Download This PDF File

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION INTERPRETING TI-lE LABOR MOVEMENT DECEMBER, 1952 INTERPRETING THE LABOR MOVEMENT INTERPRETING THE LABOR MOVEMENT Industrial Relations Research Association Editorial Board: GEORGE W. BROOKS MILTON DERBER DAVID A. McCABE PlllLIP TAFT 1952 COPYRIGHT, 1952, BY INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION Requests to quote from this publication may be made to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Association Park and University, Temp. 3, Room 5, Madison 5, Wisconsin PRINTED IN U. S. A. Publication No. 9 $3.00 Twin City Printing Co., Champaign, Ill. INTRODUCTION IN DECEMBER, 1950, the Industrial Relations Research Association devoted a major session of its annual meeting to the topic "Theory of the Labor Movement-a Reappraisal." The enthusiastic discussions which characterized and followed this session sparked a realization that the time had come for a "new look" at this vital institution of American life. The works of John R. Commons, Robert Hoxie, Selig Perlman, and others which had dealt with the labor movement of the pre-New Deal era still provided important insights into the nature of the labor movement that emerged out of the New Deal. But a revolu tion had occurred. It was not only that organized labor had expanded more than five-fold, that collective bargaining determined the condi tions of employment in most of the major industries of the nation out side of agriculture and trade, and that the right of free organization was firmly established in the law. Underlying all of these was the fact that the labor movement had become engrained in the basic fabric of American culture, had become a major force in the political and social as well as economic life of America. The growth of organized labor, of course, has not been ignored by students of contemporary American history. On the contrary, a vast and steadily growing volume of books, pamphlets, and articles have described and analyzed numerous phases of organized labor's rela tions with management, government, and the local community. But few studies of a theoretical character have been produced to illuminate the nature of the labor movement as a whole. The gaps and inade quacies of the older theories have remained largely unchallenged. It was this fact which prompted the executive board of the IRRA first to institute a formal discussion of the Commons-Perlman theories and then to direct the preparation of a brief series of essays on various aspects of American labor from the point of view of general theory. The present volume was designed to stimulate new thinking about labor theory, not to provide a definitive and integrated theoretical structure. The size of the volume was deliberately limited in advance to approximately 200 pages. This immediately imposed a limitation on the number of topics to be covered and the comprehensiveness of the treatment of any topic. Many important topics had to be omitted and none could be dealt with exhaustively. Each author was given a free hand to approch his subject in any way that he wished, with the sole understanding that the emphasis should be on theory and analysis, v VI INTRODUCTION not description. Descriptive data were to be used to illustrate theoret ical points. Considering the variety of the topics and the diverse experiences and interests of the authors, perhaps the most striking feature of the volume is the extent of fundamental agreement to be found in the ten essays. Differences exist of course, and not all points of view are represented. The editors, differing on many ideas among themselves, made suggestions but never attempted to impose their own thinking upon the authors. Nonetheless, throughout the essays certain themes stand out : (a) the pragmatic nature of the American labor move ment, continually experimenting with a changing environment to survive and grow, (b) the diverse, multi-form character of the move ment attacking its problems and seeking its goals through the use of many different structures, policies, and techniques, and (c) the increasing complexity of its activities as it moves beyond the plant and industry into the community, state, national, and international arenas. The opening essay by Philip Taft analyzes the theories of the labor movement which have struggled for primacy up to the present time those of Brentano, the Webbs, Marx-Lenin, selected Catholic writers, Hoxie, Commons, and Perlman. Taft distinguishes between the theories of the origin of the labor movement (which are largely of historical interest for the United States) and the theories of the be havior of the labor movement. He concludes, with Perlman, that "American unionism has a philosophy of simple pragmatism" and that while it may not rank high for philosophy, it deserves high score as a means of protecting workers against arbitrary rule and raising their standard of living. He agrees with critics of the "job conscious" approach that labor has shown a growing political consciousness but notes that in the matter of sponsoring th e "new" society, labor today is less enthusiastic than it was a half-century ago. Ben Stephansky concurs with Taft that labor's "will to job control" is superior to any developing will to political power. By examining the realm of trade union structure he finds "the labor movement's stubborn rootage in its industrial job terrain." Stephansky notes that the two dominant features of the structural development of the Amer ican labor movement have been "a persistent diversity of structural form coupled with a noticeable trend toward amalgamation." He em phasizes that "development of broader structural forms has not signi fied an ideological transformation from a will to job control to a will INTRODUCTION Vll to political power, but has meant the fulfillment of job-conscious unionism in an altered industrial environment. " In explaining the factors which have shaped the structure of the American labor move ment, he selects seven for special analysis-ideology, labor's internal government, the federal government's approach, economic forces, the organization of industry, ethnic groups, and the unevenness of unionization. The influence of ethnic groups on the development of the American labor movement is given more detailed consideration by Jack Barbash. As Barbash states, systematic studies of this subject are few despite the fact that there is "scarcely a union of consequence in the United States which in one form or other does not show the impact of ethnic strains." The sharp curtailment of immigration since the early 1920's is undoubtedly the main reason for the neglect. Barbash concludes that the major impact of the ethnic factor seems to have been on union government, administration, and politics rather than on the substance of union policy (i.e., wages, hours, seniority, etc.) in specific situa tions. He finds no evidence that unions "have been used to further goals of particular ethnic groups at the expense of the union's integ rity as a union. " He recognizes that the diversity of ethnic strains has complicated union organizational work but believes that "on balance the ethnic diversity has been a source of strength" because the union has been able to serve as a powerful "Americanizing" force. Joseph Kovner is concerned with the problem of union democracy. He finds democratic procedure inherent in the structure and function of the local union, in the close tie between the informal shop society and the formal organization. By contrast the strong national union is a center of power remote from the membership and not easily suscep tible to membership participation. "Special action must be taken to suppress local democracy ; in the national, it takes special action to preserve it. " Kovner perceives the major problem of democracy in the national union (or the centralized district organization) to result from the fact that the officers in control can only be dealt with on equal terms by a group of locals. But "counter-organization of a group of locals requires political skill and cash resources that are usually not available to an opposition group." The extent to which locals can deal with national affairs is hampered by their ignorance of technical leg islative and economic questions and by the increasing role of the national union in collective bargaining. The remedy is not to be found in mechanics of government or forms of organization. It lies, says V111 INTRODUCTION Kovner, in an historical cycle of "democratic action and dormancy and regeneration" made possible by the democratic society within which American unions operate. Our authors are generally agreed that the major concern of organ ized labor is its role in industry. The extent and limits of this role are analyzed by L. Reed Tripp. Tripp holds that the paramount function of unions is "the advancement of the well-being and aims of employee membership. " In carrying out this function unions may serve as a stabilizing device in industry, as a communication mechanism within the plant, and as a reflection of the psychological drives of industrial workers. The most controversial issue concerning the union's role in industry is the matter of participation of the union in formulating and administering the rules of conduct governing the employment rela tionship. Tripp finds that the concepts of "industrial jurisprudence, " "industrial democracy, " and "industrial government" have stressed different aspects of the union's participation role without pinpointing the problem of limits. He concludes that the extent and limit of the union's role is not precisely measurable in a mathematical or legalistic sense and will vary from one bargaining situation to another. Em ployer strength, the public's concept of reasonableness, and the union's role as protector and advocate of worker job interests all serve as checks on the extent of union participation in managerial functions.

Load more