See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/356665713

(Re)mobilizing labour. A lesson from recent labour struggles in Italy

Article  in  Social Movement Studies · November 2021

DOI: 10.1080/14742837.2021.2010532

CITATIONS READS

0 25

1 author:

Lorenzo Cini
Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa
39 PUBLICATIONS   154 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Contentious Politics of Higher Education View project

Marxist Theory of Social Movements View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lorenzo Cini on 01 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Social Movement Studies

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csms20

(Re)mobilizing labour. A lesson from recent labour

struggles in Italy

Lorenzo Cini

To cite this article: Lorenzo Cini (2021): (Re)mobilizing labour. A lesson from recent labour
struggles in Italy, Social Movement Studies, DOI: 10.1080/14742837.2021.2010532

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2021.2010532

Published online: 30 Nov 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=csms20
SOCIAL MOVEMENT STUDIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2021.2010532

PROFILE

(Re)mobilizing labour. A lesson from recent labour struggles

in Italy
Lorenzo Cini
Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, Scuola Normale Superiore, Firenze, Italy

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Social movement studies and labour scholarship have been devel­ Received 11 October 2021
oped as separate research fields, the former exploring the mobiliza­ Accepted 11 November 2021
tions of the so-called ‘new’ social movements, the latter the ‘old’ KEYWORDS
labour movements. However, such a sharp disciplinary distinction GKN; labour mobilizations;
does not do justice to the interwoven character that social mobili­ labour studies; Italy; social
zations may often take on in their formation processes and out­ movement studies
comes. This distinction seems especially untenable today given the
return and proliferation of struggles on labour issues, where bot­
tom-up forms of worker organizing and social movement types of
action have been mixed, giving rise to a new array of labour actors
and mobilizations. In short, the time seems ripe to spur on
a scholarly prolific discussion between scholars of social movement
and labour studies. In this profile, I start to do so by accounting for
the case of the ongoing worker struggle at the GKN plant in the
outskirts of Florence (Italy), where workers have been carrying out
a bottom-up mobilization, consisting of the factory occupation and
other radical forms of action. Both labour and social movement
scholars can learn from this struggle, as it encompasses features
whose interpretation cannot be confined to only one of the two
disciplines, but it necessitates their integration. ‘Remobilizing
labour’ entails, therefore, to stimulate a prolific conversation
between these two communities of scholars on the topic of work­
ers’ collective organizing. With this contribution, I hope to be open­
ing up the way for such kinds of studies to come.

1. Introduction
Social movement studies and labour scholarship have been developed as separate
research fields, the former exploring the mobilizations of the so-called ‘new’ social
movements, the latter the ‘old’ labour movements (Della Porta, 2015). However, such
a sharp disciplinary distinction does not do justice to the interwoven character that social
mobilizations may often take on in their formation processes and outcomes. This
distinction seems especially untenable today given the return and proliferation of strug­
gles on labour issues, where bottom-up forms of worker organizing and social movement
types of action have been mixed, giving rise to a new array of labour actors and
mobilizations. In short, the time seems ripe to spur on a scholarly prolific discussion
between scholars of social movement and labour studies.

CONTACT Lorenzo Cini lorenzo.cini@sns.it Scuola Normale Superiore, Firenze, Italy

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 L. CINI

In this profile, I start to do so by accounting for the case of the ongoing worker
struggle at the GKN1 plant in the outskirts of Florence (Italy), where workers – after the
announcement of the immediate closure of the site and of the collective dismissal of 500
employees – have been carrying out a bottom-up mobilization, consisting of the factory
occupation and other radical forms of action.
Since the very first day the closure was announced (9 July 2021), GKN workers have
been able to collectively organise. Under the slogan Insorgiamo (‘Let’s Rise Up’)
a fightback has grown, able to involve the whole local community, eventually rising to
national significance and visibility. In my view, the GKN mobilization is a case in point of
how reality supersedes the epistemological boundaries between supposedly distinct
disciplines. Both labour and social movement scholars can learn from this struggle, as
it encompasses features whose interpretation cannot be confined to only one of the two
disciplines, but it necessitates their integration. More specifically, the GKN struggle – as
well as the new forms of labour mobilization that have been arising in the precarious and
gig economy over the past years (Tassinari & Maccarrone, 2020) – points to the presence
of some gaps that these disciplines exhibit in their own theoretical frameworks, and that
these novel mobilizations urge to overcome. Here, I briefly present those that I consider
as being the most relevant.

2. A prolific encounter
In making sense of worker mobilizations, labour scholars have traditionally focused on
workplace dynamics and on the role that trade unions have been able to play in them
(Atzeni, 2021). The scholarly debate on labour union revitalization in the early 2000s has
not made an exception. The main actors of such revitalization were still considered
traditional trade unions and their resources (Frege & Kelly, 2004). No particular atten­
tion was paid to the emergence of new actors or to novel conditions and opportunities for
labour mobilization. Even the most successful attempt at integrating labour with social
movement studies – Kelly’s Rethinking Industrial Relations (1998) – failed to overcome
such limitations. His framework aimed at rediscovering the pivotal role of labour unions
in triggering mobilizations in times of relative labour pacification (i.e., the 1990s), with
a still prominent focus on their resources and opportunities within the work environ­
ment. Yet, considering the new world of labour conflicts (cf. Tassinari & Maccarrone,
2020), in which diverse actors equipped with very various types of resources have been
seen as central (Cini & Goldmann, 2020; Pero’, 2019), I deem necessary to go beyond an
analysis merely centred on trade unions and the workplace.
In this respect, social movement research seems to offer a precious help. These studies
have traditionally considered the role of a vast array of actors and the relevance of the
non-institutional socio-political context as key conditions to explain social movement
formation processes. Notably, factors, such as the protest culture, the informal networks
of activists, the presence of social movement organizations, and the mobilization tradi­
tion, have been often identified as crucial in spurring mobilization processes. Social
movement literature can provide a useful toolkit to supplement the ‘institutionalist’
approach of labour studies by highlighting the role that specific features of the socio-
political context not usually considered in such studies play in shaping dynamics of
emerging labour militancy.
 SOCIAL MOVEMENT STUDIES 3

However, without a previous reworking, social movement literature seems not imme­
diately applicable to labour issues. Since their foundation, social movement studies have
neglected an analysis of material processes of labour exploitation and, therefore, have
been unable to incorporate labour mobilizations in their theories. Some scholars have
noted how ‘the institutionalization of the field of social movement research has been
founded on a sort of epistemological bias vis-à-vis capitalist (and Marxist) analysis’ (Cini
et al., 2017, p. 431). In orienting social movement research to pay attention to the
capitalist labour process and to its antagonistic relations, labour literature may aid such
scholars to rectify their analytical frameworks and to fill their gap on labour issues.
Specifically, labour studies may assist social movement scholars in grounding particular
dynamics of mobilization in the transformations of the work organization. This inte­
grated framework seems to be especially suited to make sense of the new worker
mobilizations that have been arising today in the platform economy (cf. Tassinari &
Maccarrone, 2020).
In my view, the GKN struggle exemplifies a specific avenue by which an encounter
between the two communities of scholars may take place. Accordingly, an analysis of this
struggle can offer a source of inspiration for both communities by contributing to over­
coming their respective limitations on the issue of contemporary labour mobilizations.

3. The GKN case2

The GKN workers have been organised since 2008 in an autonomous factory-wide
collective, the Collettivo di Fabbrica, which operates as a grassroots structure of workers’
organization. The Collettivo di Fabbrica runs parallel to and independently from the
‘official’ union structures. Since the beginning, the Collettivo has been meeting informally
on a regular basis to discuss contractual, organizational, and political issues relating to the
factory’s operations and to managerial decisions. It has broadened the space for workers’
engagement and active participation in decisions about their working life. This has infused
‘official’ union activities in the factory with a broader democratic input, as well as strength­
ened the workers’ autonomous organizing and political resources. This legacy of ‘organiz­
ing infrastructures’ came strongly into play when the dispute broke out in July 2021.
From the day the plant closure was announced, two channels of organizing have
operated in parallel. First, the ‘official’ trade union activities, led by FIOM-CGIL, the
metalworking union. The trade union has mostly operated through formal voice and
legal channels, participating in the occasional negotiating tables with local autho­
rities, government officials and the firm. Second, the massive grassroots mobilizations
of the workers organised through the Collettivo di Fabbrica. The leadership role over
the development of the dispute has mostly been taken by the latter, and not without
the occasional political tensions between the two. The workers have also counted,
from the first day, on the support of a wide network of activists, political and social
organizations and social centres from the broader Florence area. These have been
organised in a support group Insorgiamo con i lavoratori GKN (‘Let’s rise up with the
GKN workers’), which has been following and supporting the dispute step by step.
Since July 9th the mobilization has been relentless. There have been various episodes
marking an escalation of the conflict, which has carried on throughout the summer and
continues until now. From the moment of the announcement, the workers have set up
4 L. CINI

a ‘permanent assembly’ inside the plant. This is essentially a permanent occupation, day
and night, to prevent the firm’s squads from removing the production machines from the
plant. This was then followed by a 4-hours strike of the metalworking sector in the
province of Florence on July 19th. There were two very large city-wide demonstrations,
first on July 24th then on August 11th. A large concert was organised by the factory gates
on August 28th. Finally, a massive national demonstration was called on September 18th,
which attracted 40,000 people from all over Italy. This was the largest mobilization
witnessed in the country since the start of the pandemic, and by far the most combative
labour-related protest in Italy since years.

4. A social movement type of mobilization

The collective organization put forward by the GKN workers has involved several
aspects, both political and logistical, which are worthwhile presenting and discussing
through a social movement perspective. More notably, their struggle leads to question the
idea – very established among labour scholars – that union organizing is the principal or
only form for mobilizing labour (cf. Kelly, 1998). By contrast, the vast and heterogeneous
array of actions that the GKN workers have so far deployed closely approximates a social
movement type of organizing. Such a way of organizing has characterized their mobiliza­
tion process, taking place with no support from ‘formal’ unions. In showing how the
GKN struggle comprises key movement characteristics and would not be understandable
without the reference to the social movement tradition, I introduce and discuss each of
these characteristics with the corresponding theoretical reference drawn from this tradi­
tion. I have identified the following concepts as identifiable and reflected in the features
of the GKN dispute:

(1) A strategically various action repertoire (Gamson, 1990). The GKN workers have
displayed thus far a vast and diverse array of actions (i.e., rallies, demonstrations,
strikes, festivals, concerts, public meetings, etc), selected on the basis of the various
goals to pursue. In doing so, they have adopted an instrumental approach to
collective action: the choice of the action to carry out was assessed on the like­
lihood that such action was expected to have in the pursuit of the prefixed goal.
(2) Mobilizing the wider public (Giugni, 2004). Appealing to the public opinion is
a key strategy that movements often adopt to pursue their ultimate goal. Since the
beginning of the fight, the GKN workers have implemented many and different
communicative actions (i.e., leafleting, public conferences and meetings, partici­
pation at concerts and other cultural events) in order to involve the wider public
on the issue and to mobilize on the workers’ side.
(3) A politics of coalition building (Van Dyke & McCammon, 2010). Movements often
make alliances with other actors to broaden their struggle in order to increase their
likelihood of success. The GKN workers have forged strategic alliances with other
worker struggles and the broader landscape of social movements at the national
level. This has made the GKN dispute a ‘megaphone’ and rallying point for many
other ongoing mobilizations.
 SOCIAL MOVEMENT STUDIES 5

(4) Movements that matter politically (Amenta, 2006). Movement activists often deal
with institutional actors in order to make political pressure and win the movement
battle. The GKN workers are aiming not only to solve their dispute but to provide
political impetus to change the law regulating this and other cases of restricting
and delocalisation. In doing so, they have adopted a pragmatic approach to
confronting political institutions and policy makers. No politicians or institutional
authority expressing feeling of solidarity with the struggle has been rejected as
such; yet, their commitment has been evaluated by the workers themselves on the
basis of the acts of concrete (and not only symbolic) solidarity towards the GKN
cause.

The bottom-up collective action staged by the GKN workers points to the importance
of considering the whole complex of the organizational infrastructures that can come
into play during the mobilization process. Such ever-changing infrastructures interact
and reinforce each other in developing and sustaining the mobilizing effort, without
any previous focus on specific organizational forms. These dynamics of mobilization
appear closer to social movement formation processes than to traditional forms of
labour organizing. The top-down operational logic of trade union action seems more
difficult to apply to the GKN case. To understand this fight – as well as other ongoing
labour struggles – the toolkits of social movement tradition seem, therefore, more
appropriate.

5. Beyond the workplace

There is also a second insight we draw from the GKN struggle about the potentially
prolific encounter between labour and social movement studies. This has to do with the
place of mobilization itself. As illustrated above, labour scholars have tended to neglect
the relevance for mobilization processes of other sites beyond the work environment.
Only recently a more heterodoxic strand of industrial relations literature has underscored
the importance of the broader social, political and cultural environment with its manifold
resources and opportunities (cf. Pero’, 2019). What this strand of literature makes clear is
that workers’ productive activities are not exerted in a social void, but are fully embedded
into the wider realm of labour power reproduction (i.e., the reproduction of workers’
own life) as well as in the broader social and political context. Therefore, understanding
worker mobilizations requires understanding that what occurs on the shop floor is
shaped by what goes on outside of the factory or office gates, for the perpetual recon­
stitution of capital–labour relations is fundamentally shaped by the spatial contexts
within which this occurs.
In principle, social movement research seems particularly suited to explore such
context and its relevance for workers’ collective action. These scholars have normally
looked to the non-institutional socio-political context as an important trigger for social
movement formation processes. For instance, various features of the life communities of
movement participants and activists have been considered as necessary conditions for
such processes to occur. A tentative list may include cohesive family, ethnic and com­
munal bonds; cooperative neighbourhood contacts; a supportive web of civil society
organizations; the presence of a militant political tradition, etc.
6 L. CINI

Yet, given the little attention that social movement research has historically devoted
to capitalist transformations, and to the labour process in particular (cf. Della Porta,
2015), no systematic theorization has been developed so far on the nexus between the
broader social environment and workers’ collective organizing. It is time for social
movement scholars to rediscover the study of labour mobilizations and shed light on
their linkages with the broader arena. A conversation with labour studies may facilitate
such an end.
An analysis of the GKN dispute may again spur on this process of disciplinary cross-
fertilization. Its dynamics of mobilization underscore, on the one hand, that the work­
place is not the only site of conflict, and, on the other, that the environment external to
such site is not a fully separate domain. All the political and organizational capacities of
the GKN workers above listed would have not been possible without the cohesive and
solid support of the surrounding local community. This marks the centrality of the socio-
political context for the unfolding of the struggle. In particular, the creation of the
solidarity group, Insorgiamo con i lavoratori GKN (‘Let’s rise up with the GKN workers’),
has been crucial in the implementation of several mobilizing tasks. The support of the
solidarity group, operating with an assembly for coordinating and implementing the
activities held on a regular weekly basis, has been pivotal for:

(1) Shifts and practical support for the occupation. The carrying out of shifts in the
factory during the August break, when most of the workers were in their planned
period of vacation, and the organization of logistical support for the permanent
assembly.
(2) Stewards. Logistic support in the stewarding activities during demonstrations,
rallies, and concerts.
(3) Dissemination. The activities of communication of all the public and political
events concerning the GKN struggle (especially through various and innovative
forms of leafleting, but also a constant and massive presence on social media). This
has been constantly and meticulously organised, drawing on different commu­
nication skills and increasing the national visibility of the dispute.

In parallel to the support group, the Women’s coordination group (Coordinamento

Donne GKN) has also been central to the struggle. The group brings together the wives
and partners of the almost exclusively GKN male workforce. Through its coordinating
activities, it has made possible the active participation of the workers’ families in the
mobilization. It has also brought the sphere of social reproduction into the struggle and
into the factory. By socialising essential social reproductive tasks, it has allowed for the
mobilization and the occupation to continue for so long.
‘Beyond the workplace’ means, therefore, that, in order to grasp the current labour
mobilizations, one needs to look at the interconnections between the workplace
dynamics and the surrounding environment – both in the sphere of social reproduc­
tion and in the sphere of local community, cultural and political relations. The GKN
case is only one of the many stories telling us that, in the new world of precarious and
low unionized labour, these interconnections are central to making sense of workers’
new mobilization practices. In Northern Italy, the recent surge of labour mobiliza­
tions in sectors historically characterized by low union density, such as services,
 SOCIAL MOVEMENT STUDIES 7

logistics and meat processing, has been characterized by similar interaction dynamics,
with the intervention of rank-and-file unions able to gain the trust of a highly
exploited north-African workforce and propel a process of mobilization (Cini &
Goldmann, 2020).

6. Conclusions
The ongoing GKN struggle in Italy matters for the practices of unions and all other actors
interested in advancing the cause of the working class and the success of emerging
disputes and mobilizing efforts. More importantly, the GKN case offers an interesting
example for all actors in the labour movement about the kind of linkages, broad alliances,
and social coalitions that must be nurtured at the local level. These can successfully
amplify an industrial, workplace-based struggle and give it roots, legs, durability, and
political visibility. In this respect, official trade unions should not see these instances of
bottom-up mobilization as an external threat to their political role of worker representa­
tion. Rather, such experimentation of grassroots organization should operate to encou­
rage new unions’ strategies and creative actions. The struggle of the GKN workers can
offer a helpful guideline.
From a scholarly perspective, the analysis of the GKN case has shown how inte­
grating labour scholarship with social movement studies seems particularly helpful to
understand the current wave of labour mobilizations, characterized by low union­
ization and by the presence of novel social actors. In my view, such integrated
approach offers two advantages for the analysis of this wave: first, it provides a more
agential, worker-based and not union-centred, interpretation; second, it emphasizes
the importance of the socio-cultural and socio-political context of mobilization,
beyond the workplace and the institutional landscape, in which the relation between
workers and the surrounding socio-political environment becomes analytically evi­
dent. ‘Remobilizing labour’ entails, therefore, to stimulate a prolific conversation
between these two communities of scholars on the topic of workers’ collective orga­
nizing. With this contribution, I hope to be opening up the way for such kinds of
studies to come.

Notes
1. GKN stands for Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds (GKN), who were the original owners of the
company, a British multinational automotive and aerospace components business, head­
quartered in Redditch, Worcestershire.
2. This section draws on Cini and Tassinari (2021), Insorgiamo. The GKN Struggle and the
Resurgence of Working-Class Militancy in Italy. Notes from Below, September 25. Available
at: https://notesfrombelow.org/article/insorgiamo

Acknowledgments
I would not have been able to write this piece without the long and prolific discussions with two of
the best industrial relations scholars I had the privilege to meet and become friends with, Arianna
Tassinari and Maurizio Atzeni. This article is also theirs. All errors, instead, remain mine. I also
want to thank Benedetta Rizzo, a very good friend of mine and a comrade of the Florentine
 8 L. CINI

antagonist political milieu, without whom I would not have been able to access all the relevant
information on the GKN struggle.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Lorenzo Cini is a research fellow in the Faculty of Political and Social Sciences of the Scuola
Normale Superiore of Pisa, where he is a member of the research group of COSMOS (Center on
Social Movement Studies). His main research interests are social movements and conflicts in the
current transformations of the world of work.

ORCID
Lorenzo Cini http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5381-4361

References
Amenta, E. (2006). When movements matter: The townsend plan and the rise of social security.
Princeton University Press.
Atzeni, M. (2021). Workers’ organizations and the fetishism of the trade union form: Toward new
pathways for research on the labour movement? Globalizations, 18(8), 1349–1362. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14747731.2021.1877970
Cini, L., Chironi, D., Drapalova, E., & Tomasello, T. (2017). Toward a critical theory of social
movements: An introduction. Anthropological Theory, 17(4), 429–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1463499617736465
Cini, L., & Goldmann, B. (2020). The worker capabilities approach: Insights from worker mobi­
lizations in Italian logistics and food delivery. Work Employment and Society, 35(5), 948–967.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017020952670
Cini, L., & Tassinari, A. (2021). Insorgiamo. The GKN struggle and the resurgence of working-class
militancy in Italy. Notes from below. https://notesfrombelow.org/article/insorgiamo
Della Porta, D. (2015). Social movements in times of austerity: Bringing capitalism back into protest
analysis. John Wiley and Sons.
Frege, C., & Kelly, J. E. (eds.). (2004). Varieties of unionism: Strategies for union revitalization in
a globalizing economy. Oxford University Press.
Gamson, W. (1990). The strategy of social protest. The Dorsey Press.
Giugni, M. (2004). Social protest and policy change: Ecology, antinuclear, and peace movements in
comparative perspective. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Kelly, J. (1998). Rethinking industrial relations. Mobilization, collectivism and long waves.
Routledge.
Pero’, D. (2019). Indie unions, organizing and labour renewal learning from precarious migrant
workers. Work, Employment and Society, 34(5), 900–918. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0950017019885075
Tassinari, A., & Maccarrone, V. (2020). Riders on the storm. Workplace solidarity among gig
economy couriers in Italy and the UK. Work, Employment and Society, 34(1), 35–54. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0950017019862954
Van Dyke, N., & McCammon, H. J. (eds). (2010). Strategic alliances: Coalition building and social
movements. University of Minnesota Press.

View publication stats