Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article seeks to identify organizational structures and processes that contribute to incorporating immigrant identities and fostering democratic participation in unions. Empirical analysis is based on ethnographic observations conducted in four local branches within the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) of the USA that underwent the Justice for Janitors campaign. Despite the fact that all four local unions experienced external revitalization owing to the campaign, internal renewal was most successful in Los Angeles, least in Washington DC, and somewhat successful in Boston and Houston. For each of the cases, I examine the connection between external dimensions of revitalization—initial mobilizing efforts, bargaining power, and political power—and organizational contexts for renewal—formal and informal structures for participation, and the engagement of immigrant members in union activities. While the union revitalization literature has argued that internal union renewal facilitates external revitalization, how external revitalization affects sustained internal renewal has not yet been examined thoroughly. Most studies examining the relationship between internal and external revitalization have had a relatively narrow window of observation ending typically with successful union recognition; thus, we lacked an understanding of the dynamic relationship between internal and external revitalization over time. The present findings suggest that external revitalization can assist internal renewal. However, building a powerful union did not automatically guarantee democratic participation, and acquiring more economic power through the merging of local unions weakened representational structures. The present results confirm the importance of studying revitalization as a process instead of an outcome, an argument which has been advanced by scholars, yet rarely practiced.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".