Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:18:09.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Turkish Industrial Relations at the Crossroads: Revisiting the History of Industrial Relations in the Early Post World War Two Period

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 May 2018

Didem Özkiziltan  and
Aziz Çelik
Didem Özkiziltan
Affiliation:
Freie Universität Berlin and Kocaeli University
Aziz Çelik
Affiliation:
Freie Universität Berlin and Kocaeli University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The 1961 constitutional reform in Turkey recognized the right to strike and granted other rights and freedoms related to the collective actions of labor. Conventional wisdom holds that Turkish trade unions became independent of the state power with class-based interests only after this reform. Across mainstream literature, this is considered, in historical institutionalist terms, as the first critical juncture in Turkey's industrial relations. This paper provides a critical account of the institutional continuity, development, and change that took place in Turkey's industrial relations starting from its establishment as a republic in 1923 until the end of the 1950s, by considering the socioeconomic and legal-political environment during these years. Considering the historical evidence employed, and under historical institutionalism, it is argued that the first critical juncture in the country's industrial relations occurred in 1947, when the ruling cliques permitted the establishment of trade unions. In this paper, it is purported that the consensus reached by the trade unions on the necessity of the right to strike from the mid-1950s onwards initiated a peaceful class struggle between Turkish labor and the state, which gradually steered the industrial relations toward the second critical juncture following the promulgation of the 1961 constitution.

Type
Articles
Information
International Labor and Working-Class History , Volume 93: Workers and Right-Wing Politics , Spring 2018 , pp. 151 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © International Labor and Working-Class History, Inc. 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. For a critical account of events in industrial relations following the 1960 military coup in Turkey, see Çelik, Aziz, Vesayetten Siyasete Türkiye'de Sendikacılık (1946–1967) (İletişim Yayınları İstanbul, 2010), 317–562Google Scholar; Didem Özkızıltan, “A Political Economy of Insecurity? State and Socio-Economic Actors in the Making of Industrial Relations in Modern Turkey” (Ph.D. diss., University of Bath, 2013), 174–243.

2. See, e.g., Dereli, Toker, Aydınlar, Sendika Hareketi ve Endüstriyel İlişkiler Sistemi (İstanbul, 1975), 334–35Google Scholar; Güzel, Mehmet Şehmus, Türkiye'de İşçi Hareketi: 1908–1984 (İstanbul, 1996), 193–252Google Scholar; Koray, Meryem, Endüstri İlişkileri (İzmir, 1996), 181–85Google Scholar; Işıklı, Alparslan, “Türkiye'de İşçi Hareketinin Batı İşçi Hareketi Karşısısında Özgünlüğü,” 11. Tez 5 (1987): 10–31Google Scholar; Kutal, Gülten, Teşkilatlanma Sorunları ve Başlıca Faaliyetleri Açısından Türkiye'de İşçi Sendikacılığı (1960–1968) (İstanbul, 1977), 12–14Google Scholar; Talas, Cahit, Türkiye'nin Açıklamalı Sosyal Politika Tarihi (Ankara, 1992), 146–228Google Scholar.

3. Despite the era between 1945 and 1960 being commonly referred to as the multi-party period in mainstream literature on Turkey's politico-economic history, this is somewhat misleading, for throughout this period, political power was shared between two rival parties. Having noted its limitations, the term multi-party period is used in this paper for simplicity.

4. Çelik, Vesayetten Siyasete, 85–316; Koçak, Hakan, “Türkiye İşçi Sınıfı Oluşumunun Sessiz Yılları: 1950'ler,” Toplum ve Bilim 113 (2008): 90–126Google Scholar; and Özkızıltan, “A Political Economy of Insecurity?” 154–70.

5. For such an argument, see, e.g., Dereli, Aydınlar, Sendika Hareketi, 334–35; Güzel, Türkiye'de İşçi Hareketi, 125–92; Koray, Endüstri İlişkileri, 173–85; Işıklı, “Türkiye'de İşçi,” 21; Keyder, Çağlar, State and Class in Turkey: A Study in Capitalist Development (London, 1987), 13Google Scholar; Kutal, Teşkilatlanma Sorunları, 5–14; Talas, Türkiye'nin Açıklamalı Sosyal Politika Tarihi, 131–46; and Ünsal, Engin, Sendika Yazıları, Hedefini Vuramayan Ok Türk Sendikacılığı (İstanbul, 1997), 211Google Scholar.

6. Koçak, Hakan, “50'leri İşçi sınıfı Oluşumunun Kritik Bir Uğrağı Olarak Yeniden Okumak,” Çalışma ve Toplum 3 (2008): 69–86Google Scholar. For similar arguments, see Çelik, Aziz, “Türkiye Emek Tarihinin Tartışmalı Konuları: Aşağıdan mı Yukarıdan mı, İç Dinamik mi Dış Dinamik mi?” in Cumhuriyet Tarihinin Tartışmalı Konuları, ed. Bilmez, Bülent (İstanbul, 2013), 191–222Google Scholar, and Akkaya, Yüksel, “Türkiye'de Emek Tarihinin Sefaleti Üzerine Bazı Notlar,” Toplum ve Bilim 91 (2001–2002): 285–94Google Scholar.

7. Talas, Cahit, Dilik, Sait, and Işıklı, Alparslan, Türkiye'de Sendikacılık Hareketi ve Toplu Sözleşme (İktisadi Yönleri İle) (Ankara, 1965), 66Google Scholar.

8. Güzel, Türkiye'de İşçi Hareketi: 1908–1984, 166.

9. Kutal, Teşkilatlanma Sorunları, 12.

10. For such an argument, see, e.g., Ecevit, Bülent, “Labor in Turkey as a New Social and Political Force,” in Social Change and Politics in Turkey: A Structural-Historical Analysis, ed. H. Karpat, Kemal (Leiden, 1973), 151–81Google Scholar; Ünsal, Sendika Yazıları, 211; Dereli, Aydınlar, Sendika Hareketi, 334–35; Kutal, Teşkilatlanma Sorunları, 12–13; Işıklı, “Türkiye'de İşçi,” 21; Berik, Günseli and Bilginsoy, Cihan, “The Labor Movement in Turkey: Labor Pains, Maturity, Metamorphosis?” in The Social History of Labor in the Middle East, ed. Goldberg, Ellis Jay (Boulder, CO, 1996), 37–64Google Scholar; and Keyder, State and Class in Turkey, 149.

11. Dereli, Aydınlar, Sendika Hareketi, 334–35.

12. Berik and Bilginsoy, “The Labour Movement,” 37–38.

13. Keyder, State and Class in Turkey, 149.

14. Çetinkaya, Y. Doğan and Alkan, Mehmet Ö., “Türkiye İşçi Sınıfı Tarihyazımında Bahar,” Toplumsal Tarih 245 (2014): 23Google Scholar.

15. Akgöz, Görkem, “Sınıfın Söylemsel Kuruluşu: 1947 Sendikacılığının İlk Yıllarında Milliyetçi ve Anti-Komünist Söylemler,” Praksis 35–36 (2014): 61–82Google Scholar.

16. Akın, Yiğit, “Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Emek Tarihçiliğine Katkı: Yeni Yaklaşımlar, Yeni Kaynaklar,” Tarih ve Toplum 2 (2005): 73–111Google Scholar. For a detailed critique on Akın's approach to labor history, see Makal, Ahmet, “Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Emek Tarihi ve Tarihçiliği üzerine Bir Değerlendirme,” GETA Tartışma Metinleri 91 (2006): 8–45Google Scholar.

17. Murat Metinsoy, “Everyday Politics of Ordinary People: Public Opinion, Dissent, and Resistance in Early Republican Turkey 1925–1939” (Ph.D. diss., Boğaziçi University, 2010).

18. Özden, Barış Alp, “Küçük Sanayide İşçi Olmak: Mahmutpaşa Dokumacıları ve ‘Davaları’,” in Tanzimattan Günümüze Türkiye İşçi Sınıfı Tarihi 1839–2014: Yeni Yaklaşimlar, Yeni Alanlar, Yeni Sorunlar, eds. Alkan, Mehmet Ö. and Çetinkaya, Y. Doğan (İstanbul, 2015), 254–70Google Scholar.

19. Makal, “Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Emek Tarihi,” 6.

20. For this argument, see Akın, “Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi,” 75–76; Quataert, Donald, “Epilogue,” International Review of Social History 54 (2009 Supplement): 189–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Akkaya, “Türkiye'de Emek Tarihinin Sefaleti,” 285–87; Çetinkaya, Y. Doğan, “Sefaletten İhyaya: Türkiye İşçi Sınıfı Tarihi, E.P. Thompson ve Yeni Kuşak Çalışmalar,” in Tanzimattan Günümüze Türkiye İşçi Sınıfı Tarihi 1839–2014: Yeni Yaklaşimlar, Yeni Alanlar, Yeni Sorunlar, eds. Alkan, Mehmet Ö. and Çetinkaya, Y. Doğan (İstanbul, 2015), 1–28Google Scholar.

21. Quataert, “Epilogue,” 189.

22. Çetinkaya, “Sefaletten İhyaya,” 8.

23. Akın, “Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi,” 75; Murat Metinsoy, “Wars Outside the War: The Social lmpact of the Second World War on Turkey” (Master's diss., Boğaziçi University, 2004), 9.

24. Sülker, Kemal, Türkiye Sendikacılık Tarihi (İstanbul, 2004)Google Scholar.

25. Sülker, Kemal, Türkiye'de Grev Hakkı ve Grevler (İstanbul, 2004)Google Scholar.

26. Makal, Ahmet, Türkiye’de Tek Partili Dönemde Çalışma İlişkileri: 1920–1946 (Ankara, 1999)Google Scholar; Makal, Ahmet, Türkiye’de Çok Partili Dönemde Çalışma İlişkileri: 1946–1963 (Ankara, 2002)Google Scholar.

27. Çelik, Vesayetten Siyasete.

28. For a chronological overview of the literature on the history of the Turkish working class, see Makal, “Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Emek Tarihi,” 2–5. It is also worth citing Özkızıltan, “A Political Economy of Insecurity?,” 97–173; Koçak, Hakan, “Salonlardan Meydanlara Doğru: 50'lerden 60'lara Doğru İşçi Hareketi Grev Hakkının Peşinde,” in Tanzimattan Günümüze Türkiye İşçi Sınıfı Tarihi 1839–2014: Yeni Yaklaşimlar, Yeni Alanlar,Yeni Sorunlar, eds. Alkan, Mehmet Ö. and Çetinkaya, Y. Doğan (İstanbul, 2015), 335–54Google Scholar; Doğan, M. Görkem, “Türkiye'nin İlk Sendikalar Yasası Döneminde Grev Hakkı Tartışmaları,” in Tanzimattan Günümüze Türkiye İşçi Sınıfı Tarihi 1839–2014: Yeni Yaklaşimlar, Yeni Alanlar,Yeni Sorunlar, eds. Alkan, Mehmet Ö. and Çetinkaya, Y. Doğan (İstanbul, 2015), 322–34Google Scholar.

29. For such opinions, see Güzel, M. Şehmus, Grev (İstanbul, 1993), 85Google Scholar; Koç, Yıldırım, “İşçi Hakları ve Sendikacılık,” 11. Tez 5 (1987): 53Google Scholar; Koçak, “Salonlardan Meydanlara,” 335.

30. In advancing this argument, Koçak drew on the work of Tilly, Charles, “Contentious Repertoires in Great Britain, 1758–1834,” in Repertoires and Cycles of Collective Action, ed. Traugott, Mark (Durham, 1995), 15–42Google Scholar.

31. Koçak, “Salonlardan Meydanlara,” 353–54.

32. Thelen, Kathleen and Steinmo, Sven, “Historical-institutionalism in Comparative Politics,” in Structuring Politics: Historical-institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, eds. Steinmo, Sven, Thelen, Kathleen, and Longstreth, Frank (Cambridge, 1992), 1–32Google Scholar; March, James G. and Olsen, Johan P., “Elaborating the ‘New Institutionalism’,” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, eds. Rhodes, R. A. W., Binder, Sarah. A., and Rockman, Bert A. (Oxford, 2006), 3–20Google Scholar.

33. The history of industrial relations in Turkey could be traced back to the late Ottoman period. For a comprehensive account of this period, see: Makal, Ahmet, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda Çalışma İlişkileri (Ankara, 1997)Google Scholar. This study focuses on the republican period due to the fact that establishment of the Republic of Turkey has brought with it a new political order where the founding figures of Turkey set their visions on placing the country in the league of capitalist-democratic Western countries. Therefore, in the republican period, new institutional frameworks were introduced to the industrial relations, continuity, and change of which happened under the political and legal circumstances pertinent to this era.

34. This study largely draws on the archival resources utilized by Çelik in his published doctoral work, Vesayetten Siyasete.

35. Streeck, Wolfgang and Thelen, Kathleen A., “Introduction: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies,” in Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies, eds. Streeck, Wolfgang and Thelen, Kathleen A. (Oxford, 2005), 1–39Google Scholar.

36. Ahmad, Feroz, The Making of Modern Turkey (London, 1993), 52–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37. Aralov, Semen Ivanovich, Bir Sovyet Diplomatının Türkiye Hatıraları (İstanbul, 1967), 234Google Scholar.

38. Karaömerlioğlu, M. Asim, “The People's Houses and the Cult of the Peasant in Turkey,” Middle Eastern Studies 34 (1998): 67–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39. Berkes, Niyazi, Türk Düşününde Batı Sorunu (Ankara, 1975), 133Google Scholar.

40. TBMM Zabıt Ceridesi [Journal of Proceedings of the Turkish Grand National Assembly], Devre: V, Cilt: 3, İçtima: 1, Yirmi Dokuzuncu İnikad, 25 May 1935, 248. Brackets added.

41. Aruoba, Çelik, “Tarımda Geleneksel—Geçimlik Kesim. Büyüklüğü, Yapısı, İşleyişi,” Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi 28 (1973): 191–210Google Scholar; Özeken, Ahmet Ali, “Türkiye Sanayiinde İşçilik Mevzuunun İktisadi Problemleri,” in Ord. Profesör İbrahim Fazıl Pelin’in Hatırasına Armağan (İstanbul, 1948), 237–67Google Scholar.

42. Doğan Avcıoğlu, Türkiye’nin Düzeni (Dün-Bugün-Yarın) (Ankara, 1968), 288; Aruoba, “Tarımda Geleneksel—Geçimlik Kesim,” 196.

43. Aruoba, “Tarımda Geleneksel—Geçimlik Kesim,” 196–200; Ekin, Nusret, “Türkiye'nin Sanayileşmesinde Köylü-Şehirli İşçiler,” İstanbul Üniversitesi İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası 27 (1968): 225–64Google Scholar.

44. For a detailed sectoral distribution of employment in Turkey during the single-party period, see TÜİK, İstatistik Göstergeler: 1923–2009 (Ankara, 2010), 136Google Scholar.

45. Özeken, “Türkiye Sanayiinde İşçilik Mevzuunun İktisadi Problemleri,” 242; Ekin, “Türkiye'nin Sanayileşmesinde Köylü-Şehirli İşçiler,” 238.

46. This development strategy, which is widely referred as statizm or etatizm in Turkish scholarly literature, was implemented only throughout the 1930s, despite the single-party period ending in the year 1945. The years between 1940 and 1945 were marked by Turkey's attempts to avoid World War Two and this required the adoption of a different type of politico-economic order. For a detailed account of this era, see Boratav, Korkut, Türkiye’de Devletçilik (Ankara, 2006)Google Scholar.

47. Avcıoğlu, Türkiye'nin Düzeni (Dün-Bugün-Yarın), 212–21; Boratav, Korkut, Türkiye İktisat Tarihi: 1908–2007 (Ankara, 2009), 59–79Google Scholar.

48. Makal, Türkiye'de Tek Partili Dönemde, 309. However, in his study, Makal has noted these numbers do not cover the entirety of waged workers in the period. During the preparation of these statistics, workplaces employing less than five people, white-collar workers, and those working in activities not covered by the labor law were excluded. In short, these numbers only included employees covered by Turkey's first labor law no. 3008 and, therefore, they should be taken as indicative rather than definitive. See Makal, Türkiye'de Tek Partili Dönemde, 305–6.

49. For a detailed view on sectoral shares of the gross national product during the single-party period, see TÜİK, İstatistik Göstergeler, 682.

50. TBMM Zabıt Ceridesi [Journal of Proceedings of the Turkish Grand National Assembly], Devre: V, Cilt: 12, İçtima: 1, Yetmiş Beşinci İnikad, 8 June 1936, 85.

51. TBMM Zabıt Ceridesi [Journal of Proceedings of the Turkish Grand National Assembly], Devre: V, Cilt: 18, İçtima: 2, Altmış Yedinci İnikad, 28 May 1937, 356. Brackets added.

52. Having been originally established as a trade union, the founders of this organization called it a “society,” given that it was established during the early years of the twentieth century in an environment where there was strict prohibition against the activities of class-based organizations.

53. Çelik, Vesayetten Siyasete, 78–79.

54. Ahmad, The Making of Modern Turkey, 99.

55. The full text of this abrogated law is available at: http://mevzuat.basbakanlik.gov.tr/Metin.Aspx?MevzuatKod=5.3.765&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch= last accessed 15 April 2015.

56. Karpat, Kemal H., Türk Demokrasi Tarihi Sosyal, Ekonomik, Kültürel Temeller (İstanbul, 1996), 106Google Scholar.

57. Makal, Türkiye'de Tek Partili Dönemde, 381–87.

58. In doing so, the law makers also included those workplaces which employed less than ten workers, despite the work done in the premises requiring ten or more workers.

59. TBMM Zabıt Ceridesi [Journal of Proceedings of the Turkish Grand National Assembly], Devre: V, Cilt: 12, İçtima: 1, Yetmiş Beşinci İnikad, 8 June 1936, 84.

60. Ibid., 85.

61. Bianchi, Robert, Interest Groups and Political Development in Turkey (Princeton, NJ, 1984), 112–13Google Scholar.

62. However, it should be noted that workers’ participation in the Turkish Communist Party remained limited throughout the period; see Çelik, Vesayetten Siyasete, 79–80.

63. Dereli, Toker and Ekin, Nusret, “The Development of Industrial Relations in Turkey,” in Prof. Dr Ümit Yaşar Doğanay’ın Anısına Armağan II (İstanbul, 1982), 11–43Google Scholar.

64. For a brief review of the state of class-consciousness amongst workers in the years of the single-party period, see Ahmad, Feroz, “The Development of Class-Consciousness in Republican Turkey 1923–45,” in Workers and the Working Class in the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic, eds. Quataert, Donald and Zürcher, Erik-Jan (London, 1995), 75–94Google Scholar.

65. TÜİK, İstatistik Göstergeler, 646.

66. For a detailed account of the politics of the period, see Ahmad, Feroz, The Turkish Experiment in Democracy (London, 1977), 1–146Google Scholar; Eroğul, Cem, “The Establishment of Multi-Party Rule,” in Turkey in Transition: New Perspectives, eds. Schick, Irvin C., and Tonak, Ertuğrul Ahmet (Oxford, 1987), 101–43Google Scholar; Karpat, Kemal H., Turkey's Politics: The Transition to a Multi-Party System (Princeton, NJ, 1966), 137–460Google Scholar.

67. Timur, Taner, Türkiye'de Çok Partili Hayata Geçiş (İstanbul, 1991), 61–63Google Scholar; Feroz Ahmad, The Making of Modern Turkey, 108.

68. TÜİK, İstatistik Göstergeler, 646.

69. Kazgan, Gülten, Tanzimattan 21. Yüzyila Türkiye Ekonomisi: Birinci Küreselleşmeden İkinci Küreselleşmeye (İstanbul, 2006), 87Google Scholar; Boratav, Korkut, Türkiye İktisat Tarihi: 1908–2007 (İmge Kitabevi, Ankara, 2009), 108Google Scholar.

70. Aktan, Reşat, “Mechanization of Agriculture in Turkey,” Land Economics 33 (1957): 273–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tekeli, İlhan, “Türkiye'nin Göç Tarihindeki Değişik Kategoriler,” in Kökler ve Yollar: Türkiye'de Göç Süreçleri, eds. Kaya, Ayhan and Şahin, Bahar (İstanbul, 2007), 447–73Google Scholar.

71. For a detailed view on sectoral shares of the gross national product during the multi-party period, see TÜİK, İstatistik Göstergeler, 682.

72. Keyder, State and Class in Turkey, 135–37; Makal, Türkiye’de Çok Partili Dönemde, 136–39; Tümertekin, Erol, Türkiye’de İç Göçler (İstanbul, 1968), 58Google Scholar.

73. Helling, Barbara and Helling, George, Rural Turkey: A New Socio-Statistical Appraisal (İstanbul, 1958), 10Google Scholar; Karpat, Kemal H., The Gecekondu: Rural Migration and Urbanization (Cambridge, 1976), 54Google Scholar.

74. In preparation of this figure, the calculations Makal used in his study, Türkiye’de Çok Partili Dönemde on pages 155 and 165, were utilized. To make the figure more suitable for this study and to avoid confusing the data label “workers covered by labor law” Makal used in his study, it was changed to “workers covered by labor law and eligible to join trade unions,” given that in the period only those workers covered by labor law were eligible to join trade unions. The number of workers employed in the private sector, on the other hand, was calculated by subtracting the number of workers in the public sector covered by labor law and eligible to join trade unions from the total number of workers covered by labor law and eligible to join trade unions. This proved necessary, for in Makal's study no separate figure for private sector workers was given. Similarly, the total number of workers outside the coverage of the labor law was calculated by subtracting the total number of workers covered by labor law and eligible to join trade unions from the total number of waged workers, for in Makal's study no separate figure for this group of workers was given. Given these adjustments and considering that the statistical data gathered in this period is notoriously inadequate, the contents of Figure 1 should be taken as being indicative rather than definitive.

75. Sülker, Türkiye Sendikacılık Tarihi, 87–130; Çelik, Vesayetten Siyasete, 192–316.

76. TÜİK, İstatistik Göstergeler, 136.

77. Indeed, mechanization required more manual labor for some specific operations, such as spading, picking, and the use of machinery. See, e.g., Karpat, Kemal H., “Social Effects of Farm Mechanization in Turkish Villages,” Social Research 27 (1960): 83–103Google Scholar; Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi, Türkiye'de Zirai Makinalaşma: Ziraatte Makina Kullanılmasının Doğurduğu Teknik, Ekonomik ve Sosyal Meseleler Üzerinde Bir Araştırma (Ankara, 1954), 92–93Google Scholar.

78. These survival strategies included, for example, shareholding arrangements, where the peasant families worked a portion of a larger scale enterprise, which was not suitable for tractor farming or opening new farm land in marginal agricultural areas. See Kanbolat, Yahya, Türkiye Ziraatinde Bünye Değişikliği (Ankara, 1963), 61–64Google Scholar; Tekeli, İlhan, “Türkiye Tarımında Mekanizasyonun Yarattığı Yapısal Dönüşümler ve Kırdan Kopuş Süreci,” in Yerleşme Yapısının Uyum Süreci Olarak İç Göçler, eds. Tekeli, İlhan and Erder, Leila L. (Ankara, 1978), 299–329Google Scholar.

79. See Yıldırmaz, Sinan, Politics and the Peasantry in Post-War Turkey: Social History, Culture and Modernization (London, 2016)Google Scholar for the most up-to-date resource providing comprehensive explanation about the importance of mechanization in agriculture in shaping the labor markets in Turkey during the post-World War Two period.

80. Kıray, Mübeccel, “Gecekondu—Az Gelişmiş Ülkelerde Hızla Topraktan Kopma ve Kentle Bütünleşememe,” Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi 27 (1972): 561–73Google Scholar; Makal, Türkiye’de Çok Partili Dönemde, 139–40.

81. Keyder, State and Class in Turkey, 153–54; Kıray, “Gecekondu,” 567–68.

82. Makal, Türkiye’de Çok Partili Dönemde, 115.

83. International Labour Office, Labour Problems in Turkey: Report of a Mission of the International Labour Office (March–May 1949) (Geneva, 1950), 14Google Scholar.

84. However, it should be noted that even before the enactment of the Law on Associations in 1938, the state intervention in the domain of industrial relations rendered the establishment of free trade unions almost impossible. See Sülker, Türkiye Sendikacılık Tarihi, 43–51.

85. Karpat, Turkey’s Politics, 110–77; Öztürk, Osman, “1946 Sendikacılığı,” in Türkiye Sendikacılık Ansiklopedisi (I) (İstanbul, 1996), 169–75Google Scholar.

86. The full text of this abrogated regulation in Turkish is available at: http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/main.aspx?home=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/6542.pdf&main=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/6542.pdf last accessed 18 April 2015.

87. TBMM Tutanak Dergisi [Journal of Proceedings of the Turkish Grand National Assembly], Dönem VIII, Cilt: 4, Toplanti: 1, Kırk Yedinci Birleşim, 20 February 1947, 307.

88. This was imposed by Article 7 of the Trade Unions Act No. 5018.

89. These amendments were passed in 1946, 1949, 1951, and their full texts in Turkish, in chronological order, are accessible on the Turkish Official Gazette's website: http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/main.aspx?home=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/6336.pdf&main=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/6336.pdf last accessed 28 April 2015; http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/main.aspx?home=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/7234.pdf&main=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/7234.pdf; last accessed 28 April 2015; http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/main.aspx?home=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/7979.pdf&main=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/7979.pdf; last accessed 28 April 2015.

90. For a detailed view, see Çelik, Vesayetten Siyasete, 192–316.

91. As a consequence of the political control exercised over the activities of trade unions by the DP and the CHP, close and informal links were established between these parties and the trade unions. These unofficial yet influential networks became especially noticeable in the state-led industrial establishments, where the majority of the trade unions of the period were to be found and were kept alive by making use of paternalist policies and practices. These paternalist measures provided union leaders and rank and file members with political and economic benefits they could not derive through the mobilization of legal collective rights. In return, the workers remained loyal to the political party that acted in their favor. This exchange of benefits, albeit appearing to be practical for those involved, inflicted serious harm on the development of class-based politics on the part of trade unions for most of the period. In particular, public sector unions opted for making advances towards those with political power rather than prioritizing class-based claims when trying to resolve work related issues. For further details, see, e.g. Işıklı, Alparslan, Sendikacılık ve Siyaset (Ankara, 2005), 485–88Google Scholar; Sülker, Türkiye Sendikacılık Tarihi, 87–130; Çelik, Vesayetten Siyasete, 192–316.

92. Rebi Barkın, “İşçi Sendikaları ve İşçilerin Teşkilatlanması Hakkında Rapor,” Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi Genel Sekreterliğine, Ankara, 12 September 1949, BCA CHPK 490.01.1439.8.1, 6.

93. Makal, Türkiye’de Çok Partili Dönemde, 313–14.

94. Koç, Yıldırım, Türk-İş Tarihinden Portreler: Eski Sendikacılardan Anılar—Gözlemler (I) (Ankara, 1999), 38Google Scholar. Brackets added.

95. Koç, Yıldırım, Türk-İş Tarihinden Portreler: Eski Sendikacılardan Anılar—Gözlemler (II) (Ankara, 1999), 139Google Scholar.

96. Koç, Türk-İş Tarihinden Portreler (I), 47.

97. Ibid., 64.

98. TBMM Tutanak Dergisi [Journal of Proceedings of the Turkish Grand National Assembly], Dönem VIII, Cilt: 4, Toplantı: 1, Kırk Yedinci Birleşim, 20 February 1947, 315. Brackets added.

99. Milliyet, “İnönü’nün ilk seçim nutku,” Milliyet 5 May (1950), 7Google Scholar. Brackets added.

100. Cumhuriyet, “Maliye ve Çalışma Bakanları Dün Gazetecilerle Konuştular,” Cumhuriyet 2 March (1948), 3Google Scholar. Brackets added.

101. TBMM Tutanak Dergisi [Journal of Proceedings of the Turkish Grand National Assembly], Dönem: X, Cilt: 10, Toplanti: 2, Kırk Yedinci İnikad, 28 February 1956, 1128.

102. Ibid., 1128–29.

103. TBMM Tutanak Dergisi [Journal of Proceedings of the Turkish Grand National Assembly], Dönem VIII, Cilt: 4, Toplantı: 1, Kırk Yedinci Birleşim, 20 February 1947, 300.

104. TBMM Tutanak Dergisi [Journal of Proceedings of the Turkish Grand National Assembly], Devre: X, Cilt: 10, İçtima: 2, Kırk Yedinci İnikad, 28 February 1956. Ankara, 1122. Brackets added.

105. Sülker, Türkiye Sendikacılık Tarihi, 91–92; Çelik, Vesayetten Siyasete, 272–76.

106. Hürbilek (74), 11 November 1949.

107. Hürbilek (75), 18 November 1949.

108. Çelik, Vesayetten Siyasete, 279.

109. Sülker, Türkiye'de Grev Hakkı ve Grevler, 80. Brackets added.

110. Ibid., 73. Brackets added.

111. See Sülker, Türkiye'de Grev Hakkı ve Grevler, 82–98

112. For a more detailed account of such discontent, see Görkem Doğan, “Türkiye'nin İlk Sendikalar Yasası Döneminde,” 332.

113. Birliği, İstanbul İşçi Sendikaları, 1952–1953 Devresi Faaliyet Raporu (İstanbul, 1953)Google Scholar.

114. Birliği, İstanbul İşçi Sendikaları, 1953–1954 Devresi 14 Aylık Faaliyet Raporu (İstanbul, 1954)Google Scholar.

115. Sülker, Türkiye'de Grev Hakkı ve Grevler, 85. Brackets added.

116. Ibid., 85. Brackets added.

117. We searched for the reports between 1 January 1955 and 26 May 1960. The end date of the search was decided to be 26 May 1960, given that the next day a military coup was staged and Turkey entered a new period. Each database registered more than two hundred reports for the date range we entered. We only counted those that reported meetings and press releases of trade unions where the workers and leaders of trade unions articulated their concerns regarding the world of work and demanded recognition of the right to strike as an effective solution to insurmountable problems at work.

118. Koçak, “Salonlardan Meydanlara,” 340–49.

119. Milliyet, “İşçiler İlgi Bekliyorlar,” Milliyet 21 May (1959): 1, 3Google Scholar. Brackets added.

120. However, throughout the period there appeared illegal strikes and sporadic forms of other resistance by trade unions and workers against the unfair practices of employers. For an overview of these actions, see Makal, Ahmet, “Türkiye'de 1946–1960 Dönemindeki Grev Tartışmaları,” Ankara University Faculty of Political Science Research Center for Development & Society Working Paper Series 65 (Ankara, 2004), 1–38Google Scholar; Akkaya, Yüksel, “Türkiye İşçi Sınıfı ve Sendikacılık-1 Kısa Özet,” Praksis 5 (2002): 171, 173Google Scholar.