トランプ大統領を巡る労組の分断――ビジネス・ユニオニズムからの転換とジレンマ――

<p>President Donald Trump received considerable support from the traditionally Democratic states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. High support in these statues is why President Trump won the 2016 presidential election. In fact, Republican candidates have won the above three states in presidential elections as far back as the 1982 election when Ronald Reagan was a candidate. It’s clear that these traditionally Democratic states have supported democratic presidents in elections over the past 30 years.</p><p>These Rust Belt states have traditionally been heavily influenced by labor unions. As a result, union members—who have traditionally supported the Democratic Party—have changed their behaviors. Commentators have pointed out that this was a decisive factor in the 2016 presidential election. In fact, in the Rust Belt region, including the three states above, union executives tended to support Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton. Union members and their families, however, tended to support Donald Trump. How can we explain the divergence in attitudes over Donald Trump between union leadership and union members? In other words, why did union members vote for Donald Trump, when union leaders advised them not to? Answering these questions is important not just for understanding the 2016 presidential election, but also for understanding the changes that have occurred in unions and the influence of these changes on American politics as anti-global actors since the 1990s. For this reason, this paper examines the division between union members and union leadership over support for President Trump by focusing on changes in the organizational structures of American labor unions since the 1990s.</p><p>Since 1990, unions in the United States have transitioned from business unionism to social unionism following the New Voice movement. These changes have sought to improve declining membership rates and revitalize the labor movement by developing new strategies. The social unionism labor movement combines various social movements. However, as the legitimacy of social unionism becomes recognized and vested interests are acquired, opposing forces may become stronger. Movements actively promoted by social unionism, such as environmental protection and gender equality, are generally middle-class movements whose members are highly educated. Therefore, there is potential for strong opposition from workers who are still rooted in male authoritarianism. The American labor movement, which sought to move from business unionism to social unionism, also faced this dilemma. This was manifested in the division between union executives and union members over their support or rejection of President Trump. This disagreement is not exclusive to American unions. Indeed, this is a difficult problem faced by unions around the world. Therefore this paper deals with a problem that has important implications for unions in other countries.</p>