Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T03:08:50.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Labor Legislation in the United States: The Background and Growth of the Newer Trends

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Aaron I. Abell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The current trend toward conservatism in American politics is most pronounced in the field of labor relations. This should occasion no surprise in view of the well-known fact that legislation in behalf of labor was die essential and constant element in New Deal liberalism. In keeping with the “American way” of swinging the political pendulum periodically from liberalism to conservatism and back again, the present Congress enacted the Taft-Hartley Labor-Management Relations Act with the aim of curbing the power of union labor so succesfully enhanced by the New Deal. The bitter controversy attending die passage of die Act and the unrelenting and all but unanimous opposition of organized labor and many of its friends to die continuance of the law underscore die paramount importance of labor questions in the country's maturing economy. Other phases of labor legislation are indirectly involved in the present reaction: health insurance, and increased coverage and more generous benefits under the Social Security and Fair Labor Standards Acts. Though diese supplements are badly needed, they fail to arouse general enthusiasm in the climate of opinion that now prevails.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , January 1948 , pp. 35 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1948

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 “Dr. Gladden on Trade Unionism,” Amer. Federationist, XVIII (08, 1911), 601–02.Google Scholar

2 Andrews, John B., Labor Problems and Labor Legislation (New York, 1919), 6.Google Scholar

3 For the early history of the Association, consult its excellent magazine. The American Labor Legislation Review, IV (12, 1914),Google Scholar entire issue. The Review, which continued through the year 1942, is an incomparable record except for trade-union legislation. The successive editions of Commons, John R. and Andrews, John B., Principles of Labor Legislation (New York, 1916, 1920, 1927, 1936) summarizes the materials originally appearing in the magazine.Google Scholar

4 Acee, Alfred, “State Workmen's Compensation Legislation in 1947,” Monthly Labor Review, LXV (10, 1947), 415.Google Scholar

5 The Association during the same years also urged the states to enact old-age pension and unemployment insurance laws. Epstein, Abraham, Facing Old Age (New York, 1922), 244–262, 339–352;Google ScholarAndrews, John B., Labor Problems and Labor Legislation (New York, 1919), 120.Google Scholar

6 Lapp, John A., “The Findings of Official Health Insurance Commissions,” American Labor Legislation Review, X (03, 1920), 27–40.Google Scholar

7 “Health Insurance: the Spread of the Movement,” Survey, XXXVI (07 15, 1916), 407–08;Google Scholar see also his “20,000 miles over the Land; Survey of the Health Insurance Movement,” ibid., XXXVII (Mar. 3, 1917). 631–635.

8 Proceedings, 1912, 376–436, 388–394.Google Scholar

9 The Labor Question (Boston, 1911), 168–169.Google Scholar

10 Hopkins, Charles Howard, The Rise of the Social Gospel in American Protestantism, 1865–1915 (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1940), 280–317.Google Scholar

11 Abell, A. I., “The Reception of Leo XIII's Labor Encyclical in America, 1891–1919.” The Review Of Politics. VII (10, 1945), 480–495.Google Scholar

12 Amer. Labor Legislation Rev., III (02, 1913). 106.Google Scholar

13 “Voluntary Social Insurance vs. Compulsory,” Amer. Fed. of Catholic Societies, Bulletin. XI (12 1916), 1, 3.Google Scholar

14 “Capital and Labor on Each Other's Necks,” Survey, XXVII (01 27, 1917), 495–97.Google Scholar

15 “Measures in Congress,” Law and Labor, II (01, 1920), 16–17;Google ScholarAmer. Fed. of Labor, Report of Proceedings, 1920, 115, 461.Google Scholar

16 Green, William, Labor and Democracy (Princeton, 1939), 32–38;Google Scholar see also his “Trade Union Sick Funds and Compulsory Health Insurance,” Amer. Labor Legislation Rev., VII (04, 1917), 91–95.Google Scholar

17 “Report of Work, 1919,” Amer. Labor Legislation Rev., X (03, 1920), 74.Google Scholar

18 See Amer. Labor Legislation Rev., IX (06, 1919), 204–283 for a full discussion of this contest which attracted nation-wide attention.Google Scholar

19 Annual Convention, Report of Proceedings, 1921. pp. 356–357.Google Scholar

20 “Needed: A Social Insurance Revival,” Survey, LVI (05 15, 1926), 233.Google Scholar

21 Committee of the President's Conference on Unemployment, Business Cycles and Unemployment (New York, 1923)Google Scholar and Feldman, H., The Regularization of Employment (New York, 1925).Google Scholar

22 “Can Business Prevent Unemployment?” American Labor Legislation Review, XV (12, 1925), 219–220.Google Scholar

28 Ibid., 220–221.

24 Ibid.

25 Lorwin, L. L., Time For Planning (New York, 1945), 120.Google Scholar

26 Report of Proceedings, 1921, 314.Google Scholar

27 Report of Proceedings, 1925, 271.Google Scholar

28 Mufson, Israel, “Organizing the Unorganized,” Survey, LIX (03 15, 1928), 757–758.Google Scholar

29 Brown, Goeffrey C., “The New Trade Unionism,” Amer. Federationist, XXXVII (05, 1930), 542–543.Google Scholar

30 Beard, Charles A., editor, America Faces the Future (Boston, 1932), 3–10, 117–140, 400–410.Google Scholar

31 Ibid., 160–195.

32 Report of Proceedings, 1931, 148–164, 368–398;Google Scholaribid., 1932. 39–44. 325–360.

33 American Labor Legislation Rev., XII (1922), 223–227;Google Scholaribid., XIII (1923), 47–48, 138–146; ibid., XIV (1924), 284–310; ibid., XV (1925), 23–32, 137–138, 262–266; ibid., XVI (1926). 102–104, 131, 242–245, 285–287; ibid., XVII (1927), 116–118, 222–224, 276–277; ibid., XVIII (1928), 102–106, 165–170, 13, 428–433; ibid., XIX (1929). 54–79, 151–154, 180–183, 193–224, 289–297, 354–361.

34 Survey LVIII (04 15, 1927), 81.Google Scholar

35 “Social Security and the N.R.A.,” in American Association for Social Security, Social Security in the United States (1934), 122.Google Scholar

36 Lewis, John L., “Labor and the National Recovery Administration,” American Academy of Political and Social Science, Annals, CLXXII (03, 1934), 63.Google Scholar

37 Williamson, S. T. and Harris, Herbert, Trends in Collective Bargaining (New York, 1945), 186.Google Scholar