Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T16:15:21.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Labor and hegemony: a critique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

William A. Douglas  and
Roy S. Godson
Get access

Extract

Professor Robert Cox's “Labor and hegemony” in the Summer 1977 issue of International Organization includes one of the most sophisticated versions of the corporate unionist or “revisionist” description and explanation of American labor's foreign policy that has appeared to date. Nevertheless, it is inaccurate both as description and explanation, and like other attempts to use the corporate unionist approach, it is a misleading paradigm impeding research into the nature of labor's transnational involvements.

Type
Comments
Information
International Organization , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , Winter 1980 , pp. 149 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1980

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

1 See Roy, Godson, American Labor and European Politics: The AFL as a Transnational Force (New York: Crane, Russak, 1976), pp. 36, 65–68.Google Scholar

2 See Phillip, Taft, Defending Freedom: American Labor and Foreign Affairs (Los Angeles: Nash Publishing, 1973), pp. 53–56.Google Scholar

3 In March, 1943, for example, a number of labor leaders, led by David Dubinsky, organized a rally at Carnegie Hall to condemn the Soviet execution of the Polish socialist leaders Erlich and Alter. Arnold Beichman, then a reporter for the New York publication P.M. and later a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, was told by Dubinsky that Roosevelt had pressured him not to organize the meeting lest it undermine the war effort in Europe and divide opinion at home. Interview Beichman. For reports on the rally and opposition to it from the Communist Party and communist elements in the CIO, see the New York Times, 29, 30, 31 March 1943 and P.M., 31 March, 2, 4 April 1943..

4 On the differences between labor and government on foreign policy in this period, see Godson, op. cit., pp. 48, 106.Google Scholar

5 See, for example, the AFL's International Free Trade Union News, September 1953.Google Scholar

6 See issues of the AFL-CIO Free Trade Union News from early 1977, and especially Meany's address to Social Democrats, U.S.A. on 31 March 1977.Google Scholar

7 On the Franco regime, dictatorship in Latin America, and the Greek Colonels, see, for example, the AFL International Free Trade Union News, August 1953, October 1953, and April 1945; AFL-CIO Free Trade Union News, June 1967.Google Scholar

8 On this see Arnold, Beichman, “American Labor and Its Critics”, in Alternative Perspectives on Labor's Foreign Policy (Washington, D.C., Georgetown University, International Labor Program, 1974), pp. 36–37Google Scholar; Windmuller, John P., “The ICFTU After Ten Years: Problems and Prospects”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review (01 1961): 264.Google Scholar

9 See Roy, Godson, “American Labor's Continuing Involvement in World Affairs”, Orbis (Spring 1975): 94–95Google Scholar; Irving, Brown, “Lessons From Vietnam—Alternatives To War”, The American Federationist (09, 1971): 10–12; Beichman, op. cit., p. 41.Google Scholar

10 See Godson, , Orbis, op. cit.: 95; Report of the Executive Council of the AFL-CIO to the Twelfth Convention (Washington, D.C.: AFL-CIO, 1977), pp. 215, 286.Google Scholar

11 See Gus, Tyler, “Multinationals: A Global Menace”, The American Federationist (07 1972): 1,3,4,6.Google Scholar

12 See Jager, Elizabeth R., “A Realistic Approach to World Trade”, The American Federationist (01, 1977): 6,7Google Scholar; Report of the Executive Council, op. cit., p. 114Google Scholar; Tyler, op. cit.: 6.Google Scholar

13 See Rudy, Oswald, “Trade: The New Realities”, The American Federationist (07 1978): 12Google Scholar; Hemispheric Trade and the Workers (Washington, D.C.: American Institute for Free Labor Development, 1977), p. 2.Google Scholar

14 Rudy, Oswald, “Unions and Economic Policy in the Free World”, The American Federationist (08 1978): 15.Google Scholar

15 Statements and Reports Adopted by the AFL-CIO Executive Council, 22–27 February 1978 (Washington, D.C.: AFL-CIO, 1978), pp. 26–30.Google Scholar

16 Report of the AFL-CIO Executive Council, op. cit., p. 113Google Scholar; Tyler, op. cit.: 1,7.Google Scholar

17 Cox, Robert W., “Labor and Hegemony,” International Organization 31, 2 (Summer 1977): 394, 398.Google Scholar

18 See Godson, , Orbis, op. cit.: 106–112.Google Scholar

19 See George, Meany, “Labor and Detente”, AFL-CIO Free Trade Union News (10, 1974): 4Google Scholar; Statements and Reports Adopted by the AFL-CIO Executive Council, 20–27 February 1978) op. cit., p. 28Google Scholar; Report of the AFL-CIO Executive Council, op. cit., p. 204.Google Scholar

20 George, Meany, “Labor and Detente”, op. cit., p. 6; George Meany, address to the National Press Club, 15 July 1974, pp. 9, 10 of text.Google Scholar

21 Serafino, Romualdi, Presidents and Peons (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1967), pp. 242–247Google Scholar; Goulden, Joseph C., Meany (New York: Atheneum, 1972), pp. 223–225.Google Scholar

22 Professor Cox states that the U.S. intervention was to “overthrow the elected Bosch government”. Actually, that government had already been overthrown by a military coup in September, 1963, and at the time of the U.S. intervention the conservative dictatorial Reid Cabral government had just been overthrown by a pro-Bosch insurrection, with a civil war resulting. Presumably, Professor Cox's charge is that U.S. labor worked against the insurrectionist forces, known as the “constitutionalistas”.

23 See Covert Action in Chile, 1963–1973, Staff Report of the Select Committee to study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, U.S. Senate (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975)Google Scholar and Foreign and Military Intelligence, Book I, Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, U.S. Senate (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 26 04 1976).Google Scholar

24 On the Venezuelan nationalization and Mexican restrictions, see Wynia, Gary W., The Politics of Latin American Development (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 197, 294Google Scholar. On the Jamaican nationalization see Economic and Social Progress in Latin America, 1977 Report, Inter-American Development Bank (Washington, D.C.), p. 293.Google Scholar

25 See “AFL-CIO Demands Trade Union Rights in Chile”, AFL-CIO Free Trade Union News (10 1978)Google Scholar; Rosalind, Chaikin, “Labor and Human Rights: A Chlean Chronicle”, AFL-CIO Free Trade Union News (11 1978).Google Scholar

26 See McLellan, Andrew C. and Boggs, Michael D., “Multinationals: How Quick They Jump”, The American Federationist (09 1973).Google Scholar