Oil in Ghana: The Work of the General Transport, Petroleum and Chemical Workers' Union (GTPCWU)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Utilising elements of Coordination and Context-Appropriate Power Theory (CCAP) as a framework, this article assesses the efforts of the General Transport, Petroleum and Chemical Workers’ Union (GTPCWU) in Ghana to defend the rights of workers in the oil industry. Whether the GTPCWU has been able to effectively employ structural, institutional and conditional forms of power is examined within the CCAP framework. The analysis is informed by first-hand knowledge of trade union policies and practices, as one of the authors is a GTPCWU official. The research also draws on interviews and email communications with other Ghanaian trade unionists and an academic specialising in labour issues. The findings indicate that the structured labour regime, in which the GTPCWU is embedded, makes it hard for the union to employ structural, institutional and conditional forms of power fruitfully. Nevertheless, agency on the part of union officials and members is significant. This is evidenced by the success of individual union actions, indicating that the GTPCWU possesses a degree of structural power. Utilising institutional power effectively is difficult for the union, as enforcement of labour legislation is weak, and lengthy legal processes ensue when cases do reach court. It is also burdensome for the GTPCWU to exercise conditional power, based on obtaining support from non-union individuals and groups, since its members are widely perceived to have well-paid employment in the formal sector. The GTPCWU’s need for assistance in supporting its members through the transition away from fossil-based systems of energy production is outlined. Capacity-building initiatives, including the construction of a training and conference facility, and recruitment campaigns, focusing on attracting more women and youth members, are discussed. KEYWORDS: Ghana; trade unions; oil industry; Coordination and Context-Appropriate Power Theory (CCAP); structural, institutional and conditional forms of power
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 | 0.000 | 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".