Labor internationalism and the contradictions of globalization: Or, why the local is sometimes still important in a global economy

In this paper I examine two case studies of workers fighting against transn ationally organized corporations. In the first case, a 1990-1992 dispute be tween the United Steelworkers of America and the Ravenswood Aluminum Corpor ation, union workers developed an international campaign to pressure the co rporation to rehire them after they had been locked out in a dispute over h ealth and safety issues. In the second case, a 1998 dispute between the Uni ted Auto Workers and General Motors, strikes by workers at just two plants in Flint, Michigan over the corporation's plans to introduce new work rules resulted in the virtual shutdown of GM for several weeks. Drawing on these two cases, I suggest that, in challenging transnationally organized employ ers, workers may on some occasions best achieve their goals through engagin g in practices of transnational solidarity aimed at matching the global org anization of their employer ("organizing globally"), whereas on other occas ions they may be able to do so through highly focused local actions ("organ izing locally") against strategic parts of a corporation. Of course, which of these two strategies is most likely to succeed in particular cases will depend on a coterie of contingencies, such as how interconnected the corpor ation's component parts are. However, the fact that different geographical strategies may be open to workers challenging globally organized capital me ans at least two things. First, some workers may not have to organize at th e same geographical scale (ie globally) as corporations in order to challen ge them. Second, through their choices of which strategy to pursue, workers are clearly shaping the very process of globalization itself and the new g lobal geographies which globalization is auguring.