2 of 9
2
Fast Food Employees on Strike
Posted: 01 August 2013 06:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

McGeyver, you already tipped your hand with this: “It’s one thing to want to help people live a better life
There’s really no further need to continue.
This is the part I hate…the disconnect in someone’s argument like this.
You tipped your hand and it reveals either an ideological stance, or an incomplete understanding of the issue. Or a mix of both.
Either way, you probably won’t know where you stand if you continue the discussion.
Yes people have a right to organize.
If the workers are successful down the road, McDonald’s has a right to go out of business or fight it in courts which will surely be biased in their(McDonald’s) favor.

[ Edited: 01 August 2013 06:55 PM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2013 06:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Jeciron - 01 August 2013 03:11 PM

People whose resources are concentrated in traditional measures of wealth, i.e. cash, stocks, bonds, material holdings, organize to maximize their benefits and we laud that as capitalism.  People whose resources are concentrated in their ability to labor organize to maximize the benefits they can gain from their resource and we decry that as socialism, or worse, communism and criticize them for trying to ignore or break the holy laws of the marketplace.  Somehow that attitude always seems to carry an odor of hypocrisy.

Yes, Jeciron.  Amazing, you are making the most relevant points here and as usual people are not reading them.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2013 07:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  348
Joined  2006-11-27

Macgyver: when people organize to force employers to pay a greater price for their labor than the market values it at, that is not free market economics any more than it would be if all the companies that sold a product got together and demanded more for their product than it was worth

I’m not sure I agree.  Isn’t the essence of free market economics the idea that the relationship between supply and demand determines the value of a product?  In order to assess the this it is natural that labor will have to try get the highest wage possible.  Laborers can only do this by withholding labor, capitalists do it by raising prices until they exceed the amount individuals are willing to pay.  When the value of the labor, or a product is exceeded the market will force an adjustment.  If I hold stock in a company which overprices its product, I will experience a somewhat painful adjustment, as will the laborer who overprices their labor, but the only way to really establish the value of a good or service is to push that limit.  How is that not a free market exchange?

Macgyver: unions have also had periods where they were all powerful and nearly crippled our economy

I’m not sure the Great Depression can be blamed on unionization, and during the 1950s and 60s a large percentage of laborers were union members at a time when the economy was very stable and productive.  An argument can be made that when labor receives a fair wage money circulates more effectively and economic stagnation is prevented.

And, I think it’s important to remember that people who are involved in unions are as much a part of our government as anyone else, they are not some separate entity asking for a handout.

But, I recognize that professional, white collar workers are caught in the middle.  They are unable to organize in the way that labor can and I believe that is somewhat unjust.  Doctors especially fall into a class of professional who are felt to provide an essential service, one that many feel should be available to all individuals, and I can see how that makes pricing medical care very complex.  At root we seem to have some distrust of a totally free market, so we socialize many jobs that are seen as essential, like the military, the police, fire department and to a great degree the jobs which maintain the transportation infrastructure.  If we, as a society, feel that access to medicine is similarly essential perhaps we should create a similar structure for it’s practitioners.  I’m not saying that physicians are improperly valued, but the value of the service they provide may be as difficult to value as the skills and risks incurred by a fireman who can save an infant in the upper story of a burning building.

On the subject of minimum wage.  I believe deeply that if an individual works at a reasonable pace, to the best of their ability and opportunity, for 40 hours a week they should receive a large enough wage to enable them, and a reasonable number of offspring,  access to decent food and housing, basic healthcare, education and some slight opportunity to better themselves. I don’t think that’s possible for a person working their tail off all day in a hot, greasy hamburger joint and receiving the current minimum wage.  If paying workers fairly prices a service out of the market that is the nature of a free market.  If we insist on having access to a product and will not pay the laborers creating it a living wage, that isn’t a job, it is slavery, and as a society we should be ashamed.

 Signature 

If we’re not laughing, they’re winning.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2013 07:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

McGeyver-Strictly speaking when people organize to force employers to pay a greater price for their labor than the market values it at, that is not free market economics any more than it would be if all the companies that sold a product got together and demanded more for their product than it was worth.

Nobody forces anybody.  They sit down and come to an agreement, then they make a contract like nice people do.
It is free-market economy.  All the employees get together and incorporate their labor. Like a big company. And they sell their labor to the other company.
And there are United States laws that have to be followed in the organization of this “company”(union) and laws concerning the other company’s dealing with that union. So it’s also perfectly legal. It’s all in the Dept. Of Labor’s website.


Its always a difficult balance between giving employees/unions too much power versus businesses getting too much power. If businesses have too much power they may take advantage of employees but unions have also had periods where they were all powerful and nearly crippled our economy.

LOL

The police unions in our area have managed to ratchet up salaries for police officers so that they make far more in salary and benefits than most of the people who they are sworn to protect.

Go take the police test then.  Don’t you know about upward mobility? Look for the job with more pay and go for it.
No, you want the new American way…complain about what the other guy is making, and bring everyone down with ya.  Instead of aspiring to improve your lot with the tools society offers. Misery loves company!!

In response to your other comment, the people who are protesting for the right to unionize ARE asking for our help since we are the government and its the government that will decide if they are going to get the right to unionize.

They aren’t protesting for the right to organize. They already have that right. I’m sure some suitable large Unions are looking into the matter as we speak.
The government doesn’t decide anything accept in court to see if any laws were or are being violated.

The whole purpose of their protest is to gain sympathy from the public and that’s fine but as their audience we need to evaluate the strengths of their argument. I personally don’t find their case to be a strong one when they are asking for such high wages for a job that requires no skill at all.

Yeah, I get it. Your a Doctor and they are just lowly fast food workers who should know their place.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2013 07:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Mike Yohe-The fast food industry using organized labor today is just the tip of the iceberg of new organized labor and labor strikes that we will be looking at the next 10 years as the high inflation hit us.

Man I hope you’re right!  But I’m not holding my breath.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2013 08:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26
Jeciron - 01 August 2013 07:07 PM

Macgyver: when people organize to force employers to pay a greater price for their labor than the market values it at, that is not free market economics any more than it would be if all the companies that sold a product got together and demanded more for their product than it was worth

I’m not sure I agree.  Isn’t the essence of free market economics the idea that the relationship between supply and demand determines the value of a product?  In order to assess the this it is natural that labor will have to try get the highest wage possible.  Laborers can only do this by withholding labor, capitalists do it by raising prices until they exceed the amount individuals are willing to pay.  When the value of the labor, or a product is exceeded the market will force an adjustment.  If I hold stock in a company which overprices its product, I will experience a somewhat painful adjustment, as will the laborer who overprices their labor, but the only way to really establish the value of a good or service is to push that limit.  How is that not a free market exchange?

Macgyver: unions have also had periods where they were all powerful and nearly crippled our economy

I’m not sure the Great Depression can be blamed on unionization, and during the 1950s and 60s a large percentage of laborers were union members at a time when the economy was very stable and productive.  An argument can be made that when labor receives a fair wage money circulates more effectively and economic stagnation is prevented.

And, I think it’s important to remember that people who are involved in unions are as much a part of our government as anyone else, they are not some separate entity asking for a handout.

But, I recognize that professional, white collar workers are caught in the middle.  They are unable to organize in the way that labor can and I believe that is somewhat unjust.  Doctors especially fall into a class of professional who are felt to provide an essential service, one that many feel should be available to all individuals, and I can see how that makes pricing medical care very complex.  At root we seem to have some distrust of a totally free market, so we socialize many jobs that are seen as essential, like the military, the police, fire department and to a great degree the jobs which maintain the transportation infrastructure.  If we, as a society, feel that access to medicine is similarly essential perhaps we should create a similar structure for it’s practitioners.  I’m not saying that physicians are improperly valued, but the value of the service they provide may be as difficult to value as the skills and risks incurred by a fireman who can save an infant in the upper story of a burning building.

On the subject of minimum wage.  I believe deeply that if an individual works at a reasonable pace, to the best of their ability and opportunity, for 40 hours a week they should receive a large enough wage to enable them, and a reasonable number of offspring,  access to decent food and housing, basic healthcare, education and some slight opportunity to better themselves. I don’t think that’s possible for a person working their tail off all day in a hot, greasy hamburger joint and receiving the current minimum wage.  If paying workers fairly prices a service out of the market that is the nature of a free market.  If we insist on having access to a product and will not pay the laborers creating it a living wage, that isn’t a job, it is slavery, and as a society we should be ashamed.

I think you missed my point. If all of the workers compete for the available jobs then that is a free market economy just as when several vendors of a product have to compete for customers. When there is only one vendor or in the case f workers, only one union form which to hire workers then we are dealing with a monopoly not a true free market. If the workers dont get what they ask for they can withhold their labor and as there are no other sources of labor when a union is involved then they have created an artificial shortage of supply.

I never said these people were asking for a handout but i do believe they are asking for more money then their skills deserve when many others with greater skills are working for far less ( college grads working as receptionists and even teachers in some places). If you choose to work in a menial job I don’t think you are entitled to the same pay as others who have worked hard and sacrificed to make something better of themselves. As it happens the economy will resolve this issue. If one can get $15/hr flipping burgers we will simply see fewer people taking the time to become a medical assistant, paralegal, computer tech or whatever.

If as you suggest the higher wage puts fast food places out of business then not only will these very same people lose their jobs but there will be less money in the local economy and all the fallout that comes from that.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2013 08:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26
VYAZMA - 01 August 2013 07:19 PM

McGeyver-Strictly speaking when people organize to force employers to pay a greater price for their labor than the market values it at, that is not free market economics any more than it would be if all the companies that sold a product got together and demanded more for their product than it was worth.

Nobody forces anybody.  They sit down and come to an agreement, then they make a contract like nice people do.
It is free-market economy.  All the employees get together and incorporate their labor. Like a big company. And they sell their labor to the other company.
And there are United States laws that have to be followed in the organization of this “company”(union) and laws concerning the other company’s dealing with that union. So it’s also perfectly legal. It’s all in the Dept. Of Labor’s website.


Its always a difficult balance between giving employees/unions too much power versus businesses getting too much power. If businesses have too much power they may take advantage of employees but unions have also had periods where they were all powerful and nearly crippled our economy.

LOL

The police unions in our area have managed to ratchet up salaries for police officers so that they make far more in salary and benefits than most of the people who they are sworn to protect.

Go take the police test then.  Don’t you know about upward mobility? Look for the job with more pay and go for it.
No, you want the new American way…complain about what the other guy is making, and bring everyone down with ya.  Instead of aspiring to improve your lot with the tools society offers. Misery loves company!!

In response to your other comment, the people who are protesting for the right to unionize ARE asking for our help since we are the government and its the government that will decide if they are going to get the right to unionize.

They aren’t protesting for the right to organize. They already have that right. I’m sure some suitable large Unions are looking into the matter as we speak.
The government doesn’t decide anything accept in court to see if any laws were or are being violated.

The whole purpose of their protest is to gain sympathy from the public and that’s fine but as their audience we need to evaluate the strengths of their argument. I personally don’t find their case to be a strong one when they are asking for such high wages for a job that requires no skill at all.

Yeah, I get it. Your a Doctor and they are just lowly fast food workers who should know their place.

Vyaz you have your prejudices and perhaps I have mine but I am not calling the people involved in this dispute “lowly fast food workers” nor do I think of them that way. There are lots of people who work in those positions who are hard working, good, intelligent people, but if you chose a job like this and do nothing to better yourself I am not sure you have much to complain about. The fact is that Unions do force employers to pay more than market value for services by creating a labor monopoly and then withholding services. They don;t sit down nicely and agree to a contract as you say. Both parties have a gun to their head and depending on the situation one side or the other will have greater leverage but a strong union can easily acquire more for their services than they are worth by threatening to cause financial ruin for the empoyer

I have no desire to become a police officer but “complaining” about an unjust system is how we improve things. Our system has allowed the police union in our county to strong arm the government into paying far more for their services than they are worth. the solution isn’t for everyone to become a police officer. The benefits and salary are so out of line that it has become extremely competitive for anyone who wants the job. Clearly we dont need our citizens to al become cops. What we need is a system that tips the balance more in favor of the tax payers so the salary of police officers are more in line with what people in the private sector get paid. Its not a complaint. Clearly omnipotent employers are not a good thing and are harmful to workers but this particular example is a case unrestrained unions can be problematic as well.

I am not trying to say that unions are all bad but neither are they harmless. We have to always strive to create a reasonable balance between labor and employer.

[ Edited: 01 August 2013 08:24 PM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2013 08:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19

I think a key point that macgyver is trying to reiterate is that labor unions have just as much potential to harm the economy as businesses do. There are valid issues here being brought up on both sides, but we at least should be taking this point into account.

 Signature 

Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.

- Bruce Lee -

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2013 09:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  623
Joined  2013-06-01

The standard labor unions are good for the workers and for the business. Business with unions end up with more employee involvement. An example would be the aerospace industry. About half the companies are unionize and the others are not. In the free market system if the unions charge too much for labor, the business is closed and nobody wins.

Strong unions can destroy a company.

Weak unions can work against the employee and for the company.

Unions use to be controlled by the workers, not so today, they are controlled by groups of lawyers.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2013 09:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19
MikeYohe - 01 August 2013 09:08 PM

The standard labor unions are good for the workers and for the business. Business with unions end up with more employee involvement. An example would be the aerospace industry. About half the companies are unionize and the others are not. In the free market system if the unions charge too much for labor, the business is closed and nobody wins.

Strong unions can destroy a company.

Weak unions can work against the employee and for the company.

Unions use to be controlled by the workers, not so today, they are controlled by groups of lawyers.

Exactly.

 Signature 

Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.

- Bruce Lee -

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2013 09:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27

Businesses negotiate with their suppliers and their customers on price all the time.  This is a given.  Businesses will even go so far as to withhold their product until they can get a higher price (which is no different than employees going on strike).  But when it comes to labor, businesses claim that asking for a higher price is going to ruin business, lead to inflation and ruin the economy, cost jobs,  you name it. Somehow their own lies and manipulations don’t do that, only labor actions.  Labor is a commodity like any other commodity.  Businesses need it and labor has it and wants to control its price, just as businesses control the price of their products.  But only labor is demonized for doing what it can to get the best price for their “product.” Businesses are never demomized for doing what they can to get the best price for theirs, often resorting to creating shortages and creating fear in customers about the quality of their competition’s products. Yet businesses, with a wink and a nudge, claim, “That’s business.” “What’s good for business is good for the country.” They use every trick in the book to make as much profit as possible, but when labor tries to get a better price for their product, suddenly all bets are off. Only labor is denigrated for their efforts, accused of all sorts of terrible tricks to get more, called greedy, called lazy, called criminal.  The pot calls the kettle black. 

With any other commodity, the buyer alone does not set the price of the product. The buyer alone does not set the standards of how the product is made, certainly without offering anything more for extras.  Selling something for whatever they can get for it, taking advantage of shortages or creating them is apparently only open to business, but not labor.  Why should that be the case? Why is labor different than every other commodity?


Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2013 09:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19
Lois - 01 August 2013 09:11 PM

Businesses negotiate with their suppliers and their customers on price all the time.  This is a given.  Businesses will even go so far as to withhold their product until they can get a higher price (which is no different than employees going on strike).  But when it comes to labor, businesses claim that asking for a higher price is going to ruin business, lead to inflation and ruin the economy, cost jobs,  you name it. Somehow their own lies and manipulations don’t do that, only labor actions.  Labor is a commodity like any other commodity.  Businesses need it and labor has it and wants to control its price, just as businesses control the price of their products.  But only labor is demonized for doing what it can to get the best price for their “product.” Businesses are never demomized for doing what they can to get the best price for theirs, often resorting to creating shortages and creating fear in customers about the quality of their competition’s products. Yet businesses, with a wink and a nudge, claim, “That’s business.” “What’s good for business is good for the country.” They use every trick in the book to make as much profit as possible, but when labor tries to get a better price for their product, suddenly all bets are off. Only labor is denigrated for their efforts, accused of all sorts of terrible tricks to get more, called greedy, called lazy, called criminal.  The pot calls the kettle black. 

With any other commodity, the buyer alone does not set the price of the product. The buyer alone does not set the standards of how the product is made, certainly without offering anything more for extras.  Selling something for whatever they can get for it, taking advantage of shortages or creating them is apparently only open to business, but not labor.  Why should that be the case? Why is labor different than every other commodity?


Lois

What? A massive portion of this country attacks the “evil” business owner on a regular basis, including politicians and media.

 Signature 

Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.

- Bruce Lee -

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2013 09:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  623
Joined  2013-06-01

All workers are unionized or covered by laws that were created by unions to some level by state and federal laws that deal with hours, overtime, unemployment, safety in the work place, working environment, safety clothing, breathing atmosphere, lighting, sexual atmosphere, discrimination, age limits, pregnancy, days worked before needing to pay the employee.

Items not covered are vacation, double time pay, holiday pay, retirement, severance pay, seniority and rate of pay over minimum wage unless it is Federal or State then prevailing wage laws go into effect.


So all workers are a little bit unionized by the government.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2013 11:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2679
Joined  2011-04-24
Jeciron - 01 August 2013 07:07 PM

On the subject of minimum wage.  I believe deeply that if an individual works at a reasonable pace, to the best of their ability and opportunity, for 40 hours a week they should receive a large enough wage to enable them, and a reasonable number of offspring,  access to decent food and housing, basic healthcare, education and some slight opportunity to better themselves.

What constitutes a reasonable number of offspring?

What constitutes decent food and housing?

What constitutes a slight opportunity to better themselves?

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2013 11:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Cloak - 01 August 2013 09:24 PM
Lois - 01 August 2013 09:11 PM

Businesses negotiate with their suppliers and their customers on price all the time.  This is a given.  Businesses will even go so far as to withhold their product until they can get a higher price (which is no different than employees going on strike).  But when it comes to labor, businesses claim that asking for a higher price is going to ruin business, lead to inflation and ruin the economy, cost jobs,  you name it. Somehow their own lies and manipulations don’t do that, only labor actions.  Labor is a commodity like any other commodity.  Businesses need it and labor has it and wants to control its price, just as businesses control the price of their products.  But only labor is demonized for doing what it can to get the best price for their “product.” Businesses are never demomized for doing what they can to get the best price for theirs, often resorting to creating shortages and creating fear in customers about the quality of their competition’s products. Yet businesses, with a wink and a nudge, claim, “That’s business.” “What’s good for business is good for the country.” They use every trick in the book to make as much profit as possible, but when labor tries to get a better price for their product, suddenly all bets are off. Only labor is denigrated for their efforts, accused of all sorts of terrible tricks to get more, called greedy, called lazy, called criminal.  The pot calls the kettle black. 

With any other commodity, the buyer alone does not set the price of the product. The buyer alone does not set the standards of how the product is made, certainly without offering anything more for extras.  Selling something for whatever they can get for it, taking advantage of shortages or creating them is apparently only open to business, but not labor.  Why should that be the case? Why is labor different than every other commodity? J


Lois

What? A massive portion of this country attacks the “evil” business owner on a regular basis, including politicians and media.


But only labor is demonized. At one point in this country’s history, labor unions were claimed to be communistic.  Business was never demonized on such a large scale. Unions were denigrated for doing nothing more than what businesses were doing—trying to get the best price for their product.  But that, of course, was communism because it helped the common man. Anythingbhat helped the downtrodden was considered communistic and socialis and ot was only right to crush it. Workers were supposed to tuglon their forelocks and be grateful for getting any kind of wages and working under the worst conditions. They were expected to work for long hours, with few breaks, under horrendous conditions. If they were injured or died on te job that was their hard luck. If they complained they were demonized. 

It was unions who pushed for a 40-hour work week, overtime pay, safety, health insurance, paid vacations and an end to child labor, while business owners fought tooth and nail against all of those things. Meanwhie they often had to suffer lockouts and firings by employers who refused to negotiate, and worse.  Read up on the history of inhuman business practices and the birth of unions. It’s not a pretty picture.

Bernstein, Irving. The Lean Years: A History of the American Worker, 1920-33 (1966)
Brody, David. Labor in Crisis: The Steel Strike of 1919 (1965)
Dubofsky, Melvyn and Warren Van Tine. John L. Lewis: A Biography (1986)
Brody, David. Labor in Crisis: The Steel Strike of 1919 (1965)
Faue, Elizabeth. Community of Suffering & Struggle: Women, Men, and the Labor Movement in Minneapolis, 1915-1945 (1991)
Fraser, Steve. Labor Will Rule: Sidney Hillman and the Rise of American Labor (1993)
Gordon, Colin. New Deals: Business, Labor, and Politics, 1920-1935 (1994)
Greene, Julie . Pure and Simple Politics: The American Federation of Labor and Political Activism, 1881-1917 (1998)
Hooker, Clarence. Life in the Shadows of the Crystal Palace, 1910-1927: Ford Workers in the Model T Era (1997)
Laslett, John H. M. Labor and the Left: A Study of Socialist and Radical Influences in the American Labor Movement, 1881-1924 (1970)
Karson, Marc. American Labor Unions and Politics, 1900-1918 (1958)
McCartin, Joseph A. ’Labor’s Great War: The Struggle for Industrial Democracy and the Origins of Modern American Labor Relations, 1912-1921 (1997)
Mandel, Bernard. Samuel Gompers: A Biography (1963)
Meyer, Stephen. The Five Dollar Day: Labor Management and Social Control in the Ford Motor Company, 1908-1921 (1981)
Mink, Gwendolyn. Old Labor and New Immigrants in American Political Development: Union, Party, and State, 1875-1920 (1986)
Orth, Samuel P. The Armies of Labor: A Chronicle of the Organized Wage-Earners (1919) short overview
Quint, Howard H. The Forging of American Socialism: Origins of the Modern Movement (1964)
Warne, Colston E. ed. The Steel Strike of 1919 (1963), primary and secondary documents
Zieger, Robert. Republicans and Labor, 1919-1929. (1969)
Bernstein, Irving. Turbulent Years: A History of the American Worker, 1933-1941 (1970)
Boyle, Kevin. The UAW and the Heyday of American Liberalism, 1945-1968 (1995)
Campbell, D’Ann. “Sisterhood versus the Brotherhoods: Women in Unions” Women at War With America: Private Lives in a Patriotic Era (1984).
Dubofsky, Melvyn and Warren Van Time John L. Lewis (1986).
Faue, Elizabeth. Community of Suffering & Struggle: Women, Men, and the Labor Movement in Minneapolis, 1915-1945 (1991), social history
Fraser, Steve. Labor Will Rule: Sidney Hillman and the Rise of American Labor (1993).
Galenson, Walter. The CIO Challenge to the AFL: A History of the American Labor Movement, 1935-1941 (1960)
Gordon, Colin. New Deals: Business, Labor, and Politics, 1920-1935 (1994)
Jensen, Richard J. “The Causes and Cures of Unemployment in the Great Depression,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 19 (1989) p. 553-83
Kennedy, David M. Freedom From Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945. (1999) recent narrative.
Lichtenstein, Nelson. Labor’s War at Home: The CIO in World War II (2003)
Lichtenstein, Nelson. The Most Dangerous Man in Detroit: Walter Reuther and the Fate of American Labor (1995)
Miller, Sally M., and Daniel A. Cornford eds. American Labor in the Era of World War II (1995), essays by historians, mostly on California
Preis, Art. Labor’s Giant Step (1964)
Seidman; Joel. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen: The Internal Political Life of a National Union (1962)
Vittoz, Stanley. New Deal Labor Policy and the American Industrial Economy (1987)
Zieger, Robert H. The CIO, 1935-1955 (1995)

[ Edited: 01 August 2013 11:16 PM by Lois ]
Profile
 
 
   
2 of 9
2