¹ Quoted by Clarence, E. Bonnett, Employers' Associations in the United States: A Study of Typical Associations (New York, 1922), p. 103.Google Scholar

² James, Holt, “Trade Unionism in the British and U.S. Steel Industries, 1880–1914”, Labor History, XVIII (1977), pp. 5–35;Google ScholarBernard, Elbaum and Frank, Wilkinson, “Industrial Relations and Uneven Development: A Comparative Study of the American and British Steel Industries”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, III (1979), pp. 275–303;Google ScholarMichael, Shalev and Walter, Korpi, “Working Class Mobilization and American Exceptionalism”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 1 (1980), pp. 46–47;Google ScholarHenry, Phelps Brown, The Origins of Trade Union Power (Oxford, 1983), pp. 197, 203–207;Google Scholar and Larry, Griffin et al., “Capitalist Resistance to the Organization of Labor Before the New Deal: Why? How? Success?”, American Sociological Review, LI (1986), pp. 146–167.Google Scholar

³ James, Weinstein, The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State: 1900–1918 (Boston, 1968), p. 38.Google Scholar

⁴ David, Montgomery, Workers' Control in America: Studies in the History of Work, Technology, and Labor Struggles (Cambridge, 1979), p. 63.Google Scholar

⁵ For reviews of the literature on why socialism has been so marginal in the U.S., see Ira, Katznelson, City Trenches: Urban Politics and the Patterning of Class in the United States (New York, 1981),Google Scholar ch. 1; Jerome, Karabel, “The Reasons Why”, New York Review of Books, XXVI, no 1 (1979), pp. 22–27;Google Scholar and Seymour, Martin Lipset, “Why No Socialism in the United States?”, in Bialer, S. and Sluzar, S. (eds), Sources of Contemporary Radicalism (Boulder, Colorado, 1977), pp. 31–149.Google Scholar

⁶ Examples include Seymour Martin Lipset,“North American Labor Movements: A Comparative Perspective”, in Lipset, S. M.(ed.), Unions in Transition: Entering the Second Century (San Francisco, 1986)Google Scholar and Shalev, and Korpi, , “Working Class Mobilization and American Exceptionalism”.Google Scholar

⁷ For similar criticism of generalized theories of American working-class politics, see Aristide, Zolberg, “How Many Exceptionalisms?”, in Ira, Katznelson and Aristide, Zolberg (eds), Working-Class Formation: Nineteenth-Century Patterns in Western Europe and the United States (Princeton, 1986), pp. 397–455;Google Scholar and Gary, Marks, Unions in Politics: The Comparative Development of Unions in the United States, Britain, and Germany in the 19th and Early 20th Centuries, ms. of forthcoming book, ch. 6.Google Scholar

⁸ Bruno, Ramirez, When Workers Fight: The Politics of Industrial Relations in the Progressive Era, 1898–1916 (Westport, Connecticut, 1978), pp. 87–97; a recent restatement is Griffin, et al., “Capitalist Resistance to the Organization of Labor Before the New Deal”, pp. 149–151.Google Scholar For particular cases see David, Brody, Steelworkers in America: The Nonunion Era (New York, 1960), chs 1–3;Google Scholar and Katherine, Stone, “The Origins of Job Structures in the Steel Industry”, Review of Radical Political Economy, VI (1974), pp. 61–97,Google Scholar on steel; Irwin, Yellowitz, “Skilled Workers and Mechanization: The Lasters in the 1890s”, Labor History, XVIII (1977), pp. 197–213,Google Scholar on shoes; and Stephen, Meyer III, The Five Dollar Day: Labor Management and Social Control in the Ford Motor Company, 1908–1921 (Albany, New York, 1981)Google Scholar and David, Gartman, Auto Slavery: The Labor Process in the American Automobile Industry, 1897–1950 (New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1986), chs 2–3, 8, on autos.Google Scholar

⁹ Weinstein, , The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State, ch. 1;Google Scholar and Ramirez, , When Workers Fight, ch. 4.Google Scholar

¹⁰ For Britain, see James, B. Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, 1800–1945 (London, 1945), pp. 55–58, 122–132;Google ScholarJames, Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement (London, 1973), pp. 58–62.Google Scholar For the U.S., see William, H. Buckler, “The Minimum Wage in the Machinists' Union”, Hollander, Jacob and Barnett, George (eds), Studies in American Trade Unionism (New York, 1907);Google ScholarFred, H. Colvin, 60 Years with Men and Machines (New York, 1947), pp. 43–45; and Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, chs 1 and 5.Google Scholar

¹¹ On Britain, see Jefferys, , The Story of the Engineers, pp. 91–109, 139–142;Google ScholarHinton, , The First Shop Stewards' Movement, Introduction and pp. 58–61, 79;Google ScholarKeith, Burgess, The Origins of British Industrial Relations: The Nineteenth Century Experience (London, 1975), pp. 35–56.Google Scholar On the U.S., see Buckler, , “The Minimum Wage in the Machinists' Union”, pp. 137–138;Google ScholarMark, Perlman, The Machinists: A New Study in American Trade Unionism (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), pp. 11, 151–152, 303;Google Scholar and Montgomery, , Workers' Control in America, pp. 15–18.Google Scholar

¹² Jefferys, , The Story of the Engineers, pp. 140–142;Google ScholarMachinists' Monthly Journal, 01 1891, p. 107;Google Scholar and Perlman, , The Machinists, p. 9.Google Scholar

¹³ On the lockout, see Jefferys, , The Story of the Engineers, pp. 143–149;Google ScholarClarke, R.O., “The Dispute in the Engineering Industry, 1897–1898”, Economica, new series, XXIV (1957), pp. 128–137;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Clegg, H. A. et al., A History of British Trade Unions Since 1889 (London, 1964). pp. 161–167.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Amalgamated Engineers' Monthly Journal, 06 1908, p. 12;Google Scholar and Jefferys, , The Story of the Engineers, p. 159.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See U.S. Industrial Commission, Report (Washington, D.C., 1901–1902), v. 8;Google ScholarPerlman, , The Machinists, pp. 25–27;Google Scholar and Montgomery, , Workers' Control in America, pp. 49–52.Google Scholar

¹⁶ U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, v. 8, pp. 10, XXX.Google Scholar

¹⁷ U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, v. 8, pp. viii, 10–11, 19, 30. 513–514.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Montgomery, , Workers' Control in America, p. 52.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Machinists' Monthly Journal, 08 1900, p. 255.Google Scholar

²⁰ Iron Age, 05 16, 1901, p. 49.Google Scholar See also U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, v. 17, pp. 357–359;Google Scholar and Montgomery, , Workers' Control in America, pp. 54–57.Google Scholar

²¹ U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, v. 8, pp. 513–514, and v. 17, pp. XCIV, 359.Google Scholar

²² Iron Age, 06 6, 1901, p. 23;Google Scholar and Perlman, , The Machinists, p. 206.Google Scholar

²³ Iron Age, 06 6, 1901, p. 23.Google Scholar

²⁴ Machinists' Monthly Journal, 08 1903, pp. 719–720;Google Scholar and Bonnett, , Employers' Associations in the United States, pp. 26, 112, 119–121.Google Scholar

²⁵ For other discussions of the importance for labor relations of the relative timing of technological change and union development, see Ronald, Dore, British Factory – Japanese Factory: The Origins of National Diversity in industrial Relations (Berkeley, 1973), chs 14–15;Google Scholar and Michael, Burawoy, “The Anthropology of Industrial work”, Annual Review of Anthropology, VII (1979), pp. 257–259.Google Scholar

²⁶ Orcutt, H. F. L., “Machine Shop Management in Europe and America”, Engineering Magazine, XVI (1899), pp. 552–553, 703–707;Google ScholarHabakkuk, H. J., American and British Technology in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 105–106, 151, 170–171, 202–203;Google Scholar and Saul, S. B., “The Engineering Industry”, in H. Aldcroft, Derek (ed.), The Development of British Industry and Foreign Competition, 1875–1914 (London, 1968), pp. 231, 235.Google Scholar

²⁷ The IAM enrolled about 11% of machinists in 1900, as compared to perhaps 50% in the ASE and other craft societies. See Montgomery, , Workers' Control in America, p. 63;Google ScholarCharles, More, “Skill and the Survival of Apprenticeship”, in Stephen, Wood (ed.), The Degradation of Work? Skill, Deskilling, and the Labour Process (London, 1982), p. 112;Google Scholar and George, Sayers Bain and Robert, Price, Profiles of Union Growth (Oxford, 1980), p. 50.Google Scholar

²⁸ Orcutt, , “Machine Shop Management in Europe and the United States”, pp. 551–554; Great Britain Board of Trade, Report of the Departmental Committee Appointed by the Board of Trade to Consider the Position of the Engineering Trades After the War (London, 1918), p. 7;Google Scholar and Habakkuk, , American and British Technology in the Nineteenth Century, p. 219.Google Scholar

²⁹ Habakkuk, , American and British Technology in the Nineteenth Century, p. 215;Google ScholarBurgess, , The Origins of British Industrial Relations, pp. 3–4;Google Scholar and Jonathan, Zeitlin, “The Labour Strategies of British Engineering Employers, 1890–1922”, in Gospel, Howard and Craig, Littler (eds), Managerial Strategies and Industrial Relations: An Historical and Comparative Study (London, 1983), pp. 25–54.Google Scholar

³⁰ Montgomery, , Workers' Control in America, p. 48.Google Scholar

³¹ Montgomery, , Workers' Control in America, pp. 49, 56–58.Google Scholar

³² Habakkuk, American and British Technology in the Nineteenth Century, documents many these differences, whatever the merits of his explanation for them. See also Phelps, Brown, The Origins of Trade Union Power, pp. 204–206.Google Scholar

³³ Colvin, , 60 Years with Men and Machines, p. 95;Google ScholarPerlman, , The Machinists, p. 29;Google Scholar and Montgomery, , Workers' Control in America, p. 63.Google Scholar

³⁴ Carr, F. W., “Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour in Coventry, 1914–1939” (Ph.D., University of Warwick, 1978), pp. 10, 107.Google Scholar

³⁵ Carr, F. W., “Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour in Coventry”, pp. 40, 48, 233–234, 246, 258.Google Scholar

³⁶ Robert, Max Jackson, The Formation of Craft Labor Markets (Orlando, Florida, 1984), chs 7–13;Google Scholar and James, R. Green, The World of the Worker: Labor in Twentieth Century America (New York, 1980), pp. 34–39.Google Scholar

³⁷ Seymour, Martin Lipset, et al., Union Democracy (Garden City. New York, 1962), p. 22.Google Scholar

³⁸ Warren, B. Catlin, The Labor Problem in the United States and Great Britain (New York, 1935), pp. 547–548.Google Scholar

³⁹ Bain, and Price, , Profiles of Union Growth, pp. 61, 88.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Robert, Christie, Empire in Wood: A History of the Carpenters (Ithaca, 1956), pp. 8–11, 62–65, 108, 156–161.Google Scholar Collaboration between employers and unions certainly did not eliminate serious conflicts. Employers, however, rarely sought to impose open shops. The major lockouts between 1900 and 1904, for example, were directed against the excesses of union control (such as racketeering and sympathetic strikes) rather then unions and local trade agreements. In the early 1920s two major open shops offensives against building trades unions did occur, in Chicago and San Francisco. These were led by banking and manufacturing business leaders rather than contractors, however, and Chicago building employers' defection from the movement contributed to its failure in that city. See Selig, Perlman and Philip, Taft. History of Labor in the United States, 1896–1932 (New York, 1935), pp. 83–93, 504–511;Google Scholar and Christie, , Empire in Wood, pp. 158–160.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Christie, , Empire in Wood, p. 119;Google Scholar and Bain, and Price, , Profiles of Union Growth, pp. 63, 95.Google Scholar

⁴² The anthracite (hard coal) fields were dominated by small numbers of large corporate owners. Competitive pressures were less intense and the virtues of trade agreements less obvious for these employers than they were for operators in bituminous coal. The UMW did win recognition and collective bargaining agreements in the anthracite sector, but their successes before WWI were more limited and came later than in soft coal. See Ramirez, , When Workers Fight, chs 1–2;Google Scholar and Green, , The World of the Worker, pp. 50–56.Google Scholar

⁴³ Lipset, , “North American Labor Movements”, pp. 438, 451.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ An analysis of the divisive effects of ethnicity which is not vulnerable to this criticism is Ira, Katznelson, “Working-Class Formation and the State”, in Evans, Peter et al., (eds), Bringing the State back In (New York, 1985), pp. 257–284.Google Scholar