CC BY
13Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 8 (2013 6) 1155-1174
УДК 316.482.3
Labor Movement in Ukraine and Russia: Dynamics, Factors and Strategies of Protection of Class Interests (Results of 1989-2010)
Elena V. Simonchuk*
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine 12 Shovkovychna str., Kiev, 01021 Ukraine
Received 28.06.2013, received in revised form 24.07.2013, accepted 01.08.2013
This is the study of the dynamics of labor movement in Ukraine and in Russia and the reasons for the decline of strike mobilization of employees based on official statistics and international sociological projects. The dynamics in the number of strikes and their members from 1989 to 2010 shows that in these two decades the strike movement was extremely uneven: while in the 1990s it was of intense and undulating character, in the 2000s there was a trend towards its attenuation.
The decline in the number of strikes in the 2000s in post-Soviet Ukraine and Russia can be explained with seven reasons: 1) improving of economic conditions (higher wages, the timeliness of their payments, the reduction of unemployment and involuntary part-time); 2) legal regulation of strikes brought complications to the procedure of starting them; 3) legal institualization of the social dialogue model; 4)changes in the work place that leave less space for collective protest actions and class solidarity, and at the same time expand the opportunities for individualizedforms of social protection; 5) changes in the collective organization of the opposing classes-reduction in the number and influence of trade unions and, on the contrary, strengthening of the employers' organizations; diversification of social protection (in addition to the trade unions, the courts became its subjects); 7) changes in the fixation techniques of strike activity, where official statistics no longer record strikes carried out without compliance with prescribed procedures.
The labor movements in Russia and Ukraine and the developed Western countries had similar tendencies: it was characterized by unevenness (periodic ups and downs; and while the Western countries experienced the peak of labor protests in the 1970s, in post-Soviet countries it occurred in the 1990s); motivation primarily with economic slogans; and the transition from the forms of direct mobilization of collective action to the institutionalized ones.
Keywords: labor movement, strike, trade unions, political parties.
Labor movement in the USSR was revived and legalized at the end of the 1980s by a powerful wave of strikes and meetings. They were a rather popular and effective instrument of protection of employees' interests during the next decade of post-Soviet transformation
too. Both experts and employees hoped for the revival of independent and powerful trade unions as subjects of political process, for the creation of political parties, based on the ideology of protection of rights of working people. Yet, labor and class conflicts, born
© Siberian Federal University. All rights reserved Corresponding author E-mail address: [email protected]
by economic and political transformation of the society, were supposed to be resolved by civilized methods, a step to which was seen in the institutionalization of the social dialogue model, passing of new labor legislation. However, on the threshold of a new century there was a turn which experts estimate as a defeat of labor movement, the loss of its role of a subject of social change. In the 2000s strike activity attenuated, the trade unions failed to become independent and effective actors in the fight for the interests of the working class; the political parties formed in that period did not have a clear class ideology; labor conflicts were declaratorily resolved within a framework of a tripartite social dialogue model by means of constructive talks, which eliminated outbreaks of strikes. Employees and experts, however, were under the impression of compulsion to the dialogue and strengthening of bureaucratic limitations to the direct mobilization of workers for protection of their rights.
The problems and issues connected with labor movement have been actively studied by sociologists in Russia and Ukraine. Owing to their research we have empirical data about different aspects of development of labor movement-strikes, trade unions, the social dialogue model (Alekseeva, 1983; Biziukov, 2011; Borisov, 2001; Dubrovskii, 2009; Guliaev, 2003; Il'in, 1998; Kabalina, 1998; Katsva, 2008; Kononov, Kononova, Denshchik, 2001; Kozina, 2009; Krutoi plast, 1999; Maksimov, 2008; Narysy istorii, 2008; Pan'kova, Ivashchenko, 2006; Protesty, 2011; Rabochee dvizhenie, 1995; Rusnachenko, 2000; Sobolev, 2009; Solidarizatsiia, 1998; Suchasnyi stan, 2003; Zabastovki, 1996; Zhukov, 2000; Siegelbaum, Walkowitz, 1995). The aim of this article is to analyze the dynamics of labor movement in Ukraine and Russia for the last twenty years and the present situation.
The conceptual base of the research
Labor movement is a social movement aimed at protecting the rights and interests of employed workers, resolving conflicts between employers and employees, transforming the existing system of distribution of economic power and resources. Labor movement usually starts with unofficial interest groups, leading then to formation of political parties or other institutionalized groups, which become the main actors of the movement. The ideal typical model of development of a social movement ( in particular, labor movement) is described by Otthein Rammstedt (Rammstedt, 1979) as a succession of the following phases: 1) the crisis of the existing system of institutional practices and appearance of uncoordinated illegitimate innovative practices ; 2) achievement of a consensus among the people, affected by the crisis and interested in the changing of the social order, polarization of "social activists" and administrativeauthorities, formationofacollective identity of the participants of the movement; 3) articulation of the problem and drawing up the line of arguments opposing the existing order;
5) formation of the movement, its geographical and social localization; 6) formulation of the ideology, drafting the action plan, ignoring the old institutional norms and following new ones;
6) extension of the movement and localization of the opponent, active propaganda of the ideas of the movement, increasing the number of supporters; 7) the appearance of the organization; 8) nstitutionalization or revolution as a result of the movement and the indicator of the achievement if its aims, transformation of the social order.
Some researchers find it difficult to analyze a labor movement as a social movement because it is predominantly institutionalized in the modern society. (Fantasia, 2001; Fantasia, Stepan-Norris, 2008; Nieuwbeerta, 2001). It is common knowledge that the role of the organizations,
making up labor movement (trade unions and political parties), is not limited to mobilization of workers for the participation in collective protest action. The functions of trade unions are chiefly those of concluding collective labor agreements and negotiating with the employer. These are institutionalized participation in regulation of economic activity and stabilization of labor-management relations, which result in bureaucratic regulation of collective action and weakening of class confrontation. So, a considerable part of labor movement is realized in institutionalized forms.
Modern theorists of social movements stress the importance of a methodological approach, which was underestimated earlier, according to which it is impossible to completely understand the logic of a mobilization of a social movement without simultaneously considering the antimobilisation forces. (Meyer, Staggenborg, 1996; Fantasia, Stepan-Norris, 2008). In this case, to understand the dynamics of labor/trade union movement, it is necessary to analyze it not as isolated one, but correlated with the activity of the employers' organizations as "counter movements" (Griffin, Rubin, Wallace, 1986). The employers' organizations are interested in reducing or even neutralizing the ability of employees for mobilization; ideally, in counteraction to the activity of local trade unions as well as workers' movement in general, trying to create "union free environment". Counter movements of employers are, on some occasions, visible and direct (when repressions are used towards labor movements-suppression of strikes, murders, intimidation and bribery of trade union leaders and activists), on other occasions these counter movements are concealed and disguised (when employers realize their interests through state structures, trying to weaken the influence of trade unions and limit the instruments of their activity with the help of legislation) (Krupat, 1997). Notwithstanding
the fact that since the end of the 20th century the trade unions of the most European countries have had to work within strict bureaucratic limits, the mobilization of direct collective action is still an important instrument of their activity.
Michael Burawoy considers that in the studies of class as an actor of labor movement, too much attention is devoted to "the realm of superstructure-education, political parties, ideology and state", though "they no longer exist as opposition to political challenges" (Burawoy, 2001: c. 22). From his point of view, the realm of industry (the principal "melting pot of class formation") has superstructures of its own, or political and ideological mechanisms of production, called by him as "the regime of production". This notion gives Burawoy a conceptual framework for studying competing confrontations and identities arising around work. Different regimes of production (despotic and hegemonic, as well as their variations -bureaucratic, colonial and hegemonic despotism) have different consequences for class struggle. While despotic regime prodded to class mobilization, hegemonic regime (born by the increase of state involvement into regulating of labor-management relations and ensuring welfare) relied on agreement and coordination of workers and management interests. However, in the last decades, a so-called hegemonic despotism took shape: workers are still protected from arbitrary dismissals, but they lose their jobs because of frequent suspension of production; they can come out on strike, but membership changes constantly.
"Hegemony is functioning now in the opposite direction: it is not capital that makes concessions to labor, it is labor that does it to keep work places. Economic compulsion of workers to collaboration and agreement leads to attenuation of strikes and reducing in trade unions'
membership." (Burawoy, 2001: c. 37). Burawoy's answer to why strikes are seldom used as a means of resolving of labor disputes is: people nowadays are not afraid of exploitation in the same degree as they are afraid of social exclusion, the prospect of losing their jobs.
So, during the last decades the researchers in post-Soviet, as well as in Western sociology, have been trying to explain the obvious tendency to the reduction in strike activity and weakening of labor/ trade union movement (Baer, 1975; Brandl, Traxler, 2009; Smelser, 1963; Tilly, 1978; Rammstedt, 1979; Tarrow, 1994; Social Movements, 2002; Olson, 1965; Fantasia, Stepan-Norris, 2008). Structural and institutional reasons for the weakening of labor movement are seen in the changes in the work place, globalizing processes, in the changes in the forms of protecting of the interests of employees (by means of institutionalized, but not mobilizing, practices), in the loss of trade unions' authority and influence and at the same time, in the well-consolidated counter movements of employers.
Problem statement and methodology
The following issues connected with labor movement are usually studied: the level and pattern of mobilization (mainly strike) activity and factors, affecting its dynamics; the subjects of this movement (trade unions, political parties, strike committees); the effectiveness of their activity and level of trust of employees to them. To have an insight into the labor movement of post-Soviet Ukraine and Russia it is necessary to conduct an empiric analysis of, firstly, the level of strike activity of employees , and, secondly, of the reasons of its dynamics. We consider it effective to research these aspects both in time perspective (for the last 20 years) and in comparative perspective (in comparison with
developed Western countries and post-socialist countries).
A wide range of data was used as the empirical base for the fulfillment of the objectives set: 1) the State Statistics Committee of Ukraine and the International Labor Organization from 1989 to 2010), 2) monitoring of the Institute of Sociology , the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (1994-2010), 3) the International project of European Social Survey (ESS).
Discussion of results History and modern state of labor movement
The history of legitimation
of labor movement
It is generally known that in the second half of the 20th century the working class of the USSR, in contrast to the working class of Western countries, had practically no experience of collective asserting of its rights. Having good reasons for labor conflicts (low wages, substandard working conditions, lack of material comforts), employees did rarely if ever embark on active collective actions. The uneventful history of the alternative trade unions and labor movement in 1950-1980 is described in several sources (Zabastovki, 1975; Rabochee dvizhenie, 1995; Borisov, 2001; Rusnachenko, 2000; Narysy istorii, 2002: c. 562-567). As a rule, the cases of strikes and self-organization into independent trade unions were either hushed up or interpreted as sabotage and marginal activities in the Soviet mass media. Lyudmila Alekseeva, basing on the archives of dissidents and the samizdat, collected information about 76 strikes of postStalinist decades (the most high-profile among them are: the cruelly suppressed labor unrest in Novocherkassk in 1962 and the waves of strikes in 1976-1978) (Alekseeva, 1983). Having given a rather detailed description of their motives, results and initiates, the researcher stated that all
these strikes were chiefly " spontaneous outbreaks of desperate people", a revolt caused by either intolerable living conditions or the unjust actions of the authorities, but not by far-reaching plans of social reorganization. In the Soviet times the only legitimate mechanism for workers to protect their rights and interests were trade unions, but their independence and effectiveness in realization of this task is often debated. Experts claim that (basing among other things on the data of content-analysis of records of the meetings of trade union committees) in the Soviet period the main function of the trade union was not protection, but administration and maintenance and morale building activities. (Narysy istorii, 2002: c. 530; Kabalina, 1998).
In the late Soviet period there was no legislative base for direct mobilization of collective actions. In the 1920s workers' strikes were still quite legal practices, but in the late 1930s it was declared that in the Soviet society there were no good reasons for class and labor conflicts. So, there was no article, guaranteeing citizens the right to hold strikes, in the Constitution of Ukraine of 1978. Only at the beginning of the 1990s under the pressure of spontaneous mass protests and on the initiative of their leaders a number of changes and amendments were written into the Constitution, which "with the aim of strengthening and developing of the constitutional system guaranteed the citizens of Ukraine the freedom of speech, press, assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations" (article 48) and granted "the right to organize political parties, other civil organizations, take part in movements assisting in promoting their legal interests (article 49).
At the present time in Ukraine, as well as in most economically developed Western countries, the right to strike is guaranteed by the law. The Constitution of Ukraine adopted in 1996 (article 44) guarantees working citizens the right to
strike in order to defend their economic and social interests. The procedure of exercising the right to strike is prescribed by the Act of Ukraine of 1998 "About the procedure of resolving labor disputes (conflicts)". According to article 17 of the Act a strike is interpreted as a temporary collective voluntary cessation of work by a factory, institution, organization with the aim of resolving a collective labor dispute. According to this Act, a strike can be started if conciliation procedures did not lead to resolving a collective labor dispute or if the owner or the representative of the owner evades conciliation procedures or fails to abide by the agreement, reached in the course of resolving a collective labor dispute.
The dynamics of the level of labor movement. We will consider the panoramic view of strike activity in independent Ukraine and Russia basing on the data of official statistics. Fig. 1 presents the data of the dynamics of the number of strikes and their participants from 1989 to 2010. It can be seen, that during the two decades the strike movement was extremely uneven: while in the 1990s it was of an undulating character (there were increases in the number of strikes and their participants in 1991, 1994, 1997), in the 2000s an almost complete attenuation can be observed (with the exception of the outburst in Russia in 2004-2005). The dividing line between the decades (as change in the tendency) falls on the 2000s.
Of course, the level of strike activity in the 1990s was impressive. Supported by the media, it was estimated as exceptionally high, especially against a background of the situation in the Soviet times, when workers had minimum experience of mobilization ( as it was mentioned above, only 76 trustworthy cases of labor protests were recorded). However, as intensive as this period of the outburst of the labor movement in the post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine in the 1990s was , viewed in a longer historic perspective, it is incommensurable with
Ukraine
Russia
Fig. 1. The dynamics of the strike movement in 1989-22010, %
the period of social revolutions at the beginning of the 20th century (see Table 1). So, the percentage ratio of the number of striking workers compared to the general number of industrial workers in the Russian Empire in 21912-191 3 (when the level of strike activity was not the highest registered) was
considerably higher, rhan in Ukraine and Russia in 1996 and 1997, which were the peak of strike activity. While at the beginning of the 20th century, the number of workers who took part in strikes was feom one tlsitd to a half of the total number of induitsial workers, at the end of the century it
Table 1. The ratio of participants of strikes in industry to the total number of workers employed in this branch of industry
Number of participants The Russian Empire Russia Ukraine
1912 1913 1996 1997 1996 1997
Total number of workers employed in industry, thous. people 2163 2438 16366 14905 4642 4273
Number of workers who took part in strikes, thous. people 725,4 1272 365,6 184,3 114,3 63,2
The ration of participants of strikes to the total number of workers employed in industry, % 33,7 52,2 2,2 1,2 2,5 1,5
* Sources: (Voieikov, 2004: с. 29); Статистичний щорiчник Украши за 1997 piK. - К., 1998. - С. 383.
was only1.2-2.5 % (Voieikov, 2004). It is a rather indicative difference, fortifying the thesis about the weakness of labor/strike movement the in post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine.
One can compare the dynamics of the strike movement in Ukraine and Russia with other countries, using the data about the number of strikes beginning from 1971 on the Web site of ILO (International Labor Organization) (see Table 2). Among the countries with a traditionally low level of strike activity are - Norway, Sweden, Portugal, the USA, Canada. Among the countries with a traditionally high level of strike activity are - France, Italy, Japan. It is obvious that in all countries the level of strike movement is undulating-there are ups and downs, but a gradual reduction in the number of strikes can be registered in a 40-year perspective. The peak of labor protests fell on the 1970s, but from the 1990s labor protests have been attenuating. The corresponding data about the post-Soviet countries starting from 1989 can be found on the Web Site of ILO. Among the former republics of the USSR only Russia and Ukraine have a rich post-perestroika history of strikes, among the countries of the former CMEA - Poland. It is obvious that the peak of strike movement, which Western countries experienced in the 1970s, in the post-Soviet countries fell on the 1990s.
(Russia was the leader in the number of strikes: 17 thousand in 1997). In the 2000s the outbursts of protests occurred only in Poland and Russia.
So, the dynamics of labor movement in Ukraine and Russia has a strongly marked descending character, up to almost complete attenuation by the end of the 2000s. I will give my own explanation of the reasons for the demobilization of employees, pointing out seven reasons.
The reasons for the attenuation of strike movement
The first reason - and the most obvious one -is the change of economic situation in the 2000s, removal of acute economic problems, which stimulated strikes in the 1990s (see Table 1). For example, in Ukraine1 in the middle of the 1990s involuntary part-time employment (working half-day and being on administrative leave) reached 25-40 %, but by the end of the 2000s it decreased to 6-15 %. The level of unemployment in the 1990s was 12 %, decreasing then to 8 % (which is the average level of unemployment in Western countries). The amount of debt in wages during this period diminished by 4-10 times. There was a progressive (though very slow) increase of the level of nominal and real wages. By the way, the analyzed period includes the stages from the total
Table 2. Dynamics of the number of strikes in different countries (1971-2008)
Year Ukraine Russia Poland Italy Spain Portugal France Great Britain Finland Norway Sweden Canada The USA Japan South Corea India Australia
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1971 - - - 5598 549 - 4718 2228 838 10 60 569 - 2527 10 2752 2404
1972 - - - 4756 710 - 3464 2497 849 9 44 598 - 2497 - 3243 2298
1973 - - - 3769 731 - 3731 2873 1010 12 48 724 - 3326 - 3370 2538
1974 - - - 5174 2009 - 3381 2922 1795 13 85 1218 425 5211 58 2938 2809
1975 - - - 3601 2807 - 3888 2282 1530 22 86 1171 235 3391 52 1943 2432
1976 - - - 2706 3662 - 4348 2016 3199 34 73 1039 231 2720 49 1459 2055
1977 - - - 3308 1194 332 3281 2703 1633 15 35 803 298 1712 58 3117 2090
1978 - - - 2479 1128 333 3195 2471 1207 14 99 1058 219 1517 102 3187 2277
1979 - - - 2000 2680 370 3121 2080 1715 10 207 1050 235 1153 105 3048 2042
1980 - - - 2238 2103 269 2118 1330 2182 35 212 1028 187 1133 206 2856 2429
1981 - - - 2204 1993 602 2405 1338 1591 17 68 1048 145 955 186 2589 2915
1982 - - - 1747 1810 528 3113 1528 1212 12 46 677 96 944 88 2483 2060
1983 - - - 1565 1451 500 2837 1352 1919 9 92 645 81 893 98 2488 1787
1984 - - - 1816 1498 525 2537 1206 1679 21 206 716 62 596 114 2094 1965
1985 - - - 1341 1092 476 1901 903 833 11 160 829 54 627 265 1755 1895
1986 - - - 1469 914 365 1391 1078 1236 16 75 748 69 620 276 1892 1754
1987 - - - 1149 1497 213 1391 1016 791 10 72 668 46 474 3749 1799 1517
1988 - - - 1769 1193 181 1852 781 1327 15 144 548 40 498 1873 1743 1508
1989 222 - 894 1297 1047 307 2040 701 606 14 139 627 51 362 1616 1786 1402
1990 260 260 250 1094 1312 271 1750 630 450 15 126 579 44 284 322 1825 1193
1991 239 1755 305 791 1645 262 1572 369 270 4 23 463 40 310 234 1810 1036
1992 2239 6273 6351 903 1360 409 1494 253 165 16 20 404 35 263 235 1714 728
1993 462 265 7443 1054 1209 230 1472 211 125 12 33 381 35 252 144 1293 612
1994 1638 514 429 861 908 300 1671 205 171 20 13 374 45 230 121 1201 560
1995 247 8856 42 545 883 282 2066 235 112 11 36 328 31 209 88 1066 643
Continuation table 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1996 1269 8278 21 904 830 274 1439 244 94 18 9 330 37 193 85 1166 543
1997 1162 17007 35 920 774 265 1607 216 91 6 14 284 29 178 87 1305 447
1998 687 11162 37 1103 632 227 1475 166 98 36 13 379 34 145 129 1097 520
1999 290 7285 920 753 749 200 2319 205 65 15 10 413 17 154 198 927 731
2000 73 817 44 966 750 250 2748 226 96 29 2 378 39 118 250 656 700
2001 31 291 11 746 737 208 2131 207 84 3 20 381 29 90 239 674 673
2002 97 80 1 616 688 250 1179 162 76 16 10 294 19 74 322 579 767
2003 15 67 24 710 678 170 1066 138 112 5 11 266 14 47 320 552 643
2004 4 5933 2 745 708 122 1125 135 84 12 9 297 17 51 462 447 692
2005 4 2575 8 654 685 126 - 116 365 2 14 260 22 50 287 456 472
2006 13 6 27 587 783 155 - 158 97 12 9 151 23 46 138 430 202
2007 5 7 1736 667 752 99 - 152 91 4 14 206 23 54 115 389 135
2008 1 4 12765 621 811 - - 144 92 10 5 187 16 52 108 423 177
*Source\ For international statistics on dynamics of strikes and description of methodology see Web site of ILO : [http://laborsta.ilo.org/applv8/data/c9e.html].
Table 3. The dynamics of factors influencing strike activity of the population of Ukraine (1991-2010)
Years Unemployed Involuntary part-time Wages
Number of factories, organizations where strikes took place According to the methodology of ILO, % Officially registered, % On administrative leave, % Working half -day (half-week), % Debt in wages, mln grvn Nominal wages, grvn Nominal wage in comparison to the previous year, % Real wage in comparison to the previous year, %
1991 239 - 0,03 - - - - - -
1992 2239 - 0,3 - - - - - -
1993 485 - 0,3 - - - - - -
1994 1638 - 0,4 21,2 6,4 - - - -
1995 247 5,6 0,4 17,7 5,6 - 73 514,2 110,6
1996 1269 7,6 0,5 - - - 126 171,4 96,6
1997 1162 8,9 2,7 21,9 16,1 4189 143 113,7 96,6
1998 687 11,3 4,3 22,4 17,5 5166 154 107,2 96,2
1999 290 11,9 5,5 22,0 17,6 6519 178 115,7 91,1
2000 76 11,6 4,8 16,1 13,3 6401 230 129,6 99,1
2001 31 10,9 3,6 7,2 13,3 4928 311 135,2 119,2
2002 97 9,6 3,7 5,1 12,4 2657 376 121,0 118,2
2003 15 9 ,1 3,5 3,2 11,3 2548 462 122,8 115,2
2004 4 8,6 3,5 2,0 8,8 2232 590 127,5 123,8
2005 4 7,2 3,1 1,8 7,4 1111 806 136,7 120,3
2006 13 6,8 2,7 1,2 5,4 960 1042 129,2 118,3
2007 5 6,4 2,3 1,1 4,4 806 1351 129,7 112,5
2008 1 6,4 3,0 1,6 10,6 669 1806 133,7 106,3
2009 4 8,8 1,9 2,6 19,4 1189 1906 105,5 90,8
2010 3 8,1 2,0 3,4 13,6 1474 2239 120,0 110,2
Sources: OraTHCTHHHHH ^opÎHHHK yKpaÏHH 3a 2010 piK. - K., 2011. C. 397; Працa yKpaÏHH y 2010. - K., 2010.
deficiency of food products and commodities in the 1990s to the abundance of products and relative prosperity in the 2000s. The data of Table 4 show a considerable growth in the supply of durable consumer goods to the population (cars, refrigerators, washing machines, TV sets, computers, mobile phones) in this period.
The positive dynamics of these goods was made possible both by the increase in real salaries and the mass granting of consumer credits after the year 2000 (the amount of consumer credits rose by 10 times). All these created a feeling of
increasing well-being in many people, which was evident in the growth in self -estimated material status. There is no doubt that the improvements in economic situation weakened protest moods and actions. Western sociologists acknowledge that the better people live, the less they are inclined to protesting.
Now I will move to other- less evident and less easily checkable empirically-explanations of decreasing in labor protests.
The second reason seems to be legal regulation of strikes. In 1998 the Law of Ukraine
Table 4. The dynamics of supply of some durable goods to the population of Ukraine (1985-2010), things on average per 100 households*
Years Cars Refrigerators, freezers Washing machines Color TVs Video recorders Music centers Cameras computers Microwave ovens Mobile phones Self-estimation of the material standard of living of a family on a 10-point scale**
1985 14 88 65 - - - - - - -
2000 17 94 74 69 13 3 22 1 1 - 2,7
2002 16 94 74 74 14 4 25 3 3 - 3,5
2004 16 96 74 83 17 8 30 6 5 15 3,7
2006 17 100 78 96 21 13 35 12 14 81 3,6
2008 20 108 84 107 21 17 38 22 29 149 3,8
2010 21 109 85 110 41 13 26 25 33 167 3,6
* Source: OraTHCTHHHHH ^opÎHHHK yKpaÏHH 3a 2010 piK. - K., 2011. - C. 417.
** Source: The data of monitoring of the Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Science of Ukraine.
"On the procedure of settlement of collective labor disputes (conflicts)" was adopted. This Act legally regulated a strike as a form of resolving labor conflicts2, at the same time it brought complications to the procedure of starting it, which made a strike less popular among workers. At the present time the prescribed period for the procedure of starting a legal strike in Russia and Ukraine, in experts' estimation, is not less than 40 days.
The third reason for weakening of labor protests is the institutionalization of the social dialogue model in Russia and Ukraine. This conception (aimed at ensuring the balance of interests of employees, employers and the state) was created as a substitute for the conception of class struggle and proved effective in many economically developed countries beginning from the 1960s. The model of social dialogue was implemented by the International Labor Organization and in post-Soviet countries: the National Service of Mediation and Reconciliation was created in Ukraine in 1998; in Russia a tripartite Council of Conciliation of Labor
Management Relations was created in 1991. It is declared that from this time on various disputable points between employees and employers at the national, regional and local levels are to be resolved within the framework of constructive talks (with the mediation of trade unions, representatives of the employer and government agencies), which allows to avoid strikes. According to the statistics of the Rosstat (Federal Statistic Service) and the State Statistic Committee of Ukraine on the collective labor disputes, it really works: most of the registered conflicts were resolved with the help of the National Service of Mediation and Reconciliation, and none as a result of a strike. However, there is no agreement among the experts in estimation of the realization of the social dialogue model in the post-Soviet countries. Further research is necessary to understand what the absence of strikes means-whether it is a reflection of the fact that institutionalized forms of settling of labor disputes in the 2000s are really effective. Or whether it is a sign of victory of the policy of employers and the state, that, enforcing the rules of game in resolving labor disputes,
profitable for employers, strengthen bureaucratic limitations for direct mobilization of workers, forcing them to the dialogue and agreement.
The fourth reason for the decline in the number of strikes is the dynamics of the collective organization of the opposing classes-employees and employers.
The trade unions in Ukraine and Russia in the 1990s were going through a crisis and were making attempts to come out of it. They were restructuring themselves, dividing into traditional and alternative, looking for a new ideology, gaining experience of bargaining with the employer about better conditions of selling workforce and were learning to constructively settle labor disputes, trying to turn into really independent structures of Western type. The successes and failures of trade unions in this period is a separate topic. Here we will only discuss the amount of trade union membership. At the present time it is difficult to adequately estimate these numbers, because information from official sources and data of sample surveys differ considerably. According to official data of The Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine, in 2009 the number of trade union members was 59 % from the total number of employed workers. The data of the international project ESS (and a number of other projects) estimate the number of trade union members as 20-22 % from the total number of workers; in Russia-16-18 % (see Table 5). It can be seen in Fig. 2 that such level of trade union membership is average in most European countries (17, 8 %).
Table 5 shows the dynamics of trade union membership from 1960. During the last 50 years trade union membership decreased by 1.5-2 times in most western countries such as France, the USA, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Austria. Some researchers ascribe the reasons for this downward process to the change in the structure of working
relationship in the "new economy" (increasing of the number of people, working half day/ half week, who are employed on temporary contracts, outsourcing etc, and, as a rule, not covered by trade unions). Others argue that despite global changes in the sphere of work, the trade unions in some countries-Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Italy-retained their status-quo or even became stronger, which is probably connected with the effectiveness of their real participation in protection of interests of workers, united by trade unions (Sobolev, 2009).
In Soviet period trade union membership in Ukraine and Russia was constantly increasing, reaching by the beginning of the 1990s the unthinkable for Western countries 99.5 % from the total number of employed workers. But later, because of sharp socio-economic transformations, trade union membership declined by more than a half (the same thing happened in Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic). Historians of trade union movement see the reasons for this process in the closure of many big enterprises, expansion in different kinds of unofficial employment (22 % of Ukrainians were employed in the unofficial sector in 2009), increase in the number of enterprises of private sector, where trade unions were not encouraged; disappointment with the activity of traditional trade unions, that turned out to be incapable of really protecting the economic and social interests of their members; division of industry-specific trade unions (such as , miners' metal-workers', railway employees' trade unions) into traditional and independent in the process of strike movement. The trend of declining in trade union membership is the same in Western and post-Soviet countries, but the reasons for it are different.
In contrast to trade unions in Ukraine, which have a rich history, employers' organizations started to appear only in the 1990s and at that time consisted chiefly of directors of large state-
Table 5. Trade union membership in Ukraine, Russia and some other countries of OECD in 1960-2008, %*
Country 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008
Ukraine 44,3 74,1 80,4 90,5 97,8 98,8 97,5 50,2 30,4 22,4 19,8
Russia - - - 90,2 98,0 98,8 98,5 60,3 29,9 17,9 15,5
All countries of OECD, including: 33,6 32,4 33,3 34,0 32,8 28,2 26,0 23,9 20,4 18,7 17,8
Poland - - - - - - 54,8 45,2 24,2 18,3 15,6
Hungary - - - - - - - 49,1 21,7 17,5 16,8
Czech republic - - - - - - - 46,3 29,5 21,5 20,2
Austria 67,9 66,2 62,8 59,0 56,7 51,6 46,9 41,1 36,6 33,6 28,9
Germany 34,7 32,9 32,0 34,6 34,9 37,7 31,2 29,2 24,6 21,6 19,1
France 19,6 19,5 21,7 22,2 18,3 13,6 10,3 8,9 8,1 7,8 7,7
Italy 24,7 25,5 37,0 48,0 49,6 42,5 38,8 38,1 34,8 33,6 33,4
Spain - - - - - 10,2 12,5 16,3 16,7 15,0 14,3
Switzerland 36,1 32,8 28,9 32,3 27,7 24,9 22,7 22,9 20,8 19,4 18,3
The Netherlands 40,0 37,4 36,2 37,8 34,8 28,0 24,3 25,6 22,9 21,0 18,9
Norway 60,0 59,0 56,8 52,8 58,3 57,5 58,5 57,3 54,4 54,9 53,3
Sweden 72,1 66,3 67,7 74,5 785,0 41,3 80,0 83,1 79T 86,5 63,3
Denmark 56,9 58,2 60,3 68,9 78,6 78,2 75,3 77,0 74,2 71,7 67,6
Great Britain 38,9 38,7 43,0 42,1 49,7 44,3 38,7 33T 30^ 78,4 73,1
Canada 29,2 26,7 31,0 34,3 3^1,0 35,3 34,0 33,3 28,3 27,7 27,1
The USA 30,9 28,2 27,4 25,3 22,1 17,4 15,5 14,7 12,8 12,0 11,9
Japan 32,3 35,3 35,1 34,5 31,1 28,8 25,4 24,0 21,5 18,8 18,2
*Sources: The data of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD): http://stats.oecd.org/Index. aspx?DatasetCode=U_D_D. The data on Ukraine and Rus sia 2005 and 2008 aree xtracted from the project ESS.
68 68
53
30
12
16
n
17
18 18
20
n
a) aj
a ^
a o
Fig. 2. Trade union membership in Russia and Ukraine and some OECD countries in 2008, %
19 19
14
8
owned enterprises. Beginning from the 2000s, a considerable growth of unions of large employers (now mainly private owners) have been taking place; in 2012 Federation of employers' of Ukraine claimed to unite 70 % of employers. By the way, the same trend exists in Western countries: the class of employers is better united than the class of employees (Suchasnyi stan, 2003). While trade unions unite on average 18 % of employed workers, organizations of employers unite 60 % of employers; small and medium-sized businesses estimate the level of trade union membership as 7-10 % (see Fig. 3). Besides having considerably bigger power and economic resources, in comparison to employees, employers are better organized, which makes it easier for them to protect their class rights.
Political parties are another instrument for protection of class rights. According to monitoring data of the Institute of Sociology of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, the level of membership in political parties has considerably increased from 0.6 % in 1994 to 3.5 % in 2010. It can be estimated as rather low as compared to the Soviet past (when 11.3 % of employed population of Ukraine were members of CPSU), and, at the same time, as average European (according to
the data of the international project ESS 2008, membership in political parties in post-Soviet and capitalist countries does not exceed 4 %) (see Fig. 4). Thus, the levels of membership in trade unions and political parties are similar in Western and post-Soviet countries. The tendencies of reduction in influence of these organizations on social processes are similar, too.
The fifth reason the for the decline of labor movement is changes in the workplace, leaving less space for traditional collective protest action and, at the same time, expanding the opportunity for individualized protection. Among the most important changes are sectoral shifts. The trend in Ukraine in 1990-2010 has been the decline in employment in the sectors where people work in large industrial collectives (by two timesin industry; by one and a half - in building, by five times - in agriculture), and increase in the sectors, dominated by small and medium-sized enterprises and self-employment (almost by five times in trade and service sector, by two times in restaurant and hotel, and financial sectors). The latter are characterized by more individualized work which demands work flexibility, outsourcing, and regulation on the basis of temporary or individual labor contracts. Shifting
80 70 60
----------- 70 fifi
i i i i i i i i i i i i ......
10 —mm. 18 , \rn
Ukraine
Developed capitalist countries
□ Employed workers HPetty bourgeoisie DEmployers
Fig. 3. Level of integration into class organizations in different countries, %
0
Fig. 4. Level of membership in political parties, %
of employment from state to private sector is an influential factor ( in Ukraine the ratio of workers employed in state and private sectors changed from 9:1 in 1994 to 1:1.2 in 2010), because in the private sector individual contracts are usual and trade unions were not encouraged. The spread of unofficial employment, the level of which was 23 % in Ukraine in 2010, hrs a considerable influence, too. Not having official labor contracts, employees are devoid of fhe possibiliry of overt protection of their interests. All these changes of labor relations lead to the formation of the prekariat (instead oi the proledariai)-a class of employed workers ingolved inif unstfble, unofficial, flexible labor relations. It is considered that such work relations do not provide a stable ground foa class unification and mobihoation.
The sixth reason for the demobilization of emplrnees is divfrsificatron of social protection. In the 1990s strikes and appeals to trade unions were the most effective and popular ways of resolving labor disputes. From the 2000s there has beeg obsexved a tendency to diversificahion of forms and subjects, protecting the interests of workers and participating in regulation of conditions of employment and wages. These functions are carried out more and more
effectively (winning the trust of workers) by such institutions as the courts, state regulating bodies, the system of individual employment contracts. This process is called "diversification of social protection" (Sobolev, 2009: c. 169). The fact that trade unions are losing their role of a universal mechanism for social protection is a worldwide tendency. Ar hho same time, appefling to court is becoming a foiry widely used channel for social proteciion. Altfough the derailed court statistics, concerning labor disputes, is not at the author's disposol, I will present nhe aata of the State Statirtic Commitleo of Ukraine about the number of cases of reinstatement of employment, payment of wages, reparation of damages to enterprises and organizations, reviewed in the courts of first instaoce. (sef Table 6). At presenh, labor disputes connected wihh payment (if wages are most widerpread. it is obvious that the outburst in the number of statements of claim to courts about payment of wages is connected with the legal strengtheping o° administrative xesponsibility of the heads of o nterpeises.
The seventh reason (connected with allowances for the specifics of statistical instruments) is a change in the methodology of fixation of strikes. In the 1990s official statistics
Table 6. The dynamics of the number of statements of claim, reviewed by courts of first instance in civil proceedings in Ukraine, thous.*
Kind of claim 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Reinstatement of employment 3,4 3,8 3,6 5,5 3,8 4,4
Payment of wages 0,8 1,1 0,9 237,6 56,0 18,7
Reparation of damages caused by workers to a state enterprise, organization. 19,9 9,8 1,8 1,8 0,7 0,7
* Sources: CraTHCTHHHHH ^opiHHHK yKpai'HH 3a 2001 piK. - K., 2002. - C. 521; CTaTHCTHHHHH ^opiHHHK yKpai'HH 3a 2010 piK. - K., 2011. - C. 503.
counted all strikes, but from the year 2000 the strikes carried out without the compliance regulated in the Law of procedure ("illegal") and nonstandard forms of strikes (work-to-rule, piquets) are recorded. So, the official data are considered understated. Recently there have appeared some organizations which carry out an alternative record of labor protests (Protesty, 2011; Biziukov, 2010). Nevertheless, this, to my mind, cannot significantly change our opinion about the general decline of strike mobilization and the trends of change.
Conclusion
I will formulate several conclusions based on the data obtained. During the last two decades, the following tendencies in the development of labor movement in post-Soviet countries have become obvious: a considerable decline in the number of strikes and trade union membership, change in the forms of resolving labor conflicts from spontaneous to more and more institutionalized, weakening of the importance of a traditional strike and, at the same time, realization of various alternative forms of mobilization (from Italian strike to Internet-maidan of workers of informational sector, who are organized in net protest communities), diversification of social protection, narrowing of space for collective actions for protecting class interests, resulting from individualization of labor.
The described tendencies of the dynamics of labor movement are similar to those that took place in the developed capitalist countries, but they happened several decades later. For example, the peak of strikes which the Western countries experienced in the 1970s occurred in the postSoviet countries in the 1990s. The similarity can also be seen in the fact that, while the trade unions and labor movement are considered to be weak social actors, the mobilization potential of employers is gaining strength (one of the evidences for which is the increase in the number of employers united in associations). Post-Soviet countries also copy the Western mechanisms for ensuring class agreement (in the form of the tripartite social dialogue model. Yet, the forms of realization of this model, in experts' opinion, do not reach their aim, but rather demobilize employees in their search for more effective ways of resolving labor conflicts, making these conflicts latent. A high level of protest moods among different groups of employed and self-employed workers, as well as the absence of powerful class organizations and visible, real actions to protect their interests, is the evidence that class and labor conflicts do not find their resolution in Russia and Ukraine. However, it is impossible to foretell how far it is from latent protest attitudes to class mobilization and solidarity on a national scale. What class will be in the vanguard of class protests? What positive program of social change
will it offer? Sociologists must monitor these problem situation, but not at a systematic
processes. prolonged challenge of the dominating position Different groups of employees and their of the administrative authorities. Workers are
organizations have shown that they are able not inclined to class solidarity-occasions when to protect their interests and rights, but their strikers were supported by workers of another
collective experience, to my mind, has some sector or a neighboring factory are rare. The drawbacks. For example, the reasons for their enumerated reasons give ground for subscribing protests have so far been different aspects of their to the conclusions of a number of researches, that
struggle for survival and right to labor, but not labor movement "today does not reach the level
demands for massive social improvement of life of social-political force which is able to affect the
standard, work conditions and wages. Employee's course of major social reforms" (Voieikov, 2004:
protests are mainly aimed at solution of a concrete c. 25).
1 For the corresponding data for Russia see: (Kozina, 2009).
2 In Russia it was legalized in the new Labor Code of 2002, Ukraine has not adopted a similar document yet.
References
1. Alekseeva, L.M (1983). Inakomyslie v SSSR - opyt statisticheskogo analiza [Dissent in the USSR: an attempt of statistical analysis]. SSSR: Vnutrennie protivorechiia [The USSR: Inner contradictions]. Chalidze, V. (ed.). N.Y., Chalidze Publications, Vol. 8, pp. 5-61.
2. Baer, W. Strikes: a study of conflict and how to resolve it. N.Y., AMACOM, 1975.
3. Biziukov, P. (2011). Dinamika trudovykh protestov v Rossii [The dynamics of labor protests in Russia]. Vestnik obshchestvennogo mneniia (2008-2011) [The Russian Public Opinion Herald], 2(108), 29-38.
4. Borisov, V. Zabastovki v ugol'noi promyshlennosti (analiz shakhterskogo dvizheniia za 198999 gody). [Coal mining strikes (analysis of the mining movement for the years 1989 to 1999)]. Moscow, ISITO, 2001. 416 p.
5. Brandl, B., Traxler, F. (2009). Labour conflicts: A cross-sectional analysis of economic and institutional determinants, 1971-2002. European Social Research, 26(5), 519-540.
6. Burawoy, M. Dwelling in Capitalism, Traveling Through Socialism. In Baldoz, R. et al. (eds). The Critical Study of Work. Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 2001, pp. 21-44.
7. Dubrovskii, I.M., Dubrovskii, M.L. Sovremennoe profsoiuznoe dvizhenie Ukrainy: zadachi i vozmozhnosti [The modern trade union movement in Ukraine: challenges and opportunities]. Kharkov, 2009. 236 p.
8. Fantasia, R. The myth of the labor movement. The Blackwell Companion to Sociology. Blau, J.R. (ed.). Oxford, Blackwell, 2001.
9. Fantasia, R., Stepan-Norris, J. The labor movement in motion. The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Snow, D.A., Soule, S.A., & Kriesi H. (eds.). Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2008, pp. 555-575.
10. Griffin, L., Rubin, B., & Wallace, M. (1986). Capitalist resistance to the organization of labor before the new deal: Why? How? Success? American Sociological Review, (5), 147-167.
11. Guliaev, V. (2003). Restrukturizatsiia ugol'noi otrasli i uroven' sotsial'noi napriazhennosti v shakhterskikh regionakh [Coal mining restructurization and the level of social tension in
coal-mining regions]. Sotsiologiia: teoriia, metody, marketing [Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing], (3), 93-106.
12. Il'in, V.I. Vlast' i ugol': shakhterskoe dvizhenie Vorkuty (1989-1998 gody) [Power and coal: the Vorkuta miners' movement (1989-1998)]. Syktyvkar, Syktyvkar University, 1998. 270 p.
13. Kabalina, V.I. (1998). Izmenenie funktsii i statusa lineinykh rukovoditelei [Change in functions and status of line managers]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia [Sociological Studies], (5), 34-43.
14. Katsva, A.M. (2008). Protestnoe dvizhenie rabochego klassa [Protest movement of the working class]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia [Sociological Studies], (3), 38-43.
15. Kononov, I.F., Kononova, N.B., & Denshchik, V.N. Krizis i samoorganizatsiia. Shakhterskie goroda i poselki Donbassa v period restrukturizatsii ugol'noy promyshlennosti: sotsial'nye i ekologisheskie izmereniia. [Crisis and self-organization. Donbass mining towns and villages during the restructurization of coal mining: social and environmental dimensions]. Lugansk, Alma mater, 2001. 144 p.
16. Kozina, I.M. (2009). Rabochee dvizhenie v Rossii: anatomiia zabastovki [Labor movement in Russia: the anatomy of a strike]. Zhurnal issledovanii sotsialnoi politiki [Journal of Social Policy Studies], 7(4), 485-502.
17. Krupat, K. From war zone to free trade zone: a history of the National Labor Committee. No
Sweat: Fashion Free Trade and the Rights of Garment Workers. Ross A. (ed.). N.Y., Verso, 1997, pp. 51-78.
18. Krutoiplast. Shakhterskaia zhizn' na fone restrukturizatsii otrasli i obshcherossiiskikhperemen. [Steep seam. Miners' life against the background of restructurization of the industry and nationwide changes]. Gordon, L., Klopov, Ye., & Kozhukhovskii I. (eds.). Moscow, Kompleks-Progress, 1999. 352 p.
19. Maksimov, B.I. (2008). Rabochie kak aktory protsessa transformatsii [Workers as actors of transformation process]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia [Sociological Studies], (3), 29-34.
20. Meyer, D., Staggenborg, S. (1996). Movements, countermovements, and structure of political opportunity. The American Journal of Sociology, (101), 1628-1660.
21. Narysy istorii profesiynykh spilok Ukrainy [Essays on the history of Trade Unions of Ukraine]. Stoyan, O.M. & Reyent O.P. (eds.). Kyiv, Federatsiia profspilok Ukrainy (The Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine), 2002. 732 p.
22. Nieuwbeerta, P. The democratic class struggle in postwar societies: Traditional class voting in twenty countries, 1945-1990. The Breakdown of Class Politics. A Debate on Post-Industrial Stratification. Clark, T.N., Lipset, S.M. (eds). Washington, D.C., Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2001, pp. 121-135.
23. Olson, M. The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1965.
24. Pan'kova, O., Ivashchenko, K. (2006). Zabastovochnoe dvizhenie v Ukraine: tendentsii i osobennosti [Strike movement in Ukraine: tendencies and peculiarities]. Sotsiologiia: teoriia, metody, marketing [Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing], (3), 236-248.
25. Protesty, peremohy i represii v Ukraini: rezul'taty monitorynhu, 2009-2010 [Protests, victories and repressions in Ukraine: Monitoring results for the years 2009 and 2010]. Kyiv, Tsentr dozlidzhennia suspil'stva [Society Research Centre], 2011. 64 p.
26. Rabochee dvizhenie v sovremennoi Rossii: stanovlenie, sovremennye problemy, perspektivy. [The labor movement in present-day Russia: formation, current problems and prospects]. Moscow, Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences, 1995. 150 p.
27. Rammstedt, O. Soziale Bewegung. [Social movement]. Frankfurt am Main, 1979, pp. 141-168.
28. Rusnachenko, A.M. Pryspala syla. Robitnyky, robitnychyi rukh i nezalezhni profspilky v Ukraini vid kintsia sorokovykh do pochatku dev"yanostykh rokiv [A dormant force. Workers, labor movement, and independent trade unions in Ukraine from end of the forties to the nineties]. Kyiv, 2000. 104 p.
29. Siegelbaum, L.H., Walkowitz, D.J. Workers of the Donbass speak: Survival and identity in the new Ukraine. Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1995.
30. Smelser, N. Theory of collective behavior. N.Y., Free Press, 1963.
31. Sobolev, E.N. Profsoiuzy v sisteme regulirovaniia sotsial'no-trudovykh otnoshenii. Sotsial'noe izmerenie ekonomicheskikh protsessov [Trade unions in the regulation of social and labor relations. Social dimension of economic processes]. Pavlenko, Iu.G., & Soboleva, I.S. (eds.). Moscow, Knizhnyi mir [The Bookworld], 2009, pp. 160-176.
32. Social movements: identity, culture, and the state. Meyer, D.S., Whittier N., & Robnett, B. (eds.). N.Y., Oxford University Press, 2002.
33. Solidarizatsiia v rabochei srede: sotsial 'noe i individual 'noe [Solidarity among workers: the social and the individual]. Yadov, V. (ed.). Moscow, Institut sotsiologii RAN [Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences], 1998. 231 p.
34. Suchasnyi stan, problemy ta tendentsii sotsial'no-trudovykh vidnosyn v Ukraini: sproba sotsial'noho konstruiuvannia [The current state, problems and tendencies of social and labor relations in Ukraine: An attempt of social construction] Saienko, Iu.I., & Pryvalov, Iu.O. (eds). Kyiv, Stylos, 2003. 361 p.
35. Tarrow, S. Power in movements. Social movements, collective action and politics. Ithaca, N.Y., 1994.
36. Tilly, C. From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 1978.
37. Voieikov, M.I. Rabochii vopros v Rossii: nachalo i konets XX veka [Workers' problem in Russia: the beginning and the end of the 20th century]. Rabochie v Rossii: istoricheskii opyt i sovremennoe polozhenie. [Workers in Russia: historical experience and current situation]. Churakov, D.O. (ed.). Moscow, Editorial URSS, 2004, pp. 23-37.
38. Zabastovki 1989-1993 godov vRossii (sotsiologicheskii aspekt) [Strikes of the years 1989-1993 in Russia (sociological aspect)]. Zaitsev, A.K.(ed.). Kaluga, KalS, 1996. 119 p.
39. Zhukov, V.I. (2000). Naimani pratsivnyky ta iikh profesiini spilky iak sub"iekty sotsial'noho partnerstva [Employees and their trade unions as subjects of social partnership]. Visnyk Akademii pratsi i sotsial'nykh vidnosyn [Bulletin of the Academy of Labor and Social Relations], (3), 83-91.
Рабочее движение в Украине и России: динамика, причины, стратегии защиты классовых интересов (итоги 1989-2010 годов)
Е.В. Симончук
Институт социологии Национальной академии наук Украины Украина 01001, Киев, Шовковичная, 12
Изучение динамики рабочего движения в Украине и России и причин снижения .забастовочной мобилизации наемных работников предпринято на основании данных официальной статистики и международных социологических проектов. Динамика количества забастовок и их участников с 1989 по 2010 год свидетельствует, что в течение двух десятилетий забастовочное движение было крайне неравномерным: если в 1990-е оно носило интенсивный и волнообразный характер, то в 2000-е наблюдался тренд к его затуханию. При объяснении снижения числа забастовок в 2000-е годы в постсоветских Украине и России выявлено семь причин: 1) улучшение экономической конъюнктуры (повышение заработной платы, урегулирование своевременности ее выплаты, снижение уровня безработицы и вынужденной неполной занятости); 2) законодательное урегулирование правил проведения забастовок, приведшее к усложнению процедуры ее начала; 3) институционализация модели социального партнерства; 4) изменения в сфере труда, детерминирующие сужение пространства для коллективных протестных действий и классовой солидарности и одновременно расширение зоны индивидуализированных форм социальной защиты;
5) перемены в коллективной организации противостоящих классов - снижение численности и влияния профсоюзов и, напротив, усиление организаций работодателей;
6) диверсификация социальной защиты (ее субъектами, помимо профсоюзов, стали суды, органы государственного контроля, система индивидуальных договоров); 7) изменение методики фиксации забастовочной активности, где официальной статистикой теперь не учитываются забастовки, проводимые без соблюдения прописанных процедур.
Рабочее движение в России и Украине и развитых западных странах имело подобные тенденции: оно характеризовалось неравномерностью (периодические подъемы и спады; причем, пик трудовых протестов, который западные страны прошли в 1970-е годы, в постсоветских пришелся на 1990-е), мотивированностью преимущественно экономическими лозунгами, переходом от форм прямой мобилизации коллективных действий к институционализированным.
Ключевые слова: рабочее движение, забастовка, профсоюзы, политические партии.
