Arbeit und Macht im Huttenwerk: Arbeits-und industrielle Beziehungen in der deutschen und amerikanischen Eisen-und Stahlindustrie von den 1860er bis zu den 1930er Jahren.

One of the more promising developments of the historiography of the 1980s and 1990s is a strong commitment of young historians in particular towards a genuinely comparative history between nation states.(1) Thomas Welskopp's fine study of workplace and industrial relations in the American and German iron and steel industry demonstrates the merits of such an approach. It is a slightly abridged version of his Ph.D. dissertation, which he wrote under the supervision of Jurgen Kocka at the Free University of Berlin. His methodology, which consciously aims at the creation of 'historical ideal types of medium range validity' (p. 40), clearly betrays these origins. So does his Weberian-Thompsonian model of class which structures his comparison. He understands class as a 'concept of relations' which creates 'areas of actions' (Handlungsfelder) where the determinism of the Marxist link between the objective class position and class consciousness is reformulated in a more flexible way.

As the iron and steel industry in both countries was concentrated in certain geographical locations, it makes sense that Welskopp concentrates on a comparison between Pennsylvania and the Ruhr. In the period under investigation the author distinguishes among three types of workplace relations which characterised the industry and which are related to specific economic and technological developments. Between the 1860s and the 1880s the 'team' system emerged: highly qualified, self-confident and skilled workers with a high level of pride in their profession dominated the scene. Because of a specialised knowledge based on experience and a particular skill, these 'teams' retained a high degree of control over their work, forming occupational trade unions in defence of their elitist position. This elite, often recruiting from ethnic 'in'-groups, enjoyed relatively high material standards of living. Their social life was largely organised by their occupational union which developed a multitude of social clubs and organisations in which the values of 'respectability' held firm. In Germany these features of the 'team' system were less entrenched than they were in the United States, mainly because the technological development was more rapid. Therefore the kind of 'defensive elitism' which characterised the situation in the US did not have time to establish itself properly in Germany.

In the second phase, from the 1880s to the early twentieth century, the 'team' system was replaced by the 'drive' system. The oligopolistic structure of the industry in Germany became more marked whilst it developed clear contours in the United States. The breakthrough of ingot steel production, the beginnings of mass production, the centralisation of production structures, partial mechanisation and the introduction of new machinery all led to the undermining of skilled teams' autonomy by an influx of unskilled workers. The employers soon managed to attain total control over the work process, disciplining and punishing workers at their will. Piecework, the intensification of work rhythms and the increasing number of accidents at work all point to the employers' ruthless efforts to increase the exploitation of labour. The extremely high fluctuation rates of iron and steel workers during that period indicate that workers did try to evade the pressure from companies whenever they could. Outside the factories, workers tended to develop a life-style which sought its rewards in the enjoyment of popular culture and drink. The 'half-open family' was structured by clear gender divisions. This pushed the men into the role of the breadwinner and the women into the positions of household managers who often supplemented wages by keeping boarding houses or doing menial work. An oppressive system like the 'drive' system did not make for solidaristic behaviour amongst workers, so that forms of collective protests remained rare.

The beginnings of complete mechanisation and rationalisation of the industry from the early twentieth century onwards marked the emergence of the third type of labour relations, one which Welskopp calls the 'crew' system. The introduction of complex technological machinery led to the reskilling of workers in the iron and steel industry. Higher skill levels brought increasing occupational solidarity and a return to a stronger bargaining position vis-a-vis employers. The search for an adequate representation of the workers' interests finally led to the emergence of industrial unionism in both countries.

Welskopp presents the reader with striking similarities at the micro-level of investigation (at the level of the workplace) which, he argues, had a lot to do with the specific characteristics of the iron and steel industry, especially its capital-intensive nature, its technological dynamism and its oligopolistic structure. Like miners and harbour workers, steelworkers also seemed to share values and identities transgressing national borders.

Welskopp's comparison is cold comfort for all those historians who have argued that the labor relations in the industry were characterised by a constant and linear process of de-skilling. High levels of skill always were present in the industry, and from the early twentieth century onwards it would be more correct to speak of a re-skilling of the industry.

Welskopp establishes clearly that the structure of the industry and its workplace relations were of paramount significance for the way in which the labour movement developed in both countries. The specific relations forged at the workplace determined social identities inside and outside the workplace as well as organisational strategies of workers. And yet, as his comparative work clearly demonstrates, the very different political frameworks for such organisational strategies in the US and Germany ensured that they could and did develop in very different ways in both countries.

This summary of Welskopp's argument can only do limited justice to his extremely complex and differentiated analysis of the workplace and social identities of iron and steel workers in Pennsylvania and the Ruhr over almost one century. Throughout, the book manages to combine an in-depth analysis at the micro-level of historical investigation with a more general discussion of broader issues of technological change, class formation, social identities of workers and the development of trade unionism in both countries. It is comparative history of a very high standard.

ENDNOTE 

1. Compare Hartmut Kaelble, "Vergleichende Sozialgeschichte des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts: Forschungen europaischer Historiker," Jahrbuch fur Wirtschaftsgeschichte (1993): 173-200.

Stefan Berger University of Wales, Cardiff