Why did American workers, unlike their European counterparts, fail to forge a class-based movement to pursue broad social reform? Was it simply that they lacked class consciousness and were more interested in personal mobility? In a richly detailed survey of labor law and labor history, William Forbath challenges this notion of American “individualism.” In fact, he argues, the nineteenth-century American labor movement was much like Europe’s labor movements in its social and political outlook, but in the decades around the turn of the century, the prevailing attitude of American trade unionists changed. Forbath shows that, over time, struggles with the courts and the legal order were crucial to reshaping labor’s outlook, driving the labor movement to temper its radical goals.
This is a very good book. The preface is great - it lays out the basic argument of the whole book very well. In short, it's that scholars have neglected law as a "constitutive" element in labor history, and have relegated it to a "derivative" status. On the contrary, he compellingly argues that the law - particularly in the period he is looking at (Gilded Age/Progressive Era) - is a very important factor shaping the labor movement, constraining it and limiting it to a narrower vision than what it might otherwise have had.
Rather uninspiring prose, but shows well the strong repressive role the judiciary (at both federal and local levels) played for the Gilded Age and Progressive Era labor movement. Useful index in the back of key cases by theme.