Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g78kv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T11:29:40.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Spirit of Private Government*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Grant McConnell
Grant McConnell
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The affairs of the Teamsters Union have suddenly loomed with an importance seldom recognized in any private association of this highly associated country. No doubt a major source of the recent interest in the internal politics of this and other unions is the fascination exerted by intimations of colorful criminality. Senator McClellan's committee, indeed, has gone far to indulge the widespread taste for this variety of sensation. Some segments of public opinion have obviously been gratified to be given ammunition useful in a campaign to weaken the economic and political power of organized labor. Meanwhile, the prospect for a few elementary reforms has suddenly improved. The American labor movement has acted to cleanse itself of some of the stain which has drawn so much attention. Legislative proposals designed to insure integrity of union elections and financial management are actively agitated.

Nevertheless, publicity and agitation have so far done little to illuminate the basic problem. The public hue and cry about gangsters quite possibly may have hindered rather than helped understanding of what is involved.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , September 1958 , pp. 754 - 770
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy in Trade Unions, A Survey with a Program of Action (New York, 1943), p. 3Google Scholar. The ACLU conducted a resurvey in 1951 which produced no evidence of change, although it did offer a spirit of cautious optimism.

2 Some of the more notable early discussions are: Seidman, Joel, Union Rights and Union Duties (New York, 1943)Google Scholar; Stafford, William W., “Disputes Within Trade Unions,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 45 (1936), pp. 1248–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mintz, Copal, “Trade Union Abuses,” St. Johns Law Review, Vol. 6 (1932), pp. 272–313Google Scholar; Steever, Miller D., “Control of Labor Through Union Discipline,” Cornell Law Quarterly, Vol. 16 (1931), pp. 212–226Google Scholar; Note, “Elements of a Fair Trial in Disciplinary Proceedings by Labor Unions,” Columbia Law Review, Vol. 30 (1930), pp. 847–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Michels, Robert, Political Parties, reprinted by the Free Press (Glencoe, Ill., 1949)Google Scholar.

4 Some of the most incisive applications of this analysis to unions were made many years ago. See Kopald, Sylvia, Rebellion in Labor Unions (New York, 1924)Google Scholar; and Herberg, Will, “Bureaucracy and Democracy in Labor Unions,” Antioch Review, Vol. 3, pp. 405 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 The convention's similarities to the British Parliament are superficially greater. However, to press this analogy is to ignore the strong constitutional restraints that have developed to circumscribe the actions of Parliament. Such a development has not occurred in American trade union conventions.

6 Quoted in Kovner, J., Report on Conventions, typescript, p. 337Google Scholar.

7 The incident is told in McConnell, Grant, The 1952 Steel Seizure, a forthcoming publication of the Inter-University Case Program, University of Alabama PressGoogle Scholar.

8 See Taft, Philip, “Constitutional Power of the Chief Officer in American Labor Unions,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 62, pp. 459–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar. However, compare the tenor of that discussion here with his The Structure and Government of Labor Unions (Cambridge, 1954)Google Scholar, especially ch. viii.

9 See the tabulation and discussion in Taft, Philip, “Judicial Procedure in Labor Unions,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1945, pp. 370–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also his Structure and Government of Labor Unions, pp. 123–125, for an apologia.

10 Constitution of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Art. xxvii, 15, 16.

11 Quoted in Kovner, op. cit., p. 207.

12 Lipset, S. M., Trow, M. and Coleman, J., Union Democracy (Glencoe, 1956)Google Scholar.

13 The comparision with amendment to state constitutions is of course much closer. This underlines some of the similarities between private governments and small units of public government, a topic with which I expect to deal in a later discussion.

14 Mitchell, John, Organized Labor (Philadelphia, American Book and Bible House, 1903), pp. 75, 76Google Scholar.

15 But cf. Robert A. Horn, Groups and the Constitution.

16 The point is elaborated by Lederer, Emil in The State of the Masses (New York, 1940)Google Scholar.

17 Second object of the United Steelworkers of America, stated in Article II of its Constitution. The other two stated objects are to unite all eligible workers and to secure legislation safeguarding the economic security and social welfare of workers in the industry.

18 This argument has been previously advanced in Fisher, Lloyd H. and McConhell, Grant, “Labor Union Solidarity,” in Industrial Conflict, Kornhauser, , Dubin, and Ross, , ed, (New York, 1954)Google Scholar.

19 Allen, V. L., Power in Trade Unions (London, Longmans Green and Co., 1954), pp. 9, 10Google Scholar.

20 Cf. Grant, J. A. C., “The Gild Returns to America,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 4, pp. 303–336 and 458–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 See my The Decline of Agrarian Democracy (Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1953), pp. 53–54Google Scholar.

22 Cf. Yale Law Journal, May 1954.

23 See Barnett, George E., “The Government of the Typographical Union,” in Studies in American Trade Unionism, Hollander, Jacob H. and Barnett, George E., eds. (New York, 1912), p. 19Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.