[Hard Lessons: The Mine Mill Union in the Canadian Labour Movement]

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
J. Hull, D. Buse, Peter Suschnigg, M. Steedman
{"title":"[Hard Lessons: The Mine Mill Union in the Canadian Labour Movement]","authors":"J. Hull, D. Buse, Peter Suschnigg, M. Steedman","doi":"10.2307/25144128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For nearly a generation now, Canadian labour history has gone beyond a simple identification of its task with the writing of the labour union history. The landmarks of the latter have long been familiar to all students of Canadian history: the 1872 legalization of trade unions, the Berlin Conference, IDIA, Winnipeg General Strike, PC 1003 and the Rand formula. To this list will likely be added the recent trend away from international unions marked by the creation of the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW). But it has been Braverman and not Harold Logan from whom labour historians have taken their marching orders.(f.1) Labour history has very much become working class history.The core of the discipline, like Caesar's Gaul, has been composed of three unequal-sized parts. The largest embraces studies of workplace control, the contested terrain of industrial capitalism. Drawing on the seminal work of Braverman, writers such as Radforth, Heron and the authors of the outstanding On the Job collection have given us a wealth of case studies on the work experience in a broad variety of settings.(f.2) The issue of skill has in particular been well explored, moving beyond simplistic models of de-skilling to more sophisticated understandings of the impact of new technologies and managerial strategies on the control of production at the shop floor level. Working-class culture forms the second part of labour history's core. Palmer, Fingard and many others have helped us to understand the lives of past workers within and beyond the workplace and how gender, ethnicity and other factors have textured those lives.(f.3) Finally, a minority of labour historians has continued to find the political history of labour to be of interest.(f.4) These three approaches can be seen together in one of the field's exemplary works, Kealey's well regarded Toronto Workers Respond to Industrial Capitalism.(f.5)While these developments place Canadian labour history in the mainstream of contemporary English-language labour historiography, finding uniquely Canadian aspects of the country's labour history has been more problematic. In his review essay on American labour history, Nellis challenged practitioners of that specialty to show how their work impinged on or was impinged upon by other debates and broader themes in national history.(f.6) A similar gauntlet could be thrown down on this side of the line. Kealey's own identification of continental economic integration and regional identities and federalism as \"account[ing] for that national uniqueness of the historical experience of our working class\"(f.7) has not been pursued. Pentland's ambitious thesis, though admired, has not defined overall chronological developments in a clear analytical framework;(f.8) thus Leir's recent regret over the lack of theory in the writing of labour history.(f.9) Perhaps the most promising candidate for an approach to this problem is national comparison. Similarities and contrasts with the United States are too well known and too invidious to have much merit. An exception would be the approach of Peter Way in integrating the Canadian experience into a broader, regionalized, North American study.(f.10) An appropriate comparison is the Canada-Wales study sponsored by the Memorial-based labour history committee.(f.11) This comparative study parallels work done by the Canadian Science and Technology Historical Association on understanding the history of science in Canada through a comparison with Australia.(f.12)More than a decade ago, I regretted the lack of any satisfactory treatment of the history of supervisory personnel by labour historians, as well as their obfuscation around the issue of workers versus their unions.(f.13) I can see no reason not to repeat these complaints again now while being blunter about the source of the problem -- the ideological predilections of the discipline's practitioners. Labour history is almost entirely a preserve of the Left and labour historians are, in many cases self-consciously, indeed proudly, sympathetic to their subject matter. …","PeriodicalId":45057,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CANADIAN STUDIES-REVUE D ETUDES CANADIENNES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"1997-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/25144128","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF CANADIAN STUDIES-REVUE D ETUDES CANADIENNES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/25144128","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

For nearly a generation now, Canadian labour history has gone beyond a simple identification of its task with the writing of the labour union history. The landmarks of the latter have long been familiar to all students of Canadian history: the 1872 legalization of trade unions, the Berlin Conference, IDIA, Winnipeg General Strike, PC 1003 and the Rand formula. To this list will likely be added the recent trend away from international unions marked by the creation of the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW). But it has been Braverman and not Harold Logan from whom labour historians have taken their marching orders.(f.1) Labour history has very much become working class history.The core of the discipline, like Caesar's Gaul, has been composed of three unequal-sized parts. The largest embraces studies of workplace control, the contested terrain of industrial capitalism. Drawing on the seminal work of Braverman, writers such as Radforth, Heron and the authors of the outstanding On the Job collection have given us a wealth of case studies on the work experience in a broad variety of settings.(f.2) The issue of skill has in particular been well explored, moving beyond simplistic models of de-skilling to more sophisticated understandings of the impact of new technologies and managerial strategies on the control of production at the shop floor level. Working-class culture forms the second part of labour history's core. Palmer, Fingard and many others have helped us to understand the lives of past workers within and beyond the workplace and how gender, ethnicity and other factors have textured those lives.(f.3) Finally, a minority of labour historians has continued to find the political history of labour to be of interest.(f.4) These three approaches can be seen together in one of the field's exemplary works, Kealey's well regarded Toronto Workers Respond to Industrial Capitalism.(f.5)While these developments place Canadian labour history in the mainstream of contemporary English-language labour historiography, finding uniquely Canadian aspects of the country's labour history has been more problematic. In his review essay on American labour history, Nellis challenged practitioners of that specialty to show how their work impinged on or was impinged upon by other debates and broader themes in national history.(f.6) A similar gauntlet could be thrown down on this side of the line. Kealey's own identification of continental economic integration and regional identities and federalism as "account[ing] for that national uniqueness of the historical experience of our working class"(f.7) has not been pursued. Pentland's ambitious thesis, though admired, has not defined overall chronological developments in a clear analytical framework;(f.8) thus Leir's recent regret over the lack of theory in the writing of labour history.(f.9) Perhaps the most promising candidate for an approach to this problem is national comparison. Similarities and contrasts with the United States are too well known and too invidious to have much merit. An exception would be the approach of Peter Way in integrating the Canadian experience into a broader, regionalized, North American study.(f.10) An appropriate comparison is the Canada-Wales study sponsored by the Memorial-based labour history committee.(f.11) This comparative study parallels work done by the Canadian Science and Technology Historical Association on understanding the history of science in Canada through a comparison with Australia.(f.12)More than a decade ago, I regretted the lack of any satisfactory treatment of the history of supervisory personnel by labour historians, as well as their obfuscation around the issue of workers versus their unions.(f.13) I can see no reason not to repeat these complaints again now while being blunter about the source of the problem -- the ideological predilections of the discipline's practitioners. Labour history is almost entirely a preserve of the Left and labour historians are, in many cases self-consciously, indeed proudly, sympathetic to their subject matter. …
[惨痛的教训:加拿大劳工运动中的矿山工会]
在近一代人的时间里,加拿大劳工史已经超越了简单地将其任务确定为撰写工会历史的范畴。后者的标志性事件对所有学习加拿大历史的学生来说都很熟悉:1872年工会合法化、柏林会议、工业发展协会、温尼伯总罢工、pc1003和兰德公式。在这个名单上,可能还会加上最近以加拿大汽车工人(CAW)的成立为标志的背离国际工会的趋势。但是,是布雷弗曼而不是哈罗德·洛根向劳动历史学家们发出了前进的命令。(1)劳动历史在很大程度上已经成为工人阶级的历史。这门学科的核心,就像凯撒的高卢一样,由三个大小不等的部分组成。其中规模最大的是对工作场所控制的研究,这是工业资本主义的争议领域。根据布雷弗曼的开创性工作,作家如Radforth,苍鹭和杰出的作者在工作中收集给了我们丰富的案例研究在多种工作经验设置。(f.2)技能的问题尤其很好地开发,超越技术程度的简单模型,更复杂的理解新技术的影响和管理策略的控制车间的生产水平。工人阶级文化构成劳动历史核心的第二部分。帕尔默、芬加德和其他许多人帮助我们理解了过去工人在工作场所内外的生活,以及性别、种族和其他因素是如何塑造这些生活的。(f.3)最后,少数劳动历史学家继续发现劳动的政治史是有趣的。(f.4)这三种方法可以在该领域的一部典范作品中一起看到,Kealey的《多伦多工人对工业资本主义的反应》(f.5)虽然这些发展将加拿大劳工史置于当代英语劳工史学的主流,但要找到加拿大劳工史的独特方面却更有问题。在他关于美国劳工史的评论文章中,内利斯向这一专业的从业者提出挑战,要求他们表明他们的工作是如何影响或受到国家历史上其他辩论和更广泛主题的影响的。Kealey自己对大陆经济一体化、区域认同和联邦制的认同“解释了我们工人阶级历史经验的民族独特性”(f.7),并没有得到追求。彭特兰雄心勃勃的论文虽然令人钦佩,但并没有在一个清晰的分析框架中定义总体的时间发展;(f.8)因此,莱尔最近对劳动史写作中缺乏理论感到遗憾。(f.9)也许解决这个问题最有希望的方法是国家比较。与美国的相似之处和对比之处太过众所周知,太过令人反感,没有多少优点。一个例外是Peter Way将加拿大经验整合到一个更广泛的、区域化的北美研究中的方法。(f.10)一个适当的比较是由纪念馆劳工历史委员会赞助的加拿大-威尔士研究。(f.11)这项比较研究与加拿大科学技术历史协会通过与澳大利亚的比较来理解加拿大科学史的工作相似。我感到遗憾的是,劳工历史学家对监管人员的历史缺乏任何令人满意的处理,以及他们对工人与工会问题的混淆。(f.13)我认为没有理由不再次重复这些抱怨,同时直言不讳地指出问题的根源——该学科实践者的意识形态偏好。劳工史几乎完全是左派的专利,在许多情况下,劳工历史学家自觉地,甚至自豪地,同情他们的主题。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信