Justice for Janitors: The Diffusion of an Organizing Model

DeFreitas, Gregory. “Can Unions Win at Region-wide Low-wage Organizing? A Conversation with Hector Figueroa of ‘Justice for Janitors.’” Regional Labor Review 4 (Fall 2001): 12-22.

Gregory DeFreitas’ interview with Hector Figueroa, then Secretary-Treasurer of SEIU Local 32BJ in NYC (and currently the local’s Commercial Division Director), focuses on the East Coast Justice for Janitors (JFJ) campaign launched in April of 2001. Figueroa’s description of the East Coast JFJ campaign and the organizing work undertaken by Local 32BJ complements the case studies of Waldinger et al., Erickson et al., and Rudy in deepening my understanding of the various components of JFJ. Figueroa explains that the campaign’s organizing strategy relies on worker-to-worker  organizing rather than on staff organizers, which differs from earlier accounts of JFJ organizing strategy in Los Angeles. Figueroa’s description of the organizing strategy at Local 32BJ shows that a ‘bottom-up’ mobilization strategy has remained a vital component of the model, and may have further developed after the Los Angeles campaign. Yet he also argues for the need to centralize and streamline leadership and calls for the AFL-CIO to take a more active role in coordinating the JFJ campaign. Figueroa’s remarks on the difficulty of incorporating immigrants into the union after they have been mobilized is part of a broader discussion over the consequences of rank and file mobilization to the organizational structure of the union. By obtaining annual union disclosure reports from the Office of Labor and Management Standards, I can compare organizational structures before and after the implementation of the Justice for Janitors model.

Figueroa explains that an important ingredient for the campaign’s success is convincing employers, and the community at large, that the plight of the janitors is a social problem. In his case study of the campaign in San Jose and Sacramento, Rudy also argues the importance of framing to the campaign’s public relations strategy. Figueroa also discusses the campaign’s region-wide strategy for negotiating contracts, which was employed in Los Angeles and in other JFJ campaigns.  He mentions geographic obstacles to implementing the campaign in Long Island, Morris County and Bergen County, and discusses the need to adapt the JFJ model to different geographies. Examination of the JFJ model in Long Island, Morris County and Bergen County might provide examples of how the model changes as it is diffused to different geographic contexts.

DeFreitas’ open-ended questions prompted Figueroa to reveal considerable detail on the nature of the East Coast JFJ campaign. I will keep in mind his interview format as I write up my interview questions and begin my interviews.

DiMaggio, Paul J. and Walter W. Powell. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48 (April 1983): 147-160. Retrieved October 12, 2005 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224%28198304%2948%3A2%3C147%3ATICRII%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S.

In their paper, DiMaggio and Powell seek to explain why organizations within the same field are so similar to each other. Initially, in an emerging field there is variation in organizational structure, but as the field becomes more defined, organizational structures are homogenized. The authors describe this process as ‘isomorphism’, which they further define as a process in which organizations are compelled to become similar to other organizations in the same field. They describe two types of isomorphism: competitive and institutional isomorphism. The authors consider the concept of competitive isomorphism to be relevant to the study of organizations that operate in a freely competitive market.  Such organizations adopt homogenizing innovations because they improve their performance. However, the authors argue that modern organizations often adopt innovations that do not improve their performance, but rather provide a sense of legitimacy. Thus, the authors claim that institutional isomorphism is the more useful concept with which to examine modern organizations. DiMaggio and Powell identify three mechanisms of institutional isomorphic change: coercive isomorphism, mimetic isomorphism, and normative isomorphism. Coercive isomorphism results when organizations feel pressure from those organizations on which they are dependent, as well as from the cultural expectations of the society to which they belong. Mimetic isomorphism results when organizations model themselves on other organizations because of uncertainty in the external environment or because their own organizational goals are ambiguous. Organizations may seek to increase their sense of legitimacy by modeling themselves on similar organizations in their field that are considered to be more legitimate or successful. This may occur intentionally or unintentionally. Normative isomorphism results from the increased professionalization of staff in organizations: professionals within a field exhibit common norms due to similar education and socialization, and these norms are diffused through professional networks. The authors cite many case studies of different types of organizations to provide concrete examples of the different mechanisms for isomorphic change. They then put forth various hypotheses that predict instances of isomorphic change based on organizational and environmental characteristics.

The authors’ analysis of the mechanisms of isomorphic change is a useful framework for my study of the diffusion of the Justice for Janitors model because it will help explain why some SEIU locals adopted the JFJ model. Each mechanism provides a set of possible reasons for adoption of a model, allowing me to concretize the variables that I will look for in tracking the diffusion of the model. However, the authors admit that these mechanisms may empirically be indistinguishable and thus they might be more useful as starting points for my investigation rather than as categorization tools. Also, the authors’ predictive hypotheses offer scenarios in which diffusion may occur. It will be interesting to see if some of their hypotheses are borne out by my research.

Erickson, Christopher L., Catherine Fisk, Ruth Milkman, Daniel J. B. Mitchell, and Kent Wong. “Justice for Janitors in Los Angeles: Lessons from Three Rounds of Negotiations.” British Journal of Industrial Relations 40 (September 2002): 543-567. Retrieved September 23, 2009 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=330001.

This paper continues the research begun by Waldinger et al. in “Helots No More: A Case Study of the Justice for Janitors Campaign in Los Angeles,” and examines the implementation of the JFJ model from 1987 to 2001.  Erickson et al. argue that the success of the model was due to the use of innovative legal tactics, alternative pattern bargaining, and effective coalition building. The authors conducted extensive interviews with union leaders, union lawyers and organizers, and data from these interviews is supplemented by media accounts of the campaign. Their paper is structured as a narrative of Local 399’s three rounds of negotiation with building services contractors and building owners. The authors conclude that the local’s ability to build influential coalitions and manage public opinion were crucial to the local’s ability to negotiate favorable contracts.

Erickson et al. provide background on the structure of the building services industry, and how this structure affects union efforts to organize and protest. The authors’ account of the implications of labor law for union protests is very important to my understanding of the context in which JFJ operates. The authors also clearly describe the strike and negotiating strategies employed by JFJ in Los Angeles, which they distinguish from conventional strike and negotiating strategies employed by most unions. Thus their discussion serves to help me define what constitutes the Justice for Janitors model, as well as why and how it is different from other union models. The author’s analysis of the JFJ strategy to engage in alternative pattern bargaining sheds light on the international union’s plan to export the model nationwide, and thus is relevant to my research on the model’s diffusion. The authors define traditional pattern bargaining as a strategy often employed within a region, in which the union attempts to organize all the major employers and have them sign identical contracts, thus taking labor costs out of competition for employers in that region. Since pattern bargaining helps spread the terms and conditions of employment from one set of negotiations to another, I will discuss it in my paper as a mechanism for diffusion. Alternative pattern bargaining, as defined by Erickson et al., involves working towards a national, rather than regional, contract, and so will have an even greater impact on the diffusion of the JFJ model. The authors’ point out how a successful campaign, such as the one in Los Angeles, serves as a ‘pattern setter’ for the rest of the country, as both employers and workers nationwide become aware of the possibilities for a different type of contract. The authors also mention the role played by Spanish language media in disseminating information on the Los Angeles campaign; such media accounts are also relevant to my discussion of diffusion.

Fantasia, Rick and Kim Voss. Hard Work: Remaking the American Labor Movement.

Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, 2004.

In their book, Fantasia and Voss argue that a strong labor movement is necessary to improve the living standards of American workers. They discuss why American unions are less powerful than their counterparts in other industrialized countries by providing an overview of the political, economic, legal, and cultural obstacles confronted by unions, but point out the possibilities for labor movement revitalization. Fantasia and Voss contrast business unionism with social movement unionism (of which they consider JFJ to be an example) and define six major points of difference. They point out that a crucial component of a social movement unionism model is adaptability. This complements Preston Rudy’s analysis of the Justice for Janitors campaign in Sacramento and raises an interesting question about the model’s diffusion: how to track diffusion if change by adaptation is a component of the model?  The authors examine the Los Angeles Justice for Janitors model, and their discussion is similar to that of Waldinger et al. and Erickson et al. Fantasia and Voss also mention scales of mobilization (analogous to Lydia Savage’s scales of organizing), which will be an example of mimetic isomorphism that I will explore in my research.

The authors’ prose is clear and infused with a sense of urgency that makes the book a very engaging read. Their writing style is effective in communicating the importance of their topic to all Americans, and thus reminds me of the role of style in disseminating my ideas.

Fink, Leon and Brian Greenberg. Upheaval in the Quiet Zone: 1199 SEIU and the Politics of Health Care Unionism. 2^nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2009.

In their book, social historians Fink and Greenberg describe the history of Local 1199 from its inception to the present. They are particularly concerned with the local’s development from a primarily blue-collar union based in New York to a nationwide organization that included pink and white-collar members. The authors situate their study of Local 1199 within the recent scholarship that discusses revitalization labor unions. Their work is also relevant to the study of how union models adapt to evolving political, legal, and economic contexts. Fink and Greenberg conducted extensive interviews with union leaders, and examined union documents, media accounts and other written sources.

Fink and Greenberg’s in-depth account of the history of Local 1199 also serves as a primer on the history of health care unionism, which is vital to my discussion of the possible diffusion of the Justice for Janitors model to health care locals. The current local 1199 model, as described by the authors, appears to be quite different from the JFJ model: there is an emphasis on workplace, legislative, and political cooperation with hospital management.  However, the authors’ description of the local’s merger with SEIU in 1998 provides some possible avenues for exploration. Dennis Rivera, president of the local for nearly twenty years, left to become president of the recently formed SEIU Healthcare, a nationally consolidated alliance of SEIU health care locals. The new organization is reminiscent of international’s plans for JFJ in that it combines ‘top-down’ strategy with ‘bottom-up’ grassroots mobilization: SEIU leaders aim to centralize leadership in order to increase the union’s leverage in contract negotiations yet remain mindful of the utility of contentious protest.

Ganz, Marshall, Kim Voss, Teresa Sharpe, Carl Somers, and George Strauss. “Against the Tide: Projects and Pathways of the New Generation of Union Leaders, 1984-2001.” In Rebuilding Labor: Organizing and Organizers in the New Union Movement, eds. Ruth Milkman and Kim Voss, 150-194. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2004.

In their paper, Ganz et al. trace the careers of the new generation of California union leaders in order to evaluate how leaders’ projects change over time and how these projects interact with the organizations in which the leaders work. The authors define ‘project’ as an individual’s goals, motivations, and articulation of means for achieving said goals. Ganz et al. selected eighty-six full time union leaders with records of success who were between the ages of 30 and 45 in 1984. They conducted extensive two to three hour interviews with these individuals, and then re-interviewed sixty-eight of them in 2001. The authors coded the interviews and reconstructed each individual’s career pathway. Unlike earlier generations of union leaders, only a slim majority of the respondents came from working class backgrounds. However, the authors argue that the respondents’ conceptualization of their project was more important than demographic variables in understanding the nature of their career pathways.

The authors’ typology of union leaders’ ‘projects’ is a useful tool for categorizing organizers’ motivations and their subsequent pathways. The authors identify four types of projects: social reform, community leadership, personal advancement, and union building. Yet over time most respondents adapted their projects to union building.  However, the respondents that began with a social reform project were more likely to continue their initial project, and adapted at a lesser rate to union building than respondents with different initial projects.  The authors suggest this may be due to the fact that these respondents tended to take organizing jobs, which reinforced their social reform project. This has interesting implications for my research on the professionalization of union staff as a means for normative isomorphism, since it implies that organizers tend to remain committed to organizing, thus further aiding the diffusion of the model.

Lerner, Stephen. “An Immodest Proposal: A New Architecture for the House of Labor.” New Labor Forum 12 (Summer 2003): 9-30. Retrieved October 20, 2009 from http://ccnyproxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=10594395&site=ehost-live.

Stephen Lerner is the former director of Building Service Organizing for the SEIU and is currently the director of the SEIU Private Equity Project. He is considered to be the architect of the Justice for Janitors model. This paper does not focus specifically on the Justice for Janitors model but rather on his overall vision for a successful labor movement. Lerner argues that a re-structuring of the labor movement along sectoral or industry lines is necessary to improve organizing outcomes and thus increase union density. These ideas are reflected in the ‘up-scaling’ of the JFJ model (as described in Savage’s paper) in California that was meant to allow the union to negotiate region-wide rather than locally. As I discuss in the Savage annotation, ‘up-scaling’ appears to be a component of the model that also serves as a mechanism for diffusion.

Given Lerner’s central role in the development and diffusion of the JFJ model, his writing is vital to my understanding of how the model was conceived.  I am reading much of writing in order to reconstruct the evolution of his thoughts on the model. Although I may not be able to interview him, I will be interviewing organizers who have been influenced by his ideas.

Martin, Andrew W. “Organizational Structure, Authority and Protest: The Case of Union Organizing in the United States, 1990-2001.” Social Forces 85 (March 2007): 1413-1435. Retrieved October 18, 2009 from http://ccnyproxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24391198&site=ehost-live

In his paper, Martin addresses the relationship between the distribution of authority within social movement organizations and their goals and strategies by examining the impact of organizational structure on union organizing. Martin identifies various sources of authority within unions: elected administrative officials, professional staff, parent organization, and the rank and file. He analyzes the impact of authority structure on three aspects of union organizing: resource allocation, repertoire selection, and organizing outcomes. Martin collected detailed information on the sampled unions from the Office of Labor and Management Standards, the National Labor Relations Board, and media accounts of non-NLRB organizing campaigns. Using hierarchical linear modeling, he examines the variation in the dependent variables over time and across individual unions. His model reveals interesting relationships between authority structure and organizing behaviors. However, Martin points out that while the distribution of authority has an effect on the nature of the union organizing, it has no effect on organizing success. Thus, he concludes that his model is useful for illuminating the mechanisms through which authority structure and organizing outcomes are related.

Martin’s discussion of the basic organizational structure of unions is useful to my understanding of the organizational variation between union models. I need to determine the basic organizational structure of the Justice for Janitors model and whether or not it is a necessary component of the model.

McAdam, Doug and Dieter Rucht. “The Cross-National Diffusion of Movement Ideas.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 528 (July 1993): 56-74. Retrieved October 18 2006 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7162%28199307%29528%3C56%3ATCDOMI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S.

McAdam and Rucht argue that cross-national diffusion of ideas occurs through direct relational ties between ‘activist-adopters’ in one country and ‘activist-transmitters’ in another country, as well as through non-relational means after initial identification is established between the two sets of activists. The authors argue that relational ties alone are not sufficient to explain the diffusion of ideas cross-nationally, and they argue that the extent of identification influences the extent to which ideas are diffused. Furthermore, the authors argue that attribution of similarity is socially constructed.  McAdam and Rucht then identify three factors that can be used to determine the occurrence of diffusion. First, one must show that the transmitter movement came before the adopter movement. Second, the two movements must have several elements in common. The adopter must exhibit an attribution of similarity with the transmitter. Lastly, one must be able to show how the relevant elements were diffused. The authors then use their model of cross-national diffusion to explain the diffusion of ideas between the German and American New Left social movements.

The authors’ identification of three factors necessary for proving the occurrence of diffusion offers a possible guideline for identifying SEIU locals that adopted the Justice for Janitors model. The concept of ‘attribution of similarity’ is intriguing in the context of my case studies since it cannot be assumed that members of health locals identify with members of building services locals. This concept will add another dimension to my exploration of diffusion since it will raise the issue of intra-union differences and potential obstacles to diffusion.

Milkman, Ruth. L.A. Story: Immigrant Workers and the Future of the U.S. Labor Movement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2006.

In her book, Milkman provides a historical background of the labor movement in southern California, and identifies three factors that contributed to the region’s labor revitalization in the 1990s: the historical predominance of American Federation of Labor (AFL) affiliated unions, an economic boom aided by employer-initiated de-unionization efforts, and the immigrant status of the low-wage workforce. The book’s primary source of data is interviews with union leaders, union lawyers, rank and file workers, contractors and managers, supplemented by media accounts of the organizing campaigns, and union documents. She examines the Justice for Janitors campaign in Los Angeles in order to identify the elements of a successful organizing campaign, and argues that the most effective campaigns are those that ‘bottom-up’ grassroots mobilization with ‘top-down’ strategies devised and implemented by a professional staff.

Milkman’s analysis of JFJ as consisting of both ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ elements is useful to my examination of the components of the JFJ model. Her work complements Savage’s analysis of JFJ as containing different levels of organizing scales and layers of leadership. However, unlike Savage, Milkman views these different components as complementary rather than inherently conflictual. Milkman distinguishes her work from more quantitative studies of union models, and explains the relevance of a case study-centered qualitative approach. She selected her interview subjects by identifying and reaching out to union leaders, rather than by a sampling frame. Thus her research design is an instructive model for my own.

Rudy, Preston. “‘Justice for Janitors,’ Not ‘Compensation for Custodians’: The Political Context and Organizing in San Jose and Sacramento.” In Rebuilding Labor: Organizing and Organizers in the New Union Movement, eds. Ruth Milkman and Kim Voss, 133-149. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004.

In his paper, Rudy compares the Justice for Janitors campaigns in San Jose (1990 to 1993) and Sacramento (1994 to 1998) and argues that the success of the model depends on its ability to adapt to local political contexts. He defines political context as the political power in the region, the specific political actors, the dominant political frames and narratives, and the region’s history of political protest. Rudy conducted informal interviews with union organizers, community activists and workers, as well as thirty formal interviews with union organizers. He supplemented his interview data with local union documents and archival materials. He describes in detail the trajectory of both campaigns. In San Jose the model was successful early on because the local political environment was already attuned to the negative consequences of corporate growth, and the city had a recent history of contentious protest. In Sacramento, the model struggled initially because there was no prior articulation of corporate growth as a social problem and no recent history of protest. Rudy argues that in order to build influential coalitions, union organizers must frame the organizing campaign as a public solution to a public problem; otherwise there is little incentive for other political actors to offer their support. Thus the issue of audience is especially important for the model’s public relations campaign, which is a vital component of the JFJ model.

In his conclusion Rudy points out that the model was eventually successful in Sacramento because it was able to reframe the nature of the organizing campaign and define it as a social issue. He writes that further research is necessary to explain how organizers were able to adjust the model to the local political context. In my research I will examine adaptability as a component of the model and elaborate on its role in the model’s diffusion.

Savage, Lydia. “Justice for Janitors: Scales of Organizing and Representing Workers.” In The Dirty Work of Neo-Liberalism: Cleaners in the Global Economy, eds. Luis L. M. Aguiar and Andrew Herod, 214-234. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006.

In her paper, Savage analyzes the Justice for Janitors model from a geographical perspective, and claims that the model contains different scales of organizing at the local and national level that result in intra-union conflict. She argues that organizing models must be sensitive to local conditions in order to both develop appropriate strategies and tactics and to optimize worker participation.  However, centralized coordination of organizing campaigns is also necessary in order to effectively combat the national and transnational organizational structure of employers in the service sector. Savage argues that organizing models such as Justice for Janitors that attempt to do both risk intra-union conflict since increased rank and file participation is often at odds with a centralized leadership structure. Savage traces the development of union models from the traditional business unionism model to the organizing or community unionism model, and provides a clear geographical analysis for why the traditional business unionism model is not an effective model for organizing workers in the service sector. She cites Voss and Sherman’s work on union revitalization as evidence that the newer models can be successful in organizing workers in the service sector. Savage then examines the development of the Justice for Janitors model in Los Angeles after its initial success. The international union placed Local 399 in trusteeship in September of 1995 because of internal conflicts between union leaders representing recently unionized workers and the older union leadership. The local’s trustee, Mike Garcia, merged the local’s janitorial division with Local 1877, which then became a statewide SEIU janitorial union. Savage also discusses the SEIU’s “Unite to Win” plan, which called for a more centralized union structure, and the SEIU’s subsequent break from the AFL-CIO to form the Change to Win coalition with other like-minded unions. Her primary sources are interviews with Mike Garcia and internal SEIU documents, such as the “Unite to Win” report.

Savage convincingly describes the inherent tension in the JFJ model due to its emphasis on both increased rank and file participation and a centralized leadership. Furthermore, Savage argues that the ‘up-scaling’ of a union local to a statewide union is a component of the JFJ model that has been engineered by the international to aid in the model’s diffusion. In that case, I would consider ‘up-scaling’ to be both a component of the model as well as a mechanism for its diffusion. Erickson et al.’s discussion on alternative pattern bargaining provides an example of a tactic that becomes more successful as locals are ‘up-scaled’ and organizing campaigns are nationally coordinated. Thus, it is possible to claim that at least some aspects of the model are designed to be more successful the more the model is diffused, However, as Savage points out, diffusion resulting in greater centralization could also endanger other key aspects of the model, namely community organizing geared towards increased worker participation. I will explore these tensions in my research as I map out the diffusion of the model.

Strang, David and Sarah A. Soule. “Diffusion in Organizations and Social Movements: From Hybrid Corn to Poison Pills.” Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998): 265-290.

Strang and Soule begin their paper with a review of the literature on diffusion in both organizational and social movement theory and then argue for the importance of further research that examines the different ways and rates at which the same practices in different environments are diffused. They mention DiMaggio and Powell’s “The Iron Cage Revisited” as a classic paper that explores the structural mechanisms by which practices are diffused. However, they write that examination of structural mechanisms alone cannot help us understand why some practices are more likely to diffuse than others. The authors argue that an analysis of the cultural bases of diffusion is central to understanding why some practices diffuse. Strang and Soule then advocate for three research strategies that they believe would result in a better understanding of diffusion: broader comparative studies, analysis of the relationships between collective actors in regards to diffusion, and examination of diffusion industries.

My study of the diffusion of the Justice for Janitors model from building services locals to health care locals will be an example of broader comparative research since it will track the diffusion across populations rather than within populations. It is possible that my research will also examine aspects of the model that failed to diffuse to health care locals, which the authors claim is also important to understanding the why and how of diffusion. Thus the authors help provide a rationale for the relevance of my research question. Their paper is also a helpful overview of the existing literature on diffusion.

Voss, Kim and Rachel Sherman. “Breaking the Iron Law of Oligarchy: Union Revitalization in the American Labor Movement.” The American Journal of Sociology 106 (September 2000): 303-349. Retrieved September 30, 2009 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3081179.

In their paper, Voss and Sherman address the possibility of exceptions to Robert Michel’s “iron law of oligarchy” which claims that as organizations are bureaucratized they develop an oligarchical leadership and their goals and tactics become more conservative. The authors provide an example of the re-radicalization of bureaucratized social movement organizations by examining union revitalization in fourteen Northern California locals affiliated with the SEIU, HERE, and UFCW international unions. They conducted in-depth interviews with union organizers and staff, which allowed them to identify three factors necessary to union revitalization: a political crisis in the local that results in new leadership, the presence of leaders with activist experience in other social movements, and an international union that promotes revitalization.  Voss and Sherman define union revitalization as a shift from a business unionism model that focuses on servicing current union members to organizing nonunion workers using disruptive tactics in organizing campaigns. The authors detail the various obstacles to union revitalization, and conclude that all three factors must be present in order for locals to be fully revitalized; the presence of only one or two of the factors results in partially revitalized locals.

Although Voss and Sherman do not explicitly mention Justice for Janitors, the model contains a revitalized repertoire of organizing strategies and tactics as outlined by the authors. Furthermore, it is often implemented in circumstances that meet their criteria for union revitalization. Thus, Voss and Sherman’s work has an immediate bearing on my understanding of why and how SEIU locals adopt the JFJ model. Their research design identifies the aspects of organizational structure and tactical repertoire that are vital to understanding the extent to which the JFJ model is adopted. Although my research will not be as in-depth as that of Voss and Sherman, their research design offers a model from which to begin structuring my case studies. The authors refer to the work of DiMaggio and Powell as a useful framework with which to examine the fate of partially or non-revitalized locals since it takes into account the changing nature of cultural expectations within the labor movement. My research, nine years after that of Voss and Sherman, will take place in a different context: organizing models such as the JFJ have been promoted and normalized by the international union. This change in cultural expectations will surely prove to have interesting consequences for the diffusion of the JFJ model. In addition, the authors’ extensive bibliography is a useful list of readings on social movements, institutional change and union revitalization.

Waldinger, Roger, Chris Erickson, Ruth Milkman, Daniel J. B. Mitchell, Abel Valenzuela, and Maurice Zeitlin. “Helots No More: A Case Study of the Justice for Janitors Campaign in Los Angeles.” In Organizing to Win: New Research on Union Strategies, ed. Kate Bronfenbrenner, 102-119. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998.

Waldinger et al. analyze the implementation of the Justice for Janitors model in Los Angeles from 1988 to 1995. They describe the JFJ model as consisting of three components: a centralized union leadership, industry-specific strategy and tactics, and a workforce composed of class-conscious immigrants. They argue that the immigrant background of the janitorial workforce was neither a sufficient nor necessary component, but did contribute to the success of the model in L.A. The authors conducted extensive open-ended interviews with local and international union leaders, as well as with union members, in order to trace the implementation of JFJ in SEIU Local 399. Quotes from these interviews provide an engaging narrative thread that is supplemented by media accounts of union actions. The authors provide historical background on the development of janitorial unionism, and explain the economic changes in the building services sector in order to provide context for the decline of Local 399 in the 1980’s. After the introduction of the JFJ model, Local 399, as described by the authors, fits the mold of a revitalized union put forth by Voss and Sherman in “Breaking the Iron Law of Oligarchy.” The Service Employees International Union supported the Justice for Janitors campaign by providing monetary resources and personnel. When the local leaders resisted the implementation of the model and its focus on organizing, the international placed the local in trusteeship. Also, the organizers brought in by the international had experience as activists in other social movement organizations, most notably the United Farm Workers. Waldinger et al. then identify four key aspects of the model’s organizing strategies and tactics: intelligence-gathering, unconventional legal tactics, coalition-building, and rank and file mobilization. The authors also argue that the high levels of class-consciousness exhibited by the immigrant workers aided in their mobilization and helped explain their militancy. However, the authors point out that the JFJ model has been successful in places without an immigrant workforce, and thus an immigrant workforce is not necessary to the success of the model.

Waldinger et al.’s analysis of the Justice for Janitors campaign as a model with an integrated set of components is integral to my preliminary claim that JFJ is a model. The authors describe JFJ’s set of organizing strategies and tactics as specific to the building services industry, and this raises questions about the model’s effectiveness if and when it diffuses to the health care sector. Also, I hope to acquire transcripts of the authors’ interviews, which would be very valuable sources of information on the organizers’ and union leaders’ views on the model. These interviews could provide examples of coercive, mimetic and/or normative isomorphism, and thus begin to explain the process of model diffusion from earlier campaigns.