Abstract
Many labor scholars, today as in the past, advocate greater partici pation by members in decision-making as a cure for what ails the labor movement. A review of experience with such participation, however, shows that it has different consequences in different settings, and that it rarely performs as advocates would like. Four historical types of partici patory unionism can be distinguished: radical, craft, classic industrial, and comanagement. The first three have had many exemplars and have long since revealed both their advantages and their limitations; the last is the least developed and most related to current management trends, and therefore worth better understanding.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
