ABSTRACT

I conceptualized interaction and action as transformational mechanisms. These mechanisms occur where the individuals interact with each other and produce a collective outcome (Hedström and Swedberg 1998: 23). I will analyze the interaction and commitment to cooperation and solidarity with respect to their impact on commitment to (further) collective action. It is interesting to analyze the character of interaction and how it is perceived by the actors involved, as it differs from the conceptualizations provided by other Europeanization theories. This chapter is divided into four parts. In the first subchapter, the role of organizations in horizontal mobilization is conceptualized. Then I examine the role of interaction as persuasion, and in the subsequent subchapter the impact of differences. The following part presents my own findings regarding the role of interaction: namely building trust and relationships. The last part will present examples confirming the argument that the action itself is a source of further commitment and further specify how this mechanism works. I will describe the role of existing European structures as presenting an

opportunity for interaction between the trade unions. By structures I mean both European level organizations as well as EWCs, regional cooperation venues. I will show the potential of different structures for becoming venues where transnational solidarity can develop. Turner (1996) pointed to the transnational European structures of interest representation such as the ETUC or the EWCs as being structures without action. However, he does see a potential for mobilization generating from these structures. From a longer-term perspective and with richer empirical material, I would like to undertake analysis of the relation between those structures and the action. Sceptics point mostly to the clash of interests and preferences that hinder

the working of international organizations. I will address this argument by examining the role and character of the interaction that takes place in transnational spaces. Changing of preferences and dealing with differences will be in the focus. I will argue, based on the interviews, that the differences do not necessarily preclude collective action and transnational solidarity. Collective action can be considered to be a process that itself conditions

engagement in further actions. On the one hand, we can conceptualize action

as a ritual that has an identity-building character. Participation can be a rewarding experience in itself. On the other hand, it can be a process of learning. The participants recognize the effectiveness of their engagement and therefore perceive their self-interest in further action. In the narratives of the decision makers we can recognize the reference to action as part of the decision-making process on collective action. The role of the action as such should also be considered in the context of path-dependency. Many scholars point to the cultural or institutional legacies that inhibit international cooperation. Especially those trade unions that are embedded in the national level are expected to be less interested in engaging in European cooperation, such as the German or Swedish unions, for instance. Being successful at home, they remain reluctant to become involved and have insufficient incentive for international cooperation. Those occupying weaker positions in their national context might be more interested in international cooperation; but their resources are limited (Ebbinghaus and Visser 1994: 233ff.). Path-dependencies and differences between trade unions can be recognized in my case studies. However, I would not over-emphasize their importance. Instead of concluding on their persistence, I would like to stress that the commitment to cooperation can potentially evolve in new path-dependencies and become informally institutionalized. Experience and interaction play a role in changing the trade unions’ strategy.

Organizational structures at the transnational level provide not only the motivation to engage at the European level: they also foster cooperation among the trade unions. In this part I will mainly refer to European Works Councils and Interregional Trade Union Councils, which are venues for contact and exchange at the lower level of organizing (plant and regional level). This question can be seen in a broader perspective of the potential influence of EU funding on the mobilization of civil society (cp. Tarrow 2002: 243). In the end, I will illustrate with an example of a failed cooperation between German and Polish trade unions that the absence of established organizational structures can also hinder cooperation. This highlights the importance of these structures for mobilization. However, it needs to be stressed that the cooperation network is not mainly

driven by the European organizational structures, but rather the market logic. The trade unions established contacts through international trade union federations independent of European integration. Polish interviewees from the national and branch level underlined that the contacts have had a longer history. They often referred to organizations such as Education International and Building Workers International. Therefore, the European organizations can be seen as an additional opportunity for cooperation, but not its driving force. The example of cooperation on migration issues illustrates the point. The activities are directed towards the countries where the migrants come from or where the firms go to. One can assume that the contacts and cooperation