Marc Dixon

Movements, Countermovements and Policy Adoption: The Case of Right-to-Work Activism

Research on social movements and public policy has expanded tremendously in recent years, yet little of this work considers the role of movement opponents in the political process or how the movement-countermovement dynamic is influential in contests over policy. This historical study begins to fill this void by analyzing the contestation between employers and labor movement actors in relation to two critical right-to-work campaigns in the industrial Midwest in the 1950s. I find that actors who balance formal, professionalized organization with a more localized presence on the ground are in a better position to pursue multiple mechanisms of influence and to shape policy, while internal divisions severely limit their prospects. Event structure analyses of right-to-work campaigns advance this discussion, revealing how social movement organizational characteristics matter to the extent that they enable opposing movements to counter each others actions in unfolding political processes. I conclude by discussing the implications of the findings for perspectives on social movements and politics, and for research dealing specifically with the U.S. labor movement.

Can Unions Rebound? Decline and Renewal in the US Labour Movement

Union decline has reached crisis proportions for the American labour movement. To be sure, union membership among private sector employees is now lower than at any point since the Great Depression (Hirsch and Macpherson 2007). The number of union elections held through the NLRB — still a key link in the primary mechanism for private sector membership recruitment — stands at about half of pre-1980s levels. Can unions rebound? If so, just what would it take? These questions are the source of much debate within and around organised labour, underlying successive shake-ups at the top of the American labour movement. The suggestions are many for a beleaguered labour movement. Some question the big picture payoff of enhanced labour organising for restoring union power and instead call for a more general rethinking of unionism and potential labour allies (Clawson 2003a; Sullivan 2007). Scholars and activists looking to build on recent innovations in labour organising still find themselves at odds over so-called ‘top-down,’ or more staff driven efforts, versus ‘bottom up,’ member driven approaches (Early 2004a;Fantasia and Voss 2004; Lerner 2003, 2007; Moody 2007; Voss and Sherman 2000). Such debates over appropriate union approach and structure are not new.

Can the Labor Movement Succeed Without the Strike

Despite growing interest in revitalizing the labor movement, the role of the strike has hardly been discussed. Can unions make gains without it?

Coalitions and the Bottom Line Strikes, Allies, and Company Stock Returns

Scholars have long recognized how coalitions are critical for many social movements. This is especially evident in the labor movement, which has begun to seek external allies in the face of corporate attacks. Building on qualitative work linking coalition building to success, we seek to identify the mechanisms by which coalitions are able to exert leverage on targets. Specifically, we consider how coalitions allow unions to exert greater financial pressure by reducing the targeted company’s stock price. Our analysis of labor strikes suggests that intramovement partnerships, rather than those that go beyond the boundaries of the labor movement, are the most effective. Moreover, characteristics of the targeted firm, specifically its reputation and (in) ability to relocate, allow coalitions to exert greater pressure.

Organization, Opportunity, and the Shifting Politics of Employment Discrimination:

Despite the major breakthrough for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) activists on marriage equality, the fight against employment discrimination remains elusive. Whether one is protected from discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity depends on where one lives and is contingent on a patchwork of state and local policies. In this article, we investigate the adoption of state nondiscrimination laws that are inclusive of sexual orientation between 1980 and 2009. Findings from our event history analysis of policy adoption contribute to the study of social movements and LGBT politics in three ways. First, and consistent with social movement theory, we find countermovement opposition to gay rights as well as pro-LGBT political opportunities to be critical. Second, we find organization and opportunity to fluctuate in importance over time, underscoring the need for historically informed analyses that seriously consider when key actors should matter for social movement outcomes. Third, we produce new state-level estimates of public opinion of nondiscrimination laws. We show that while very high levels of public support are common for states that adopt nondiscrimination laws, they are not enough on their own, particularly in the face of opposition.

Leveraging corporate influence

Abstract Movement scholars have become increasingly interested in the way in which social movement actors target non-state entities, particularly corporations. The reason for this is quite simple: globalization, neoliberal policies adopted by the state, and new legal protections via court rulings have allowed businesses to exert considerable influence across all facets of society. In light of these changes, movements have found targeting the state less effective than directly pressuring business interests. Scholarship suggests that one of the most effective ways to ensure that corporations attend to movement concerns is through market pressures. While negatively impacting stock returns is perhaps the most effective means of achieving such pressure, there is surprisingly little empirical research linking stock price outcomes to movement success. Here, we use Qualitative Comparative Analysis and examine 35 labor strikes to determine if the ability of the union to negatively impact stock price affected their ability to win new gains for members (or, to prevent concessions). Our findings reveal that it is the characteristics of the targeted firm, not the actions of the unions themselves, that is most closely associated with success.