as conducive to resistance beyond or before a fetishism of union’s action, are

only few of many promising paths of radical research that the labour process

debate still spurs. In an age of great fragmentation of the working class,

where exploitation has never been so clearly intertwined with old and new

forms of domination within and beyond the point of production, LPT has

followed suit. Its concepts provide avenues to engage with the radical

critiques of new changing, fragmented, and digitalized productions, the

labour control regime perspective, instead, has geared researchers with

effective frames to reconstruct the tendency of capital to differentiate

workers and valorise their differences. With this special issue, we hope to

provide some tools to advance these lines of research as a collective

endeavour.

References

Atzeni M (2010) Workplace Conflict: Mobilization and Solidarity in Argentina. London:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Ackroyd S., Thompson P. (1999). Organizational Misbehaviour. London: Sage

Andriasevijc (2022). The dormitory regime revisited: time in transnational capitalist

production. In: Baglioni E., Campling L., Coe N.M., Smith A., a cura di, Labour Regimes and

Global Production. Newcastle: Agenda Publishing

Baglioni E. (2018). Labour control and the labour question in global production networks:

exploitation and disciplining in Senegalese export horticulture. Journal of Economic

Geography, 18(1): 111–137. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbx013

Baglioni E., Campling L., Coe N.M., Smith A., (2022). Introduction: labour regimes and

global production. In: Baglioni E., Campling L., Coe N.M., Smith A., a cura di, Labour

Regimes and Global Production. Newcastle: Agenda Publishing.

Bagnardi, F. (2023). Manufacturing informality. Global production networks and the

reproduction of informalized labour regimes in Europe’s peripheries. European Journal of

Industrial Relations, 29(3): 271-299. https://doi.org/10.1177/09596801231167160

Bélanger J., Edwards, P. (2013). The nature of front-line service work: distinctive features

and continuity in the employment relationship. Work, employment and society, 27(3): 433-

450. DOI: 10.1177/0950017013481877

Bellofiore, R. and Halevi, J. (2010) "Could Be Raining", International Journal of Political

Economy, 39(4): 5-30. DOI: 10.2753/IJP0891-1916390401

Borghi V., Dorigatti, L. and Greco L. (2017). Il lavoro e le catene globali del valore.

Roma: Ediesse.

Braverman (1974). Labour and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the

Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press

Burawoy M. (1979). Manufacturing consent: Changes in the Labour Process under

Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press

Burawoy M. (1985). The Politics of Production: Factory Regimes Under Capitalism and

Socialism. London: Verso

Cavendish R. (1982). Women on the line. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Ceccagno A., Sacchetto D. (2020). The mobility of workers living at work in Europe.

Current Sociology, 68(3): 299-315. DOI: 10.1177/0011392119863831

Chicchi, F., Marrone, M., & Casilli, A. A. (2022). Introduction: Digital labor and crisis of

the wage labor system. Sociologia del lavoro, 163: 51-69. DOI: 10.3280/SL2022-163003oa

Cini, L. (2023). Resisting algorithmic control: understanding the rise and variety of

platform worker mobilisations. New Technology, Work and Employment, 38, 125–144.

https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12257

Cockburn C. (1983). Brothers: Male Dominance and Technological Change. London:

Pluto Press

Collinson D.L. (2003). Identities and Insecurities: Selves at Work. Organization, 10(3):

527–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084030103010

Contu A. (2008). Decaf Resistance: On Misbehavior, Cynism, and Desire in Liberal

Workplaces. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(3): 364-379. DOI:

10.1177/0893318907310941

Cushen J., Thompson P. (2016). Financialization and value: why labour and the labour

process still matter. Work, employment and society, 30(2):352-365. DOI:

10.1177/0950017015617676

Davies S. (1990). Inserting Gender into Burawoy’s Theory of the Labour Process. Work,

employment and Society, 4(3): 391-406. DOI: 10.1177/0950017090004003005

Drahokoupil J. (2015). The outsourcing challenge: organizing workers across fragmented

production networks. Brussels: ETUI.

Edwards R. (1979). Contested terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the

Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books.

Edwards P.K. (1986). Conflict at Work: a materialist analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

Edwards PK (1990). Understanding Conflict in the Labour Process: The Logic and

Autonomy of Struggle. In: Knights D., Willmott H., a cura di, Labour Process Theory.

Basingstoke and London: The Macmillan Press

Edwards P., Hodder A. (2022). Conflict and control in the contemporary workplace:

Structured antagonism revised. Industrial Relations Journal, 53(3): 220-240. DOI:

10.1111/irj.12363

Elger T., Smith C., a cura di (2010). Global Japanization? The Transnational

Transformation of the Labour Process. London: Routledge.

Friedman A.L. (1977). Industry & Labor: Class Struggle at Work and Monopoly

Capitalism, London: The Macmillan Press

Gandini A (2019) Labour process theory and the gig economy. Human Relations 72:

1039–1056. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718790002

Hammer N., Plugor R. (2019). Disconnecting Labour? The Labour Process in the UK Fast

Fashion Value Chain. Work, employment and society, 33(6), 913–928. DOI:

10.1177/0950017019847942

Harrisson (1994). Lean & Mean: Why Large Corporations Will Continue to Dominate the

Global Economy. New York: The Guilford Press

Hassard J., Hogan J., Rowlinson M. (2001). From Labour Process Theory to Critical

Management Studies. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 29(3): 339-362.

Heiland H. (2021a). Neither timeless, nor placeless: Control of food delivery gig work via

place-based working time regimes. Human Relations. doi:10.1177/00187267211025283

Heiland, H. (2021b). Controlling space, controlling labour? Contested space in food

delivery gig work. New Technology, Work and Employment, 36: 1-16.

https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12183

Hochschild A.R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling.

University of California Press

Ikeler P. (2016). Deskilling emotional labour: evidence from department store retail.

Work, employment and society, 30(6) 966–983. DOI: 10.1177/0950017015609031

Jaros (2000). Labor Process Theory, International Studies of Management &

Organization, 30(4): 25-39. DOI: 10.1080/00208825.2000.11656798

Jaros S.J. (2005). Marxian Critiques of Thompson’s (1990) ‘core’ Labour Process Theory:

An evaluation and extension. Ephemera: theory & politics in organization, 5(1): 5-25.

Jonas A. (1996) Local Labour Control Regimes: Uneven Development and the Social

Regulation of Production, Regional Studies, 30(4), 323-338, DOI:

10.1080/003434096123313496

Joyce S. and Stuart M. (2021) Digitalised management, control and resistance in platform

work: a labour process analysis. In Haidar J. and Keune M., a cura di, Work and Labour

Relations in Global Platform Capitalism. Cheltenham/Geneva: Edward Elgar/ILO, 158–184.

Kelly, J. (1998), Rethinking Industrial Relations: Mobilisation, Collectivism and Long

Waves. London: LSE/Routledge.

Korczynski, M. (2003). Communities of Coping: Collective Emotional Labour in Service

Work. Organization, 10(1): 55–79. DOI: 10.1177/1350508403010001479

Knights D. (1990). Subjectivity, Power and the Labour Process. In: Knights D., Willmott

H., a cura di, Labour Process Theory. Basingstoke and London: The Macmillan Press

Lei Y. W. (2021) Delivering Solidarity Platform: Architecture and Collective Contention

in China’s Platform Economy. American Sociological Review 86(2): 279–309.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122420979980

Littler C. (1990). The Labour Process Debate: A Theoretical Review 1974-1988. In:

Knights D., Willmott H., a cura di, Labour Process Theory. Basingstoke and London: The

Macmillan Press

Murray, F. (1983). The decentralisation of production - the decline of the mass-collective

worker? Capital & Class, 7(1), 74–99. DOI:10.1177/030981688301900104

Newsome K., Taylor P., Bair J., Rainnie A., a cura di (2015). Putting Labour in its Place:

Labour Process Analysis and Global Value Chains. London: Palgrave.

O’Doherty D., Willmott H. (2001). Debating Labour Process Theory: The Issue of

Subjectivity and the Relevance of Poststructuralism, Sociology, 35(2): 457-476.

Doi:10.1017/S0038038501000220

O’Doherty D., Willmott H. (2009). The Decline of Labour Process Analysis and the

Future Sociology of Work. Sociology, 43(5): 931–951. DOI: 10.1177/0038038509340742

Pattenden J. (2016). Working at the margins of global production networks: local labour

control regimes and rural-based labourers in South India, Third World Quarterly, 37(10),

1809-1833. DOI:10.1080/01436597.2016.1191939

Pollert A. (1981). Girls, Wives, Factory Lives. London and Basingstoke: The Macmillan

Press

Schaupp, S. (2022). Algorithmic Integration and Precarious (Dis)Obedience: On the Co-

Constitution of Migration Regime and Workplace Regime in Digitalised Manufacturing and

Logistics. Work, Employment and Society, 36(2), 310-327.

https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170211031458

Smith C. (2006). The double indeterminacy of labour power: labour effort and labour

mobility. Work, employment and society, 20(2): 389–402. DOI: 10.1177/0950017006065109

Spencer D. (2001). Braverman and the Contribution of Labour Process Analysis to the

Critique Production – Twenty-Five Years on. Work, employment and society, 14(2): 223-243

Taylor, P., Bain, P. (2003). ‘Subterranean Worksick Blues’: Humour as Subversion in two

call centres. Organization Studies, 24(9): 1487–1509. DOI: 10.1177/0170840603249008

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, 34 (1). pp. 35-54.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017019862954

Thompson (1990). Crawling from the Wreckage: The Labour Process and the Politics of

Production. In: Knights D., Willmott H., a cura di, Labour Process Theory. Basingstoke and

London: The Macmillan Press

Thompson P. (2003). Disconnected capitalism: or why employers can’t keep their side of

the bargain. Work, employment and society, 17(2): 359-378. DOI:

10.1177/0950017003017002007

Thompson P. (2013). Financialization and the workplace: extending and applying the

disconnected capitalism thesis. Work, employment and society, 27(3): 472-488. DOI:

10.1177/095001701347

Thompson P. (2016). Dissent at work and the resistance debate: departures, directions,

and dead ends, Studies in Political Economy, 97(2): 106-123, DOI:

10.1080/07078552.2016.1207331

Thompson P., Ackroyd (1995). All quiet on the workplace front? A critique of recent

trends in British industrial sociology. Sociology, 29(4): 615-633. DOI:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/42855608

Thompson P., Laaser K. (2021). Beyond technological determinism: revitalising labour

process analyses of technology, capital and labour. Work in the Global Economy, 1(1-2): 139-

159. DOI: 10.1332/273241721X16276384832119

Thompson P., Smith C. (2009). Waving, Not Drowning: Explaining and Exploring the

Resilience of Labor Process Theory. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 21: 253–

262. DOI 10.1007/s10672-009-9116-4

Thompson, P. Warhurst C., a cura di (1998). Workplaces of the Future. Basingstoke and

London: Macmillan

Tirapani A.N., Willmott H. (2023). Revisiting conflict: Neoliberalism at work in the gig

economy. Human Relations, 76(1): 53-86. DOI: 10.1177/00187267211064596

van Doorn, N. and Shapiro, A. (2023). Studying the Gig Economy ‘Beyond the Gig’: A

Research Agenda. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4583329 or

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4583329

Veen A., Barratt T. and Goods C. (2020) Platform-capital’s ‘app-etite’ for control: a

labour process analysis of food-delivery work in Australia. Work, Employment and Society

34(3): 388-406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017019836911

Vidal M. and Hauptmeier M. (2014). Comparative political economy and labour process

theory: toward a synthesis. In: Vidal M. and Hauptmeier M., a cura di, Comparative Political

Economy of Work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Vincent S. (2011). The emotional labour process: An essay on the economy of feelings.

Human Relations, 64(10): 1369-1392. DOI: 10.1177/0018726711415131

Weil D. (2014). The Fissured Workplace: Why work became so bad for so many and what

can be done to improve it. Harvard University Press

West J. (1990). Gender and the Labour Process: A Reassessment. In: Knights D., Willmott

H., a cura di, Labour Process Theory. Basingstoke and London: The Macmillan Press

Willmott H. (1990). Subjectivity and the Dialectics of Praxis: Opening up the core of

Labour Process Analysis In: Knights D., Willmott H., a cura di, Labour Process Theory.

Basingstoke and London: The Macmillan Press

Willmott H. (2010). Creating ‘value’ beyond the point of production: branding,

financialization and market capitalization. Organization, 17(5): 517-542. DOI:

10.1177/1350508410374194

Wills J. (2008). Subcontracted Employment and Its Challenge to Labor. Labor Studies

Journal, 34(4): 441-460. DOI: 10.1177/0160449X08324740

Wood A., Graham M., Lehdonvirta V. and Hjorth I. (2019) Good Gig, Bad Gig:

Autonomy and Algorithmic Control in the Global Gig Economy. Work, Employment and

Society 33(1): 56-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018785616

Woodcock J. (2020). Reflecting on a call centre workers’ inquiry. Contradictions,

tensions, and the role of the researcher. Etnografia e Ricerca Qualitativa, 1: 103-118.

Woodcock J. (2021). Workers Inquiry and the Experience of Work: Using Ethnographic

Accounts of the Gig Economy. In: Aroles J., de Vaujany FX., Dale K., a cura di, Experiencing

the new world of work. Cambridge University Press. pp. 136–156. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108865814



Sociologia del lavoro, n. 167/2023. ISSN 0392-5048. ISSNe 1972-554X.

DOI: 10.3280/SL2023-167003

I processi lavorativi nel retail:

intensificazione, meccanismi disciplinari

e resistenze

Annalisa Dordoni*

Labour Processes in Retail: Intensification, Disciplinary Mechanisms

and Resistances

Advanced capitalist societies are increasingly characterized by the tertiar-

ization of the labor market and the expansion of retail. In this essay I present

a reflection on the control mechanisms and disciplinary dispositives, on re-

silience strategies and resistance attempts in the workplace, starting from re-

search conducted with retail workers of two shopping streets in Milan and

London. The empirical material has been analyzed through the lens of the

Labour Process Theory, integrated with Foucaultian concepts: power, disci-

pline, governamentality. The research reveals a sector characterised by com-

pany control and the discipline of work, but also by ambivalent forms of

solidarity between employees.

Keywords: Labour Processes, Retail, Discipline, Resistance

Introduzione

A partire da una rilettura delle analisi della Labour Process Theory (LPT)

su intensificazione del lavoro, controllo e resistenze, integrate da alcuni con-

cetti foucaultiani, verranno indagati in questo saggio i dispositivi di discipli-

namento nel settore del retail presentando i risultati di uno studio sul lavoro

di vendita al cliente nei negozi di abbigliamento fast fashion e di telefonia in

due vie commerciali europee - Oxford Street a Londra e Corso Buenos Aires

a Milano.

Verrà proposta dunque una analisi dei dispositivi di controllo, disciplina-

mento e governamentalità utilizzati nei punti vendita dei negozi su strada -

in particolare volti all’intensificazione del lavoro - sulle strategie e pratiche

di resilienza e sulle forme di solidarietà tra lavoratori e lavoratrici. Queste

* Dipartimento di Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca,

email: annalisa.dordoni@unimib.it



pratiche di solidarietà vanno a configurarsi non come controcondotte o resi-

stenze, o forme di azione collettiva, ma come strategie di resilienza e adatta-

mento rispetto alle richieste aziendali. Inoltre, verrà indagato un percorso di

sindacalizzazione nel caso italiano, atto a limitare la discrezionalità manage-

riale e difendere diritti e tutele già acquisiti.

Gli strumenti di disciplinamento discussi (dal contapassi al mistery shop-

per, e persino le forme ambivalenti di solidarietà che sono in realtà funzionali

alla valorizzazione capitalistica) agiscono su lavoratori e lavoratrici anche in

termini di interiorizzazione della disciplina tramite il meccanismo della go-

vernamentalità: interiorizzano il fatto di essere osservati in ogni momento, il

fatto che tutto è quantificato, si aiutano per raggiungere i target contribuendo

all’aumento dell’intensificazione del loro stesso lavoro. Questo fa sì che vi

siano forme più di resilienza che di resistenza, che la sindacalizzazione del

settore sia difficile e di difesa di tutele già acquisite.

1. Il retail attraverso la lente della Labour Process Analysis

Marx identificò come centrali nei rapporti di lavoro l’intensità e la durata

e analizzò i fattori di intensificazione del lavoro (1969). Elemento chiave

sono le innovazioni, poiché permettono di ottenere plusvalore relativo - fa-

cendo sì che il lavoro effettivo svolto (lavoro incorporato) ecceda rispetto

alla quantità di lavoro socialmente necessario. L’intensità (il ritmo di lavoro)

è meno vincolabile a leggi e relazioni sindacali, rispetto alla durata (i limiti

di legge alle ore lavorate). La sussunzione del lavoro al capitale, o sussun-

zione reale, studiata a lungo da Marx, avviene attraverso i processi lavorativi,

paralleli ai processi di valorizzazione, che si trasformano continuamente,

grazie all’innovazione, al fine di estrarre plusvalore e poter proseguire i cicli

di accumulazione.

Diversi autori hanno indagato i fattori chiave della valorizzazione nei pro-

cessi lavorativi. Braverman (1978) evidenziò la permanente contrapposi-

zione degli interessi capitale-lavoro e il ruolo dei dispositivi tecnologici nel

controllo e nell’intensificazione. Da Braverman si consolida il filone di studi

sui processi lavorativi. Il cuore della LPT è il concetto del lavoro inteso come

merce con una caratteristica peculiare: l’indeterminatezza. Le modificazioni

dei sistemi di produzione, tecnologiche e anche di controllo e disciplina-

mento del lavoro, dunque del sistema manageriale, sono necessarie all’accu-

mulazione e alla sopravvivenza delle aziende nel mercato competitivo. Sono

anche necessarie per ridurre l’indeterminatezza della merce-lavoro e trasfor-

mare il lavoro potenziale in lavoro incorporato.



Negli studi della LPT vengono indagate le condizioni, i tempi di lavoro,

i dispositivi di controllo, gli strumenti. Si svilupparono nella LPT ricerche

sui cambiamenti nei sistemi di produzione e nell’utilizzo del lavoro e sulle

forme di controllo manageriale (Thompson, 1989; 1990; Thompson e New-

some, 2004). Partendo dal presupposto che le relazioni tra capitale e lavoro

sono di “antagonismo strutturale” (Edwards, 1990), e anche che un certo

grado di autonomia e creatività del lavoro è necessario al capitale (Thomp-

son, 2002), diversi autori della LPT “reinseriscono il soggetto” nell’analisi

(Knights, 1990; Willmott, 1990), indagando forme di resistenza ma anche

autonomia (Friedman, 1990), creatività (Cressey e Maclnnes, 1980) e con-

senso (Burawoy, 1979a; 1990). Come Thompson e Newsome (2004) sotto-

lineano, scopo della LPT è analizzare empiricamente variazioni e comples-

sità delle relazioni sul posto di lavoro e identificare tendenze trasversali. Vi

è una continua dialettica tra gli autori che attraversa contesti nazionali e isti-

tuzionali (Knights e Willmott, 1990), fondate su ricerche empiriche (Thomp-

son, 2002). Le riflessioni qui proposte prendono avvio da una ricerca empi-

rica, da cui emergono risultati che possono arricchire il dibattito nella LPT

Il lavoro nella vendita diretta è definito come emotional labour (Hoch-

schild, 1983): sono le competenze comunicative, l’empatia e la gentilezza,

insieme alle qualità estetiche dei corpi degli addetti, a permettere la valoriz-

zazione. Questo è molto importante da tenere a mente, per comprendere le

relazioni sul posto di lavoro, non solo con la clientela ma anche tra colleghi

e colleghe. L’estrazione di plusvalore avviene grazie al lavoro di gestione

delle emozioni, incorporato e reificato. Addetti e addette vengono selezionati

proprio perché nei colloqui appaiono gentili ed empatici.

Bolton ha evidenziato che «l’enfasi di Hochschild è posta sul cambia-

mento del controllo delle emozioni dal privato alla sfera pubblica e del po-

tenziale impatto negativo che questo ha sull’identità» (2009, p. 551). In di-

versi hanno analizzato la messa a valore delle emozioni nell’ambito della

LPT (Bolton e Boyd, 2003; Bolton, 2017). In questo dibattito, si è anche

rilevato che i lavoratori si lamentano meno dei bassi salari, rispetto alla man-

canza di rispetto da parte dei clienti e all’uso arbitrario dell’autorità da parte

dei manager (Reich e Bearman, 2018), sottolineando l’importanza delle re-

lazioni interpersonali (non solo di potere) nel lavoro emozionale.

In alcuni studi sono poste in primo piano le competenze relazionali ed

emotive, e viene definito il lavoro nella vendita come essenzialmente “di-

verso”, evidenziando la relazione (di potere) triadica o triangolare nel retail,

capitale-lavoro-clientela (Leidner, 1993), e dando meno rilevanza alla rela-



zione (di potere) diadica capitale-lavoro. Altri invece sostengono che l’inte-

razione con il cliente vada posta all’interno della relazione capitale-lavoro

(Bélanger e Edwards, 2013; Warhurst et al., 2009).

Recentemente Ikeler (2019) ha sottolineato che nelle interazioni con il

cliente la diade viene “più riaffermata che ‘trascesa’” sottolineando una

continuità, invece di una rottura, tra vendita al cliente e altre mansioni. La

discussione sul tema è stata negli anni molto intensa (Benson, 1986; Kor-

czynski, 2003; 2009; 2013; Bolton, 2005, Ikeler, 2015; 2016).

Il lavoro nel retail è stato indagato anche in relazione ai ruoli di genere,

ponendolo nell’ambito della cura (Conley, 2005) ed è stata oggetto di analisi

quella che può essere definita la “performatività emotiva” richiesta dalla

mansione, e il suo ruolo nel processo di sindacalizzazione (Coulter, 2014).

Nel retail sono le competenze e conoscenze relazionali ed emozionali (lavoro

potenziale) che si trasformano in lavoro effettivo, incorporato nella merce.

È un settore in cui gli ambienti di lavoro sono spesso imprevedibili e cao-

tici, per cui è necessario adottare meccanismi e dispositivi di controllo, di

quantificazione e monitoraggio. Wood (2020), analizzando la relazione di

potere nel quadro dell’organizzazione flessibile del lavoro, ha mostrato come

il “dispotismo flessibile” costituisca un regime di controllo, presentandosi

come nuovo ambito della disuguaglianza in cui la classe lavoratrice postin-

dustriale subisce le difficoltà di programmazione. La programmazione fles-

sibile avviene in un rapporto di scambio attraverso regali e punizioni.

Per osservare i meccanismi e i dispositivi di intensificazione e controllo,

e le forme di resilienza o resistenza che vi si oppongono, è utile aggiungere

alla nostra cassetta degli attrezzi i concetti foucaultiani di potere, disciplina-

mento e governamentalità, nell’intenzione, come scrive Pulignano (2002, p.

35), di «esplorare le possibilità di una teorizzazione che tenesse conto del

legame (…) che Foucault ha instaurato con Marx e il Marxismo».

Foucault (2005) si propose di analizzare i meccanismi e le tecniche di

potere nel loro sviluppo storico, e definì tre sistemi di potere. Prima, un’età

medievale caratterizzata dal meccanismo giuridico e rituale-religioso, in cui

vi sono distinzioni binarie tra permessi e divieti e sistemi di proibizioni e

punizioni. Poi, un’età moderna caratterizzata dal meccanismo disciplinare,

in cui si strutturano dispositivi di correzione. Infine, l’età contemporanea

della sicurezza, caratterizzata da strategie di monitoraggio e controllo come

quantificazione e gestione di tutti gli aspetti della vita (biopotere). In questo

terzo sistema non vi è la necessità di individuare colpevoli da escludere,

emarginare e correggere, ma si governa quantificando i flussi. La quantifica-

zione è lo strumento per l’interiorizzazione della disciplina.



Secondo l’autore, nel meccanismo della governamentalità si considera

l’aleatorio, gli imprevisti: nella contemporaneità le città sono progettate per

potersi sviluppare, tenendo conto non solo del dato, avvenuto, ma anche

dell’aleatorio. Il meccanismo ha il suo fondamento nell’analisi e nella quan-

tificazione di tutte le variabili possibili e potenziali, non solo dei fatti già

avvenuti. Conviene lasciare che i fenomeni si sviluppino, senza opporsi o

contenerli, perché si potrebbe ottenere una reazione contraria, cioè una resi-

stenza o controcondotta.

Edwards (1990) scriveva che, seppur la relazione tra capitale e lavoro sia

di “antagonismo strutturale”, il capitale necessita comunque, sul posto di la-

voro, di un certo grado di cooperazione e di creatività da parte degli addetti,

e sono quindi necessari dispositivi e meccanismi atti a monitorare, gestire e

controllare il lavoro, per trasformare il lavoro potenziale in effettivo, data

l’indeterminatezza peculiare del lavoro.

È da notare come tale periodizzazione possa essere letta attraverso la sto-

ria del lavoro, in tensione tra asservimento (del lavoro al capitale) ed eman-

cipazione (dei lavoratori), poiché il capitale necessita di lasciare al lavoro un

certo grado di autonomia (Edwards, 1990; Thompson, 2002). Come per lo

schema di Foucault, il lavoro passa da un’epoca di divieti e proibizioni (la-

voro servile passibile di pena di morte), a meccanismi sempre più raffinati di

disciplinamento, controllo e sicurezza: ad esempio si può associare il disci-

plinamento all’organizzazione taylorista, e la governamentalità al just in time

toyotista e al lavoro in appalto, somministrazione o outsourcing.

Uno degli oggetti di studio della LPT è proprio il rapporto tra controllo e

resistenza, su cui Foucault rifletté molto. Negli studi del filone dei processi

lavorativi si analizzano strategie e pratiche di controllo manageriale, resi-

stenze e sconfitte, consenso ed egemonia, e basi normative del controllo,

concettualizzate come situate in pratiche materiali (Burawoy, 1979b). Ciò è

analizzato tenendo a mente che considerare il soggetto attivo sul posto di

lavoro non comporta la trasformazione dell’intera società. Anzi, Ackroyd e

Thompson (1999) hanno evidenziato come i lavoratori siano stati talvolta

erroneamente concettualizzati come “apprendisti rivoluzionari”, e valutati

nel quadro di un modello irrealistico di cambiamento sociale, possibilità di

azione sociale, capacità di agency.

2. Contesti e metodi

Le riflessioni qui avanzate prendono avvio da una ricerca il cui materiale

empirico consta di varie forme, testuali e visuali, e soprattutto di 50 interviste



e 2 focus group condotti in due periodi di osservazione a Londra e a Milano

con altrettanti addetti e addette alla vendita, equidistribuiti nei due contesti.

Durante 6 mesi di osservazione in ciascun caso, Oxford Street e Corso Bue-

nos Aires, mi sono recata, in diversi orari e giorni della settimana (in parti-

colare festivi e domeniche), nelle vie e all’interno dei negozi, dove ho avvi-

cinato lavoratori e lavoratrici dei settori di abbigliamento fast fashion e tele-

fonia, per poi incontrarli altrove (l’accesso al campo non è avvenuto tramite

sindacati, né tramite aziende, per non distorcere i risultati). La ricerca empi-

rica è stata condotta tra il 2014 e il 2018, e oggetto di studio erano tempi e

ritmi del lavoro su turni, festivo e domenicale nel retail (Dordoni, 2019).

È stata utilizzata la metodologia collective case studies (Stake, 1995). Pur

trattandosi di contesti certo differenti, i due casi scelti sono caratterizzati da

economie fortemente orientate ai servizi e politiche economiche e del lavoro

neoliberiste: deregolamentazione e liberalizzazione delle aperture degli eser-

cizi commerciali e flessibilizzazione del lavoro. L’Italia ne è esempio para-

digmatico: dopo l’attuazione del Decreto Salva-Italia nel 2012 le attività

commerciali possono restare aperte 365 giorni all’anno, 24 ore su 24, ovun-

que sul territorio nazionale. Si tratta di una totale deregolamentazione, unica

nel continente europeo. Nella normativa del Regno Unito vi è maggior rego-

lamentazione, seppur con deroghe per le zone turistiche come Londra.

In entrambe le vie, Oxford Street e Corso Buenos Aires, vi sono negozi

di fast fashion e telefonia con alta affluenza di clientela, tempi e ritmi flessi-

bili di lavoro e consumo e aperture 7 giorni su 7. Nel Regno Unito in tutti i

settori i lavoratori hanno 2 giorni liberi, con una settimana lavorativa di 5

giorni; in Italia nel retail si lavora su 6 giorni.

Sono state raccolte informazioni sui posti di lavoro e dati socio-demogra-

fici. Interviste e focus group, condotti con la tecnica del foto-stimolo e resi

in forma anonima, sono stati registrati, trascritti e analizzati tramite il soft-

ware MaxQDA. Durante i due periodi etnografici ho scattato fotografie e

girato video per osservare tempi e ritmi nelle vie e nei negozi, poi utilizzati

come stimoli per far emergere sensazioni, percezioni e rappresentazioni, per-

mettendo di rompere il ghiaccio e far emergere dimensioni e temi non previ-

sti, fra cui disciplinamento, resilienza e resistenza, discussi di seguito.

3. Risultati e discussione

Dal punto di vista contrattuale, la maggior parte delle lavoratrici e dei

lavoratori sono assunti a tempo indeterminato o con permanent contract, in

entrambi i casi comunque passibili di licenziamento – siamo nel periodo che



segue l’introduzione in Italia del Jobs Act (2014), che permette di licenziare

senza motivare giusta causa o giustificato motivo.

Nel Regno Unito, età e genere di lavoratori e lavoratrici sono influenzate

da una maggiore dinamicità del mercato del lavoro e da una divisione di ge-

nere meno stereotipata: la forza lavoro nei negozi di abbigliamento e telefo-

nia in Oxford Street a Londra è più giovane e meno femminilizzata, rispetto

a Corso Buenos Aires a Milano, ma anche più propensa a percepire il lavoro

di addetti alla vendita come temporaneo. Nel caso italiano, invece, i lavora-

tori restano più tempo nel retail, seppur talvolta con un percorso di contratti

temporanei spezzettati, e sono più spesso donne, adulte o giovani adulte. Le

donne in particolare riferiscono di sentirsi considerate dai clienti come

“serve”, macchine, sempre disponibili, “robot”, come se non fossero esseri

umani con famiglie, figli, carichi di cura. Le delegate sindacali riportano an-

che riflessioni su rivendicazioni, diritti e sindacalizzazione.

4.1. Meccanismi di disciplinamento e governamentalità

Dalla ricerca emergono riflessioni sui dispositivi utilizzati dalle aziende

per controllare il lavoro. Da un lato vi sono dispositivi più o meno tecnologici

come macchine contapassi o quantificazione di venduto e incassi divisi per

fasce orarie o per addetta, dall’altro vi è il mistery shopper, un “falso” cliente

che valuta addetto, negozio e interazione (Fullin, 2023). Al fine di valoriz-

zare il lavoro, cioè superare l’indeterminatezza del lavoro (Edwards, 1990)

trasformando il lavoro potenziale in lavoro effettivo incorporato, vengono

utilizzati dispositivi di disciplinamento e meccanismi di governamentalità,

per “governare l’aleatorio” (Foucault, 2005), quantificando l’attività lavora-

tiva.

Gli ingressi vengono conteggiati 1) da dispositivi tecnologici, i “conta-

passi”, che funzionano grazie a sensori di movimento, e dunque se un cliente

passa più volte sulla linea monitorata sarà conteggiato più volte; 2) dalle ad-

dette, che devono scrivere in un file Excel il numero degli ingressi.

I target sono uno dei temi più trattati nelle interviste, e consistono nell’in-

casso o nel venduto previsto per un dato giorno, che deve aumentare rispetto

allo stesso giorno dell’anno prima o della media degli anni precedenti. A

volte per target si intende la vendita un prodotto specifico entro un dato pe-

riodo di tempo, solitamente accade per i prodotti meno venduti della sta-

gione, in modo da spingerne la vendita e non tenerli in magazzino.



In alcuni casi le aziende utilizzano il rinforzo positivo, dando premi a chi

raggiunge i target (individuali o di squadra) a volte invece quello negativo,

ponendo il target come minimo necessario e punendo chi non li raggiunge.

Molto spesso addetti e addette alla vendita citano la quantificazione degli

avventori, degli incassi, dei prodotti, il monitoraggio continuo:

Il contapassi è uno strumento digitale che viene messo all’ingresso (…) della

porta del punto vendita, per contare proprio i passaggi, sempre il flusso, per monito-

rarlo. (..) Veniva chiesto dall’azienda un sacco di cose: come mai il flusso era così,

le vendite erano così… Insomma, si era molto controllati (Milano_T4_Marina_F33).

A me la cosa che più ancora mi mette l’ansia è questa cosa degli incassi. Cioè, io

tutti i giorni... Ieri dovevamo fare 3.198 euro. Se io chiudo a tremila, quei 198 il

giorno dopo devo spiegare perché non li ho raggiunti. E ogni ora mi entrano delle

persone in negozio. Io il numero di quelle persone che entrano nel negozio lo segno

ora per ora. E se ho un valore che denota la percentuale di vendita su quelli che

entrano basso, al di sotto di un 20%, io devo spiegare perché. A me questa è la cosa

che più mi mette ansia” (Milano_A3_Marcella_F34). “Per il fatturato… Forse è il

periodo della mia vita in cui mi sono sentita un numero rispetto ad una persona (Mi-

lano_A7_Melissa_F27).

Tali questioni emergono in particolare nel caso italiano, pur essendo ci-

tate da alcuni commessi e commesse anche a Londra, perché qui il personale

è spesso sottorganico, e ciò incide sull’ansia connessa alla quantificazione.

Per raggiungere gli obiettivi non vengono solo utilizzati metodi per quan-

tificare e gestire i flussi e sorvegliarli, ma vi è anche un controllo diretto sulle

lavoratrici e i lavoratori dei negozi. In diversi punti vendita di abbigliamento

le commesse e i commessi lavorano con degli auricolari, tramite i quali i

manager prescrivono di aumentare il ritmo di lavoro, accelerare il servizio,

intensificare le mansioni di riordino della merce, di capi di vestiario sugli

scaffali (Fullin, 2021). Inoltre, anche il fatto di non disporre di sgabelli o di

sedie è un meccanismo di disciplinamento, poiché, oltre a dare un’immagine

della commessa come pronta e disponibile (Dordoni, 2017), comporta anche

l’essere sempre in movimento, a disposizione, attive per reagire immediata-

mente alle richieste. Lo stress, “la pressione” è legato al ruolo dei manager:

I supervisor e i nostri manager lì dentro, sai, ti mettono un po’ di pressione e ti

stressano: ‘Cosa stai facendo, o cosa stai per fare..., o ti fissano, questo genere di

cose. Non lo sopporto... A volte può diventare stressante. [Mi chiedono] “Cosa fai?

Dove vai? Quanto tempo ci vuole per finire”, o “Dove vai ora? Chi stai servendo?

Dove sei stato?” Roba del genere. Potrei lavorare per dieci minuti, chiamano dieci

minuti dopo, “Quanto ci vuole per fare questo, o perché non hai finito con quello,



che ha bisogno di essere riordinato?” Ti danno più di una cosa da fare allo stesso

tempo. È così ovunque’ (Londra_A8_Peter_M29).

Oltre ai dispositivi elettronici di controllo come tablet e auricolari, e oltre

al fatto di dover essere in piedi e attivi durante tutto il turno di lavoro, un

altro dispositivo di sorveglianza, forse il più interessante fra tutti, è il “mi-

stery shopper”. Si tratta di una persona che, per conto dell’azienda e solita-

mente assunta tramite agenzie esterne, si finge cliente e valuta l’intero pro-

cesso lavorativo: l’ambiente, inteso come ordine e pulizia della parte esposta

al pubblico del negozio e delle vetrine, il materiale pubblicitario compresi

brochure e video terminali se presenti, le divise di lavoratori e lavoratrici, la

qualità del servizio, il tempo speso per acquistare la merce, il tempo di attesa

in negozio prima dell’acquisto, ecc. La persona assunta per recitare il ruolo

deve fingere di essere un vero cliente. L’addetta o addetto non è a conoscenza

del fatto di essere sottoposto a giudizio da parte dell’azienda. Qualunque

cliente potrebbe essere il mistery shopper: così si sviluppa il meccanismo di

governamentalità. A volte le commesse e i commessi si confrontano tra loro

su clienti particolari, per cercare di individuare il possibile “mistery”. La va-

lutazione ottenuta sarà poi inviata, trascorso del tempo in cui viene visionata

e rivalutata in sede, al negozio e posta all’attenzione dell’addetta alla vendita.

Talvolta la valutazione viene discussa insieme ad un manager, e vengono

date indicazioni alla commessa o al commesso su come modificare il servi-

zio. In caso di più valutazioni negative l’azienda prende provvedimenti, se

l’addetta è a tempo determinato può essere deciso di non rinnovarle il con-

tratto anche dopo una sola valutazione negativa. Spesso addette e addetti si

lamentano del fatto che le persone assunte tramite agenzie per recitare questo

ruolo non conoscono il lavoro di vendita al cliente, non sanno che difficoltà

possono verificarsi nel processo lavorativo e giudicano senza tener conto di

aspetti che invece sono alla base della attività che valutano.

Anche in questo caso, il tema emerge in particolare nel caso di Milano,

anche se il mistery shopper è uno strumento utilizzato anche nel Regno Unito

– ricordiamo che le questioni inerenti ai dispositivi di controllo non erano

incluse nella traccia di intervista ma sono emerse dal lavoro di campo:

Oggi hanno dato le valutazioni dei mistery. Si trattava di una giovane donna con

cui stavo per litigare perché era palese che fingeva di non capire cosa le stavo spie-

gando …opzioni telefoniche per SIM ricaricabile, piani da 10 euro con tot chiamate,

messaggi e internet, una cosa facile, dai! Avevo capito che fingeva, ma non avevo

proprio pensato che potesse essere il mistery. Le ho chiesto persino se mi stava pren-

dendo in giro! La valutazione è in parte negativa. Mi sono sentita presa in giro da



quella donna. Non credo sia corretto prendere in giro così chi lavora” (Mi-

lano_T12_Anna).

Si tratta di una doppia pressione, che converge nel processo di valorizza-

zione: bisogna raggiungere i target in meno tempo possibile (durata), e si

deve fare ciò che richiede il cliente nel minor tempo possibile (intensità,

ritmo dell’interazione). Certo, sul posto di lavoro sono tre i gruppi che hanno

interazioni - addetti e addette, azienda e suo management, e clientela – ma, a

mio avviso, tali relazioni sono comunque inserite all’interno della dialettica

capitale-lavoro (Bélanger e Edwards, 2013; Ikeler, 2019) che si configura

come “antagonismo strutturale (Edwards, 1990).

Spesso la clientela è al centro delle risposte sulla soddisfazione lavorativa

di intervistate e intervistati. Ciò non è dato dal fatto che il lavoro si contrap-

pone al cliente (oltre che al capitale), ma dal fatto che, dovendo subire l’alie-

nazione delle proprie emozioni tipica del lavoro emozionale (Hochschild,

1983), con bassi salari e mancato riconoscimento (Dordoni, 2019), le intera-

zioni umane sono molto importanti per questi lavoratori.

Magari (…) passano di fianco a un mobile e buttano giù delle magliette… Oh, ci

capita spesso di sentire le colleghe, che il cliente si gira, ti guarda se sei lì, poi si

rigira e se ne va o magari gli dici: “Scusi, gentilmente, ha finito di provare queste

cose. Le può riappendere?” “Non mi metto mica a fare il tuo lavoro, io! Fai il tuo

lavoro” (Milano_A6_Cecilia_F34).

Se la relazione di valorizzazione è diade, capitale-lavoro, le interazioni

situate sul posto di lavoro sono certamente triangolari, perché comprendono

i clienti (Korczynski, 2009; 2013). Questo non significa che siano i clienti a

disporre del lavoro. La domanda di immediatezza del cliente (Dordoni,

2017), che le aziende richiedono ad addette e addetti di accontentare, contri-

buisce all’intensificazione e va a sommarsi agli altri dispositivi (indiretti) di

controllo aziendale, seppur non sia agita direttamente dall’azienda.

4.2. Resilienza e ambivalenza delle pratiche di solidarietà nei negozi

Addette e addetti hanno modi diversi di reagire allo stress e all’ansia del

lavoro in negozio su turni nelle vie commerciali con alto flusso di clientela.

Per la maggior parte, cercano di aiutarsi per sopravvivere e portare a termine

il lavoro. Così, mettono in atto delle strategie di resilienza, delle pratiche di

solidarietà tra colleghe e colleghi. Queste pratiche sono ambivalenti poiché



da un lato permettono di avere più margine di autogestione (dei turni, della

relazione con il cliente) rispetto al controllo aziendale, ma dall’altro sono

funzionali al processo di valorizzazione.

L’intensificazione non viene messa in discussione, ma anzi i lavoratori

tentano di stare al passo con essa dandosi una mano l’un l’altra. Non si tratta

di un percorso di azione collettiva, ma di adattamento. Vi è una grande dif-

ferenza con la solidarietà intesa, invece, come azione collettiva ‘in nuce’

(Atzeni, 2009; 2010; Tassinari e Maccarone, 2020). Lavoratrici e lavoratori

si adattano - nel processo di reificazione che rende strumento di lavoro i loro

sorrisi, le loro emozioni e il loro tempo - proprio grazie alla solidarietà tra

membri del team, che è sì forma di riconoscimento (Dordoni, 2019) ma non

si traduce in azione collettiva.

Il team di lavoro è elemento centrale per superare i momenti difficili, an-

che con i clienti. La solidarietà tra addetti e addette alla vendita si presenta

come una strategia di coping collettiva (Korczynski, 2003). In tale mansione

sono determinanti le emozioni e gli addetti sono selezionati dai manager in

base a caratteristiche precise: gentilezza, empatia. Anche a causa delle loro

peculiarità personali, i commessi si aiutano per rispettare le richieste azien-

dali, permettendo così alle aziende di massimizzare i profitti abbattendo i

costi (ad esempio in formazione, straordinari, organico).

Come emerge dalle testimonianze raccolte:

La squadra con cui sto lavorando è molto importante. Mi fa sentire bene andare

al lavoro. È molto più facile. (…) Cioè, il loro atteggiamento e il rapporto con loro...

a volte, forse, non mi piace molto il lavoro, ma le persone che ci sono rendono molto

più facile andare a lavorare. Per me è la cosa più importante (Londra_A2_Ana_F26).

Fa la differenza avere i colleghi giusti (…) Alla fine è una recita, quindi… È una

recita, cioè alla fine la vendita è una recita, quindi avere anche gli altri attori intorno

fa la differenza, si lavora meglio in squadra (Milano_T4_Marina_F33).

Spesso nel retail non vi sono momenti specificamente formativi per le

dipendenti, poiché si dà per scontato che sia un lavoro poco qualificato e che

non vi siano competenze o conoscenze da acquisire o stimolare. Questo è

persino stato identificato, negli Stati Uniti, come un punto di partenza per

tentare nuove vie di azione sindacale (Ikeler e Fullin, 2018).

Da questa ricerca emerge che spesso sono addetti e addette con esperienza

a formare i più giovani nei pochi minuti liberi che hanno. Si tratta di un’atti-

vità non formalizzata e non retribuita. Non è l’azienda a prendersi carico di

quest’onere e costo, ma gli addetti più anziani.



[L’azienda ti dice come relazionarti con i clienti difficili?] Non ti dicono come

reagire con i clienti difficili ma... giorno dopo giorno, vedi come devi fare. Quando

alleno qualcuno di nuovo, dico sempre loro come affrontare questo tipo di situazioni

(Londra_A2_Ana_F26).

[Quando inizi a lavorare ti fanno un po’ di formazione o ti mandano allo sbara-

glio?] C’è qualche tuo collega che ti prende a cuore e ti dice cosa devi fare (Mi-

lano_A4_Fiorella_F30).

Il team è vissuto come ambito collettivo che aiuta la singola addetta. Il

gruppo si inserisce nella relazione con i clienti difficili e modera. Inoltre, i

membri del team si accordano per accogliere le esigenze di tutti modificando

i turni in modalità collettiva, per tenere il negozio sempre aperto.

Luigi rispondeva in questo modo alla domanda “Cosa ti piace del tuo la-

voro?”:

Sentirmi tranquillo, sentirmi un po’ a casa mia tra virgolette, perché casa mia è

casa mia, quella leggerezza, [C’è più collaborazione o competizione tra di voi? La

competizione non c’è o c’è?] No, assolutamente, soprattutto nel mio punto vendita

siamo noi lo scudo forte (Milano_A8_Luigi_M38).

La strada principale che adottiamo è quella di organizzarci tra di noi, nel senso

che posso chiedere alla mia collega, se è fattibile, l’inversione nel giorno di riposo o

comunque del turno e ci si accorda (Milano_A8_Luigi_M38).

Vediamo dunque come il team sia uno “scudo forte” che protegge sia

dalla maleducazione e aggressività della clientela, sia dall’ansia e dallo stress

connessi al controllo e al monitoraggio continuo da parte dell’azienda.

Da un lato questo può essere considerato come una forma di solidarietà.

Dall’altro, la flessibilità elevata è sostenuta proprio da queste pratiche di

aiuto per la sopravvivenza. Essere sempre a disposizione (dei clienti,

dell’azienda) ed estremamente flessibili, accomodanti, veloci, rispondenti

alle richieste, è possibile solo grazie a queste strategie e pratiche di mutuo-

aiuto tra colleghi e colleghe, che sono funzionali al processo produttivo. Gra-

zie a queste coping strategies, tempi e ritmi sono sempre più intensi.

Diversi studi sottolineano la rilevanza degli abusi nei servizi da parte della

clientela verso commessi e commesse (Korczynski e Evans, 2013). Anche

qui vediamo che le strategie di resilienza e adattamento dei commessi sono

funzionali al processo di valorizzazione: adattarsi significa relazionarsi con

clienti aggressivi senza reagire facendosi dare una mano dal team. Spesso,



infatti, il management non entra in relazione con i clienti neanche in caso di

abusi.

Fondamentalmente, [i manager] dicono che il cliente ha sempre ragione. Ma il

fatto è che non sono sempre nel giusto. Devi solo comportarti come se avessero ra-

gione, devi solo farli andare via. Non so, sto solo cercando di evitare qualsiasi pro-

blema. Anche se il cliente non ha ragione e sta cercando di farti arrabbiare, bisogna

solo farlo pagare e andare via. Non voglio essere coinvolto in qualsiasi problema

(Londra_A11_Mark_M21).

Quando ero più giovane, ero solito arrabbiarmi e pensare “dovrei prenderla sul

personale”. Poi devi smetterla e pensare “non è personale, è il marchio, stai rappre-

sentando il marchio”. Devi capire che il cliente non se la sta prendendo con te (Lon-

dra_T4_Mohamed_M34).

Raramente, in alcuni punti vendita, queste strategie di sopravvivenza si

sviluppano e non sono più soltanto al servizio e funzionali al processo di

valorizzazione. Marie racconta che nel negozio in cui lavora il team si rifiuta

di servire clienti aggressivi:

Il bello del m io nego zio... se abbiamo un cliente che è aggressivo o che è scortese,

allora letteralmente l’intero negozio si rifiuta di servirli. Sono semplicemente bloc-

cati lì con i loro problemi. “Se tu fossi gentile, ti aiuteremmo. Quindi, la squadra

tiene la schiena dritta nel mio negozio!” (Londra_T2_Marie_F28).

Emergono diversi casi in cui lavoratori e lavoratrici sviluppano strategie

di accomodamento per relazionarsi con clienti difficili senza disturbare il

processo lavorativo e l’esperienza di acquisto degli altri consumatori. È da

notare che nel Regno Unito (a differenza dell’Italia) il problema degli abusi

è tenuto in alta considerazione. I sindacati del settore, ad esempio USDAW,

sensibilizzano contro gli abusi e cercano di convincere commesse e com-

messi a non tollerarli, a denunciare e chiamare i manager. Dalla ricerca con-

dotta, invece, per lo più addette e addetti interiorizzano la regola aziendale

(‘il cliente ha ragione’) al punto da lasciarsi maltrattare:

Come lavoratore professionista io so come gestire la cosa, ma alcuni dei nostri

colleghi si fanno buttar giù. Ad esempio, se un cliente gli dice qualcosa di brutto,

poi tutto il giorno sono tristi e scontrosi. Non è così che funziona: siamo nella ‘vita

professionale’, sono solo clienti! Per un momento può essere brutto ma... chi se ne

frega!” (Londra_A10_Stefan_M34).”Quelli difficili, devi trattare con loro in modo

professionale. A volte può diventare stressante. Dovremmo riuscire, come posso



dirlo, a tenerli calmi e cercare di risolvere la situazione nel miglior modo possibile

(Londra_A8_Peter_M29).

Addetti e addette adottano strategie di resilienza, funzionali ad una ‘ge-

stione serena’ del processo lavorativo, e al processo di valorizzazione.

4.3. Controcondotte e resistenze? Una sindacalizzazione difficile

Dalla ricerca è emerso che nei contesti osservati gli addetti e le addette,

generalmente, non sono sindacalizzati. Non solo non sono iscritti ad un sin-

dacato, non conoscono i loro diritti e spesso non sono interessati a conoscerli.

Nel Regno Unito vi è il diritto di rifiuto al lavoro domenicale, ma addetti e

addette non ne erano a conoscenza. Non conoscono i termini dei loro con-

tratti di lavoro e dei regolamenti aziendali. Solo in un unico punto vendita in

Italia, un negozio fast fashion di media grandezza di un brand internazionale,

si è rilevato un percorso di sindacalizzazione. Durante le interviste e i focus

group molti lavoratori e lavoratrici lamentano difficoltà legate principal-

mente, ma non solo, ai tempi e ai ritmi di lavoro richiesti da aziende e mana-

gement, alla programmazione flessibile (Wood, 2020), all’esiguità del per-

sonale presente nello stesso turno in negozio. In generale, in entrambi i con-

testi, pur evidenziando questioni che pertengono l’ambito dell’azione sinda-

cale i lavoratori e le lavoratrici non si rivolgono ai sindacati per rivendicare

i diritti che sostengono essergli negati sul posto di lavoro, e neanche per ten-

tare di avviare un percorso inverso, attraverso le relazioni industriali e sinda-

cali, rispetto a quella che si è ormai definita come una “ ideologia del sempre

aperto” (Dordoni, 2019).

Mi sento come se fossi sempre a disposizione della gente. Forse me lo sono fatto

da sola, forse gli ho permesso io di farlo. Ma sento come, con i miei colleghi pure,

ci lamentiamo sempre perché ci si sente come se in un momento cambiano la pro-

grammazione e devo cambiare la mia vita per loro (Londra_A1_Anne_F22).

In Italia si sommano anche altre problematiche: i bassi salari, l’alto turn-

over del personale (che non viene formato e per questo non garantisce un

servizio di qualità, creando un contesto lavorativo difficile per i pochi con

più esperienza) e, allo stesso tempo, l’essere sempre sottorganico. Lavoratori

e lavoratrici italiani si ritrovano molto spesso, nei negozi medio-piccoli, da



sole o soli in negozio, con la responsabilità della merce e della cassa (a Lon-

dra addetti e addette non sono mai soli in negozio, e in quasi tutti i negozi vi

sono guardie all’ingresso).

Inoltre, nel contesto italiano, talvolta, addette e addetti, sfogandosi su

quelli che percepiscono come diritti negati, esordiscono anticipando una ri-

sposta che spesso ricevono a seguito delle loro lamentele, “bisogna ringra-

ziare di avere un lavoro” (Dordoni 2022, p. 75).

Uno dice sempre: non ti lamentare perché tu il lavoro ce l’hai. Io non mi lamento.

Perché è vero, io il lavoro ce l’ho. Però, è anche vero che quando sono entrata, dieci

anni fa, la realtà di vita del mio lavoro non era questa. Mi hanno, per di più, succes-

sivamente obbligata a firmare delle modifiche contrattuali per arrivare, poi, a peg-

giorare la situazione fino ad oggi. Perché quando sono entrata le domeniche eravamo

chiusi. Quindi, è normale che io mi lamento. Non mi lamento del fatto che ho un

posto di lavoro e percepisco uno stipendio che, ribadisco, secondo me non è perfet-

tamente adeguato al mio lavoro, alla mia turnistica. Di base, io lavoro le stesse ore

che lavora mia madre. Però, mia madre fa dal lunedì al venerdì e prende millecin-

quecento euro al mese. Io mi sparo anche i sabati e le domeniche e ne prendo mille

e due. Capisci? Mi lamento non del fatto che io abbia un posto di lavoro ma che,

comunque sia, nel mio campo sono state fatte delle modifiche che, secondo me, non

sono adeguate... non è stato adeguato il salario alla richiesta delle modifiche contrat-

tuali che ci sono state date (…) Oltre che un dovere, è anche un diritto poter avere

un posto di lavoro (Milano_A10_Rossella_F32).

Se la funzione del sindacato è, in generale, in astratto, considerata impor-

tante da diversi addetti e addette, rivolgersi al sindacato non è un’ipotesi per-

corribile per loro. In aggiunta, la rappresentazione dei sindacati è composta

da luci e ombre. Molti pensano o che i sindacati non abbiano la forza per

discutere le scelte aziendali e le politiche economiche e del lavoro, o non

hanno fiducia in queste istituzioni, o entrambe le cose. Infine, la paura di

punizioni, la minaccia di “ripercussioni future” da parte del management e

dell’azienda, spegne spesso del tutto la già scarsa voglia di agire. Le minacce

hanno un gran peso nel settore del retail, in cui i manager hanno larga discre-

zionalità nel programmare i turni e decidere rispetto a premi e punizioni

(Wood, 2020). Dai risultati di questa ricerca emerge che il disciplinamento

viene poi superato dalla governamentalità, non si tratta solo della divisione

in lavoratori buoni e cattivi e di premi e punizioni, ma la paura ha un ruolo

chiave e si anticipano i possibili conflitti futuri con le minacce.



[Che cosa pensi dei sindacati?] ho sempre avuto una buona...cioè, la funzione

sindacato è fondamentale, però effettivamente non ho mai riscontrato una cosa po-

sitiva (…) Quindi non c’è questa... Questa idea di forza dei sindacati, effettivamente,

e che ti possa aiutare (Milano_T6_Martino_M21).

Io in realtà avevo paura di rivolgermi al sindacato, avevo paura di ripercussioni

future. Almeno in questa azienda * c’era questo terrorismo, non andare al sindacato

perché sennò poi te la facciamo pagare in altro modo. Adesso che ormai non ci la-

voro più dico sì però in realtà noi siamo sempre state minacciate da questa mafia…

(Milano_T8_Chiara_F29).

Tra le intervistate e gli intervistati in Italia vi sono anche addette e addetti

iscritti ai sindacati. Confermano il clima di paura e minacce ma mostrano

anche come dall’iniziale paura si possa poi giungere ad agire, rivolgersi al

sindacato e aderirvi, per poi creare un gruppo che si relaziona con l’azienda,

permettendo un miglioramento delle condizioni sul posto di lavoro per tutte

le dipendenti e tutti i dipendenti e mettendo le basi per un accrescimento

della consapevolezza di colleghe e colleghi sui loro diritti.

Dalle interviste emergono i meccanismi di ritorsione contro chi si iscrive

al sindacato, e la paura degli altri lavoratori, anche di chi è assunto a tempo

indeterminato. Come spiegano Caterina e Sofia:

C’è veramente paura (…) All’inizio eravamo il gruppo dei facinorosi, io non ero

all’inizio delegata, però ero nel gruppo dei facinorosi, e hanno cominciato ad avere

questo atteggiamento all’inizio proprio di fastidio, cioè era proprio una sfida, era

come se avessimo sfidato (Milano_A2_Caterina_F32).

Chi aveva paura andava dai delegati (…) dicendo: “È successo questo, però non

dire che te l’ho detto io” – ma perché hanno paura di perdere il posto di lavoro e

quindi, piuttosto… [Ma perché sono a tempo determinato questi?] No (…) Sono

quelli a indeterminato perché hanno paura, poi, di essere visti male, hanno paura di

rischiare il posto di lavoro (Milano_A5_Sofia_F44).

Il percorso di sindacalizzazione si configura come processo di riequili-

brio e normalizzazione delle relazioni industriali, e di riallineamento nel qua-

dro del diritto di pratiche aziendali che prima erano fortemente autoritarie,

ad esempio rispetto alla comunicazione dei turni.

Le relazioni sindacali instaurate sono utili a limitare la discrezionalità dei

manager ma non si pongono lo scopo di ottenere maggiori tutele. Si tenta

piuttosto di difendere diritti pregressi, minati dall’accresciuta intensifica-

zione. Fiorella racconta, come altre sue colleghe:



Con l’entrata del sindacato siamo molto più tutelati. Prima capitava che lavora-

vamo dieci giorni di fila ma non se ne accorgeva nessuno. Comunque, non passavano

le undici ore di pausa tra un turno e l’altro (…) Mi sono appena candidata RSU.

Quindi... È una cosa che si deve mantenere, perché se perdiamo quello, perdiamo

tutto. Torniamo come eravamo dieci anni fa e, probabilmente, ancora peggio. Serve,

il sindacato serve (Milano_A4_Fiorella_F30).

Le lavoratrici (per lo più donne) giungono alla scelta di iscriversi al sin-

dacato a causa delle questioni temporali e di intensificazione, e grazie al per-

corso intrapreso si creano delle relazioni con l’azienda rispetto a temi speci-

fici. Le relazioni sindacali hanno permesso, ad esempio, la possibilità di ri-

chiedere modifiche di orario (part-time a turni fissi per le lavoratrici madri),

consegne dei turni con un certo anticipo (non all’ultimo momento) e mag-

giore attenzione ai giorni di riposo previsti per legge.

Il tentativo di resistenza si configura come un percorso di rivendicazione

atto a far diminuire significativamente la discrezionalità dei manager, a far

in modo che vengano rispettati diritti già acquisiti e normati, a instaurare

delle relazioni con le aziende più incentrate sulla cooperazione.

Conclusioni

Nel saggio si propone un quadro teorico utile per analizzare processi la-

vorativi, relazioni sul posto di lavoro, strategie e forme di resilienza nel retail.

Le riflessioni proposte possono essere in parte generalizzate ad altri contesti,

come centri commerciali o supermercati.

Da un lato emergono forme di solidarietà e di mutuo-aiuto tra colleghi e

colleghe, che si configurano come funzionali al processo di valorizzazione.

L’intensificazione del lavoro avviene anche grazie alle pratiche di solidarietà

e di adattamento. Dall’altro, si evidenzia nel caso italiano, in cui per lo più

addette sono adulte e lavorano più anni nel settore, un percorso di sindaca-

lizzazione che si presenta come difesa di diritti acquisiti e freno alla discre-

zionalità manageriale.

L’osservazione delle relazioni sul posto di lavoro e l’analisi delle intervi-

ste e dei focus group ha mostrato come la diade capitale-lavoro, nella sua

forma di “antagonismo strutturale” (Edwards, 1990), non si configuri nel re-

tail in modo essenzialmente diverso rispetto alle altre attività, le interazioni

lavoro-clientela si presentano comunque all’interno della diade, che viene

quindi “più riaffermata che trascesa” (Ikeler, 2019).



Lo studio è stato condotto tra il 2014 e il 2018 e il materiale raccolto

potrebbe essere arricchito da nuove piste di ricerca. Inoltre, sarebbe interes-

sante andare ad osservare come sono cambiati i dispositivi tecnologici dopo

qualche anno, e soprattutto dopo la pandemia, e anche verificare se i percorsi

di sindacalizzazione qui delineati sono ancora in atto, se si sono modificati e

se vi sia stato spazio per azioni collettive più incidenti.

Riferimenti bibliografici

Ackroyd, S., Thompson, P. (1999). Organisational Misbehaviour. London: Sage.

Atzeni M. (2009). Searching for injustice and finding solidarity? A contribution to the

mobilisation theory debate. Industrial Relations Journal, 40(1), 5-16. DOI:

10.1017/S0020859012000338

Atzeni M. (2010). Workplace Conflict: Mobilization and Solidarity in Argentina, Basing-

stoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

Bélanger J., Edwards P. (2013). The nature of frontline service work: Distinctive features

and continuity in the employment relationship. Work, Employment and Society 27(3): 433–

450. DOI: 10.1177/0950017013481877

Benson, S. P. (1986). Counter cultures: Saleswomen, managers, and customers in Amer-

ican department stores 1890-1940. Working Class in American History. Illinois: University

of Illinois Press.

Bolton S. C. (2005). Emotion Management in the Workplace. London: Palgrave.

Bolton S. C. (2009). Getting to the heart of the emotional labour process: a reply to Brook.

Work, employment and society, 23(3): 549-560. DOI: 10.1177/0950017009337069

Bolton S. C. (2017). Old Ambiguities and New Developments: Exploring the Emotional

Labour Process. In: Thompson P., Smith C., a cura di, Working life: renewing labour process

analysis. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Bolton S. C., Boyd, C. (2003). Trolley dolly or skilled emotion manager? Moving on from

Hochschild’s managed heart. Work, employment and society, 17(2), 289-308. DOI:

10.1177/0950017003017002004

Braverman H. (1978). Lavoro e capitale monopolistico. La degradazione del lavoro nel

XX secolo, Torino: Einaudi.

Burawoy M. (1979a). Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process under Mo-

nopoly Capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Burawoy M. (1979b). The anthropology of industrial work. Annual review of Anthropol-

ogy, 8(1): 231-266. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.an.08.100179.001311

Burawoy M. (1990). The politics of production, London: Verso.

Conley H. (2005). Front line or all fronts? Women’s trade union activism in retail services,

Gender, Work and Organization 12(5): 479–496. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2005.00285.x

Coulter K. (2014). Revolutionizing Retail: Workers, Political Action and Social Change.

New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cressey P., Maclnnes J. (1980). Voting for Ford: Industriai democracy and the contro! of

labor, Capita[ and Class, 11: 2-37. DOI: 10.1177/030981688001100101

Dordoni, A. (2017). Times and rhythms of the retail shift work: two European case stud-

ies: immediate gratification and deregulation of shop opening hours. Sociologia del lavoro,

146/2017: 156-171. DOI: 10.3280/SL2017-146010



Dordoni A. (2019). Sempre aperto. Lavorare su turni nella società dei servizi 24/7. Sesto

S. Giovanni: Mimesis.

Dordoni A. (2020). Tempi e ritmi della vendita al cliente. Processi di destrutturazione e

alienazione. Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia, 61(1), 61-94. DOI: 10.1423/96934

Dordoni A. (2022). Young retail shift workers (not) planning their future: working with

customers in the 24/7 service society in the transition to adulthood. International Journal of

Sociology and Social Policy, 42(13/14), 66-80. DOI: 10.1108/IJSSP-02-2022-0060

Edwards R. (1979). Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twen-

tieth Century. New York: Basic Books

Edwards, P. K. (1990). Understanding conflict in the labour process: The logic and au-

tonomy of struggle. In: Knights D., Willmott H., a cura di, Labour Process Theory. London:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Foucault M. (2005). Sicurezza, territorio, popolazione, Milano: Feltrinelli.

Friedman A. (1990). Managerial strategies, activities, techniques and technology: towards

a complex theory of the labour process. In, Knights D., Willmott H., Labour process theory,

London: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 177-208.

Fullin G. (2021). Front-line Workers in the Global Service Economy: Overshadowed and

Overstretched in the Fast Fashion World. Routledge.

Fullin G. (2023). I clienti siamo noi. Il lavoro nella società dei servizi. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Hochschild A. R. (1983). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Ikeler P. (2015). Deskilling emotional labour: Evidence from department store retail.

Work, Employment and Society 30(6): 966–983. DOI: 10.1177/0950017015609031

Ikeler P. (2016). Hard Sell: Work and Resistance in Retail Chains. Ithaca, NY: ILR/Cor-

nell University Press.

Ikeler P. (2019). Precarity’s prospect: Contingent control and union renewal in the retail

sector. Critical Sociology, 45(4-5), 501-516. DOI: 10.1177/0896920517749706

Ikeler P., Fullin G. (2018). Training to empower: A decade of the Retail Action Project.

Journal of Labor and Society, 21(2), 174-192. DOI: 10.1111/wusa.12330

Knights D., Willmott H.( a cura di) (1990). Labour process theory, London: Palgrave

Macmillan

Knights D. (1990). Subjectivity, power and the labour process. In: Knights D., Willmott

H., a cura di, Labour process theory, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Korczynski M. (2003). Communities of Coping: Collective Emotional labour in Service

Work, Organization 10(1): 55–79. DOI: 10.1177/1350508403010001479

Korczynski M. (2009). The Mystery Customer: Continuing Absence in the Sociology of

Service Work, Sociology, 43. DOI: 10.1177/0038038509340725

Korczynski M. (2013). The customer in the sociology of work: different ways of going

beyond the management–worker dyad, Work, Employment and Society, 27(6). DOI:

10.1177/095001701246442

Korczynski M., Evans C. (2013). Customer abuse to service workers: An analysis of its

social creation within the service economy. Work, employment and society, 27(5), 768-784.

DOI: 10.1177/0950017012468501

Leidner R. (1993). Fast Food, Fast Talk: Service Work and the Routinization of Everyday

Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Marx K. (1969). Il Capitale. Libro Primo, Capitolo VI inedito, Firenze: La Nuova Italia.

Pulignano V. (2002). Attualità e questioni nella sociologia britannica del lavoro: rifles-

sioni da una prospettiva italiana. Sociologia del lavoro, 86-87: 17-39. DOI: 10.3280/SL2002-

086003



Reich A., Bearman P. (2018). Working for Respect: Community and Conflict at Walmart.

New York: Columbia University Press.

Stake R. E. (1995). The Art Of Case Study Research. London: Sage.

Tassinari A., Maccarrone V. (2020). Riders on the storm: Workplace solidarity among gig

economy couriers in Italy and the UK. Work, employment and society, 34(1), 35-54. DOI:

10.1177/0950017019862954

Thompson, P. (1989). The Nature of Work: An Introduction to Debates on the Labour

Process. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Thompson P (1990) Crawling from the wreckage: The labour process and the politics of

production. In: Knights D., Willmott H., a cura di, Labour Process Theory. London: Palgrave

Macmillan

Thompson P. (2002). Contestando il quadro complessivo: lavoro, occupazione ed econo-

mia politica all’interno e oltre il dibattito sul processo lavorativo, Sociologia del lavoro, 86-

87: 40-60. DOI: 10.3280/SL2002-086004

Thompson P., Newsome K. (2004). Labor process theory, work, and the employment re-

lation. In: Kaufman B. E., a cura di, Theoretical perspectives on work and the employment

relationship. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.

Warhurst C., Thompson P., Nickson D. (2009). Labor process theory: Putting the materi-

alism back into the meaning of service work. In: Korczynski M., Macdonald C. L., a cura di,

Service Work: Critical Perspectives. New York: Routledge.

Willmott, H. (1990). Subjectivity and the dialectics of praxis: Opening up the core of

labour process analysis. In: Knights D., Willmott H., a cura di, Labour Process Theory. Lon-

don: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wood A. (2020). Despotism on Demand: How Power Operates in the Flexible Workplace.

Cornell University Press.

Sociologia del lavoro, n. 167/2023. ISSN 0392-5048. ISSNe 1972-554X.

DOI: 10.3280/SL2023-167004

Coming through in waves

Generational dynamics and resistance practices

among blue-collar workers in an Italian factory

Angelo Moro*1

This article aims to contribute to the theoretical development of Labour

Process Theory by studying the motives that lead workers to consent or

dissent towards the workplace regime and the subjective meanings they

attach to resistance practices. It shows how these motives and meanings are

plural, as they are formed through the interplay between relations of and in

production and workers’ attitudes towards work. Although the latter are

shaped by the progressive articulation of the forms of socialisation and

resocialisation that occur outside and inside the workplace, workers can

reflexively modify them to better fit their lived experience. This perspective

is illustrated through the case study of an Italian automotive factory, in which

generational differences among the workforce, related to distinct

socialisation contexts, have generated divergent work orientations in the face

of organisational change. Addressing the long-term consequences of

implementing a lean production system, the article emphasises how

adaptation processes tend to change work attitudes and resistance practices

over time.

Keywords: labour process, consent, resistance, socialisation.



*Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, email:angelo.moro@santannapisa.it

1 I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and the editors of this special issue for

their comments and precious support in improving and finalising this article. Preliminary

versions of this work were presented at the International Labour Process Conference 2022

(University of Padua, 21st-23rd April 2022) and at the workshop “New Directions in Labour

Process Theory” (University of Padua, 26th-27th January 2023). I would like to thank the

organisers and participants for the opportunity to discuss my research and for the helpful

suggestions received. I am particularly indebted to Devi Sacchetto for his unselfish support

and thoughtful commentaries. I hope I have addressed at least some of them.

Introduction

The interplay between consent and resistance in the workplace is one of

the classic issues on which Labour Process Theory (LPT) has been

researching and debating since its earliest days. Even after the introduction

of the new management techniques inspired by so-called “lean production”

(Womack et al., 1990) and Total Quality Management (TQM), which some

claimed would solve the dilemma by definitively gaining workers to the new

logics of participation and empowerment (Appelbaum and Batt, 1994; Adler,

1995; Hodson, 1996), LPT scholars have emphasised that such interplay was

an irrepressible feature of labour relations. Subsequent empirical studies

showed that workers’ consent was not unequivocally gained and dissent and

resistance had not been excluded even from “lean” workplaces (Graham,

1995; Rinehart et al., 1997; Vidal, 2007a, 2007b; Stewart et al., 2009). As

Ackroyd and Thompson put it, «there has always been a dialectic of

innovation and adaptation between workplace actors and action» (Ackroyd

and Thompson, 1999, p. 165).

However, despite considerable emphasis on the problem of the “missing

subject” in LPT (Thompson, 1990; O’Doherty and Willmott, 2001),

insufficient attention has been paid to the motives that drive workers to

consent or dissent and the subjective meanings they attach to resistance

practices (Bélanger and Thunderoz, 2010; Thompson, 2016). This article

intends to contribute to this debate by suggesting that such motives and

meanings are formed through the interplay between relations of and in

production and workers’ attitudes and orientations towards work. The latter

are shaped by the progressive articulation of forms of socialisation and

resocialisation that occur outside and inside the workplace (Bourdieu, 1996;

Fournier, 2008). Thus, although dependent on the social properties of the

individuals and their social trajectory, attitudes and orientations towards

work are not fixed and static but can reflexively change in the course of the

work and life experience (Vidal, 2007b).

This perspective will be articulated through the case study of an Italian

automotive factory, focusing on how generational differences among the

workforce, related to distinct socialisation contexts, can generate diverging

work orientations towards organisational change. By addressing the long-

term consequences of implementing a lean production system, the article

aims to show how adaptation processes tend to modify work attitudes and

resistance practices.

The article is organised as follows. In the next section, I will elaborate on

an analytical frame capable of explaining workers’ behaviour in the

workplace by leveraging both labour process factors and work orientations

derived from different socialisation contexts. In sections 3 and 4, I will

describe the research methodology and the case study. Sections 5 to 7 are

devoted to the presentation of the empirical findings. Section 8 concludes.

2. Complementing LPT through socialisation theory

While LPT was initially concerned with exploring the relationship

between control and resistance (Edwards, 1979; Edwards and Scullion,

1982), little attention was paid to workers’ subjectivity. On the contrary,

Michael Burawoy (1979) raised the issue of how the latter was vital in

ensuring the transformation of labour power into labour. For Burawoy,

workers actively consent to their own exploitation. This consent is

manufactured at the point of production by workplace political apparatuses

and workers’ production “games” that conceal the extraction of surplus

labour. Consent is thus independent from the forms of “consciousness” or

“outside orientations” – acquired in the family, at school, and in the

community – that workers bring into the workplace.This does not mean that

workers’ attitudes and orientations are blocked at the factory’s gate, but they

leave relations and activities on the shopfloor almost unaffected, as the

labour process remains relatively autonomous from social and cultural

dynamics unfolding beyond it.

However, already in the early 1980s, feminist-inspired studies on

women’s paid work emphasised how, by ignoring the particular conditions

under which women sell their labour power, labour sociology was

overlooking not only how gender segregation is reproduced in the labour

process, but also how the latter is sensitive to the different relationships with

the domestic sphere between men and women, as well as to gender-specific

socialisation processes (Beechey, 1983). After all, even studies on working-

class masculinities had shown that the taste for effort was not simply

manufactured in the workplace, but derived from attitudes and dispositions

internalised by working-class young men well before entering the factory

(Willis, 1977). Consequently, the labour process must be conceived as being

permeable, because the subjectivity of the worker as an agent of production

is not solely the result of factors regulating productive activities, but is

inseparable from those orientations that are constructed in spheres other than

production and that interact with it (Davies, 1990).

Around the theme of subjectivity, a dense debate mainly animated (but

not only) by Foucauldian-inspired scholars (Knights and Willmott, 1989)

opened up in LPT in the late 1980s. According to these scholars, by referring

the variations in the labour process to factors independent of the particular

agents of production, Burawoy had refused to really explore how the

struggles between capital and labour are articulated within and through the

subjectivities of those engaged in them (O’Doherty and Willmott, 2001). In

new organisational configurations, based on just-in-time and TQM,

managers would ensure employees’ consent and collaboration first and

foremost by colonising their subjectivities and making them docile and self-

disciplining, through a melange of disciplinary techniques, “corporate

culturism” and normative control (Kunda, 1992; Willmott, 1993; Townley,

1994; Casey, 1995). In these contexts, the concept of continuous

improvement would end up appropriating, through teamwork mechanisms

and peer supervision, the traditional practices of resistance based on workers’

discretion (Sewell and Wilkinson, 1992).

Subsequent literature corrected this determinism, by developing

conceptions of employee subjectivity that did not preclude resistance (May,

1999; Knights and McCabe, 2000). By reframing the indeterminacy of

labour power as an articulation of a broader indeterminacy of subjectivity

itself (Alvesson and Willmott, 2002), Foucauldian-inspired approaches

posed identity rather than work-effort as the site of struggle and contestation.

Just-in-time and TQM, in fact, can create identity insecurities that can result

in the development of “resistant” or “cynical” selves, who express

dissatisfaction with processes in the workplace, disidentifying with the

cultural prescriptions of the company while often continuing to perform them

(Collinson, 2003; Fleming and Spicer, 2003).

The LPT subjectivity debate, however, maintained a few blind spots.

Firstly, scholars have often researched identity focusing on workplace

dynamics alone (Alvesson et al., 2008). Secondly, the epistemological

privilege assigned to discourses on practices resulted in the fluidification of

the concept of resistance, understood as a form of identity work that engages

with organisational discourses through irony, gossip, ambivalence or

cynicism and whose material implications are hard to grasp (Mumby, 2005;

Contu, 2008). Contrariwise, analyses of workplaces affected by

financialisation and performance management (Thompson, 2013) showed

how, although the space for effort bargaining has narrowed, traditional forms

of resistance have not disappeared (Bélanger and Edwards, 2013; Paulsen,

2014) and innovative oppositional practices are emerging that express

dissent from corporate values and reticence towards participation and

empowerment devices (Thompson et al., 2020; Vidal, 2007a; 2007b).

Against this background and despite its multiple extensions and

combinations, LPT needs to go «beyond the study of the forms of

opposition» and to focus on uncovering «their underlying rationales and their

likely evolution over time» (Bélanger and Thunderoz, 2010, p. 139), because

«any form of opposition (individual or collective) can have different

meanings and be underpinned by different rationales, grievances or claims»

(ibid., p. 148). In this article, I would like to address this very issue, taking

my cue from some recent attempts to complement LPT with theories of

socialisation. For instance, Altreiter and Flecker (2020) have recently sought

to explain young workers’ different forms and levels of commitment to work

by analysing their class origin and the associated forms of socialisation.

Similarly, according to Krzywdzinski et al. (2019), gendered cultural

dispositions contribute to explain differences in workers’ consent to the

factory regime in a Russian car plant. Drawing in particular on Pierre

Bourdieu’s theory of the habitus, these studies refute the idea that workers’

dispositions and orientations should be considered irrelevant to explain

workers’ behaviour, and argue instead that the latter is «influenced in a

systematic way by different factors outside the workplace such as the

socialisation process» (Altreiter and Flecker, 2020, p. 1100).

Socialisation can be defined as «the set of processes by which the

individual is constructed (...) by the global and local society in which he or

she lives, processes during which the individual acquires, learns, internalises,

incorporates, integrates, ways of doing, thinking and being that are socially

situated» (Darmon, 2006, p. 6). The notion of socialisation describes

collective experiences which – although differentiated according to

individual resources, attributes, and trajectories – consistently shape

dispositions and orientations of groups of individuals. In turn, when

actualised within a given work context, such dispositions and orientations

can systematically influence behavioural patterns (Bourdieu, 1996).

However, in contrast to identity theory, socialisation theory offers the

opportunity to focus on a limited number of factors or contexts of

socialisation that are deemed important for understanding such patterns.

Among the factors influencing workers’ behaviour, generational

affiliation plays a crucial role. Every generation, in fact, carries a specific

and coherent set of practices and discourses, shaped by the social

characteristics of its members (Mannheim, 1952). A sociological use of the

term “generation”, thus, implies the tracking of similar contexts of

socialisation encountered during childhood or youth. These early

experiences generate dispositions that can be mobilised and actualised within

work situations and influence the way of perceiving and appreciating work.

Generational differences interplay with the labour process especially through

recruitment waves, which are at the source of the encounter in the workplace

of individuals who have experienced different socialisation contexts

(Fournier, 2008). They can also be used by management to associate a

massive turnover with the introduction of technological and organisational

innovations (Linhart, 1994). Personnel policies can thus – on purpose or not

– interplay with generational differences among cohorts of recruitment

(Avril et al., 2010), reinforcing the generational gap or even activating a

generational conflict within the workforce.

At the same time, socialisation is a continued process as actors enter new

environments that foster the internalisation of (new) ways of seeing and

acting (Darmon, 2006). Forms of “circumstantial re-socialisation” can occur

when new cohorts of workers are recruited in a workplace (Fournier, 2008).

Furthermore, socialisation is not just a “vertical” process in which people

internalise the norms transmitted by an organisation (e.g., the company) or

an institution (e.g., the family, the school, the market, etc.), but it is also a

process that takes place among peers. As it has been showed by classic

ethnographic accounts of industrial work (Roy, 1952; Beynon, 1973),

socialisation within the workers’ collective implies the transmission to the

newcomers of a series of resistance practices (controlling the pace of the

work, restricting the output, employing special “tricks”, etc.), which are the

product of specific shopfloor cultures. Sometimes, however, the

reproduction of this shopfloor culture can be obstructed by the emergence of

a generational gap within the workforce, hindering the transmission and

reproduction of traditional working-class “culture of opposition” (Beaud and

Pialoux, 1999). As Beaud and Pialoux have shown, the experience of

prolonged schooling and the precariousness of the labour market have

instilled in the new generations of workers “submissive attitudes” towards

the factory regime, which separate them from the older workers’ collective.

For these reasons, I argue that socialisation theory effectively

complements LPT by helping to explain workers’ behaviour not only as a

reaction to organisational constraints or as a product of corporate culture, but

also as a consequence of the actualisation, in the workplace, of dispositions

and attitudes – internalised in specific socialisation contexts –that shape

workers’ behaviour. Additionally, orientations and dispositions towards

work are not static and given once and for all, but potentially susceptible to

reflexive transformation to better fit the workers’ lived experience (Vidal,

2007b).

3. Methodology

To make such an analytical framework manageable, I consider, as

suggested by Matt Vidal (2007b), that «parsimony may have to be sacrificed

for descriptive accuracy» (p. 274) and accordingly adopt a “thick

description” perspective (Geertz, 1973) in order to describe workers’

behaviour as well as their interpretations of their actions and of the context

in which they operate. I address the issues raised above through the in-depth

case study of an Italian automotive factory – which I call Bianchi to protect

the interviewees’ anonymity. From 2014 to 2019, I have done several periods

of fieldwork research, lasting between 3 months and one year, living directly

in the town where the factory is located. These long periods of fieldwork

allowed me to observe and participate in the working and union life of the

factory on a daily basis, having access to the canteen of one of the plants,

going to the cafeteria located in front of the factory entrance and participating

in the discussions that take place there, and attending union meetings.

I was able to conduct around 70 biographical semi-structured interviews

with workers as well as shop stewards.The interviews touched on various

topics such as the professional trajectory within the factory; the relationship

with colleagues, shop stewards, and supervisors; the material execution of

the work and the tricks and forms of resistance adopted; previous work

experiences; the educational career; union militancy in the factory and

political activism in the local community; family life; hobbies and interests.

The interviews lasted between one and five hours and were sometimes

repeated over time. Their content was entirely transcribed and analysed

according to the logic of the “ethnographic interview” (Beaud, 1996), i.e.,

systematically comparing interviewees’ points of view and jointly analysing

the social differences that appear progressively relevant.

In addition, I carried out documentary research in company and local

union archives. In particular, the staff registers – recording new hires –

allowed me to accurately reconstruct the dynamics of worker recruitment

from 1945 until 2000 (after this date, the registers are dematerialised and not

accessible). The analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility reports,

available online from 2007 onwards, complemented this documentary

research. Union documents (surveys on working conditions, leaflets, union

publications) also proved valuable in obtaining data on the evolution of work

organisation and its consequences on workers.

4. Case study

The Bianchi company is historically the leading European manufacturer

in its sector and one of the most important worldwide. Its headquarters and

main production site are located in a small town in central Italy, which I refer

to as Guadoalfiume. Throughout the 1970s, following a positive trend in the

Italian and European markets, the company experienced a significant

expansion, which led to the doubling of the workforce at the Guadoalfiume

site (see fig. 1) 2.However, during the 1980s, Bianchi went through a severe

crisis following a contraction of its target market and the emergence of

Japanese competition. In reaction, management decided to restructure the

company by de-verticalising its production process and outsourcing

significant parts of it. Consequently, by expelling large portions of the

workforce through collective redundancies and early retirements, the factory

underwent an impressive downsizing in a few years: from around 8,338 in

1980, the number of blue-collar workers lowered to 3,898 in 1986.



2 In order to preserve anonymity, it is not possible to cite the source of the data for this

graph more precisely. The data from 1987 to 1990 are an informed estimate by the author

formulated from occupational data concerning the entire Bianchi group. This estimate is the

difference between the annual figure for the entire group and a parameter (=817), equal to the

difference between the number of employees in the entire group and those at the

Guadoalfiume factory in 1986, the last year for which both figures are available.

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1945

1947

1949

1951

1954

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

Fig. 1. Occupational trends at Bianchi (1945-1990)

(source: author’s analysis of secondary literature)

Total number of employees (blue- and white-collar workers)

Once the crisis was over, in the 1990s Bianchi entered a period of

organisational change during which the traditional Taylorist work

organisation would be supplanted by the introduction of a new system, called

Fabbrica Integrata, inspired by Toyotism and lean production (Bonazzi,

1993; Camuffo and Micelli, 1997). Additionally, by launching mid-decade a

new wave of recruitment, management also engaged in a process of

workforce renewal, by hiring several hundreds of young workers (including

a large proportion of women), while continuing to resort to various layoff

procedures to expel older workers closest to retirement (see fig. 2).

Furthermore, from the late 1990s, the company started to manage

productive peaks through the seasonal recruitment of workers on fixed-term

contracts, most of whom were women. Many of these temporary workers

were later hired permanently but with a vertical part-time contract, meaning

they only worked seven months a year. More precarious employment

statuses thus characterise workers belonging to the most recent recruitment

waves. The rationalisation path continued throughout the 2010s, with the

adoption of a production system inspired by the World Class Manufacturing

(WCM) model (Cerruti, 2015; AA.VV., 2020) and the further downsizing of

the Guadoalfiume factory, which, however, was not followed by new hirings

but by the seasonal resort to agency workers.

When I started my field research in 2014, the factory employed 2,072

blue-collar workers (of which 35% were women) out of about 3,000 total

employees. In 2019, when I finished the research, the number of blue-collar

workers had already dropped to around 1,800, with a total workforce of

around 2,700 employees. With reference to 2014, according to data provided

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1944

1946

1948

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Fig. 2. Recruitement trends at Bianchi 1944-2000

(source: author’s analysis of staff registers)

Blue collar workers newly recruited

to me personally by a company manager, 25% of the blue-collar workers

were under 40 years old, 37% were between 40 and 49 years old and 38%

were 50 years old or more. In addition, 43% had an educational qualification

equivalent to or higher than a high school diploma, while the remaining 57%

had a middle or elementary school diploma. The probability of having a high

school diploma is much higher in the 30-39 and 40-49 age groups and lower

in the over-50 age group. With regard to their professional composition,

about half of the workers were classified at the 3rd qualification level of the

national metalworking collective agreement, about one third were at the 4th

level, and the remaining 1/6 were specialised workers classified at the 5th

level.

Over time, the level of unionisation in the factory remained relatively

constant (fig. 3). However, a major shift in membership occurred within a

few years from the more radical Fiom-CGIL to the more moderate Fim-CISL

and Uilm-UIL and to Uglm-UGL (fig. 4). The strike rate is rather low (fig.

5) and, when they only concern the Guadoalfiume plant, strikes tend to be

called only by Fiom-CGIL delegates. These are mostly short, localised

strikes, lasting a few hours or fractions of an hour, called for grievances

related to working conditions and workloads in particular workshops or

production lines.However, while admitting the infrequency of absences due

to strikes, the company regularly complains of a high rate of absenteeism,

which in some production areas reaches an average annual rate of 12-13 %.

30%

32%

34%

36%

38%

40%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fig. 3. Unionisation rate at Bianchi 2007-2019

(source: author’s elaboration on data from Bianchi CSR reports)

% of employees affiliated to a trade union

4. A generational gap in the factory

Through the personnel policies described above, management was able

to significantly reduce the factory’s ageing and predominantly masculine

workforce, as well as bring its remaining members into contact with younger

and more precarious workers. Thus, workers can be grouped into two broad

cohorts: the first is predominantly composed of men over the age of 55 and

close to retirement at the time of my research; the second is composed of

people mostly in their forties, with a large share of women (around 50%).

0,00%

0,50%

1,00%

1,50%

2,00%

5000

10000

15000

20000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fig. 5. Strikes rate at Bianchi 2012-2019

(source: author’s elaboration on data from Bianchi CSR reports)

hours lost due to plant level strikes

% of hours lost compared to hours worked

200

400

600

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Fig. 4. Union membership at Bianchi 2007-2019

(source: author’s elaboration on data from Bianchi CSR reports)

Fiom-CGIL Uilm-UIL Fim-CISL

Uglm-UGL USB FLM

Bianchi hired the older workers in the last waves of recruitment of the

1970s. Most of them entered the factory without a high school diploma and

were in their late teens or early twenties. The job at Bianchi was often their

first work experience or they had held jobs at small local firms, which they

left after a short time because working at Bianchi was considered more

secure and rewarding. Moreover, they came into the factory at a time of

productive and occupational expansion and, therefore, of strength of the

factory workers’ collective. Consequently, for most of them, socialisation in

the big factory was the most critical experience of socialisation in the world

of work, if not the first and for many also the only one.

Comparatively, the social characteristics of the workers who entered the

recruitment waves of the mid-1990s and early 2000s point to strong

differences in the socialisation contexts with members of the previous cohort.

First, born on average some fifteen years later and schooled at a time of

democratisation of secondary education, these workers were more likely to

have obtained a high school diploma. Furthermore, most of them came into

the factory later than the previous generation, usually in their mid-twenties

and often after several experiences of precarious work in local small

businesses or in the personal services and trade sector (especially for

women). They joined Bianchi at the end of a long restructuring phase, from

which the factory workers’ collective had emerged considerably weakened.

Socialisation in the big factory was thus for them, to all intents and purposes,

a circumstantial resocialisation they experienced after having internalised

dispositions developed in other work environments.

How are these different social characteristics and experiences reflected in

the attitudes and orientations towards work of each generation’s members?

To understand this, we will consider two “typical” profiles of workers

belonging to the “older” and to the “younger” generation, Gioacchino and

Luciano.

Son of another Bianchi worker, Gioacchino dropped out of a vocational

school at 16. He worked first in an electrical factory, before joining Bianchi

in 1978, after just a few days’ probationary period, certain that this would

remain his job until retirement. During his career in the factory, he has toured

a considerable number of workstations, being frequently re-allocated from

one department to another, but always remaining at the third qualification

level. He has worked as a forklift operator for the past ten years. Although

he tried, he never achieved a promotion to a higher qualification level and is

now close to retirement. He attributes this failure, as well as his errand

trajectory inside the factory, to his «rebellious» attitudes and his being «old

style»: he does not miss a strike, he refuses to work on Saturday or to do

overtime, he often argues with his foreman if there is something wrong with

his workstation or with someone else’s. For Gioacchino this rebellious

attitude is largely the fruit of his socialisation inside the big factory, which

happened at a relatively young age (around eighteen years old):

I was not rebellious before, I became rebellious throughout my time here,

because I saw that there were abuses that made me angry, and so I became rebellious.

There was the foreman who wanted me to make extra pieces. And I said there was a

quota and I respected it, so why do I have to make more pieces? And I didn’t!

(Gioacchino, male, 58 years old, joined Bianchi in 1978).

Alongside this rebellious attitude towards the arbitrariness of the factory

hierarchy, Gioacchino explains how his refusal to submit to his foreman’s

injunctions also stems from his socialisation within the factory workers’

collective and the reproduction of its work rules:

Back in the days, older people always gave advice. Today... today this has been

lost. Once I joined Bianchi, when I was allocated to a new workstation, an older

worker always said to me: “If the daily production is 100 pieces, you have to make

100 pieces, no more”. Today it is no longer the case.

For Gioacchino, the reasons for resorting to these practices of resistance

are thus to be found in the limitation of effort and the preservation of dignity

(Hodson, 2001) in the face of the hierarchy. However, their meaning lies in

Gioacchino’s commitment to the “oppositional culture” (Beaud and Pialoux,

1999) of the factory workers’ collective, which Gioacchino identified with

and which reflected his contentious dispositions. In this sense, as many of

the older workers told me, not having received a long formal education, the

factory constituted for them a «true school», in which a traditional repertoire

of informal practices («tricks», «gimmicks», «slyness») was collectively

taught and reproduced.

According to many interviewees, the higher level of education of the

workers hired in the factory in the 1990s broke the intergenerational

dialogue, eliciting the pursuit for a higher degree of autonomy and

independence of the youngster from the social norms of the workers’

collective. For example, in the case of Luciano – born in 1970 – his longer

schooling resulted in a diploma from a vocational high school. Although

complex and «difficult», his relationship with school puts considerable

distance between him and the older workers. When talking about his school

experience, in fact, the word that comes up most often is «regret». Son of the

owner of a small construction company and of a worker in a textile

workshop, Luciano dislikes his present situation and believes that his current

fate, having descended into the working-class condition, is due to his

insufficient scholastic commitment, which did not allow him to «make the

most» of his potential. After school, he had some job experience in small

mechanical firms, and later, he worked for four years as an apprentice

plumber. He applied to join Bianchi under pressure from his future wife, but

he intended this job to last only for a short period of time. However, after 18

months of fixed term contract, he was hired permanently and «now – he says

– I’ve been working here for 20 years!».

Although his job satisfaction is not very high, his status as a “joker”

(polyvalent worker) on an assembly line gives him a crucial symbolic

compensation in terms of recognition of his skills. Luciano credits his

schooling and previous work experience for the origins of his different work

attitude:

I think there was a class consciousness in the past and you knew that, if you

hadn’t studied, this [the factory] was your environment and it would always be, so

you had to fight to improve it. (...) While nowadays it’s people like me who join the

factory: I studied a bit, I consider myself a bit... smarter than the others, so I think

that for me this situation is transitory because I think I’ll find something that will

give me greater satisfaction later. (...) Before joining Bianchi I worked in a company

where I started in the morning at 7 am and in the evening I got home at 7 pm and

was paid for only eight hours. (...) When I was at work (...) we really worked. If a

pipe needed screwing in a strange place – I was a plumber – I did it because I had to

do it! When you join Bianchi, you’re on the line, if there is a screw that is wrong,

you are told: “Leave it!”. You come into a reality like this and ask: “Excuse me,

what? Leave it? But I’m at work!”. (...) They [older workers] thought nobody would

see them if they were sly enough, because there was no interest in seeing them. (...)

The problem is that the company had to make profits and eliminate inefficiencies.

And they were there with that mentality, the older workers, that they had to show

that they were going slow. (...) As I said, when I arrived, I didn’t act in this way,

because my mentality was not that I should go slow to show that I couldn’t do my

job. I said: “They work like this, I work like that!” (Luciano, male, 45 years old,

joined Bianchi in 1994).

Like Luciano, in their previous experiences of precarious jobs, many of

the younger workers developed an understanding of business logic and

“submissive dispositions” (Beaud and Pialoux, 1999) that led them to

consent to the new factory regime actively. At the same time, the fact that

they had longer schooling and, in many cases, obtained a high school degree

prompted them to devalue older workers’ oppositional culture and reject

attempts to pass it on. Consequently, the refusal to adopt traditional

resistance practices meant for them symbolically distancing themselves from

the old workers’ collective and constructing an identity in the factory more

in line with their own dispositions.

5. «No disturbing elements». Personnel policies and newcomers’ factory

socialisation

This generational conflict was reinforced and amplified by Bianchi’s

employment policies and factory reorganisation throughout the 1990s. The

cornerstone of this reorganisation was adopting the productive model of the

Fabbrica Integrata, inspired by Toyotism and lean production. Such a model

aimed at achieving “total quality” while ensuring the best performance of

machinery and the highest saturation of working times. In order to do so,

management partially automated assembly lines, while introducing a new

predetermined motion time system. In addition, it reorganised the

hierarchical structure, reducing its levels but at the same time increasing

direct control over the workers, through the figure of the “area technical

operator”, in charge of supervising the work of a small group of workers.

Finally, it implemented participative management techniques (such as

“quality circles”) and workforce flexibility, both internal and external.

The introduction of the new system of work organisation in the mid-1990s

coincided with the hiring of a new and younger workforce and the expulsion

of many older workers. According to many interviewees, management

concentrated newcomers, at least at the beginning of their new work

experience, on the new assembly lines of one of the two assembly plants of

the factory (called 2W), transferring many of the older workers to another

assembly plant (3W) or to other workshops, less affected by techno-

organisational transformations and whose production was intended to be

increasingly reduced over time:

All the older workers were moved to 3W, someone to the machine shop, many

have left, but they [the factory management] carried out a form of ethnic cleansing

in there [2W], because there were old workers who were saying what you had to do.

(Emilio, male, 60 years old, joined Bianchi in 1977).

When they opened Line 2, all the foremen were guys who had been there for a

year, so they were quite young. They also tried to change the mentality slightly, even

in how they worked. (...) So, they made it all new, so there were no disturbing

elements. (Caterina, female, 44 years old, joined Bianchi in 1995).

Management thus actively tried to prevent newcomers’ socialisation

within the traditional factory culture by isolating them from older workers.

At the same time, how younger workers experienced factory socialisation

reinforced their proclivity to think of themselves as different from older

workers and diminish their oppositional culture and resistance practices. It

also exposed them to corporate rhetoric on quality and productivity.

Meanwhile, in fact, the proportion of older workers in the 2W plant had

become less significant, meaning that the social control that the older

generation could exert over the new one had grown less effective and more

contestable:

Raffaella: [When we arrived] the old grumbled, grumbled at us a lot, because

they saw us working hard, they grumbled and said: “Do less, because otherwise, we

will have to speed up... they’ll ask us to do more!” – You understand? – They, by

that time, had, let’s say, the old habits, you understand?

Me: But at the time, when you were told these things, you didn’t listen?

Raffaella: «No, because we had to show that we were good [to get a permanent

contract]. I even said to myself: “They say this because they don’t want to work”,

you understand? (Raffaella, female, 45 years old, joined Bianchi in 1995).

By isolating the younger workers from the older ones, management

succeeded in obstructing the process of cultural transmission that used to take

place in the factory. Workplace re-socialisation thus shaped newcomers’

working behaviour by confirming those more submissive dispositions

acquired in previous socialisation contexts, in longer schooling or during first

experiences of precarious jobs3. Although it certainly played a role initially,

the blackmail of dismissal at the end of the fixed-term contract cannot be

considered the primary source of the new workers’ attitude towards work,

given the persistence of the same behavioural patterns well after their

permanent employment.

Additionally, the inclusion of younger workers was apparently also

intended to trigger a chain reaction in the behaviour of older workers. Their

numerical and symbolic weakening and the contestation of the legitimacy of



3 The generational conflict is also reinforced by a gender clash, apparently weakening the

possibilities of mutual identification between younger and older workers. Besides the

generational renewal, in fact, the workforce of the factory was also affected by a process of

feminisation, which constituted an important factor of change within a predominantly male

working environment, undermining the implicit definition of blue-collar workers masculinity

and contributing to the devaluation of both their professional ability and their social role as

breadwinners. Although the importance of this process cannot be overstated, unfortunately

the space in this article is insufficient to delve into it in detail.

their attitudes and practices made them more vulnerable to the supervision

and control of line management. This double process led to a substantial

change in their practices for some of them, especially those who were least

integrated into the workers’ collective and union activities. We can observe

this in the case of Giuseppe, a forklift operator in one of the factory

warehouses, having worked for a long time on the assembly lines in the 2W

plant:

Me: When did you start doing overtime?

Giuseppe: I started 10 years ago.

Me: «Why didn’t you do it before?

Giuseppe: Because they frowned at you if you did, because they hit you in the

canteen, you were a little… there was a bit of... the bad thing is that there was even

a little bit of fear. Yes, the bad thing is that there was also a little bit of fear. It wasn’t

nice going to the canteen with them all saying to you: “That’s the one who... [does

overtime]”, right? You were slapped on the neck, my God, while you were working...

oh, I’ve seen people doing these things...

Me: But you think you still maintain the old mentality?

Giuseppe: Honestly... I changed a little (...). If wanted I could really do not that

much, (...) but I try to do the best I can and that’s it. I make a living like this. I don’t

go on strike anymore. (...) I don’t work [just] the minimum. (...) It bothers me to have

someone who contradicts me, to have the foreman who says: “Look, why didn’t you

do it like this or like that?”. (Giuseppe, male, 60 years old, joined Bianchi in 1978).

In the past, the pressure exercised by the workers’ group was a constraint

that “compelled” Giuseppe to adjust to the collective practices of resistance

at work (refusal of overtime, restriction of output, strikes, etc.). Now the old

social sanctions are ineffective, while the emergence of new social sanctions

(such as those against idling) as well as the increased effectiveness of

personal control over workers contribute to transforming Giuseppe’s

practices. At the same time, later in the interview, he reveals to feel

abandoned by the old workers’ collective, which has not managed to impose

its standards of behaviour on the newcomers and has left him and his peer

workmates at the mercy of competition with younger workers. What

meaning does Giuseppe attribute to his work practices? His effort comes

neither from a real commitment nor from a substantial constraint («if wanted

I could really do not that much»), but from a desire not to be taken back by

his supervisor («it bothers me to have someone that contradicts me, to have

the foreman who says: “Look, why didn’t you do it like this or like that?”»),

now that there is no group to defend him and tactics of effort limitation are

delegitimised. In this sense, his practices express an unwilling adaptation

rather than a genuine consent to the new managerial regime.

6. Continuity and innovation in younger workers’ oppositional practices

Many workers consider that the restructuring of the work organisation at

Bianchi has led only to introducing some organisational improvements and

to adopting mere slogans concerning workers’ participation and

involvement. According to the interviewees, participative practices, such as

“quality circles” in which workers periodically discuss the problems of their

assembly line with their supervisor, were adopted only for a few years after

1995 and then gradually abandoned and their allotted time reabsorbed into

production. Thus, it appears that Bianchi’s management chose to “satisfy”

with a merely technical implementation of lean production, in which

performance measurement stayed relatively the same (more quantitative than

qualitative) and employee empowerment remained only nominal or at best

limited (Vidal, 2007a).

Nevertheless, the reorganisation of the factory contributed to a substantial

deterioration of working conditions. The partial automation of assembly

lines, while reducing physical effort thanks to ergonomic improvements, has

intensified working rhythms and minimised breaks. As one worker told me:

«Today you do less physical effort, but now everything is faster. For the time

you gain on the one side, they make you spit blood on the other».

This work intensification has had a significant impact: all my informants,

both “young” and “old”, tend to agree that work has become harder in the

past two decades. This dynamic has been accentuated since the

implementation of the WCM model in the late 2000s, which was

accompanied by a further increase in saturations (according to union sources

these exceed 90% and in some cases approach 100%) and a further

flexibilisation of work schedules to cope with the seasonality of demand.

Some workers in the hiring wave of 1994-95 experienced this

deterioration of working conditions as something more than a higher

expenditure of effort. The gradual discovery of the harshness of the factory

condition, resulting from the parallel processes of work intensification and

ageing on the shopfloor, led many of the younger workers to question the

experience of their first socialisation in the factory. This has resulted in a

growing disenchantment with consequences on both the orientations towards

work and the resistance practices implemented, as reflected in the words of

Raffaella, an off-line operator at the 2W plant:

Raffaella: I joined Bianchi in 1995. (…) In ‘94-’95 they hired a mass of people.

And I was happy because I enjoyed it a lot during the first years! The lines didn’t go

at this pace and I met a lot of people. We organised dinners on Saturday nights, it

was fun. (…) And I made many friends, was happy, and was in seventh heaven! (…)

Then, the lines started to go faster and faster... and people became increasingly cruel

and everything got worse...

Me: But why is that?

Raffaella: Because the work has increased, the lines go increasingly faster,

people don’t even have time to blow their nose. (...) They asked me to do 110 pieces,

but I can’t do it, and even if I could, I wouldn’t do it anyway, because when we

worked from 8 am to 5 pm I did 75 pieces, which was fine for them. (…) I try to fool

the foremen, I say: “Forgive me, but I can’t do it! Look, I’m sorry, I’m doing my

best, but I can’t do more than that... but how could I do it? Teach me! Tell me if

there’s a trick!”. And in the end, they get so stressed and tell me: “Oh well, just do

what you can!” (Raffaella, female, 45 years old, joined Bianchi in 1995).

It is easy to see that Raffaella has come to adopt traditional tactics of

resistance such as output restriction. In her case, resistance results from an

adaptation process to save effort vis-à-vis increasing line speeds and

workloads. The sense of this practice is not one of open dissent against the

factory regime (in the same interview, she declares herself proud to work at

Bianchi), but of an individual tactic aimed at preserving her working

conditions without coming into conflict with the hierarchy. Paradoxically,

although discordant, both Giuseppe’s and Raffaella’s practices express the

absence of a workers’ collective with which to identify and find protection.

Younger workers can also adopt different and innovative practices of

resistance, which seem to be related to the new relations in production

established by lean production and participative management. Eugenio, 43

years old, hired by Bianchi in 1994 when he was only 21 years old, is a case

in point. Son of a private guard and a laundress, he dropped out of vocational

high school at the age of 16. After a year and a half of irregular work as an

apprentice mechanic, he left for military service, which he considers his most

significant life experience («There I started to acquire that mentality of

improving myself, which afterward I also transferred to my job»). Afterward,

he struggled to regain his position, and, after other informal jobs, he finally

joined Bianchi as a temporary worker and was hired permanently a few

months later. He entered the factory with a largely submissive attitude and a

high sense of discipline, a legacy of his military experience: his involvement

in work was high, he was available for overtime and took the concept of

participation seriously, committing himself to continuous improvement.

Like many of the younger workers, he also openly dissociates himself from

the factory culture, not considering himself as a “worker” and claiming to

have a different mentality from most of his colleagues. Nevertheless, his

orientation towards work as well as his practices changed radically after

realising that the company did not maintain the advertised standards of “total

quality” and that workers’ suggestions were rarely taken into consideration:

In the end, the only thing that matters is the number on the board at the bottom

of the line. The number of vehicles you have done. (…) we tried them [quality

circles], but eventually you realise that it’s a joke. (...) At the beginning I was full of

enthusiasm: a steady job, I worked in a big company, then there was this thing about

quality, the exchange between foremen and workers, bringing your ideas... I believed

in it! I said to myself: “Wonderful! I’m happy! At least you can make a contribution

to improve!”. But over time then, when you realise that in the end nothing is done...

then you say: “Okay, bye! I don’t care anymore!”. It didn’t take much to figure it

out... After a few years you realise. (...) I continued to keep my approach to work,

committing myself and trying to do my job the best I could. But I didn’t try that extra

step. (...) I see that I can do it better, but they don’t allow me to, so I keep it for myself

in the end. (Eugenio, male, 44 years old, joined Bianchi in 1995).

Eugenio has adopted a tactic of selective refusal of participation and

collaboration. By resorting to these practices, he does not aim to reduce

physical effort, but to limit his intellectual engagement as a reaction to the

betrayal of management’s “promises” of participation and empowerment.

Far from revealing an antagonism towards participative management, this

form of resistance expresses dissent against its incomplete implementation

in the current factory regime, which in his opinion relies on rigid hierarchies

and pursues only cost reduction rather than fostering workers’

empowerment. However, Eugenio is not a cynical worker (Fleming and

Spicer, 2003) and, as in the case of Raffaella, his resistance manifests in

practice and has tangible consequences.

Conclusion

While most of the studies that have analysed the consequences of lean

production have been carried out in the middle or immediately after the

process of organisational change, the peculiarity of my research lies in the

fact that it was conducted some two decades after implementing a lean

production system. By being able to put the urgency of organisational change

at a distance, it was possible to look more deeply into the motivations and

rationales that drive workers to consent or dissent and the subjective

meanings they attach to resistance practices. Such motivations and meanings,

I argued, are formed through the interplay between the relations of and in

production and workers’ attitudes and orientations towards work. I have

shown that these attitudes and orientations depend on workers’ experience

and thus, although influenced by the various socialisation contexts they have

gone through, can change and evolve reflexively over time.

Therefore, even within the same workplace, workers’ practices may be

diverse, as are the meanings they take on. This plurality of practices and

meanings reflects the plurality of the contemporary workers’ experience

which cannot but reverberate in the workplace (Renahy, 2015). To better

describe and understand the social processes that run through workplaces,

LPT must therefore consider this plurality and its causes, even at the cost of

revising some of its underlying assumptions.

At least in the case at hand, the organisational change linked to the

introduction of a lean production system has not been able, in the long run,

to gain workers’ consent and prevent the resort to resistance practices, which

on the contrary continue to emerge in traditional or innovative ways. At the

same time, this plurality also seems to be the bitter fruit of the decline of a

specific factory culture, whose reproduction has been hindered by new

managerial practices and rejected by new generations of workers. The

resistance practices I have described strongly express the absence of a

workers’ collective capable of generating positive identification and

displaying as legitimate a way of working and living in the factory alternative

to that imposed by management.

Bibliography

AA.VV. (2020). Lavorare in fabbrica oggi. Inchiesta sulle condizioni di lavoro in FCA/CNH.

Milan: Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli.

Ackroyd S., Thompson P. (1999). Organizational Misbehaviour. London: Sage.

Adler P. (1995). ‘Democratic Taylorism’: the Toyota Production System at NUMMI. In:

Babson S., editor, Lean Work: Empowerment and Exploitation in the Global Auto

Industry. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Altreiter C., Flecker J. (2020). ‘I Get Money for What I Like Doing Best’: The Class Origin

of Young Blue-Collar Workers and their Commitment to Work. Work, Employment and

Society, 34(6): 1097-1113. DOI: 10.1177/0950017020916189

Alvesson M., Willmott H. (2002). Identity Regulation as Organizational Control: Producing

the Appropriate Individual. Journal of Management Studies, 39: 619-644.

DOI: 10.1111/1467-6486.00305

Alvesson M., Lee Ashcraft K., Thomas R. (2008). Identity Matters: Reflections on the

Construction of Identity Scholarship in Organization Studies. Organization, 15(1): 5-28.

DOI: 10.1177/1350508407084426

Appelbaum E., Batt R. (1994). The New American Workplace: Transforming Work Systems

in the United States. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Avril C., Cartier M., Serre D. (2010). Enquêter sur le travail. Concepts, méthodes, récits.

Paris: La Découverte.

Beaud S. (1996). L’usage de l’entretien en sciences sociales. Plaidoyer pour l’«entretien

ethnographique». Politix, 35: 226-257. DOI: 10.3406/polix.1996.1966

Beaud S., Pialoux M. (1999). Retour sur la condition ouvrière. Enquête aux usines Peugeut

de Sochaux-Montbéliard. Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard.

Beechey V. (1983). What’s so Special about Women’s Employment? A Review of some

Recent Studies of Women’s Paid Work. Feminist Review, 15(1): 23-45.

DOI: 10.1057/fr.1983.31

Bélanger J., Edwards P. (2013). Conflict and Contestation in the Contemporary World of

Work: Theory and Perspectives. In: Gall G., editor, New Forms and Expressions of

Conflict at Work. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bélanger J., Thuderoz C. (2010). The Repertoire of Employee Opposition. In: Thompson P.,

Smith C., editors, Working Life: Renewing Labour Process Analysis. Houndmills:

Palgrave Press.

Beynon H. (1973). Working for Ford. London: Penguin Books.

Bonazzi G. (1993). Il tubo di cristallo. Modello giapponese e Fabbrica Integrata: il percorso

della Fiat Auto verso la Qualità Totale. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Bourdieu P. (1996). La double vérité du travail. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales,

114: 89-90. DOI: 10.3406/arss.1996.3197

Burawoy M. (1979). Manufacturing Consent. Changes in the Labor Process under Monopoly

Capitalism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Camuffo A., Micelli S. (1997). Mediterranean Lean Production: Supervisors, Teamwork and

New Forms of Work Organization in Three European Car Makers. Journal of

Management & Governance, 1: 103-122. DOI: 10.1023/A:1009957500014

Casey C. (1995). Work, Self and Society: After Industrialism. London: Routledge.

Cerruti G. (2015). Il World Class Manufacturing alla Fiat e i dualismi sociali e organizzativi

della produzione snella. Economia & lavoro. Rivista di politica sindacale, sociologia e

relazioni industriali, 3: 37-54. DOI: 10.7384/82271

Collinson D.L. (2003). Identities and Insecurities: Selves at Work. Organization, 10(3): 527-

547. DOI:10.1177/13505084030103010

Contu A. (2008). Decaf Resistance: On Misbehavior, Cynicism, and Desire in Liberal

Workplaces. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(3): 364–379.

DOI: 10.1177/0893318907310941

Darmon M. (2006). La socialisation. Paris: Armand Colin.

Davies S. (1990). Inserting Gender into Burawoy’s Theory of the Labour Process. Work,

Employment and Society, 4(3): 391–406. DOI: 10.1177/0950017090004003005

Edwards P.K., Scullion H. (1982). The Social Organization of Industrial Conflict: Control

and Resistance in the Workplace. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Edwards, R. (1979). Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the

Twentieth Century. London: Heinemann.

Fleming P., Spicer A. (2003). Working at a Cynical Distance: Implications for Power,

Subjectivity and Resistance. Organization, 10(1): 157-179.

DOI: 10.1177/1350508403010001376

Fournier P. (2008). Le travail des générations: confronter des présents décalés. In: Arborio A-

M., Cohen Y., Fournier P., Hatzfeld N., Lomba C., Muller S., editors, Observer le travail.

Histoire, ethnographie, approches combinées. Paris: La Découverte.

Geertz C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.

Graham L. (1995). On the Line at Subaru-Isuzu: The Japanese Model and the American

Worker. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Hodson R. (1996). Dignity in the Workplace Under Participative Management: Alienation

and Freedom Revisited. American Sociological Review, 61: 719-738.

DOI: 10.2307/2096450

Hodson R. (2001). Dignity at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Knights D., Willmott H. (1989). Power and Subjectivity at Work: From Degradation to

Subjugation in Social Relations. Sociology, 23(4): 535-558.

DOI: 10.1177/0038038589023004003

Knights D., McCabe D. (2000). `Ain’t Misbehavin’? Opportunities for Resistance under New

Forms of `Quality’ Management. Sociology, 34(3): 421-436.

DOI: 10.1177/S0038038500000274

Krzywdzinski M., Lechowski G., Mählmeyer V. (2019). Lean Work and Gender Inequalities:

Manufacturing Consent at a Multinational Car Plant in Provincial Russia. Global Labour

Journal, 10(2): 123-141. DOI: 10.15173/glj.v10i2.3488

Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Linhart D. (1994). La modernisation des entreprises. Paris: La Découverte.

Mannheim K. (1952). Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan

Paul.

May T. (1999). From Banana Time to Just-in-Time: Power and Resistance at Work.

Sociology, 33(4): 767-783. DOI: 10.1177/S0038038599000486

Mumby D.K. (2005). Theorizing Resistance in Organization Studies: A Dialectical Approach.

Management Communication Quarterly, 19(1): 19-44.

DOI: 10.1177/0893318905276558

O’Doherty D., Willmott H. (2001). Debating Labour Process Theory: The Issue of

Subjectivity and the Relevance of Poststructuralism. Sociology, 35(2): 457-476.

DOI: 10.1177/S0038038501000220

Paulsen R. (2014). Empty Labor: Idleness and Workplace Resistance. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Renahy N. (2015). Le village dans l’usine. Trajectoires ouvrières et mises à distance de la

hiérarchie. Sociétés contemporaines, 99: 65-80. DOI: 10.3917/soco.099.0065

Rinehart J., Huxley C., Robertson D. (1997). Just Another Car Factory? Lean Production and

Its Discontents. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Roy D. (1952). Quota Restriction and Goldbricking in a Machine Shop. American Journal of

Sociology, 57: 427-442.

Sewell G., Wilkinson B. (1992). ‘Someone to Watch Over Me’: Surveillance, Discipline and

the Just-in-Time Labour Process. Sociology, 26(2): 271-289.

DOI: 10.1177/0038038592026002009

Stewart P., Richardson M., Danford A., Murphy K., Richardson T., and Wass V. (2009). We

Sell Our Time No More. Workers’ Struggles Against Lean Production in the British Car

Industry. London: Pluto Press.

Thompson P. (1990). Crawling from the wreckage: The labor process and the politics of

production. In: Knights D., Willmott H., editors, Labor Process Theory. London:

Macmillan.

Thompson P. (2013). Financialization and the workplace: extending and applying the

disconnected capitalism thesis. Work, Employment and Society, 27(3): 472-488.

DOI: 10.1177/0950017013479827

Thompson P. (2016). Dissent at work and the resistance debate: departures, directions, and

dead ends. Studies in Political Economy, 97(2): 106-123.

DOI: 10.1080/07078552.2016.1207331

Thompson P., McDonald P., O’Connor P. (2020). Employee dissent on social media and

organizational discipline. Human Relations, 73(5): 631-652.

DOI: 10.1177/0018726719846262

Townley B. (1994). Reframing Human Resource Management: Power, Ethics and the Subject

at Work. London: Sage.

Vidal M. (2007a). Manufacturing empowerment? ‘Employee involvement’ in the labour

process after Fordism, Socio-Economic Review, 5(2): 197-232.

DOI: 10.1093/ser/mwl005

Vidal M. (2007b). Lean Production, Worker Empowerment, and Job Satisfaction: A

Qualitative Analysis and Critique. Critical Sociology, 33(1-2): 247-278.

DOI: 10.1163/156916307X168656

Willis P. (1977). Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs.

Farnborough: Saxon House.

Willmott H. (1993). Strength is ignorance; slavery is freedom: managing culture in modern

organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 30(4): 515-552.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1993.tb00315.x

Womack J.P., Jones D.T., Roos D. (1990). The Machine That Changed the World: Based on

the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5-Million-dollar 5-year Study on the Future of

the Automobile. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Sociologia del lavoro, n. 167/2023. ISSN 0392-5048. ISSNe 1972-554X.

DOI: 10.3280/SL2023-167005

Resisting outsourcing:

learning from migrant workers’ power-building

strategies in the British service sector

Davide Però *1

This article focuses on an understudied aspect in labour process theory, that

of workers’ collective contentious practices. In particular, it considers how

workers can build power and induce change in regimes of outsourcing, which

are particularly exploitative. Using Schmalz et al.’s (2018) typology of

powers as a heuristic device, the article analytically describes how the

outsourced migrant cleaners of British ‘indie unions’ have channelled their

solidarity into collective actions and redressed some of the harshest

conditions faced. Drawing on the power resources approach, the article

highlights the importance of no longer assuming the production site as the

only crucial arena for precarious workers’ power-building practices, as the

relative autonomy of the workplace postulated in labour process theory

would imply. Rather, this article suggests extending the analytical gaze

outside the workplace to comprise the ‘community’ and the public sphere

where workers’ contentious initiatives are also often staged and won.

Keywords: Indie unions, labour process theory, power resources approach,

migrant and precarious workers

*University of Nottingham, email: davide.pero@nottingham.ac.uk.

1 I am very grateful to Francesco Bagnardi, Vincenzo Maccarrone, Elisabetta Zontini and the

two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and helpful suggestions on drafts of the paper.

Thanks also to the participants of the international workshop ‘New Directions in Labour

Process Theory’ held at the University of Padova (26-27/1/2023) where this paper was first

presented. Thanks also to Devi Sacchetto who hosted my visiting at the University of Padova

during which parts of this paper were written, and to the University of Nottingham which

funded the visiting.

101

Introduction

Based on the fundamental assumption that there is a structural antagonism

between management and workers, Labour Process Theory (LPT) has been

examining processes through which employers organise production to extract

maximum value from workers. An important dimension of this scholarship

concerns the response of the latter to these processes. However, to date, the

examination of this response has largely centred on workers’ misbehaviour

and undeclared forms of resistance, with limited coverage of workers’

manifest contentious collective practices (see Ackroyd and Thompson, 2022).

Within industrial relations more broadly, after a first wave of works on the

emergence of labour mobilisations centred on trade unions and influenced by

the seminal work of Kelly (1998), a more recent wave of studies has come to

the fore focusing more centrally on workers rather than unions (see Atzeni,

2010; 2021). In particular, these studies have been concerned with

understanding how collective action among precarious and migrant workers

can develop in sectors where organising appears especially difficult (e.g.

Alberti and Però, 2018; Tassinari and Maccarrone, 2020; Cant, 2020;

Woodcock, 2020, 2021; Cini et al. 2022; Però, 2022; Però and Downey, 2022).

This article wants to move these discussions further by addressing the question

of how workers collective agency can be made effective.

One area where this question is particularly relevant is that of outsourcing,

where employers reorganise production by subcontracting part of it to external

firms to reduce their labour costs and responsibilities and circumvent workers’

resistance. Not surprisingly, this cost-cutting scenario normally coincides with

the deterioration of working conditions that become more exploitative and

precarious. Therefore, it is important to examine how workers who find

themselves in this harsh, fragmented and complex situation can collectively

build power and induce some positive changes.

This article sets out to contribute to LPT by providing insights on collective

power-building practices that precarious and migrant workers deploy to

redress some of the exploitative and oppressive labour process arrangements

of outsourcing. In discussing how workers’ contentious collective action can

be made effective, the article draws on Schmalz’s et al. (2018) typology of

powers which is used as a heuristic device to provide an analytical account of

how the collective engagements of workers in condition of ‘high precarity’

(Però, 2020) can change some exploitative managerial practices.

The article shows that in order to gain enough negotiating weight to induce

change, workers should find strategies to build power drawing on a variety of

sources located both ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ the workplace. Accordingly, to

102

account for such strategies, the article highlights the importance of not

assuming the relative autonomy of the workplace as postulated in LPT core

theory (see Jaros, 2005) and analytically encompassing dynamics and relations

that may occur outside the realm of production (see Baglioni et al., 2022). The

article uses the case of British ‘indie unions’ (Però, 2020) – recent grassroots

independent labour formations co-led by these workers – drawing on the

emerging literature focusing on them, including my own.

After highlighting the limited engagement of LPT with workers’ collective

contentious initiatives, the article introduces the heuristic device used later to

analytically describe how the precarious migrant workers of indie unions build

and blend powers to obtain changes from employers. Then, it considers the

deterioration of working conditions in regimes of outsourcing. This will be

followed by a brief methodological overview and an introduction of the indie

unions phenomenon. The rest of the article will discuss how associational,

coalitional and discursive powers are built and blended in strategies (like

communicative unionism) that aim to ‘neutralise’ some of the exploitative

conditions imposed through outsourcing. The conclusions will highlight the

contribution made to LPT’s analysis of workers’ collective action and its

effectiveness.

1. LPT, collective action and workers’ power

Labour Process Theory is a body of critical social research that centres on

production to examine patterns of control, consent and workers’ resistance.

LPT assumes that:

the employer has a vested interest in taking control of the labour process –

the set of operations that actually transforms raw materials into finished, saleable

product or services – in order to extract the maximum level of profit from

employees’ efforts. (…). Clearly, employees can be well aware of the potential

repercussions for themselves of what the employer seeks to do, and for this

reason they have a vested interest in resisting the employer’s designs, all of

which provides considerable potential for conflict (Dundon and Rollinson, 2011,

pp. 12-13).

Workers’ responses to the labour process arrangements constitute an

important aspect of the LPT agenda. These responses have largely been

considered in the context of ‘traditional’/Fordist workplaces and in terms of

individualised practices, such as mis-behaviour, a phenomenon whose

significance has been amply demonstrated by Ackroyd and Thompson (2022).

103

However, as highlighted by some authors (e.g. Martinez and Stewart, 1997;

Contu, 2008; Atzeni, 2010; Kirk, 2018; Tassinari and Maccarrone, 2020) and

acknowledged by Ackroyd and Thompson (2022), LPT has engaged little in

the analysis of collective and transformative forms of workers’ responses,

including the transformation of workers’ embryonic solidarity (that workers

possess by virtue of sharing structural positions and grievances) into the active

solidarity necessary to articulate labour mobilizations.

This limited conception and coverage of workers’ collective practices on

the part of LPT extends also to those increasingly common ‘atypical’ labour

process arrangements, such as those characterising outsourced and platform

work, where highly precarious migrant and racialized subjects feature

prominently. It is only recently, in fact, that an emerging body of research has

begun to address collective workers’ engagement in: (i) the gig economy and

in sectors featuring (bogus) self-employed couriers, riders and drivers (e.g.

Tassinari and Maccarrone 2020; Woodcock, 2020; Cant, 2020; Wood et al.,

2018); and (ii) in outsourced custodial services (e.g. cleaning and security) as

well as hospitality (e.g. Alberti, 2016; Moyers-Lee and Lopez, 2017; Alberti

and Però, 2018; Però, 2020; Weghmann 2022). This emerging work, which on

the whole tends to embody an actor-centred sensitivity (Alberti and Però,

2018), has begun to chart how workers dispersed by ‘atypical’ labour

processes can find ways to organise themselves and turn individual grievances

into collective disputes in sectors where traditional unions have been absent,

dormant or largely ineffective.

Another limitation of LPT – highlighted especially by feminist and labour

geographers (e.g. Baglioni et al., 2022; Baglioni and Mezzadri, 2020) –

concerns its framing of the workplace as a relatively autonomous sphere and

of exploitation (i.e. the process of value extraction from labour to capital) as

restricted to places and moments of paid work. Instead, these scholars have

shown that the boundaries where exploitation occurs comprise the relations

occurring in the sphere of social reproduction (Baglioni et al., 2022).

Following on from this point, we can expect that workers’ resistive strategies

– similarly to employers’ exploitative ones – could transcend the workplace.

Informed by these emerging bodies of work, this article examines one

particular aspect of workers’ active solidarity, namely how precarious workers

can make their collective agency effective in fragmented labour process

scenarios such as those characterised by outsourcing (e.g. cleaning). In fact,

the complex and nonmechanical transition from embryonic to active solidarity

(Atzeni, 2010; Tassinari and Maccarrone, 2020), does not necessarily entail

the ability to take collective action, build power and induce change. It is

104

therefore important to explore and chart how this power can be built and

deployed effectively.

To address these concerns and account for how this process can unravel,

this article uses as heuristic device Schmalz et al.’s (2018) typology of powers2

which identifies four main types of power. Structural power refers to the power

deriving from the position workers occupy in the productive process and the

possibility this position offers to disrupt this process. Associational power

refers to the possibility for workers to associate and act collectively in the

employment relationship. Institutional power concerns workers’ ability to use

(legal and political) institutions in asserting their demands. Societal power

refers to workers’ ability to gain public support through (i) the development of

alliances with other civic and community organisations, groups and

individuals (coalitional power) and (ii) the appeal to sectors of the general

public via communicative and symbolic practices that resonate with

mainstream ideas of fairness and justice (discursive power).

One important reason for choosing this heuristic device is that – through its

explicit reference to societal power as both coalitional and discursive – it lends

itself well to examine workers’ relations and contentious practices being

articulated not only inside but also outside the workplace where they may also

occur. To examine how outsourced migrant workers can draw on these powers

spanning the workplace/community divide to gain concessions from

employers, we first need to review the key features of outsourcing.

2. Outsourcing and the deterioration of workers’ rights

The terms outsourcing and subcontracting are often used interchangeably.

Chun (2009, p. 103) has defined them as:

a business practice in which labor needs are outsourced to a secondary firm...

By externalizing labour costs and legal employment responsibilities to a separate

entity, companies can more easily treat labor as an abstract (rather than human)

cost of production [and] impose arbitrary wage cuts without having to physically

move to another location. Subcontracting also allows firms to exert rationalized

and masked forms of anti-unionism.

2 This typology is part of the power resource approach that Schmalz et al (2018) have recently

developed drawing on Wright (2000) and Silver (2003) (see also Nowak, 2021; and the debate

in the Global Labour Journal 2018, 9(3)).

105

Outsourcing allows employers to reorganise the labour process, cutting

labour and other costs and formally freeing themselves from managerial

responsibilities which are transferred to the contractor (Kalleberg, 2013;

Doellgast and Greer, 2007; Drahokoupil, 2015).

This arrangement works by legally separating the client company that

ultimately pays for and benefits from the subcontracted services from the

contractor company that legally establishes and administers the terms and

conditions of the subcontracted workers (e.g. cleaners). It entails redrawing

the organisational boundaries, triangulating the more traditional bilateral

relationship between workers and employers so as to include an external

organisation (the contractor company) (Dorigatti and Greco, 2022). As

observed by Chun (2009, p. 104), in this manner the client company ‘can

claim that they are not the official employer-of-record, which releases them

from any formal account procedure’.

Importantly, this arrangement is often also motivated by the attempt to

circumvent company-level employment relations institutions and to weaken

workers’ organising possibilities (Drahokoupil, 2015, p. 12; see also

Iannuzzi and Sacchetto, 2022). Clearly, in the dispersed and opaque

productive scenario of outsourcing, the structural antagonism between

workers and capital inherent to the labour process of standard productive

contexts (see Atzeni, 2010) not only persists but is rendered more strident by

the deterioration of working terms and conditions.

One of the sectors where the subcontracting transformation is most

evident is cleaning, which in recent years has witnessed a fall in wages,

intensification of work tasks and abuses, as well as a racialized shift, with

the vast majority of the outsourced workforce in the UK being – unlike the

in-house workers – constituted by minorities and especially migrants (Wills

et al., 2010; Hearn and Bergos, 2011; Alberti 2016; Hughes and Woodcock,

2023). Indeed, as pointed out by Wills et al. (2010) London’s «low-paid

services now rely on foreign-born workers, most of whom work under

subcontracted employment arrangements» (2010, p. 180). Through these

outsourcing arrangements those who were originally employing the workers

are now under no obligation to negotiate with the latter, as these are now

employees of the contractor company, in what constitutes a more complex

and opaque system of employment relations.

For the workers who end up in this system, the situation is worsened by

mainstream unions being little concerned with representing their interests

(Moyers-Lee and Lopez, 2017; Alberti and Però, 2018; Tassinari and

Maccarrone, 2020). So, if the advent of outsourcing has intensified workers’

precarisation and disempowerment, mainstream unions on their part have

106

offered little support to the growing numbers of workers entrapped in these

degraded employment relations. Various authors (e.g. Ness, 2014; Martínez

Lucio, et al. 2017; and Standing, 2011; among others) have documented how

these workers often find unsatisfactory representation in mainstream labour

unions which continue to be largely concerned with representing standard

workers. Marotta and Hughes (2018) give a sense of how the mainstream

union that was meant to represent the outsourced LSE cleaners in fact tried

to tame their protest

the LSE Unison branch was (…) dismissed as being part of management, and

cursed in the same breath as Noonan [the contractor] and the LSE. (…) As the

struggle proceeded, Unison assumed the role of mediator between LSE/Noonan and

the cleaners, of which they represented only a handful. (…) The cleaners refused to

accept Unison’s role and actively rebelled against it (p. 10).

Because of this, outsourced workers have had to explore alternative forms

through which their voice and concerns can be articulated (Però, 2020).

In this complex and hostile context characterised by apparent workers’

powerlessness, it is important to explore what room there is for highly

precarious workers lacking material resources and institutional support to

build enough negotiating power to obtain improvements in their harsh working

conditions. This is the question addressed in the reminder of this article.

3. Notes on Research Strategy and Methods

This article draws on various empirical research projects including my

own ethnographic work. A methodological overview of the latter is

important not only to give a sense of the nature of my own empirical insights,

but also to outline the particular position/perspective from which I draw on

others’ works on outsourced cleaners’ collective agency in London.

My ethnographic research involved fieldwork conducted largely by

‘being there’ (Watson, 1999). This includes the direct (participant)

observation at numerous events and the interviewing (formally and

informally) of participants with many of whom I have built a relationship of

trust and ‘familiarity’ through repeated encounters. In many instances, these

are the same type of events ‘informing’ the work of the other authors which

I draw upon below.

More specifically, the approach underpinning my research is that of an

embedded actor-centred sociological framework based on ethnography, as

107

described in Alberti and Però (2018). While my work on migrant workers’

collective practices in Britain started in 2004, most of my research used here

took place since 2015 and entailed multi-sited ethnography that featured

participant observation, conversations, semi-structured interviews,

document and frame analysis (see Però, 2020, Però and Downey, 2022). This

fieldwork comprised participant observation at over one hundred events and

venues (ranging from meeting to strikes, to protests and BBQs) and the

recording of 59 semi-structured interviews with precarious migrant workers

involved in organising, activists from independent and mainstream unions as

well as from civic and community organisations. Fieldwork also entailed

analysing some of the texts the above individuals and their organisations

produced on-line and in hard-copies, together with those that others

(including journalists and bloggers) had produced about them and their

collective initiatives. The data collected was analysed thematically using the

funnel approach (Agar, 1996; Okely, 2012) which also encompassed frame

analysis in relations to the self-mediation activities of indie unions (see Però

and Downey, 2022).

4. Building power in regimes of outsourcing: the case of indie union

workers

Facilities workers in the UK are often migrants who experience harsh

working conditions such as those Moyer-Lee and Chango Lopez (2017, p.

231) described below:

As recently as the spring of 2011, the University of London’s outsourced

workers went largely unnoticed. Nearly 400 cleaners, porters, security guards and

caterers earned just barely above the minimum wage. They didn’t have occupational

sick pay, they had the legal minimum for holidays and most didn’t have a company

pension. Management abuse was rife, unlawful deductions of wages were the norm

and people were sacked without recourse to any procedures»

Failing to find adequate representation in mainstream unions, in 2012 a

significant group of them decided to form their own independent union, the

Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB). As Paula from

IWGB put it to me when discussing the emergence of her new organisation

at the University of London:

We came out [of Unison] not so much following a doctrine, but guided by the

idea that we were going to be all Unison was not. We set out as a reaction against a

108

paternalistic and controlling top-down way of doing things rather than having

members deciding the policies»

This initiative was soon followed by two similar formations also

constituted largely by highly precarious outsourced workers, the United

Voices of the World (UVW) and the Cleaners and Allied Independent

Workers Union (CAIWU) (Alberti, 2016; Moyers-Lee and Lopez, 2017;

Alberti and Però, 2018; Però, 2020; Weghmann, 2022)3.

Since then, taken together, indie unions workers have produced a long

series of successful collective initiatives in the London outsourced service

economy, which is especially remarkable in consideration of their scarce

material resources and support from mainstream trade unions (see Moyers-

Lee and Lopez, 2017; Acciari and Però, 2017; Shalmy, 2018; Weghmann,

2022). Indeed, there is growing consensus that indie unions have been

leading the way in the fight against outsourcing (see Holgate 2021; Però and

Downey, 2022; Petrini and Wettergren, 2022; Weghmann, 2023). An

exemplary case in this respect, is the dispute at the LSE, where the

outsourced migrant cleaners of UVW lead by a group of Jamaican women in

their 50s, obtained significant improvements in their annual leave, sick pay,

parental leave and pension contribution. Their working conditions, in fact,

had progressively deteriorated involving, among other things: an

intensification of work – involving the simultaneous expansion of the space

to be cleaned and the reduction in the number of cleaners destined to the

same space – that inevitably impacted on the cleaners’ health; and a sick pay

so low that would pressure cleaners to work through illness (see Marotta and

Hughes, 2018). Most importantly, however, through their campaign they also

achieved the historical win to be reinstated as in-house staff, thus stopping

the decades-long outsourcing of cleaning services (see Acciari and Però,

2017; Marotta and Hughes, 2018).

What strategies have characterised these workers' practices in an

especially adverse employment environment? How did they build the

necessary power to induce employers’ change? Using the typology

developed by Schmalz et al. (2018) as a heuristic device, the next section

examines the specific power building strategies that indie unions deploy. As

3 For a more extensive account of indie unions see Però, 2020; Smith, 2022; Petrini and

Wettergren, 2022; Weghmann, 2022. On the organisation of migrant workers that preceded

indie unions – the Latin American Workers Associations – in which some of the indie unions’

organisers were involved see Lagnado, 2016; Però, 2008; 2014; Alberti and Però, 2018.

109

we will see, the key forms of powers mostly drawn upon and combined in

this instance are associational, coalitional and discursive.4

5. From structural to associational power: building communities of

struggle

With some exceptions – e.g. in logistics – outsourced precarious

workers have little structural power, i.e. the power and potential to disrupt

or stop production that is conferred on them by their position in the

productive system/economy (Rhomberg and Lopez, 2021). Thus, with

some sectoral variation, this lack of structural power generally

characterises the outsourced migrant workers of indie unions (such as

cleaners). The combination of a fragmented subcontracted labour process

with the limited numerical presence and density at the workplace, results

in these workers being hardly in the position of halting production when

compared to workers of manufacturing plants or logistics choke points5.

What indie union workers do have, and have demonstrated the ability to

develop and deploy effectively in negotiating their interests, is

associational power, i.e. the power that stems from the association of

workers who organise collectively to articulate better their interests

(Schmalz et al. 2018; Wright 2000). It is the form of power usually

considered most important in the literature (e.g. Lopez-Andreu, 2020;

Rizzo and Atzeni, 2020; Però 2020; Alberti and Però 2018; Alberti 2016;

Tassinari and Maccarrone 2020; Englert et al 2020 among others),

especially for non-standard workers. Associational power is considered of

special importance not only for its own transformative possibilities, but

also for the role it can play in the activation of the other forms of powers

(see Rhomberg and Lopez 2021). In fact, once workers associate in

contentious collectives, they are more likely not only to undertake

industrial action in the workplace, but also to stage their disputes on legal

and social (coalitional and/or symbolic) arenas.

4 For a general discussion of combinations involving institutional power see Però (2022). For

discussions specific to the platform economy and foster care see Dias-Abey (2021) and Kirk

(2020) respectively.

5 The significance of structural power should not be overemphasised as its exercise can be

discouraged by contextual constraints – see Fox-Hodess and Santibáñez Rebolledo (2020);

Nowak (2021); Miles et al. (2021).

110

As associational power can manifest itself differently, it is important

to consider the distinctive connotations it assumes in each case or context.

Elsewhere (Però 2020) I have suggested that for the highly precarious

workers of indie unions, associational power often takes the form of

communities of struggle. These are participatory spaces where highly

precarious workers experiencing multiple and intersecting forms of

oppression can receive and provide support to each other, at the same time

as developing a collective contentious identity, planning and carrying out

industrial actions – a process that normally is conducive to material as

well as non-material rewards (including greater confidence, self-esteem,

knowledge, social embeddedness and sense of empowerment)6.

The formation of communities of struggle has provided workers with

horizontal, trustworthy and embedding networks that facilitate not only

their coping with disadvantaged circumstances but also their collective

redressing of such circumstances. It is a site where collective combative

identities form and manifest themselves in contentious labour initiatives.

Importantly, these ‘spaces’ have a significant de-territorialized

component. Because workplaces characterised by subcontracting are

especially fragmented, have limited workers density, high ethno-cultural

and linguistic diversity as well as because migrant workers live scattered

across a vast city territory with limited roots in territorial communities,

communities of struggle had to develop their underpinning social bonds

through a variety of encounters at events, ranging from protests to fiestas

and BBQs, from strikes to football games, and from workers’ rights and

labour organising trainings to English, numeracy, boxing and yoga

classes (among others).

These activities are similar to those of «compañerismo» described in

Atzeni (2010) in that they strengthened workers’ embryonic solidarity.

However, in the case of indie unions’ workers, they are also functional to

the emergence of active solidarity and mobilisation. A key characteristic

of the social bonds underpinning communities of struggle concerns their

‘quality’. These are strong and meaningful bonds forged and sustained

over time through numerous interpersonal exchanges where workers get

to know, trust, value and ‘invest’ in each other. For some, this active

involvement in communities of struggle follows the quality and rapidity

of support received on their individual grievances that thus acts as a

promoting factor for collective contentious engagement (see Però, 2020).

6 On the significance of collective identity in this type of labour formations see also Borghi

et al. (2021) and Però (2014).

111

6. Scaling-up disputes: building societal power through communicative

unionism

Together with associational power built and exercised through the

development of communities of struggles, the outsourced precarious workers

of indie unions are normally involved in scaling-up the pressure exerted on

employers through societal power, which as we have seen, can be coalitional

as well as discursive.

6.1. Coalitional(-societal) power

Coalitional power refers to the ability to develop or activate networks

with other social actors in support of workers’ campaigns and mobilizations.

It could be seen as a sort of associational power scaled-up and populated by

civic and community actors rather than workplace ones. While some

researchers examined coalitional power in the context of established unions,

see for example the work on community unionism and social unionism (e.g.,

Heery et al., 2012; Holgate, 2015), research on coalitions centred around

precarious workers (rather than labour organisations) has been more limited.

As shown elsewhere (Però, 2011), for migrant workers in conditions of

apparent powerlessness and ‘high precarity’, developing alliances with other

players of the polity can allow them to move from an undeclared politics of

resistance – or infrapolitics (Scott, 1990) – to an explicit and public

contentious stand. As one of the UVW organisers explained in relation to

outsourced cleaners’ campaigns: ‘you need a hundred people behind you if

you’re going to make a public demand, a collective demand’.

The outsourced cleaners and custodial workers of indie unions have been

able to draw on a broad constellation of supportive civic and community

groups in articulating their campaigns (see also Cini et al., 2022). The

alliances that developed around indie unions’ campaigns tended to be more

informal, fluid and comprising a heterogenous range of generally alternative

groups than the mainstream coalitions and forms of community unionism

featuring established unions (such as Citizens UK, that features churches,

mosques, university departments etc.). In an interview with an organiser, I

was told how UVW is rather ‘relaxed’ about who supports their campaigns.

As long as these groups do not try to manipulate or hijack the workers’

campaigns (and are not right-wing organisations), everyone is in principle

welcome.

112

Thus, indie unions’ support initially came from radical groups, migrant

community organisations, and very importantly from each other (to the

extent that for a few months in 2016 IWGB and UVW even considered

merging). Their protests are normally well attended, colourful, loud and

generally quite creative (including Zumba dancing, world music, drumming,

and poetry). Not surprisingly given that indie unions broke away from

mainstream unions because of the inadequate representation these provided

to precarious migrant workers (Moyers-Lee and Lopez, 2017; Alberti and

Però, 2018; Però, 2020; Alberti, 2016), these established unions initially

offered indie unions hardly any support.7 Indeed, indie unions were often

seen with suspicion by many in the British union movements, sometimes

boxed and dismissed as ‘anarchists’ as well as expected to be short-lived

experiences. Over time, however, indie unions not only grew but proved

remarkably successful at winning concessions with and for workers that

mainstream unions regarded as ‘unorganizable’, to the extent that some

established unions started to adopt a less hostile or dismissive attitude

resulting sometimes in collaborations and even in the adoption of element of

their strategies and direct-action repertoires (e.g. PCS, BFWU) (see Smith,

2022; Weghmann, 2023). This change is illustrated in the following

statement by a Unite organiser quoted in Weghmann (2023, p. 8), who is

self-critical of their own initial campaign at St. Barts’ Hospital in London

which targeted the contractor rather than the client organisation:

when people ask me what I have personally learned from the UVW – go for

the fucking client. […] Who has the money? Who is the service benefitting?

Who has contracted out the service? Who is the service servicing? That’s the

person you go for. We picked the fight with Serco [contractor]. We picked the

fight with the middleman.

6.2. Discursive (-societal) power

Another way in which indie union workers scale-up their protest is

through discursive power, the form of societal power associated with

workers' ability to influence the public debate and the general public through

communicative and symbolic practices that resonate with prevailing views

of fairness. Chun (2009) illustrated the relevance of discursive power (that

7 Exceptions include the SOAS branch of Unison, the Fire Brigade Union and the University

and College Union.

113

she calls ‘symbolic’) when the outsourced workers of her US case study

redefined ‘the employer’ in a manner that it included not only their direct

employer (the contractor) but also their indirect one (the client or contracting

organisation) to whom the workers provided their services and into whose

building they worked. This re-definitional process is critical for it exposes

the moral responsibility and complicity of the client organisation in the unfair

and degraded treatment of outsourced workers. However, being usually

much more visible and concerned with their (good) public image and

reputation than their service contractors, client organisations are also

potentially more ‘vulnerable’ to the reputational damage that workers’

discursive/symbolic challenges can make to such image, challenges that

workers can use to press client organisations to ‘ask’ their contractors to

accommodate the outsourced workers’ demands. Clearly, the re-definitional

practices concerning the identity and responsibilities of the de facto

employers that Chun (2009) highlights can increasingly be found elsewhere.

In the UK they have, for instance, been characterising the ‘Justice for

Cleaners campaign’ in the 2000s (Wills et al., 2010; Però, 2014), and the

indie unions’ outsourced workers’ campaigns since the outset (see Moyers-

Lee and Lopez, 2017; Alberti, 2016; Acciari and Però, 2017).

The case of indie unions’ discursive power practices allows us to confirm

Chun’s (2008) observation. However, and more importantly in this context,

it allows us to make a different one on the significance of discursive power

and its analysis, namely on how such power can be developed through the

strategic use of framing and self-mediation practices and their embeddedness

in their other negotiating practices. As pointed out in Però and Downey

(2022), indie unions’ campaigns tend to be characterised by the staging of

their disputes not only in the workplace and in the streets, but also in the

public (mediated) arena. This wider staging – articulated through self-

mediating practices – is done for a wider audience with the twofold intent of

(i) appealing to a range of diverse ‘bystanders’ (Snow, 2008), among whom

we find activists, consumers and journalists, and of (ii) dissuasively

structuring the attitudes of the employers8.

Activists tend to be reached directly by indie unions’ self-mediation

practices, e.g. through social media. While important for the extra energy

and resources that they can contribute to campaigns (see the above discussion

of coalitional power), their numbers and ‘circles’ are relatively limited. What

8 Clearly, each ‘bystanders’ response is not merely determined by the message and framing

of the sender but also shaped by their own specific interpretations of it on the basis of different

repertoires, agendas and constraints.

114

is analytically more interesting to highlight here is the discursive work that

indie unions’ self-mediated practices seem to be doing in relation to the other

members of the public, which entails framing workers’ disputes in the

language of human rights, recognition, and respect (rather than in a

redistributive socialist one). Elements of these process have been illustrated

by Louis of UVW as follows:

There might be some different demands in particular campaigns but the broad

demands (are) living wage, sick pay and respect. Who can disagree with these

demands, right? So if we find an employer which is objecting to these, then the

burden is on the employer (…) to justify why they don’t believe these demands are

reasonable or just. (…) it’s becoming harder and harder for employers not to support

these demands (…) it’s a question often of shaming (…) which obviously depends

on the employer having the brand (…) we will definitely utilise the prestige of the

places where our members are against these players… (like) Topshop – the flagship

brand of the Arcadia Group.

Many consumers, customers, clients (including university students), users of

municipal services, hospitals, care homes, theatres etc. may not like the

employment practices of their service or products providers if they come to

hear about them. However, reaching these publics is a task that is not so easy

to accomplish through self-mediation alone, so sympathetic coverage from

mainstream journalists and their authoritative mass media becomes strategic.

Journalists’ work of mass mediation, in fact, not only validates the workers’

causes/campaigns, but projects them on a vastly bigger scale, offering

workers’ campaign an important boost in terms of visibility and legitimacy

(Gamson and Wolfsfeld, 1993; Ferree et al., 2002). Also, mainstream

journalists may be more inclined to cover indie unions’ workers’ disputes

(and to do so through the use of resonating frames) when indie unions’ web

pages, YouTube channels and so forth self-mediate and frame such disputes

as being about recognition and basic human and employment rights (rather

than about socialist redistribution). They are also more inclined to cover

disputes and campaigns if labour organisations provide them with access to

reliable information and interviewees for their reporting – which indie

unions, realising this importance, tend to do (Però and Downey, 2022).

The self-mediation practices of indie unions are also an attempt to shape

the attitude of the ultimate employers (the client company), who realising

that ‘their’ outsourced exploitative employment practices have been publicly

exposed as morally unfair on the internet, in social media and in mainstream

media, may decide to accommodate workers’ basic requests quickly and

pressurise their contractors to accommodate workers’ requests, as often is

115

the case. Sometimes it has been enough for indie unions to point employers

to internet material (footage and outcomes) of their previous disputes to

make them seek an agreement promptly and prevent mobilizations,

something they know can be quite disruptive and reputationally damaging

(see Shalmy, 2018).

It is important to highlight how indie unions’ staging of their disputes in

the public arena through self-mediation in the manner just described is not

simply an ‘extra’ to their contentious and disruptive face-to-face initiatives

in the workplace and in the streets. Rather this staging is embedded in their

overall negotiating and power-building strategies in a constitutive manner –

a strategy that elsewhere has been referred to as communicative unionism

(Però and Downey, 2022). This seems consistent with a testimony collected

by Pannini (2023, p. 79) from an UVW organiser of the LSE campaign.

Our idea is that the disruption you can bring to the service is not only in terms

of money lost by a company. Sometimes disruption can be disruption of the

reputation.

Conclusions

This article set out to contribute to an underdeveloped area of LPT, that

of workers’ collective power-building practices and negotiating strategies

(e.g. Martinez and Stewart, 1997; Contu, 2008; Kirk, 2018; Tassinari and

Maccarrone, 2020; Ackroyd and Thompson, 2022), with special reference to

how these practices can be made effective. This has been done with reference

to the case of the highly precarious workers of the UK outsourced service

sector (migrant cleaners and facilities workers) organised in ‘indie unions’

(Però, 2020; see also Moyers-Lee and Lopez, 2017; Alberti and Però, 2018;

Weghmann, 2022).

The article has shown how, even in conditions of limited material

resources, institutional support, low density and high precarity, workers can

build enough negotiating power to induce significant change in employers’

practices. In doing so, the article has offered a sense of how workers –

through the imaginative building and blending of associational, coalitional

and discursive power – can manage to ‘neutralise’ some of the extractive and

exploitative arrangements of the labour process in regimes of outsourcing.

In particular, the article has illustrated how the precarious and outsourced

indie unions workers who normally lack structural power, have been able to

build significant associational power through the development of

116

communities of struggle (Però, 2020). This power was synergistically

combined with coalitional power developed through the support of a broad

range of individuals as well as civic, community and labour organisations.

Importantly, this power-building activities were typically integrated by

discursive power, which was acquired through a shrewd deployment of self-

mediation practices. These practices staged workplace disputes in the public

arena and triggered further support through the use of appealing framing

(Gamson and Wolfsfeld, 1993; Ferree et al., 2002) that journalists of

mainstream liberal media adopted. This amplified the visibility and

perspective of the workers’ disputes as well as the challenge these posed to

employers’ valuable public image and reputation, in an approach that has

been referred to as communicative unionism (Però and Downey, 2022).

Through this discussion the article makes the following related points.

Firstly, it illustrates how Schmalz et al.’s (2018) typology of powers can

become a useful heuristic device to analytically describe and account for the

various collective practices, inside and outside the workplace, that workers

deploy in the attempt to develop enough negotiating power to challenge some

of the harshest exploitative arrangements characterising the labour process

in regimes of outsourcing.

Secondly, the article shows the importance of extending the analytical

field beyond the site of production that typically characterises LPT. It is only

by considering this broader analytical field, comprising both the workplace

and the ‘community’, that often it becomes possible to gain a more accurate

sense of how the collective practices of highly precarious workers can

‘neutralise’ some of the managerial arrangements put in place through

outsourcing to intensify labour exploitation and circumvent workers’

representation. This implies no longer assuming the workplace as the sole

repository of workers’ initiatives but consider other arenas as these may be

strategic for inducing change in employers’ practices.

In doing so, this article provides a corrective to the ‘relative autonomy of

the workplace’ postulated by LPT core theory (e.g. Jaros, 2005) in relation

to the analysis of workers’ collective agency and its effectiveness. In

particular, in highlighting the significance that ‘external’ social relations can

play in workers’ collective agency, this article complements the contribution

to LPT made by feminist and labour geographers (e.g. Baglioni et al., 2022;

Baglioni and Mezzadri, 2021) on the importance of analytically connecting

production (with its labour process dynamics of exploitation) and the

external sphere of social reproduction. Whereas these authors have

highlighted the interconnection existing between the spheres of production

and social reproduction in terms of capital’ exploitation of social relations

117

outside the workplace, this article has highlighted the relevance of the sphere

of social reproduction in terms of workers’ articulation of collective

resistance to the labour process in regimes of outsourcing.

References

Acciari L. and Però D. (2017). ‘Confronting Precariousness, Outsourcing and Exploitation –

Lessons from the LSE cleaners’, Discover Society. DOI:10.51428/tsr.mivd5146

https://discoversociety.org/2017/12/06/on-the-frontline-confronting-precariousness-

outsourcing-and-exploitation-lessons-from-the-lse-cleaners/#comments

Agar M. (1996). The Professional Stranger (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.

Ackroyd S. and Thompson P. (2022). Organizational Misbehaviour (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

DOI: 10.4135/9781446222232

Alberti G. (2016). Mobilizing and Bargaining at the Edge of Informality. Working USA,

19:81-103. DOI:10.1111/wusa.12228.

Alberti G. and Però D. (2018). Migrating industrial relations: migrant workers’ initiative

within and outside trade unions, British Journal of Industrial Relations 55(4):693-715.

DOI:10/1111/bjir.12308.

Atzeni M. (2010). Workplace conflict: Mobilization and solidarity in Argentina.

Houndsmills: Palgrave. DOI: 10.1057/9780230281622.

Atzeni M. (2021). Workers’ organizations and the fetishism of the trade union form.

Globalizations. 18(8):1349-1362. DOI: 10.1080/14747731.2021.1877970.

Baglioni E. (2022). Exploitation and Labour Regimes: Production, Circulation, Social

Reproduction, Ecology. In Baglioni E, Campling L and Smith A (eds) Labour Regimes

and Global Production. Newcastle: Agenda. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctv2b6z898.9.

Baglioni, E., Mezzadri, A. (2020). Labour Control Regimes and Social Reproduction: Some

Reflections on the Strengths and Weaknesses of an Evolving Framework. In A. Hammer,

A. Fishwick, (eds), The Political Economy of Work in the Global South, London:

Macmillan.

Borghi P., Murgia A., Mondon-Navazo M. and Mezihorak P. (2021). Mind the gap between

discourses and practices: platform workers’ representation in France and Italy. European

Journal of Industrial Relations 27(4):425-443. DOI: 10.1177/09596801211004268

Bowcott O. (2019). Ministry of Justice workers to stage a two-day strike over pay. The

Guardian, 10-1-2019. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jan/10/ministry-of-

justice-workers-to-stage-two-day-strike-over-pay

Cant C. (2020). Riding for Deliveroo. Resistance in the new economy. London: Polity Press.

Chun J. (2009). Organizing at the margins. Ithaca: Cornell UP. DOI:

10.7591/9780801458453.

Cini L., Maccarrone V. and Tassinari A. (2022). With or without U(nions)? Understanding

the diversity of gig workers’ organizing practices in Italy and the UK. European Journal

of Industrial Relations, 28(3):341-362. DOI: 10.1177/09596801211052531

Contu A. (2008). Decaf resistance: On misbehavior, cynicism, and desire in liberal

workplaces. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(3): 364-379. DOI:

10.1177/0893318907310941.

Dias-Abey M. (2021). Bridging the Spaces in-between? The IWGB and Strategic Litigation.

Law Research Papers Series. University of Bristol.DOI:10.2139/ssrn.4140900.

118

Doellegast V. and Greer I. (2007). Vertical disintegration and the disorganization of German

industrial relations. British Journal of Industrial Relations. 45(1): 55-76. DOI:

10.1111/j.1467-8543.2007.00602.x

Dorigatti L. and Greco L. (2022). I confini dell’impresa, il lavoro e le regole tra globale e

locale. Sociologia del lavoro 164(3): 1-18. DOI: 10.3280/sl2022-164007.

Drahokoupil J. (2015). Introduction, in Drahokoupil J. (ed.). The Outsourcing Challenge.

Brussells: ETUI.

Dundon T. and Rollinson D. (2011). Understanding Employment Relations (2nd ed). London:

McGraw-Hill.

Englert S., Woodcock J. and Cant C. (2020). Digital workerism: Technology, platforms, and

the circulation of workers’ struggles. Triplec: Communication, Capitalism &

Critique, 18(1): 132-145. DOI: 10.31269/triplec.v18i1.1133

Ferree M., Gamson W., Rucht D. and Gerhards J. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse:

Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge: CUP.

DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511613685.

Fox-Hodess C. and Santibáñez Rebolledo C. (2020). The social foundations of structural

power. Global Labour Journal, 11(3): 222-238. DOI: 10.15173/glj.v11i3.4236 .

Gamson W.A. and Wolfsfeld G. (1993). Movements and media as interacting systems. The

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 528(1): 114-125. DOI:

10.1177/0002716293528001009.

Hearn J. and Bergos M. (2011). Latin American cleaners fight for survival. Race &

Class, 53(1): 65-82. DOI: 10.1177/0306396811406782.

Heery E., Williams S. and Abbott B. (2012). Civil society organizations and trade unions:

cooperation, conflict, indifference. Work, Employment & Society 26(1): 145-160.DOI:

10.1177/0950017011426302

Holgate J. (2015). Community organising in the UK: A ‘new’ approach for trade

unions? Economic and Industrial Democracy, 36(3): 431-455. DOI:

10.1177/0143831X13511275.

Holgate J. (2021). Arise. Power, Strategy and Union Resurgence. London: Pluto. DOI:

10.2307/j.ctv1v08zcv

Hughes L. and Woodcock J. (2023). Trouble Making. London: Verso.

Iannuzzi F.E. and Sacchetto D. (2022). Labour and production borders. Outsourcing in

contemporary capitalism. Sociologia del lavoro. 164(3): 140-1761. DOI:

10.3280/SL2022-164008.

Jang Z. and Korczynski M. (2016). When the ‘unorganizable’ organize: The collective

mobilization of migrant domestic workers. Human Relations 69(3): 813-838. DOI:

10.1177/0018726715600229.

Jaros S. (2005) Marxian Critiques of Thompson’s (1990) ‘core’ Labour Process Theory: An

Evaluation and Extension, Ephemera. Theory & politics in organization 5(1): 5-25

Juravich T. (2018). Constituting Challenges in Differing Arenas of Power. Labour Studies

Journal, 43(2): 104-117. DOI: 10.1177/0160449X18763441.

Kalleberg A. (2013). Good jobs, bad jobs: the rise of polarized and precarious employment

systems in the United States, 1970s to 2000s. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Kelly J. (1998). Rethinking Industrial Relations. London: Routledge.

Kirk E. (2018). The (re)organisation of conflict at work: Mobilisation, counter-mobilisation

and the displacement of grievance expressions. Economic and Industrial Democracy,

39(4): 639-660. DOI: 10.1177/0143831X18777617.

Kirk E. (2020). Contesting ‘bogus self-employment’ via legal mobilisation: The case of foster

care workers. Capital & Class, 44(4): 531-539. DOI: 10.1177/0309816820906395.

119

Lagnado J. (2016). Towards a History of the Latin American Workers Association 2002–12.

In Choudry A. and Hlatshwayo M. (eds.), Just Work? London: Pluto, 106-128. DOI:

10.2307/j.ctt194xgtm.10

López-Andreu M. (2020). Breaking fragmentation through mobilization: the development of

a collective identity during Movistar’s contractors’ and technicians’ strike in Spain. Work,

Employment and Society, 34(4): 661-677. DOI: 10.1177/0950017019866688.

Marotta A., Hughes L. (2018). Rebellion at the LSE: a cleaning sector inquiry, Notes from

Below (1): https://notesfrombelow.org/article/rebellion-lse-cleaning-sector-inquiry

Martínez Lucio M. and Stewart P. (1997). The paradox of contemporary labour process

theory: The rediscovery of labour and the disappearance of collectivism. Capital & Class,

21(2): 49-77. DOI: 10.1177/030981689706200104.

Martínez L.M., Marino S. and Connolly H. (2017). Organising as a strategy to reach

precarious and marginalised workers. Transfer 23(1): 31-46. DOI:

10.1177/1024258916677880.

Miles, L., Freeman, T., Wan Teng, L., Mat Yasin, S., Ying, K. (2022). Empowerment as a

pre-requisite to managing and influencing health in the workplace: The sexual and

reproductive health needs of factory women migrant workers in Malaysia. Economic and

Industrial Democracy, 43(4): 1676-1698. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X211024725

Moyer-Lee J. and Lopez H. (2017). From invisible to invincible: the story of the 3 cosas

campaign. In Lazar S (ed) Where Are the Unions? London: Zed, 231-250. DOI:

10.5040/9781350223929.ch-011.

Ness I. (2014). New Forms of Worker Organization. In Ness I., New Forms of Worker

Organization. Oakland: PM, 1-17.

Nowak J. (2021). From industrial relations research to Global Labour Studies: moving labour

research beyond Eurocentrism. Globalizations, 18(8): 1335-1348. DOI:

10.1080/14747731.2021.1874210.

Okely J. (2012). Anthropological Practice. Fieldwork and the ethnographic method. Oxford:

Berg. DOI|: 10.4324/9781003084563

Pannini E. (2023). Winning a battle against the odds: A cleaners’ campaign. Economic and

Industrial Democracy, 44(1): 68-87. DOI: 10.1177/0143831x211060390.

Però D. (2008). ‘Political Engagements of Latin Americans in the UK. Issues, Strategies and

the Public Debate’, in Focaal – Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology, 51: 73-

90. DOI: 10.3167/fc 2008.510107.

Però D. (2011). Migrants Practices of Citizenship and Policy Change. In Shore C., Wright S.

and Però D., eds., Policy Worlds. Anthropology and Contemporary Power. Oxford:

Berghahn, pp. 244-263. DOI: 10.1515/9780857451170-016.

Però D. (2013). Migrants, Cohesion and the Cultural Politics of the State: Critical Perspectives

on the Management of Diversity, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 39(8): 1241-

1259. DOI: 10.1080/1369183x.2013.787511.

Però D. (2014). Class Politics and Migrants: Collective Action among New Migrant Workers

in Britain, in Sociology, 48(6): 1156-1172. DOI: 10.1177/0038038514523519.

Però D. (2020). Indie Unions, Organizing and Labour Renewal: Learning from Precarious

Migrant Workers, Work, Employment and Society, 34(5): 900-918. DOI:

10.1177/0950017019885075.

Però D. (2022). ‘New Labour Formations, Precarious Workers, and the Gig Economy.

Lessons from British indie unions’. In Ness I., ed. The Routledge Handbook of the Gig

Economy, pp. 220-233. DOI:10.4324/9781003161875-18.

120

Però D. and Downey J. (2022). Advancing Workers Rights in the Gig Economy through

Discursive Power: The Communicative Strategies of Indie Unions. Work, Employment

and Society. DOI: 10.1177/09500170221103160.

Petrini E. and Wettergren A. (2022). Organising outsourced workers in UK’s new trade

unionism-emotions, protest, and collective identity. Social Movement Studies, 1-17. DOI:

10.1080/14742837.2022.2054795.

Rizzo M. and Atzeni M. (2020). Workers’ power in resisting precarity: Comparing transport

workers in Buenos Aires and Dar es Salaam. Work, Employment and Society, 34(6): 1114-

1130. DOI: 10.1177/9550017020928248.

Rhomberg C. and Lopez S. (2021). Understanding Strikes in the 21st Century, in Power and

Protest, Research in Social Movements, Conflict and Change, 44: 37-62. DOI:

10.1108/s0163-786x20210000044005.

Schmalz S., Ludwig C. and Webster E. (2018). The Power Resources Approach. Global

Labour Journal, 9(2): 113-114. DOI: 10.15173/glj.v9i2.3569

Scott J. (1990). Domination and the Arts of Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press.

DOI: 10.12987/9780300153569.

Shalmy S. (2018). Solidarity Forever. Red Pepper 222: 16-21.

Silver B. (2003) Forces of Labor. Cambridge: CUP. DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511615702

Smith H. (2022). The ‘indie unions’ and the UK labour movement: Towards a community of

practice. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 43(3): 1369-1390. DOI:

10.1177/0143831X2119956.

Snow D. (2008). Framing Processes, Ideology, and Discursive Fields. In Snow D, Soule S

and Kriesi (eds) Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, London: Blackwell, pp. 380-

412. DOI: 10.1002/9780470999103.ch17.

Standing G. (2011). The Precariat. London: Bloomsbury. DOI: 10.5040/9781849664554.

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, 34(1): 35-54. DOI:

10.1177/0950017019862954.

UVW (2018). Wildcat Strike of Recycling Workers. United Voices of the World, 28-3-2018.

https://www.uvwunion.org.uk/en/news/2018/03/68gsokal913a3hy4clihpiywwop87o/ last

accessed 16-7-2021.

Weghmann V. (2022). Theorising practice: independent trade unions in the UK. Work in the

Global Economy, 2(1): 132-147. DOI: 10.1332/273241721X16510573048560.

Weghmann V. (2023). The tail that wags the dog: lessons from the UK’s independent unions

for class struggle trade unionism. Employee Relations. DOI: 110.1108/ER-01-2022-0016.

Wills J., Datta K., Evans Y., Herbert J., May J. and McIlwaine C. (2010). Global Cities at

Work. New Migrant Divisions of Labour. London: Pluto. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctt183p9sr.

Woodcock J. (2020). How to beat the boss: Game Workers Unite in Britain. Capital &

Class, 44(4): 523-529. DOI: 10.1177/0309816820906349.

Woodcock J. (2021). The fight against platform capitalism. London: Westminster UP. DOI:

10.16997/book51.

Wood A., 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 33(2): 95-112. DOI:

10.1111/ntwe.12112

Wright E.O. (2000). Working-class Power, Capitalist-class Interests and Class Compromise.

American Journal of Sociology, 105(4): 957-1002. DOI: 10.1086/210397.



Sociologia del lavoro, n. 167/2023. ISSN 0392-5048. ISSNe 1972-554X.

DOI: 10.3280/SL2023-167006

Unpacking informality in the gig-economy:

ethnographic insights into platform capitalism

and its baroque labour process.

Gianmarco Peterlongo*

This paper sheds light on workers’ agency in dealing with algorithmic

management and the informal arrangements underneath the platform

economy. The research is based on a multi-sited ethnography of last-mile

logistics platforms carried out between Italy and Argentina. In both ride-

hailing and food-delivery platforms, workers engage in infrastructural re-

appropriations and informal economic activities developed at the boundaries

of the platform economy. The two cases studied illustrate how platforms

strongly intersect with urban informal economies and contribute to foster

informal circuits of labour. This is evidenced by the prevalence of illicit

exchanges, such as the sale of hacking bots and markets for fake accounts.

The paper conclusions provide a baroque perspective for a more nuanced

understanding of the labour process and its accumulation circuits in the gig

economy, characterised by a complex interplay between formal and informal

dimensions of work. Yet, far from hindering the platform economy,

informality underpins the companies’ ability to thrive in local social

contexts.

Keywords: informal circuits, infrastructural reappropriation, gig-economy,

baroque

Introduction

Gig-economy is all about synchronising time. Since the first types of

machinery appeared in manufactories and the assembly line was

scientifically ideated, capitalist companies aim to synchronise the production

process to maximise efficiency reducing labour costs and time wasting

(Heiland, 2022; Wajcman, 2019). In platform-based last-mile logistics

(LML), time is seen as a critical resource that must be used optimally. In this



* University of Milan, email: gianmarco.peterlongo@unimi.it



122

regard, the automation and mechanisation of production processes is always

a struggle to discipline the undetermined factor – the workforce – with a

perfectly time-determined technology. Once it was the clock (Thompson,

1967) or the telegraph (Carey, 1983), today we have algorithms and AI

managing the time of workers and disciplining the pace of work through real-

time digital technologies1.

During the presentation of a newly established delivery platform in Italy

that I attended undercover, the manager claimed several times that «you

[riders] are the tool between the platform and the customer». The managerial

dream is one of total subservience to algorithmic orders, leaving no room for

individual agency; however, in many cases, it is questionable whether it is

not instead the platform that is the ‘tool’ in the hands of the workers. Often

technology-driven discipline in the workplace is far from being a frictionless

process. Behind the scenes of the gig-economy, therefore, new forms of

individual and collective resistance to platform control and even more

insidious predatory behaviours are widespread among workers.

Based on a multi-sited ethnographic analysis in Italy and Argentina, this

paper aims to explore the use and counter-use of technologies that food

delivery riders and ride-hailing app drivers carry out in their daily work to

gain advantages and circumvent algorithmic control, focusing on what are

defined as forms of re-appropriation of digital infrastructures (Jeffries,

2011; Rossiter, 2016) and platform-based informal circuits of labour (Qiu et

al., 2014; Zhao, 2019). The aim is to look at digital technologies and how

they are intertwined with social habits and behaviours, exploring how they

can create new paths for capital accumulation, but also highlighting how they

open new avenues for informal exchanges and underground economies

(Lobato and Thomas, 2015). The empirical aim is therefore to explore the

“digital mundane” of the everyday life of platform workers accessing the

backstage of the platform-based LML (Leszczynski, 2020). In other words,

I am trying to analyse the ordinary and daily relationship between workers

and algorithmic management as well as between users and technological

artefacts, bearing in mind that the mundane is always something that «within

the intimate of the situations we know (such as work and leisure), within the



1 Generally, in literature, algorithmic management refers to the delegation of managerial tasks

to algorithmic procedures (Rosenblat and Stark, 2016; Stark and Pais, 2021). In the case of

LML, algorithmic management has basically three functions: tasks allocation; provision of

additional supporting information in real-time, such as in the case of dynamic prices shown

on apps; workers’ performance evaluation (Lee et al., 2015). In Braverman’s (1974) words,

algorithmic management results in the definitive separation of the conception (management)

from the execution (labour), including managerial tasks.



123

various forms of aggregation (from the family to political parties, and

associations), within the framework of the various institutions (schools,

administrations, organisations), escapes a purely mechanical and

predetermined order» (Maffesoli, 1989, p. 317).

What emerges from the ethnographic field is that, on the one hand,

technology is notso totalising in the labour process, but rather leaves some

opportunities for the agency of actors; on the other hand, however, the field

also shows the emerging vulnerability that affects workers with predatory

and illicit mechanisms that often cross the boundaries of official apps.The

fieldwork has revealed a highly unregulated terrain in which informal and

hidden practices and predatory parallel markets have flourished behind the

scenes of the platform economy, as in the case of the market of fake accounts

in Buenos Aires, or the selling of pirate software in Turin. Yet, as will be

shown, these informal circuits are not an obstacle to the growth of platforms

but constitute the very nature and condition of their expansion.

1. Reappropriation of infrastructures

There is plenty of research on collective resistance and organising

addressing the problems of algorithmic management in platform work (Cant,

2020; Cini, 2023; Lei, 2021; Marrone and Finotto, 2019; Tassinari and

Maccarrone, 2020; Woodcock, 2021), but there is still a relative dearth of

literature concerning the workers’ behaviour exerted in dealing with

algorithms and the tactics they employ to sustain their livelihoods in the gig-

economy (Anwar and Graham, 2020; Bucher et al., 2021; Chen, 2018;

Panimgan, 2021). Especially in the fields of Labour Process Theory (LPT)

and Science & Technologies Studies (STS) we can detect several suggestions

to reflect on workers’ behaviours confronting algorithmic management

strategies (Gandini, 2019; Kellogg et al., 2020; Shapiro, 2018; Veen et al.,

2019). Even in the face of the most pervasive technology, workers are used

to resisting and negotiating time, pace, and behaviours in the workplace. For

example, Anwar and Graham (2020) explore the hidden transcripts of the

gig-economy looking at tactics South African micro-workers employ to

circumvent algorithmic control and obtain advantages on platforms. Even if

African remote workers are expected to have fewer opportunities for

resistance, they are able to exert labour agency in their everyday micro-

struggles and take advantage of loopholes in the algorithmic infrastructure.

From a similar perspective, Bucher and colleagues (2021) show the

anticipatory compliance practices carried out by online workersto ensure



124

their continued participation on the platform by trying to anticipate

algorithmic outputs. In the on-demand economy, other researchers underline

the forms of algorithmic resistance employed by couriers to circumvent the

real-time control over them and to exert their agency (Cant, 2020; Panimgan,

2021; Veen et al., 2019). In sum, inspired by the work of several authors

(Huws, 2014; Moore, 2019; Wajcman, 2006; Wood, 2021), the theoretical

aim of the paper is thus to enrich LPT with an STS perspective – and vice-

versa – in the study of the relationship between workers and digital

infrastructures in the broader organisation of the labour process. The

theoretical relevance of linking LPT and STS has been particularly

emphasised by Wood’s (2021) work on “workplace regimes” and by

Wajcman (2006) who argues for a more fruitful dialogue between the social

studies of technology and the sociology of work. In addition, LPT and STS

share a similar focus on technology and its implications in terms of control

and power asymmetries.

First, this contribution sheds light on the labour agency of platform

workers in dealing with algorithmic management through the concept of

infrastructural reappropriation. The term closely relates to «technological

appropriation», which was coined within STS to describe how users of

technologies attempt to influence the evolution of techniques or operate

reversals in the opposite direction to what is scripted in the design (Eglash,

2004; Oudshoorn and Pinch, 2008).The concept of reappropriation,

moreover, is usually associated with political forms aimed at emancipation,

which often concern the (re)taking of space, as in the case of the right to the

city and urban social movements (Cognetti and Cellamare, 2014), or in the

case of the reappropriation of communication infrastructures carried out

within political action (Jeffries, 2011). More generally, however, it defines

human behaviours exerting agency in the cyberspace – i.e., the environment

where humans and machines are interconnected through a network of

information system infrastructures – by overturning its rules or taking

advantage of any loopholes. The STS notion of technological

reappropriation, thus, allows for the uncovering of a wide, less visible, and

nuanced range of actions aimed at countering platform control, adapting to

or sabotaging the “rules of the game”. Indeed, the STS perspective can

provide a deeper understanding of the labour agency embedded in

technological practices, addressing a limitation often found in LPT analysis,

where workers are frequently perceived as subject to technology (Cini and

Goldmann, 2020). LPT scholars, on the other hand, tend to view labour

agency primarily through the lens of “workers’ resistance” – a term widely

used in labour process analysis to refer to both individual and collective



125

workers’ opposition to management in the labour process (Thompson, 1983,

p. XVI) – but also by emphasising the role of informal practices and

misbehaviours hidden in the labour process. What practices of technological

reappropriation and forms of organisational misbehaviour – analysed by LPT

scholars (Ackroyd and Thompson, 1999; Karlsson, 2012) – sometimes share

is that, as I will discuss, they are not necessarily acts of opposition or

resistance. Instead, they can also be instrumental for the accomplishment of

organisational objectives. According to Karlsson (2012, p. 155), in fact, «a

certain amount of organizational misbehaviour is necessary if work is to be

done. Employees are not supposed, in practice, to do exactly as they are

formally supposed to do; they are also supposed to use their own judgement

and creativity to make work happen». In this sense, this paper seeks to

prompt a more critical comprehension of labour agency that sees

misbehaviour as a set of practices in which resistance and consent are

intertwined and negotiated within the work context.

What empirical observation has revealed about infrastructural re-

appropriation practices in platforms is a completely deregulated and informal

terrain, where neither companies nor institutions seem publicly often even

aware of the phenomena. Following Easterling (2016), unorthodox auxiliary

techniques can influence the space of infrastructure, in the sense that the

space where infrastructure power operates can sometimes be redefined

according to criteria beyond the imposed standards and protocols. This

means, as also evidenced in LPT, that workplace conflict and misbehaviours

may shape technological change (Thompson, 1983).

In LML there is ample evidence of workers’ attempts to re-appropriate

the opaque functioning of the algorithmic procedures that regulate the daily

life of platform labour. Because workers lack access to the code of

algorithms, they can only interpret the mechanisms that govern the apps. This

is the case, for example, with the many tactics used by drivers and riders to

select the best ride or to maximise their efficiency. From an STS perspective,

workers’ behaviour is very similar to the concept of reverse engineering,

meaning the attempt to trace back what makes up a technical element from

the finished product (Chikofsky and Cross, 1990; Diakopoulos, 2014;

Kitchin, 2017). This approach can be applied to artifacts that have been found

and for which we have no production information (e.g., in the case of military

weapons found or stolen from the opposing faction), but also to software that

hides its operating procedures behind black-box mechanisms. Platform

workers, in the case of the research, not only adopt deductive strategies and

play with a set of “fictional expectations” towards the algorithms (Declich,

2019) but are also able to reuse to their advantage some of the digital tools



126

of the apps or even sabotage their functioning. In many respects, they act in

ways that interpret, adapt, or reinvent digital technologies and artefacts

(Eglash, 2004).

As observed during ethnography, in the platform-based last-mile logistic

sector the re-appropriation of infrastructures takes place mainly through

forms of hacking or sabotaging app functions, or through the counter-use of

digital tools and the sharing of tactics among workers. These forms can

follow the logic of solidarity and mutual aid as well as express exploitative

and profit-making behaviours. Therefore, predatory, criminal, or selfish

actions can easily coexist with forms of refusal of work, collective solidarity,

and organised resistance to the precariousness of work. Extending the

analysis of baroque economies as described by Gago (2014) – economic

informality as a baroque space, a mix of solidaristic-communal behaviour

and forms of neoliberalism from below – in the discussion I will illustrate

that platform capitalism expresses a type of baroque economy, where

different dimensions and conducts of action mix and intertwine with each

other.

2. Platform informal circuits of labour

In addition to showing workers’ practices of reappropriation of

infrastructures, the paper aims to focus on the formal-informal dimensions

and circuits of labour in the work process. Informality (or, better,

informalisation) should not be a concept that aims to draw a line between

two distinct economic sectors (formal and informal), but should rather

indicate a broad, nuanced, and heterogeneous process that today seems to

find an unprecedented symbiosis with the expansion of platforms in the

world of work (Borghi, 2016). As noted by Thompson (1983, p. 6), labour

process perspectives are characterised by their ability to situate work activity

«within the total system of production». Therefore, it is crucial to move

beyond the analysis of the mere use and counter-use of technologies by

workers – an area which the STS perspective has contributed significantly to

– and to situate worker experiences within the broader political economy of

platform labour. Taking on a LPT perspective necessitates shifting the focus

from merely examining workers’ behaviour to analysing the nature of work

and the social relations present in platform labour. Through this approach, a

deeper understanding of the intricate circuits of capital accumulation that

underlie platform-based labour can be achieved.



127

From a macro perspective, gig-economy is characterised by a twofold

dynamic (Borghi and Peterlongo, 2023). On the one hand, we are witnessing

a process of formalisation of informality, involving the financialization of

previously non-market spheres. In particular, lean platforms have been

subsuming traditionally informal urban economic sectors such as care work,

cleaning, delivery, taxis and short-term rentals. The formalisation operations

of platforms primarily involve capturing, translating, digitising, and ranking

human activities to extract profits – colonising the everyday life (Cingolani,

2021) and pervasively infrastructuring in social life (Borghi, 2021). In this

way, digital platforms serve as intermediaries between informal socio-

economic activities and financial valorisation. On the other hand, we are

witnessing a process of informalisation of formality since the platform

economy represents a formal labour market with informal arrangements. In

the Global South, platforms rely on the cooperation of masses of precarious

workers and structurally highly informal labour markets (Casilli et al., 2023;

De Stavola, 2020; Munck, 2013), while in the Global North, they benefit

from the de-standardisation and de-regulation of labour2 and the access to

disposable migrant urban workers (Mendonça et al., 2023; van Doorn, 2022).

As they are merely supposed to be intermediaries, companies «end up

circumventing the (decent) work standards and transforming the labour

market downgrading job quality» (Mendonça et al., 2023, p. 63). Platforms

in this light are today at the forefront of the global informalisation of the

economy some authors have identified long before the emergence of digital

platforms (Beck, 2000; Breman and van der Linden, 2014). Indeed, as this

research shows, platform companies exploit, subsume, and reproduce the

very conditions of informality to ensure an army of potential workers and the

growth of their business. Even pre-modern forms of work organisation, such

as piecework, are being reintroduced with the gig-economy (Neckel, 2020;

Supiot, 2013). Moreover, platform environments also foster the flourishing

of informal economic practices – contrary to the views of many international

organisations, which see platforms such as Uber as a tool for the legalisation

and emergence of underground economies (CEPAL/ILO, 2021; Lakemann

and Lay, 2019; OECD et al., 2020; Randolph and Galperin, 2019). Thus, the

empirical data reveal a high capacity of platform to operate between the

formal and informal dimension of work, or, in Huws (2014, p. 126) words,



2 Consider Proposition 22 in 2020, where Uber and its peers secured regulatory favour for

independent work through a Californian referendum. In Europe, attempts to regulate platform

work have often proved insubstantial, reflecting the trend towards informality: despite efforts,

platform work, even if classified as dependent work, still falls under the category of informal

employment (aligning with the definition of informality provided by the ILO, for example).



128

their ability to reshape the connections of labour «inside» and «outside the

knots» of the capitalist relation of production.

In the following paragraphs, the ethnographic data will show how the

infrastructural space of platforms is full of informal arrangements as well as

practices of technological reappropriation. Informal exchanges, parallel

markets and daily tactics to increase the profitability of work represent what

some scholars have defined as the informal circuits of labour of the platform

economy. For instance, the concept is used referring to the dynamics

surrounding digital platforms in China to highlight the connections between

digitisation and economic informality (Qiu et al., 2014; Zhao, 2019). As the

authors write (Qiu et al., 2014, p. 570), on the one hand, the model of circuits

of labour consists of «formal circuits», in which «the top-down domination

of capital in formal labour processes» forms a «class-based hierarchy of

constraint». On the other hand, it consists of «informal circuits» in which the

relations are communally structured through socially rooted practices: in

these circuits «the worker draws on internal resources and self-made

networks to develop new avenues of pleasure, survival and resistance»

(ibid.). These informal channels often serve as the only recourse for platform

workers to protect themselves against the insecurity they face. In other

words, at times, these channels provide workers with the opportunity to

exercise their agency. The model of circuits of labour therefore provides a

more nuanced understanding of the labour process in the gig-economy.

3. Methodology

The empirical findings of the following paragraphs are the result of an

ethnographic research work on LML platforms. The research context is

multi-sited, focusing on the case of ride-hailing platforms (Uber, Cabify,

Beat) in Argentina (Buenos Aires) and delivery platforms (UberEats,

Deliveroo, Glovo) in Italy (Turin, Bologna). The selection of these two

contexts aimed at investigating the interconnections of platform work with

informality in different institutional settings and labour markets, so as to

observe possible similarities. The case of Uber in Buenos Aires, moreover,

turned out to be a particularly emblematic case for this purpose, precisely

because of the grey area in which the Californian company operates. The

empirical material has been collected over two years of multi-sited

ethnography (2019-2021), including interviews (around 60 in total), the

direct participation of the researcher in platform work, participant

observation (also online) and document analysis (mainly documents



129

produced by platform companies, but also e-mails, press releases, newspaper

articles and court records). In the Argentinean case, my ethnographic

observation took place mainly on Uber rides (or other ride-hailing

companies) but also in key locations such as Uber’s offices (January - April

2020). In contrast, the Italian case drew mostly from months of experience

working as a courier (December 2020 - October 2021). As a delivery rider, I

also had access to various cyberspaces frequented by platform workers, such

as private chats and groups. To maintain transparency (Barbosa and Milan,

2019), I have tried to contact the authors of any empirical material I have

used. Where this was not possible, I anonymised and rephrased all textual

content. In any case, all respondents’ names are fictitious.

4. Unpacking platform informality

The following paragraphs illustrate how workers carve out niches within

official apps to exercise their autonomy, often at the expense of those

colleagues not adopting similar strategies. The experience of workers is

therefore often far from the standardisation of behaviour that platforms are

supposed to establish. With this respect, the selling of pirate software

between couriers in Italy and the black market of Uber accounts in Argentina

are particularly illuminating phenomena that reveal the porosity of the

platform infrastructure to this kind of illicit mechanisms and informal

exchanges. Finally, these informal mechanisms embedded in the labour

process can coexist with the interests of platform companies.



4.1. Platform hacking bots

In many European countries, including Italy (especially in large cities, as

in the case of Turin and Milan), there is a widespread system that affects the

world of food delivery platforms: the illicit use of paid software to self-assign

available work shifts, commonly known as «hacking-bots» or «pirate-bots».

Bots – short for robots – are software that perform automated tasks and are

generally used to imitate or replace human users. In the gig-economy, these

applications assist workers in automatically circumventing platforms’ rules

and algorithms (Chen, 2018; Panimgan, 2021). In the food delivery sector,

similar software applications offer riders with low scores the chance to

access significantly more work shifts than the app typically provides. This

often makes them a necessary choice for earning a satisfactory income. For



130

example, Ogbe, a 28-year-old Nigerian rider based in Turin, bought a

hacking bot to assign himself shifts, because without it he would not get

enough hours based on his score. The hacking app costs around EUR 40 per

month3 and it runs in the background on the phone automatically booking

sessions as they become available. Buying the bot is «very easy», he argues,

«here in Turin, ninety percent of Glovo riders use these bots. Otherwise, you

can’t work. Only those who have a good score don’t need the bot». They are

mostly distributed by word of mouth or via Telegram or Reddit, to ensure

the anonymity of sellers. This form of software gained greater prevalence

between autumn 2020 and early 2021, coinciding with a period of

substantially deteriorating working conditions and decreased demand for

labour, according to a rider from Turin. However, as of 2023, they remain

commonplace.

In Glovo without bots it is now [2020] impossible to find available hours. Now

it’s impossible to exchangethe hours between friends: before, all you had to do was

agree, free a slot and immediately the other would see it available and could take it.

Now it’s not like that anymore, when you leave an hour, you don’t know what

happens. So, in short, more and more people will want to have this illegal software

and will be willing to pay for it (Franca, Glovo and UberEats).

Despite the availability of these programs, many riders acknowledge that

they harm each other and simply serve as an added means of generating profit

at the expense of couriers. A respondent clarifies that the root issue with bots

lies in the company’s score-based shift booking system itself, which creates

a structural problem of inequality:

The bot harms everyone else because the hours are limited and therefore it fuels

inequality between all glovers. Since that time-stealing software has become

widespread, taking hours for others is very difficult. The fact that you lose your

points after an accident is very serious. If it wasn’t for this unequal reservation

system, there would be no bots. Buying a bot only makes the situation worse (Rob,

Glovo).

There are numerous cyberspaces where riders gather, such as group chats

and social networks, where it’s common to encounter inquiries about bots

and contentious discussions about their usage. In a Telegram group for riders,

for instance, when a courier who can’t find available hours anymore requests



3 On average, this price is approximately equivalent to at least ten rides.



131

direct contacts for a Glovo-bot, other members respond by admonishing his

decision:

Using bots is stupid, and most importantly, it hurts your colleagues. Bots are

made to enslave us and blackmail us even more. If they were free, things would be

different. [...] It’s a system to make money for people who profit from the

competition of low-wage workers, like riders (Telegram chat, 2021).

Mirko, another rider in Turin, argues that the sale of bots represents a

hazardous scheme that worsens job insecurity and further traps workers in a

precarious environment:

The companies are pretending not to know anything about bots, but it’s

impossible. The problem is that this software does not go against the ToS [Terms of

Service] of the platforms, so they let us use it (…). These companies allow this kind

of illicit mechanisms of profit. They favour the black market and have created a free-

for-all fight in which the most cynical win (Mirko, Glovo and UberEats).

The previous words highlight an interesting aspect: these informal

programmes allegedly do not violate the ToS written by companies. A self-

employed worker is supposed to be allowed to do anything to improve his

competitiveness in the market, following a logic that rewards the smartest

and the most ruthless, as Mirko argues. Above all, however, he points out

that the world of platforms is a deregulated space that offers the possibility

of flourishing to illicit mechanisms and that reveals a completely informal

working environment. For many riders, the bot racket poses a daily problem

that undermines their ability to continue working, prompting unions to take

action and address the issue. Bots are just one instance that exemplifies how

the infrastructural space of digital platforms is porous and variegated. This

phenomenon shows a significant contradiction between the companies’

control over workers and the unchecked movement of predatory mechanisms

through the meshes of digital apps.

4.2 The selling of fake accounts

Due to the ease of the online registration process, parallel markets for

platform accounts have flourished around the gig-economy. Many

companies, including most of the official food delivery platforms in Italy,

are aware of this and specify penalties for buying and selling accounts or

using false data. However, in Buenos Aires, it is much more common and



132

effortless to purchase an Uber driver account. Announcements for profiles

for sale have appeared almost daily on various social groups dedicated to

ride-hailing in the Argentinian capital during the research. Through

WhatsApp, anyone can make a deal and quickly get a fake account in the

name of an Argentine citizen.According to the explanation given by many

drivers, this system provides opportunities for many migrants – particularly

from Venezuela – who have either entered the country illegally or whose

visas have expired, to work. The prevalence of this phenomenon is such that

a driver asserts:

There are basically two ways to work with Uber in Buenos Aires. One is with

official registration, with documents, your name, etc. The second is by buying a

cuenta trucha [fake account], or an alternative account, put more politely (YT Don

Uberto Channel, 2021).

Aspiring drivers turn to these illicit services for several reasons. The first

is that they may have had their account deactivated by Uber for whatever

reason that the company sees as a violation of the ToS. A second reason for

using fake accounts is to be unable to create an account with one’s data, as

in the case of irregular migrants without a valid Argentinean document. A

third reason, finally, is the opportunistic choice of those who use cuentas

truchas to avoid paying ride commissions to Uber. In this case, the driver

uses the account without paying the commissions until Uber blocks it, at

which point he simply buys another one. Thus, some drivers find this system

very convenient because it is cheaper to buy fake accounts instead of paying

commissions to Uber. An Uber driver argues that this is a common and very

heterogeneous phenomenon:

Uber’s cuentas truchas are extremely ordinary here in Buenos Aires. They work

by using fake data and identities or with stolen documents. Some do it on a massive

scale, i.e. they have a business selling fake Uber accounts. Or it can happen in a

small way, I have four or five accounts in the name of my family members, and I

give them to those who have the account blocked or those who have no documents

(Mateo, Uber).

Accounts are certainly also sold through personal acquaintances, but a

large share of the exchanges takes place online, between the meshes of social

media or drivers’ private chats. In all the main Facebook groups that concern

the world of ride-hailing apps in Buenos Aires, announcements are posted

daily sponsoring the sale of Uber accounts (also of Didi or Beat).

Conversations then always shift to private chats where the exchange is



133

agreed upon. In some cases, the average duration of a cuenta trucha is also

indicated, as well as the price, which can be around 3,000 pesos for a month

of ‘guaranteed’ validity, or 1,000 for accounts whose estimated duration is

only twelve hours4. Although many drivers are aware that these parallel

markets are detrimental to workers and could also conceal criminal interests,

none of the respondents openly condemn the behaviour of those who buy

accounts. On the contrary, many drivers empathise with those who engage

in these activities out of the urgent need to earn a living.

I hate those who sell accounts, they should be condemned, but not by the court,

by society itself. What is the crime instead of one who uses them for work? None!

(...) To all colleagues who use cuentas truchas, I don’t condemn them in any way,

quite the contrary, my admiration for them for stubbornly continuing to bring bread

home. But at least one must know the risks! (YT Gabifai Channel, 2019).

The system of fake accounts is a profitable market underneath the formal

gig-economy (for some drivers but especially for those who make a business

out of it), but the drivers involved are themselves exposed to an additional

set of risks and vulnerabilities. As some choferes [drivers] argue, using

accounts with falsified data could easily backfire on the worker. Faced with

an accident, a vehicle seizure, or any other inconvenience that might occur,

the driver working with a cuenta trucha would find himself totally in the

wrong and exposed, if only by the support that Uber’s legal department could

offer. In short, those using fake accounts risk committing crimes such as

document forgery, fraud, or identity theft5.

With regard to the phenomenon of cuentas truchas, the Californian

company’s response seemed ambiguous. Since it arrived in the city in 2016,

Uber has been operating in a grey area; local authorities tried many times to

stop its activity (for example forbidding electronic payments to the

company), but the platform kept growing. For the first years of unlicensed

activity Uber was not even able to recover the money from drivers’

commissions: “growth first, profits second”, they say in Silicon Valley.

Paying the costs of being officially illegal in Buenos Aires – with a huge

number of debts from drivers kept uncovered and with many informal



4 These prices refer to early 2021 and correspond to approximately EUR 30 and EUR 10

respectively. It should be noted that EUR 10 corresponded to around the fare for five short

rides (>5km).

5 Another reason why fake accounts represent a risky phenomenon for drivers is that often

behind these exchanges there are simply scams, whereby the accounts sold do not work or do

not even exist.



134

markets, such as fake accounts, mushrooming around Uber – has been the

price of winning the battle against other competitors, even those more

collaborative with authorities such as Cabify.

In sum, conceptualising these forms of informal exchange and

technological reappropriation as informal circuits of labour sheds light on

the broader labour process of the platform economy and its relevance to the

process of accumulation of capital. From this perspective, we can argue that

platforms take full advantage of these circuits, even when they appear

unprofitable for them (as in the case of avoiding paying commission by Uber

drivers) because they represent the very way by which their business

becomes embedded in local social contexts. In the case of Uber in Buenos

Aires, the selling of fake accounts – as well as other informal circuits

surrounding the ride-hailing sector – contributed to Uber’s growth in the city,

especially in relation to the competitor’s arrival (Cabify, Beat and Didi) and

in a moment of hard confrontation with local authorities. In a similar way, in

the case of food delivery in Italy the bot informal market stimulates

competition between couriers and secures platform workers’ commitment to

platforms: since, as one respondent said, the hacking software does not

violate the ToS agreements, platforms seem to unofficially tolerate their use.

In other words, in both cases informal patterns can simultaneously be

functional for managerial goals as well as contain possibilities for workers

to exert their agency against the platform control.

5. Baroque labour process and the ambivalence of informality

The last goal of the paper is therefore to grasp and summarise these

contradictions of platform labour – the ambivalent role of informal practices

and the intertwining of formal and informal dimensions of work more

broadly – using the concept of baroque – a metaphor for mix, mélange,

overlap, juxtaposition. The Latin-American philosopher Echeverría (1998)

refers to the baroque as the way in which the indigenous peoples of the

Americas related to the civilisation exported with the Conquest, that is, the

baroque tactic of accepting and reconfiguring the exogenous content in their

cultures. But this baroque ethos is also similar to the strategies employed by

some social groups and populations today to internalise capitalist modernity

and its logic of accumulation. According to Gago (2014), for instance,

informal urban economies can be understood as baroque economies due to

the complex intertwining of multiple logics of action: while informality can

express spaces of solidarity and communitarian practices, it can also



135

facilitate forms of «neoliberalism from below». In the platform economy, the

baroque is, thus, the result of the hybridisation of labour process between the

formal and informal dimensions of work (Borghi and Peterlongo, 2023).

On a macro-level, on-demand platforms exhibit a dynamic

interdependence between formal and informal structures that are

spatiotemporally variable and unstable. They heavily rely on labour

informalisation and deregulation, as well as informal practices that are

embedded into platform ecosystems. Platforms nurture a baroque labour

process that fosters novel forms of formal-informal relations,

interdependence, and overlap (Gago, 2014). Furthermore, the term baroque

emphasises the geographically and temporally diverse nature of the platform

economy (Peck and Phillips, 2021). Due to the dynamic and ever-changing

boundaries of formal-informal relationships (Castells and Portes, 1989),

platform capitalism can be considered a baroque assemblage (Ong, 2006),

as institutional settings can vary significantly between countries and over

time. For example, in Italy and other countries, the platform economy has

thrived by exploiting (or circumventing) regulations governing non-standard

work. On the other hand, ride-hailing platforms like Uber operate informally

in an institutional grey area in Buenos Aires, violating local transport

regulations.

When looking at a micro-level, platform workers consistently shift

between the formal and informal dimensions of their work. Using the tools

of STS to analyse the sociotechnical practices of workers is crucial to tease

out the hidden tactics employed by drivers and riders who often perform an

acceptance without adhesion to the logic of platform (and of the market more

at large). They operate within «informal circuits of labour» (Qiu et al., 2014)

to bypass algorithmic control, sometimes reappropriating infrastructures

(Eglash, 2004; Jeffries, 2011). In this sense, their behaviour mirrors the

«baroque ethos» outlined by Echeverría (1998). However, their actions can

also contribute to creating new forms of worker exploitation that operate

informally. In sum, from this perspective platform economy relies on a

baroque labour process, in the sense that on the one hand, it prompts a

formalisation of and value extraction from informal urban economies; on the

other, it reproduces the condition of informality and exploits informal

circuits of labour taking advantage of socially-rooted informal arrangements.

Similar to the findings by Mendonça et al. (2023) on informal subcontracting

among undocumented migrant workers in food delivery in the UK, my

research demonstrates that platforms enable, tolerate and benefit from the

permeability of informal circuits within their digital infrastructure.

Following Lobato and Thomas (2015, p. 29), in the platform economy



136

formalisation and informalisation «dance together» under the sign of digital

modernity.

Consequently, a further remark emerges from the empirical analysis. The

informal and/or illicit mechanisms that I have analysed – such as the use of

bots, the swapping and selling of accounts, or the organisational

misbehaviour of riders – do not constitute an obstacle to the platform

economy at all, but are rather the essential lubricating oil in the gear of the

gig-economy. Through such informal practices, in other words, platform

labour becomes convenient for those who work, becomes rooted in territories

in varied and unpredictable ways, finds potential labour pools of workers for

the companies’ interest, intertwines with popular or criminal economies; in

other words, in Polanyian terms, these practices produce the embeddedness

of labour and, at the same time, guarantee the expansion of platform labour

markets as much as – and even more than – permissive regulatory

environments. The baroque is precisely and exactly expressed through the

juxtaposition of apparently conflicting forces in the platform economy:

informality is both a critical resource for platforms to expand their influence

and an opportunity for workers to deal with their working environment

exerting their agency.

Conclusions

In summary, the paper teases out a number of original processes and

mechanisms that can both enrich the international debate on the gig-economy

and expand LPT approaches with new theoretical contaminations and

empirical reflections. First of all, this work shows that ethnographic

approaches in researching gig-economy are indispensable to uncover

informal and hidden practices embedded in platform labour process. Only

with a long and in-depth observation was it possible to retrieve data on

sociotechnical informal practices and underground exchanges such as the

sale of bots and the black market of accounts.

Secondly, the paper provides a novel – or less debated, at least –

perspective on informality in the platform economy. As discussed, informal

patterns constitute a key resource both for workers to obtain profit

maximisation and for platform companies to extend their influence. Through

the baroque lens, I explored the labour process of the gig-economy, which is

characterised by an intricate interplay between formal and informal work

dimensions. This means recognising the relevance of informalisation in

contemporary capitalism with a perspective developed for the South, which



137

can be very useful for understanding what is happening in the North. The

baroque, thus, can grasp the variegated character of platform capitalism

avoiding both euro-centric and techno-determinist explanations.

Finally, combining the LPT and STS approaches in the study of the gig-

economy can be useful for several reasons. Since platform capitalism is a

complex phenomenon that involves the interplay of technology, labour, and

social relations, by linking these approaches, researchers can provide a more

comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the gig-economy and its

implications for workers. In addition, this perspective can contribute to

theoretical development in both fields: LPT can be enriched by STS’s thick

analysis of the role of technology in shaping work practices, while STS can

benefit from LPT’s emphasis on the importance of capital-labour relations in

shaping work processes.

References

Ackroyd S., Thompson P. (1999). Organizational misbehaviour. London: Sage Publications.

Anwar M.A., Graham M. (2020). Hidden transcripts of the gig economy: Labour agency and

the new art of resistance among African gig workers. Environment and Planning A:

Economy and Space, 52(7): 1269-91. DOI: 10.1177/0308518X19894584

Barbosa S., Milan S. (2019). Do Not Harm in Private Chat Apps: Ethical Issues for Research

on and with WhatsApp. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, 14(1): 49-

65. DOI: 10.16997/wpcc.313

Beck U. (2000). The Brave New World of Work. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Borghi V. (2016). Workers and the global informal economy: Issues and perspectives. In:

Routh S. e Borghi V., a cura di, Workers and the global informal economy:

Interdisciplinary perspectives. London: Routledge.

Borghi V. (2021). Capitalismo delle infrastrutture e connettività. Proposte per una sociologia

critica del «mondo a domicilio». Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia, 62(3): 671-99. DOI:

10.1423/101989

Borghi V., Peterlongo G. (2023). Hybridisation of work and the platform informal revolution.

Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia, 64(2): 317-44. DOI: 10.1423/107862

Braverman H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the

Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Breman J., van der Linden M. (2014). Informalizing the Economy: The Return of the Social

Question at a Global Level. Development and Change, 45(5): 920-40. DOI:

10.1111/dech.12115

Bucher E.L., Schou P.K. and Waldkirch, M. (2021). Pacifying the algorithm – Anticipatory

compliance in the face of algorithmic management in the gig economy. Organization,

28(1): 44-67. DOI: 10.1177/1350508420961531

Cant C. (2020). Riding for Deliveroo: Resistance in the new economy. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Carey J.W. (1983). Technology and Ideology: The Case of the Telegraph. Prospects, 8: 303-

25. DOI: 10.1017/S0361233300003793



138

Casilli A., Torres-Cierpe J., De Stavola F. and Peterlongo G. (2023). Des GAFAM aux RUM.

Plateformes et débrouille dans le Sud global. Pouvoirs, 185: 51-67. hal.science/hal-

04007123

Castells M., Portes A. (1989). World Underneath: The Origins, Dynamics and Effects of the

Informal Economy. In: Portes A., Castells M. and Benton L.A., a cura di, The Informal

economy: Studies in advanced and less developed countries. Baltimore, US: Johns

Hopkins University Press.

CEPAL/ILO. (2021). Trabajo decente para los trabajadores de plataformas en América

Latina (Fasc. 24; Coyuntura Laboral en América Latina y el Caribe). Geneva:

International Labour Office.

Chen J.Y. (2018). Thrown under the bus and outrunning it! The logic of Didi and taxi drivers’

labour and activism in the on-demand economy. New Media & Society, 20(8): 2691-711.

DOI: 10.1177/1461444817729149

Chikofsky E.J., Cross J.H. (1990). Reverse engineering and design recovery: A taxonomy.

IEEE Software, 7: 13-17. DOI: 10.1109/52.43044

Cingolani P. (2021). L’informalità del capitale: Tempi, lavoro e capitalismo delle piattaforme.

Cambio. Rivista sulle trasformazioni sociali, 10(21): 79-89. DOI: 10.36253/cambio-

10903

Cini L. (2023). Resisting algorithmic control: Understanding the rise and variety of platform

worker mobilisations. New Technology, Work and Employment, 38(1): 125-144. DOI:

10.1111/ntwe.12257

Cini L., Goldmann B. (2020). The Worker Capabilities Approach: Insights from Worker

Mobilizations in Italian Logistics and Food Delivery. Work, Employment and Society, 00:

1-20. DOI: 10.1177/0950017020952670

Cognetti F., Cellamare C. (2014). Practices of Reappropriation. Roma-Milano: Planum

Publisher.

De Stavola F. (2020). Potere, controllo e soggettività nelle piattaforme digitali di food

delivery: un’analisi foucaultiana dell’app latinoamericana Rappi. Sociologia del Lavoro,

158: 178-98. DOI: 10.3280/SL2020-158009

Declich A. (2019). Le aspettative finzionali: Una nuova analisi della dinamica del capitalismo.

Quaderni di Sociologia, 81(LXIII): 99-109. DOI: 10.4000/qds.3523

Diakopoulos N. (2014). Algorithmic Accountability Reporting: On the Investigation of Black

Boxes. Tow Center for Digital Journalism, Columbia University. DOI:

10.7916/D8ZK5TW2

Easterling K. (2016). Extrastatecraft: The power of infrastructure space. London: Verso.

Echeverría B. (1998). La modernidad de lo barroco. Mexico City: Ed. Era.

Eglash R., a cura di (2004). Appropriating technology: Vernacular science and social power.

Minneapolis, US: University of Minnesota Press.

Gago V. (2014). La razón neoliberal: Economías barrocas y pragmática popular. Buenos

Aires: Tinta Limón Ediciones.

Gandini A. (2019). Labour process theory and the gig economy. Human Relations, 72(6):

1039-56. DOI: 10.1177/0018726718790002

Heiland H. (2022). Neither timeless, nor placeless: Control of food delivery gig work via

place-based working time regimes. Human Relations, 75(9): 1824-48. DOI:

10.1177/00187267211025283

Huws U. (2014). Labor in the Global Digital Economy. The cybetariat comes to age. New

York: Monthly Review Press.



139

Jeffries F. (2011). Communication Commoning Amidst the New Enclosures: Reappropriating

Infrastructure. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 35(4): 349-55. DOI:

10.1177/0196859911416502

Karlsson J. (2012). Organizational misbehaviour in the workplace: Narratives of dignity and

resistance. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kellogg K.C., Valentine M.A., and Christin A. (2020). Algorithms at Work: The New

Contested Terrain of Control. Academy of Management Annals, 14: 366-410. DOI:

10.5465/annals.2018.0174

Kitchin R. (2017). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information,

Communication & Society, 20(1): 14-29. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154087

Lakemann T., Lay J. (2019). Digital Platforms in Africa: The "Uberisation" of Informal Work.

GIGA Focus | Africa, 7: 1-10.

Lee M.K., Kusbit D., Metsky E., and Dabbish L. (2015). Working with Machines: The Impact

of Algorithmic and Data-Driven Management on Human Workers. Proceedings of the

33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1: 1603-12.

DOI: 10.1145/2702123.2702548

Lei Y.-W. (2021). Delivering Solidarity: Platform Architecture and Collective Contention in

China’s Platform Economy. American Sociological Review, 86(2): 279-309. DOI:

10.1177/0003122420979980

Leszczynski A. (2020). Digital methods III: The digital mundane. Progress in Human

Geography, 44(6): 1194-201. DOI: 10.1177/0309132519888687

Lobato R., Thomas J. (2015). The informal media economy. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Maffesoli M. (1989). La sociologia della vita quotidiana. Elementi di epistemologia. Studi di

Sociologia, 27(3): 316-331.

Marrone M., Finotto V. (2019). Challenging Goliath: Informal Unionism and Digital

Platforms in the Food Delivery Sector. The Case of Riders Union Bologna.

Partecipazione e Conflitto, 13(2): 691-716. DOI: 10.1285/i20356609v12i3p691

Mendonça P., Kougiannou N.K. and Clark I. (2023). Informalization in gig food delivery in

the UK: The case of hyper‐flexible and precarious work. Industrial Relations, 62(1): 60-

77. DOI: 10.1111/irel.12320

Moore P.V. (2019). Quantified self in precarity: Work, technology and what counts. London:

Routledge.

Munck R. (2013). The Precariat: A view from the South. Third World Quarterly, 34(5): 747-

62. doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2013.800751

Neckel S. (2020). The refeudalization of modern capitalism. Journal of Sociology, 56(3): 472-

86. DOI: 10.1177/1440783319857904

OECD, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, CAF Development

Bank of Latin America and European Commission. (2020). Latin American Economic

Outlook 2020: Digital Transformation for Building Back Better. Paris: OECD Publishing.

DOI: 10.1787/e6e864fb-en

Ong A. (2006). Neoliberalism as exception: Mutations in citizenship and sovereignty.

Duhram, NC: Duke University Press.

Oudshoorn N.E.J., Pinch T. (2008). User-technology relationships: Some Recent

Developments. In: Hackett E.J., Amsterdamska O., Lynch M. and Wajcman J., a cura di,

The handbook of science and technology studies. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Panimbang F. (2021) Solidarity across boundaries: a new practice of collectivity among

workers in the app-based transport sector in Indonesia. Globalizations, 18(8): 1377-91.

DOI: 10.1080/14747731.2021.1884789



140

Peck J., Phillips R. (2021). The Platform Conjuncture. Sociologica, 13(3): 73-99. DOI:

10.6092/ISSN.1971-8853/11613

Qiu J.L., Gregg M. and Crawford K. (2014). Circuits of Labour: A Labour Theory of the

iPhone Era. TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a

Global Sustainable Information Society, 12(2): 564-581. DOI:

10.31269/triplec.v12i2.540

Randolph G., Galperin H. (2019). New Opportunities in the Platform Economy: On-ramps to

Formalization in the Global South (The Future of Work and Education for the Digital

Age). G20-Insights. Available at: https://www.g20-insights.org/policy_briefs/new-

opportunities-in-the-platform-economy-on-ramps-to-formalization-in-the-global-south/.

Accessed on 20/01/2023.

Rosenblat A., Stark L. (2016). Algorithmic Labor and Information Asymmetries: A Case

Study of Uber’s Drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10: 3758-84. DOI:

10.2139/ssrn.2686227

Rossiter N. (2016). Software, infrastructure, labor: A media theory of logistical nightmares.

London: Routledge.

Shapiro A. (2018). Between autonomy and control: Strategies of arbitrage in the “on-demand”

economy. New Media & Society, 20(8): 2954-71. DOI: 10.1177/1461444817738236

Stark D., Pais I. (2021). Algorithmic Management in the Platform Economy. Sociologica,

14(3): 47-72. DOI: 10.6092/ISSN.1971-8853/12221

Supiot A. (2013). The public–private relation in the context of today’s refeudalization.

International Journal of Constitutional Law, 11(1): 129-145. DOI: 10.1093/icon/mos050

Tassinari A., Maccarrone V. (2020). Riders on the storm. Workplace solidarity among gig

economy couriers in Italy and the UK. Work, Employment and Society, 34(1): 35-54. DOI:

10.1177/0950017019862954

Thompson E.P. (1967). Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism. Past & Present,

38: 56-97.

Thompson P. (1983). The nature of work: An introduction to debates on the labour process.

London: Palgrave Macmillan.

van Doorn N. (2022). Liminal Precarity and Compromised Agency. Migrant experiences of

gig work in Amsterdam, Berlin, and New York City. In: Ness I., a cura di, The Routledge

Handbook of the Gig Economy. London: Routledge.

Veen A., Barratt T. and Goods C. (2019). Platform-Capital’s ‘App-etite’ for Control: A

Labour Process Analysis of Food-Delivery Work in Australia. Work, Employment and

Society, 00(0): 1-19. DOI: 10.1177/0950017019836911

Wajcman J. (2006). New connections: Social studies of science and technology and studies

of work. Work, Employment and Society, 20(4): 773-786. DOI:

10.1177/0950017006069814

Wajcman J. (2019). How Silicon Valley sets time. New Media & Society, 21(6): 1272-89.

DOI: 10.1177/1461444818820073

Wood A.J. (2021). Workplace regimes: A sociological defence and elaboration. Work in the

Global Economy, 1(1-2): 119-138. DOI: 10.1332/273241721X16286069087710

Woodcock J. (2021) The fight against platform capitalism: An inquiry into the global

struggles of the gig economy. London: University of Westminster Press.

Zhao E.J. (2019). Digital China’s Informal Circuits: Platforms, Labour and Governance.

London: Routledge.

Sociologia del lavoro, n. 167/2023. ISSN 0392-5048. ISSNe 1972-554X.

DOI: 10.3280/SL2023-167007

Collective mobility power:

Grassroots unionism in the Italian

meat-processing sector

Valeria Piro*

In the last decade, several sectors of the Italian labour market have

witnessed a rise in conflictual union activities carried out mostly by

subcontracted migrant workers. Taking two grassroots unions in the North

Italian meat processing sector as case studies (SICobas and ADLCobas), this

paper investigates why and how migrant workers organise themselves

through rank-and-file unions. In particular, the paper aims at understanding

whether and how migrant workers’ mobility power interplays with and

influences their associational power, shedding light on the nexus between

labour mobility and its mobilisation.

After illustrating how grassroots unions develop in the Italian context, the

paper analyses how migrant workers enhance their mobility power through

rank-and-file unions and how these unions, in turn, utilise members’ mobility

as a resource to broaden their organisations. In conclusion, the paper argues

that the presence of a highly mobile labour force does not weaken and could

even strengthen mobilisations. Consequently, mobility power can be

conceptualised not only as an individual strategy but also as a collective

resource.

Keywords: Mobility power, grassroots unions, meat processing industry,

COBAS unions.

Introduction

In the last decade, several sectors of the Italian labour market have been

interested in a rise of conflictual union activities, including industrial actions

and pickets, carried out mostly by rank-and-file unions. Initially,

mobilisations mushroomed in the logistics sector (Cillo and Pradella, 2018),

where blockages became particularly effective due to workers’ high



* University of Padua, email: valeria.piro@unipd.it

142

positional power at the point of production, namely, their capacity to have a

disruptive effect when interrupting the smooth and steady circulation of

goods required by the just-in-time production system (Alimahomed-Wilson

and Ness, 2018). Due to the specificity of logistics, which constitutes an

industry per se but also, at the same time, a segment within several types of

plants and workplaces, mobilisations have spread in numerous other sectors,

ranging from the agri-food industry to manufacturing, from hospitality to

textile (Iannuzzi and Sacchetto, 2020; Ceccagno, 2019) and from cleaning to

food delivery (Cini and Goldman, 2020).

A high number of rank-and-file union members is constituted by

precarious subcontracted workers (Drahokoupil, 2015; Wills, 2009). In Italy,

in particular, they are employees or ‘associates’ of cooperatives that, in the

last 20 years, have represented the form through which labour has been

outsourced in both the public and private sectors. More than one million

workers are employed by the 51,116 Italian cooperatives (Istat, 2022).

Therefore, they do not constitute a small niche, but represent one of the main

employers in the country, especially in sectors such as care and social

services, cleaning and manufacturing (Sacchetto and Semenzin, 2015).

Moreover, as in other European countries, the membership of these

grassroots organisations mainly consists of migrant workers, mostly men, of

different nationalities and migration statuses. Indeed, migrants constitute a

large share of the workforce in sectors characterised by temporary contracts,

low wages and poor labour conditions (Fellini and Fullin, 2018), and

represent almost the entire workforce amongst subcontracted cooperative

workers.

Although migrants’ incidence is also numerically relevant amongst

Italian established unions, counting more than one million foreign members

(Della Puppa, 2018; FDV, 2020), it is within grassroots unions that their

presence – also as leaders and organisers – makes up the majority, which

means they assume greater visibility and public relevance.

Taking two rank-and-file unions in the Northern Italian meat processing

sector as case studies, this paper aims to explore migrant workers’ forms of

organising. In particular, the analysis aims to contribute to the current debate

on migrant industrial relations by introducing the lens of mobility to

understand whether and how ‘mobility power’ (Smith, 2006) shapes the

143

‘associational power’ of migrant workers (Wright, 2000), therefore shedding

light on the nexus between labour mobility and its mobilisation1.

Throughout the paper, migrants are considered a paradigmatic example

of a mobile workforce that, by changing jobs, sectors, cities or even

countries, concretely exerts its mobility power by strategizing around the

temporariness of its contract, acquiring new skills and undertaking further

mobility projects (Alberti, 2014). Accordingly, the paper attempts to address

the following research questions: is migrant (and more in general, labour)

mobility hampering or strengthening collective forms of organising through

grassroots unions? And vice versa, by organising through rank-and-file

unions, do migrant workers enhance or reduce their mobility power? How

do these processes unfold and reinforce one another?

The paper is structured as follows: section 1 discusses studies on mobility

power and ‘migrant industrial relations’, pointing out the strengths and limits

of these two debates. Section 2 describes the research context and

methodology. Section 3 presents the research findings: after illustrating how

rank-and-file unions develop in the Italian context, it shows how migrant

workers enhance their mobility power through rank-and-file unions and, in

turn, how such unions use members’ mobility as a resource to enlarge and

improve the organisation. Section 4 discusses the findings and argues that

the presence of a highly mobile labour force does not weaken and could even

strengthen their independent forms of organising, and proposes to

conceptualise mobility power as a resource for organising.

1. Individual vs. collective forms of organising: beyond a binary

perspective

1.1. Migrant mobility power

As Chris Smith (2006, p. 392) pointed out: ‘Given that labour power has

two elements, the power over work effort and the power to move between

firms, it has been the former that has received the most sociological

attention’. Nevertheless, starting from Smith’s seminal work, within the



1 Following Holgate et al. (2018), I acknowledge that the term “mobilisation” does not

overlap with “organising”. Nevertheless, within the paper, I chose to use them almost as

synonymous terms.

144

labour process tradition, workers’ mobility power received greater attention.

Smith (2006, p. 391) defines ‘mobility power’ for workers as something that:

Is manifest in the time involved with network building, the resources used at work

for the planning of job moves, and the use of mobility threats to create strategic

rewards. Such strategic rewards can be directed at the task environment, such as

changing shifts, rotating tasks, leaving dictatorial supervisors, creating promotion

opportunities, securing overtime or financial rewards.

According to Smith, the downplay of mobility power within sociological and

industrial relations research can be attributed to the centrality that these two

debates, especially in the Anglo-American tradition, have devoted to

workplace struggles, particularly to the main actors embodying the labour

conflict: shop floor-based and institutionalised trade unions (Atzeni, 2021;

Nowak, 2019). Therefore, in Hirschman’s term (1970), ‘voice’ has been

privileged over ‘exit’, leading scholars to largely overlook the effects of

workers’ mobility on the labour process and on reorienting prevailing

management strategies.

Since Smith’s invitation to examine the interaction between labour

process and labour mobility, several studies have investigated the

implications of workers’ movements at the point of production (Andrijasevic

and Sacchetto, 2016; Piro, 2021; Ceccagno and Sacchetto, 2020). This

scholarship mainly focused on migrant workers, a share of the workforce that

is mobile by definition, although often “immobilised” through national state

policies and employers’ retention strategies (Rogaly, 2015). Although

mobility power is not necessarily connected to this specific workforce

composition, migrants have often been used as an emblematic example

because they embody different types of mobilities – both a marketplace and

a geographical one – moving throughout transnational labour markets.

Gabriella Alberti (2014), in particular, revisits the concept of “mobility

power” by merging it with the perspective of the autonomy of migration

(Mezzadra and Neilson, 2013) and points out that whilst some migrants are

trapped in low-skilled and low-paid sectors, others are able to «strategize

around their mobility and “temporariness” to escape degrading jobs»

(Alberti, 2014, p. 866). This implies that migrant labourers’ mobility

practices are not only carried out to solve workplace disputes but also to

acquire new skills, enrich their social lives and improve their overall living

conditions.

Furthermore, scholars from the labour geography tradition emphasise

that, especially in the case of unorganised migrant workers, quitting (or the

145

threat of quitting) remains a crucial strategy (Rogaly, 2009). As Strauss and

McGrath (2016, p. 6) recognise, ‘mobility bargaining power and ‘mobility

struggles’ are a key source of class power for workers alongside associational

forms of power. This explains why states and employers actively attempt to

reduce them by constraining mobility, for instance, through temporary

recruitment schemas, like the Canadian Temporary Foreign Workers

Program (TFWP) used by the authors as a case study2.

While these studies have the merit of unveiling how mobility can be used

as a leverage to increase workforce bargaining power, the idea of mobility

as an individual undertaking and, consequently, of mobility power as an

individual resource (as opposed to “mobilising”, which is conceived as a

collective form of power) is still prevalent, thus underplaying the potentiality

of the concept. On the contrary, the aim of this paper is to overcome this

fictitious dichotomy and shed some light on the existence of a continuum

between individual and collective actions, thus stimulating a reflection on

mobility power as a collective form of power.

1.2. Migrant industrial relations

Migrant workers’ inclusion within existing unions or the development of

independent forms of organising have been highly debated topics and

‘dilemmas’ in the field of industrial relations (Alberti et al., 2013; Marino et

al., 2015; Penninx and Roosblad, 2000). Considering the more recent

contributions, we can single out two streams of the debate. The first one,

which started in the 1990s, developed and endorsed the so-called organising

approach. This approach is interested in the strategies implemented by

organisations to eventually include migrant workers in attempts to renovate

themselves and the labour movement (for a translation of this debate in the

Italian context, see Dorigatti, 2014). The second approach, which has gained

greater visibility since the 2010s, focused instead on migrant workers as

actors of organising (Alberti and Però, 2018), calling for the dismissal of a

‘trade union fetishism’ (Atzeni, 2021; Cini et al., 2021; Nowak, 2019).



2As other similar programs implemented in Western Europe, North America, Asia and the

Middle-East, the Canadian TFWP aims to recruit migrant workers by also restricting their

mobility. Migrants are hired on a temporary basis (from 8 months to one year), mainly in low-

wage sectors (e.g. agriculture or caregiving); to obtain a residence permit, they are tied to a

sponsoring employer and are compelled to come back to their countries of origins every year

(for a maximum period of 4 years); in addition, they are often lodged into houses tied to their

work and residence permits.

146

The starting point of the organising model – inspired by the ‘Justice for

Janitors’ campaigns in the US and Europe (Savage, 2006; Connolly et al.,

2017) and the ‘Living Wage’ campaigns in the UK (Wills, 2009) – was the

need to revitalise established unions, suffering from a loss of membership

and institutional recognition (Trif et al., 2023; Ibsen and Tapia, 2017;

Baccaro et al., 2003). In their attempts to organise groups of workers deemed

‘unorganisable’, unions rediscovered their social movement origins (Simms

et al., 2013), by relying on direct actions, identifying and recruiting leaders,

reaching out to the communities (McBride and Greenwood, 2009; Holgate,

2005; 2021) and building alliances with other actors, such as religion-based

groups, ethnic networks and NGOs (Hyman and Gumbrell-McCormick,

2017). Nevertheless, scholars have pointed out that organising models and

communitarian approaches have been mainly implemented using a top-down

strategy (Però, 2020), and that these attempts have not been successful in

stably increasing unions’ membership and revitalising these organisations in

the long run (Connolly et al., 2017).

A second approach takes actors’ agency as a starting point – in this case,

precarious migrant workers’ agency. Alberti and Però (2018), for instance,

draw on Kelly’s labour mobilisation theory to propose an ‘actor-centred

approach’ that they applied to the study of migrant workers’ organising and

bargaining practices. As the authors explained, migrants’ mobilisation has

not led to a renewal of established unions but to the emergence of new ‘indie

unions’, which are ‘independent grassroots unions co-led by precarious

migrant workers’ (Però, 2020, p. 901). These unions enable workers to ‘build

power, organize and mobilize autonomously, without support from

mainstream unions’ (ibidem, p. 904). In the last few years, scholars have

identified the main characteristics of these emerging organisations: having

limited financial resources; a flat, antibureaucratic and participative structure

(Iannuzzi and Sacchetto, 2020; Però, 2020; Smith, 2021); relying on direct

and rapid actions, often lacking employers’ recognition (Ness and Lynd,

2014; Weghmann, 2022), but with the support of media and public opinion

(Però and Downey, 2022); mobilising a class ideology (Ness and Lynd,

2014); being able to gain both material and nonmaterial rewards (Però,

2020); and finally, implementing inclusive practices, avoiding patronising

migrants (Weghmann, 2022; Cioce et al., 2022).

According to this scholarship, indie unions are rooted in ‘communities of

coping’ (Jiang and Korczynski, 2016), ‘communities of resistance’

(Weghmann, 2022, from Sivanandan, 1990) or ‘communities of struggles’

(Però, 2020), where the common ground of these definitions is understanding

collective organising as something that exceeds workplaces and

147

neighbourhoods, whilst also abandoning an idea of communities considered

as pre-existing entities in the sense of a ‘community unionism’ approach.

Accordingly, migrant workers are not deemed part of a community that

unions have to tap into, but are considered actors creating their own political

and solidarity networks through active participation.

Thus, in line with these debates, this paper tries to reconcile the centrality

of shop floor struggles (and thus of ‘voice’) with a renewed interest in

workers’ exit strategies. Although ‘exit’ could be suspected to hamper

workplace- and community-based actions (as it could jeopardise the

emergence of everyday solidarities and stable forms of organising), it could

also represent a resource for a class struggle at a societal level, thus leading

to a reorientation of management strategies to challenge state policies and

improve workers’ material lives. By bridging these two debates (on

migrants’ mobility power and migrant industrial relations) – so far developed

separately – this paper considers migrant workers’ mobility power as a key

resource that facilitates their organisation and development of radical forms

of unionism.

2 Research context and methodology

This paper is based on ethnographic research conducted between 2018

and 2020 on the meat processing industry in Northern Italy3.

According to official statistics (Direzione Generale dell’Immigrazione e

delle Politiche di Integrazione 2020), this industry has a high incidence of

migrant workers (30% of the total workforce compared with the 10% average

of other economic sectors), even reaching 50% in some specific segments

(e.g. pork supply chain, Campanella and Dazzi, 2020).

Unlike other European countries where migrant posted workers4 have

been largely employed in slaughtering and meat processing (Birke and

Bluhm, 2020; Theunissen et al., 2022; Wagner and Hassel, 2016; Wagner

and Refslund, 2016), in Italy, companies use a variety of systems to increase

labour flexibility whilst reducing costs, ranging from subcontracting to

temporary agency work, from the implementation of agricultural social

security regimes to self-employment. However, subcontracting through



3 The research was realised by the author together with Devi Sacchetto, University of

Padova.

4 A posted workers is an employee who is sent by an employer to carry out a service in

another EU member state on a temporary basis.

148

cooperatives still represents the most common form of labour precarisation

and outsourcing5. In fact, the share of employment in cooperatives in the total

sectoral workforce is 29%, although the data are largely underestimated

(Istat, 2022).

In meat processing plants, cooperatives are usually in charge of tasks,

such as cleaning or logistics, as well as activities constituting the clients’ core

business, such as slaughtering or deboning. They operate within the premises

of client companies, usually following clients’ working times and business

plans. Moreover, their workforces are often managed by the client

company’s overseers, even if this is illegal according to Italian labour law,

which prescribes the avoidance of any type of intermingling between the two

enterprises for outsourcing to be considered genuine.

Cooperatives, often created or promoted by their very clients, have

mushroomed since the mid-1990s, offering three main benefits to

companies: reduce labour costs, increase labour flexibility and protect main

clients from legal and social responsibilities linked to the direct employment

of workers. According to both established and grassroots unions, by

outsourcing through cooperatives, companies can reduce labour costs by

about 40%-50% (Carchedi and Franciosi, 2016), whilst workers lose

anywhere from 5-7 thousand euros each year on their payroll (SICobas,

2017). This is possible mainly because cooperatives apply cheaper collective

labour agreements than those required by the food industry (generally

logistics or multiservice contracts) or implement collective agreements

signed by nonrepresentative unions (“pirate contracts”). Therefore,

compared with in-house workers, cooperative workers are generally paid less

and have less fringe benefits; they also face economic and employment

insecurity associated with frequent changes of subcontractors and high levels

of work intensity in difficult environments, which have disproportionate

effects on their health conditions (Assemblea Legislativa Emilia-Romagna,

2019; Dorigatti, 2018; Fontana, 2018).

These poor working conditions have been addressed throughout the years

by several unions, including both established organisations (especially the

CGIL) and new emerging actors (particularly SICobas, ADLCobas and USB,

cf. Piro and Sacchetto 2020). Traditional unions typically adopt negotiated

strategies, demanding to bring all outsourced workers in-house or to develop

decentralised collective bargaining practices (contrattazione di sito),

claiming equality of treatment between subcontracted and in-house workers



5 More recently, outsourcing has been realised through limited liability companies (s.r.l.)

and simplified limited liability companies (s.r.l.s.).

149

(Campanella and Dazzi, 2020). In a few cases, they also adopted conflictual

strategies, including pickets and hunger strikes (as was the case in Modena

in 2016, during a protest against the company Castelfrigo led by the CGIL6).

In terms of grassroots unions, meat processing has been one of the crucial

sectors in which they have extended their presence in Northern Italy (see

section 3).

To investigate the practices of rank-and-file unions in the meat processing

sector, our research focused on two areas (the so-called “meat processing

district” in the province of Modena, Emilia-Romagna, and the “chicken

district” in Verona, Veneto) and on two organisations (SICobas and

ADLCobas). The fieldwork included 9 months of ethnography, 2 focus

groups and 88 interviews with both unionised and nonunionised workers,

union delegates and officials as well as other relevant stakeholders.

Interviews were mainly directed to investigate workers’ biographies,

migration and work experiences, their labour conditions, and their

relationships with the unions.

This paper, in particular, utilises the ethnographic data collected in

Modena, where, together with pickets, demonstrations and social gatherings,

the author observed the weekly activities in the premises of the local SICobas

branch. Here, 20-40 workers per day – consisting mainly of migrant men of

different nationalities employed by cooperatives – were coming, usually in

small groups, to seek support from union staff and lawyers. Italian activists

were also attending the place to consult lawyers, join assemblies, or simply

relax and chat, therefore using the premises as the ‘backstage’ of an intense

union activity. Observing this space made it clear that individual case work

and organising were highly interlinked practices.

Fieldnotes, full transcriptions of interviews and official materials

produced by the unions and circulated by their websites and social media

accounts were all analysed in two steps, with the support of the Atlas.ti 9

software. The first coding identified the core categories of the analyses,

namely, the most recurrent reasons provided by research participants for

joining grassroots unions, their perceptions about their contributions to the

union’s activities and how participation fulfilled their needs. A second

coding helped identify the connections between migrants’ geographical and

work mobilities and their participation within the unions.



6https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/castelfrigo-sciopero-fame-contro-licenziamenti-

lavoratori-logistica-AEyioyUD.

150

3. Rank-and-file unions and migrant workers’ mobility in the meat

processing sector

3.1. The Italian grassroots unionism

The realm of grassroots unionism in Italy is quite fragmented. Its history is

connected with the labour movement and extra-parliamentary groups of the

1970s and the mid-1980s, when workers employed in critical economic

sectors, such as the automotive industry and education, began to organise

themselves in ‘committees of the base’ (comitati di base – from where the

name Cobas comes from). Since the very beginning, they have challenged the

role of established unions, which were accused of relying on the political

guidance of the main leftist parties and compromising with their counterparts.

From one of these independent organisations (the SLAICobas, mainly

based in the metalworking sector), the SICobas (Sindacato Intercategoriale

Cobas – Intersectoral Union Cobas) was founded in Milan in 2010. In 2008,

SLAICobas (then SICobas) undertook the first industrial action against two

cooperatives in the logistic sector in Piedmont and Lombardy, an action that,

for the first time, was led by migrant workers with the support of Italian

activists, obtaining important results to improve migrant workers’ material

conditions (SICobas, 2017; Cillo and Pradella, 2018). Since then, the SICobas

has progressively extended to Emilia-Romagna, Umbria, Toscana and all

throughout the whole national territory, although it is especially concentrated

in the urban areas of Northern Italy, where most of logistic activity is also

concentrated. During the fieldwork, the SICobas had around 40,000 members

and was in a period of expansion7.

From a similar experience and hinging on the political tradition developed

in Veneto in the 1980s, the ADLCobas (Associazione diritti dei/delle

lavoratori/trici Cobas – Association for Workers’ Rights – Cobas) was

founded in 1992. In 2004, it started to undertake industrial actions in the

logistics sector and in 2013, it declared the first general strike in the same

industry. Ten years later, ADLCobas has 10,000 members (Iannuzzi and

Sacchetto, 2020) and has expanded to Emilia-Romagna, Lombardy, Piedmont



7 Informal conversation with the national coordinator in January, 2019. In 2014, it had

less than 10,000 members (Cuppini and Pallavicini, 2015).

151

and Marche, remaining strictly connected with activist networks on the

territory8.

The members of SICobas and ADLCobas mainly comprise subcontracted

workers employed by large logistic companies (TNT-FedEX, DHL, GLS,

SDA and BRT) and cooperatives operating within different types of plants

(metalwork, meat processing and food production), as well as managing

services (cleaning, education and social work, concierge and security), both in

the private and public sectors. Meat processing, in particular, has been a critical

sector for grassroots unionism expansion, especially in Emilia-Romagna,

Veneto and Lombardy, where blockages have been undertaken in front of

several companies (Aia, Global Carni-Alcar Uno, Suincom and Bellentani)

that produce meat for supermarkets, hamburgers for well-known fast food

chains and widely exported products (e.g. prosciutto di Parma or San

Daniele). Amongst others, the industrial actions against Alcar Uno (2016-

2019) in the province of Modena were particularly relevant in the history of

the SICobas, because the entrepreneurs tried to accuse the union national

coordinator of extortion, although he was fully absolved later on9. This court

case represents one of the first episodes aimed at criminalising unions’

initiatives through juridical pressure and mediatic campaigns (as further

explained in this section).

In terms of membership composition, this consists of 90% men and first-

generation migrants of different nationalities. The majority hold residence

permits for work reasons, often long-term ones (recently – but more rarely –

refugees and asylum seekers have also been joining the unions).

Differently from established unions, which might strategically form

coalitions with social movements (Hyman and Gumbrell-McCormick, 2017),

these grassroots unions are part of the movements. As explained by the

founders, they were born within the movements to address migrant workers’

needs, not only in terms of work but also for concerns regarding documents,

housing and health issues (cf. Cuppini and Frapporti, 2018). As illustrated by

one of the ADLCobas activists:

We had the intelligence to be available and then little by little, we become a political

subject too. When people come to you and they knew you for the struggles for



8 In 2011, was founded USB (Unione Sindacale di Base), another rank-and-file union that

played a critical role in the struggles within the logistics sector. Nevertheless, this union was

not included in this research.

9 See SICobas, 2017; https://sicobas.org/2019/05/14/comunicato-aldo-milani-assolto-per-

non-aver-commesso-il-fatto-gli-unici-estorsori-sono-i-padroni/.

152

migrants’ rights [...], the struggles for Roma rights, at a certain point they come and

say, ‘But we are also workers. Don’t you have a union?’ That’s how we transformed;

that’s how the union was born. So the insurgency was self-organised, then, within that,

a process of organisation was created. [...] The function of [our] union is to go beyond

legislation, beyond the social role that unions can normally have, which is that of

collective bargaining [...]. It is clear that salary is the first claim, and once you have a

platform of revindications, the other thing is to bring dignity back to the workplace.

[Giuseppe10, ADLCobas, May 2019, Verona]

As many scholars have highlighted, ‘indie unions’ generally emerged ‘to

compensate for the inadequate support that established unions offered to

migrant workers’ (Però, 2020, p. 905; Iannuzzi and Sacchetto, 2020; Smith,

2021). In addition, in the case of the organisations studied in Italy, they

emerged not only to compensate but to explicitly oppose established unions

and main leftist parties, which they considered the promoters (and thus

defenders) of an economic system based on subcontracting through

cooperatives. Therefore, grassroots unions openly contest the ‘axis union,

party and cooperatives’ (Cuppini and Frapporti, 2018, p. 90), which

characterise the North Italian productive environment. Here, the political

ruling party (after World War II, the PCI, now the PD) and its connected union

(the CGIL) have historically promoted industrial development, in which

workers’ cooperatives assume a pivotal role in guaranteeing subcontracting

and labour precarisation. As explained by one of the ADLCobas national

coordinators:

At the top position in all the various cooperatives, there were often former [established]

union officials, so there was an intertwining... that’s why even CGIL, CISL and UIL,

until a certain period, argued that it was fundamental to encourage the cooperatives,

the participation of workers. I still have a document from 2008-2009 from the CGIL

here in Padua, which was against us, because we had already started to say: ‘That’s

enough with the mafia of cooperatives’. Instead, they argued that it was right and

important to participate in the life of cooperatives, which was absolutely absurd.

[Giorgio, ADLCobas, January 2020, Padua]

To tackle unfair labour conditions in cooperatives, grassroots unions rely on

the ‘construction of a broad enemicity’ (Cuppini and Pallavicini, 2015, p. 218;

Piro and Sacchetto 2020), which includes, amongst the ‘enemies’, other unions

(mainly the established ones, but sometimes also rank-and-file organisations

with different political orientations), parties and institutions (especially those



10 All the names used in the paper are pseudonyms.

153

neglecting to control irregularities within workplaces). This strategy radically

differs from those identified in other countries wherein the relationship

between ‘indie’ and established unions appears less conflictual (see, e.g.

Smith, 2021).

To maintain a broad enemies’ front, a class ideology is strongly mobilised:

by hinging on a labour movement’s political tradition, grassroots organisations

differentiate themselves from those unions representing the interests of other

subjects aside from the working class and, coherently, consider conflict to be

a constitutive element of their relationship with the employers.

Moreover, the antibureaucratic and flat structure (composed of a limited

union staff and many trained workers) ensures greater participation from

migrant workers:

Hassan, a 59-year-old Moroccan worker, explains that he came to SICobas after a

bad experience with the CGIL and its bureaucratic structures, saying that: ‘My problem

wasn’t the boss of the cooperative, my problem was the CGIL. It was more difficult to

take an appointment and talk with the CGIL than to talk to the cooperative’ [Informal

conversation, SICobas Modena, March 2019].

With limited financial resources and often lacking official recognition by

the employers11, grassroots unions have carried out radical workplace

struggles, such as blockages and pickets. These actions have often become the

target of companies’ violent repression, which, in two cases during these years,

even caused the death of workers on strike12. In addition, companies’

repression has been supported by police and public prosecutors and has

therefore been dealt with as a public order issue. In some cases, it has been

also supported by negative media campaigns, leading to the criminalisation of



11 At the time of the fieldwork, SICobas did not sign the agreement on workplace

representation (TU sulla rappresentanza 10/02/2014) signed by CGIL, CISL, UIL and the

employer association Confindustria, which defined the rules to elect and recognise workers’

delegates (RSA and RSU). Generally, both unions were often not recognised by the employers,

which preferred the established ones as interlocutors.

12In September 2016, an Egyptian logistic worker – USB delegate – was hit by a truck

forcing a picket line in Piacenza.

(https://www.corriere.it/cronache/16_settembre_16/piacenza-operaio-travolto-camion-

la-protesta-contro-l-azienda-85bd8c0e-7b82-11e6-ae27-bc43cc35ec72.shtml). In similar

circumstances, in June 2021, a SiCobas delegate of Moroccan origin died in Biandrate

(Novara) (https://www.corriere.it/cronache/21_giugno_18/biandrate-muore-sindacalista-

cobas-investito-un-presidio-a4aeb21a-d009-11eb-8ae4-82443567179f.shtml).

154

grassroots unions’ actions amongst a broader public opinion13, thereby

marking a difference with ‘indie unionism’ practised in other countries (Però

and Downey, 2022). Notwithstanding a hostile environment, SICobas and

ADLCobas have reported effective material and nonmaterial results for their

members. Regarding the former, during the recent decade, they have obtained

actual salary increases by gaining recognition of workers’ grades in the pay

scale, illness, 13th- and 14th-month payments, food tickets, months of arrears

and severances in case of changes in procurement. For what concerns

nonmaterial results, they claimed the need to regain workers’ ‘dignity’, aiming

at more ‘democratic’14 workplaces. As explained by one of the Albanian

workers made redundant by Alcar Uno:

We were working 200-240 hours per month, no stops, no holidays. Back then, we

wanted to work more and more. When I was talking with my friends employed by

Castelfrigo and I found out that they were working 300 hours per month, I was envious,

because they got more money at the end of the month. I cannot believe it now. Lavani

[entrepreneur pseudonymous] stole my time… he basically stole my life. When we

won against him, we took our time back, we took back our dignity. [Informal

conversation, SICobas Modena, February 2019].

Regaining dignity is particularly critical for migrant workers, who often

suffer from open or insidious forms of racism in the workplace. Therefore,

grassroots unions committed to tackling various forms of workplace racism,

for instance asking for the dismissal of racist or violent overseers or demanding

fairer job rotations. In these cases, the mobilisation of a class ideology

intersected with a discourse that took ‘race’ into consideration to avoid a

‘colourblind’ form of unionism.

3.2. Increasing mobility power though grassroots unionisms

The rapid development of SICobas and ADLCobas during the last decade

was due to unions’ ability to respond to migrants’ needs, not only in terms



13 Workers participating in industrial actions are usually reported for the crime of ‘private

violence’. This could be problematic particularly for migrant workers in case of renewal or

granting of their residence permit. In addition, in July 2022, the public prosecutor in Piacenza

arrested (and then released after a few weeks) six union activists, accusing them of extortion

and of being the leaders of criminal organisations. Although these accusations turned out to

be unfounded, the grassroots unions were affected by a negative mediatic campaign.

14 Both expressions in inverted commas are widely used by research participants.

155

of workplace conditions but also regarding documents, housing and access

to local welfare systems. Moreover, participating in union activities (picket

lines, demonstrations, assemblies and attending the help desks), following

unions’ social media accounts or joining social events provided migrant

workers with a great source of information about the situation of the local

and national labour markets. In turn, such knowledge allowed them to

imagine and plan mobility between jobs, sectors or even cities.

This learning process takes place in different ways. The first one involves

the informal exchanges of information between workers. For instance, in the

SICobas premises in Modena, it was quite common to jump into

conversations amongst workers from different companies comparing their

labour conditions, including, for example, the level of control and the speed

of the assembly line. Moreover, workers inform one another about potential

recruitments in the companies they work for. Thus, through its premises and

the progressive creation of a trust-based bond amongst its members, the

union provides the physical and social spaces where these informal

exchanges can be held frequently and in a reliable manner. The second level

consists of the exchanges of information between workers and union (and

sometimes cooperative) staff. The fieldnote below provides an example:

We are at Confindustria [employer organisation] in Modena. When I arrive, together

with Maurizio from SICobas, the room is crowded and noisy. There are around 20

workers (but many others have been passing by during the whole day), two members

of the SICobas staff, a representative of Confindustria and then four lawyers, one

representing the client company (Suincom) and the others representing three of the

six cooperatives operating within this meat processing plant. Everyone, except for

the company lawyer, is talking, laughing and sharing food in a relaxed manner.

Workers are all very happy about the union victory. After several months of

industrial actions, they obliged the client to sign an agreement that recognised

cooperative workers’ overdue salaries. Maurizio speaks to a group of North African

workers; Abdel translates in Arabic. If they want to have better conditions, he

advises them to shift to ‘Jamal’ [cooperative pseudonymous], which is a coop that

the Cobas has already ‘regularised’ [messo a posto] within Suincom. Jamal’s lawyer

adds that the other cooperatives accept from the clients procurement paying less than

13 euros per hour, and then of course they’ll exploit workers, and they’ll have

troubles, while Jamal doesn’t do it. Workers nod and look very interested.

Meanwhile, Suincom’s lawyer, the nephew of the entrepreneur, silently signs the

papers that commit the company to pay for the cooperatives’ irregularities.

[Fieldnotes, Confindustria Modena, November 2018]

As in many other cases, in this example, the union directly addressed the

client that – through cooperatives – tried to neglect its responsibilities in

156

terms of payments and working conditions for the outsourced staff. Under

these circumstances, surprisingly, some cooperatives could even support the

union action in attempts to receive more money from the client company

when negotiating procurement.

On top of that, the example demonstrated how participating in union

activities opened the possibility of workers receiving fresh hands and useful

information concerning the ‘bad’ and the ‘good’ employers, namely, those

who have already been ‘regularised’ thanks to the union. In addition,

participation in union actions allowed them to break the segmentation

amongst different cooperatives within the same plant, ultimately pushing the

contractors to converge towards better labour conditions under the threat of

generalised industrial actions.

In other circumstances, the solidarity network provided by the unions

allowed workers to find new jobs in cases of sudden termination by

companies, especially if they were dismissed for reasons connected to the

unions’ activities. In general, being part of the union community, migrant

workers acquired information and contributed to co-creating ‘maps’ that

identify better job and life opportunities in local and national contexts.

3.3. Expanding the membership of grassroots unions by relying on migrant

workers’ mobility

If the previous section focused on the relationship between mobility and

organising from migrant workers’ perspectives, we now look at this

relationship from the perspective of the organisations. Particularly, we

explore how grassroots unions benefit from migrant mobility.

Migration is organised thanks to a specific infrastructure (Lindquist and

Xiang, 2014), in which brokers, leaders and transnational networks play

pivotal roles, thereby allowing migrants to acquire relevant information and

resources to reach and live in a foreign country. This existing infrastructure

is also important as a bottom-up channel through which new union members

are recruited (as noted by several scholars; see, e.g. Benvegnù et al., 2018).

In addition, word-of-mouth transmission takes place when workers move

from one plant to another or when they change cooperatives and bring with

them, in the new workplace, their previous union experiences. The story of

Asif, a young Moroccan logistic worker, provides a clear example of this

process.

157

Asif enters the union premises, greets and shakes the hands of many of the people in

the room. Apparently, many people know him and greet him back in a friendly

manner. It seems that he is here with no specific purpose apart from chatting. When

he reaches me, he shakes my hand and says: ‘Nice to meet you. You are new here.

So, you probably don’t know that I’m the first SICobas in GLS here in Modena.’ As

I look curious and invite him to continue, he tells me his story. His experience started

when he was employed by GLS, and he convinced a group of Moroccan colleagues

to create a Cobas, organising several industrial actions. Then, he changed his job and

started to work as a courier for a Tunisian employer. Because the salary was not

good, he quit for another cooperative, this time working in a ceramic plant. After a

few months, he noticed several irregularities in his payroll and came back to the

union, where the officials suggested that he creates a Cobas in the new plant to

eventually start actions. ‘And that’s how I also brought SICobas in this second plant’.

[Informal conversation, SICobas Modena, November 2018]

By moving to different workplaces, especially from large multinational

companies – where processes of unionisation are more widespread – to

smaller enterprises, workers bring their knowledge and tend to repeat

successful experiences of organising by involving new people. For the

unions, this represents the possibility of enlarging their rank-and-file and

‘entering’ a myriad of small and medium-sized enterprises, which represent

the majority of the companies in the areas under investigation.

The flat and horizontal structure of indie unions facilitates these

processes: to start industrial actions, before providing external organisational

support, a Cobas must be created autonomously by the workers within the

workplace (following a bottom-up approach). Then, if necessary, the support

of workers from several other plants and industries in the area is mobilised,

and sometimes also public solidarity campaigns could be launched to involve

social movements and public opinion. In addition, the intersectoral nature of

grassroots unions, and thus the fact that workers keep as a reference point

the same union official whilst changing workplaces and sectors, makes the

process of organising smoother and faster than what happens within the

established (sectoral) unions. Therefore, labour mobility represents a

valuable resource for unions with such a flat, light and intersectoral structure.

Finally, workers’ mobility constitutes a resource in terms of the emergence

of union representatives within workplaces and ‘community’ leaders. If, on

the one hand, high turnover in the workplace makes it difficult to identify

long-term delegates with solid union experiences, on the other hand, this

could also be an advantage for the organisation to avoid personalisation and

facilitate collective forms of decision-making. Moreover, given that

grassroots union members are exposed to physically and emotionally tiring

158

forms of mobilisation, which have strong consequences for their personal

and family lives, mobility and turnover allow organisations to recruit new

members and delegates during their actions. Thus far, due to the small union

dimensions, labour turnover has not affected membership and delegate

recruitment. Nonetheless, this finding should be verified in the long run and

with a potential increase in union membership.

4. Discussion and conclusion

This paper aims to contribute to the current debate on migrant forms of

organising by providing ethnographic data on Italian grassroots unionism,

particularly in the meat processing sector, and by exploring the nexus between

migrant workers’ mobility and their mobilisation.

First, to extend the current debate (Cioce et al., 2022; Però, 2020; Smith,

2021; Weghmann, 2022), this article takes SICobas and ADLCobas as case

studies and highlights the main features of Italian grassroots unions. As in

other countries, these unions are mostly created by subcontracted migrant

workers, generally men, they have few resources, and a flat, antibureaucratic

and participative structure. In addition, Italian grassroots unions belong to a

political tradition that, since the 1970s, has embodied a rupture with the main

leftist parties and their connected unions. Thus, unlike ‘indie’ organisations in

other countries (Smith, 2021), in Italy they rarely form coalitions with more

institutional actors. On the contrary, they oppose what Cuppini and Frapporti

call the ‘axis union, party and cooperatives’ (2018, p. 90) and, by fostering the

emergence of a broad enemies’ front, they stimulate their membership to be

committed to the union’s mission and embrace radical forms of action, such as

pickets and blockages (Cuppini and Pallavicini, 2015, p. 220). The

construction of a broad enemies’ front is also supported by a strong class

ideology and is nurtured by the violent repression that grassroots unions face,

along with the criminalisation of their activities by companies, police and

public prosecutors, and sometimes even by public opinion. Finally, similar to

other countries, Italian grassroots unions have managed to obtain several

material and nonmaterial gains in the last decade. Regarding the former, they

have obtained actual salary increases, while for what concerns the latter, by

mobilising class and antiracist ideologies, they have been able to create

communities of solidarity, that provide material and emotional support for

migrant workers in the local contexts in which they are embedded (Però, 2020;

Weghmann, 2022).

159

Second, the paper aims to enrich the current debate on migrant forms of

organising by introducing the lens of ‘migrant mobility power’ to analyse

migrants’ participation in grassroots organisations (Smith, 2006; Alberti,

2014). In particular, the article demonstrates how, by taking part in union

activities (such as pickets, demonstrations, or spending time within the unions’

premises), migrant workers create networks and acquire relevant information

about local and national labour markets. Such information allows them to plan

new migrations accordingly and to change jobs in search of better

opportunities. Therefore, taking part in union activities somehow reduces ‘the

time involved with network building, [and] the resources used (…) for the

planning of job moves’ (Smith, 2006, p. 391) and consequently increases

workers’ mobility power.

At the same time, the paper illustrates how migrant workers’ mobility can

be used as a resource to expand union membership, especially by allowing

them to penetrate new workplaces, including small and medium-sized

companies. Moreover, whenever workers change workplaces or even sectors,

the flat, horizontal and intersectoral structure of the unions facilitates the

reproduction of new rank-and-file forms of organising (the ‘Cobas’ itself).

Finally, although mobility and labour turnover make it difficult to identify

stable union representatives, from the point of view of the organisations, this

allows them to maintain a horizontal structure, thus avoiding personalisms.

Therefore, in line with Strauss and McGrath (2016), this paper argues that

mobility (bargaining) power and mobility struggles remain a key source of

class power that does not hamper but contributes instead to strengthening

workers’ associational forms of power (Wright, 2000), especially within

horizontal and intersectoral unions.

In a nutshell, the contribution highlights the advantages of conceiving both

associational and mobility power as two poles of a continuum, speaking about

a collective mobility power. By doing so, the paper also contributes to

conciliating an ‘embedded actor-centred’ approach (Alberti and Però, 2018)

with those more focused on the organisations’ perspectives (cf. Cioce et al.,

2022).

In conclusion, it is possible to envisage future developments for an analysis

that investigates migrants’ mobility and their mobilisation. Studying whether

and how unions manage to create transnational connections with other actors,

following migrants’ geographical and marketplace mobilities (from countries

of origins to those of onwards migration or amongst Italian regions), is a topic

that could be further investigated, keeping in mind the purpose of developing

a research agenda that actually challenges methodological nationalism in

migration and industrial relations research.

160

References

Alberti G. (2014). Mobility strategies, ‘mobility differentials’ and ‘transnational exit’. Work,

Employment and Society, 28(6), 865-881. DOI: 10.1177/0950017014528403.

Alberti G., Holgate J., Tapia, M. (2013). Organising migrants as workers or as migrant workers?

Intersectionality, trade unions and precarious work. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 24(22), 4132-4148. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2013.845429.

Alberti G., Però D. (2018). Migrating industrial relations: Migrant workers’ initiative within and

outside trade unions. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 54(4): 693-715. DOI:

10.1111/bjir.12308.

Alimahomed-Wilson I.N., ed. (2018). Choke points: Logistics workers disrupting the global

supply chain. London: Pluto Press.

Andrijasevic R., Sacchetto D. (2016). From labour migration to labour mobility? The return of

the multinational worker in Europe. Transfer, 22(2): 219-231. DOI:

10.1177/1024258916635975.

Atzeni M. (2021). Workers’ organizations and the fetishism of the trade union form.

Globalizations, 18(8): 1349-1362. DOI: 10.1080/14747731.2021.1877970.

Assemblea Legislativa Emilia-Romagna (2019). Relazione conclusiva della Commissione

Speciale di ricerca e di studio sulle cooperative cosiddette spurie o fittizie,

www.assemblea.emr.it/attivita/attivita-dalle-commissioni/comm-spec-coop.

Baccaro L., Hamann K., Turner L. (2003). The politics of labour movement revitalization: The

need for a revitalized perspective. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 9(1): 119-133.

DOI: 10.1177/0959680103009001455.

Benvegnù C., Haidinger B., Sacchetto D. (2018). Restructuring labour relations and employment

in the European logistics sector. In Doellgast V., Lillie N. and Puligliano V., eds.,

Reconstructing solidarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 83-103.

Birke P., Bluhm F. (2020). Migrant labour and workers’ struggles: The German meatpacking

industry as contested terrain. Global Labour Journal, 11(1): 34-51. DOI:

10.15173/glj.v11i1.3875.

Campanella P., Dazzi, D., eds. (2020). Meat-up ffire. Fairness, freedom and industrial relations

across Europe. Milano: Franco Angeli.

Carchedi F., Franciosi U. (2016). Il contesto agro-zootecnico, il comparto della macellazione

delle carni e le condizioni di ingaggio e di lavoro degli stranieri. Il caso di Modena. In

Osservatorio Placido Rizzotto, ed.. Agromafie e caporalato. Roma: Ediesse: 141-158.

Ceccagno A. (2019). Se l’operaio alle dipendenze del cinese è pakistano. Il Mulino, 1: 1-3.

Ceccagno A., Sacchetto D. (2020). The mobility of workers living at work in Europe. Current

Sociology, 68(3): 299-315. DOI: 10.1177/00113921198638.

Connolly H., Marino S., Martinez Lucio M. (2017). ‘Justice for Janitors’ goes Dutch, the limits

and possibilities of unions’ adoption of organizing in a context of regulated social

partnership. Work, Employment and Society, 31(2): 319-335.DOI:

10.1177/0950017016677943.

Cillo R., Pradella L. (2018). New immigrant struggles in Italy’s logistics industry. Comparative

European Politics, 16(1): 67-84. DOI: 10.1057/s41295-016-0073-7.

Cini L., Goldmann B. (2020). The worker capabilities approach: Insights from worker

mobilizations in Italian logistics and food delivery. Work, Employment and Society, 35(5).

DOI: 10.1177/0950017020952670.

Cini L., Maccarrone V., Tassinari, A. (2021). With or without U(nions)? Understanding the

diversity of gig workers’ organizing practices in Italy and the UK. European Journal of

Industrial Relations, 28, 3.DOI: 10.1177/09596801211052531.

161

Cuppini N., Frapporti M. (2018). Insubordinazioni del lavoro nella pianura logistica del Po’. In:

F.E. Iannuzzi, C. Benvegnù, eds., Figure del lavoro contemporaneo. Verona: Ombre Corte.

Cuppini N., Pallavicini, C. (2015). Le lotte nella logistica nella valle del Po. Sociologia del

Lavoro, 138(2): 210–224. DOI: 10.3280/SL2015-138013.

Della Puppa F. (2018). Sindacato, lavoratori immigrati e discriminazioni razziali nell’Italia della

crisi. Mondi Migranti, 2: 117–147. DOI: 10.3280/MM2018-002007.

Direzione Genera dell’Immigrazione e Politiche dell’Integrazione (2020) X RAPPORTO

ANNUALE. Gli stranieri nel mercato del lavoro in Italia, Ministero del Lavoro e delle

Politiche Sociali.

Dorigatti L. (2014). Organizzare i non organizzati. Economia e Società Regionale, 1: 129–141.

Dorigatti L. (2018). Ridotte all’osso. Disintegrazione verticale e condizioni di lavoro nella filiera

della carne. Meridiana, 93: 51–70. DOI: 10.3280/ES2014-001010.

Drahokoupil, J., ed. (2015). The outsourcing challenge. Bruxelles: ETUI.

FDV (2020). Report migrazione e sindacato. Roma: Ediesse.

Fellini I., Fullin G. (2018). Employment change, institutions and migrant labour. Stato e

Mercato, 113: 293-330. DOI: 10.1425/90963.

Fontana D. (2018). Intensificazione e salute nell’industria modenese del suino. Un’inchiesta

multi-strumento sulle condizioni di lavoro, available online: http://www.cgilmodena.it/wp-

content/uploads/2018/03/ricerca_cgil_-web_COMPLETO.pdf.

Hirschman A.O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Holgate J. (2005). Organizing migrant workers: A case study of working conditions and

unionization in a London sandwich factory. Work, Employment & Society, 19(3): 463–80.

DOI: 10.1177/0950017005055666.

Holgate J. (2021). Trade unions in the community. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 42(2):

226–247. DOI: 10.1177/0143831X18763871.

Holgate J., Simms M., Tapia M. (2018). The limitations of the theory and practice of

mobilization in trade union organizing. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 39(4): 599–

616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X18777608.

Hyman R., Gumbrell-McCormick R. (2017). Resisting labour market insecurity: Old and new

actors rivals or allies? Journal of Industrial Relations, 59(4): 538–561. DOI:

10.1177/0022185617714423.

Iannuzzi E.F., Sacchetto D. (2020) Outsourcing and workers’ resistance practices in Venice’s

hotel industry. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 43, 2: 877-897. DOI:

10.1177/0143831X20960227.

Ibsen C.L., Tapia, M. (2017). Trade union revitalisation: Where are we now? Where to

next? Journal of Industrial Relations, 59(2): 170–191.DOI: 10.1177/0022185616677558.

Istat (2022) Dataset Imprese e addetti: Forma giuridica, settori economici,

http://dati.istat.it/?lang=it&SubSessionId=ced69914-cd0b-4de7-a159-e99da535efbd

Jiang Z., Korczynski M. (2016). When the ‘unorganizable’ organize: The collective mobilization

of migrant domestic workers in London. Human Relations, 69(3): 813–838. DOI:

10.1177/0018726715600229.

Lindquist J., Xiang, B. (2014). Migration infrastructure. International Migration Review, 48, 1:

122–148.DOI: 10.1111/imre.12141.

Marino S., Penninx R., Roosblad, J. (2015). Trade unions, immigration and immigrants in

Europe revisited, CMS, 3, 1. DOI: 10.1007/s40878-015-0003-x.

McBride J. and Greenwood I., eds. (2009). Community unionism. London: Palgrave.

Mezzadra S. and Nielsen B. (2013). Border as method or the multiplication of labor. Durham:

Duke University Press.

Ness I., Lynd S. (2014). New forms of worker organization. New York: PM Press.

162

Nowak J. (2019). Mass strikes and social movements in Brazil and India. London: Palgrave.

Penninx R. and Roosblad J., eds. (2000). Trade unions, immigration, and immigrants in Europe,

1960–1993. New York: Berghahn Books.

Però D. (2020). Indie unions, organizing and labour renewal. Work, Employment and Society,

34, 5: 900–918.DOI: 10.1177/0950017019885075.

Però D., Downey J. (2022). Advancing workers’ rights in the gig economy through discursive

power. Work, Employment and Society, 0, 0. DOI: 10.1177/09500170221103160.

Piro V. (2021) Migrant Farmworkers in the ‘Plastic Factories’. Investigating Work-life

Struggles. London: Palgrave.

Piro V., Sacchetto D. (2020) Segmentazione del lavoro e strategie sindacali nell’industria della

carne. Stato e Mercato, 120: 515-541. DOI: 10.1425/99824.

Rogaly B. (2009). Spaces of work and everyday life: Labour geographies and the agency of

unorganised temporary migrant workers. Geography Compass, 3(6): 1975–1987. DOI:

10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00290.x.

Rogaly B. (2015). Disrupting migration stories: Reading life histories through the lens of

mobility and fixity. Environ. Plan. D., 33(3): 528–544.DOI: 10.1068/d13171p

Sacchetto D., Semenzin M. (2015). Workers’ cooperatives in Italy. Between solidarity and

autocratic centralism. In: N. Pun, B. Hok-bun Ku, H. Yan and A. Koo, eds, Social economy

in China and the world. London-New York: Routledge.

Savage, L. (2006). Justice for janitors. Antipode, 38(3): 645–666. DOI: 10.1111/j.0066-

4812.2006.00600.x

SICobas. (2017). Carne da macello. Roma: Red Star Press.

Simms M., Holgate J., Heery E. (2013). Union voices. New York: Cornell University Press.

Smith C. (2006). The double indeterminacy of labour power: Labour effort and labour mobility.

Work, Employment and Society, 20(2): 389–402. DOI: 10.1177/0950017006065109.

Smith H. (2021). The ‘indie unions’ and the UK labour movements. Economic and Industrial

Democracy, 43(3): 1369–1390.DOI: 10.1177/0143831X211009956.

Strauss K., McGrath S. (2016). Temporary migration, precarious employment and unfree labour

relations. Geoforum 78: 199–208. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.01.008.

Theunissen A., Zanoni P., Van Laer K. (2022). Fragmented capital and (the loss of) control over

posted workers: A case study in the Belgian meat industry. Work, Employment and

Society, 0(0). DOI: 10.1177/09500170211059733.

Trif A., Bernaciak M., Kahancová, M. (2023). Trade union revitalization in hard times.

European Journal of Industrial Relations, 29(1): 3–6. DOI: 10.1177/09596801221148860.

Wagner B., Hassel A. (2016). Posting, subcontracting and low-wage employment in the German

meat industry. Transfer, 22(2): 163–178.DOI: 10.1177/1024258916636012.

Wagner I., Refslund, B. (2016). Understanding the diverging trajectories of slaughterhouse work

in Denmark and Germany. European Journal of Industrial Relations, 22(4): 335–351. DOI:

10.1177/0959680116682109.

Weghmann V. (2022). Theorising practices, independent trade unions in the UK. Work in the

Global Economy, 2(1): 132–47. DOI: 10.1332/273241721X16510573048560.

Wills J. (2009). Subcontracting and its challenge to labor. Labor Studies Journal, 34: 441–460.

DOI: 10.1177/0160449X08324740.

Wright E.O. (2000). Working-class power, capitalist-class interests, and class compromise. AJS,

105(4): 957–1002. DOI: 10.1086/210397.



Sociologia del lavoro, n. 167/2023. ISSN 0392-5048. ISSNe 1972-554X.

DOI: 10.3280/SL2023-167008

Labour Process Theory and the legacy

of operaismo. New directions, old problems

Paul Thompson*, Frederick Harry Pitts**

Simultaneous with the rise of Labour Process Theory (LPT), Italy was the

centre of a parallel and prominent theorisation of the labour process in an

overlapping intellectual and social context: operaismo. Both have undergone

a recent resurgence. This paper provides a critical commentary on the

development and claims of operaismo, drawing out some comparisons with

LPT. Diversity in the operaist traditions and trajectories are recognised, but

the paper focuses on areas where contrasts and conflicts between LPT and

aspects of operaismo continue to have salience. There are similarities in the

ideas and goals of the two approaches, with both focusing on the dynamic

interplay between labour and capital in the hidden abode of production. But

operaismo is also an explicitly political project in that it seeks to identify

privileged class subjects that can act as the vanguard of broader social

transformation. Through an examination of a range of issues concerning

changing workplace regimes and how to study them, we find this and other

differences have significant analytical, normative and methodological

dimensions.

Keywords: Labour Process Theory; Operaismo; Class Composition;

Politics of Production.

Introduction

Labour process theory (LPT) is currently undergoing a welcome

resurgence. This resurgence is characterised by an internationalisation of its

research community loosely linked to the International Labour Process

Conference (ILPC) and the attractiveness of its conceptual toolkit to younger

scholars seeking to explain new forms of work, notably various types of



* University of Stirling, email: paul.thompson@stir.ac.uk

** University of Exeter, email: F.H.Pitts@exeter.ac.uk



164

platform labour. The 2022 ILPC was held in Padua and, at the 2023meeting

of the Economic Sociology Association in Brescia, its outgoing President is

reported as remarking that ‘labour process theory has entered Italian

sociology’ after a successful stream run by younger scholars, many of whom

attended ILPC. Given the 50th anniversary of Braverman’s Labor and

Monopoly Capital (1974), this seems like somewhat of a late entry.

Braverman was not translated into Italian until 1979 and most other

prominent texts not at all, helping to explain a general lack of engagement

with LPT (Barbieri, 2002). The relative absence is somewhat paradoxical

given that Italy was the centre of a parallel and prominent theorisation of the

labour process – operaismo (or workerism), forged in an overlapping

intellectual and social context. Operaismo, though it has a more chequered

and uneven history than LPT, has also undergone something of a resurgence

of its own. Indeed, recent papers at the 2023 ILPC argued for it to provide

an alternative or new direction for LPT (Woodcock, 2023; Dessi 2023).

In this paper we seek to make a critical assessment of the development

and claims of operaismo that will also involve some comparisons with LPT

(see also Thompson, 2018; Thompson et al, 2022; Pitts, 2023). The purpose

of such comparisons is to establish commonalities and differences, but also

to meet some of the objectives of the special issue by using this comparison

to bring out some of the distinctive contributions of LPT. However, it is

important to recognise from the outset the limitations and scope of any

comparison. We lack the knowledge and language resources to reconstruct

the history of operaismo within the development of the Italian sociology of

work and other labour studies (though see Gasparri 2017; Pulignano 2019).

Perhaps more importantly, operaismo has a rich and complex history within

and beyond Italy, manifested in a number of different pathways, particularly

with the emergence of postoperaismo. In this context, our inability to address

all these pathways is not simply a matter of space. Rather, our interest is

focused largely on manifestations of the operaist tradition in the UK context,

particularly where it has intersected and interacted with LPT.

This intersection originally dates back to the 1970s, where important

publications of the Conference of Socialist Economists (e.g. CSE 1976)

brought together operaist and labour process analyses with a shared interest

in the contested terrain of workplace life. As we chart here, the tendencies

increasingly diverged. Operaismo fractured and, in the UK and US, produced

other influential ‘autonomist’ currents (see Eden 2016). However, today new

strands of radical scholarship in the Anglophone sphere seek to reunite

operaismo with the study of the labour process, and it is on this that we focus

here.



165

The structure of this paper unfolds as follows. First, we will set out some

of the common foundations. Second, we will outline the accompanying

conceptual architecture of the two approaches, contrasting the relative

priority given to class composition in operaismo with workplace regimes in

LPT. Third, we will examine different conceptions of new regimes as

postoperaismo emerged, with some strands making claims about new types

of labour and value. Fourth, we will open out some emergent themes from

the previous sections concerning relations between class and politics.

Finally, there will be a focus on epistemological issues, centring on the long-

standing claim of the operaist tradition to a superior militant methodology –

the workers inquiry.

1. Common Foundations

LPT and operaismo each challenged orthodox Marxism and ended up at

similar points, albeit largely without reference to one another. Their common

foundations have two primary dimensions – treating the labour process as a

contested terrain and focal point of analysis, and relating the trajectory of the

capitalist organisation of production to the degradation of work.A concept

of contested terrain, for both operaismo and LPT, represents the labour

process as a territory of antagonistic social relations. Looking back from

2023, this may sound uncontroversial, but it was not always so. Marxism and

the labour movement, influenced in part by the history of state socialism,

were in thrall to the idea that the development of the productive forces under

capitalism was essentially progressive, but undermined by the anarchy of the

market. Both LPT and operaismo challenged this. As Turchetto (2008, p.

206) notes of operaismo, the ‘productivist’ conception, which construes

capitalism as private property plus the market, counter-posing to it socialism

understood as public property and planning, implies that the capitalist

organisation of production is accepted in the main. By seriously challenging

the apologetic vision of scientific and technological progress that

characterised the Marxist tradition, Panzieri’s account introduced some

decisive theoretical premises for a radical critique of this position.

Along with Tronti (2019), Bologna (2013), Alquati (2013) and others,

Panzieri (in CSE 1976) was part of a group of young Marxist intellectuals

associated with the journal Quaderni Rossi in the 1960s. Rather than the

market alone, they saw capital’s despotism also residing in the factory and

the relations of production as closely intertwined with the forces of

production. Part of the rediscovery of the labour process was to return to



166

neglected parts of Marx’s writings in Capital (1976) and elsewhere, as well

as aspects of the Gramscian tradition. Alongside this excavation, there was a

parallel focus on mapping changes in the labour process and labour power in

mass production plants such as Olivetti. Using the language of class

composition and workers inquiry (which we return to later), operaismo was

concerned with identifying new antagonistic subjects and their subversive

subjectivities (Villar, 2019). The ‘mass worker’, at plants such as Fiat, was

to become the clearest expression of this new class composition and political

project.

What of Braverman and early LPT? Although Braverman did not always

draw on the same sources in Marx, he certainly returned to Marx’s analysis

of the emergence of ‘modern industry’, the transformation of labour power

into productive labour and how control was facilitated by the appropriation

of science and technology. This underpinning Marxian perspective is shared

by Edwards (1979), Friedman (1977) and Burawoy (1982, 1985). Where

Braverman was particularly effective was furthering that account through the

use of evidence from labour historians and management literatures to

demonstrate how Taylorism and Fordism began to coincide with a new

scientific technical revolution. Because of the initial focus on the destruction

of skilled craftwork, what became known as the ‘deskilling thesis’ seems

quite different from the more contemporary emphasis on the mass worker

and mass production. One can see some nostalgia for craft compared to the

clear rejection in operaismo of the old politics of the dignity of labour and

workers’ control. But these differences can be overstated. Operaismo and

Braverman each critiqued existing upskilling perspectives and asserted more

general trends towards degradation and dequalification across different

sectors.

On the question of mapping changing class composition, there is little

difference at first glance. As Braverman noted at the beginning of Labor &

Monopoly Capital, he had started out looking at occupational shifts and in

later chapters he clearly articulates how changes in the technical division of

labour are producing long-term changes in class structure. Unlike operaismo,

however, Braverman was not concerned with identifying an explicit process

of recomposition of the working class centred on new, vanguard sectors. He

was content with providing (perhaps problematic) evidence for an enlarged

proletariat consistent with orthodox Marxist perspectives. There is also a

sharp contrast concerning the question of resistance. As is well known,

Braverman left labour agency outside his picture of work and economic

transformation. Meanwhile, it was not just that the events of the Italian ‘Hot

Autumn’ appeared to validate operaismo, but that the perspective laid great



167

emphasis on starting from the class struggle as the motor of capitalist

development. As Tronti (2019) argued, the traditional investigative logic had

to be stood on its head, putting workers first and capital second.

This argument had significant consequences that led to differences with

LPT, but on the specific question of resistance it is less sharp than first

appeared. As is well known, in second wave LPT, from the classics of

Edwards, Friedman and Burawoy to generations of workplace case studies,

mapping the variety of oppositional practices by workers became a defining

feature of the approach.

2. Divergent trajectories

Operaists have traditionally been interested in ‘the laws of development’

that govern the relationship between two modalities of the composition of the

working class, and the ‘forms of behaviour’ that are produced by their

interaction (Wright, 2002, p. 49; 2014, p. 369). For class composition analyses,

‘Workers are organised and exploited according to their technical

composition; they then develop the forms of struggle necessary for

overcoming their division and fighting their exploitation’ in and through their

political composition (Mueller, 2020, pp. 15-16). The technical composition,

then, represents the organisation of labour-power as an ‘economic input’, in

the form of which capital materially structures the working class through

processes of division, management and mechanisation. In some accounts the

technical composition is also taken to include the ‘forms of reproduction’ of

the class that lie beyond the workplace in the family and community at large

(a point covered in more detail below). The political composition, meanwhile,

represents the struggle of the economic input ‘labour power’ to politically

constitute itself as the working class autonomously of ‘both the labour

movement and capital’, fighting for its own ‘needs and development’ by

means of ‘refusal of work, resistance and re-appropriation of surplus value’

(Wright, 2002, pp. 3-5; Dyer-Witheford, 2015, p. 29).

The process of ‘decomposition’, through which capital fragments the

working class by restructuring and reorganising the division of labour, then

creates the conditions for new groups of workers to develop a further political

‘recomposition’, through which the most advanced sections of the working

class use power within the current technical composition of labour to develop

their own autonomous needs and demands in response. However, the tradition

seldom positied a strictly mechanical relationship between the two (see Wright

2021). Indeed, a central debate within operaismo is which of these processes



168

has primacy at any one time, and the social and industrial settings that provide

the most advanced and up-to-date demonstration of the ‘political laws of

motion’ of labour and capitalist development (Mueller, 2020, pp. 15-16;

Wright, 2002, pp. 3-5, 78).

The late 1960s and 1970s abounded in radical attempts to identify and

politically weaponise a ‘new working class’ based in changing capitalist

relations of production. Some approaches focused on skilled workers or

technicians. As we have indicated, Italian operaist theorists took a very

different line through a focus on the ‘mass worker’. New technical

compositions permitted workers under Taylorism the power to ‘stop the line’

and break the link between wages and productivity. This, in turn, provoked

capital to technologically revolutionise the labour process at pivotal sites of

operaist activism and analysis like Fiat (Mueller, 2020, p. 128).

When those struggles reached an impasse or went into decline, the new

social movements that surged in the space perceived to be vacated by the

traditional working class were seen as having recomposed themselves in the

form of the ‘social(ised) worker’—what for Negri became the ‘multitude’

(Hardt and Negri, 2000). From this perspective, where the concept of the mass

worker had previously captured the relationship between the progressive

abstraction of labour and its socialisation, it described the productive relations

of only a specific section of the working-class and remained conceptually

confined to the labour process. The ‘social(ised) worker’, meanwhile,

represented a class recomposition in the face of technological change, the

conditions of which spanned the entire ‘arc of the valorisation process’ beyond

production. The new ‘unity of abstract social labour’ this generated was seen

as overriding and subsuming the specificities of age, gender and ethnicity

inside and outside the factory. A central site for the socialisation of this new

composition was the increasing ‘massification’ of ‘intellectual and technical

labour’ from the seventies onwards, its pivotal actors being university students

and intellectual workers seen as representing the ‘productive intelligence’ of

Marx’s ‘general intellect’. Symbolising the refusal of assembly-line life, the

law of value was seen as increasingly inadequate for mediating the

‘reproduction of this class of workers’ (Wright, 2002, pp. 141-164, p. 201).

We will pick these themes up again in the next section.

Reluctant to offer claims of paradigmatic changes in class formation and

forms of value, labour process researchers have tended to focus on distinctive

and more proximate workplace regimes in light of specific patterns of

accumulation and institutional contexts. It is important, first, to outline in a

little more detail, how LPT reached this kind of workplace regime formulation.



169

First, there was an emphasis on concept application and testing with respect

to claims concerning the dominance of deskilling of labour and Taylorism as

a control system. This built up a much more complex picture of variation and

constraint, linked primarily to labour market factors and worker resistance (see

Thompson 1989 for a summary). Secondly, there was an elaboration of

alternative models for what at the time was framed largely in terms of

strategies for control.

The ideas of classic second-wave theorists such as Edwards (1979),

Friedman (1977) and Burawoy (1982, 1985) left an important legacy for the

development of this conceptual architecture. Unlike Braverman, all explicitly

recognised that struggle between capital and labour was the motor of

innovation and restructuring in workplace regimes. Rather than a ‘labour first,

capital second’ formulation, these studies envisage a continual dialectic in

which management is compelled to reconfigure the technical division of labour

to its own advantage in particular accumulation contexts and institutional

circumstances. Those regime dynamics offer new constraints and possibilities

for capital and labour, although ultimately their effectiveness will diminish as

contradictions outweigh benefits and capital is compelled to search for new

ways to secure value. This led to ideas of historically sequential, but

overlapping control regimes covering significant historical periods.

Whilst recognising the substantial contributions made using these models,

many labour process researchers became sceptical of the capacity of regime

constructs to cover extended historical periods, market structures across

companies and countries, as well as binary oppositions between different

forms of control.

Commitment to identify and analyse workplace regimes in the context of

capitalist political economy, as well as regimes of social reproduction,

remained, but the categories developed by the theorists discussed above

largely became a conceptual vocabulary applied to contingent contexts.

Technical and bureaucratic control, coercion and consent, direct control and

responsible autonomy all became operational categories creatively applied to

new forms of work. Researchers were more likely to locate hybrid forms of

control and labour power utilisation practices in different sectoral contexts.

This approach was influenced by Paul Edwards’ (1990) argument that

workplace relations had a relative autonomy within capitalism as a whole, so,

for example, the characteristics of workplace regimes could not be simply read

off from the broader class structure.

Forming the second dimension of the conceptual vocabulary, relative

autonomy was just one of a cluster of core concepts outlined in essays collected

in the edited volume Labour Process Theory (Knights and Wilmott, 1990).



170

This cluster also included the now familiar concepts of the indeterminacy of

labour, the central role of labour in the production of value, the control

imperative and structured antagonism.

It should be emphasised that these notions were not in themselves new or

innovative, drawn as they were from the Marxian framework rediscovered and

updated by Braverman and other foundational theorists. What was innovative

was the argument that these concepts were core to LPT, rather than specific

empirical claims associated with deskilling and Taylorism (Thompson, 1990).

Indeed, though the language is not always the same, by and large there is

nothing in these core concepts that should prove problematic for operaismo, at

least as it was originally constituted.

The partial exception is the idea of structured antagonism developed by

Paul Edwards (1990). In one sense, it is unexceptional – conflicts of interest

driven by struggles over value expressed through effort, time and reward are

ever present. But Edwards rightly wanted to move away from the idea LPT

was defined in terms of a particular form of labour agency – resistance. Capital

has to confront labour through an engagement with the characteristics of labour

power itself: indeterminate, embodied, creative, mobile. Therefore capital

must also seek some level of creativity and cooperation from labour. The result

is a continuum of possible worker responses that are situationally-driven and

often overlapping—from resistance to accommodation, compliance, and

consent. This structured antagonism, following Burawoy (1985), is located in

the workplace. The existence of a wider class struggle is in no way denied, but

the distinctive competence of LPT is held to be a politics of production. There

is no necessary escalation or pathway from that sphere to a class subject

destined to overthrow capitalism, as suggested in the operaist formulation of

technical to political composition. We return to this in more detail in

subsequent sections.

3. Regime change

This conceptual architecture formed the basis for research and theory

building from the early 1990s to the present time. We can make some brief

observations concerning workplace regimes, drawing out contrasts with the

trajectory of sections of the operaist tradition. Attempting to come to terms

with new forms of work and workplace regimes, during the 1990s we

observe two main LPT research programmes, around lean production in the

factory and mass service work. These took place in the context of optimistic



171

narratives about capitalism, economy and work associated with post-Fordism

and the knowledge economy.

With respect to the factory, lean production was seen largely as neo-

Fordist, with the ‘Toyotist’ model combining high involvement with

controlled autonomy (Berggren, 1993; Milkman, 1998). Sectors such as

retail and hospitality initially became the focus of this strand of labour

process research. Combining core LPT concepts with influences from

literatures on McDonaldization and emotional labour (Hochschild 1983;

Bolton 2005), arguments were made that mass service work was

characterised by the expansion of low skill, low-wage jobs that were highly

scripted and standardised (Warhurst et al, 2008). However, it was the rise of

the call centre at the end of the decade that provided a stimulus for a much

more systematic development of a regime model by labour process

researchers, especially in the UK.

This regime model was based on low-discretion, high-involvement work

relations, an ‘assembly line in the head’ (Taylor and Bain, 1999) and an

integrated system of technical, bureaucratic and normative controls subject

to largely informal resistance and misbehaviour (Callaghan and Thompson,

2001). Whilst value extraction was at the heart of the business model, contra

operaismo the new technical composition of labour had not emerged

specifically or directly from contestation in the previous clerical labour

process. The driver of what became a new techno-economic system was the

search for new markets and commodities in the financial services sector

(Thompson and Laaser, 2021). The successful configuration of the technical

division of labour around automated call distribution technology facilitated

the rapid diffusion of workplace regimes through the financial services sector

and beyond (Ellis and Taylor, 2006). Somewhat ironically, a version of mass

production and mass worker had emerged at the heart of the service sector at

precisely the point that sections of the operaist tradition had lost faith in the

traditional factory as a source of decisive class antagonisms.

Amidst the rise of these new regimes, the influence of post-Fordist

analyses gradually weakened as the gap between its claims and workplace

realities became clearer, and labour market trends such as externalisation and

subcontracting of labour became associated with rising insecurity (Ackroyd

and Thompson, 2022). Taking various trends into account, in terms of

technical composition the key change identified in this phase of labour

process research could be described as the qualitative intensification of the

exploitation of labour power (Thompson, 2010). A partial break with

Taylorism and Fordism involved combining the tools of measurement and



172

control with accessing tacit knowledge and qualities such as emotions at the

cost of increasing work intensity.

How, then, did Italian scholarship of the period understand these

changing work and economic landscapes? Within Italian sociology of work,

analyses associated in some way with the concept of post-Fordism became

the main direction after the decline of operaismo (Pulignano, 2019). In

parallel, Italian industrial relations scholarship went through various phases

of pluralism (Gasparri, 2017). With a focus on labour markets and state

policies for IR systems, neither field offered any significant space for radical

perspectives, in particular those focused on the workplace and attendant

conflicts. However, our interest here remains on the operaist tradition. After

its foundational phase and the shift away from the mass worker orientation,

the picture is a complex one, with a number of emergent political and

theoretical pathways. Some, like Tronti, accommodated themselves to the

Communist Party and institutionalstrategies in the period of the ‘historic

compromise’. Others committed themselves to autonomist campaigns to

extend struggles from the factory to the city, university and community at

large. Others still were attracted to armed struggle against the state (see Pitts

2023; Wright 2002; Gasparri 2017). Of equal importance there was a partial

political rupture within operaismo as some of its blind spots and conceptual

limitations were challenged by a new generation of Marxist feminists such

as Dalla Costa, Fortunati and Federici (see Curcio 2020; Federici 2012;

Fortunati 2013). Though applying ideas such as refusal of (gendered) work

in the home and the social factory, such contributions had huge significance

in opening up the terrain of the reproduction of labour power beyond the

workplace. Intellectually, some of these shifts were associated with the

gradual transformation of operaismo into the postoperaismo which would

gain a wider academic readership in the nineties and noughties, although this

was by no means a singular or simple direction.

This heterogeneous field of post-operaismo gained a wider, sometimes

international, audience. In this section, we focus principally on the reception

of the trend associated with the likes of Negri, Lazzarato, Marazzi,

Vercellone and Virno (see Virno and Hardt 1996 and Fumagalli and

Mezzadra 2010 for comprehensive edited collections). The reasons for this

are straightforward. It had the greatest global reach and influence concerning

the analysis of regime change, and some of the associated arguments were

perceived as a challenge to LPT and its orientation to struggles around

workplace regimes (Böhm and Land, 2012; Beverungen et al 2015).

This centred on two interrelated claims about a supposed paradigmatic

shift in capitalism. The first concerned class composition, the argument that



173

immaterial labour (cerebral, affective, communicative, relational) in the

creative and cultural industries was increasingly dominant. Second, there

were claims that the location of value creation and extraction has moved out

of the labour process beyond the employment relationship and the direction

of management. Value is said to be produced by the general intellect through

socially cooperative, autonomous labour or by bio-political labour in the

social factory and the ‘commons’. For some in this camp, drawing on Marx’s

comments in the ‘Fragment on Machines’ (Marx, 1972; see Pitts, 2016),

‘cognitive capitalism’ based on knowledge value represented a third stage of

the division of labour (Vercellone, 2007, p. 15). As Boffo (2012) notes, this

is held to mark a radical change in the subsumption of labour to capital,

whereby specialisation, standardisation, and Taylorist-style measurement

were put into reverse (see Boffo 2012).

If all or even most of this was true, LPT would be rendered problematic

at best and at worst defunct. This prospect is raised by Böhm and Land, who

assert that LPT can no longer argue for a ‘privileging’ of the labour process

as the site of analysis within the capitalist circuit of production (2012, p.

218). A detailed critique of the above twin claims is made elsewhere

(Thompson, 2005; Thompson and Briken, 2017; Thompson and Smith,

2017; Pitts, 2020, 2022).For now, it suffices to say that, in continuing the

operaist tendency of focusing on the technical division of labour without

adequate understanding of the accumulation regime, these approaches give

little sense of how capital is actually organised through dominant business

models and value chains.

Beyond general critique, it is also worth emphasising that effective

empirical refutation can also be found in contemporary programs of labour

process research. For example, in 2009 a series of papers on creative labour,

mostly from the ILPC, were published (Smith and McKinlay, 2009). Case

studies included film, television, new media and music. These were followed

by other research such as those on pharmaceuticals (McKinlay, 2002) and

games (Thompson et al, 2009). These industries were frequently the kind of

exemplars used in postoperaist analyses, yet the findings of labour process

research bore no resemblance to their claims. Without exception, although

with significant variation, findings showed that creative, technical and

scientific labour was subject to increased control, specialisation and

codification. Such trends were located less in internal dynamics in the

technical division of labour, than in the pressures to squeeze labour and other

costs arising from the wider sector competitive structures and value chain

hierarchies.



174

In seeking to make better links between the labour process, labour

markets and industry structure, such investigations foreshadowed a crucial

next phase of research that focused on attempts to bring together LPT with

Global Value Chain and Global Production Network perspectives (Newsome

et al., 2015). Given its role in linking industries across the global economy,

the logistics sector has been the focal point of much of this research.

Investigation of service value chains had the beneficial effect of requiring an

expansion of the scale and scope of workplace regimes. This is required to

understand the complex pattern of value capture and value extraction

between logistic companies, suppliers and retailers, and between capital and

labour (Flecker et al., 2013; Newsome, 2015). As Pulignano et al. (2019)

observe, ‘Put more theoretically, it attempts to examine the realization of

value in product markets and production networks, as well as extraction in

the labor process’. This is a reference to the concept of the ‘full circuit of

capital’ (Kelly, 1985), which has long framed LPT discussions about how to

make better connections between the labour process and capitalist political

economy, as well as regimes of social reproduction.

Finally, the most recent ‘regime’ research has been on digital labour

platforms. Its dominance by LPT-influenced perspectives is attested to also

in this Special Issue. The ways in which innovative technologies, expansion

of commodity production and a distinctive labour regime coalesced in the

business models of early adopters and then rapidly diffused has some echoes

with the experience of the call centre and financial services (Thompson and

Laaser, 2021). However, there are also substantial differences in the central

roles played by labour market intermediaries and the combined extraction of

value in the form of data from both users and workers (Howcroft and

Bergvall-Kåreborn, 2019). The key point for our purposes is that, as Gandini

(2019) established in an influential paper, contrary to claims concerning

immaterial labour, such labour platforms may not be physical workplaces,

but constitute a digital ‘point of production’. Through them, we can identify

distinctive patterns of labour utilisation and control, drawing in part on new

forms of ‘digital Taylorism’ (Krzywdzinski and Gerber 2021).

4. Production, politics and society

These empirical insights typify the increasing untenability of postoperaist

optimism about the rise of immaterial labour. The academic vogue for

postoperaismo having waned in light of this dawning realisation, there has

been a return to its operaist precursor which has been kept alive in the work



175

of holdouts like Bologna (2013). In particular, class composition analysis,

and its conceptualisation of the movement between the technical and

political compositions, has attracted a new generation of labour scholars

looking for a more level-headed appraisal of the direction of contemporary

capitalism than that offered by postoperaismo (see Pitts 2023 for a

summary).

We have previously explained that as part of the lessons drawn from its

second wave, LPT developed a distinctive competence in the politics of

production, which are assumed to have some autonomy from wider class

struggles at the level of society and state. In this section we want to say a

little more about this and the contrast with operaismo’s understanding of

class composition. It is important to understand that the development of

LPT’s politics of production predates the emergence of ‘core’ LPT and its

primary motive was to reduce the burden of explanation. That burden derives

largely from what is sometimes known as the ‘gravedigger thesis’ (see Vidal

2018).

For a large part of the Marxist tradition, classes are defined and formed

in the sphere of production, finding political expression both in the

workplace and wider society. This worldview implies that capitalism creates

the conditions, largely in the relations of production, for the working class to

overthrow it. Whilst arising from a theoretical and political rejection of key

tenets of traditional Marxism, operaismo’s conceptualisation of the

movement from technical to political (re)composition could be seen as a

variant on this basic starting point. It shares an essential feature of the thesis

– the identification of leading sections or fractions of the working class that

can drive its historic mission. After becoming disillusioned with the

prospects of the mass worker in this regard, subsequent operaist-influenced

analyses, postoperaismo included, have asked a range of new actors to

shoulder this rhetorical burden, with different stresses and results.

Differences aside, there is across the operaist tradition an attempt to

theoretically articulate together the varied political behaviours of diverse

social actors in a series of speculative theoretical and strategic gambits, from

the socialised worker to the multitude. However, critics correctly point out

that this often risks ‘flattening’ the specificity of these actors and their

behaviours to the detriment of analysis, and thus praxis (Wright, 2002, pp.

224-5). Moreover, this search tends to privilege as the most ‘advanced’

sector of the class those whose ‘behaviours’ are culturally and politically

closest to the radicals themselves (2002, pp. 224-5). These comments are

indicative of a degree of scepticism even amongst sympathetic observers. As

Dyer-Witheford (2015, p. 31) observes, operaismo arguably has ‘too ‘‘pure’



176

a view of the working class, leading to unrealistic…strategies’ that rest on

the presumption of an ‘essential core’ to its identity intrinsically ‘against’

capital. An over-emphasis on a linear process of recomposition neglects

countertendencies of decomposition, in labour processes and markets, such

as the emergence of ‘intermediate strata’ between capital and labour and the

separation of ‘secure wage workers’ from the ‘unemployed and immiserated’

(Dyer-Witheford, 2015, pp. 28-29).

Part of a response to these kinds of criticisms among contemporary

scholars and activists seeking new directions in the operaist inheritance has

been to expand the scope of analytical categories to include ‘social’

composition. This is informed by a justified concern that, whilst ‘technical

composition sets the basis for political composition…the movement from

one to the other is not mechanical or predictable’ (Notes From Below 2018).

The broader goal is to conceptually encompass all aspects of working class

life including consumption, housing and social reproduction. Social

composition clearly builds on the longstanding feminist strand within

operaismo, which cracks open Tronti’s concept of the ‘social factory’ to

include the reproduction of labour power within the domestic sphere and

other settings associated with a gender division of labour (Federici 2012).

Feminist perspectives on gender and social reproduction are necessary to

any analysis of labour power, and are finding increasing uptake within LPT

broadly conceived (e.g. Baglioni 2021 and in this special issue). However,

there is a distinction to be made between linking the dynamics of regimes of

production and reproduction, on the one hand, and, on the other, an expansive

application of a concept of social composition that straddles every domain of

everyday life. As an analytical intervention, concepts like ‘social factory’

and ‘social composition’ potentially represent not so much a theory of

everything, but rather a tendency to see everything through narrow and

overly-economistic lens that is not adequate for an understanding of the

varied experiences of individuals, communities and diverse social groups

(Thompson et al., 2022, p. 147).

Foundational LPT, meanwhile, had sound motives for avoiding the

analytical pathways implied by analytical or strategic initiatives reminiscent

of the gravedigger thesis. As Burawoy (1985, pp. 5-6, 112) argued, a focus

on the politics of production theoretically ‘reduces the burden on the working

class’ represented by its ascribed ‘mission of emancipating the whole of

humanity’, choosing instead an understanding ‘appropriate to its real rather

than imagined intervention in history’. Relations at the point of production -

whether factory or social factory - do not necessarily determine broader-scale

class relations or political behaviours, especially in the electoral arena.



177

Interests and identities across these wider terrains rest on much more diverse

‘complexes of social and cultural practices’ irreducible to the relationship

between the technical and political compositions (Brighton Labour Process

Group, 1977, pp. 23-4; Cressey and MacInnes 1980, pp. 20-29; Edwards

1990).

This is not to say that LPT is uninterested in variations in militancy across

different groups, pathways between different types of struggle and the

potential to advance broader class interests (see for example Taylor and

Moore, 2015 on the cabin crew dispute at British Airways). The general

approach is concerned with connections between types, domains and levers

of struggle which is ultimately contingent, context-specific and thus open to

interpretation through different frames (Ackroyd and Thompson 2022).

Given those particularities, those links and potentialities are clearly going to

be very different between and within the global south and north.

Nevertheless, by withdrawing from the operaist temptation to posit coherent

class figures straddling the workplace and the political realm, LPT keeps

clear the way for more realistic, albeit radical, understandings of the politics

of labour.

5. No inquiry without politics?

Our assessment of the relative trajectories of the two traditions began with

some common foundations and we start this section on a similar theme. Both

LPT and operaismo privilege the study of the labour process, not only for its

role in the reproduction of capitalism, but because it reveals workers’ direct

experience of and action in response to those social relations. For LPT, this

has tended to mean modes of investigation that get ‘close to the action’ in

the form of ethnographic and other qualitative methods. Operaismo espouses

the virtues of its own distinctive ‘militant methodology’, the workers inquiry

(Woodcock, 2014; Pitts, 2014). This is not really a difference of method, but

instead a difference of purpose. Operaismo began and initially developed

more as a political and social movement aimed at the radical transformation

of society rather than as a set of theoretical and empirical tools to analyse

aspects of that society.

Given the disconnection from any form of mass politics, these historical

roots are harder to reinvent today. Nevertheless under the slogan ‘no politics

without inquiry’, class composition analyses continue to present the workers

inquiry as a necessary window into the connection between the

transformation of the workplace and the identification of new strategic



178

political subjects. Political practice, in this sense, refers to the purpose of the

analytical framework to actively intervene in the process of recomposition

itself, and assist in the movement from the technical to the political

composition of labour as a class. In other words, the inquiry is a means of

mobilisation in the process of workers turning themselves into a political

force (Notes from Below, 2018).

There is, obviously, a contrast here with LPT, which is normative in the

broadest sense that there is an implicit shared ethic of being on the side of

labour. This does not stretch to identification of class vanguards,

revolutionary or otherwise, nor theorising on the terrain of general, state

politics. We see this as a practical virtue rather than a moral or ideological

defect, in that it makes limited claims to a specific domain and leaves open

the possibility of combination with other perspectives on broader

phenomena. What of intervention, then? Researchers in the labour process

tradition frequently work with and may even be funded by trade unions or

community organisations. A minority have argued in favour of a form of

partisan scholarship that may involve some form of co-production with

activists (Brook and Darlington, 2013). But generally, the approach is that

independent, rigorous academic research informs policy and practice in a

variety of ways, reflecting the plurality of the politics of both researchers and

social actors.

Despite the claims for workers inquiry, even sympathetic observers have

noted the potential constraints. As Dyer-Witheford (2015, p. 131) comments,

class composition analysis does not map easily onto mainstream programmes

of data collection around social and economic phenomena. More broadly,

given the problematic record of both historical and contemporary operaist

claims, there is an unanswered onus on advocates to show how their

categories can produce compelling empirical insights on working-class

political subjectivity (Wright, 2002, p. 224). Some advocates, in the UK at

least, seem largely unconcerned by this challenge, preferring to argue that

the traditional workplace focus was not wide enough. Moreover, advocates

of workers inquiry themselves make no claim to the kind of academic

approach utilised in labour process analysis, distinguishing their political

practiceas not merely a different means of accessing and understanding

Marx’s hidden abode of production, but a superior one. However, if these

efforts do not generate richer accounts of actually-existing labour at work or

beyond, with significant explanatory power to inform practice, then their

political purposes are neither here nor there.

Notes from Below’s recent ‘Class Composition Project’ is reported as

comprising approximately 250 online survey responses (Notes from Below,



179

2023). In line with the analytical and strategic purposes of the workers

inquiry as a method, the project aims to producea comprehensive mapping

of work relations, whilst also expanding and connecting contacts among

workers in different sectors through collaborative research. If the point of

such a project is to help some militant quarters of the working class organise

better, then this has merit independent of any broader intellectual judgement.

However, the methodology provides a much less certain basis for

generalising about the technical or political composition of labour in the UK,

even though the language of generalisation appears frequently in the

resulting report. Social science sets criteria for representativeness for good

reasons and self-selected samples are problematic, particularly when

comprised largely of the more militant and activist sections of the workforce.

Beyond a particular project, the general problem is often that, when the

goal is to identify and promote particular kinds of militancy, co-production

tends to focus on activists and the politically engaged who share the goals

and ideological persuasions of the researchers. Whilst that may have some

degree of plausibility when the research questions are about activism itself,

any attempt to answer broader questions about the nature of workplace

change and how it is experienced or resisted risks at best a partial account

and at worst a form of substitutionism, where a vanguard steps in for the

complex experiences and political sentiments of the class itself. The

assumption of a coherent working-class political viewpoint defined by its

leading edge inevitably neglects the experiences of the majority of the labour

force in favour of emergent or novel tendencies altogether easier to deal with

and to ventriloquize for.

Academics, whether labour process researchers or otherwise, also face

constraints, including sometimes having to negotiate access through

managerial channels or overcoming restrictive conditions set by university

ethics processes. For some advocates of workers’ inquiry, this feeds into a

more general scepticism about the value of mainstream data gathering and

theory building, even when undertaken by apparently Marxist academics

(Woodcock 2023). Of course, even radical academics make compromises

that impact upon research design and outcomes. But they are required to be

transparent about those choices and are to a large extent held accountable for

them by their peers. Radical social science gains in legitimacy and influence

when it demonstrates some rigour in theory and method. The desire to make

a difference outside as well as inside the academy is widely shared. However,

whilst there is a place for it, such partisan scholarship can undermine the

effectiveness of those efforts and by merely preaching to the converted.



180

Researching the labour process may be political in the sense that we make

choices about what, who and where to study, as well as where to publish and

what we do with our findings. However, removing the boundary between

research and explicit political intervention is a different matter. The issue is

not about the specific politics, but the blurring of a boundary that may affect

the plausibility and legitimacy of the militant research they undertake. It

would be, in our view, a very bad idea indeed for the likes of the ILPC project

to go down a similar path. We should celebrate the fact that ILPC has offered

a home for radical scholarship for almost five decades without significant

political dissension or splits. As we have argued here, this is not an accident

but a consequence of its pluralist approach.

Conclusion

Braverman’s Labour & Monopoly Capital is commonly thought of as the

cornerstone founding text of labour process theory’s English language

tradition. However, as we have shown here, not only was there a parallel

approach with some common foundations, but some of the earliest

appearances of labour process perspectives in the UK in the outputs of the

Conference of Socialist Economists bore equally close proximity to a set of

ideas sourced instead from the Italian left. These ideas, associated with

operaismo, shared an understanding of the labour process as a socially

constituted and contested terrain. These links in the UK in the mid-1970s

were, however, an exception, and given that the two perspectives largely

arose and developed without reference to one another, it is hardly surprising

that different trajectories ensued. We have tried to give an account of some

aspects of those trajectories, recognising diversity, but focusing on where

contrasts and conflicts between LPT and the operaist tradition continue to

have salience.

Where core LPT came increasingly to diverge from operaismo was in its

distance from three other key conceptual and methodological elements

characteristic of the latter. The first is that operaismo tends to read off from

shifts in the management and reproduction of labour power coherent

transformations in the composition of new class actors. The second is that it

tends to use the method of ‘workers inquiry’ to connect the analysis of class

composition with militant interventions to mobilise workers. The third is that

it sees wider social, economic and political change being triggered by these

emergent class subjects, leading to the suggestion of novel epochs or



181

paradigms associated with particular forms or stages of division of labour

and specific cutting-edge shifts in production.

With respect to these latter points, we accept that these apply particularly

to the strand of post-operaismo associated with Negri and his collaborators.

However, we have sought to demonstrate that these pitfalls manifest some

central continuities in aspects of that tradition that cannot be put right with

new, better class actors and new, better paradigm shifts. These and other

flaws do not prevent operaist ideas remaining attractive to some labour

process scholars. Aside from some of the common intellectual foundations,

the two approaches share common empirical interests in workplace research,

changes in the technical composition of labour power and the implications

that might have for resistance and new types of labour organising (see for

example, Bailey 2023).

We remain sceptical, however, concerning claims that operaismo

represents a plausible alternative to LPT for the purposes of researching and

understanding the complex dynamics of and interactions between workplace

and accumulation regimes. We have already rehearsed arguments about the

difference between an empirically-grounded theory-building project and an

interventionist political practice. But even if the question of political

purposes is set aside, intellectual purpose remains. Operaismo does have its

own toolbox, but the conceptual architecture of class composition plus

workers inquiry is a much more restrictive one than its LPT equivalent. LPT

has its own boundaries, but its pluralist approach to analysing different

workplace regimes in the context of the changing conditions of capitalist

political economy facilitates a much greater range of research questions –

questions which have underpinned the resurgence of interest in the approach.

None of this is meant to indicate that LPT is a static entity with fixed

boundaries. It has responded effectively to the challenges of the emergence

of new forms of work and new accumulation contexts. There have been

recurrent and remaining challenges at the conceptual and empirical

boundaries of ideas of labour regimes and what constitutes the workplace.

Moreover, there is a lively debate about the scope of regime constructs and

how best to capture interactions between workplace and other regimes, such

as social reproduction. There is of course a need to theoretically establish

connections between different moments of a broader political and economic

totality. But that is not advanced by treating diverse phenomena through the

restrictive lens of composition. Rather, what is needed is an approach that

affords plausible, pluralist bridges to other disciplinary and analytical

perspectives and bodies of evidence in order to illuminate relatively

autonomous social phenomena.



182

References

Ackroyd S., Thompson P. (2022). Organizational Misbehaviour. London: Sage.

Alquati R. (2013). Organic composition of capital and labour-power at olivetti.

Viewpoint, 27 September. Available at:

https://viewpointmag.com/2013/09/27/organic-composition-of-capital-and-

labor-power-at-olivetti-1961/

Bailey D. J. (2023). Worker-Led Dissent in the Age of Austerity: Comparing the

Conditions of Success. Work, Employment and Society, 1-21, DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170231169675 .

Barbieri P. (2002). La sociologia del lavoro in Italia. Sociologia del Lavoro, 86-87:

129-141.

Berggren C. (1993). Lean production—the end of history? Work, employment and

society, 7(2):163-188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/095001709372001

Beverungen A., Böhm S., Land C. (2015). Free labour, social media, management:

Challenging Marxist Organization Studies. Organization Studies, 36(4): 473–

489. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614561568

Boffo M. (2012). Historical immaterialism: from immaterial labour to cognitive

capitalism. International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy,

6(4): 256-279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMCP.2012.051453

Böhm S., Land C. (2012). The new ‘hidden abode’: reflections on value and labour

in the new economy. The Sociological Review, 60(2): 217-240. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2012.02071.x

Bologna S. (2013). Workerism: An inside view – From the mass-worker to self-

employed labour. In: van der Linden M. and Roth K. H., eds, Beyond Marx.

Leiden: Brill, pp. 121–143.

Bolton S. C. (2005). Emotion management in the workplace. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Braverman H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in

the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review.

Brighton Labour Process Group (1977). The capitalist labour process, Capital &

Class, 1: 3–22.

Brook P., Darlington R. (2013). Partisan, scholarly and active: arguments for an

organic public sociology of work. Work, employment and society, 27(2): 232-

243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017012461838

Burawoy M. (1982). Manufacturing consent: Changes in the labor process under

monopoly capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Burawoy M. (1985). The Politics of Production. London: Verso.

Callaghan G., Thompson P. (2001). Edwards revisited: technical control and call

centres. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 22(1): 13-37. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X01221002

Conference of Socialist Economists (1976). The Labour Process & Class Strategies

(CSE Pamphlet No. 1). London: CSE



183

Cressey P., MacInnes J. (1980). Voting for Ford: Industrial democracy and the

control of labour, Capital & Class, 11: 5–37.

Curcio A. (2020). Marxist Feminism of Rupture. Viewpoint Magazine, January 14,

2020. https://viewpointmag.com/2020/01/14/marxist-feminism-of-rupture/

Dessì M. (2023). Bringing labour process theory back to Marx: an Operaista

approach to LPT. Paper presented at the International Labour Process

Conference, Glasgow, April 2023

Dyer-Witheford N. (2015). Cyber-Proletariat. London: Pluto.

Eden D. (2016). Autonomy: Capitalism, Class and Politics. Abingdon: Routledge.

Edwards P.K. (1990). Understanding conflict in the labour process: The logic and

autonomy of struggle. In: Knights D. and Willmott H., eds, Labour Process

Theory. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 125–152.

Edwards R. (1979). Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the

Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books.

Ellis V., Taylor P. (2006). ‘You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone’: re‐

contextualising the origins, development and impact of the call centre. New

Technology, Work and Employment, 21(2): 107-122. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2006.00167.x

Federici S. (2012). Revolution at Point Zero. Oakland: PM Press

Flecker J., Haidinger B., Schönauer A. (2013). Divide and serve: The labour process

in service value chains and networks. Competition & Change, 17(1):6-23. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1179/1024529412Z.00000000022

Friedman A. (1977). Responsible autonomy versus direct control over the labour

process. Capital & Class, 1(1): 43–57. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1177/030981687700100104

Fortunati L. (2013). Learning to Struggle: My Story Between Workerism and

Feminism. Viewpoint Magazine. September 15, 2013.

https://viewpointmag.com/2013/09/15/learning-to-struggle-my-story-between-

workerism-and-feminism/

Fumagalli, A., Mezzadra S., eds. (2010). Crisis in the Global Economy. Los

Angeles: Semiotext(e).

Gandini A. (2019). Labour process theory and the gig economy. Human relations,

72(6): 1039-1056. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718790002

Gasparri S. (2017). Studying work in theory and practice: insights for a globalising

academia from the IR trajectory in Italy. Industrial Relations Journal 48(4): 310–

325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12182

Hardt M., Negri A. (2000). Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hochschild A. (1983). The Managed Heart. Barkeley: University of California Press

Howcroft D. and Bergvall-Kåreborn B. (2019). A typology of crowdwork platforms.

Work, Employment and Society, 33(1): 21-38. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018760136

Kelly J. (1985). Management’s redesign of work: labour process, labour markets and

product markets’. In Knights D., Willmott H. and Collinson D., eds., Job

Redesign-critical perspectives on the labour process. Aldershot: Gower, 30-51.



184

Knights D., Willmott H. (1990). Labour Process Theory. London: MacMillan

Krzywdzinski M. and Gerber C. (2021). Between automation and gamification:

forms of labour control on crowdwork platforms. Work in the Global Economy,

1(1-2): pp.161-184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1332/273241721X16295434739161

Marx K. (1976). Capital. Vol. I. London: Penguin.

Marx K. (1972). Notes on machines. Economy and Society, 1(3): 244–254.

McKinlay A. (2002). The limits of knowledge management. New Technology, Work

and Employment, 17(2): 76-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-005X.00095

Milkman R. (1998). The new labor movement: possibilities and limits.

Contemporary Sociology, 27(2): 125-129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2654770

Moore S., Taylor P. (2021). Class reimagined? Intersectionality and industrial

action–The British Airways dispute of 2009–2011. Sociology, 55(3): 582-599.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038520973603

Mueller G., (2020). Breaking Things at Work. London: Verso.

Newsome K. (2015). Value in motion: labour and logistics in the contemporary

political economy. In: Newsome K., Taylor P., Bair J. and Rainnie A., eds.,

Putting Labour in Its Place: Labour Process Analysis and Global Value Chains.

London: Palgrave: 29-45.

Newsome K., Taylor P., Bair J. and Rainnie A., eds. (2015). Putting labour in its

place: Labour process analysis and global value chains. London: Palgrave

Publishing.

Notes from Below (2018). The workers’ inquiry and social composition. Notes from

Below #1. Available at: http://www.notesfrombelow.org/article/workers-

inquiry-and-social-composition

Notes from Below, (2023). Class Composition in Britain. Available at :

https://notesfrombelow.org/issue/class-composition-project

Pitts F. H. (2014). Follow the money? Value theory and social inquiry. Ephemera:

Theory & Politics in Organization, 14(3): 335–356.

Pitts F. H. (2016). Beyond the Fragment: The Postoperaist Reception of Marx’s

Fragment on Machines and its Relevance Today. SPAIS Working Papers,

University of Bristol.

Pitts F. H. (2020). Value. Cambridge: Polity.

Pitts F. H. (2022). Measuring and managing creative labour: Value struggles and

billable hours in the creative industries. Organization, 29(6): 1081-1098. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508420968187

Pitts F. H. (2023). Contemporary class composition analysis: The politics of

production and the autonomy of the political. Capital & Class, Online First, 1-

26. DOI: 10.1177/03098168221139284

Pulignano V. (2019). Labour Sociology in Italy: Resisting Erosion Through

Transformation and Dynamism. In: Stewart P., Durand JP. and Richea MM.,

eds., The Palgrave Handbook of the Sociology of Work in Europe, Cham:

Palgrave, 125-151.



185

Smith C., McKinlay A. (2009). Creative labour: Content, contract and control. In:

Smith C., McKinlay A., eds., Creative labour: Working in the creative industries,

Houndsmills: Macmillan: 29-50.

Taylor P., Bain P. (1999). ‘An assembly line in the head’: work and employee

relations in the call centre. Industrial relations journal, 30(2): 101-117. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2338.00113

Taylor P., Moore S. (2015). Cabin crew collectivism: Labour process and the roots

of mobilization. Work, employment and society, 29(1): 79-98. DOI:

10.1177/0950017014538336.

Thompson P. (1989). Nature of Work. London: Macmillan.

Thompson P. (1990). Crawling from the wreckage. In: Knights D. and Willmott H.,

eds., Labour Process Theory. London: MacMillan, 95–124.

Thompson P. (2005). Foundation and Empire: A critique of Hardt and Negri. Capital

& Class, 29(2): 73–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/030981680508600105

Thompson P. (2010). The capitalist labour process: Concepts and connections.

Capital & Class, 34(1): 7-14. DOI: 10.1177/0309816809353475

Thompson P. (2018). The refusal of work: Past, present and future. Futures of Work

#1. Available at: https://futuresofwork.co.uk/2018/09/05/the-refusal-of-work-

past-present-and-future/

Thompson P., Briken K. (2017). Actually existing capitalism: some digital

delusions. In: Briken K., Chillas S., Krzywdzinski M., Marks A., eds., The New

Digital Workplace: How New Technologies Revolutionise Work, Houndsmills:

Macmillan, 241-263.

Thompson P., Jones M. , Warhurst C. (2009). From conception to consumption:

creativity and the missing managerial link. In: Smith, C., & McKinlay, A., eds.,

Creative labour: Working in the creative industries, Houndsmills: Macmillan,

51-71

Thompson P., Laaser K. (2021). Beyond technological determinism: revitalising

labour process analyses of technology, capital and labour. Work in the Global

Economy, 1(1-2): 139-159. DOI: 10.1332/273241721X16276384832119

Thompson P., Pitts F.H., Ingold J. , Cruddas J. (2022). Class composition, labour’s

strategy and the politics of work. Political Quarterly, 93(1): 142–149. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.13097.

Thompson P., Smith C. (2017). Capital and the labour process. In: Schmidt I. and

Fanelli C., eds., Reading ‘Capital’ Today, London: Pluto Press, 116-37.

Tronti M. (2019). Workers and Capital. London: Verso.

Turchetto M. (2008). From ‘mass worker’to ‘empire’: The disconcerting trajectory

of Italian operaismo. In: Bidet J. and Kouvelakis S., eds., Critical companion to

contemporary Marxism. Leiden: Brill, 285-308.

Virno P., Hardt M., eds. (1996). Radical thought in Italy. Minneapolis: University

of Minnesota Press.

Vidal M. (2018). Was Marx wrong about the working class? Reconsidering the

Gravedigger thesis. International Socialism, 158. Available at:

http://isj.org.uk/gravedigger-thesis



186

Villar A. G. (2019). Del operaismo al (post) operaismo: la importancia del cruce con

el postestructuralismo francés. Pensamiento. Revista de Investigación e

Información Filosófica, 75(287): 1545-1569. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14422/pen.v75.i287.y2019.009

Warhurst C., Thompson P., Nickson D. P. (2008). Labour process theory: putting

the materialism back into the meaning of service work. In: MacDonald C. and

Korczynski M., eds., Service work: Critical perspectives, London: Routledge,

91-112.

Woodcock J. (2014). The workers’ inquiry from Trotskyism to Operaismo: A

political methodology for investigating the workplace. Ephemera, 14(3): 493–

513.

Woodcock J. (2023). There Has Never Been More Marxist “Evidence”’: Comparing

Labour Process Theory and Class Composition. Paper presented at New

Directions in Labour Process Theory, a workshop at University of Padua,

January 2023.

Wright S. (2002). Storming Heaven. London: Pluto.

Wright S. (2014). Revolution from above? Money and class-composition in Italian

operaismo. In: van der Linden M. and Roth K.H., eds., Beyond Marx. Leiden:

Brill, 369–394.

Wright S. (2021). The Weight of the Printed Word. Leiden: Brill.

Saggi



Sociologia del lavoro, n. 167/2023. ISSN 0392-5048. ISSNe 1972-554X.

DOI: 10.3280/SL2023-167009

Segregazione come distinzione?

Classi occupazionali e segregazione di genere

Lorenzo Cattani*

Segregation as distinction? Occupational classes and gender segregation

Theories about sex segregation often analyzed the phenomenon starting

from role-socialization processes and possession of individual resources.

However, these theories did not consider other factors that could moderate

the gender penalty in women’s chances of access to male-dominated occu-

pations. Moreover, they did not reflect on the possibility that entry barriers

to male-dominated occupations may be different according to the occupa-

tional class. This paper computes women’s chances of entering male-domi-

nated occupations in three classes: managers, professionals, and technicians.

Of particular interest is observing the moderating effect of the STEM field

of study. Results show that the gender penalty and the moderating effect are

uniquely intertwined in each occupational class.

Moreover, the highest increase in the chances of access is associated to

the most male-dominated STEM fields.

Keywords Segregation, occupational class, distinction, stratification

Introduzione

La segregazione orizzontale, la concentrazione di donne e uomini in de-

terminate occupazioni o settori, è uno dei fenomeni più diffusi del XXI se-

colo, al punto che alcuni autori sostengono sia una delle caratteristiche strut-

turali delle società contemporanee, definite “iper-segregate” (Charles e Gru-

sky, 2004; Torre, 2019).

A livello microsociologico, sono state elaborate diverse teorie per spie-

gare il fenomeno. Alcune, che fanno parte del più generale framework della



* Università di Bologna, Dipartimento delle Arti. E-mail: lorenzo.cattani3@unibo.it



190

“gender role theory”, si sono concentrate sulla conformità agli stereotipi di

genere durante la ricerca di lavoro (Eagly, 1987; Eagly e Karau, 2002; Wood

e Eagly, 2010) e sulla discriminazione da parte di imprenditori e reclutatori

verso chi non si conforma agli stessi stereotipi (Heilman, 2012, 1983; Heil-

man e Caleo, 2018). Altre hanno analizzato le risorse individuali e come que-

ste possano favorire l’accesso delle donne a occupazioni tipicamente ma-

schili (Berger et al., 1976; Berger e Fişek, 2013; Ridgeway, 1991, 2014).

Queste prospettive di analisi hanno il pregio di tracciare un legame fra

l’identità di genere e i rapporti di forza nel mercato del lavoro. Tuttavia, ten-

dono ad adottare una prospettiva eccessivamente “essenzialista”. Il gender

essentialism inquadra la segregazione come un fenomeno marcatamente cul-

turale. Specificamente, si ritiene che donne e uomini tendano a trovare lavoro

in occupazioni allineate agli stereotipi di genere ai quali sono stati socializ-

zati fin dall’infanzia, (Charles e Grusky, 2004; Poggio, 2006). Conseguenza

di questa prospettiva è che donne e uomini vengono trattate come due cate-

gorie sostanzialmente omogenee. Riteniamo che queste teorie abbiano due

criticità:

1. Il loro determinismo e lo scarso spazio dato all’agency degli attori;

2. L’insufficiente capacità di osservare l’insieme dei vincoli all’azione

individuale (Giddens, 1984).

Le donne possono esercitare la loro agency mitigando la discriminazione

all’ingresso delle occupazioni maschilizzate. Una di queste riguarda il campo

di studio, con particolare riferimento alla scelta di perseguire un’istruzione

in campo STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics). Si tratta

di campi di studio che permettono di acquisire competenze fortemente ri-

chieste nel mercato del lavoro, facilitando l’ingresso nelle occupazioni ma-

schilizzate1. Tuttavia, le decisioni delle donne, per quanto atipiche, non sono

sufficienti per analizzare la segregazione occupazionale, poiché è necessario

considerare il modo in cui si combinano fattori penalizzanti (che diminui-

scono le probabilità di accesso alle occupazioni maschilizzate) - come il ge-

nere - e mitigatori (che aumentano le probabilità di accesso alle occupazioni

maschilizzate) - come il campo di studio. Nello studio della segregazione

occupazionale femminile devono essere considerati i diversi contesti in cui

questo intreccio si esprime.

Il mercato del lavoro non è un “vacuum”, ma un contesto governato da

dinamiche proprie, da logiche di potere e di dominio (maschile in questo

caso), che intervengono in modo differente a limitare gli effetti dell’agency.



1Gran parte delle occupazioni maschilizzate sono occupazioni STEM. L’elenco delle oc-

cupazioni specifiche è riportato in appendice.



191

Riteniamo che una di queste limitazioni sia rappresentata dalle classi occu-

pazionali (Albertini e Ballarino, 2019), largamente ignorate dalle teorie sugli

stereotipi di genere, e sostanzialmente poco trattate dalle analisi sulla segre-

gazione occupazionale. Nelle classi occupazionali vengono svolte mansioni

diverse, in diverse condizioni lavorative, da parte di persone con differenti

dotazioni economiche ed educative.

La gender role theory dà per scontato che gli stereotipi vincolino l’azione

individuale a prescindere dalle diverse risorse che l’appartenenza ad una

classe occupazionale offre alle persone. Le teorie su status e risorse sono

costruite su un binarismo meno radicale, poiché basate su una teorizzazione

più complessa degli elementi che portano alla giustapposizione fra gruppi

dominati e dominanti. Tuttavia, danno per scontato che gli elementi che po-

tenzialmente possano compensare la penalizzazione di genere funzionino

solo per alcuni gruppi privilegiati, cioè coloro che lavorano in occupazioni

ad “alto status”.

Questi limiti diventano ancora più evidenti quando si considera l’evi-

denza empirica ancora poco chiara circa l’impatto dell’origine sociale sulla

segregazione occupazionale (Torre, 2019). Per questo motivo è ancora più

importante dare spazio alla trattazione della classe occupazionale d’impiego,

proxy strategica della classe sociale (Acker, 2005; Crompton, 2008).

In questo articolo avanziamo due ipotesi di ricerca. La prima è che l’ef-

fetto moderatore del campo di studio e la penalizzazione di genere si intrec-

ciano in modo unico all’interno di ciascuna classe occupazionale. La seconda

è che ci aspettiamo che l’effetto di moderazione sia più forte per i campi

STEM più maschilizzati, poiché l’istruzione STEM non può più essere con-

cepita come un monolite, chiaramente collocabile nell’universo “maschile”,

vista la crescente diversità di genere che riguarda alcuni campi di studio spe-

cifici (Kahn e Ginther, 2018).

Sulla base degli standard adottati dalla letteratura di riferimento (Jacobs,

1989; Torre, 2019), definiamo un’occupazione come maschilizzata quando

gli uomini rappresentano più del 66,6% della forza lavoro complessiva rela-

tivamente a quel tipo di occupazione.

Impiegando modelli di regressione non lineari, il nostro obiettivo è cal-

colare la variazione nelle probabilità di accesso delle donne che hanno se-

guito percorsi di istruzione STEM ad occupazioni maschilizzate in tre classi

occupazionali differenti: dirigenti, professionisti, e tecnici. Queste classi

sono state spesso trattate come una categoria omogenea nella letteratura, con-

siderandole come classi con occupazioni “high skilled” e “ad alto status”

(Mandel, 2012; Mandel e Semyonov, 2006; Torre e Jacobs, 2021). Ma le

evidenze che mostreremo chiariscono che l’impatto del campo di studio varia



192

sia fra classi occupazionali che fra diversi campi di studio STEM in un modo

che non può essere spiegato interamente tramite i ruoli di genere o attraverso

le risorse individuali. La segregazione emerge quindi come un fenomeno

dalle geometrie variabili, che non può essere studiata concentrandosi solo su

ciò che accade prima dell’ingresso nel mercato del lavoro.

L’articolo offre due elementi originalità. Evidenzia come la segregazione

si esprima diversamente in ciascuna classe occupazionale, mostrando anche

il diverso impatto dei campi di studio STEM sulle probabilità di accesso alle

occupazioni maschilizzate, suggerendo che siano in atto dinamiche di svalu-

tazione rispetto ai campi STEM con una maggiore presenza femminile.

L’articolo è strutturato nel seguente modo. La prima sezione offre una

rassegna della letteratura ed evidenzia le criticità principali delle teorie sugli

stereotipi di genere e sulle risorse individuali. Nella seconda sezione viene

delineato il framework teorico di riferimento. Nella terza sezione verrà di-

scussa la metodologia impiegata e verranno analizzati i dati. Infine, l’ultima

sezione discute le implicazioni principali emersi dall’analisi dati.

1. Stato dell’arte

Fra le teorie che hanno studiato la segregazione a partire dal comporta-

mento individuale, quelle che mostrano tutt’ora un forte potenziale esplica-

tivo sono le teorie su ruoli e stereotipi di genere, e al modo in cui vengono

internalizzati tramite processi di socializzazione. Vi sono inoltre teorie su

status e risorse, che hanno arricchito questa riflessione considerando come

certi elementi (come classe, genere ed etnia) influenzino il posizionamento

di una persona nel mercato del lavoro.

1.1 Gender role theory: adattamento e congruenza

Secondo la gender role theory la segregazione sarebbe l’esito di processi

di autoselezione, legati ai processi di socializzazione a cui gli individui sono

esposti sin dall’infanzia. Il genere è uno dei principali criteri di categorizza-

zione sociale, poiché fornisce una serie di scorciatoie culturali che guidano

le interazioni sociali (Brewer e Lui, 1989; Ridgeway e Correll, 2004). Se-

condo la gender role theory, le persone classificano il genere attivando in-

consciamente degli stereotipi, sulla base di indizi legati ad elementi situazio-

nali, ad esempio se le mansioni svolte sono legate culturalmente al genere

(Di Stasio e Larsen, 2020; Wood e Eagly, 2010). La letteratura ha mostrato



193

come le persone tendano a conformarsi a stereotipi, valori e presupposizioni

sui comportamenti che ci aspettiamo da certe persone (Ellemers, 2018;

Manzi, 2019). Tali stereotipi assegnano valori “agentic” (legati al raggiungi-

mento dei risultati) - come aggressività, leadership, competitività - agli uo-

mini, mentre alle donne sono associati valori “communal” (orientati al ser-

vizio e alla cura degli altri), come emotività, altruismo, empatia (Di Stasio e

Larsen, 2020; Eagly, 1987; Wood e Eagly, 2010). Inoltre, il contenuto di

questi stereotipi è tale per cui gli uomini vengono percepiti come “non com-

munal” e le donne come “non agentic”. Donne e uomini non vengono clas-

sificati solo sulla base del possesso di determinati valori associati agli ste-

reotipi di genere, ma anche sulla base della mancanza di quei valori (Di Sta-

sio e Larsen, 2020; Wood e Eagly, 2010).

Secondo la “role congruity theory” (Eagly, 1987; Eagly e Karau, 2002;

Wood e Eagly, 2010), pregiudizi e discriminazioni emergono dallo scarto fra

le caratteristiche attribuite ad un certo genere e gli elementi ritenuti necessari

per avere successo nello svolgimento di determinati ruoli sociali. Secondo

questa teoria, donne e uomini farebbero domanda per lavori in cui si svol-

gono mansioni “congrue” con gli stereotipi di genere di tipo communal e

agentic. La segregazione occupazionale sarebbe quindi l’esito di un’autose-

lezione, in cui donne e uomini si conformano agli stereotipi di genere sce-

gliendo di fare, rispettivamente, lavori di tipo communal, e agentic.

Questa teoria è ulteriormente espansa dal framework “lack-of-fit” propo-

sto da Heilman (1983, 2012). Come anticipato, gli stereotipi di genere hanno

una natura opposizionale. Chi si candida per lavori “atipici” rispetto ai propri

stereotipi di genere viene percepito come meno competente, andando incon-

tro a discriminazioni da parte dei datori di lavoro o dei selezionatori (Heil-

man, 2012, 1983; Heilman e Caleo, 2018).

Diversi studi empirici hanno raccolto evidenze a sostegno della discrimi-

nazione nei confronti di candidati che fanno domanda per lavori “gender

atypical” (Kübler, Schmid, e Stüber, 2018; Rich, 2014), mentre altre ricerche

hanno mostrato evidenze a sostegno dell’ipotesi dell’autoselezione legata

alla congruity theory (Hogue, Fox-Cardamone, e Knapp, 2019). Ochsenfeld

(2014) ha studiato le determinanti della scelta del campo di studio, osser-

vando come la gender role theory sia la più adatta a spiegare le scelte di

donne e uomini. Anche Charles e Bradley (2009) hanno sostenuto che la per-

sistenza della segregazione di genere nei campi di studio sia dovuta al modo

in cui le persone si conformano agli stereotipi.

L’ipotesi per cui il campo di studio STEM possa mitigare la penalizza-

zione di genere non è incompatibile con questa teoria, che tuttavia ha due



194

grossi limiti. Da un lato, distingue le occupazioni solo in base alla loro “ti-

pizzazione”, cioè se sono inquadrate come occupazioni “da uomini” o “da

donne” (il sex typing). Non prende quindi in considerazione l’idea che l’ef-

fetto moderatore del campo di studio possa essere diverso quando si compa-

rano classi occupazionali differenti. Dall’altro, non considera le possibili dif-

ferenze fra diversi campi di studio STEM, che vengono trattati come catego-

ria omogenea.

Secondo questa teoria dovremmo aspettarci che l’effetto di moderazione

del campo di studio e la penalizzazione di genere siano analoghi nelle tre

classi considerate. Inoltre, l’effetto di moderazione non dovrebbe variare fra

i campi di studio STEM.

1.2 .Status e risorse individuali

Le teorie su status e risorse (Berger et al., 1976; Berger e Fişek, 2013;

Ridgeway, 1991, 2014) non sono in netta discontinuità con la gender role

theory, poiché riconoscono l’importanza degli stereotipi di genere, ma sot-

tolineano la necessità di condurre analisi che considerino sia la dimensione

materiale che culturale con cui si strutturano le disuguaglianze di genere.

Tuttavia, a differenza della gender role theory, questi contributi ricono-

scono che le dinamiche di potere nelle relazioni di genere possano essere

influenzate da diversi elementi, uno su tutti lo status (Ridgeway, 1991,

2014).

L’impostazione teorica di questo approccio è fondata a partire dalla tri-

partizione fra risorse, potere, e status, proposta da Weber. Secondo la teoria

sulle risorse individuali, le differenze nelle risorse economiche e di potere

sono strumenti fondamentali per studiare le disuguaglianze di genere, ma

non sono sufficienti. Per trasformare la disuguaglianza nel livello di risorse

materiali in quella che Tilly definisce durable inequality è fondamentale lo

status, cioè il set di valori culturali che attribuisce a certi gruppi sociali

maggiore stima e prestigio (Berger et al., 1976; Berger e Fişek, 2013; Rid-

geway, 2014; Tilly, 1999). Lo status è quindi quel principio con cui le dif-

ferenze di potere e di risorse possedute da ciascun gruppo sociale vengono

legittimate, presentando i gruppi che detengono più potere e risorse come

più meritevoli di quelli che invece si trovano più in basso nella gerarchia

(Ridgeway, 2014).

Chi ha uno status maggiore viene quindi percepito come più compe-

tente, in quanto in possesso delle qualità più importanti per avere “suc-

cesso”. Le categorie che vengono a crearsi nella gerarchia dello status sono



195

categorie “opposte”: uomini bianchi, classi medio-alte da un lato. Donne,

minoranze etniche, classi medio-basse, dall’altro (Ridgeway, 2014).

Queste differenze di status si intrecciano con gli stereotipi di genere. A

parità di risorse, un uomo verrà inquadrato come più competente e merite-

vole di accedere alle posizioni migliori nel mercato del lavoro rispetto ad

una donna (Eagly e Carli, 2007; Ridgeway, 2014). La segregazione è quindi

esito delle diverse dotazioni individuali, sia materiali che di status.

A differenza della gender role theory, questa teoria ammette la necessità

di disaggregare l’analisi sulla base delle categorie di classe, genere ed etnia.

Nel caso del genere, ciò significa che si debbano considerare anche le dif-

ferenze within gender, fra donne di diversa etnia o classe sociale. Da questo

punto di vista, sono state svolte diverse analisi relativamente alla segrega-

zione di genere. Torre e Jacobs (2021), ad esempio, hanno considerato la

classe occupazionale come dicotomica, distinguendo esclusivamente fra

professioni ad “alto status” (dirigenti e professionisti) e professioni a

“basso status” (tecnici, impiegati, lavoratori dei servizi, artigiani, operatori

di macchinari, professioni non qualificate). Le loro ricerche hanno mostrato

che le donne che lavorano in professioni “ad alto status” non solo hanno

più probabilità di accedere alle occupazioni maschilizzate, ma hanno anche

meno probabilità di essere espulse da queste occupazioni nel corso del

tempo (Torre, 2019; 2014; Torre e Jacobs, 2021). Quindi, secondo questa

teoria, la capacità di moderazione del campo di studio dovrebbe essere più

alta fra dirigenti e professionisti, mentre la penalizzazione di genere do-

vrebbe essere più alta fra i tecnici.

2. Framework teorico

2.1 Segregazione come forma di distinzione

La nostra prospettiva di analisi condivide alcune premesse con le teorie

discusse in precedenza, cercando però di problematizzarle. Riteniamo pos-

sano infatti esserci differenze rilevanti per tutte e tre le classi occupazionali

in considerazione, sia nel modo in cui il campo di studio è correlato alla

penalizzazione di genere, sia nell’effetto di mitigazione del campo di stu-

dio.

Riprendendo i concetti espressi da Bourdieu (1984), riteniamo che la

segregazione possa essere reinterpretata come forma di distinzione. Più

specificamente, come strumento con cui le “frazioni dominanti” di ogni



196

classe tutelano il proprio status. Come afferma Bourdieu stesso, la “segre-

gazione (in base al sesso o in base a qualsiasi altro criterio) contribuisce a

frenare la svalutazione di una occupazione, grazie ad un effetto di numerus

clausus” mentre “ogni forma di de-segregazione tende a restituire tutta la

loro efficacia ai meccanismi di svalutazione” (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 141).

L’eventuale ingresso delle donne nelle occupazioni maschilizzate po-

trebbe comportare infatti una svalutazione delle stesse, danneggiando di

conseguenza uno degli strumenti con cui il dominio maschile si esprime e

si legittima all’interno del mercato del lavoro. Considerato che alle occu-

pazioni maschilizzate viene attribuito maggior prestigio, così come retri-

buzioni migliori (Torre, 2019), riteniamo che chi lavora in queste occupa-

zioni possa essere inquadrato come “frazione dominante” di una data

classe.

Secondo la nostra prospettiva, però le probabilità di accesso dovrebbero

essere diverse in ogni classe occupazionale. Queste ultime sono contraddi-

stinte da mix differenti nelle forme di capitale2, innanzitutto economico e

culturale, sotto due aspetti. Il primo è “volumetrico” e ha a che vedere con

il livello delle dotazioni di capitale, mentre il secondo è di tipo “composi-

tivo” che, a parità di volume totale, indica quale specifica forma di capitale

sia prevalente3. In quest’ottica, le forme di capitale rappresentano degli ele-

menti che contribuiscono ad informare le dinamiche di “social closure”.

Con questo termine si intendono quei processi che limitano l’accesso a de-

terminate opportunità e risorse ad una cerchia di persone considerate “ido-

nee” (Parkin, 1983). La restrizione all’ingresso delle donne nelle occupa-

zioni maschilizzate può quindi essere interpretato come una forma di social

closure, con cui vengono ridotte le opportunità sociali ed economiche degli

outsiders e, più in generale, dei dominati (Weber [eds. Roth e Wittich],

1968). L’idea che sosteniamo in questo paper è che tali meccanismi di chiu-

sura siano altamente contingenti alla classe occupazionale, anche in virtù

della composizione e del volume delle forme di capitale che possiamo tro-

vare in ciascuna classe. La differente composizione di questo mix fa sì che

vi siano classi occupazionali in cui una forma di capitale possa essere più



2 Bourdieu parla di “spazio sociale” quando intende l’insieme delle classi sociali. Lo spa-

zio sociale non è un campo, che è definito da un processo di autonomizzazione rispetto a

principi economici e di mercato, come il campo accademico del sapere. Ogni classe sociale è

un “sotto-spazio” dello spazio sociale, caratterizzata da un unico mix nelle forme di capitale

(Bourdieu, 2000).

3 Possono esservi classi che hanno un volume di capitale medio-alto, ma in una classe si

osserva un livello alto di capitale economico e nell’altra un livello alto di capitale culturale.



197

decisiva nel garantire l’accesso alle migliori posizioni. Si prenda per esem-

pio il caso del credenzialismo, ovvero quel meccanismo di social closure

per cui l’accesso alle migliori posizioni di una data classe è condizionato

al possesso di specifiche credenziali educative (Parkin, 1983). Riteniamo

che la misura in cui il credenzialismo possa agire da gatekeeper alle occu-

pazioni maschilizzate cambi da classe a classe, poiché le dotazioni di capi-

tale in termini volumetrici e compositivi sono diverse. Allo stesso tempo,

la classe occupazionale è anche quello che Bourdieu definisce “milieu oc-

cupazionale” (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 134), ovvero quel contesto in cui vengono

svolte mansioni differenti, in differenti condizioni di lavoro. Anche a parità

di dotazioni di capitale, sia in termini volumetrici che compositivi, queste

differenze contribuiscono a distinguere gruppi diversi, con diverse pratiche

e disposizioni. Da qui la nostra prima ipotesi.

H1: la capacità di moderazione del campo di studio e la penalizzazione

di genere sono intrecciate in maniera unica in ogni classe occupazionale.

I campi STEM non sono uguali in termini di composizione di genere. In

particolare, sono ingegneria e informatica (ICT) i campi di studio più ma-

schilizzati.

La nostra ipotesi è che le dinamiche di svalutazione siano già in atto

all’interno di questi campi. In “Distinzione”, Bourdieu (1984) afferma che

l’aumento della partecipazione scolastica femminile avrebbe svalutato di-

versi titoli di studio, con la conseguenza di rendere meno raggiungibili

certe occupazioni, per cui sarebbero stati necessari titoli di studio più alti.

Riteniamo che questa dinamica stia avvenendo anche fra campi di studio

di tipo STEM, motivo per cui formuliamo una seconda ipotesi.

H2: la moderazione del campo di studio è più forte per i campi STEM

maschilizzati

Tab. 1 – Campi di studio STEM e composizione di genere

Uomini Donne Totale

Scienze naturali, matematica,

statistica 48.46 51.54 100.00

Informatica (ICT) 81.02 18.98 100.00

Ingegneria 84.38 15.62 100.00

Agraria e veterinaria 66.13 33.87 100.00

Fonte: EU-LFS. Paesi: Italia, Spagna, Danimarca, Svezia, Irlanda, Regno Unito, Francia, Ger-

mania. Anno: 2018. Età: 25-34 anni.



198

3. Metodologia

L’oggetto principale di questo articolo è la comparazione dell’effetto di

moderazione dei campi di studio STEM e la penalizzazione di genere in tre

classi occupazionali. Come anticipato, le classi occupazionali che prendiamo

in esame sono dirigenti, professionisti, e tecnici. La scelta è dovuta al fatto

che queste classi sono spesso considerate come un gruppo omogeneo, solita-

mente raccolto sotto il cappello dei “lavoratori high skilled”, con dirigenti e

professionisti solitamente inclusi fra le occupazioni “ad alto status” e i tecnici

tipicamente inseriti fra quelle “a basso status” (Torre e Jacobs, 2021). Questa

analisi verrà condotta stimando modelli di regressione non lineare, calco-

lando in seguito gli Average Marginal Effects (AME).

3.1 Composizione del campione

Il dataset di riferimento è la EU-LFS, che contiene il codice ISCO-08 a

tre cifre, il livello minimo di disaggregazione per poter svolgere analisi quan-

titative sulla segregazione occupazionale (Jacobs, 1993; Torre, 2019).

Il campione è stato ristretto ai lavoratori di età compresa fra i 25 e i 34

anni. Ciò è dovuto al fatto che queste persone sono entrate da poco nel mer-

cato del lavoro, per cui riteniamo che il campo di studio abbia un ruolo più

importante per accedere a determinate occupazioni rispetto ad altre variabili

come l’esperienza lavorativa pregressa, che non è disponibile con i dati a

nostra disposizione.

Per espandere la dimensione del campione è stato creato un dataset poo-

led cross section, prendendo in esame gli anni dal 2014, anno in cui è stata

cambiata la codifica del campo di studio, al 2018. I dati sono stati raccolti

per otto paesi: Italia, Spagna, Svezia, Danimarca, Francia, Germania, Ir-

landa, e Regno Unito. Questa scelta è dovuta al fatto che è presente una cor-

posa letteratura che ha avanzato importanti argomentazioni sul possibile “ef-

fetto paese” legato ai regimi di welfare (Korpi, Ferrarini, e Englund, 2013;

Mandel, 2012; Mandel e Semyonov, 2006), o a diverse traiettorie di post-

industrializzazione, cioè le diverse modalità con cui si è transitati da un si-

stema economico ad occupazione in maggioranza manufatturiera ad uno in

cui il grosso dell’occupazione è assorbito dal settore terziario (Charles, 2005;

Charles e Grusky, 2004). Queste ricerche si sono interessate alla segrega-

zione più da una prospettiva macro, ma riteniamo che sia utile utilizzare la

comparazione come strumento per controllare la nostra ipotesi. Nello speci-

fico, studiando paesi che appartengono a diversi regimi di welfare e che



199

hanno seguito diverse traiettorie di liberalizzazione e terziarizzazione, ci in-

teressiamo alle similitudini fra paesi, utilizzando quello che Sartori chiama

most dissimilar systems design (Sartori, 1991).

Il campione finale è di 415.806 persone e nell’appendice è possibile con-

sultare le tabelle di distribuzione in modo dettagliato.

3.2 Variabili

La variabile dipendente è una dummy che prende valore 0 quando una

persona lavora in un’occupazione “non maschilizzata” e valore 1 quando la-

vora in un’occupazione maschilizzata, costruita a partire dal codice ISCO-

08 a tre cifre. Nello specifico, seguendo le indicazioni fornite da Jacobs, clas-

sifichiamo come “maschilizzate” le occupazioni in cui la forza lavoro ma-

schile è maggiore o uguale al 66,6% rispetto a quella totale. Dal momento

che siamo interessati a comparare le tre classi occupazionali è stata creata

una variabile dummy per ogni classe occupazionale4. La variabile di mode-

razione si riferisce ai campi di studio secondo lo schema di classificazione

UNESCO.

Tab. 1.2 – Classificazione UNESCO dei campi di studio

Field of Education and Training

Generic programmes and qualifications

Education

Arts and Humanities

Social Sciences, Journalism and Information

Business, Administration and Law

Natural Sciences, Mathematics and Statistics

Information and Communication Technologies

Engineering, Manufacturing and Construction

Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries and Veterinary

Health and Welfare

Services

Fonte: Unesco



4 Questa è una scelta dovuta al fatto che, poiché le classi occupazionali vengono a loro

volta identificate tramite la prima cifra del codice ISCO-08, utilizzarle come variabili espli-

cative o di moderazione sarebbe metodologicamente poco corretto.



200

È stata eseguita una ricodifica che ha accorpato tutti i campi non STEM

in un’unica categoria, tenendo però separati i seguenti ambiti: 1) natural

sciences, mathematics and statistics (scienze naturali, matematica, e stati-

stica); 2) engineering, manufacturing, and construction (per semplicità, in-

gegneria); 3) information and communication technologies (per semplicità,

ICT); 4) agricuture, forestry, fisheries, and veterinary (per semplicità, agraria

e veterinaria). La variabile indipendente si riferisce al sesso, codificato come

variabile dummy nella EU-LFS. Le variabili di controllo sono lo stato civile,

la dimensione aziendale, l’anno di rilevazione del questionario, il paese di

residenza. Non abbiamo controllato per il livello d’istruzione perché è uno

dei criteri con cui vengono costruiti i major groups ISCO.

4. L’analisi dei dati

4.1 Perché i gruppi ISCO?

Le analisi di classe “bourdieusiane” (Flemmen, Jarness, e Rosenlund,

2018; Savage et al., 2013) sono svolte in maniera induttiva. Partendo dai

consumi si identificano gruppi omogenei nel volume e nella composizione

delle forme di capitale. Pur essendo lo schema ISCO deduttivo, l’abbiamo

ritenuto adatto ai fini dei nostri obiettivi di ricerca. Tramite i major group

ISCO, come mostrato in tabella 1.3 e in figura 1, è infatti possibile cogliere

differenze rilevanti in riferimento alle due proxy fondamentali del capitale

culturale ed economico: il titolo di studio e i redditi da lavoro.

Tab. 1.3 – Titolo di studio per classe occupazionale

Dirigenti Professionisti Tecnici

Primaria 1.22 0.13 0.62

Secondaria inferiore 8.56 1.37 6.99

Secondaria supe-

riore 29.37 12.00 43.50

Post-secondaria 5.17 3.79 9.53

Ciclo breve 8.90 7.25 10.27

Triennale 21.26 28.62 19.62

Master 23.77 41.86 9.13

Dottorato 1.76 4.97 0.35

Totale 100.00 100.00 100.00

Fonte: EU-LFS. Paesi: Italia, Spagna, Danimarca, Svezia, Irlanda, Regno Unito, Francia, Ger-

mania. Anno: 2018.



201

Figura 1 – Distribuzione salariale per classe occupazionale (decili di reddito)

Fonte: EU-LFS. Paesi: Italia, Spagna, Danimarca, Svezia, Irlanda, Regno Unito, Francia, Ger-

mania. Anno: 2018.

Da questi dati possiamo notare come le dotazioni in termini di istruzione

ed economiche siano molto diverse nelle tre classi occupazionali. Inoltre, i ma-

jor group ISCO descrivono il tipo di mansione di una certa occupazione, non-

ché le condizioni lavorative in cui tali mansioni vengono svolte. Questo crite-

rio aiuta a catturare quel concetto di “milieu occupazionale” discusso da Bour-

dieu (1984), che non può essere definito unicamente dalle dotazioni di capitale.

Marzadro, Schizzerotto, e Vergolini (2019) hanno discusso di come gli

schemi di classe deduttivi non siano meno preferibili di quelli induttivi, poiché

producono aggregazioni occupazionali simili. I dati descrittivi sembrano indi-

care che i gruppi ISCO siano adeguati ad un’analisi come quella che propo-

niamo in questo articolo.

4.2 Le occupazioni maschilizzate sono meglio retribuite?

Studiare la distribuzione salariale è importante per comprendere se le occu-

pazioni maschilizzate siano effettivamente quelle meglio retribuite in ogni classe

occupazionale. Dal momento che la presenza femminile è più alta fra i lavoratori

part-time, abbiamo riportato questi dati solo per chi lavora a tempo pieno. Ciò è

dovuto al fatto che abbiamo voluto mostrare le differenze nella struttura salariale

fra occupazioni maschilizzate, indipendentemente dal tipo di contratto.



202

Figura 1.2 – Struttura nelle occupazioni non maschilizzate per ciascuna

classe occupazionale

Fonte: EU-LFS. Paesi: Italia, Spagna, Danimarca, Svezia, Irlanda, Regno Unito, Francia, Ger-

mania. Anno: 2018. Lavoratori full-time.

Figura 1.3 – Struttura salariale nelle occupazioni maschilizzate per cia-

scuna classe occupazionale



203

Fonte: EU-LFS. Paesi: Italia, Spagna, Danimarca, Svezia, Irlanda, Regno Unito, Francia,

Germania. Anno: 2018. Lavoratori full-time.

Come si può notare dalle due figure riportate di seguito, le occupazioni

maschilizzate si concentrano nei decili di reddito più alti in ogni classe oc-

cupazionale. Per questo motivo riteniamo corretta la nostra intuizione circa

la possibilità di interpretare queste occupazioni come le “posizioni migliori”.

4.2.1 Analisi di regressione

Dai dati possiamo notare che non solo vi sono differenze fra classi occu-

pazionali nel modo in cui il campo di studio modera la relazione fra genere

e probabilità di accesso, ma che all’interno di ogni classe vi sono differenze

rilevanti fra i diversi campi di studio STEM. Anche la penalizzazione di ge-

nere varia fra classi occupazionali.

Per poter avere un’interpretazione più intuitiva di questi dati procediamo

con il calcolo degli AME. Riportiamo di seguito gli AME calcolati per il

termine d’interazione fra genere e campo di studio. In seguito, commente-

remo anche i dati circa l’interazione fra genere e paese.

Figura 2 – AME genere e campo di studio



204

Tabella 2 regressione logistica

irigenti

rofessionisti Tecnici

Genere

onne (r.c uomini) -0.797*-1.526*** -1.112***

(0.32) (0.07) (0.07)

Field of study (r.c

non-STEM)

scienze naturali, sta-

tistica5

0.269* 1.407*** 1.030***

(0.10) (0.03) (0.05)

ICT 1.296*** 3.823*** 2.354***

(0.09) (0.03) (0.05)

ingegneria 1.160*** 2.929*** 2.440***

(0.04) (0.02) (0.02)

agraria e veterinaria 0.846*** -0.020 1.727***

(0.13) (0.13) (0.07)

donne X scienze na-

turali, statistica

0.599*** 0.796*** 0.815***

(0.16) (0.05) (0.07)

donne X ICT -0.065 0.194** -0.159

(0.19) (0.07) (0.10)

donne X ingegneria 0.474*** 0.496*** 0.305***

(0.10) (0.04) (0.04)

donne X agraria e

veterinaria

0.222 0.698*** -0.528***

(0.25) (0.19) (0.10)

anno -0.008 0.021*** 0.004

(0.01) (0.01) (0.00)

Dimensione azien-

dale (r.c piccola)

medio-grande 0.017 0.491*** 0.266***

(0.03) (0.02) (0.01)

Stato civile (r.c se-

arato)

single 0.301** -0.070 -0.025

(0.12) (0.09) (0.06)

osato 0.306** -0.023 -0.107

(0.12) (0.10) (0.06)

Costante 16.557 -45.382*** -7.142

(19.68) (11.31) (9.93)

Osservazioni 24370 167617 144239



5 Per ottenere tabelle e grafici più compatti abbiamo riportato il campo di studio di scienze

naturali, matematica, e statistica come “scienze naturali, statistica”. Nei grafici agraria e ve-

terinaria è stata riportata come “agraria” per lo stesso motivo.



205

Fra i dirigenti la penalizzazione di genere si attesta intorno al 12%. Allo

stesso tempo, ingegneria e ICT sono i campi di studio che proiettano l’au-

mento più consistente nelle probabilità di accesso, seguiti da agraria e vete-

rinaria. È interessante notare che scienze naturali, matematica, e statistica

siano a malapena in grado di compensare la penalizzazione di genere, a in-

dicare che le donne che hanno perseguito un’istruzione in questo campo di

studio hanno circa le stesse probabilità di accedere alle occupazioni maschi-

lizzate degli uomini che hanno optato per un campo di studio non STEM.

Figura 2.1 – AME genere e campo di studio

Rispetto ai dirigenti, fra i professionisti osserviamo una penalizzazione di

genere molto simile, ma con grandi differenze per quanto riguarda il campo

di studio. ICT e ingegneria continuano ad essere i campi che determinano

l’aumento maggiore nelle probabilità di accesso, ma se nei dirigenti questi

aumenti erano rispettivamente del 28,3% e del 30,2%, nel caso dei profes-

sionisti gli incrementi sono del 65,8% e del 51,5%. Allo stesso tempo, agraria

e veterinaria hanno un impatto pressoché nullo, mentre scienze naturali, ma-

tematica, e statistica determinano un aumento del 21,1%.

Questo significa che le donne che seguono un percorso di istruzione in que-

sto campo di studio sono meno svantaggiate rispetto alle donne che lavorano

come dirigenti, ma anche che sono significativamente più svantaggiate delle

donne che hanno studiato ICT e ingegneria all’interno dei professionisti.



206

Figura 2.2 – AME genere e campo di studio

Nel caso dei tecnici la situazione è diversa. La penalizzazione di genere è

doppia rispetto a dirigenti e professionisti, intorno al 20%. ICT e ingegneria

continuano ad essere i campi di studio che proiettano l’aumento maggiore

nelle probabilità di accesso, mentre scienze naturali, matematica, e statistica

e agraria e veterinaria si attestano a circa il 30%. L’aumento nelle probabilità

di accesso associato a scienze naturali, matematica, e statistica è il più forte

fra le tre classi occupazionali, nonostante la penalizzazione di genere mag-

giore, che fa sì che la differenza nelle probabilità di accesso fra le donne che

hanno studiato in questo campo di studio e gli uomini che hanno perseguito

un’istruzione non STEM è molto simile a quella osservata fra i professionisti,

dove la penalizzazione di genere è dimezzata rispetto ai tecnici.

Come si è visto, abbiamo deciso di inserire un termine d’interazione fra

genere e paese per poter corroborare l’ipotesi che questi risultati non possano

essere legati ad un “effetto paese”. Per poter affermare di osservare un effetto

paese rilevante dovremmo rilevare un’evidenza trasversale alle classi occu-

pazionali, cosa che non emerge osservando le probabilità marginali. Fra i

professionisti, l’effetto paese è sostanzialmente basso. Fra tecnici e dirigenti,

dove sembra esserci una variazione più forte nelle probabilità di accesso, non

sembra che si possa identificare un pattern rilevante.

Ad esempio, fra i tecnici le probabilità marginali sono più alte, in valore

assoluto, rispetto alle altre classi occupazionali, ma sembra che per questa



207

classe occupazionale i dati ci dicano che gli individui che non lavorano in

Danimarca, categoria di riferimento per la variabile paese, abbiano tenden-

zialmente probabilità minori di lavorare in una professione maschilizzata fra

i tecnici. Un discorso simile può essere fatto anche per i dirigenti, con l’unica

differenza che per Francia e Germania le probabilità marginali indicano che

chi lavora in quei paesi ha circa le stesse probabilità di chi lavora in Dani-

marca di lavorare in una professione maschilizzata fra i dirigenti. Tali dati

non sembrano interpretabili alla luce di specifiche teorie. Probabilmente lo

studio della segregazione al livello delle occupazioni, piuttosto che dei settori

produttivi, è meno sensibile all’effetto paese.

Ciò non significa che i regimi di capitalismo o le varietà di post-industria-

lizzazione non abbiano importanza, ma si nota che quando si scende ad un

livello più profondo nello studio della segregazione è più difficile trovare

differenze fra paesi che appartengono alla stessa area culturale. In questo

caso abbiamo considerato otto economie avanzate dell’Europa Occidentale,

probabilmente in futuro sarà utile includere paesi di aree differenti come

quelli dell’ex blocco sovietico e le economie in via di sviluppo.

Figura 2.3 – AME genere e paese



208

Figura 2.4 – AME genere e paese

Figura 2.5 – AME genere e paese



209

5. Discussione e conclusioni

Secondo le intuizioni della gender role theory non dovremmo osservare

differenze nella capacità di moderazione del campo di studio, né fra classi

occupazionali, né fra campi di studio STEM. Questo perché tale teoria di-

stingue le occupazioni unicamente sulla base del sex typing, cioè della com-

posizione di genere e della “tipizzazione” di un’occupazione come femmi-

nile o maschile. Analogamente, l’effetto del campo di studio dovrebbe essere

omogeneo fra i quattro campi considerati, poiché tutti questi campi STEM

dovrebbero riflettere lo stesso principio pratico, quello che assegna agli uo-

mini il monopolio sulla tecnologia.

Secondo la teoria su risorse, potere, e status i contesti meno ostili all’in-

gresso delle donne nelle occupazioni maschilizzate dovrebbero essere le

classi occupazionali ad alto status, ovvero dirigenti e professionisti.

Le nostre ipotesi erano due. Da un lato avevamo ipotizzato che la pena-

lizzazione di genere e la moderazione del campo di studio si intrecciassero

in maniera originale in ciascuna classe occupazionale. Dall’altro lato ab-

biamo ipotizzato che vi fosse una dinamica trasversale alle classi, sostenendo

che i campi di studio STEM più maschilizzati fossero quelli con un maggiore

“valore di distinzione”, per cui avremmo dovuto osservare un effetto di mo-

derazione più forte.

I dati analizzati non corroborano l’approccio che si fonda sulla gender

role theory. Vi sono infatti rilevanti differenze per ogni classe occupazionale

rispetto all’effetto di moderazione del campo di studio, così come si notano

differenze importanti fra campi di studio diversi in ciascuna classe occupa-

zionale. Il sex typing come unico criterio per distinguere fra occupazioni di-

verse appare insensibile alla classe occupazionale. Inoltre, il dualismo agen-

tic-communal non permette di osservare una serie di sfumature nelle rela-

zioni fra i generi, una su tutte la più eterogenea composizione di genere

all’interno dei percorsi educativi STEM. I nostri risultati mostrano la neces-

sità di lavorare più su un continuum che su un rigido binarismo come quello

proposto dalla gender role theory, che nonostante tutto continua ad essere un

riferimento importante per leggere e interpretare le disuguaglianze di genere.

La teoria su status e risorse fornisce strumenti più adeguati a interpretare

i dati. L’elemento più importante riguarda la penalizzazione di genere, cioè

la diminuzione nelle probabilità di accesso per le donne, che è più bassa fra

dirigenti e professionisti, che Torre e Jacobs (2021) considerano occupazioni

ad “alto status”. Possono esservi molteplici spiegazioni per questo risultato,

che potranno fornire utili interrogativi per future agende di ricerca. Tuttavia,

il framework incentrato su status e risorse non permette di cogliere appieno



210

il diverso impatto del campo di studio, che non riproduce il divario di status,

poiché per i dirigenti tale impatto è minore rispetto a professionisti e tecnici.

Inoltre, risulterebbero di più difficile interpretazione le differenze fra i di-

versi campi di studio STEM.

Per quanto riguarda le nostre ipotesi, esse sono corroborate in buona parte

dall’analisi dei dati. Da un lato, notiamo che il campo di studio e la penaliz-

zazione di genere sono intrecciati in modo differente nelle tre classi occupa-

zionali. Nello specifico, i professionisti sembrano la classe dove è più facile

stimolare un’eventuale de-segregazione delle occupazioni, mentre i dirigenti

sono quelli dove tale cambiamento sembra più difficile da raggiungere, con

i tecnici che si posizionano in modo intermedio. Dall’altro lato, notiamo che

i campi di studio STEM che determinano un incremento maggiore nelle pro-

babilità di accesso alle occupazioni maschilizzate sono ICT e ingegneria, che

sono i campi dove la presenza femminile è minore.

Riteniamo vi siano tre considerazioni importanti. La segregazione è stata

finora studiata come un fenomeno trasversale alla struttura occupazionale,

distinguendo sostanzialmente fra occupazioni maschilizzate, femminilizzate,

e gender neutral, senza considerare la classe occupazionale di destinazione

di una persona. Questo è dovuto al fatto che caratteristiche come genere ed

etnia sono più difficili da integrare in un’analisi di classe (Crompton, 2008).

Sembra che la struttura occupazionale non sia neutra rispetto all’ingresso di

donne e uomini, suggerendo che tale fenomeno non deve essere unicamente

ricondotto alle dotazioni di risorse e di status strettamente inteso come “pre-

stigio”. Questo è un dato che riteniamo significativo soprattutto se conside-

riamo che le occupazioni in questione sono simili, essendo tutte occupazioni

STEM. Ciò mostra l’importanza del “milieu occupazionale”. In questo arti-

colo abbiamo mostrato che con uno schema di classe che compara gruppi

occupazionali ampi, i major groups ISCO, è possibile osservare una diversa

capacità di superamento della segregazione.

I risultati suggeriscono anche che vi siano importanti differenze fra

donne. L’idea che lavorare come dirigente, piuttosto che come professionista

o tecnica, sia accompagnato da barriere di diversa altezza per raggiungere le

occupazioni maschilizzate, mostra che non bisogna dare per scontato che la

“categoria donne” sia così omogenea quando si studia la segregazione occu-

pazionale. Nell’analisi di questo fenomeno prevalgono approcci interessati

alle differenze fra generi, mentre la variabilità interna, cioè le diseguaglianze

“within gender” tende ad essere derubricata come meno rilevante, dal mo-

mento che le differenze più importanti per accedere alle occupazioni segre-

gate sono fra donne e uomini. Il nostro articolo mostra invece importanti dif-

ferenze interne alla categoria donne,



211

Infine, i campi di studio che determinano probabilità di accesso maggiori

sono quelli maschilizzati, cioè ICT ed ingegneria. Questa evidenza suggeri-

sce che possa esservi in atto un processo di svalutazione dei cambi di studio

STEM dove la presenza femminile è più forte. Sia agraria e veterinaria, che

scienze naturali, matematica e statistica determinano un aumento più conte-

nuto nelle probabilità di accesso alle occupazioni maschilizzate. Questo è un

fenomeno che Bourdieu aveva analizzato in “Distinzione”, sottolineando la

svalutazione dei titoli di studio. In estrema sintesi, Bourdieu sostiene che

quegli elementi culturali, come il capitale scolastico oggettivato in creden-

ziali e titoli di studio, che permettono di accedere a determinate occupazioni,

sono a loro volta soggetti a dinamiche di distinzione. Per il sociologo fran-

cese l’aumento dell’occupazione femminile avrebbe generato una sorta di

inflazione dei titoli di studio (Bourdieu, 1984), che non garantiscono più l’ac-

cesso alle stesse occupazioni come in passato. I gruppi dominanti si adattano

a questo fenomeno creando nuovi titoli di studio, riproducendo così la loro

condizione di dominio. L’analisi dei dati che abbiamo condotto mostra che

un processo analogo potrebbe essere in atto anche per quanto riguarda i

campi di studio STEM.

Riteniamo che questa sia un’evidenza rilevante, considerato che l’au-

mento della partecipazione femminile all’istruzione STEM viene conside-

rato un obiettivo di policy strategico in un’ottica di riequilibrio delle disu-

guaglianze di genere (White e Smith, 2021). I dati da noi elaborati sembrano

indicare che l’investimento nell’istruzione femminile STEM come unico

strumento per migliorare il posizionamento delle donne nel mercato del la-

voro si scontra con potenziali dinamiche di svalutazione dei titoli di studio

associati ai diversi campi STEM. Il rischio che si corre è che l’accesso alle

occupazioni STEM venga ulteriormente riorganizzato su criteri che penaliz-

zano le donne, ad esempio attraverso una svalutazione dei campi di studio

dove la presenza femminile è più consistente. Questo non significa che

l’istruzione STEM non sia uno strumento strategico per raggiungere l’obiet-

tivo di livellare le disuguaglianze di genere nel mercato del lavoro.

Per il futuro sarà necessario studiare come la segregazione si produce

all’interno delle pratiche sociali dei luoghi di lavoro (Schatzki, 2001). Per

fare ciò è però necessario adottare una diversa prospettiva epistemologica,

meno interessata alla comparazione fra grandi aggregati occupazionali. È in

particolare tramite l’impiego di tecniche qualitative che si potrebbe condurre

una simile agenda di ricerca. Tale approccio avrebbe il merito di far luce in

modo più specifico su come “facciamo genere” (Butler, 1990) nei luoghi di

lavoro, e come questo possa riprodurre dinamiche di dominio anche quando

le donne fanno scelte non allineate ai propri stereotipi.



212

Bibliografia

Acker J. (2005). Class Questions: Feminist Answers. AltaMira Press.

Albertini M., Ballarino G. (2019). Reddito, ricchezza e classi sociali. Venticinque anni

di disuguaglianze in Italia, 1991-2016. SM. (1/2019). doi:10.1425/93582.

Berger J., Fisek H., Zorman R.Z., Zeldtich M. (1976). Status Characteristics and Social

Interaction: An Expectation-States Approach. Greenwood Pub Group, New York.

Berger J., Fişek M.H. (2013). The Spread of Status Value: A Theoretical Extension. In:

Thye S.R., Lawler E.J., a cura di. Advances in Group Processesvol. 30. Emerald Group Pub-

lishing Limited. doi:10.1108/S0882-6145(2013)0000030007.

Bourdieu P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Stanford University Press.

Bourdieu P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard

University Press.

Brewer M.B., Lui L.N. (1989). The Primacy of Age and Sex in the Structure of Person

Categories. Social Cognition. 7(3): 262–74. doi:10.1521/soco.1989.7.3.262.

Butler J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. 1° edizione.

Routledge, New York.

Charles M. (2005). National Skill Regimes, Postindustrialism, and Sex Segregation. So-

cial Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society. 12(2): 289–316.

doi:10.1093/sp/jxi015.

Charles M., Bradley K. (2009). Indulging Our Gendered Selves? Sex Segregation by

Field of Study in 44 Countries. American Journal of Sociology. 114(4): 924–76.

doi:10.1086/595942.

Charles M., Grusky D.B. (2004). Occupational Ghettos: The Worldwide Segregation of

Women And Men. Stanford Univ Pr, Stanford, Calif..

Crompton R. (2008). Class and Stratification. New edizione. Polity Pr, Cambridge, UK ;

Malden, MA.

Di Stasio V., Larsen E.N. (2020). The Racialized and Gendered Workplace: Applying

an Intersectional Lens to a Field Experiment on Hiring Discrimination in Five European La-

bor Markets. Soc Psychol Q. 83(3): 229–50. doi:10.1177/0190272520902994.

Eagly A.H. (1987). Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-role interpretation. 1°

edizione. Psychology Press, Hillsdale, N.J.

Eagly A.H., Carli L.L. (2007). Through the Labyrinth: The Truth About How Women

Become Leaders. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.

Eagly A.H., Karau S.J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female lead-

ers. Psychol Rev. 109(3): 573–98. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.109.3.573.

Ellemers N. (2018). Gender Stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology. 69(1): 275–98.

doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011719.

Flemmen M., Jarness V., Rosenlund L. (2018). Social space and cultural class divisions:

the forms of capital and contemporary lifestyle differentiation. The British Journal of Soci-

ology. 69(1): 124–53. doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12295.

Giddens A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.

University of California Press, Berkeley.

Heilman M.E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organiza-

tional Behavior. 32: 113–35. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003.

Heilman M.E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The Lack of Fit model. Research in Or-

ganizational Behavior. 5: 269–98.



213

Heilman M.E., Caleo S. (2018). Combatting gender discrimination: A lack of fit frame-

work. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 21(5): 725–44.

doi:10.1177/1368430218761587.

Hogue M., Fox-Cardamone L., Knapp D.E. (2019). Fit and Congruency. Journal of Per-

sonnel Psychology. 18(3): 148–56. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000233.

Jacobs J. (1989). Revolving Doors: Sex Segregation and Women s Careers. 1st edition.

Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif.

Jacobs J.A. (1993). Theoretical and Measurement Issues in the Study of Sex Segregation

in the Workplace: Research Note. European Sociological Review. 9(3): 325–30.

Kahn S., Ginther D. (2018). Women and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathe-

matics (STEM): Are Differences in Education and Careers Due to Stereotypes, Interests, or

Family? In: Averett S.L., Argys L.M., Hoffman S.D., a cura di. The Oxford Handbook of

Women and the Economy. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ox-

fordhb/9780190628963.013.13.

Korpi W., Ferrarini T., Englund S. (2013). Women’s Opportunities under Different

Family Policy Constellations: Gender, Class, and Inequality Tradeoffs in Western Countries

Re-examined. Soc Polit. 20(1): 1–40. doi:10.1093/sp/jxs028.

Kübler D., Schmid J., Stüber R. (2018). Gender discrimination in hiring across occupa-

tions: a nationally-representative vignette study. Labour Economics. 55: 215–29.

doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2018.10.002.

Mandel H. (2012). Winners and losers: The consequences of welfare state policies for

gender wage inequality. European Sociological Review. 28(2): 241–62.

doi:10.1093/esr/jcq061.

Mandel H., Semyonov M. A. (2006). Welfare State Paradox: State Interventions and

Women’s Employment Opportunities in 22 Countries. American Journal of Sociology.

111(6): 1910–49. doi:10.1086/499912.

Manzi F. (2019). Are the Processes Underlying Discrimination the Same for Women

and Men? A Critical Review of Congruity Models of Gender Discrimination. Frontiers in

Psychology. 10: 2019. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00469.

Marzadro S., Schizzerotto A., Vergolini L. (2019). Classi sociali o gruppi multidimen-

sionali? Come rappresentare le disuguaglianze sociali nell’Italia di oggi. SM. (1/2019).

doi:10.1425/93580.

Ochsenfeld F. (2014). Why Do Women’s Fields of Study Pay Less? A Test of Devalua-

tion, Human Capital, and Gender Role Theory. Eur Sociol Rev. 30(4): 536–48.

doi:10.1093/esr/jcu060.

Parkin F. (1983). Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique. Reprint edition.

Columbia University Press, New York.

Rich J. (2014). What Do Field Experiments of Discrimination in Markets Tell Us? A

Meta Analysis of Studies Conducted Since 2000. SSRN Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2517887.

Ridgeway C. (1991). The Social Construction of Status Value: Gender and Other Nomi-

nal Characteristics. Social Forces. 70(2): 367. doi:10.2307/2580244.

Ridgeway C. (2014). Why Status Matters for Inequality. Am Sociol Rev. 79(1): 1–16.

doi:10.1177/0003122413515997.

Ridgeway C., Correll S.J. (2004). Unpacking the Gender System: A Theoretical Per-

spective on Gender Beliefs and Social Relations. Gender & Society. 18(4): 510–31.

doi:10.1177/0891243204265269.

Sartori G. (1991). Comparing and Miscomparing. Journal of Theoretical Politics. 3(3):

243–57. doi:10.1177/0951692891003003001.



214

Savage, M., Devine, F., Cunningham, N., Taylor, M., Li, Y., Hjellbrekke, J., Le Roux,

B., Friedman, S., Miles, A. (2013). A New Model of Social Class? Findings from the BBC’s

Great British Class Survey Experiment. Sociology 47, 219–250.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038513481128Schatzki TR. Introduction. In: Schatzki TR, Cet-

ina K.K., Savigny E. von, a cura di. (2001). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory.

Routledge, New York.

Tilly C. (1999). Durable Inequality. Revised edition. Univ of California Pr, Berkeley.

Torre M. (2019). Women in Blue: Structural and Individual Determinants of Sex Segre-

gation in Blue-Collar Occupations. Gender & Society. 33(3): 410–38.

doi:10.1177/0891243219830974.

Torre M., Jacobs J.A. (2021). The Gender Mobility Paradox: Gender Segregation and

Women’s Mobility Across Gender-Type Boundaries, 1970–2018. Gender & Society. 35(6):

853–83. doi:10.1177/08912432211046328.

Weber, M. [eds. Roth & Wittich]. (1968). Economy and Society. First Edition, Two Vol-

ume Set, with a New Foreword by Guenther Roth. University of California Press, Berkeley

Los Angeles London.

White P., Smith E. (2021). From subject choice to career path: Female STEM graduates

in the UK labour market. Oxford Review of Education. 0(0): 1–17.

doi:10.1080/03054985.2021.2011713.

Wood W., Eagly A.H. (2010). Gender. In: Fiske S.T., Gilbert D.T., Gardner L., a cura

di. Handbook of Social Psychology. 5° edizione John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, N.J.

doi:10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy001017.





215

Appendice. Tabelle di distribuzione

Composizione del campione per paese e sesso

Uomini Donne Totale

Danimarca 10913 12568 23481

5.51 5.77 5.65

France 40440 43623 84063

20.43 20.03 20.22

Germania 54980 63974 118954

27.77 29.37 28.61

Irlanda 15316 18132 33448

7.74 8.32 8.04

Italia 24226 23389 47615

12.24 10.74 11.45

Spa

na 4757 5860 10617

2.40 2.69 2.55

Svezia 38227 40564 78791

19.31 18.62 18.95

Regno Unito 9127 9710 18837

4.61 4.46 4.53

Totale 197986 217820 415806

100.00 100.00 100.00

First row has frequencies and second row has column percentages

Composizione del campione per classe occupazione e paese

Diri

enti Professionisti Tecnici Totale

Danimarca 313 16871 6297 23481

1.33 71.85 26.82 100.00

Francia 8868 34089 41106 84063

10.55 40.55 48.90 100.00

Germania 7208 54120 57626 118954

6.06 45.50 48.44 100.00

Irlanda 4475 19849 9124 33448

13.38 59.34 27.28 100.00

Italia 3152 18086 26377 47615

6.62 37.98 55.40 100.00

Spa

na 551 6469 3597 10617

5.19 60.93 33.88 100.00

Svezia 4122 47420 27249 78791

5.23 60.18 34.58 100.00

no Unito 3029 10734 5074 18837

16.08 56.98 26.94 100.00

Totale 31718 207638 176450 415806

7.63 49.94 42.44 100.00

First row has frequencies and second row has row percentages



216

Composizione del campione per classe occupazionale e sesso

Uomini Donne Totale

Diri

enti 19330 12388 31718

9.76 5.69 7.63

Professionisti 92875 114763 207638

46.91 52.69 49.94

Tecnici 85781 90669 176450

43.33 41.63 42.44

Totale 197986 217820 415806

100.00 100.00 100.00

First row has frequencies and second row has column percentages

Occupazioni maschilizzate: dirigenti

Occupation (ISCO-08, 3 di

its) Freq. Percent Cum.

Chief executives, senior officials and le

islators 51 0.31 0.31

Mana

directors and chief executives 2436 14.91 15.22

Sales, marketin

and development mana

ers 2716 16.62 31.84

Production managers in agriculture, forestry and

fisheries 254 1.55 33.40

Manufacturing, mining, construction, and distri-

ution mana

ers 6432 39.36 72.76

Information and communications technology

service mana

ers 1193 7.30 80.06

Retail and wholesale trade mana

ers 3258 19.94 100.00

Totale 16340 100.00

Occupazioni maschilizzate: professionisti

Occupation (ISCO-08, 3 di

its) Freq. Percent Cum.

Science and en

ineerin

professionals 4 0.01 0.01

sical and earth science professionals 1729 3.92 3.93

Engineering professionals (excluding electro-

technolo

)17296 39.22 43.14

Electrotechnolo

ineers 3632 8.23 51.38

Information and communications technology

professionals 2137 4.85 56.22

Software and applications developers and ana-

sts 17364 39.37 95.59

Database and network professionals 1943 4.41 100.00

Totale 44105 100.00



217

Occupazioni maschilizzate: tecnici

Occupation (ISCO-08, 3 di

its) Freq. Percent Cum.

Science and en

ineerin

associate professionals 19 0.03 0.03

sical and en

ineerin

science technicians 24853 36.46 36.49

Mining, manufacturing and construction super-

visors

8761 12.85 49.34

Process control technicians 3618 5.31 54.65

Life science technicians and related associate

professionals

1308 1.92 56.57

Ship and aircraft controllers and technicians 1250 1.83 58.41

Sales and purchasin

ents and brokers 17618 25.85 84.25

Information and communications technology

operations and user support technicians

8530 12.51 96.77

Telecommunications and broadcasting techni-

cians

2202 3.23 100.00

Total 68159 100.00

AME dirigenti

dy/dx std. err. z P>z [95% conf. inter-

val]

Female -0.117 0.007 -17.420 0.000 -0.130 -0.104

Field o

stud

scienze naturali,

statistica 0.121 0.019 6.380 0.000 0.084 0.158

ICT 0.283 0.017 16.500 0.000 0.249 0.317

neria 0.302 0.008 35.680 0.000 0.285 0.318

agraria e veteri-

naria 0.218 0.025 8.590 0.000 0.168 0.268

AME professionisti

dy/dx std. err. z P>z [95% conf. inter-

val]

Female -0.113 0.002 -58.980 0.000 -0.117 -0.109

Field o

stud

scienze naturali,

statistica 0.211 0.004 48.960 0.000 0.202 0.219

ICT 0.658 0.007 94.340 0.000 0.644 0.672

neria 0.515 0.004 136.370 0.000 0.508 0.522

agraria e veteri-

naria 0.015 0.007 2.080 0.037 0.001 0.029



218

AME tecnici

dy/dx std. err. z P>z [95% conf. inter-

val]

Female -0.204 0.003 -75.880 0.000 -0.209 -0.198

Field of study

scienze naturali,

statistica 0.292 0.008 35.950 0.000 0.276 0.308

ICT 0.449 0.011 41.450 0.000 0.428 0.470

neria 0.519 0.004 130.520 0.000 0.512 0.527

agraria e veteri-

naria 0.284 0.010 28.020 0.000 0.264 0.304

Regressione logistica con effetto paese

Diri

enti Professionisti Tecnici

Genere

donne (r.c uomini) -0.797*-1.526*** -1.112***

(0.32) (0.07) (0.07)

Field of study (r.c

non-STEM)

scienze naturali, sta-

tistica6

0.269* 1.407*** 1.030***

(0.10) (0.03) (0.05)

ICT 1.296*** 3.823*** 2.354***

(0.09) (0.03) (0.05)

neria 1.160*** 2.929*** 2.440***

(0.04) (0.02) (0.02)

raria e veterinaria 0.846*** -0.020 1.727***

(0.13) (0.13) (0.07)

donne X scienze na-

turali, statistica

0.599*** 0.796*** 0.815***

(0.16) (0.05) (0.07)

donne X ICT -0.065 0.194** -0.159

(0.19) (0.07) (0.10)

donne X in

neria 0.474*** 0.496*** 0.305***

(0.10) (0.04) (0.04)

continua



6Per ottenere tabelle e grafici più compatti abbiamo riportato il campo di studio di

scienze naturali, matematica, e statistica come “scienze naturali, statistica”. Nei gra-

fici agraria e veterinaria è stata riportata come “agraria” per lo stesso motivo.



219

Regressione logistica con effetto paese (segue)

Diri

enti Professionisti Tecnici

donne X agraria e

veterinaria

0.222 0.698*** -0.528***

(0.25) (0.19) (0.10)

anno -0.008 0.021*** 0.004

(0.01) (0.01) (0.00)

Dimensione azien-

dale (r.c piccola)

medio-

rande 0.017 0.491*** 0.266***

(0.03) (0.02) (0.01)

Stato civile (r.c se-

arato)

sin

le 0.301** -0.070 -0.025

(0.12) (0.09) (0.06)

sposato 0.306** -0.023 -0.107

(0.12) (0.10) (0.06)

Paese (r.c Dani-

marca)

Francia -0.052 0.044 -0.672***

(0.16) (0.04) (0.05)

Germania -0.000 0.312*** -1.211***

(0.16) (0.04) (0.05)

Irlanda -0.747*** 0.390*** -0.995***

(0.17) (0.05) (0.06)

Italia -0.704*** 0.114*-0.866***

(0.17) (0.05) (0.05)

Spa

na -0.423 0.034 -0.241**

(0.22) (0.08) (0.08)

Svezia -0.269 0.036 -0.396***

(0.16) (0.04) (0.05)

no Unito -0.266 0.341*** -1.148***

(0.17) (0.06) (0.07)

donne X Francia 0.309 0.707*** -0.150*

(0.32) (0.07) (0.07)

donne X Germania 0.142 -0.021 -0.411***

(0.32) (0.07) (0.07)

donne X Irlanda 0.546 -0.091 0.556***

(0.33) (0.09) (0.09)

continua



220

Regressione logistica con effetto paese (segue)

Diri

enti Professionisti Tecnici

donne X Italia 0.263 -0.165 -0.157*

(0.34) (0.09) (0.08)

donne X Spa

na -0.032 0.168 -0.102

(0.39) (0.13) (0.12)

donne X Svezia -0.403 0.181*-0.094

(0.32) (0.07) (0.07)

donne X Regno

Unito

0.199 -0.357*** 0.011

(0.33) (0.11) (0.11)

Costante 16.557 -45.382*** -7.142

(19.68) (11.31) (9.93)

Osservazioni 24370 167617 144239

Sociologia del lavoro, n. 167/2023. ISSN 0392-5048. ISSNe 1972-554X.

DOI: 10.3280/SL2023-167010

Do funding schemes help ameliorate

publications? An analysis among Italian

academics who won FIRB and ERC

Giulio Marini, Viviana Meschitti

Some individual funding schemes aim at recognizing excellence of early

and/or mid-career researchers, allowing them to boost their potential via

munificent endowments, autonomy, and employment security. In Italy, this

is the case of “Futuro in Ricerca” (FIRB), which is in many regards similar

to the European Research Council (ERC) scheme. Both schemes are

supposed to make excellence thrive, which is understood also in terms of

publishing in leading journals and establishing international collaborations.

The paper checks whether FIRB recipients are thereafter more performative

in terms of quality of publication (ranking of target journals and international

co-authorships), testing against a randomly extracted control group of Italian

academics of similar age, rank and discipline. The study tests also against

ERC recipients active in Italy. Results of difference-in-difference tests show

that i) FIRB recipients improve their capacity to publish in highly ranked

journals, similarly to what ERC recipients do; ii) these schemes do not

incentivize international co-authorships; iii) FIRB is not conducive of

notable changes within non-bibliometric disciplines.

Key Words: funding agency; scientific productivity; excellence in research;

internationalization

Introduction. The issue of excellence and publication patterns

Research grants specifically devised to boost careers have their own

tradition dating several decades ago in the US (Baldwin, 1981). In Europe,

competitive grants allowing early or mid-career researchers to focus on

ground-breaking projects is more recent. The most famous and wide-

 University of Catania. E-mail: giulio.marini@unict.it

 University of Bergamo. E-mail: viviana.meschitti@unibg.it

222

reaching scheme is probably the European Research Council (ERC),

launched in 2007 by the European Commission with the aim of “supporting

the best of the best in Europe” (ERC website), favouring inter alia

internationalization. In Italy, a similar grant in terms of rationale,

beneficiaries, and targets, is FIRB (Futuro in ricerca di base – Fund for

investment in basic research), awarded by the Italian Ministry of Research

and Higher Education (MIUR/MUR). Both ERC and FIRB have also the

blueprint to act like status boundary.

Some effects of ERC are known, while research on FIRB is scanter.

Literature has looked into how ERC grants are distributed (Bautista-Puig et

al., 2019; Thomas and Nedeva, 2012), and their effects on scientific

productivity and career trajectories (Beerkens, 2019; Huber et al., 2015;

Vinkenburg et al., 2020). While the positive effect on individuals’ careers in

terms of increased likelihood to get a promotion is recognised, its effect on

recipients’ scientific productivity is nuanced. For instance, co-authorship

networks seem dependent on a variety of other factors, such as gender of

recipient, and characteristics of research environment (Pina et al., 2019).

Another official evaluation show that increased scientific productivity by

recipients is often marginal (ERC, 2015b). These findings might suggest the

existence of a Mertonian Matthew effect nested in scientific excellence,

which is found to affect scientific collaboration (Perc, 2014) and funding

(Bol et al., 2018). This means that the mere fact of being awarded with a

grant creates a halo of prestige which pushes individuals up in their careers.

Notwithstanding, the grant per se does not necessarily change consistently

awardees’ publication patterns. Recent managerial literature highlights the

role of Matthew effect as disruptive, if not counterbalanced by a Mark effect

(redistribution effect) which contributes to keep the system genuinely

competitive, rather than conflicting (Piezunka et al., 2018) or influenced by

aleatory factors (Pluchino et al., 2018). Following such critical reflection

about the actual nature of Matthew effect (i.e., excellent funding

opportunities being awarded to already excellent people who do not become

more excellent), it is relevant to understand whether specific funding

schemes are assuring the outcomes they have been devised for. To this

regard, quality of target journals and internationalization are proxies of

typically desired effects of such schemes. Hence, the paper checks whether

FIRB recipients are thereafter more performative.

The paper is structured as follows. The next section gives an overview on

research investigating the impact of individual grants on research

performance. Detailed description of the dataset and the hypotheses follow.

Results comment findings, whereas discussion section links this study to the

223

extant body of literature, including a list of limitations. Conclusions

advances some policy implications.

1. Individual funding for boosting performances: literature review

1.1 The rationale of excellence

The focus on individual talent and excellence has been characterising the

research funding systems in Europe in the last couple of decades, at least.

Both national (i.e., FIRB) and supernational (i.e., ERC) funding schemes

have integrated a discourse whereby the willingness to boost individuals’

potential is coupled with the need to foster the status and impact of an entire

research system. Selection of awardees is certainly relevant. However, one

might question also to which extent, and if, the Matthew effect is

proportionally visible in following post-“treatment” performances. The

cumulative advantage which is at the core of the Matthew effect is shaped by

prestige, some studies find: this affects grant capture (Langfeldt et al., 2015),

and diffusion of ideas (Morgan et al., 2018). It also enhances networks,

facilitating access to academic jobs (Hadani et al., 2012; Heffernan, 2021;

Laufer, 2020).

In Europe, ERC is arguably the most prestigious source of funding

directed to individual researchers. It has attracted attention in terms of post-

evaluation analyses. For instance, ERC has strongly contributed to shape the

practices related to funding processes, peer-review mechanisms, and

monitoring, mainly by pushing quality and transparency (Follesdal, 2019;

Luukkonen, 2014; Nedeva and Stampfer, 2012). ERC is also influencing

specific organisational policies and practices related to division of labour and

incentives (Edler et al., 2014). ERC projects are considered unique in their

ability to push the current frontiers of research altogether (ERC, 2020). In

parallel, European countries may have their own funding scheme, following

similar rationales and processes to ERC one.

This is the case of FIRB in Italy. FIRB grants are competitive projects

awarded by the Italian Ministry of Research and Higher Education. FIRB is

a scheme aimed at awarding specific funding for researchers at their early or

mid-stage of career, with the mandate also to improve international outreach

in research (Primeri et al., 2014). In essence, FIRB rationale is to bestow

already promising researchers with non-ordinary funding opportunities,

generating a group of excellence within the generally underfunded Italian

224

higher education system. Hence, FIRB is not particularly different from ERC

competitive projects. Nevertheless, there is a dearth of studies about it. At

the best of our knowledge, there are no ex-post evaluation, or studies of any

kind, about this scheme. This paper looks at the first four editions, from 2008

until 2013.

1.2 Effects on publication patterns

Research investigating ex-post effects after having acquired prestigious

grants typically assumes an increase in scientific productivity. Bornmann

and colleagues (2008) found positive effects when looking at two European

funding programmes for junior researchers in biology. Defazio and

colleagues (2009) looked at both productivity and collaboration in the case

of some EU-funded network programmes, finding an overall positive effect

on collaboration, and a positive effect of collaboration on productivity during

post-funding phase. Jacob and Lefgren (2011a) studied the postdoctoral

grant awards by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH): they found a

positive effect on productivity, career advancement, and likelihood of

obtaining another NIH grant. However, in a subsequent study on NIH grants,

they found a marginal effect only on productivity (Jacob and Lefgren,

2011b). Ayoubi and colleagues (2019) studied the case of a Swiss

programme, noticing marginal effects on productivity, but a significant

positive effect on collaboration; in any case, all applicants had an above

average productivity. The main Luxembourgues funding scheme (FNR) is

effective in both quantity and quality of publication, but only the latter

appears to have long-standing effects (Hussinger and Carvalho, 2022). No

effects of funding on productivity are found by Lawson and colleagues

(2021) in the case of a large Italian University. Carayol and Lanoë (2017), in

the case of a French funding programme, found significant effects for junior

applicants instead.

When looking more closely at the impacts of ERC grants, official

evaluations investigate individual career advancement, scientific networks,

productivity, and citations of the awardees (ERC, 2015a, 2015b), as well as

the projects’ long-term effects on science, economy and society at large

(ERC, 2020). Huber and colleagues’ (2015) evaluation report of the ERC

starting grant programme presents a bibliometric analysis about all

applicants in 2007 and 2009. They show that recipients had a boost in their

career progression. However, when compared to non-awardees (applicants

who have been rejected), recipients did not necessarily show increased post-

225

award productivity. Interestingly, while recipients had higher research

productivity at the moment of submission (compared to non-awardees), this

difference in productivity tends to get smaller as time passes. Nevertheless,

recipients did better in developing networks, and, above all, in career

progression. It is worth noting that often ERC applicants have an above

average profile, as observed by Neufeld and colleagues (2013). Pina and

colleagues (2019) focused on ERC recipients in the field of life sciences in

2007-09: they show the significant impact of ERC on the collaboration

network. In relation to publication productivity, this seemed to depend on the

research environment – working in a high-research intense country has a

positive impact on the number of post-award publications. Overall, these

findings seem to confirm previous research showing that receiving a grant

does not necessarily mean increasing scientific productivity (Jacob and

Lefgren, 2011b).

An important issue related to participation in prestigious grants and

scientific impact is that of gender. There is a dense debate about the gendered

nature of funding mechanisms and decisions (Sato et al., 2020;

Steinþórsdóttir et al., 2020). Recent literature suggests that the gender gap in

both access to funds and scientific productivity is closing (Kalyani et al.,

2015; Mayer and Rathmann, 2018; van Arensbergen et al., 2012) and that

gender does not necessarily hinders international collaboration (Abramo et

al., 2017). However, Lawson and colleagues (2021) found that women are

less likely to raise funding, and that they experience a “motherhood penalty”

in relation to citations. Lerchenmueller and Sorenson (2018) found

considerable gender differences in the case of life sciences and respective

access to NIH grants. In the case of ERC, limited evidence was found by

gender differences in relation to post-award productivity (Pina et al., 2019).

However, when focusing on STEM and looking also at women’s

participation in decision panels, Bautista-Puig and colleagues (2019) found

considerable gender differences. This clearly shows the importance of

publication patterns by disciplinary areas, something found also in Italy

(Anzivino and Dordoni, 2022).

Overall, research suggests that grant acquisition impacts research

collaborations and networks. Impact on productivity is less clear and might

depend on different factors. In the case of ERC, there is a dearth of research

on the scientific output of grant-holders when compared to non-grant-

holders, or between different similar grants. Importantly, there are no studies

about FIRB recipients.

In the Italian context, ERC and FIRB are the only two main funding

schemes that are pivoted on the idea of boosting individuals’ research for

226

early and mid-researchers, securing a 100% of budget allocation for a

reasonably long span of time, typically around three years. These two

prestige-signalling schemes operate within a homogenous system. The

structure of teaching load and other administrative duties, further grant

capture included, is much uniformed in Italy in comparison to other contexts

like the Anglo-Saxon ones (Anderson and Slade, 2016), allowing better

terms of comparison between before and after a single major grant

acquisition.

This paper analyses the scientific performance of FIRB recipients,

comparing them with a randomly-selected group of non-grant holders, and

to ERC recipients. This is a novel approach to further understand the impact

of those grant schemes aimed at boosting individual careers.

2. Dataset and variables

An original dataset is built for this study. The dataset is a set of scientific

publications downloaded from Scopus out of a list of individual academics.

Total of individuals are slightly above 1000. Individuals are:

 the whole list of FIRB recipients (239, 39.6% women – collected

from official websites and referred to 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2013 waves).

 ERC recipients (124; 35.4% women – collected from official

websites and with same years of awarding) at the ranks of assistant professor

and associate professor affiliated in Italian universities irrespectively of

nationality who got ERC in same years of FIRB recipients.

 A randomly extracted list of academics (807 non-awardees; 41.1%

women).

The way the third group (the control group, hereafter CG) is extracted

is relevant, and explanation follows. We could escalate from both FIRB

and ERC awardees respective academic rank and disciplinary field (Settore

Concorsuale, SC hereafter). From the universe of Italian academics

(https://cercauniversita.cineca.it/php5/docenti/cerca.php) we weight

extraction by rank (assistant professors and associate professors) and SC in

order to maximise comparability. We extracted considering the same years

when ERC and FIRB recipients had their respective projects approved and

funded (see below Treatment for more details). In other words, for each

year of FIRB wave (2008, 2010, 2012, 2013), we extracted a slightly higher

number of Italian academics in the same rank and SC in order to compose

a statistically robust control group. Acknowledging disciplinary

differences to a very fine-grained extent assures comparability of

227

publication patterns. To account for academic rank in the same year (e.g.,

a FIRB awardee in 2008 who is assistant professor compared to another

who is equally assistant professor in the same discipline, and in the same

year) helps keeping age or working experience comparable amongst the

two.

Starting from name and surnames, along with university of affiliation of

all the three groups (ERC and FIRB recipients, and CG), we searched and

downloaded individuals’ publications from Scopus, obtaining a total of

around 67.000 publications. Scopus allows to get several information

otherwise not observable (see further).

A relevant assumption is that all publications by “treated” groups (ERC

and FIRB recipients) in post-treatment period are considered funded by

either ERC or FIRB, although not necessarily Scopus may grab such

funding agencies for each output – this being consistent with the nature of

the schemes that do not cover a single project, but one’s academic position.

Variables are explained below, and summarised in their descriptive

statistics in Table 1. Table 1 is original in displaying publications patterns

both before and after acquisition of grants, including the CG. Without this

original dataset, such figures, at least concerning FIRB, would have

remained unobserved.

Treatment and period. Treated publications are those authored by FIRB

or ERC recipients. Among all recipients, only 13 people have won both a

FIRB and an ERC in same years, showing poor agglomeration effect, as

instead found in Sweden (Hallonsten & Hugander, 2014). Period is

essential to run a difference-in-difference analysis: p0 are publications

happened in pre-treatment, and p1 publications happened in post-treatment.

Moments of treatment follow ERC or FIRB waves. For each person in CG,

the year identifying pre- and post-treatment depends by the respective grant

recipient we extracted them against. For instance, an assistant professor in

SC “10/A1” (Archaeology) who got a FIRB in 2010 will have same p0 and

p1 of another randomly sampled academics in the same SC who were

equally in the rank of assistant professors in 2010. We acknowledge that

years of issuing FIRB grants and actual moment in conferring the grant to

winners may elapse one or two years. Therefore, the moment of treatment

is postponed to two years after announcement. This happened because

FIRB calls (e.g., FIRB2012) took name from the year of launching (e.g.,

people awarded with FIRB2012 call became operative around 2014). For

testing parallel assumption (see further), one may note that per each

publication it is possible to compute the time series of pre-treatment

publication for each group (FIRB, ERC, CG).

228

Scimago Journal Ranking (SJR) – dependent variable 1. Scimago

Journal Ranking is a measure of relevance and prestige of any journal or

destination of publication. For outputs related to non-ranked journals by

Scimago, we compute a zero value, on the assumption that no recognition

at all equals no relevance at all in international scientific community, or at

least arguably an inferior value to any other lowly ranked journal. This

distribution is skewed. This variable is consistent with previous studies

concerning a comparison between awarded against non-awarded scientists

in funding scheme such as ERC (Neufeld et al., 2013), proposing also an

in-depth statistical analysis of the effect of publishing in some specific

journals by grant-capture success. From Table 1, averages of SJR

demonstrate an increase for all three groups between a pre- and post-

treatment, although this increase is not proportionate because pre-treatment

averages are remarkably different across the three groups. ERC recipients

are the most performing (1.6825 in p0 vs. 1.9187 in p1); followed by FIRB

recipients (1.5839 vs. 1.6212 in p0 and p1); and CG academics who almost

did not improve at all this measure by time.

International collaborations (intcoll) – dependent variable 2. This

variable defines whether each publication was co-authored with at least

another colleague affiliated in any other country but Italy, and, if yes, how

many countries were included. This variable is computed from the list of

affiliations of co-authors that Scopus allows to grab. By identifying some

60 countries, arguably the most probable ones in co-authoring, it results

that around 60% of publications are not internationally co-authored. As

expected, this distribution is very skewed. Only 1% of scientific outputs

are co-authored by colleagues affiliated in six or more countries.

International collaborations are essential to account for two aspects. First,

ERC and FIRB are respectively international and national schemes, so that

FIRB, although aimed at excellence, might perform less prominently in

facilitating international collaborations. Second, FIRB is pivoted,

according to its own explicit rationale, on the idea of boosting international

collaborations and further international grant captures. Hence, it is

important to assess if and to what extent FIRB recipients achieved such

goal. From Table 1 one may note an increase in international collaborations

by all three sets of academics. ERC recipients passed from 0.7102 into

1.0958, on average; FIRB recipients from 0.6058 into 0.7806; sampled

people in the CG from 0.4276 into 0.7697. Although these figures are

consistent with previous research about ERC awardees (Pina et al., 2019),

or similar Swedish schemes (Melin and Danell, 2006), we add the

advantage of comparing against non-awardees.

229

Number of authors (no_authors). This variable counts how many co-

authors are listed by each publication. This variable helps disentangling

networks and citation acquisition (Hsu and Huang, 2011), despite co-

authors are not necessarily affiliated abroad. The number of co-authors per

output and the gross number of citations per output are correlated.

Interestingly, Table 1 shows that CG, both before and after treatment,

publish with more co-authors (from 6.8 into 10.5 co-authors per outputs).

ERC recipients show fewer number of co-authoring colleagues, and at the

same time they almost did not increase this figure (passing from 5.9 into

6.1). This variable is hence a helpful confounding variable when testing

whether awardees co-author with researchers affiliated abroad.

First Quartile publications (Q1). This variable defines whether any

specific publication appeared in a journal or proceeding listed as first

quartile in Scimago list of journals. This variable splits almost perfectly the

dataset between publications appeared in first quartile journals, or in any

other quartile. More precisely, ERC recipients published 59% of

publications in Q1 venues in p0, and 65% in p1. FIRB recipients passed

from 58% into 62%. Last, CG published only 40% of times in first quartile

journals in in pre-treatment (p0), for later, in p1, reaching 47% (see Table

1).

Normalised number of citations (Normcit). We use a normalised

measure of citations by year of publication to account for a further measure

of quality of publication. In this case, citations are scaled by the number of

years elapsed from present. Likewise other variables, ERC grant recipients

perform remarkably better in comparison to the CG. Nevertheless,

comparing pre- and post- moment of grant acquisition, Table 1 shows these

figures for each group: from 4.6 into 3.1 for ERC awardees; from 3.2 into

2.3 for FIRB recipients; from 1.6 into 1.8 among CG. Testing research

questions, in Table2 and Table3 we use the natural logarithm of this

variable.

Language (lang). English is used as the language of publication in 97%

of the cases in this dataset. Publications written in Italian are 2.5% of the

total. Arguably, publications that do not use English are less likely to reach

international audiences. For all the three groups, this value goes up towards

a saturation of use of English by time, possibly as an effect of more

emphasis over internationalization.

Open Access (OA). Publishing in open access mode have obtained

attention in literature. Usually, publications released in open access receive

on average more citations (Wang et al., 2015). We use this variable as a

confounding one on the ground that, according to descriptive statistics,

230

recipients appear more likely to publish articles in this form. Overall,

almost 16% of publications are open access. Following Table 1, CG

academics in p0 published 13.5% of their publications in open access,

whereas ERC and FIRB recipients in p0 published respectively 10.3% and

11.8% of their outputs in this mode. In post-treatment period, CG increased

minimally towards 14.4%, whereas ERC and FIRB recipients more than

doubled their mode of publication, arriving to publish around a quarter of

their publications in this way. Arguably open access publications are also

a consequence of unequal financial resources: ERC and FIRB recipients

may have budget allocated specifically for publishing. In other cases, it is

the editor of the journal to make a specific article available as open access.

This latter case is independent to being awardees or not. For the relevance

of this study, publishing in open access is not per se a performance, but it

could be one of those side advantages rolled over by being grant recipients.

Table 1 - Descriptive statistics of publications (averages by univocal

individual) by type of awardee

Control Group ERC recipients FIRB recipients

p0 p

1p0p1p0p1

Scimago Journal

Rankin

- SJR

0.9855 1.0104 1.6825 1.9187 1.5839 1.6212

Open Access - OA 0.1350 0.1444 0.1035 0.2509 0.1186 0.2438

Language (1

English) - lang

0.9543 0.9609 0.9944 0.9982 0.9712 0.9961

Number of Authors

- no

authors

6.8289 10.492

5.9398 6.0600 6.8046 8.6935

Article in first

quartile

ournal - q1

0.4080 0.4717 0.5923 0.6594 0.5829 0.6254

Citation (time

scaled) - normci

1.5971 1.7687 4.6047 3.1203 3.1632 2.3215

International co-

authorships -

intcoll

0.4276 0.7697 0.7102 1.0958 0.6058 0.7806

Journ. “Fascia A” -

riv

a (non-STEM)

0.1363 0.1117 0.1455 0.1236 0.1372 0.1369

Riviste in Fascia A (riv_a). Fascia A is a list of official top-journals for

each respective field, as per Italian national evaluation agency (ANVUR).

We flagged any publication as riv_a if text of journal where articles is

published in Scopus matches the list released by ANVUR. This

computation is valid and computed only for non-bibliometric disciplines,

as per Italian official definitions (Architecture, Humanities, Law,

231

Economics, Statistics, Social Sciences). According to this dataset, FIRB

kept the percentage of riv_a constant (almost 14% of their publications),

whereas ERC recipients and CG dropped by a couple of points their

publications in these journals. It is to be noted that riv_a are mandatory

achievements for promotions (Marini and Meschitti, 2018), but only few

publications in a span of some 10 years may suffice to guarantee the

minimum threshold for promotion. Moreover, riv_a is not highly correlated

to SRJ or Q1, which is in line with critical analyses upon the topic

(Akbaritabar et al., 2021).

Gender does not appear in Table 1 as sex is not likely to change during

few years of observation.

3. Hypotheses

This paper focuses on the impact of FIRB on a cohort of Italian early

and mid-researchers. We empirically investigate whether FIRB grant-

holders developed the expected upgrade in their post-award grant careers,

when compared to a randomly extracted control group, and compared to

ERC recipients, which is the most similar scheme Italian academics may

win. Selection of dependent variables (SJR and intcoll) reflects the goals

of FIRB in terms of publication patterns. We compare pre- and post-

performances in terms of publication patterns, running conventional

difference-in-difference regressions. We performed tests of parallel

assumption for the time series prior to treatment period for these two

combinations (FIRB vs. CG and FIRB vs. ERC), obtaining a satisfactory

outcome for both dependent variables. This choice accounts for possible

pre-treatment differences by the three groups of individuals, which is

unobserved from ready-to-use data, but provided in this study as an original

dataset. This is also consistent with the idea of thriving excellence in

science (e.g., an already well performing researcher may improve her

outputs even in case she remained a top-scholar in a given field).

More specifically, the expected change in the production pattern is to

observe grant recipients to ameliorate more than non-recipients (CG) in

terms of: i) quality of target journals and ii) international co-authorships.

When comparing against ERC awardees, we expect to find that FIRB is as

conducive of change as ERC does. Thus, null hypothesis is that recipients

should not increase any pre-treatment divide, considering a conceivably

difference which should be already in place. It is to be noted that these

effects are checked during years of deep changes in Italian higher education

232

context, with new career regulations (Marini, 2017), new formula funding

regimes (Capano, 2018), and incipient institutional stratification (Mateos-

González and Boliver, 2019), discontinuing an egalitarian rationale. It is to

be noted that this paper does not assess the fairness of awarding procedures

of FIRB nor ERC, where incongruencies, such as gender discrimination,

might have happened.

Operationally, we test whether quality of target journal (SJR) and

international co-authorships (intcoll) increased accounting for a series of

covariates that are exposed in Table1, totalling four models: FIRB vs. CG

and FIRB vs. ERC for predicting SJR; and same for predicting international

co-authorships. We also compute the same tests for non-bibliometric

disciplines, including in this case also the dummy variable about Fascia A

target journals (Table 3).

We pursued variance inflation factors (vif) post-estimation tests for each

model, revealing no multicollinearity problems.

4. Results

Table 2 first two models compare FIRB awardees against CG, and FIRB

against ERC recipients in predicting SJR. The other two models in Table 2

predict international co-authorships follow the same scheme (FIRB vs. CG;

FIRB vs. ERC). We adjust standard errors by univocal authors, which is

compliant with the corollary that clustering does occur in our assignment

(Abadie et al., 2017).

In terms of capacity by recipients to publish in journals that are more

highly ranked (SJR), the first two Models in Table 2 show that publications

authored by FIRB recipients increased their performance against CG at a

statistically significant degree (treatment*period coefficients). This means

that whatever the averages before and after treatment period by both

groups, FIRB recipients ended to publish in more challenging journals,

namely publishing on average in journals that are 0.2 higher in rankings.

As expectable, among the covariates a major role is played by the binary

variable regarding publications listed in first quartile. Also, international

collaborations and normalised citations (lnnormcit) are positive covariates.

Interestingly, the coefficients about the number of co-authors are

statistically non-significant, meaning that publishing with many co-authors

is not per se conducive to publish in top journals. Model2 comparing FIRB

vs. ERC does not show statistically significant effects, meaning that in

233

relation to publishing in highly ranked journals there is not any appreciable

difference between being an ERC or a FIRB recipient.

Table 2 - Difference in differences tests predicting effect on SJR and

international co-authorships, comparing FIRB recipients against CG and

against ERC, OLS. T-statistic from robust standard errors in brackets.

Observations clustered by univocal individuals

SJR intcoll

FIRBvsCG FIRBvsERC FIRBvsCG FIRBvsERC

1.trea

0.187* 0.0225 0.0848 -0.0433

(2.29) (0.16) (1.36) (-0.47)

1.perio

-0.177*** 0.138 0.260*** 0.426***

(-5.70) (1.26) (6.68) (3.36)

1.treat*period 0.209** -0.144 -0.0856 -0.314*

(2.61) (-1.19) (-1.49) (-2.37)

sex 0.0787 -0.0279 0.111 0.131*

(1.52) (-0.22) (1.67) (2.10)

OA 0.146*** 0.318*** 0.112*** 0.207***

(3.56) (3.92) (3.34) (4.39)

Lan

0.0236 -0.249* 0.0136 0.206***

(0.34) (-2.35) (0.34) (3.65)

no_authors -0.000545 -0.00104 0.0188*** 0.0139***

(-1.09) (-0.99) (4.55) (6.14)

Q1 1.145*** 1.259*** 0.0376 0.0575

(36.91) (21.61) (1.31) (1.80)

lnnormcit 0.818*** 1.169*** 0.225*** 0.167***

(12.85) (11.62) (7.83) (6.17)

ibliometric -0.122 -0.254 -0.417 -0.0133

(-1.30) (-1.37) (-1.06) (-0.12)

intcoll 0.111*** 0.197***

(5.41) (5.36)

SJR 0.0653*** 0.0510***

(5.65) (6.06)

cons 0.0435 0.131 0.359 0.0159

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

R2 0.2599 0.2569 0.2653 0.2404

N(individuals) 987 260 987 260

N(publications) 46109 17449 46109 17449

* p< 0.05;

** p< 0.01;

*** p< 0.001.

234

Table 3 - Difference in differences tests predicting effect on SJR and

international co-authorships, comparing FIRB recipients against CG and

against ERC, OLS. Non-Bibliometric fields. Robust Standard Errors in

brackets. Observations clustered by univocal individuals

SJR intcoll

FIRBvsCG FIRBvsERC FIRBvsCG FIRBvsERC

1.treat 0.178 -0.130 -0.232 -0.290

(

0.55

)

(

-0.30

)

(

-0.59

)

(

-1.60

)

1.perio

-0.0954 0.174 -0.132 0.0383

(

-1.10

)

(

0.79

)

(

-0.49

)

(

0.32

)

1.treat*perio

-0.0919 -0.189 0.363 0.00459

(

-0.38

)

(

-0.56

)

(

1.16

)

(

0.02

)

sex 0.0317 0.565* -0.274 0.381*

(

0.18

)

(

2.23

)

(

-0.79

)

(

2.12

)

OA -0.290* -0.265 -0.0612 0.178

(

-2.40

)

(

-1.04

)

(

-0.53

)

(

1.55

)

Lang 0.0456 -0.345 -0.289** -0.237

(

0.29

)

(

-1.29

)

(

-3.27

)

(

-1.69

)

no_authors 0.00568* 0.0167 0.0668*** 0.173***

(

2.27

)

(

0.41

)

(

23.82

)

(

3.56

)

Q1 1.380*** 1.442*** 0.179 0.125

(

10.23

)

(

6.90

)

(

0.77

)

(

1.27

)

lnnormcit 0.673*** 1.155*** 0.398* 0.140*

(

4.08

)

(

4.08

)

(

2.07

)

(

2.42

)

riv_a 0.369 0.0828 0.156 0.359

(

1.84

)

(

0.25

)

(

0.73

)

(

1.54

)

intcoll 0.0418 0.281*

(

1.02

)

(

2.35

)

SJR 0.0673 0.0515*

(

1.87

)

(

2.59

)

cons 0.0506 -0.258 0.353 -0.173

(

0.21

)

(

-0.65

)

(

1.00

)

(

-0.85

)

F<p 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

R2 0.2906 0.2830 0.5612 0.3340

ublications

)

2736 1246 2736 1246

(

individuals

)

188 51 188 51

* p< 0.05;

** p< 0.01;

*** p< 0.001.

Model3 highlights no effect of FIRB schemes on international co-

authorships when compared to CG. Although FIRB recipients increased

their average capability to co-author with other scholars affiliated in other

countries, they did not improve such internationality to an extent that can

be claimed as an effect of having received a FIRB. In other words, having

received a FIRB grant (which is supposed to serve as a leverage for

235

enhancing international networks) did not produce the expected outcome.

In this model, number of co-authors is a positive covariate in predicting

international co-authorships, as already found in literature (Henriksen,

2016). Yet, other variables like publishing in open access mode and

prestige of journals (SJR) contribute to predict higher levels of

internationalization in publications. Model4 tests different effects

between FIRB and ERC recipients, showing that there is a positive

statistically significant coefficient in favour of ERC recipients. When it

comes to talk about international collaborations, ERC is more effective

than FIRB allowing the former to have an average of 0.3 more

international co-authors in their post-awarding publications. This is

remarkable as both aimed explicitly to produce this change in publication

pattern.

The same tests for non-bibliometric fields only does not show any

statistically significant effects on the interaction terms, meaning that

FIRB did not help increasing the outcome performances (Table 3,

Model1). There is no difference between FIRB and ERC (Table 3,

Model2). In first two models, open access mode of publishing (OA) is not

associated with publishing in more highly ranked journal like found in

Table 2. Instead, first quartile journals (Q1) show similar coefficients

(Model1 and 2 of both Table 2 and 3). For Model3 and Model4 in Table3,

number of authors and citations are positively associated with

international co-authorships. For all models, Fascia A journals do not play

a relevant role.

In relation to gender, this dataset does not allow to glimpse differences

in terms of publications patterns. Possibly, a dynamic of restriction of

gender differences among younger generation might explain the absence

of gender as a statistically significant difference (van Arensbergen et al.,

2012). Another interpretation could be that of resonating traditional

research about the effect of prestigious nominations on future life course

irrespectively to gender (Chapman and McCauley, 1993). Third, this

secondary dataset does not allow to check by family composition, as

recently debated (Lawson et al., 2021). Any consideration about gender

as an unfair discriminator is probably to be referred to either the moment

of evaluation of project, for which a different research design would be

needed, or to promotions. However, it is to be noted that among non-

bibliometric fields and among awardees only (FIRB vs. ERC excludes

CG, restricting tests only on awardees) to be a man is a positively

associated with higher values of both dependent variables (Table 3,

Models 2 and 4).

236

5. Discussion

Our findings about the pay-off of receiving a major grant are similar to

those in literature that discuss a tiny marginal advantage for those who

receive a main research grant, either in terms of productivity as number of

outputs (Jacob and Lefgren, 2011b), or measured as citations attraction

(Jacob and Lefgren, 2011a). Overall, effects are visible in relation to

publishing better research, meaning publishing in highly ranked journals as

per Scimago metric. However, there is no discernible effect in publishing in

international networks. Instead, FIRB recipients may underperform in

comparison to ERC ones in this respect. One of the many possible

interpretations deals with the implicit networks, being ERC intrinsically

international, and FIRB a domestic one. This findings echoes a comparison

between ERC and INGVAR program (Melin and Danell, 2006), although

this dataset does not account for further grant capture which in turns was

found to be positively associated to this Swedish program.

When considering the + control group, one may account that the latter

academics might have engaged in some strategic behaviours to keep their

research performance high. Similarly to Thomas and Nedeva (2012) who

compared ERC grantees against a control group of unsuccessful applicants,

researchers may create their own “enabling conditions”. First, they may

establish collaborations with some recipients themselves, or they might rely

on other sources in order to continue publish regularly. Second, as argued by

Perc (2014), density of networks (for instance detected empirically in our

study by the gross number of co-authors per output) may help non-recipients

in keeping productivity high. For non-bibliometric fields, where excellence

is measured by official national definitions (Fascia A) in terms of target

journals, internationalization per se may be less relevant in comparison to a

bibliometric field.

Some contextual explanations are also possible. The legacy of a non-

stratified Italian higher education system, and the poor tradition in buying

teaching load for awardees of large grants, may both contribute to produce

such non-dividing effect. Moreover, in the same years of observation, a new

promotion system based on a national fit-for-role assessment (ASN) entered

into force in Italy, giving a generalised “publish or perish” motivation to

anyone with promotion ambitions (Marini, 2017).

In comparison to Defazio and colleagues (2009), who found that funding

is conducive to more intense collaborations especially in the longer term

(albeit non-specifying if meant as number of co-authors or international co-

authorships), FIRB scheme is not intrinsically multi-player in the first place.

237

This feature may explain the poor effect in increasing international

collaborations by grants recipients. Presumably, publication patterns depend

consistently on career stage, or age, per se (Jung, 2014).

To discuss some criticalities about excellence schemes is useful as well.

Considering previous research about how grants are bestowed (Bornmann et

al., 2008), our study suggests that there is a possible decoupling effect

between the goal of boosting the careers of promising researchers, and the

post-awarding performances by both awardees and non-awardees. On the

one hand, the performance by awardees is superior compared to non-

awardees (as per Table 1 prima facie statistics); on the other hand, this fact

is a function of one’s own past and present opportunities. In other words, the

actual potential of non-awardees who are objectively less performing before

the moment of (potential) “treatment” not necessarily is a by-product of a

deficit in skills and abilities. This argument implies that, in the longer term,

non-awardees may perform well nevertheless. In other words, a person who

does not shine particularly up to a moment when another colleague of similar

age and rank achieved relevant publications (and thus getting a grant), not

necessarily is manifesting her real and actual potential, acknowledging a

critical stance towards the same concept of potential (Scheffler, 1985). In

empirical terms, receiving a grant could be even a manifestation of one’s

own stronger mentor at early stages of career. Possibly, the same implicit

idea of selecting the best applicants (“feeding the best potential” assumption)

might be problematic, although this falls outside the purposes of this study.

Some limitations deserve attention. First of all, FIRB is not the only grant

one may obtain in Italy, although FIRB is basically the only one with features

and goals aimed at boosting individual careers. Some other competitive

grants may as well serve effectively in promoting one’s own research, giving

autonomy to carry on an interesting research agenda, expanding

collaborations, and/or signalling one’s presence in the epistemic community.

The case of PRIN projects (“Progetti di rilevante interesse nazionale”) may

to some extent produce similar effects even in the position of branch PI, or

even co-PI of a project. For instance, for a relatively young academic to be

co-PI in a PRIN project may convey prestige, embeddedness within the

epistemic community, and opportunities of collaborations. This possibility is

sustained by a recent study about the spill-over effect of collaborating with

successful researchers (Mirnezami et al., 2020). Moreover, many other

funding opportunities, both from national and international sources, may

apply. Second, it is not of easy retrieval to compute whether each person

comprising treatment or control group accessed any (other) national or

international funding scheme, and – this exacerbates the retrieval issue –

238

whether they had any leading role (which is in principle observable) or just

co-led and/or participated out of other modes of inclusion (e.g., post-doctoral

contracts, informal collaborations, etc. – all these actual participations being

substantially unobservable and presumably conducive of shaping publishing

patterns). Future research about European infrastructures may facilitate

access upon funding information at individual level. At the same time,

funding acknowledgement stored by repositories like Scopus might become

more manageable and comprehensive than they are at current stage, helping

to compute variables out of non-uniformed and non-standardised string texts.

Another issue is that of acquiring further funds, which is one of the goals of

FIRB – an analysis suitable for future studies. Yet, future research aiming at

analysing research performances ought to look at multiple factors that are

becoming relevant, such as quality of Department of affiliation, availability

to access Doctoral Programs, and other factors influencing individuals’

publication patterns. Last, Scopus repository may be deficient in the case of

the humanities, whereas other national or institutional repositories may

represent a more comprehensive source.



Conclusion

Overall, this analysis finds that FIRB scheme helps improving to

publish in highly ranked journals. However, FIRB does not engender

effects in terms of internationalization (increasing the act of co-authoring

with colleagues based abroad). Although launched to favour

internationalization, FIRB recipients are outscored by ERC ones, possibly

due to isomorphism (Hallonsten and Hugander, 2014). Yet, FIRB is more

problematic among non-bibliometric fields in relation to publication in

highly-ranked journals. In non-bibliometric fields the definition of

excellence may be loosely related to accepted metrics in, say, STEM

disciplines.

Considering the chronic problems the Italian higher education system

has had across decades in terms funding for regular recruitment, and the

detrimental consequences of such funding tradition (Pezzoni et al., 2012),

a policy recommendation might be that of diverting resources like FIRB

towards regular recruitment if times are dominated by poor resources, and

to keep funding initiatives like FIRB only in case of disposal. For non-

bibliometric fields specific goals and respective funding might let emerge

better the pay-off of such scheme.



239

References

Abadie A. et al. (2017). When should you adjust standard errors for clustering? National

Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series 24003. DOI: 10.3386/w24003.

Abramo G., D’Angelo A. C., and Murgia G. (2017). The relationship among research

productivity, research collaboration, and their determinants. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4):

1016-1030. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.09.007.

Akbaritabar A., Bravo G., and Squazzoni F. (2021). The impact of a national research

assessment on the publications of sociologists in Italy. Science and Public Policy, 48(5): 662-

678. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scab013.

Anderson D. M., Slade C. P. (2016). Managing institutional research advancement:

Implications from a university faculty time allocation study. Research in higher education,

57(1): 99-121. DOI: 10.1007/s11162-015-9376-9.

Anzivino M., Dordoni, A. (2022). La produttività scientifica nell’accademia italiana in

una prospettiva di genere. Socioligia del Lavoro, 162: 141-163. DOI: 10.3280/SL2022-

162007.

Ayoubi C., Pezzoni M., and Visentin F. (2019). The important thing is not to win, it is to

take part: What if scientists benefit from participating in research grant competitions?

Research Policy, 48(1): 84-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.07.021.

Baldwin R. (1981). Expanding Faculty Options: Career Development Projects at Colleges

and Universities. Text available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED217780.pdf.

(28/07/2023)

Bautista-Puig N., García-Zorita C., and Mauleón E. (2019). European Research Council:

excellence and leadership over time from a gender perspective. Research Evaluation, 28(4):

370-382. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvz023.

Beerkens M. (2019). The European Research Council and the academic profession:

insights from studying starting grant holders. European Political Science, 18(2): 267-274.

DOI: 10.1057/s41304-018-0166-7.

Bol T., de Vaan M., and van de Rijt A. (2018). The Matthew effect in science funding.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(19): 4887-4890. DOI:

10.1073/pnas.1719557115.

Bornmann L., Wallon G., and Ledin A. (2008). Does the committee peer review select the

best applicants for funding? An investigation of the selection process for two European

molecular biology organization programmes. PloS one, 3(10): e3480-e3480. DOI:

10.1371/journal.pone.0003480.

Capano, G. (2018). Policy design spaces in reforming governance in higher education: the

dynamics in Italy and the Netherlands. Higher Education, 75: 675-694. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-

017-0158-5

Carayol N., Lanoë M. (2017). The Impact of Project-Based Funding in Science: Lessons

from the ANR Experience. Text available at: https://ideas.repec.org/p/grt/wpegrt/2017-

04.html. (28/07/23)

Chapman G. B., McCauley C. (1993). Early career achievements of National Science

Foundation (NSF) graduate applicants: Looking for Pygmalion and Galatea effects on NSF

winners. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5): 815-820. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.815.

Defazio D., Lockett A., and Wright M. (2009). Funding incentives, collaborative

dynamics and scientific productivity: Evidence from the EU framework program. Research

Policy, 38(2): 293-305. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.11.008.

240

Edler J., Frischer D., Glanz M., and Stampfer M. (2014). Funding Individuals – Changing

Organisations: The Impact of the ERC on Universities. In Organizational Transformation and

Scientific Change: The Impact of Institutional Restructuring on Universities and Intellectual

Innovation, Vol. 42, 77-109. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. DOI:

10.1108/S0733-558X20140000042003.

ERC (2015a). Comparative scientometric assessment of the results of ERC funded

projects. Alternative metrics report (D7). European Commission.

https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/file/ERC_Alternative_Metrics_report.pdf.

ERC (2015b). Comparative scientometric assessment of the results of ERC funded

projects. Bibliometric assessment report (D5). European Commission.

https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/file/ERC_Bibliometrics_report.pdf.

ERC (2020). Qualitative evaluation of completed projects funded by the European

Research Council 2019. European Research Council.

https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/file/2020-qualitative-evaluation-

projects.pdf.

Follesdal A. (2019). The European Research Council@ 10: whither hopes and fears?.

European Political Science, 18(2): 237-247. DOI: 10.1057/s41304-018-0164-9.

Hadani M., Coombes S., Das D., and Jalajas D. (2012). Finding a good job: Academic

network centrality and early occupational outcomes in management academia. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 33(5): 723-739. DOI: 10.1002/job.788.

Hallonsten O., Hugander O. (2014). Supporting ‘future research leaders’ in Sweden:

Institutional isomorphism and inadvertent funding agglomeration. Research Evaluation,

23(3): 249-260. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvu009.

Heffernan T. (2021). Academic networks and career trajectory:‘There’s no career in

academia without networks’. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(5): 981-994,

DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2020.1799948.

Henriksen D. (2016). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013).

Scientometrics, 107(2): 455-476. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x.

Hsu J.-w., Huang D.-w. (2011). Correlation between impact and collaboration.

Scientometrics, 86(2): 317-324. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-010-0265-x.

Huber N., Wegner A., and Neufeld J. (2015). Evaluation report on the impact of the ERC

Starting Grant Programme. MERCI (Monitoring European Research Council's

Implementation of Excellence), iFQ-Working Paper(16). Text available at

http://www.forschungsinfo.de/Publikationen/Download/working_paper_16_2015.pdf.

(28/07/2023)

Hussinger K., Carvalho J.N. (2022). The long-term effect of research grants on the

scientific output of university professors. Industry and Innovation, 29(4): 463-487, DOI:

10.1080/13662716.2021.1990023.

Jacob B. A., Lefgren L. (2011a). The impact of NIH postdoctoral training grants on

scientific productivity. Research Policy, 40(6): 864-874. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.04.003.

Jacob B. A., Lefgren L. (2011b). The impact of research grant funding on scientific

productivity. Journal of public economics, 95(9-10): 1168-1177. DOI:

10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.05.005.

Jung J. (2014). Research productivity by career stage among Korean academics. Tertiary

Education and Management, 20(2): 85-105. DOI: 10.1080/13583883.2014.889206

Kalyani R. R., Yeh H.-C., Clark J. M., Weisfeldt M. L., Choi T., and MacDonald S. M.

(2015). Sex differences among career development awardees in the attainment of independent

research funding in a department of medicine. Journal of Women's Health, 24(11): 933-939.

DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2015.5331.

241

Langfeldt L., Benner M., Sivertsen G., Kristiansen E. H., Aksnes D. W., Borlaug, S. B.,

Hansen H. F., Kallerud E., and Pelkonen A. (2015). Excellence and growth dynamics: A

comparative study of the Matthew effect. Science and Public Policy, 42(5): 661-675. DOI:

10.1093/scipol/scu083.

Laufer M. (2020). Crossing academic borders: exploring the role of social capital in

academic hiring. Comparative Education, 56(4): 583-601. DOI:

10.1080/03050068.2020.1782603.

Lawson C., Geuna A., and Finardi U. (2021). The funding-productivity-gender nexus in

science, a multistage analysis. Research Policy, 50(3): 104182. DOI:

10.1016/j.respol.2020.104182.

Lerchenmueller M. J., Sorenson O. (2018). The gender gap in early career transitions in

the life sciences. Research Policy, 47(6): 1007-1017. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.009.

Luukkonen T. (2014). The European Research Council and the European research funding

landscape. Science and Public Policy, 41(1): 29-43. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/sct031.

Marini G. (2017). New promotion patterns in Italian universities: Less seniority and more

productivity? Data from ASN. Higher Education, 73(2): 189-205. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-016-

0008-x.

Marini G., Meschitti V. (2018). The trench warfare of gender discrimination: evidence

from academic promotions to full professor in Italy. Scientometrics 115: 989-1006. DOI:

10.1007/s11192-018-2696-8.

Mateos-González J.L., Boliver V. (2019). Performance-based university funding and the

drive towards ‘institutional meritocracy’ in Italy. British Journal of Sociology of

Education, 40:2: 145-158, DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2018.1497947

Mayer S. J., Rathmann J. M. K. (2018). How does research productivity relate to gender?

Analyzing gender differences for multiple publication dimensions. Scientometrics, 117(3):

1663-1693. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2933-1.

Melin, G., Danell, R. (2006). The top eight percent: development of approved and rejected

applicants for a prestigious grant in Sweden. Science and Public Policy, 33(10): 702-712.

DOI: 10.3152/147154306781778579.

Mirnezami S. R., Beaudry C., and Tahmooresnejad L. (2020). The effect of collaboration

with top-funded scholars on scientific production. Science and Public Policy, 47(2): 219-234.

DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scz060.

Morgan A. C., Economou D. J., Way S. F., and Clauset A. (2018). Prestige drives

epistemic inequality in the diffusion of scientific ideas. EPJ Data Science, 7(1): 40. DOI:

10.1140/epjds/s13688-018-0166-4.

Nedeva M., Stampfer M. (2012). From “science in Europe” to “European science”.

Science, 336(6084): 982-983. DOI: 10.1126/science.1216878.

Neufeld J., Huber N., and Wegner A. (2013). Peer review-based selection decisions in

individual research funding, applicants’ publication strategies and performance: The case of

the ERC Starting Grants. Research Evaluation, 22(4): 237-247. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvt014.

Perc M. (2014). The Matthew effect in empirical data. Journal of The Royal Society

Interface, 11(98): 20140378. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2014.0378.

Pezzoni M., Sterzi V., and Lissoni F. (2012). Career progress in centralized academic

systems: Social capital and institutions in France and Italy. Research Policy, 41(4): 704-719.

DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.009.

Piezunka H., Lee W., Haynes R., and Bothner M. S. (2018). The Matthew effect as an

unjust competitive advantage: Implications for competition near status boundaries. Journal of

Management Inquiry, 27(4): 378-381. DOI: 10.1177/1056492617737712.

242

Pina D. G., Barać L., Buljan I., Grimaldo F., and Marušić A. (2019). Effects of seniority,

gender and geography on the bibliometric output and collaboration networks of European

Research Council (ERC) grant recipients. PloS one, 14(2): e0212286. DOI:

10.1371/journal.pone.0212286.

Pluchino A., Biondo A.E., and Rapisarda A. (2018). Talent versus luck: The role of

randomness in success and failure. Advances in Complex Systems. 21(3&4): 1850014. DOI:

10.1142/S0219525918500145.

Primeri E., Reale E., Lepori B., Laredo P., Nedeva M., and Thomas D. (2014). Measuring

the opening of national R&D programs: what indicators for what purposes? Research

Evaluation, 23(4): 312-326. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvu018.

Sato S., Gygax P. M., Randall J., and Schmid Mast M. (2020). The leaky pipeline in

research grant peer review and funding decisions: challenges and future directions. Higher

Education, 82: 145-162. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-020-00626-y.

Scheffler I. (1985). Of Human Potential. An Essay in the Philosophy of Education.

Boston: Routledge.

Steinþórsdóttir F. S., Einarsdóttir Þ., Pétursdóttir G. M., and Himmelweit S. (2020).

Gendered inequalities in competitive grant funding: an overlooked dimension of gendered

power relations in academia. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(2): 362-375.

DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2019.1666257.

Thomas D., Nedeva M. (2012). Characterizing researchers to study research funding

agency impacts: The case of the European Research Council’s Starting Grants. Research

Evaluation, 21(4): 257-269. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvs020.

van Arensbergen P., van der Weijden I., and van den Besselaar P. (2012). Gender

differences in scientific productivity: a persisting phenomenon? Scientometrics, 93(3): 857-

868. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0712-y.

Vinkenburg C. J., Connolly S., Fuchs S., Herschberg C., and Schels B. (2020). Mapping

career patterns in research: A sequence analysis of career histories of ERC applicants. PloS

one, 15(7): e0236252. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236252.

Wang X., Liu C., Mao W., and Fang Z. (2015). The open access advantage considering

citation, article usage and social media attention. Scientometrics, 103(2): 555-564. DOI:

10.1007/s11192-015-1547-0.



ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.

Hybridisation of work and the platform informal revolution

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2023
Res Ital Soc

Focusing on the gig-economy, this contribution looks at platforms as the key vectors of a process of informalisation of the economy and of hybridisation of working arrangements. In the capitalism of infrastructures informality has far from disappeared from the scene of contemporary, rather, it is increasingly becoming an integral factor of the 'home-delivered world' society, through an increasing 'informalisation' of formal labour and a refeudalisation of working conditions. From this perspective, on-demand platforms stand at the forefront of this process of informalisation. On one hand, they expand the borders of capitalist financial accumulation extracting value from activities historically at the margins of the market economy. On the other, platforms are strongly intertwined with the political informalisation of labour relations as well as with the exploitation of masses of workers in both the global North and South. Based on a multi-sited ethnography between Italy and Argentina on the platform-based last-mile logistics, this contribution empirically highlights the interconnection between formal and informal circuits of labour in platform work, revealing a baroque economy in which informal, illicit, solidaristic, and predatory behaviours are intertwined.

Trade union revitalization in hard times: a mission impossible?

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2023
EUR J IND RELAT

The relation between trade unions’ power resources and their ability to revitalize is contentious. One strand of literature claims that weak power resources prevent unions from undertaking efforts to restore their strength and influence, while another research strand argues that the depletion of power resources may stimulate unions to take such actions. This Special Issue tests these conflicting expectations with evidence from eight Central-Eastern European (CEE) countries. It focuses on the drivers and outcomes of different types of revitalization strategies that CEE unions employ to respond to challenges. By examining the link between union power resources and their revitalization strategies, it expands the scholarly knowledge on the preconditions and limits of union revitalization in adverse contexts.

Resisting algorithmic control: Understanding the rise and variety of platform worker mobilisations

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2022

Lorenzo Cini

Algorithms are seen as effective for managing workers. Literature focuses mainly on the functioning and impact of algorithmic control on workers' experiences and conditions. The ways in which platform workers have organised collectively to regain control have received far less scholarly attention. This paper addresses this gap by making sense of the mobilisation dynamics of two platform‐work categories: crowdwork (Amazon Mechanical Turk) and work on‐demand (food‐delivery couriers). These are salient mobilisation cases, as these workers have resisted algorithmic control by adopting specific organising modes, action repertoires and collective solidarities. By analysing a combination of extant literature and policy reports concerning each category of mobilisation forms at a global level over 5 years, the study elucidates why and how these workers were able to act without the involvement of traditional trade unions by showing that specific supportive communities and political activism traditions were crucial in the rise and variety of mobilisation.

Digital Labor and the crisis of the Wage Labor system

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2022

In this introduction the editors of the Special Issue of Sociologia del lavoro devot-ed to digital labor and the crisis of the wage-labor system, analyse recent trends in the scholarship of platform capitalism in the aftermath of the pandemic outbreak. Platforms are not only a type of business model – they have become a crucial in-frastructure around which society reorganizes itself. They extract value not only from traditional labor activities, but also from the social cooperation. Their opera-tions permeate even private spaces and turn social ties such as kinship, friendship, and sexuality into complex monetization schemes. This process represents a depar-ture from the salary institution, where identity was mostly linked to the position occupied by each individual with respect to work and wages. Ultimately, the hid-den dimension of digital capitalism is represented by automation which, contrary to the prevailing opinion, does not mark the decline of human labor. A huge amount of data, and data work, is required to deploy platforms’ algorithms. Such work is performed by under- and micro-paid remote providers, often residing in low-income countries. Even if platform capitalism appears stronger since the Covid-19 outbreak, it is far from mastering the global challenges it triggers. As its contradictions become apparent, new struggles of digital workers become more visible and better organized

Dordoni, A. (2022), Young retail shift workers (not) planning their future: working with customers in the 24/7 service society in the transition to adulthood, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 42 (13/14): 66-80 (Open Access)

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2022
Int J Sociol Soc Pol

Annalisa Dordoni

Purpose The retail sector is not largely studied in Italy. The study offers a comparison between youth retail shift work in Milan and London. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the debate on the one hand on youth work and on the other hand to the debate on agency and structural factors in life planning, representation of the future and the transition to adulthood, observed in the United Kingdom's and Italian labour market. Even if the second one is a Southern European Country, these contexts are both characterised by a service-oriented economy and the widespread of precarious and flexible jobs. Design/methodology/approach Qualitative methods were used: one year of ethnographic observation, 50 interviews and two focus groups were carried out between 2015 and 2018 with retail workers and trade unionists. The contexts are Corso Buenos Aires in Milan, Italy, and Oxford Street in London, United Kingdom. Analysing young workers' discourses, the author identifies narratives that allow to grasp their present agency and imagined future. Findings Observing the crisis of the narrative (Sennett, 2020) allows to highlight the social consequences of working times on young workers' everyday life and future. The author argues that young workers struggle with the narrative of their present everyday life and the representation of the future. This relates to the condition of time alienation due to the flexible schedules and the fast pace of work in retail, both affecting the work-life balance. Originality/value The social consequences of flexible schedules in retail and fast fashion sector, which are new issues not yet sufficiently explored, are here investigated from the perspective of young workers. The study is focussed on the representations of young people working with customers in social and economic contexts characterised by flexible schedules and the deregulation of shop openings, the so-called 24/7 service society, not largely investigated in the sociological scientific literature, above all in the Italian context.

Informalization in gig food delivery in the UK : The case of hyper‐flexible and precarious work

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2022

This article examines the process of informalization of work in platform food delivery work in the UK. Drawing on qualitative data, this article provides new analytical insight into what drives individual formal couriers to both supply and demand informalized sub‐contracted gig work to undocumented migrants, and how a platform company enables informal work practices through permissive HR practices and technology. In doing so, this article shows how platform companies are enablers of informal labor markets and contribute to the expansion of hyper‐precarious working conditions.

New labour formations, precarious workers, and the gig economy: Lessons from british indie unions

Chapter

Oct 2022

Davide Però

I confini dell'impresa, il lavoro e le regole tra globale e locale: questioni e dibattiti

Article

Dec 2022

L'articolo ricostruisce il percorso e le acquisizioni della letteratura sociologica sul tema dei "confini dell'impresa" nel loro intreccio con le norme giuridiche e le istituzioni regolative. In particolare, si focalizzerà su tre nodi sviluppati da questa letteratura: il riconoscimento della sostanziale natura di "arbitraggio regolativo" dei processi organizzativi di frammentazione e di scomposizione della produzione e la centralità degli assetti regolativi e istituzionali nella loro analisi; il ruolo e le modali-tà di azione degli attori della regolazione e come queste sono influenzate dalle ca-ratteristiche delle configurazioni organizzative; la (non) applicazione delle norme come variabile, i modi in cui i processi di frammentazione organizzativa la favori-scono e il ruolo dello stato in questi processi.

Confini produttivi e confini lavorativi. La multidimensionalità dell’outsourcing nel capitalismo contemporaneo

Article

Dec 2022

L'outsourcing ha conosciuto una forte espansione negli ul-timi decenni, diffonden-dosi trasversalmente in diverse aree, imprese e settori. La sua capacità di adattarsi a mutevoli situazioni sociali e nor-mative lo ha reso lo strumento principale dei processi di ristrutturazio-ne produttiva, finendo per essere considerato una forma paradigmatica dell'organizzazione del capitalismo contemporaneo. Sebbene gran parte dell'attenzione nella letteratura sociologica sulle implicazioni dell'ester-nalizzazione sia stata posta sulla trasformazione dei regimi contrattuali, sulle con-dizioni di lavoro e sulla rappresentanza, noi evidenziamo co-me l'outsourcing ab-bia conseguenze significative anche su altre dimen-sioni del rapporto di lavoro, tra cui il processo lavorativo, la determina-zione della retribuzione e la composizione della manodopera. Riveden-do e combinando alcuni filoni della letteratura, soste-niamo quindi che il carattere paradigmatico dell'outsourcing, oltre alla sua grande diffusione a livello globale, va ricercato nella sua capacità di innescare processi di trasformazione multipli e concatenati che modificano profondamente il rapporto di lavoro.

Chapter 13 Migrants’ Practices of Citizenship and Policy Change

Chapter