Marianne Garneau

Nick Driedger argues that most metrics by which unions are measured obscure what is really important. Measuring the labor movement is a popular undertaking: leftist analysis is full of bigger picture stuff like strike rates per year since the 1930s, overall union density, and percentage of the public that is supportive of unions. Awhile back, Dave Kamper wrote a provocative piece in The Forge reemphasizing the need for solid measurements as a foundation for rebuilding the labor movement.

Field Notes For years now, we have been hearing about strike waves, upsurges in worker militancy from a labor movement ostensibly on a comeback. The Economic Policy Institute declared a “surge” in striking workers in 2018 and 2019 a “35-year high”—citing General Motors and Stop and Shop.1 The Washington Post said, “Teacher strikes made 2018 the biggest year for worker protest in a generation.”2 A “Strikewave” website was launched that same year and elsewhere strike trackers sprung up.

Those who consider themselves radicals in the labor movement usually have a surprisingly apolitical view of what goes on in the workplace. They measure workers’ militancy more in terms of their commitment to a socialist party or their belief in socialist ideals than in their capacity to take action on the job.