Economic-union Books

This book describes what trade unions would be if most union leaders would wake up and realize what century they're living in. They might, for example, take notice of the rise of the service sector and the decline of manufacturing - something that big union federations like the AFL-CIO have generally been pretty oblivious to (despite the valiant efforts of individual unions like the Service Employees International Union), even though ignoring this trend has meant such a big decline in unionization rates in the last 30 years. They might also notice that, at least rhetorically, the atmosphere in industrial relations is increasingly characterized by participation, involvement, and partnership, rather than confrontation, and get on board where management is sincere about these changes, while intelligently challenging management to live up to its rhetoric where it is not sincere. (To be fair, the role of the Wagner Act in perpetuating the confrontational approach should not be overlooked, as this book points out. However, rather than sticking to the Wagner Act paradigm, unionists could fight for legislative changes that would help bring about the appropriate paradigm shift.) And then they might think about what being a membership-based organization means in the 21st century. Which might make them start to think about how to serve not only currently employed members but also those who have been adversely affected by industrial restructuring and lost their jobs (e.g., helping them adjust to changes in the labor market by getting them new training, organizing employment services to find them new, satisfying jobs, by helping them with moves, etc.). There's no end to the useful ideas that might come out of such a line of thinking. ... But I'm afraid it's probably all just a pipe dream. I'm sure union leaders will continue to stick with the status quo and sit comfortably in their cosy sinecures, responding to the changes currently affecting work and work life by lobbying politicians for protectionist legislation instead of rising to the challenges - and taking advantage of the opportunities - presented by globalization.

Where the players are the adversaries of corporations and organized labor, Professor Charles C. Heckscher provides insight from a not so distant perspective, describing in clear and concise language what went wrong and how to fix it in a non-adversarial system.

This book is divided into three parts:

Part I deals with the rise and fall of the Wagner Act framework, which offers a short history of its creation for the purpose of providing a balance of power between the players, but how that balance no longer exists in a global economy, where the ultimate weapon of a strike is barely felt by a huge corporation; then

Part II explores new forms of organizing and representation including community coalitions, quality of work life programs, labor-management committees, and the need for representation of all employees, to include middle managers and semi-professionals; and

Part III describes what is required to build a new system utilizing the three elements of representation.

Throughout this book Heckscher builds on the concept of what he calls "managerialism" and "associational unionisim." He describes how the use of communication can be a far more pervasive weapon than the strike. He describes how the courts are too costly for the average worker to utilize as a tool for representation but how an association of workers can utilize the courts. He discusses how labor laws are affected by court rulings and how the courts and laws can be a help or a hindrance. How the interests of labor have become fragmented into the interest of specific groups, such as women groups, civil rights, environmental, and disability groups, and the importance bringing these groups together at the same negotiating table with the employer.

The book is well written in a modular format making the complex issues much simpler to understand and absorb. Heckscher writes in a nonjudgmental tone which is sometimes humorous but always enlightening.

I'd recommend this book as a reference tool for all union officers, business agents, and all human resource managers. If you are a steward with a desire to eventually become a union BA or company HR, or if you are a supervisor who is insecure about this new "semi-autonomous team" rhetoric coming from your boss, you too should read this book.

If you want to strengthen your union, if you want to increase employee commitment, if you want to create or strengthen a community coalition that supports both labor and business, you should read this book.

And finally, if you are at all confused or frustrated by the current adversarial labor-management relationships and what other options may exist to alleviate the problems you have with your members or with your employees (assuming you're a HR person), then this is the book for you.

While I have not read this book, I took two courses from Professor Osokina at (then) Southwest Missouri State University and she is a very articulate and knowledgeable scholar who is enthusiastic about her area of knowledge. I am looking forward to reading this book, despite the translation issues aired by the previous reviewer!

I read this book for a course in Russian History taught by Professor Osokina at Oberlin College. The book focuses on the consumer side of Stalin's industrialization, an aspect of his reign that has not recieved much attention from historians, and draws on previously off limits records and documents. If you are interested in Stalin's reign and the industrialization of Russia, it will definitly present some interesting information.
The down side of this text is that the translation from Russian (It was written and published in Russia first) is not particular good. The text does not flow as you would expect it too and it often uses poor wording. I can say that this is not the authors fault (she dislikes the translation as well!) but that of the translators.
Overall, Professor Osokina is incredibly knowledgable about Russian History and has some new and interesting information to offer in this book.

Our Daily Bread is the product of one of the brightest and most engaged critical scholars today, and a welcome addition to the theoretical dissection the wage. As one familiar with the author's work, I enjoyed the rhetorical twists and turns and many tips of the hat, but finished not knowing for whom the book was written . . . it seemed that so much of argument was directed not the reader - certainly not to a "cold" reader - but to academics with a deep familiarity with Marxist/Marxian theory. Therefore, I recommend this work with caution and hope that future contributions consider the audience beyond the academy, as well as those extraordinary young scholars who are putting geography back on the map.

Our Daily Bread is a terrific book that deserves to be widely read by anyone interested in labor, race, and US history.

The cover may give a false sense of what this book is about. The photo may make the book appear to be another historical study of American workers during hard times. I suppose in a certain sense, it is -- but it is also much more than this. Crack open the cover and you find a brilliant analysis of what Mann calls "the cultural politics of the wage". As I understand it, by this he does not mean wages in a quantitative sense (how well are you paid, high or low) but wages as a social relation that structure our lives.

The book explores a big question -- What does it mean to work for a wage? It breaks new ground by exploring the cultural politics of wage relations, and how they differ and change in different communities and workers in US history. Which means, of course, that this is also a book about race, although again you can't tell it by the title or the cover.

The way that Mann writes about the dialectic and history opens up pressing questions - particularly about the way we think about the future, wages, and money. This is not a feel-good book in the way of so many other books about "America's workers" tend to be, celebrating labor's everyday heroism without asking any hard questions. The core of the book is a trio of careful historical studies of laborers - oil workers in L.A., forest-workers in northern California, and fishermen in Oregon - struggling in quite different ways over the wage relations. By analyzing these three different cases (and weaving in smart theoretical insights), Mann shows how labor struggles about the wage are always about other things, too, and that in this excess and complexity we can gain a stronger understanding of what these labor struggles mean for us today. I think the book's conclusion brings this out:

"The wage is not a pure quantity, or pure outcome, but a political site, bound up in and influencing the dynamics of capitalist societies.... This book shows how this works historically by looking at one region and sector more closely, and thought it the cultural politics of western work is illuminated in new ways. In demonstrates that the western wage is not only a particular product of the way that capitalism plays out in the West; it is also a crucial influence on the development of western resource capitalism... In this light, the cultural politics of the wage emerges as one of the central cites of workers' historical agency in the US West" (page 167).

So anyone interested in understanding the complexities of workers' historical agency will find this a useful book.

But putting the analysis aside, this was a fun book to read because unlike so many academic writers, Mann writes with both fluidity and efficiency. It isn't a long book and even the tough theoretical sections are a pleasure to read. Take for instance Mann's discussion of "white men and the dialectic" in the introduction: it has the rarest of tones, at once abstract and serious and yet funny and light-hearted. If you don't miss it between the jokes you find that Mann offers a highly original interpretation of Marx's dialectic. No mean feat.

Keep an close eye on the footnotes -- there are some brilliant zingers.

This book is clearly written and logically organized. It contains much good information with insightful commentary. Professor Bailey's book is a must-read for anyone interested in environmental issues, not only in Europe, but anywhere.

This magisterial work certainly exceeds all expectations - a highly-qualified Fulbright scholar, Ms. Bailey has been a long-time European resident, and has a sensitive, reader-based approach to a highly sensitive topic. Two thumbs up.

In this detailed book, based on newly opened Russian archives, Lennart Samuelson studies Soviet military and economic planning from 1925 to 1941. He shows how the Soviet leadership integrated defence into their general economic planning and decision-making, and how well the defence industries met military requirements.

With the first five-year plan, the Soviet Union developed an advanced industrialised civilian economy. The vital machine building, automobile, tractor, chemical and aircraft industries could be swiftly mobilised in case of war. Samuelson argues that this did not lead to what could be called a `militarised economy', because the USA, France, Italy and Germany made similar preparations for the demands of total war.

He also discusses Soviet strategic thinking. In the 1918-21 War of Intervention, the armies of fourteen capitalist states invaded Russia, trying to overthrow the revolutionary Government. This naturally confirmed the Soviet leadership's belief that these states would inevitably attack the new socialist state again. The debate raged - could the Soviet Union defeat such an attack? In 1927, Marshall Tukhachevskii, then Chief of Staff, said that the Soviet Union would be defeated, "unless the European revolution will come to our rescue." In 1936, when he was Deputy Defence Commissar, he agreed with Trotsky that Nazi Germany would definitely defeat the Soviet Union. This consistent defeatism was hardly appropriate to a leading figure. Further, Tukhachevskii wanted the military, not civilians, to run military-industrial planning, a clear threat to the Party's leadership of the country.

Samuelson concludes, "With regard to industrial mobilisation, it [the Soviet Union] was certainly ahead of Germany - having adopted the best methods and techniques for preparing the economy in general, and industry in particular, for the test of wartime production conditions." He sums up, "The presently available data give on the whole a more balanced and well-equipped Red Army on the eve of Operation Barbarossa than in the historiography of past decades."

In recent years, quite some books have been published on the Soviet Union in the pre-war period. They have all gratefully used soviet archives to give an insight on the situation of the socialist state on the eve of World War II. They all help to explain the debacle that the initial period of War proved to be for the Red Army. Roger Reese wrote his "Stalin's Reluctant Soldiers", giving a social history of the Red Army up to the clash with Germany, focussing on morale and training. David Glantz covered the physical state of the Red Army in "Stumbling Colossus" and Gorodetsky in "Grand Delusion" focuses on diplomacy and politics.

In "Plans for Stalin's War Machine", the Norwegian Lennart Samualson makes an effort to put the economic planning of the three pre-war Five-Year Plans in perspective with the military planning and military doctrine. He argues, not quite surprisingly, that the armed forces have always dominated economic planning. Central figure in the book is Tukhachevsky, successively chief of staff, commander of the Leningrad military district and deputy people commissar (minister) for defence, only to fall victim to Stalin's Great Terror in 1937. Tukhachevsky was the main architect of the Soviet military doctrine of 'deep battle'. Deep battle was the Red Armies way to overcome a trench warfare. Huge forces of modern equipment (tanks, aeroplanes and artillery) would crush the enemy's lines. Meanwhile, great forces of airborne troops would make sure the enemy would get surrounded and would siege main communication and transport point in the hinterland. After this policy got adopted in the early 1930's, it was up to the soviet industry to supply the army with the requested amounts of tanks, aeroplanes and artillery.

As Samuelson points out, things went dearly wrong. The reason for this failure lies in the fact that the Soviet Union couldn't afford to invest heavily in the defence industry. It therefore chose a to set up a dual industry: in case of war, civil industry would transform itself to war industry. Tanks could easily be build on the framework of a tractor of car, Tukhachevsky argued. After 1937 the Soviet Union abandoned this tactic because the civil industry didn't seem able to deliver the goods the Red Army ordered. Just as things get tense - there's a war closing in - the author speeds up his book.

It takes half the book to cover the six years from 1925 to 1931, in which the Red Army basically was wondering how it would survive any war, given the deplorable state of the soviet economy. It than decided that there was no real war threat at all, since none of the likely enemies were able to form any real danger. But as things get really interesting - after all the war forms a real test for the soviet idea's on tactics, the quality of it's weapons, troops and newly build industry - the book gets less and less detailed.

The final chapter on "Economic Planning in Terror and War, 1937-41" shows us a huge amount of tables. The tables show the planed production for the third Five Year Plan (1937-1942). But as Samualson had so well explained previously, actual spending hardly ever followed the plans made in advance by Gosplan, the central planning agency. Apparently, Samualson couldn't find enough archival evidence on the state of the Soviet economy in the thrird Five-Year Plan.

Meanwhile the reader has gotten spoiled by quality material. And most of all, the weak evidence presented by the author doesn't seem to prove his conclusion that in the final pre-war years, the soviet economy succeeded quite well in supplying the Red Army with vast amounts of tanks, aeroplanes, artillery and ammunition. In fact, the first period of war for the Red Army knew larges shortages of supplies, partly because warehouse had been build close to the border and were destroyed by the Germans, partly because of a very weak transport system. Any good mobilisation plan would have dealt with the transport problem. Since he couldn't provide sufficient information on the final period covered by his book, Samuelson should have limited it to the period of 1925-1937. That way, he certainly would have gotten five stars.

After reading this, I could not help but scratch my head and ask myself why it is that this isn't more prominant in social movement theory / political sociology. The book provides an excellent framework for thinking about collective action and the logic of the emergence, and rise or decline of movements for radical change from below. This should be standard reading for undergrad/graduate students studying social movements and/or political processes.

I agree with Michael from NY. Schwartz's sudy is a superb analysis of farm tennancy and the dynamics of protest in late 19th century South. Schwartz's methodology and thesis have been assailed by many historians of this era in southern history but no one can deny that his analysis is grounded in the primary sources and offers an insight into the tennancy system that few studies of this phenomenon can match.

this book gathers all the masters in this field to talk about the reforms in their countries, and let us know the thought and background of each country. therefore, i recommend this book.

My daughter has just entered Macalester College in St. Paul, MN. She has wanted to become a medical doctor since she was 13.

I have encouraged her to study molecular biology and computational biology as the best field to go into for the next 50 years of her life.

In 1968 my dad recommended that I go into computers, in order to be on the leading edge of the future throughout my working life. I followed my dad's advice.

I asked her what book she most wanted to read. She wanted a to find the best book on reforming the medical insurance because she believes that is the most important issue for the future. She is also interested in epidemeology.

I asked my dad to research the field of medical insurance and make a recommendation.

He recommended this book for my daughter. I have bought it for her and will make a followup recommendation once she has read the book.

This book gives an overview of the involvement of the U.S. government in labor relations from roughly 1877 through the Reagan years. The amount of primary sources in the book is impressive. I could think of a few labor related historical events that the author does not mention in this book but overall the detail and analyses are impressive and useful.

He begins by describing federal government labor policy in the late 19th century. The U.S. was rapidly industrializing and economic competition was intense. The economy was in a continual state of booming and then falling into serious depression. Labor costs were the main target for businesses to slash in order to strengthen competitive position. When workers objected to wage cuts and bad conditions and organized to resist such measures, businesses usually had the backing of state and local authorities in crushing unionization and strikes. The courts were especially helpful to employers, granting injunctions against strikes on the ground that they interfered with interstate commerce. The courts made particular use of the Sherman Act of 1890 which was originally assumed to target corporate monopolies but judges used it against unions. Also, when federal troops were called out, they were placed under the control of state governments and used to crush unionization. One example Dubofsky gives is the use of federal troops by Idaho governor Frank Steunenberg in 1899 to arrest all union coal miners and release them only after they pledged not to return to the union. The federal troops also assisted state authorities in purging union sympathizers from local government posts.

Dubofsky examines the evolving federal response to labor crises which constitutional traditions of the period usually placed in the hands of local and state authorities. After episodes of industrial unrest, Congress appointed investigatory commissions that condemned both management and workers and then did nothing more. Dubofsky places the 1894 Pullman strike as a time when one began to hear the beginnings of federal government endorsement of "responsible unionism." But it was not until Theodore Roosevelt when a president gave a substantial amount of rhetorical support to responsible unionism. In this case the responsible unions were the relatively well paid and work secure craft unionists of the American Federation of Labor. In contrast, his hostility to the IWW was quite extreme, similar to that held by other leading politicians in the period. He refused pleas of the Western Federation of Miners, from which the IWW sprung, to protect them in Colorado from the extensive violations in 1903-05 of their civil liberties. In the face of a reactionary judiciary, business and congress, he did little to push for the legislative demands of the A.F of L. He did instruct federal troops sent to Nevada to keep order during an IWW coal strike not to aid in suppressing the strike, which ended up crushed by the companies and local authorities anyway.

Dubofsky describes how closely the A.F of L linked up with the administration of Woodrow Wilson. The president's Commission on Industrial Relations, headed by the interesting figure of Frank P. Walsh, harshly condemned the excesses of free market capitalism. The Clayton Act of 1914 declared workers had the right to organize and supposedly exempted unions from the Sherman Act. But according to Dubofsky, most congressman and Senators backed language protecting peaceful union organizing from court injunctions that was as vague as possible, leaving it to the courts to define the parameters of the Act. Of course the courts would eventually significantly water down the Clayton Act. Dubofsky describes the efforts of some officials in the Wilson administration to promote non-radical unionization but this of course ran into conflict with the World War one and post war Red Scare. Employers used the Red Scare as a cover to repress any sort of unionism, radical or otherwise. Dubofsky describes how the federal government's "neutrality" in the 1920's redounded to the benefit of employers.

He describes the efforts of the Franklin Roosevelt administration to give unions a decent measure of viability in industrial relations .He writes that unions had the support of the administration against management when the unions presented a powerful and potentially disruptive force. When unions were weak in comparison to management--as during the textile strike of 1934--or when unions were on the defensive against a hostile public opinion and congress Roosevelt was cool or hostile.

Dubofsky describes in impressive detail the Roosevelt administration's labor policy during World War II. Unions wished to the have a voice in the conduct of war industries but business more or less exclusively directed the government boards overseeing war industries. In the interests of an efficient war effort, the administration refused to deny war contracts to anti-union businesses. The administration tried to contain wage growth in order to control inflation but this led to an explosion of strikes, in particular in the mining industry.

On the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, Dubofsky argues that despite the hysterical denunciations of the CIO, the actual effects of the law were not terribly significant. In particular he argues that Taft-Hartley was not much of a divergence from the Roosevelt administration policy that had been developed in the National Labor Relations Board since the purge of radicals from that body began in 1939. He notes that while Truman vetoed the Act and publicly predicted it would give impetus for communists in the labor movement, according to a credible source, he privately expressed the opinion that it wasn't that bad. I think that Dubofsky may under-estimate the role the Act played in the subsequent dampening of rank and file militancy.

Dubofsky notes unions assumed their institutional place in the post-war economy and wages and benefits steadily increased, trickling down to non-union members as well. But union leaders agreed to multi-year contracts where lengthy rules and grievance procedures effectively diluted rank and file militancy. By the 1970's, with America losing its supreme economic position, business leaders increasingly saw unions as a hindrance to its ability to compete.

In a revisionist look at labor history in the 20th century, Melvyn Dubofsky counters the typical claim that government has played a repressive role in government-union-capital relationships. His argument, not accepted by many labor scholars, is that labor benefitted in the long-run through the states intervention -- atempting to diffuse the potential revolutionary zeal of the masses by appeasing them with small gains.

Dubofsky's methodology launches a liberal attack on Marxist thinkers and activists by challenging the view that government is a tool of capital to hold workers in check. His work points out that unions gained when the people organized and threatened militantcy. Government sought to appease labor through putting pressure on capital. However, when labor crossed the line actually becoming militant and acting out against the states authority, government sided with capital -- an action more in line with providing the economic stability everyone needs.

Labor history in a raw sense is both shocking and appalling. His account of labor history is packed with detail, and historical accounts which sometimes get in the way of his thesis.

This is a bit dry, if this is not your area of interests, but anyone who is curious about what's been going on in Europe should read this. The EU is a like nothing this world has ever seen before. This unique institution willl heavily influence global politics in the next century. It behoovs anyone interested in government to learn the basics of what the EU is all about.

As an undergraduate political science major, this book was immensely helpful to me. I read it before studying the EU during my junior year abroad. It's clear, uses easy language, and provides the necessary basics for understanding the institution. I highly recommend it.

this author knows his principles.
and it is refreshing to see someone speak on the bovine dung that we call a government.
the same friend allowed me to borrow this tome as well.
after reading it I suggested a violent action to bring down the government
and to replace it with a community where all had a duty that contributed to the whole. and all were equal and there was no heirarchy.
again, I cannot say whether or not every tidbit is factual, having not worked in the inner circles of the political machine myself, but from information I have researched and have been introduced to, this book seems on point.

The book makes good and valid points, however much of it is filled with statistics, graphs, and long lists not many would be willing to wade through. It is very simply written, easy to read, but unfortunately mixes fact with opinion. The annoying "action agendas" at the end of each chapter were seriously annoying just because they are all the same and involve nothing more than common sense exhortations. Really not much I did not know already in here, and I probably would not buy another Morris book, although I'll watch him on Hannity and Bill O.

If you follow Politics and Current Affairs,and more importantly if you watch Fox News,you are familiar with Dick Morris. Dick published this book a year ago and since that time he has published another blockbuster "Fleeced".
Dick knows Politics as well as anyone else around;and he tells it like it is.Even Bill O'Reilly stops and listens to Dick, even when he disagrees with him.
In this book, Dick addresses many of the "Outrages" that are being bantered around these days, as the Federal Election is in full swing.
Last evening ,O'Reilly was ranting,along with many others,that nobody,either elected politicians,those charged with the responsiblity to oversee the financial markets,or the financial institutions themselves ;warned of the financial mess we were heading into.
Well,O'Reilly was wrong,Morris,for one, warned us in spades, and it's all spelled out in this book in chapter 4,The 2006 Congress,chapter 8,Fannie Mae,and chapter 9 ,The Bankruptcy Bill.
There is an old ,but wise adage,that has never been more true than today;

"Never let the dog watch your food and never let the Government watch
your money."

If you really want to know what the real truth behind many of the issues,or as Morris calls them "OUTRAGES",read what he has to say on:

Illegal Immigration

United Nations

Congressional Ripoffs

Student Loan Overcharges

Tobacco Companies

ACLU

Education and Teacher's Unions

Katrina Ripoffs

Special Interest Trade Protection

This is a book that should be read by all Americans,Democrats,Republicans,Independents;and even Canadians. The reason I include Canadians is for the simple reason that the same issues are prevalent in Canada.Except for one thing,there is no TV Network in Canada that gives balanced reporting.The National TV network,CBC,is Government run and unargueably highly Left-Wing biased. Also,there is no writer publishing books anything nearly balanced as what we get from Dick Morris.
One good example is a recent event with our Socialized Medical system that the Goverment and Media hold up as a great solution.
Last week,in Winnipeg,Manitoba,a man without legs in a wheelchair,was dropped off in the Hospital Emergency Room. He was not given any attention until 34 hours later,when finally someone checked him.He was dead and rigormortis had already set in.Our Socialized Medicine is filled with stories like this,long waits for beds in hospitals,tens of thousands who cannot find a Family Doctor,and despite this ;there is no "OUTRAGE" --just promises from the Government and Politicians of all stripes ,that they are going to fix it. And that's what you get when you have Socialized Medicine and half of all the Government's Budget is spent on the system.

I have not finished this book yet but it is one I feel everyone should read before they vote in the November elections. I want to say---------WAKE UP AMERICANS----the lobbyist and special interest groups are in control of Congress and the laws that are made. Both parties are equally at fault over the lobbyist problem and earmarks inserted in bills. The economy will always have problems when our politicians make promises and vote to enhance their own power and wealth instead of voting for what is best for the majority of citizens in this country.

'Outrage' outlines a wide range of horrible conduct by Congress, corporations, and others.

Dick Morris reveals treachery and incompetence by Congress (both Republicans and Democrats), the president, the United Nations, pharamaceutical companies, the teachers' unions, Fannie Mae, the news media, and others. In addition to pointing out the problems, he offers some solutions.

Some of the most revealing sections include the following:

Congress - The evils catalogued in this section are numerous and perpetrated by both parties. Some of the issues are corruption (selling votes for campaign contributions), automatic pay raises, inappropriate relationships (financial) with lobbyists, and more. He names names and several are very prominent including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, and many more. One of the outrages is the way that leaders of both parties circled the wagons to prevent an FBI investigation of bribery by a member of 'the club' (William Jefferson, D-LA).

Illegal immigration is another outrage. Our inept federal government has no tracking of those who leave the country so there is no way to tell who has overstayed visa times. How pathetic is that! Another issue is that many visas are issued when they should not be (as in the case of 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 terrorists).

There are many more of these abuses. Some of those exposed include: student loans, tobacco companies, insurance scams, and the ACLU.

One section that is highly educational that needs to be understood by everyone is the chapter on trade protection. Morris does a superb job of schooling readers in the benefits of free trade and the damage done by protectionism.

This book should be read by every American voter.