Labor in America: A History

by Foster Rhea Dulles, Melvyn Dubofsky

Even since the last edition of this milestone text was released six years ago, unions have continued to shed members; union membership in the private sector of the economy has fallen to levels not seen since the nineteenth century; the forces of economic liberalization (neo-liberalism), capital mobility, and globalization have affected measurably the material standard of living enjoyed by workers in the United States; and mass immigration from the Southern Hemisphere and Asia has continued to restructure the domestic labor force. Yet even in the face of anti-union legislation, a continuing decline in the number of organized workers, and the fear of stateless, if not faceless terrorism—the shadow of “911” in which we still live, in preparing this new edition of his classic text Professor Dubofsky has hewn to the lines laid out in the previous seven in seeking to encourage today’s students of labor history to learn about those who built the United States and who will shape its future. In addition to taking the narrative right up to the present, a recent history that includes the election of 2008 as well as the tumultuous blow suffered by the U.S. and world economy in 2008-09, this eighth edition features an entirely new (fourth) bank of photographs and, in light of the avalanche of new scholarly work over the last decade, a complete overhauling of the book’s extensive and critical Further Readings section in order to note the very best works from the profuse recent scholarship that explores the history of working people in all its diversity.

Genres: History, Labor, Politics, Economics, Nonfiction, Historical

472 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1949

About the author

Son of Wm Dulles & Sophea Dulles (m. 1891). Husband of Marion Dulles. Brother of Dorothy W. Dulles (b. 1894), Edith Rutledge Snare (b. 1897) & Wm Winslow Dulles (b. 1904). Cousin of John Foster (Secr. of State under Eisenhower) & Allen Dulles (CIA Director under Eisenhower, Warren Commission member). Princeton Class of 1921. Professional historian and author.

Reviews

[Paige McLoughlin · Rating 4 out of 5]

US labor history from the early 1800s to about 2010. The struggle for labor rights and workplace organizing was a violent struggle that had success, especially in the 1930 and the new deal era to the modern eclipse of labor by Neoliberalism in the seventies and Reagan's election in 1980. It is good to remember that at times labor has won mighty victories despite its retreat since the seventies and one hopes for a new resurgence because frankly, you can't have a left politics without strong labor.

[Oscar · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read pretty much all of this in poorly-scanned PDFs for my Labor & Working Class History class and honestly enjoyed it the most out of everything we read (except for the article our professor wrote, because Steve's just the best, obviously). It's really comprehensive and informative, especially for those just beginning their research in this area- for me I had trouble remembering some of the acronyms (there are. So Many Acronyms)but that was just a me thing. Solid read!

[Miroslaw Aleksander · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book aims to provide information on the labor movement in the United States. However, it is very uneven and poorly written. The description of Gilded Age/Progressive Age labor movements is primarily irritating. Lengthy, it too often focuses on redundant details (we learn how manly a series of union leaders were, that they enjoyed their beer, liked showgirls, and were "one of the boys"). There are large parts which are self-contradictory. A number of these people who are described as "one of the boys" turn out to act in ways, that the authors later frame as insufficient to address the needs of labor. Furthermore, they engage in lionizing these people, for example stating that they were enlightened on racial issues, only to later describe that they, for example, did not allow non-white people into their unions (or some unions that were parts of larger federations), or did nothing to counter racial prejudice in their ranks. Too often is the labor movement described as progressive and respective of others, whereas we then learn that this just is not true, that the labor movement was, for example, strongly anti-immigrant. Rarely is it noted that the strikebreakers that are shown as undermining the labor movement, frequently were people of color, or immigrants whose circumstances than those of the workers represented by the labor movement, who, in the context of the working class, were its more privileged members. However, in this case the authors look over the concept of "class solidarity" that elsewhere they emphasize.

The problems plaguing the labor movement often seem to be glossed over, or not given proper background. The description of corruption in labor unions is a case in point: the chapter about corruption. When describing Jimmy Hoffa, it is said that he was found guilty of jury tampering etc., but in light of the facts that multiple union activists were brought down on false charges or denied due process, this should have been written in an unambiguous manner. Later the book refers to this more directly, and I cannot shake that it was written by another author. To be honest, the section about the late 19th and mid-20th century seem as if they have been taken from an unedited manuscript that the author had lying around.

There are some inconsistencies in the part about the colonial period as well, and even factual errors or omissions, such as the 1619 Jamestown Craftsmen Strike. It seems like the book would have benefited from more editing.

[CitizenCardenas · Rating 4 out of 5]

I could only get through the first chapter of this book, which is why it would be unfair to give it less than 4 stars. But the chapter on the colonial labor economy was so maddeningly vague, so full of contradictory information, that I did not trust my poor brain to survive the rest. Phrases like "most of" "some of" and "it is probable that at least" abound. On key questions I was left hopelessly confused.

Q: What percent of indentured workers became landowners? As answer we get this passage: "Some of the indentured servants succeeded as independent farmers or artisans. Others were less successful. They drifted off to the rough frontier where they seldom achieved landowning status." (I had to go back and read this several times - apparently among the group of people defined as those who didn't become landowners, some became landowners!)

Q: What were the material conditions of laborers? How to reconcile passages like these: a) "Governor Winthrop of Massachusetts wrote despairingly in 1640 of the difficulty of keeping wage earners on the job. They were constantly moving on to frontier communities where pay was higher..." and b) "In New England, where relatively few indentured servants were available, this situation led to such high wage rates and such an independent attitude on the part of both skilled and unskilled workers that the colonial authorities felt compelled to act [with laws that 'could not be enforced]." with c) "[Those who did not succeed in becoming independent farmers or artisans] drifted off to the rough frontier where they seldom achieved landowning status. Instead they formed a large, discontented rural class of poor whites." What to make of the contradictions within this single sentence: "While free laborers lived well by European standards, with advancing prices in the post-revolutionary period, workers in the little towns strung along the Atlantic seaboard seldom enjoyed much of a margin over extreme poverty."

A few hard numbers would transform this chapter. If no such numbers are available, then either say so or jettison the chapter!

[Kieran · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book does a good job at summarizing the history of organized labor in the United States. Warming- if you are not used to "academic" reading, this book may come off dry. For those who prefer more casual reads, consider reading A History of America in Ten Strikes by Erik Loomis or Fight Like Hell by Kim Kelly. I'd recommend this book to anyone interested in the American labor movement, especially those in college who are in a managerial field (or maybe a union activist!)

[Wolfie Layne · Rating 4 out of 5]

A history of Americas labor movement. Contains all the highs and lows there in. Contained some unnecessary information like some of the personal qualities of labor leaders. Could have been streamlined and more focused in these areas. Overall a good read for those interested in labor history!

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Oh, the drama! I mean the Union membership is so low! Remember the good old days of the 15th century, even the decline of the 17th century was not as bad as today.

[Elias · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very important read, just one that is difficult to get through

[Jake Funk · Rating 4 out of 5]

An extensive and detailed history of the labor movement. Definitely reads like a textbook, but is full of enlightening and necessary knowledge on the history of the labor movement.

[Noah Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

academic but good

[Chuck Moreland · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a must read for anyone that wants to understand the history of working class people in America.