State of the Union: A Century of American Labor

by Nelson Lichtenstein, Gary Gerstle (Editor), William Henry Chafe (Editor)

In a fresh and timely reinterpretation, Nelson Lichtenstein examines how trade unionism has waxed and waned in the nation's political and moral imagination, among both devoted partisans and intransigent foes. From the steel foundry to the burger-grill, from Woodrow Wilson to John Sweeney, from Homestead to Pittston, Lichtenstein weaves together a compelling matrix of ideas, stories, strikes, laws, and people in a streamlined narrative of work and labor in the twentieth century.

The "labor question" became a burning issue during the Progressive Era because its solution seemed essential to the survival of American democracy itself. Beginning there, Lichtenstein takes us all the way to the organizing fever of contemporary Los Angeles, where the labor movement stands at the center of the effort to transform millions of new immigrants into alert citizen unionists. He offers an expansive survey of labor's upsurge during the 1930s, when the New Deal put a white, male version of industrial democracy at the heart of U.S. political culture. He debunks the myth of a postwar "management-labor accord" by showing that there was (at most) a limited, unstable truce.

Lichtenstein argues that the ideas that had once sustained solidarity and citizenship in the world of work underwent a radical transformation when the rights-centered social movements of the 1960s and 1970s captured the nation's moral imagination. The labor movement was therefore tragically unprepared for the years of Reagan and Clinton: although technological change and a new era of global economics battered the unions, their real failure was one of ideas and political will. Throughout, Lichtenstein argues that labor's most important function, in theory if not always in practice, has been the vitalization of a democratic ethos, at work and in the larger society. To the extent that the unions fuse their purpose with that impulse, they can once again become central to the fate of the republic. "State of the Union" is an incisive history that tells the story of one of America's defining aspirations.

Genres: History, Labor, Nonfiction, Politics, American History, Economics, American

352 pages, Paperback

First published January 28, 2002

About the author

Nelson Lichtenstein is a professor of history at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and director of the Center for the Study of Work, Labor and Democracy.

Reviews

[Jesse Mason · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not an introductory book, but he makes good arguments if you already know the history in broad strokes.

[Dan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is....fine. Its not the best summary of the Labor Movement in the 20th century that I've read but also not the worst. Lichtenstein takes a very standard Liberal Idealist viewpoint to examine labor history, focusing on the "big ideas" that resonate with people but of course never really digging into where those ideas come from or how ideas are produced and propagated. He means well, he wants a better, stronger union movement and understands the massive harm to society by the silencing of workers voices we see from the waning of labor.

But he's unable to move past the liberal, Weberian view of the state as a terrain of class struggle (correct) wherein powerful worker institutions like unions can fight to balance workers interests with those of employers (incorrect). He lauds the "idealism" of labor radicals, socialists, anarchists, and communists, while at the same time viewing them as naive and out of touch with reality. There's a recognition that class struggle is vital but the only horizon he seems to see for it is some mythic form of "balance" where everyone's voice is heard, rather than working to end exploitation he, as with other well meaning liberals, seeks to humanize it.

Anyways, this book is fine but I can't recommend it when much better works like Mike Davis' Prisoners of the American Dream and Kim Moody's An Injury to All and US Labor in Trouble and Transition are out there.

[Dan Gorman · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's okay. Lichtenstein's avowed labor partisanship may irk readers looking for a monograph instead of a manifesto. The author hits the high points of twentieth-century labor, from the promise of labor in the New Deal to the corporate resurgence of the late 1900s. He wants a rejuvenated, militant labor movement to empower workers on a grassroots level and push the Democratic Party to the left. Sixteen years after this book's publication, we are seeing labor, anti-gun, climate, and other activists pushing the Democrats to the left, plus centrist and establishment Democrats resisting that nudge.

[HATeRPhARi · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a really great book that details (in excruciating detail) the American Labor movement from roughly 1900 to 2000 (although updated versions of the book include information on the Obama years).

The book is dense, and rife with pertinent information from a nuanced and thorough analysis of history. My only real criticisms are that Lichtenstein's writing is often not the easiest to broach, and I feel that he tends to ramble a bit from time to time. However, I think you would be hard pressed to find a book so complete and thorough as this one.

[amyleigh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lichtenstein's history of American unionism and labour politics is rigorous, thorough, yet highly readable and engaging. Good stuff indeed.

[AaronOneSeven · Rating 3 out of 5]

Works better for somebody who already has a decent grasp of labor history and politics. Not great for beginners.

[Timothy · Rating 4 out of 5]

In State of the Union, Nelson Lichtenstein provides an interpretive history of American labor from approximately 1930 to 2000. By “interpretive history”, I mean that Lichtenstein’s goal was not to lay out a definitive, comprehensive labor history. Rather, his goal was to use history as a means for proposing fresh ideas about the role of labor movements in American society. This is not to suggest that Lichtenstein shirks history, or plays loose with historical events in order to support an agenda. Although Lichtenstein is a labor supporter, State of the Union is a rigorous work. It is not overtly ideological, and Lichtenstein clearly did his homework. As a result, State of the Union can serve dual purposes. It can be read as “straight history”. As someone who knew little about American labor history prior to reading the book, I learned a great deal about a variety of labor-related topics, including the Wagner Act, the Taft-Hartley Act, the history of the AFL-CIO, and the history of the Teamsters. It can also be read as a scholarly treatise. Personally, I appreciated this duality. I tend to reject the notion that history is something “out there” that can be objectively recorded in computer-like fashion. History is both documented and created by historians.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of State of the Union is Lichtenstein’s treatment of contemporary rights-based movements in America, and their impact on the labor movement. Lichtenstein notes historical transformation – from (1) New Deal-supported “industrial democracy” (clearly the closest America has come to a class-based movement, although, given support for union activity by the Roosevelt administration, radical edges were frayed), to (2) industry or site specific, bureaucratized collective bargaining, to (3) individualized employee rights. As things presently stand, many American workers gain more traction by filing a personal grievance under a federal anti-discrimination law, than by organizing with fellow employees.

We know the historical antecedents of this state of affairs – the American civil rights movement, the feminist movement, etc. These movements extend, and probably began, outside the workplace. Yet, access to sustaining, satisfying work is a fundamental political issue. Rights movements inevitably extended into the workplace. In so doing, they supplanted organized worker movements. Lichtenstein questions whether workers are better off with these statutory safeguards than they would be under a strong union.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's somewhere between 4 and 5 stars tbh, but I went with 5 because the tiebreaker here is that it has an absurd number of great references to studies of particular labor-related issues. I ended up getting about 20 new books culled from these references. I think it does quite a good job of outlining the particular issues that unions in the US have faced over the past 100 years, though admittedly tons of nuances/details are glossed over (hence the references). As other reviewers have mentioned, a major thrust of the book is the presentation at the end of a "where to go from here" for the labor movement. It's funny though, because as a radical I actually found that to be the most bland part of the book, in that it advocates labor constituting a left wing of the Democratic party (meh) and forgetting about pushing for a shorter workweek (more reasonable IMO, but still somewhat meh). In all though, for radicals, I think this is an extremely important book for its historical content, even if we may come to different conclusions in the end.

[ivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Liechtenstein's history of the postwar labor movement isn't without its flaws -- most notably, silence on racial issues and the "wages of whiteness" as contributors to a splintering of union power and working-class mobilization -- but one point does stand out. As a result of the shift from group organizing to legal maintenance -- collective bargaining, the NLRB, etc. -- the responsibility for social change is given to professionals: lawyers, judges and lobbyists who have no direct stake in the outcome. When the political winds shift or different bureaucrats are appointed, the movement is less able to respond and resist these changes because they are no longer on equal footing in the legal arena.

[Jim · Rating 3 out of 5]

a reasonably comprehensive and persuasive history of the rise and fall of the american labor movement.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very accessible and interesting summary of 20th century American labor movement.

[ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

very dense but well written. a great overview of the history and politics of Labor in the last 140 years.

[Molly · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well researched and detailed, but often disjointed and difficult to follow.

[Stan Lanier · Rating 4 out of 5]

A provocative interpretive work enhanced by reading other general overviews such as Robert Zieger's & Gilbert Gall's AMERICAN WORKERS, AMERICAN UNIONS (3rd ed.)