Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This symposium issue of Work and Occupations on “The New Labor Activism” develops a new generation of labor sociology research for comprehending and sustaining the contemporary labor mobilization in the U.S., the largest labor mobilization since the 1930s. The symposium responds to the question raised in the June, 2022 report of the Worker Empowerment Research Network about the sustainability of the new labor activism. The symposium essays focus on the themes of “history,” “intersectionality,” “worker agency,” and “hierarchy” and continue the post-World War II transition of the field from a union-centered toward a worker-centered labor sociology.

Keywords

new labor activism labor sociology labor movement labor unions worker agency

This symposium issue of Work and Occupations on the “new labor activism” appears amidst the contemporary surge in labor mobilization and unionization, a surge in magnitude not seen since the rise of industrial unionism during the 1930s in the United States. The contemporary surge has picked up in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic and recession throughout the U.S. economy, with grassroots and top-down mobilizations occurring in mammoth multi-locational corporations in the hospitality, retail, logistics, tech, and automotive sectors, such as Starbucks, Amazon, Nissan, Google, and Tesla, as well as in schools and universities, arts organizations, civil society and non-profit organizations, and healthcare (Greenhouse, 2022; Scheiber, 2022a).

What is “new” about the new labor activism? Amazon Labor Union leader and former Amazon worker Christian Smalls, commenting on the historic grassroots mobilization of diverse Amazon warehouse workers who unionized on Staten Island, New York in April, 2022, proclaimed “[t]his is Gen Z” (Velasquez, 2022). In response to Time magazine's coverage of the unfolding Starbucks unionization campaign in 2021–2022, Rhodes Scholar and Starbucks labor leader Jaz Brisack expressed her labor solidarity with all workers when she tweeted “We appreciate TIME magazine's coverage of our union campaign. TIME should make sure they’re giving the same union rights and protections that we’re fighting for to the amazing journalists, photographers, and staff who make this coverage possible!” (Scheiber, 2022c). Claire Chang, a worker and labor leader in the successful Manhattan REI unionization campaign, attributed the labor mobilization to the company's disregard for health and safety during the pandemic, noting that “[t]he majority of staff, if not everybody on staff, said that they were not comfortable with [reopening fitting rooms during the pandemic], and they [the company] still went ahead and did it” (Scheiber, 2022b). Tyra Reeder, a pro-union worker at the Apple Store in Towson, Maryland that unionized in June, 2022, stated that “[w]e love our jobs. We just want to see them do better” by improving compensation and advancement opportunities and stabilizing schedules (Mickle & Scheiber, 2022). Adrian Berek, a former Tesla software worker and member of the Buffalo Tesla labor organizing committee, attributes the current Tesla labor mobilization to mounting management demands and tracking of employees, as she put it: “It's gotten very militant over the last few months … [i]f you have to go to the bathroom or have some kind of emergency, you can get penalized” (Ewing & Scheiber, 2023).

Labor journalist Greenhouse (2022) observes that “[t]hese young workers are doing things differently, often doing bottom-up, self-organizing of their workplaces, far different from organized labor's traditional strategy of relying on unions’ paid staff organizers.” The American Prospect editor Meyerson (2022) reports a pro-union “ideological shift of the young [that] tracks an economy that's been particularly dysfunctional for them” during the halting and precarious recovery from the Great Recession of 2008. Greenhouse (2022) emphasized that while this new under-resourced “youth-driven labor movement is busy being born” it will need to be infused with resources from “the richer, older unions, but many of them are showing scant desire to help.”

This symposium issue of Work and Occupations on the “new labor activism” is an academic initiative for comprehending and developing a research agenda for sustaining the contemporary surge in labor mobilization and unionization in the U.S. The symposium was initiated by the Worker Empowerment Research Network (WERN), a new inter-disciplinary network of labor market researchers that had issued its first report, “U.S. Workers’ Organizing Efforts and Collective Actions: A Review of the Current Landscape,” in June 2022 (Kochan et al., 2022). Subsequently, WERN approached this journal about convening the overlapping WERN and Work and Occupations scholarly communities who, responding in dialogue with the WERN report, would generate a comprehensive research agenda about the trajectory of the new labor activism. I invited a wide range of sociologists of work and labor to contribute essays and to select an essay topic from a list of topics¹ or their own topic. The symposium participants are diverse with respect to theory, research methods, subspecialties in the sociology of work, nationality, career-stage, and socio-demographic background. In responding to the WERN report, the symposium participants have produced a generative and multi-faceted set of essays with rich bibliographies, especially of their own work, that point toward a new generation of labor sociology research for comprehending and sustaining the new labor activism.

Inter-generational competition and collaboration occur during tactical turning points and “ruptures” in the course of social movements, including the U.S. labor movement (Cornfield, 2006, 2015, pp. 121–149; Cornfield et al., 2021). Milkman (2017) maintains that Millennials are indeed a new Mannheimian political generation distinct from earlier generations. At these turning points, a new generation of labor leaders endeavors to reinvigorate an established labor movement which may resist or provide resources to fuel the new generation (Tapia & Turner, 2018), an instance of what Frenette (2019) refers to as “leveraging youth.”

In The New Men of Power, C. Wright Mills (1948) characterized the split between the older craft unionism of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and the new industrial unionism of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) during the 1930s as an inter-generational split. By 1948, after the great surge in labor union membership had plateaued, Mills (1948, p. 73) maintained that the AFL had become a “gerontocracy” led by older leaders and the CIO a “professional bureaucracy” led by young leaders. Compelled by fierce Cold War anti-labor politics that drove an ideological wedge through the labor movement, and having found common ideological ground in the protection of labor rights and expansion of the New Deal welfare state, the labor rivals merged, forming the AFL-CIO in 1955 (Cornfield & McCammon, 2010).

Toward a New Labor Sociology

This symposium issue of Work and Occupations presents a new generation of research in labor sociology on U.S. labor, an agenda of research on the new labor activism. This new generation of research has emerged in tandem with the onset of neo-liberalism and the individualization of risk, globalization, post-World War II union decline and revitalization, and mounting employment precarity (Kalleberg, 2009). The emergence of this new generation of labor sociology is contextualized by increasing social inequality in a socially embedded, two-tier service economy, and by the social movements of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries (Kalleberg, 2011; Mai et al., 2023; Tomaskovic-Devey & Avent-Holt, 2019; Turner, 2005; Vallas, 2003a; Williams, 2021). This new generation of research has also accompanied the rise of a “new” agentic sociology of work (Berg & Kalleberg, 2001; Cornfield, 2015, 2016; Hodson, 2001; Pedulla, 2020; Vallas, 2006).

Over the post-World War II era, research in labor sociology transitioned from the union-centered organizational analysis of the late 1940s and 1950s toward a contemporary worker-centered analysis. The earlier era of labor sociology begins at the zenith of labor's power, when the proportion of the national labor force who belonged to unions was at its highest level ever—i.e., one-third in the mid-1940s (Kochan et al., 2022, p. 9). At this moment in the intellectual history of labor sociology, workers were conceived as bureaucratically constrained, male economic-class actors seemingly void of race. The transition toward a worker-centered labor sociology accompanied the increasing engagement of the labor movement, especially growing public-sector unionism, with the civil rights and women's movements and the rise of social movement unionism, beginning in the 1960s and 1970s. In the contemporary, worker-centered labor sociology, workers are conceived as social actors engaged in symbolic movement discourses and communications and whose intersectional social identities inspire, enable, or stymie their simultaneous alignments with the labor movement and early twenty-first century social movements such as the Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, and LGBTQ movements (e.g., Cech & Waidzunas, 2022; McCammon et al., 2007; Seron et al., 2018; Taylor, 2016; Terriquez & Milkman, 2021).

This transition in labor sociology research was compelled by labor union membership decline over the post-World War II era (Cornfield, 1991). During this period, labor sociology research not only engaged the labor-disempowering forces leading to union decline—i.e., neoliberalism, globalization, economic restructuring, repressive state and corporate action, and mounting employment precarity and social inequality, but also the labor-empowering forces of the late-twentieth century civil rights, women's and immigrant rights movements and early twenty-first century social movements. This transition comprises a cumulating set of three ongoing generations of labor sociology research, each launched at a pivotal historical moment in the post-World War II decline of the U.S. labor movement. These historical moments are the “bureaucratization moment” (beginning in the late 1940s), the “revitalization moment” (beginning in the 1980s), and the “new labor activism moment” (now).

The “bureaucratization moment” in the intellectual history of labor sociology launched during the Cold War of the late 1940s when reactionary business forces effectuated the enactment of the anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. The Act contained the rapidly growing labor movement, leading to the AFL-CIO merger in 1955. Women's labor force participation rates were relatively low. The low immigration rates through the 1950s followed several decades of low rates of immigration to the U.S. Immigration rates would begin to rise during the 1990s. The nonviolent civil rights movement to dismantle Jim Crow in the South would mobilize toward the end of the 1950s after the Montgomery bus boycott of 1955–56 (Cornfield, 2006; Cornfield et al., 2021; Isaac & Christiansen, 2002); and the women's movement as a human rights movement for advancing women's full participation in society would mobilize during the 1960s, as signaled by the founding of the National Organization for Women in 1966 (Rupp & Taylor, 1987).

At the zenith of its power, the labor movement had bureaucratized, its transformative militancy defused as it entered into what Mills (1948, p. 119) termed a “junior partnership in the productive process.” The labor sociology of the 1950s was consumed with the inexorability of Robert Michels’ iron law of oligarchy as it applied to the U.S. labor movement. Gouldner (1955, pp. 503, 506) regarded the iron law as “morosely pessimistic” and offered his “iron law of democracy” as counter-narrative: “if oligarchical waves repeatedly wash away the bridges of democracy, this eternal recurrence can happen only because men doggedly re-build them after each inundation.” The organizational studies of Gouldner (1954), Lipset and his colleagues (1956), and Chinoy (1955) identified the rare instances of organizational change and structure that enabled worker insurgency and factionalized democratic partisanship inside workplaces and unions, as well as the new non-transformative, labor union role of facilitating the realization of the American Dream for factory workers. For Mills (1953, p. 312), the future trajectory of unionism among the growing stratum of status-anxious white-collar workers was uncertain as their claims to prestige were threatened by the “concentration of white-collar workers into big workplaces and their down-grading and routinization.”

Following the decades-long decline of labor union membership and strikes, labor sociology entered its “revitalization moment” during the neo-liberal decades of the 1980s and 1990s (Cornfield, 2016; Turner, 2005). This generation of labor sociology launched an examination of “labor action, the purposive action of labor organizations” that is embedded in a “web of labor organizations’ relationships with workers, employers, and the state” (Cornfield & McCammon, 2003, p. 3). This turn toward the socially embedded strategic action of labor unions responded to labor's growing, if halting and incomplete, self-transformation into a social movement unionism engaged with the civil rights and women's movements of the 1960s and 1970s and post-1990 immigrant worker rights movement (Burawoy, 2008; Carter, 1995; Clawson, 2003; Cornfield & Fletcher, 1998; Ganz, 2000; Isaac et al., 2006; Isaac & Christiansen, 2002; Lopez, 2004; McCammon, 2001; Milkman, 1987; Milkman et al., 2021; Steinberg, 1990; Turner et al., 2001; Vallas, 2003b; Voss & Sherman, 2000). The turn to labor action also responded to mounting political and corporate resistance to the labor movement—witness newly elected, neo-liberal President Ronald Reagan's crushing of the air traffic controllers union in 1981, the rise of the anti-union consulting industry, the diffusion beyond the South of anti-labor state right-to-work laws into the U.S. interior through the 2010s, and the exodus of (unionized) manufacturing out of the U.S.

Five research themes were launched during the revitalization moment of labor sociology. First, labor sociologists turned to historical-sociological analyses of working-class formation. These studies comprise political-economic analyses of the rise and decline of the U.S. labor movement and labor action (e.g., Cornfield, 1986; Dixon, 2020; Griffin et al., 1986; Isaac & Griffin, 1989; McCammon, 1990; Murray & Schwartz, 2019; Stepan-Norris & Zeitlin, 1996; Vallas, 1993).

Second, labor's increasing engagement with social movements led to studies of the realization of labor solidarity within inclusive labor movements. These studies address the problems and prospects for realizing labor solidarity by ethnicity-race, gender, and nativity (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Chun, 1997; Cornfield, 1989; Kim, 1997; Voss & Bloemraad, 2011).

Third, the “spatialization” of labor sociology addressed social movement unionism that occurred outside of workplaces in cities, nations, and world regions (Brady & Wallace, 2000). Spatialization research focuses on the formation of urban labor-community coalitions (e.g., Greenberg & Lewis, 2017; Milkman, 2006; Milkman et al., 2010; Turner & Cornfield, 2007), as well as cross-national comparisons of labor transnationalism and social movement unionism in the Global North and Global South (e.g., Adler et al., 2014; Burawoy, 2009; Cornfield, 1997; Seidman, 2007; Turner, 2005).

Fourth, revitalization research addresses the socioeconomic impact of the labor movement. These studies examine the impact of unionization on trends in income inequality, race-ethnic and gender differentials in the wage returns from unions among unionized and non-union workers, and worker health (Brady et al., 2013; Kalleberg & Colbjørnsen, 1990; Leicht, 1989; Rosenfeld, 2014; Rubin, 1986; Wallace, 1987).

Fifth, a cultural turn in social movement studies and the sociology of work contextualized the transition toward a worker-centered labor sociology (Dowd & Pinheiro, 2013; Frenette, 2013; Lingo & Tepper, 2013; McCammon et al., 2007; Roy, 2015; Skaggs, 2019, 2022; Vallas & Christin, 2018). The cultural turn consists of a growing analysis of cultural symbols, workplace cultures, and discourse in mobilization communications during labor actions (e.g., Billings, 1990; Cavalcanti, 1998; Coley, 2015; Cornfield, 2015; Fantasia, 1988; Isaac, 2009; Isaac et al., 2022; Korczynski, 2014; Mai, 2016; Roscigno & Danaher, 2001).

History, Intersectionality, and Worker Agency

This symposium issue of Work and Occupations develops a research agenda for this third and contemporary pivotal moment in the course of the U.S. labor movement. It is a contemporary “new labor activism moment” in the intellectual history of labor sociology for comprehending and sustaining the surge in labor mobilization and unionization.

In their essay immediately following this introductory essay, Thomas Kochan and his WERN colleagues summarize the original WERN report on the state of the U.S. labor movement and labor-management relations and the problems and prospects for sustaining the new labor activism. The WERN group invites the symposium participants, as respondents to the WERN report, to offer a conceptual methodology for research on the sustainability of the new labor activism by asking “[w]ill these developments be a temporary phenomenon, or a historic inflection point in the trajectory of U.S. labor-management relations?”

Together, the symposium essays can be classified by three themes that predominate in the “new labor activism moment.” These themes are “history,” “intersectionality,” and “worker agency” which I discerned inductively from the symposium participants’ essays. “History” refers to assessing the political obstacles and opportunities posed by the contemporary historical moment for sustaining labor action. “Intersectionality” assumes a holistic concept of “worker” and assesses the prospects for realizing labor solidarity in labor action among workers with wide-ranging configurations of multiple social identities. “Worker agency” refers to assessing biographical, interpersonal, and micro-structural factors that enable or thwart worker activism in fields of labor action. Running through all three research themes is a fourth theme of “hierarchy.” “Hierarchy” pertains to realizing labor solidarity by dismantling social hierarchies, including race and gender hierarchies, that marginalize and divide workers, and building inclusive labor movements, workplaces, and communities by engaging early twenty-first century social movements. All of the essays are cross-classifiable across the first three research themes and are organized here by their dominant themes.

The “history” essays pertain to the pockets of political resistance and opportunity posed for labor activism by the contemporary historical moment. Wingfield assesses opportunities and obstacles in racialized power structures within workplaces and the state. Within workplaces, racialized hierarchies privileging whiteness marginalize and exclude Black workers and challenge the labor movement to realize labor solidarity by pursuing inclusive organizing and bargaining goals. Wingfield's overview of state repression of racially inclusive labor actions since the late nineteenth century compels social scientists and labor activists to anticipate repressive state reactions to contemporary, racially inclusive labor activism. Isaac presents an historical overview of social movement unionism and a three-point political-culture framework for discerning a turning point in the course of the labor movement. The three requisite conditions for changing political culture and sustaining the new labor activism are anti-racist social movement unionism based in civil rights; changing discourse about the political-economic role of unions; and labor law reform. Walters & Misra examine the growing and largely non-union U.S. retail sector as a case in point for how contemporary adverse working conditions and organizational practices of multi-locational employers in low-wage sectors may inform the development of strategic labor actions. These strategic actions include social media-based organizing across the geographically dispersed workforces of a single multi-national employer; communitywide, political labor actions for legislating favorable labor laws, such as living-wage ordinances; assigning organizers of color to central roles in labor organizing campaigns; and, in light of interactive worker-customer relations in the service economy, building worker-consumer solidarity by boycotting and calling out employers that commit social injustices. In their analysis of the formidable obstacles to unionization posed by the rise of “new economy” corporations and the mammoth corporations of the logistics sector, Vallas & Johnston discern two long-term strategic labor actions for disrupting, overriding or circumventing these obstacles. The first, based on labor's disruptive potential at “critical chokepoints” of logistics systems, is conducting coordinated, multi-locational strikes. The second, in light of the strong digital communications capacity of new-economy workers, is to build solidarity between the demographically distinct workforces of the new-economy and logistics sectors by engaging in coalitional politics that illuminate labor and social injustices faced by both sectoral workforces.

The “intersectionality” essays address the implications of worker intersectional identities for realizing labor solidarity and sustaining labor activism. In his analysis of preliminary findings from his fieldwork on the prospects of unionization of African-American lower-tier workers, Young maintains that these workers do not necessarily view workplaces and unions as vehicles for enhancing their career mobility, let alone addressing the indignities they face as “doubly marginalized” workers. As marginalized workers came to be labeled “essential” workers during the Covid19 pandemic, some began to discern the value of their work, as well as contradictions between their statuses as marginalized, at-risk, and essential workers, creating an embryonic opening for empathetic unions to address the economic well-being and dignity of African-American lower-tier workers. Lee & Tapia adopt a “critical industrial relations” theoretical lens for extending labor organizing beyond the framework of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In order to address systemic inequality, they argue for “whole worker” labor organizing by Black, immigrant and woman-identified workers in place-based labor organizations, such as worker centers, and in conjunction with abolitionist social justice movements. Kristal's counter-factual analysis of the Current Population Survey produces estimates of union wage premiums associated with hypothetical increases in the union density rate in the U.S. between 1983 and 2020. Her findings indicate that throughout most of this period, the estimated union wage premium of median-wage men workers exceeded that of low-wage women workers with hypothetical increases in union density, suggesting that union bargaining power and union wage premiums would have been distributed unevenly across different demographic groups of workers. Torre's analysis of General Social Survey data on women's attitudes toward unions between 2002 and 2018 focuses on respondents’ agreement with this statement: “Workers need strong trade unions to protect their interests.” She finds that women tended to be more pro-union than men; women's pro-union attitudes increased at a greater rate than men's pro-union attitudes; and that Black and younger women, women with less than a high school education, and women employed in female-dominated occupations tended to harbor more pro-union attitudes than other women. Torre concludes that women can play a role in the new labor activism especially if unions are responsive to the needs of new cohorts of workers.

The “worker agency” essays extend the late Randy Hodson's (2001, p. 16) concept of agency, namely, “the active and creative performance of assigned roles in ways that give meaning and content to those roles beyond what is institutionally scripted.” Coley & Schachle develop a research agenda on “occupational activism,” the socially transformative enactment of one's occupation. Based on the case of the statewide walkout by Oklahoma school teachers in 2018, Coley & Schachle examine how biographical and micro-political forces shaped activism during and after the walkout. They find that austerity budgetary politics led to the walkout, cultivating activist identities and oppositional cultures among striking teachers who subsequently formed a social justice and equity committee and new inclusive curricula in their schools to challenge the state's post-walkout ban on teaching critical race theory, sexual orientation, and gender identity in 2021. Sallaz & Trongone develop the concept of a “labor movement field,” derived from field theory, for understanding how multiple strategic actors in a field struggle over the rules of the “game” for engaging in labor action. They illustrate this meso-level struggle with classification struggles over the definition of “worker,” such as the classification struggle over freelancers and independent contractors, and the use of sumptuary labor during the Covid-19 pandemic whereby firms passed along public health enforcement responsibilities to front-line service workers. Skaggs & Aparicio compare the possibilities for engaging in inclusive labor action among artists and creative workers who are employed in organizations (e.g., museums) and occupational communities (e.g., Nashville songwriters). In the case of unionized museum workers, the definition of an arts worker is determined through collective bargaining, but the bargaining framework is limited as a mechanism for dismantling racialized workplace hierarchies. In contrast, informal occupational communities determine who is an artist, tend to drift toward homophily, but can expand their logic of mutualism to apply to formerly excluded artists, especially as they engage with non-profit artist advocacy organizations. The authors present an organizational and network methodology for examining the possibilities of inclusive labor action in formal organizational and informal occupational workplaces. Hipp & Krzywdzinski examine the possibilities for sustaining labor action among the growing group of remote workers whose ranks have expanded during the Covid-19 pandemic. Remote work arrangements challenge the “ideal worker” norm and blur work-family boundaries, producing gendered benefits and inequities. The authors maintain that union advocacy for remote workers can help sustain the new labor activism for several reasons: unions can tap into the largely non-union white-collar workforce who have a greater interest in working remotely than other workers and can be reached easily via digital communications systems that circumvent conventional collective bargaining frameworks and networks. Sheehan & Williams conduct a cultural discourse analysis of how the contradictions between values and organizational practices shape uncertain prospects for labor action in the tech sector. Tech workers internalize the “new economy” values of corporate social responsibility and familial organizational values that are routinely contradicted by social injustices committed inside and outside the workplace and increase prospects for labor action; however, coercive employment-at-will practices and all-consuming career paths generate burnout and high turnover rates that thwart labor action.

In sum, the symposium essays point to a new labor sociology for comprehending and sustaining the new labor activism. This new worker-centered labor sociology identifies the contemporary pockets of political resistance and opportunities for labor activism; worker intersectional identities that inform empathetic whole-worker approaches to labor organizing; micro-structural fields of labor action; and social hierarchies that divide and marginalize workers. This symposium on the new labor activism, then, illuminates multiple pathways for dismantling social hierarchies and seizing the opportunities posed by the contemporary historical moment for sustaining the new labor activism and advancing the labor movement.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

I am gratefully indebted to Tom Kochan and his colleagues in the Worker Empowerment Research Network (WERN) for initiating this symposium on the new labor activism; the symposium participants for their contributions to the symposium; Larry Isaac, Josh Murray, and Irwin Kuhn for commenting on an earlier draft of this essay; Matthew Tarizzo for his editorial assistance in assembling this symposium issue; the late Richard A. Peterson for referring me to Alvin Gouldner's iron law of democracy early in my career; my fellow Vanderbilt labor sociologists for their daily enthusiasm; John Beck for illuminating workers’ daily lives; my partner Hedy Weinberg and daughter Hannah Cornfield for their inspiring, simultaneous engagement of multiple generations in social justice activism; and my uncle and aunt Gilbert and Noreen Cornfield for introducing me to the field of labor sociology when it was heading toward its “revitalization moment.”

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Daniel B. Cornfield

Notes

Author Biography

Daniel B. Cornfield is Editor-in-Chief of Work and Occupations and Professor of Sociology at Vanderbilt University.

References

Adler

Tapia

Turner

(2014). Mobilizing against inequality: Unions, immigrant workers, and the crisis of capitalism. ILR Press/Cornell University Press.

Berg

Kalleberg

(2001). Sourcebook of labor markets: Evolving structures and processes. Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Billings

(1990). Religion as opposition: A Gramscian analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 96(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1086/229491

Brady

Baker

R. S.

Finnigan

(2013). When unionization disappears: State-level unionization and working poverty in the United States. American Sociological Review, 78(5), 872–896. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122413501859

Brady

Wallace

(2000). Spatialization, foreign direct investment, and labor outcomes in the American states, 1978–1996. Social Forces, 79(1), 67–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/2675565

Bronfenbrenner

(2005). Organizing women: The nature and process of union-organizing efforts among U.S. women workers since the mid-1990s. Work and Occupations, 32(4), 441–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888405278989

Burawoy

(2008). The public turn: From labor process to labor movement. Work and Occupations, 35(4), 371–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888408325125

Burawoy

(2009). The global turn: Lessons from Southern labor scholars and their labor movements. Work and Occupations, 36(2), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888409333677

Carter

(1995). The impact of the civil rights movement on the unionization of African-American women: Local 282-Furniture Division-IUE, 1960–1988. In Vaz

K.M.

(Ed.), Black women in America (pp. 96–109). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483326962

10.

Cavalcanti

(1998). God and labor in the South: Southern Baptists and the right to unionize, 1930–1950. Journal of Church and State, 40(3), 639–660. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcs/40.3.639

11.

Cech

Waidzunas

(2022). LGBTQ@NASA and beyond: Work structure and workplace inequality among LGBTQ STEM professionals. Work and Occupations, 49(2), 187–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/07308884221080938

12.

Chinoy

(1955). Automobile workers and the American dream. Doubleday.

13.

Chun

B. J.

(1997). The impact of solidarity or conflict on participation in a labor union. Garland Pub.

14.

Clawson

(2003). The next upsurge: Labor and the new social movements. ILR Press/Cornell University Press.

15.

Coley

J. S.

(2015). Narrative and frame alignment in social movements: Labor problem novels and the 1929 Gastonia strike. Social Movement Studies, 14(1), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2013.873861

16.

Cornfield

(1986). Declining union membership in the post-World War II era: The United Furniture Workers of America, 1939-1982. American Journal of Sociology, 91(5), 1112–1153. https://doi.org/10.1086/228388

17.

Cornfield

(1989). Becoming a mighty voice: Conflict and change in the United Furniture Workers of America. Russell Sage Foundation.

18.

Cornfield

(1991). The U.S. Labor movement: Its development and impact on social inequality and politics. Annual Review of Sociology, 17(1), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.17.080191.000331

19.

Cornfield

(1997). Labor transnationalism? An editorial introduction to “Labor in the Americas”. Work and Occupations, 24(3), 278–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888497024003002

20.

Cornfield

(2006). Immigration, economic restructuring, and labor ruptures: From the amalgamated to change to win. WorkingUSA, 9(2), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-4580.2006.00103.x

21.

Cornfield

(2015). Beyond the beat: Musicians building community in Nashville. Princeton University Press.

22.

Cornfield

(2016). Randy Hodson, agent of a new sociology of work: Remembrance, reflection, and celebration. Research in the Sociology of Work (28), xvii–xxxv. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0277-283320160000028020

23.

Cornfield

Coley

Isaac

Dickerson

(2021). The making of a movement: An intergenerational mobilization model of the nonviolent Nashville civil rights movement. Social Science History, 45(3), 469–494. https://doi.org/10.1017/ssh.2021.18

24.

Cornfield

Fletcher

(1998). Institutional constraints on social movement “frame extension”: Shifts in the legislative agenda of the American Federation of Labor, 1881-1955. Social Forces, 76(4), 1305–1321. https://doi.org/10.2307/3005836

25.

Cornfield

McCammon

(Eds.). (2003). Labor revitalization, Research in the sociology of work (Vol. 11). Elsevier.

26.

Cornfield

McCammon

(2010). Approaching merger: The converging public policy agendas of the AFL and CIO, 1938-1955. In Van Dyke

McCammon

(Eds.), Strategic alliances: New studies of social movement coalitions (pp. 79–98). University of Minnesota Press.

27.

Dixon

(2020). Heartland blues: Labor rights in the industrial Midwest. Oxford University Press.

28.

Dowd

Pinheiro

(2013). The ties among the notes: The social capital of jazz musicians in three metro areas. Work and Occupations, 40(4), 431–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888413504099

29.

Ewing

Scheiber

(2023, February 16). Tesla fired Buffalo workers seeking to organize, union says. New York Times . https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/16/business/tesla-buffalo-union.html

30.

Fantasia

(1988). Cultures of solidarity: Consciousness, action, and contemporary American workers. University of California Press.

31.

Frenette

(2013). Making the intern economy: Role and career challenges of the music industry intern. Work and Occupations, 40(4), 364–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888413504098

32.

Frenette

(2019). Leveraging youth: Overcoming intergenerational tensions in creative production. Social Psychology Quarterly, 82(4), 386–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272519871297

33.

Ganz

(2000). Resources and resourcefulness: Strategic capacity in the unionization of California agriculture, 1959-1966. American Journal of Sociology, 105(4), 1003–1062. https://doi.org/10.1086/210398

34.

Gouldner

(1954). Wildcat strike. Antioch Press.

35.

Gouldner

(1955). Metaphysical pathos and the theory of bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 49(2), 496–507. https://doi.org/10.2307/1951818

36.

Greenberg

Lewis

(2017). The city is the factory: New solidarities and spatial strategies in an urban age. ILR Press/Cornell University Press.

37.

Greenhouse

(2022, May 23). A new generation is reviving unions. The old guard could help. Los Angeles Times . https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-05-23/starbucks-amazon-apple-union-campaigns-history

38.

Griffin

L. J.

Wallace

M. E.

Rubin

B. A.

(1986). Capitalist resistance to the organization of labor before the new deal: Why? How? Success? American Sociological Review, 51(2), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095513

39.

Hodson

(2001). Dignity at work. Cambridge University Press.

40.

Isaac

(2009). Movements, aesthetics, and markets in literary change: Making the American labor problem novel. American Sociological Review, 74(6), 938–965. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400605

41.

Isaac

Christiansen

(2002). How the civil rights movement revitalized labor militancy. American Sociological Review, 67(5), 722–746. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088915

42.

Isaac

Coley

Mai

Jacobs

(2022). Striking news: Discursive power of the press as capitalist resource in gilded age strikes. American Journal of Sociology, 127(5), 1602–1663. https://doi.org/10.1086/719424

43.

Isaac

Griffin

(1989). Ahistoricism in time-series analyses of historical process: Critique, redirection, and illustrations from U.S. labor history. American Sociological Review, 54(6), 873–890. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095713

44.

Isaac

McDonald

Lukasik

(2006). Takin’ it from the streets: How the sixties mass movement revitalized unionization. American Journal of Sociology, 112(1), 46–96. https://doi.org/10.1086/502692

45.

Kalleberg

(2009). Precarious work, insecure workers: Employment relations in transition. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400101

46.

Kalleberg

(2011). Good jobs, bad jobs: The rise of polarized and precarious employment systems in the United States, 1970s to 2000s. Russell Sage Foundation.

47.

Kalleberg

Colbjørnsen

(1990). Unions and the structure of earnings inequality: Cross-national patterns. Social Science Research, 19(4), 348–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/0049-089X(90)90003-2

48.

Kim

(1997). Working class stratification and the demand for unions in the United States. Garland Pub.

49.

Kochan

Fine

Bronfenbrenner

Naidu

Barnes

Dias-Linhart

Kallas

Kim

Minster

Tong

Townsend

Twiss

(2022, June). U.S. workers’ organizing efforts and collective actions: A review of the current landscape. Worker Empowerment Research Network (WERN). https://mitsloan.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2022-06/Report%20on%20Worker%20Organizing%20Landscape%20in%20US%20by%20Kochan%20Fine%20Bronfenbrenner%20Naidu%20et%20al%20June%202022.pdf

50.

Korczynski

(2014). Songs of the factory: Pop music, culture, and resistance. ILR Press/Cornell University Press.

51.

Leicht

(1989). On the estimation of union threat effects. American Sociological Review, 54(6), 1035–1047. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095722

52.

Lingo

E. L.

Tepper

S. J.

(2013). Looking back, looking forward: Arts-based careers and creative work. Work and Occupations, 40(4), 337–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888413505229

53.

Lipset

Trow

Coleman

(1956). Union democracy. Free Press.

54.

Lopez

(2004). Reorganizing the Rustbelt: An inside study of the American labor movement. University of California Press.

55.

Mai

(2016). All the labor problems fit to print: The New York Times and the cultural production of the U.S “labor problem”, 1870-1932. Labor History, 57(2), 141–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0023656X.2016.1161152

56.

Mai

Song

Donnelly

(2023). Precarious employment and well-being: Insights from the COVID-19 pandemic. Work and Occupations, 50(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/07308884221143063

57.

McCammon

(1990). Legal limits on labor militancy: U.S. labor law and the right to strike since the new deal. Social Problems, 37(2), 206–229. https://doi.org/10.2307/800649

58.

McCammon

(2001). Labor’s legal mobilization: Why and when do workers file unfair labor practices? Work and Occupations, 28(2), 143–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888401028002002

59.

McCammon

Muse

Newman

Terrell

T. M.

(2007). Movement framing and discursive opportunity structures: The political successes of the U.S. women’s jury movements. American Sociological Review, 72(5), 725–749. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240707200504

60.

Meyerson

(2022, September 5). Generation union. The American Prospect . https://prospect.org/labor/generation-union/

61.

Mickle

Scheiber

(2022, June 18). Apple workers at Maryland store vote to unionize, a first in the U.S. New York Times . https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/18/technology/apple-union-maryland.html

62.

Milkman

(1987). Gender at work. University of Illinois Press.

63.

Milkman

(2006). L.A. story: Immigrant workers and the future of the U.S. labor movement. Russell Sage Foundation.

64.

Milkman

(2017). A new political generation: Millennials and the post-2008 wave of protest. American Sociological Review, 82(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416681031

65.

Milkman

Bhargava

Lewis

(2021). Immigration matters: Movements, visions, and strategies for a progressive future. The New Press.

66.

Milkman

Bloom

Narro

(2010). Working for justice: The L.A. model of organizing and advocacy. ILR Press/Cornell University Press.

67.

Mills

(1948). The new men of power: America’s labor leaders. Harcourt, Brace and Company.

68.

Mills

(1953). White collar. Oxford University Press.

69.

Murray

Schwartz

(2019). Wrecked: How the American automobile industry destroyed its capacity to compete. Russell Sage Foundation.

70.

Pedulla

(2020). Making the cut: Hiring decisions, bias, and the consequences of nonstandard, mismatched, and precarious employment. Princeton University Press.

71.

Roscigno

Danaher

(2001). Media and mobilization: The case of radio and southern textile worker insurgency, 1929 to 1934. American Sociological Review, 66(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657392

72.

Rosenfeld

(2014). What unions no longer do. Harvard University Press.

73.

Roy

(2015). Becker meets Braverman. Work and Occupations, 42(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888415597879

74.

Rubin

(1986). Class struggle American style: Unions, strikes and wages. American Sociological Review, 51(5), 618–633. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095488

75.

Rupp

Taylor

(1987). Survival in the doldrums: The American women's rights movement, 1945 to the 1960s. Oxford University Press.

76.

Scheiber

(2022a, April 7). Amazon workers who won a union their way open labor leaders’ eyes. New York Times . https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/07/business/economy/amazon-union-labor.html

77.

Scheiber

(2022b, March 2). REI workers in New York vote to unionize. New York Times . https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/02/business/rei-union-new-york.html

78.

Scheiber

(2022c, June 21). Why a Rhodes Scholar’s ambition led her to a job at Starbucks. New York Times . https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/19/business/starbucks-union-rhodes-scholar.html

79.

Seidman

(2007). Beyond the boycott: Labor rights, human rights, and transnational activism. Russell Sage Foundation.

80.

Seron

Silbey

Cech

Rubineau

(2018). I am not a feminist, but. . .”: Hegemony of a meritocratic ideology and the limits of critique among women in engineering. Work and Occupations, 45(2), 131–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888418759774

81.

Skaggs

(2019). Socializing rejection and failure in artistic occupational communities. Work and Occupations, 46(2), 149–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888418796546

82.

Skaggs

(2022). Trend accommodation in heteronomous fields: How established artists respond to changing conventions. Poetics, 94, 101711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2022.101711

83.

Steinberg

(1990). Social construction of skill: Gender, power, and comparable worth. Work and Occupations, 17(4), 449–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888490017004004

84.

Stepan-Norris

Zeitlin

(1996). Talking union. University of Illinois Press.

85.

Tapia

Turner

(2018). Renewed activism for the labor movement: The urgency of young worker engagement. Work and Occupations, 45(4), 391–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888418785657

86.

Taylor

K.-Y.

(2016). From #BLACKLIVES MATTER to Black Liberation. Haymarket Books.

87.

Terriquez

Milkman

(2021). Immigrant and refugee youth organizing in solidarity with the movement for Black lives. Gender & Society, 35(4), 577–587. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912432211029396

88.

Tomaskovic-Devey

Avent-Holt

(2019). Relational inequalities: An organizational approach. Oxford University Press.

89.

Turner

(2005). From transformation to revitalization: A new research agenda for a contested global economy. Work and Occupations, 32(4), 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888405279071

90.

Turner

Cornfield

(2007). Labor in the new urban battlegrounds: Local solidarity in a global economy. ILR Press/Cornell University Press.

91.

Turner

Katz

Hurd

(2001). Rekindling the movement: Labor's quest for relevance in the 21st century. ILR Press/Cornell University Press.

92.

Vallas

(1993). Power in the workplace: The politics of production at A.T.&T. State University of New York Press.

93.

Vallas

(2006). Empowerment redux: Structure, agency, and the remaking of managerial authority. American Journal of Sociology, 111(6), 1677–1717. https://doi.org/10.1086/499909

94.

Vallas

(2003b). The adventures of managerial hegemony: Teamwork, ideology, and worker resistance. Social Problems, 50(2), 204–225. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2003.50.2.204

95.

Vallas

Christin

(2018). Work and identity in an era of precarious employment: How workers respond to “personal branding” discourse. Work and Occupations, 45(1), 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888417735662

96.

Vallas

(2003a). Rediscovering the color line within work organizations: The “knitting of racial groups” revisited. Work and Occupations, 30(4), 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888403256454

97.

Velasquez

(2022, March 24). Meet Christian Smalls and Derrick Palmer, the diy duo behind the Amazon Labor Union’s guerrilla bid to make history. The City . https://www.thecity.nyc/staten-island/2022/3/24/22995196/amazon-workers-staten-island-union-vote

98.

Voss

Bloemraad

(2011). Rallying for immigrant rights: The fight for inclusion in 21^st century America. University of California Press.

99.

Voss

Sherman

(2000). Breaking the iron law of oligarchy: Union revitalization in the American labor movement. American Journal of Sociology, 106(2), 303–349. https://doi.org/10.1086/316963

100.

Wallace

(1987). Dying for coal: The struggle for health and safety conditions in American coal mining, 1930-82. Social Forces, 66(2), 336–364. https://doi.org/10.2307/2578744

101.

Williams

(2021). Life support: The problems of working for a living. American Sociological Review, 86(2), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122421997063

The New Labor Activism,a New Labor Sociology

Abstract

Keywords

Toward a New Labor Sociology

History, Intersectionality, and Worker Agency

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

Author Biography

References