Networks of injustice and worker mobilisation at Walmart

• Published date: 01 July 2015
• Author: Alex J. Wood
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12103
• Date: 01 July 2015

Networks of injustice and worker

mobilisation at Walmart

Alex J. Wood

ABSTRACT

This article investigates the use of Internet networks during the recent mobilisation of

Californian Walmart workers. The findings of this case study suggest that Internet-

based mass self-communication networks (Facebook, YouTube, etc.) can comple-

ment traditional organising techniques. Mass self-communication networks

ameliorate many of the weaknesses identified by previous studies of Internet

networks. In particular, these types of networks can help overcome negative disposi-

tions towards unions, increase the density of communication and the level of partici-

pation among members, create a collective identity congruent with trade unionism,

facilitate organisation and spread ‘swarming actions’ which are effective at leveraging

symbolic power. Moreover, unions may be well suited to providing crucial strategic

oversight and coordination to wider worker networks.

1 INTRODUCTION

The late 20th and early 21st centuries have been marked by an extraordinary decline

in private sector trade unions across many advanced capitalist countries. Of particular

note has been the dramatic decline in membership and collective bargaining coverage

in the United States, along with the scale and scope of labour movement collective

action, most obviously strike activity (Milkman, 2013). However, in 2012, the US

labour movement unexpectedly gained media prominence. In the last week of Novem-

ber, around 600 Walmart and fast food workers took part in widely publicised strikes

(Eidelson, 2013; Greenhouse, 2012; Milkman, 2013). The striking workers were not,

however, members of unions, belonging instead to worker networks (Coulter, 2013)

which more closely resembled worker centres, that is, ‘non-union labour-oriented

advocacy groups’ (Milkman, 2013: 648).

Worker centres have played an increasingly important role in the US labour move-

ment since the early 1990s, running highly visible and often successful campaigns on

the behalf of low-paid non-unionised workers, particularly those employed in the

service sector (Milkman, 2013). Over the last two decades, the number of worker

centres has grown at a rapid rate, increasing from only four in 1992 to over 200 in

2010 (Fine, 2011).

❒Alex J. Wood is a PhD candidate, Sociology, University of Cambridge. Correspondence should be

addressed to Alex J. Wood, Sociology, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge CB2 3RQ;

email: ajw250@cam.ac.uk

Industrial Relations Journal 46:4, 259–274

ISSN 0019-8692

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Unlike most worker centres, the Walmart and fast food workers’ organisations

were membership-based, had been set up by unions, and retained close organisational

and financial ties with organised labour. ‘The Organization United for Respect at

Walmart’ (OUR Walmart) was founded clandestinely by the ‘United Food and

Commercial Workers International Union’ (UFCW) in 2010, and various local fast

food worker associations were set up by the Service Employees International Union

in 2012 (Finnegan, 2014; Uetricht, 2013).

The UFCW set up OUR Walmart, the focus of this article, after being contacted by

a group of workers seeking union representation. Following this contact, the UFCW

decided to form and support a network for Walmart workers rather than initiate a

traditional unionisation campaign. During this initial recruitment phase, efforts

focused upon face-to-face organising, principally visiting the homes of workers who

had been identified as sympathetic during previous UFCW campaigns or as a result of

organisers making contact with them during store visits. Around a year later in June

2011, the worker network went public and launched its website and Facebook page,

and conducted a mass survey of workers. This public launching of the campaign was

covered by a 1,250 word article in the New York Times by Greenhouse (2011).

Though the network was created through traditional face-to-face organising, over

time, mass self-communication networks (MSCNs), such as Facebook, became

increasingly important in complementing physical activities.

The mobilisation of low-wage service workers maintained its momentum through-

out 2013, with around 200 Walmart workers taking part in strikes alongside a cam-

paign of civil disobedience leading to over 250 arrests (‘Making Change at Walmart’,

2014; OUR Walmart, 2014) while the number of fast food strikers grew to over 2,000

(Fox News, 2013; Tritch, 2013). This article explores the role of Internet-facilitated

networks (IFN) and in particular MSCN (e.g. Facebook, YouTube, etc.) in the

mobilisation of Walmart workers in California during 2012 and 2013.

There has been much research to evaluate the benefits, drawbacks and threats

which IFNs represent to unions. However, very little research evaluates the ways in

which traditional PC website and email-based IFNs differ from multi-platform

MSCNs. Contemporary MSCNs are not limited to PCs but can be accessed through

wireless mobile devices (principally smartphones) and have proliferated during the

current decade.1Of particular importance is their ability to overcome the problems

which have been identified for unions with regard to traditional IFNs. This article

investigates the role of MSCNs in the Walmart mobilisation. More traditional

elements related to workplace mobilisation also played a key role. Of particular

importance were face-to-face organising through home and store visits and the

holding of local worker meetings along with the principle of ‘like-recruits-like’,

meaning that union organisers were of diverse ethnicity in order to match the

make-up of the workforce. As will become evident from the analysis below, MSCNs

should be understood as complementing traditional organising and facilitating par-

ticular forms rather than as independent or spontaneous. Although touched upon

where relevant, it is not possible to fully detail the more traditional elements of the

mobilisation here.

1For example, by 2011, 35 per cent of adults in the United States owned smartphones. This increased to 52

per cent by 2013 (Smith, 2013), while in 2009, 30 per cent used social networking sites (Jones and Fox,

2009); this figure had increased to 71 per cent for Facebook alone by 2013 (Duggan et al., 2014).

260 Alex J. Wood

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd