| Editorial | Labour History, 88 | The History Cooperative

Editorial

This issue contains a section focussing on comparative labour history with regard to the UK and Australia. It is based on a similar project comparing Canada and Australia, the results of which were published in a joint issue of Labour/Le Travail and this journal in 1996. In July 2003, there was a conference at Manchester Metropolitan University with presentations built around a number of themes and individuals recounting their country's particular experiences. Subsequently, a number of teams consisting of scholars from both countries combined to write joint papers, which were then refereed for Labour History. It is hoped that other teams that did not meet the deadline will seek publication either in future issues of Labour History or elsewhere. While the comparative method, like other approaches to labour history, is not free of methodological problems, it does allow us to consider issues or problems that may not be apparent in a single nation study. Comparative labour historians generally recognise that the countries under examination do not exist in isolation and that they are influenced by each other and by other countries. Labour historians have been aware of `relational history' for decades in tracking the influence of ideas such as Marxism, anarcho-syndicalism and scientific management across national borders.

The thematic was organised by Neville Kirk (Manchester Metropolitan University) whose comparative work has focussed on the US, UK and Australia, and me. It consists of an introduction by Neville, seven articles and a postscript by Greg Kealey, who was a co-organiser of the Australian-Canadian comparative labour history project. This collection includes an overview of the state of comparative labour historiography in Australia and the UK and a comparison of labour archives in Australia, England, Wales and Scotland. There are papers examining employers, communism and the Cominform, the labour movement and voluntary action, Labor Parties and the State in the two countries. There is also an innovative article on the role of friendly societies in the two countries. Labour History welcomes manuscripts that focus on self-help through co-operatives, credit unions, Starr-Bowkett societies and similar organisations.

In addition to the thematic section, there are four other articles. Victoria Haskins provides a historical slant on an important current issue — the `stolen wages' of Aboriginal workers. This arose from the practice by governments in Australia of withholding the wages of Aboriginal workers and placing them in trust funds. Michael Quinlan, Margaret Gardner and Peter Akers examine the struggle to restrict shop trading hours in Victoria during the second half of the nineteenth century. Shop trading hours set the parameters for hours of workers such as shop assistants, bakers and butchers. Their campaign led to a pioneering piece of legislation in the British Empire for the early closing of shops in 1883.

The final two articles highlight both quantitative and qualitative approaches to labour history. Articles that use quantitative methods are rarely submitted to Labour History and we welcome this addition. Miles Fairburn and Stephen Haslett show the advantages of using this approach to challenge historical conventions. They find an unexpected cleavage in the working-class vote for the Labour Party in New Zealand between unskilled workers and skilled workers. John Murphy's paper analyses in- depth qualitative interviews with men who were young workers in the mid-1950s. He looks at how central job security was to their identity as providers and what satisfaction they derived from their work. Murphy highlights the importance of the strong memories the men had of their parents' insecurity in the 1930s Depression in shaping their own concerns about security in the 1950s.

This issue of Labour History also includes our excellent book review section and a number of shorter pieces. Melanie Nolan provides a New Zealand perspective on recent changes in editorial policy of Labour History. Echoing the thematic of this issue she focuses particularly on comparative and transnational labour history. There is a report by Rae Frances, the President of the Australian Society for the Study of Labour History, on a successful conference staged by the Brisbane Labour History Association on unions and industrial legislation.

We announce in this issue the winner of the first Gollan Prize for Australian labour history to be awarded, and also the winner of the biennial Labour History prize which is awarded jointly by the Society and Unions NSW. We also thank the referees who have been consulted on manuscripts submitted to the journal in the last two years and publish a list of their names.

The November 2005 issue of Labour History will contain another thematic section, examining the `Extreme Right' in Twentieth Century Australia.

The editorial board commenced a new three year term on 1 January 2005. While remaining on the board, Julia Martinez has stood down as an Associate Editor. Tony Harris and John Shields are our new Associate Editors. Terry Irving is taking a year's leave as an Associate Editor and his role is being filled by Sigrid McCausland, fortuitously in Sydney during 2005. In line with the editorial statements of May 2004, three new members from New Zealand have joined the editorial board — Anna Green, Melanie Nolan and Kerry Taylor. I welcome all new and renewed members of the editorial board and of the international advisory board and thank all departing members.

The 9^th National Labour History Conference will be held this year at the University of Sydney on 30 June, 1 July and 2 July. There is a page in this issue of Labour History providing information on how to register for the conference if you have not already done so. The organisers have received a large number of proposals for papers and events at the conference from Australia, Austria, Germany, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK and the USA. I hope to see you there.


	*Greg Patmore*

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.