Shih-Hao Kang a thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology
Download 2.45 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Introduction
- The academic interpretation and the confusion
- Identifying the role of activist network
- The knowledge of being an insider among Russian workers
- Lights from methodological reflection
- Structure
AbstractThe nature and prospect of Russian workers’ self-organisation has been interpreted variously since the re-birth of the Russian labour movement. Some analysts put the weight on structural characteristics, in which most particularly the inherited legacy of the soviet type of social relations of production, and suggest the continuation of such characters within the Russian labour relations remains the main obstacle to the transformation of Russian trade unions. By stressing the comparison of successful and failed post-soviet labour conflicts, other analysts, though recognising the force of objective conditions, argue that Russian workers have made a great step forward, by that their critical weakness would greatly depend on the capacity of the trade union. The central question of the thesis is therefore assigned to identify the role of work organisation and the social organisation of the workplace, on the one hand, and the capacity and strategy of union organisers, on the other, in encouraging or discouraging the formation of collective identity, on the basis of a comparative study of the new/alternative trade union organisations of railway workers and dockers in St Petersburg. This research explored the relations between the three aspects – work, union organisation and concrete collective activities – within the two research case studies. Unlike the majority of Russian workers, the struggles of train drivers and dockers in St Petersburg present meaningful and contrasting characteristics to review both sides of the arguments above. Through interviews, documentary research and participant observation, this research identifies the formal similarities of their work organisation and trade union, focusing on the networks of worker activists who form the core of the independent trade unions, those who are neither ambitious leaders nor passive workers, and reviews considerable differences between the two groups of workers. The case study firstly demonstrate that neither subjective nor objective conditions are sufficient to expect an effective workers’ organisation, there must be an original combination of both. Both the dockers and the railway workers have the subjective conditions (dedicated activists), but the railway workers face unfavourable objective conditions. The limitations of the dockers’ organisational coordination, however, show that the favourable objective conditions are not sufficient to guarantee a genuinely successful outcome. This thesis therefore contributes to, and hopefully, develops a substantive explanation of the ‘alienated collectivism’ and limitations of self-organisation and institutional channels of representation among Russian workers. IntroductionThe development and possible transformation of Russian workers’ self-organisation in the transition of the country from the soviet planned system to a capitalist market economy has been a topic of considerable interest and debate. Massive media coverage of Russian workers’ strikes in the late 1980s impressed many observers around the world. Some researchers (Aves, 1992; Levchik, 2003) are convinced that the new Russian labour movement had emerged and played a critical role in the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Ironically, instead of benefiting from its assumed impact, the actors who brought about such an impressive historic change – Russian workers as a whole – suffered greatly from the reform policies introduced by the governments on which they had pinned their hopes. Was this a case of the Russian workers pressing demands at the wrong time, while the social conditions as a whole prevented them from receiving any benefit? Or was it the case that the workers did not really own the strength but something else to act for themselves? Analysts like Gordon and Klopov (2000) and Katsva (2002) suggest that the Russian labour movement should be treated as proceeding through two significant stages: the workers firstly mobilised in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but during the subsequent period workers lost faith in reform and the effectiveness of collective action, since the economic reform caused a sharp fall of their living standards. Another argument (Clarke, 1996a) suggests that within the emerged protests or mobilisations in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the workers’ demands was more often provoked (or organised) by their enterprise management rather than by the workers themselves. These arguments have driven fellow studies to answer what had really happened and what was really happening in the relations between the normal working people and the regime elites during the period of post-soviet transformation. My initial interest was to understand the effect of such bitter life experiences in their social lives, and to study the character and the general tendency of the Russian labour movement after 1988. The conclusion of my initial (MA) study led me to focus on the interpretation of the aftermath of the split of labour resistance, the radicalisation of small groups of workers and the failure to establish effective labour organization. With all its concrete description, the study, however, was not yet fully satisfactory. The original idea of the study was to employ a politico-economic approach in order to evaluate the role of the new Russian labour movement during the transition of the society. The conclusion, though, indicated the development of the movement has reached a critical point when Russian trade unions had to overcome their weakness in the changing Russian politics. The analysis ended on a rather abstract note, with a criticism of the problematic policy of the union leadership and of the strategy of those who were involved in the workers’ movement in Russia. Similar views can also be found in many academic analyses. By revisiting these interpretations, I realised that such researches did not go through a further re-examination of the social context of such a strategic-oriented explanation; neither the dynamic nor the actual obstacles facing the workers’ movement can be properly comprehended in the understanding of the social transition in Russia. A concrete and in-depth investigation of the changes in the field of Russian labour organisation as well as labour relations at the enterprise level therefore turned out to be a fundamental task of my research interest. The academic interpretation and the confusionAs most analysts agree, Soviet trade unions were bureaucratic organisations controlled by the Party and the industry managerial elites. In 1989-91 there was an upsurge of independent workers’ organisation, led by the miners which later on became the backbone of the development of alternative trade union in Russia. But the independent / alternative unions never grew strong enough to replace or to challenge the traditional unions; they rather survive as a few successful but isolated organisations representing some specific professional groups. Part of the explanation for this is the adaption of social partnership between FNPR and the government, and collaboration between traditional unions and management in the workplace, which froze out and repressed the alternative unions (Connor 1996; Ashwin and Clarke 2002). Analysts who study the transition of post-soviet Russian society point out that the most fundamental characteristic of current Russian labour relations is that, even at the enterprise level, the unique social relations of production inherited from the Soviet economic system still maintain a strong influence and this has been the main barrier to forming a new type of labour organisation within the Russian labour movement (Clarke et al. 1993). The question remains of why some workers organise in alternative unions and others do not? It tends to be particular professional groups who form alternative unions, some of whom are well-paid and have some labour market power, but others are not (e.g. teachers and health workers). Crowley (n.d., p.1) pointed out that ‘the various studies have not reached a consensus on what they seek to explain, and some of the main questions remain contentious’. As I will show in Chapter One, the explanations proposed by these studies embrace different approaches and emphases in their estimations of Russian workers, and thus there are quite opposite views.1 Generally, there are a number of analytical factors and arguments presented in these various interpretative approaches. A group of scholars (Mandel 2000; Buzgalin et al. 2000; Maksimov 2001a) concluded that the critical problem derives from the weakness of trade union leadership and strategy and propose the need for reform of such leadership and strategy. In their view, Russian workers - especially their leaders - have not perceived the way of learning from either the failed or the successful workers’ struggles to overcome their weakness to develop an appropriate strategy which will enable them to build a stronger and more united labour organisation and labour politics. Such an approach eventually places the role of union (organisational) activities as the premier factor in the transformation of Russian labour relations and politics. The second argument, which has been developed on the basis of the widely acknowledged factor of the legacy of soviet social relations of production, points at the form of the ‘collective’ and ‘community’ as the determinant force in the character of workers’ self-organisation (Clarke et al 1993; Borisov 1996; Ilyin 1998; Ashwin 1999). According to such an account, that was why the miners could organise a relatively solid trade union organisation. And that is also why their active trade union organisation coexisted with the lack of self-organisation in the workplace. The third factor, which represents a mixture of arguments, is the impact of the environment of social organisation on the trade union movement (such as the effect of the new Russian Labour Code), which is the major factor underlying the development of Russian trade unionism. The definition of ‘environment’, however, varies according to the context of the analysts’ conception. Some analysts extend it as a historical-cultural ‘tradition / phenomenon’ of the necessary process of democratisation (Gordon and Klopov, 2000). Others might also refer it to the common mentality of the Russian public after the bitter neo-liberal reform, such as the ‘consumption attitude’ of an individual solution (Kagarlitsky, 1999). Certainly, the factors described above have been employed in the research contexts not as a pure, theoretical model of explanation based on one single factor, but each factor is identified as one among many. The issue, however, is which is identified as the determinant factor in explaining the specific character of Russian trade unionism. In my view, a critical clarification of these explanatory factors – the dynamics of the interface of objective impact and subjective development, (i.e. the social relations at the workplace and the organisation of workers’ labour) – has not been properly treated in many investigations. Various studies, whether based on generalisation or individual cases, have not yet reached an effective answer to the limited dynamic of the characteristics of organised Russian labour. That is similar to the critical weakness within my previous work: little progress had been undertaken to distinguish the dynamic relations among the structural and subjective factors. To take one example, it would be fairly doubtful that in a society where the economic system is changing towards the capitalist mode of production, with the social relation of production transformed, the pattern of workers’ self-organization itself will automatically foster struggles typical of those that Western workers have experienced. Not to mention that the content of industrial relations in each society have actually varied over its own history (Ferner and Hyman 1998). Moreover, it will be important to clarify, and then, to re-integrate the scenes lying behind the visible development of Russian trade union organisations. There are three distinct layers of the workers’ daily organisational network: (workplace) social relations, union organisation and campaigns (action). To take a concrete example, when the union president of the alternative union committee of the Vyborg Pulp and Paper Mill decided to take legal action against the process of ownership transfer, the union leader suggested that such a decision had been made because the atmosphere for the workers had changed. Or was it a more comfortable decision for the union leader, who would then not have to face the fact that there was a lack of organisational practice in the union? Each layer of the three could be observed separately, and then one could analyse how these factors relate to each other. It seems, however, that a mixture of the three distinguishable layers mentioned earlier is often seen in various studies. Such confusing or even simply missing aspects were partly due to the weakness of the research to stretch the observation further. Critical scenes behind those most visible features of industrial relations (such as the number of strike or dispute events, the labour leadership, or the union’s formal functions) are barely confronted. More concretely, there has been a significant lack of observation of the lively-but-relatively-hidden networks of organised labour, which should firstly be distinguished into the acts of leaders, activists and ordinary workers. Their networks, and the effect on their organisations, usually underlie the most visible outcome but are not easy to reach for outsiders. Efficient investigation of the hidden networks could firstly help to distinguish the responses and choices of workers, the campaigns and capable forms of labour organisation, and finally the nature of the struggles. The benefit of such an investigation is that it could also provide a fresh insight for the analytic framework, in terms of the concern about what kind of role the subjective factor of union activities can play and what is the critical limit confronting their efforts. In other words, the understanding of networks can be expected to examine the boundary between the structures and the actors in concrete situations.
It would not be difficult to see the changes of the two societies own different nature. The development of the labour movement in Taiwan, to some extent, had several interesting similarities compared to that of Russia. The ‘Law on Trade Unions’ in Taiwan was drawn up based on a reformed copy of the original Soviet version despite the ruling elites’ anticommunism doctrine. Labour conflicts and independent organisations had vanished for several decades until 1987-1988; the labour movement was associated with the call for ‘democratisation’; there the resources for independent labour organisations are insufficient; there people more often look for a saviour, a powerful politician rather than making self-organisation. In other words, the mechanism of institutionalisation of industrial action, like that found in the advanced countries, had just started on its way.2 In addition, the role of informal relations has always been reversible and controversial in the daily practice for running labour organisations. Recalling my participant experiences in Taiwan, the existence of so-called ‘informal relationships’, such as kinship and friendship at the workplace, were actually rational and powerful among the participants, especially for people who are striving to build (or rebuild) their own organization with poor institutional resource. Whether these informal relationships might either provide immediate strength or, contrarily, erosion of the direction of the campaign or movement in practice, has been an important factor within the actions undertaken. The effect of these informal relationships, eventually, reflects the tangled combinations of networks and resources of the people involved. (To some extent, it even could be misleading if one simply treated the ‘informal’ aspects of a campaign or movement as a ‘negative’ dimension of the social relations of the community.) Arguably, people refer to these ‘relationships’ as a necessary procedure and the point is to understand the network of mutual relations and to learn how effective the network and the strategy can be in the practice of self-organisation. These experiences of participation impelled me to look at the whole effort and process of interaction between unfavourable conditions and subjective (unavoidable) acts. Noteworthily, the outsiders were hardly likely to notice the existence and effect of these relationships within the community. Many conflicting but insightful narratives lie behind the obvious outcomes. Inspired by my own experiences, I became convinced that the most critical observation for identifying the pattern of organisational activities of Russian workers would be one which focused on and stretched out from the networks and their corresponding strategies. With such a point of view, I started to set up research contacts for the fieldwork on Russian workers and their organisations. The knowledge of being an insider among Russian workersMy later experiences encountering workers and labour activists in St Petersburg generated more critical insights for my investigation. The experience prompted surprise and respect. Many Russian workers I had met were highly literate people, compared to the Taiwanese workers I worked with.3 On various occasions, I met ordinary workers who had learned how to use labour law and then even became legal consultants. Furthermore, I experienced many scenes which the academic interpretations did not anticipate, due to the limit of contact while being an outsider.4 More impressive findings came out during my fieldwork period in St Petersburg. There were dozens of labour organisations ‘existing’ or ‘functioning’ with their own activists around the region. Leaders of primary organisations of the so-called ‘free’ trade unions sat or stood together with leaders of official union organisations (of other enterprises) for common issues. In several campaigns, they supported and coordinated with each other. And just like the group of analysts mentioned earlier, people who are involved in the local labour movement pay a lot of attention to and argue a lot about the problems of union leadership, the coordination and creating solidarity. According to the survey of VTsIOM, Maksimov (2004, p.80) suggests that ‘until the beginning of 2000, quite high level of Russian workers (over 20 percent of worker respondents on average) have shown they were ready to take part in protest actions’. There is a similar result presented by other researches (Bizyukov et al. 2004). Many occasions showed that people established new organisations, but the scene afterward was repeated with little difference: the initiators usually had little faith in recruiting new members to join their organisation and more likely act on their own behalf. Still, it is meaningful for us to note that the people did organise their resistance, while most of this resistance did not last for long, and a more important point is that these efforts were not even shared or taken as a common lesson to be learned among the activists or the grassroots groups. My personal presence at the pickets, meetings and internal discussions helped me not only by establishing useful contacts with local labour activists but also by ‘collecting’ information which was unfamiliar but very insightful. The first impression was quite different from the remote mining region in the study of Ashwin (1999). To take one example, the participants normally spoke about the need for labour struggles and they were active in ‘discussing’ their perspective, but the connections between these union leaders and activists were normally little more than personal bravery and tenacity. The campaigns or labour disputes seemed to have a common rule, that they have normally been poorly organised and mobilised. Those activists I met are quite capable of conducting the basic functions of daily union activities, but mostly the activities were confined to a limited or individual circle. These scenes provided me with a useful insight about the culture and the pattern of the organisational activities in this society, which also reminded me that the background of the local struggles was very different from what I had imagined. More importantly, a close, direct observation of these activists’ responses and networks in this research revealed more stories behind the claims of the activists or the organisation leaders. While many activists complained that their workers are too passive or too scared to come out, to generalise the patterns of their organisations from the visible campaigns or the leaders’ explanations could easily lead to the neglect of other important factors. If workers are indifferent and show a passive response to the unions’ efforts, why did some of these local union organisations develop themselves into new-style labour organisations, while some others fell into highly individual networks. To understand what are the differences among the union organisations －even those union organisations that have shared similar backgrounds – it is therefore critical to subject the networks of these activists (active workers) to further analysis. Moreover, those non-leader activists at the enterprise level themselves actually provide a direct reference to their workplace conditions since their organisational positions provide them with little more institutional resources than ordinary workers. In most cases, the ‘leaders’ of alternative trade unions could not afford to work as union staff paid by union dues, but have to work as their colleagues do. However, it is still necessary to maintain a careful distinction between the daily response / contact of the ordinary workers, the union activists, and the union strategy, in order to avoid ‘false imagination’ or, on the contrary, loose judgement (whether expecting Russian workers to change their conditions or treating them as fully incompetent to take action). Such an investigation could produce a meaningful insight not only for the local participants but also for sociologists studying Russian labour and society.
Doing research into an object where the institution and the formal and informal relations easily tangle with one another often misled a researcher who is gaining and maintaining the access between ‘staying as an outsider’ and ‘exploring workers’ activities’. It has been a great benefit from my ‘participant’ experience in the social movement in both Taiwan and in Russia, which sharpened such insight concern. Back to my experience in the labour movement in Taiwan, I had noticed the inner culture of the organisation was one of the most difficult tasks for the participants to explain. These experiences had made me encountered sensitive occasions such as requests ‘not to reveal the details to outsiders’. As one consequence, it was very likely people did not want to reveal more details and facts about their organisational activities to researchers / outsiders. The situation in the two societies could differ: in Taiwan, the attitude of generally high respect towards intellectuals on the other side also deepened their scepticism after they felt disappointed with the latter; in Russia, most activists did not pay much attention to the ‘showing-up’ of intellectuals.5 These interactions might affect the collecting of narratives for our study, which also can limit the researcher’s ability to develop their further interpretation. These difficulties, however, have not been seriously discussed in industrial relations studies. During my stay and participant experiences with the local activists’ circle in St Petersburg, I have witnessed many ‘disputable’ interpretations and reports over the events or development of the labour conflict. One substantial reason for such problematic interpretations came from the obstacle that we can hardly avoid taking the leaders’ opinions as key information. With such a ‘one-dimensional’ contact, it is therefore very likely that we will ignore many internal scenarios which are meaningful in order to reveal the conflict of the workers’ attempts and efforts. I felt it necessary to adopt a unique design for this research. As discussed in more detail in Chapter One, the case study for this thesis aimed to trace the ground of worker-union contact and the work of the union activists using an ethnographic and participant approach to the research objects On the basis of my initial fieldwork observing trade union activists in St Petersburg, I identified two active groups (both with alternative trade unions) – the dockers and the railway workers – which had been established in the early 1990s, but who were now struggling after the implementation of the new Labour Code, which discriminated strongly against the alternative trade unions, and the withdrawal of AFL-CIO financial support, which had been the main source of funding of alternative unions. These two groups of workers seemed to present meaningful activities as well as an ideal comparison for the research. All of these theoretical and methodological concerns combined together, then, stimulated me to present an alternative study to develop the theorisation of Russian labour relations. The central question I want to address in this thesis is what are the factors encouraging or inhibited the development of independent workers’ organisation? In order to address this question I decided to undertake case studies of two active alternative trade union organisations in St Petersburg, the dockers and the railway workers, in order to identify the factors that explain the relative strength of the former and the relative weakness of the latter. As noted above, some analysts emphasise the fundamental role of union strategy and leadership in determining the prospects for Russian workers’ organisation, it is therefore important to examine the character of the strategy and leadership of the two organisations. On the other hand, my experience in Taiwan and Russia had already indicated to me the importance of social networks in and around the workplace in determining the capacity of workers to organise themselves effectively, and the character of these social networks depends, to a considerable extent, on the character of the work environment and occupational community, so I will compare these factors across various workplaces in the docks and the railways to see to what extent their differences explain differences in the character of worker organisation. The main task in the case studies is to identify the relationship between individualism and collectivism among the workers, and the role of work organisation and the social organisation of the workplace in encouraging or discouraging the formation of a collective identity. This research aims to observe how the union activity is presented in everyday life, then to examine why it is relatively comfortable for Russian workers to establish new representative organisations but difficult to make these organisations well represented and dynamic. The central question I want to address in this thesis is what is the role of the work environment and occupational community in encouraging or inhibiting independent workers’ organisation? With a similar concern, Ashwin’s (1999) ethnographic investigation on miners’ community at Taldym presented insightful observation of the factors which affected the (lack of) self-organisation, but her research, like many others’, focused specifically on miners. So how does her argument stand up when we look at railway workers and dockers? Supported by the reflection of my experiences (in Taiwan and Russia) presented in the previous paragraphs, the basic design for the research hypothesis can develop into three parts through the basic investigation of workers’ interaction at their workplace; the pattern of union activity at the workplace; and the (coordinating) role of union activity. Finally, the conclusion of this thesis comes to argue that it is work organisation and the social relations of the workforce that is decisive, geographical proximity / socialisation does not seem to be sufficient to overcome the fragmentation of the workplace. Representing the force of mobilised Russian workers, the key difference between the railway workers and the dockers (and miners) is in the social organisation of work, where dockers and miners work much more in self-managed collectives, while railway workers are more fragmented and under stricter management control. This case study shows that neither subjective nor objective conditions are sufficient to create an effective workers’ organisation: both the dockers and the railway workers have the subjective conditions (dedicated activists), but the railway workers have unfavourable objective conditions. The limited dynamics of the dockers’ organisation, however, show that even in this case the favourable objective conditions are not sufficient to guarantee a completely successful outcome. We may conceive the consequences of this analysis for the politics of Russian workers as a whole. Even with much active effort, Russian workers’ organisations can easily and repeatedly constitute various organisational forms which share the same limits, which impede their transformation into a strong and genuine organisational force able to defend their own labour rights and change the roots of their labour organisation. It remains to be seen whether the new wave of alternative union organisations, such as the recent struggle of autoworkers at the Ford factory, will repeat the experience of the past, or whether the Ford workers will be able to transcend it. StructureBy focusing on the relations between the three aspects – work, union organisation and collective activities – the thesis is composed in this way. The first part of the study presents a comprehensive review of the tendency of the Russian labour movement, the interpretation of the nature and characteristics of the movement and the advantage of conducting an empirical study to identify the contrasting arguments among various interpretative approaches. The first section of Chapter One presents the history of the Russian labour movement since 1989 with critical events and facts to introduce how Russian labour and their organisations responded to the enormous transition period since the collapse of the Soviet system. The understanding of the facts has differed depending on the various analytical views employed. The second section of Chapter One thus aims to review the fundamental differences, especially those unresolved arguments, between the different approaches. I clarify analytic aspects of Russian labour studies to present several key concepts of their progress. The clarification provides a contrasting analysis of the gap between the subjective and objective factors within the development of Russian workers’ organisations. In order to conduct a further investigation to identify the formation and prospects of workers’ collective activities, the final two sections of this chapter provide the methodological framework of the empirical case study, together with a reflection on the themes of privilege and risk during the fieldwork in St Petersburg. The second part of the thesis consists of the case studies of the railway workers, especially train drivers, on the October Railway, and the dockers at the Seaport of St Petersburg. Before introducing the patterns of the two alternative / independent trade unions at the enterprise level, both case studies firstly analyse the general structure of the enterprise and the content of the workers’ work conditions, including the features of career, payment and grievances. Based on interviews and observation, the details of the workplace relations of railway workers on the October Railway are presented in the first section of Chapter Three, in which the reader will soon notice that the railway workers, even the locomotive brigades, adopt highly alienated and individualised solutions to their problems. Against such a general atmosphere, the second section of this chapter moves on to provide a brief introduction of the major trade union in the Russian railway sector. The focus is put on Russian Trade Union of Locomotive Brigades of Railway Workers (RPLBZh), the alternative rival of the very traditional Russian Trade Union of Railway Workers and Transport Construction Workers (ROSPROFZhEL), so that the study is able to link the formation of RPLBZh to the local coordination for collective organisation. Chapter Three is therefore designed to explain what the local RPLBZh activists have made in terms of uniting the interests of railway workers on October Railway. The analysis in the conclusion of the chapter reveals the once active primary organisations, together with other non-RPLBZh free trade unions, perform as a highly individualised labour agency with the form of ‘one-depot-one-union’. Following the same approach, Chapter Four firstly reveals the substantial changes of managerial structure of Russian seaport transportation and the current composition of the ownership and the administration of the Open Joint Stock Company of the Seaport of St Petersburg. The investigation of the dockers at the five major stevedore companies provides the characteristics of their work organisation and their growing grievance over the payment standard. The relatively brigade-based collectivism in the docks therefore leads this chapter to focus on the well-organised port union organisation of the Russian Trade Union of Dockers to reveal the achievements and weaknesses of the dockers’ collective-union operation. The coincident meeting with the latest strike action taking place by dockers in three of the five companies in 2004 and 2005 impelled me to collect details and the participants’ opinions to constitute the first two sections of Chapter Five. The analysis of the unreported coordination basis behind the union’s mobilisation and solidarity making for strike action in the third section, on the one hand, shows the capacity of local RPD (Russian Trade Union of Dockers) activists; and provides a contrasting account for the critical insight in the concluding section, on the other hand. The main point developed in the last section suggests that the type of the dockers’ workplace unionism reflects the workplace fragmentation and has confined the strength of the dockers’ collective-union relations. Finally, the integrated conclusion extracted from the comparison of the two case studies comprises three arguments in Chapter Six. In the first and second section, the conclusion asserts that, despite the occurrence of self-organisation of the two groups of workers, the formation of the pattern of their self-organisation is defined more by the character of work organisation and its social organisation than by the activists’ subjective realisation. In fact, the case study shows that neither subjective nor objective conditions are sufficient to create an effective workers’ organisation: both the dockers and the railway workers have their dedicated activists, but the railway workers face rather unfavourable objective conditions. The limitations of the dockers’ organisation, however, present a critical reflection that even in this case the favourable objective conditions did not guarantee a completely successful outcome. Thus it appears that a substantial understanding must get through a reflexive combination of both conditions, but under the current climate of Russian trade unionism it is rather likely to see Russian workers embracing limited dynamics of favourable practice for the unity of active trade unions. Referring to such understanding, in the third section I suggest that the contribution of this research is its ability to associate with the analytic approach which emphasises the role of the soviet type of social relations of production in contemporary Russian labour relations, and the two approaches together should generate a potent pattern for the sociological investigation of the transformation of post-soviet societies. Directory: russia russia -> 852 The year when the timeline of the Primary Chronicle starts russia -> Airborne Troops (vdv) russia -> To me this is all the cards I would read (if necessary) in my 2nc russia -> Syllabus form russia -> Russian, us military planes in near miss over Syria russia -> 10: 00am–5: 00pm Participant List russia -> Russia’s Strategy in the Arctic: Cooperation, not confrontation Download 2.45 Mb. Share with your friends:
|