Abstracts
Résumé
Cet article vise à fournir un éclairage original des dynamiques propres à la montée du syndicalisme indépendant. L’implication syndicale, restreinte à l’acte d’adhésion, c’est-à-dire à la signature d’une carte, est appréhendée en tant que processus multidéterminé et non linéaire. L’analyse qualitative de récits de pratique aboutit à distinguer trois profils parmi les militants du chef de file des organisations autonomes françaises : les « conjurés » des centrales représentatives, les « dégouttés » et les « primo adhérents ». Cet effort de contextualisation conduit à montrer qu’il est vain d’opposer les motivations antérieurement identifiées dans la littérature. Leur combinaison permet, au contraire, de mieux comprendre les différences de sensibilité des acteurs. Au total, cette recherche affine les conclusions des précédentes investigations quantitatives et monolithiques réalisées en coupe transversale.
Summary
The goal of this article is to offer original insight into the dynamics which are specific to the rise of independent unionism. By questioning militants in one of the leading French organizations of non-confederated workers—Solidaire, Unitaire and Démocratique—we attempt to identify the nature and dynamic combination of factors involved in their membership. What are thus the factors that cause a salaried worker to spontaneously join an independent union in a context where recruitment is individual and free, but also where the confederate offer is plentiful?
Up to this time, this question has not really been dealt with in French literature. The attraction exercised by these union innovations remains obscure. Anglo-Saxon research devoted either to card membership prior to accreditation or to a vote is, in this way, called upon. Beyond the instability of their results, three explanations seem to result: the theory of instrumentality, the theory of intention, and finally, the theory of “contextual micro-mobilization.” All three theories were developed with reference to the confederate model based on quantitative measurements involving a cross-sectional sample. This methodological option does not make it possible to develop the various theses over time. For the same reasons, both the meaning the militants give to their decisions and the exact meaning of causal relations remain impossible to establish. Because of the unique characteristics of independent movements, these results must be considered as simple benchmarks for exploring the dynamics specific to their development.
Recourse to a qualitative investigation based on practical accounts may make it possible to go beyond a monolithic conception of the phenomenon, in keeping with the vision of Snape, Redman and Chan (2000). This involves, at the end of an integrated approach that combines an exploratory phase, followed by one of theoretic saturation, the identification of the discursive logic of our 36 witnesses. In order to do so, data is analyzed in the development of “the episodes of a story (its sequences) with the structure of its ‘characters’ (its actors) in order to discover the logic of the discourse directed to its addressee (the arguments)” (Demazière and Dubar, 1997).
In all, at least three original profiles for membership emerge: those “conjured” from representative organizations, the “discouraged,” and “first-time members.” The first category is made up of actors who have left confederated unions to create a Sud section, with no transition between the two memberships. The split is followed by a period of internal dissidence then one of intense reflection as to the level of the original emotional involvement in the trade union. If the decision to leave is an individual one, the choice of Sud is, on the other hand, a collective phenomenon resulting from a combination of normative pressures and emotional involvement. The “discouraged,” for their part, experienced a period of non-unionization, from two to ten years in length, between two separate memberships. The first union membership is emotional in nature. The second, with Sud, is accompanied by an instrumental motivation aiming to reduce the cognitive dissonance born of their lack of militancy. For the “first-time members,” Sud presents the opportunity to progress from fatalism to a plan. Membership is motivated by but also reinforced by employer behaviour, which is judged as anti-social, and also by a moral debt with regards to a Sud delegate. This membership is taken on following difficulties encountered during the first professional integration. Personal interest and the political program both appear, on the other hand, as a priori explanatory factors.
The stories which are revealed show that the process of joining independent French unionism is rarely a linear one. The explanations available in the literature are structured in an unusual manner: recursive loops are observed in at least two of three categories. The plurality of the processes confirms that the established theories are more complementary than at odds with each other. These observations also reaffirm the centrality of conflict: the decisions for unionization and de-unionization are observed on these occasions. The nature of the catalyst—individual, local and collective, national and collective—diverge, however, based on the prior union experiences which each member has had.
These results may indicate several points of interest for research. First of all, the results improve the understanding of the choice of union orientation when the union offer is diversified, as is the case in France, but also in Portugal, in Spain, in Switzerland, etc. They also contribute to a better understanding of the process of resignation. In the third place, the results renew the analysis of taking on membership from a non-linear and multi-determinate process perspective. These conclusions contribute, in turn, to accounting for the divergences observed in those studies that look for correlation within samples studied on a global basis. In fact, the union member is difficult to summarize as a mean entity, in the statistical sense of the term, except if one sacrifices the nuances of a highly complex social reality. From an even more managerial perspective, the identification of the diversity of motivations clarifies the reasons for which Sud is difficult to understand from the employers’ perspective. This variety clearly constitutes a strategic advantage in the power relationship.
On this basis, the carrying out of quantitative investigations within the three segments identified constitutes a promising avenue for further research as well as for international comparisons where independent movements exist.
Resumen
Este artículo pretende aportar un esclarecimiento original de las dinámicas propias al alza del sindicalismo independiente. La implicación sindical, restringida al acto de adhesión, es decir al acto de firmar una carta, es aprehendido en tanto que proceso multideterminado y non lineal. El análisis cualitativo de relatos de practica conduce a distinguir tres prototipos de militantes de vanguardia de las organizaciones autónomas francesas : los “conjurados” de las centrales representativas, los “hastiados” y los “primo adherentes”. Este esfuerzo de contextualización conduce a mostrar que es vano oponerse a las motivaciones anteriormente identificadas en la literatura. La combinación permite, al contrario, de comprender mejor las diferencias de sensibilidad de los actores. Finalmente, esta investigación afina las conclusiones de las precedentes investigaciones cuantitativas y monolíticas realizadas en corte transversal.
Appendices
Bibliographie
- Allen, N.J. et J.P. Meyer. 1990. « The Measurement and the Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization ». Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63 (1), 18.
- Amadieu, J.F. 1999. Les syndicats en miettes. Paris : Seuil.
- Amossé, T. et M.T. Pignoni. 2006. « La transformation du paysage syndical depuis 1945 ». Données sociales : la société française. Paris : Direction de l’animation et de la recherche, des études et des statistiques.
- Bamberger, P.A., A.N. Kluger et R. Suchard. 1999. « The Antecedents and Consequences of Union Commitment : A Meta-analysis ». Academy of Management Journal, 42 (3), 304–318.
- Barling, J., E.K. Kelloway et E.H. Bremermann. 1991. « Preemployment Predictors of Union Attitudes : The Role of Family Socialization and Work Beliefs ». Journal of Applied Psychology, 76 (5), 725–731.
- Bertaux, D. 1980. « L’approche biographique : sa validité méthodologique, ses potentialités ». Cahiers internationaux de sociologie, 69, 197–225.
- Biétry, F. 2005a. « Changement et théorie néo-institutionnelle : le cas des relations collectives françaises ». Revue finance, contrôle, stratégie, 8 (2), 65–97.
- Biétry, F. 2005b. « Les syndicats à l’heure des réseaux ». Revue française de gestion, 31 (157), 79–102.
- Bouffartigue, P. 2004. « Du syndicalisme ouvrier à un syndicalisme de classes moyennes ? ». Le retour des classes sociales : inégalités, dominations, conflits. P. Bouffartigue, dir. Paris : La dispute.
- Commons, J.R. 1918. History of Labor in the United States. New-York : Macmillan Publishing Co.
- David, A. 2001. « Logique, épistémologie et méthodologies en sciences de gestion : trois hypothèses revisitées ». Les nouvelles fondations des sciences de gestion : éléments d’épistémologie de la recherche en management. A. David et R. Laufer, dir. Paris : Vuibert.
- deConinck, F. et F. Godard. 1989. « L’approche biographique à l’épreuve de l’interprétation : les formes temporelles de la causalité ». Revue française de sociologie, 31, 23–53.
- deCotiis, T.A. et J. le Louarn. 1981. « A Predictive Study of Voting Behaviour in a Representation Election Using Union Instrumentality and Work Perceptions ». Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 27, 103–118.
- Demazière, D. et C. Dubard. 1997. Analyser les entretiens biographiques. Paris : Nathan.
- Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. « Building Theories from Case Study Research ». Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532–550.
- Girin, J. 1990. « L’analyse empirique des situations de gestion : élément de théorie et de méthode ». Épistémologies et sciences de gestion. A.C. Martinet, dir. Paris : Économica.
- Glaser, B.G. et A.L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory : Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York : Aldine de Gruyter.
- Granovetter, M. 1985. « Economic Action and Social Structure : The Problem of Embeddedness ». American Journal of Sociology, 91 (3), 481–510.
- Hlady Rispal, M. 2002. La méthode des cas : application à la recherche en gestion. Bruxelles : De Boeck Université.
- Hochner, A. et I. Goll. 1981. Decisional and Busy Work Participation by the Rank-and-File in Unions : The Effect on Satisfaction. Dept. of Industrial Relations and Organization Behavior, School of Business Administration, Temple University Press.
- Kelloway, E.K., V.M. Catano et R.R. Southwell. 1992. « The Construct Validity of Union Commitment : Development and Dimensionality of a Shorter Scale ». Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 65 (6), 869–875.
- Kelly, J. et C. Kelly. 1994. « Who Gets Involved in Collective Action? Social Psychological Determinants of Individual Participation in Trade Unions ». Human Relations, 47 (1), 63–88.
- Klandermans, B. 1986. « Psychology and Trade Union Participation : Joining, Acting, Quitting ». Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 189–204.
- Klandermans, P.G. 1984. « Mobilization and Participation in Trade Union Action : An Expectancy-value Approach ». Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57, 107–120.
- Labbé, D. et H. Landier. 2001. L’entreprise face au nouveau radicalisme syndical. Paris : Liaisons.
- le Queux, S. 2005. « À propos de la recherche sur le syndicalisme et l’altermondialisme : quelles intersections avec la nouvelle génération militante ? ». REMEST, 1 (1), 22–35.
- Lipset, S.M. 1983. « Radicalism or Reformism : The Sources of Working-Class Politics ». The American Political Science Review, 77.
- McAdam, D. 1988. « Micromobilization Contexts and Recruitment to Activism ». International Social Movement Research, 1, 125–154.
- Milton, L.P. 2003. « An Identity Perspective on the Propensity of High-Tech Talent to Unionize ». Journal of Labor Research, 24 (1), 31–53.
- Moriceau, J.L. 2003. « La répétition du singulier : pour une reprise du débat sur la généralisation à partir d’études de cas ». Revue sciences de gestion, 36 (printemps), 113–140.
- Newton, L.A. et L.M. Shore. 1992. « A Model of Union Membership : Instrumentality, Commitment and Opposition ». Academy of Management Review, 17, 275–298.
- Nissen, B. 2001. « Building a Minority Union : The CWA Experience at NCR ». Labor Studies Journal, 25 (4), 34–55.
- Olson, M. 1978. Logique de l’action collective. Paris : PUF.
- Paquet, R., J.-F. Tremblay et E. Gosselin. 2004. « Des théories du syndicalisme : synthèse analytique et considérations contemporaines ». Industrial Relations, 59 (2), 295–316.
- Pineau, G. et J.L. le Grand. 2002. Les histoires de vie. Paris : PUF.
- Rojot, J. 1989. « The Myth of French Exceptionalism ». Theories and Concepts in Comparative Industrial Relations. J. Barbash et K. Barbash, dir. Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina Press.
- Rosanvallon, P. 1988. La question syndicale. Paris : Calman-Lévy.
- Rouleau, L. 2003. « La méthode biographique ». Conduire un projet de recherche : une perspective qualitative. Y. Giordano, dir. Colombelles : EMS.
- Shore, L.M., L.E. Tetrick, R. Sinclair et L.A. Newton. 1994. « Validation of a Measure of Perceived Union Support ». Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 971–977.
- Snape, E., T. Redman et A.W. Chan. 2000. « Commitment to the Union : A Survey of Research and the Implications for Industrial Relations and Trade Unions ». International Journal of Management Reviews, 2 (3), 205–230.
- Stake, R. 1994. « Case Studies ». Handbook of Qualitative Research. N.K. Denzin et Y.S. Lincoln, dir. London : Sage Publications.
- Sverke, M. et A. Sjoberg. 1994. « Dual Commitment to Company and Union in Sweden : An Examination of Predictors and Taxonomic Split Methods ». Economic and Industrial Democracy, 15, 531–564.
- Sverke, M. et A. Sjoberg. 1995. « Union Membership Behavior : The Influence of Instrumental and Value-based Commitment ». Changing Employment Relations : Behavioral and Social Perspectives. L.E. Tetrick et J. Barling, dir. Washington : American Psychological Association, 229–254.
- Sverke, M. et S. Kuruvilla. 1995. « A New Conceptualization of Union Commitment : Development and Test of an Integrated Theory ». Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 16 (special issue), 519–533.
- Van de Ven, A.H. 1992. « Suggestions for Studying Strategy Process : A Research Note ». Strategic Management Journal, 13, 169–188.
- Wheeler, H.N. 1985. Industrial Conflict : An Integrative Theory. Columbia, S.C. : University of South California Press.