مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد اینترنشنالیزم کار و بخش دولتی – الزویر ۲۰۲۰

۱- Introduction

۲- Theoretical discussion

۳- Labour internationalism through the Public Services International (PSI)

۴- Strategic rationales in the internationalism of public sector workers

۵- Concluding discussion

References

Abstract

This paper sets out the need to conceptualise labour internationalism in the public sector, given its distinct political character and orientation. Our analysis adds to a literature on labour internationalism that hitherto has mainly depicted strategies of unions in private sector industries. To better understand the reasons for upscaling trade union efforts in a sector where the main employer remains the institutional apparatus of the nation-state, we have interviewed office bearers in the most important global union federation organising across different public services – Public Services International (PSI) – asking them to explain their political and strategic considerations. We find that the distinct role of the nation state as an employer, the public character of work and specific relations between public sector workers and the users of services, are all determinants in shaping labour transnationalism in the public sector. This in turn leads to a greater emphasis on alliances with social movements and oppositional campaigns, representing a radical global political unionism. Neoliberal austerity and privatisation measures have reinforced the importance of such political relationships and power, but also challenged their organisational foundations. However, alliance-building is not PSI’s sole strategy. We find that office bearers at the transnational level combines three strategic rationales through orientations that we have labelled the political-institutional, the movement-popular and the industrial-corporate. We also suggest that employing these sensitising concepts can bolster the scholarly treatment of understanding labour internationalism and its strategy repertoires more generally.

Introduction

Why do workers in the public sector, whose main employer is still the institutional apparatus of the nation-state, decide to pursue strategies of labour internationalism? And are these strategies differently motivated than transnational labour activism in private sector industries? The election of Italian trade unionist Rosa Pavanelli as elected general secretary of the Public Services International (PSI) in 2012 represents an interesting entry point from which to address these questions. PSI is a global union federation (GUF) organising 20 million public services workers in 163 countries. Pavanelli’s election signalled a shift in leadership towards a more social movement and activist unionism tradition. In the global surge of civil society protests since 2010 (Della Porta, 2015; Ortiz, Burke, Berrada, & Cortes, 2013), public sector unions have been central. Austerity measures and neoliberal policies have arguably restated the case for alliance-building between public sector workers and services users, even though solidarity between these groups are often riddled with tensions (Peck, 2012; Ross & Savage, 2013). Both subjects are concerned with the quality of services, the integrity of the public sector workforce and the legitimacy of salaries in the sector. This entails that the realisation of workers’ interests in public sector unions increasingly depends on their relationship with other citizens. It ultimately requires the building of political capital, in order to countervail what is seen as an unprecedented global attack on workers and welfare alike. Faced with both neoliberal austerity and a growing right-populist discourse emerging transnationally in the context of economic crisis, Thomas and Tufts (2016) argue that unions need to construct a broader political alternative through alliances with community groups and wider segments of the working class. Sharing a mistrust in national governments from both the left and the right, such an alliance could also find common ground in global issues like free trade, structural austerity programs or the leaks surrounding global tax havens and unjust tax practices.