1. The classic formulation is Selig Perlman, A Theory of the Labor Movement (New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1949). See also Clark Kerr et al., Industrialism and Industrial Man (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960); and Peter Stearns, Lives of Labor: Work in a Maturing Industrial Society (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1975).

2. For present purposes the "labor process" refers to the social and technical organization of production and how this organization influences workers' relations to their work, workmates, and management. Especially relevant are the skill levels "required" by production techniques, how workers are assigned to specific tasks or machines, how they are supervised, and how they are paid.

3. Prominent examples include Bernard Moss, The Origins of the French Labor Movement: The Socialism of the Skilled Workers, 1830-1914 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1976); William H. Sewell, Jr., Work and Revolution in France: The Language of Labor from the Old Regime to 1848 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980); Ronald Aminzade, Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism: A Study of Mid-Nineteenth-Century Toulouse, France (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1981); Barrington Moore, Jr., Injustice: The Social Bases of Obedience and Revolt (White Plains, N.Y: M. E. Sharpe, 1978), esp. pp. 287-289, 319-320; Victoria Bonnell, Roots of Rebellion: Workers' Politics and Organizations in St. Petersburg and Moscow, 1900-1914 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983); Steve Smith, "Craft Consciousness, Class Consciousness: Petrograd, 1917," History Workshop 11 (Spring 1981): 33-56; John

      Laslett, Labor and the Left: A Study of Socialist and Radical Influences in the American Labor Movement, 1881-1924 (New York: Basic Books, 1970); Bryan Palmer, A Culture in Conflict: Skilled Workers and Industrial Capitalism in Hamilton, Ontario, 1860-1914 (Montreal: Queen's University Press, 1979); and Craig Heron, "Labourism and the Canadian Working Class," Labour/Le Travail 13 (Spring 1984): 45-75.

4. In addition to the works cited in note 3, above, see Michael P. Hanagan, The Logic of Solidarity: Artisan and Industrial Workers in Three French Towns, 1871-1914 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1980); James Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1973); David Montgomery, Workers' Control in America: Studies in the History of Work, Technology, and Labor Struggles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979); Wayne Roberts, "Toronto Metal Workers and the Second Industrial Revolution," Labour/Le Travail 6 (Autumn 1980): 49-72. Some comparative conclusions are found in E. J. Hobsbawm, Labouring Men: Studies in the History of Labour (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964), pp. 359-360; David Brody, "Radical Labor History and Rank and File Militancy," Labor History 16, no. 1, (1975): 117-120; Michael Hanagan and Charles Stephenson, "The Skilled Worker and Working-Class Protest," Social Science History 4, no. 1 (1980): 5-13; Carmen Sirianni, ''Workers' Control in the Era of World War I," Theory and Society 9, no. 1 (1980): 29-88; and James Cronin, "Labor Insurgency and Class Formation: Comparative Perspectives on the Crisis of 1917-1920 in Europe," Social Science History 4, no. 1 (1980): 125-152.

5. "Craftsmen who made machinery" include those who cut pieces of metal to the dimensions of configurations required to assemble complete machines. Traditionally, fitting the pieces together was also a skilled task for which machinists and engineers were responsible.

6. A preoccupation with jurisdictional turf was especially common in British engineering, where numerous unions competed in the same occupations. See Alan Aldridge, Power, Authority and Restrictive Practices (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1976), pp. 39-40. In the United States the International Association of Machinists often quarreled with other craft societies over what jobs (e.g., the repair of printing presses) constituted "machinists'" work. But for all practical purposes there were no competing unions for machinists. The problem in the United States, in other words, was one of demarcation rather than jurisdiction.

7. Some of the practical incentives for economistic union policies are discussed by Michael Mann, Consciousness and Action among the Western Working Class (London: Macmillan, 1973), p. 21. Specific considerations tending in the same direction are noted in Chapter Three.

8. Similar conclusions are reached by Stearns, Lives of Labor, pp. 323-325; Richard Hyman, "Trade Unions, Control and Resistance," The Politics of Work and Occupations, ed. Geoff Esland and Graeme Salaman (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980), p. 310; and James Cronin, "Strikes 1870-1914," in A History of British Industrial Relations, 1875-1914, ed. Chris Wrigley (Brighton, Sussex: Harvester Press, 1982), p. 80.

9. This argument is developed and applied in Chapter Five. H. A. Turner ( Trade Union Growth Structure and Policy: A Comparative Study of the Cotton Unions [London: George Allen and Unwin, 1962], p. 317) makes a similar point in explaining the relative absence of unofficial movements in the cotton industry.

10. This approach to the role of ideology in industrial conflict is suggested by Liston Pope, Millhands and Preachers: A Study of Gastonia (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1942), ch. 11-14; Alvin Gouldner, Wildcat Strike (Yellow Springs, Ohio: Antioch Press, 1954), pp. 34-37; John Foster, Class Struggle and the Industrial Revolution: Early Industrial Capitalism in Three English Towns (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1974), pp. 123-124; and Huw Beynon, Working for Ford (East Ardsley, Wakefield: EP Publishing, 1975), p. 175 and ch. 9, passim.

11. A similar argument concerning the wide support enjoyed by demands for checks on management authority is made by Richard Price, Masters, Unions and Men: Work Control in Building and the Rise of Labour, 1830-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), pp. 8-11.

12. For the United States, see Sumner H. Slichter et al., The Impact of Collective Bargaining on Management (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1960); I. W. Kuhn, "Business Unionism in a Laboristic Society," in The Business of America, ed. I. Berg, pp. 284-309 (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1968); Richard Herding, Job Control and Union Structure: A Study of Plant-Level Industrial Conflict in the United States with a Comparative Perspective on West Germany (Rotterdam: Rotterdam University Press, 1972); and Richard B. Freeman and James L. Medoff, What Do Unions Do? (New York: Basic Books, 1984). For Britain, see Hugh Armstrong Clegg, The System of Industrial Relations in Great Britain, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1976); and John Elliott, Conflict or Cooperation? The Growth of Industrial Democracy (London: Kogan Page, 1984). See also the comparative conclusions in Mann, Consciousness and Action; Anthony Giddens, The Class Structure of Advanced Societies (New York: Harper and Row, 1973); and Hugh Armstrong Clegg, Trade Unionism Under Collective Bargaining: A Theory Based on Comparisons of Six Countries (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1976).

13. Carter L. Goodrich, The Frontier of Control: A Study of British Workshop Politics (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Howe, 1920), ch. 19.

14. These rules are much less likely to assume a written contractual form in Britain than in the United States.

15. The components of management's attacks and the grievances they generated are discussed in detail in Chapter Two.

16. Chapter Three considers these competing possibilities at greater length.

17. This is the question traditionally asked by students of social movements: under what conditions do dissatisfied individuals act together to remedy their grievances? In most of this book, collective action of some kind can be taken for granted. Analytical attention shifts instead to explaining which collectivities were involved and which dissatisfactions and goals were expressed or supported.

18. This reduction in craftsmen's privileges and the lowering of barriers between employees of different skills was anticipated by classical Marxism.

19. Cf. the analysis of "proletarianization" and its possible consequences for worker solidarity in Charles F. Sabel, Work and Politics: The Division of Labor in Industry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), e.g., pp. 18-19, 92, 176-178.

20. Metal trades union leaders confirm this interpretation in words as well as deeds, as Chapter Three notes. See also E. T Hiller, The Strike: A Study in Collective Action (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1928), pp. 213-214; Stearns, Lives of Labor, pp. 323-325; and Claus Offe and Helmut Wiesenthal, "Two Logics of Collective Action: Theoretical Notes on Social Class and Organizational Form," in Political Power and Social Theory: A Research Annual, vol. 1 (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1980), p. 83.

21. For the period covered here, see, for example, George Milton Janes, The Control of Strikes in American Trade Unions (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1916).

22. Gouldner, in Wildcat Strike, applies these general principles in his interpretation of the issues fought out in the "General Gypsum Company" dispute.

23. The role of the state in shaping industrial conflict has received considerable attention in recent years, particularly through discussions of corporatism. The most historically sophisticated treatment is Charles S. Maier, Recasting Bourgeois Europe: Stabilization in France, Germany, and Italy in the Decade After World War I (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1975), esp. pp. 582-585. See also Leo Panitch, "The Development of Corporatism in Liberal Democracies," Comparative Po -

       litical Studies 10, no. 1 (1977): 61-90; Suzanne D. Berger, ed., Organizing Interests in Western Europe: Pluralism, Corporatism, and the Transformation of Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981); John H. Goldthorpe, ed., Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism: Studies in the Political Economy of Western European Nations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984); and, from different angles, Giddens, Class Structure of Advanced Societies , pp. 290-292; and Jürgen Habermas, Legitimation Crisis (Boston: Beacon Press, 1973), pp. 45-55, 68-75.

24. See, for example, Katherine Stone, "The Origins of Job Structures in the Steel Industry," in Labor Market Segmentation , ed. Richard Edwards, Michael Reich, and David Gordon, pp. 27-84 (Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1975); Richard Edwards, Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century (New York: Basic Books, 1979); David Gordon, Richard Edwards, and Michael Reich, Segmented Work, Divided Workers: The Transformation of Labor in America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982); and David Gartman, Auto Slavery: The Labor Process in the American Automobile Industry, 1897-1950 (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1986), ch. 11.

25. Michael Burawoy, The Politics of Production: Factory Regimes Under Capitalism and Socialism (London: Verso, 1985). See also Michael Burawoy, Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process Under Monopoly Capitalism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979); and Stone, "Origins of Job Structures," p. 76.

26. Aminzade, Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism , especially Preface and ch. 1-4.

27. Theoretical statements of the resource mobilization perspective are generally much less subtle than Aminzade's historical study in the connections they make among interests, goals, and collective action. See, for example, Anthony Oberschall, Social Conflict and Social Movements (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973); Michael Schwartz, Radical Protest and Social Structure: The Southern Farmers' Alliance and Cotton Tenancy, 1880-1890 (New York: Academic Press, 1976); John D. McCarthy and Mayer N. Zald, "Resource Mobilization and Social Movement: A Partial Theory," American Journal of Sociology 82, no. 6 (1977): 1212-1239; Charles Tilly, From Mobilization to Revolution (New York: Random House, 1978); Mayer N. Zald and John D. McCarthy, eds., The Dynamics of Social Movements: Resource Mobilization, Social Control, and Tactics (Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop Publishers, 1979); and Mayer N. Zald, "Issues in the Theory of Social Movements," in Current Perspectives in Social Theory: A Research Annual , ed. Scott G. McNall and Gary N. Howe, pp. 61-72 (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1980).

28. See note 3 above.

29. In principle, aggregate strike data compiled by government agencies could be used for a statistical analysis of factory politics. There is some value in attempting to do so, as David Montgomery has shown in his study of control strikes ( Workers' Control in America , ch. 4). Unfortunately, strike data have serious shortcomings. Smaller disputes, which are the most likely to involve unofficial action and conflicts over shop management, usually are not recorded. And in comparing government reports with more detailed accounts of the same incidents in newspapers or union minutes, discrepancies are often found. Whether because government investigators recorded only the "leading" cause of the dispute or because their information was faulty, demands may in fact have been put forward that do not appear in official accounts. Less commonly, smaller numbers of workers belonging to other trades or skill levels may have come out in sympathy with (for example) striking machinists; yet this fact is not mentioned in official sources. For these reasons the analysis of strikes in this study is confined as far as possible to incidents for which more detailed information is available. Collecting such information requires patient searching through recalcitrant sources; the sample will thus be small. On the interpretive value of strikes, see, e.g., W Lloyd Warner and J. O. Low, The Social System of the Modern Factory. The Strike: A Social Analysis (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1947), P. 1; Richard Hyman, Strikes (Glasgow: Fontana/Collins, 1977); and Joseph White, The Limits of Trade Union Militancy: The Lancashire Textile Workers, 1910-1914 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1978), pp. 10-11. On strike statistics, see Hyman, Strikes , pp. 17-19; and Clegg, The System of Industrial Relations , pp. 311-314.

1. For surveys of craft control in Britain, see, e.g., Raphael Samuel, "The Workshop of the World: Steam Power and Hand Technology in Mid-Victorian Britain," History Workshop 3 (Spring 1977): 6-72; and Craig Littler, "Deskilling and Changing Structures of Control," in The Degradation of Work? Skill, Deskilling, and the Labour Process , ed. Stephen Wood, pp. 122-145 (London: Hutchinson, 1982). For the United States, see Benson Soffer, "A Theory of Trade Union Development: The Role of the 'Autonomous' Workman," Labor History 1, no. 2 (1960): 141-163; and Montgomery, Workers' Control in America , ch. 1.

2. Thomas Wright, Some Habits and Customs of the Working Classes (New York: Augustus Kelly, 1967 [1867]), pp. 84, 100-105; Machinists' Monthly Journal (hereafter MMJ ), January 1890, p. 2; Monte Calvert, The

      Mechanical Engineer in America, 1830-1910: Professional Cultures in Conflict (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967), p. 8.

3. Samuel, "The Workshop of the World," p. 40; Charles More, "Skill and the Survival of Apprenticeship," in Wood, The Degradation of Work , pp. 116-118; Fred J. Miller, "The Machinist," Scribner's Magazine 14 (September 1893): 318-319.

4. The American Machinist survey is summarized in Calvert, The Mechanical Engineer , p. 72. See also More, "Skill and the Survival of Apprenticeship."

5. This was often the case even in the absence of formal subcontracting systems. See David F. Schloss, Methods of Industrial Remuneration , 3rd ed. (London: Williams and Norgate, 1898); Montgomery, Workers' Control in America , p. 11; John H. Ashworth, The Helper and American Trade Unions (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1915).

6. W. Burns, "New Shop Methods from the Machinist's Point of View," Engineering Magazine 31 (April 1906): 93.

7. Samuel, "The Workshop of the World," pp. 40-41; Dan Clawson, Bureaucracy and the Labor Process: The Transformation of U.S. Industry, 1860-1920 (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1980), pp. 142-143; Egbert P. Watson, "The Changes in One Lifetime in the Machine Shop," Engineering Magazine 30 (March 1906): 890.

8. Watson, "Changes in One Lifetime," p. 890.

9. R. O. Clarke, "The Dispute in the British Engineering Industry, 1897-98: An Evaluation," Economica , new series, 24 (May 1957): 131; B. C. M. Weekes, "The Amalgamated Society of Engineers, 1880-1914. A Study of Trade Union Government, Politics, and Industrial Policy," Ph.D. thesis, University of Warwick, 1970, pp. 82-89; Jonathan Hart Zeitlin, "Rationalization and Resistance: Skilled Workers and the Transformation of the Division of Labor in the British Engineering Industry, 1830-1930," B.A. thesis, Harvard University, 1977, p. 68; Mark Perlman, The Machinists: A New Study in American Trade Unionism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961), pp. 247-250; Bruno Ramirez, When Workers Fight: The Politics of Industrial Relations in the Progressive Era, 1898-1916 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1978), p. 91.

10. The Engineer , December 25, 1885, p. 449; Alfred Williams, Life in a Railway Factory (Newton Abbot, Devon: David and Charles Reprints, 1969 [1915]), p. 78; American Machinist , May 21, 1891, p. 8; Miller, "The Machinist," p. 322; John Craig, "The Premium System and Its Relation to Discipline in the Factory," The Open Shop 4 (March 1905): 137.

11. Engineering Employers' Federation (Broadway House, Tothill St., London SW1), General Letter No. 22, January 8, 1898; Arthur Bar-

      ker, The Management of Small Engineering Workshops (Manchester: Technical Publishing, 1903), p. 166; Eric Wigham, The Power to Manage: A History of the Engineering Employers' Federation (London: Macmillan, 1973), pp. 17-18; W. D. Forbes, "Foremen vs. New Appliances," Machinery 5 (January 1899): 143; Report by F. S. North on Superintendents' and Foremen's Clubs, Proceedings of the 7th Annual Convention of the National Metal Trades Association, in The Open Shop 4 (1905): 222-224.

12. Employers' abdication of control appears most clearly in the subcontract (or piecemaster) system. See Alan Fox, "Industrial Relations in Nineteenth-Century Birmingham," Oxford Economic Papers , new series, 7, no. 1 (1955): 57-62; G. C. Allen, The Industrial Development of Birmingham and the Black Country, 1860-1927 (London: Frank Cass, 1966), pp. 159-162; Littler, "Deskilling and Changing Structures of Control"; Henry Roland, "Six Examples of Successful Shop Management," Engineering Magazine 12 (1896-1897): 400-406, 994-1000; John Buttrick, "The Inside Contract System," Journal of Economic History 12, no. 3 (1952): 205-221; Alfred Chandler, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977), pp. 271-275; Clawson, Bureaucracy and the Labor Process , pp. 72-80, 101-108, 110-123.

13. Amalgamated Engineers' Monthly Journal (hereafter AEMJ ), July 1901, p. 3; "Economical Workshop Production," Mechanical World , October 29, 1909, pp. 206-207, and February 18, 1910, pp. 74-75; A. L. Levine, "Industrial Change and Its Effects upon Labour, 1900-1914," Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1954, p. 413; Burns, "New Shop Methods," pp. 93-94; "The Present State of the Art of Industrial Management," American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Transactions 34 (1912): 1139; Fred Rogers et al., ''Developments in Machine Shop Practice During the Last Decade," American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Transactions 34 (1912): 852; L. P. Alford, "Ten Years' Progress in Management," Mechanical Engineering 44 (November 1922): 701; Stephen Meyer III, The Five Dollar Day: Labor Management and Social Control in the Ford Motor Company, 1908-1921 (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1981), pp. 22, 58.

14. Charles Booth, Life and Labour of the People in London (New York: AMS Press, 1970 [1902-1904]), second series: Industry, vol. 1, p. 295; Morris Yates, Wages and Labour Conditions in British Engineering (London: Macdonald and Evans, 1937), pp. 17-19; James Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, 1800-1945 (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1945), p. 122; MMJ , May 1913, p. 475; Victor S. Clark, History of Manufactures in the United States (New York: Peter Smith, 1949), Vol. 2, p.

      144; Harless Wagoner, The U.S. Machine Tool Industry from 1900 to 1950 (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1968), p. 20. At Armstrong Whitworth in 1906, "hundreds" of milling machine specialists earned 25-28s a week, and management claimed little need for time-served turners, at 36-38s a week, on these machines (Keith Burgess, The Challenge of Labour: Shaping British Society, 1850-1930 (London: Croom Helm, 1980), p. 115). Smith Premier Typewriter in 1909 placed women on drilling machines at $4-10 a week, as against the $14-18 previously earned by men ( MMJ, September 1909, p. 845).

15. Engineering Magazine 16 (1899): 826; AEMJ, February 1909, p. 5; Yates, Wages and Labour Conditions, pp. 20-23; Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, p. 123; Henry Roland, "The Revolution in Machine Shop Practice," Engineering Magazine 18 (1899): 180-188; Clark, History of Manufactures, vol. 1, p. 420; Meyer, The Five Dollar Day, p. 51.

16. Engineering Magazine 20 (1900): 106; Tariff Commission, Report of the Tariff Commission, vol. 4: The Engineering Industries (London: P. S. King and Son, 1009), paragraph 449; "Economical Workshop Production," Mechanical World, October 29, 1909, p. 207; Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, pp. 125-126; E. H. Phelps Brown, The Growth of British Industrial Relations: A Study from the Standpoint of 1906-14 (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1959), pp. 91-98; U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Report of the Committee of the Senate upon the Relations Between Capital and Labor (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1885), vol. 1, p. 755; Roland, "The Revolution in Machine Shop Practice," pp. 42-48; Burns, "New Shop Methods,'' pp. 93-95; "Developments in Machine Shop Practice," pp. 850-858; Sterling H. Bunnell, "Jigs and Fixtures as Substitutes for Skill," Iron Age 93 (March 5, 1914): 610-611.

17. Joyce Shaw Peterson, "Auto Workers and Their Work, 1900-1933," Labor History 22, no. 2 (1981): 220.

18. Meyer, The Five Dollar Day, pp. 46, 51.

19. Yates, Wages and Labour Conditions, p. 32.

20. Ibid.

19. Yates, Wages and Labour Conditions, p. 32.

20. Ibid.

21. Meyer, The Five Dollar Day, pp. 46, 51.

22. Calculated from figures in Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, p. 118.

23. Unskilled workers constituted 20 percent of the engineering work force in Britain in 1914, 13 percent in 1928 (Yates, Wages and Labour Conditions, p. 32). Meyer ( The Five Dollar Day, pp. 46, 50-51) found Ford employees to include 34 percent laborers in 1910, 21 percent in 1913, and 14.6 percent "unskilled workers" in 1917.

24. The decline of apprenticeship programs occurred more slowly in

      Britain, but by 1925 only 32 percent of those under twenty-one were working under such programs—and far less than this in engineering and automobile production. Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, p. 205; More, "Skill and the Survival of Apprenticeship"; U.S. Industrial Commission, Report (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1901-1902), vol. 7, pp. 18, 266, 620-621, vol. 8, p. 489; Daniel Nelson, Managers and Workers: Origins of the New Factory System in the United States, 1880-1920 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1975), pp. 96-97; Wagoner, The U.S. Machine Tool Industry, pp. 346-347.

25. U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. 19, pp. 812-813; The Open Shop 5 (January 1906); MMJ, March 1908, pp. 257, 261, July 1909, p. 627; National Metal Trades Association, Synopsis of Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Convention, April 11, 1912, pp. 94-95; Wagoner, The U.S. Machine Tool Industry, pp. 88-92. See also the debate in American Machinist, July-December 1916, on "Where are the Good Mechanics?" In Britain these tendencies appear later, especially after the war. See, e.g., 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: HMSO, 1918), pp. 15-16.

26. Clegg, The System of Industrial Relations, p. 170; Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, p. 129; Great Britain, Committee on Industry and Trade, Survey of Industrial Relations (London: HMSO, 1926), p. 105; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry of Munitions (London: HMSO, 1922), vol. 5, pt. 1, p. 6.

27. MMJ, October 1909 p. 928; Arthur Shadwell, Industrial Efficiency: A Comparative Study of Industrial Life in England, Germany and America (New York: Longmans, Green, 1906), p. 141.

28. Alford, "Ten Years' Progress in Management," p. 701.

29. A lucid introduction to the varieties and complexities of incentive pay is G. D. H. Cole, The Payment of Wages (London: Labour Research Department, 1918).

30. The Engineer, April 4, 1902, p. 328; Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, pp. 63, 129; Littler, "Deskilling and Changing Structures of Control"; Craig, "The Premium System," p. 139; William H. Buckler, "The Minimum Wage in the Machinists' Union," in Studies in American Trade Unionism, ed. Jacob Hollander and George Barnett (New York: Henry Holt, 1907), pp. 139-140; The Open Shop 7 (1908): 103-104; Clawson, Bureaucracy and the Labor Process, p. 169.

31. Great Britain, Royal Commission on Labour, Minutes of Evidence (London: HMSO, 1893), vol. 3, paragraphs 25,296; 25,515; 25,662; 25,772-775; J. Slater Lewis, "Works Management for the Maximum of Production," Engineering Magazine 18 (1899): 202; "Economical Work-

      shop Production," Mechanical World, October 29, 1909, p. 206, September 9, 1910, p. 122; U.S. Industrial Commission, Final Report, vol. 19, pp. 735-736; U.S. Bureau of Labor, 11th Special Report, Regulation and Restriction of Output (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1904), pp. 114, 118; The Open Shop 8 (1908): 99.

32. Coventry District Committee, Amalgamated Society of Engineers, Minutes (hereafter CDC Minutes), September 17, 1907; "Economical Workshop Production," Mechanical World, October 29, 1909, p. 206, February 18, 1910, p. 74; M. W. Bourdon, "Production Methods in the British Automobile Plants," Automotive Industries, June 24, 1920, p. 1462; American Machinist, September 7, 1916, p. 435; L. P. Alford, "Introduction of Shop Management in Typewriter Plants," American Machinist, October 5, 1916, pp. 537-540; Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, p. 119.

33. Williams, Life in a Railway Factory, pp. 304-305; Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, pp. 132, 135; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Labor, Hearings Before a Special Committee of the House of Representatives to Investigate the Taylor and Other Systems of Shop Management (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1912), Vol. 1, p. 458; Records of the Manufacturers' Research Association, Report of the Time Study Code Committee (undated, c. 1928), Harvard Business School, Baker Library, MSS 883.

34. Quoted in Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, p. 132.

35. Meyer, The Five Dollar Day, p. 56.

36. "Economical Workshop Production," Mechanical World, September 9, 1910, p. 122; J. T. Towlson, "A British View of Shop Efficiency," American Machinist, August 24, 1911, p. 362; Robert Stelling, "The Foreman in Relation to Workshop Organization," Engineering and Industrial Management, September 4, 1919, p. 294; Littler, "Deskilling and Changing Structures of Control"; W R. Garside and H. F. Gospel, "Employers and Managers: Their Organizational Structure and Industrial Strategies,'' in A History of British Industrial Relations, 1875-1914, ed. Chris Wrigley (Brighton, Sussex: Harvester Press, 1982), pp. 102-103; The Open Shop 5 (1906): 219; American Machinist, March 16, 1911, p. 503, June 8, 1911, p. 1069; G. G. Weaver, "The Foreman—Past and Future," American Machinist, October 26, 1922, p. 652; Nelson, Managers and Workers, p. 57.

37. Treatments of scientific management, serving varied polemical purposes, include Milton Nadworny, Scientific Management and the Unions, 1900-1932 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955); Rein-hard Bendix, Work and Authority in Industry: Ideologies of Management in the Course of Industrialization (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University

      of California Press, 1974); Harry Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974); Bryan Palmer, "Class, Conception, and Conflict: The Thrust for Efficiency, Managerial Views of Labor, and the Working Class Rebellion, 1903-1922," Review of Radical Political Economy 7, no. 2 (1975): 31-49; Craig Littler, "Understanding Taylorism," British Journal of Sociology 25, no. 2 (1978): 185-202; Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, ch. 2; Clawson, Bureaucracy and the Labor Process; Daniel Nelson, Frederick Taylor and the Rise of Scientific Management (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980); and Tony Elger and Bill Schwarz, "Monopoly Capitalism and the Impact of Taylorism: Notes on Lenin, Gramsci, Braverman, and Sohn-Rethel," in Capital and Labour: Studies in the Capitalist Labour Process, ed. Theo Nichols, pp. 358-369 (London: Athlone Press, 1980).

38. Handling Men (Chicago: A. W. Shaw, 1917), p. 23; Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital , p. 85.

39. U. S. Bureau of Labor, Regulation and Restriction of Output, p. 128; U.S. Congress, Hearings Before a Special Committee, vol. 1, p. 83; Littler, "Understanding Taylorism," pp. 188-189; Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, p. 114.

40. Joseph A. Litterer, "Systematic Management: Design for Organizational Recoupling in American Manufacturing Firms," Business History Review 37, no. 4 (1963): 369-391; Nelson, Managers and Workers, pp. 55-57, 75-76.

41. On scientific management and incentive pay, see P. J. Darlington, "Methods of Remunerating Labor," Engineering Magazine 17 (June 1899): 444-454 and 17 (September 1899): 925-936; U.S. Bureau of Labor, Regulation and Restriction of Output, pp. 114, 118; U.S. Congress, Hearings Before a Special Committee, vol. 1, p. 55; MMJ, June 1912, p. 541; Alford, "Introduction of Shop Management"; Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, p. 114, and Clawson, Bureaucracy and the Labor Process, pp. 235-239.

42. This point is developed most clearly by Littler, "Understanding Taylorism," pp. 189-195. See also Clawson, Bureaucracy and the Labor Process, p. 31 and ch. 6, passim.

43. W. F. Watson, Machines and Men: An Autobiography of an Itinerant Mechanic (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1935), pp. 186-195; Wagoner, The U.S. Machine Tool Industry, pp. 21, 83; Meyer, The Five Dollar Day, pp. 54-55, 58.

44. Rogers et al., "Developments in Machine Shop Practice," p. 852; Dexter Kimball, "Basic Principles of Industrial Organization," NMTA, Proceedings of the Annual Convention, 1914, p. 162; Alford, "Introduc-

      tion of Shop Management," pp. 537-540; Littler, "Understanding Taylorism," pp. 189-193; Clawson, Bureaucracy and the Labor Process, pp. 217-223; Meyer, The Five Dollar Day, pp. 54-56.

45. For discussions of British scientific management in the fifteen years before the war, see Engineering, March 1, 1912, p. 290; the series of articles on scientific management in the Workers' Union Record, February-July 1914; James F. Whiteford, "Development of Management in the United Kingdom," Mechanical Engineering, November 1922, pp. 703-704; Watson, Machines and Men, pp. 60, 89-98; Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, pp. 124-125, 132; L. Urwick and E. F. L. Brech, The Making of Scientific Management, vol. 2: Management in British Industry (London: Management Publications Trust, 1949); Asa Briggs, "Social Background, in The System of Industrial Relations in Great Britain: Its History, Law, and Institutions, ed. Allan Flanders and H. A. Clegg (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1954), pp. 35-36; Phelps Brown, The Growth of British Industrial Relations, pp. xv-xvi; Littler, "Deskilling and Changing Structures of Control"; Garside and Gospel, "Employers and Managers, pp. 102-103.

46. Theoretical statements of how product markets shape the labor process include Cambridge Journal of Economics 3, no 3 (1979), special issue, "The Labour Process, Market Structure, and Marxist Theory"; and Michael Piore and Charles Sabel, The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity (New York: Basic Books, 1984).

47. Engineering Magazine 16 (1899): 826; Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, p. 120; S. B. Saul, "The Motor Industry in Britain to 1914," Business History 5, 1 (1962): 38, and "The Engineering Industry," in The Development of British Industry and Foreign Competition, 1875-1914, ed. Derek H. Aldcroft (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1968), pp. 190, 215; Allen, The Industrial Development of Birmingham, pp. 292-297, 302-303; F. W. Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour in Coventry, 1914-1939," Ph. D. thesis, University of Warwick, 1978, pp. 5-7; Roland, "The Revolution in Machine Shop Practice,'' pp. 42-48, 369-370; Clark, History of Manufactures, vol. 3, pp. 154-156; Fred H. Colvin, 60 Years with Men and Machines: An Autobiography (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947), pp. 84-87; L. T. C. Rolt, A Short History of Machine Tools (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1965), p. 215; Wagoner, The U.S. Machine Tool Industry, p. 1.

48. H. F. L. Orcutt, "Machine Shop Management in Europe and America," Engineering Magazine 16 (1899): 551.

49. Ibid., pp. 551-554; Tariff Commission, Report of the Tariff Commission, paragraphs 1041-1042; Great Britain, Board of Trade, Report of the Departmental Committee, p. 12; Calvert, The Mechanical Engineer,

      pp. 5-6; Wagoner, The U.S. Machine Tool Industry, pp. 19, 272-273. Although similar trends existed in Britain, they clearly came later and moved more slowly. The issue is discussed in Tariff Commission, Report of the Tariff Commission ; Saul, "The Engineering Industry," pp. 186-187, and "The Machine Tool Industry in Britain to 1914," Business History 10, no. 1 (1968): 26, 36-40; and Roderick Floud, The Machine Tool Industry, 1850-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 11-17.

48. H. F. L. Orcutt, "Machine Shop Management in Europe and America," Engineering Magazine 16 (1899): 551.

49. Ibid., pp. 551-554; Tariff Commission, Report of the Tariff Commission, paragraphs 1041-1042; Great Britain, Board of Trade, Report of the Departmental Committee, p. 12; Calvert, The Mechanical Engineer,

      pp. 5-6; Wagoner, The U.S. Machine Tool Industry, pp. 19, 272-273. Although similar trends existed in Britain, they clearly came later and moved more slowly. The issue is discussed in Tariff Commission, Report of the Tariff Commission ; Saul, "The Engineering Industry," pp. 186-187, and "The Machine Tool Industry in Britain to 1914," Business History 10, no. 1 (1968): 26, 36-40; and Roderick Floud, The Machine Tool Industry, 1850-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 11-17.

50. The influence of labor supply on technical innovation is analyzed in detail by H. J. Habakkuk, American and British Technology in the Nineteenth Century: The Search for Labor Saving Inventions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967). See also Orcutt, "Machine Shop Management," Engineering Magazine 16 (1899): 703-707, and 17 (1899): 386-389.

51. Hobsbawm, Labouring Men, pp. 348-358; Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, pp. 58-59; Jonathan Zeitlin, "Craft Control and the Division of Labour: Engineers and Compositors in Britain, 1890-1930," Cambridge Journal of Economics 3, no. 3 (1979): 267; Tariff Commission, Report of the Tariff Commission, p. 845.

52. Engineering Magazine 16 (1899): 826; "Economical Workshop Production," Mechanical World, February 18, 1910, p. 74; Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, pp. 122-123, 202-203; Allen, The Industrial Development of Birmingham, pp. 315-316; Floud, The Machine Tool Industry, pp. 23-26; Bunnell, "Jigs and Fixtures," pp. 610-611; Clark, History of Manufactures, vol. 2, pp. 22, 96; vol. 3, p. 155; Rolt, A Short History of Machine Tools, pp. 200-201; Wagoner, The U.S. Machine Tool Industry, pp. 17-18.

53. Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, pp. 124-125.

54. More ("Skill and the Survival of Apprenticeship," p. 112) estimates that nearly 50 percent of skilled engineering workers were unionized as early as 1861. By 1911, some 29.2 percent of all metal and engineering workers, skilled and less skilled alike, were unionized, and most union members were skilled workers (George Sayers Bain and Robert Price, Profiles of Union Growth: A Comparative Statistical Portrait of Eight Countries [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1980], p. 50). The figure for machinists is offered by Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, p. 63.

55. Phelps Brown, The Growth of British Industrial Relations, p. 24; Andrew Dawson, "The Paradox of Dynamic Technological Change and the Labor Aristocracy in the United States, 1880-1914," Labor History 20, no. 3 (1979): 331.

56. Tariff Commission, Report of the Tariff Commission, paragraphs 568, 580, 618, 630, 664, 715.

57. John Upp, "The Woman Worker," American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Transactions 39 (December 1917): 1134. See also National

      Industrial Conference Board, Wartime Employment of Women in the Metal Trades (Boston: NICB, 1918), pp. 48-50.

58. Quoted by P. W. Kingsford, Engineers Inventors and Workers (London: Edward Arnold, 1964), p. 138. For similar views and other examples, see Habakkuk, American and British Technology, p. 153; and U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. 8, p. 40.

59. This is a point Clawson ( Bureaucracy and the Labor Process, pp. 122-123) makes with respect to subcontractors, but it is more broadly applicable.

60. The Engineer, April 4, 1902, p. 328; "Economical Workshop Production," Mechanical World, September 9, 1910, p. 122; Cole, The Payment of Wages, p. 73; Forbes, "Foremen vs. New Appliances," p. 143; The Open Shop 5 (1906): 219; U.S. Senate, Commission on Industrial Relations, Final Report and Testimony (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1916), vol. 1, p. 838; Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, p. 42.

61. Engineering Employers' Federation, General letters, no. 22 (January 8, 1898) and no. 25 (February 7, 1898), offices of the EEF, London.

62. Synopsis of Proceedings of the 7th Annual Convention of the NMTA, March 23-24, 1905, in The Open Shop 4 (1905): 222.

63. The Engineer, November 5, 1897, p. 455; AEMJ, January 1898, pp. 54-55, March 1907, p. 12, April 1907, p. 14; MMJ, July 1904, p. 637; The Open Shop 4 (1905): 223-224.

64. Judith A. Merkle, Management and Ideology: The Legacy of the International Scientific Management Movement (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1980), p. 75.

65. Meyer Bloomfield, "The Aim and Work of Employment Managers' Associations," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 65 (May 1916): 83. Similar arguments were advanced in Britain by the Welfare Workers' Institute (forerunner of the Institute of Personnel Management). M. M. Niven, Personnel Management, 1913-1963: The Growth of Personnel Management and the Development of the Institute (London: Institute of Personnel Management, 1967), pp. 44, 48.

66. Bloomfield, "The Aim and Work," p. 76.

67. Calvert, The Mechanical Engineer in America, pp. 65, 281.

68. Merkle, Management and Ideology, pp. 71-75, 86-92. See also David Noble, America by Design: Science, Technology, and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism (New York: Knopf, 1977).

69. James Arthur, "American and British Workmen and Machinery," American Machinist, November 24, 1892, p. 4; The Engineer, September 24, 1897, p. 303, January 21, 1898, p. 66; Orcutt, "Machine Shop Management," Engineering Magazine 16 (1899): 552-553, 703-707, and 17

      (1899): 386-389; Alfred Mosley, "British Views of American Workshops," Cassier's Magazine 23, no. 3 (1903): 477-478; Shadwell, Industrial Efficiency, pp. 141-143; National Metal Trades Association, Synopsis of Proceedings, 1911, p. 200; Joseph Wickham Roe, English and American Tool Builders (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1916), pp. 105-106; Urwick and Brech, The Making of Scientific Management; Saul, "The Engineering Industry," pp. 231, 235.

70. A. L. Levine, Industrial Retardation in Britain, 1880-1914 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1967), p. 16.

71. "Men and Output," The Times Engineering Supplement, September 29, 1916, p. 146.

72. Saul, "The Motor Industry," pp. 43-44. See also Colvin, 60 Years, pp. 130-131.

73. S. B. Saul, "The Market and the Development of the Mechanical Engineering Industries in Britain, 1860-1914," Economic History Review, second series, 20, no. 1 (1967): 116-117, 124; Habakkuk, American and British Technology, p. 218.

74. Orcutt, "Machine Shop Management," Engineering Magazine 16 (1899): 551-554; Great Britain, Board of Trade, Report of the Departmental Committee, p. 7; Habakkuk, American and British Technology, p. 219.

75. Habakkuk, American and British Technology; Samuel, "The Workshop of the World," pp. 47-48.

76. Orcutt, "Machine Shop Management," Engineering Magazine 17 (1899): 268; "American and British Workmen," p. 243; Levine, Industrial Retardation, pp. 79-94; Habakkuk, American and British Technology, p.143.

77. Great Britain, Board of Trade, Report of the Departmental Committee, p. 1 1; Saul, "The Engineering Industry," p. 231.

78. Habakkuk, American and British Technology, pp. 105-106, 218.

79. Saul, "The Market and the Development," p. 124.

80. These statistics are calculated from Great Britain, Business Statistics Office, Historical Record of the Census of Production, 1907-1970 (London: Government Statistical Service, n.d.), Tables 1 and 6; Great Britain, Census of Production, 1907, Parliamentary Papers, Cmd. 6320, 1912-1913, cix, p. 204; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Thirteenth Census of the United States, vol. 8, Manufactures, 1909 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1913), Table 19.

81. Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, p. 198. Gross output of textile machinery was 13 million pounds, of railway locomotives (including repair) 12.4 million. The next largest category was steam engines (excluding locomotive and agricultural) at 6.9 million, followed by cycles and motor cars (including parts) at 5.6 million, and motor vehicles and parts at 5.2 million. Saul, "The Market and the Development," p. 113.

82. Tariff Commission, Report of the Tariff Commission , Tables 41 and 49.

83. Barbara Drake, Women in the Engineering Trades (London: Labour Research Department, 1918), pp. 8-9; Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement , p. 218; Keith Burgess, The Origins of British Industrial Relations: The Nineteenth Century Experience (London: Croom Helm, 1975), p. 50; Andrew L. Friedman, Industry and Labour: Class Struggle at Work and Monopoly Capitalism (London: Macmillan, 1977), p. 192; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," pp. 10, 107; Keith McClelland and Alastair Reid, "Wood, Iron and Steel: Technology, Labour and Trade Union Organisation in the Shipbuilding Industry, 1890-1914," in Divisions of Labour: Skilled Workers and Technological Change in Nineteenth Century England , ed. Royden Harrison and Jonathan Zeitlin, pp. 151-184 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985).

84. American Machinist , November 2, 1922, p. 704; Colvin, 60 Years , p. 95.

85. E.g., in 1901, Bridgeport machinists demanded one worker to a machine, even though they realized that manufacturers could go out "and hire any ordinary man with common sense to come in the shop and after a week's tutoring that man can run half a dozen automatic machines as well as a machinist can.... At the present time in any of the factories in Connecticut men will be found running from two to as high as ten and twelve machines" ( Bridgeport Herald, April 14, 1901). Having a worker run half a dozen automatic machines was not beyond the technical competence of many British manufacturers. The difference is rather between a weak union demanding an end to established practices and a strong one defending the status quo against managerial encroachments.

86. On specialists, see Levine, Industrial Retardation, pp. 46-49. In 1914, females accounted for 15.7 percent of electrical engineering employees and 14.3 percent of small arms manufacturing employees in Britain. In the United States women (not including girls under the age of sixteen) constituted 19.9 and 19.7 percent, respectively, in these branches. Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 4, pt. 4, p. 139; National Industrial Conference Board, Research Report No. 8, Wartime Employment of Women in the Metal Trades (Boston: NICB, 1918), p. 2. On the persistence of apprenticeship in Britain, see More, "Skill and the Survival of Apprenticeship," pp. 112-118. The underdevelopment of British tool room practice is reviewed by The Foreman, September 1921, p. 16.

87. Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, pp. 61-62; Roger Penn, Skilled Workers in the Class Structure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).

88. Tariff Commission, Report of the Tariff Commission, paragraphs

      1017, 1026; CDC Minutes, July 21, 1909; Cole, The Payment of Wages, p. 92; Watson, Machines and Men, p. 92.

89. AEMJ, January 1902, p. 10; National Metal Trades Association, Synopsis of Proceedings, April 12-13, 1911, p. 200; P. J. O'Neill, "British and American Industrial Methods Compared and Contrasted," Machine Tool Review, June-July 1917, pp. 25-26; Great Britain, Board of Trade, Report of the Departmental Committee, p. 11; Saul, "The Engineering Industry," p. 231.

90. The term "noninstrumental aspects of the craft tradition" is from Hinton ( The First Shop Stewards' Movement ), who clearly emphasizes the importance of craft traditions in the development of British factory politics.

91. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Report of the Committee, vol. 1, p. 743.

92. Watson, "Changes in One Lifetime," p. 890.

93. U. S. Congress, Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Report of the Committee, vol. 1, p. 755.

94. Commission on Industrial Relations, Final Report and Testimony (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1916), vol. 3, p. 2840.

95. AEMJ, February 1909, p. 5.

96. Ibid., March 1897, pp. 19-20.

95. AEMJ, February 1909, p. 5.

96. Ibid., March 1897, pp. 19-20.

97. MMJ, March 1914, p. 274.

98. Great Britain, Royal Commission on Labour, Minutes of Evidence, vol. 3, paragraph 22,658; CDC Minutes, October 8, 1907, March 9, 1908, July 8, 1909, August 25, 1909; Williams, Life in a Railway Factory, pp. 6, 37, 184; Goodrich, The Frontier of Control, p. 163; MMJ, March 1896, pp. 70-71, July 1907, p. 667; U.S. Bureau of Labor, Regulation and Restriction of Output, p. 142; Colvin, 60 Years, p. 275.

99. MMJ, April 1914, p. 367.

100. CDC Minutes, January 20, June 10, 1909, and passim; Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, pp. 154-155; Wigham, The Power to Manage, p. 74; MMJ, February 1900, pp. 104-105; U.S. Bureau of Labor, Regulation and Restriction of Output, p. 141.

101. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Labor, Hearings Before a Special Committee, vol. 1, p. 279. See also Great Britain, Royal Commission on Labour, Minutes of Evidence, vol. 3, paragraph 22,658; Trades Union Congress, The Premium Bonus System: Report of an Inquiry (London: TUC, 1910); and MMJ, January 1893, p. 356.

102. AEMJ, September 1921, pp. 59-60; Urwick and Brech, The Making of Scientific Management, p. 106; MMJ, January 1893, p. 357, March 1902, p. 186.

103. Goodrich, The Frontier of Control, p. 172; AEMJ, September

      1921, pp. 59-60; Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, p. 100; Wigham, The Power to Manage, p. 73; Bridgeport Herald, April 10, 1898; MMJ, June 1911, p. 557; Colvin, 60 Years, p. 275.

104. MMJ, May 1897, p. 139. See also MMJ, October 1907, p. 967, September 1908, p. 789, June 1911, p. 557; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Labor, Hearings Before a Special Committee, vol. 2, pp. 924, 929, 1005, 1032, vol. 3, pp. 1660, 1760-1761, 1812. For Britain, see Great Britain, Royal Commission on Labour, Minutes of Evidence, vol. 3, paragraph 22,658; CDC Minutes, July 8, 1909; AEMJ, September 1921, p. 60.

105. Commission on Industrial Relations, Final Report and Testimony, vol. 1, p. 874. See also U.S. Bureau of Labor, Regulation and Restriction of Output, p. 141; CDC Minutes, March 9, 1908, July 26, August 25, 1909; W. F. Watson, The Worker and Wage Incentives (London: Hogarth Press, 1934), pp. 23-24; Urwick and Brech, The Making of Scientific Management, p. 106; Wigham, The Power to Manage, p. 73.

106. The Engineer, December 25, 1885, p. 499.

107. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Labor, Hearings Before a Special Committee, vol. 1, pp. 22-23.

108. J. D. Lawrence, "Prussianism in the Workshop," Amalgamated Engineers' Monthly Journal, September 1919, p. 53.

109. Commission on Industrial Relations, Final Report and Testimony, vol. 1, p. 903.

110. Bridgeport Herald, May 12, 1901.

111. For example, CDC Minutes, September 17, 1913 (at Rover), November 18, 1913 (at Daimler), February 4, 1914 (at Swift Motor Company), and May 9, 1914 (at the Coventry Ordnance Works).

112. Fred J. Miller, "Scientific Management: Its Installation and Operation," Efficiency Society Journal 5 (March 1916): 121-125. Such views were particularly popular during the war and the early 1920s.

113. MMJ, September 1893, p. 346. ASE officials and members sometimes made similar arguments. See, e.g., CDC Minutes, October 6, 1910, and May 21, 1914; AEMJ, September 1919, p. 53.

114. Frank Hudson, "The Machinist's Side of Taylorism," American Machinist, April 27, 1911, p. 773; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Labor, Hearings Before a Special Committee, passim; Commission on Industrial Relations, Final Report and Testimony, vol. 1, pp. 132-141, 838, 903, 945; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Labor, Hearings on a Bill to Regulate the Method of Directing Work of Government Employees (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1916); Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, pp. 114-123; Clawson, Bureaucracy and the Labor Process, pp. 235-239.

115. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Labor, Hearings Before a Special Committee, vol. 1, p. 20.

116. MMJ, November 1911, p. 1108.

117. Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, p. 117. Although less afflicted with scientific management, British engineers voiced many of the same criticisms. See, e.g., AEMJ, January 1903, p. 3; Towlson, "A British View of Shop Efficiency," p. 362; Cole, The Payment of Wages, p. 73; Watson, Machines and Men, p. 188; Littler, "Deskilling and Changing Structures of Control"; and Garside and Gospel, "Employers and Managers,'' pp. 102-103.

118. MMJ, March 1890, p. 30.

119. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Labor, Hearings Before a Special Committee, vol. 3, p. 1870.

120. MMJ, July 1918, p. 640.

121. For example, Hiram Maxim, "The Effects of Trade Unionism upon Skilled Mechanics," Engineering Magazine 14 (November 1897): 193; "English and American Methods in the Engineering and Iron Trades," Engineer, January 21, 1898, p. 66; George Barnes [General Secretary of the ASE], letter to the Engineer, May 19, 1899, p. 489; "American and British Workmen," Engineering 76 (1903): 205-207, 242-244.

122. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Labor, Hearings Before a Special Committee, vol. 3, p. 1668, vol. 1, p. 691.

123. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 1812.

122. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Labor, Hearings Before a Special Committee, vol. 3, p. 1668, vol. 1, p. 691.

123. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 1812.

124. "The Present State of the Art of Industrial Relations," American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Transactions 34 (1912): 1160.

125. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Labor, Hearings Before a Special Committee, vol. 2, p. 1008; Commission on Industrial Relations, Final Report and Testimony, vol. 1, p. 900.

126. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 527.

125. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Labor, Hearings Before a Special Committee, vol. 2, p. 1008; Commission on Industrial Relations, Final Report and Testimony, vol. 1, p. 900.

126. Ibid., vol. 1, p. 527.

127. The relative importance of class identities among English and American workers is analyzed by Ira Katznelson, "Working-Class Formation and the State: Nineteenth-Century England in American Perspective," in Bringing the State Back In, ed. Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol, pp. 257-284 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985).

1. F. W. Hirst, "The Policy of the Engineers," Economic Journal 8 (March 1898): 126; Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers , p. 137; Weekes, "The Amalgamated Society of Engineers," pp. 87-88; Burgess, The Origins of British Industrial Relations, pp. 35-41; MMJ, May 1897, p. 140,

      April 1899, p. 182, June 1899, pp. 403-404; Perlman, The Machinists, p. 303.

2. MMJ, January 1891, p. 107; Perlman, The Machinists, p. 9.

3. Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, pp. 140-142; E. H. Hunt, British Labour History, 1815-1914 (Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humani-ties Press, 1981), p. 284; Perlman, The Machinists, p. 11.

4. AEMJ, January 1899, p. 43; George Nicol Barnes, "Uses and Abuses of Organisation Among Employers and Employees: The Old Trade Unionism vs. Wisely Organised Labour," Engineering Magazine 20 (January 1900): 563; MMJ, July 1899, p. 481; Janes, The Control of Strikes, pp. 71-73.

5. The clearest formulation of these points is Gouldner, Wildcat Strike, pp. 34-37. See also Warner and Low, The Social System of the Modern Factory, p. 131; Mann, Consciousness and Action, p. 32; and Offe and Wiesenthal, "Two Logics of Collective Action," p. 83.

6. MMJ, June 1897, pp. 214-216. See also Perlman, The Machinists, p. 12; U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. 19, pp. 968-969.

7. MMJ, May 1897, p. 140, June 1899, pp. 390, 403-405; James O'Connell, "Piece-Work Not Necessary for Best Results in the Machine Shop," Engineering Magazine 19 (June 1900): 373; Perlman, The Machinists, p. 25.

8. Amalgamated Society of Engineers, Notes on the Engineering Trade Lock-Out of 1897-8 (London: Charles Mitchell, n.d.), Appendix, pp. 13-14; Weekes, "The Amalgamated Society of Engineers," p. 82; Stearns, Lives of Labor, p. 323.

9. Phelps Brown, The Growth of British Industrial Relations, pp. 124-125; Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, p. 79; Burgess, The Origins of British Industrial Relations, pp. 35-41; Clegg, The System of Industrial Relations, pp. 155-157; MMJ, March 1893, p. 108; U. S. Bureau of Labor, 11th Special Report, Regulation and Restriction of Output, pp. 103-104; Perlman, The Machinists, pp. 151-153.

10. AEMJ, July 1897, p. 59; Amalgamated Society of Engineers, Jubilee Souvenir (London: Co-operative Printing Society, 1901), p. 102; Burgess, The Origins of British Industrial Relations, pp. 37-39, 53, 60; Clegg, The System of Industrial Relations, p. 38; Hunt, British Labour History, p. 284. In the United States, too, many accounts of strikes in the MMJ show that initial negotiations were handled by a deputation or a shop committee. See, e.g., MMJ, April 1899, p. 210, August 1899, p. 502, March 1900, p. 165, and February 1901, p. 102. See also U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. 17, p. 230; and U.S. Bureau of Labor, 11th Special Report, Regulation and Restriction of Output, p. 105.

11. Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, p. 69; Richard Croucher,

      "The Amalgamated Society of Engineers and Local Autonomy, 1898-1914," M.A. thesis, University of Warwick, 1971, p. 3; MMJ, January 1892, p. 375, November 1894, p. 432, February 1896, p. 26, February 1897, p. 19, June 1899, p. 404; H. M. Norris, "Actual Experience with the Premium Plan," Engineering Magazine 18 (January 1900): 575; U.S. Bureau of Labor, 11th Special Report, Regulation and Restriction of Out-put, p. 105.

12. Burgess, The Origins of British Industrial Relations, p. 41; Zeitlin, "Rationalization and Resistance," p. 68; MMJ, January 1893, p. 355, July 1893, p. 236, October 1897, p. 504, May 1898, p. 316; Perlman, The Machinists, p. 249.

13. CDC Minutes, April 26, 1899; Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, pp. 103-104, 142-143; Weekes, "The Amalgamated Society of Engineers," pp. 82, 87-88.

14. Wage rates were attached to machines in Coventry, where the union was in a weaker position and employers had made more headway in rationalizing production (CDC Minutes, July 2, 1901). See also Amalgamated Society of Engineers, Notes on the Engineering Trade Lockout, Appendix, pp. 13-14; Clarke, "The Dispute in the British Engineering Industry," p. 131.

15. CDC Minutes, 1902 District Rules; Watson, Machines and Men, pp. 13, 17-20.

16. Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, p. 61; H. A. Clegg, Alan Fox, and A. F. Thompson, A History of British Trade Unions Since 1889, vol. 1: 1889-1910 (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 141.

17. Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, p. 139; CDC Minutes, May 6, 1901, quoting 1897 agreement with Webster and Bennet, September 3, 1900, October 3, 1901; Clegg, Fox, and Thompson, A History of British Trade Unions, p. 141.

18. E.g., in Coventry, CDC Minutes, April 21 and 26, May 2, 1899. See also Shadwell, Industrial Efficiency, pp. 21-22.

19. Amalgamated Society of Engineers, Jubilee Souvenir, p. 102; Weekes, "The Amalgamated Society of Engineers," pp. 9-11; Croucher, "The Amalgamated Society of Engineers," p. 4; Burgess, The Origins of British Industrial Relations, p. 60.

20. AEMJ, April 1899, p. 60; Croucher, "The Amalgamated Society of Engineers," pp. 3-4; Burgess, The Origins of British Industrial Relations, pp. 53, 56.

21. Burgess, The Origins of British Industrial Relations, p. 47. See also Hirst, "The Policy of the Engineers," p. 126; Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, p. 137; Croucher, "The Amalgamated Society of Engineers," p. 3; Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, p. 79; Burgess, The Origins of British Industrial Relations, pp. 35-41.

22. Burgess, The Origins of British Industrial Relations, pp. 41-56.

23. Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, pp. 91, 108-109, 140-141; Burgess, The Origins of British Industrial Relations, pp. 38-41.

24. General information on the lockout and settlement is available in AEMJ, Engineering, and The Engineer; Ernest Aves, "Labor Notes: The Dispute in the Engineering Trade, &c.," Economic Journal 7 (December 1897): 625-630; and "The Dispute in the Engineering Trades," Economic Journal 8 (March 1898): 115-124; Amalgamated Society of Engineers, Notes on the Engineering Trade Lock-Out; Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, pp. 143-149; Clarke, "The Dispute in the British Engineering Industry''; Clegg, Fox, and Thompson, A History of British Trade Unions, pp. 161-167.

25. Arthur Shadwell, The Engineering Industry and the Crisis of 1922: A Chapter in Industrial History (London: John Murray, 1922), pp. 21-22.

26. Nigel Todd, "Trade Unions and the Engineering Industry Dispute at Barrow-in-Furness, 1897-1898," International Review of Social History 20, no. 1 (1975): 35-41.

27. This was the opening statement of the Terms of Settlement, under the heading "General Principle Agreed To of Freedom to Employers in the Management of Their Works."

28. Engineering, September 24, 1897, p. 386.

29. Ibid., October 21, 1898, p. 527.

28. Engineering, September 24, 1897, p. 386.

29. Ibid., October 21, 1898, p. 527.

30. MMJ, June 1897, p. 218; Buckler, "The Minimum Wage in the Machinists' Union," p. 117; Ashworth, The Helper and American Trade Unions, pp. 32-33; Perlman, The Machinists, p. 303; Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, p. 15.

31. MMJ, November 1894, p. 432, June 1899, p. 404; Norris, "Actual Experience with the Premium Plan," pp. 575-576; U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. 8, pp. 119, 130; Colvin, 60 Years, p. 275.

32. Perlman, The Machinists, pp. 247-259. The IAM won few such contracts outside of its strongholds—railroad repair shops, breweries, hand tool manufacture, small shops, and a few well-organized cities (especially Chicago and San Francisco).

33. Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, pp. 15-17; see also MMJ, February 1891, p. 19.

34. Perlman, The Machinists, pp. 229-235. Although the definition of machinists' work was not at issue, conflicts with the International Machinists' Union in the mid to late 1890s and with the American branches of the ASE in the late 1890s and early 1900s indicate the same sectional orientation on the IAM's part.

35. MMJ, January 1892, p. 375. See also February 1896, p. 26, February 1897, p. 19.

36. Perlman, The Machinists, pp. 151-159. From June 1899 to June 1901, 200 local lodges reported settling 759 grievances, securing apprenticeship agreements with 409 firms, and gaining the closed shop in 163 firms, among other achievements. MMJ, July 1901, p. 464.

37. MMJ reports of disputes typically refer to an initial deputation to management. See also MMJ, April 1899, p. 210, March 1900, p. 165; U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. 8, p. 127; P. J. Conlon, "Past, Present and Future of Our Association," MMJ, February 1909, p. 164. In response to a questionnaire prepared for the U. S. Industrial Commission, IAM officials noted that, although their experience with written agreements was good, "as much may be accomplished by a sensible shop committee." IAM Miscellaneous Pamphlet #5, Department of Labor Library.

38. E.g., MMJ, April 1898, pp. 194-195, July 1898, p. 390, August 1899, p. 502.

39. See the work histories of machinists testifying before the U.S. Congress, House Committee on Labor, Hearings Before a Special Committee, and the discussion of "boomers" (migratory machinists) by Clinton S. Golden, "The Militants of the Metal Trades—The Machinists," in The Amalgamated Illustrated Almanac—1924 (New York: Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Education Department, 1924), p. 143.

40. On sympathy strikes and craft control, see Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, pp. 18-26.

41. Ibid., pp. 23-24.

40. On sympathy strikes and craft control, see Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, pp. 18-26.

41. Ibid., pp. 23-24.

42. Perlman, The Machinists, p. 12.

43. Ibid., pp. 151-152. See also Janes, The Control of Strikes, p. 111.

42. Perlman, The Machinists, p. 12.

43. Ibid., pp. 151-152. See also Janes, The Control of Strikes, p. 111.

44. MMJ, July 1901, p. 464.

45. Ibid., March 1893, p. 108.

44. MMJ, July 1901, p. 464.

45. Ibid., March 1893, p. 108.

46. Basic secondary sources on the strike and its settlement are Ernest L. Bogart, "The Machinists' Strike, 1900," Yale Review 9 (November 1900): 302-313; Perlman, The Machinists, pp. 25-27; Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, pp. 49-52.

47. U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. 8, pp. 501-502; Clarence E. Bonnett, Employers' Associations in the United States: A Study of Typical Associations (New York: Macmillan, 1922), pp. 103-104; Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, p. 50.

48. MMJ, May 1900, p. 254.

49. U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. 8, pp. 502-503.

50. MMJ, June 1899, pp. 348-349.

51. See, e.g., the statement by Duncan Douglas Wilson, IAM vice-president, to the U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. 8, p. 490.

52. Ibid.

51. See, e.g., the statement by Duncan Douglas Wilson, IAM vice-president, to the U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. 8, p. 490.

52. Ibid.

53. MMJ, April 1900, p. 210; U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. 8, p. 490.

54. MMJ, , July 1902, p. 424.

55. See especially Bogart, "The Machinists' Strike," p. 305, n. 5; Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, p. 51. Stuart Reid referred to the Chicago demands for seniority and shop committees as "minor points" ( MMJ, April 1900, p. 210).

56. The Murray Hill Agreement.

57. The NMTA made this charge in 1901 (U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. 17, pp. 358-359). That the charge had some truth is suggested in testimony by Vice-President Wilson. Presented with a copy of the Murray Hill Agreement published by the NMTA and asked if it was the correct version, he replied, I see one or two little points here that it was agreed would not be made public ... just merely in connection with shop management." U. S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. 8, p. 491.

58. Ibid., vol. 8, pp. xxx, 7.

57. The NMTA made this charge in 1901 (U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. 17, pp. 358-359). That the charge had some truth is suggested in testimony by Vice-President Wilson. Presented with a copy of the Murray Hill Agreement published by the NMTA and asked if it was the correct version, he replied, I see one or two little points here that it was agreed would not be made public ... just merely in connection with shop management." U. S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. 8, p. 491.

58. Ibid., vol. 8, pp. xxx, 7.

59. MMJ, June 1900, p. 349.

60. U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. 8, p. 10.

61. Ibid., p. xxx.

62. Ibid., pp. viii, 10-11, 19, 30, 513-514.

60. U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. 8, p. 10.

61. Ibid., p. xxx.

62. Ibid., pp. viii, 10-11, 19, 30, 513-514.

60. U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. 8, p. 10.

61. Ibid., p. xxx.

62. Ibid., pp. viii, 10-11, 19, 30, 513-514.

63. MMJ, May 1900, p. 255.

64. U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. 8, pp. cxxv, 510.

65. Although the Murray Hill Agreement followed the precedent set by the National Founders' Association and the National Stove Founders' Association (ibid., p. cxxxviii), the NMTA's decision to reach a similar agreement with the IAM followed, by a week, the reading of a paper, "A History of the English Engineering Strike," at its annual convention. Clarence E. Bonnett, History of Employers' Associations in the United States (New York: Vintage Press, 1956), p. 449.

64. U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. 8, pp. cxxv, 510.

65. Although the Murray Hill Agreement followed the precedent set by the National Founders' Association and the National Stove Founders' Association (ibid., p. cxxxviii), the NMTA's decision to reach a similar agreement with the IAM followed, by a week, the reading of a paper, "A History of the English Engineering Strike," at its annual convention. Clarence E. Bonnett, History of Employers' Associations in the United States (New York: Vintage Press, 1956), p. 449.

66. Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, p. 54.

67. Resolution passed at the 3rd annual NMTA convention, April 9-10, Detroit. Quoted in Iron Age, April 18, 1901, p. 24. The NMTA also sent a letter to its members, before the breakdown in negotiations between the NMTA and the IAM, stating that "it was the opinion of your Administrative Council that no further concessions should be granted to the members of the Machinists' Union" ( Iron Age, May 16, 1901, p. 49).

68. The background and course of the strike are reviewed in Iron Age, May 23-June 27, 1901; MMJ, May-September 1901; U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. 17, pp. 357-359; Perlman, The Machinists, p. 27; and Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, pp. 54-57.

69. Statement by the NMTA, quoted in U.S. Industrial Commission,

      Report, vol. 17, p. 359. See also MMJ, February 1901, p. 102; Engineering Magazine 21 (1901): 590; and Iron Age, April 18, 1901, p. 23.

70. Statement by Charles Piez, president of the Link Belt Company, Commission on Industrial Relations, Final Report and Testimony, vol. 4, p. 3177. See also U.S. Industrial Commission, Report, vol. 8, pp. 513-514.

71. Perlman, The Machinists, p. 206.

72. Iron Age, June 6, 1901, p. 23.

73. MMJ, June 1902, pp. 329-330.

74. Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, p. 56.

75. Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, pp. 98, 107, 137, 141-142; Perlman, The Machinists, pp. 5-7, 12-13, 16-21; Laslett, Labor and the Left, pp. 147-153 and ch. 5, passim.

76. Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, pp. 54-56, 62-63.

77. Ibid., p. 63; More, "Skill and the Survival of Apprenticeship," p. 112; Bain and Price, Profiles of Union Growth, p. 50.

76. Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, pp. 54-56, 62-63.

77. Ibid., p. 63; More, "Skill and the Survival of Apprenticeship," p. 112; Bain and Price, Profiles of Union Growth, p. 50.

78. A similar pattern is found in other industries. See Bonnett, Employers' Associations in the United States, pp. 22-25.

79. Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, pp. 49, 56-58.

80. Burgess, The Origins of British Industrial Relations, pp. 3-4.

81. Tariff Commission, Report of the Tariff Commission, paragraph 422.

82. Samuel L. Haber, "A History of the International Association of Machinists," B.A. thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1924, p. 192. See also Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, p. 48. Ronald Dore ( British Factory-Japanese Factory: The Origins of National Diversity in Industrial Relations [Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1973], ch. 14-15) emphasizes the importance for industrial relations of the relative development of production techniques and craft unionism in his comparison of Britain and Japan. Michael Burawoy ("The Anthropology of Industrial Work," Annual Review of Anthropology 8 [1979]: 257-259) elaborates the point in more general terms.

83. Levine, Industrial Retardation, pp. 65-78, 145-147.

84. Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, pp. 59-60, Particularly during the 1890s, there were many cases in Britain of troops protecting blacklegs and dispersing strikers. Richard Price ("The Labour Process and Labour History," Social History 8 [1983]: 70-72) notes that in individual decisions justices often dealt more harshly with picketing than statutory law would indicate. In the 1890s and after, however, these measures applied almost exclusively to less skilled workers. See also E. H. Phelps Brown, The Origins of Trade Union Power (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), pp. 203-207; and Howard F. Gospel and Craig R.

      Littler, eds., Managerial Strategies and Industrial Relations: An Historical and Comparative Study (London: Heinemann, 1983).

1. Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, pp. 163-164. The question of amalgamation is debated on a regular basis in AEMJ . The demand that the ASE Executive Council ballot its members on the subject of amalgamation and convene a meeting of trade union representatives (one-third chosen by the Executive Council, two-thirds by members) to formulate a plan of amalgamation was put forth by the London District Committee and endorsed by the Coventry District Committee among others. CDC Minutes, November 6, 1913. See also CDC Minutes, July 26, 1909.

2. This is the title of W. F. Watson's 1913 pamphlet, issued by the Metal, Engineering and Shipbuilding Amalgamation Committee.

3. Bob Holton, British Syndicalism 1900-1914: Myths and Realities (London: Pluto Press, 1976), p. 153.

4. In Coventry, for example, the ASE and the Steam Engine Makers' Executives sought to secure for themselves veto power over Coventry Engineering Joint Committee decisions affecting their own union members. CDC Minutes, March 5, July 24, 1912.

5. Holton, British Syndicalism, pp. 66-68, 140-141, 152-153.

6. Meyer Bloomfield, Management and Men: A Record of New Steps in Industrial Relations (New York: Century, 1919), pp. 365-367; Watson, Machines and Men, pp. 120-122; Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, p. 159; Clegg, Fox, and Thompson, A History of British Trade Unions, pp. 431-432.

7. CDC Minutes, April 9, 1906; Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, pp. 156-157.

8. CDC Minutes, August 25, November 19, 1909, October 23, 24, December 4, 17, 1913; Cole, The Payment of Wages, pp. 90-95; Watson, Machines and Men, pp. 92-93; Wigham, The Power to Manage, p. 75.

9. CDC Minutes, July 21, 1909.

10. Watson, Machines and Men, pp. 97-98; Wigham, The Power to Manage, p. 74.

11. CDC Minutes, February 21, December 14, 1913; AEMJ, June 1914, pp. 35-36; Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, pp. 311-312; Burgess, The Origins of British Industrial Relations, pp. 70-71.

12. U. S. Bureau of Labor, 11th Special Report, Regulation and Restriction of Output, p. 799; Wigham, The Power to Manage, p. 68.

13. AEMJ, June 1908, pp. 12, 15; Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, p. 159; Wigham, The Power to Manage, pp. 63-64.

14. U. S. Bureau of Labor, 11th Special Report, Regulation and Restriction of Output, p. 791; Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, p. 151.

15. AEMJ, May 1913, Abstract Report of Provisional Executive Council Proceedings; CDC Minutes, February 26, November 6, December 14, 1913; Croucher, "The Amalgamated Society of Engineers," pp. 85-89.

16. AEMJ, January 1899, p. 43; CDC Minutes, July 21, 1909, April 16, December 4, 1913, May 6, 1914.

17. Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, pp. 153-154; Croucher, "The Amalgamated Society of Engineers," pp. 65-66; Wigham, The Power to Manage, p. 81. Comparable developments appear in the Lancashire textile industry. See White, The Limits of Trade Union Militancy, e.g., pp. 85-87, 176.

18. Engineering, April 17, 1908, p. 524; AEMJ, May 1908, p. 8; Burgess, The Origins of British Industrial Relations, pp. 70-71.

19. Weekes, "The Amalgamated Society of Engineers," pp. 310-311; Wigham, The Power to Manage, pp. 63-64, 68-71.

20. AEMJ, June 1914, pp. 35-36. See also AEMJ, June 1908, pp. 12-15; CDC Minutes, April 11, 21, 1911, February 21, April 16, November 5, 6, 17, 1913; Croucher, "The Amalgamated Society of Engineers," pp. 85-89.

21. The arguments that follow draw on Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement . They differ by emphasizing more strongly the mediating role played by solidary organization in channeling shop-floor discontent into more radical factory politics.

22. Weekes, "The Amalgamated Society of Engineers," pp. 315-316.

23. AEMJ, May 1908, p. 8.

24. Wigham, The Power to Manage, pp. 83-84.

25. The term is from Holton, British Syndicalism .

26. Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, pp. 79, 311-312; Holton, British Syndicalism, pp. 67, 153-154; Hunt, British Labour History, p. 327.

27. This statement reflects a systematic review of monthly reports by Organizing District Delegates in the AEMJ . See also Wigham, The Power to Manage, p. 83.

28. By 1914, for example, Manchester engineers were electing their own rate fixers to conduct negotiations. AEMJ, February 1914, p. 35.

29. Goodrich, The Frontier of Control, pp. 27-34; Branko Pribicevic, The Shop Stewards' Movement and Workers' Control, 1910-1922 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1959), pp. 70-72; Holton, British Syndicalism, pp.

      30-33; Van Gore, "Rank-and-File Dissent," in Wrigley, A History of British Industrial Relations, pp. 67-69.

30. Watson, Men and Machines, p. 32; Pribicevic, The Shop Stewards' Movement, pp. 26, 65-69; Holton, British Syndicalism, pp. 153-154.

31. Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, pp. 156-157; Richard Hyman, The Workers' Union (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), p. 72.

32. AEMJ, May 1911, p. 31.

33. CDC Minutes, March 31, 1914; Great Britain, Ministry of Labour, Report of an Inquiry as to Works Committees (reprinted by the Industrial Relations Division, United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, 1919), pp. 67-68; G. D. H. Cole, Workshop Organization (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923), p. 18.

34. Cole, Workshop Organization, p. 18.

35. J. R. Richmond, Some Aspects of Labour and Its Claims in the Engineering Industry (Glasgow: n.p., 1916), p. 6; James Hinton, "The Rise of a Mass Labour Movement," in Wrigley, A History of British Industrial Relations, p. 25.

36. AEMJ, May 1911, p. 31; CDC Minutes, March 31, 1914; Turner, Trade Union Growth Structure and Policy, p. 317; Holton, British Syndicalism, pp. 140-153.

37. CDC Minutes, shop steward lists, 1907-1908, passim; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 28.

38. On the protracted COW strike, see CDC Minutes, February 20, 23, March 9, 27, April 26, May 4, September 17, 24, October 1, 8, 1907. For Daimler, see CDC Minutes, March 9, 20, 1908.

39. Hyman, The Workers' Union, pp. 71-72.

40. Arthur Gleason, "The Shop Stewards and Their Significance," The Survey, January 4, 1919, pp. 417, 421; Great Britain Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 2, p. 33.

41. AEMJ, September 1914, p. 3.

42. E.g., Phelps Brown, The Growth of British Industrial Relations, pp. 332-333; Clegg, Fox, and Thompson, A History of British Trade Unions, pp. 328, 362.

43. MMJ, July 1903, pp. 537, 591, November 1911, pp. 1134-1135, June 1912, pp. 535-536, May 1913, p. 475; Ashworth, The Helper and American Trade Unions, pp. 83, 92, 100-102, 108-109; Perlman, The Machinists, p. 34.

44. MMJ, June 1904, pp. 489-490, November 1905, p. 1024; American Federation of Labor, Metal Trades Department, Proceedings of Annual Conventions, passim.

45. Metal trades councils and their relations with the AFL Metal Trades Department and individual unions are discussed in Ramirez,

      When Workers Fight, pp. 105-116. See also American Federation of Labor, Metal Trades Department, Proceedings of the Third Annual Convention (1911), pp. 30-31. On system federations, see Perlman, The Machinists, pp. 40-42; Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, pp. 81-82, 107, 124.

46. MMJ, February 1903, p. 87, September 1908, p. 815, January, 1911, p. 15; Perlman, The Machinists, p. 256.

47. U.S. Bureau of Labor, 11th Special Report, Regulation and Restriction of Output, p. 113; MMJ, August 1903, p. 718, February 1904, p. 136, January 1905, p. 60, March 1909, p. 230, June 1909, p. 533, April 1913, p. 375.

48. MMJ, August 1903, pp. 717-718, September 1905, p. 840, September 1910, p. 836; U.S. Bureau of Labor, 11th Special Report, Regulation and Restriction of Output, pp. 103-105, 108-109; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Labor, Hearings Before a Special Committee, vol. 2, p. 1010.

49. MMJ, March 1900, p. 165, August 1903, p. 718, January 1911, p. 15, October 1912, p. 895; U.S. Bureau of Labor, 11th Special Report, Regulation and Restriction of Output, pp. 103-105, 108-109, 113, 138-139.

50. MMJ, May 1907, p. 476, May 1913, p. 483; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Labor, Hearings Before a Special Committee, vol. 2, pp. 1004, 1032, 1251.

51. Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, p. 107.

52. U.S. Bureau of Labor, 11th Special Report, Regulation and Restriction of Output, p. 118; MMJ, May 1908, pp. 425-427, May 1910, p. 445, July 1910, pp. 645-646, October 1912, p. 920; Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, pp. 124-125.

53. Bonnett, Employers' Associations in the United States, pp. 109-117.

54. MMJ, June 1903, p. 479, September 1904, p. 788, January 1906, p. 71, October 1909, p. 928; Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, p. 65.

55. Bridgeport Herald, May 10, 1903. Similar tactics were used in 1907 ( Bridgeport Herald, April 14, 21, June 2, 1907) and during the strike wave of 1915.

56. Bonnett, Employers' Associations in the United States, pp. 102-103.

57. MMJ, September 1910, p. 836.

58. American Federation of Labor, Metal Trades Department, Proceedings of the Third Annual Convention (1911), pp. 2-3, 13; Ramirez, When Workers Fight, pp. 118, 120-121.

59. MMJ, May 1905, p. 430, December 1905, p. 1125, January 1906, pp. 51, 54, 55-56. March 1906, p. 249; Bridgeport Post, July 16, 17, 20, 1907.

60. MMJ, January 1906, p. 46, November 1909, pp. 1044-1079; Perlman, The Machinists, p. 36.

61. American Federation of Labor, Metal Trades Department, Proceedings of the Annual Conventions (1909-1914); Ramirez, When Workers Fight, pp. 105-116.

62. Laslett, Labor and the Left, pp. 157-158, 161-162.

63. MMJ, March 1912, p. 239.

64. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Labor, Hearings Before a Special Committee, vol. 2, pp. 1007-1008.

65. Ibid., p. 527. See also Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, pp. 68-69.

64. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Labor, Hearings Before a Special Committee, vol. 2, pp. 1007-1008.

65. Ibid., p. 527. See also Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, pp. 68-69.

66. Over 1910-1912 alone, machinists initiated disputes over scientific management at the Starrett Tool Company, American Locomotive, Watertown Arsenal, Illinois Central Railroad, John Deere Plow Company, Norfolk and Charlestown Navy Yards, and the Newport News Shipbuilding Company. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Labor, Hearings Before a Special Committee, vol. 1, p. 535, vol. 2, p. 917; MMJ, February 1912, p. 141; AEMJ, October 1912, p. 33; Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, pp. 115-116. On political action, see Perlman, The Machinists, p. 43.

67. Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, pp. 69, 123.

68. Laslett, Labor and the Left, p. 180; Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, pp. 79-80.

69. Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, p. 116.

70. MMJ, January 1893, p. 357, December 1893, p. 494, July 1901, p. 465, November 1904, p. 998, September 1908, p. 789; Maxim, "The Effects of Trade Unionism," p. 193; U.S. Bureau of Labor, 11th Special Report, Regulation and Restriction of Output, p. 115; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Labor, Hearings Before a Special Committee, vol. 2, pp. 924, 929, vol. 3, pp. 1660, 1684-1685, 1760-1761, 1812.

71. Commission on Industrial Relations, Final Report and Testimony, vol. 1, pp. 135-136, 141.

72. For this reason, specialists were reluctant to join the IAM, with its constitutional ban on piecework. MMJ, November 1910, p. 1050.

73. AEMJ, May 1902, p. 22.

74. Manufacturers' Association of the City of Bridgeport, Bulletin (Bridgeport Public Library, Accession 1977.25, Box 1), June 14, 1907, July 19, 1912.

75. Bridgeport Herald, April 24, 1898; "A.W. Reports," typescript of

      reports from a labor spy, planted in the Bridgeport IAM, to the Manufacturers' Association of Bridgeport (Bridgeport Public Library), September 27, 1916.

76. Amalgamated Society of Engineers, American and Canadian Council, Monthly Report, August 1910. See also MMJ, July 1911, p. 683, September 1911, p. 878, July 1913, p. 680; AEMJ, October 1912, p. 33.

77. American Federation of Labor, Metal Trades Department, Proceedings of the Third Annual Convention (1911), pp. 2-3; Albert Berres, "Metal Trades Department," American Federationist 23 (1916): 949; Ramirez, When Workers Fight, pp. 116-120.

78. American Federation of Labor, Metal Trades Department, Proceedings of the Annual Conventions (1909-1914).

79. Ramirez, When Workers Fight, pp. 117-121.

80. Janes, The Control of Strikes, p. 111.

81. Laslett, Labor and the Left, p. 158.

82. MMJ, May 1907, p. 476, July 1913, p. 680; Bridgeport Post, July 16, 17, 20, 1907; Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, p. 94.

83. MMJ, December 1905, p. 1125, January 1906, p. 46; Laslett, Labor and the Left, p. 159. See also Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, pp. 72, 93.

84. Information on strikes is drawn from Connecticut Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Reports, local newspapers, and in one case from the MMJ, July 1913, p. 680.

85. Peterson, "Auto Workers and Their Work," pp. 232-234.

86. E.g., Edwards, Contested Terrain; Stone, "The Origins of Job Structures"; Clawson, Bureaucracy and the Labor Process; Meyer, The Five Dollar Day, esp. ch. 5.

87. This view is advanced most unequivocally by Jeremy Brecher, " Who Advocates Spontaneity?" Radical America 7, no. 6 (1979): 91-112; Stanley Aronowitz, False Promises: The Shaping of American Working Class Consciousness (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973), ch. 4; and, with greater subtlety, James Hinton, Unions and Strikes (London: Sheed and Ward, 1968), and Hyman, "Trade Unions, Control and Resistance," esp. pp. 324-325.

88. American Machinist, November 2, 1922, p. 704; Colvin, 60 Years, p. 95.

89. The IAM sought arbitration procedures in all its contracts. It is clear from the MMJ, which reports on agreements reached, that the union had far more success in securing such contracts in railroad shops than elsewhere. See also Perlman, The Machinists, p. 29; and Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, p. 63.

90. MMJ, August 1908, pp. 425-427, October 1912, p. 920, October

      1914, p. 978; Perlman, The Machinists, pp. 30, 40-41, 43; Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, pp. 81-82, 107-108, 124.

91. Drake, Women in the Engineering Trades, pp. 8-9; Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, p. 218; Burgess, The Origins of British Industrial Relations, p. 50; Friedman, Industry and Labour, p. 192; Carr, ''Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," pp. 10, 107.

92. C. Ford, "The Political Behavior of the Working-Class in Coventry 1870-1900," M.A. thesis, Department of Social History, University of Warwick, 1973, pp. 39-40; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," pp. 40, 48, 233-234.

93. CDC Minutes, July 12, 26, 1907, and lists of shop stewards, passim; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 28.

94. CDC Minutes, October 10, 1911. See also July 18, August 30, November 15, 1911, September 15, 1914.

95. Ibid., March 7, 1902, and passim. On District Committee censure of errant members, see, e.g., September 3, 1900, April 9, 1906, May 9, 1912.

94. CDC Minutes, October 10, 1911. See also July 18, August 30, November 15, 1911, September 15, 1914.

95. Ibid., March 7, 1902, and passim. On District Committee censure of errant members, see, e.g., September 3, 1900, April 9, 1906, May 9, 1912.

96. Strike information is drawn from the CDC Minutes and local newspapers. See also Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 231.

1. John Prest, The Industrial Revolution in Coventry (London: Oxford University Press, 1960), p. x; Saul, "The Motor Industry," p. 30; Ford, "The Political Behavior," p. 1; Friedman, Industry and Labour, p. 191; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 8.

2. Coventry and District Engineering Employers' Association [Coventry EEA], Application for Admission to Membership of the Engineering Employers' Federation. In "Historical Documents" box of the Coventry EEA.

3. Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 101.

4. "The Works of the Daimler Co., Ltd.," Automobile Engineer 11 (August 1921): 285; "The Works of Messrs. Alfred Herbert, Limited, Coventry," Engineering 90 (July 22, 1910): 113; "Famous British Works: Messrs. Alfred Herbert, Ltd., Coventry," Engineering Production 3 (August 18, 1921): 148; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 5, pt. 5, p. 50; Annual Reports of the Registrar-General, 1916 [Cd 8206], p. 14 and 1920 [Cmd 608], p. 19.

5. Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 5, pt. 5, pp. 52-53; Great Britain, Commission of Enquiry into Industrial

      Unrest, Report of the Commissioners for the West Midlands Area (London: HMSO, 1917); George Hodginson, Sent to Coventry (N.p.: Robert Maxwell, 1970), p. 41.

6. Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, p. 217, n. 3; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," pp. 32-33, 75-76, 246.

7. For general views see Drake, Women in the Engineering Trades; G. D. H. Cole, Trade Unionism and Munitions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923); Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, pp. 125-126, 135, 174-175; Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, pp. 62-67.

8. Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 3, pp. 22-32, Tables 6, 8, 9, 24.

9. Ibid., p. 65, Table 19. Machine tool and ordnance manufacture involved heavier and less repetitive work than did ammunition production, and the large-scale employment of women in these sectors broke more sharply with prewar practices.

8. Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 3, pp. 22-32, Tables 6, 8, 9, 24.

9. Ibid., p. 65, Table 19. Machine tool and ordnance manufacture involved heavier and less repetitive work than did ammunition production, and the large-scale employment of women in these sectors broke more sharply with prewar practices.

10. CDC Minutes, March 2, 16, 23, April 6, 1915; "Works and Workers," Times Engineering Supplement, February 22, 1918, p. 46; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 5, pt. 1, pp. 121, 127, 165-166; Cole, Workshop Organization, pp. 63-65; Cole, Trade Unionism and Munitions, pp. 166-167.

11. CDC Minutes, March 2, June 15, 26, October 20, November 2, 24, 1915, March 14, 21, 1916; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 2, pt. 3, p. 68.

12. On the "skilled timeworkers' grievance," see Great Britain, Ministry of the Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 5, pt. 1, pp. 167-168; Cole, Workshop Organization, pp. 60-62.

13. AEMJ, January-April 1915; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 1, pt. 4, pp. 6-16; Cole, Trade Unionism and Munitions, pp. 53-77.

14. J. T. Murphy, The Workers' Committee: An Outline of Its Principles and Structure (London: Pluto Press, 1972 [1917]), p. 13; CDC Minutes, February 1, 1916.

15. Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 5, pt. 1, pp. 128, 138-139, 150-152.

16. Cole, Workshop Organization, pp. 48-49; Cole, Trade Unionism and Munitions, pp. 106-114; James Hinton, "The Clyde Workers' Committee and the Dilution Struggle," in Essays in Labour History 1896-1923, ed. Asa Briggs and John Saville (London: Macmillan, 1971), pp. 174-175.

17. Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 4, pt. 2, pp. 2-3; Cole, Trade Unionism and Munitions, pp. 104-105, 157-162.

18. Gleason, "The Shop Stewards," p. 419; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 1, p. 92.

19. Cole, Trade Unionism and Munitions, pp. 130-133; Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, pp. 38-39.

20. Cole, Trade Unionism and Munitions, pp. 115-116; Samuel J. Hurwitz, State Intervention in Great Britain: A Study of Economic Control and Social Response, 1914-1919 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1949), pp. 98-102; Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, pp. 35-36.

21. For conflicts between skilled and less skilled engineering workers over government policies, see the Workers' Union Record, September 1916, January and November 1917; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 1, pp. 44, 97-98.

22. Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 4, pt. 2, pp. 26-32, vol. 5, pt. 3, p. 143.

23. CDC Minutes, August 31, September 7, October 12, November 24, 1915, January 11, March 21, June 27, 1916.

24. S. G. Hobson, "War Conditions and the New Shop Stewards," New Age, September 19, 1918, p. 332; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 4, pt. 2, p. 30; Cole, Trade Unionism and Munitions, p. 116; Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, p. 135.

25. Coventry Herald and Free Press, November 17-18, 1916; CDC Minutes, November 18, 1916.

26. Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 1, pp. 92-93. See also the series of reports by the Commission of Enquiry into Industrial Unrest. For some general assessments of the role of communitywide grievances in mobilizing broadly based workers' struggles during the war, see Moore, Injustice, p. 289; and Cronin, "Labor Insurgency and Class Formation," p. 145.

27. Iron Age, July 22, 1915, p. 201, February 3, 1916, pp. 296-298, January 3, 1918, pp. 28, 126; Zenas Potter, "War-Boom Towns I: Bridgeport," The Survey, December 4, 1915, p. 238; Bridgeport Post, January 4, 1916, March 26, 1922; New York Times, January 16, 1916, sec. 4; George C. Waldo, History of Bridgeport and Vicinity (New York: S. J. Clarke, 1917), pp. 171, 179; Elsie Nicholas Danenberg, The Story of Bridgeport (Bridgeport: The Bridgeport Centennial, 1936), p. 112; Cecelia F. Bucki, "Dilution and Craft Traditions: Bridgeport, Connecticut, Munitions Workers, 1915-1919," Social Science History 4, no. 1 (1980): 107.

28. Amy Hewes, "Bridgeport on the Rebound," The Survey, October 14, 1916, p. 50; Waldo, History of Bridgeport, p. 153; Iron Age, July 18, 1918, p. 147.

29. New York Times, January 16, 1916, sec. 4; Amy Hewes, Women as

      Munitions Makers: A Study of Conditions in Bridgeport, Connecticut (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1917), pp. 80, 88; Bridgeport Herald, December 26, 1915, March 26, 1916; Danenberg, The Story of Bridgeport, p. 112.

30. MMJ, August 1915, p. 748; Manufacturers' Association of the City of Bridgeport, Minutes of Executive Board and Committee Meetings (Bridgeport Public Library, Accession 1981.06), November 4, 1915. MY estimate of peak IAM strength is based on the facts that in March 1916 there were two thousand members ("A.W. Reports," March 22, 1916), and in April 1916 alone sixteen hundred more were initiated ( MMJ, June 1916, p. 553).

31. Manufacturers' Association of Bridgeport, Minutes, November 4, 1915; Hewes, Women as Munitions Makers, p. 18. On "boomers," see Golden, "The Militants of the Metal Trades," p. 143.

32. "A.W. Reports," March 22, 1916.

33. Iron Age, July 18, 1918, pp. 146-147, October 24, 1918, p. 1018.

34. Calculated from data presented by Remington Arms-UMC at Hearings before the National War Labor Board, July 17, 1918. National Archives, Record Group 2 (hereafter N.A., RG2), Box 3, Docket No. 132: IAM District #55 vs. Bridgeport, Connecticut, employers.

35. Iron Trade Review, "Teaching Efficiency," July 20, 1916, p. 136; Automotive Industries, "Training 150 Operators Per Week," August 15, 1918, p. 277.

36. Testimony of Mr. Freeland, NWLB Hearings, July 18, 1918, N.A., RG2, Box 3, Docket No. 132.

37. See the information provided by the Manufacturers' Association of Bridgeport to the NWLB, N.A., RG2, Box 21, Docket No. 132; testimony by Mr. Sutton and Mr. Edge, National War Labor Board, Hearings, July 17, 1918, N.A., RG2, Box 3; and by Mr. Freeland, July 18, 1918.

38. Bridgeport Herald, September 8, 1918; Bridgeport Post, September 14, 1918.

39. Bucki, "Dilution and Craft Traditions," p. 118.

40. Alexander Bing, War-Time Strikes and Their Adjustment (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1921), pp. 171-172, 238.

41. MMJ, February 1918, p. 162; American Federation of Labor, Metal Trades Department, Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Convention (1917), pp. 13, 30, and Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Convention (1918), p. 8.

42. National Industrial Conference Board, Wartime Employment of Women, p. 44; Bing, War-Time Strikes, p. 66. The records of the National War Labor Policies Board (National Archives, Record Group 1) detail a number of government proposals and employers' opposition to them, including conflicts over a planned Metal Trades Adjustment Board with

      authority over wages, hours, labor conditions, and worker classification in munitions production.

43. Minutes of the War Labor Policies Board (N.A., RG1), Boxes 1-2, May 29, June 7, 21, 1918; "The Substitution of Women for Men," undated paper, no author given, Records of the WLPB (N.A., RG1), Box 17; September 24, 1918, memo from Mr. Clayton (director of the Training and Dilution Service) to William Chenery, Chenery correspondence, Records of the WLPB (N.A., RG1), Box 9.

44. American Federation of Labor, Metal Trades Department, Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Convention (1917), pp. 47-48.

45. MMJ, May 1918, p. 468.

46. Hewes, Women as Munitions Makers, p. 7.

47. U.S. War Department, A Report of the Activities of the War Department in the Field of Industrial Relations During the War (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1919), pp. 26-32, 54-55; Bing, War-Time Strikes, pp. 66-67, 117-121; Robert D. Cuff, "The Politics of Labor Administration During World War I," Labor History 21, no. 4 (1980): 546-569.

48. MMJ, May 1918, p. 469; U.S. War Department, A Report of the Activities, p. 31; Bing, War-Time Strikes, pp. 155-156.

49. Minutes of the Local Board of Mediation and Conciliation, November 4, 8, 1918 (Records of the National War Labor Board, N.A., RG2, Box 21, Docket No. 132).

50. See, e.g., Meyer, The Five Dollar Day, pp. 174-175, 185.

51. Bing, War-Time Strikes, pp. 233-235.

52. Ibid., pp. 66, 69-70, 171, 309-311; Selig Perlman and Philip Taft, History of Labor in the United States, 1896-1932 (New York: Macmillan, 1935), pp. 408-409.

51. Bing, War-Time Strikes, pp. 233-235.

52. Ibid., pp. 66, 69-70, 171, 309-311; Selig Perlman and Philip Taft, History of Labor in the United States, 1896-1932 (New York: Macmillan, 1935), pp. 408-409.

53. American Federation of Labor, Metal Trades Department, Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Convention (1918), pp. 10-12; U.S. War Department, A Report of the Activities, p. 31.

54. Bridgeport Herald, September 8, 1918; Labor Leader (weekly paper of Bridgeport IAM Lodge 30), January 31, 1918.

55. MMJ, July 1918, p. 640.

56. Bridgeport Herald, August 8, 15, 22, 1915, June 30, 1918; Bucki, "Dilution and Craft Traditions," p. 116.

1. Surveys of the Shop Stewards' Movement include Cole, Workshop Organization; Pribicevic, The Shop Stewards' Movement; and especially Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement .

2. Great Britain, Ministry of Labour, Industrial Report No. 2: Works

      Committees (London: HMSO, 1918), pp. 10-12, 37-38; Cole,  Workshop Organization, p. 47.

3. Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 1, pp. 116-117; Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, p. 15.

4. Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 1, pt. 2, pp. 98-99, vol. 6, pt. 1, pp. 92-93.

5. Ibid., vol. 6, pt. 1, pp. 114-115, vol. 6, pt. 2, pp. 29-30; Cole, Workshop Organization, pp. 82-83; Pribicevic, The Shop Stewards' Movement, pp. 93-98, 101-102; Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, pp. 201-204.

4. Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 1, pt. 2, pp. 98-99, vol. 6, pt. 1, pp. 92-93.

5. Ibid., vol. 6, pt. 1, pp. 114-115, vol. 6, pt. 2, pp. 29-30; Cole, Workshop Organization, pp. 82-83; Pribicevic, The Shop Stewards' Movement, pp. 93-98, 101-102; Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, pp. 201-204.

6. Great Britain, Ministry of Labour, Industrial Report No. 2: Works Committees, p. 40; Cole, The Payment of Wages, p. 96; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 4, Pt. 1, p. 31; Cole, Workshop Organization, p. 47.

7. Great Britain, Ministry of Labour, Industrial Report No. 2: Works Committees, pp. 10, 17-18; Gleason, "The Shop Stewards," p. 418; Cole, Trade Unionism and Munitions, p. 206; Hyman, The Workers' Union, p. 117.

8. Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 1, pp. 93-94, vol. 6, pt. 2, pp. 29-30; Cole, Workshop Organization, pp. 35-36, 54-55; Pribicevic, The Shop Stewards' Movement, p. 86; James Hinton, "Introduction," in Murphy, The Workers' Committee, pp. 6-7.

9. S. G. Hobson, "The Industrial Unit and the New Shop Steward," The New Age, September 26, 1918, p. 347; Cole, Workshop Organization, pp. 76-77, 85-94; Pribicevic, The Shop Stewards' Movement, pp. 85-93.

10. Murphy, The Workers' Committee, p. 18.

11. Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, pp. 65-69 and passim.

12. CDC Minutes, March 2, 16, 23, April 6, 1915. See also notes on the October 4, 1915, conference between the Coventry Engineering Employers' Federation and engineering unions, "Historical Documents, Including Local Conferences" box, Offices of the Coventry and District Engineering Employers' Association.

13. CDC Minutes, November 2, 1915. Original emphasis.

14. On the two-machine system, see ibid., March 2, 16, June 26, .1915; on women, ibid., June 15, October 20, 1915, March 14, 21, 1916.

15. Ibid., March 7, April 12, 1916.

16. Ibid., December 18, 1917, February 5, 1918.

17. Ibid., March 7, 1916.

18. Ibid., October 23, 1916. See also ibid., July 27, 1915; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 1, p. 93, Pt. 2, pp. 32-33.

19. CDC Minutes, August 13, 1915. The same year stewards also led strikes at COW and Daimler (ibid., February 9, August 13, 1915). Such action became more frequent from the beginning of 1917.

20. Ibid., April 7, 1917; Great Britain, Commission of Enquiry into Industrial Unrest, Report of the Commissioners, pp. 9-10; Great Britain, Ministry of Labour, Industrial Report No. 2: Works Committees, pp. 15-16 (it is clear from information given that the Works Committee described here is at Daimler); Hodginson, Sent to Coventry, p. 37; Friedman, Industry and Labour, p. 194; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 80.

13. CDC Minutes, November 2, 1915. Original emphasis.

14. On the two-machine system, see ibid., March 2, 16, June 26, .1915; on women, ibid., June 15, October 20, 1915, March 14, 21, 1916.

15. Ibid., March 7, April 12, 1916.

16. Ibid., December 18, 1917, February 5, 1918.

17. Ibid., March 7, 1916.

18. Ibid., October 23, 1916. See also ibid., July 27, 1915; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 1, p. 93, Pt. 2, pp. 32-33.

19. CDC Minutes, August 13, 1915. The same year stewards also led strikes at COW and Daimler (ibid., February 9, August 13, 1915). Such action became more frequent from the beginning of 1917.

20. Ibid., April 7, 1917; Great Britain, Commission of Enquiry into Industrial Unrest, Report of the Commissioners, pp. 9-10; Great Britain, Ministry of Labour, Industrial Report No. 2: Works Committees, pp. 15-16 (it is clear from information given that the Works Committee described here is at Daimler); Hodginson, Sent to Coventry, p. 37; Friedman, Industry and Labour, p. 194; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 80.

13. CDC Minutes, November 2, 1915. Original emphasis.

14. On the two-machine system, see ibid., March 2, 16, June 26, .1915; on women, ibid., June 15, October 20, 1915, March 14, 21, 1916.

15. Ibid., March 7, April 12, 1916.

16. Ibid., December 18, 1917, February 5, 1918.

17. Ibid., March 7, 1916.

18. Ibid., October 23, 1916. See also ibid., July 27, 1915; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 1, p. 93, Pt. 2, pp. 32-33.

19. CDC Minutes, August 13, 1915. The same year stewards also led strikes at COW and Daimler (ibid., February 9, August 13, 1915). Such action became more frequent from the beginning of 1917.

20. Ibid., April 7, 1917; Great Britain, Commission of Enquiry into Industrial Unrest, Report of the Commissioners, pp. 9-10; Great Britain, Ministry of Labour, Industrial Report No. 2: Works Committees, pp. 15-16 (it is clear from information given that the Works Committee described here is at Daimler); Hodginson, Sent to Coventry, p. 37; Friedman, Industry and Labour, p. 194; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 80.

13. CDC Minutes, November 2, 1915. Original emphasis.

14. On the two-machine system, see ibid., March 2, 16, June 26, .1915; on women, ibid., June 15, October 20, 1915, March 14, 21, 1916.

15. Ibid., March 7, April 12, 1916.

16. Ibid., December 18, 1917, February 5, 1918.

17. Ibid., March 7, 1916.

18. Ibid., October 23, 1916. See also ibid., July 27, 1915; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 1, p. 93, Pt. 2, pp. 32-33.

19. CDC Minutes, August 13, 1915. The same year stewards also led strikes at COW and Daimler (ibid., February 9, August 13, 1915). Such action became more frequent from the beginning of 1917.

20. Ibid., April 7, 1917; Great Britain, Commission of Enquiry into Industrial Unrest, Report of the Commissioners, pp. 9-10; Great Britain, Ministry of Labour, Industrial Report No. 2: Works Committees, pp. 15-16 (it is clear from information given that the Works Committee described here is at Daimler); Hodginson, Sent to Coventry, p. 37; Friedman, Industry and Labour, p. 194; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 80.

13. CDC Minutes, November 2, 1915. Original emphasis.

14. On the two-machine system, see ibid., March 2, 16, June 26, .1915; on women, ibid., June 15, October 20, 1915, March 14, 21, 1916.

15. Ibid., March 7, April 12, 1916.

16. Ibid., December 18, 1917, February 5, 1918.

17. Ibid., March 7, 1916.

18. Ibid., October 23, 1916. See also ibid., July 27, 1915; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 1, p. 93, Pt. 2, pp. 32-33.

19. CDC Minutes, August 13, 1915. The same year stewards also led strikes at COW and Daimler (ibid., February 9, August 13, 1915). Such action became more frequent from the beginning of 1917.

20. Ibid., April 7, 1917; Great Britain, Commission of Enquiry into Industrial Unrest, Report of the Commissioners, pp. 9-10; Great Britain, Ministry of Labour, Industrial Report No. 2: Works Committees, pp. 15-16 (it is clear from information given that the Works Committee described here is at Daimler); Hodginson, Sent to Coventry, p. 37; Friedman, Industry and Labour, p. 194; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 80.

13. CDC Minutes, November 2, 1915. Original emphasis.

14. On the two-machine system, see ibid., March 2, 16, June 26, .1915; on women, ibid., June 15, October 20, 1915, March 14, 21, 1916.

15. Ibid., March 7, April 12, 1916.

16. Ibid., December 18, 1917, February 5, 1918.

17. Ibid., March 7, 1916.

18. Ibid., October 23, 1916. See also ibid., July 27, 1915; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 1, p. 93, Pt. 2, pp. 32-33.

19. CDC Minutes, August 13, 1915. The same year stewards also led strikes at COW and Daimler (ibid., February 9, August 13, 1915). Such action became more frequent from the beginning of 1917.

20. Ibid., April 7, 1917; Great Britain, Commission of Enquiry into Industrial Unrest, Report of the Commissioners, pp. 9-10; Great Britain, Ministry of Labour, Industrial Report No. 2: Works Committees, pp. 15-16 (it is clear from information given that the Works Committee described here is at Daimler); Hodginson, Sent to Coventry, p. 37; Friedman, Industry and Labour, p. 194; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 80.

13. CDC Minutes, November 2, 1915. Original emphasis.

14. On the two-machine system, see ibid., March 2, 16, June 26, .1915; on women, ibid., June 15, October 20, 1915, March 14, 21, 1916.

15. Ibid., March 7, April 12, 1916.

16. Ibid., December 18, 1917, February 5, 1918.

17. Ibid., March 7, 1916.

18. Ibid., October 23, 1916. See also ibid., July 27, 1915; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 1, p. 93, Pt. 2, pp. 32-33.

19. CDC Minutes, August 13, 1915. The same year stewards also led strikes at COW and Daimler (ibid., February 9, August 13, 1915). Such action became more frequent from the beginning of 1917.

20. Ibid., April 7, 1917; Great Britain, Commission of Enquiry into Industrial Unrest, Report of the Commissioners, pp. 9-10; Great Britain, Ministry of Labour, Industrial Report No. 2: Works Committees, pp. 15-16 (it is clear from information given that the Works Committee described here is at Daimler); Hodginson, Sent to Coventry, p. 37; Friedman, Industry and Labour, p. 194; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 80.

13. CDC Minutes, November 2, 1915. Original emphasis.

14. On the two-machine system, see ibid., March 2, 16, June 26, .1915; on women, ibid., June 15, October 20, 1915, March 14, 21, 1916.

15. Ibid., March 7, April 12, 1916.

16. Ibid., December 18, 1917, February 5, 1918.

17. Ibid., March 7, 1916.

18. Ibid., October 23, 1916. See also ibid., July 27, 1915; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 1, p. 93, Pt. 2, pp. 32-33.

19. CDC Minutes, August 13, 1915. The same year stewards also led strikes at COW and Daimler (ibid., February 9, August 13, 1915). Such action became more frequent from the beginning of 1917.

20. Ibid., April 7, 1917; Great Britain, Commission of Enquiry into Industrial Unrest, Report of the Commissioners, pp. 9-10; Great Britain, Ministry of Labour, Industrial Report No. 2: Works Committees, pp. 15-16 (it is clear from information given that the Works Committee described here is at Daimler); Hodginson, Sent to Coventry, p. 37; Friedman, Industry and Labour, p. 194; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 80.

21. CDC Minutes, April 12, 1916.

22. Ibid., January 10, February 6, 20, March 6, 17, April 3, October 16, 1917.

21. CDC Minutes, April 12, 1916.

22. Ibid., January 10, February 6, 20, March 6, 17, April 3, October 16, 1917.

23. On the CWC, see Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," pp. 79-84.

24. Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 1, p. 114, n. 1.

25. Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 85.

26. Midland Daily Telegraph, May 21, 1917; Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, p. 216; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," pp. 80-81.

27. CDC Minutes, April 7, 1917.

28. Quoted by Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour, pp. 80-81. See also CDC Minutes, April 7, 1917.

29. Letter dated April 14, 1917. EEF Correspondence, Offices of the Engineering Employers' Federation.

30. CDC Minutes, April lo, 11, 1917.

31. Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 2, pp. 32-33.

32. April 17, 1917, letter from the Secretary of the EEF to the Coventry EEA, EEF Correspondence.

33. The Hotchkiss Works Committee constitution is reproduced in Great Britain, Ministry of Labour, Report of an Inquiry, pp. 80-81.

34. Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 81.

35. Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 1, pp. 52-63.

36. CDC Minutes, May 14, 1917.

37. Ibid., April 29, 1917.

38. Ibid., May 6, 1917.

39. Ibid.; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," pp. 82-63.

36. CDC Minutes, May 14, 1917.

37. Ibid., April 29, 1917.

38. Ibid., May 6, 1917.

39. Ibid.; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," pp. 82-63.

36. CDC Minutes, May 14, 1917.

37. Ibid., April 29, 1917.

38. Ibid., May 6, 1917.

39. Ibid.; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," pp. 82-63.

36. CDC Minutes, May 14, 1917.

37. Ibid., April 29, 1917.

38. Ibid., May 6, 1917.

39. Ibid.; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," pp. 82-63.

40. CDC Minutes, May 14, 1917; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 1, pp. 113-114; Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, p. 217; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," pp. 82-83.

41. Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 1, p. 63.

42. CDC Minutes, October 16, 1917; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 89.

43. Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," pp. 86-90.

44. CEJC Shop Rules and Instructions for Stewards. Reprinted in Great Britain, Ministry of Labour, Report of an Inquiry, pp. 124-125; Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, pp. 221-222; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 85.

45. Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, p. 223.

46. CDC Minutes, September 22, November 6, 13, 1917.

47. Ibid., October 16, 1917.

48. Ibid., November 6, 1917; Circular Letter No. 38, November 21, 1917, from C. Martin (EEA Secretary) to controlled establishments in Coventry, "Historical Documents, Including Local Conferences" box, Coventry EEA.

46. CDC Minutes, September 22, November 6, 13, 1917.

47. Ibid., October 16, 1917.

48. Ibid., November 6, 1917; Circular Letter No. 38, November 21, 1917, from C. Martin (EEA Secretary) to controlled establishments in Coventry, "Historical Documents, Including Local Conferences" box, Coventry EEA.

46. CDC Minutes, September 22, November 6, 13, 1917.

47. Ibid., October 16, 1917.

48. Ibid., November 6, 1917; Circular Letter No. 38, November 21, 1917, from C. Martin (EEA Secretary) to controlled establishments in Coventry, "Historical Documents, Including Local Conferences" box, Coventry EEA.

49. CDC Minutes, November 6, 1917.

50. Coventry Herald and Free Press, November 23-24, 1917; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 2, p. 26; Hodginson, Sent to Coventry, p. 48; Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, p. 223.

51. CDC Minutes, November 20, 22, 1917; Birmingham Gazette, November 30, 1917.

52. CDC Minutes, November 25, 1917; Birmingham Post, November 28, 1917; Birmingham Gazette, November 29, 1917; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 2, pp. 30-31; Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, pp. 223-224; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 95. For a view that celebrates the strike as a left-wing triumph, see Ken Biggs, "Coventry and the Shop Stewards' Movement, 1917," Marxism Today 13, no. 1 (1969): 14-23.

53. Midland Daily Telegraph, December 8, 1917.

54. Notes on December 4 and 5, 1917, conferences, Coventry EEA, "Historical Documents, Including Local Conferences" box.

55. CDC Minutes, November 28, 29, 1917.

56. Ibid., December 3, 1917; Birmingham Mail, December 3, 1917.

55. CDC Minutes, November 28, 29, 1917.

56. Ibid., December 3, 1917; Birmingham Mail, December 3, 1917.

57. Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 2, p. 33.

58. Birmingham Mail, December 3, 1917.

59. Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 2, P. 32. See also Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, pp. 213-215, 233-234.

60. Memorandum of Conference Between the Engineering Employers' Federation and Thirteen Trade Unions, Regulations Regarding the Appointment and Functions of Shop Stewards, reprinted in Great Britain, Ministry of Labour, Report of an Inquiry . See also Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 2, p. 31; Cole, Workshop Organization, pp. 76-79; Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, p. 225; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," pp. 94-95.

61. Hodginson, Sent to Coventry, p. 46.

62. Cole, Trade Unionism and Munitions, p. 153.

63. Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 2, p. 31; Cole, Workshop Organization, pp. 76-77.

64. Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," pp. 94-95.

65. January 23, 1918, letter from Secretary Martin to members of the Coventry EEA, "Historical Documents, Including Local Conferences" box; Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, p. 226.

66. Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 96.

67. Workers' Union Record, February 1918, p. 2.

68. CDC Minutes, January 2, 6, 1918.

69. Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 2, p. 46.

70. CDC Minutes, June 18, 1918.

71. Ibid., April 23, 1918; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 98.

70. CDC Minutes, June 18, 1918.

71. Ibid., April 23, 1918; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 98.

72. CDC Minutes, January 2, 1918.

73. Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," pp. 96-97.

74. Midland Daily Telegraph, July 20, 1918; Birmingham Gazette, July 20, 1918; Birmingham Daily Mail, July 22, 1918; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, Justice McCardie's Committee of Inquiry, Interim Report on Labour Embargoes (London: HMSO, 1918); Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 2, p. 65.

75. Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, p. 231.

76. Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 2, p. 66; Ministry of Munitions poster displayed in Coventry, Birmingham, and Manchester, reprinted in Birmingham Post, July 22, 1918.

77. Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, p. 231.

78. Midland Daily Telegraph, July 23, 1918; CDC Minutes, July 26, 1918.

79. CDC Minutes, July 23, 1918; Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, p. 231.

80. Birmingham Daily Mail, July 24, 1918; Midland Daily Telegraph, July 29, 1918; Great Britain, Ministry of Munitions, History of the Ministry, vol. 6, pt. 2, pp. 67-69.

81. Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," pp. 98, 174-182.

82. CDC Minutes, November 30, 1920.

83. Shadwell, The Engineering Industry, p. 43; Labour Research Department, Labour and Capital in the Engineering Trades (London: Labour Publishing Co., 1922); Cole, Workshop Organization, p. 125.

84. Cole, Workshop Organization, p. 128; Pribicevic, The Shop Stewards' Movement, pp. 37-38, 102-108; Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, p. 308.

85. Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, pp. 218-221; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 107.

86. Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," e.g., pp. 237, 452, 499-501.

87. Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, p. 218.

88. Prest, The Industrial Revolution, p. x; Ford, "The Political Behavior," pp. 1, 4; Friedman, Industry and Labour, p. 192.

89. The political implications of Coventry's weak craft traditions are noted for the war period by Hinton, The First Shop Stewards' Movement, pp. 218-221.

90. Examples of these agreements include those with Webster and Bennet in 1897 (noted in CDC Minutes, May 6, 1901) and with another company in 1901 (CDC Minutes, October 3, 1901).

91. Ibid., December 17, 1913, March 25, 1919, January 18, 25, 1927; Coventry EEA, Executive Committee Minutes, January lo, 1921.

90. Examples of these agreements include those with Webster and Bennet in 1897 (noted in CDC Minutes, May 6, 1901) and with another company in 1901 (CDC Minutes, October 3, 1901).

91. Ibid., December 17, 1913, March 25, 1919, January 18, 25, 1927; Coventry EEA, Executive Committee Minutes, January lo, 1921.

92. Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 249.

93. Coventry employers credited incentive pay with the city's relative freedom from labor unrest in the 1920s. When the EEF threatened a national lockout over an unofficial strike in London, the Coventry EEA Executive Committee complained that in "districts such as Lancashire and Northern Industrial Areas, where payment by results had not been developed, the Engineering workpeople were generally very dissatisfied ... whilst the Employers and workmen in Coventry were working in harmony together" (Minutes, March 22, 1926; original emphasis).

94. Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 231.

95. At one time or another the CDC Minutes note chargehand arrangements at Webster and Bennet, Herberts, and Selson Engineering (machine tool firms); Coventry Chain Company; Coventry Ordnance Works; Calcott Cycle and Triumph Motor Cycle; and the motor car plants of Daimler, Rover, Swift, Hillman, Riley, Maudslay, and Standard. These account for most of the city's leading firms. For historical background on this system, see Allen, The Industrial Development of Birmingham; and Carr, ''Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," pp. 4-5. See also Littler, "Deskilling and Changing Structures of Control."

96. CDC Minutes, October 9, 1901. See also March 18, 1903.

97. Ibid., May 3, 1927.

98. Ibid., February 17, March 10, 1914. See also August 27, 1919.

99. Ibid., February 7, 1927.

96. CDC Minutes, October 9, 1901. See also March 18, 1903.

97. Ibid., May 3, 1927.

98. Ibid., February 17, March 10, 1914. See also August 27, 1919.

99. Ibid., February 7, 1927.

96. CDC Minutes, October 9, 1901. See also March 18, 1903.

97. Ibid., May 3, 1927.

98. Ibid., February 17, March 10, 1914. See also August 27, 1919.

99. Ibid., February 7, 1927.

96. CDC Minutes, October 9, 1901. See also March 18, 1903.

97. Ibid., May 3, 1927.

98. Ibid., February 17, March 10, 1914. See also August 27, 1919.

99. Ibid., February 7, 1927.

100. This split is discussed in general terms by Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour."

101. On the 1922 lockout and its background, see AEMJ, 1920-1922, passim; Great Britain, Parliament, Report by a Court of Inquiry Concerning the Engineering Trades Dispute, 1922 (London: HMSO, 1922 [Cmd. 1653]); Labour Research Department, Labour and Capital; Shad-well, The Engineering Industry; Jefferys, The Story of the Engineers, pp. 217-227; and Wigham, The Power to Manage, pp. 117-124.

102. Memorandum of conference between the Engineering and National Employers' Federation and the AEU, November 17-18, 1921. Reprinted in Great Britain, Parliament, Report by a Court of Inquiry, p. 3.

103. Poster in "Historical Documents, Including Local Conferences" box, Coventry EEA. Original emphasis. See also Great Britain, Parliament, Report by a Court of Inquiry, p. 17. The EEF did threaten to open the workshops to individual employees, but the agreement that blacklegs were to be asked to sign included the same procedures for appeal and union conferences as the eventual national settlement. See letters of April 25 and 27 from James Brown (EEF secretary) to the AEU and Negotiating Committee of the other unions, EEF Correspondence, Offices of the EEF.

104. CDC Minutes, June 29, 1920; Coventry EEA, Executive Committee Minutes, January 17, 1921; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," pp. 178-179.

105. CDC Minutes, March 2, 1922.

106. Calculated from ibid., reports of Complaints Subcommittee, July 3-September 12. The exact total of cases reported is 1,890, but in several instances the Subcommittee reports do not include numbers. The committee further complained that branches were not providing information on defaulters and referred some cases to the District Committee as a

      whole. Thus the 1,890 figure is an understatement. Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 246, puts local AEU members at 10,450 in May 1922.

105. CDC Minutes, March 2, 1922.

106. Calculated from ibid., reports of Complaints Subcommittee, July 3-September 12. The exact total of cases reported is 1,890, but in several instances the Subcommittee reports do not include numbers. The committee further complained that branches were not providing information on defaulters and referred some cases to the District Committee as a

      whole. Thus the 1,890 figure is an understatement. Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 246, puts local AEU members at 10,450 in May 1922.

107. CDC Minutes, September 12, 1922.

108. Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 246.

109. CDC Minutes, April 21, 1922; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," pp. 207-209.

110. CDC Minutes throughout the 1920s report sanctions against members for ignoring union rules. For action taken against shop stewards, see, e.g., CDC Minutes, May 28, June 29, September 7, 16, 1920, April 19, 28, 1921; Coventry EEA, Executive Committee Minutes, January 17, 1921.

111. CDC Minutes, May 26, 1925.

112. Ibid., October 3, 1922-

113. Ibid., August 13, 1927.

111. CDC Minutes, May 26, 1925.

112. Ibid., October 3, 1922-

113. Ibid., August 13, 1927.

111. CDC Minutes, May 26, 1925.

112. Ibid., October 3, 1922-

113. Ibid., August 13, 1927.

114. Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," pp. 251-253.

115. CDC Minutes, April 28, 1921; Coventry EEA, Executive Committee Minutes, March 3, April 24, 1924; Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," p. 258.

116. CDC Minutes, November 23, 1920.

117. On the 1930s and early 1940s, see Carr, "Engineering Workers and the Rise of Labour," pp. 467, 483-486, 500-507; James Hinton, "Coventry Communism: A Study of Factory Politics in the Second World War," History Workshop Journal 10 (Autumn 1980): 90-118.

1. For the United States, no general study of rank-and-file movements in the wartime metal trades exists. There are many insights scattered in David Montgomery's Workers' Control in America, and there is an excellent case study by Cecelia Bucki ("Dilution and Craft Traditions"). The following overview is pieced together largely from Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, and the MMJ .

2. MMJ, August 1915, p. 753.

3. Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, p. 95.

4. MMJ, September 1917, p. 756, October 1917, p. 853, September 1918, p. 822; Bing, War-Time Strikes, pp. 171-172.

5. Bing, War-Time Strikes, p. 157.

6. In April 1918, James O'Connell (president of the AFL's Metal Trades Department) urged the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board to alter its procedure. "All requests for hearings or conferences from local representatives in any locality should be referred to this Department be-

      fore any date is set for such a hearing, so that this Department may take the matter up with the internationals affected and make the necessary arrangements for the proper representation.... All hearings or conferences in connection with wages, hours, or conditions of employment in the shipbuilding industry should be given as far as possible a national scope so that local prejudices, the local situation, and local representation, may be avoided as far as possible." Everett Macy, Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board chairman, agreed, adding in his reply, "We believe that no hearings should be granted except the material to be presented has first received the approval of the international presidents." Letters quoted in American Federation of Labor, Metal Trades Department, Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Convention (1918), pp. 10-12.

7. American Federation of Labor, Metal Trades Department, Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Convention (1919), p. 7. See also report of IAM President Johnston for 1918, MMJ, June 1919, p. 512; letter from O'Connell to MTD affiliates, February 3, 1919, MMJ, March 1919, p. 233; Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, p. 125.

8. Labor Leader, January 31, 1918.

9. Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, p. 95.

10. MMJ, January 1920, p. 49; Labor Leader, January 8, 1920.

11. MMJ, August 1919, p. 744. See also organizers' reports, MMJ, 1918-1919, passim, and MMJ, May 1919, p. 446, January 1920, pp. 15-16, 28; American Federation of Labor, Metal Trades Department, Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Convention (1919), p. 108; Perlman, The Machinists, pp. 55-56; Meyer, The Five Dollar Day, p. 171.

12. Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, pp. 126-127.

13. See, for example, the agreements won by machinists at the U.S. Cartridge Company and the Newton Manufacturing Company in Lowell, Massachusetts ( MMJ, April 1916, pp. 347-348, September 1916, p. 876, August 1917, p. 669, September 1917, pp. 737-738, February 1919, pp. 104-105); and demands made throughout the New York area by IAM District Lodge 15 ( Labor Leader, January 31, 1918). See also Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, pp. 103, 124.

14. This problem of shop committee recognition is explored by David Montgomery, "New Tendencies in Union Struggles and Strategies in Europe and the United States, 1916-1922," in Work, Community, and Power: The Experience of Labor in Europe and America, 1900-1925, ed. James E. Cronin and Carmen Sirianni (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1983), pp. 103-109.

15. United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Review, April 1916, p. 19; Manufacturers' Association of Bridgeport, Minutes, March 4, 1915.

16. Information on the 1915 strikes is taken from the Bridgeport Post

      and Bridgeport Herald throughout July, August, and September and from MMJ, September 1915, pp. 836, 839, 848, October 1915, p. 941.

17. On the latter point see Hewes, Women as Munitions Makers, pp. 40-44.

18. "A.W. Reports," July 3, 1916.

19. Bridgeport Herald, September 19, 1915.

20. Iron Age, December 9, 1915; MMJ, January 1916, p. 63; "A.W. Reports," June 8, 1916.

21. Bridgeport Herald, April 16, 1916; "A. W. Reports," April 20, July 31, 1916; statement by B. J. Strzelecki, National War Labor Board, Hearings, July 2, 1918, N.A., RG2, Box 3, Docket No. 132, re: Liberty Ordnance.

22. "A. W. Reports," April 5, 1916.

23. "A.W. Reports," passim; statement by John Hart, Remington tool room steward, National War Labor Board, Hearings, July 2, 1918, N.A., RG2, Box 3, Docket No. 132.

24. Labor Leader, April 18, 1918.

25. "A.W. Reports," September 19, 22, 1916; Manufacturers' Association of Bridgeport, Minutes, November 2, 1916; Bridgeport Herald, July 15, September 23, 1917; advertisement in Bridgeport Herald, June 24, 1917; Perlman, The Machinists, p. 54; Bucki, "Dilution and Craft Traditions," p. 112.

26. Bridgeport Herald, August 8, 1915; "A.W. Reports," May 5, 1916; Bridgeport Post, July 12, 1917.

27. Bridgeport Herald, August 8, 22, September 19, 1915; "A. W. Reports," June 8, 1916; Bridgeport Post, July 12, 1917; Labor Leader, August 15, 1918.

28. "A.W. Reports," July 13, 1916; United States Department of Labor, Records of the Conciliation Service, Series 33, File 567, National Archives, Record Group 280.

29. "The Bowen clique" is a phrase used by the employers' labor spy, "A. W."

30. "A. W. Reports," September 5, 1916.

31. Ibid., June 4, 1916.

32. Ibid., August 9, 1916. A similar case is reported November lo, 1916.

33. Ibid., April 11 1916.

34. Ibid., April 7, 26, May 12, 1916.

30. "A. W. Reports," September 5, 1916.

31. Ibid., June 4, 1916.

32. Ibid., August 9, 1916. A similar case is reported November lo, 1916.

33. Ibid., April 11 1916.

34. Ibid., April 7, 26, May 12, 1916.

30. "A. W. Reports," September 5, 1916.

31. Ibid., June 4, 1916.

32. Ibid., August 9, 1916. A similar case is reported November lo, 1916.

33. Ibid., April 11 1916.

34. Ibid., April 7, 26, May 12, 1916.

30. "A. W. Reports," September 5, 1916.

31. Ibid., June 4, 1916.

32. Ibid., August 9, 1916. A similar case is reported November lo, 1916.

33. Ibid., April 11 1916.

34. Ibid., April 7, 26, May 12, 1916.

30. "A. W. Reports," September 5, 1916.

31. Ibid., June 4, 1916.

32. Ibid., August 9, 1916. A similar case is reported November lo, 1916.

33. Ibid., April 11 1916.

34. Ibid., April 7, 26, May 12, 1916.

35. Among these allies of Lavit was Edwin O'Connell (one of the militants discharged by Remington-UMC), who won the election for president of Lodge 30. Bridgeport Herald, March 25, 1917; letter from George Bowen to Department of Labor Conciliator Robert McWade, April 30, 1917, Department of Labor, Records of the Conciliation Ser-

      vice, Series 33, File 347, N.A., RG280; Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, p. 128; Bucki, "Dilution and Craft Traditions," p. 114.

36. Bridgeport Post, July 14, 1917; National War Labor Board, Hearings, July 1, 1918, N.A., RG2, Box 3, Docket No. 132. A copy of District Lodge 55's proposed working rules is in Department of Labor, Records of the Conciliation Service, Series 33, File 817, N.A., RG280. See also the discussions in Montgomery, Workers' Control in America, pp. 103-104, 128, 132; and Bucki, "Dilution and Craft Traditions," pp. 113-114.

37. See Lavit's remarks on this point in the minutes of the Local Board of Mediation and Conciliation, November 21, 1918, meeting, National War Labor Board, Case Files, N.A., RG2, Box 21, Docket No. 132.

38. Bridgeport Post, July 12, 1917; Bridgeport Herald, July 15, 1917; Department of Labor, Records of the Conciliation Service, Series 33, File 567.

39. National War Labor Board, Hearings, July 17, 1918, N.A., RG2, Box 3, Docket No. 132.

40. Bridgeport Herald, March 25, 1917; Department of Labor, Records of the Conciliation Service, Series 33, File 357; statements by Edwin O'Connell and James Quigley, National War Labor Board, Hearings, July 2, 1918, N.A., RG2, Box 3, Docket No. 132; MMJ, May 1917, p. 430.

41. Bridgeport Post, July 12, 1917; Bridgeport Herald, July 15, 1917; Department of Labor, Records of the Conciliation Service, Series 33, File 567.

42. Labor Leader, April 18, May 9, 1918; Bridgeport Post, May 9, 1918; Bing, War-Time Strikes, pp. 171-172.

43. Statements by IAM Executive Board member Fred Hewitt and by B. J. Strzelecki, National War Labor Board, Hearings, July 1, 2, 1918, N.A., RG2, Box 3, Docket No. 132. Department of Labor, Records of the Conciliation Service, Series 33, Files 519, 819, 1026, N.A., RG280; MMJ, August 1917, p. 679, January 1918, p. 63; Labor Leader, February 21, 1918; Bridgeport Herald, July 7, 1918; Bing, War-Time Strikes, pp. 75-76.

44. Labor Leader, April 4, 1918; Bridgeport Herald, July 7, 1918; statement by Lavit, National War Labor Board, Hearings, July 2, 1918, N.A., RG2, Box 3, Docket No. 132; Bing, War-Time Strikes, p. 234, n. 1.

45. Labor Leader, April 4, 1918.

46. Ibid., April 18, May 9, 16, 1918; statement by Fred Hewitt, National War Labor Board, Hearings, July 1, 1918, N.A., RG2, Box 3, Docket No. 132; Hearings before the Mediation Branch of the Industrial Service Section of the Ordnance Department, May 23, 1918. Reprinted by the Manufacturers' Association of Bridgeport. Copy in National War Labor Board, Case Files, N.A., RG2, Box 19, Docket No. 132; telegram

      from Lavit to Kerwin (assistant to the Secretary of Labor), May 2, 1918, National War Labor Board, Case Files, N.A., RG2, Box 20, Docket No. 132; telegram from IAM Executive Board member Savage to Lavit, May 6, 1918, Box 20; May 4, 1918, memo, no author given, Box 21; Bridgeport Herald, May 5, 1918; Bridgeport Post, May 9, 11, 12, 1918; Manufacturers' Association of Bridgeport, Minutes, May 14, 1918.

45. Labor Leader, April 4, 1918.

46. Ibid., April 18, May 9, 16, 1918; statement by Fred Hewitt, National War Labor Board, Hearings, July 1, 1918, N.A., RG2, Box 3, Docket No. 132; Hearings before the Mediation Branch of the Industrial Service Section of the Ordnance Department, May 23, 1918. Reprinted by the Manufacturers' Association of Bridgeport. Copy in National War Labor Board, Case Files, N.A., RG2, Box 19, Docket No. 132; telegram

      from Lavit to Kerwin (assistant to the Secretary of Labor), May 2, 1918, National War Labor Board, Case Files, N.A., RG2, Box 20, Docket No. 132; telegram from IAM Executive Board member Savage to Lavit, May 6, 1918, Box 20; May 4, 1918, memo, no author given, Box 21; Bridgeport Herald, May 5, 1918; Bridgeport Post, May 9, 11, 12, 1918; Manufacturers' Association of Bridgeport, Minutes, May 14, 1918.

47. Testimony by Fred Hewitt, National War Labor Board, Hearings, July 1, 1918, N.A., RG2, Box 3, Docket No. 132.

48. Statement by Fred Hewitt, ibid.; Labor Leader, July 18, 1918.

47. Testimony by Fred Hewitt, National War Labor Board, Hearings, July 1, 1918, N.A., RG2, Box 3, Docket No. 132.

48. Statement by Fred Hewitt, ibid.; Labor Leader, July 18, 1918.

49. National War Labor Board, Case Files, N.A., RG2, Box 19, Docket No. 132. This characterization steers a middle course between David Montgomery and Cecelia Bucki. For Montgomery ( Workers' Control in America, pp. 129-130), events during the first half of 1918 are of a piece with the program of 1917; for Bucki ("Dilution and Craft Traditions," pp. 114, 117-118), they mark a decisive retreat to craft exclusiveness. The ambiguity of craft versus class policies is, in fact, clear even in the August program, with its proposals for quite conventional apprenticeship regulations. Demands in strikes from March through June do abandon semiskilled production workers (versus Montgomery's interpretation), but not specialists or women (versus Bucki's interpretation); and those to the NWLB once again included production operatives and un-skilled helpers.

50. National War Labor Board, Hearings, July 2, 1918, N.A., RG2, Box 3, Docket No. 132.

51. Testimony by Fred Hewitt, ibid., July 1, 1918.

52. Testimony by J. J. Keppler, ibid., July 2, 1918.

53. Testimony by Lavit, ibid.

54. Testimony by Lavit, ibid., July 5, 1918; and by Keppler, ibid., July 3, 1918.

55. E.g., Hewitt's response to William Wallace, ibid., July 1, 1918. See also the editorial reaction to NWLB decisions regarding classification in Bridgeport and elsewhere in MMJ, August 1918, p. 764.

50. National War Labor Board, Hearings, July 2, 1918, N.A., RG2, Box 3, Docket No. 132.

51. Testimony by Fred Hewitt, ibid., July 1, 1918.

52. Testimony by J. J. Keppler, ibid., July 2, 1918.

53. Testimony by Lavit, ibid.

54. Testimony by Lavit, ibid., July 5, 1918; and by Keppler, ibid., July 3, 1918.

55. E.g., Hewitt's response to William Wallace, ibid., July 1, 1918. See also the editorial reaction to NWLB decisions regarding classification in Bridgeport and elsewhere in MMJ, August 1918, p. 764.

50. National War Labor Board, Hearings, July 2, 1918, N.A., RG2, Box 3, Docket No. 132.

51. Testimony by Fred Hewitt, ibid., July 1, 1918.

52. Testimony by J. J. Keppler, ibid., July 2, 1918.

53. Testimony by Lavit, ibid.

54. Testimony by Lavit, ibid., July 5, 1918; and by Keppler, ibid., July 3, 1918.

55. E.g., Hewitt's response to William Wallace, ibid., July 1, 1918. See also the editorial reaction to NWLB decisions regarding classification in Bridgeport and elsewhere in MMJ, August 1918, p. 764.

50. National War Labor Board, Hearings, July 2, 1918, N.A., RG2, Box 3, Docket No. 132.

51. Testimony by Fred Hewitt, ibid., July 1, 1918.

52. Testimony by J. J. Keppler, ibid., July 2, 1918.

53. Testimony by Lavit, ibid.

54. Testimony by Lavit, ibid., July 5, 1918; and by Keppler, ibid., July 3, 1918.

55. E.g., Hewitt's response to William Wallace, ibid., July 1, 1918. See also the editorial reaction to NWLB decisions regarding classification in Bridgeport and elsewhere in MMJ, August 1918, p. 764.

50. National War Labor Board, Hearings, July 2, 1918, N.A., RG2, Box 3, Docket No. 132.

51. Testimony by Fred Hewitt, ibid., July 1, 1918.

52. Testimony by J. J. Keppler, ibid., July 2, 1918.

53. Testimony by Lavit, ibid.

54. Testimony by Lavit, ibid., July 5, 1918; and by Keppler, ibid., July 3, 1918.

55. E.g., Hewitt's response to William Wallace, ibid., July 1, 1918. See also the editorial reaction to NWLB decisions regarding classification in Bridgeport and elsewhere in MMJ, August 1918, p. 764.

50. National War Labor Board, Hearings, July 2, 1918, N.A., RG2, Box 3, Docket No. 132.

51. Testimony by Fred Hewitt, ibid., July 1, 1918.

52. Testimony by J. J. Keppler, ibid., July 2, 1918.

53. Testimony by Lavit, ibid.

54. Testimony by Lavit, ibid., July 5, 1918; and by Keppler, ibid., July 3, 1918.

55. E.g., Hewitt's response to William Wallace, ibid., July 1, 1918. See also the editorial reaction to NWLB decisions regarding classification in Bridgeport and elsewhere in MMJ, August 1918, p. 764.

56. Hearings before the Mediation Branch of the Industrial Service Section of the Ordnance Department, May 23, 1918.

57. The text of the NWLB's award is reprinted in MMJ, October 1918, pp. 915-918. For the disagreements within the NWLB, see the copies of proposed awards in National War Labor Board, Case Files, N.A., RG2, Box 19, Docket No. 132; minutes of executive session of the NWLB, August 16, 1918: Submission to Umpire, National War Labor Board, Case Files, N.A., RG2, Box 21, Docket No. 132.

58. On the strike, see Bridgeport Post, August 30-September 18, 1918; Bridgeport Herald, September 1, 8, 15, 1918; Labor Leader, September 5, 1918.

59. Bridgeport Herald, September 1, 1918.

60. Telegram from Isaac Russell (NWLB Field Representative) to Jett Lauck (NWLB Secretary), August 29, 1918, National War Labor Board, Case Files, N.A., RG2, Box 20, Docket No. 132.

61. Bridgeport Herald, September 8, 1918; Bridgeport Post, September 14, 1918.

62. Department of Labor, Records of the Conciliation Service, Series 33, File 1819, telegram from Agent Lane of the Department of Justice, Bureau of Investigation. See also Bridgeport Post, September 6, 1918.

63. Bridgeport Post, September 5, 10, 11, 12, 14, 1918.

64. Bridgeport Post, September 10-12, 1918; International News Service bulletin, September 14, 1918, quoted in Bridgeport Herald, September 15, 1918.

65. Labor Leader, September 19, 1918.

66. See, e.g., National Metal Trades Association, Report of the Committee on Works Councils in the Metal Trades (Chicago: NMTA, 1919); National Industrial Conference Board, Works Councils in the United States (Boston: NICB, 1919); National Industrial Conference Board, Experience with Works Councils in the United States (New York: The Century Co., 1922); and Carroll E. French, The Shop Committee in the United States (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1923).

67. Bridgeport Herald, March 23, 1919; George Hawley, "Bridgeport Employers Report Shop Committees Successful," New York Evening Post, April 22, 1920 (Hawley was the general manager of the Manufacturers' Association of Bridgeport). This was a feature of many government-sponsored representation schemes. See Bing, War-Time Strikes, p. 162. For Lavit's responses to the NWLB shop committee scheme, see telegram from Isaac Russell to Jett Lauck, September 4, 1918, National War Labor Board, Case Files, N.A., RG2, Box 20, Docket No. 132; Bridgeport Post, September 4, 1918; minutes of meeting of Local Board of Mediation and Conciliation, March 31, 1919, National War Labor Board, Case Files, N.A., RG2, Box 21, Docket No. 132.

68. Organization and By-Laws of Collective Bargaining Committees Instituted by the NWLB for Bridgeport, Connecticut. Copy in National War Labor Board, Case Files, N.A., RG2, Box 21, Docket No. 132.

69. Willard Aborn and William Shafer, "Representative Shop Committees: America's Industrial Roundtable," Industrial Management, July 1919, p. 29. Some examples of the issues raised by employee representatives, including the poor condition of floors or the need for an improved hot water supply, may be found in reports to the Bridgeport examiner from NWLB investigators of employee representation schemes instituted before NWLB elections. National War Labor Board, Case Files, N.A., RG2, Box 21, Docket No. 132.

70. Bridgeport Herald, September 29, 1918; Labor Leader, October 3, 1918.

71. Telegram from Lavit, Clydesdale, and Scollins to Jett Lauck, May 5, 1919; letter from Willard Aborn to W. D. Angelo (assistant chief administrator of the NWLB), May 12, 1919; telegram from Lauck to Lavit, May 6, 1919, all in National War Labor Board, Case Files, N.A., RG2, Box 21, Docket No. 132.

72. Bing, War-Time Strikes, p. 81.

73. Letter to the NWLB from Lavit, reprinted in Labor Leader, September 6, 1918.

74. Bridgeport Herald, March 23, 1919.

75. Hawley, "Bridgeport Employers."

76. Letter to the NWLB, reprinted in Labor Leader, September 26, 1918.

77. National Industrial Conference Board, Experience, pp. 17-18.

78. Manufacturers' Association of Bridgeport, Minutes, April 16, 1918.

79. National Industrial Conference Board, Works Councils, p. 10; Hawley, "Bridgeport Employers." See also Bureau of Industrial Research, American Shop Committee Plans (New York: Bureau of Industrial Research, 1919).

80. National Metal Trades Association, Report, p. 3; National Industrial Conference Board, Works Councils, p. 14; National Industrial Conference Board, Experience, p. 13; Don Lescohier and Elizabeth Brandeis, History of Labor in the United States, 1896-1932: Working Conditions and Labor Legislation (New York: Macmillan, 1935), pp. 349-350. Out of 225 employee representation plans surveyed by the NICB in 1919, 155 were in the metal trades (excluding iron and steel mills) and shipbuilding. National Industrial Conference Board, Works Councils, p. 14.

81. Manufacturers' Association of Bridgeport, Minutes, April 2, 1918.

82. Bridgeport Herald, December 19, 1915, November 19, 1916, January 7, 1917, February 24, 1918; Manufacturers' Association of Bridgeport, Minutes, March 3, 24, 1916, April 2, 16, 1918. Here, too, Bridgeport employers followed a national enthusiasm for company-sponsored welfare programs.

83. Exchange between Mr. Merritt and Mr. Edge (Locomobile factory manager), National War Labor Board, Hearings, July 17, 1918, N.A., RG2, Box 3, Docket No. 132.

84. The details of (and justifications for) these schemes are extensively documented in ibid., July 17-18, 1918. See also Bridgeport Post, May 13, 1916; Iron Age, May 25, 1916, p. 1274, July 25, 1918, pp. 204-206.

83. Exchange between Mr. Merritt and Mr. Edge (Locomobile factory manager), National War Labor Board, Hearings, July 17, 1918, N.A., RG2, Box 3, Docket No. 132.

84. The details of (and justifications for) these schemes are extensively documented in ibid., July 17-18, 1918. See also Bridgeport Post, May 13, 1916; Iron Age, May 25, 1916, p. 1274, July 25, 1918, pp. 204-206.

85. Manufacturers' Association of Bridgeport, Bulletin, March 17,

      1915, March 21, 1916, March 22, 1919; Manufacturers' Association of Bridgeport, Minutes, December 15, 1915, October 3, 1916; pamphlet entitled "Plan in Relation to Turnover, Production, and Plant Management, Etc.," Bridgeport Public Library, Accession 1977.25, Box 1; Iron Age, June 5, 1916.

86. New York Times, January 16, 1916, sec. 4; Iron Age, February 3, 1916; Manufacturers' Association of Bridgeport, Bulletin, March 3, 1916, June 7, 1918; Manufacturers' Association of Bridgeport, Minutes, April 2, 16, 1918; Bridgeport Herald, January 20, 1918. The prounion sympathies of some foremen made employers especially eager to relieve them of authority over hiring and firing. See "A.W. Reports," June 15, October 28, 1916.

87. A good review is Nelson, Managers and Workers, ch. 8. See also the collection of articles in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May 1916; Handling Men; Dwight T. Farnham, America vs. Europe in Industry: A Comparison of Industrial Policies and Methods of Management (New York: Ronald Press, 1921), pp. 319-331; National Metal Trades Association, Committee on Industrial Relations, Industrial Relations in the Metal Trades (Chicago: NMTA, 1929).

88. Manufacturers' Association of Bridgeport, Bulletin, September .19, 1921; Iron Age, May 3, 1923, p. 1300.

89. Labor Leader, March 14, 1918.

90. Examples include the Bullard Machine Tool Company ( American Machinist, May 27, 1920, pp. 1137-1138) and the Bridgeport Brass Company ( Iron Age, July 15, 1920, pp. 131-133).

91. Resolution approved at mass meeting, September 4, quoted in Labor Leader, September 5, 1918.

92. The worst of postwar unemployment would not hit until 1920. In March 1920, a sample of thirty-one firms surveyed by the manufacturers' association had an average weekly employment of 31,785. Because there were at least twice as many companies in the city (albeit of smaller average size), these employment figures do not appear dramatically lower than the wartime norm. By the end of November 1920, the same sample of firms employed only 21,475. Manufacturers' Association of Bridgeport, Bulletin, December 1, 1920.

93. Bridgeport Herald, December 29, 1918, January 5, 1919; Labor Leader, passim; Bucki, "Dilution and Craft Traditions," p. 119.

94. Labor Leader, July 24, 1919.

95. Information on the 1919 strikes is drawn from the Bridgeport Post, Bridgeport Herald, and Labor Leader .

96. Labor Leader, August 28, 1919; Bucki, "Dilution and Craft Traditions," pp. 119-120.

97. Bridgeport Post, July 25, 1919.

98. Bridgeport Post, August 6, 1919. See also Bridgeport Herald, August 3, 1919; Department of Labor, Records of the Conciliation Service, Series 170, File 649, N.A., RG280.

99. Bridgeport Post, July 24, 1919.

100. Hawley, "Bridgeport Employers"; Bridgeport Post, August 1, 2, 8, 13, 14, 1919; Labor Leader, August 7, 1919; Iron Age, July 15, 1920, p. 131; Department of Labor, Records of the Conciliation Service, Series 170, File 672, N.A., RG280.

101. Bridgeport Herald, September 8, 1918; American Machinist, May 27, 1920, p. 1137.

102. Bridgeport Herald, November 23, 1919.

103. Lavit's expulsion and subsequent conflicts over Lodge 30's charter are covered by the Labor Leader in almost every issue from August 7, 1919, until the paper's demise late in 1920. See also Bridgeport Post, August 10, 20, 1919; Bridgeport Herald, August 10, September 7, 28, 1919. The national view is in MMJ, September 1919, p. 853, October 1919, p. 953, April 1920, pp. 315-317.

104. Bridgeport Post, August 30, September 3-5, 1919.

105. Labor Leader, August 14, 1919, February 5, 1920; Perlman, The Machinists, p. 64.

106. Bridgeport Post, August 10, 1919.

107. Labor Leader, December 23, 1920.

108. Ibid., March 4, 18, 1920.

109. The AMWA at its peak had about eleven thousand members, mostly in New York City; most of those members were immigrant, semiskilled workers. Ibid., May 20, June 24, 1920. See also May 6, 1920, for the union's structure.

107. Labor Leader, December 23, 1920.

108. Ibid., March 4, 18, 1920.

109. The AMWA at its peak had about eleven thousand members, mostly in New York City; most of those members were immigrant, semiskilled workers. Ibid., May 20, June 24, 1920. See also May 6, 1920, for the union's structure.

107. Labor Leader, December 23, 1920.

108. Ibid., March 4, 18, 1920.

109. The AMWA at its peak had about eleven thousand members, mostly in New York City; most of those members were immigrant, semiskilled workers. Ibid., May 20, June 24, 1920. See also May 6, 1920, for the union's structure.

1. See p. 254, n. 87.

2. The following distinction loosely resembles that made by Andrew Friedman ( Industry and Labour ) between "responsible autonomy" and "direct control," although his emphasis is on strategies for maximizing production and minimizing labor troubles. The focus here is on the more specific goal of keeping factory politics within sectional and economistic bounds, an achievement compatible with output restriction, strikes, and so forth.

3. Chapter Three evaluates the divergence in British and U.S. labor relations.

4. For prewar railroad shops, see Chapter Four. For postwar conflicts and strategies, see Ronald Radosh, "Labor and the American Economy:

      The 1922 Railroad Shop Crafts Strike and the B & O Plan,''' in Building the Organizational Society, ed. Jerry Israel, pp. 73-87 (New York: Free Press, 1972).

5. The post-1901 NMTA definition of control problems reinforced the propensity of employers in the metal trades (as in other industries) to attribute strikes to outside agitators.

6. Aminzade, Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism, pp. xii-xiii.

7. Ibid., ch. 3-4.

8. In one overview of class formation in Toulouse (ibid., pp. 69-70), Aminzade does hint at this interpretation; his general model and historical analysis generally do not.

6. Aminzade, Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism, pp. xii-xiii.

7. Ibid., ch. 3-4.

8. In one overview of class formation in Toulouse (ibid., pp. 69-70), Aminzade does hint at this interpretation; his general model and historical analysis generally do not.

6. Aminzade, Class, Politics, and Early Industrial Capitalism, pp. xii-xiii.

7. Ibid., ch. 3-4.

8. In one overview of class formation in Toulouse (ibid., pp. 69-70), Aminzade does hint at this interpretation; his general model and historical analysis generally do not.

9. Foster, Class Struggle and the Industrial Revolution, ch. 3-4.

10. Katznelson, "Working-Class Formation and the State."

11. Naturally this division is also a simplification, the usefulness of which can be demonstrated only in practice.

12. The political conditions for sustaining rank-and-file movements for workers' control are emphasized by Antonio Gramsci, among others.