Preliminary Programme

Hobsbawm (1998:164) has observed that although there has been a great deal of discussion about the nature, or even the possibility, of objectivity in the social sciences, there has been much less discussion about the problem of ‘partisanship’. Certainly this has been true of the academic field of industrial relations (IR) in Britain which, in positing a strong belief in the value of critical social science research, has often claimed to be value-free (or neutral), objective and not aligned to the economic or political priorities of employers or unions (BUIRA, 2009; Dobson, 2010; Sisson 1991). Academic IR is about generating understanding through scholarship that investigates, in a critically questioning fashion, all actors and parties concerned with the employment relationship. It follows that objectivity excludes partisanship.

However, the central question of whether value-free social science research is ever possible has been widely debated and is especially pertinent for a field of study as potentially value-laden as industrial relations. This paper re-examines some of the classic philosophy of science dilemmas (Becker, 1967; Hammersley, 2000; Gouldner, 1962; 1968) to critique the claim that industrial relations research is objectively value-free, and suggests that in reality much IR research can effectively be considered as being partisan. It advances the argument that IR can, at one and the same time, be both partisan and objective, and provides a defence of the potential merits of partisanship provided it is underpinned by rigorous scholarly research.

The paper explores the way in which many IR academics in Britain have tended to start from a social democratic or ‘labourist’ premise and with a deeply held belief in social justice which makes them relatively more sympathetic to the interests and objectives of workers and their trade unions than to the business needs of employers and managers. Although this has been true of a wide range of what might be termed ‘mainstream’ IR researchers, the paper also focuses attention on the partisanship of those who have adopted a ‘radical/critical’ contribution to IR scholarship (for example, Darlington, 1994; 2009; Darlington and Lyddon, 2001; Hyman, 1972; 1975; 1989; Kelly, 1988; 1998) and argues that in many respects, it is precisely because of their partisan perspective that ‘radical/critical’ researchers have made such a distinctive contribution to understanding and documenting the underlying conflictual nature of the employment relationship (for example, Beynon, 1973; Pollert, 1981; Darlington, 1994; Fantasia, 1989).

The paper proceeds to explore whether this type of partisanship necessarily compromises academic objectivity such that research findings are thought to be ‘biased’ and therefore invalid. Acknowledging there are some real potential dilemmas and dangers in adopting a methodological approach that states, in the words of C. Wright Mills (1962): ‘I have tried to be objective, but I do not claim to be detached’, it contends that such distortions are not confined to such an approach, but concludes that to ensure partisan research is ‘objective’ it has be grounded on rigorous and scholarly research methods. (Show less)

Initially, the policy towards the East, as propagated by the SPD coalition, elected in 1969 under Willy Brandt, was a controversial one and was strongly dependent on support within the country.

From the beginning the social democratic orientated German Trade Union Federation (DGB) gave important support to the policy of détente. In 1969 the DGB not only decided to renew its contacts with Eastern European trade unions, which had been discontinued after the military intervention in the CSSR, but also attempted to intensify such links and to establish contacts to the East German FDGB (Free German trade Union Federation).
In the 1970s and 1980s, German labour was sometimes ahead of governments policies, and sometimes the DGB operated cautiously with respect to government agencies. Though the DGB co-operated closely with government, labour was proactive. Bearing in mind that trade union membership amounted to some seven million, this support was substantial. There was, however, one dissent concerning support for the Solidarnosc (Solidarity) in Poland.

The paper focuses on the correlation between German labour’s Eastern policy and the government’s policy of détente, which had both been based on common social democratic principles since 1969. First it gives an overview of German trade unions foreign policy since the end of World War I. It will be argued that, surprisingly, social democratic trade unions had supported government foreign policy in the Weimar Republic as well as after 1945, whether government was led by its partner or not and despite all domestic conflicts. Second, the paper examines the origins of German labour’s Eastern policy of the 1960’s and its development until 1972/73. In this period, which culminated in the ratification of the Moscow and Warsaw Treaties and a first exchange of delegations between the DGB und the FDGB, West German trade unions adjusted their course of action to be in line with the SPD-led government.

The “delegation culture” and its impact on the West German public will be the focus of part three. Here we find conflicting aims that need to be analyzed: Trade unions’ endeavour to promote peaceful coexistence by establishing continuous contact and exchange, but to avoid communist influence on its membership. In a final step, the paper considers differences towards Solidarnosc. Whereas the SPD-led government tried to continue their policy of détente and enduring co-operation with the Polish authorities, the DGB leadership came under pressure from rank and file to give substantial support to Solidarnosc and to protest vocally. (Show less)

By the late 1960s to early 1980s there is a more and more constitutional rupture in the development of modern societies assumed within the research literature. An intensified process of transnationalisation accompanied by significant technical and communicational modifications emerged, while at the same time social and political conflicts – which led to novel social movements and political formations – indicated different implications on different groups as well as they being welcomed or declined, taken on or adjudged in divergent degree.
These developments described a considerable intellectual, organisational and political challenge for older formations like the labour movement. The paper attempts to answer which changes affected the workers and their representatives – the trade unions – in West Germany, and where specific constellations have to be consulted to explain rhythm and strength of these conflicts. The study is organised in a comparative design, analyzing to different industry sectors – the shipbuilding industry and the automobile industry – to compare how different the trade unions rejected to the specific circumstances of these sectors. This project arranges in the recent comparative approaches about the global crises of the 1970s as well as in the global history of the labour movement. (Show less)

For the past two years a group of twenty historians have participated in the IISH-sponsored project Fighting for a Living. This project is among the first ever to look at military employment primarily in terms of labour relations. Based on empirical data from Europe, the Middle East and Asia from the period 1500-2000, an attempt is made to develop a taxonomy of different forms of labour relations within the military. The oppositions free-unfree labour and commodified-noncommodified labour are of special importance in this respect. At the ESSHC I would like to present the synthesis and conclusions of the project. In it I will first construct the taxonomy and then try to answer the question why certain types of military labour (mercenary, slave, tribal, aggregate-contract, feudal or conscript) prevail under certain specific conditions and which causal factors (economic, demographic, labour market, technological, political or cultural) predominate. (Show less)