Union militancy during economic hardship. The strike at the Greek steel company “Hellenic Halyvourgia”
| Published date | 04 April 2016 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-11-2014-0132 |
| Pages | 373-389 |
| Date | 04 April 2016 |
| Author | Giorgos Bithymitris |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Industrial/labour relations |
Union militancy
during economic hardship
The strike at the Greek steel
company “Hellenic Halyvourgia”
Giorgos Bithymitris
Department of Political Science and History, Centre for Political Research,
Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, Athens, Greece
Abstract
Purpose –This paper examines the preconditions of the strike at the Greek steel company Hellenic
Halyvourgia (HH) which started on 1 November 2011 and ended on 28 July 2012. The purpose of this paper
is to contribute to the understanding of current labour disputes in the context of economic crisis focusing on
previous developments of mobilisation theory and social movement literature. The overall aim is to
highlight the linkages between trade unions and society when a broader sense of injustice comes to the fore.
Design/methodology/approach –Qualitative methods were employed in order to contextualise the
strike events and examine the preconditions of the occurrence and the volume of the strike.
Semistructured interviews, field notes, interviews taken by the media, documentaries, chronicles and
articles, constructed the main body of empirical material.
Findings –The HH case indicates that certain collective identities and leadership qualities account for
high mobilisation potential with spillover effects which are in turn conditioned upon the situation of the
strikers’allies. Although there was an agency to transform the sense of injustice into collective action,
the framing processes employed by the union did not have the kind of impact that would render state
and management’s responses ineffective, as the strike message did not eventually penetrate other
industries or even the rest factories of the HH.
Originality/value –The present paper goes beyond the general description of the social turmoil
during the Greek crisis by showing the critical bonds that were established through framing and
identity-building processes among the strikers and the anti-austerity protesters in Greece and abroad.
Keywords Leadership, Crisis, Trade unions, Injustice, Strikes
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
This paper explores the preconditions for the longest strike to take place in post-dictatorial
Greece within an extremely harsh economic context. The strike at Hellenic Halyvourgia
(HH)startedon1November2011andendedon28July2012,amountingto272strikedays.
On 31 October 2011, the General Assembly of the 353 steelworkers of HH voted to strike,
challenging the dilemma posed by the employer: wage cuts of up to 40 per cent (as a result
of working-time reductions) or 180 dismissals (Diakoptes, 2011). Implementing a multiform
militant strategy, the HH Union (HHU) attempted to turn its strike into a cornerstone for
theGreeklabourmovement.Despiteitsnegativenetoutcome,thestrikeatHHstandsout
as the kind of labour struggle that enriches our understanding of “how individuals are
transformed into collective actors who have the will and the capacity to create and sustain
collective organization and to engage in collective action against their employers”(Kelly,
1998, p. 38), which is one of the central questions negotiated by mobilisation theory.
The aim of this study is to analyse the micro dynamics of a contemporary, lengthy
and well-supported strike in the historical perspective of an unprecedented economic
recession. Two analytical categories associated with mobilisation theory are employed
Employee Relations
Vol. 38 No. 3, 2016
pp. 373-389
©Emerald Group Publis hing Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/ER-11-2014-0132
Received 14 November 2014
Revised 8 February 2015
Accepted 31 March 2015
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
373
Union militancy
during
economic
hardship
to construct our hypotheses about the determinants of the HH strike. First, the sense of
injustice which emerged as a “deposit of collectivism”and counterbalanced various
symptoms of sectionalism. Second, the quality of leadership. According to our research
on the HH strike, these two factors accounted for two different levels of mobilisation
potential: the incidence, which corresponds to the synchronic question “Why did it
happen?”; and the durability of this multiform labour struggle, which corresponds to
the diachronic question “How did it last?”.
2. Union militancy and mobilisation resources
The labelling of a union as militant or moderate should not be seen as a static
categorisation but rather as a useful analytical tool for contrasting the different
approaches adopted by unions (Darlington, 2009a, p. 4). Although the discussion on the
effectiveness of each type of unionism lies at the heart of the contrasting paradigms,
we shall focus on the constitutional issue of the preconditions for militancy in the
so-called age of austerity (Schäfer and Streeck, 2013).
During the strike under examination, and in the aftermath of this struggle, the relations
between labour, capital and the state were altered at both the micro and the national level.
Although the power shifts are not addressed here, our attempt to explore the preconditions
for union militancy paves the way for a further assessment of its implications regarding
outcomes and results. The efficacy of a militant union strategy during periods of economic
downturn also needs an empirical grounding well beyond the scope of this paper.
What can be discussed, however, is what allows militancy to emerge even as unions
go through tough economic times. To do so, the present analysis builds on two
interrelated conceptualisations; the first revolves around the sense of injusti ce and its
“felt importance”(Frijda, 2004, p. 167). Badigannavar and Kelly (2011) and Buttigieg
et al. (2008) perceive injustice as a key factor associated with higher levels of attitudinal
militancy and pro-union attitudes. Johnson and Jarley (2004, p. 546) build upon a similar
notion of workplace injustice, contrasting it with the procedural justice produced by the
trade union. In a similar vein, we approach injustice in its inter-subjective content, as it
is experienced by the strikers.
The second concept focuses on leadership as a crucial factor in the process of
workers’mobilisation. While examining briefly this concept in the way it is
operationalised by social movement (SM) scholars (Fantasia, 1988; Barker et al., 2001),
special attention will be drawn to more recent detailed accounts of the dynamic
interrelationship between workplace leadership and membership, particularly
underlining the significance of left-wing leadership in trade union activity.
Starting from the seminal work of John Kelly (1998), mobilisation theory in industrial
relations has endorsed the sense of injustice as a sine qua non of collective action.
Leadership, organisational structure and strategic opportunity supplement the analytical
canvas on the premises of labour mobilisation. Despite its originality, Kelly’score
argument has been challenged both empirically and methodologically. For instance, Atzeni
(2009) challenges the centrality of the subjectively perceived notion of injustice in the
process of collectivisation while he explores more spontaneous labour responses as part of
on-going processes that lead to mobilisation. Instead of building on the individual and thus
elusive sense of injustice, Atzeni (2009) stresses the importance of the “structured”
solidarity as “a product of the conflicting nature of the employment relationship in
capitalist societies”(p. 7). According to this approach, union leaders will not be able to
sustain mobilisation unless they reframe working interests in collective terms and thus
defend the space for reciprocal support and solidarity (Atzeni, 2009, p. 13).
374
ER
38,3
To continue reading
Request your trial