He thereby takes issue with most observers for whom the so‑called postwar “social pact” or “labor‑management accord” was the foundation of industrial prosperity during those years, a “metaphor for pluralist democracy itself”. A Revisionist ViewĤLichtenstein’s revisionism lies in his characterization of the postwar collective bargaining model as a “defeat”, a dictate “ imposed upon an all‑too reluctant labor movement in an era of its political retreat and internal divisions”. Firm‑Centered Bargaining vs Politicized Bargaining 1. Finally, these notions will be applied to the 20 th century labor experience. labor historians as well, which apparently covers different conceptual spheres for American and European academics. Then I’ll question the use of some political terminology by Lichtenstein, and other U.S. Why, he asks, did labor stand far closer to the center of the nation’s political and moral consciousness than it does today and what role has institutional unionism played here? In other words, why have labor’s “larger ambitions” failed?ĢIn this paper, I hope to point out problematic continuities, evolutions and, at times, breaks in Lichtenstein’s scholarship as he came to conclusions in State of the Union, an impressively synthetic and at once multi‑dimensional essay of America’s century‑long labor experience.ģFirst of all, I’ll look more closely at one of State of the Union’s main theses, what Lichtenstein himself calls a “revisionist view” of the post‑war collective bargaining regime. unions and the “labor question,” i.e., the condition of workers, notably marked by social injustice, industrial strife and dislocation. 1As Nelson Lichtenstein writes, State of the Union explores the relationship between 20 th century U.S.
0 kommentar(er)
