Responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles rests solely with their authors, and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the ILO.
This article is also available in French, in Revue internationale du Travail 165 (2), and Spanish, in Revista Internacional del Trabajo 145 (2).
1. Introduction
Digital unionism has emerged as a strategy for trade union revitalization and worker organization, whereby labour organizations leverage information and communication technologies – such as digital platforms and social media – to reach broader audiences and expand their scope of action (Houghton and Hodder 2021; Geelan 2021; Bryson, Gomez and Willman 2010; Panagiotopoulos 2012; Ford and Sinpeng 2022). Although previous studies have explored unions’ use of digital platforms, they have primarily focused on describing content rather than examining the strategic process behind content framing. This leaves a significant gap in understanding how unions construct digital narratives in response to institutional and political constraints. Existing research often assumes that unions use digital platforms either for one-way communication (Carneiro and Costa 2022) or for mobilization efforts (Houghton and Hodder 2021), without necessarily analysing the internal framing mechanisms that shape messaging strategies. Addressing this gap requires a deeper understanding of how unions strategically frame their digital communication in response to their specific contexts. In this article, we argue that while digital platforms are often seen as a tool for union revitalization, unions adopt and implement digital content-framing models in different ways, depending on their structural and institutional context. Factors such as size, ideology, sector, historical trajectory, communication culture and level of institutional support can shape how unions construct and present their digital narratives. These dimensions, which underpin our analytical lens, vary significantly across the confederations under study. Rather than being treated as abstract variables, these contextual elements are explored empirically through both studies presented in this article.
Building on this understanding, we identify two types of unions according to their political context: stronger contextual unions and weaker contextual unions for social media usage. This distinction, inferred from existing literature, reflects how access to institutional resources and historical continuity may influence the unions’ digital communication strategies. As we will argue, stronger contextual unions operate within well-established institutional frameworks and enjoy greater legitimacy, consolidated structures and established bargaining power. Their historical continuity allows them to refine strategies and adapt revitalization efforts, leveraging digital platforms as an extension of their institutional influence (Martínez Lucio and Walker 2005). We acknowledge that categorizing unions as stronger or weaker may suggest an oversimplified dichotomy that underestimates the diverse realities of trade unionism. Our intention, however, is not to impose such rigidity in the concept but to use these terms analytically to differentiate between unions that, in our view, exhibit greater or more limited capacity to implement revitalization strategies, capacities shaped by intersecting political, economic and institutional factors.
In contrast, weaker contextual unions operate in highly decentralized contexts, lack strong institutional support and face greater challenges such as heightened employer surveillance and limited labour representation (Schmalz et al. 2023). These constraints force them to experiment with alternative strategies to maintain visibility and influence labour discourse. Unlike stronger contextual unions, which use digital platforms to reinforce institutional power, weaker contextual unions rely on digital content framing as a survival mechanism, shaping their messages to enhance their visibility, legitimacy, and strategic positioning (Upchurch and Grassman 2016). Understanding this distinction is fundamental for analysing how unions approach digital content framing, whether as a means for consolidating their influence (stronger contextual unions) or as a strategy for visibility and revitalization (weaker contextual unions).
To address this research gap, we conducted a two-pronged empirical study. The first study applied an advanced topic-modelling algorithm (BERTopic) to analyse the digital activity of five labour confederations in Chile on the platform X, formerly known as Twitter (N = 14,863 tweets). This allowed us to identify what topics unions discuss online, providing insights into how they communicate and use social media. Building on these findings, the second study consisted of five in-depth interviews with union leaders and communication officers from the same confederations. This qualitative phase enabled us to go beyond topic identification and examine how unions strategically frame their digital content.
Expanding on existing trade union revitalization theories (Frege and Kelly 2003, 2004), we introduce a conceptual approach that places digital content framing at the core of union communication strategies. This perspective considers how institutional contexts shape the way unions craft and disseminate their messages. Arguably, in fragmented labour environments, where unions contend with greater precarity, weakened representation and heightened employer surveillance, digital content framing emerges as a critical tool for gaining visibility, setting agendas and driving mobilization efforts. By incorporating digital framing as a central component of union revitalization, this model extends Martínez Lucio’s (2003) work on framing strategies, adapting it to the digital sphere, where content framing determines how unions engage with their audiences. Additionally, Martínez Lucio and Walker’s (2005) insights into how social media usage is influenced by organizational structures and national ideologies further support this framework, as digital platforms are embedded in broader socio-economic and political environments.
The remainder of this article is arranged into four sections. The following section is the literature review, which discusses digital unionism as a revitalization strategy and presents the conceptual model on digital framing processes. The third section presents the research design and methodology used for our two studies, the findings of which are presented separately in the fourth section. Finally, the fifth section contains the article’s discussions, contributions and conclusions and proposes areas for future research.
2. Literature review
The adoption of digital platforms has become an important aspect of trade union revitalization, with digital unionism, the use of social media and other digital tools for communication and mobilization emerging as a newer strategy in this process (Cockfield 2005; Wood 2020; Pasquier and Wood 2018). These platforms offer unions opportunities to expand their membership base (Bryson, Gomez and Willman 2010), amplify worker voices (Barnes et al. 2019) and provide real-time updates, while enabling mobilization and outreach to traditionally marginalized groups, including women, migrants and young workers (Greene and Kirton 2003). Social media has also been used to complement traditional organizing methods, as seen, for example, when Walmart employees (Wood 2015) and Deliveroo riders (Woodcock and Cant 2022) leveraged WhatsApp and social media for strike action.
Despite these benefits, researchers have identified limitations to digital unionism, particularly regarding the persistence of top-down communication models in union strategies. Houghton and Hodder (2021) found that many unions fail to leverage the interactive potential of social media, instead using it to replicate one-way, hierarchical communication. Similarly, research on British, Portuguese and Brazilian labour confederations has highlighted how digital platforms are often used for visibility and agenda-setting rather than engagement and mobilization (Carneiro and Costa 2022). Additionally, concerns around employer surveillance and digital exposure have created new risks for workers and unions, reinforcing power asymmetries in the employment relationship (Hurrell, Scholarios and Richards 2017). This suggests that while unions increasingly adopt digital platforms, their approach to content framing varies and, arguably, can be shaped by institutional, regulatory and political contexts.
Digital unionism should be understood within the broader trade union revitalization debate, which has examined union responses to declining membership, reduced mobilization capacity and diminished policy influence for over three decades (Frege and Kelly 2003; Murray 2017; Ibsen and Tapia 2017). This body of literature identifies a range of strategies that unions use to increase their power bases, tailored to their specific contexts. These include organizing strategies, which focus on directly engaging with workers to increase membership (Simms and Holgate 2010; Gall 2009), and restructuring strategies, which involve reorganizing union structures, resources and operations to improve efficiency and adaptability (Waddington and Hoffman 2000). Unions also frequently engage in coalition building, forming alliances with non-labour organizations, such as community groups or advocacy networks, to expand their influence and build solidarity (Frege, Heery and Turner 2004; Tattersall 2005). Additionally, some unions engage in labour–management partnerships (i.e. social partnerships), fostering cooperative relationships with employers to enhance their economic power and secure favourable outcomes for workers (Kelly 2004; Fichter and Greer 2004; Fairbrother and Stewart [2003] 2013). On the political front, political action strategies see unions aligning with political parties and actors to advocate for labour-friendly policies and push forward their agendas in the public domain (Hamann and Martínez Lucio 2003; Martínez Lucio and Connolly 2012).
While unions have some strategic agency in selecting the activities through which they seek to rebuild power (Frege and Kelly 2003, 2004), research suggests that these choices can be strongly shaped by contextual factors such as labour market structures, employer practices and national labour regulations (Boxall 2008; Bellido de Luna 2022a). Institutional environments significantly influence unions’ revitalization efforts, and in digital contexts they can determine whether digital strategies are used to reinforce existing power structures or compensate for structural weaknesses (Frege and Kelly 2004; Simms 2012; Heery, Kelly and Waddington 2003). In more fragmented labour contexts, where unions operate under challenging labour laws and face anti-union attitudes, trade unions tend to prioritize their social media messages around organizing campaigns, coalition building with other non-labour-related partners and further discussing mobilization (Frege and Kelly 2004; Houghton and Hodder 2021). In contrast, unions in institutionally stronger contexts, with rather supportive regulatory frameworks, often focus their messages on internal restructuring campaigns and building social partnerships with their employers (Behrens, Fichter and Frege 2001; Hamann and Kelly 2004).
While considerable research has examined the social media activity of stronger contextual unions (see Houghton and Hodder 2021), few studies have focused on how unions in more fragmented and decentralized labour environments frame social media messages. These rather underexplored contexts offer an opportunity to assess how unions strategically use digital platforms to structure their content and drive engagement in the absence of stronger institutional support. To address this gap, we have developed an integrated framework for understanding digital unionism, illustrated in figure 1.
Figure 1. Proposed digital content-framing model
Source: Developed by the authors.
This conceptual model positions digital content framing at the core of union communication strategies, demonstrating how unions, classified as stronger or weaker for analytical clarity, shape their messaging in response to institutional, socio-economic and employer-driven factors. It builds upon existing frameworks of union revitalization (Frege and Kelly 2003, 2004) and digital adaptation (Martínez Lucio 2003; Martínez Lucio and Walker 2005), integrating insights into how unions navigate digital spaces to structure their visibility, agenda-setting and mobilization efforts.
At the core of this model, we argue that unions operate within a multi-layered institutional environment where both employer strategies and institutional contexts influence their structural conditions, following Frege and Kelly’s (2004) initial revitalization framework. Stronger unions, embedded in well-established institutional frameworks, enjoy greater legitimacy and bargaining power, which allow them to use digital tools as an extension of their existing influence (Behrens, Fichter and Frege 2001). In contrast, weaker unions, which operate in fragmented labour environments, experience limited institutional backing and higher employer resistance, necessitating a more strategic approach to digital communication (Gutiérrez Crocco 2016; Julián Véjar 2018; Bellido de Luna 2022b). In this article, we use Chile to represent a weaker labour context, although we realize that caution is needed. While we recognize that Chile has a longstanding tradition of labour organizing and institutional development (Pérez Ahumada and Ocampo 2023), we believe that it can be characterized as a weaker labour context, particularly when contrasted with European industrial relations models, due to its higher levels of decentralization, lower collective bargaining coverage and more limited institutional support for unions (Pérez Ahumada 2023). To develop our argument, we will compare social media content from stronger contextual unions taken from Carneiro and Costa’s (2022) and Houghton and Hodder’s (2021) articles with social media content from weaker contextual unions taken from our own analysis. We refer to Carneiro and Costa’s (2022) article as an example of unions operating in relatively strong institutional contexts, but acknowledge that their analysis includes unions from more fragile industrial relations systems (e.g. Brazil and Portugal), reflecting a broader spectrum of socio-political and economic conditions that blend both strengths and weaknesses.
Digital content framing serves as the mediating mechanism through which unions construct and position their narratives in response to external conditions. This process is shaped by multiple factors, including the country’s communication culture, the unions’ organizational identity and broader democratic processes (Martínez Lucio and Walker 2005; Pasquier, Lévesque and Hennebert 2023). The framing process translates into specific union communication strategies, encompassing visibility, agenda-setting and mobilization. Visibility ensures union presence and relevance in digital spaces, particularly for weaker contextual unions that struggle with traditional organizational power (Schmalz, Ludwig and Webster 2018). Agenda-setting allows unions to structure discourse around labour issues, influencing public and political narratives. Mobilization, although a central objective for unions, is arguably more challenging for those in fragmented contexts, as they face structural limitations that constrain sustained engagement.
With this conceptual model we seek to understand how unions strategically frame their digital content based on their structural positioning, emphasizing the divergence between hierarchical, top-down communication models in fragmented contexts and interactive, mobilization-driven approaches in structured environments. By integrating digital communication into revitalization frameworks, the model provides a theoretical foundation for understanding how unions adapt their messaging strategies in response to evolving institutional and political landscapes.
Related to the notion of strategic framing is the framework of power resources and how trade unions derive their power from the resources at their disposal (Wright 2000; Schmalz and Dörre 2018; Schmalz, Ludwig and Webster 2018). According to the Power Resource Theory, there are four key forms of power: structural (i.e. the power workers have based on their position in the economy, particularly their ability to disrupt production through strikes), associational (i.e. the strength of unions reflected in union membership, density and internal cohesion), institutional (i.e. the power that unions gain through formal recognition and legal rights) and societal (i.e. the ability of unions to gain legitimacy and support from broader society). Using this framework, we argue that unions draw on different configurations of power to sustain or rebuild their influence in changing their socio-economic contexts (Schmalz and Dörre 2018). Digital unionism adds a new dimension to this debate, as union strategies on social media increasingly serve as responses to declining or uneven access to traditional power resources, such as support from labour institutions or a large membership base. For example, in contexts where structural power is weakened by labour market deregulation and informality, unions use digital platforms to re-establish associational power by mobilizing previously unorganized or dispersed workers (Schmalz, Ludwig and Webster 2018; Wood et al. 2019). In settings where institutional power is fragile, due to limited collective bargaining frameworks or weak legal protections, unions turn to digital communication to gain public visibility, voice demands and pressure political actors. Furthermore, digital strategies can be leveraged to develop societal power by linking union demands to broader social struggles, thereby enhancing unions’ legitimacy and resonance beyond the workplace. Following a power resource perspective, we suggest that social media practices reflect strategic efforts to adapt to and compensate for structural constraints, particularly in contexts where unions have fewer resources, such as in Chile.
Our research is based on Chile, as an example of a rather fragmented country in labour terms. Despite claims that the Chilean labour movement has been steadily moving towards revitalization based on rising membership rates (Pérez Ahumada 2023; Velásquez Orellana, Pérez and Link 2022; Pérez-Ahumada and Godoy-Márquez 2026), the legislation in the country has long been described as curtailing workers’ collective rights and emphasizing flexibility in employment relationships (Durán and Narbona 2021). Chilean industrial relations are overtly decentralized, allowing multiple unions to operate within a single workplace, competing for members and benefits (Bellido de Luna 2022a; Bogliaccini and Madariaga 2025); negotiating groups can be formed by non-union workers to exclusively bargain for their own working conditions and benefits with the employer (Montero et al. 2000); and workplace unions do not interact frequently with sectoral and/or national-level confederations, as their interests seem to follow different agendas. Inter-company collective bargaining remains voluntary, which translates into a reluctance from employers to negotiate beyond company limits. Despite this deep fragmentation, trade unions are the only organizations in the Chilean system of industrial relations that are allowed to sign collective agreements with employers, which have the obligation, in turn, to address the demands of all their trade unions and negotiate in accordance with the legally established procedure (Feres and Infante 2007).
The role of federations and confederations is highly restricted in the Chilean system (Pérez Ahumada 2023). They cannot engage in collective bargaining on behalf of the trade unions they represent – since only company trade unions are legally permitted to bargain with employers – which renders their role in collective bargaining and in national-level negotiations largely accessory. The main role of confederations at the sector level is to provide support for unions (Durán and Narbona 2021). Although they assist trade unions during collective bargaining and in labour-related disputes, their participation in negotiations is only on behalf of individual unions and has no sector-wide application (Durán 2023).
These configurations of industrial relations and social media strategies inform our core hypothesis – namely, that in fragmented and decentralized labour environments, unions employ a hierarchical content-framing model, where digital content is structured primarily for visibility and agenda-setting rather than engagement and mobilization. Building on this hypothesis, this study examines the strategic framing processes behind unions’ digital content in fragmented contexts. It asks: how do labour confederations in fragmented labour environments develop their framing processes to shape visibility, agenda-setting and mobilization efforts through digital content?
This study moves beyond conventional analyses of union digitalization by demonstrating that content framing is not simply a matter of messaging but an active process through which unions attempt to reshape their positions in labour struggles. By examining how digital framing strategies vary across institutional contexts, it contributes to a deeper understanding of the evolving role of unions in an era where digital activism and algorithmic visibility increasingly mediate collective action. Rather than viewing digitalization as a one-size-fits-all solution, we argue that digital content framing operates as both an opportunity and a constraint, reinforcing existing power asymmetries while also opening alternative pathways for union revitalization in adverse contexts.
3. Methodology
To address the research question presented in this article, we draw on two interconnected studies. The first study employs a three-stage methodology (see figure 2) to examine the digital activity of confederations on social media (N = 14,863 tweets). The first stage involved data collection using Twitter’s (now X’s) application programming interface; the second stage consisted of exploratory automated topic discovery using BERTopic, a natural language processing algorithm; and the third stage comprised a confirmatory, human expert-based topic-labelling process. The second study involved five in-depth interviews with leaders and communication officers from the five largest labour confederations in Chile (tables 1, 2 and 3 summarize relevant information on these organizations), with a view to understanding how contextual factors influence their use of digital platforms. These interviews were analysed using a thematic analysis approach to uncover recurrent themes and patterns. We believe that by combining such studies, we provide a deeper understanding of how confederations frame their online messages.1
Figure 2. Stages of the methodological process
Source: Developed by the authors.
Table 1. Unionization rates and numbers of workers in the sectors studied
| Sector | Unionization rate | No. of workers |
| Mining | 6.9% | 287 649 |
| Health | 9% | 592 183 |
| Banking | 12% | 163 567 |
Source: Our own calculations, based on data from X.
Table 2. Overview of confederations on X (formerly known as Twitter)
| Confederation | Sector | No. of members | Total no. of followers on X | Sample size |
| CONFECOBRE | Mining | 14 528 | 9 516 | 1 310 |
| CONFUSAM | Health | 22 036 | 12 800 | 2 282 |
| FENPRUSS | Health | 4 914 | 10 300 | 3 392 |
| CONFEDBANCARIA | Banking | 2 217 | 7 672 | 1 601 |
| CUT | National-level | 501 240 | 64 200 | 6 278 |
| Total | NA | 544 935 | 104 488 | 14 863 |
Source: Our own calculations, based on data from X.
Table 3. Number of posts by first-order theme
| Number | Percentage | |
| Union issues | 2 212 | 14.88 |
| Labour issues | 6 875 | 46.26 |
| Broader issues | 5 776 | 38.86 |
Source: Our own calculations, based on data from X.
4. Findings
Our findings are presented in two sections, containing the the results of the first and second studies, respectively. The first study provides an overview of what confederations post online, while the second reveals the reasoning and strategies behind these posts. We used Chile as a case study of weaker contextual unions, and we compared our findings with those of Carneiro and Costa (2022) and Houghton and Hodder (2021). Rather than examining Chile in isolation, we view it as a representative case that illustrates the broader challenges and strategic responses of unions in decentralized and precarious labour contexts. This approach allows us to explore how unions compensate for limited institutional leverage through digital content framing, shedding light on the mechanisms through which digital platforms become tools for visibility, agenda-setting and attempts to mobilize in adverse conditions.
4.1 First study: Topic-modelling algorithm
The findings of this article are situated within the specific dynamics of X; consequently, the strategies and content adopted by trade unions reflect this particular platform’s affordances. To identify frequently mentioned themes, two theoretical frameworks were used: that of Carneiro and Costa (2022) providing first-order themes on union, labour and broader issues; and that of Houghton and Hodder (2021) providing second-order themes. The themes were used as codes to categorize the messages taken from each of the confederations’ accounts. Out of the three first-order themes, labour issues emerged as the predominant topic shared online by the confederations, capturing 46.26 per cent of tweets, while broader issues and union-related topics accounted for 38.86 per cent and 14.88 per cent of messages, respectively (see table 3).
If we looked only at these figures, we might draw the conclusion that most confederations post tweets about the wider labour needs of workers, such as working time reduction, working conditions and pension schemes. However, this holds true only if we examine the general volume of tweets, because the detailed analysis shows a different trend. CONFEDBANCARIA is the only organization that tweets mainly about labour issues (15.59 per cent), as CONFECOBRE tweets primarily about union issues (12.70 per cent), CONFUSAM about broader issues (18.07 per cent), FENPRUSS about union issues (32.50 per cent) and CUT about broader issues (46.47 per cent).2 The frequency of these posts is presented in table 4. The fact that each organization posts about different themes with different frequency reveals the complex process behind the prioritization of themes and is indicative of their main interests.
Table 4. Frequency of posts by first-order themes per confederation (percentage of total posts)*
| CONFECOBRE | CONFEDBANCARIA | CONFUSAM | FENPRUSS | CUT | Total | |
| Union issues | 12.70 | 7.82 | 5.02 | 32.50 | 42.09 | 14.88 |
| Labour issues | 6.65 | 15.59 | 16.39 | 26.94 | 38.74 | 46.26 |
| Broader issues | 9.95 | 6.16 | 18.07 | 19.34 | 46.47 | 38.86 |
| * Note: Percentages reflect the proportion of total posts (N = 14,863) generated by each confederation within each thematic category. Percentages do not sum to 100 per cent per confederation. | ||||||
Source: Our own calculations, based on data from X.
More specifically, reviewing the second-order themes allows us to identify the topics within each of the broader themes that are posted about frequently (see table 5 for a summary). News (27.77 per cent) accounts for the greatest volume of tweets, which is consistent with the findings of the second study, in which the leaders of the confederations indicated that they use X primarily to share news and inform the mainstream media about their activities. After news, external campaigning (i.e. messages raising awareness of the unions’ campaign activities) accounts for the most posts (18.70 per cent), which again aligns with the comments made by the confederations’ leaders. Next, strike building (i.e. messages encouraging participation in industrial action) and labour rights (i.e. messages promoting rights related to labour relations) account for 11.66 per cent and 9.70 per cent, respectively, of the total posts made by these confederations. The primacy of these sub-themes may reinforce the narrative that these organizations focus on sharing and re-sharing content aligned with their audiences’ main interests, both to broaden their appeal and impact and to sustain public interest.
Table 5. Frequency of posts by first and second-order themes
| Main themes | Sub-themes | Number | Percentage of total posts |
| Union issues | Union democracy | 1 271 | 8.55 |
| Strike action | 351 | 2.36 | |
| Campaigns | 319 | 2.15 | |
| Recruitment | 130 | 0.87 | |
| Services | 77 | 0.52 | |
| Collective bargaining | 48 | 0.32 | |
| Labour disputes | 16 | 0.11 | |
| Labour issues | External campaigning | 2 779 | 18.70 |
| Strike building | 1 733 | 11.66 | |
| Labour rights | 1 442 | 9.70 | |
| Wages | 637 | 4.29 | |
| Dialogue | 284 | 1.91 | |
| Broader issues | News | 4 128 | 27.77 |
| COVID-19 | 936 | 6.30 | |
| Solidarity | 532 | 3.58 | |
| Other | 180 | 1.21 | |
| Total | 14 863 | 100.00 |
Source: Our own calculations, based on data from X.
The content developed by each organization also reveals a multi-faceted approach to engagement and activism, with each confederation reflecting its unique priorities (see table 6): while CONFEDBANCARIA and FENPRUSS posted more external campaigning messages (40.79 per cent and 20.31 per cent, respectively), meaning that they focused more on raising awareness of campaign activities for the wider labour movement, CONFUSAM focused on labour rights (21.30 per cent), and CONFECOBRE and CUT focused on general news (41.15 per cent and 35.68 per cent, respectively). The sector-specific nature of CONFEDBANCARIA and FENPRUSS suggests their readiness to mobilize for direct action, which appears to be a core value for both organizations. CONFEDBANCARIA has been at the forefront of pension scheme discussions (Rozas Bugueño and Maillet 2019), while FENPRUSS has pushed for the improvement of professional health workers’ working conditions before, during and after the pandemic, and their online content reflects these interests. In contrast, CONFUSAM’s battle with municipalized health has led them to focus their messages primarily on labour rights (21.30 per cent), emphasizing their drive to improve the labour conditions faced by public health workers, especially relevant during the COVID-19 crisis. CUT and CONFECOBRE maintain a broader approach on social media, with significant content dedicated to news dissemination. This strategy specifically reflects CUT’s role in engaging with a wide range of issues and stakeholders, including its participation in social dialogue and tripartite discussions with the Government and with employers’ associations.
Table 6. Summary of topics most frequently posted by confederations (percentages)
| CONFECOBRE | CONFEDBANCARIA | CONFUSAM | CUT Chile | FENPRUSS | |||||
| News | 41.15 | External campaigning | 40.79 | Labour rights | 21.30 | News | 35.68 | External campaigning | 20.31 |
| External campaigning | 15.73 | Strike building | 17.99 | News | 20.60 | Strike building | 17 | News | 19.78 |
| Labour rights | 10.37 | News | 12.99 | COVID-19 | 16.30 | External campaigning | 13.81 | Labour rights | 12.12 |
| Union democracy | 8.32 | Solidarity | 6.68 | External campaigning | 14.29 | Union democracy | 10.85 | Union democracy | 11.50 |
Source: Our own calculations, based on data from X.
When comparing findings from organizations operating in a weaker context (i.e. Chile) with those operating in stronger contexts (as in Houghton and Hodder 2021 and Carneiro and Costa 2022) notable differences emerge in the topics addressed. One of the clearest contrasts appears in the topic of union democracy, which is present in all three studies but with varying levels of emphasis. In Houghton and Hodder (2021), it accounts for only 4 per cent of total posts, while in our study it accounts for 8.55 per cent, more than double the proportion observed in the British case. Carneiro and Costa’s (2022) analysis of CUT Brazil reports 6 per cent, suggesting that interest in union democracy is relatively similar across contexts, but gains more relevance in weaker contextual organizations, potentially as a result of structural challenges that demand internal cohesion.
Another key theme is strike action, which is also present across all three studies but varies in intensity and geographic focus. Carneiro and Costa (2022) identify strike-related topics only within Portuguese confederations, where they account for 29 per cent of total discussions, while they account for 7 per cent in British organizations in Houghton and Hodder (2021). In contrast, strike action accounts for 11.66 per cent of total posts in our study, positioning itself between the two other studies, but still higher than in the United Kingdom. This suggests that while strike action remains central for union activity across contexts, weaker contextual organizations might prioritize it differently due to the limitations imposed by their environment.
External campaigning is another telling comparison. Both our study and Houghton and Hodder (2021) give it considerable importance, with the latter reporting 16 per cent and our study slightly higher at 18.70 per cent. This alignment suggests that external campaigning is a crucial strategy in both contexts, possibly as a means of compensating for weaker institutional support. The significant presence of this theme in both datasets indicates that unions, regardless of their strength, recognize the need to engage beyond their immediate membership base to gain broader societal leverage.
A particularly revealing contrast appears in solidarity, which accounts for 3.58 per cent of total posts in our study, but a much higher 11 per cent in Houghton and Hodder (2021). Notably, Carneiro and Costa (2022) do not refer to solidarity, reinforcing the idea that stronger unions in more stable environments may have the capacity to extend support to other unions, while those in weaker contexts must prioritize internal survival. This suggests that in more fragmented labour environments, resource scarcity and institutional instability force unions to focus more on self-preservation rather than cross-organizational solidarity (Schmalz, Ludwig and Webster 2018).
Another major distinction arises in labour rights. In our study, this issue accounts for 9.70 per cent of total posts, whereas it accounts for 22 per cent of content from Brazilian confederations in Carneiro and Costa (2022) and 25 per cent from British confederations in Houghton and Hodder (2021). This discrepancy suggests that stronger unions place greater emphasis on institutional and policy-related labour rights, whereas weaker contextual unions, while recognizing its importance, might be constrained by more immediate struggles such as mobilization, visibility and organizational survival.
Finally, while the topic of news, which we argue reflects the visibility strategies of weaker contextual unions, is a dominant theme in our study (27.77 per cent), it is minimally present at 3 per cent in Houghton and Hodder (2021). This striking difference reinforces the idea that unions in more fragmented or precarious contexts may need to rely more heavily on communication strategies to assert their presence, offset institutional disadvantages and maintain legitimacy in the public sphere. In contrast, stronger contextual organizations may have less of a need to constantly reaffirm their relevance, as their position is better established within the broader labour landscape.
This comparison (which is presented in table A3 of the supplementary online appendix) supports our hypothesis that in fragmented labour contexts, labour organizations post content focused on visibility and agenda-setting more so than on mobilization, because they must adapt their priorities and strategies in response to external constraints. While stronger contextual unions, such as those analysed by Houghton and Hodder (2021) and Carneiro and Costa (2022), may be able to focus on solidarity and labour rights, those in more precarious environments appear to devote more attention to news dissemination, external campaigning and internal democracy, presumably as survival mechanisms in a challenging labour landscape. These findings also align with this article’s argument that union strategies have contextual dependencies that shape their ability to advocate for workers and influence broader socio-political dynamics.
4.2 Second study: Interviews
The objective of our second study was to assess how confederation leaders prioritized the messages that they posted online and their perceptions of how their digital activity can advance their labour agenda, and explain the meaning of some of their posts. This qualitative analysis gave us further insights into the mechanisms of social media and digital unionism from the confederations’ leaders. Based on this information, several themes emerged, such as the strategic use of communication on digital platforms (theme 1). The confederations consciously tailored their messages based on the platform they were using and the audience, prioritizing topics that aligned with the broader interests of workers, such as wages and labour rights. In the second study, we were able to determine that confederations used social media platforms for different purposes: X was used for real-time updates on protests or mobilizations, while Facebook and Instagram were used for more detailed engagement and interactions with union members.
An example of this was presented in an interview with a communication officer working at CONFUSAM:3
Our view we have so far is that […] each platform has certain user characteristics, and we tailor the information accordingly […]. I’ve been supporting and promoting the strategy that each platform requires content to be tailored to it accordingly. And ultimately, there are types of content that work better on certain platforms than on others; for example, we’ve used Twitter for two types of content: one is to provide real-time updates on the confederation’s activities that we’re able to cover as they happen in real time […] – that’s one way, posting what’s happening during the marches right away. I post things like ‘the march is moving through such-and-such place’ or share snippets of a speech, for example, something the President of Chile has said. That’s more or less our approach on Twitter. And secondly, we find Twitter useful because it serves as a platform to connect […] with the media. We use Twitter a lot to tag the media when we need to issue a statement that we want to be disseminated, beyond our members, to the country’s authorities.
Similarly, there was a concerted effort by the confederations’ leaders to maintain and post certain topics, highlighting internal organizational considerations, such as how communication strategies are shaped by leadership and broader political ideologies:
Especially when the issue of pensions was very much in the public eye […] we were deliberately trying to raise broader issues […]. It was very important at the time, so there was a clear strategy in place. Twitter carried much more political weight [in 2017]. (CUT communication officer)
This extract from an interview suggests that the messages posted by the confederation are based on deliberate strategies and casts light on the objective of their posts.
This strategic clarity is also closely tied to the size and institutional structure of the confederations. CUT, as the largest trade union organization in the country, has a more formalized communication department and established routines. According to its communications officer, its size affords greater ability to maintain a consistent digital presence, particularly in moments of political relevance or media attention.
Ideological orientation also emerged as a differentiating factor. While CUT’s strategy reflects an institutional agenda focused on broad national reforms, CONFUSAM appears to adopt a more assertive stance on public health and employment justice. Interviewees described how contentious issues, such as those arising during the COVID-19 pandemic, played a central role in their digital mobilization, even when this meant challenging government policies.
Regarding audiences (theme 2), the interviews reveal that audiences are also actively targeted based on platform usage. The interviews reveal a deliberate effort to adapt communication strategies to the demographics of each platform. For example, Instagram is seen as particularly effective for younger members, while Facebook remains a primary tool for older members or for detailed internal communication. X, while still used, is presented as not as effective for community building, but as a public-facing platform to engage with external audiences, such as media or government representatives. As one journalist from CONFUSAM stated:
[The platform] where we interact the most, where we get the most visits and where we receive the most inquiries, such as internal ones, through [direct messages], is Instagram […]. We use Twitter to provide real-time updates on CONFUSAM’s activities that we can cover live, as well as to communicate with the media and the authorities.
These platform choices also reveal a broader pattern in communication culture across confederations. Each organization described tailoring not only the type of content, but also its tone and frequency, to match the expectations and habits of their target audiences. X was widely perceived as a formal, outward-facing tool for engaging media and policymakers, whereas Instagram served as a more interactive and informal space for connecting with younger members. This platform differentiation suggests that content-framing practices are shaped by internal communicational norms as much as by strategic goals.
Challenges in building engagement through social media (theme 3) was another theme that appeared across interviews. Although the confederations used social media to disseminate information, they faced challenges in generating direct engagement, particularly on X. The interviewees noted that platforms such as Instagram generated more interaction, with frequent inquiries from members. X, on the other hand, is often used more for broadcasting information than for fostering a sense of community: “What we find useful about Twitter is that it serves as a platform to link broader issues with the media, including mass media, and with the authorities” (CONFUSAM communication officer). These organizations are aware of their digital platforms and that they can easily adapt when engaging with their members.
Another recurring theme was the role of digital platforms in organizing and mobilizing workers (theme 4), particularly during key events such as strikes or national protests. The confederations use social media strategically to call for action, and these platforms have proven important for political advocacy, engaging with governmental authorities and rallying public support. This, in turn, results in attracting members: as explained by a member of FENPRUSS’s communications team, they use X to “retain [their] grassroots workers, by sharing information that matters to them, which ultimately allows [them] to grow organically in terms of both the number of union members and social media followers”. A similar sentiment was expressed by a member of CUT’s team: “Our membership is growing, as people see us in the news, where things are happening”. However, the journalist from CONFUSAM said that she does not use her X account to increase membership, as this is a role performed by the confederation’s leaders and their respective associated federations, but she can see the potential for it:
No, in all honesty, I’ve never been asked [to use X to recruit members]. That said, it could eventually happen – we’ve been focusing on strengthening our social media presence, in terms of followers, so we could also shift our focus to turning those numbers into actual new members.
All five organizations emphasized the strategic use of social media platforms, particularly X, as part of their communication efforts. X was highlighted for its immediacy, although the interviewed leaders admitted that its relevance had diminished over time. Each organization confirmed that it follows a well-structured communication strategy, ensuring alignment with its political or organizational goals. This strategy included creating targeted messages and using different platforms for distinct audiences. More importantly, the organizations understand the importance of more professional and structured communication departments, as all of them have established such departments, with dedicated teams that include journalists, publicists and social media specialists. These interviews collectively reveal a somewhat sophisticated (or at least not random) and evolving use of digital platforms by the confederations, where leaders understand the importance of aligning communication strategies with their agenda and goals, adapting to the specific strengths and audiences of each platform.
This evolving and strategic use of digital platforms is shaped not only by organizational agendas but also by sectoral domains, historical trajectories and levels of institutional support. While CONFUSAM and FENPRUSS, both in the public health sector, focused their messaging on working conditions and professional recognition, CONFECOBRE’s discourse reflected a legacy of labour conflict in mining, using digital channels as instruments of pressure. CONFEDBANCARIA, in turn, aligned its strategy with national movements like No+AFP4 foregrounding economic justice. These structural differences help explain the varying emphases on visibility, mobilization and legitimacy. Finally, platform use is also shaped by institutional positioning: CUT leverages its recognized role in policy dialogue to reinforce its public legitimacy, whereas confederations with less political capital, such as FENPRUSS or CONFUSAM, rely on digital content to gain visibility and influence in the absence of formal power.
5. Discussion and conclusion
Conventional studies on digital unionism have highlighted unions’ use of technological platforms to advance their goals, such as expanding their membership base and fostering engagement (Houghton and Hodder 2021; Carneiro and Costa 2022). Our research has aimed to demonstrate that social media use by unions is not only a matter of digital adaptation but is also fundamentally shaped by organizational structures, institutional arrangements and contextual constraints (Schmalz et al. 2023; Dufour and Hege 2010).
Previous studies have described digital strategies in stable and strong institutional contexts, where unions operate in a centralized and well-established industrial relations framework, a characteristic of many European and Anglo-Saxon countries (Cockfield 2005; Wood 2020; Pasquier and Wood 2018; Greene and Kirton 2003). In these environments, unions may have the institutional security and organizational capacity to engage in interactive digital strategies, fostering direct communication with their members and promoting mobilization through engagement-based content. Although such interactive capabilities may also be due to the specific platforms selected for analysis, the evidence from Houghton and Hodder (2021) and Carneiro and Costa (2022) suggests that unions embedded in stronger institutional contexts tend to have greater capacity and opportunity to engage interactively with their audiences than those operating in more fragmented or resource-scarce environments.
In contrast, our research reveals that confederations operating in fragmented labour contexts face significant structural challenges that limit their capacity to develop sophisticated digital strategies. These unions are often preoccupied with matters of survival, resource allocation and fulfilling their core functions, leaving them little time or capacity to create elaborate digital campaigns. Thus, evaluating their digital strategies solely through the lens of technological innovation is inadequate and, at times, unfair, as it disregards the constraints imposed by their institutional and economic environments.
A comparison between Carneiro and Costa (2022), Houghton and Hodder (2021) and our study on Chilean labour confederations reveals significant differences in how unions use digital platforms for communication, engagement and revitalization. This benchmarking analysis categorizes findings across digital content-framing approaches and the strategic function of digital platforms. The differences between our findings and those of Houghton and Hodder (2021) confirm our hypothesis that unions in Chile use a content-framing model based on their need for visibility and agenda-setting, as opposed to a union such as the Public and Commercial Services union in Britain, which employed a more interactive framing strategy, using digital platforms to actively engage with members and integrate elements of mobilization theory into their online communication. We argued that this difference is not incidental and reflects the institutional and political challenges unions face in fragmented labour environments. While unions in stronger institutional contexts can afford to prioritize engagement and mobilization, those in weaker contexts must first assert their legitimacy and reinforce their presence. The labour movement in Chile, for instance, has faced deep historical repression and legal constraints (Cross and Blackburn 2016), which continue to shape industrial relations today. As a result, confederations may hesitate to adopt overtly political or confrontational online strategies and instead opt for content that emphasizes visibility over mobilization.
Beyond institutional constraints, our findings also suggest that size, ideological orientation, sectoral composition and degree of institutional support all play a role in shaping unions’ digital strategies. Larger unions with greater resources can afford to invest in digital communication teams, allowing them to develop interactive strategies and sustained online engagement. Smaller unions, in contrast, must prioritize efficiency, often relying on one-way communication and visibility-driven content to reach as many workers as possible with limited resources. Likewise, unions with more radical or oppositional stances may be more inclined to use digital platforms for mobilization and protests, while those with institutionalized or moderate ideological positions may focus more on policy advocacy and awareness-raising. This ideological distinction can influence the extent to which unions adopt interactive, campaign-driven content versus informational and agenda-setting strategies. The sector in which a union operates also makes a difference: unions in public sector industries, such as education and healthcare, often benefit from higher institutional protection, allowing them to engage in direct digital activism without immediate threats to their existence.
While these factors, such as size, ideology, sector and institutional support, shape unions’ digital strategies, our findings also echo Pasquier, Lévesque and Hennebert’s (2023) insight that social media is not merely a tool through which unions project pre-existing identities; rather, it actively participates in the creation and establishment of union identity. The communicative norms of each platform encourage unions to adapt not only their messaging, but also the way they present themselves publicly. In doing so, unions often reshape their own organizational identity to align with digital expectations. This dynamic interaction may imply that digital strategies are not solely determined by structural or ideological constraints, but are also shaped by how unions wish to be perceived. In this sense, identity and strategy evolve together in a reflexive process of positioning and adaptation.
Unlike unions in institutionally consolidated environments, those in weaker labour contexts must actively frame their messages to rapidly capture audience attention and address pressing concerns. This is evident in our study, where confederations prioritize news updates and informational content over direct mobilization appeals. By doing so, they demonstrate a pragmatic adaptation to their constraints, rather than an inability to innovate, which represents a deliberate strategic choice. We have demonstrated that, contrary to previous critiques of digital unionism as a replication of outdated one-way communication models (Carneiro and Costa 2022), these digital practices are not a failure to adapt but a strategic response to specific contextual constraints. The tendency of unions in weaker institutional contexts to prioritize visibility over mobilization is not an oversight but a reflection of the political, economic and historical challenges they navigate daily. As Martínez Lucio (2003) argued, discussions of unionism must be grounded in the lived realities of unions and worker representation, a perspective we have integrated not only through our content analysis in the first study but also through in-depth interviews with confederation communication leaders in the second study. Understanding these realities is essential for developing a nuanced analysis of digital strategies: one that goes beyond judging unions by the standards of their stronger, more resource-rich counterparts and instead recognizes the ingenuity and resilience embedded in their strategic choices.
The social media strategies deployed by Chilean confederations can also be understood through the Power Resource Theory, whereby in contexts marked by resource scarcity and institutional fragmentation, unions may increasingly turn to digital platforms as compensatory mechanisms to rebuild associational power by reaching dispersed and unorganized workers (Schmalz, Ludwig and Webster 2018). Through targeted campaigns and symbolic frames, they aim to foster identification and engagement, thereby partially substituting for traditional forms of mobilization. Additionally, in the absence of strong institutional power, due to limited collective bargaining rights and weak state support, digital media may become a tool for enhancing visibility and legitimacy. These strategic framings seek to position unions as relevant actors in the public eye, building legitimacy beyond the workplace. In this way, digital strategies may function not only as communicative actions but as adaptive responses to power deficits, and in some cases, as tools for rebuilding power resources under adverse institutional and political conditions.
Our study makes theoretical, empirical and methodological contributions to the literature. First, we contribute to trade union revitalization literature by emphasizing the role of context and the qualities of social media platforms in advancing the confederations’ goals. Although authors have emphasized the instrumental nature of social media for trade unions (Wood 2020; Greene and Kirton 2003), more attention should be paid to the external factors influencing the implementation and success of those strategies, as they remain understudied in the current literature. Second, we make an empirical contribution by analysing over 14,000 online messages and conducting interviews with confederation leaders. This dual-method approach provides empirical evidence to the revitalization debate, offering insights from a weaker institutional context that has been underexplored in the literature. Third, we make a methodological contribution by applying an advanced topic-modelling algorithm (BERTopic) to the data, which is something that has not been attempted in the field of employment relations to date, thus showing its applicability across different fields of research.
Finally, we can provide multiple recommendations for confederations based on their content-framing approach. From the interviews in our second study, we can see that most confederations approach their communication strategy in “firefighting” mode, looking at engagement in the short term. We believe that confederations can strategically position their social media platforms to unify dispersed worker groups and build inter-union alliances, as a form of digital infrastructure facilitating coordination between smaller grassroots unions, thereby compensating for weaker association power. This could be aided by purposely allocated teams with expertise in digital communication to craft strategic, consistent messaging across platforms. As platforms evolve (e.g. X becomes less relevant), confederations should remain agile, identifying and adopting emerging platforms that suit their communication and mobilization needs. Thus, digital strategies should complement, not replace, traditional organizing methods. Echoing the findings and recommendations made by other authors such as Carneiro and Costa (2022), we believe that social media campaigns should reflect offline activities such as meetings, rallies or strikes to ensure a cohesive approach to mobilization and member participation.
In terms of the study’s limitations, the findings reported are limited to the specific dynamics of X and lack a cross-platform approach that would enable a deeper understanding of the strategic framing and narratives of the trade unions on various platforms.
Another limitation of this study is replicability. Since 2023, X’s academic application programming interface access has been discontinued, which prevents straightforward retrieval of tweet content based on tweet IDs. To mitigate this, we created a companion repository on the Open Science Framework, which includes the tweet IDs and links analysed, Python scripts to rehydrate tweets5 where possible and all code used in the analysis. For tweets that can no longer be rehydrated (e.g. due to deletion or account suspension), we provide the original text (in approximately 660 cases), in line with Twitter’s content redistribution policy. While this does not fully resolve reproducibility concerns, it reflects our commitment to transparent and responsible data sharing.
More broadly, this limitation highlights the challenges of conducting research on privately owned digital platforms, whose terms of access and data availability can change without notice. This volatility not only affects academic inquiry, but also has implications for how trade unions and other social actors engage with these platforms and their audiences.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the comments and suggestions of the anonymous peer reviewers.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Notes
- Due to space limitations, additional tables and a detailed description of the methodology are provided in the supplementary online appendix. ⮭
- CONFEDBANCARIA is an abbreviation for Confederación de Sindicatos Bancarios y del Sistema Financiero (Confederation of Banking and Financial Sector Unions); CONFECOBRE, Confederación de Trabajadores del Cobre (Copper Workers’ Confederation); CONFUSAM, Confederación Nacional de Funcionarios y Funcionarias de la Salud Municipal (National Confederation of Municipal Health Workers); FENPRUSS, Confederación Nacional de Profesionales Universitarios de los Servicios de Salud (National Confederation of University Health Professionals); and CUT, Central Unitaria de Trabajadores (Single Central Organization of Workers). ⮭
- The names of the interviewed confederation leaders have been anonymized in the data. ⮭
- The No+AFP movement in Chile is a social movement that opposes the private pension system managed by Pension Fund Administrators (AFPs), established under Pinochet’s government in 1981. The movement argues that the system produces low pensions and deep inequality, particularly affecting low-income workers, women and precarious workers. It rose to prominence through large-scale protests from 2016 onward and played a key role during the 2019 social uprising, which mobilized workers across the country. ⮭
- Rehydrating tweets refers retrieving the full data or content of tweets from X (formerly known as Twitter) using tweet IDs, usually via the X application programming interface. ⮭
References
Barnes, Alison, Nikola Balnave, Louise Thornthwaite, and Benjamin Manning. 2019. “Social Media: Union Communication and Member Voice”. In Employee Voice at Work, edited by Peter Holland, Julian Teicher and Jimmy Donaghey, 91–111. Singapore: Springer.
Behrens, Martin, Michael Fichter, and Carola M. Frege. 2001. “Unions in Germany: Searching to Regain the Initiative”. WSI-Diskussionspapier No. 97. Berlin: Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut in der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung.
Bellido de Luna, Daina. 2022a. “Management, the State and Union-Weakening Practices in Chile: A Case Study Approach of the Dual and Ambivalent Role of the State in a Process of Democratisation”. Economic and Industrial Democracy 43 (3): 1143–1163. http://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X20975477.
Bellido de Luna, Daina. 2022b. “Engaging with Social Media in a Context of Fragmentation and Change: Chilean Unions’ Use of the Internet and Social Media”. Employee Relations: The International Journal 44 (5): 1179–1191. http://doi.org/10.1108/ER-03-2020-0139.
Bogliaccini, Juan, and Aldo Madariaga. 2025. “Leftist Governments, Distributive Strategies, and the Politics of Balance of Payments-Constrained Growth in Chile and Uruguay”. Competition & Change 29 (3–4): 375–398. http://doi.org/10.1177/10245294241237366.
Boxall, Peter. 2008. “Trade Union Strategy”. In The SAGE Handbook of Industrial Relations, edited by Paul Blyton, Nicolas Bacon, Jack Fiorito and Edmund Heery, 209–224. London: Sage.
Bryson, Alex, Rafael Gomez, and Paul Willman. 2010. “Online Social Networking and Trade Union Membership: What the Facebook Phenomenon Truly Means for Labor Organizers”. Labor History 51 (1): 41–53. http://doi.org/10.1080/00236561003654719.
Carneiro, Bia, and Hermes Augusto Costa. 2022. “Digital Unionism as a Renewal Strategy? Social Media Use by Trade Union Confederations”. Journal of Industrial Relations 64 (1): 26–51. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022185620979337.
Cockfield, Sandra. 2005. “Union Renewal, Union Strategy and Technology”. Critical Perspectives on International Business 1 (2–3): 93–108. http://doi.org/10.1108/17422040510595618.
Cross, Ciaran, and Daniel Blackburn. 2016. Trade Unions of the World. 7th ed. London: International Centre for Trade Union Rights.
Dufour, Christian, and Adelheid Hege. 2010. “The Legitimacy of Collective Actors and Trade Union Renewal”. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 16 (3): 351–367. http://doi.org/10.1177/1024258910373865.
Durán, Gonzalo. 2023. “Marginalised and Fragmented Collective Bargaining: Impacts on Workers’ Power, the Chilean Case”. Socialism and Democracy 37 (3): 12–34. http://doi.org/10.1080/08854300.2024.2375792.
Durán, Gonzalo, and Karina Narbona. 2021. “Precarising Formality: Understanding Current Labour Developments in Chile”. Global Labour Journal 12 (3): 206–226. http://doi.org/10.15173/glj.v12i3.4405.
Fairbrother, Peter, and Paul Stewart. (2003) 2013. “The Dilemmas of Social Partnership and Union Organization: Questions for British Trade Unions”. In Trade Unions in Renewal: A Comparative Study, edited by Peter Fairbrother and Charlotte A. B. Yates, 158–179. Reprint, London: Routledge.
Feres, María Ester, and Ricardo Infante. 2007. “La negociación colectiva del futuro de Chile”. Colección Ideas 8 (79): 1–46.
Fichter, Michael, and Ian Greer. 2004. “Analysing Social Partnership: A Tool of Union Revitalization?” In Varieties of Unionism: Strategies for Union Revitalization in a Globalizing Economy, edited by Carola Frege and John Kelly, 71–92. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ford, Michele, and Aim Sinpeng. 2022. “Digital Activism as a Pathway to Trade Union Revitalization”. International Journal of Labour Research 11 (1–2): 47–58.
Frege, Carola, Edmund Heery, and Lowell Turner. 2004. “The New Solidarity? Trade Union Coalition–Building in Five Countries”. In Varieties of Unionism: Strategies for Union Revitalization in a Globalizing Economy, edited by Carola Frege and John Kelly, 137–158. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frege, Carola, and John Kelly. 2003. “Union Revitalization Strategies in Comparative Perspective”. European Journal of Industrial Relations 9 (1): 7–24. http://doi.org/10.1177/095968010391002.
Frege, Carola, and John Kelly. 2004. Varieties of Unionism: Strategies for Union Revitalization in a Globalizing Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gall, Gregor, ed. 2009. Union Revitalisation in Advanced Economies: Assessing the Contribution of Union Organising. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Geelan, Torsten. 2021. “Introduction to the Special Issue: The Internet, Social Media and Trade Union Revitalization: Still Behind the Digital Curve or Catching up?” New Technology, Work and Employment 36 (2): 123–139. http://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12205.
Greene, Anne-Marie, and Gill Kirton. 2003. “Possibilities for Remote Participation in Trade Unions: Mobilising Women Activists”. Industrial Relations Journal 34 (4): 319–333. http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2338.00278.
Gutiérrez Crocco, Francisca. 2016. “>Sindicatos sin socios, pero representativos? Ideologías de la representatividad sindical en Chile”. Polis. Revista Latinoamericana 15 (43): 533–555.
Hamann, Kerstin, and John Kelly. 2004. “Unions as Political Actors: A Recipe for Revitalization?” In Varieties of Unionism: Strategies for Union Revitalization in a Globalizing Economy, edited by Carola Frege and John Kelly, 93–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hamann, Kerstin, and Miguel Martínez Lucio. 2003. “Strategies of Union Revitalization in Spain: Negotiating Change and Fragmentation”. European Journal of Industrial Relations 9 (1): 61–78. http://doi.org/10.1177/0959680103009001451.
Heery, Edmund, John Kelly, and Jeremy Waddington. 2003. “Union Revitalization in Britain”. European Journal of Industrial Relations 9 (1): 79–97. http://doi.org/10.1177/0959680103009001452.
Houghton, David J., and Andy Hodder. 2021. “Understanding Trade Union Usage of Social Media: A Case Study of the Public and Commercial Services Union on Facebook and Twitter”. New Technology, Work and Employment 36 (2): 219–239. http://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12209.
Hurrell, Scott A., Dora Scholarios, and James Richards. 2017. “‘The Kids Are Alert’: Generation Y Responses to Employer Use and Monitoring of Social Networking Sites”. New Technology, Work and Employment 32 (1): 64–83. http://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12085.
Ibsen, Christian Lyhne, and Maite Tapia. 2017. “Trade Union Revitalisation: Where Are We Now? Where to Next?” Journal of Industrial Relations 59 (2): 170–191. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022185616677558.
Julián Véjar, Dasten. 2018. “Precariedad laboral y estrategias sindicales en el neoliberalismo: Cambios en la politización del trabajo en Chile”. Psicoperspectivas 17 (1): 103–115.
Kelly, John. 2004. “Social Partnership Agreements in Britain: Labor Cooperation and Compliance”. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society 43 (1): 267–292. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0019-8676.2004.00326.x.
Martínez Lucio, Miguel. 2003. “New Communication Systems and Trade Union Politics: A Case Study of Spanish Trade Unions and the Role of the Internet”. Industrial Relations Journal 34 (4): 334–347. http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2338.00279.
Martínez Lucio, Miguel, and Heather Connolly. 2012. “Transformation and Continuities in Urban Struggles: Urban Politics, Trade Unions and Migration in Spain”. Urban Studies 49 (3): 669–684.
Martínez Lucio, Miguel, and Steve Walker. 2005. “The Networked Union? The Internet as a Challenge to Trade Union Identity and Roles”. Critical Perspectives on International Business 1 (2–3): 137–154. http://doi.org/10.1108/17422040510595645.
Montero, Cecilia, Pablo Morris, Raúl de la Barrera, René Guerra, and Diego López. 2000. “Tendencias emergentes en la negociación colectiva: El tránsito del contrato al convenio”. Cuaderno de Investigación No. 11. Santiago: Dirección del Trabajo.
Murray, Gregor. 2017. “Union Renewal: What Can We Learn from Three Decades of Research?” Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 23 (1): 9–29. http://doi.org/10.1177/1024258916681723.
Panagiotopoulos, Panagiotis. 2012. “Towards Unions 2.0: Rethinking the Audience of Social Media Engagement”. New Technology, Work and Employment 27 (3): 178–192. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2012.00287.x.
Pasquier, Vincent, and Alex J. Wood. 2018. “The Power of Social Media as a Labour Campaigning Tool: Lessons from OUR Walmart and the Fight for 15”. ETUI Policy Brief No. 10. Brussels: European Trade Union Institute.
Pasquier, Vincent, Christian Lévesque, and Marc-Antonin Hennebert. 2023. “Tragic Performances? How Unions Stage Their Online Identity”. Journal of Industrial Relations 65 (5): 686–716. http://doi.org/10.1177/00221856231192322.
Pérez Ahumada, Pablo. 2023. Building Power to Shape Labor Policy: Unions, Employer Associations, and Reform in Neoliberal Chile. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Pérez Ahumada, Pablo, and Gino Ocampo. 2023. “Labour Disputes in Contexts of Trade Union Fragmentation and Pluralism: An Empirical Analysis of the Case of Chile”. International Labour Review 162 (3): 459–480. http://doi.org/10.1111/ilr.12408.
Pérez-Ahumada, Pablo, and Godoy-Márquez, Nicolás. 2026. “Can Strike Action Revitalize Labour Unions? An Empirical Analysis of the Chilean Case”. Economic and Industrial Democracy 47 (2), 573–597. http://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X251342389.
Rozas Bugueño, Joaquín, and Antoine Maillet. 2019. “Entre marchas, plebiscitos e iniciativas de ley: Innovación en el repertorio de estrategias del movimiento No Más AFP en Chile (2014–2018)”. Izquierdas 48 (November): 1–21. http://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-50492019000400001.
Schmalz, Stefan, Carmen Ludwig, and Edward Webster. 2018. “The Power Resources Approach: Developments and Challenges”. Global Labour Journal 9 (2): 113–134. http://doi.org/10.15173/glj.v9i2.3569.
Schmalz, Stefan, and Klaus Dörre. 2018. “The Power Resources Approach”. FES Information Series 2018/2. Seoul: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Korea Office.
Schmalz, Stefan, Victoria Basualdo, Melisa Serrano, Kurt Vandaele, and Edward Webster. 2023. “Varieties of Platform Unionism: A View from the Global South on Workers’ Power in the Digital Economy”. Work in the Global Economy 3 (2): 201–224. http://doi.org/10.1332/27324176Y2023D000000001.
Simms, Melanie. 2012. “Imagined Solidarities: Where Is Class in Union Organising?” Capital & Class 36 (1): 97–115. http://doi.org/10.1177/0309816811430840.
Simms, Melanie, and Jane Holgate. 2010. “Organising for What? Where Is the Debate on the Politics of Organising?” Work, Employment and Society 24 (1): 157–168. http://doi.org/10.1177/0950017010361413.
Tattersall, Amanda. 2005. “There is Power in Coalition: A Framework for Assessing How and When Union-Community Coalitions Are Effective and Enhance Union Power”. Labour and Industry 16 (2): 97–112. http://doi.org/10.1080/10301763.2005.10669325.
Upchurch, Martin, and Rickard Grassman. 2016. “Striking with Social Media: The Contested (Online) Terrain of Workplace Conflict”. Organization 23 (5): 639–656. http://doi.org/10.1177/1350508415598248.
Velásquez Orellana, Diego, Domingo Pérez, and Sebastián Link. 2022. “What Tactical Repertoire to Use in Strikes and When to Use It? Strategies of Workers and Their Mobilization Power in Chile (2010–2018)”. British Journal of Industrial Relations 60 (1): 78–98. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12620.
Waddington, Jeremy, and Reiner Hoffmann. 2000. “Trade Unions in Europe: Reform, Organisation and Restructuring”. In Trade Unions in Europe: Facing Challenges and Searching for Solutions, edited by Jeremy Waddington and Reiner Hoffmann, 27–79. Brussels: European Trade Union Institute.
Wood, Alex J. 2015. “Networks of Injustice and Worker Mobilisation at Walmart”. Industrial Relations Journal 46 (4): 259–274. http://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12103.
Wood, Alex J. 2020. “Beyond Mobilisation at Mcdonald’s: Towards Networked Organising”. Capital & Class 44 (4): 493–502. http://doi.org/10.1177/0309816820906354.
Wood, Alex J., Mark Graham, Vili Lehdonvirta, and Isis Hjorth. 2019. “Good Gig, Bad Gig: Autonomy and Algorithmic Control in the Global Gig Economy”. Work, Employment and Society 33 (1): 56–75. http://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018785616.
Woodcock, Jamie, and Callum Cant. 2022. “Platform Worker Organising at Deliveroo in the UK: From Wildcat Strikes to Building Power”. Journal of Labor and Society 25 (2): 220–236. http://doi.org/10.1163/24714607-bja10050.
Wright, Erik Olin. 2000. “Working-Class Power, Capitalist-Class Interests, and Class Compromise”. American Journal of Sociology 105 (4): 957–1002. http://doi.org/10.1086/210397.