Whose Work Counts? Congressional Republicans and the Battle over Employment Status, 1947–48

IF 0.5 3区 社会学 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE Studies in American Political Development Pub Date : 2023-03-09 DOI:10.1017/S0898588X22000256
Eva Bertram
{"title":"Whose Work Counts? Congressional Republicans and the Battle over Employment Status, 1947–48","authors":"Eva Bertram","doi":"10.1017/S0898588X22000256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Conflicts over the employment status of Uber, Lyft, and other gig workers have made headlines in recent years. I argue that the conditions facing these workers and other independent contractors today are in many respects the result of policy decisions made seventy-five years ago, in hard-fought battles over which workers would—and which would not—be protected by New Deal social programs and labor laws for employees. In 1947–48, New Deal Democrats were poised to establish a more expansive definition of “employee,” extending eligibility to a range of workers excluded by more restrictive common law standards. The Republican-led 80th Congress thwarted the attempt to expand coverage, however, by blocking administrative initiatives, reversing court rulings, and redefining employment-based eligibility for federal labor and social protections. Their actions redirected policy on employment relations, restricting the reach of New Deal protections in the post–WWII economy and shaping the terms of subsequent conflicts over employment status in ways that have left broad power and discretion in the hands of employers.","PeriodicalId":45195,"journal":{"name":"Studies in American Political Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in American Political Development","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898588X22000256","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Conflicts over the employment status of Uber, Lyft, and other gig workers have made headlines in recent years. I argue that the conditions facing these workers and other independent contractors today are in many respects the result of policy decisions made seventy-five years ago, in hard-fought battles over which workers would—and which would not—be protected by New Deal social programs and labor laws for employees. In 1947–48, New Deal Democrats were poised to establish a more expansive definition of “employee,” extending eligibility to a range of workers excluded by more restrictive common law standards. The Republican-led 80th Congress thwarted the attempt to expand coverage, however, by blocking administrative initiatives, reversing court rulings, and redefining employment-based eligibility for federal labor and social protections. Their actions redirected policy on employment relations, restricting the reach of New Deal protections in the post–WWII economy and shaping the terms of subsequent conflicts over employment status in ways that have left broad power and discretion in the hands of employers.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
谁的工作有价值?国会共和党人与就业状况之争,1947-48年
摘要近年来,围绕优步、Lyft和其他零工工人就业状况的冲突成为头条新闻。我认为,这些工人和其他独立承包商今天面临的条件在很多方面都是75年前做出的政策决定的结果,在关于哪些工人会——哪些不会——受到新政社会计划和员工劳动法保护的激烈斗争中。1947年至48年,新政民主党人准备建立一个更广泛的“雇员”定义,将资格扩大到被更严格的普通法标准排除在外的一系列工人。然而,共和党领导的第80届国会通过阻止行政举措、推翻法院裁决以及重新定义基于就业的联邦劳工和社会保护资格,挫败了扩大覆盖范围的尝试。他们的行动改变了就业关系政策,限制了新政在二战后经济中的保护范围,并以将广泛的权力和自由裁量权交给雇主的方式塑造了随后就业地位冲突的条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Studies in American Political Development (SAPD) publishes scholarship on political change and institutional development in the United States from a variety of theoretical viewpoints. Articles focus on governmental institutions over time and on their social, economic and cultural setting. In-depth presentation in a longer format allows contributors to elaborate on the complex patterns of state-society relations. SAPD encourages an interdisciplinary approach and recognizes the value of comparative perspectives.
期刊最新文献
Old Patronage during the New Deal: Did Urban Machines Use Work Relief Programs to Benefit the National Democratic Party? Old Patronage during the New Deal: Did Urban Machines Use Work Relief Programs to Benefit the National Democratic Party? “100,000 Unarmed Men in Washington”: Public Opinion and the 1876 Election Compromise The March on Washington Movement, the Fair Employment Practices Committee, and the Long Quest for Racial Justice Immigration Clashes, Party Polarization, and Republican Radicalization: Tracking Shifts in State and National Party Platforms since 1980
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1