《1927年贸易争端和工会法》重新考虑

Q2 Arts and Humanities Historical Studies in Industrial Relations Pub Date : 2016-09-26 DOI:10.3828/HSIR.2016.37.2
A. Williamson
{"title":"《1927年贸易争端和工会法》重新考虑","authors":"A. Williamson","doi":"10.3828/HSIR.2016.37.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927, passed by Stanley Baldwin’s Conservative government after the General Strike, has been regarded as ‘more of an insult than an injury’. This article challenges such an interpretation, suggesting that the Act was draconian in conception and (to an extent) in execution. It represented a break with the industrial relations legal settlement which had been painstakingly arrived at by the 1920s. The pressures to unravel this settlement came much more from within the Conservative Party than as a result of the Strike, and saw Conservative moderates marginalized. For Labour and the trade unions, the Act demonstrated ‘deliberate class bias’ and they worked tirelessly for its repeal, eventually achieved by the Attlee government in 1946. The effects of the Act were more limited than expected but this was more the product of circumstances than intentions. The 1927 Act fits comfortably within an enduring pattern of Conservative distrust of the unions, the manifestations of w...","PeriodicalId":36746,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations","volume":"37 1","pages":"33-82"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927 Reconsidered\",\"authors\":\"A. Williamson\",\"doi\":\"10.3828/HSIR.2016.37.2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927, passed by Stanley Baldwin’s Conservative government after the General Strike, has been regarded as ‘more of an insult than an injury’. This article challenges such an interpretation, suggesting that the Act was draconian in conception and (to an extent) in execution. It represented a break with the industrial relations legal settlement which had been painstakingly arrived at by the 1920s. The pressures to unravel this settlement came much more from within the Conservative Party than as a result of the Strike, and saw Conservative moderates marginalized. For Labour and the trade unions, the Act demonstrated ‘deliberate class bias’ and they worked tirelessly for its repeal, eventually achieved by the Attlee government in 1946. The effects of the Act were more limited than expected but this was more the product of circumstances than intentions. The 1927 Act fits comfortably within an enduring pattern of Conservative distrust of the unions, the manifestations of w...\",\"PeriodicalId\":36746,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"33-82\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3828/HSIR.2016.37.2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historical Studies in Industrial Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3828/HSIR.2016.37.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

总罢工后,斯坦利·鲍德温领导的保守党政府通过了《1927年贸易纠纷和工会法案》,该法案被认为是“与其说是伤害,不如说是侮辱”。本文对这种解释提出了挑战,认为该法案在概念上和(在某种程度上)执行上都是严厉的。它代表了与劳资关系法律解决方案的决裂,劳资关系法律解决方案是在20世纪20年代辛辛苦苦达成的。破坏这一协议的压力更多地来自保守党内部,而不是罢工的结果,保守党温和派被边缘化。对于工党和工会来说,该法案显示了“蓄意的阶级偏见”,他们不知疲倦地为废除该法案而努力,最终在1946年由艾德礼政府实现。该法案的效果比预期的更有限,但这更多是环境而不是意图的产物。1927年的法案完全符合保守党对工会不信任的长期模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927 Reconsidered
The Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927, passed by Stanley Baldwin’s Conservative government after the General Strike, has been regarded as ‘more of an insult than an injury’. This article challenges such an interpretation, suggesting that the Act was draconian in conception and (to an extent) in execution. It represented a break with the industrial relations legal settlement which had been painstakingly arrived at by the 1920s. The pressures to unravel this settlement came much more from within the Conservative Party than as a result of the Strike, and saw Conservative moderates marginalized. For Labour and the trade unions, the Act demonstrated ‘deliberate class bias’ and they worked tirelessly for its repeal, eventually achieved by the Attlee government in 1946. The effects of the Act were more limited than expected but this was more the product of circumstances than intentions. The 1927 Act fits comfortably within an enduring pattern of Conservative distrust of the unions, the manifestations of w...
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Historical Studies in Industrial Relations
Historical Studies in Industrial Relations Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
George Bain and Memories of the Bullock Committee on Industrial Democracy The British Printers’ 40-Hour-Week Strike of 1959: Background, Dispute, and Aftermath Canteen Workers’ Wages and Collective-Bargaining Arrangements in British Coal Undermining the ‘Polder Model’: Workers’ Militancy and Trade-Union Leadership in Four Dutch Wildcat Strikes, 1963–1970 Reflections on the Committee of Inquiry on Industrial Democracy, 1975–1977, Chaired by Alan Bullock
×
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