Institutional bypasses in Brazil’s New Unionism movement: Central unions and workers’ committees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the rise of a strong labour movement in Brazil during the 1970s, known as Brazil’s New Unionism (Novo Sindicalismo) and the innovative institutional strategies it employed to change the labour system. We argue that these strategies can be considered institutional bypasses, which are parallel institutions created in an attempt to reform a state-centred and state-controlled system. We examine two specific examples of these institutional bypasses which performed the same functions as the existing labour system but aspired to be more functional and effective. First, factory workers’ committees ( comissões de fábrica) were created to bypass dysfunctional labour unions controlled by an autocratic state and offer workers an option of effective and legitimate labour representation and rights protection. Second, the movement also created an alternative institutional framework for labour organizations known as Central Única dos Trabalhadores (CUT). This second type of institutional bypass was another attempt to provide workers with alternative means for labour organization and representation. We evaluate the innovative design of these two bypasses, while acknowledging that over the last three decades they have not managed to promote significant structural changes in the system.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".