Re-Framing US Labour’s Crisis: Reconsidering Structure, Strategy, and Vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
THERE CAN BE LITTLE DOUBT that the US labour movement is in the midst of its most profound crisis in a century. Private sector unionization rates have dipped below 10 per cent, to levels not seen since the early 1900s. Once-strong unions such as the United Automobile Workers have been forced by employers into a never-ending string of concessions. And in 2005, US labour witnessed a serious rupture, as several of the largest US unions, led by the Service Employees and the Teamsters, disaffiliated from the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations [AFL-CIO] to form a new federation called Change to Win [CTW]. Critical of the AFL-CIO for failing to persuade many of its unions to devote more resources to recruiting new members, the CTW promised to wage more vigorous organizing campaigns. Whether the CTW can revive US labour’s fortunes remains to be seen. But one year after the birth of the new federation, there has been no appreciable turnaround in labour’s situation. And no great breakthroughs seem to be in the offing. At this point it may be fruitful to step back from the debates that swirled around the labour schism in order to ask some questions about the nature of labour’s current problems, the strategies that have been advanced by the rival federations to deal with those problems, and the way labour is framing its vision for its members and other workers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".