Book Review

Derek H. Aldcroft and Michael J. Oliver, Trade Unions and the Economy: 1870-2000, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2000, pp. xiv + 222, £45.00 cloth.

As we commence a new century—or more correctly, millennium—unionism seems to be in decline. Neo-liberalism and individualism appear triumphant. Those who supply labour find themselves competing against each other for scarce jobs arrayed against the collective force of companies, organized into corporations, buttressed by banks and financial institutions. Milan Kundera has said 'the struggle of [people] against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting'; Howard Zinn, Dana Frank and Robin Kelley want to rectify this problem. They want to provide us with memory concerning 'the fighting spirit of labor's last century', in examining three strikes which occurred in the United States of America in the period 1913 to 1937. They maintain There is a shameful failure in the history courses and texts of the educational system to tell the truth about [labor struggles] of the nation's history. The result is to deprive us all of the inspiring stories of diverse working people who fought against great odds—the combined power of business and government—to try to bring a measure of dignity to their lives (p. 2). Zinn examines the Colorado coal strike of 1913-14. This is the strike associated with the infamous Ludlow massacre, when the roasted bodies of eleven children and two women were found in a miners' camp on 21 April 1914. The camp had been fired upon by members of the National Guard. The strike was over the issue of union recognition and was amongst the most violent and bloodiest in the annals of American labour history. It is estimated that 66 persons died, or, to be more accurate, were killed in this dispute. The mining company, part of the Rockefeller empire, and various parts of the state combined to crush the miners. Zinn provides a chilling account of this mini civil war.	1
In 1937, over 100 female salespersons, in a Woolworths store in Detroit, initiated a sit down strike, in an attempt to gain union recognition and improve various wages and working conditions—a dispute which they won within a week. Frank locates the dispute within the increased worker and union militancy of the mid to late 1930s, the rise and fall of sit down strikes, inter-union politics of this era and economic and industrial relations aspects of chain/department stores. One of the more interesting features of this study is how Frank captures the 'mood' and/or camaraderie that existed between the various, mainly young, women during the period of the occupation of this Woolworth's store. The contrast between this sit down strike and the 1913-14 Colorado coal mine strike could not be more stark. Besides differences in who won and lost, and the length of the respective disputes, for at least two days the store manager provided food for the occupiers (who washed up)—at Colorado, management 'fed' striking miners and their families with bullets from Gattling guns!	2
In the third study, Kelley examines how technological change impacted adversely on the employment of workers—in the case here musicians—following the transition from silent to sound movies. With silent movies, theatre owners required musicians to provide 'atmosphere' to enhance flickering images on the screen and/or to fill in the interludes of changing different reels. Sound movies and other technological advances (records) enabled the Taylorisation and mass production of sound/music. Various strategies—including strikes—employed by the American Federation of Musicians to protect the employment and income of members proved to be unsuccessful. Implicit to Kelley's analysis is the issue of intellectual property rights associated with the production and mass distribution of music.	3
The three case studies make for interesting reading. The contribution by Zinn, as a piece of writing, is the least successful. It is not as well organised and presented as the respective chapters by Frank and Kelley. While bibliographic material is provided at the end of the book, individual chapters do not provide sources for various quotes and other information. Presumably, the authors wish to attract general readers. However, the non-provision of standard footnotes, which could have been relegated to the back of the book, will prove irksome for scholars and academics.	4
No rationale is provided for the choice of strikes. We have two recognition disputes. The first was characterised by violence, murder and defeat. The second was a victory for the workers concerned. The third strike provides an example of a union unable to protect members against the onslaught of technological change. Three Strikes documents two routs and one victory. The 'facts' and trajectories of the three are different from each other and lack any common theme—other than that of struggle. Three Strikes honours the struggles of these different groups of workers; it provides us with memory of their attempts to gain recognition for their employment rights and enhancement of their human dignity.	5
The fraught history of industrial relations is not so well served by Aldcroft's and Oliver's study of British trade unionism. Unlike Three Strikes, Trade Unions And The Economy: 1870-2000 is not a work of original research. It is a lengthy literature review where the authors bring together, present and pass comment on the work of others who have traversed various aspects of the relationship between unions and the British economy. A binding limitation on their work is the authors that they have surveyed and/or chosen.	6
Their method—and then again maybe it wasn't their method—results in a number of gaps, or, if one was possessed of a harsher inclination, inconsistencies. Their presentation is sub-divided into four periods; 1870-1914, 1914-1951, 1950-1970s and 1979-2000. Material on unions and restrictive practices is provided for the periods 1870-1914 and 1950-70 (and implicitly for 1970-2000), but not for 1914-1951. They provide details on unions and World War I, but not World War II. More generally they eschew virtually any examination of British unions and incomes policies and/ or considerations of corporatist-type arrangements that operated between different Labor Party governments and the Trade Union Congress. They have ignored corporatist literature which examines the relationship between unions and macroeconomic performance. The omission of such material constitutes a major weakness of their work. The explanation of this omission is that the authors are examining unions from the perspective of neo-classical economics. (In saying this it should be noted that they ignore models of monopsony—that part of neoclassical economics which enables unions to assume a positive role). The proposition, or conclusion, that they wish to advance, or find, is that unionism is antithetical to the efficient operation of an economy. In particular, it is their wont that unions impinge adversely on innovation, technical progress and productive enhancement. It is not as if they employed neoclassical economics as a working hypothesis—it served the function of being a 'truth' which they would simply find..	7
The essential model of British industrial relations employed by Aldcroft and Oliver is 'the two systems in conflict', that was presented and made famous in the 1968 Donovan Report (Report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers Associations, 1965-1968). During the periods of incomes policies it might have been more appropriate to denote British industrial relations as being 'three systems in conflict'! The two systems were that of national level collective bargaining between, tautologically, unions and employer associations on the one hand, and plant-level negotiations between shop stewards and line management on the other. National level negotiations tended to provide framework agreements and minimum standards, thereby leaving scope for shop stewards and lower-level managers to negotiate agreements sensitive to local factors and circumstances. For those who are interested in such things, this is essentially the system being currently utilised in Australia under the rubric of enterprise bargaining.	8
In their conclusion Aldcroft and Oliver maintain that The decentralised, fragmented and often market-dominated system of industrial relations that developed in the period before 1914, with its customs and norms set in the craft era of control, was to cast a long and malign shadow over much of the twentieth century ... Union leadership was never strong enough or knowledgeable enough to adapt the structures of the formative years to the twentieth century and hence it fell victim to grass-roots control (p. 178). Unions then, according to Aldcroft and Oliver, operated in a market oriented industrial relations system. For an economist this would mean that the ability of unions to influence matters would be linked to the fortunes of the British economy. Despite what they said in the above quotation Aldcroft and Oliver found that unions had minimal impact and/or negative effects in the periods 1870-1914 and 1914-1951 (see chapters one and two). The major negative impact of unions, according to the authors, occurred in the period 1950-1979. This was, generally speaking, an era of full employment—an era in which well organised unions at the local level were enabled to take advantage of a favourable economic environment. In the period 1979-2000 the market, with increasing levels of unemployment and attendant international trade problems, employers and the state turned against unions, with concomitant declines in their fortunes and 'effects'. More generally, Aldcroft and Oliver in their discussion of the relationship between unions and the economy are inconsistent in their designation of which is the independent and/or dependent variable. They have ignored any discussion of this basic and essential methodological problem.	9
Other variables besides unions affect the economy. Aldcroft and Oliver persistently draw attention to failings of management and policies of the state which have adversely impacted on the economy. Britain for example has had lower levels of training and education—or what economists refer to as human capital—in comparison with other western-style societies. While noting this, Aldcroft and Oliver have not been able to overcome the ceteris paribus problem in analysing the impact of unions.	10
Trade Unions And The Economy: 1870-2000 constitutes another neoclassical critique of unions. It will provide nourishment for those opposed to unionism. For the various reasons outlined, Aldcroft and Oliver have provided a work of little import which will be quickly forgotten.	11
University of New South Wales BRAHAM DABSCHECK

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.