to political power, but has meant the fulfillment of job-conscious
unionism in an altered industrial environment." In explaining the
factors which have shaped the structure of the American labor move-
ment, he selects seven for special analysis--ideology, labor's internal
government, the federal government's approach, economic forces, the
organization of industry, ethnic groups, and the unevenness of
unionization.

The influence of ethnic groups on the development of the American
labor movement is given more detailed consideration by Jack Barbash.
As Barbash states, systematic studies of this subject are few despite
the fact that there is "scarcely a union of consequence in the United
States which in one form or other does not show the impact of ethnic
strains." The sharp curtailment of immigration since the early 1920's
is undoubtedly the main reason for the neglect. Barbash concludes
that the major impact of the ethnic factor seems to have been on union
government, administration, and politics rather than on the substance
of union policy (i.e., wages, hours, seniority, etc.) in specific situa-
tions. He finds no evidence that unions "have been used to further
goals of particular ethnic groups at the expense of the union's integ-
rity as a union." He recognizes that the diversity of ethnic strains has
complicated union organizational work but believes that "on balance
the ethnic diversity has been a source of strength" because the union
has been able to serve as a powerful "Americanizing" force.

Joseph Kovner is concerned with the problem of union democracy.
He finds democratic procedure inherent in the structure and function
of the local union, in the close tie between the informal shop society
and the formal organization. By contrast the strong national union is
a center of power remote from the membership and not easily suscep-
tible to membership participation. "Special action must be taken to
suppress local democracy; in the national, it takes special action to
preserve it." Kovner perceives the major problem of democracy in the
national union (or the centralized district organization) to result from
the fact that the officers in control can only be dealt with on equal
terms by a group of locals. But "counter-organization of a group of
locals requires political skill and cash resources that are usually not
available to an opposition group." The extent to which locals can deal
with national affairs is hampered by their ignorance of technical leg-
islative and economic questions and by the increasing role of the
national union in collective bargaining. The remedy is not to be found
in mechanics of government or forms of organization. It lies, says

-vii-