Advertisement

The Changing Patterns of Collective Bargaining in The United States

  • Theodore W. Kheel

Abstract

So spoke the AFL-CIO in its platform proposals to both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions in 1964.

Keywords

Technological Change Collective Bargaining Union Wage Monthly Labor Review Road Freight 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Platform Proposals of the AFL-CIO to the Republican and Democratic Conventions 1964 American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, Washington, D.C. (undated), p.4.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ibid. pp. 2–4.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paul Jacobs, Old Before Its Time: Collective Bargaining at 28 Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, Fund for the Republic, Inc., New York, 1963; A. H. Raskin, ‘The Obsolescent Unions’, Commentary July 1963, pp. 18–25.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Monthly Labor Review 1964, April, p. 498.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ‘Disputes Plan Shows Value of Mediation’, AFL-CIO News 1963, November 16; ‘AFL-CIO Adds 2 New Umpires’, The Machinist 1964, March 12.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Charles C. Killingsworth, ‘Cooperative Approaches to Problems of Technological Change’, Adjusting to Technological Change Industrial Relations Research Association, Publication No. 29, New York: Harper and Row, 1963, pp. 61, 76–79; A. H. Raskin, ‘Nonstop Talks Instead of Nonstop Strikes’, New York Times Magazine 1963, July 7, pp. 12, 30–31.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ‘Meany Warns of “ Curse” of Automation — Convention Urged to Awaken Nation’, AFL-CIO News 1963, November 16, pp. 1, 16.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. J. Hayes, ‘Impact of Automation on the American People’, address at the University of Portland, Portland, Oregon, October 31, 1963 (mimeo), pp. 10–11.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    ‘Background: American Foundation on Automation and Employment, Inc.’, New York, 1963 (mimeo), p. 2.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Very Rev. Charles Owen Rice, ‘We Need Featherbedding in the United States’, U.S. Catholic 1964, January, excerpts quoted in AFL-CIO News 1964, February 1.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paul Jacobs, Dead Horse and the Featherbird Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, Fund for the Republic, Inc., 1962, pp. 4, 16–20.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Opinion of the Neutral Members of the Arbitration Board Established by Joint Resolution of Congress, Approved August 28, 1963, Public Law 88–108 and National Mediation Arbitration Board No. 282 (mimeo), p. 10.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ibid. pp. 25–26.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Addendum ‘B’, Memorandum for the Preservation of Job Opportunities and Working Conditions, to the Standard Form of Union Agreement, Sheet Metal Contracting Division of the Construction Industry between Local Union No. 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association of Greater New York and the Sheet Metal Contractors Association of New York City, Inc., and Mechanical Contractors Association of New York, effective August 29, 1960, p. 21.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ‘UMW Seeks Job Security, Safety’, Business Week 1964, January 4, p. 68.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Felician F. Foltman, ‘Apprenticeship and Skill Training — A Trial Balance’, Monthly Labor Review 1964, January, p. 29.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    John D. Pomfret, ‘Rail Accord Lifts Hopes on Labor Negotiations’, New York Times 1964, April 26.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    William E. Blundell, ‘Labor and Automation — Oil Union Finds Strikes Often Are Ineffective at Automated Plants’, Wall Street Journal 1962, January 19, p. 1; ` Strikes and Automation’, New York Times editorial on the settlement of the year-long strike of 2200 workers at a Shell Oil Company refinery and chemical plant in Houston, 1963, August 12; Union with Tomorrow’s Problems — Communication Workers of America’, Business Week 1964, February 29, p. 98.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Directory of National and International Labor Unions in the United States Bulletin No. 1395, U.S. Department of Labor, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1963, p. 52.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tougher Work Rules Save 600 Jobs’, Business Week 1964, February 29, p. 102.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Herbert Bienstock, ‘The Economic Climate for Collective Bargaining, Mid-1963’, address before the Sixteenth Annual Conference on Labor sponsored by the New York University Institute of Labor Relations, 1963, June 11, (mimeo), pp. 7–8.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. J. Hayes, ‘Why Labor Supports the 35-Hour Week’, statement before the Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, quoted in The Machinist 1964, February 27, p. 8.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Manpower Report of the President and a Report on Manpower Requirements, Resources, Utilization and Training by the United States Department of Labor Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., March 1964, p. 19.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Marcia L. Greenbaum, ‘What Kind of Workweek Do Workers Want?’, Current 1964, March, pp. 51–52 (excerpts from a monograph, The Shorter Workweek issued by the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1963).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    ‘Overtime Crackdown: Rx for Unemployment?’ Business Week 1964, January 18.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Theodore W. Kheel, ‘How the 25-Hour Week has Worked’, Jobs, Men and Machines — Problems of Automation New York, Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., 1964, pp. 100–6.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ewan Clague, ‘The Shorter Workweek — Factual Background’, address before the Second Annual Labor-Management Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, May 10, 1963 (mimeo), p. 5.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Derek Bok, ‘Automation, Productivity and Manpower Problems’, President’s Advisory Committee on Labor-Management Policy, Washington, D.C., March 7, 1964 (mimeo), p. 19.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ibid. Appendix B, ‘Methods of Adjusting to Technological Change’, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    ‘Kaiser Plan: Results to Date Good, Tests Still Ahead’, Steel 1964, February 17, p. 27; Recent Collective Bargaining and Technological Change BLS Report No. 266, U.S. Department of Labor, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., March 1964, p. 3.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ibid. pp. 12–13.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    David R. Jones, ‘Detroit Teachers Back Federation’, New York Times 1964, May 11.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Labor, Business Week 1964, February 22.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Labor, Business Week 1964, February 1.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    New York Times 1964, March 29.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    John D. Pomfret, ‘Wirtz Says More Jobs Are Vital to Labor-Management Peace’, New York Times 1963, September 28, p. 1.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Technological Trends in 36 Major American Industries U.S. Department of Labor, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., April 1964, Preface.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Institute for Labour Studies 1966

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theodore W. Kheel

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations