Labor Studies Journal

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Danford, A.
Right arrow Articles by Upchurch, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Labor Studies Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3, 298-318 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0160449X07299705

Capital Mobility, Job Loss, and Union Strategy

The Case of the UK Aerospace Industry

Andy Danford

University of the West of England, Bristol

Mike Richardson

University of the West of England, Bristol

Paul Stewart

University of Stirling, Scotland

Stephanie Tailby

University of the West of England, Bristol

Martin Upchurch

Middlesex University Business School, London

Drawing on case study data, this article analyzes contrasting workplace union responses to organizational restructuring in the United Kingdom's aerospace industry. It critically evaluates two distinct union strategies that resonate with contemporary debates governing the future role of trade unions in the British workplace. The first response is based on "partnership" with management while the second reflects traditional "oppositionalism" via the assertive defense of rank-and-file member interests. The article highlights inherent weaknesses in partnership strategies arising from problems of management intention and union incorporation. By contrast, while militant opposition was more successful in constraining the exercise of managerial prerogatives, the traditions of "sectionalism" (or "localism") in plant-based union organizing meant that this strategy was limited to securing a partial and transient defense of jobs and labor standards.

Key Words: aerospace industry • new flexible firms • union strategies • workplace partnership • union militancy • works councils


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?