No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Internationalism in Current American Labor Policy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
It has long been recognized by students of labor economics that a high standard of living has definite international implications. Since early in the nineteenth century, the advocates of labor reform have attempted to stimulate international action which might bring about a simultaneous elevation of the condition of the workers in order to avoid the use of labor as a factor in competition. For nearly a century now, the international treaty has been pressed as the most suitable means of avoiding competitive disadvantage as a result of social changes, and the International Labor Organization, founded by Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles, is the fruit of this agitation. It is natural, therefore, that any country seeking to maintain high labor standards should welcome ultimately the possibility of international action in defense of its effort.
- Type
- International Affairs
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1934
References
1 For a brief sketch of the Organization by the author, see Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. VIII, pp. 164–167. During 1931–1932Google Scholar, the author studied the Organization as holder of a fellowship of the Social Science Research Council
2 See Willits, Joseph H., “Possibilities of United States Collaboration with the International Labor Organization,” Annals of Amer. Acad., Vol. 166, p. 168 (Mar., 1933)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 For the text of the joint resolution, see Congressional Record, Senate, June 13, 1934, p. 11681Google Scholar. The resolution passed by the Labor Conference is given in International Labor Conference, Provisional Record, 1934, No. 29, p. 464Google Scholar. See ibid., pp. 458 ff., for the discussion of American membership. John L. Lewis, the American workers' observer in 1934, invited the director of the International Labor Office to attend the 1934 convention of the American Federation of Labor, and the director tentatively accepted. Ibid., p. 469.
4 For further details of American cooperation with the Organization during recent years, see I.L.O. Year-Book, especially of 1933, pp. 5–6Google Scholar.
5 See Official Journal of the League of Nations, Special Supplement, No. 118 (1933), p. 79Google Scholar; Pipkin, C. W., “Relations with the League of Nations,” Annals of Amer. Acad., Vol. 166, pp. 124 ff. (Mar., 1933)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Shotwell, James T. (ed.), The Origins of the International Labor Organization, 2 vols. (New York, 1934)Google Scholar. This significant work is colored by the desire of the contributors to show the independence of the Organization from the League in order to pave the way for American membership in the former. Practically no attention is paid to the bonds which unite the two organizations. For instance, on p. xxv of Vol. I Professor Shotwell significantly omits any mention of the important part played by the members of the Council of the League in the ratification of amendments to Part XIII. In any case, freedom of the Labor Conference to propose amendments to Part XIII is not important if the ratification must be by members who are in turn members of the League.
6 See 73rd Cong., 2nd sess., House Rep. No. 2006. In this connection, see the letter of Miss Perkins appended to the report.
7 For information on the problem of the admission of Austria and Germany, see Official Bulletin of the International Labor Office, Vol. I (1923), pp. 568 ffGoogle Scholar. Professor Manley O. Hudson, who was legal adviser to the Conference in 1919, presented the strongest argument against the right of the Conference to admit members. He concluded: “The conclusion must be that membership in the Labor Organization depends upon membership in the League of Nations as a whole …” Ibid., p. 581. See also International Labor Conference, Final Record, 1919, p. 211Google Scholar, for Professor Hudson's opinion.
8 Official Bulletin, XV (1930), 89Google Scholar. For data on this case, see ibid., pp. 71 ff.
9 See my “International Labor Relations of Federal Governments,” South-western Political and Social Science Quarterly, September, 1929Google Scholar.
10 Most of the information on the over-seas problem appears in the Minutes of the Governing Body, See Sixtieth Session, October, 1932, pp. 65, 93, 142–44; Sixty-first Session, February, 1933, pp. 19 ff., 85 ff.; Sixty-third Session, June, 1933, pp. 270 ff.; Sixty-fourth Session, October, 1933, pp. 375–76. In the autumn of 1933, a special section was created in the Labor Office to deal with non-European countries, the present head of which is Mr. Mack Eastman, who is one of the Canadians on the staff. During the Seventeenth Session of the International Labor Conference in 1933 there was a special meeting of the representatives of over-seas countries, who expressed at the time particular interest in the equalization of the cost of sending delegates to Geneva. There was also a special meeting of the delegates from Latin American states. Ibid., pp. 498–499. On the question of the reorganization of traveling expenses, note International Labor Conference, Provisional Record, 1934, No. 25, p. 343Google Scholar. As an additional concession to non-European countries, the period between the establishment of the agenda and the meeting of the Conference was lengthened in October, 1932. See Minutes of the Governing Body, Sixtieth Session, Oct. 1932, pp. 61–62Google Scholar.
11 For the text of the new article, see International Labor Conference, Provisional Record, 1934, No. 8, Appendices, p. IGoogle Scholar.
12 International Labor Conference, Provisional Record, 1934, No. 16, p. 207Google Scholar.
13 Ibid., No. 30, p. 498.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.