Abstract
This article examines Argentina’s worker-recovered enterprises (Empresas Recuperadas por sus Trabajadores, ERTs) movement, which emerged after the 2001 economic crisis, as a bottom-up construction of the right to work under neoliberalism. The ERTs uniquely link the struggle for the right to work with worker self-management amid widespread unemployment and precarity. Drawing on field research conducted in six ERTs and interviews with academics from the Open Faculty Programme (Programa Facultad Abierta, PFA), the study argues that the right to work is not merely a legal norm but a collective social practice built from below.
Introduction
The right to work is a fundamental human right recognised in major international and constitutional instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the European Social Charter. It encompasses not only access to employment but also the guarantee of secure, just and dignified working conditions. Yet historically, this right has often remained more an abstract ideal than an enforceable right in practice.
Under neoliberal capitalism, both the meaning and enforceability of the right to work have been increasingly contested. Labour market transformations characterised by flexibilisation and precarisation have reduced it to a largely formal or symbolic guarantee rather than a substantively realisable social right. Existing scholarship has widely examined this erosion, primarily through legal and institutional lenses, highlighting its weakening under neoliberal restructuring (Collins, 2015; Harvey, 2007; Mantouvalou, 2015; Mundlak, 2007; Nickel, 2015).
While much of the literature approaches the right to work from above – through constitutional and international frameworks – it overlooks how rights are constituted in practice. Critical human rights scholarship instead emphasises that rights are not merely granted but are constructed and transformed through social struggle and collective action (Baxi, 2002; Mutua, 2001; O’Connell, 2018a, 2018b; Rajagopal, 2003; Stammers, 2009). From this perspective, the right to work can be understood as a social practice produced and redefined from below.
It is precisely in this sense that the Empresas Recuperadas por sus Trabajadores (ERTs, worker-recovered enterprises) movement constitutes a particularly significant example. Emerging on a mass scale in the aftermath of the 2001 economic crisis, ERTs are enterprises that were taken over by their workers following bankruptcy and transformed into self-managed firms. Rather than demanding employment from the state or the market, workers in these enterprises sought to secure their livelihoods directly through collective action and democratic control over production. Thus, the ERT movement rendered the right to work a de facto social practice rather than merely a formally recognised right.
The ERT phenomenon has been examined from various perspectives. Existing studies have focused on democratic and self-management processes (Atzeni and Ghigliani, 2007; Atzeni and Vieta, 2014; Azzellini, 2015, 2016; Deux Marzi, 2019; Ozarow and Croucher, 2014; Ranis, 2010, 2016; Vieta, 2020); the historical and socioeconomic context (Bustos, 2021; Heller, 2004; Ness and Azzellini, 2011; Ruggeri, 2014; Wyczykier, 2009); the legitimacy of the movement (Rebón et al., 2015); contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals (Kasparian and Rebón, 2019); institutionalisation trends resulting from public policies (Dinerstein, 2007); and the movement’s character as both a social movement (Bauni, 2023) and a grassroots cooperative movement (Curl, 2010). However, the phenomenon has rarely been analysed as the bottom-up and collective construction of the right to work. This article argues that the ERT movement can be understood as a concrete instance in which the right to work is actively produced through collective action and self-management.
The article addresses a gap in existing literature at the intersection of two bodies of research. First, studies on the right to work have focused predominantly on legal frameworks and state obligations, paying limited attention to how this right can be constructed outside formal institutional channels. Second, the literature on worker self-management and the Argentine ERT movement has offered rich empirical and organisational analyses but has rarely engaged explicitly with the right to work as an analytical category. By bringing these debates into dialogue, the article argues that ERTs represent a distinctive form of bottom-up rights-building in which access to work, control over labour and collective self-determination are simultaneously at stake. Accordingly, it asks: How do worker-recovered enterprises in Argentina contribute to the bottom-up construction of the right to work through practices of occupation, solidarity and self-management?
By analysing ERTs as a bottom-up construction of the right to work, this article makes three main contributions. First, it advances debates on the right to work by shifting the focus from legal entitlements to collective practices embedded in production. Second, it contributes to the literature on worker self-management by demonstrating how solidarity-based governance coexists with market pressures and internal tensions. Third, it engages labour process theory by examining how labour control and decision-making are reconfigured in collectively managed enterprises.
Empirically, the article draws on qualitative fieldwork conducted between February 2024 and February 2025 in six worker-recovered enterprises in Argentina – Chilavert, 19 de Diciembre, Vulcano, Decosur, Pigüé and IMPA – complemented by semi-structured interviews with researchers from the Open Faculty Programme (Programa Facultad Abierta, PFA). Through interviews, participant observation and document analysis, the study examines how workers articulate the meaning of the right to work, how self-management reshapes labour relations, and how collective practices evolve under conditions of economic and legal constraints.
The article proceeds as follows: the first section below re-examines the right to work in the context of neoliberal restructuring, highlighting its limitations within dominant legal and policy frameworks. The second section defines ERTs, distinguishes them from conventional cooperatives and worker buyouts, and clarifies their roots in collective action and self-management. The third section discusses the research design and case selection and then presents the empirical findings, analysing how the right to work is enacted through occupation, collective management and everyday practices, as well as the contradictions that emerge. The concluding section discusses the broader theoretical implications, arguing that ERTs prompt a rethinking of the right to work as a socially constructed and contested practice rather than merely a legal entitlement.
To unpack how the right to work is actively constructed from below, it is necessary to first situate this right within the broader theoretical debates on human rights and neoliberal restructuring. Building on the introductory argument that rights are social practices rather than mere legal entitlements, the following conceptual sections critically review the dominant legalistic approaches to the right to work and synthesise the existing literature on the Argentine ERT movement. This theoretical elaboration identifies the persistent gap between top-down human rights frameworks and grassroots realities, thereby preparing the ground for the empirical analysis of how workers materially reclaim and redefine the right to work.
Rethinking the right to work in the neoliberal era
This section examines the general framework of the right to work in the neoliberal era. It outlines its definition and scope in international human rights instruments and examines how neoliberal policies have reshaped and weakened it. This framework provides the basis for analysing the field findings from the Argentine Empresas Recuperadas (ERT) movement discussed below.
Definition and international framework of the right to work
The right to work is enshrined in fundamental human rights declarations, International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions and the constitutions of many countries. According to Article 23(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), ‘Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, and to protection against unemployment.’
Collins (2015: 21) states that this article encompasses four rights: employment, free choice of employment, decent work and protection against unemployment. The article emphasises not only that an individual has a real job or a productive activity that qualifies as real work, but also that this work must be decent.
The concept of decent work was defined at the 87th International Labour Conference of the ILO in 1999 and its scope was expanded in subsequent years. Accordingly, decent work has four integral dimensions: employment, fundamental rights at work, social protection and social dialogue (Ghai, 2003). Therefore, the right to work has both quantitative (adequate work) and qualitative (decent work) dimensions (Branco, 2006: 5). In other words, the right to work goes beyond the narrow notion of employment and refers to a set of interrelated rights, including the quality and conditions of employment.
The development of the idea of the right to work
The right to work introduced by Charles Fourier and theorised by Louis Blanc became a leading slogan of the masses during the 1848 Revolution (Branco, 2006; Harvey, 1998). The demand for the right to work was seen by the socialists and working class of the time as synonymous with the right to life (Méda, 1995: 119) and ‘the counterpart of the property owners’ right to property’ (Castel, 1995: 276–277). According to Marx (1967 [1850]: 80), it was ‘the first rudimentary formulation summarising the revolutionary demands of the proletariat’, with the underlying goal of collective ownership of the means of production and the abolition of the labour–capital relationship.
The right to work gained increasing importance in parallel with the need to regulate labour–capital relations and began to be addressed, in many different doctrines – including Christian doctrine and the Soviet Constitution – in conjunction with the ‘duty to work’ (Standing, 2017: 115–116). In the context of the 1929 Great Depression, the rise of the socialist bloc, and the consolidation of Keynesian welfare regimes, the right to work was internationally recognised by the 1948 UDHR. In 1966, the Declaration was divided into two covenants: the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Among the latter group of rights, the right to work became almost synonymous with the goal of full employment during the period dominated by Keynesian welfare state policies and the Fordist model of production (Harvey, 2007: 119).
However, despite its inclusion in fundamental human rights texts and its general acceptance by different doctrines, the right to work has been neither the subject of significant theoretical debate nor truly implemented in practice. In the words of Harvey (1998: 5), the right to work ‘has deep historical roots but has blossomed only sporadically’.
The right to work in the human rights regime
The mainstream approach establishes a hierarchy between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to work. According to this perspective, civil and political rights are regarded as universal and primary, while economic and social rights are seen as positive, resource-demanding and vague (Mantouvalou, 2015: 2).
Indeed, the right to work raises a number of important questions because it refers to many rights rather than a single right and has different components: What is the scope of the right to work? Is it addressed to the state or employers? Should it be defined in its negative aspect (freedom to work) or its positive aspect (employment)? On this basis, the applicability and justiciability of the right to work are debated (see Collins, 2015; De George, 1984; Elster, 1988; Nickel, 1980; Schaff, 2017).
In this sense, the right to work is a right that can leave even advocates of economic and social rights in contradictory positions. Collins (2015: 18) points to these debates and contradictions by stating that ‘the right to work faces harsh objections, even from those generally sympathetic to human rights demands’. Mundlak (2007: 192) notes that despite the right to work being enshrined in numerous international documents, it is criticised by both its proponents and opponents, ironically summarising this situation with the statement: ‘the right to work is everywhere, but nowhere’. As a notable example, Nickel, while comprehensively responding to criticisms levelled at the right to work in a previous work (1980), states in a recent work (2015) that he has lost hope of recognising the right to work as a human right because it is not taken seriously. Therefore, the right to work remains the ‘stepchild of the human rights family’ (Woods, 2003: 766–767).
In contrast, an extensive critical literature has emerged in recent years addressing the established understanding of human rights. Drawing on diverse sources such as Critical Legal Studies (CLS), Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) and feminist legal theory, this literature questions the ‘liberal’, ‘North/West-centric’ and ‘male’ character of human rights in theory and practice. It also emphasises that the distinction between negative and positive rights is artificial and that the hierarchy established among rights is fundamentally political and ideologically based (see Baxi, 2002; Donnelly, 2013; Mutua, 2001; Patnaik, 2010). In this context, it offers a powerful counter-narrative, particularly against the subordination of economic, social and cultural rights.
Based on these critiques, the hierarchy among rights is rejected, and the holistic nature of rights is emphasised. While Van Boven (2018: 137) emphasises the holistic nature of rights based on Article 28 of the Declaration, Bilchitz (2007: 236) states, ‘None of these rights is less fundamental than the other. Therefore, we have no good reason to prefer the right to freedom of expression to the right to food.’ Thus, ‘It is well known today that social rights have much more in common with civil and political rights than was once suggested, and that there is no sharp distinction between them’ (Mantouvalou, 2015: 2).
However, as historically, the right to work today gains significance not only through legal texts but also through social struggles. Therefore, the approach advocated in this article challenges the marginal position of the right to work in the human rights regime and aims to rethink it not as merely a positive right but as a multidimensional right shaped by historical and social struggles.
Constructing the right to work from below
Human rights are often considered universal norms defined and protected by states, international organisations or constitutional texts. However, this approach ignores a crucial dimension of how rights emerged historically. Rights are not merely fixed norms defined and implemented from above; they are also constructed from below as the product of social struggles. Therefore, the transformation of the right to work into a concrete achievement cannot be considered historically independent of labour struggles.
Ife (2009) argues that the top-down approach limits the effectiveness of human rights. Rajagopal (2003) notes that rights emerge from mass social struggles – from peasant rebellions to women’s and anti-colonial movements – as well as everyday forms of resistance. Stammers (2009) emphasises that rights evolve from pre-legal and non-legal forms of struggle to institutionalisation, yet – despite the risks of instrumentalisation – still retain the potential to challenge power. Similarly, in an inter-Marxist debate initiated by Lukes (1981) and Buchanan (1982), subsequent studies affirmed the central role of social struggles in the bottom-up formation of rights (Bartholomew, 1990; Boyd, 2009; Cornell, 1984; McBride, 1984; O’Byrne, 2019; O’Connell, 2018a, 2018b; Sparer, 1984).
In the era of neoliberal globalisation, diverse global struggles demonstrate how economic, social,and cultural rights are constructed from below. Indigenous and peasant movements such as the Landless Workers’ Movement (MST) in Brazil; water struggles in Plachimada (India) and Cochabamba (Bolivia), and through the Right2Water campaign (Ireland); housing movements like Abahlali baseMjondolo (South Africa) and Focus E15 (UK); as well as unemployed movements in France (1997–1998) and Argentina’s ERTs, are important examples of struggles that have redefined the content of rights from below. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2016), ILO Convention No. 169 (1989), the UN Resolution on the Right to Water and Sanitation (2010) and the Constitutions of Ecuador (2008) and Bolivia (2009) are concrete examples of this transformation. These experiences are the concrete foundations of a ‘counter-hegemonic understanding and practice of human rights’ in the face of ‘hegemonic human rights’ (Santos, 2014: 23). As Baxi (2002: 81) notes, ‘The real birthplaces of human rights are not ornate conference rooms but struggles in the field, factory, home, and hearth.’
A similar dynamic applies to the right to work. Emerging from the 1848 workers’ mobilisation in France, it became an international norm through the rise of socialist and labour movements during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Beyond these mass movements, Europe’s 1970s worker-takeover initiatives – symbolised by the companies Lip (France), Le Balai Libéré (Belgium) and Numax (Spain) – paved the way for legal frameworks such as Italy’s Legge Marcora (Vieta et al., 2017) and Spain’s Pago Único (Garcia et al., 2016).
Today, this historical continuity can be observed in Argentina’s worker-recovered enterprises that emerged after the 2001 economic crisis. Factories taken over and collectively managed by workers demonstrate that the right to work is constructed not only from above but also from below through struggle. At the same time, these experiences raise the question of how the right to work has been eroded, contested and reconstituted under neoliberalism.
The right to work in the context of neoliberalism
Neoliberal globalisation has profoundly reshaped labour relations, with ‘flexibility’ practices transforming employment patterns and weakening labour’s bargaining power. This shift is increasingly visible in contemporary developments such as ‘platform capitalism’ (Neder and Henriques, 2024; Srnicek, 2017) and ‘zero-hour contracts’ (Herod and Lambert, 2016). Furthermore, precariousness is no longer confined to the ‘precariat’ (Standing, 2011) but has become a pervasive phenomenon permeating the entire labour market and social life. In this context, the right to work can no longer be understood merely as access to employment, but must be evaluated through the nature, security and social status of work. This systemic erosion is clearly reflected in global labour statistics.
The ILO (2015) points out that the standard employment model is becoming increasingly exceptional on a global scale, and job security is seriously eroded. Indeed, ‘almost six-tenths of wage and salary workers worldwide are employed in part-time or temporary forms of employment’ (ILO, 2015: 13). Likewise, the World Social Report (UN, 2025) warns that economic and social precariousness is deepening. As the report underlines, ‘almost 60% of people worldwide are very worried about losing their jobs or being unable to find them’ (UN, 2025: 2). This finding clearly demonstrates that the right to work in the neoliberal era must be discussed through both the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of employment.
In this context, the ILO’s decent work approach – encompassing employment, rights, social protection and dialogue – addresses both the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of the right to work. However, as Sengenberger (2001: 54) states, ‘Decent work is not a completed concept, but a starting point. It must be discussed and developed further.’ At this point, the discussion of the ‘non-exploitative right to work’ raised by Mantouvalou (2015) and Scotto (2020) is noteworthy. While Mantouvalou limits this concept to vulnerable groups like undocumented immigrants, Scotto generalises it to all wage labour under capitalism. This proposal draws attention to the difference between ‘work’ and ‘work under capitalism’, redefining the right to work in terms of non-alienating and non-exploitative work. The experiences of self-managed enterprises, such as ERTs, demonstrate that the right to non-exploitative work is not merely theoretical.
Consequently, under conditions of neoliberal globalisation, where flexibility and precariousness are widespread, the right to work remains relevant not only as a multidimensional right but also as a right reconstituted from below through struggle. The experiences of worker self-management in Argentina offer a powerful reference point for rethinking the right to work, demonstrating that such reconstitution is feasible both in theory and in practice.
The Empresas Recuperadas movement: A grassroots struggle for the right to work
This section outlines the emergence and definition of ERTs, discusses their distinct characteristics, and provides an overview of current empirical data.
The emergence of ERTs
ERTs emerged in Argentina within the context of economic crisis, privatisation and deindustrialisation. In the 1990s, many small and medium-sized enterprises went bankrupt, sharply increasing unemployment and poverty. Social policies narrowed, and unions lost influence over employers (Ruggeri, 2014: 29).
The unemployed (piqueteros) began organising and blocking main roads, functionally equivalent to workers shutting down production (Petras, 2002). The government defined this pressure as a ‘new social problem’ and expanded social plans (Rossi, 2017: 7). Yet the failure of blockades and social programmes to offer a fundamental solution to unemployment led to the idea of taking over bankrupt businesses (Ruggeri, 2014: 34).
The 2001 economic crisis was a turning point for ERTs, whose first examples appeared in the 1990s. Mass bankruptcies and unemployment led some workers to occupy factories and continue production. Factory occupations were used to prevent machinery and stock from being removed (vaciamiento); these were not ideological attacks on private property (Andrés Ruggeri, 2024, personal communication). Employers’ perception of occupations as attacks on property made the process conflictual. The workers’ struggle was legitimised and supported by neighbourhoods and social movements. Solidarity was the key factor determining the outcome of the struggle, both on the streets and factories, and in the legal arena.
This struggle transformed workers’ subjectivities. While managing the factories democratically, egalitarianly and with solidarity, they also opened them to various social activities. Argentine workers called these businesses ‘worker-recovered enterprises’ (Empresas Recuperadas por sus Trabajadores/as, ERTs), or simply ‘recovered enterprises’ (empresas recuperadas) (Andrés Ruggeri, 2024, personal communication). The term highlights that the struggle starts with defending work – the right to work – and constitutes a practice of social resistance, shaping this right from below.
Defining and situating ERTs
ERTs are generally defined as enterprises taken over by employees following closure or bankruptcy (ILO, 2014: 64; Venturi, 2019: 7; Vieta et al., 2017: 31). While this definition captures the formal outcome, it obscures many constitutive dimensions. Ruggeri (2014: 17–18) notes that the process is dynamic, with both economic and social aspects. Takeovers typically involve militant actions such as occupations, maintaining democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic relations, and opening factories to their communities. Thus, a struggle that begins with the right to work evolves into a transformation of labour relations.
ERTs differ fundamentally from both capitalist enterprises and conventional cooperatives. In capitalist firms, all strategic decisions are made by the employer or top management, even if participatory models are implemented. In contrast, ERTs place the workers’ assembly (asamblea) at the centre of decision-making, collectively debating and deciding key economic, organisational and strategic issues. This shift represents not merely a change in ownership, but a reorganisation of authority, control and responsibility within the labour process.
ERTs also diverge from traditional cooperatives in important ways. While cooperatives generally represent an entrepreneurial model, ERTs arise from collective struggle in response to crises and workplace closures. As Javier Antivero of PFA notes (2024, personal communication), cooperativism in ERTs functions less as a voluntary choice than as a ‘survival strategy’. Democratic and solidaristic principles are thus not externally adopted but directly produced through occupation, resistance and self-management.
ERTs should also be distinguished from workers’ buyouts (WBOs). WBOs refer to processes in which a firm’s ownership and management are transferred, fully or partially, to its employees – most commonly in situations of financial distress or succession – through negotiated and legally regulated mechanisms (ILO, 2014: 63). Prominent examples include the Legge Marcora in Italy, Pago Único in Spain, SCOP in France and ESOP schemes in the United States. These models are typically supported by dedicated institutional frameworks providing financial, legal and technical assistance (Di Stefano et al., 2023; Dow, 2003; Vieta et al., 2017). Thus, the transition from employer-led to worker-led firms generally occurs through negotiation rather than open conflict.
Vieta (2020: 136–140) frames both models within ERT, defining WBOs as ‘negotiated’ and empresas recuperadas as ‘conflict-based’. Yet, Andrés Ruggeri of PFA (2024, personal communication) emphasises that the two models reflect profoundly different historical and socio-economic contexts. In the Global North, WBOs are embedded in stable institutional and legal environments, whereas Argentine ERTs emerged amid economic collapse, weak support and contentious relations with authorities. Furthermore, Argentine ERTs can be understood within the continuity of experiences inherited from the ‘Peronist Resistance’. This historical and political specificity highlights why ERTs cannot be reduced to cooperatives or WBOs, but constitute a distinct form of collective action rooted in struggle.
As analytically synthesised in Table 1, ERTs differ systematically from conventional cooperatives and workers’ buyouts across several defining dimensions, including their origin, governance logic, economic orientation and relation to the market. Unlike traditional cooperatives, which typically emerge from voluntary collective entrepreneurship, or workers’ buyouts that arise through negotiated ownership transfers, ERTs originate in conflictual processes triggered by workplace closures and unemployment crises. Their governance logic is grounded in horizontal, assembly-based decision-making rather than formal managerial hierarchies, reflecting the collective struggles through which these enterprises emerge. Economically, ERTs are primarily oriented toward the preservation of employment and collective livelihoods rather than entrepreneurial expansion. At the same time, their relation to the market remains inherently ambivalent: although they must operate within competitive market conditions, many ERTs seek to mitigate these pressures through solidaristic practices, community engagement and initiatives such as the ‘open factory’.
Comparative overview: ERTs, cooperatives and worker buyouts (WBOs).
Source: This table is based on the author’s fieldwork in Argentina (2024–2025) and the literature on ERTs, worker cooperatives and worker buyouts (e.g. Dow, 2003; Ruggeri, 2014; Vieta, 2020; Vieta et al., 2017).
Taken together, these dimensions highlight the specific organisational character of ERTs within the broader landscape of cooperative and worker-owned enterprises. Rather than representing simply another variant of cooperative entrepreneurship, ERTs can be understood as conflict-based forms of worker organisation in which the defence of employment, the reorganisation of production and the bottom-up construction of the right to work become closely intertwined.
Overview of ERT data
In Argentina, there are currently around 400 ERTs spread across the country, employing a total of approximately 14,000 workers. 1 Most are located in areas heavily affected by neoliberal restructuring, such as the Buenos Aires metropolitan area and Santa Fe. ERTs are found in a wide variety of sectors, including metallurgy, food, graphics, textiles, gastronomy, the meat industry, construction and healthcare. Since the initial cases, both the number and the sectoral diversity of ERTs have increased.
The ERT process generally occurs in small and medium-sized enterprises, which are relatively vulnerable under neoliberal conditions (Atzeni and Ghigliani, 2007: 654). The average number of employees per enterprise is below 50 (Tauss, 2015: 195; Venturi, 2019: 8). Large-scale worker takeovers are rare due to high capital requirements and stronger defence of private property (Andrés Ruggeri, 2024, personal communication).
Most ERTs are factories with long operating histories, high employee turnover, and difficulties paying wages before bankruptcy (Rebón and Fajn, 2009). Employee tenure averages 10–20 years. Over half (54%) are over 45 years old, and most of the rest are 25–45 (45%), indicating specialisation in specific jobs and limited mobility across factories or sectors. The workforce is predominantly male (81%), with women concentrated in service sectors such as education, healthcare and media (Venturi, 2019: 7–8), reflecting the traditional gender division of labour in Argentina (MTEySS, 2018).
The vast majority of ERTs (95.3%) operate legally as cooperatives (PFA, 2010: 22). Although some workers demanded worker-managed nationalisation instead of cooperatives, cooperativism remains the dominant form among ERTs because authorities did not meet this demand (Vieta, 2020: 397). The legal basis for ERTs is the Bankruptcy Code, which underwent a series of reforms, the first in 2002 and the last in 2011. In addition to ensuring workers’ active participation in the bankruptcy process, the law prioritises workers in the transfer of businesses, provided they establish cooperatives.
ERTs represent a unique form of struggle developed by workers under the conditions of the neoliberal crisis, both in terms of their historical context and their legal and institutional framework. To better situate this phenomenon within the broader scholarly debates, the following section synthesises the existing literature and clarifies the research gap addressed by this study.
Synthesis and research gap
A review of the existing literature reveals two distinct but largely disconnected bodies of scholarship. On the one hand, existing research has shown how neoliberal restructuring and labour market precarisation have progressively hollowed out the right to work. On the other hand, critical human rights scholarship has challenged dominant top-down understandings of rights centred on state obligations and legal frameworks, emphasising instead that rights are also shaped through social struggles and collective action. At the same time, studies of the Argentine ERT movement provide rich empirical accounts of worker self-management, solidarity and organisational dynamics, but rarely conceptualise these experiences explicitly through the lens of the right to work.
This disconnect creates a significant theoretical tension and a notable research gap: there is a lack of empirical and analytical understanding of how the right to work is actively produced and materialised outside formal institutional channels by the workers themselves. The empirical study of ERTs addresses this blind spot directly. By examining the trajectory of recovered enterprises from factory occupation to self-management, the subsequent empirical sections demonstrate how grassroots collective action bridges the gap between the right to work as an abstract legal ideal and the right to work as a lived, bottom-up social practice.
Constructing the right to work from below: ERTs from solidarity to self-management
This section discusses how ERT experiences construct the right to work from below, drawing on findings from field research. The analysis reveals the ways workers defended the right to work through factory occupations, the democratisation of work through self-management practices, and the transformation of the factory into a social space.
Research area and methodological notes
This study is based on qualitative field research conducted between February 2024 and February 2025 in six worker-recovered enterprises (ERTs) located in and around Buenos Aires. The selected cases aim to reflect the diversity of the ERT movement in terms of sector, size, historical background and geographical location. The research design follows an interpretive qualitative approach aimed at understanding social practices from the perspective of the actors involved (Creswell and Poth, 2018; Denzin and Lincoln, 2018). Such an approach is particularly appropriate for examining workers’ experiences of occupation and self-management, as it focuses on how actors themselves construct meanings around work, rights and collective action.
Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 20 workers and worker-leaders across the six ERTs, as well as participant observation, informal conversations and the examination of archival and visual materials (photographs, posters, internal documents). In addition, repeated discussions were held with researchers from the Open Faculty Programme (Programa Facultad Abierta – PFA), who have long-standing experience in researching and accompanying ERTs in Argentina. These exchanges contributed to the contextualisation and interpretation of the findings.
The selection of the six ERTs followed a purposive sampling strategy aimed at identifying ‘information-rich cases’ – those that could most effectively illuminate different trajectories of worker self-management within the broader ERT movement (Patton, 2015; Sandelowski, 1995). Following Patton’s (2015) sampling typology, the study specifically adopted a maximum variation sampling approach in order to identify shared patterns across heterogeneous cases. Prior to fieldwork, an official list of more than 400 worker-recovered enterprises published by the Argentine Ministry of Social Development (Ministerio de Desarrollo Social, n.d.) was reviewed. However, given uncertainties regarding the list’s currency and the operational status of the enterprises, case selection was further refined during fieldwork through consultations with researchers from the PFA, who possess long-standing expertise on the ERT movement. In this sense, while the initial case pool was identified purposively, the final selection was also shaped by emergent considerations during fieldwork, particularly through ongoing interactions with researchers and ERT networks. Access was therefore partly shaped by relational dynamics: participation in meetings, assemblies and events organised by ERT networks and umbrella organisations facilitated contact with worker-members and enabled an informed assessment of which enterprises would provide analytically diverse and viable research sites. Instead of seeking statistical representativeness, the study intentionally selected cases that vary in size, sector, trajectory and degree of institutional consolidation in order to illuminate different expressions of worker self-management.
Within each selected ERT, interviewees were identified through a combination of purposive and relational sampling. Initial contact was often established with long-standing worker-members, including those who had played central roles in the occupation and consolidation of self-management. However, the researcher explicitly sought to include not only worker-leaders but also rank-and-file members directly involved in production processes and everyday cooperative governance. In most cases, this request was granted without restriction, allowing for interviews with employees of varying positions, responsibilities and ages within the enterprise. All interviews were conducted on a voluntary basis. In this way, the aim was to capture diverse perspectives internally by interviewing as many different workers as possible.
Interviews were transcribed and analysed through an interpretive qualitative approach rather than formal coding software. This choice was intended to maintain a holistic engagement with workers’ narratives and to prioritise interpretative depth over the fragmentation of data sometimes associated with automated coding procedures (Hesse-Biber, 2017). The analysis proceeded through repeated close readings of interview transcripts and field notes, during which recurrent themes were identified inductively, following principles of thematic analysis in qualitative research (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Particular attention was paid to workers’ narratives concerning occupation, collective decision-making, labour organisation and the transformation of authority relations within the enterprises. These emergent themes were then interpreted in dialogue with the study’s conceptual framework on the right to work, solidarity and self-management.
Analytical triangulation was strengthened through comparison across cases and through ongoing discussions with researchers from the PFA. By combining multiple data sources and sustained engagement in the field, the study sought to enhance the trustworthiness and credibility of the findings, following established quality criteria for qualitative research (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Such triangulation is widely used in qualitative research to strengthen the robustness of interpretations (Denzin and Lincoln, 2018) and helped contextualise the findings within broader debates on the ERT movement.
It should be noted that the research has some limitations. Firstly, the selected ERTs and participants may not fully represent the diversity of experiences across Argentina. Second, most interviews were conducted during working hours, which limited the time available for deeper conversation. Third, my positionality as an external researcher and the use of recording devices may have influenced responses. Following the principles of reflexivity in qualitative enquiry, particular attention was paid to how the researcher’s position and the dynamics of the interview setting might shape the production and interpretation of data (Berger, 2015; Finlay, 2002). Given the Spanish-speaking context, some interviews required a translator, which may have affected linguistic nuance. Initial contacts were usually established through long-standing worker-leaders who had been involved since the beginning of the recovery process; these leaders then facilitated access to other workers. While no interview request was refused, access to rank-and-file workers was more limited in certain cases (notably IMPA), where interviews were conducted primarily with worker-leaders. These limitations were mitigated through triangulation with observational data, documentary analysis and sustained engagement with the movement over the field period.
Despite their diversity, the six ERTs share a common core: all emerged from processes aimed at preserving employment through collective self-management, adopted cooperative legal forms, and operate within market conditions while maintaining assembly-based decision-making structures. However, they differ along several significant dimensions. First, they represent different historical phases of the movement: some emerged during or immediately after the 2001 crisis and became iconic symbols within the ERT phenomenon (e.g. Chilavert, IMPA), while others resulted from more recent and isolated recovery processes (e.g. Vulcano). Second, they vary considerably in scale, ranging from smaller operations to large-scale industrial enterprises such as Pigüé. Third, pre-recovery conflict varies, from highly confrontational occupations (e.g. Chilavert, Pigüé, 19 de Diciembre) to less contentious transitions (e.g. Decosur). Economic consolidation also varies, with certain cooperatives achieving relatively stable revenue structures (e.g. Pigüé, Decosur) while others operate under tighter financial constraints. Finally, while all cases formally rely on general assemblies, internal governance practices differ in terms of wage differentiation, task rotation and the degree of informality in everyday decision-making. This heterogeneity underscores that ERTs do not constitute a uniform organisational model but rather a spectrum of self-managed arrangements shaped by sectoral, historical and political conditions.
Table 2 presents an overview of the six ERTs included in the study, indicating their sector of activity, number of workers, year of establishment and period of fieldwork. This overview situates the empirical material and clarifies the scope and diversity of the cases on which the analysis is based.
General information on the six ERTs studied and the dates of fieldwork.
On this basis, the following section analyses how ERTs construct the right to work from below through practices of occupation, self-management and collective decision-making, while also addressing the tensions and limits inherent in these processes.
Occupation, resistance, production: Defence of the right to work
Workplace occupations are one of the most important tools of struggle in the workers’ repertoire; they can be used to voice demands regarding wages and working conditions or to transform the workplace into self-management (Gürler, 2023: 43). In ERT experiences, factory occupations are the founding moment of the establishment of the right to work from below. Occupations emerge in macro- or enterprise-level crises as workers’ attempts to actively defend their jobs, their sole source of income. In this sense, the right to work, defined normatively, is transformed into a concrete practice of resistance and given substance.
Mass factory occupations in Argentina emerged in the aftermath of the 2001 crisis, when employers and managers abruptly abandoned enterprises. As one worker recalled, ‘Management suddenly disappeared’ (Francisco Martínez, Pigüé, 2024, personal communication). For long-term employees with decades of firm-specific experience, alternative employment was virtually nonexistent: ‘We were already old and it was impossible to find a new job, so we decided to take over the factory and continue working there’ (Enrique Iriarte, CT19D, 2024, personal communication). Occupation was thus not an ideological project but a strategy of survival. By re-entering and guarding the workplace, workers sought to secure their livelihoods and preserve productive assets. The right to work became a practical claim against the primacy of private property. Rejecting accusations of illegality, they insisted: ‘We are here so that you don’t steal the machines from us’ (Plácido Peñarrieta, Chilavert, 2024, personal communication). Occupation was framed not as seizure but as protection of labour and production.
Despite challenging private property, these occupations achieved broad social legitimacy. Survey data from the Buenos Aires metropolitan area show that 87% of respondents approved of workers occupying factories and continuing production (Rebón et al., 2015). This support became visible during eviction attempts, when wide sectors mobilised in defence of occupied workplaces. As one worker recalled, when police arrived to enforce an eviction order, ‘There were eight of us, and eight police cars came for us, but when they saw hundreds of people in front of them, they couldn’t believe their eyes’ (Plácido Peñarrieta, Chilavert, 2024, personal communication). Such episodes reflect what has been described as a ‘moral economy of labour’ (Rebón et al., 2015; Vieta, 2020), in which work constitutes not only income but also dignity, identity and belonging. As Gisela Bustos from CT19D noted, ‘There is a very strong tradition of working-class struggle in Argentina. The worker identity and the commitment to this identity are very strong here’ (2024, personal communication). Defending employment thus extended beyond the factory floor, embedding the right to work in shared understandings of labour as a collective value.
The consolidation of the right to work unfolded through an overlapping sequence that workers summarise as ‘occupying with courage, resisting with heroism, and producing with intelligence’ (Francisco Martínez, Pigüé, 2024, personal communication). Occupation meant securing abandoned machinery and facilities; resistance entailed confronting the threat of eviction through sacrifice and solidarity; production signified the reactivation of economic activity under adverse conditions and required creativity. At Chilavert, workers bypassed police surveillance by passing newly printed books through a hole in the wall to a neighbour, allowing distribution to continue despite the siege. The shift from occupation to production was thus not merely technical but a creative and collective reorganisation of work.
Consequently, the occupation–resistance–production process forms the foundation for the construction of the right to work from below in the ERTs. It represents not only a defence against the destructive effects of neoliberalism but also a starting point for the emergence of new labour relations, collective subjectivities and social practices.
Self-management: From the right to work to new labour relations
The ERT experience is notable for evolving the struggle for the right to work into the construction of worker self-management. Here, the critique of the absence of work transforms into a critique of capitalist work (Dinerstein, 2002: 223): ‘We were forced to form cooperatives and self-manage because we were unemployed and left on the streets. So, it wasn’t our choice’ (Plácido Peñarrieta, Chilavert, 2024, personal communication). Solidarity in the struggle creates a transformation in workers’ subjectivity, and this transformation is embodied in self-management based on democratic and equitable principles: ‘Since we overcame everything together, everything should be equal’ (Lucía Ramos, Vulcano, 2024, personal communication). In this context, the right to work is redefined not only as the right to have a job, but also as the right to decent and non-exploitative work (Mantouvalou, 2015; Scotto, 2020). Thus, ERTs establish the right to work within a holistic framework, with its quantitative and qualitative dimensions, and produce a de facto alternative to capitalist labour relations.
Workers’ narratives reveal this transformation. The key difference from the past was described as freedom from hierarchical authority and managerial control over the labour process: ‘Now we decide when we’ll work, when we’ll drink mate and chat’ (Nelson Darín, Chilavert, 2024, personal communication). This collective control is institutionalised through assemblies and participatory decision-making mechanisms that constitute the substantive core of worker democracy rather than merely formal cooperative procedures (Andrés Ruggeri, 2024, personal communication). In this sense, worker democracy emerges not as a managerial technique but as a practice rooted in collective struggle and solidarity.
Yet, self-management requires going beyond the mere establishment of democratic mechanisms. Transforming the roles and relations inherited from hierarchically managed enterprises entails a process of collective learning. In this context, rotation becomes significant as a practical learning mechanism through which workers acquire administrative, technical and organisational capacities. As Novaes (2024: 125–126) states, rotation can be understood as an attempt to transcend the structural hierarchy of capital by reuniting homo faber and homo sapiens. ‘One day you work on the production line, the next day you have to make decisions’ (Francisco Martínez, Pigüé, 2024, personal communication); ‘The idea is: Let’s all learn how to produce and how to manage’ (Enrique Iriarte, CT19D, 2024, personal communication). According to PFA (2010: 54), rotation applies to the majority (70%) of ERT employees.
In this context, self-management practices in ERTs represent a partial break from the capitalist labour process – understood as the ‘simultaneous concealment and securing of surplus value’ (Burawoy, 1985: 35). Under the constraints of market-oriented production, the labour process, defined in capitalism as the ‘problem of the capitalist’s management/control’ (Braverman, 1998: 39–40), becomes instead a problem of collective labour. The elimination of the employer does not eliminate control; rather, control is restructured and democratised. Instead of being imposed vertically through managerial hierarchies or deskilling, it operates horizontally through councils, coordination and collective responsibility.
Beyond the reorganisation of the labour process within the enterprise, many ERTs extend self-management into the social sphere through the ‘open factory’ (fábrica abierta) approach. Under this model, parts of the factory are transformed into spaces for educational, cultural and community initiatives. A pioneering example is IMPA, which hosts a cultural centre, a popular high school, a workers’ university, media platforms and numerous artistic and social activities (Guillermo Robledo and Eduardo Murúa, 2024, personal communication). In this sense, ERTs are reconfigured not only as worker cooperatives but also, in the words of Gisela Bustos from CT19D, as ‘areas of social self-management’. The ‘open factory’ thus expands self-management beyond the shop floor, turning the factory into a site of collective learning, community engagement, and social production. The right to work is thus embodied not merely in the preservation of employment, but in the creation of new social and productive relations that link production to the broader community.
Achievements: The impact of the right to work struggle
The ERT movement redefined the right to work not only as an individual employment guarantee but also as a collective social right, forcing the transformation of institutions, laws and public policies. One of its most tangible institutional outcomes was the reform of Argentine bankruptcy law. Amendments made in 2002, 2006 and 2011 provided a limited, albeit legal basis for workers to take over closed enterprises. Furthermore, expropriation laws regarding the transfer process have been made more effective in favour of workers. While these legal steps did not produce a permanent solution, they constituted a significant threshold for the right to work to gain concrete ground.
The ERT movement also paved the way for the creation of new public financing mechanisms. In this context, the Programa de Trabajo Autogestionado (PTA) and the Programa de Reactivación Productiva Cooperativa (REDECO) stand out. These programmes not only provided individual support but also met basic needs in capital, equipment, materials, management and occupational safety. While both programmes were largely frozen during the liberal Macri (2015–2019) and Milei (2023–) governments, the vast majority (98%) of ERTs benefited from these support mechanisms (Nogueira, 2020: 226). Therefore, while the scope of these programmes may vary across governments, those like the PTA and REDECO are important achievements of the struggle.
The ERT workers’ struggle also led to the questioning of established patterns of labour representation. Traditional unions, focused on the representation of wage labour, initially viewed workers – who were moving from the struggle for the right to work towards self-management – as ‘employers’. This situation also led workers to establish their own solidarity networks and unite around new organisations like the Movimiento Nacional de Empresas Recuperadas (MNER). Field interviews show that, with few exceptions, unions largely abandoned workers, and umbrella organisations – particularly the MNER – assumed a central role in this process. However, over time, unions could not remain indifferent to this grassroots struggle and developed new strategies and forms of organisation for self-managed workers: such as Asociación Nacional de Trabajadores Autogestionados (ANTA) within the Central de Trabajadores de la Argentina (CTA).
Finally, the ERT movement has become a model not only for Argentinian workers but also for workers in other countries. The demand for the right to work has now become an option that workers raise in the face of plant closures. Similar struggles and experiences have emerged in various parts of the world (USA, Turkey), and particularly in Latin America (Brazil, Uruguay) and Europe (France, Italy, Greece). These experiences are discussed in terms of protecting employment (CECOP, 2013) or representing contemporary examples of worker self-management (Ness and Azzellini, 2011). Ultimately, the struggle initiated by ERT workers demanding the right to work has gone beyond a defensive response to protect employment in the neoliberal era and has created a multilayered process of transformation.
Contradictions and limits
ERTs face both external and internal challenges. The first challenge stems from the conflictual nature of the struggle to take over an employer-owned business. Workers often take over a bankrupt or financially struggling enterprise after months of conflict, restarting production with limited capital from compensation or solidarity networks (Polti et al., 2019: 156–157).
However, the real challenge for ERTs is striking a balance between market and self-management. This tension, or ‘double reality’ (Atzeni and Vieta, 2014: 55), is central to the ‘degeneration thesis’, which predicts market pressures eroding democratic and egalitarian practices (Luxemburg, 1900; Mandel, 1975; Webb and Webb, 1921). Yet critical studies argue that organisational processes are not linear: tendencies towards degeneration and regeneration can coexist, and democratic practices may be renewed (Bretos et al., 2019; Cornforth, 1995; Rothschild-Whitt, 1976; Storey et al., 2014). Findings from ERTs complicate a simple narrative of degeneration, pointing instead to a reconfiguration of labour process under market constraints.
In ERTs, eliminating the employer does not remove competitive pressures. Production remains shaped by demand, contracts, input costs and price competition, creating pressures for self-exploitation, internal differentiation and occasional wage labour. In this sense, ‘capital is removed from the sphere of production and reappears in the sphere of circulation’ (Atzeni and Ghigliani, 2007: 667). Under these conditions, labour control does not disappear but takes on new forms in which market discipline is intertwined with forms of collective self-discipline. The shift from rules imposed from above to rules formulated collectively by workers constitutes a visible expression of this restructuring.
While all six ERTs examined in this study rely on assemblies and collective decision-making, they differ in the practical functioning of self-management. In some ERTs, self-management has a strong political and symbolic orientation (e.g. Chilavert, CT19D), while in others it takes a more pragmatic cooperative form (e.g. Vulcano, Decosur). The informal influence of a charismatic worker leader can be observed in certain cases (e.g. IMPA), whereas others exhibit more institutionalised structures involving specialisation and limited wage differentiation (e.g. Pigüé). Especially those emerging from conflict adopt an ‘open factory’ approach (e.g. IMPA, Chilavert, CT19D, Pigüé), while others remain production-oriented (e.g. Decosur). These differences suggest that self-management in ERTs represents a spectrum of practices shaped by historical trajectories, scale and institutional consolidation, rather than a single model.
ERTs develop internal strategies – such as collective negotiations, task rotation and pedagogical efforts – to sustain democratic and egalitarian practices under market pressures. Yet, unlike many cooperatives or labour-managed firms, they also operate as a social movement, establishing umbrella organisations and promoting the ‘open factory’ approach, thereby situating themselves within a broader field of collective struggle. The movement dimension serves a dual purpose. On the one hand, it reflects attempts to construct solidaristic market relations capable of mitigating competitive pressures. On the other hand, it responds to the persistent legal and institutional uncertainty surrounding ERTs. While the 2011 bankruptcy law reform enabled workers to participate in the process by establishing cooperatives, most expropriations are in the form of ‘temporary occupations’. This leads to problems with market transactions and access to credit, as well as losses in labour and social security rights (Natalia Polti, 2024, personal communication). ERTs thus emerge as hybrid formations positioned between economic and political logics (Fernández Álvarez, 2012), shaped by both market–self-management tensions and the struggle for legal recognition.
This hybridity is not only institutional or structural, but also embedded in workers’ everyday practices and self-understandings. It becomes visible in the ways workers reinterpret responsibility and authority once the figure of the employer disappears. Many workers continue to describe themselves as ‘workers’ rather than ‘members’, yet they simultaneously acknowledge that self-management entails a qualitatively different form of labour. Without a boss, responsibility does not vanish; it expands: ‘Now we are responsible for everything, from the customer to the repairman, from the bank to the municipality. Now we understand why the boss gets the biggest share (laughs)’ (Plácido Peñarrieta, Chilavert, 2024, personal communication). This transformation is also spatially materialised, as offices and managerial spaces once closed to workers are converted into collective areas, symbolically and practically erasing hierarchical separation. Yet this opening entails not only greater autonomy but also an intensification of labour, as workers assume tasks and responsibilities previously delegated to management. In this sense, the elimination of the employer does not simply remove domination; it reconfigures responsibility, labour intensity and collective decision-making in complex and often contradictory ways, thereby reshaping how the right to work is enacted in everyday practice.
Despite its challenges and limitations, the ERT movement thus links the struggle for the right to work to the construction of non-exploitative and non-dominating labour relations. It represents not merely the preservation of employment under crisis conditions, but an ongoing attempt to redefine work as a collective, democratic and solidaristic practice. In doing so, ERTs constitute a distinctive example of the right to work being claimed and institutionalised from below, while remaining embedded in – and continuously negotiating – the structural constraints of market economies.
Discussion: Theoretical implications of the ERT experience
The empirical findings presented in the previous section offer several theoretical implications for debates on the right to work, worker self-management and the labour process. This section discusses these implications in relation to the literature reviewed earlier.
The right to work as a collective social practice
The findings presented in this study suggest that the right to work can be understood not only as a legal entitlement guaranteed through institutional frameworks but also as a collective social practice constructed through workers’ struggles. Much of the existing literature on the right to work has focused on its normative status within international human rights law and labour policy (Collins, 2015; Mantouvalou, 2015; Mundlak, 2007). While these approaches have clarified the legal scope and institutional responsibilities associated with this right, they often leave open the question of how the right to work becomes materially realised under conditions in which formal guarantees remain weak or ineffective.
The experience of worker-recovered enterprises in Argentina provides an alternative perspective on this question. In the cases analysed here, the defence of employment through factory occupation and the reactivation of production under workers’ control represent a process through which the right to work is enacted in practice. Rather than waiting for employment opportunities to be provided through state policy or market mechanisms, workers actively create the conditions under which work becomes possible. In this sense, ERTs illustrate how economic and social rights may emerge from collective action and social struggle, echoing critical human rights scholarship that emphasises the role of social movements in shaping the meaning and scope of rights (Baxi, 2002; Rajagopal, 2003; Stammers, 2009).
From this perspective, the right to work appears not merely as a norm awaiting implementation but as a historically contingent practice embedded in struggles over production, property and labour. The Argentine experience therefore contributes to ongoing debates by demonstrating that the realisation of this right may depend as much on workers’ collective capacity to reorganise production as on formal institutional recognition.
Worker self-management and the reconfiguration of the labour process
The findings also contribute to debates on worker self-management and labour process theory. Classic labour process analysis has typically examined how managerial authority structures the organisation and control of work in capitalist enterprises (Braverman, 1998; Burawoy, 1985). Within this framework, control over the labour process is generally understood as a central mechanism through which capital secures productivity and surplus extraction.
The ERT experience complicates this analytical picture. The disappearance of the traditional employer does not eliminate the need for coordination, discipline or organisational control. Instead, authority is redistributed across collective mechanisms such as assemblies, peer coordination and shared responsibility for production and organisational decision-making. Control over the labour process therefore does not vanish but is transformed. Rather than being imposed vertically through managerial hierarchy, it becomes embedded in horizontal forms of collective governance.
At the same time, the empirical material illustrates that this transformation involves significant processes of collective learning. Workers assume tasks previously associated with management, including financial planning, negotiations with suppliers and clients and organisational coordination. Practices such as task rotation facilitate the acquisition of these skills and contribute to overcoming the traditional separation between conception and execution that characterises capitalist labour organisation. In this respect, ERTs demonstrate how worker self-management can partially recombine productive and decision-making capacities within the workforce.
These dynamics suggest that worker-controlled enterprises should not be analysed simply as workplaces without control but rather as organisational forms in which the labour process is collectively governed. The Argentine case therefore enriches labour process debates by illustrating how authority and coordination can be reorganised under conditions of worker self-management.
Degeneration, market pressures and the hybrid character of ERTs
Finally, the findings contribute to long-standing debates concerning the so-called ‘degeneration thesis’ in the literature on worker cooperatives and labour-managed firms (Luxemburg, 1900; Mandel, 1975; Webb and Webb, 1921). According to this perspective, enterprises operating within competitive markets will eventually reproduce hierarchical structures and managerial practices in order to survive economically.
The empirical evidence presented here does not fully support such a deterministic trajectory. While ERTs clearly operate under significant market pressures and face tensions between economic survival and egalitarian principles, the findings suggest a more complex and dynamic process. Democratic practices are neither automatically preserved nor inevitably eroded; rather, they are continuously negotiated and redefined in response to changing economic and organisational conditions.
ERTs thus appear as hybrid organisational forms situated between economic and political logics. On the one hand, they remain embedded in capitalist markets and must respond to competitive pressures. On the other hand, they function as part of a broader social movement seeking to defend employment and expand democratic control over production. This dual character allows ERTs to maintain solidaristic practices that extend beyond the boundaries of the enterprise itself, including the ‘open factory’ model and networks of mutual support among worker-managed firms.
From this perspective, the significance of ERTs lies not only in their economic performance but also in their capacity to challenge dominant assumptions about property, authority and the organisation of work. They demonstrate that worker self-management is not merely a cooperative management technique but can emerge from processes of collective struggle aimed at defending the right to work.
Beyond the Argentine case: Implications for the study of work and rights
Taken together, these findings suggest that ERTs should be understood as sites of institutional experimentation in which alternative forms of labour organisation and rights construction are tested in practice. Their broader significance extends beyond the specific Argentine context. At a time when labour markets are increasingly characterised by precarious employment, platform labour and the erosion of traditional employment relations, the experience of worker-recovered enterprises invites a reconsideration of how the right to work might be realised under contemporary capitalist conditions.
ERTs do not provide a universal model for economic transformation. Nevertheless, they reveal the possibility of linking the defence of employment with the democratisation of the labour process and the collective reorganisation of production. In this sense, they demonstrate that the right to work can be defended and partially institutionalised not only through state policy but also through practices of solidarity and collective self-management emerging from below.
Conclusion
This article has argued that worker-recovered enterprises (ERTs) in Argentina demonstrate how the right to work can be constructed from below through collective practices that reorganise production under neoliberal capitalism. Rather than treating the right to work primarily as a legal entitlement secured through constitutional guarantees or state policy, the analysis has shown that this right can also be materially constituted through workers’ collective struggles to defend employment and sustain production. In the ERT experience, the right to work first emerges as the collective defence of employment through occupation and resistance, and subsequently develops into the democratic reorganisation of the labour process through self-management. In this sense, the right to work extends beyond access to employment and becomes closely linked to questions of ownership, authority and control over production.
By analysing ERTs through the analytical lens of the right to work, the article contributes to several ongoing debates. First, it advances discussions in human rights scholarship by reframing the right to work not simply as a normative principle within legal frameworks but as a historically situated social practice shaped through labour struggles. Second, it contributes to the literature on worker self-management by showing how collective governance can emerge from struggles to defend employment and how solidaristic organisational forms coexist with the constraints of market competition. Third, the analysis engages labour process theory by demonstrating that the disappearance of the employer does not eliminate organisational control but rather transforms it into forms of collectively organised coordination and responsibility within worker-managed enterprises.
More broadly, the experience of worker-recovered enterprises invites a reconsideration of how work, rights and democracy intersect in contemporary capitalism. At a time when labour markets are increasingly characterised by precarious employment, platform labour and the erosion of standard employment relations, ERTs illustrate that alternative ways of organising work can emerge from collective struggles to defend livelihoods. While these enterprises remain embedded in market economies and face significant structural constraints, they nonetheless reveal how the right to work can be defended, expanded and partially democratised through practices of solidarity and collective self-management emerging from below.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. The author is also grateful to the researchers of the Programa Facultad Abierta (PFA) in Argentina and to the workers of the recovered enterprises who generously shared their time and experiences during the fieldwork. Special thanks to Deniz Öztin for assistance with Spanish–Turkish translation during the fieldwork, and to Emre Akçadağ and Cemre Özlem Melezoğlu for their valuable support with audiovisual documentation of the interviews.
Ethical considerations
Ethical approval was not required for this study, which is based on voluntary interviews with adult participants conducted with informed consent. All participants were informed about the purpose of the research and consented to participate and to the use of anonymised quotations.
Funding
This research was supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK).
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.