Intersectionality at Work: Young Women Organizers' Participation in Labour Youth Programs in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In Canada in the 1990s the labour movement expressed deep concern about widespread union density decline and aging memberships in trade unions (Gomez, Gunderson and Meltz, 2002; Jackson, 2005; Lowe and Rastin, 2000; Tannock and Flocks, 2002). In response to growing anxiety about the scarcity of young unionists for the future strength of organized labour, the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), the country's central labour body, adopted a resolution at its 1996 Convention directing its affiliate unions to reach out to youth and to make youth organizing a priority. (1) This paper analyzes the experiences of a diverse group of women labour activists participating in youth programs in English Canada. Focusing specifically on the multiple identities of the young women activists, consideration is given to how their age, gender and racialized identities affected their participation in youth programs in the Canadian labour movement. I argue that the intersectional identities of the women placed them on the margins of labour organizations, which shaped their response to the established practices of labour bodies, and created systemic disadvantages in their organizing role. This case study of youth organizers draws on Joan Acker's inequality regimes perspective (2006, 2006a), an approach to conceptualizing intersectional inequality in organizations. The paper also follows the work of Geraldine Healy, Keywords: young women, union organizing, organized labour Canada, youth internships. Harriet Bradley, and Cynthia Forson (2011) who apply Acker's framework to their study of minority women in the U.K. public sector (see also Holgate et al., 2006). Acker argues thatthebasesof inequality in work organizations are grounded in class, gender and racial hierarchies that mirror social inequalities within the wider society. Organizational class hierarchies reflect historically constructed gendered and racializednormative systems thatprivilege whitemasculine values--an ongoing effect of the historical development of capitalism in which white males dominated (and continue to dominate) the most powerful and largest bureaucratic organizations. Organizational practices and processes in work organizations, Acker contends, operate in the interests of the dominant white male power hierarchies leading to inequality regimes that disadvantage gendered, racialized, and other workers with different social identities. Intersectional identity multiplies and complicates disadvantages faced by workers. Acker argues that inequality regimes are made visible in situations where organizations initiate change efforts (e.g., affirmative action). This study of youth outreach programs represents a change effort by organized labour and helps to illustrate the processes creating barriers to equality. Following Acker's framework, the analysis of young women organizers presented here uncovers the complex and multifaceted inequality regime dynamics that sustain gender, race, and age power differentials within Canadian labour movement organizations. The paper begins with a discussion of the methodology followed by a concise overview of youth programs in the Canadian labour movement Next is a brief review of feminist approaches to theorizing and applying intersectionality to empirical studies, with specific focus on Acker's inequality regimes perspective. A detailed analysis of the case study findings is then presented, including discussion and a brief conclusion. Methodology Fourteen young women organizers working in unions and labour federations in English Canada were interviewed. Women were selected because they are a recognized equity group and because their experiences as labour organizers are relatively unknown in Canada. Following the snowball method, a few organizers were contacted first by the author and these respondents offered additional names of young women to interview. The respondents were asked questions concerning: their age; family, class, educational, and labour background; how they became involved in labour organizing; and, details about their particular organizing experiences. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».