Full text
| |
| Author(s): |
Mariana Leite Figueiredo
Total Authors: 1
|
| Document type: | Master's Dissertation |
| Press: | Campinas, SP. |
| Institution: | Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP). Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas |
| Defense date: | 2007-12-26 |
| Examining board members: |
Angela Maria Carneiro Araújo;
Andréia Galvão;
Ricardo Antunes
|
| Advisor: | Angela Maria Carneiro Araújo |
| Abstract | |
The purpose of this dissertation is to exam the ¿CUT leftwing¿, through the analysis of the tree most important representatives of this section of Brazilian unionism: the Metal Trade Union of Campinas, of Limeira and of São José dos Campos. The main purpose is to analyze the concrete practices of these unions and its results in the defense of workers. The general objective is, on turn, to offer, to the academic debate about Brazilian unionism, some empirical aspects and a theorical analysis about the ¿non propositive¿ union practice, relatively absent in the national literature on unionism. The research¿s results point out the benefits of the strategy and tactics of the studied unions whose objectives were the resistance to any right's reduction, the maintenance of class perspective, a strong anti-neoliberal perspective and the emphasis on worker's organization and political training. Those gains were empirically verified, specially, through the analysis of collective bargaining agreements and the maintenance of a significant union density. In addition, there is the refusal of the idea that ¿there is no alternative¿ to the unions¿ adjustment and moderation caused by the unfavorable worker's situation. Besides the research results also point out the difficulties posed to the leftist union¿s leaders by the deepening of capitalist exploitation processes and the increasing unemployment and work degradation fostered by new management techniques and the advance of neoliberal politics. These difficulties are related to organizing significant mobilizations and to have new militants, specially younger workers joining in, the lack of union¿s leaders regular rotation and the impossibility to avoid union¿s burocratization tendencies. In short, the limitation of union¿s action to the field of resistance (AU) | |