On 10/11/07, Michael Nuwer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The trade union movement was erecting itself as a rival law-maker,
> challenging the authority of the courts and the state. Labor activists
> utilized a competing language of rights, claiming entitlements in jobs
> and workplaces as well as broad freedoms of action and association. They
> promulgated rules of workers' control which they dubbed "laws," and
> sought to enforce them through new weapons and organizations.


Thanks for this info Michael. Do you have any references for this
period? I am curipous about what kind of "entitlements" they were
looking for. If it is just better pay then it is not really that
different from Fordism (and inevitably, mass-consumption), right? Also
doesn't the idea of organized workplaces automatically assume the
factory system as the predominant organizational unit? Isn't there a
rather basic contradiction here? i.e. how can you decommodify labor
while staying within the organized workplace (which is premised on
division of labor ad-absurdum)?
-raghu.


> This heritage was passed down in varying forms through-to the 1930s.
> Recall that section 6 of the Clayton Act (1914) provides that "the labor
> of a human being is not a commodity." The AFL declared this to be
> "Labor's Magna Charta." The provision had no bite, especially after the
> Supreme Court had its say, but the fact that this line was included in
> the statute is a reflection of a particular view within the trade union
> movement about work and employment.
>
> The struggle for a closed shop was a historically important issue,
> because it went to the heart of which class would control the social
> division of labor. Closed-shop agreements with manufacturers were one
> way that labor could exercise and enforce self-determination in their
> craft. Capital, however, regarded this conflict as one involving the
> vital issue of managerial prerogative, and, as we know, capital won that
> battle. When the 1935 National Labor Relations Act finally imposed
> jurisdictional lines upon unions, the AFL's way of reproducing the
> social division of labor was fatally undermined.
>

Reply via email to