What do you think?
Rate this book
The State and Labor in Modern America
In this important new book, Melvyn Dubofsky traces the relationship between the American labor movement and the federal government from the 1870s until the present. His is the only book to focus specifically on the 'labor question' as a lens through which to view more clearly the basic political, economic, and social forces that have divided citizens throughout the industrial era. Many scholars contend that the state has acted to suppress trade union autonomy and democracy, as well as rank-and-file militancy, in the interest of social stability and conclude that the law has rendered unions the servants of capital and the state. In contrast, Dubofsky argues that the relationship between the state and labor is far more complex and that workers and their unions have gained from positive state intervention at particular junctures in American history. He focuses on six such periods when, in varying combinations, popular politics, administrative policy formation, and union influence on the legislative and executive branches operated to promote stability by furthering the interests of workers and their organizations.
342 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1994
39 people want to read
About the author
Melvyn Dubofsky
44 books13 followersA leading scholar of labor history, Melvyn Dubofsky is Bartle Distinguished Professor of History and Sociology emeritus at the State University of New York at Binghamton.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
September 22, 2021
This book was one of five required for a course entitled 'Labor Policy in America.' My chief complaint, in some ways, has nothing to do with the book or its author. It has more to do with its selection for a course taught in 2021.
The book is copyrighted in 1994.
In case anyone has missed it, there's been one heck of a lot of history that has transpired since 1994.
But let's deal with the book itself. It is well written, and filled to the brim with historical details I haven't run across in other readings. In that regard, it is excellent!
But (you knew there was a "but" coming, didn't you?)...
Even though the book was put to print in 1994, and presumably written in the few years leading up to its printing, it generally discusses the decline of unions after the 1970's, but utterly fails to mention the cross-party international trade deals that led to offshoring of our industry (and even white collar jobs as well).
To me, this is a grievous oversight. How an author with obvious depth and understanding of this subject could take his story in depth through World War 2 and then pretty much wind the story down in two chapters with acknowledgement of the creation of public unions (mostly because of Kennedy) and then a rambling general commentary on the decline of unions from the mid 1960's on without ever indicating the reason for it is a fatal flaw.
He also never mentioned that both major parties had a hand in undermining labor by creation of the web of international agreements that made outsourcing legal and profitable. My own home town was utterly decimated by these agreements with the vast majority of the leather industry shipped off to Bangladesh.
He never mentions that offshoring has led to an end-run around labor and environmental requirements so that US industries are turning the poorer countries these industries moved to into environmental cesspools (which will undoubtedly come back to haunt the American taxpayer at some point).
Another area that could use at least a general contemplative mention is a need, in a post-union world, to consolidate the gains unions have made into a national benefits program before they are all whittled away permanently. Whether this takes the form of some kind of national healthcare system, a more robust violation reporting system, universal basic income. Whatever. While the clout and horsepower still remain, it would be best to contemplate what this could look like so that as unions fade away (assuming there's no national event that suddenly restores them), the rights accrued to labor by the decades-long work of unions doesn't fade away with them. Already we see this happening as the barely unionized tech and online shopping industries work people mercilessly in a job cycle reminiscent of the working conditions in the late 1890's and early 1900's.
Of course, if your book ends at 1994, the year my favorite DOS-based computer game was created, Amazon, Alibaba and its ilk would have been complete unknowns. Hence the need for a more up-to-date text.
Alright, I'm done kvetching now.
The book is copyrighted in 1994.
In case anyone has missed it, there's been one heck of a lot of history that has transpired since 1994.
But let's deal with the book itself. It is well written, and filled to the brim with historical details I haven't run across in other readings. In that regard, it is excellent!
But (you knew there was a "but" coming, didn't you?)...
Even though the book was put to print in 1994, and presumably written in the few years leading up to its printing, it generally discusses the decline of unions after the 1970's, but utterly fails to mention the cross-party international trade deals that led to offshoring of our industry (and even white collar jobs as well).
To me, this is a grievous oversight. How an author with obvious depth and understanding of this subject could take his story in depth through World War 2 and then pretty much wind the story down in two chapters with acknowledgement of the creation of public unions (mostly because of Kennedy) and then a rambling general commentary on the decline of unions from the mid 1960's on without ever indicating the reason for it is a fatal flaw.
He also never mentioned that both major parties had a hand in undermining labor by creation of the web of international agreements that made outsourcing legal and profitable. My own home town was utterly decimated by these agreements with the vast majority of the leather industry shipped off to Bangladesh.
He never mentions that offshoring has led to an end-run around labor and environmental requirements so that US industries are turning the poorer countries these industries moved to into environmental cesspools (which will undoubtedly come back to haunt the American taxpayer at some point).
Another area that could use at least a general contemplative mention is a need, in a post-union world, to consolidate the gains unions have made into a national benefits program before they are all whittled away permanently. Whether this takes the form of some kind of national healthcare system, a more robust violation reporting system, universal basic income. Whatever. While the clout and horsepower still remain, it would be best to contemplate what this could look like so that as unions fade away (assuming there's no national event that suddenly restores them), the rights accrued to labor by the decades-long work of unions doesn't fade away with them. Already we see this happening as the barely unionized tech and online shopping industries work people mercilessly in a job cycle reminiscent of the working conditions in the late 1890's and early 1900's.
Of course, if your book ends at 1994, the year my favorite DOS-based computer game was created, Amazon, Alibaba and its ilk would have been complete unknowns. Hence the need for a more up-to-date text.
Alright, I'm done kvetching now.
October 5, 2025
Good older labor read.
This was a good older labor book. I'm reading it for my Master's Degree and labor policy. This has a lot of good in-depth history of the labor movement, and unionization.
This was a good older labor book. I'm reading it for my Master's Degree and labor policy. This has a lot of good in-depth history of the labor movement, and unionization.
April 9, 2010
Like you, I couldn't WAIT to get my hands on a complete-ish history of American public labor policy. What could be more exciting? Well, just about everything. Everything else in the world is more exciting than this book, but Dubofsky did an admirable job of at least making it readable.
To summarize, Railroad, steel, and coal barrons were mean. Socialists/unions/communists worked for the barrons and burned down their companies and half the midwest to make a point. Federal judges were all, "Go to work. Property rights. Martial law," and Taft spent 30 years switching sides. World wars came, labor was scarce, unions went on strike, and Wilson/FDR were like, "Dudes. Not cool." Congress made like 16 versions of the NLRB before they found one that worked. Big companies were required to have unions but communists were passé by then so unions shouldn't burn down Pittsburg anymore. And John Lewis was a REALLY pushy guy. the end.
Dubofsky is pro-union, or rather pro-"industrial democracy," and I wish that had been made clearer earlier. Still, he does a decent job of explaining all motives and arguments on each side of every major labor dispute between the 1870s and 1970s. Yeah, doesn't really cover the last 40 years so much.
I legitimately learned a lot from this book, so it gets three stars. And I got it for $2, so it gets a fourth "good investment" star. But I fell asleep reading it on the way to work one day and missed my stop, which is part of why I took months to finish, so it loses a full star for taking forever to read.
To summarize, Railroad, steel, and coal barrons were mean. Socialists/unions/communists worked for the barrons and burned down their companies and half the midwest to make a point. Federal judges were all, "Go to work. Property rights. Martial law," and Taft spent 30 years switching sides. World wars came, labor was scarce, unions went on strike, and Wilson/FDR were like, "Dudes. Not cool." Congress made like 16 versions of the NLRB before they found one that worked. Big companies were required to have unions but communists were passé by then so unions shouldn't burn down Pittsburg anymore. And John Lewis was a REALLY pushy guy. the end.
Dubofsky is pro-union, or rather pro-"industrial democracy," and I wish that had been made clearer earlier. Still, he does a decent job of explaining all motives and arguments on each side of every major labor dispute between the 1870s and 1970s. Yeah, doesn't really cover the last 40 years so much.
I legitimately learned a lot from this book, so it gets three stars. And I got it for $2, so it gets a fourth "good investment" star. But I fell asleep reading it on the way to work one day and missed my stop, which is part of why I took months to finish, so it loses a full star for taking forever to read.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews