|
|
|
Book Review
| Josiah Bartlett Lambert, 'If the Workers Took a Notion': The Right to Strike and American Political Development, ILR Press/Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 2005. pp. xii + 259. US $19.95 paper.
|
| Are rights innate; are they something that exists in the ether, as it were, which can be called upon whenever needed, or something that you have to struggle for? Is there a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or are 'structures' created which impose this right from above, because of fears that if I don't respect your rights you won't respect mine? Or is this a right for we fortunates of the west, and not those of the third or developing world? Is there an innate property right, or is it something artificial, imposed from above by those who acquired property, by whatever means, including violence, force and ignoring the rights of others, because they fear that if such a right is not so imposed, someone else will acquire their property by force or violence? Is the right to strike something that workers have, an inalienable right, or is it something given to them, tossed as a bone, heavily constrained and limited, 'designed' to enable workers and unions to think they have been afforded rights? |
1
|
|
Josiah Bartlett Lambert examines the right to strike in the United States of America over the last two centuries, in 'If the Workers Took a Notion'. The title is a phrase from Joe Hill's 'Workers of the World Awaken', something he wrote while resting in jail in 1915. Lambert argues that workers in the nineteenth century had a right to strike. It was 'a stalwart citizenship right, founded on civic republican principles' (p. 5). With the development of the modern American state, or American liberalism, this right was transformed into a commercial right linked to collective bargaining. Lambert maintains that 'Modern American liberalism remains ambivalent and equivocal and lacks a steadfast commitment to the right to strike' (p. 5). |
2
|
|
Lambert's major point of departure is to reject the 'law turn' hypothesis, which is mainly associated with critical legal scholars, which explains restrictions on the right to strike, and accompanying declines in American unionism, in terms of a hostile judiciary. The judiciary either struck down pro worker/union legislation or issued injunctions (government by injunction) to outlaw and, hence, stop strikes. Lambert demonstrates that presidents, governors and mayors used violence and force, and suppressed the basic civil and legal rights of union leaders and workers in putting down strikes. Moreover, such attacks were mounted even when courts had handed down decisions favourable to workers and unions. |
3
|
|
Lambert draws on a quotation from Max Weber, which says 'A state is a human community that (successfully) claims a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a given territory' (p. 46). State managers used violence to maintain this monopoly. It should be added, however, that state managers were less inclined to interfere with employers, who created their own 'armies' and used force against striking workers. |
4
|
|
It was only in the twentieth century that some state managers turned to commissions, inquiries and the use of third party neutrals as an alternative means with which to resolve industrial disputes. Through such processes the New Deal brought forth the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, which granted a limited right to strike. Lambert unpacks both the limitations of this legislation, and how decisions of courts, actions by employers and state managers, including subsequent amendments, undermined the 1935 Act. |
5
|
|
The Act, for example, excluded agricultural and domestic workers, as well as State employees. This had the effect of excluding large numbers of African Americans and Latino Americans from its reach. Lambert makes a strong case that civil rights movements of the 1960s, which focused on equality of opportunity, missed the mark because of their neglect of what caused the lack of such opportunity; notably, employment rules which denied the ability of such workers to use collective action and strikes to enhance their income and dignity. The courts sanctioned the use of permanent replacement workers during strikes and that they should receive preference in employment once a strike came to an end. If nothing else, this judicial protection afforded to 'scabs' demonstrates the disdain American liberalism has toward the right to strike. |
6
|
|
'If the Workers Took a Notion' is a tour de force. Lambert provides a lively and insightful account of developments in American industrial relations and politics over the last two centuries. He combines information on various watershed industrial disputes and what happened at the level of the workplace with a keen eye for legal and political developments. He also canvasses an enormous breadth of intellectual writings on industrial relations, law, politics, rights and history. In doing so he provides a clear and accessible synthesis of theoretical work and empirical data. Lambert is a scholar at the top of his craft. |
7
|
|
Lambert demonstrates that there is a limited and highly circumscribed right to strike in America. When workers have tried to assert this right they have been beaten back by the combined weight of employers, courts and state managers. He ruefully observes that 'the right to strike has degenerated into the right to quit' (p. 151). Lambert maintains that the right to strike should be regarded as a citizenship right. He seeks to revive ideas developed by nineteenth century worker republicans and their celebration of community. Lambert also wishes to transform this right from one based on statute to a constitutional right under the Thirteenth Amendment which, beside attacking slavery, prohibits 'involuntary servitude'. |
8
|
|
In 'If the Workers Took a Notion' Lambert raises fundamental issues that lie at the heart of industrial relations and interconnections with law, politics and history; issues which go to the core of what a society is. It should be compulsory reading for all those with an interest in industrial relations and the right to strike. |
9
|
|
|
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.
|