BEYOND THE BARGAINING TABLE: HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS AND PRACTICAL ANALYSIS OF LABOR–COMMUNITY COALITIONS AND THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL DIALOGUE FORMS IN THE UNITED STATES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35433/ISSN2410-3748-2024-1(36)-2Keywords:
Labor–community coalitions, social dialogue, industrial relations, home-care workers, anti-sweatshop movement, collective bargaining, democratic transition, corporate responsibility, civil society, ethical consumerismAbstract
The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the historical background and practical dimensions of labor–community coalitions in the United States as an alternative institutional model of social dialogue. It addresses a pressing research problem—the decline in the effectiveness of traditional union mechanisms in post-industrial societies and the need to develop more flexible and inclusive forms of labor representation. The study argues that labor–community alliances, which merge the interests of workers and civil society actors, can significantly influence both public policy and corporate governance by establishing new, participatory formats for dialogue and collective action.
The article examines two emblematic case studies: the anti-sweatshop movement, which transformed localized labor conflicts into a global campaign for corporate accountability; and the California home-care worker organizing campaign, which united labor representatives and care recipients in a joint struggle for improved working conditions and service quality. The analysis focuses on practical strategies such as civic mobilization, ethical consumerism, university-based activism, engagement with human rights organizations, and local-level political advocacy. These coalitions are shown to empower workers in sectors marked by informality, precarity, and a lack of institutional protection, providing an avenue for democratic participation and social justice.
In addition, the article highlights the broader societal impact of such alliances, emphasizing their capacity to act as a bridge between marginalized labor groups and formal institutions of power. By channeling grassroots demands through institutional frameworks, labor–community coalitions foster new forms of solidarity, accountability, and collective agency. Their involvement in shaping economic, gender, and social equity agendas illustrates the adaptability of coalition-based models to contemporary challenges such as globalization, weakened state regulation, and labor market fragmentation. The findings are relevant not only for U.S. labor policy but also for transitional and developing countries seeking to modernize their systems of social dialogue and participatory governance.
References
Quan, Katie. State of the art of social dialogue: The United States. – Geneva: International Labour Organization, 2000. – 42 p [in English].
Acuff, Stewart. The struggle for economic justice // Labor Studies Journal. – 2000. – Vol. 25, No. 1, Spring [in English].
del Castillo, Richard G.; Garcia, Richard A. Cesar Chavez: A triumph spirit. – Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1997. – 248 p [in English].
Herbert, Bob. Brutality in Vietnam // The New York Times, In America column. – 1997. – 28 March [in English].
White, George. Workers held in near-slavery, officials say // The New York Times. – 1995. – 3 August [in English].
Greenhouse, Steven. A crusader makes celebrities tremble: Image is new weapon in sweatshop war // The New York Times, Metro Section. – 1996. – 18 June.
Bonacich, Edna; Appelbaum, Richard P. Faces behind the label: Inequality in the Los Angeles apparel industry. – Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. – 320 p [in English].
The Sweatshop Quandary: Corporate Responsibility on the Global Frontier. – Washington, D.C.: Investor Responsibility Research Center, 1998. – 85 p [in English].
Esbenshade, Jill; Bonacich, Edna. Can Conduct Codes and Monitoring Combat America’s Sweatshops? // Challenge. – 1999. – July/August [in English].
Cities Against Sweatshops: Excerpts from the Social Campaigns of UniteHere! in New York, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland. New York: UniteHere!, March 14, 2001 [in English].
Quality Homecare 2000: Excerpts from Company Reports for the Year 2000. URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20010801190509/http://calhomecare.com/update.html#5_17_00 [in English].
Delp, Linda, and Katie Quan. “Homecare Worker Organizing in California: An Analysis of a Successful Strategy.” Labor Studies Journal, vol. 27, no. 1, March 2002, pp. 1–23. URL: https://doi.org/10.1353/lab.2002.0003 [in English].
California Department of Social Services, Health and Welfare Agency. Monitoring Review of the Tulare County Managed Care/Capitation Demonstration Project. June 1, 1993.
De Anda, Esperanza. Unpublished interview by Linda Delp, SEIU Local 434-B Executive Board Member, Los Angeles, California, May 6, 2000.
Freeman, Richard B. “Unionism Comes to the Public Sector.” Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 24, 1986, pp. 41–86. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2725787 [in English].
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Автори, які публікуються у цьому журналі, погоджуються з наступними умовами:
a) Автори залишають за собою право на авторство своєї роботи та передають журналу право першої публікації цієї роботи на умовах ліцензії Creative Commons Attribution License, котра дозволяє іншим особам вільно розповсюджувати опубліковану роботу з обов'язковим посиланням на авторів оригінальної роботи та першу публікацію роботи у цьому журналі.
b) Автори мають право укладати самостійні додаткові угоди щодо неексклюзивного розповсюдження роботи у тому вигляді, в якому вона була опублікована цим журналом (наприклад, розміщувати роботу в електронному сховищі установи або публікувати у складі монографії), за умови збереження посилання на першу публікацію роботи у цьому журналі.
c) Політика журналу дозволяє і заохочує розміщення авторами в мережі Інтернет (наприклад, у сховищах установ або на особистих веб-сайтах) рукопису роботи, як до подання цього рукопису до редакції, так і під час його редакційного опрацювання, оскільки це сприяє виникненню продуктивної наукової дискусії та позитивно позначається на оперативності та динаміці цитування опублікованої роботи (див. The Effect of Open Access).