The New York Times, July 26, 1987, section 3, p. 2). More generally, unions are seen as sabotaging direct cooperation between employees and management for fear of being cut out of industrial relations altogether. The ideal of flexibility is turned against unions in another way. Much as the Democratic Party is the party of big government, bureaucratic regulation, and red tape, so unions are the source of rigidity in workplace governance. In a remarkable fit of historical amnesia, managers attribute narrowly defined job categories, due process employment protections, and formalized grievance procedures to union demands. Contractual regulation of labor relations is incompatible with flexibility; the flexible workplace, accordingly, must be union free (Amberg 1991; Kaus 1983). “A web of rules,” Kaus argues, “is often the enemy of economic progress. . . . It was only by defeating the skilled workers at Homestead, alas, that Andrew Carnegie was able to introduce the technology that . . . made American steel manufacturers the most efficient in the world.”
These comparisons between the late 19th and 20th centuries are merely suggestive. A self-standing study of capitalist class formation and the labor process today would require a closer look at the social networks and collective identities through which political movements and the workplace interact. It seems clear, however, that changes in capitalist class solidarities and political alignments remain relevant to employer ideology and practice within the factory gates. Conclusion Students of the capitalist labor process need to pay more attention to capitalists, the better to understand the labor process. We have long since abandoned the theoretical fiction that a worker's consciousness can be inferred from his or her place in relations of production. Employers deserve the same courtesy. Their policies at work are not structurally determined in detail, either by competitive pressures or by some essentialized capital-labor conflict. Employer policies also reflect their definitions of "the labor problem" and their understanding of what options are available to deal with it. Those definitions and perceptions, in turn, are mediated by employers' social ties and collective identities. Although these ties and identities are forged largely outside the workplace, they have direct implications for the inner sanctum of the labor process.
The parallels in identities and discourse between polity and workplace that I have illustrated here are not what either Marxist or liberal sociologists would lead us to expect. Both have long argued that a separation of political and economic authority helped sustain capitalist democracy. The legal and ideological walls between polity and economy kept democratic states from attacking the power of capital and kept citizens -- in their 9 to 5 roles as wage labor -- from invoking democratic rights on the job. Historians have traced the construction of these walls in labor laws (such as legal doctrines of conspiracy and liability [Tomlins 1993]) and in statutes of incorporation (whereby socialized capital freed itself from public control [Roy 1997]). A closer look at the late 19th and 20th centuries, however, suggests that in other respects the boundary between authority at work and in politics is quite porous. In both periods, ideals of efficiency held up as goals for managers or justifications for management practices drew on ideals of government reform. And in both cases, those ideals may be traced to broader political and class realignments. If movements for municipal reform or deregulation did not cause employers to advance new agendas for workplace governance, they at least created opportunities for employers to publicly legitimate their authority in new ways.
Whether in the late 20th or the late 19th century, those tools for legitimation have also served as weapons against labor. Looking back to the period examined most closely here, the grounds on which employers forged more encompassing identities, and the lines along which they distinguished themselves from employees, put craft control at odds with the rights of individual employers and the interests of the business community. This paper stressed how class realignments in industrial cities generally fostered a redefinition of interests and solidarities. That influence also ran in the opposite direction: a new rhetoric of management prerogatives and freedom from outside interference provided a common rallying cry for employers otherwise divided by competition and industrial setting. In this way, redefined interests also enhanced collective capacities. The collective lives of capitalists thus matter a great deal more than the literature on the labor process would suggest.
I should emphasize again that proprietors and managers had many and varied incentives for repudiating craft regulation and union representation. The relative weight of employer class formation and of economic constraints impinging on individual employers is neither fixed nor quantifiable. At the very least, however, the ways in which class formation reconstructed interests and identities accounts for most of the language and much of the vehemence with which employers mounted their offensive. The importance of anti-unionism to American employers' identities and collective organization, in turn, may help explain why alternative approaches to regulating production and representing workers were adopted, if at all, only grudgingly and as a last resort. In this respect, at least, the differences in political and managerial rhetoric between the 1890s and 1990s are less striking than the continuities. NOTES
REFERENCES Akard, Patrick J. 1992. "Corporate Mobilization and Political Power: The Transformation of U.S. Economic Policy in the 1970s." American Sociological Review 57(5), October:597-615.
Amberg, Stephen. 1991. "Democratic Producerism: Enlisting American Politics for Workplace Flexibility." Economy and Society 20(1), February:57-78.
Appelbaum, Eileen, and Rosemary Batt. 1994. The New American Workplace: Transforming Work Systems in the United States. Ithaca: ILR Press.
Baldoz, Rick. 1998. "Filipino Migrant Workers in the United States: Incorporation, Class Formation and the State c. 1908-1970." Proceedings of the Conference on “Work, Difference and Social Change: Two Decades After Braverman’s Labor and Monopoly Capital” May 8-10, 1998:4-17.
Baltzell, E. Digby. 1964. The Protestant Establishment: Aristocracy and Caste in America. New York: Vintage Books.
Barnett, George. 1912. "National and District Systems of Collective Bargaining in the United States." Quarterly Journal of Economics 26 (May):425-43.
Bensman, David. 1980. "Economics and Culture in the Gilded Age Hatting Industry." Pp. 352-65 in Small Business in American Life, ed. Stuart W. Bruchey. New York: Columbia University Press.
Berlanstein, Lenard R., ed. 1993. Rethinking Labor History. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Bernstein, Paul. 1997. American Work Values: Their Origin and Development. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Blumin, Stuart M. 1989. The Emergence of the Middle Class: Social Experience in the American City, 1760-1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
------. 1956. History of Employers’ Associations in the United States. New York: Vantage Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bowman, John R. 1989. Capitalist Collective Action: Competition, Cooperation, and Conflict in the Coal Industry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brady, Robert A. 1972. Business as a System of Power. Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press.
Braverman, Harry. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Brody, David. 1960. Steelworkers in America: The Nonunion Era. New York: Harper and Row.
Bruchey, S.W., ed. 1980. Small Business in American Life. New York: Columbia University Press.
Burawoy, Michael. 1979. Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process Under Monopoly Capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
------. 1985. The Politics of Production. London: Verso.
Cebula, James E. 1976. The Glory and Despair of Challenge and Change: A History of the Molders Union. Cincinnati: International Molders and Allied Workers Union.
Christie, Robert. 1956. Empire in Wood: A History of the Carpenters. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Chun, Jennifer. 1998. "Flexible Despotism: The Intensification of Uncertainty and Insecurity in the Lives of High-Tech Assembly Work." Proceedings of the Conference on “Work, Difference and Social Change: Two Decades After Braverman’s Labor and Monopoly Capital” May 8-10, 1998:65-79.
Clawson, Mary Ann. 1989. Constructing Brotherhood: Class, Gender, and Fraternalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cohen, Bruce. 1990. "Worcester, Open Shop City: The National Metal Trades Association and the Molders’ Strike of 1918-1920.". In Labor in Massachusetts: Selected Essays, edited by Kenneth Fones Wolf and Martin Kaufman. Westfield, MA: Institute for Massachusetts Studies, Westfield State College.
Cohen, Sheila. 1998. "Ramparts of Resistance: Rank-and-File Unionism and the Labour Process." Proceedings of the Conference on “Work, Difference and Social Change: Two Decades After Braverman’s Labor and Monopoly Capital” May 8-10, 1998:93-105.
Couvares, Francis G. 1984. The Remaking of Pittsburgh: Class and Culture in an Industrializing City, 1877-1919. Albany: SUNY Press.
Crawford, Margaret. 1995. Building the Workingman’s Paradise: The Design of American Company Towns. London: Verso.
Derber, Milton. 1984. "Employers Associations in the United States." Pp. 79-114 in Employers Associations and Industrial Relations: A Comparative Study, eds. John P. Windmuller and Alan Gladstone. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Domhoff, William. 1974. The Bohemian Grove and Other Retreats: A Study in Ruling-Class Cohesiveness. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Edsall, Thomas Byrne. 1989. "The Changing Shape of Power: A Realignment in Public Policy." Pp. 269-93 in The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order, 1930-1980, edited by Steve Fraser and Gary Gerstle. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Edsall, Thomas Byrne, and Mary D. Edsall. 1991. Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics. New York: W.W. Norton.
Edwards, Richard. 1979. Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books.
Eggert, Gerald G. 1993. Harrisburg Industrializes: The Coming of Factories to an American Community. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania University Press.
Faler, Paul G. 1981. Mechanics and Manufacturers in the Early Industrial Revolution: Lynn, Massachusetts, 1780-1860. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Fine, Sidney. 1995. ”Without Blare of Trumpets” : Walter Drew, the National Erectors’ Association, and the Open Shop Movement, 1903-1957. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Folsom, Burton W., Jr. 1981. Urban Capitalists: Enterpreneurs and City Growth in Pennsylvania’s Lackawanna and Lehigh Pegions, 1800-1920. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Friedman, Andrew. 1977. Industry and Labour: Class Struggle at Work and Monopoly Capitalism. London: Macmillan.
------. 1990. "Managerial Strategies, Activities, Techniques and Technology: Towards a Complex Theory of the Labour Process." Pp. 177-208 in Labour Process Theory, edited by David Knights and Hugh Willmott. London: Macmillan.
Gilder, George. 1981. Wealth and Poverty. New York: Basic Books.
Gilkeson, John S., Jr. 1986. Middle-Class Providence, 1820-1940. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gould, Roger V. 1995. Insurgent Identities: Class, Community, and Protest in Paris from 1848 to the Commune. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Griffen, Clyde, and Sally Griffen. 1980. "Small Business and Occupational Mobility in Mid-Nineteenth-Century Poughkeepsie." Pp. 122-41 in Small Business in American Life, edited by Stuart W. Bruchey. New York: Columbia University Press.
Guillén, Mauro F. 1994. Models of Management: Work, Authority, and Organization in a Comparative Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gutman, Herbert. 1977. Work, Culture, and Society in Industrializing America. New York: Vintage Books.
Hall, John R., ed. 1997. Reworking Class. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hanagan, Michael P. 1980. The Logic of Solidarity: Artisans and Industrial Workers in Three French Towns, 1871-1914. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Harris, Howell John. 1991. "Getting It Together: The Metal Manufacturers Association of Philadelphia, c. 1900-1930." Pp. 111-31 in Masters to Managers: Historical and Comparative Perspectives on American Employers, edited by Sanford M. Jacoby. New York: Columbia University Press.
Haydu, Jeffrey. 1988a. Between Craft and Class: Skilled Workers and Factory Politics in Great Britain and the United States, 1890-1922. Berkeley: University of California Press.
------. 1988b. "Employers, Unions, and American Exceptionalism: A Comparative View." International Review of Social History 33(1):25-41.
------. 1988c. "Trade Agreement Vs. Open Shop: Employers’ Choices Before WWI." Industrial Relations 28(2), Spring:159-73.
------. 1999a. "Counter Action Frames: Employer Repertoires and the Union Menace in the Late Nineteenth Century." Social Problems 46(3):313-31.
------. 1999b. "Two Logics of Class Formation? Collective Identities Among Proprietary Employers, 1880-1900." Politics & Society 27(4):505-25.
Heide, Margaret. 1998. "The Impact of Corporate Restructuring on Women in Customer Service Jobs: A Case Study of Female Customer Service Representatives." Proceedings of the Conference on “Work, Difference and Social Change: Two Decades After Braverman’s Labor and Monopoly Capital” May 8-10, 1998:170-84.
Hirschhorn, Larry. 1997. Reworking Authority: Leading and Following in the Post-Modern Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hoffecker, Carol E. 1974. Wilmington, Delaware: Portrait of an Industrial City 1830-1910. N.p.: University Press of Virginia.
Hyman, Richard. 1980. "Trade Unions, Control, and Resistance." Pp. 303-34 in