Pub Date : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.1215/15476715-9061661
T. Carroll
{"title":"They Didn't See Us Coming: The Hidden History of Feminism in the Nineties","authors":"T. Carroll","doi":"10.1215/15476715-9061661","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/15476715-9061661","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45843,"journal":{"name":"Labour-England","volume":"18 1","pages":"169-170"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47845249","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
| Labour. 2021;35:214–263. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/labr The gap between male and female labor force participation (LFP) in the United States is largely driven by the low participation rate of women who have children. For example, based on American Community Survey data, at age thirty the difference in LFP between women with and without children is about 80% of the 9% points gap between male and female.1 Figure 1 shows that this difference exists in other age ranges as well. Survey evidence attributes the low LFP of mothers to the high opportunity costs of working, and the need to find alternative arrangements for their children while they are at work.2 What portion of the DOI: 10.1111/labr.12195
[j] .劳工。2021;35:214-263。wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/labr美国男女劳动力参与率(LFP)的差距很大程度上是由育有子女的女性参与率低造成的。例如，根据美国社区调查(American Community Survey)的数据，在30岁时，有孩子和没有孩子的女性之间的LFP差异约为男性和女性之间9%差距的80%图1显示了在其他年龄范围中也存在这种差异。调查证据将母亲的低LFP归因于工作的高机会成本，以及在工作期间需要为孩子寻找其他安排DOI: 10.1111/lab .12195的哪一部分
{"title":"Public kindergarten, maternal labor supply, and earnings in the longer run: Too little too late?","authors":"Emilia Soldani","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3504734","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3504734","url":null,"abstract":"| Labour. 2021;35:214–263. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/labr The gap between male and female labor force participation (LFP) in the United States is largely driven by the low participation rate of women who have children. For example, based on American Community Survey data, at age thirty the difference in LFP between women with and without children is about 80% of the 9% points gap between male and female.1 Figure 1 shows that this difference exists in other age ranges as well. Survey evidence attributes the low LFP of mothers to the high opportunity costs of working, and the need to find alternative arrangements for their children while they are at work.2 What portion of the DOI: 10.1111/labr.12195","PeriodicalId":45843,"journal":{"name":"Labour-England","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48875389","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-01DOI: 10.1215/15476715-8849400
J. Guard
{"title":"Magnificent Fight: The 1919 Winnipeg General StrikeDirect Action Gets the Goods: A Graphic History of the Strike in Canada1919: A Graphic History of the Winnipeg General Strike","authors":"J. Guard","doi":"10.1215/15476715-8849400","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/15476715-8849400","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45843,"journal":{"name":"Labour-England","volume":"18 1","pages":"124-127"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47601597","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-01DOI: 10.1215/15476715-8767314
Lauren Braun-Strumfels
While the 1891 and 1893 Immigration Acts established inspection protocols that remained in place for decades, less is known about how US agents initially translated gatekeeping laws into the durable policy directives that had a profound effect on the migration of working-class people. Before the “qualitative” restriction of specific racial, social, and economic conditions transitioned to a period of “quantitative” or enumerated exclusion by the 1920s, the US government had to establish a structure to carry out the work of exclusion, but this early era of qualitative gatekeeping is less understood. Italian encounters with federal agents at Ellis Island show how the 1891 and 1893 laws empowered the administrative state to carry out the work of exclusion shadowed by the banality of bureaucratic decision-making. The records of the short-lived Office of Labor Information and Protection for Italians (1894–99), the only outpost of a foreign government allowed to operate in the main processing building on Ellis Island, offers a rare snapshot of the gatekeeping process in its crucial early years. Given that Italians were the single largest ethnic group to be processed at Ellis Island over its sixty-two-year history and the primary target of inspectors in the station’s first decade, their experiences with bureaucratic exclusion illuminate how the United States moved to systematically control working-class migration.
尽管1891年和1893年的《移民法》确立了检查协议，并在几十年的时间里一直有效，但人们对美国特工最初是如何将把关法转化为对工人阶级移民产生深远影响的持久政策指令的，却知之甚少。到20世纪20年代，在对特定种族、社会和经济条件的“定性”限制过渡到“定量”或枚举的排斥时期之前，美国政府不得不建立一种结构来开展排斥工作，但这种早期的定性把关却鲜为人知。意大利人在埃利斯岛与联邦探员的遭遇表明，1891年和1893年的法律如何赋予行政国家权力，使其能够在官僚决策的平庸阴影下开展排除工作。意大利劳工信息和保护办公室(Office of Labor Information and Protection for italy, 1894 - 1899)是唯一一个获准在埃利斯岛的主要处理大楼里运作的外国政府前哨，其记录为关键的早期守门过程提供了罕见的快照。考虑到意大利人是埃利斯岛62年历史上被处理的最大种族群体，也是该站头十年检查员的主要目标，他们被官僚排斥的经历说明了美国是如何系统地控制工人阶级移民的。
{"title":"Binational Gatekeepers","authors":"Lauren Braun-Strumfels","doi":"10.1215/15476715-8767314","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/15476715-8767314","url":null,"abstract":"While the 1891 and 1893 Immigration Acts established inspection protocols that remained in place for decades, less is known about how US agents initially translated gatekeeping laws into the durable policy directives that had a profound effect on the migration of working-class people. Before the “qualitative” restriction of specific racial, social, and economic conditions transitioned to a period of “quantitative” or enumerated exclusion by the 1920s, the US government had to establish a structure to carry out the work of exclusion, but this early era of qualitative gatekeeping is less understood. Italian encounters with federal agents at Ellis Island show how the 1891 and 1893 laws empowered the administrative state to carry out the work of exclusion shadowed by the banality of bureaucratic decision-making. The records of the short-lived Office of Labor Information and Protection for Italians (1894–99), the only outpost of a foreign government allowed to operate in the main processing building on Ellis Island, offers a rare snapshot of the gatekeeping process in its crucial early years. Given that Italians were the single largest ethnic group to be processed at Ellis Island over its sixty-two-year history and the primary target of inspectors in the station’s first decade, their experiences with bureaucratic exclusion illuminate how the United States moved to systematically control working-class migration.","PeriodicalId":45843,"journal":{"name":"Labour-England","volume":"18 1","pages":"10-37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47168015","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-01DOI: 10.1215/15476715-8767350
Charles Fanning, N. Piper
This article discusses the roots of the current governance system of global migration in relation to labor mobility from a critical policy and historical perspectives, by assessing the current state of global migration governance and key protection gaps regarding migrant workers, to then consider future avenues for research and advocacy to forward migrants’ human and labor rights. In the authors’ analysis of global migration governance, they center the historic and contemporary role of the International Labor Organization, whose social justice mandate and body of international labor standards extend to migrant and nonmigrant workers, and its shifting position within the international system. The authors argue that shifting geopolitical concerns and competing institutional mandates within the international system have been obstacles to advancing a rights-based approach to the global regulation of labor migration. Nevertheless, they find that the current institutional and political environment may provide opportunities for enhanced cooperation and action at the global level to empower migrant workers.
{"title":"Global Labor Migration","authors":"Charles Fanning, N. Piper","doi":"10.1215/15476715-8767350","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/15476715-8767350","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the roots of the current governance system of global migration in relation to labor mobility from a critical policy and historical perspectives, by assessing the current state of global migration governance and key protection gaps regarding migrant workers, to then consider future avenues for research and advocacy to forward migrants’ human and labor rights. In the authors’ analysis of global migration governance, they center the historic and contemporary role of the International Labor Organization, whose social justice mandate and body of international labor standards extend to migrant and nonmigrant workers, and its shifting position within the international system. The authors argue that shifting geopolitical concerns and competing institutional mandates within the international system have been obstacles to advancing a rights-based approach to the global regulation of labor migration. Nevertheless, they find that the current institutional and political environment may provide opportunities for enhanced cooperation and action at the global level to empower migrant workers.","PeriodicalId":45843,"journal":{"name":"Labour-England","volume":"18 1","pages":"67-86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45164768","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-01DOI: 10.1215/15476715-8767338
Adam Goodman
When long-term Chicago resident and World War II veteran Rodolfo Lozoya traveled to Mexico in 1957 to visit his ailing mother, he probably did not think that he would face the threat of permanent separation from his US citizen wife and children. But when he tried to reenter the United States, authorities excluded him from the country because of his alleged past membership in the Communist Party. The saga of Lozoya’s exclusion and his family’s separation offer insights into the hypocritical nature of democracy in Cold War America. The case also sheds light on the intertwined lives of citizens and noncitizens, and how immigrant rights groups such as the Midwest Committee for Protection of Foreign Born mobilized to defend people from exclusion and deportation under the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952. Federal censors’ decision to withhold materials on Lozoya more than fifty-five years later, and thirty years after his death, points to the enduring legacy of the Cold War and to the pervasive fear of radical politics in the twenty-first century.
{"title":"Barring the Gates","authors":"Adam Goodman","doi":"10.1215/15476715-8767338","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/15476715-8767338","url":null,"abstract":"When long-term Chicago resident and World War II veteran Rodolfo Lozoya traveled to Mexico in 1957 to visit his ailing mother, he probably did not think that he would face the threat of permanent separation from his US citizen wife and children. But when he tried to reenter the United States, authorities excluded him from the country because of his alleged past membership in the Communist Party. The saga of Lozoya’s exclusion and his family’s separation offer insights into the hypocritical nature of democracy in Cold War America. The case also sheds light on the intertwined lives of citizens and noncitizens, and how immigrant rights groups such as the Midwest Committee for Protection of Foreign Born mobilized to defend people from exclusion and deportation under the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952. Federal censors’ decision to withhold materials on Lozoya more than fifty-five years later, and thirty years after his death, points to the enduring legacy of the Cold War and to the pervasive fear of radical politics in the twenty-first century.","PeriodicalId":45843,"journal":{"name":"Labour-England","volume":"18 1","pages":"54-66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49651651","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1215/15476715-8643472
Michael K. Honey
This article provides an overview of Norwegian labor history and social democracy, which challenges American capitalism and the labor movement to consider Martin Luther King, Jr.’s call for a “third way,” a more humane system mixing highly regulated and taxed capitalism with a strong social system powered by strong unions and a truce between workers and capitalists. The Nordic model flies in the face of American avaricious capitalism and challenges us to consider how a better society might exist even within capitalism. The author, a specialist in southern labor and civil rights history and Martin Luther King studies, urges historians to explore Norwegian and Scandinavian labor history and social democracy to see what it can teach us.
{"title":"Norway’s Democratic Challenge","authors":"Michael K. Honey","doi":"10.1215/15476715-8643472","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/15476715-8643472","url":null,"abstract":"This article provides an overview of Norwegian labor history and social democracy, which challenges American capitalism and the labor movement to consider Martin Luther King, Jr.’s call for a “third way,” a more humane system mixing highly regulated and taxed capitalism with a strong social system powered by strong unions and a truce between workers and capitalists. The Nordic model flies in the face of American avaricious capitalism and challenges us to consider how a better society might exist even within capitalism. The author, a specialist in southern labor and civil rights history and Martin Luther King studies, urges historians to explore Norwegian and Scandinavian labor history and social democracy to see what it can teach us.","PeriodicalId":45843,"journal":{"name":"Labour-England","volume":"17 1","pages":"34-62"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45176885","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1215/15476715-8643460
Elizabeth Faue, Josiah Rector
This article examines a series of Service Employees’ International Union (SEIU) campaigns for protection from needlestick injuries, led by women health-care workers, from the dawn of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the 1980s through battles over the 1992 OSHA standard on blood-borne pathogens and the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act of 2000. We argue that these campaigns developed in response to the growing physical precarity of women health-care workers in the era of “managed care,” caused by the intensification and flexibilization of health-care labor and the deregulation and underfunding of OSHA and the CDC. We show how women workers challenged employers, OSHA, and elected federal officials to address workplace health hazards, through unions like SEIU and women’s, gay rights, and public health organizations. More broadly, we argue that the occupational hazards of health-care workers are a crucial but underexplored facet of workplace studies and the history of women workers in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.
{"title":"The Precarious Work of Care","authors":"Elizabeth Faue, Josiah Rector","doi":"10.1215/15476715-8643460","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/15476715-8643460","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines a series of Service Employees’ International Union (SEIU) campaigns for protection from needlestick injuries, led by women health-care workers, from the dawn of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the 1980s through battles over the 1992 OSHA standard on blood-borne pathogens and the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act of 2000. We argue that these campaigns developed in response to the growing physical precarity of women health-care workers in the era of “managed care,” caused by the intensification and flexibilization of health-care labor and the deregulation and underfunding of OSHA and the CDC. We show how women workers challenged employers, OSHA, and elected federal officials to address workplace health hazards, through unions like SEIU and women’s, gay rights, and public health organizations. More broadly, we argue that the occupational hazards of health-care workers are a crucial but underexplored facet of workplace studies and the history of women workers in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.","PeriodicalId":45843,"journal":{"name":"Labour-England","volume":"17 1","pages":"9-33"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46687374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1215/15476715-8643484
E. Boris
These are powerful accounts of starting from home and coming to labor history Emma Amador, Max Fraser, Naomi R Williams, and Stacey L Smith underscore the living pasts of a field once pronounced as dead that increasingly has become as central to the historical project as the invisibilized working class that has emerged as essential during the COVID-19 pandemic In recounting the origins of their research, these new voices reinforce the link between scholarship and social commentary in ways that further extend the boundaries of the field Originally presented during the 2019 LAWCHA conference at a session organized by this journal, these personal narratives share major themes They show a continual expansion of the subject of labor history, providing fresh perspectives on who counts as working class and what constitutes work They belong to a larger trend of scrambling categories at
这些都是关于从家开始进入劳动史的有力描述Emma Amador、Max Fraser、Naomi R Williams，史黛西·L·史密斯（Stacey L Smith）强调了一个曾经被宣布为死亡的领域的生活史，这个领域越来越成为历史项目的核心，就像在新冠肺炎大流行期间出现的隐形工人阶级一样，这些新的声音加强了学术和社会评论之间的联系，从而进一步扩展了该领域的边界。这些个人叙事最初是在2019年LAWCHA会议上由本杂志组织的一次会议上提出的，它们有着共同的主题。它们显示了劳动史主题的不断扩展，为谁是工人阶级以及什么构成工作提供了新的视角他们属于一个更大的混乱类别的趋势
{"title":"Starting from Home","authors":"E. Boris","doi":"10.1215/15476715-8643484","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/15476715-8643484","url":null,"abstract":"These are powerful accounts of starting from home and coming to labor history Emma Amador, Max Fraser, Naomi R Williams, and Stacey L Smith underscore the living pasts of a field once pronounced as dead that increasingly has become as central to the historical project as the invisibilized working class that has emerged as essential during the COVID-19 pandemic In recounting the origins of their research, these new voices reinforce the link between scholarship and social commentary in ways that further extend the boundaries of the field Originally presented during the 2019 LAWCHA conference at a session organized by this journal, these personal narratives share major themes They show a continual expansion of the subject of labor history, providing fresh perspectives on who counts as working class and what constitutes work They belong to a larger trend of scrambling categories at","PeriodicalId":45843,"journal":{"name":"Labour-England","volume":"17 1","pages":"63-64"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47340808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：