1 INDUSTRIAL CITIZENSHIP: A RE-CONCEPTUALISATION AND CASE STUDY OF THE UK Structured Abstract: Purpose: To critically examine and reformulate TH Marshall’s concept of industrial citizenship, and apply the reformulated model to a case study of the UK. Design/Methodology/Approach: Marshall’s conceptualisation of industrial citizenship is criticised for neglecting the rights of unions as collective rights and for treating industrial citizenship as an aggregation of individual rights. Subsequent attempts to use the idea of industrial citizenship are similarly flawed. A case study of changes to industrial citizenship in the UK in the 1980s and 1990s is used to develop the new model and provide evidence in support of it. Findings: An alternative conceptualisation of industrial citizenship is presented that outlines collective and individual powers, obligations, liberties, constraints, immunities and liabilities. This model is illustrated using examples from the Conservative governments’ industrial relations legislation of the 1980s and 1990s. Originality/value: Discussions and applications of TH Marshall’s concept of industrial citizenship are few and far between. The paper proposes an original re-conceptualisation specifying the collective rights of unions in the British regime of industrial citizenship. This new concept of industrial citizenship is then applied to the radical changes in industrial relations legislation in the UK in the 1980s and 1990s. Introduction T. H. Marshall introduced the concept of industrial citizenship in his account of the relationship between citizenship and social class (Marshall 1992). In his discussion of industrial citizenship employees have the right to form and join unions and to engage in actions such as strikes in pursuit of higher wages and better conditions of employment (Marshall 1992: 40-3). However, industrial citizenship in Marshall's account is secondary to civil citizenship, and with some notable exceptions (Barbalet 1988: 22-7; Fudge, 2005; Gersuny 1994; Janoski 1998: 29, 42; Janowitz 1980: 7-8; Muller-Jentsch 1991; Munlak, 2007; Streeck 1997; Woodiwiss 1997) has received little attention from subsequent 2 commentators. However, these later discussions still retain Marshall’s concept of industrial citizenship and its attendant problems. Subsequent work on citizenship has sought to extend Marshall’s initial formulation in relation to various dimensions of inequality, such as gender, ethnicity, sexuality, and disability (Bulmer and Rees 1996; Held 1989; Hussain and Bagguley, 2005; Isin and Wood 1999; Kymlicka 1995; Lister 1997; Nash 2000; Sypnowich 2000; Stevenson 2001; Turner 1986; Waite 1999; Yuval-Davies 1997), or in relation to globalisation and the restructuring of welfare provision (Delanty 2000; Glenn 2000; Roche 1992; Roche and Van Berkel 1997; Turner 1993; Urry 2000: 161-87), but have tended to neglect industrial citizenship. Although it is generally held that Marshall’s model of citizenship was ‘evolutionary’ and that once established each of the distinct realms of citizenship were difficult to reverse a number of writers have noted that citizenship can be ‘eroded’ (Turner 2001; Kivisto and Faist 2007). However, absent from these accounts of erosion is any consideration of industrial citizenship. There are several ways in which I want to fundamentally re-conceptualise industrial citizenship to enable us to use the idea empirically. I argue that it is necessary to take seriously the idea of unions as legal subjects through the concept of collective industrial citizenship rights. Collective rights of industrial citizenship and individual rights are inter-dependent but not reducible to each other. I emphasise the contradictory and contested character of industrial citizenship and that industrial citizenship rights may be eroded as a result of political conflict. Furthermore, I argue that the collective rights of unions are a form of collective human rights. In addition I suggest that unions’ collective powers, immunities and liberties cannot be derived from the individual rights of workers. Although unions are dependent on the rights of individuals to be able to join unions, individual workers can often only exercise their individual rights when unions have 3 strong collective rights. The collective and individual rights of industrial citizenship are inter-dependent. This dichotomy of individual and collective rights highlights the asymmetrical power relations be