Labour History
Class dismissed?

The 'institutional' approach to labour history, associated with the Webbs and the Oxford school, focuses primarily on the development of institutions such as the trade unions and collective bargaining. Postwar social historians, on the other hand, have increasingly sought to redefine labour history as the social history of the working class, often but not always understood in a Marxian sense.

In Discussion Paper No. 145, Research Fellow Jonathan Zeitlin argues that, despite their deep-seated differences, both the institutionalists and the social historians analyse labour history by reference to the 'objective interests' of social groups, generated by the wider structure of modern society. Zeitlin argues that the definition of labour history as the history of the labour movement rests on a fixed identification of trade unions and labour politics with the broader working class, which is no longer tenable. Nor can labour history plausibly be viewed as the social history of the working class, whose 'objective interests' are presumed to conflict with those of their employers. In practice, the degree of cooperation or of conflict between workers and employers cannot be determined solely by underlying economic trends.

Zeitlin advances an alternative conception of labour history as the history of industrial relations. He argues that workplace relations in late-nineteenth and twentieth-century Britain were shaped less by spontaneous social and economic processes than by institutional forces. These include trade unions, shop stewards' committees, companies, employers' associations and the state, as well as the rules and procedures governing their interaction, such as collective agreements, conciliation and arbitration boards, wages councils and legislation.

Reviewing the literature on trade unions and job control, Zeitlin argues that institutional controls enforced by national trade unions and shop stewards' organizations have been the key constraint on managerial prerogatives since the late nineteenth century. Employers' failure to exercise direct control over the production process is also attributable in part to the limited development of managerial hierarchies and the weakness of employers' associations.

According to Zeitlin, both theory and empirical research suggest that institutional forces have dominated industrial relations in Britain. Many comparisons suggest that international differences in industrial relations can be attributed not to variations in social and economic structure, but to historical divergences in the development, organization and strategies of trade unions, employers and the state. It is often the weakness rather than the strength of institutions which is important, as in the case of employers' associations. The unintended rather than the deliberate consequences of state policies may also affect these historical divergences. In each case, however, the institutional approach is fundamental. Social relationships in the workplace, as in the family and wider community, are largely shaped by the operation of formal institutions, which are not determined exclusively by the 'objective interests' of pre- existing social groups.


From Labour History to the History of Industrial Relations
Jonathan Zeitlin

Discussion Paper No. 145, December 1986 (HR)