City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Graduate Center 5-27-2015 No Shortcuts: The aC se for Organizing Jane Frances McAlevey Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Follow this and additional works at: http://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds Part of the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation McAlevey, Jane Frances, "No Shortcuts: The asC e for Organizing" (2015). CUNY Academic Works. http://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1043 This Dissertation is brought to you by CUNY Academic Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Works by Year: Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of CUNY Academic Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. i No Shortcuts: The Case for Organizing by Jane F. McAlevey A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Sociology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2015 ii COPYRIGHT © 2015 JANE F. MCALEVEY All Rights Reserved iii APPROVAL PAGE, NO SHORTCUTS: THE CASE FOR ORGANIZING This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Sociology to satisfy the dissertation requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Approved by: Date Chair of Examining Committee ______________________ _________________________________________ Frances Fox Piven, Professor Date Executive Officer, Sociology ______________________ __________________________________________ Philip Kasinitz, Professor Supervisory Committee Members James Jasper, Professor William Kornblum, Professor Dan Clawson, Professor, UMASS Amherst THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iv ABSTRACT Abstract No Shortcuts: The Case for Organizing By Jane McAlevey Advisor: Frances Fox Piven This dissertation will explore how ordinary workers in the new economy create and sustain power from below. In workplace and community movements, individuals acting collectively have been shown to win victories using a variety of different approaches. In this dissertation, I will argue that different approaches lead to different outcomes—often very different outcomes. I will use a framework throughout of three broad types of change processes; advocacy, mobilizing, and organizing, although my emphasis is on the latter two. And I will argue that each is productive of a different kind of victory. In arguing my case, that advocacy, mobilizing, and organizing are different approaches to social change that produce different outcomes and relative successes, I will move in, out, and between key arguments in the literature of social movements and unions published over the past forty years: the years when progressive movements began to lose everything they had gained and the right wing began consistently winning back the ground progressives lost. The twelve cases I analyze involved one classic social movement organization, two national unions, and two local unions, one of them also a local of one the nationals. Strikes were utilized as part of the overall v strategy in three of the cases. By focusing on campaigns that led to success, I will identify the factors that I argue facilitate rather than inhibit the rebirth of a vibrant workers movement. This research will contribute to the sociological literature on social movement strategy and power. Specifically, my dissertation will test the current debate about “leaderless movements” and “horizontalism” by sharply focusing on leaders, including who they are, how they are identified, how they develop, the choices they make, and the roles they play. The cases involve workforces with mostly women workers, in projected growth sectors of the U.S. labor force (health care and education) that are dominated by women. Therefore, my work will address the dearth in the literature about labor organizing in heavily gendered sectors of work. By analyzing the factors that explain successes under new political, economic, and work conditions, I will contribute to new collective action theory and offer a substantive understanding of how strikes are won in the new millennium. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS & GRATITUDE To master something new, books can help. But good mentors are worth one thousand books. The acknowledgments in this dissertation can best be viewed as an update and (super) friendly amendment to the acknowledgments pages in Raising Expectations (and Raising Hell), pages 316-318 (Verso 2014). Any intelligence I might display in this dissertation is the cumulative wisdom of many decades of work in the field where I literally had thousands of teachers. Raising Expectations was about campaigns I participated in and mostly led. My new academic mentors were firm, despite my at times fierce protestations, that I had to select campaigns that I had nothing to do with as the evidence for my empirical work. They were correct, of course. I haven’t changed my opinion one iota of the many people to whom I owe tremendous thanks for their patience with me, for sharing key life lessons with me, for the endless time and skill they’ve invested in my thinking and my work, and, often, for their love. But I will limit these acknowledgments to the players who have specifically helped me get through five years of a PhD program. Mapping my academic pursuit chronologically, two people more than any others talked me into the doctoral program: Larry Fox and Frances Fox Piven (no relation, except they share a soon-to-be-discovered gene for wicked intelligence). I had zero plans to attend graduate school and couldn’t imagine why I would shift out of full-time organizing. When internal warfare inside the trade union movement led to the destruction of a ton of good efforts and dashed the hopes and dreams and possibilities of thousands of workers, I knew it was time to step outside the fray to better reflect on and understand what was happening, and what it meant for the future. At that very moment, coincidentally, I received an early stage cancer diagnosis which would require a vii full year of nothing but medically focused pursuits. It was during that time, my Sloan Kettering year, that my old friend Bob Ostertag talked me into writing down my reflections and offered to mentor me through a book. That project became Raising Expectations (and Raising Hell). Frances and Larry were early readers of the manuscript, and each came to the same conclusion: I should weather the storm and continue thinking and writing by going to graduate school for a few years. They’ve always given good advice, and I thank each of them enormously for guiding me through complicated chapters of my life. Frances became in academia what Larry had been in my SEIU years, an incredible mentor. Once I made the decision to attend school, there was the vexing issue of how to afford life in New York City as a graduate student. My sister Catherine, who always held higher education as a top value, was thrilled with my decision and, along with her life partner, Debra Hall, generously offered to support my housing needs for the first two years of school. If my dissertation has a dedication, it’s certainly to Catherine, who lost her own cancer fight during my third year in graduate school. I loved her wildly, and she was ecstatic about my getting a PhD. My brother Ben and his wife, Melissa, and her mother, Anne Barnes, have also been providing great logistical support that facilitated and enabled some of my graduate school research. My sister Bri has been a full-on cheerleader and supporter, as have my many wonderful siblings and extended family. My cohort, the 2010 Sociology cohort, is an extremely talented, fun, solidaristic, smart, supportive, and incredible team. The mostly women and a few men we consider honorary women guided me through the early course work and big exams. I could not have gotten through those first two years without my cohort. Marnie Brady and Bronwyn Dobchuck-Land were regular and crucial readers at every stage of my dissertation work. They were patient and viii flexible, constantly trying to teach me to use signposts in my academic writing and to persuade me to say the same thing three ways in the same chapter—a concept with which I still struggle. Erin Michaels, Dominique Nisperos and Martha King pulled me successfully through two semesters of statistics. I chose not to use OLS regression in my final work, despite all they taught me! My committee, headed by Frances Fox Piven, and consisting of Dan Clawson, Bill Kornblum and Jim Jasper, were terrific. Each of them played a different and special role in helping me through this process. Please hold them harmless for any flaws, weak spots, bad ideas or problems in this dissertation but credit them for all the good. They were encouraging, they generously made time for me, and, like my cohort, they had to help me transition from thinking like a field organizer o a later-in-life academic—at times a very challenging endeavor. I have enormous gratitude for my committee. Along the way, I had an informal committee reading and commenting on various pieces of my writings, including Janice Fine, Jeff Goodwin, Colin Barker, Sam Gindin, Laura Flanders, Marshall Ganz, Jamie McCallum, Betsy Reed, Doug Henwood, Mark Brenner, Katie Miles, Bill Fletcher, Catherine Banghart, Peter Olney, John Stamm, Patty Hoffman, John Krinsky, David Morris, Deepak Pateriya, and Seth Borgos. As with my PhD committee, please spare these people blame for any failings on my part but do recognize that they helped sharpen my thinking and writing. I am deeply appreciative to several people amid many whom are quoted in and were part of the field work and cases I studied. I thank every person who made time for an interview, for sharing their thoughts and ideas.